Your random arguments about imaginary games of 20x complexity have nothing to do with me. The what made money discussion, if that's what you wanna talk about, was over long ago and it wasn't the Dreamcast, lol. Idk what you're talking about, certainly nothing related to anything I've said
Again taking GTA dev's word (btw he's the only programmer - technical director in fact - in that discussion, indirect or not, as King is clearly a big business guy and of course business would have decided at the time if they would continue on DC or not and the answer was obvious) over this new rant.
CT(2) seems to have a solid engine allowing for a large, detailed, streaming cityscape with high quality, varied textures, a large draw distance and many interactive objects with physics (whether arcadey or not the physics are in, if anything for a more realistic setting they'd need some toning down) whether that's the traffic or most decoration objects in the game and while the game is basic in some ways (there's no complex AI from what we can see as it doesn't even have enemy drivers a la Driver, though the traffic AI is one of the things they had to reduce for PSP multiplayer so maybe it's bloated and ripe for optimizations too) there is a LOT of room and things to reduce/remove to then add such elements for the DC CPU & GPU to process. To put it simply. If you don't see how all this can relate to a GTA-like open world game then you're not
the authority you and PaintTinJr think.
Of course nobody's saying you can just import GTA's map and gameplay in Crazy Taxi's engine and play, it's just an indication you could have a "GTAIII-like" work on Dreamcast as I said before, not even necessarily in this engine (though that is very much plausible too, again they have many needed game elements already done for it and other games in the past did change and add gameplay in such ways, for example Driver 2 added the on foot/car switching sections over Driver for the original PlayStation and that was with many general/visual improvements rather than more concessions on top as optimization and ever improving know how simply go a long way), rather than a sandbox open world action game that looks and runs good for the era being impossible on Dreamcast (as other posters previously proclaimed you can't even stream game data on Dreamcast to make a large city possible and only the PS2's DVD drive enabled that, when even the first Crazy Taxi employs such methods as we literally just saw what happens when the streaming is affected for any reason with that hardware mod video) because it didn't happen but some shitty games did happen, lol.
Feel free to disagree I guess but I don't see any real argument against any of this, just some weird fixation on semantics and mistranslating my arguments to things I didn't really say (I know CT isn't GTA and didn't say otherwise). Hell, you're the one who said a GTAIII port is very possible on the Dreamcast as on PSP, I wasn't talking ports of any finished game, just a theoretical GTAIII that also had Dreamcast's hardware in mind during development or a different game altogether from Sega or another developer that could take advantage of the system to provide solid open world action.
In the end
you agree I and Obbe are right but find fault in using existing titles to reach this conclusion & ignore Obbe was the GTAIII technical director because you reach the same conclusion not by observing what's been achieved but because, Idk, you read a manual/messed around with an SDK?
As for implying with
no evidence the Crazy Taxi port (a port obviously costs less than a ground up game as you say yourself, duh) was some botch job and it could have fared much better, weirdly the Power Stone ports from DC to PSP from a different developer from a different porter did similar
The difference to Crusher's arguments regarding PS1 ports on the Dreamcast is that we have in fact seen Dreamcast do better than the worst examples he emphasises both in some of the better ports and with new games, so there we do have the ability to speak based on evidence. Where are yours?
Fafalada said:
We're comparing ports that were made in as little as 3-6 months in some cases to a fully budgeted release on the other side. If you think that 'doesn't' impact the results...
There's a pretty big gulf between more money/time = better results vs a "botched" port and any port obviously wouldn't ever need as much money/time as a new GTA game, even with many preexisting assets, so, maybe at some point you can stop being so damn disingenuous and only go after the people speaking positively of DC if you eventually end up
conceding yes GTA DC is possible and
yes it's right to shoot down Crusher's weird af arguments as I did even less here (again I wasn't speaking of a GTAIII as is port yet you pretend I said CT is just like GTAIII) yet you attacked me over it, lol?