Quantcast

Page 15 of 104 FirstFirst ... 51112131415161718192565 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 1557

Thread: PS2 vs Dreamcast Graphics

  1. #211
    Death Bringer Raging in the Streets Black_Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver
    Age
    40
    Posts
    3,894
    Rep Power
    83

    Default

    I think that if the DC had been allowed to continue, it would have received a ram pak/cart like the Saturn/N64 did. It wouldn't have made it superior to other consoles, but it would have made it at least on par with Naomi 1 (plus made Naomi 2 ports much easier) and combined with more modern development techniques, we would have seen a dramatic increase in visual quality. But it didn't happen, so we'll never know what it could and couldn't do.
    Quote Originally Posted by year2kill06
    everyone knows nintendo is far way cooler than sega just face it nintendo has more better games and originals

  2. #212
    Raging in the Streets Team Andromeda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,764
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    When Gran Turismo 4 has more than two cars on screen I don't see the difference from Le Mans and F355.
    GT 3/4 Polygons models destroy both those games and there's more than 2 cars on screen . GT 3 on the PS 2 also have a great Heat Haze effect something which I never saw in any DC racer.

    If the Mega Drive got canceled within a couple years
    Games like GT 3, DMC and MGS 2 (demo) came out in 2001 not years latter . It was quite clear early in, that the Snes had issues with sprites to that of the Mega Drive .

    If you'd like to say that the PS2 got to display more polygons in games or do more impressive 3D in general
    Never said more impressive 3D . Just way more polygons there is a difference .

    But the Dreamcast got cut short before it really got rolling and never had top publishers pushing the hardware with huge budgets. So we'll never know what it was actually capable of.
    That's not quite true . Shenmue 1 and II had over 200 staff and some $50/60 odd million put into those titles . Code Veronica millions from SEGA and a Huge Team with SEGA,Capcom, and Nextech working on the title. Sonic Ad 170 staff (at key points) and millions and millions from SEGA. Sakura Wars 3 and IV again over 100 staff and millions spent on production . SEGA GT millions from SEGA Japan and years in development , PSO - Huge budget (not least on the music), Grandia II millions from SEGA and over 100 staff , Head Hunter millions from SEGA Europe and over 4 years in development , Skies Of Arcadia 100 staff and years in development , MSR millions from SEGA Europe and over 3 years in development .

    Not that it always takes millions and massive team to make a console sing. JSR was done in less than 12 months with a small team and production values
    Panzer Dragoon Zwei is
    one of the best 3D shooting games available
    Presented for your pleasure

  3. #213
    Road Rasher
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    410
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    I was just being sarcastic and ironic towards your nonsense in this thread. Trolling would be flooding the thread with nonsense/exaggerated stuff, and that's what you did several times by yourself.



    Several of your statements don't need to be run on to the absurd 'cause they are already absurd in their original form.



    I hope someday you'll be able to re-read some of your posts in this thread and provide a rational support to them or just delete them for the greater good.



    sheath, it's about you and *only* you in this entire thread trying to prove that the Dreamcast graphical capabilities were on par or better with the PS2 and GC ones while dismissing the PS2 library for no good reason almost all the time.
    There's no misunderstanding or anything, there's just you *flooding* the whole thread with your personal generalizations, PS2 library dismissive statements, PS2/GC graphical capabilities dismissive statements and trying to force everyone to agree with them.

    Now, in the real world, the Dreamcast went unsupported very early in the 6th gen run and that makes it VERY DIFFICULT to assume, as you ALWAYS do and want everybody else to do as well, that based on its released games it FOR SURE could have matched or surpassed the graphical quality of the later PS2 games (in such context, Burnout 2 is a 2002 game and it already shows features and characteristics that I'm having a very hard time to find in a similar level in 2001 DC games; stuff like that DOESN'T PROVE anything but it ISN'T A GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THE DC BY ANY MEANS) or the GC-based ones. The OFFICIAL numbers, be them right or wrong, also point to the OPPOSITE direction of your statements.
    Furthermore, you didn't manage to find A SINGLE INTERVIEW or TESTIMONIAL of a developer stating that the DC graphical capabilities were, at least, on par with the PS2 ones. And, actually, the developers used to point, again, TO THE OPPOSITE direction of what you claim.
    So, by any means, feel free to call me a troll and liar how many times you want, but in this very thread it's you and not me trying to "prove" something that goes against ALL evidences we have.
    Thanks.



    Observing? No, you're generalizing your personal experience based on a handful of games (from which several are DC-to-PS2 ports according to you) and trying to state that as a fact about the whole libraries of both consoles:



    Now, please, tell everybody how I distort your posts.



    First, let's see what you actually said:

    That's just you saying bollocks about the whole lifespan of a console based on your own experience (some of which were already opposed by stu, for an example) and gaming tastes. Your view about something is NOT the same thing of a historical fact.
    And, actually, that would be a very hard-to-define "fact" since the perception of the gameplay can vary a lot from gamer to gamer. Like the millions of gamers who enjoy the gameplay of GoW series while you think it's all QTE with no gameplay.
    We also have people in this forum which defined, to the contrary of my opinion, your "unique genre blender" Shenmue as a "glorified demo". Deal with it.



    You actually stated "The textures are ultra low detail and color" and "the background models look like toys and some parts of the characters look like they are non-textured lit polygons with cellophane wrapped around them" about VF4 Evo. Which is both wrong and exaggerated.



    We both know that your approach in this thread have been very different from that.



    Somehow making absurd and/or exaggerated and/or passionate and/or biased claims through an entire thread will often result in bad things.



    Please, tell me, what's the "face value" of stuff like this:



    To moderate your passionate statements and contain your hatred towards a given company or brand would make your arguments sound a lot better in any future discussions.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Barone again. And I agree in particular the last point which I emphasized.



    Quote Originally Posted by GreyFox View Post
    The thing for me is that these discussions always descend into “here is an example of a game on PS2 that Dreamcast definitely couldn’t do” whereas the focus should be on “could the Dreamcast have “competed” with the other systems of that generation for longer than it did?”

    Of course the Dreamcast is less powerful than the XBOX. The Dreamcast launched in November 98 in Japan whereas the XBOX was released in 2001. They could almost belong to different generations. It is also ok to prefer a systems library to another systems library (regardless of the quality or quantity of the other libraries available). It is a bit like supporting a football team – you know that the team you support aren’t as good or as skilful as say Barcelona or Bayern Munich but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of stunning moments, nail biting drama, late match winning goals and winning a one off game against superior opposition. Having said that consoles shouldn’t be tribal like football supporters and you should be able to support more than one…….

    The difficulty with EVERY generation is that the first machine released tends to get a lot of, often lazy, up ports from the previous Gen. These are often pretty much copy and paste jobs with maybe a marginal increase in resolution and frame rate rather than all new polygon models etc. Look at XBOX 360 – at launch a lot of the games were things like King Kong and Gun which clearly betrayed their previous gen origins. The Dreamcast also suffered from this with a lot of pretty lazy ports from PS1 (and PC). Developers/Publishers tend to develop for the dominant platform and then use that version as the basis for a port to the other machines. This often results in either A) a marginally enhanced port B) a straight like for like port or C) a lazy port that is actually worse than the original rather than using the capabilities of the hardware. Understandable as the aim is to get something workable out of the door to sell. Often Developers will code for the lowest common denominator across the hardware so lets say we have three machines, one limited by polygon count, one limited by texture memory and one has no such restrictions – generally the game will be developed with low polygon models with repeated textures across all three systems.

    One thing that also happens is that developers learn new techniques and “cheats” to simulate effects previously thought impossible on the hardware. I remember reading that the developers worked out a way of simulating HDR light bloom effects in Shadow of the Colossus based on techniques used on the 360. Will try to find the source of this.

    It should be no shock that games developed specifically with the strengths of any given hardware in mind are usually far more impressive than multi platform ports. Check out the top exclusives on any of the platforms and you’ll see the true power of the systems. MGS2 was clearly coded around the idiosyncrasies of the PS2 which is why the XBOX port was disappointing. Clearly a MGS game coded with the strengths of the original XBOX in mind could have been a stunner.

    With regards to PS2 it was more powerful than Dreamcast in a lot of ways (as it should be launching in March 2000 so over a year later) but it wasn’t as all conquering as the hype would have you believe. Because of Sony’s dominance in the market place and the fact that GameCube and XBOX were still some way off and because many developers had put all their eggs in the Sony basket they had to make it work, they had to learn to code for the convoluted hardware (in a way they didn’t have to for Saturn as they had the PS1 as an easy to develop for alternative). What would have been very interesting is if XBOX had launched the same day as PS2 or if XBOX was the lead platform for more of the multi platform games (like it was late on for stuff like TOCA 3)

    Having said I do remember that the PS2 had an insanely high fill rate compared to anything that gen (and even higher than PS3 and possibly 360).

    So back to my original “What if” – could the Dreamcast have competed with the other consoles of that generation longer than it did? I’d say yes. The reason being that it wasn’t hardware short-comings that caused Sega to pull the plug when they did but a lack of money. The hardware was clearly capable of competing with 90% of the stuff that was released on the other systems (and also may have benefitted from middleware solutions) and only fell short of maybe the top end 10% of stuff coded around the strengths of the others.

    Could the Dreamcast have run the same games exactly the same as the PS2 versions? Probably not but then the stock PS2 couldn’t run certain Dreamcast games exactly the same way as a Dreamcast either (for example PSO – built in modem of DC allows people to play it online as intended – PS2 would need an add on (although I guess the PSTwo had a built in Ethernet port). I do believe that the Dreamcast could have done perfectly respectable versions of most of the games of that generation though.

    Lets assume that Sega didn’t have the money troubles that caused it to go to software only. Sega pulled the plug in 2001 and the software dried up in 2002 (lets ignore late games like Under Defeat, Karous, Radirgy etc and the indie releases) so the machine lasted from 98/99 until 2002. So let’s say a 2 and a half year run. I truly believe it could have lasted (in terms of hardware remaining competitive) until at least 2004 which would have meant a 4 and a half to 5 year run and would have meant a Sega machine launched in 2004 ( a year before 360).

    If this seems to far fetched then how about a scenario where Sega did go multi format and did not release further hardware but continued to release software for Dreamcast until 2004 as well as on the other machines. This would mean the only place to get all Sega games in one place would be on Dreamcast. Let’s assume some limited third party support too. What would the software line up have looked like? I think something like this:

    2001 to 2004
    Shinobi (PS2 and Dreamcast)
    Nightshade (PS2 and Dreamcast)
    Gun Valkyrie (XBOX and Dreamcast)
    ToeJam and Earl 3 (XBOX and Dreamcast)
    Panzer Dragoon Orta (XBOX and Dreamcast)
    Sonic Heroes (all platforms)
    Super Monkey Ball (GameCube and Dreamcast)
    Super Monkey Ball 2 (all platforms)
    Jet Set Radio Future (XBOX and Dreamcast)
    Headhunter Redemption (XBOX/PS2 and Dreamcast)
    Beach Spikers (GameCube and Dreamcast)
    Virtua Striker 3 (GameCube and Dreamcast)
    Virtua Fighter 4 (PS2 and Dreamcast)
    Billy Hatcher (GameCube and Dreamcast)
    Project Gotham Racing (XBOX and released on Dreamcast as Project Gotham Racing: MSR 2)
    NBA 2K3
    NFL 2K3
    NHL 2K3
    WSL 2K3
    Sega Soccer Slam (all platforms)
    House of the Dead 3 (XBOX and Dreamcast)

    Add in some translations of:
    Segagaga
    Hundred Swords
    Rent-a-Hero


    Let’s add in ports of popular multi platform titles such as:

    Tony Hawks 3 (came out on PS1 and N64 and the Dreamcast can play it via Bleem)
    Tony Hawks 4 (can play the PS1 version via Bleem)
    Soul Calibur 2 (Namco – featuring an exclusive character – maybe Ryo from ShenMue)
    Mr Driller 2 (Namco)
    Burnout (using Vanishing Point as a frame of reference)
    True Crime: Streets of LA (if you assume GTA3 wouldn’t be possible then this should be doable – it came out on GameCube – use Super Runabout as an idea of what it could be like)
    Medal of Honour series (Front Line and European Assault?)
    Call of Duty (early entries like Big Red One, Their Finest Hour)


    As well as some ports of some of the other things they released at the time:

    Sonic Pinball Party (GBA and Dreamcast)
    House of the Dead Pinball (GBA and Dreamcast)
    SEGA AGES Collection (PS2 and Dreamcast – the 3D budget remakes bundled as a 10 game collection)
    Mini Moni Tambourine (ported from PS1 and using a tambourine peripheral)

    Some arcade ports by Sega:
    Wild Riders
    Planet Harriers
    Daytona 2
    Scud Race
    Virtua Cop 3


    And some speculative sequels:
    Power Stone 3 (Capcom)
    Ecco the Dolphin 2
    Virtua Tennis 3 (or if this seems too much of a stretch a home only version called some like Virtua Tennis Championship 2003)
    Yu Suzuki Game Works Vol 2
    SNK vs Capcom Card Fighters (cross compatible with the NGPC version)
    And a port of SNK vs Capcom Chaos

    Seems a fairly decent selection of titles.

    To be honest all the systems of that generation were capable of great looking games.

    The Dreamcast could have handled probably 80% of the titles that came out on the other 3 platforms (with minor downgrades etc in terms of poly count, frame rate, resolution etc if required) and wouldn’t have got most of the remaining 20% anyway which would lean towards exclusives etc but would counter these with its own first party offerings.

    Checking the list of PS2 games that sold over a million copies – once you exclude the stuff that was exclusive (effectively first party stuff in a lot of ways) like the Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Gran Turismo etc series then you get left with a lot of EA sports games (the Maddens, Fifa’s etc), and lots of licensed stuff like SpiderMan the Movie, Simpsons Hit and Run, Lord of the Rings, Lego “film series” trilogy etc etc all of which I reckon the DC could have made a decent stab at. Not exact replica’s but close enough. If EA had decided to actually support Dreamcast I’m pretty sure it could have handled most of the games they released – I mean the Visual Concepts sports games look fairly close graphically to the EA equivalents.

    TLR – Dreamcast while not as powerful as other systems of that generation was capable of great looking games and could probably have been pushed a bit further than it was (although not as far as the others). All the systems had their strengths and weaknesses and all delivered some stunning games.
    A well written, fair and balanced post. It sure is better than the negative "PS2 looks like ass and its games suck" type posts that are all over this thread. I agree that the Dreamcast probably could of managed ports of some of the later PS2 games, maybe the developers might have had to made changes maybe not. Repped

  4. #214
    ESWAT Veteran Chilly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,744
    Rep Power
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christuserloeser View Post
    Since when is IGN a reputable source ? Those segatech links are very nice though.

    I always thought it was funny how Sega kept the numbers down to 3 million due to their dev kits when the actual hardware was closer to 10 million polygons/s, yet at the same time Sony claimed PS2 could do 75 million polygons/s at 1080p. It was just so ridiculous to see these numbers parroted all over the media when the screenshots showed that i.e. Dead or Alive 2 clearly looked worse than the Dreamcast version as it rendered the character models at half the vertical resolution (which is what they claim would be due to "aliasing" at that stupid IGN link).
    Remember that polys/sec and resolution have nothing in common. They're both just end figures. How many frames per second you can render depends on both the polys/sec, and the number of polys a frame requires to draw the entire scene, and that last value is almost never given for particular games (it varies from game to game, and even inside a single game).

    Likewise, the resolution being output to the TV has nothing to do with the game, either. The PS2 has a couple of registers referred to as the horizontal magnification and the vertical magnification. They allow any size final bitmap for the rendered display to be scaled (either up or down) to fit whatever size resolution is being output to the TV. So while Sony may crow about 1080 resolution output, the game is still maybe only drawing 320x240. That is then stretched to 1920x1080 for display on the TV. Most early games were 320x240, and then you saw some 640x240. Towards the middle and end, you saw more 640x480 games. By that time, a lot more people had EDTV/HDTV.

  5. #215
    -----------(A)----------- Master of Shinobi Bottino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    1,569
    Rep Power
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreyFox View Post

    Of course the Dreamcast is less powerful than the XBOX. The Dreamcast launched in November 98 in Japan whereas the XBOX was released in 2001. They could almost belong to different generations. It is also ok to prefer a systems library to another systems library (regardless of the quality or quantity of the other libraries available). It is a bit like supporting a football team – you know that the team you support aren’t as good or as skilful as say Barcelona or Bayern Munich but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of stunning moments, nail biting drama, late match winning goals and winning a one off game against superior opposition. Having said that consoles shouldn’t be tribal like football supporters and you should be able to support more than one…….
    Your whole argumentation was great, but this particular segment is just pure gold.

    Especially because during the 99/2000 season Sega & Dreamcast sponsored Arsenal F.C
    Last edited by Bottino; 01-23-2014 at 05:51 PM.

  6. #216
    I DON'T LIKE POKEMON Hero of Algol j_factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    8,898
    Rep Power
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreyFox View Post
    Of course the Dreamcast is less powerful than the XBOX. The Dreamcast launched in November 98 in Japan whereas the XBOX was released in 2001. They could almost belong to different generations.
    Funny how there is a shorter period of time between the launches of Dreamcast and N64, than there is between Dreamcast and Gamecube or Xbox. Yet, Dreamcast is certainly a lot closer to the latter two than it is to the former.


    You just can't handle my jawusumness responces.

  7. #217
    Road Rasher
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    410
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j_factor View Post
    Funny how there is a shorter period of time between the launches of Dreamcast and N64, than there is between Dreamcast and Gamecube or Xbox. Yet, Dreamcast is certainly a lot closer to the latter two than it is to the former.
    If you had said the PS2 and Gamecube I would agree with you, however imo I think the Xbox is far enough out in front of the other 3 systems that it almost does belong in a different generation.

  8. #218
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    That's really not my thing. I don't intend to "correct" history.
    History hasn't been written yet for the Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube or Xbox consoles. I doubt I will have any part in writing any of it either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    The problem is that you have ZERO technical arguments and details to make such a strong claim.
    I'm the only one who doesn't have any facts? How many polygons per second does F-Zero GX push? What about the demands on VRAM for texture maps? Normal mapping or other more modern effects, do we know a single thing? Again you took my statement, that F-Zero GX would not look as low end as Magforce Racing on Dreamcast, and ran it to the absurd. This is why I posted Daytona 2001 on Dreamcast and F-Zero GX together.

    It is completely obvious that a Dreamcast version of F-Zero GX would be significantly better in every respect than Magforce Racing. This was my only point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    It doesn't make the game look any better though, sheath. And we are in a graphics discussion.
    So we should develop a list of graphical effects that you think make a game look "better" in this generation and go from there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Do you really believe that? When will you assume all your pathetic claims in this thread?
    I will never assume or accept what you and a couple of others have read into my statements. The actual truth is as I have always said, we need more facts not more opinions. Have we really come to the place that we can look at a 3D game from that generation and just eyeball which is a generational leap ahead without any assistance? If so, I will end any part I have in this discussion right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Best looking PS2 games shit all over the best looking DC games. Like it or not.
    The rest is all conjectures, esoteric projections and assumptions by you with ZERO technical data to support.

    And I'm getting convinced that you can't deal with that in a reasonable way.
    I have actually posted every technical document I have found so far on the two systems' performance. To say otherwise is crude and insulting. You know what I want, more facts. If the PS2 ends up being the polygon monster Sony always promised, even if that took five, eight or ten years, I will not deny it. Do you have that fact documented? Why have you not shared it? Why are you going completely nuts on me if you have not seen documentation of a PS2 game well and above the Dreamcast performance wise?

  9. #219
    Raging in the Streets azonicrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,588
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stu View Post
    If you had said the PS2 and Gamecube I would agree with you, however imo I think the Xbox is far enough out in front of the other 3 systems that it almost does belong in a different generation.
    Other 3? hold your horses pal. The Xbox only has about 15% more power than GameCube.

    I look at it this way. The 6th gen has two sub-generations, being Dreamcast/PS2 then GameCube/Xbox. If you look at all their launch dates, my theory makes perfect sense.

    F-Zero GX still needs downgrades for older hardware.
    Certified F-Zero GX fanboy

  10. #220
    Road Rasher
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    410
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azonicrider View Post
    Other 3? hold your horses pal. The Xbox only has about 15% more power than GameCube.

    I look at it this way. The 6th gen has two sub-generations, being Dreamcast/PS2 then GameCube/Xbox. If you look at all their launch dates, my theory makes perfect sense.

    F-Zero GX still needs downgrades for older hardware.

    Where are you getting that 15% figure from.

    According to this: http://www.segatech.com/technical/consolecompare/

    It shows that the Xbox has BIG advantages in pretty much every area vs the Gamecube.

    In Texel Fill Rate the GC is rated at 648MT/sec and the Xbox is rated at 1864 MT/sec - that alone is almost 3 times as much fill rate for the Xbox.

    In Rendering Bandwidth the GC is rated at 2.2GB/s and the Xbox is rated 5.6GB/s - thats over 2 times as much bandwidth.

    I'm not putting down the GC, but its pretty clear the Xbox is far ahead of it.

    In the end launch dates don't mean anything, its the hardware in the box that counts and Xbox smokes the GC.

  11. #221
    Raging in the Streets azonicrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,588
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    So I guess you're not going to accept the fact that the gap between PS2 and GameCube, is bigger than the gap between GameCube and Xbox.
    Certified F-Zero GX fanboy

  12. #222
    Nameless One
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    50
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    I had a thought regarding the Dreamcast/XBOX debate as to almost belonging to different generations and how that whole 6th Generation was an unusual one compared to the others.

    I think the XBOX was probably the only time a machine had been released in the same generation as another machine and was more capable in every way with no drawback/weakness in any area or without buying additional peripherals/upgrades etc

    What I mean is that in the 6th Generation there was Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube and XBOX. From what I read the XBOX basically had the overall strongest hardware of all the machines (it lost out in fill rate to PS2 etc but overall could be judged the “strongest” and it seems it could pretty much do any Dreamcast at least as well as the Dreamcast (if they were ported) without a single drawback. Obviously this isn’t a comprehensive list but:

    XBOX vs DC
    XBOX could push more polygons with more effects, more lighting, same or better resolution and with better texture compression

    The CPU etc were faster and could handle more

    The sound hardware was capable of more channels

    More Memory for everything

    DC’s built in modem negated by the built in Ethernet of XBOX

    XBOX also had a built in Hard Drive allowing for more flexibility

    Both had 4 controller ports

    The XBOX pad had the same buttons and stick as the DC pad (i.e. 4 main face buttons, one analogue stick, analogue triggers, D-Pad) but also had extra buttons and another analogue stick and built in rumble.

    Theoretically, if ported by a capable team the XBOX should have been able to run perfect ports (or enhanced ports) of every single Dreamcast game regardless of whether it was coded around the specialities of the Dreamcast hardware. It had online , it had the graphics, sound and resolution capabilities and more.

    They both even benefitted around easy to develop for/PC style architecture and both shared third party support (obviously XBOX had more third party support but much cross-over)

    The only difference would be:
    Any game using the VMU as a second screen (e.g. choosing your plays secretly in NFL 2K)
    Neo Geo Pocket Link Up

    In every other generation while machines might come out some distance apart from one another all of the “major” systems would have some kind of bottleneck or hardware constraint that could be perceived a a weakness and would allow one of the other machines of that generation to run certain games better than others. Apologies for the simplistic nature of the following comparisons but just labouring the point

    3rd Generation:
    NES vs Master System – Master System had more colours and better sound but NES appeared to be able to overcome much of this with on cart add-ons. NES controller also had more buttons than Master System meaning some games worked better than they would on Master System.

    4th Generation:
    PC Engine vs Megadrive/Genesis vs SNES
    PC Engine – lots of colours, lack of parallax, decent sound, one control port (needed adaptor for multiplayer) pad with limited number of buttons
    Megadrive – limited colours and arguably limited sound but very fast CPU that developers were very familiar with (pad with more buttons than PC engine), best at polygonal 3D without enhancement chips
    SNES – great sound and colour capabilities but ham strung by slow CPU, mode 7 (most buttons on pad of generation)

    Clearly each could run certain games better than the other machines of the same generation. While you could probably get most the games of any machine in this gen running on the others there would be compromises in terms of controls, colour, slowdown, parallax layers, mode 7 effects


    5th Generation
    PS1 vs Saturn vs N64
    PS1 – decent 2D, fast chunky 3D, CD media, easy to develop for, only two controller ports (I’m going to allow Dual analogue as although it originally shipped with a digital only pad they did pack in the analogues for much of its life), good FMV playback

    Saturn – awesome 2D, decent 3D (in the right hands), CD media, only two controller ports, very difficult dev environment, use of VDP effects difficult to replicate on the others

    N64 – some of the best 3D, “D was capable but not really pushed (possibly due to lack of cartridge space) cartridge media, 4 controller ports, analogue pad as standard.

    So I think taking an example of a game each could run that the others would struggle to run “as well” or “better” than the original hardware:

    Saturn – Radiant SilverGun ( due to background effects)

    PS1 – not sure – Gran Turismo? Final Fantasy 7 (due to combination of FMV and polygons)

    N64 – Wave Race (for the wave physics) GoldenEye (graphics but more because of 4 player support on the base console)

    Even on the recent generation:

    360 and PS3 are similarly capable but seem to both have strengths and weaknesses compared to each other
    Wii – unique motion controls (as standard)

    So it would appear that no machine in another generation would be capable of running “exact” or “enhanced” ports of EVERY game in the library of another machine in the same generation. I suspect the XBOX could have handled “exact” or “enhanced” (in terms of frame-rate, resolution etc) ports of the entire Dreamcast library.

    Bear in mind in no way makes the Dreamcast any lesser of a console. Just wanted to highlight what an unusual generation that one was in so many ways.

  13. #223
    Smith's Minister of War Hero of Algol Kamahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Portugal
    Age
    27
    Posts
    7,923
    Rep Power
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreyFox View Post
    Master System had more colours and better sound
    This thread needs more... ENGINEERS

  14. #224
    Teen Idle Raging in the Streets Gogogadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    62

    Default

    SMS has better sound than the NES?

    Hmmm... nope.

    Better graphics though sure.

  15. #225
    Nameless One
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    50
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Yeah fair point re sound on NES and SMS (without the FM module) this makes my point valid though - both systems had different strengths and weaknesses

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •