loktaiextatus
Member
By that logic the Wii U was some kind of monster for its time because it released between generations. Just playing devil's advocate.
-
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
By that logic the Wii U was some kind of monster for its time because it released between generations. Just playing devil's advocate.
loktaiextatus
Member
You could just... play it. Its out now! Quick!
Muddy
Member
Are you serious?
No single exclusive Dreamcast game gets anywhere close to PS2s Top ten.
Its the same for graphics.
Last edited:
loktaiextatus
Member
Well, N64 had some development woes and released late for its generation, but it had the cartridge which hurt it in some ways. Dreamcast was
a much better designed machine than the N64... more well rounded. It could have been better but what a lot of people arent thinking about here TODAY
because it doesnt seem like it matters now - Is the price. Sega getting it out the door so cheaply was amazing for them. Its only bad circumstance and
Sega's own mistakes that confused consumers in the preceding generation that tripped them up. Even if they were a power underdog compared to the
PS2 that came out half a year later... they still had a NICE lead.
BusierDonkey
Member
That's your opinion though, and he has his. The Dreamcast library was very arcade-centric and featured very different than the PS2 library. I could easily see people preferring the Dreamcast if they grew up in/around arcades like I did. If not for Gran Turismo 3 and GTA, I might not have ever bought a PS2.
Synless
Member
No, Wii U came out with inferior ports and visuals that were on damn near the same as ps360. Dreamcast came out and wiped the floor with PS1 and N64.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Wii U was, at best, as capable as the 360 and PS3 that came out years prior. You can look at probably dozens of games to see what the Dreamcast could do over the PS1 and N64.
I love Mars Matrix as much as the next guy, but by 2003 most of the DC's best games were on different platforms.
Last edited:
loktaiextatus
Member
The Wii U is much better equipped than those.. .the reason most games did not show it was the fact that nobody was spending much time making games for it. For one thing it had a ton more memory than those machines. But I said "by that logic" because it was the most powerful console on the market for a while.
Last edited:
loktaiextatus
Member
RetroAV
Member
I see what you're saying now, but the upgrade is what it is. It's not the Dreamcast's fault that Namco chose System 12.
It doesn't change the fact that it was the biggest upgrade ever from arcade to home (if anything, it might explain the "why"), but I don't think it takes away from Dreamcast Soul Calibur as it still went on to hold its own against other fighters of that generation and even fighters of today!
RetroAV
Member
The Dreamcast actually proved that when it came out, the Wii U never did.
loktaiextatus
Member
It doesn't change the fact that it was the biggest upgrade ever from arcade to home (if anything, it might explain the "why"), but I don't think it takes away from Dreamcast Soul Calibur as it still went on to hold its own against other fighters of that generation and even fighters of today!
[/QUOTE]
It was not the biggest upgrade from Arcade to home, but it was a short time til upgrade and the upgrade was very good for the game.
I could point out things like the various re-iterations of Space Harrier or Outrun or Pacman or others - But I understand those arent a good
comparison because those ports were not made just 3 years after the game released or made to a console released 5.5 years after the base
system the game was designed for. So yes I know its a jump and Im not saying there is some kind of fault somewhere to point out - that
was not really my contention. My point was that its basically a PS1 game (and not an end of life ps1 game mind you, a mid-gen PS1 game)
ported to a system that is considerably more powerful, and in my estimation is closer to a console to console port than to say that the
arcade had been overtaken by home consoles drastically in that moment. Seeing how the Dreamcast handled Model 3 ports shows that
the power leap was not so intense that it could do so by brute force.
[/QUOTE]
It was not the biggest upgrade from Arcade to home, but it was a short time til upgrade and the upgrade was very good for the game.
I could point out things like the various re-iterations of Space Harrier or Outrun or Pacman or others - But I understand those arent a good
comparison because those ports were not made just 3 years after the game released or made to a console released 5.5 years after the base
system the game was designed for. So yes I know its a jump and Im not saying there is some kind of fault somewhere to point out - that
was not really my contention. My point was that its basically a PS1 game (and not an end of life ps1 game mind you, a mid-gen PS1 game)
ported to a system that is considerably more powerful, and in my estimation is closer to a console to console port than to say that the
arcade had been overtaken by home consoles drastically in that moment. Seeing how the Dreamcast handled Model 3 ports shows that
the power leap was not so intense that it could do so by brute force.
Last edited:
loktaiextatus
Member
Even just the raw specs. There were not a TON of games released to all 3 but the Wii U handled them just fine.
There is no denying the Wii U had 2gb of memory, DirectX 10.1 GPU and some other enhancements.
I am not comparing the power gap- again. I am comparing the FACT that being uncontested as the most powerful
be it by a penny or a pound- doesnt say much when the competition was released YEARS earlier.
I am only playing devils advocate, I love the Dreamcast but its power gap over the PSX and N64 isnt its best feature today.
loktaiextatus
Member
Remember the gamecube also released 100 bucks less and yeah its not a TON more powerful but the gamecube has cleaner video output and
in games like Resident Evil 4, you could see where they had to cut corners like pre-rendering the cutscenes on the PS2 version (on the gamecube version you would see your character as he was at that moment, the PS2 always showed generic because it was pre-made)
diffusionx
Gold Member
The Wii U also had an awful slow CPU that bogged it down. Look, if the system was that much more capable than the other ones, it should've been able to do do AC3 better than the 360, or whatever other port it got. But it couldn't.
Meanwhile the Dreamcast took PS1 games and ran them at 640x480 and higher settings without any problems at all.
loktaiextatus
Member
But again, the point I made was never about the power difference, the point was it was on paper more powerful... bottlenecked or not - imagine the Xbox one launched in September 2012
and was uncontested until March 2013- its early release its its bragging point , not that it was the most powerful console really... Same with the Dreamcast. All its peers had a power
advantage over it and many features it didnt have but - it was available 7 months earlier. Its only SAD if you sing the praises of the most powerful console on the market for 7 months.
My reply was a response to :
"Yes, it was the most powerful console on the market for a good year and a half by a huge margin, so yes, it was powerful at launch.
It had the PS1 and N64 in their later years as competition. "
I didnt even correct the "year and a half" when it was actually one third of that.
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
I think the point is - the Wii U was closer to the 360/PS3, but the DC was closer to the PS2/Xbox/Cube. I don't think this is in dispute.
If the Wii U launched in 2012 with specs that let it run games like AC3 or Call of Duty at 1080p, that would have been a much bigger deal... but that's basically what the Dreamcast did.
loktaiextatus
Member
But it was still running last gen's games. Thats the thing. Running them well - as you'd expect since it came out 5 years after the PSX- but running them none the less.
The Dreamcast has at least as many multiplats with the PSX as it does with the newer consoles- Dreamcast would not for instance have been able to run a game like
wreckless or almost ANY xbox games.. . Most PS2 games after the launch era would probably even with the storage size ignored, take massive downgrades to get running.
But again that wasnt my point. I was responding to This comment which basically said it was the most powerful console (the timeframe is wrong but I didnt care to correct it ) :
"Yes, it was the most powerful console on the market for a good year and a half by a huge margin, so yes, it was powerful at launch.
It had the PS1 and N64 in their later years as competition. "
And Im just saying it was part of the NEXT gen- so yes its more powerful, but it was still the weakest console in its generation.
Last edited:
RetroAV
Member
Except that the PS1/Saturn/N64 were NOT the "competition" for the Dreamcast, the PS2/Gamcube/Xbox were. And the fact that the Dreamcast was that good, that early DOES say a lot.
Muddy
Member
Well those people who prefered the Dreamcast over the PS2 are in a minority.
Last edited:
FF:Enhanced_Reality
Member
You want to see a huge upgrade? Both myself and a friend had Soul Reaver Legacy of Kain but I had the PS1 port and he had the Dreamcast version. Watching the two was just unreal. It made me want PlayStation 2 to be here now because it was night and day. I also saw this with Shadow Man and a couple more.
loktaiextatus
Member
7 months early.... and much weaker than the next system to come out, lacking most of the features that defined the next generation. We could cite the VMU as a unique feature but
we could break down the benefits of each
Dreamcast - VMU, Modem -up-gradable to Ethernet, Power... 4th out of 4.
PS2 - DVD, Dvd Movies, USB, Hard drive bay , up-gradable to Ethernet, Power- 2nd/3rd place of 4. standard rumble
Gamecube - Power - 2nd/3rd out of 4. standard rumble - upgradable to modem
Xbox - DVD, DVD movies (with upgraded IR receiver installed) standard hard disk - Standard Ethernet port- 1st place in power. Quick disconnect controllers, standard rumble
There isnt really anywhere the Dreamcast wins except in our hearts.
Of course in my opinion it had a great video setup for getting clear video, the VGA output is nice and I would add it there but it required a separate item and most
didnt have a good VGA screen laying around at that time- average VGA monitor then was 19 inches and/or Old.
I am not picking on or bashing the Dreamcast AT ALL Im just saying it was SO GOOD because it was early- not because it was a good console for its generation. Even if I do think it is.
thats emotion speaking not specs or raw facts.
EDIT: Damn, I forgot to mention on PS2- works with all PS1 games, controllers, memory cards and cables.
Last edited:
Kerotan Frog
Member
It was ahead of its time and the console itself was pure bliss. It felt like a huge step up from PSX and N64. The first time I played Sonic Adventure, I knew I had to have one. Its sad that it fell on the sword for PS2 (best console of all time), but it will always have a place in my heart.
loktaiextatus
Member
If it "fell on its sword" meaning on purpose, I think it fell on its sword for XBOX- Given that it dumped a ton of Segas IPs and even local ports of certain dreamcast games onto the XBOX (you cant get shenmue II U.S. on Dreamcast, it was xbox exclusive in the US.) Jet grind radio future, tons of other sega games, all got pushed onto the XBOX.
Last edited:
RetroAV
Member
The Dreamcast was one of the biggest graphical jumps between generations that has ever occurred! I don't think most here were blown away with the PS2 when it first came out. Isn't fair to say the Dreamcast had something to do with that?
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
I mean, I was blown away by NFL 2k and Power Stone when I unwrapped they baby on Christmas and first hooked it up to our CRT.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
Dreamcast launch Japan November 27, 1998
PS2 launch Japan March 4, 2000
I count 16 months, just saying. That's a long time in tech, it's hard to maintain an advantage over that span, let alone longer. Dreamcast was a beast at launch, their mistake was not launching globally in 1998.
Last edited:
Kerotan Frog
Member
That's true, because Microsoft worked deals with Sega after the fact. But I think Sega fell on its sword and admitted defeat because the PS2 straight up murdered it as the premier Japanese game console. Though I love the PS2, it is largely responsible for the Dreamcast's early death.
SportsFan581
Member
The biggest issue was piracy (that oopsy of letting the console play CD-Rs) and the way that killed software revenue. Sega just didn't have the money to continue manufacturing consoles, you have to make a product in order to sell it. They really mucked up with all the R&D dollars spent on the various Saturn prototypes and 32X and then developing two DC systems. They were the epitome of bad organization and financial mismanagement. To think the Saturn could have been the N64 with a CD drive, that would have been a winner, but it wasn't good enough at 2d and sound. LOL
It absolutely was the most powerful console when it came out, but it was closer to PS3/360 than Dreamcast was to N64/PS1.
marquimvfs
Member
I dunno. Judging by what I saw, the Dreamcast was a very powerful system. It was just the games that wasn't showing that most of the times. The system was being held back by the games. No matter what you say, the Dreamcast power wasn't very impressive when all you could play was N64 an Psone ports. Yes, Rayman, Shadow Man and Tony Hawk's were running at a better quality, but, in the end of the day, all everyone could see was a Psone with graphics slightly better than a N64, it wasn't enough incentive to buy the system. By the time people could see Shenmue, Crazy Taxy and Ferrari running, they all preferred to wait/buy the PS2.
Dirk Benedict
Member
Code Veronica, Powerstone, Evolution were 3 games that got me into the DC. Also, Jet Set Radio!
RetroAV
Member
Well, yeah if you're only talking about multiplatform games. Most third parties weren't going to go out of their way and pull a Soul Calibur like Namco did. It doesn't make Sonic Adventure, Virtua Fighter 3, NFL/NBA 2K, Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Dead or Alive 2 etc. any less impressive for that time.
Shadowstar39
Member
Of course a pc graphics card that cost more than the console would beat it on visuals. Just like a GeForce with a pentium 3 or Athlon 1ghz would beat a OG Xbox (although that was a close one as the Xbox OG had a modified GeForce and pentium so it was basically a pc). A 8800gts smokes ps3/360.
I remeber when dream cast came out. I knew a few people thsy got one and was enamored by the controller and accessories as well as sonic adventure. The games were unique and were beautiful, but back then pc and console weren't usually putting out the same games. Baldur's gate 2 wasn't coming out on console and soul calibur and sonic wasn't on pc. If a game did come to console from pc it was dumbed down in both graphics, and features.
Romulus
Member
The snes to N64 was way bigger literally 2d to 3d , even though the 3d was ugly. And I kinda fell like the dreamcast should have been one of the biggest upgrades considering we were moving out of "ugly" 3d. There was just so much room for improvement and Dreamcast came at the right time.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Dunno, maybe its the nostalgia talking but i never found the early 3D titles such as Mario 64 and Waverace ugly. Or Wipeout on the Playstation which was the first 5th gen i played up close. This jump will always be the biggest IMO.
kunonabi
Member
Playstation couldn't even run kof 97 properly.
JordanN
Banned
The SEGA Saturn actually came close because it had more memory.
But the PS1 ports were downgraded badly.
Pansy
Member
The Dreamcast, imho, is still SEGA's best, and possibly one of the greatest consoles released. The graphics were incredible, the library of games was nearly unmatched, and all the wonderful franchises it introduced me to just completely made up my childhood. I still reminisce over shooting up zombies in The House of the Dead 2 with my dad. Was my first ever violent game.
Last edited:
Ceallach
Smells like fresh rosebuds
This is factually incorrect. PSX STRUGGLED with Neo Geo games, they were greatly compromised and the Saturn required external RAM carts to run them close to well.
But yeah, I feel like the only people who would ask this question are babies. The Dreamcast in 1998 was fucking mind-blowing. Virtua Fighter 3 when it released in 96 was unreal in arcades and in 98 still looked amazing.
Oh and it also got an almost perfect version of King of Fighters 98.
Physiognomonics
Member
Exactly. When I showed Soul Calibur to PS1 gamers, they simply couldn't believe what they were looking at. It was better looking than the rendered CGIs they had on PS1, and it was running all in real-time at 60fps.
Last edited:
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
It was plenty powerful and the PS2 even though it came like 15 months later (JP launch) didn't really succeed in its emotion engine bs talk until waaaay later. Not that Dreamcast could have kept up with all the games in any scope but it could have held its own with exclusives suited to it to take advantage of its strengths.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll