Support NeoGAF

[Fat Frog]

To be fair, I'd seen lots of really good arcade ports before on consoles, some of them insanely good. I could go back and do examples of 2d fighters because that's really where the Saturn exceeded. But, I'll take the Saturn somewhat outside its comfort zone to the 3d arcade ports.

The Saturn came out the same year as Virtual Fighter 2 and had a crazy good port of the arcade. Why is this more impressive than anything on Dreamcast? The Saturn wasn't known for its 3d and it was very difficult to develop for.





Sega Rally Championship was damn good too, again not the Saturn's strength





Even the Tekken 3 port is just as impressive feat if not more than anything on Dreamcast for its time. It came out 2 years after the ps1 release and did a near arcade perfect port.




As I dive more into this subject and reading posts here, I'm becoming more impressed by other system ports vs the Dreamcast. The Dreamcast was specifically designed to run these arcade games while others weren't, and in many cases, yet they did near-perfect ports.

Bad examples and fake informations.

As good as VF2 on saturn is, it was possible because backgrounds had been switched to 2D (check the bridge of Shundi's Village).

Second, Tekken 3 hasn't been released 2 years after the PSX launch ! (PSX/1994, Tekken 3/1998 on psx)

Dreamcast lifespan wasn't 3 years (1998-2001) because it was the extreme end of 98 and the very beginning of 2001.(it's more 2 years and a few months)

Comparing Dreamcast games to PS2 games in general is even worse than comparing Sonic 1 to Donkey Kong country 3 since PS2 lived longer than Snes.

On top of that, many tricks has been used to save PS2's performances (low res textures, long corridors, fixed cameras).

Under Defeat Review for Dreamcast: Puts the nextgen consoles to shame - GameFAQs

For Under Defeat on the Dreamcast, a reader review titled "Puts the nextgen consoles to shame".

gamefaqs.gamespot.com

"
Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Under Defeat has some of the best graphics you’ll ever see, and I will go as far as to say that they rival the graphics you’ll see on a PS360, and blow the Wii away. The framerate is also smooth as silk (barring of course the intentional slowdown during a boss explosion). Enemy bullets are bright and easy to see (which still won’t help you when the screen is flooded with gunfire). Unlike other shooters that take place high in the stratosphere or in space, Under Defeat plays very closely to the ground, and the amount of detail is jaw-dropping. Destroyed tanks and towers will leave craters, trees will sway according to nearby explosion blasts, even cows and birds can get killed in the crossfire! Enemy planes and helicopters will not simply explode, but spin out (according to where they’ve been shot) and crash into the ground. One of the nicest graphical effects are the puddles on the ground that will reflect the action overhead. There’s a ton of small, subtle touches put on this game that really come together. And of course, game looks absolutely stunning in VGA.

A special mention must be made to the smoke effects. This is quite simply the most realistic smoke you’ve ever seen in a video game. It starts off rich and black, with multiple dynamic layers, and hangs in the air for a bit before naturally dissipating. If you fly through it, you’ll see that it’s actually rendered in 3D, depending on the altitude of the explosion. (You’ll fly over the smoke from a tank explosion, but the smoke from a plane or boss will eclipse you.) It might sound mundane, but the smoke must be seen to be believed."

Most Dreamcast games were released only 2 years after the launch and then the console died a few month later. That's why the dreamcast graphics are considered simplistic with almost no complex SFX.

But Under Defeat happened in 2006 (basically made by 3 men in a cave)and blew the cliches away.
It destroys most of PS2 schmups... proving the dreamcast is in the same league and could have been a rival in that regard. Just imagine a super Kojima and a Square production on Dreamcast...Or just imagine a well optimized Shenmue 2006 with new engine, modern tools, Yakuza's tricks (fixed camera or half bullshit cut scenes like Silent Hill 3 with ultra detailed models far from in game reality)

 

[loktaiextatus]

Yes, when the Dreamcast launched it was pretty impressive on a technical level. Sonic Adventure looked better than anything on PS1 and N64. I also played Grandia II both on the Dreamcast and later on the PS2 and always thought it was interesting how the PS2 port suffered from slowdowns in larger areas, graphical glitches and slightly worse looking textures.

Textures are no surprise... it was sort of made for a different architecture. The Dreamcast always did better texturing than PS2-
You could GET a good result on PS2 but it required learning how to stream textures, where the DC could compress them in hardware.
It was more of a quick and easy off to the races solution- and worked awesome.

You can see things like that today when a game runs better on a console with a weaker GPU than on a PC because the game is tuned very specifically for that machine.

Grandia II was a really well made game. I am glad it got another, better PC release recently so people can enjoy it.

Grandia Xtreme was better on PS2 than Grandia 2, obviously. I dont mean as a game I mean as a technical work.

 

[loktaiextatus]

So now the overall system gflops (cpu & gpu) matter, earlier it wasn't a good accurate method according to you. I don't see any PS2 game that looks 4 times+ better (more like 6.2 gflops to help you there) than the best of DC, and if we compare actual multiplatform games performance to not account for art over specs less so.

I dont see Anyone on Xbox one X that looks a full 4x better than PS4 and base xbox one, Or another comparison, I would not say that PS4 games look a whole TEN times better
than PS3 - but thats the gap in gflops.

The problem here is a disconnect between what you see, and what the system is doing. I could argue that Gran Turismo 4 looks twice as good
as any Dreamcast racer and runs at a full 60fps vs the 30fps of Dreamcasts best looking. Would that convince you?

But again- I am not talking about perception ,or art style, or the actual LOOK of games.

The question is- was it POWERFUL ?

The Switch has some beautiful games. Zelda is really nicely made, its pretty. It isnt the only one. That doesnt change the systems specs
or even upgrade it from Maxwell to Pascal cores- It just means the games are good.

Dreamcast can have some beautiful games and still be a power underdog.

The only reason I'll say the total flops dont really matter in certain context would be in the context of a RISC cpu per clock instructions and
something like an X86 cpu where the clock rate is going to factor in massively. If youre comparing two similar parts like for instance
two AMD GPUs (like whats in the PS5 and the XSX) you can use TFLOPS to measure the relative power if you arent too interestedi n fill rate
or other work being done on the GPU ( and currently have no reason to worry about it).

The 200MHZ and ~300mhz RISC cpus in the consoles - higher or not higher than the total flops of a Pentium 3- arent suited to the same workloads.
You DO find RISC cpus in something like an RS/6000 - I deal with those at work occasionally... thats a really specifically built machine.
In the case of the Dreamcast, 1.4gflops doesnt mean it goes toe to toe with a 700MHZ Pentium 3 coppermine yet to be released at the time of the DCs launch-
But if you are comparing the Dreamcasts RISC cpu to the RISC cpu in the PS2 its a better comparison.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

It was significantly more powerful than the PS1 and N64, it just got BTFO by the PS2. It also doesn't help that Sega was a notoriously mismanaged company during that time.

 

[loktaiextatus]

But Under Defeat happened in 2006 (basically made by 3 men in a cave)and blew the cliches away.
It destroys most of PS2 schmups... proving the dreamcast is in the same league and could have been a rival in that regard. Just imagine a super Kojima and a Square production on Dreamcast...Or just imagine a well optimized Shenmue 2006 with new engine, modern tools, Yakuza's tricks (fixed camera or half bullshit cut scenes like Silent Hill 3 with ultra detailed models far from in game reality)

Come on... this is a limited game running at low resolution with a lot of copy paste digital effects.

You can get a port of that game on the PS3 and it looks much better of course-

Yeah its a nice game for the DC- it isnt as great as youre making it out to be. Its a shoot em up, those were never terribly graphically intense so not finding much
on the PS2 that you feel look much better doesnt mean the PS2 cant do it, or that it means the DC is hiding some kind of secret sauce.

We already saw them turn the detail up in Shenmue II when porting it to the XBOX and it allowed them to even have more peoples on the streets.

I am sure you COULD pull a litttttle more out of the system... but its still a Dreamcast.




But personally i dont think it really outclasses something like Silpheed outside maybe art style if you prefer it .:

 

[DntMesArnd]

Best system of all time for its era. Loved the Dreamcast.

 

[Alexios]

I only skimmed the video but Silpheed enemy models don't seem so great technically. Maybe it's the art style as you say but they're just weird amorphous stuff most of the time, it helps that they're aliens so they are not supposed to look like anything real but yeah, just what I think.

Also 30fps vs 60fps capture of course. Though Under Defeat does appear to have more slowdown in proper footage that's almost a genre staple anyways.

 

[Alexios]

I dont see Anyone on Xbox one X that looks a full 4x better than PS4 and base xbox one, Or another comparison, I would not say that PS4 games look a whole TEN times better
than PS3 - but thats the gap in gflops.

The problem here is a disconnect between what you see, and what the system is doing. I could argue that Gran Turismo 4 looks twice as good
as any Dreamcast racer and runs at a full 60fps vs the 30fps of Dreamcasts best looking. Would that convince you?

But again- I am not talking about perception ,or art style, or the actual LOOK of games.

The question is- was it POWERFUL ?

The Switch has some beautiful games. Zelda is really nicely made, its pretty. It isnt the only one. That doesnt change the systems specs
or even upgrade it from Maxwell to Pascal cores- It just means the games are good.

Dreamcast can have some beautiful games and still be a power underdog.

The only reason I'll say the total flops dont really matter in certain context would be in the context of a RISC cpu per clock instructions and
something like an X86 cpu where the clock rate is going to factor in massively. If youre comparing two similar parts like for instance
two AMD GPUs (like whats in the PS5 and the XSX) you can use TFLOPS to measure the relative power if you arent too interestedi n fill rate
or other work being done on the GPU ( and currently have no reason to worry about it).

The 200MHZ and ~300mhz RISC cpus in the consoles - higher or not higher than the total flops of a Pentium 3- arent suited to the same workloads.
You DO find RISC cpus in something like an RS/6000 - I deal with those at work occasionally... thats a really specifically built machine.
In the case of the Dreamcast, 1.4gflops doesnt mean it goes toe to toe with a 700MHZ Pentium 3 coppermine yet to be released at the time of the DCs launch-
But if you are comparing the Dreamcasts RISC cpu to the RISC cpu in the PS2 its a better comparison.

Switch was powerful "for a portable", games are impressive "all things considered" ie the slim tablet size and not impressive for its year of release vs all existing output. Dreamcast was powerful for a home system and impressed everyone, you included, at face value not "all things considered".

PS2 was over 15 months later, much like a top of the line GPU gets superseded by a wide margin in a similar time frame nowadays (ie GTX vs RTX), which doesn't make it not-top-of-the-line then. And once again we didn't see the system mature as much. Xbox even more so at 3 years later.

I'm not saying it could top PS2, I never said that, but it could have held its own if SEGA wasn't in financial dire straits, it could have continued getting pretty and great games that played to its strengths and not against its apparent for later years weaknesses (not ports of MGS2 etc.).

Either way all that is fluff, it was powerful when it released, it was naturally left behind by newer and better tech, that is the nature of tech, not a trait of a "not powerful" system and that's all the justification you really have for calling it such, that later tech was better. Duh.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

The Dreamcast was a very potent gaming machine, but it came to market right before programmable shaders became a thing.

Anyway, I'm under the impression that the DC was much closer to the PS2 than to the N64+PSX+Saturn generation, it had extremely good image quality, games on it had levels of details unthinkable on the previous generation (Code Veronica). It also gave you expecations in therms of image quality (almost every game features anti aliasing of some sort and the texture resolution was through the roof for the time).

Kinda

It's like a PlayStation to a N64. It's weaker, but could work around

The problem is that the PSX has some serious benefits, the storage capacity, higher quality textures (not filtered, but higher resolution none the less)... I found that most games fun at better frame rate on the PSX as well, almost as if the N64 did not have enough fill rate for what it's trying to achieve.

Even back in the day you could appreciate how modern textures looked with filtering on, up to this point that was something you only saw in very few arcade games, and very high end workstations (it was released before the first 3dfx card on PC).... but the filtering is also of very low quality on the original hardware, that gave all games the N64's signature blurry look--see it on original hardware, not a modern emulator.

 

[Fat Frog]

Come on... this is a limited game running at low resolution with a lot of copy paste digital effects.

You can get a port of that game on the PS3 and it looks much better of course-

Yeah its a nice game for the DC- it isnt as great as youre making it out to be. Its a shoot em up, those were never terribly graphically intense so not finding much
on the PS2 that you feel look much better doesnt mean the PS2 cant do it, or that it means the DC is hiding some kind of secret sauce.

We already saw them turn the detail up in Shenmue II when porting it to the XBOX and it allowed them to even have more peoples on the streets.

I am sure you COULD pull a litttttle more out of the system... but its still a Dreamcast.




But personally i dont think it really outclasses something like Silpheed outside maybe art style if you prefer it .:

You didn't notice it wasn't my words but quotes from a review.

Indeed, the Dreamcast was of course not a PS3 but the fact it beats the majority of PS2 schmup (except 1 or 2) proves the Dreamcast wasn't pushed to the limit.
That's my point.
Plus, the top developers didn't work on it. (would be curious to see Dreamcast games by Naughty dogs)

 

[Alexios]

Speaking of this, can anyone enable texture filtering in SEGA Rally 2 on Flycast/RetroArch? I can only find old references to it being a "known issue" and no news. Even forcing AF and stuff in the core options doesn't seem to have any effect, it makes it look like a previous gen game, lol (no).

 

[Romulus]

Bad examples and fake informations.

As good as VF2 on saturn is, it was possible because backgrounds had been switched to 2D (check the bridge of Shundi's Village).

Second, Tekken 3 hasn't been released 2 years after the PSX launch ! (PSX/1994, Tekken 3/1998 on psx)

Dreamcast lifespan wasn't 3 years (1998-2001) because it was the extreme end of 98 and the very beginning of 2001.(it's more 2 years and a few months)

Comparing Dreamcast games to PS2 games in general is even worse than comparing Sonic 1 to Donkey Kong country 3 since PS2 lived longer than Snes.

On top of that, many tricks has been used to save PS2's performances (low res textures, long corridors, fixed cameras).

Under Defeat Review for Dreamcast: Puts the nextgen consoles to shame - GameFAQs

For Under Defeat on the Dreamcast, a reader review titled "Puts the nextgen consoles to shame".

gamefaqs.gamespot.com

"
Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Under Defeat has some of the best graphics you’ll ever see, and I will go as far as to say that they rival the graphics you’ll see on a PS360, and blow the Wii away. The framerate is also smooth as silk (barring of course the intentional slowdown during a boss explosion). Enemy bullets are bright and easy to see (which still won’t help you when the screen is flooded with gunfire). Unlike other shooters that take place high in the stratosphere or in space, Under Defeat plays very closely to the ground, and the amount of detail is jaw-dropping. Destroyed tanks and towers will leave craters, trees will sway according to nearby explosion blasts, even cows and birds can get killed in the crossfire! Enemy planes and helicopters will not simply explode, but spin out (according to where they’ve been shot) and crash into the ground. One of the nicest graphical effects are the puddles on the ground that will reflect the action overhead. There’s a ton of small, subtle touches put on this game that really come together. And of course, game looks absolutely stunning in VGA.

A special mention must be made to the smoke effects. This is quite simply the most realistic smoke you’ve ever seen in a video game. It starts off rich and black, with multiple dynamic layers, and hangs in the air for a bit before naturally dissipating. If you fly through it, you’ll see that it’s actually rendered in 3D, depending on the altitude of the explosion. (You’ll fly over the smoke from a tank explosion, but the smoke from a plane or boss will eclipse you.) It might sound mundane, but the smoke must be seen to be believed."

Most Dreamcast games were released only 2 years after the launch and then the console died a few month later. That's why the dreamcast graphics are considered simplistic with almost no complex SFX.

But Under Defeat happened in 2006 (basically made by 3 men in a cave)and blew the cliches away.
It destroys most of PS2 schmups... proving the dreamcast is in the same league and could have been a rival in that regard. Just imagine a super Kojima and a Square production on Dreamcast...Or just imagine a well optimized Shenmue 2006 with new engine, modern tools, Yakuza's tricks (fixed camera or half bullshit cut scenes like Silent Hill 3 with ultra detailed models far from in game reality)

You said I used bad examples but tekken coming later than I said actually helps my argument. And you said bad examples, plural. What else? The background difference in vf2 was a very small price to pay, and the saturn wasn't even great at 3d. So I don't even agree with that.

Oh and better than 360 graphics? Lol

 

[Alexios]

The Saturn was pretty great at 3D, if tough to utilize. Games like Virtua Fighter 2, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Last Bronx, Grandia, Powerslave, Duke Nukem 3D and such prove it. PS1 was just better at it (and way lesser in 2D but marketing pushed 3D and won, sign of the times). Most flagship multiplatform games, as long as it got them (so not very long), like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Dead or Alive and Wipeout, had similar relatively minor differences to any later generation's "on par" systems and played just as wonderfully for gamers. That said the arcade ports were most often far more cut down than Dreamcast arcade ports (ie 30fps being the norm except for fighters other than Virtual On). It makes sense, arcades were monsters, and it was similar for PS1 (even though many arcade games were on Naomi-style PS1 based hardware, unlike Saturn).

It mostly got a bad rep for having games like Virtua Fighter at launch. Personally I think that port as an early port was better than its reputation suggests and mighty fine overall, the amount of polygons on those fighters on the original is kinda nuts (and very badly designed, very unlike later more mature 3D modeling techniques) so obviously it had to be cut down for Saturn but the game itself, arcade and all, was already ancient by then, used no textures and what not (and not in a fancy let's go for resolution and smoothness way like Tobal later which made it an art style, it was just that they didn't even have the workflow for texture mapping back then, having just moved over from wireframe 3D, it was probably the first 3D fighter). They rectified it with Remix but it was too late to change perceptions which were bombarded by Sony marketing/propaganda.

It was also very different to PS1 which made developers even less likely to tune their work to Saturn after focusing on the former given its international, not just Japanese, success. Still, that wasn't the Saturn being unconventional, standards weren't exactly set in stone but were being developed right then. Ie, even some PC GPUs used quads instead of triangles much like Saturn. But triangles won. Similarly for other things. Like the mentioned Virtua Fighter 1 modeling style vs later games like Dead or Alive that didn't necessarily have so many more polygons but still utilized what they had better for a more organic look and feel. Later PS1 3D games benefited from further advances in technique. Hence how Ridge Racer Type 4 looks compared to its launch Ridge games. Saturn never got that benefit for games in every category, but did in some of the games I mentioned above. Still, for the average 3rd party developer you wouldn't have them use neat tricks like utilizing the 2D processors for large flat surfaces in 3D games to complete the illusion, they all used raw triangles tuned to PS1. First party Saturn games like Panzer Dragoon Zwei used them to great effect of course.

If VF3 cut down all the 3D backgrounds and just kept the arenas like 2 did it certainly would have been 1:1 to the arcade game or even better for what was left of it, but obviously lesser overall. Still, the 3D arenas was much of that game's looks so they tried to keep them. If Sega Rally 2 had decided to go for 30fps flat like Sega Rally on Saturn it probably could have kept more of the graphics even as a not optimized Windows based development (clearly games that didn't use the Windows mode utilized the system better) rather than appear stuttery with slow down. Etc.

 

[scalman]

We now can compare stuff for specs and such but back then it was those times when gamed matered not specs at least for small kids who just wanna play . Good example when power means nothing but games does. Sadly those times died and nowadays games are very different bread.

 

[Fat Frog]

You said I used bad examples but tekken coming later than I said actually helps my argument. And you said bad examples, plural. What else? The background difference in vf2 was a very small price to pay, and the saturn wasn't even great at 3d. So I don't even agree with that.

Oh and better than 360 graphics? Lol

I didn't say better than 360, that's a quote... the reviewer was too excited by the game but he is right:That's an impressive game if you play it with VGA.

 

[Romulus]

The Saturn was pretty great at 3D, if tough to utilize. Games like Virtua Fighter 2, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Last Bronx, Grandia, Powerslave, Duke Nukem 3D and such prove it. PS1 was just better at it (and way lesser in 2D but marketing pushed 3D and won, sign of the times). Most flagship multiplatform games, as long as it got them (so not very long), like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Dead or Alive and Wipeout, had similar relatively minor differences to any later generation's "on par" systems and played just as wonderfully for gamers. That said the arcade ports were most often far more cut down than Dreamcast arcade ports (ie 30fps being the norm except for fighters other than Virtual On). It makes sense, arcades were monsters, and it was similar for PS1 (even though many arcade games were on Naomi-style PS1 based hardware, unlike Saturn).

It mostly got a bad rep for having games like Virtua Fighter at launch. Personally I think that port as an early port was better than its reputation suggests and mighty fine overall, the amount of polygons on those fighters on the original is kinda nuts (and very badly designed, very unlike later more mature 3D modeling techniques) so obviously it had to be cut down for Saturn but the game itself, arcade and all, was already ancient by then, used no textures and what not (and not in a fancy let's go for resolution and smoothness way like Tobal later which made it an art style, it was just that they didn't even have the workflow for texture mapping back then, having just moved over from wireframe 3D, it was probably the first 3D fighter). They rectified it with Remix but it was too late to change perceptions which were bombarded by Sony marketing/propaganda.

It was also very different to PS1 which made developers even less likely to tune their work to Saturn after focusing on the former given its international, not just Japanese, success. Still, that wasn't the Saturn being unconventional, standards weren't exactly set in stone but were being developed right then. Ie, even some PC GPUs used quads instead of triangles much like Saturn. But triangles won. Similarly for other things. Like the mentioned Virtua Fighter 1 modeling style vs later games like Dead or Alive that didn't necessarily have so many more polygons but still utilized what they had better for a more organic look and feel. Later PS1 3D games benefited from further advances in technique. Hence how Ridge Racer Type 4 looks compared to its launch Ridge games. Saturn never got that benefit for games in every category, but did in some of the games I mentioned above. Still, for the average 3rd party developer you wouldn't have them use neat tricks like utilizing the 2D processors for large flat surfaces in 3D games to complete the illusion, they all used raw 3D tuned to PS1.

If VF3 cut down all the 3D backgrounds and just kept the arenas like 2 did it certainly would have been 1:1 to the arcade game or even better for what was left of it, but obviously lesser overall. Still, the 3D arenas was much of that game's looks so they tried to keep them. If Sega Rally 2 had decided to go for 30fps flat like Sega Rally on Saturn it probably could have kept more of the graphics even as a not optimized Windows based development (clearly games that didn't use the Windows mode utilized the system better) rather than appear stuttery with slow down. Etc.

The saturn struggled with quadratic surfaces, causing slowdown. They had to build games around this weakness. When porting Quake to ps1, they used the Saturn version as a base for ps1, and got up and running to 60fps without collision detection. I honestly didn't think PS1 was particularly great either at 3d, but it bested Saturn. That said, when pushed, it could produce some amazing results on Saturn too.

 

[Kazza]

Can anyone point to any games (on console or PC) which could match these Dreamcast titles at the time?

Virtua Fighter 3, November 98:

Sonic Adventure December 98:

Soul Calibur, August 99:

NFL 2K, September 99:

Ferrari 355 Challenge, October 99:

Shenmue, December 99:

Jet Set Radio, June 00

Ecoo: Defender of the Future, June 00:

It was definitely a big technical leap. I just regret that I was too into PC strategy gaming at the time to notice

 

[Alexios]

The saturn struggled with quadratic surfaces, causing slowdown. They had to build games around this weakness. When porting Quake to ps1, they used the Saturn version as a base for ps1, and got up and running to 60fps without collision detection. I honestly didn't think PS1 was particularly great either at 3d, but it bested Saturn. That said, when pushed, it could produce some amazing results on Saturn too.

Multiplatform and actual released games don't show that kind of difference even though most were PS1-first and didn't utilize Saturn's strengths and first party games held their own too. The biggest flaw was the lack of true (fast) transparencies for 3D games but they made do. You're ignoring all the actual tangible released examples in my post to post about that fabled unfinished Quake 1 port that got to 60fps under certain conditions and was never released? Great. So what was good 3D hw at that era, early PC GPUs that changed conventions every month or arcade hardware costing thousands? That's like saying Saturn was the best system since it had great 2D then. Clearly the market wanted 3D though and found it pretty great on PS1 (and as shown in real games Saturn wasn't really that far behind, Sony propaganda in all the major paid off media of the era aside).

Edit: also, the whole game logic and AI was missing in your Quake example too, not just collisions. Are you just doing a google search to mention stuff because I found this info by doing this just now, lol.

 

[Romulus]

Multiplatform and actual released games don't show that kind of difference even though most were PS1-first and didn't utilize Saturn's strengths and first party games held their own too. The biggest flaw was the lack of true transparencies for 3D games but they made do. You're ignoring all the actual tangible released examples in my post to post about that fabled unfinished Quake 1 port that got to 60fps under certain conditions and was never released? Great. So what was good 3D hw at that era, early PC GPUs that changed conventions every month or arcade hardware costing thousands? That's like saying Saturn was the best system since it had great 2D then. Clearly the market wanted 3D though and found it pretty great on PS1 (and as shown Saturn wasn't really that far behind, Sony propaganda in all the major paid off media of the era aside).

I actually brought up alot of your examples earlier the thread, so I'm not ignoring them. I think a 1994 console obviously could do 3d, not denying that one bit and some of them look good for the era. The PS1 was better as you said, but even then I never thought it was great in its own right at 3d.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Multiplatform and actual released games don't show that kind of difference even though most were PS1-first and didn't utilize Saturn's strengths and first party games held their own too. The biggest flaw was the lack of true transparencies for 3D games but they made do. You're ignoring all the actual tangible released examples in my post to post about that fabled unfinished Quake 1 port that got to 60fps under certain conditions and was never released? Great. So what was good 3D hw at that era, early PC GPUs that changed conventions every month or arcade hardware costing thousands? That's like saying Saturn was the best system since it had great 2D then. Clearly the market wanted 3D though and found it pretty great on PS1 (and as shown in real games Saturn wasn't really that far behind, Sony propaganda in all the major paid off media of the era aside).

PS1 games looked much better than Saturn most of the time. Ya, VF2 looked great and first party I guess, but 3D games on PS1 usually had better frame rate, transparencies (which you said) which was a new thing at the time, gouroud shading instead of blocky Saturn shading and JPEG, so cut scenes had smoother shading. Saturn was MPEG or MPEG 2 where a same cut scene had this grainy look to it like it was Sega CD.

 

[Alexios]

PS1 games looked much better than Saturn most of the time. Ya, VF2 looked great and first party I guess, but 3D games on PS1 usually had better frame rate, transparencies (which you said) which was a new thing at the time, gouroud shading instead of blocky Saturn shading and JPEG, so cut scenes had smoother shading. Saturn was MPEG or MPEG 2 where a same cut scene had this grainy look to it like it was Sega CD.

FMV isn't "3d" which we were discussing. And most of the multiplatform games had similar difference to today's "on par" systems people are happy with rather than "much better" and calling the other system "bad". Already mentioned plenty examples in the post before that, way more than VF2.

The Saturn was pretty great at 3D, if tough to utilize. Games like Virtua Fighter 2, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Last Bronx, Grandia, Powerslave, Duke Nukem 3D and such prove it. PS1 was just better at it (and way lesser in 2D but marketing pushed 3D and won, sign of the times). Most flagship multiplatform games, as long as it got them (so not very long), like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Dead or Alive and Wipeout, had similar relatively minor differences to any later generation's "on par" systems and played just as wonderfully for gamers. That said the arcade ports were most often far more cut down than Dreamcast arcade ports (ie 30fps being the norm except for fighters other than Virtual On). It makes sense, arcades were monsters, and it was similar for PS1 (even though many arcade games were on Naomi-style PS1 based hardware, unlike Saturn).

It mostly got a bad rep for having games like Virtua Fighter at launch. Personally I think that port as an early port was better than its reputation suggests and mighty fine overall, the amount of polygons on those fighters on the original is kinda nuts (and very badly designed, very unlike later more mature 3D modeling techniques) so obviously it had to be cut down for Saturn but the game itself, arcade and all, was already ancient by then, used no textures and what not (and not in a fancy let's go for resolution and smoothness way like Tobal later which made it an art style, it was just that they didn't even have the workflow for texture mapping back then, having just moved over from wireframe 3D, it was probably the first 3D fighter). They rectified it with Remix but it was too late to change perceptions which were bombarded by Sony marketing/propaganda.

It was also very different to PS1 which made developers even less likely to tune their work to Saturn after focusing on the former given its international, not just Japanese, success. Still, that wasn't the Saturn being unconventional, standards weren't exactly set in stone but were being developed right then. Ie, even some PC GPUs used quads instead of triangles much like Saturn. But triangles won. Similarly for other things. Like the mentioned Virtua Fighter 1 modeling style vs later games like Dead or Alive that didn't necessarily have so many more polygons but still utilized what they had better for a more organic look and feel. Later PS1 3D games benefited from further advances in technique. Hence how Ridge Racer Type 4 looks compared to its launch Ridge games. Saturn never got that benefit for games in every category, but did in some of the games I mentioned above. Still, for the average 3rd party developer you wouldn't have them use neat tricks like utilizing the 2D processors for large flat surfaces in 3D games to complete the illusion, they all used raw triangles tuned to PS1. First party Saturn games like Panzer Dragoon Zwei used them to great effect of course.

Though I shouldn't have said Wipeout, the frame rate there is indeed not great, the rest and many more stand. And yes PS1 had what you say and also crazy texture warping and other issues not as apparent on Saturn (most of the time, dunno how they made it so bad in Sega Touring Car, lol).

 

[Fat Frog]

Can anyone point to any games (on console or PC) which could match these Dreamcast titles at the time?

Virtua Fighter 3, November 98:

Sonic Adventure December 98:

Soul Calibur, August 99:

NFL 2K, September 99:

Ferrari 355 Challenge, October 99:

Shenmue, December 99:

Jet Set Radio, June 00

Ecoo: Defender of the Future, June 00:

It was definitely a big technical leap. I just regret that I was too into PC strategy gaming at the time to notice

The answer is in the poll. 90% think Dreamcast was a power house at launch.

 

[Alexios]

I just regret that I was too into PC strategy gaming at the time to notice

I actually got my first PC at the time and turned, I had to force myself to sit through Shenmue 2 but I'm glad I did. It probably would have made me appreciate DC even more if it did get that Half-Life port (Half-Life and mods was a big reason I got so into PC gaming) and games like Gun Valkyrie.

 

[Kazza]

I had to force myself to sit through Shenmue 2 but I'm glad I did.

I really enjoyed playing through the Shenmue just a few years back, but it would have been mindblowing to play them way back in 00/01. I was really into PC point and click adventures at the time and Shenmue is similar to those in many ways. Such a shame, Dreamcast was the only Sega console I didn't own (well, apart form the 32X) and I can't remember why I didn't get one, it's too long ago now to remember clearly.

 

[Romulus]

Can anyone point to any games (on console or PC) which could match these Dreamcast titles at the time?

Virtua Fighter 3, November 98:

Sonic Adventure December 98:

Soul Calibur, August 99:

NFL 2K, September 99:

Ferrari 355 Challenge, October 99:

Shenmue, December 99:

Jet Set Radio, June 00

Ecoo: Defender of the Future, June 00:

It was definitely a big technical leap. I just regret that I was too into PC strategy gaming at the time to notice

Which is sort of the point. There wasn't around console around. Throw up screens of Saturn games with no PS1 to compare or vice versa and the same could be said, or even more so maybe.

 

[Romulus]

The answer is in the poll. 90% think Dreamcast was a power house at launch.

Yeah but the Dreamcast is also a cult favorite. I doubt 90% of those votes even know why the Dreamcast failed or anything technical about the system. Just "I like dreamcast." I anticipated it would around 80% positive, most everybody loved it.

 

[Wolfgang Jr]

Can we please turn this into a Unreal Tournament love thread please?

 

[Alexios]

Which is sort of the point. There wasn't around console around. Throw up screens of Saturn games with no PS1 to compare or vice versa and the same could be said, or even more so maybe.

That's not a logical sensible point though. Every consumer product can have an imaginary "would have been so much better, what we got sucks" rival, whether it got existing rivals or not. Xbox wasn't powerful cos it came 3 years later and so MS did just enough to make it more powerful than the aging tech of PS2/DC when they could have made something so much more and something truly impressive, what a meh system. Similarly for every system ever, PCs included, nothing is ever powerful, just the bare minimum and expected tech, it's just how the world works and physics, boring. Model 3 in 1996? Meh, SEGA clearly resting on its laurels knowing nobody invests that much in arcade hardware so they can reign with a halfhearted effort that's just a souped up Model 2 with more polygons, more textures, more effects, but no innovative new technology we didn't know existed.

That's an opinion I guess, but there's no evidence to support it and opinions can't be argued so, gg, you win, Dreamcast didn't seem powerful to Romulus and nothing anyone can say/show will change that, mic drop. And anyone who says different is a cult fanboy obvs, another fact for you guyz.

Yeah but the Dreamcast is also a cult favorite. I doubt 90% of those votes even know why the Dreamcast failed or anything technical about the system. Just "I like dreamcast." I anticipated it would around 80% positive, most everybody loved it.

 

[sinnergy]

I played Red Dog a lot from Argonaut, who worked on Star Fox Snes. It’s a nice Looking shooter

 

[Kazza]

Which is sort of the point. There wasn't around console around. Throw up screens of Saturn games with no PS1 to compare or vice versa and the same could be said, or even more so maybe.

You have a rather unique way of looking at things. I mean, once the 3080 Ti arrives it will be the most powerful GPU. Theoretically you could imagine an even more powerful card and say "yeah, but there isn't any competition", but what is Nvidia supposed to do about that?

The 3080 Ti will be the most powerful GPU at release in 2020, just as the Dreamcast was the most powerful games machine (including consumer gaming PCs and arcade boards in many respects) when released in 1998. The games that came out for it those first two years were a true generational leap over what had come before. If the games looked and performed only marginally better than N64 games, or if they couldn't compare to 1998/99 PC games, then you might have a point, but that wasn't the case. So it's not surprising to see the poll so skewed against your initial premise. It was self evidently a powerhouse at launch.

As I mentioned before, it could be argued that the console could have been even more amazing if Sega had aimed for a $299 pricepoint instead of $199. If you can point out any particular bottleneck in the hardware which you believe could have been alleviated by them spending an extra $50/$100 dollars then that could be an interesting conversation. But even then, we would be discussing whether or not the Dreamcast could have been even more of a powerhouse than it already was.

 

[Romulus]

You have a rather unique way of looking at things. I mean, once the 3080 Ti arrives it will be the most powerful GPU. Theoretically you could imagine an even more powerful card and say "yeah, but there isn't any competition", but what is Nvidia supposed to do about that?

The 3080 Ti will be the most powerful GPU at release in 2020, just as the Dreamcast was the most powerful games machine (including consumer gaming PCs and arcade boards in many respects) when released in 1998. The games that came out for it those first two years were a true generational leap over what had come before. If the games looked and performed only marginally better than N64 games, or if they couldn't compare to 1998/99 PC games, then you might have a point, but that wasn't the case. So it's not surprising to see the poll so skewed against your initial premise. It was self evidently a powerhouse at launch.

As I mentioned before, it could be argued that the console could have been even more amazing if Sega had aimed for a $299 pricepoint instead of $199. If you can point out any particular bottleneck in the hardware which you believe could have been alleviated by them spending an extra $50/$100 dollars then that could be an interesting conversation. But even then, we would be discussing whether or not the Dreamcast could have been even more of a powerhouse than it already was.

But these aren't graphics cards though, and you're missing the entire point. The Dreamcast was in a special place well after the N64 and before the PS2.
SNES and Genesis launched within a year. PS1 and Saturn on the same year. Xbox 360 and PS3 within a year. Xb1 and PS4 the same year. The 6th gen was the odd generation out here, at a time when 3d graphics were really evolving. A huge gap in time during such a prime time of 3d progression was just that, huge progression.
And of course its going to have games that favor well to arcades when its hardware was so similar. and its unique position. But again, we can go back and look at Saturn and PS1 ports that were incredible. But yeah, the Dreamcast is well-loved by enthusiasts and this is a forum, so a 95% vote for the dreamcast wouldn't shock me in the slightest. Not here.

 

[Romulus]

That's not a logical sensible point though. Every consumer product can have an imaginary "would have been so much better, what we got sucks" rival, whether it got existing rivals or not. Xbox wasn't powerful cos it came 3 years later and so MS did just enough to make it more powerful than the aging tech of PS2/DC when they could have made something so much more and something truly impressive, what a meh system. Similarly for every system ever, PCs included, nothing is ever powerful, just the bare minimum and expected tech, it's just how the world works and physics, boring. Model 3 in 1996? Meh, SEGA clearly resting on its laurels knowing nobody invests that much in arcade hardware so they can reign with a halfhearted effort that's just a souped up Model 2 with more polygons, more textures, more effects, but no innovative new technology we didn't know existed.

That's an opinion I guess, but there's no evidence to support it and opinions can't be argued so, gg, you win, Dreamcast didn't seem powerful to Romulus and nothing anyone can say/show will change that, mic drop. And anyone who says different is a cult fanboy obvs, another fact for you guyz.

You're kinda losing me in this first paragraph thing with the wording. If you reread it you'd agree I'm sure. Xbox had GC as a metric though.

But to even argue the Dreamcast isn't an enthusiast favorite is borderline heresy. Come on.

 

[RetroAV]

But these aren't graphics cards though, and you're missing the entire point. The Dreamcast was in a special place well after the N64 and before the PS2.
SNES and Genesis launched within a year. PS1 and Saturn on the same year. Xbox 360 and PS3 within a year. Xb1 and PS4 the same year. The 6th gen was the odd generation out here, at a time when 3d graphics were really evolving. A huge gap in time during such a prime time of 3d progression was just that, huge progression.
And of course its going to have games that favor well to arcades when its hardware was so similar. and its unique position. But again, we can go back and look at Saturn and PS1 ports that were incredible. But yeah, the Dreamcast is well-loved by enthusiasts and this is a forum, so a 95% vote for the dreamcast wouldn't shock me in the slightest. Not here.

Just wanted to clarify it was 2 years:

MEGA DRIVE: 10/29/88
SUPER FAMICOM: 11/21/90

 

[Romulus]

Just wanted to clarify it was 2 years:

MEGA DRIVE: 10/29/88
SUPER FAMICOM: 11/21/90

I always forget the japan release

 

[Romulus]

I think a big point with the Dreamcast arcade ports is the entire arcade industry was slowing down with the cutting edge machines pushing crazy polygons. The days of everyone chasing the next best Daytona USA or virtual fighter port were dying, so yeah, the Dreamcast made well on the downward angle of beefy arcade machines.

I mean there just wasn't much to chase in terms of massively impressive arcade games by the late 90s early 2000s. The money wasn't being poured into it.

Arcade video games had declined in popularity so much by the late 1990s, that revenues in the United States dropped to US$1.33 billion in 1999, and reached a low of $866 million in 2004.

Arcade game - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I mean we saw the ps2, GC, and Xbox, none of were chasing those killer arcade ports anymore. That focus had mostly died off by then.

 

[lame gag1990]

Why is PRICE coming into it? We werent comparing games consoles, people brought in frickin, ARCADE BOARDS and stuff.

If we are bringing PRICE into it then even at 199 the PSX and N64 were MUCH cheaper than Dreamcast. So does power no longer matter?
Is this thread now about VALUE proposition?

PC's were never mentioned either. You try to sway the argument and I'll do the same. I'll tell you what. I'll make it a bit fairer for you. Show me a game that looks as good as Shenmue on PC at the time. Forget the price. If you can show me, I don't know, maybe 5 games, I'll concede that Dreamcast wasn't powerful when it released. I know for a fact it was but you prove me wrong man.

 

[Team Andromeda]

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!

Not in Japan or for those of us who imported the DC in November 98.Also, the DC port is a near perfect port of the Arcade game and pushing well over a million polygons (incredible for a early launch title ).

It's seems a internet myth that VF 3 on the DC was a poor port

 

[Alexios]

Not in Japan or for those of us who imported the DC in November 98.Also, the DC port is a near perfect port of the Arcade game and pushing well over a million polygons (incredible for a early launch title ).

It's seems a internet myth that VF 3 on the DC was a poor port

It's certainly really close. I doubt most people could tell the difference without a side by side back then.


I think it's a matter of VF3 itself being an older 1996 game without as matured modeling methods that meant the amount of polygons didn't reflect on screen in the way seen in more modern games that followed the DC launch.


Kind of like I mentioned for Saturn's Virtua Fighter port's bad rep back in its day (though the cuts on that were much more evident). SoulCalibur is just a more stylish game for most people's sensibilities even if it clearly lacks the 3D environments for the most part.

For a comparison, the character models in the PS2 port of Virtua Fighter 4 are ~7000 triangles, Aoi (and all others) on the DC version of VF3tb is on the same level (7500) but they've used up 4300 of them on just her head. Clearly modeling matured since 1996.

SoulCalibur full character models are in the range of Aoi's head or less! Mitsurugi is 3876! The game just oozes style and grace, not just raw power.

For posterity the arcade version of Virtua Fighter 4 uses up to 20k polygons per character. Which is probably why people think it couldn't be ported to Dreamcast, unaware with proper care models can be reduced and still look pretty (as on the PS2, imagine that in sharp 480p with better textures).

Dead or Alive 2 DC character polygons range from 8416 to 9246 so a similar amount that looks better as that game wasn't made in 1996. Sega was pioneering with the likes of VF1, 2 and 3 so things that came later could improve. Still they weren't gonna remake the games for the Dreamcast port like Namco did, so they just cut down the existing models and what not until the game could run well on Dreamcast, which meant forms suffered a bit, it's one thing to cut down a model and another to make it on that budget from step 1 or work harder/smarter to ensure the high quality results.

In the Dreamcast version of Dead or Alive 2, the backgrounds display 30,748 to 51,894 polygons per scene, while the characters display 8416 to 9246 polygons each. This was the highest character polygon count in any video game at the time, surpassing Virtua Fighter 3 (about 7500 polygons per character), and it was significantly higher than the polygon counts in games for other consoles and PC at the time. In comparison, the highest polygon counts for PC games at the time were up to 15,000 polygons per scene (Quake III Arena) and 2500 polygons per character (Half-Life).[10] The polygon count of Dead or Alive 2 was surpassed by the Dreamcast game Shenmue, released several months after the arcade release of Dead or Alive 2.

The NAOMI 2 arcade version of Virtua Fighter 4 uses up to 20,000 polygons for each character, while each background uses over 50,000 polygons, with up to 16 hardware light sources per polygon, at 60 frames per second. This was the highest character polygon count and lights per polygon for a video game up until 2001, giving it the most detailed character graphics and lighting effects of its time (such as dynamic search lights).[6] In comparison, the same year, Dead or Alive 3 on the Xbox used 10,000 to 15,000 polygons for the characters. Virtua Fighter 4's character polygon count was unsurpassed until Virtua Fighter 5 in 2005.[7] In terms of textures, the game uses 128 MB of texture data for the characters.[8]

The PlayStation 2 version of Virtua Fighter 4, due to hardware limitations, reduced the polygon count down to 7,000 polygons for the characters and had much fewer light sources. The texture details were also reduced for the PlayStation 2 version.[9]

Seems like most people can't tell art style/design vs tech specs. Most numbers by Sega Retro.

 

[deriks]

The Dreamcast was a very potent gaming machine, but it came to market right before programmable shaders became a thing.

Anyway, I'm under the impression that the DC was much closer to the PS2 than to the N64+PSX+Saturn generation, it had extremely good image quality, games on it had levels of details unthinkable on the previous generation (Code Veronica). It also gave you expecations in therms of image quality (almost every game features anti aliasing of some sort and the texture resolution was through the roof for the time).


The problem is that the PSX has some serious benefits, the storage capacity, higher quality textures (not filtered, but higher resolution none the less)... I found that most games fun at better frame rate on the PSX as well, almost as if the N64 did not have enough fill rate for what it's trying to achieve.

Even back in the day you could appreciate how modern textures looked with filtering on, up to this point that was something you only saw in very few arcade games, and very high end workstations (it was released before the first 3dfx card on PC).... but the filtering is also of very low quality on the original hardware, that gave all games the N64's signature blurry look--see it on original hardware, not a modern emulator.

It has benefits for sure, but some games between the two looks better than the PSX, like Shadowman and Tony Hawks. That's my point

 

[V2Tommy]

Dreamcast owner on 9/9/99 here.
Nothing but disappointment in the software library outside of Code Veronica, Skies of Arcadia and Grandia II. Annoying, noisy console with a fan (!) and loud disc drive. Bad controller. Beeping VMU.

And they way people talk on here about the hardware prowess, I’m surprised no one’s saying that Dreamcast games look better than Silent Hill 3.

And don’t tell me about Soul Calibur. That game takes 10 minutes to beat. Fighting games when you don’t have friends or online play are barely a step above demo discs.

 

[Mobilemofo]

Dreamcast sold itself on it's bits. At the time, the atari jaguar had flopped spectacularly, so the dreamcast had the field to itself for a while at least. It was mote powerful vs what was available but not a leap in performance per se.

 

[Fafalada]

But then the PS2, GameCube, and Xbox all outperformed it.

"Outperformed" is underselling how large the gaps were back then - DC->XBox was a 10x jump in most things that mattered and it was/is arguably considered less of a big deal than 20% (50 times smaller gap) is today.
But compared to contemporary PC hw at launch, each subsequent console of that era held-up rather well.

For a home console to complete with and stay active as many years as PS1 (yes 1) it was NOT.

That's not even a fair comparison - even just counting years 2000-2004, PS1 easily outsold everything on the market - except for the PS2.
Hell adding in 1999 for DC launch, it's PS1 = all of them combined.

 

[cireza]

I’m surprised no one’s saying that Dreamcast games look better than Silent Hill 3.

A 2003 game by a major developer, what game do we have on Dreamcast for 2003 to serve as basis for a comparison ?

Nothing but disappointment in the software library outside of Code Veronica, Skies of Arcadia and Grandia II.

PSO, Crazy Taxi, Soul Calibur, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Sonic Adventure, Jet Set Radio, Quake 3, all the Capcom and SNK games... What a huge disappointment indeed.

Fighting games when you don’t have friends or online play are barely a step above demo discs.

I only play against CPU and I have been playing fighting games for more than 25 years, there is plenty to enjoy.

Dreamcast owner on 9/9/99 here.

Yeah right

 

[V2Tommy]

Yeah right

Those are all basically casual games for the Sega Arcade lovers. All style, no substance.

And my 9/9/99 experience was a defective copy of Sonic Adventure from the bad initial pressing. Great launch experience. Could’ve been playing Final Fantasy VIII for far less money.

Now, OG Xbox... that’s when Sega really shined.

 

[cireza]

Now, OG Xbox... that’s when Sega really shined.

OG Xbox was the continuity of the Dreamcast. Does not make sense to hate Dreamcast, and love Sega on OG Xbox.

 

[V2Tommy]

OG Xbox was the continuity of the Dreamcast. Does not make sense to hate Dreamcast, and love Sega on OG Xbox.

It’s all about the games. JSRF was a masterpiece while the original was janky. Panzer Dragoon Orta. Gunvalkyrie. Otogi. There’s a drastic change in game design between the consoles once they stopped relying on arcade ports.

 

[Dr.D00p]

Whilst the PS2 was undoubtedly more powerful, its video output was utterly appalling, like having 3 layers of vaseline smeared over every interlaced pixel compared to the Dreamcast's crisp, razor sharp output.

..even today running games at 4K internal res via PCSX2, some games still look like utter dogshit.

 

[cireza]

JSRF was a masterpiece while the original was janky

I largely prefer the original game to Future, which actually lost track of many key elements, with its big empty regions, no more pressure when doing the tags, no more ranking etc... It is pretty much an open-world game.

Otogi is a From Software game.

Gun Valkyrie started as a Dreamcast game, and pretty sure Orta was the same. Outrun 2 would have been released on Dreamcast etc...

HOTD3 is actually inferior to HOTD2, and Crazy Taxi 3 is also inferior to Crazy Taxi 1 & 2 in my opinion.

Anyway, it is fine to prefer some games, of course everyone is going to have different tastes.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Can anyone point to any games (on console or PC) which could match these Dreamcast titles at the time?

Virtua Fighter 3, November 98:

Sonic Adventure December 98:

Soul Calibur, August 99:

NFL 2K, September 99:

Ferrari 355 Challenge, October 99:

Shenmue, December 99:

Jet Set Radio, June 00

Ecoo: Defender of the Future, June 00:

It was definitely a big technical leap. I just regret that I was too into PC strategy gaming at the time to notice

While we know the game was ported to DC and was alright- By the timeframe youre mentioning we had games like
Half-life on PC , PC had UNREAL

, Thief, etc. Visual STYLE not withstanding those games are more taxing than a lot of what youre referencing.
I show unreal here though its hard to understand why in a still screenshot ( you can find this intro demo on youtube though)
all of those castle surfaces have water shimmer on them, the ground etc is all reflective (And nicely done even if not exactly true reflection)
the particle effects from the torches are very cool looking, the textures are gorgeous, etc and its all running together.

I was SUPER happy when Ecco the Dolphin came out , even if the game was visually better than it played- and was mostly a product of
great texture work... Most of the poly work was on Ecco himself.

It seems what you're impressed with (and so am I ) is many of the developers skill at creating a visually appealing
world. Look at the actual environments in Ecco... look at the blocky geometry. Ecco later came to PS2 with no issues and the PS2
was out when the game was released- So we're talking about POWER once again here.
I agree the games looked appealing,

I do need to note you offer up Ferrari F355 as 1999- That didnt come to home console until late 2000. It was a late Dreamcast
game. It was in the arcade a year earlier and had to be somewhat modified to run on a single Dreamcast, from running on multiple Naomi
boards ( screens in the arcade). By late 2000 we already had games like Ridge Racer 5, which as a racing game depending on your
preferences.... is decent looking.

The main thing to say is that exclusive games which play to the consoles strengths are a measure of ingenuity, not power of the machine.

So I maintain- and again not out of some kind of dislike for the system, that it was not
what I would call "powerful", and in my posts here I try to answer the question posed "was-the-dreamcast-actually-powerful-at-launch-or-the-beneficiary-of-no-competition"

The Dreamcast had no competition in its generation for a year. ONCE IT DID have competition it was essentially abandoned.
Do I think the system could have done more than it DID do? Yeah. I also think even though more powerful there are times
the Dreamcast is a better machine for a certain game or use. I also think the PS2 punched above its weight, and the Gamecube as well.
I think the PS4 was not exactly "powerful" when it came out because a ton of its launch games were on PC and were generally better if you
had a good PC, it doesnt matter that the machine was the most powerful CONSOLE. The Dreamcast was not only
weaker than what existed, it was weaker than every other console to come in that generation- just came out before them.


I love my Dreamcast. I was a huge Dreamcast fan. I bought so many games new. I played Phantasy Star Online obsessively
and I LOVED the graphics- even though I knew my PC could CRUSH them if it was allowed to (didnt exist on PC yet)
it was so bright and pretty- and YES the texture abilities of the DC left everything looking nice - DC is powerful at TEXTURING
and I maintain that fully.

 

[UnNamed]

Dreamcast was next gen to everyone who saw it for the first time, no doubt.

That sharp image, the quality of those texture, the fluid framerate, the big worlds with few limitations.