Support NeoGAF

[RetroAV]

Virtua Fighter 3 was not a launch dreamcast game. And Soul Calibur was not a launch game for the system itself- The system was out in japan for a while which someone
reminded me of on this thread, we were not getting worldwide releases yet.

I didnt take any jabs at Dreamcast- its the weakest of the generation.

I also didnt praise PS3 at all, I praised its generation. I pointed out the PS3 because it had the biggest graphical showcases. You're drawing some kind of
lines between the systems I mentioned in a context I did not bring them up in. I brought them up to demonstrate "generational leap". the 360 is part of that
generation, I didnt claim the PS3 was a generational leap over the 360, I claimed the PS360 generation was in fact as big of, if not a bigger generational leap
than the dreamcast was over the N64/Psx. Thats literally it. That it was a one generation difference and we went from Evolution, Timestalkers, Power Stone and
such as being average examples of Dreamcast games to games like Motorstorm.

If you want to compare Apples to Apples compare a dreamcast launch title like Flag to Flag ( was it launch? I think so, if not I think its close enough)
to a PSX launch era title like Ridge Racer or Wipeout- Perfectly good leap. But compare Flag to Flag to for instance ,Ridge Racer 7 , Motorstorm.
I think the generational leap is pretty big if youre counting just whats on Dreamcast.

And LOL at trying to say PS3 was intended to be a generational leap over the 360! Literally nobody even said anything like that.
The 360 had a year head start but by the end of the generation the PS3s games were graphically much better- thats why I brought that up.

I could have made the same argument effectively just using examples from the XBOX 360 though to say that the leap from Dreamcast to its next generation
was decent compared to the previous.

By the way the PS3 was pretty impressive when it came out compared to the 360... I know a lot of people dont recall it correctly but imagine that about one year
after your console comes out the competition comes out with a machine that had: HDMI, Bluetooth wireless including controllers as standard, a bigger hard disk that is also
easily up-gradable, Standard Wi-fi, a BLURAY drive and those players cost over 500 on their own at the time, FREE online play, motion controls,
full backward compatibility to 2 generations, and Im not going to nit pick about its other connectivity or anything but the 360 had to play catch up....
And this is before the scope of the RROD was even apparent. I would say the PS3 is very impressive if you stick a launch PS3 next to the XBOX 360 as it existed at that moment.

So you don't think the Dreamcast was powerful in 1998? Okay. I don't think there is anything I can say (that I haven't already said) that will change your mind. Just like there is nothing you can say that will make me believe that the Dreamcast wasn't impressive back in 1998. Agree to disagree.

 

[loktaiextatus]

You're missing the point entirely. I'm addressing the question, was the Dreamcast powerful in 1999? Yes. The PS2 clearly had advantages, and it should launching a full year later and costing $100 more.

Was the PS4 Pro underpowered? No, it was the most powerful console when it released. Capice?

Nobody compares a console by the moment of its release, People compare it to its generation.

By that logic the Atari Jaguar was not underpowered for its generation leading into the Saturn and PSX - it came out earlier
and there are a few instances where games like Rayman are as good or better on Jaguar. It doesnt mean it was a powerhouse.

The Sega Dreamcast was 100 bucks less- and did not include a DVD drive. There is the majority of your difference. It also did not have
USB, an optical audio out port, or (excluding the few Bleamcast grey market titles) play PSX games. The gamecube also launched at $199
because it lacked those expensive items.

Price comparatively , time comparatively, however you want to look at it ... for its TIME. and assuming you consider a consoles
time and lifespan to be more than a year (I dont know about you, I dont want to buy a new console every year) then the Dreamcast
was the weakest of its generation, lacked most of the features that defined its generation, and had a somewhat poor run.

None of this is me saying I dont like Dreamcast. I love the thing, I still have one, I think the Dreamcast is one of the COOLEST systems
to release- And it was NEVER about its raw power VS its contemporaries. it has a generational leap over the PSX and N64- Because it IS
a generational leap. Half a decade tends to do that But for its time was it powerful? Not by PC standards looking at raw specs. Not by console
standards looking at its next competition.... and it was about equal to the arcade which is exactly what it was meant to be.... a great way to port arcade
games, And why was Sega USING the Dreamcast (naomi) in the arcade?

Was it because the Naomi was a powerhouse or because it was the best thing you could possibly create in 1998? Unfortunately no. It was because the
arcade was slowly dying, and Sega needed a cheap way to get games into the arcade, cheap hardware, that is ALSO parallel to a home system they
could release the games to without much extra expense- since that was WHAT was killing the arcade market.... a great strategy but not one made
because it offered the absolute pinnacle of performance.

 

[polybius80]

What exactly is it that you're looking for? Something where the Dreamcast would have ZERO advantage and the PS2 had ALL the advantage in order to make it fair??? The system launched a FULL YEAR later and priced ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS MORE, there should NOT be any excuses.

Bottom line:

Dreamcast UNDERPOWERED for 1999

Means

PS2 appropriate for 2000 would KILL, no just beat, we're talking about an underpowered 1999 hardware vs 2000 hardware that's $100 more, under NO circumstance the Dreamcast should have an advantage....

Unless...

and this is a biggie for you to grasp....


Unless the Dreamcast was actually a powerhouse for 1999. Ding Ding Ding.

Ps2 is more powerful system than DC no contest, yes there are games that looked better on DC that is because PS2 suffered at the beginning due to its complexity specially when trying to use it in the same way as DC instead of its textures streaming and the way it works as a result most ports where bad in Ps2 but PS2 had a lot of power when properly used

if we will follow your reasoning of just compare games without context then whats your excuse for this



or this


or this



or this



or this




see? anybody can just take a comparison that favors a particular console, Ps2 was very powerful console but also had its unique way of working as a result lot of games had problems you can find it struggling with a DC games like crazy taxi from 1999 but also you can see it being the closest to xbox in a 2005 game

 

[RetroAV]

It took another 7 months because of the Launch date but Tekken Tag on the PS2 got basically the same treatment, if not for that damn aliasing right?

Yes, 2 years after the Dreamcast did it, the PS2 also did "arcade better". Let us praise the PS2! -_-

 

[loktaiextatus]

Yes, 2 years after the Dreamcast did it, the PS2 also did "arcade better". Let us praise the PS2! -_-

Since when does 8 months equate to 2 years? The PS2 wasnt out yet to be running it , but it would have.

Im saying the PS2 is fully capable of doing the same thing. Then Soul Calibur 2, looking better than 1 came out on all consoles at the time
but not dreamcast....

Then soul calibur 3 came JUST to PS2 and looked better than either game.

 

[Romulus]

Ps2 is more powerful system than DC no contest, yes there are games that looked better on DC that is because PS2 suffered at the beginning due to its complexity specially when trying to use it in the same way as DC instead of its textures streaming and the way it works as a result most ports where bad in Ps2 but PS2 had a lot of power when properly used

if we will follow your reasoning of just compare games without context then whats your excuse for this



or this


or this



or this



or this




see anybody can just take a comparison that favors a particular console

Yep, and we also have to look at the leading platform. Most of the time multiplatforms were built on ps2(which is a big advantage) and ported to Gamecube and Xbox. And most of the time they didn't spend much time on either the Xbox or gamecube. I read that from a multiplatform developer during that time.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Yes, 2 years after the Dreamcast did it, the PS2 also did "arcade better". Let us praise the PS2! -_-

And I just want to say again, I dont know why you dont see it the way I do but dont you think its ridiculous, even the realm of parody
that you're pushing "arcade better, arcade better" and youre talking about a game that runs on Playstation 1 arcade hardware
and being impressed it runs and looks better on what is literally the next generation of console after the PSX?

Meanwhile look at the MESS that is Sega Rally 2.... .Arcade better?

Show me a game that runs on System 246 ported to Dreamcast and running "Arcade better"

 

[RetroAV]

But really, that's even more impressive though? Saturn excelled at 2d and yet still boxed with cutting edge 3d arcade games.

Have you played any of the Saturn 2d fighters?

Whether it's more impressive or not, it's still not "arcade better". That's my point.

 

[Romulus]

Whether it's more impressive or not, it's still not "arcade better". That's my point.

I'm pretty sure there was 2d fighters on Saturn that were or were exact. I'll look it up. To me, the videos posted in here claiming "arcade better" are just so minimal from what I'm seeing

 

[loktaiextatus]

I'm pretty sure there was 2d fighters on Saturn that were or were exact. I'll look it up. To me, the videos posted in here claiming "arcade better" are just so minimal from what I'm seeing

Hes literally just talking about Soul Calibur- a game for the Playstation 1 arcade hardware - and hes super impressed it runs better on a 4-5 year newer machine.

 

[Romulus]

Hes literally just talking about Soul Calibur- a game for the Playstation 1 arcade hardware - and hes super impressed it runs better on a 4-5 year newer machine.

Hm, I was thinking there were more examples of "arcade better".

 

[U n i o n 0015]

The EA story is actually kinda funny, but also shows SEGA's hubris at the time. EA was 100% on board with DC, but they wanted exclusive rights to produce and publish sports games on it. That meant SEGA would've had to repurpose Visual Concepts for some other style of games, and SEGA probably saw that as a waste of an investment, so they turned EA's proposition down.

LTTP on this anecdote, but funny enough I was reading an old Next Generation magazine a few nights ago and the president of EA at the time was talking about why they didn't support the Dreamcast. He said that it was because Sega decided to go with PowerVR for Dreamcast's hardware instead of 3Dfx, and that all of EA's devs were more familiar with developing for Glide at the time. Maybe he was speaking the truth and it was one of the many factors EA decided not to support Dreamcast.

The DC was a massive leap over the previous gen . Seeing a near Arcade perfect port of Model 3 VF 3 in your home in Nov 98 was a stunning achievement .

By the time Virtua Fighter 3tb was released, Soul Calibur had already launched and made the not-quite-Model 3 Genki port look somewhat unimpressive. It got pretty low scores at the time. It's a shame because I didn't really get to experience VF3 as I played it in the arcades until I set up Supermodel emulator earlier this year. Now you can play VF3 is 4k!

 

[loktaiextatus]

Hm, I was thinking there were more examples of "arcade better".

Sure anything ported from those old systems will be "Arcade better'. Very little of what Sega ported from its own arcade was arcade better. Sega rally 2 was disaster of a port for instance.

System 12 games ran on PSX hardware. Here is a comparison of the first soul edge game on PSX and arcade



Soul Calibur ran on the SAME hardware as Soul Edge- but got a big facelift for Dreamcast, thats not impressive, thats because it was built for a 1994 graphics chip
so....

Dreamcast was amazing for its Naomi/hikari ports.
To give an analogy.... Halo came to the XBOX and about 4 years later the Xbox360 was released.
It wasnt until later- but on that 4 year later hardware we got Halo Anniversary. Running on 4 year newer hardware. The difference between them is giant
even though its the same game. 4 years newer hardware... It wasnt because the Xbox 360 was magic.

 

[Alexios]

How is Soul Calibur not impressive, lol, other PS1 ports were just that, ports, from Resident Evil games to Tomb Raider games to Soul Reaver or whatever. Maybe you had some nicer effects and more polygons here and there and of course resolution and framerate improvements but beyond that they were the same games. Namco basically remade the whole game in such short notice with super impressive results and the best looking fighter yet. Model 3 games were made with different strengths in mind too, it was certainly a polygon pushing monster for its time but Dreamcast was a more modern system that could do other things too. So it makes sense they had to cut things down when porting Model 3 titles like VF3tb. Similar to Model 2 vs Saturn I guess, but Saturn fared worse most of the time (ie 30fps on Sega Rally on top of heavily cut down graphics) because again the games focused on different strengths. So, you could have a beautiful fighter like Dead or Alive 1 made for it but ports like the original Virtua Fighter had to heavily cut down on the polygon count and suffer because of it when they didn't have the time/budget to convert the game to the Saturn's strengths (ie adding textures and what not as seen with Virtua Fighter Remix). That's kind of the difference with VF3 vs Soul Calibur, polygon pushing detail vs modern modeling methods, art design/effects. Naomi/2 also was more powerful than Dreamcast of course and they had to cut things down when porting games from it too but with more modern development methods and some attention to detail it wasn't as apparent as in games made for different hardware. It would have been nice to have a non-evo Virtua Fighter 4 version (c?) for Dreamcast even if pared down. Though they should probably focus on removing polygons from the stages backgrounds so the fighters and foregrounds of the arenas were left as intact as possible and it'd look sweet in sharp 480p.

 

[loktaiextatus]

LTTP on this anecdote, but funny enough I was reading an old Next Generation magazine a few nights ago and the president of EA at the time was talking about why they didn't support the Dreamcast. He said that it was because Sega decided to go with PowerVR for Dreamcast's hardware instead of 3Dfx, and that all of EA's devs were more familiar with developing for Glide at the time. Maybe he was speaking the truth and it was one of the many factors EA decided not to support Dreamcast.



By the time Virtua Fighter 3tb was released, Soul Calibur had already launched and made the not-quite-Model 3 Genki port look somewhat unimpressive. It got pretty low scores at the time. It's a shame because I didn't really get to experience VF3 as I played it in the arcades until I set up Supermodel emulator earlier this year. Now you can play VF3 is 4k!

Crisper yeah but the 4k res doesnt do much for the games overall look.

Since we are on the DC vs PS2 topic here... Compare virtua fighter 3tb on Dreamcast to Virtua Fighter 4 on PS2.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

DC was a solid system, but without support of SE and Konami and EA Sports it died fast. But for a system with only about 2-3 years lifespan it churned out great games. Much better than whatever crap PS2 had in year one. But give PS2 another year or two and those games blew away DC. There is no way DC could do GTA3, or GoW or DMC.

NFL 2k and SC were phenomenal. Totally next gen.

Since it launched right between N64 and PS2, that's a pretty weird place to start with.

 

[U n i o n 0015]

Crisper yeah but the 4k res doesnt do much for the games overall look.

Since we are on the DC vs PS2 topic here... Compare virtua fighter 3tb on Dreamcast to Virtua Fighter 4 on PS2.

It's been a while since I've played VF3tb and VF4, but going on memory, VF3tb had better image quality but models, arenas, effects, etc are quite a bit better on VF4 and VF4 Evolution.

 

[loktaiextatus]

It's been a while since I've played VF3tb and VF4, but going on memory, VF3tb had better image quality but models, arenas, effects, etc are quite a bit better on VF4 and VF4 Evolution.

Image quality is about the same in the arcade, It ran on Naomi 2 in arcade and PS2 in home, it was a little different looking image, and I want to say nicer textures in the arcade, (between VF4 and evolution) but it was in a whole different league compared to VF3.

 

[RetroAV]

Since when does 8 months equate to 2 years? The PS2 wasnt out yet to be running it , but it would have.

Im saying the PS2 is fully capable of doing the same thing. Then Soul Calibur 2, looking better than 1 came out on all consoles at the time
but not dreamcast....

Then soul calibur 3 came JUST to PS2 and looked better than either game.

Looks like we were both off. It was 1 year, 3 months, and 6 days:

Dreamcast release date: November 27, 1998
PS2 release date: March 4, 2000

Soul Calibur 2 didn't come out for Dreamcast because the Dreamcast was discontinued in March of 2001. Soul Calibur 2 came out in 2002. Soul Calibur 3 only appeared on the PS2? Okay...is that supposed to mean it was only possible on the PS2 or something?

 

[RetroAV]

Hes literally just talking about Soul Calibur- a game for the Playstation 1 arcade hardware - and hes super impressed it runs better on a 4-5 year newer machine.

Forget a System 12 version exists, is Soul Calibur an impressive looking game or not? Was it not impressive to be playing VF3 at home in 1998-99 and not have to pay thousands to own it? Did Dead or Alive 2 not impress with its poly counts and multi-tiered environments?

If the answer continues to be no for you, okay. I guess you weren't impressed, but I sure as hell was.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

If you look at some late Dreamcast games like Headhunter for example, its pretty safe to say that it could have survived if the SEGAs situation was better back then. Obviously the PS2 was the more powerful system, but I dont recall many games that couldn't be done on DC prior 2003, especially the most mainstream games like FIFA or Tony Hawks would have run easily on the DC. The problems would have been with mid to late 6th gen games, because those games usually use effects and geometry, that was hard to do on the DC. Perhaps there may be some tricks they could have pulled, but then there is the problem with limited media space. I know how the Gamecube was left out a lot of times because of the mini-DVDs were lacking in space and developers didnt like the idea of selling multiple discs for one game. A GD-Rom had even less space. This would have been definitely a problem, no doubt, even if they managed to build a "double layer" GD-Rom. Still, I am pretty sure most multiplats till 2003 would have run. Top that with a decent sized libary of exclusives and arcade ports and you have a system I see doing quite good. Not PS2-levels but I guess N64 level could have been possible.

There is no way DC could do GTA3, or GoW or DMC.

GoW is out of question for sure but DMC (the original at least) was definitely possible. GTA3 is problematic though. DC hardware isn't exactly suited for open world gaming but not impossible. Weren't there rumours back then that GTA 3 was planned for Dreamcast? I think with some limitations it could have been done.

Sega rally 2 was disaster of a port for instance.

hyperbole much..?
Its totally playable.

 

[Romulus]

Since it launched right between N64 and PS2, that's a pretty weird place to start with.

It really is, having the advantage of no direct competition and ps2 taking 2 years to show its capabilities. I feel like it was in really in a good position in that regard.

 

[Alexios]

Namco did a similar Soul Calibur arcade -> Dreamcast-almost-remake deal with Tekken Tag Tournament arcade -> PS2-almost-remake deal with great results there too (I'm not entirely sure but I feel like there was also a prettified arcade version of TTT on better hw but I could be remembering wrong). Was that not a pretty and impressive PS2 game itself just because it's natural that they could do better than the original almost-ps1-level arcade release? Even if it would have also been super impressive to have had TTT on PS1 (though I dunno if it would be possible even with more cuts than T3 and the same for a possible SC version on the PS1). Again, not saying Dreamcast could have had some crazy game like Metal Gear Solid 2 intact with all its geometry and awesome effects etc., but it could have kept providing its own awesome games that played to its strengths and still looked great in their own way, just like many of its existing games, from SC/DOA2 to CV/MDK2.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It really is, having the advantage of no direct competition and ps2 taking 2 years to show its capabilities. I feel like it was in really in a good position in that regard.

Yup. It was only $200 too. If only more third party devs support it.

 

[LordKasual]

Yes.

Coming off the PS1 and N64, the first time i laid eyes on Sonic Adventure i was fucking blown away.

But no console is "powerful" by itself, and it only had a few years before the PS2 came to end its life.


In hindsight, the thing that really made the Dreamcast's library stand out was that it was essentially getting ports on ports of Arcade games.

It's a completely unique little swathe of time where alot of the games you could buy weren't designed for longevity or review scores, but just straight fun.


Power Stone, Crazy Taxi, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, house of the dead, so many games Dreamcast is known for are basically just arcade games.

 

[loktaiextatus]

hyperbole much..?
Its totally playable.

Sega Rally 2 In the arcade..... it was beautiful.,.. They had to do a TON of work to the game at the time to get it onto DC. I dont know if you recall but initially Windows CE
was involved and they had to scrap a lot of work on the port at one point.....
It was delayed .
Also They removed online play for the US release. the japanese release runs like ass... it was improved somewhat for the west.
As a port goes, made in-house you can say what you want but it was not "Arcade better" it wasnt even arcade on-par. That was my point.

 

[Paulistano]

.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Forget a System 12 version exists, is Soul Calibur an impressive looking game or not? Was it not impressive to be playing VF3 at home in 1998-99 and not have to pay thousands to own it? Did Dead or Alive 2 not impress with its poly counts and multi-tiered environments?

If the answer continues to be no for you, okay. I guess you weren't impressed, but I sure as hell was.

Why would I forget the system 12 version exists and WHAT arcade system the game runs on when all I keep hearing is "arcade better, arcade better, arcade better"?
If its Arcade better dont you care what arcade its better than? There are tons of "arcade better" games ... if we're not being picky we can probably find
tons of Space Harrier ports etc that are technically better released on half decade newer hardware or something. Just saying.

I love soul calibur, it was really Nice.
Was it MORE impressive than what the consoles in its generation could do? It was not, but it did do it kind of earlier.

I like soul calibur more than tekken tag but from a technical standpoint you could probably say tekken tag was more
taxing than soul calibur.

None of this has any emotion behind it. Being "impressed" doesnt factor in to "Was it powerful" and weather or not
it was powerful and launched earlier by an hour ,a month or a year its part of the generation that includes PS2, Gamecube and XBOX.
Measured by that metric OR the metric of what a PC could do at that time- it was not that powerful. It doesnt mean I am saying
it is a rancid piece of crap or that the games are bad. It means the systems strength is not in its raw power.

And again it goes without saying anything outside raw facts, specs, and poly counts arent "power" and are not part of a factual argument.
Me thinking something has power, or me thinking something is visually pleasing doesnt make a machine a beast.

 

[Journey]

Ps2 is more powerful system than DC no contest, yes there are games that looked better on DC that is because PS2 suffered at the beginning due to its complexity specially when trying to use it in the same way as DC instead of its textures streaming and the way it works as a result most ports where bad in Ps2 but PS2 had a lot of power when properly used

if we will follow your reasoning of just compare games without context then whats your excuse for this



or this


or this



or this



or this




see? anybody can just take a comparison that favors a particular console, Ps2 was very powerful console but also had its unique way of working as a result lot of games had problems you can find it struggling with a DC games like crazy taxi from 1999 but also you can see it being the closest to xbox in a 2005 game

Xbox One X is more powerful than PS4 Pro.... Not sure what point you're making, that the PS4 Pro was underpowered when it released? Do you believe that?

 

[Not_a_Sony_pony]

Yes, although a fair bit away from a generational leap over n64.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

Sega Rally 2 In the arcade..... it was beautiful.,.. They had to do a TON of work to the game at the time to get it onto DC. I dont know if you recall but initially Windows CE
was involved and they had to scrap a lot of work on the port at one point.....
It was delayed .
Also They removed online play for the US release. the japanese release runs like ass... it was improved somewhat for the west.
As a port goes, made in-house you can say what you want but it was not "Arcade better" it wasnt even arcade on-par. That was my point.

It definitely wasnt an ideal port (Windows CE maybe wasn't the best choice after all) by any means, but I think it totally playable for sure. The core is still in tact.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Yes.

Coming off the PS1 and N64, the first time i laid eyes on Sonic Adventure i was fucking blown away.

But no console is "powerful" by itself, and it only had a few years before the PS2 came to end its life.


In hindsight, the thing that really made the Dreamcast's library stand out was that it was essentially getting ports on ports of Arcade games.

It's a completely unique little swathe of time where alot of the games you could buy weren't designed for longevity or review scores, but just straight fun.


Power Stone, Crazy Taxi, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, house of the dead, so many games Dreamcast is known for are basically just arcade games.

A few years? Much less than that. PS2 came out like a year later in north america. Just saying.

And it was not just Dreamcast that was Sega in general, they started that trend with the Master System
which was just full of sega arcade ports. It had double dragon, fantasy zone, space harrier, outrun, hang-on,
and others. That was Sega's bread and butter. Genesis saw more developers releasing other stuff but it was still a machine full or arcade ports like
mortal kombat.

 

[loktaiextatus]

It definitely wasnt an ideal port (Windows CE maybe wasn't the best choice after all) by any means, but I think it totally playable for sure. The core is still in tact.

I wouldnt say you cant play it but if you were used to the arcade version... then you had the DC version.

By the way the arcade port shown here I think is emulated because I am seeing some graphical glitches I do not remember seeing in the arcade
and the overall look is a bit off, however it WAS fast and smooth.

Edit:" Duh he says its emulation I just didnt have my sound on (am working)

 

[U n i o n 0015]

It definitely wasnt an ideal port (Windows CE maybe wasn't the best choice after all) by any means, but I think it totally playable for sure. The core is still in tact.

That's actually not too bad. The car and environment models look close, but the framerate is clearly halved.

Going back to some of these older games, especially early Saturn or N64 stuff, I'm honestly surprised I found them enjoyable when they ran at like 15-25 fps.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Xbox One X is more powerful than PS4 Pro.... Not sure what point you're making, that the PS4 Pro was underpowered when it released? Do you believe that?

Let us INSTEAD- Compare all of the consoles in this generation.

The Xbox one, Xbox one S, Xbox one X , ps4, ps4 pro.. (switch maybe if you want but ??)

Out of them the launch xbox 1 is the weakest. Again.. not counting switch for obvious reasons and its intended use but still.


The Dreamcast is much weaker than the PS2 at a lot of stuff and lacks a lot of its features. But the sticking point is that PS4 pro and the XBox one X have
a smaller gap than the Dreamcast and PS2 do.

Can you point to anything on the XBox one X that you can say "I do not think this will RUN on a ps4 pro.... it just doesnt seem feasible I have seen nothing
even approaching this on the PS4 pro"?

Because I can easily point out a ton of PS2 games that have no analog on the dreamcast and definitely seem to be well above the dreamcasts punching weight
unless you think the Dreamcast would pull off MGS3 , resident evil 4, god of war 2 or final fantasy 12.... I could see the Dreamcast having an amazing port of
many PSX games and making big improvements over them, but I cant picture the Dreamcast even properly running many of the better PS2 games without
making sacrifices . And this is not coming from a place of contempt for the dreamcast i was really sad, and angry at Sony for killing Dreamcast (thats how I saw it)
and forcing me to buy an XBOX to keep playing sega games .... which just wasnt the same but of course at least I could play Shenmue 2 with more people on screen.

 

[Journey]

Let us INSTEAD- Compare all of the consoles in this generation.

The Xbox one, Xbox one S, Xbox one X , ps4, ps4 pro.. (switch maybe if you want but ??)

Out of them the launch xbox 1 is the weakest. Again.. not counting switch for obvious reasons and its intended use but still.


The Dreamcast is much weaker than the PS2 at a lot of stuff and lacks a lot of its features. But the sticking point is that PS4 pro and the XBox one X have
a smaller gap than the Dreamcast and PS2 do.

Can you point to anything on the XBox one X that you can say "I do not think this will RUN on a ps4 pro.... it just doesnt seem feasible I have seen nothing
even approaching this on the PS4 pro"?

Because I can easily point out a ton of PS2 games that have no analog on the dreamcast and definitely seem to be well above the dreamcasts punching weight
unless you think the Dreamcast would pull off MGS3 , resident evil 4, god of war 2 or final fantasy 12.... I could see the Dreamcast having an amazing port of
many PSX games and making big improvements over them, but I cant picture the Dreamcast even properly running many of the better PS2 games without
making sacrifices . And this is not coming from a place of contempt for the dreamcast i was really sad, and angry at Sony for killing Dreamcast (thats how I saw it)
and forcing me to buy an XBOX to keep playing sega games .... which just wasnt the same but of course at least I could play Shenmue 2 with more people on screen.

Xbox was MUCH more powerful than PS2, almost a generational leap more powerful. So what you're saying is that the PS2 wasn't really powerful, but instead just benefited from not having the Xbox and GameCube around... Got it

 

[loktaiextatus]

Xbox was MUCH more powerful than PS2, almost a generational leap more powerful. So what you're saying is that the PS2 wasn't really powerful, but instead just benefited from not having the Xbox and GameCube around... Got it

Whats your point? Did I argue that the PS2 was powerful? I said its more powerful than the Dreamcast. And I included the Gamecube and the XBOX - against DREAMCAST
or the argument for Dreamcast being some kind of powerful machine....

Yes. The Xbox is around as much of a leap from the PS2 as the PS2 is from the Dreamcast.

 

[shoplifter]

Virtua Fighter 3 was not a launch dreamcast game.

Virtua Fighter 3 was a launch title in Japan. It coming out a month after launch in the US is completely irrelevant.

 

[RetroAV]

Why would I forget the system 12 version exists and WHAT arcade system the game runs on when all I keep hearing is "arcade better, arcade better, arcade better"?
If its Arcade better dont you care what arcade its better than? There are tons of "arcade better" games ... if we're not being picky we can probably find
tons of Space Harrier ports etc that are technically better released on half decade newer hardware or something. Just saying.

I love soul calibur, it was really Nice.
Was it MORE impressive than what the consoles in its generation could do? It was not, but it did do it kind of earlier.

I like soul calibur more than tekken tag but from a technical standpoint you could probably say tekken tag was more
taxing than soul calibur.

None of this has any emotion behind it. Being "impressed" doesnt factor in to "Was it powerful" and weather or not
it was powerful and launched earlier by an hour ,a month or a year its part of the generation that includes PS2, Gamecube and XBOX.
Measured by that metric OR the metric of what a PC could do at that time- it was not that powerful. It doesnt mean I am saying
it is a rancid piece of crap or that the games are bad. It means the systems strength is not in its raw power.

And again it goes without saying anything outside raw facts, specs, and poly counts arent "power" and are not part of a factual argument.
Me thinking something has power, or me thinking something is visually pleasing doesnt make a machine a beast.

You know why you keep hearing "arcade better" because Soul Calibur Dreamcast was arcade better. The fact that it was ported from System 12 doesn't stop it from being true. As far as other "arcade better" games, again, I doubt the difference is as impressive as Soul Calibur where they re-did mostly everything from scratch.

Tekken Tag more taxing than Soul Calibur? Are 2D backdrops more taxing than fully 3D environments? Then, I guess so.

Also, the topic specifically asks whether it was powerful AT LAUNCH. And as I've already said plenty of times, (coming from a fan who wanted nothing more than to be able to play VF3 at home) the answer for me was yes.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Virtua Fighter 3 was a launch title in Japan. It coming out a month after launch in the US is completely irrelevant.

My bad, yes I am thinking of 3TB which we got later, and because we got it later I wrongly assumed it was also not out elsewhere by the time the SC launched in the US- and so I figured it was a ways afterward.

Thanks for the info.

 

[loktaiextatus]

You know why you keep hearing "arcade better" because Soul Calibur Dreamcast was arcade better. The fact that it was ported from System 12 doesn't stop it from being true. As far as other "arcade better" games, again, I doubt the difference is as impressive as Soul Calibur where they re-did mostly everything from scratch.

Do you not get why it nears parody to say this? The "Arcade" its better than is a PSX.

 

[RetroAV]

Do you not get why it nears parody to say this? The "Arcade" its better than is a PSX.

Do you not get that whether it was a PS1, a SNES, or a RTX 2080ti Dreamcast Soul Calibur was better?

 

[shoplifter]

My bad, yes I am thinking of 3TB which we got later, and because we got it later I wrongly assumed it was also not out elsewhere by the time the SC launched in the US- and so I figured it was a ways afterward.

Thanks for the info.

All good, it was actually 3tb at launch. It's the only version of the game available on DC. It was really the only reason I paid an exorbitant sum to import one at launch.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Do you not get that whether it was a PS1, a SNES, or a RTX 2080ti Dreamcast Soul Calibur was better?

Because parroting "ARCADE BETTER" loses all meaning when the arcade machine is just an arcade version
of 1994 home gaming hardware, used to cheapen development and porting.

Youre using this "arcade better" phrase a specific way.... to insinuate a feat worth mentioning.
The feat here is "1998 hardware is more powerful than 1994 hardware" essentially. The PSX can run
System 12 games with very little compromise, because its the same platform.

Namco did you a solid and didnt leave the antique looking System 12 game as it was- And So it looked "Arcade better".
That doesnt speak for dreamcast unless the thing youre trying to ask is "Is dreamcast more powerful than System 12- an arcade
machine based on 1994 hardware..." But the question is... was it powerful? Not especially. Not for its generation and it certainly
was not the pinnacle of what was possible in 1998-1999 timeperiod. It was just a good bit better than the systems we had gotten
nearly a half a decade earlier- Does that make it powerful for its time?

No reasonable person would think youd be comparing it to the 1994 launched consoles - youd compare it to its competition...
and if those consoles arent its competition what are they?

 

[loktaiextatus]

All good, it was actually 3tb at launch. It's the only version of the game available on DC. It was really the only reason I paid an exorbitant sum to import one at launch.

Nice. I recall the launch pretty well, and remember the gut wrenching pain of having to wait for a US launch because I didnt want to fork out the cash to NCS or whoever it was at the time.

 

[RetroAV]

Because parroting "ARCADE BETTER" loses all meaning when the arcade machine is just an arcade version
of 1994 home gaming hardware, used to cheapen development and porting.

Youre using this "arcade better" phrase a specific way.... to insinuate a feat worth mentioning.
The feat here is "1998 hardware is more powerful than 1994 hardware" essentially. The PSX can run
System 12 games with very little compromise, because its the same platform.

Namco did you a solid and didnt leave the antique looking System 12 game as it was- And So it looked "Arcade better".
That doesnt speak for dreamcast unless the thing youre trying to ask is "Is dreamcast more powerful than System 12- an arcade
machine based on 1994 hardware..." But the question is... was it powerful? Not especially. Not for its generation and it certainly
was not the pinnacle of what was possible in 1998-1999 timeperiod. It was just a good bit better than the systems we had gotten
nearly a half a decade earlier- Does that make it powerful for its time?

No reasonable person would think youd be comparing it to the 1994 launched consoles - youd compare it to its competition...
and if those consoles arent its competition what are they?

Compare it to Model 3 then. Does Soul Calibur not look better than Virtua Fighter 3?

 

[dolabla]

I was absolutely blown away by the Dreamcast. I got mine Christmas of 99. Between NFL 2K and Sonic Adventure, it was all mind blowing.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Compare it to Model 3 then. Does Soul Calibur not look better than Virtua Fighter 3?

Why not compare virtua fighter 3 on Dreamcast to model 3? About the same, slightly less crisp but mostly the same.
Certainly not "Arcade better".

Can you just answer me, Should I be impressed that the Dreamcast (1998) is more powerful than PSX/System 12 (1994)?

Thats the hill youre defending now... that its impressive the Dreamcast can improve on System 12... a system with
1/4th the dreamcast CPUs, less than 1/4th graphics capability , less than 1/4th the memory, and a considerably slower bus?

When they port games from something like PC they have to cut them back.... not upgrade them, Same for many model 3 games.

 

[Journey]

Whats your point? Did I argue that the PS2 was powerful? I said its more powerful than the Dreamcast. And I included the Gamecube and the XBOX - against DREAMCAST
or the argument for Dreamcast being some kind of powerful machine....

Yes. The Xbox is around as much of a leap from the PS2 as the PS2 is from the Dreamcast.

My point from the start was that the Dreamcast was appropriately powerful for its time and not just a product from it not having competition in 1999.

 

[loktaiextatus]

My point from the start was that the Dreamcast was appropriately powerful for its time and not just a product from it not having competition in 1999.

"Appropriately powerful" So we're moving the goal post from "Actually powerful" to , You think it was adequate?

Maybe it was in the ball park but given the actual specs VS the other systems , and comparing features.... "Actually powerful" no. Servicable? Sure.
it was still part of that console generation.... it was just well behind its peers.