• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

do you think the dreamcast had better graphics than the PS2?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
i think the DC had better graphics by a small margin. silent scope and alone in the dark the new nightmare looked better on the DC. and one never saw a game as vibrantly colorful as Vigilante 8 second offense on the PS2. the dreamcast's dithering artifacts werent at all apparent (to me anyway) unless played in progressive scan (then they were really apparent), Shenmue II had terrible texture shimmering, and the PS2 had some good special effects, but no one could outdo Sega and that is not just my opinion.

anyway, i just cant believe that sony went through all the trouble they did to create the GS when they could've just used off the shelf components like Sega did. they could've just used a power PC, an SB live (guessing it could play nicely with a Power PC), and a VSA 100 (i know they made them for macs at the time so it could definitely work with a PowerPC) clocked really high (although if they were going to clock a VSA-100 really fast, then they probably would've been better off licensing it from 3dfx so Sony could've had it made on a 180 nm process). the GS had some strengths (like a 32 bit fixed point z-buffer), but the 4MB of embedded memory meant it would hard to make room for 32 bit textures.

but in the long run i guess it didnt matter what Sony used in the PS2 given that it was the most popular console of its generation (and still one of my 5 favorites).
 
Some games did appear to look better on the DC, especially when the PS2 first came out. But when it was all said and done and at the end of both systems era, the PS2 overall.
 
I always thought PS2 graphics were awful, even when the system was new. That system could not produce a clean image if it's life depended on it.
 
The Dreamcast died too fast to get long term development to compare. PS2 did so the graphics got better the longer it was out.
 
There was no getting around 4MB VRAM vs 16 MB VRAM even with the PS2s high speed streaming oriented bus.
 
Sony's real hardware coups over the Dreamcast were DVD playback and PS1 backwards compatibility. The PS2 was fairly inexpensive as a DVD player at the time, which was a pretty big deal. Encouraged a lot of people to adopt the format. Even though the DC was cheaper and more powerful, I guess Sega had alienated enough of their fanbase that only the hardest of the die hards bought them.

I've heard some people call the original Xbox a spiritual successor to the Dreamcast. It's certainly the more powerful 6th gen system.
 
PS2's graphics were the worst of its generation. It could push some polygons, but what it did with them was substandard.
 
SaurusX said:
PS2's graphics were the worst of its generation. It could push some polygons, but what it did with them was substandard.
Click to expand...

Sometimes hardware limitations aren't always a bad thing. Okami was originally conceived as having realistic graphics. Since the PS2 couldn't really do that justice, they went with cell shading in a woodblock/Sumi-e style instead. Which led to one of the most beautiful games ever created. Working with limited resources forces you to innovate.
 
Yes, but it had such a horrible game lineup nobody really cared. The hardware was excellent though. I hear guys are using Linux on it to this day.
 
futurefields said:
I always thought PS2 graphics were awful, even when the system was new. That system could not produce a clean image if it's life depended on it.
Click to expand...

No but it had a crapload of fun games which is also what gave the NES an advantage over Sega's Genesis. And the N64 an edge over Ataris Jaguar.
Of course, the Playstation had a huge advantage on all of them thanks to the superior storage of CD's. Once they got the Final Fantasy franchise it was all over.
Winner: Sony
 
poofyhairguy said:
To be fair, the Dreamcast had a limited game lineup but many of the games it had were excellent. The quality game ratio was much higher than with the PS2 if only due to volume.
Click to expand...
that wasnt the case because of the launch line ups. thank you for replying to this thread however🙂
 
mmntech said:
I've heard some people call the original Xbox a spiritual successor to the Dreamcast. It's certainly the more powerful 6th gen system.
Click to expand...

I'd never heard that about the original Xbox, but more so the X360.

Especially considering Peter Moore.
 
mmntech said:
Sometimes hardware limitations aren't always a bad thing. Okami was originally conceived as having realistic graphics. Since the PS2 couldn't really do that justice, they went with cell shading in a woodblock/Sumi-e style instead. Which led to one of the most beautiful games ever created. Working with limited resources forces you to innovate.
Click to expand...

Innovate, like Jet Set Radio, the first cel-shaded game ever?
 
Last edited:
I didn't really care about the graphics at the time. I just know that the dreamcast online play was superior to any console. I never had connection issues, or dropped games.
 
Year old Dreamcast games blew away PS2 games when Sony launched it a year later. Current generation Dreamcast games at the time, titles like Shenmue/Grandia 2/Skies of Arcadia just obliterated what Sony would have for a few years. By the time PS2 games started looking better, the Dreamcast had long gone under. Too bad, really.

It's common for Sony Fanboys to compare 9th generation PS2 games to second generation Dreamcast games, but if the system had lasted longer you can be sure developers would have learned to wean out more performance with Dreamcast just as they did with Playstation. Sonic Team was only using half the systems capabilities with Sonic Adventure 2.
 
I remember wanting the Dreamcast as a kid, but all in all, glad I went with the PS2, not for graphics, but the games. Not saying the Dreamcast games were bad (I so very much wanted Skies of Archadia, and the Sonic games), but given how Sega left the console business, I would have missed out on quite a few gems that are on the PS2 platform.
 
One of the things I remember was the PS2 was terrible for 2D games like fighters so all the best ones were on Dreamcast.
 
Dreamcast was awesome while it lasted, I remember blowing hours upon hours on power stone, soul calibur, PSO, chu chu rocket just to name a few. Sadly someone broke into my car and stole my dreamcast (with bangai o) a few years ago. The ability to play emulators on the system was sweet too, I played through all of der langrisser with an english patch back then and it was awesome at the time.
 
In the beginning, it was objectively better; there was just no comparison. Near the end the PS2 was able to take full hardware/software advantage and pump out some good looking games.
 
Rakehellion said:
Innovate, like Jet Set Radio, the first cel-shaded game ever?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Paper Mario came before that. Your point being?

Just pointing out how sometimes limitations can actually make a game better than it would have been without the limits. Okami would have been entirely different with realistic graphics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top