Why do people say Dreamcast is more technically advanced than PS2?

electrictroy

electrictroy

Banned
I was just looking at the specs, and PS2 looks better to me:
PS2 - DC
300 - 200 MHz
450 - 360 MIPS
6.2 - 1.2 billion FLOPS
1.2 - 0.8 gbytes/second bus
25 - 3 million polygons/second
150 - 100 million pixels/second

I don't know how anyone can seriously say, "The Dreamcast is more technically advanced."
=========================================

EDIT:


Never mind, I should have read further: "There are no doubts that the PS2 ‘Emotion Chip’ is state of the art, but it’s design made things difficult for software developers who had grown spoiled by the Dreamcast. The initial batch of PS2 games where indeed a rushed effort. PS2 launch games seemed to pale in comparison to the Dreamcast’s latest offerings. How could this be? Wasn’t the Playstation 2 a more superior console?"

"Early developers complained about the console's amount of video ram, and centered all programming to the main CPU. It wasn’t till later that they learned to take advantage of the ‘Emotion Chip’s’ two other co-processors."

"Another drastic complaint was jaggiest and flickering in launch games. One of the reasons behind this: The games lacked Full Screen Anti Aliasing. The Playstation 2 hardware did not seem capable of producing this effect which could be seen in Nintendo 64 and Dreamcast. It was only till later on that Sony revealed methods of producing FSAA in software. One method that was unique to the PS2 and differs from traditional methods is a field bending technique that works well with televisions."

"In the year of 2002 it became clear what a next generation console can really do." - http://darkwatcher.psxfanatics.com/console/ps2.htm



In other words, the EARLY games look inferior to the DC, because of a developer learning curve. That makes sense.

troy
 
Used Dreamcast systems have been available for as little as $9.99 over the past few years. A used PS2 will easily run you $100+. If price is an issue, Dreamcast wins hands down.
 
I dont know if it was better, as much as just not really an improvement.

DOA 2 ran much better and looked much nicer on the DC. The DC also had better games....the DC was pretty much the last of classic arcade gaming.

The PS2 threw out all these tech demos, but when the time came...the system didnt really show what it could do in the demos. Kinda like the PS3, if Killzone 2 doesnt look like it did at E3 in realtime (Sony's claim) I will boycott it. I'm tired of their ridiculous mudslinging without the proof in the pudding.
 
Killzone 2 was a "Rendered-To-Spec" video. Meaning it was an FMV file or whatever that was limited to the polygon count and texturing memory of the system. Historically, "Rendered-To-Spec" videos are way better than the real games.
 
You are seriously....an idiot.

As this generation has shown...its not about the power...or else the XBox and the Gamecube would be #1 and #2 respectively...it's about the games.

As for why many of us on this board think the DC is better...well just look at these games:

Soul Calibur
Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (came out on DC first)
Rez (same here)
Shenmue
Power Stone 2
The 2K Sports Series started here
Jet Grind Radio
Sonic Adventure 2
Bangai-O
Samba De Amigo
Skies of Arcadia
Chu Chu Rocket
Metropolis Street Racer (which is now Project Gotham)


And I could probably list a lot more...but that should be well enough.
 
I will say this: No PS2 game has made me stay up all night playing it. When the DC came out with Soul Calibur, sleep was no longer a necessity. The DC also had a tremendous good games to crap ratio, whereas the PS2 would be lucky to break even. If I had to pick one system to be stranded on an island with, the DC might get my pick.
 
[quote name='Pylis']Killzone 2 was a "Rendered-To-Spec" video. Meaning it was an FMV file or whatever that was limited to the polygon count and texturing memory of the system. Historically, "Rendered-To-Spec" videos are way better than the real games.[/QUOTE]

Doesnt matter, make the game to spec then.

Sony said it was ingame footage, and that it will look like that. If it doesnt, they lied to me...and maybe you have no self morals or respect, but I do. They make a shitty product...I dont buy it.

If I had 1/2 the problems with Sony PS2's as others have...I would boycott Sony as a whole altogether.

Vote with your dollars people. Stop being sheep.
 
Its really easy to say. See:

Dreamcast is better than PS2.

Just like I could say:

NES is better than XBox.

Point being:

Just cause you say something doesn't mean you really believe it.
 
dont forget grandia ii, typing of the dead, phantasy star online (the first console mmo and a damn good game)... not to mention that the dc was the first online console. im not saying that its beter than the ps2, but jesus troy
 
The Dreamcast has more dedicated RAM for graphics. Of all the ports from DC to PS2, I can't think of one that looks or plays better on the PS2. Since the Dreamcast is almost an exact copy of the NAOMI arcade board, it is the home console that most closely emulates the arcade. When these games come to the PS2, there are usually glitches or minor differences that take away from the arcade nostalgia factor that the Dreamcast gives.
 
CPU specs aren't everything. You failed to mention that the 3D hardware in the Dreamcast had anti-aliasing filter built-in, where as PS2 has to do software tricks to make the graphics look good. So, while the PS2 can generate more polygons on screen at once, it looks nastier than the DC because of the graphics chip.
 
Sony has done nothing more than wait at the end of the line and mudsling competitors and then release a product nowhere near what it was ment to do.

Sony is full of BS...

Remember when they played the Final Fantasy 8 ballroom sequence in real time? Saying that was the power of the PS2? It was bullshit.

Remember when the PSP was spec'ed at 333mhz processor? It was bullshit.

Now you get the Killzone 2 demo, purely there just to steal MS's thunder....but guess what? It IS bullshit.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Sony has done nothing more than wait at the end of the line and mudsling competitors and then release a product nowhere near what it was ment to do.

Sony is full of BS...

Remember when they played the Final Fantasy 8 ballroom sequence in real time? Saying that was the power of the PS2? It was bullshit.

Remember when the PSP was spec'ed at 333mhz processor? It was bullshit.

Now you get the Killzone 2 demo, purely there just to steal MS's thunder....but guess what? It IS bullshit.[/QUOTE]

go play xbox or something, geez
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']I will say this: No PS2 game has made me stay up all night playing it. When the DC came out with Soul Calibur, sleep was no longer a necessity. The DC also had a tremendous good games to crap ratio, whereas the PS2 would be lucky to break even. If I had to pick one system to be stranded on an island with, the DC might get my pick.[/QUOTE]

I agree. When I saw the demo of Sonic Adventure with Sonic running away from the killer whale my jaw just about hit the floor. Soul Calibur was the most beautiful game ever made at that time, and it still holds up to games being made nowadays.

The Dreamcast just had so many games with great gameplay.

Grandia 2 is still in the top three of my all-time favorite RPGs.

Shenmue is in a class all its own.

Whether the PS2 is more powerful than the DC doesn't really matter to me. What does matter is the Dreamcast has less crappy games.
 
Of all the ports from DC to PS2, I can't think of one that looks or plays better on the PS2.
Click to expand...
Space Channel 5 looks better.


[quote name='MrMaddness']You are seriously....an idiot. As this generation has shown...its not about the power...or else the XBox and the Gamecube would be #1 and #2 respectively...it's about the games. [/QUOTE]You know, I said *exactly* the same thing in defense of the Nintendo Revolution's 480p max resolution.... that it will be the *games* that matter, not the graphics/power. But people called me stupid.



Its really easy to say. NES is better than XBox.
Point being: Just cause you say something doesn't mean you really believe it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
troy
 
Whoa...you can't just change the whole topic of your Post, including the title...after 15 people have responded!

You basically changed the argument from:
"I dont see why people think the Dreamcast is a better system than the PS2" to
"Why do people say Dreamcast is more technically advanced than PS2?"

And for that, you shouldn't be posting topics like this.
 
[quote name='MrMaddness']You basically changed the argument from: "I dont see why people think the Dreamcast is a better system than the PS2" to "Why do people say Dreamcast is more technically advanced than PS2?"[/QUOTE]The topic was *always* about the technology (hence the specs comparison). Some people just mis-interpreted the theme. I clarified.
Of all the ports from DC to PS2, I can't think of one that looks or plays better on the PS2.
Click to expand...
Space Channel 5 looks better.




[quote name='MrMaddness']You are seriously....an idiot. As this generation has shown...its not about the power...or else the XBox and the Gamecube would be #1 and #2 respectively...it's about the games. [/QUOTE]You know, I said *exactly* the same thing in defense of the Nintendo Revolution's 480p max resolution.... that it will be the *games* that matter, not the graphics/power. But people called me stupid.




Its really easy to say. "Dc is better than PS2." "NES is better than XBox." Point being: Just cause you say something doesn't mean you really believe it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']The topic was *always* about the technology (hence the specs comparison). Some people just mis-interpreted the theme. I clarified.Space Channel 5 looks better.
[/QUOTE]

Yay, backpeddling. Next time decide what you mean to say before you say it. And if raw specs are all that you wanted to compare, why bother making the thread? We all know the PS2 had better raw specs.

And of course the raw specs of the Ps2 are higher, it came out later. But the DC was easier to program for, easier to port to from arcades, had anti-aliasing, and had an amazing game library.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']And if raw specs are all that you wanted to compare, why bother making the thread? But the DC was easier to program for, easier to port to from arcades, had anti-aliasing, and had an amazing game library.[/QUOTE]

So I could get the answer, you just gave me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top