Graphics: Dreamcast vs PS2

[DCsegaDH]

Yes, the Dreamcast does Z occlusion. The PS2 does not.

You know, in reading back through this I also noticed something else. Most of the serious development effort on the Dreamcast, and thus development of more advanced programming libraries and techniques, was tapped out after only a very few years. The PS2 has had a LONG time to mature in developer hands. It kind of makes you wonder what the DC would be putting out if it has survived a few more years. So few games used WinCE that we don't need to worry about Microsoft's libraries getting in the way. Most developers were using Sega's tools. So what would have happened if Sega had had another 3 or 4 years of further development of those dev tools? What kind of output would we have seen? Certainly not Xbox level, but I think the system could have remained in the ballpark with the PS2. Sega just ran out of money too quickly.

Yes, ALTHOUGH even if the WindowsCE libraries were complete BS, they still tapped out good stuff with them ala Tony Hawks Pro Skater 2 which looks just as good as 3 and 4 on the PS2 if you ask me.

I agree completely.I don't think the PS2 was even that good when it came to the graphics,it looked almost the same as DC graphics,but the library of games were great and had every kind of game that gamers wanted like rpgs,fighters,platform,racing,etc.The DC came out ahead of the other systems and it never reached the best the system could do,it was taken out too early to tell.When I owned the PS2 I didn't care when the graphics were worse than Xbox I was happy with the great selection of games available.At least their is Japanese DC games when you run out of US games to play.

[The Apprentice]

My thoughts on the subject:

GTA3 would not run on a DC like it does on XBOX.

While this statement is likely correct, it's important to realize that the game was invisioned, developed, and released for Xbox, PS2, and PC hardware. So yes, if you look at the required specifications for the PC version, you'll see that the Dreamcast is simply out of its league.

However, you'll also notice that many of us in the past few pages agree that Shenmue is also a graphically stunning game. It is amazing what can be accomplished if the developer uses the smallest specifications available and pushes the system to its limits.

By that logic, if the developers had focused on a Dreamcast port from the begining, it might have been possible to duplicate the game on Dreamcast hardware.

Since none of us are developers, nobody can truly say whether or not the system could have handled GTAIII.

EDIT: Whoops, just realized that while I was busy tackling the issue of the moment, I didn't really talk about the purpose of the thread, which of course is the graphical capabilities of the Dreamcast. While I did talk about this earlier on in the thread, I can also apply the above I wrote a few minutes ago's logic to the concept I support on the whole.

The Dreamcast was never pushed to its limits. Developers never had the chance to show what the machine could really do. Although the specs show the Dreamcast as slower and weaker than the competition, sometimes true feats of programming are accomplished when developers use the weaker hardware because the limits are more obvious.

For example, take a look at Metal Gear Solid and compare it to Metal Gear Solid 2. MGS pushed every limit of the PS1 in so many ways that at some points I honestly couldn't believe my eyes. However, MGS2 came out kind of early in the PS2's life, and when you compare that to MGS3, MGS2 looks terrible. Once again, MGS3 pushed the limits of the PS2, and it was mind blowing.

My point is that the more a developer understands its limitations (not just "how many polygons I can create at once" but "how many objects with this behavior can I have moving while event x is happening") the more the developer can wow its audience. I think that if the Dreamcast could have stayed in the race, It would have kept up with the competitors in tearms of graphics.

It's lot like developers see what they can do with the machine in 1999, and in 2008 they're continuing to mae games that stay withen those limits. As time goes on, developers will find a way around limitations, and the weaker systems will look just as great as the slightly more powerful ones.

That's a long-winded way of saying that if the Dreamcast was still around, it would look like the PS2.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

My thoughts on the subject:

GTA3 would not run on a DC like it does on XBOX.

While this statement is likely correct, it's important to realize that the game was invisioned, developed, and released for Xbox, PS2, and PC hardware. So yes, if you look at the required specifications for the PC version, you'll see that the Dreamcast is simply out of its league.

However, you'll also notice that many of us in the past few pages agree that Shenmue is also a graphically stunning game. It is amazing what can be accomplished if the developer uses the smallest specifications available and pushes the system to its limits.

By that logic, if the developers had focused on a Dreamcast port from the begining, it might have been possible to duplicate the game on Dreamcast hardware.

Since none of us are developers, nobody can truly say whether or not the system could have handled GTAIII.

EDIT: Whoops, just realized that while I was busy tackling the issue of the moment, I didn't really talk about the purpose of the thread, which of course is the graphical capabilities of the Dreamcast. While I did talk about this earlier on in the thread, I can also apply the above I wrote a few minutes ago's logic to the concept I support on the whole.

The Dreamcast was never pushed to its limits. Developers never had the chance to show what the machine could really do. Although the specs show the Dreamcast as slower and weaker than the competition, sometimes true feats of programming are accomplished when developers use the weaker hardware because the limits are more obvious.

For example, take a look at Metal Gear Solid and compare it to Metal Gear Solid 2. MGS pushed every limit of the PS1 in so many ways that at some points I honestly couldn't believe my eyes. However, MGS2 came out kind of early in the PS2's life, and when you compare that to MGS3, MGS2 looks terrible. Once again, MGS3 pushed the limits of the PS2, and it was mind blowing.

My point is that the more a developer understands its limitations (not just "how many polygons I can create at once" but "how many objects with this behavior can I have moving while event x is happening") the more the developer can wow its audience. I think that if the Dreamcast could have stayed in the race, It would have kept up with the competitors in tearms of graphics.

It's lot like developers see what they can do with the machine in 1999, and in 2008 they're continuing to mae games that stay withen those limits. As time goes on, developers will find a way around limitations, and the weaker systems will look just as great as the slightly more powerful ones.

That's a long-winded way of saying that if the Dreamcast was still around, it would look like the PS2.

Nuff said

[Japhei]

Graphic wise I think the Dreamcast had more polished games.

Ps2 was full of crap. Every Naomi port on DC was flawless. MVC2 and Street Fighter 3 3rd Strike are perfect example's of the DC running a game better then the PS2.

I think they can get any game to run on DC if they took the time. Compare Shenmue to GTA 3 graphically and it is not even close.

Plus DC had native VGA support something PS2 did not. VGA just looks crisper, cleaner, sharper and brighter. So I guess it does not matter how many Polygons PS2 can push.

[nateup2]

Like was said earlier, 90% of DC games are progressive scan. That in itself is enough for me to choose DC over PS2, graphically... and I do.

It is absolutely inexcusable for PS2 to completely ignore prog scan until on its deathbed. PS2 does have a massive game library... most of which is washed-out looking trash. PS2 isn't really a gamer's system, IMO.

Although I do enjoy some of the square exclusives, PS2 is probably one of my least favorite systems ever... just after N64.

I did get one at launch... needless to say, it was a letdown... especially since decent titles didnt start comming out for years after!

[wip3outguy7]

I'm not sure about graphical capabilities but this is what I have found. Sega started using seriously good video output hardware during the Saturn era and into the Dreamcast years. Even through Svideo, the Saturn and Dreamcast have some of the sharpest video output to TV I have ever seen from a gaming system.

[andythebadass]

Ive said it before and i will say it again now. The PS2 has had some serious staying power...... 10 years now. The dreamcast would have never ever ever stayed around that long and been still be being sold with new games. The graphics on the DC were nice and polished but the system was going to be outdated well before the PS2.

[marurun]

Ive said it before and i will say it again now. The PS2 has had some serious staying power...... 10 years now. The dreamcast would have never ever ever stayed around that long and been still be being sold with new games. The graphics on the DC were nice and polished but the system was going to be outdated well before the PS2.

Why? How do you know? Sure, the PS2 has been around for a long time, but we don't know what the practical programming performance peak of the DC is at all, and some would argue that an early title, Soul Calibur, holds its own pretty well with many newer PS2 games. I would, anyway. If Sega hadn't already dug themselves a hole and wasn't already standing on the edge, how do we know the Dreamcast wouldn't have been able to keep up in any way? We don't. It's all speculation. I'll speculate that a stronger, healthier Sega who had managed to drive Japanese sales and had more aggressively fought Sony's ridiculous performance over-estimations (blatant lies, rather) would have stayed in the game much longer, perhaps tightening the lead for Sony and made them work harder for any Japanese wins. It's still possible, even probably, that Sony would still have beaten it in longevity and marketshare, but perhaps not by nearly so much. Sega could have raised their costs dramatically, setting them up even more precipitously for this generation. I could have seen the Dreamcast fighting for up to 5 years of new system production and ongoing support and library development. That might have given it an additional 1-2 years on the market after support ended. Sony's support could have also whittled a little by a year or so, leaving more developers on their own. Who knows how Microsoft and Nintendo would have been affected. There's little that can be said about that.

Yes, it's all speculation, but as probabilities go I think the primary factor to eliminating this future for Sega was financial and marketing troubles, especially in Japan.

[jp1]

It could just be me...but I'm not very impressed with PS2 graphics...the system falls last of that generation in my opinion. I have been more impressed graphically speaking by the Dreamcast and the Gamecube.

[holaback]

It could just be me...but I'm not very impressed with PS2 graphics...the system falls last of that generation in my opinion. I have been more impressed graphically speaking by the Dreamcast and the Gamecube.

I think graphics in general anything past the dreamcast or ps2 have failed to impress me since then. Sure the polygon count is higher, the resolution is higher but the jumps in graphics just has not imprsesed me say from nes to snes, snes to saturn/ps1