Graphics: Dreamcast vs PS2

[marurun]

Well, there is that to consider. More polygons does not automatically mean better looking. You can throw polys and special effects all over the place and if you don't have a good artistic plan it'll look like ass. That was one advantage the Dreamcast had. Many games developed for it (at least the ones that weren't ports of PS1 games) had a distinct artistic style. They knew the 3D on the DC wasn't going to be good enough for photo-realism so they took what they had and picked very distinct and attractive styles. The Xbox is probably the first platform that started to really eschew the artistic approach for the "realistic" approach effectively, save a select few titles that popped up on the PS2.

[t0yrobo]

They both have their strengths, but the clincher for me is that the Dreamcast didn't has such asstastical load times. I'll take slightly inferior graphics if it means minimal load times any day. Same thing I liked about the gamecubne. It's a shame they somehow managed to get some pretty fair load times on the Wii though.

[Brendand]

Dreamcast had Bump mapping ? Ps2 did not it had to fake it

[d123456]

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

More like:
95% of dreamcast games are 480p
95% of ps2 games are 480i
But lots of ps2 games can be forced to 480p and 16:9 nowadays, so we don´t need to bitch about it that much. Hell, I bet 4:3 only DC games can be forced to 16:9 as well.
Anyway, a system is as powerful as the software that runs on it.
The question is, which system has devs that really want the maximum potential of a system?
Pure processing power wise I think that the ps2 has a bit more power, but not so much that a clear difference is notable.
Sega really wanted their hardware to shine. Sony didn´t want their hardware to shine that much. That´s where the "95% of ps2 games are 480i" comes in. Sony were apparantly vague about the ps2´s power, resolutions and other capabilities to devs. Perhaps they knew that the ps3 wouldn´t be that more powerful enough, so they made sure the ps2 games were dumbed down? There´s Gran Turismo 4 though, that game really shows what the ps2 can do.
I do believe the DC still has more potential. It´s like a Lamborghini electronically limited to 60 Mph. I´ve never seen a DC sweat. still waiting for Scud Race on the DC.

[lisalover1]

I think it should be mentioned that before the Xbox, the original Halo was meant to be released on the Dreamcast. Just an interesting little tidbit; if the game had been given the same degree of marketing, it may have had a shot of saving the system. (But, I'm not getting into the whole "What could have saved the DC" argument again)

[BurningDoom]

After you've gamed on a Commodore 64, you'll never complain about another system's load times again. At least not the Dreamcast's. They're not bad at all.

I've heard that the Neo Geo CD can give the Commodore 64 a run for it's money in the load-time department, but I've never had one so I can't say for sure.