[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-05-23: Emergency maintenance completed.
2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/vr/ - Retro Games


View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 54 KB, 640x512, sh3ps2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3553510 No.3553510 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

/vr/: "GUYS HEAR THE TRUTH DREMCAST WAS MORE POWERFUL THAN A PS2!"

>real world

KEK

>> No.3553523

>>3553510
idk if overall, prob not, but dreamcast games certainly looked more vibrant and sharper than ps2 games desu. seemed to have better colours and better anti aliasing. remember hearing that dreamcast games tended to run at higher res m8

>> No.3553546

Didnt most games run in progresive on dc?

>> No.3553573

And the Xbox was more powerful then both, but what it always comes down to in the end is who had the best games.

>> No.3553582

>>3553546
Most video games since forever "run" in progressive scan if you consider 240p to count. I could go into that further but it would be WAY off topic.

ON topic, with Dreamcast Sega as usual was forward thinking to the bleeding edge with online connectivity out of the box in the US and both hardware and native software support in most games for progressive scan.

They were really doing God's work and were poised for success until Sony steamrolled them with CURRENT thinking, making the PS2 play DVDs and BACKWARDS thinking (PS2 compatibility). Even Dreamcast's significantly lower price point couldn't save it.

Yes, PS2 is also notably more powerful than Dreamcast too not that it really mattered in that battle but it did vs Xbox. Probably the reason a lot of hipsters seriously claim that Dreamcast "looks better" is because they have enough skills to plug a VGA cable into it, but not the skills to force PS2 and Xbox to output in progressive scan.

>> No.3553587
File: 133 KB, 640x908, otogi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3553587

>>3553573
But anon, the Xbox 1 HAS better games than DC

>> No.3553597

>>3553510
>/vr/: "GUYS HEAR THE TRUTH DREMCAST WAS MORE POWERFUL THAN A PS2!"
there's like 3 guys at most who actually believe that

come on now

>> No.3553607

PS2 had the issue where its 4MB of VRAM (eDRAM) was too small to hold double buffered z-buffered 640x480 with anti-aliasing. So games often went with smaller resolution sizes.

Other than that it was undeniably more powerful, even though the Dreamcast with its tile based deferred rendering punched above its own weight.

Dreamcast doesn't even remotely have enough SIMD performance to match or even come close to PS2 when it comes to T and L.

>> No.3553625

>>3553573
Xbox had a lot of great games tho.

>> No.3553628

>>3553582
>Most video games since forever "run" in progressive scan if you consider 240p to count
It does count. Most PS2 games ran at 480i, which is worse.

Dreamcast is superior to PS2 purely for the VGA 480p support.

>> No.3553635

>>3553523
Dreamcast games often used low-colour textures, and the machine had no problem outputting 480p since the gpu used tile based deferred rendering, so running in 480p incurred no penalties.

PS2 had broken hardware antialiasing (as in, it was meant to have it, but the feature did not work in the final silicon), and not enough VRAM for games to hold both textures and framebuffer in there. So most early games just used smaller framebuffer, ie. they ran in lower resolution.

A little later they figured out that the traditional (ie. what all PCs used) vram usage doesnt work, but the system had ridiculously high memory speeds, so it was possible to load textures from main memory one by one all the time, and reserve the entire vram for framebuffer only. They could get extremely high resolutions that way; 480p became more common, at least one game even did 1080i.

>> No.3553636

>>3553628
>resolution is the only thing that count!
Are you a PCuck?

>> No.3553637
File: 54 KB, 704x480, 396_27_02_07_5_51_41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3553637

>/vr/
>giving a shit about the NormieStation 2

>> No.3553641

>>3553628
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_games_with_alternate_display_modes

>> No.3553643

>>3553636
Except resolution isn't the only advantage here. Progressive>Interlace.

>> No.3553649

>>3553635
>They could get extremely high resolutions that way; 480p became more common, at least one game even did 1080i.

Err note quite. Gran Turismo 4 doesn't do real 1080i, it's literally an SD resolution that has been upscaled. The PS2's GPU can do integer scaling.

Also later PS2 games that stored some textures in main memory still didn't use a larger framebuffer. They just used it to have more texture variety.

You didn't want your framebuffer to be too big anyway since pretty much the best way to do AA on PS2 was supersampling.

>> No.3553654

>>3553510

PS2 isn't retro, console war kiddo.

>>>/v/

>> No.3553658

>>3553587

Xbox is the unofficial Dreamcast 2, so it's a moot point.

>> No.3553692

>>3553658
bullshit

>> No.3553695

I never got the "which was more powerful" arguments. Hardware alone never made consoles more popular, it was the prices and games. For example, PS wasn't the most powerful console of its generation, and had pretty flawed 3D. But really, no one gave a fuck about that, because it cost cheaper than competition and simply got more games.

In fact, the most advanced consoles of each generation often sold much less than competition. Neo-Geo, Sega CD and 3DO showed that power alone was not enough to reach big success.

Also, some like to assume that more power meant better games. Again, this wasn't the case. Unless bound to certain platforms with contracts, publishers simply chose the consoles they could make higher profits with. This usually meant simply bigger user bases.

>> No.3553701

>>3553628
Ooookay I guess out of ALL that on-topic stuff I was talking about you DO want to go down this garden path. 240p is an oddity and whether or not you consider it "progressive scan" depends on your definition of progressive scan versus interlaced. A 240p signal is almost identical to a 480i signal except that the odd fields are laid down on top of the even fields instead of between them and contain an additional frame instead of the second half of the first frame, doubling the frame rate and halving the resolution. Also...

>>3553641
Most PS2 games "run" at 640x480 and can, through software be forced to output that resolution in progressive scan over component.

>> No.3553702

>>3553582
Don't be a goober. Getting great video quality out of an Xbox or PS2 is the easiest thing in the world. The DC via VGA does have a much cleaner digital video output than the video output from the PS2 though, which runs also compresses audio at a lower sample rate despite having optical Dolby Pro Logic II support. Obviously the Xbox is still the winner in all these categories because damn near everything supported 480p (with really clean analog video output), a surprising amount of games supported 720p (the real big deal here), and some that supported 1080i (I prefer 720p, but it's still cool that this was possible). Slightly less than half of PS2 games supported 480p, and only a very small handful supported 1080i. Don't get me wrong, the PS2 is still a great console, but of the four it has the overall lowest potential for video output, and all third party titles (I'm sure there are exceptions but I can't think of any off the top of my head) tend to look, run, and play better on Xbox. It also means the DC has aged better. Even more important is the Xbox's 5.1 surround sound support on near every game if you don't mind hunting down an HD AV pack. Now that is a fantastic feature these days. I play a lot of racing sims and FPS on the original Xbox, at least lately, and having proper surround sound has been an incredible feature. I just wish the optical port was built into the console so everyone could enjoy it. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to call in sick from work and jam on Jet Set Radio Future for a while.

>> No.3553707

>>3553692
It is though
>more jet set
>more shenmue
>GunValkyrie
>Panzer Dragoon Orta
>SEGA racing games

>> No.3553715

>>3553707
It really is a massive bummer that Shenmue exists at all. Set the industry back as a whole by the sheer scale at which it failed at everything it attempted to do. Oh well. Turbo-austist children on this board will pretend it's defensible but they have no argument.

Otherwise though, yes. It's commonly accepted that the Xbox is totally the Dreamcast 2 given Sega's support thanks in large part as I understand it to Peter Moore's initiatives. In addition to all the DC franchises that had sequels on the Xbox (including Sega's in house sports game experiments) you had a bunch of games that felt Ike they should have been on a Dreamcast to begin with. Games that totally fit that vibe like Phantom Dust, Otogi, Gun Valkyrie, all kinds of shit. I don't even like any of those games but I love their weirdness. The Xbox is dope as hell.

>> No.3553718

>>3553510
Not retro, never will be retro. Sage, reported, hidden.

>> No.3553726

>>3553715
Stop trolling, xbox fanboys don't actually exist because it sucks.

>> No.3553728

>>3553702
>Slightly less than half of PS2 games supported 480p
>What is GSM
But yes, the Xbox still wins. The Xbox is pretty fucking powerful especially for modified PC hardware in the year of our lord 1991+10. Microsoft wasn't fucking around about entering the console market and we'll probably never know just how much Bill Gates personally ate in loss-leading.

>>
Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action