Support NeoGAF

[Instant_Classic]

You mean that things improve over time. Still doesn't mean that it wasn't fine for the time. It was the only and best solution until the improvements were invented/standardized. I played hundreds of hours of Quake III and it just worked.

Yes, it was fine for the time.

It was up to Sega to basically plan ahead on where gaming could be headed and plan the controller layout accordingly.

They were the only one of the four console manufacturers that gen that stuck to a single joystick, layout.

 

[cireza]

Yes, it was fine for the time.

It was up to Sega to basically plan ahead on where gaming could be headed and plan the controller layout accordingly.

They were the only one of the four console manufacturers that gen that stuck to a single joystick, layout.

Yes, the first manufacturer to release its console because the second stick was hardly justified in 1998. They planned for a fine controller with a great stick, analog triggers, and a button layout that allowed for FPS to be playable in good condition, and that inherited from the Saturn 3D controller.

So yes, as you said, the controller was perfectly fine.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

I like that the premise of the thread is "let's ignore the PS2", so most people just resort to explain how Sega was doomed by the PS1.

But dual analogue! Yeah, which was practically exclusive to PlayStation at the time, and far from a standard yet. I mean, it's almost like the DC got a good bunch of PS1 ports, and somehow managed to run them without the need for a second stick OR a Select button.
But the RPGs and Square! Which took off in the west thanks to the PS1.
But death from a thousand cuts! Yeah, from the PS1.

Twist it any way you like, you can't contextualize the DC's devastating failure without PlayStation in the picture somewhere.

 

[Instant_Classic]

I like that the premise of the thread is "let's ignore the PS2", so most people just resort to explain how Sega was doomed by the PS1.

But dual analogue! Yeah, which was practically exclusive to PlayStation at the time, and far from a standard yet. I mean, it's almost like the DC got a good bunch of PS1 ports, and somehow managed to run them without the need for a second stick OR a Select button.
But the RPGs and Square! Which took off in the west thanks to the PS1.
But death from a thousand cuts! Yeah, from the PS1.

Twist it any way you like, you can't contextualize the DC's devastating failure without PlayStation in the picture somewhere.

Actually, Sega's downfall was happening with or without Sony due to the many bad decisions made in the years prior.

Loss of consumer confidence being a big one.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

dont think dual stick was that important
quake3 felt crappy to play on the DC controller, but dual stick also felt crappy on ps1

if the DC lived longer, they couldve made a dual stick controller
sega released a revised controller with the genesis (6 button) and saturn (3d) so the idea wasnt new to them.
not ideal, but whatever.

without the playstation, sega wouldve had a shot.
ignore the ps2, think about if there was no ps1.
saturn wouldve had more market share, more games... sega wouldve made way more money.
they mightve been able to afford a post-gamecube console.

 

[Instant_Classic]

dont think dual stick was that important
quake3 felt crappy to play on the DC controller, but dual stick also felt crappy on ps1

if the DC lived longer, they couldve made a dual stick controller
sega released a revised controller with the genesis (6 button) and saturn (3d) so the idea wasnt new to them.
not ideal, but whatever.

without the playstation, sega wouldve had a shot.
ignore the ps2, think about if there was no ps1.
saturn wouldve had more market share, more games... sega wouldve made way more money.
they mightve been able to afford a post-gamecube console.

Honestly, if Sony never entered gaming probably would be a lot smaller.

PlayStation basically took gaming from being considered a hobby for kids, to something that people of all ages played.

Obviously, gaming was never for kids only but the general perception of it amongst the casual changed with PlayStation.

 

[Alexios]

Honestly, if Sony never entered gaming probably would be a lot smaller.

Or without Sony showing how massively successful consoles could be other companies would have given up so we'd end up with systems taking the Switch approach earlier on/from more companies since portables had already proven themselves (to the point Sony also tried them despite PS2)

 

[Instant_Classic]

I'm hoping people don't mistaken this thread as "Dreamcast sux" one.

It's one of my fav consoles ever.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Or without Sony showing how massively successful consoles could be other companies would have given up so we'd end up with systems taking the Switch approach earlier on/from more companies since portables had already proven themselves (to the point Sony also tried them despite PS2)

I don't think other companies would have necessarily given up.

With the eventual evolution of 3D gaming coming to, other companies would have likely given it (gaming industry) a shot.

For all we know, Xbox still could have became a thing without PlayStation being a factor as to why.

 

[Badlucktroll]

dreamcast was very very wonderful

 

[Instant_Classic]

dreamcast was very very wonderful

For sure

 

[Wolzard]

PSP and 3DS survived the advent of 3D games with only one analog stick without much trouble.
Changing controllers during a generation is not uncommon. The PS3 had a controller without vibration and then one with that feature. It had PS Move, EyeToy, etc. The PS1 had numerous analog controls.
Nintendo, then, has a lot of different controllers.

Regarding storage capacity, well, most PS2 games were extremely large for what was actually needed. The console didn't have the capacity to compress textures, so a lot of things had to be duplicated. An example that comes to mind is GTA Double Pack for Xbox, which was 1.5 GB (with 2 games) and on the PS2 it was 4.5 GB per game.
Or the GameCube games, also under 1 GB, and graphically better than the PS2.

Dreamcast had one of the best texture compression hardware capabilities, perhaps only surpassed by the GameCube. A typical 2 MB texture could be compressed to 256 KB or less. On the PS2, due to a lack of dedicated hardware, this was more limiting, requiring the use of CPU cycles. Therefore, developers opted not to compress textures.