Quantcast

Page 24 of 104 FirstFirst ... 142021222324252627283474 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 1557

Thread: PS2 vs Dreamcast Graphics

  1. #346
    -----------(A)----------- Master of Shinobi Bottino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    1,547
    Rep Power
    54

    Default

    The question is: was it possible to the average gamer , to notice any significant graphical differences between Dreamcast and Playstation 2 games , during the years in which they competed ?

  2. #347
    Smith's Minister of War Hero of Algol Kamahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Portugal
    Age
    27
    Posts
    7,917
    Rep Power
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bottino View Post
    The question is: was it possible to the average gamer , to notice any significant graphical differences between Dreamcast and Playstation 2 games , during the years in which they competed ?
    I sure could tell Dreamcast games had like 10 polygons on screen and no lighting in comparison, but my case wasn't during the years in which they competed. The DC had just been discontinued when I first saw one.
    This thread needs more... ENGINEERS

  3. #348

  4. #349
    -----------(A)----------- Master of Shinobi Bottino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    1,547
    Rep Power
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamahl View Post
    I sure could tell Dreamcast games had like 10 polygons on screen and no lighting in comparison, but my case wasn't during the years in which they competed. The DC had just been discontinued when I first saw one.
    But you're no average gamer

  5. #350

  6. #351
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,843
    Rep Power
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamahl View Post
    I sure could tell Dreamcast games had like 10 polygons on screen and no lighting in comparison, but my case wasn't during the years in which they competed. The DC had just been discontinued when I first saw one.
    Dynamite Cop (1999) (DC)



    The Bouncer (2000) (PS2)




    There was already a HUGE gap in terms of polygons on screen (especially on the characters models), animation quality, lighting, special effects and fullscreen effects between those two games. The Bouncer also seems to put more enemies on screen at once. Oh, and there's the "cinematic crap" stuff as usual.
    Sega didn't help the Dreamcast by porting Model 2 games without major graphical improvements like that.

  7. #352
    Death Bringer Raging in the Streets Black_Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver
    Age
    40
    Posts
    3,855
    Rep Power
    81

    Default

    Barone, you've started taking as extreme a stance as you accuse sheath of taking. It just seems like trolling to throw in a sales graph during a debate about hardware performance potential. Unless you're arguing the opposite point and were implying that the ridiculous commercial success of the PS2 ensured that it was pushed much further than competing hardware and that in contrast the DC was never successful enough to be pushed far at all.

    A more fitting comparison to Dynamite Deka would be the Golden Axe remake for PS2. I don't believe that you played DD bitd and thought "Wow, this looks great for a DC game!" Just pairing a couple games from the same time doesn't prove anything. You have to use some common sense and as has been brought up too many times in these kinds of discussions: an impressive game doesn't prove anything. Only the most impressive games prove as much as they do about what a console is capable of. No game ever pushes hardware as far it can go and not all consoles receive the same level of hardware pushing games.

    The Genesis comparison isn't a good one for the point you're trying to make. The PS2 is the Genesis of its generation, relying more on horsepower to push around more objects, while the DC is like the SNES with the superior polish and fidelity, but is perceived as being weaker for horsepower.

    The only thing we know gor sure is that we'll never see the DC pushed as far for its hardware as its competing consoles were. Sheath can't prove the DC could do more that it got to in such a short time, but judging by the history of console libraries, it's safe to say it must have much more potential.
    Quote Originally Posted by year2kill06
    everyone knows nintendo is far way cooler than sega just face it nintendo has more better games and originals

  8. #353
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,843
    Rep Power
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    Barone, you've started taking as extreme a stance as you accuse sheath of taking. It just seems like trolling to throw in a sales graph during a debate about hardware performance potential.
    People were supposed to laugh at that animated graph, I think.


    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    Unless you're arguing the opposite point and were implying that the ridiculous commercial success of the PS2 ensured that it was pushed much further than competing hardware and that in contrast the DC was never successful enough to be pushed far at all.
    No, it was more in the lines of "the average gamer can't see shit".
    Go back to the early 2000 articles like this: http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/03/...nys-death-star
    There was no good reason at the time for the "average gamer" jump on the PS2 bandwagon, rather than franchise (not much to justify it at the time either) or brand following.


    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    A more fitting comparison to Dynamite Deka would be the Golden Axe remake for PS2.
    I just compared the Dynamite Deka to The Bouncer for two reasons:
    - The graphical "theme" is kinda similar.
    - It shows how Sega was downplaying the Dreamcast graphics while they were alone at the 6th gen market. They shouldn't have done stuff like that IMO.
    Also, I think I had added notes to my post while you're writing your post.


    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    I don't believe that you played DD bitd and thought "Wow, this looks great for a DC game!"
    Of course... What amazes me is that Sega did what they did. They didn't need to put products like that on the market IMO. Or they should have released it as part of some "Model 2 Collection" or something like that, which also doesn't make much sense when you're trying to impress the average gamer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    Only the most impressive games prove as much as they do about what a console is capable of. No game ever pushes hardware as far it can go and not all consoles receive the same level of hardware pushing games.
    I agree and I never said a single line opposing that in this or any other thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    The Genesis comparison isn't a good one for the point you're trying to make. The PS2 is the Genesis of its generation, relying more on horsepower to push around more objects, while the DC is like the SNES with the superior polish and fidelity, but is perceived as being weaker for horsepower.
    Sorry, I think you're a bit wrong about it. Actually, the way that people pair consoles from different gens is usually a bit off IMO.

    The PS2 has a far more complex hardware design than the DC, just like the SNES when compared to the Mega Drive. This widely supported by former developers and homebrew developers.

    OTOH, PS2 has a more flexible design than the DC in several aspects; just like the Mega Drive when compared to the SNES. For an example, the Mega Drive can have more sound samples in a game (EWJ is an example) than the SNES (despite the SNES having compression support and bigger dedicated RAM for that) thanks to the Z80's ability to stream samples from the ROM, while it requires a very complicated trick in the SNES which no commercial game used AFAIK. It's a similar case to PS2 without texture compression being able to stream textures from the main RAM while the DC has a bigger VRAM and compression support but can't do that for the most part.

    Further more, the comparison with PS1 and Saturn would also depend on the aspect you're analyzing. In terms of hardware design, PS2 pair with Saturn and DC with the PS1.
    In terms of graphics of games released during the DC lifespan, PS2 games usually are strong in lighting and special effects (similar to the PS1) and the Dreamcast usually has richer textures and clearer image (similar to the Saturn).

    You can make dozens of different comparisons, pairing the consoles according to the aspect you're analyzing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    The only thing we know for sure is that we'll never see the DC pushed as far for its hardware as its competing consoles were. Sheath can't prove the DC could do more that it got to in such a short time, but judging by the history of console libraries, it's safe to say it must have much more potential.
    Agreed.

    Though, to me it's pretty clear that the PS2, similar to the SNES, had a slower start in terms of pushing the hardware since the learning curve of its hardware was a lot harder than the DC's for all that is documented and published. As such, I honestly wouldn't expect and much less guarantee that the DC would have the same graphical gap between its early and later titles as the PS2 had; unless you take stuff like Dynamite Cop as the Dreamcast minimum (but I don't think it truly represents what was the first batch of Dreamcast games, since they were, comparatively, far better than the PS2's in most of the aspects IMO).
    Some examples/points that lead me to think like that:
    - The early DC games were already using the system's max resolution (640 x 480) unlike the PS2 ones.
    - Several early lower res PS2 games looked awful even on CRT TVs.
    - Early on some DC developers managed to use textures which were FAR superior to the last gen ones for the most part. Compare San Francisco Rush 2049's textures on the N64 or even the arcade ones to the DC ones. Now compare stuff like Wipeout Fusion on the PS2 to Wipeout 3 on the PS1.
    - DC's hardware design, especially regarding how the graphics system worked, was close to the PC's design of the time. PS2's was radically different from any major platform of the time.
    - DC's hardware design was more "fixed" (overall less intercommunication and lower bandwidth) than the PS2's, which usually don't favor exploitation.
    - PS2 had extra 16 MB in the main RAM which could, theoretically, be used as an extension of the VRAM to store textures while the DC would have to rely on its VRAM only. So, in a rough and direct comparison between the two systems, the PS2 would have like 1 MB + 16 MB for textures and the DC would have like 5 MB for textures. Of course, in some situations the smaller VRAM would always be a disadvantage for the PS2.

  9. #354
    Raging in the Streets goldenband's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,102
    Rep Power
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    For an example, the Mega Drive can have more sound samples in a game (EWJ is an example) than the SNES (despite the SNES having compression support and bigger dedicated RAM for that) thanks to the Z80's ability to stream samples from the ROM, while it requires a very complicated trick in the SNES which no commercial game used AFAIK.
    I can't personally verify it, but based on what I've read (and the comments of people who've tried to rip the soundtrack), I think SNES Lord of the Rings Vol. 1 may have done this.

  10. #355
    -----------(A)----------- Master of Shinobi Bottino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    1,547
    Rep Power
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    The average gamer thought that Gran Turismo on the PS1 had photo-realistic graphics ... I hope I have answered your question, Bottino.
    That looks like something i could've read from that Ação Games magazine hahaha
    But my question goes both ways though, as sometimes one will say "LOL Shenmue looks better than any PS2 game , period" or "i can't see much difference between n64 games and DC games" and such.

  11. #356
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,843
    Rep Power
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goldenband View Post
    I can't personally verify it, but based on what I've read (and the comments of people who've tried to rip the soundtrack), I think SNES Lord of the Rings Vol. 1 may have done this.
    Cool! Thanks for the info. I'll have a good look into that one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bottino View Post
    That looks like something i could've read from that Ação Games magazine hahaha
    ahahahaa, yep.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bottino View Post
    But my question goes both ways though, as sometimes one will say "LOL Shenmue looks better than any PS2 game , period" or "i can't see much difference between n64 games and DC games" and such.
    Personally, I prefer the look of the DC games for the most part. Several of its games have that '90s 3D arcade "look" IMO and probably the lack of some effects has a lot to do with it, as well as the way it output video.

    N64 fanboys will always say that the DC is the N64 with better textures, but the N64 textures usually were godawful in the first place, for Christ's sake! And they usually don't consider the fact that DC games were running at solid 2x or 3x higher frame rate than the N64 iffy ones and 4x the resolution for almost all non-expansion pack compatible games.
    I will probably always think that the N64 games had only the proper geometry and texture perspective correction as strong points. The textures were usually awful and the frame rates were sub par in many, many cases... Give me a Saturn or a PS1 game any day.

    The PS2 games which appeal to me usually aren't the ultra late ones, but those which were released around 2001-2004 whose effects are more about some lighting and environment mapping - like the PC games around 1998-2002 which I dig a lot.

    It sucks big time that the DC was killed so quickly by Sega, 'cause I think it could have helped to keep the overall look of 3D games less convoluted for a bit more time. I usually don't like fullscreen effects and/or tons of particle effects.
    Stuff like forced blur and overbright can ruin a game IMO. j_factor had brought a good point in that aspect, saying that some of that stuff may have "appeared" to compensate the awful capabilities of the early LCD monitors; IDK but it sounds reasonable to me.

    All in all, at the time of its release, the DC had a much bigger wow factor than the PS2 for all people that I knew, including me.

  12. #357
    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 Barone View Post
    N64 fanboys will always say that the DC is the N64 with better textures, but the N64 textures usually were godawful in the first place, for Christ's sake! And they usually don't consider the fact that DC games were running at solid 2x or 3x higher frame rate than the N64 iffy ones and 4x the resolution for almost all non-expansion pack compatible games.
    A Black Falcon, is that you?
    Certified F-Zero GX fanboy

  13. #358
    Wildside Expert
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    From an interview with Richard Parr and Alex Fry about the Burnout series:
    Of course, what Alex and Rich don't tell everybody is that B1 and B3 didn't use RenderWare for rendering at all. It was *all* custom stuff. B2 did but it was a nightmare getting decent performance out of it. Oh the irony, given that Criterion Games was the show pony to help sell RenderWare. It's true that they had the same version of RenderWare as everybody else - it just wasn't used!

    On PS2 vs Dreamcast, there's no question what console wins on capability. The PS2. Sure the VRAM was tiny, and there was the AA bug in the GS meaning you were never going to be able to have 640x480 at 60fps. But the machine was just such a beast under the hood. A Beast that took a lot of effort of get the simplest things up and running, but a still a beast all the same. The fill-rate was just so insane on the PS2, I remember one of the first technical notes from Sony was "don't bother checking of back-facing polygons. The GS is so fast, it takes less time for the GS to do it than the calculation does on VU1".

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    - PS2 had extra 16 MB in the main RAM which could, theoretically, be used as an extension of the VRAM to store textures while the DC would have to rely on its VRAM only. So, in a rough and direct comparison between the two systems, the PS2 would have like 1 MB + 16 MB for textures and the DC would have like 5 MB for textures. Of course, in some situations the smaller VRAM would always be a disadvantage for the PS2.
    It wasn't just theory. Every PS2 game I worked on just used VRAM as a place for the frame buffers and as a texture cache. You sorted your scene by material, and uploaded the textures once and once only for a series of draw calls and did this every frame. When I worked on a UE based PS2 title, it only confirmed to me just how dumb PC coders were at the time - they guys who had done the port and stuck to the PC way of doing things, by using VRAM as a permanent storage for all the textures with some really horrendously complex memory allocator. The comments in the code were hilarious, along the lines of "OMG - how do other games do this? Undocumented haxxxx???". They just didn't get it, despite all of the technical whitepapers and docs that Sony had.

    MGS2 is one of the better examples of this scheme though. When the performance analyzer came out, you were able to run a retail game and profile EVERYTHING, including the commands sent to the VIF/GIF. The guys on MGS2 were so dammed clever. All of their characters were broken into micro-packets, that used little 32x32 texture squares to minimize the risk of the GS stalling because a texture upload took too long (texture transfers could happen in parallel while rendering was happening). My jaw just dropped when I saw this. Then I looked at how our cars were rendered, and keep in mind, Alex Fry is a really smart guy; and we were still uploading massive 256x256 uncompressed textures in one go.

    When I look at MGS2 today; I'm still amazed at how advanced it is for such an early PS2 title. I wish I still had access to the PS2PA kits, because I also suspect that game was using per pixel lighting, rather than just vertex lighting.


    The thing about computer graphics is that, these days especially, it's not really about how many pixels you have but rather how you light them. And the PS2 could do per-pixel lighting with a bit of teasing, along with normal mapping and god knows what else.


    But the Dreamcast? It was a very simple architecture, and slow by comparison. But that was also one of it's biggest strengths. It was easy to get stuff running on the machine, and Sega had grasped the importance of providing good, off the shelf rendering and streaming libraries. The Dreamcast's design meant that you spent more time on the game code, where the PS2 forced you to spend a lot of time just getting the basics right.

    Mind you...I just wish Sega had been more careful with the design of the Dev Hardware. There's nothing like switching off the TV and Dev-Kit in the wrong order at 3am in the morning only to hear five grand of kit go "pop".
    Last edited by rusty; 01-29-2014 at 11:28 PM.

  14. #359
    End of line.. ESWAT Veteran gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,457
    Rep Power
    87

    Default

    I still think Metal Gear Solid 2 is an amazing looking game. I had bought the Xbox version of MGS2: Substance, only to find out it ran like crap on the console.
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  15. #360
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,652
    Rep Power
    98

    Default

    So since I'm now being quoted in this discussion does that mean I'm no longer on your ignore list Barone?

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
  •