-
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
Xaeroxcore666
Member
You clearly have no idea of what youre talking about.
Esppiral
Member
This is sarcasm right?
JohnSpartanLee
Member
He confused it with the Saturn.
GMAK2442
Member
Esppiral
Member
Esppiral
Member
Most probably, or I'll like to think so.
RetroGamingUK
Member
Sega Rally 2 was such a disappointing port but, conversely, probably the best looking racer money could buy on release.
F355 is probably the best looking racer on the system. It’s a shame it lacked a third person view and a replay mode though.
Last edited:
Saturn Dragon
Member
Dreamcast was released in Nov-Dec 1998 in Japan. Basically an arcade naomi board with less ram and tweaked features, but it was 99% the same.
Naomi was released to replace the super expensive alien hardware technology that was the omnipotent MODEL 3 (96 to 98 revisions).
It was probably not viable to adapt Sega Model 3 similar hardware to a home console, it was still expensive and almost alien tech for the time, a Model 3 (last revision) console would have been around double or triple the price of the Dreamcast. Though it would have been fun to see a Sega console released on date 9/9/99 for 999usd.
NAOMI/Dreamcast, while powerful and similar performance as MODEL 3, still lacked some features, being a simpler hardware. CPU+GPU and that's it. On the other hand, engineers are still debating how Model 3 was created, it's like the pyramids, nobody knows how such ancient monuments were envisioned. (Just kidding)
Still, Dreamcast without that much brute force filling rate and dedicated graphic chips as MODEL 3, it was was powerful enough, and a lot more accessible for developers.
Problem is, it only lasted 2 years. Perhaps less, because by early-mid 2000 with the release of the Ps2, most developers started to question if it was financially sound to make efforts with the Dreamcast, a console that was struggling in most markets against Ps1! So having the Ps2 just around the corner which was probably the MOST HYPED CONSOLE EVER... what could they do?
I guess Dreamcast was destined to die soon. And we will never know how far could developers push it's hardware.
Ps2? Yeah it was a powerhouse. A polygon, particle effects brute force machine. Some games look awesome. Yes. I knew it from day one after seeing the jagged Ridge Racer V fest, but hey it has awesome 60fps performance, amazing draw distance and all kinds of cool little effects and lighting not seen on Dreamcast.
But Dreamcast wasn't that far behind. Remember that we are talking about custom hardware from like 20 something years ago. Though with enough time and software wizardy it's probable that particle, lighting effects and reflections seen in Ps2 games could have been done on Dreamcast.
Naomi was released to replace the super expensive alien hardware technology that was the omnipotent MODEL 3 (96 to 98 revisions).
It was probably not viable to adapt Sega Model 3 similar hardware to a home console, it was still expensive and almost alien tech for the time, a Model 3 (last revision) console would have been around double or triple the price of the Dreamcast. Though it would have been fun to see a Sega console released on date 9/9/99 for 999usd.
NAOMI/Dreamcast, while powerful and similar performance as MODEL 3, still lacked some features, being a simpler hardware. CPU+GPU and that's it. On the other hand, engineers are still debating how Model 3 was created, it's like the pyramids, nobody knows how such ancient monuments were envisioned. (Just kidding)
Still, Dreamcast without that much brute force filling rate and dedicated graphic chips as MODEL 3, it was was powerful enough, and a lot more accessible for developers.
Problem is, it only lasted 2 years. Perhaps less, because by early-mid 2000 with the release of the Ps2, most developers started to question if it was financially sound to make efforts with the Dreamcast, a console that was struggling in most markets against Ps1! So having the Ps2 just around the corner which was probably the MOST HYPED CONSOLE EVER... what could they do?
I guess Dreamcast was destined to die soon. And we will never know how far could developers push it's hardware.
Ps2? Yeah it was a powerhouse. A polygon, particle effects brute force machine. Some games look awesome. Yes. I knew it from day one after seeing the jagged Ridge Racer V fest, but hey it has awesome 60fps performance, amazing draw distance and all kinds of cool little effects and lighting not seen on Dreamcast.
But Dreamcast wasn't that far behind. Remember that we are talking about custom hardware from like 20 something years ago. Though with enough time and software wizardy it's probable that particle, lighting effects and reflections seen in Ps2 games could have been done on Dreamcast.
Last edited:
Xaeroxcore666
Member
On this very thread you can find the answers to that. Community itself is porting GTA 3 to DC and also an improved versión of Doom 64 with Vertex Lighting and Bump Mapping.
Saturn Dragon
Member
I've been following the development of those ports closely day by day.
Amazing improvement.
But I think the console can do much much more.
Randall365
Member
The Xbox/PS2 ended up with GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas, a ton of suped up EA games, Halo (on xbox) and Medal of Honour. The Dreamcast was just replicating mid 90s arcade games. If the Dreamcast was on a par with those it’s too bad nobody told the developers.
Xaeroxcore666
Member
Take a better look at this thread. GTA 3 is actually running on Dreamcast right now. No one says DC is on par with PS2/GCN/Xbox, not even any of those consoles are on par with each other, but clearly its a proven fact, not an opinión, DC is on the same tech league as them. Is the weaker of 4? Yes. But its still there.
Saturn Dragon
Member
That's one problem of being the first console of the generation, released like a year and a couple months before PS2, and dying early too.
Dreamcast only "competed" with PS2 during 2000. That's it. And as I said in my previous post, most developers by early 2000 either just gave up on the console, moved their projects to Ps2 or worst, didn't wanted anything to do with Sega from the very beginning.
Also, having so much lazy ports from PC-PS1, didn't help. I have a huge Dreamcast collection. HUGE. over 300 games. I've been tracking all the releases, and sadly, there's around 100 titles which are just that, lazy ports from PC or from the previous generation.
We don't know how would things have been if all 3rd party developers actually cared and supported the console for over 6-7 years down the line, just like they did with PS2 and pulling out games like if their life depended on it. Everyone wanted to have their games on PS2.
Talking about big japanese developers (which were determinant back then) DC just had Sega doing an extreme effort with all their teams, and to some extent Capcom. Others like Konami, Namco, Bandai, Koei, Tecmo and so on, just didn't care or waited for PS2.
Saturn Dragon
Member
I have a question. First of all, amazing work done on Lemans and GP Challenge, played those games a lot, not only because they're both stunning looking, but gameplay is fantastic.Well, as I lead and designed both Lemans Dreamcast and Transformers Armada PS2 I might be able to shed some new light on the question of this thread and more for all that wonder!?
Was there a reason for all the 3d games on Dreamcast having a 640*480 resolution? It's like Sega made that res obligatory for the devs.
Wonder if a lower res could have help on the performance, like many Ps2 games that use different lower resolutions.
Esppiral
Member
Another impossible effect on the Dreamcast debunked.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I mean the car models are probably not significantly higher than GT2's, but the IQ is way ahead of anything on PS1 otherwise. Textures are better, they don't have that shimmering effect either. And framerate much smoother & higher than GT2 or most PS1 racers ,plus better trackside detail.
That should be the common sense takeaway. Plus even among the four, each had some oddball advantages over the competition. Gamecube could output the most raw geometry of the lot. PS2 had the highest particle fillrate by far. Xbox had the most memory bandwidth (IIRC) and advanced GPU features like bump-mapping. Dreamcast had the cleanest video output and deferred rendering.
6th gen is great in that all the systems had their own "character" architecture-wise but still delivered really good results out of the gate. 7th gen was something of a repeat of that, but it took the PS3 a while to start producing consistent results, and Wii was just a souped-up Gamecube.
......kinda on topic but, has there been any update with GTA3?
Last edited:
Esppiral
Member
Car models are like X10 the polycount of the ones from GT2, or you meant 3?
Lysandros
Member
Hi there. By memory bandwidth you don't mean VRAM bandwidth surely, right? Because PS2 stands at 48 GB/s on that front which is by far the highest of this generation as you know. As to fill rate Xbox' is the lowest (with the exception of Dreamcast's transparency) as far as i know.
SirTerry-T
Member
Justin is/was one of the last decent videogame journalist's going. He did some good work for GameSpot UK.
RagnarokIV
Battlebus imprisoning me \m/ >.< \m/
This threade still going LMAO
The Dreamcast was the most powerfulest ultimate evar at launch but don't forget the Wii U is the most powerful console ever, Nintendom and third parties never harnessed the power. It's capable of hardware ray tracing, AI upscaling and more just wait for TOTAL DESTRUCTION 2025 to prove it.
The Dreamcast was the most powerfulest ultimate evar at launch but don't forget the Wii U is the most powerful console ever, Nintendom and third parties never harnessed the power. It's capable of hardware ray tracing, AI upscaling and more just wait for TOTAL DESTRUCTION 2025 to prove it.
Last edited:
Didn't The Bouncer (2000 ps2 launch title) have advanced bloom effects already? How come they say it was only "introduced" in 2005?
Sands of time and MGS3 also had this effect in full glory way before that time.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Well if comparing to GT3 Le Mans car models would lose out in geometry detail, unless there's something I'm missing? I did kind of remember hearing Le Mans car models have a pretty decent poly count, but I could be confusing this with DOA2 for whatever reason.
You're right, I was getting some details mixed up there. It's been a while since I've looked over the specs for the 6th gen systems in a comparative fashion. I usually refer to this chart.
Which, just looking at it now, really shows how capable Gamecube was with their CPU vs. original Xbox. Looks like they routinely beat Xbox's CPU in all areas. Meanwhile the Graphics Synthesizer routinely beats Xbox's GPU in all areas (pixel fillrate, texture fillrate, etc.). Gamecube Flipper manages to beat Xbox's GPU in some areas (textured polygons mainly) and GS in a couple, but I'm quite impressed how performant PS2's GS was that gen.
Seems like Xbox's only advantages over PS2 & Gamecube WRT graphics were some of the GPU features (bump-mapping), having more VRAM, and higher compression on textures vs. PS2.
Romulus
Member
I think the thread answer is yes. It was powerful, but I do believe that most any major game company could have planned a launch in 1999 and blown everyone away. It was during a time of explosive 3d graphics growth and 1999 was nestled perfectly for a huge reaction. N64 being the most powerful console next to Dreamcast was easy mode for a big reaction. N64 was aging and memory starved to the max. Some would argue N64 was technically average when it launched. So showing up years later with even a moderately well rounded 1999 console was just setting the stage for shock and awe, and it was.
Esppiral
Member
You are quite wrong with original Xbox it's GPU is leaps and bounds better than the PS2 GS, the PS2 is a filleate monster though. But the GPU it's is weaker point there is a reason many PS2 games than ran at 30 FPS ran at 60 on Xbox.
Romulus
Member
Multiplatform developers that posted on Beyond3d basically said the opposite in terms of performance. They mentioned with any effort, the Xbox could outpace all the 6th machines with ease. Several cases were brought up were they threw custom PS2/Gamecube engines at the Xbox and it just overpowered them with GPU headroom and RAM. The CPU was actually good too, and the perceived bottlenecks never showed up because of the extra headroom everywhere else.
One dev said they would develop with PS2 in mind first and do "quick and dirty" ports to Xbox and Gamecube and without much effort the Xbox would double the framerate over the other two with a resolution/texture advantage sometimes too.
The RAM and harddrive was two underrated advantages on top of the GPU. The CPU was sort of wash, but touted as a weakness because of the massive disparity of everything else.
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
What baffles me about Dreamcast is its relative failure in Japan.
It was the only country where the Saturn found any success, and a lot of that was down to the popularity of Virtua Fighter, especially in 1994.
Dreamcast launched with Virtua Fighter 3 which looked incredible in 1998, but they didn’t go for it. Yes the launch lineup was minuscule, but so was the Saturn’s.
It was the only country where the Saturn found any success, and a lot of that was down to the popularity of Virtua Fighter, especially in 1994.
Dreamcast launched with Virtua Fighter 3 which looked incredible in 1998, but they didn’t go for it. Yes the launch lineup was minuscule, but so was the Saturn’s.
cireza
Member
You have just dropped some amazing insight in that 37 pages thread, thank you so much for this.
Xaeroxcore666
Member
Good point. May be DC had more of a western appeal to them? I always have thought DC Japan launch at 98 was a mistake. They should held it back and launch everything 99. Also they should had improved VF 3 and leave it least DOA 2 visual level wise.
Saturn Dragon
Member
Well, IIRC Saturn gained some interest in Japan after they released the BEAUTIFUL white Model 2 console in late 1996?, with all the Segata Sanshiro promos and stuff. It was some sort of re-launch. And it worked.
This would be equivalent to Dreamcast having a, let's say, black and red new model console (like European Megadrive model 2, black and red buttons or something, just let me dream
) in late 2000/early 2001. But we all know what happened during those months.It just didn't have enough time in the market to gain some cult (commercial) following.
kevboard
Member
Well, IIRC Saturn gained some interest in Japan after they released the BEAUTIFUL white Model 2 console in late 1996?, with all the Segata Sanshiro promos and stuff. It was some sort of re-launch. And it worked.
This would be equivalent to Dreamcast having a, let's say, black and red new model console (like European Megadrive model 2, black and red buttons or something, just let me dream
It just didn't have enough time in the market to gain some cult (commercial) following.
Sega were kinda planning a revision afaik. I think a dual stick controller was in the works for example.
if they didn't run out of money, I bet the Dreamcast, over the course of the generation, would have outsold the GameCube at the very least.
if game support would have been decent of course
HogIsland
Member
Spoken like somebody who really likes Power Stone.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
No, the Dreamcast started very unstable, in Japan its initial games were poorly received and in the West after 3 months of frantic sales, game sales were not keeping up and Sega needed to sell games to recover the subsidy costs. The board decided to release several games that today would be AAA at the same time, sales did not react, so they made successive price cuts, in September 2000 the Dreamcast was in the ICU, the following 3 months sales were extremely low, at the time of greater flow of consumers.
Peter Moore was right, the Dreamcast was already dead he just made it official.
RetroGamingUK
Member
By summer 2000 a deal had been made with Acclaim to port games to PS2.
I wonder if the decision had already been made by then to axe the console, but they just wanted some Christmas sales before confirming it?
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
I don't think so, there was dissension between the american and japanese teams in deliberating about pulling Dreamcast plug .
It's not a question of 'impossible' - it's cost-practicality.
This would cost at least 30% of the frame on DC (possibly more), while other architectures could do it in single digits.
If you remove performance constraints then you could do 'everything' on all the machines.
CPU wasn't just 'good' - it was easily at least twice as fast as anything other consoles had. It's pretty much 'the' reason why Xbox had could double framerates on games like GTA.
But yes - the biggest differentiator was Ram, that was well over 2x advantage in most practical scenarios (and what lifted most resolution limitations that GC/PS2 had because of eDram limits).
Romulus
Member
But the CPU was slightly bottleneck, it just didn't matter enough considering everything else it had going.
GTA was 2x the fps in addition to higher resolution and better textures. "Bottlenecked" cpu lmao.
The only place you'll see people downplaying the og Xbox advantages are echo chambers full of fans of the other devices. As soon as you introduce unbiased facts with people who actually worked on all the machines that secret sauce arguments are obliterated.
Last edited:
Not compared to other consoles it wasn't.
OG xb was the first time a console had a CPU that wasn't comically under powered compared to contemporary PCs. We'd wait 20 years for the next time that happened.
Romulus
Member
I think the Gamecube had more cache in the CPU, but the Xbox was faster. Didn't really matter when the GPU was far and away better + more RAM.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
The internal design details are irrelevant, it's not hard to see that the Xbox CPU is more powerful by a large margin.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
We know the Xbox was more powerful and proved it. Does not mean that other consoles didn't have some slight advantages. You're basically saying to shut up about it. lol
RetroGamingUK
Member
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll