xellos2099alpha
Member
I mean, i don't see the possibility of dreamcast having something like mgs2 or 3 or final fantasy x
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Was the Dreamcast actually powerful at launch? Or the beneficiary of no competition?
- Thread starter Romulus
- Start date
01011001
Banned
MGS2? that ran on pretty low end PCs at the time if I remember correctly
any 32MB graphics card worked and you needed less than 1ghz on the CPU (apparently the CPU of the DC was comparable to a 1ghz pentium 3)
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
It ran like shit on Xbox
01011001
Banned
that's not the Xbox's fault... the Xbox was almost a generation ahead of the PS2 when fully utilized.
also that's completely unimportant to the question at hand
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
Super lazy and quick "cash in" port by Konami.
Isleofsancroy
Banned
Actually the PC and the Dreamcast were very much tied when it came out, trading strengths and weaknesses. Both also undercut the Model 3 which was something I assume Sega was not very happy about.
If we are only specifically talking about consoles yes, even the N64 with the expansion pack was still quite far behind, and late PS1 games like Crash 3 looked good until you saw Sonic Adventure, which was superior to Crash 3 in every way except animation. At the time it may not have seemed obvious at first, but that was because of very lazy ports that took little if any advantage of the DC's more powerful hardware.
I heard that DVD NUON thing was similar in power to the Dreamcast as well, but I've never actually seen one in real life so I can't comment much on that.
If we are only specifically talking about consoles yes, even the N64 with the expansion pack was still quite far behind, and late PS1 games like Crash 3 looked good until you saw Sonic Adventure, which was superior to Crash 3 in every way except animation. At the time it may not have seemed obvious at first, but that was because of very lazy ports that took little if any advantage of the DC's more powerful hardware.
I heard that DVD NUON thing was similar in power to the Dreamcast as well, but I've never actually seen one in real life so I can't comment much on that.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
PS2 CPU/System Bandwidth>Xbox CPU/System Bandwidth
muteZX
Banned
if vastly mean 2-3 times .. than it is vastly superior ..
Black .. GP .. 65 535 NPC + alfa .. Transformers .. AmonRA .. Outcast2
Any attempt by DC to run these things (on PS2 many at 60fps) will end in single digit framerate.
ManaByte
Gold Member
A couple of those aren't even games.
VF3tb on the DC looked better than VF4 on the PS2.
muteZX
Banned
forget this fighiting bullshit, 2 NPC and arena, ps2 is pushing 300K polyrate with massive alpha at 60fps and yes .. tekken 5 is technically better than VF.
Romulus
Member
Bandwidth was far less of an issue that generation. It was the total RAM pool.
There were tons of examples where the xbox rendered a higher resolution and double the fps in about a dozen cases or more. And that's considering ps2 was lead platform almost always. They literally didnt even push the xbox in many cases.
Last edited:
FromDuskTillGameOver
Member
laughs in Soul Calibur
polybius80
Member
is a joke?
VF3 can't even keep its shadows together 2:25
the difference in 3D models is immense, I dont know how much triangles they use in VF3 but they look very low poly(just look at the face of the characters or at Sarah body on both versions) the knees and elbows in particular are horrible in all models its as if someone told the artist to stop using the discrete polygons and join them one day before the game releases also textures are lower than VF4 you can compare the ground textures in both games as they are closer and VF4 uses more different textures as its scenes are far more complex and detailed also the light in scenes, there is no comparison, and lets not get into the physics in the clothes, VF3 is technically more similar to MK4(also on DC) while VF4 is more similar to MK: Armageddon, SC2 or bloody roar 3, VF4 is a good looking game vs most of the contemporary fighting games, it had very good effects but it also has its flaws compared to other fighting games in PS2, also I am not saying VF3 is a bad game, quite the contrary, it was very good looking but only for the contemporary games(end of the 90's)
DOA2 and SC are much better looking DC fighting games than VF3
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
Supposedly developers loved it. Not sure about how flexible that translates.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
But in the case of MGS2 the faster bandwidth of the PS2 resulted in double the fps.
Dreamcast was simply *mind blowing* at the time. To this day I haven't been so impressed with a new console vs the previous iteration. They're such incremental upgrades now. It's sad not to have that excitement anymore and your jaw on the floor! Soul Calibur still looks like it could come out today!
polybius80
Member
AFAIK its very felxible but depends what you can do on the CPU and not special hardware, there are not super bandwidth, texture combiners, shaders or vector units but using clever ways and playing to strengts and avoiding weak spots devs can come with impressive games
for example contrary to popular belief, DC actually can draw lot of triangles but since at the time most people saved vertex operation using discreet parts for making 3d model , lot of apparently bland looking games use lot of triangles, if they put them to good use something impressive can come
for comparison N64
I think that 1500-2000 triangles models for MK4: Gold and better scenes could make a more impressive game without too much degraded character quality specially looking at SC that uses less triangles in their characters yet is usually used as one of the best examples of impressive DC games, but its also good to consider that SC is not using discreet shapes, so a MK4: Gold with the approach of SC character sounds very interesting, could have been the basis for MK deadly alliance port for DC
Last edited:
I loved the dreamcast , had to travel on a train for over a hr to get to hmv where i had preordere it to collect on release day, and then a long wait to get home, got ready to rumble boxing and was amazed and thought graphics in a game couldnt get any better , games like ready to rumble boxing 1+2, crazy taxi, daytona , dead or alive, house of the dead, jet set radio, virtua fighter 3,soul calibur, power stone , metropolis street racing, rez, sega rally all kept me busy, but then a yr later the ps2 released and played ssx and then that was that and sold the dreamcast and all games i had to buy a ps2 and ssx, i use to love getting a new console that massive jump in graphics etc, now bought a ps5 on release and it was meh, controller seems good
Last edited:
Kazza
Member
Well, since we're digging up old Dreamcast threads, I may as well provide a link to this one asking which console had the best ever launch line-up. Spoiler - the Dreamcast won the poll in a landslide!
Did the US Dreamcast 9.9.99 launch have the best launch lineup ever? | NeoGAF
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
The thing is you dont know that was bandwidth. They botched the cutscenes too on xbox, was that a bandwidth issue too? PC version was also bad at the time. Also bandwidth issue? Theres a pattern there. And it wasn't double the fps either. Its 60fps with more drops on xbox, especially the tanker level. But it should have been because the xbox version is much higher resolution than ps2, despite it not being the lead platform too. Likely a quick , bad port, unlike ps2 games that got the benefit of lead platform almost always.
Last edited:
Laughing Buddha
Member
I had so much with the Dreamcast! Soul Calibur alone was worth the price for me. Add NFL 2K & Crazy Taxi.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
PS2's bandwidth was faster than consumer PC's at the time as well.
dcx4610
Member
It was powerful.
As a kid that had to deal with NES and SNES ports of arcade games, that was a big deal. Despite having games like Street Fighter 2 on the SNES/Genesis, it didn't stop me from wanting to play the arcade versions since they were so much better. With the Dreamcast launching with Soulcalibur, it was literally the same if not better version of the arcade game. No more compromises. You got the true arcade experience at home.
I was a full on PC gamer at the time so I didn't really care about the Dreamcast at the time but I was still impressed that we finally achieved arcade perfect ports.
As a kid that had to deal with NES and SNES ports of arcade games, that was a big deal. Despite having games like Street Fighter 2 on the SNES/Genesis, it didn't stop me from wanting to play the arcade versions since they were so much better. With the Dreamcast launching with Soulcalibur, it was literally the same if not better version of the arcade game. No more compromises. You got the true arcade experience at home.
I was a full on PC gamer at the time so I didn't really care about the Dreamcast at the time but I was still impressed that we finally achieved arcade perfect ports.
Romulus
Member
And there's zero evidence that "bandwidth" had anything to do with either port's issues. Leaving out effects, bizarre artifacts that were just left in the game simply shows they pushed out the port. And it makes sense, 2 new ports and tons more content. Rush job. If bandwidth was really an issue, why did Xbox games run at higher resolutions almost always and with higher framerates? The CPU and GPU shared the bandwidth, so neither should have ever happened if that was true. It happened all the time. It's so bandwidth starved it can brute force 720p resolution with a patch for almost 100 games, no developer optimization or upgrades. Resolution is tied to the GPU,, again which shares bandwidth. And many with more advanced games than MGS2'ss super linear, low poly environments.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
marquimvfs
Member
To my knolwdge, the problem with the Xbox port (and the part where the ps2 is REALLY BETTER than everything else) was the particles.
polybius80
Member
PS2 was designed to use lot of BW, it uses redrawing for its effects, the OG Xbox was slower but it wasnt a problem because it didnt required as much BW to make its effects because it has shaders it can do complex operations instead of multiple simple operations, Xbox is more powerful overall also is more expensive but that doesnt mean its more powerful everywhere or that a port will simply "run better", despite having more power its not straightforward usable, some games have more emphasis on certain graphical effects and some require lot of BW like particle effects, particles can seriously harm the performance in Xbox and its one of the areas where PS2 particulary shines, also Xbox operated more like a PC so its difficult to know how expensive drawcalls were in the system, lot of developers specially those that commonly develop for consoles probably had problems with xbox trying to use it like a Ps2(there are developers that had problems in ports trying to use xbox as a ps2 ) but also the opposite is true(and usually PS2 was blamed when the port wasnt as good...), I think its wrong to jump to the conclusion that they were "lazy", xbox was presented as a very powerful and easy to use system so you cant blame devs for believing the marketing, assigning a time frame based on that for the project and then get bad results for over estimating the console and having no time to fix them(I am not saying that was necesarily the case with MGS2), later in the generation most devs had its own port teams for xbox to work at the same time as the other systems then it started to shine or at the very least have the same game plus some extra effects or resolution
modiz
Member
It was a crazy time because tech was accelerating at a very fast pace. Not only on consoles but on PC, too. Short release cycles and within a year you had a crazy performance jump. A whole year meant a lot back then.
I think the Dreamcast was very powerful when it released and the thing that it established for me who was used to PS1 and Saturn graphics was how clean everything looked. Image quality was great with DC games, proper texture filtering, even anti-aliasing was one of its features.
I think the Dreamcast was very powerful when it released and the thing that it established for me who was used to PS1 and Saturn graphics was how clean everything looked. Image quality was great with DC games, proper texture filtering, even anti-aliasing was one of its features.
Trimesh
Banned
Because it was a game designed with the PS2 in mind. The thing to remember is that that although the connection between the eDRAM and the GS was very wide and had massive bandwidth (48GB/s, IIRC) the eDRAM was also relatively small (4MB) - so if you were going to be rendering complex scenes with lots of textures you would have to pull stuff from the main RDRAM - which was slower (3.2GB/s, I think), narrower and a lot more contended since it had to handle instruction fetches, sound data, VU DMA, etc. Given that, using particles made a lot of sense because it gave you interesting stuff on screen without incurring excessive load of the (comparatively) slow RDRAM interconnect.
polybius80
Member
that is why you use a texture cache in eDRAM, the idea is to change this cache many times during frame time, also there was a sound memory and a cache for VUs
Romulus
Member
It's not at all. It was a terrible port and still ran at a higher resolution.
Romulus
Member
It just looks like such a simple game by comparison to other Xbox and GC titles. It's showing almost nothing onscreen and what's there is very low polygon.
Trimesh
Banned
But in practice you can't just change the textures in the eDRAM any time you want to because there lots of other stuff going on and hitting the RDRAM (which has a pretty heavy penalty for page changes) - they made the eDRAM fast enough so that you could be pretty sure it wasn't going to be a bottleneck - but since the overall performance of the system is finite all that means is that something else will be the bottleneck - and it's generally the RDRAM. So you end up with a choice between just leaving that performance on the table because you are running out of external bandwidth or finding other things to do with it that impose relatively lower load on the external memory - like particles.
SkylineRKR
Member
I think it was powerful for late 1998, though it couldn't exactly run all games from that era well. Half Life wasn't finished, but was much worse on DC. Unreal and Quake were also worse on DC than on my relatively cheap Pentium 2 350mhz with a Voodoo 2 and later 3. I also played games like Soldier of Fortune on it, Shogo, HL.. they crushed the DC versions in terms of framerate, image clarity, load times.
DC was more powerful than N64 and PSX, but its difference with the PS2 let alone GC and Xbox was immense actually. They kind of released it at an unfortunate time, it was the wild west of 3D accel. Sega themselves felt this with their 3DFX deal, and then PowerVR. In 1999-2000 I upgraded my PC like 3 times, and it wasn't even expensive to do so. I know about the dirty DC ports looking worse on PS2, truth is not many PS2 owners cared about Ecco, Headhunter and all that. Fact is, PS2 actually ran Naomi. And VF4 Evo, which is a Naomi 2 title, looked good on PS2. Question yourself if the DC would've been able to run MGS2, FFX, Silent Hill 2, Zone of the Enders etc. Or for kicks a Namco System 2xx game like Tekken 4 or 5. The answer would be no.
DC was more powerful than N64 and PSX, but its difference with the PS2 let alone GC and Xbox was immense actually. They kind of released it at an unfortunate time, it was the wild west of 3D accel. Sega themselves felt this with their 3DFX deal, and then PowerVR. In 1999-2000 I upgraded my PC like 3 times, and it wasn't even expensive to do so. I know about the dirty DC ports looking worse on PS2, truth is not many PS2 owners cared about Ecco, Headhunter and all that. Fact is, PS2 actually ran Naomi. And VF4 Evo, which is a Naomi 2 title, looked good on PS2. Question yourself if the DC would've been able to run MGS2, FFX, Silent Hill 2, Zone of the Enders etc. Or for kicks a Namco System 2xx game like Tekken 4 or 5. The answer would be no.
Last edited:
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
First the Voodoo 3 guy, now the Voodoo 2 guy, lol. No way you got great Quake III performance on that thing man. Maybe if you had two of them in SLI or turned settings down to ass (ie vertex lightmaps).
Yes it's tested with a Celeron 333 Mendocino overclocked to 375MHz (75 MHz FSB) but the tester also noted in the comments that a Pentium II 333 actually performed marginally worse despite higher cache. The same goes for Unreal Tournament (yes the non SLI appears to give 46 fps, but that suggests a very unstable 20-60 or worse as above, although it also depends on the maps, the bigger ones had real playability problems on DC). They didn't even test Quake III here and went with Quake II (an old game next gen consoles like DC didn't even care for).
If DC isn't powerful for not beating the top of the line of the following year (Voodoo 3 + great CPU) then no console was (for their own following year specs), all ports were cut down, from its Quake III, to Xbox's Doom 3 & HL2. You used Quake III and UT to show DC wasn't powerful yet nobody at the time thought traditional PC developers and engines were the best of consoles and UT was pretty bad on PS2, but you skipped that part even though it's the only game you mention that was on both. Yes it was somewhat better than DC (though the worst performing map on DC wasn't present even though they fit more on its DVD), but the DC port was outsourced. Only with the advent of the Xbox 4 years later did we get decent PC engine ports/multiplats (although lower profile games like MDK 2, Bang! Gunship Elite and Starlancer performed perfectly fine on the Dreamcast, but nope, you choose some unreleased unfinished ports to trash instead, I suppose the Dreamcast should be grateful you didn't dig up the recent System Shock 2 alpha which has like one basic unlit corridor running at 2fps, lol).
As for VF4 on PS2, DOA2L DC has significantly higher polycounts and better IQ. Yes it was a Naomi 2 game but it was literally cut to half in every way to fit, from 14000 polys per character down to 7000 and some of the worst aliasing on the system. You probably know already given it's been said a millon times but still claim bullshit. It also wasn't just SEGA ports to PS2 that looked worse than DC as you implied (as if SEGA would sabotage their own third party efforts). Early comparisons were obviously done before SEGA went third party and pretty much all early releases were that way with awful image quality on the PS2. Like Grandia II, a game I was hyped for myself after loving the original but almost didn't buy because I saw the PS2 version first and didn't imagine the DC version would be that much better given all the marketing hype surrounding Sony's system.
As the Voodoo 3 guy complained about the CPU here's an even better PC. Grand Prix 3 beats the best of DC in ways (I would say it took 2002's Grand Prix 4, whenever that could perform well with high settings, to beat DC games in every way - the crowd seats etc. are pretty bad in 3 but improved in 4 for example) with effects like puddle reflections, too bad it's a slideshow even with reduced settings when the best on DC are 60 fps and still look slick, with the same res. Quake III commonly drops to ~20fps with reduced settings.
Who would play Ferrari 355 Challenge in 480p 60fps instead of that, huh?! And ya, as said earlier the Voodoo 3 launched cheap, like up to $50 less than a Dreamcast if you were lucky, or roughly the same as! Huh, you need a CPU too?! Here's Intel's Pentium III launch announcement!
Yes it's tested with a Celeron 333 Mendocino overclocked to 375MHz (75 MHz FSB) but the tester also noted in the comments that a Pentium II 333 actually performed marginally worse despite higher cache. The same goes for Unreal Tournament (yes the non SLI appears to give 46 fps, but that suggests a very unstable 20-60 or worse as above, although it also depends on the maps, the bigger ones had real playability problems on DC). They didn't even test Quake III here and went with Quake II (an old game next gen consoles like DC didn't even care for).
If DC isn't powerful for not beating the top of the line of the following year (Voodoo 3 + great CPU) then no console was (for their own following year specs), all ports were cut down, from its Quake III, to Xbox's Doom 3 & HL2. You used Quake III and UT to show DC wasn't powerful yet nobody at the time thought traditional PC developers and engines were the best of consoles and UT was pretty bad on PS2, but you skipped that part even though it's the only game you mention that was on both. Yes it was somewhat better than DC (though the worst performing map on DC wasn't present even though they fit more on its DVD), but the DC port was outsourced. Only with the advent of the Xbox 4 years later did we get decent PC engine ports/multiplats (although lower profile games like MDK 2, Bang! Gunship Elite and Starlancer performed perfectly fine on the Dreamcast, but nope, you choose some unreleased unfinished ports to trash instead, I suppose the Dreamcast should be grateful you didn't dig up the recent System Shock 2 alpha which has like one basic unlit corridor running at 2fps, lol).
As for VF4 on PS2, DOA2L DC has significantly higher polycounts and better IQ. Yes it was a Naomi 2 game but it was literally cut to half in every way to fit, from 14000 polys per character down to 7000 and some of the worst aliasing on the system. You probably know already given it's been said a millon times but still claim bullshit. It also wasn't just SEGA ports to PS2 that looked worse than DC as you implied (as if SEGA would sabotage their own third party efforts). Early comparisons were obviously done before SEGA went third party and pretty much all early releases were that way with awful image quality on the PS2. Like Grandia II, a game I was hyped for myself after loving the original but almost didn't buy because I saw the PS2 version first and didn't imagine the DC version would be that much better given all the marketing hype surrounding Sony's system.
As the Voodoo 3 guy complained about the CPU here's an even better PC. Grand Prix 3 beats the best of DC in ways (I would say it took 2002's Grand Prix 4, whenever that could perform well with high settings, to beat DC games in every way - the crowd seats etc. are pretty bad in 3 but improved in 4 for example) with effects like puddle reflections, too bad it's a slideshow even with reduced settings when the best on DC are 60 fps and still look slick, with the same res. Quake III commonly drops to ~20fps with reduced settings.
Who would play Ferrari 355 Challenge in 480p 60fps instead of that, huh?! And ya, as said earlier the Voodoo 3 launched cheap, like up to $50 less than a Dreamcast if you were lucky, or roughly the same as! Huh, you need a CPU too?! Here's Intel's Pentium III launch announcement!
The 450MHz variant is in the last video, it only cost $496, in bulk! A nice cheap ~$715 CPU adjusted for inflation! Stupid DC, why couldn't you smoke a ~$1000 PC (before adjustment, not counting monitor etc.) for your ridiculously expensive $199?! Here are two GPUs you should compare PS2 to if you're gonna compare a Voodoo 3 to Dreamcast (not the GeForce 4, that's an even later but lower end release). I'd say DC compares more favorably to Voodoo 3 than PS2 does to these that also released the following year from its launch.
The same goes for the previous line of cards actually with almost the same results:
The same goes for the previous line of cards actually with almost the same results:
Last edited:
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
I remember it looking waaaaaay more clear and polished than the ps2 jagged mess.
Last edited:
lachesis
Member
If PS2, GC and Xbox were launched almost exact time frame, I would call it underpowered... but DC launched full 1 year and 4 months ahead of PS2 in Japan.
That's quite some gap, considering how fast the tech was moving back then.
Unfortunately we'd never know what DC could have offered, if it were to enjoy in its later life cycle. Closest we can imagine may be Shenmue 1&2.
Many of the generation's true technical gems are often concentrated on latter half of the system's lifespan.
If I measure PS1 to PS2's leap as 1 - I would call DC's leap as 0.8 at least. Closer to full 1 step, but not quite in retrospect... but I do believe it lived on longer and had more support, it would have reached to 0.9 or more.
That's quite some gap, considering how fast the tech was moving back then.
Unfortunately we'd never know what DC could have offered, if it were to enjoy in its later life cycle. Closest we can imagine may be Shenmue 1&2.
Many of the generation's true technical gems are often concentrated on latter half of the system's lifespan.
If I measure PS1 to PS2's leap as 1 - I would call DC's leap as 0.8 at least. Closer to full 1 step, but not quite in retrospect... but I do believe it lived on longer and had more support, it would have reached to 0.9 or more.
polybius80
Member
sure you have to adjust the order in wich things happen to use it more effectively but that is true for virtually any console, we arent talking about new consoles here, the generation already happened, the PS2 changed its texture cache per frame many times(it can as much as 16 times per frame), how else you think its games particularly texture heavy were textured if not? textures in particular dont require much speed as they are static data anyway, I forgot how many times it could change the texture cache per frame but it was a lot and it wasnt the only console to work this way, GC also had a texture cache(1 MB) and also had to update it many times per frame and its memory was slower and smaller yet it worked that way with no problem, those consoles were designed that way, also consider that PS2 memory works at 3.2 GB/s but dreamcast's memory worked at 800 MB/s and DC didnt had problems managing game process, so filling a usually 2 MB texture cache many times during 16-33 ms doesnt seem as asking too much
also PS2 particles werent fast because there was "wasted time", they were fast because eDRAM memory can read and write the same space very fast and that impacts alpha effects in general not just particles
Last edited:
JackMcGunns
Member
Quite hysterical watching people coming in to point out how the PS2 is more powerful, when it launched a full year later, but then forget that Xbox shitted all over it a year later, therefore the PS2 wasn't really a powerhouse, it just benefited that Xbox and GameCube weren't around to shame it. lol
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Hidden & Dangerous is hardly the best looking DC game but considering the massive maps spanning indoors and outdoors areas and overall continuous mission complexity with stealth, disguises, RTS-esque tactical mode, all sorts of things complete with the potential for vehicle use and such I think it shows it could have had some prettier smaller scale FPS too, if anyone bothered to develop any. It's almost like a more realistic and tactical and squad based sequel to DICE's Codename Eagle though they released almost simultaneously. Pretty ambitious if flawed. Better on PC obviously.
Last edited:
SkylineRKR
Member
Yep. Worst controller ever. The d-pad, face buttons, stick, triggers. There were like 6 buttons as opposed to DS1 and Saturn 8 buttons. Cord placement was curious. Awful piece of shit. VMU was great though, I give it that. But drained far too quickly. It seems you had to manually shut it off every time. Though not sure if it helped. I don't get it, because the Nights pad was good. I understand 6 face buttons is perhaps too difficult for some, but then they could at least mimic the quality of its buttons and overall feel of the controller.
Literally nobody has ever suggested this.
muteZX
Banned
"SOE on the Xbox actually ran slower than on the PS2. While the PS2 maintained 30 frames-per-second (fps) in nearly every scene, and about 50% of the time could theoretically render at 60fps, on the Xbox SOE maintained 30fps less than half the time, and often dropped down to 15fps, or even 10fps on many occasions."
In the end, the Xbox managed the conversion, but at the cost of considerable simplification of many things / independent animation of all NPCs, etc. /.
It's not hard to find a graphics situation on the PS2 that the Xbox won't be able to keep up with.
muteZX
Banned
I played H@D on and old Voodoo 1 and it just was running so-so. I don't want to compare apples and pears but it's interesting to watch the terrain engine in H @ D /super low poly count and short draw distance/ and a random exterior in this regular PS2 game. The difference is completely dramatic, at least 10 times the difference.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll