Graphics: Dreamcast vs PS2

[solidunit]

90% of dreamcast games are 480p
90% of ps2 games are 480i

That doesn't necessarily means that the DC wins, look at GT3 (a 480i game) and Sega GT (a 480p game). Graphics on the DC are substanitally clearer because of the increased resolution, but the PS2 can pull off more complex graphics at the lower resolution.

I don't think the DC was ever 100% utilized in its lifetime though....I wish it was around a couple more years to see what could have been done with it. Probably coulda handled a game like Halo 1 in its later years

[Mega-Dan]

Why dont we compare final fantasy XII or X and Shenmue II or skies of arcadia?
Why dont we compare Resident Evil Code Name veronica (DC) and Resident Evil 4 for PS2?
Why dont we compare Gran Turismo 4 and Daytona or other dreamcast racers?
Why dont we compare Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur III or Tekken 5? (All Namco games)

Timesplitters looked terrible, but final fantasy XII looks fantastic, we cant take the worst looking game for the system and say the system has terrible graphics. Thats like taking namco museum or Capcom generations and saying the system looks only as good as an Atari 800 or a Nintendo 8-bit! I may like the dreamcast, but the only games I play on it are Twinkle star sprites, power stone, Bangai-0, Marvel vs capcom, and street fighter 3, none of which are graphical powerhouses yet are very fun.

[SegaVega]

Why dont we compare final fantasy XII or X and Shenmue II or skies of arcadia?
Why dont we compare Resident Evil Code Name veronica (DC) and Resident Evil 4 for PS2?
Why dont we compare Gran Turismo 4 and Daytona or other dreamcast racers?
Why dont we compare Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur III or Tekken 5? (All Namco games)

No...you're comparing fifth and sixth generation PS2 games to first and second generation Dreamcast games. This can't be a valid argument given that a game like RE4 had the benefit of being developed after Capcom had half a decade of experience in developing for that console. RE: Code Veronica, which you compared it to, was released less than a year into the Dreamcast's era, and it's version of CV looks arguably better than the washed out one PS2 received. This was also after just as long a period of the PS2's release as the Dreamcast's version. FFX is your only example, but a bad one given that Square is known for pushing better graphics on a system than any of it's competitors, and they released nothing for the Dreamcast. There was no graphical element in FFX that wasn't seen to a nearly equal degree on Dreamcast regardless. Take a look at Ikaruga, developed within half the span now seen with PS2, and show me a PS2 game that looks that smooth (i.e. no jaggies, gritty textrues, etc.). I'm not saying DC had better graphics, I'm saying that it could hold it's own, which was the subject of this thread.

Eek, I hope that doesn't look too harsh.

I may like the dreamcast, but the only games I play on it are Twinkle star sprites, power stone, Bangai-0, Marvel vs capcom, and street fighter 3, none of which are graphical powerhouses yet are very fun.

You're missing out on some great games...anyways, Street Fighter 3 is indeed a graphical powerhouse given the difficulty of adapting it's arcade hardware to home consoles. Regardless of common belief, there has yet to be an arcade perfect port, and I can attest that the Dreamcast version ran a more complete version than the PS2 did.

I've not been following this thread too much, but I can say that your comparison is easily invalid in whatever way you'd present it. To compare graphical abilities, compare cross-console releases and consider the time and experience that went behind them, or similar releases of appropriately comparable platform experience.

[Mozgus]

No...you're comparing fifth and sixth generation PS2 games to first and second generation Dreamcast games. This can't be a valid argument given that a game like RE4 had the benefit of being developed after Capcom had half a decade of experience in developing for that console. RE: Code Veronica, which you compared it to, was released less than a year into the Dreamcast's era, and it's version of CV looks arguably better than the washed out one PS2 received. This was also after just as long a period of the PS2's release as the Dreamcast's version. FFX is your only example, but a bad one given that Square is known for pushing better graphics on a system than any of it's competitors, and they released nothing for the Dreamcast. There was no graphical element in FFX that wasn't seen to a nearly equal degree on Dreamcast regardless. Take a look at Ikaruga, developed within half the span now seen with PS2, and show me a PS2 game that looks that smooth (i.e. no jaggies, gritty textrues, etc.). I'm not saying DC had better graphics, I'm saying that it could hold it's own, which was the subject of this thread.

SegaVega says it best. I would have loved to see how far the DC could have been pushed. I mean, look at what they did in Shadow of the Colossus for PS2. In terms of visuals, that game impressed me more then any other title of this generation, at least in the realm of "realistic" graphics, but this might be primarily due to the immense scale of the game, and the nifty cinematic motion blur they used (it's not the typical cheap frame buffer effect that Metal Gear whores out).

Oh and uh, Shenmue 1 and 2 absolutely topple FFX in terms of visuals. When I played FFX, it was probably the most disapointing RPG experience of my life. I just didn't understand all the hype. Squaresoft reminds me of Tecmo, in that they love to create a cast of hyper flawless pretty people, so that they can skimp on textures for their faces and such. There were many other reasons why the game failed, but I'll skip that.

Meanwhile, Shenmue games have a very careful balance of texture and shape on every single object in the game. Many of us just love to go into first person view and inspect every inch of a shop, because it's just so realistic and beautiful. You really feel like you are in a 1980's Japan/Hong Kong setting. And so many of the people looked photo realistic to me. I really got lost in that world.

Anyways, I already feel dirty for having jabbered about graphics this much.

[Mega-Dan]

I think the gist of my previous post was to compare the graphics in final fantasy X or XII and Shenmue or Shenmue II, since I think it woudl be a pretty tough argument to make that Sega cant max out the capacities of their own machine when the dreamcast was a pretty easy machine to program for. I actually watched a trailer for final fantasy XII and thought it was a really rushed first generation PS3 game, thats how good its graphics are. I am shocked the PS2 can generate graphics that good. Shenmue II in my opinion has the most amazing graphics on the Dreamcast, so these two games would be the natural games to compare. I was shocked at how good Shenmue's graphics are, but the little details and effects in Final Fantasy PS2 games are so amazing and I dont believe they can be replicated on the Dreamcast.
As for ikaruga, I would say compare Ikaruga to Gradius V, and thats a pretty equal comparison. I would say for a 17megabyte game, Ikaruga is much beter, but I have to give the edge to Gradius just because of the particle effects, which seem better in Gradius V, even though it is multiple gigabytes so its not entirely a fair comparison. I think these two games will be remembered as THE shootem ups of this console generation

[Mozgus]

As for ikaruga, I would say compare Ikaruga to Gradius V, and thats a pretty equal comparison. I would say for a 17megabyte game, Ikaruga is much beter, but I have to give the edge to Gradius just because of the particle effects, which seem better in Gradius V, even though it is multiple gigabytes so its not entirely a fair comparison. I think these two games will be remembered as THE shootem ups of this console generation

Ikaruga really isn't that advanced graphically. I don't think it should be nominated. Hell, Psyvariar 2 is the better looking vertical shooter for DC, and there may be even better ones. Have you played this game? It got a strait simple port to Xbox and people still found it to be beautiful.

Also it's funny that you say FF12 is visually impressive. I agree with you, because they are finally adding a little gritty detail to these characters. They don't look so much like plastic barbie dolls. But Gamespot actually said it was just a mediocre looking game, when they were playing the import version a few months back. I believe it was the lone female editor who said that, which is funny because she's the crazy FF fangirl of the bunch.

Flying off topic, but FF12 still takes all this trash talk, primarily because Squaresoft actually grew some balls and tried something new. Everytime Squaresoft does this, they suffer for it. I bet anything FF12 will have the worst sales in the entire series (core games only), since FF5. Square has made some fantastic games when the creative bug flies it's way up their ass, and I want people to acknowledge that. Einhander and Ehrgeiz were damn good games with a surprising ammount of depth for their respective genres. And where's my sequel to Rad Racer, huh? I don't own a PS2, and I have hated all Final Fantasies since FF7, but I wish the people who were in a position to do so, would support their rare bursts of innovation.

[SegaVega]

I think the gist of my previous post was to compare the graphics in final fantasy X or XII and Shenmue or Shenmue II, since I think it woudl be a pretty tough argument to make that Sega cant max out the capacities of their own machine when the dreamcast was a pretty easy machine to program for.

I don't care at all for graphics, but I like the Dreamcast enough to not let it be disgraced by an totally invalid arqument. To say that Sega maxed out the Dreamcast with Shenmue II is an unbelievable stretch. No developer, not first party or third, has ever reached the pinnacle of a system's capabilites before the epoch of it's cycle. The Dreamcast didn't walk away a happy and fufilled super-console: it had years left to be tinkered with, just as any machine, regardless of how "easy it is to program for". Even the vector-based Vectrex has yet to see it's magnum opus of visuals. Sega may have made the console, but history has shown that it's companies like Capcom and Square that show you what it can do, and history has also shown that regardless of ease, no console sees such a system-bender before the next generation begins to emerge.

Although Shenmue vs FFX really didn't seem to be "the gist of" your first post, and is one random comparison, I'll say that Shenmue has a grace not seen in FFX that allows for detail and aura the likes of which that title can only dream of. Mozgus says the characters in FFX have no face textures: that's very close to true, but he left out of mention the equally bland, often choppy environments that pale in comparison to Shenmue's detail and excess. Shenmue's shops and environments can compare to and in many cases outdo even PS2's Yakuza: a system epoch title that pushes the PS2 so hard that it has to reload the game while actually playing, even after standard 45 sec. load times.

I actually watched a trailer for final fantasy XII and thought it was a really rushed first generation PS3 game, thats how good its graphics are. I am shocked the PS2 can generate graphics that good. Shenmue II in my opinion has the most amazing graphics on the Dreamcast, so these two games would be the natural games to compare.

???
Yeah, Shenmue II has some of the best graphics on Dreamcast, but that doesn't make it a "natural" comparison to Final Fantasy XII, which is a game in development longer than the Dreamcast was around completely. And no, the Saturn version of Shenmue left nothing visual for the DC, if that's what you're thinking. You continue your belief that it's better to compare ill-compared titles just because they are the overall best looking, rather than ones under proper developmental experience. It's simply not valid. If it was, I wouldn't have so much negativity to write. I'm not even really arguing for the Dreamcast. As I said before: the best and only comparisons are between games that are developed under equal hardware experience and are of similar genres/showcase similar effects (Shenmue vs. FF XII = daily weather vs. Bahamut).

As for ikaruga, I would say compare Ikaruga to Gradius V, and thats a pretty equal comparison. I would say for a 17megabyte game, Ikaruga is much beter, but I have to give the edge to Gradius just because of the particle effects, which seem better in Gradius V, even though it is multiple gigabytes so its not entirely a fair comparison. I think these two games will be remembered as THE shootem ups of this console generation

No, it's not fair, but I said any PS2 game so I'll accept it... and again say no. Gradius' faded colors and almost-square circles do little to upstage the Dreamcast's Ikaruga, even given that it was developed by the same team three extra years into it's respective console. It's particle effects you mention weren't anything left unseen on Dreamcast by a long measure (the opening of Soul Calibur I even: everyone still thinks thats pre-rendered). This Ikaruga thing wasn't meant to be an elaborate or fair comparison, it's cleary not, but it stands as a title with elements the PS2 has been incapable of replicaing.

There are few proper comparisons between PS2 and Dreamcast. They were developed and released at different times, during a era when graphics capabilities were changing every day, and more dramatically than they ever had before. Sega quite knowingly developed a system ahead of it's competitors in release, but behind them in hardware, yet the console retained it's graphical honor and reverance even when the fire started flyin'. The Dreamcast is not as powerful as the PS2, but that was not the subject of this thread. The subject was whether or not the Dreamcast could hold it's own, which it absolutely and undeniably could.

[Mozgus]

Oh man, I forgot about Under Defeat. That game destroys Ikaruga visually. It was already great looking to begin with, but it had completely perfect fire, smoke, and water reflections.

[lordofduct]

I was reviewing this thread and just wanted to say something quick.

Dreamcast COULD use Windows CE and some Directx libraries. Though a good deal of games did NOT use this as it actually rather limited the game in capabilities and horsepower, but upped the program ease and portability. It was one of many ways to approach programming on the Dreamcast... not the only. So no it wouldn't limit the Dreamcast... it only limited using those libraries.

-----

Debating graphics is errr... cliche at best. So I want to something else about that topic. As Racketboy said, this is about if DC could hold its own. Well could it? That is a rather a typical BS question debating different peoples opinions of a system. It is more up to the consumer base and the programmer to support the hardware.

What I am saying is that no console could hold its own. Because with out software the console is just a hunk of silicon and plastic sitting on the shelf.

So this really is a debate of beauty... What I find beautiful personally is something where the artist took a limited palette and created something amazing out of it. A photograph of a man is lifelike... but a painting of a man is beautiful. Any ol' person can take a photograph of a man... but it takes something special to paint a picture of a man.

At the same time a life like oil painting of a man is beautiful, but a mosaic of a man is just as beautiful. It may not be as life like, but the limited palette has now made this terrible blurry mess a respectable and beautiful peace of artwork.

I can say the same comes in with gaming. And consoles are a great place for it. People scream Framerate in the PC world... I am happy it has stayed out of the console world for the most part. A console understands if you are in a part of a game where control is limited and the action is slow the detail can be upped for the sake of a more graphically intensive moment in the game.

For instance... The game "Out of this World" or otherwise known as "Another World" was originally coded for the motorolla 6800. It is clocked at a meager 7mhz and it was inside of the Amiga computer with something like 1 Megabyte of RAM available to it. This game is amazingly beautiful though. The framerate drops to 40 at times and usually runs stable at 50 fps. The games palette of colours is probably about 5 colours with a few shades of them. Yet the game is still beautiful and detailed in so many ways.

Then the next question is... did this game push the system to its limits? Did it? Graphically I am going to say no. There has been games with far more colours, far more sprites (or polys/vectors as this game uses) and at a more stable framerate. No, but the beauty of the code is where the stressors come from. The fact the guy who made the game created his own script based on BASIC and an engine library that could easily be ported to other systems. This interpreter built in took up several cycles of the processor and caused the game to slow down. So this game pushed the computer pretty far, but didn't graphically push it as far is it could go. ( I use this game as it was also on the Genesis using the same vector poly design as its Amiga counterpart. Where as the SNES one used sprites if I remember correctly).

So in this respect I will say I've seen extremely beautiful games on the Dreamcast, some that if code was cleaned up, or different choices were made in the programming could give more space for graphical enhancements. The thing is I'm pretty sure that there is no game with perfect code, so there is ALWAYS space for a game that pushes the console further graphically... because writing perfect code is like drawing a perfect circle.

I've yet to only hear of one man to draw a perfect circle in an ancient mythical annecdote. And there has yes to be one since... shit we don't even know if this man really existed anyways.

(I have to impress upon you that not even a computer can draw a perfect circle. It is actually impossible.)

[Mozgus]

lordofduct, I think most of us know what art is. Given the first post, and the links it contained, I thought this thread was just about geeky graphical comparisons, not that anything is wrong with that. But you should do an article on which games ARTISTICALLY pushed a system to it's limits, and have Racketboy post it on the main page for you. I'd read it.

I have to impress upon you that not even a computer can draw a perfect circle. It is actually impossible.)

Well, only because of the limitation of pixels. But if pixels were accepted, a computer can easily make a perfect circle in a sense that every single pair of opposite points are spaced at the exact same length apart. But since they aren't accepted, a computer will always be stuck making roundish shapes made up of tens to hundreds to thousands of edges, and even more when anti-aliasing is involved.

I call forth the powers of Subject Evasion!