nkarafo
Member
Only because the console lasted a year and a half.
Later games would force Sega to replace the archaic single stick design.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why The Dreamcast Still Would Have Failed Without The PS2
- Thread starter Instant_Classic
- Start date
Later games would force Sega to replace the archaic single stick design.
Mr_JPF
Member
1- The base PS1 controller had no analog sticks. That didn't stop Sony from later adding two analog sticks with the DualShock
2 - There was no problem with the GD-Roms ( besides being easy to Pirate ) . Having multiple discs for a single game was not an issue for many PS1, PS2 and 360 games so I don't see why it would be an issue for the Dreamcast
3 - They could have easily made a DVD add-on ( like the OG Xbox ) if they had the funds to do it .
There was nothing wrong with the Dreamcast model that we got . The problem is that Sega ran out of money to manufacture more consoles, it's that simple.
2 - There was no problem with the GD-Roms ( besides being easy to Pirate ) . Having multiple discs for a single game was not an issue for many PS1, PS2 and 360 games so I don't see why it would be an issue for the Dreamcast
3 - They could have easily made a DVD add-on ( like the OG Xbox ) if they had the funds to do it .
There was nothing wrong with the Dreamcast model that we got . The problem is that Sega ran out of money to manufacture more consoles, it's that simple.
cireza
Member
We've already been through this in the topic. They could have released another controller with two sticks, just like Sony released another controller with two sticks on the PS1, and just like SEGA released the 6 buttons controller on the MegaDrive. Both consoles being highly successful and having a controller revision not being an issue at any point, and still having base controllers that did the job perfectly well for 99% of the library.
Last edited:
Syphon Filter
Member
Sega could have just released another controller with 2 sticks. been done by sony and xbox to a different extent(releasing the S controller)
kevboard
Member
the controller S isn't really comparable here tho. that didn't change the functionality at all, just updated the ergonomics.
but yes, simply replacing the controller would have been fine. just have a warning on the back if a game requires it.
generally a refresh for that controller would have been necessary at some point, even ignoring the functionality for a moment, the controller was just awful in general and should have been replaced mich earlier imo.
hououinkyouma00
Member
I love the Dreamcast and its library but I agree with the OP. Even just looking at how SEGA ran things for the previous 5 years would tell you that they weren't going to pull that ship around.
SEGA games even on the Dreamcast were still antiquated (again I love the Dreamcast and I'm not discounting the quality of the albeit small library). The vast majority of Dreamcast games were still very "arcadey" in nature (not saying arcade ports) and the industry was moving away from that.
SEGA games even on the Dreamcast were still antiquated (again I love the Dreamcast and I'm not discounting the quality of the albeit small library). The vast majority of Dreamcast games were still very "arcadey" in nature (not saying arcade ports) and the industry was moving away from that.
Yeah, this wouldn't be viable not because you couldn't say that games require the new controller but as you said devs would need to develop two different controls schemes which in many games would require the entire game to be redesigned.
The difference though is that the DualShock was introduced in 1997 during the 5th generation of consoles. How many PS1 games REQUIRE the DualShock as in absolutely 100% not usable on the original controller? I'm sure there are quite a few but the 5th and 6th generation of consoles are very different. Two analog sticks were absolutely more popular during the 6th gen and people can try to argue otherwise but even if the PlayStation 2 was normal levels of success for that generation (lets say around 30-40M) the Dreamcast would have still lost ports.
Wolzard
Member
Can you name a popular PS2 game that's impossible to play without using both analog sticks? And what about the PSP and 3DS, which only have one analog stick but receive the same types of games?
Chittagong
Gold Member
I think without Sony, Sega would have won. Consider:
Dreamcast came out mere 2 years after the N64, and was a world of difference in terms of experience. N64 games were low poly, blurry, low fps mess. Dreamcast games were rich, fluid, crisp, just next gen. Compared to Dreamcast, N64 games looked really fucking grim.
The gap from Dreamcast to GameCube in 2001 would be a further 3 years. During this time developers would either be stuck with cartridges, or defect to Dreamcast to make cheaper, bigger, more impressive games. That would have boosted the entire platform.
Dreamcast came out mere 2 years after the N64, and was a world of difference in terms of experience. N64 games were low poly, blurry, low fps mess. Dreamcast games were rich, fluid, crisp, just next gen. Compared to Dreamcast, N64 games looked really fucking grim.
The gap from Dreamcast to GameCube in 2001 would be a further 3 years. During this time developers would either be stuck with cartridges, or defect to Dreamcast to make cheaper, bigger, more impressive games. That would have boosted the entire platform.
Last edited:
hououinkyouma00
Member
The S controller is very different though. There isn't anything the S can do that the "Duke" cannot do as it's simply a redesigned controller designed to be smaller.
Impossible? Probably not. Less enjoyable with a gimped control scheme? Absolutely
Physiognomonics
Member
For Soul Calibur it was the best controller in my experience. The d-pad was great for that game. Also great for driving as the stick was very precise.
Sure it was crap for first person shooters.
cireza
Member
And why exactly if a controller with a second stick was released and then bundled with the console ?
Definitely a fantastic controller for racing games. Makes you wonder how in the world we are here today with a Switch 2 Pro Controller that still doesn't have analog triggers. Unbelievable.
Last edited:
Wolzard
Member
So this is more a subjective matter of preference. But it's not something you'd list as "developers would stop releasing a game on the console because of the lack of a second analog stick."
bobone
Member
The second stick meant nothing in 1999/2000.
Dreamcast was discontinued before Halo even came out. Sega officially killed it before either the Xbox OR Gamecube launched.
It only really competed with PS1 and N64. If you look at multiplatform titles on the system they are from PS1/N64. Not PS2.
Dreamcast was discontinued before Halo even came out. Sega officially killed it before either the Xbox OR Gamecube launched.
It only really competed with PS1 and N64. If you look at multiplatform titles on the system they are from PS1/N64. Not PS2.
Killer8
Member
Without PS2? For Dreamcast to succeed, you would have to go back and imagine a world without PS1.
Hardware sales of previous two generations:
SNES - 49.1 million
Genesis - 30.75 million
N64 - 32.93 million
Saturn - 9.26 million
PlayStation - 102.49 million
PlayStation brought a ton of non-gamers into the fold and doubled the size of the industry, while Sega slid further into irrelevance. Those players who rode the wave of PlayStation energy in the '90s were never going to jump ship to Dreamcast in the following generation. Not after the Saturn. And not with the expectation of a PlayStation sequel coming.
The whole thing is a pointless thought experiment really. "If Sega did not have its biggest competitor who made gaming cool and absolutely curb stomped them, would they have done better?"
Yeah, no shit.
Hardware sales of previous two generations:
SNES - 49.1 million
Genesis - 30.75 million
N64 - 32.93 million
Saturn - 9.26 million
PlayStation - 102.49 million
PlayStation brought a ton of non-gamers into the fold and doubled the size of the industry, while Sega slid further into irrelevance. Those players who rode the wave of PlayStation energy in the '90s were never going to jump ship to Dreamcast in the following generation. Not after the Saturn. And not with the expectation of a PlayStation sequel coming.
The whole thing is a pointless thought experiment really. "If Sega did not have its biggest competitor who made gaming cool and absolutely curb stomped them, would they have done better?"
Yeah, no shit.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
PS1 sales by the end of March 2000 (up to when PS2 launched, basically) were nowhere near 102.49 million. They were closer to 72 million shipped, so just slightly ahead of the NES, roughly launch-aligned.
I'm not discounting that PS1 brought in new players: it definitely did. But the 102.49 figure gets thrown around a lot as if all of that was sold during the gen and before PS2 released, which just isn't true. Same with people who bring up PS2's 155 - 160 million as if all of that was sold prior to PS3, when ~ 50 million of that total was after the PS3 officially released as the new system!
Also some credit where it's due: PS1 benefited off of appealing to a demographic SEGA had already started catering to with Genesis/MegaDrive, and to a lesser extent (due to smaller market share), The 3DO Company with the 3DO. As well as DOS PCs with games like DOOM, Wolfenstein, Syndicate & System Shock. Sony tapped into those pre-existing demographics while also expanding out to the general young adult MTV-gen era with hipper marketing and pushing games like Wipeout at rave clubs.
Not to mention partner 3P like Core leaning into young adult Playboy-like advertising for titles like Tomb Raider (which was also on the Saturn), or Capcom pushing survival-horror with Resident Evil.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
GD ROM wasn't a problem at all. The Dreamcast was released on November 27, 1998. Pay attention: from that day until the Dreamcast's cancellation in 2001, 30 million PlayStations and 7 million N64s were sold. That alone represents 37 million people who could have bought the Dreamcast instead of a cartridge or cd-rom video game console.
Sega had foresight, but things aren't simple. Having the DVD media is one thing; having the license to play DVD movies is another. It doesn't matter if you use DVDs if you can't play movies. Sega also deduced that the Dreamcast needed to be cheap, and to make matters worse, using DVD media would make game production more expensive because Sega would be forced to fill the space with extra content, CGI, and audio, increasing the cost of game production for both Sega and its partners.
cireza
Member
What ? Why would you be forced to fill the DVDs with content ? This is dumb. A storage media is a means for you to achieve your vision, you just use what you need. You don't have to force yourself into filling it with content. Just as you don't have to use every single feature of the console to make a good game.
Also, the PS2 was able to read standard CDs and many games were released on CDs. The Dreamcast could have done the same.
Last edited:
Bondo
Member
I would have continued to invest in my Dreamcast had PS2 not loomed.
i dumped it to fund my Playstation and that was always the plan for that one year. No regrets for that either- PS has always had my fav games/controller. I know atleast a handful of people that used it as a stopgap aswell.
i dumped it to fund my Playstation and that was always the plan for that one year. No regrets for that either- PS has always had my fav games/controller. I know atleast a handful of people that used it as a stopgap aswell.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
It's clear to me you're not very fast; I mean, if you don't use the media's full capacity soon, there's no point in using it.
Although the PS2 supported cd-roms, it's clear that the games would be on dvd because that was the console's differentiating factor; this way, they could offer more content and voice acting, otherwise they wouldn't have included the dvd. And yes, the presence of the dvd increases production costs, the most obvious being in audio with dialogue.
cireza
Member
So you think that every single PS2 DVD game is filled to the brim with content ? This is hilarious.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Yes, it was detrimental. The GameCube, by using minidvds, had many disadvantages in terms of content and technology. On the macro side, the GC had simple audio and compressed CGI, there were many games that didn't even have FMVs or music games where the music was cut, which is ridiculous because cutting music in a music game is unacceptable. Technically, the GC supports high-quality textures, however, the lack of media space to fit them results in games with repeated textures or dynamic texture quality, like in Resident Evil 4 where there are beautiful textures in one frame followed by PS1 textures in the next. This is due to media space limitations.
Some PS2 games on the GC are almost impossible due to the media, one of them is God of War 2 itself, DVD-9. Even with a voodoo technique, it wouldn't be possible to fit the game on 1.5GB, so imagine using 5 discs for a game that on another console only uses 1. All of this matters.
BlackTron
Member
You would make a god tier troll if you were actually trolling and didn't actually believe the things you say make sense.
cireza
Member
Despite the smaller storage space on GC and the large DVD storage on PS2, the console that ended with ugly blurry pictures 99% of the time was the PS2. Because storage space is not the only factor into making nice visuals. Gamecube had a very nice and clean picture and most of the games fit in a single Mini-Disc, so it wasn't an issue. On top of this, the Mini-Disc had super short load times, which was an undeniable advantage over all other consoles of the gen. It also had minimal wear because the lens would only travel so much, which improved long term hardware reliability. It also made copying games a bit more difficult.
So overall, the Mini-Disc was clearly a great choice.
Then, maybe you can cite a handful of PS2 games that could not run on GC because of the DVD format. But I would still be curious to see if these REALLY are impossible ports, which I doubt. And we had tons of third party games that ran and looked much better on GC than on PS2. So if you are fine with an inferior experience on PS2, then more power to you.
Last edited:
PeteBull
Member
Yups, ppl dont realise or forgot by now how massive jump dreamcast was over psx/saturn/n64, it was great hardware with amazing software too, simply ps2 was even stronger, had mountains of mindshare and had even more crazy library of games, both quantity and quality wise, it was unprecedented.
Same thing with gcn or og xbox, they were very solid consoles, both hardware and software wise, but simply ps2 dominated so badly at that time, it had so many new high quality games coming out every month its not even funny(it had psx backwards compatibility on top).
BlackTron
Member
But I was told SSD mattered more than all for graphics, THE RAW SPEED OF PIXELS BEING PUSHED FROM STORAGE TO UR SCREEN!!!11
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
Ape Escape 2. I don't think AE PSP was as beloved due to it only having one stick.
Last edited:
Mr_JPF
Member
That 30.75 million sales figure for the Genesis/Megadrive comes from an interview from 1995 . The console was only discontinued Worldwide in 1997, and in some third world countries only in the early 2000s . The Genesis easily sold over 40 million units total by the time it was officially discontinued in every territory it was sold in ( not counting the Sega CD and the 32X, which would had another 6 million + units to the Megadrive ecosystem ).
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
I just said that almost all games have FMVs that are worse than the PS2 version, and compressed or missing audio.
But I suspect you're perpetuating the myth.
Apparently you have selective memory. First of all, nobody who played GT3 and MGS2 at launch said, "Look how blurry this game is!" Then, in 2002, Sony released progressive scan for the PS2, but even without progressive scan, PS2 games were the sharpest on the market because they didn't use filters. I think you've never played Finding Nemo or Dark Alliance on the GameCube side-by-side with the PS2 version.
Burnout
''PS2 definitely has a sharp display, but loses out to the shimmering and aliasing issues. GameCube looks impressive with soft lighting, nice textures, and a few effects the Xbox doesn't have. It's very odd in that the GameCube version looks "dirtier." Whether this was intentional or not by the developers is unknown. Cars don't look perfectly plastic or freshly waxed as they do on the Xbox and PS2. You may actually enjoy this look, but in the end Xbox definitely has the upper hand -- even if just barely. The specular lighting, car reflections, and crisper textures work nicely. All versions run at an impressively solid 60 frames per second.
Burnout 2
''We were shocked to see just how solid this engine is on the PlayStation 2. Sony's console might have its troubles with jaggies and flickering, but when it comes to Burnout 2 the results are amazing. It has a sharper look than GameCube and Xbox'' ''Last year the softer look of GameCube was a definite advantage, but this year PlayStation 2's sharpness in combination with all the specular effects beats out GameCube.'' ''GameCube, even though it looks smooth and improved over last year's version, does not have the same caliber lighting and reflection effects that the other two'
Beyond Good and Evil
''GameCube, like with Prince of Persia, has a more vivid, bright look. It also hits higher framerates more often, but it is far too inconsistent to make it valuable. It's a runner-up to Xbox, and not too far behind. It has no progressive support. The PlayStation 2 has a really sharp, crisp display, but the lighter load on texture quality and much worse framerate makes it the most visually inferior. Over GameCube, however, it does support progressive scan, a rare treat for PS2 owners.''
NFS: Underground
''PlayStation 2 actually provides the sharpest look of the consoles''
''GameCube's anti-aliasing and filtering methods leave it looking decidedly blurrier than the PlayStation 2. Not by a huge amount, but it's noticeable''
Golden eye: Rogue Agent
GameCube Advantages
Framerate -- Better than PS2.
Textures -- In the distance, sometimes more detailed than PS2.
Widescreen
GameCube Disadvantages
No 480p
Weakly Ported -- Odd color; poor effects implementation like reflections
PlayStation 2 Advantages
Crisp Display -- Colors and edges are more crisp.
Widescreen
PlayStation 2 Disadvantages
Textures -- Distant textures not as detailed, lack of filtering.
Framerate -- Weaker than GCN and Xbox
No 480p
Madden 2004
''Look closely at the PlayStation 2 and you should see that it has a very sharp look to it; the downside are all the jaggies from lack of anti-aliasing.''
''And, well, as for the PlayStation 2, it by no means looks bad, in fact it's quite sharp looking.
''
Tony Hwk's Underground
''Here we see one of your buddies in the game peering through your garage window in Jersey. The PlayStation 2 version looks blurry and washed out, but this, as far as we can surmise, is actually a more stylistic choice by the artists; the PS2 version as a whole is very crisp
This next picture perfectly demonstrates use of anti-aliasing (AA), a graphics technique used to smooth harsh edges. The PlayStation 2 iteration, although quite crisply textured, suffers from the usual jagged lines and lack of filtering to lessen the distortion of textures. GameCube employs anti-aliasing, but it really doesn't do the job. In combination with texture filtering, it actually makes it look blurrier. Meanwhile, Xbox's AA is best implemented.
The PlayStation 2 is surprisingly sharp -- sharper and more clear than the Xbox even. The problem is that between the lighting changes, lacking filtering, and framerate inconsistencies it ends up looking too harsh. So, Xbox has a much smoother and ultimately more detailed look.
I could do this for days, but I think I've already proven my point.
The difficult part is proving it.
Bonus:
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
If SEGA didnt frek do we even get the Xbox?
MiguelItUp
Member
I would've loved to have seen a future where Sega continued to succeed and we got to see other Sega consoles. The Dreamcast was really cool and so ahead of its time. I know there are a lot of variables, but man did piracy not help it by any means. Around the Dreamcast's peak (in my personal life just seeing it and hearing about it everywhere) it felt like everyone was already pirating everything. Imports, US games, everything. I felt like I was one of the only people with a Dreamcast that was still buying games, lol.
cireza
Member
Do you play FMVs ? I play games.
PS2 games were the sharpest on the market ?
This console is a contender for the worst interlaced picture to have ever been displayed on our CRTs. And you tell me that it was even sharper than OG Xbox ? You are completely delusional. Both GC and OG Xbox had a much cleaner, sharper output, better textures, better picture quality, on top of being more capable so with better framerates in multiplats.
You can always handpick a few games that had more efforts put in the PS2 version. Still doesn't prove anything, rather the opposite actually.
You can also pick exclusives. In this case, it works both ways. Good luck finding a PS2 game that has a cleaner picture than Dead or Alive 3.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Not sure what you are arguing here with those pictures.
RE4 is WAY superior on the Gamecube and SH3 doesn't exist on Gamecube to compare.
Wolzard
Member
I just said that almost all games have FMVs that are worse than the PS2 version, and compressed or missing audio.
But I suspect you're perpetuating the myth.
Apparently you have selective memory. First of all, nobody who played GT3 and MGS2 at launch said, "Look how blurry this game is!" Then, in 2002, Sony released progressive scan for the PS2, but even without progressive scan, PS2 games were the sharpest on the market because they didn't use filters. I think you've never played Finding Nemo or Dark Alliance on the GameCube side-by-side with the PS2 version.
Burnout
''PS2 definitely has a sharp display, but loses out to the shimmering and aliasing issues. GameCube looks impressive with soft lighting, nice textures, and a few effects the Xbox doesn't have. It's very odd in that the GameCube version looks "dirtier." Whether this was intentional or not by the developers is unknown. Cars don't look perfectly plastic or freshly waxed as they do on the Xbox and PS2. You may actually enjoy this look, but in the end Xbox definitely has the upper hand -- even if just barely. The specular lighting, car reflections, and crisper textures work nicely. All versions run at an impressively solid 60 frames per second.
Burnout 2
''We were shocked to see just how solid this engine is on the PlayStation 2. Sony's console might have its troubles with jaggies and flickering, but when it comes to Burnout 2 the results are amazing. It has a sharper look than GameCube and Xbox'' ''Last year the softer look of GameCube was a definite advantage, but this year PlayStation 2's sharpness in combination with all the specular effects beats out GameCube.'' ''GameCube, even though it looks smooth and improved over last year's version, does not have the same caliber lighting and reflection effects that the other two'
Beyond Good and Evil
''GameCube, like with Prince of Persia, has a more vivid, bright look. It also hits higher framerates more often, but it is far too inconsistent to make it valuable. It's a runner-up to Xbox, and not too far behind. It has no progressive support. The PlayStation 2 has a really sharp, crisp display, but the lighter load on texture quality and much worse framerate makes it the most visually inferior. Over GameCube, however, it does support progressive scan, a rare treat for PS2 owners.''
NFS: Underground
''PlayStation 2 actually provides the sharpest look of the consoles''
''GameCube's anti-aliasing and filtering methods leave it looking decidedly blurrier than the PlayStation 2. Not by a huge amount, but it's noticeable''
Golden eye: Rogue Agent
GameCube Advantages
Framerate -- Better than PS2.
Textures -- In the distance, sometimes more detailed than PS2.
Widescreen
GameCube Disadvantages
No 480p
Weakly Ported -- Odd color; poor effects implementation like reflections
PlayStation 2 Advantages
Crisp Display -- Colors and edges are more crisp.
Widescreen
PlayStation 2 Disadvantages
Textures -- Distant textures not as detailed, lack of filtering.
Framerate -- Weaker than GCN and Xbox
No 480p
Madden 2004
''Look closely at the PlayStation 2 and you should see that it has a very sharp look to it; the downside are all the jaggies from lack of anti-aliasing.''
''And, well, as for the PlayStation 2, it by no means looks bad, in fact it's quite sharp looking.
''
Tony Hwk's Underground
''Here we see one of your buddies in the game peering through your garage window in Jersey. The PlayStation 2 version looks blurry and washed out, but this, as far as we can surmise, is actually a more stylistic choice by the artists; the PS2 version as a whole is very crisp
This next picture perfectly demonstrates use of anti-aliasing (AA), a graphics technique used to smooth harsh edges. The PlayStation 2 iteration, although quite crisply textured, suffers from the usual jagged lines and lack of filtering to lessen the distortion of textures. GameCube employs anti-aliasing, but it really doesn't do the job. In combination with texture filtering, it actually makes it look blurrier. Meanwhile, Xbox's AA is best implemented.
The PlayStation 2 is surprisingly sharp -- sharper and more clear than the Xbox even. The problem is that between the lighting changes, lacking filtering, and framerate inconsistencies it ends up looking too harsh. So, Xbox has a much smoother and ultimately more detailed look.
I could do this for days, but I think I've already proven my point.
The difficult part is proving it.
Bonus:
The three consoles were quite different from each other, developers usually prioritized the PS2 version, while the GameCube and Xbox versions were typically made by other studios.
This has nothing to do with capacity, disk size, or any other nonsense.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
electricmastro
Member
I mean, most people bought a PS2 for the DVD player part. Nobody can really brag about it about it being the top-selling in games when the games were worthless to the movie focused people buying it. lol
Wolzard
Member
Doctor Hades
Member
I loved the Dreamcast but I strongly believe that the console might have survived if it had been backed by EA at the time, even with the release of the PS2. The Dreamcast had its own SEGA-branded sports games, of course, many of which were superior to EA's but it lacked FIFA and I think it hurt the sales at that time. I think some other big publishers ignored the Dreamcast too.
I remember how disappointed I was in the early days of owning a PS2 though. The console was a fantastic DVD player though, especially once I got an RGB SCART lead for decent image quality on my Panasonic CRT TV at the time here in the UK but I always thought the image quality in games was dreadful compared with the Dreamcast. I used my Dreamcast not on the same TV but also with a PC monitor via VGA. The early PS2 games were rife with aliasing and flickering and looked awful - a case in point being Dead or Alive 2 which had a higher poly count and more detailed stages but was a shimmery, aliased mess versus DC.
Of course, games did improve on PS2 but I don't look back on that system with affection as much as the Dreamcast. DC had so many fantastic games from SEGA and some stunning arcade ports such as Soul Calibur and Powerstone and this is also why I loved the original Xbox so much as it felt like the successor to Dreamcast with its exclusive SEGA games and chunky controller. DC was a shortlived system but I got so much enjoyment out of it.
I remember how disappointed I was in the early days of owning a PS2 though. The console was a fantastic DVD player though, especially once I got an RGB SCART lead for decent image quality on my Panasonic CRT TV at the time here in the UK but I always thought the image quality in games was dreadful compared with the Dreamcast. I used my Dreamcast not on the same TV but also with a PC monitor via VGA. The early PS2 games were rife with aliasing and flickering and looked awful - a case in point being Dead or Alive 2 which had a higher poly count and more detailed stages but was a shimmery, aliased mess versus DC.
Of course, games did improve on PS2 but I don't look back on that system with affection as much as the Dreamcast. DC had so many fantastic games from SEGA and some stunning arcade ports such as Soul Calibur and Powerstone and this is also why I loved the original Xbox so much as it felt like the successor to Dreamcast with its exclusive SEGA games and chunky controller. DC was a shortlived system but I got so much enjoyment out of it.