[quote]Actually, the Bouncer sucked 
Probably could have been done on the DC, just without the blur.
[/quote]
I never said it was good. But when it was released it was the greatest looking game of all time. FAR outweighing Shenmue II.
PS2 is more powerful than the DC overall, but nowhere nearly as efficient. The DC had more texture memory, but couldnât push as many polys (once you learned to synch the PS2 processors, that is). The learning curve on the PS2 was just a lot steeper, but thereâs no denying that games made with Naughty Dogâs technology, for example, sweep the floor with anything on the DC (graphics-wise). Same thing could be said for the MGS engine, but they cheat a lot with that thing (particularly textures).
Theyâre pretty close, but in the end, the PS2 wins. But, the jump from DC to PS2 was nowhere nearly as astounding as the jump from PSX to DC. First time I saw a DC in action, I refused to believe that it was realtime 
So basically what youâre saying is that the PS2 only looks better than the DC in special cases? If you say soâŚ
I agree. Just like how the NGC wasnât THAT big a leap over PS2 and the Xbox wasnât THAT big a leap over NGC. Lets hope the Xbox 2 blows us all away instead of just being âslightly betterâ.
Well, from a technical standpoint, yes. The overall effect, however, is different. The use of anti-aliasing on the PS2, combined with motion blur, etc. makes things look prettier than on the DC⌠just without the vibrant textures and whatnot. Naughty Dogâs stuff notwithstanding (heck, if a company wants to go and write their own programming language to get more out of the PS2, by all means).
I have, uh, witnessed attempts at porting certain DC games to the PS2, and letâs just say it wasnât fun to watch. Some games were apparently easy to do, but others that took full advantage of the DCâs architecture werenât so easy. Two of the primary reasons were how sound was set up on DC vs. PS2, and the use of compressed textures. On the PS2, you have 4MB of texture memory, and you canât compress it. Thatâs not a whole lot. You can stream it, but youâre still limited to only 4MB at a time. The DC had like double that (I forget), but allowed, I think, 8x compression. The sound on the DC was just capable of so much more⌠I used to be much more knowledgable on the technical side of things on the DC, but youâll have to forgive me if I donât remember, as itâs been about 4 years since Iâve had to use that knowledge.
The Xbox is actually (technically speaking) a generation ahead of the PS2. The built-in shaders/lighting technology, along with the sound technology put it in the next technology wave over the PS2. The GC sits pretty somewhere in the middle (like you said), but strangely enough, for whatever reason, the GC cannot do light plume. Hardware limitation, apparently. I think light plume is one of the most over-used visual gimmicks of late, though.
Well the PS2 has been out for a while after the DC sadly died. And of course, as a console lives on, the graphics get better.
For example, look at the difference between virtua fighter 1 and panzer dragoon saga. If the DC continued to live, Iâm sure that it would have continued to improve, so its unfair to compare the dreamcast games to brand new PS2 games.
Shenmue 2 looked just as good as, if not better than anything released on the PS2 in 2001. From a technical standpoint the PS2 isnât that much more powerful than the DC, all things considered.
Once you take into account the DCâs inbuilt support for full screen anti-aliasing which can be implemented with no loss in performance, as well as the far deeper pool of texture RAM the DC can tap (further deepened by superior memory compression), thereâs no denying that it was a serious contender.
Donât compare modern PS2 games to a DC game that came out in 2001 and expect everyone to accept it as a fair comparison. Who knows what Sega could accomplish with the DC now?
Konami used 40% of the PS2âs CPU power to run anti-aliasing software in Metal Gear Solid 2 to smoothen all the jagged polygon edges, which dare I say, is hilarious in the extreme. The PS2âs lack of in-built support for anti-aliasing is almost embarassing, and exposes the limitations of what was supposed to be a âstripped down super-computerâ. Also, compared to the lush textures of Shenmue, the textures in MGS 2 are some of the blandest Iâve seen.
If you look at the highly-detailed 3D main character models in the Dreamcast incarnation of âBerserkâ, you can hardly tell me that the DC was ill-equipped to compete with the PS2 (Abadd might agree with me on this point as well).
No doubt that the DC was definitely on par with the PS2 back in 2001. However, from what I had seen/heard from programmers was that the DC was quickly nearing its cap, whereas the PS2 had slightly longer legs in that respect. The biggest issue with the PS2 (aside from the texture limitations) was the synchronization of the 3 main processors⌠something that wasnât done for the first year or two. People have perfected it now, which is why you get the level of graphics you do today.
Was the DC as good as it was ever going to be? Probably not. Still, I think, graphically at least, it would be sitting in 4th place in this current generation, if it was still around. Granted, the difference between DC and PS2 is nowhere near the difference between PS2 and Xbox.
[quote=âAbaddâ]No doubt that the DC was definitely on par with the PS2 back in 2001. However, from what I had seen/heard from programmers was that the DC was quickly nearing its cap, whereas the PS2 had slightly longer legs in that respect. The biggest issue with the PS2 (aside from the texture limitations) was the synchronization of the 3 main processors⌠something that wasnât done for the first year or two. People have perfected it now, which is why you get the level of graphics you do today.
Was the DC as good as it was ever going to be? Probably not. Still, I think, graphically at least, it would be sitting in 4th place in this current generation, if it was still around. Granted, the difference between DC and PS2 is nowhere near the difference between PS2 and Xbox.[/quote]
I agree. If the Dreamcast had survived the PS2 hype (we all know that people were misled to believe that the PS2 was vastly superior to the DC), I think it wouldâve lived into late 2002 at least and early 2003 at most. I bet that Sega couldâve pushed the hardware to its limits to create games with visuals that would have impressed people even then.
Sigh.
Also, you could argue that since Sega has had more experience programming games for hardware built around parrallel processors (arcade boards mostly), it is in a better position to squeeze every last drop out of the PS2. AM-2 even managed to smoothen out the rough edges in Virtua Fighter 4 for VF 4: Evolution.
The problem there is that Sega is used to working with its own hardware⌠not learning the hardware of other companies. Particularly with a programming behemoth like the PS2.
But, Japanese developers in general are lagging behind western companies technology-wise. When was the last time you saw a Japanese game use normal mapping? Or heck⌠per pixel shading? Sure, technology doesnât define everything, but things like that are time/money savers. They allow you to utilize simple programs to handle everything, rather than manually do everything yourself. Itâs amazing what a development team can accomplish if they are primarily content focused, rather than technology focused. Itâs all about licensing middleware, peoples!!!1!!1one!
Wel basically I meant it didnt have enough RPGs for my taste (much, MUCH less that the Saturn if you imporyed).
Ah, yes. Only 2 real solid ones =\
you mean Shenmue 1 and 2? 
XP
[quote=âGeoffrey Dukeâ]
[quote=âAbaddâ]No doubt that the DC was definitely on par with the PS2 back in 2001. However, from what I had seen/heard from programmers was that the DC was quickly nearing its cap, whereas the PS2 had slightly longer legs in that respect. The biggest issue with the PS2 (aside from the texture limitations) was the synchronization of the 3 main processors⌠something that wasnât done for the first year or two. People have perfected it now, which is why you get the level of graphics you do today.
Was the DC as good as it was ever going to be? Probably not. Still, I think, graphically at least, it would be sitting in 4th place in this current generation, if it was still around. Granted, the difference between DC and PS2 is nowhere near the difference between PS2 and Xbox.[/quote]
I agree. If the Dreamcast had survived the PS2 hype (we all know that people were misled to believe that the PS2 was vastly superior to the DC), I think it wouldâve lived into late 2002 at least and early 2003 at most. I bet that Sega couldâve pushed the hardware to its limits to create games with visuals that would have impressed people even then.
Sigh.
Also, you could argue that since Sega has had more experience programming games for hardware built around parrallel processors (arcade boards mostly), it is in a better position to squeeze every last drop out of the PS2. AM-2 even managed to smoothen out the rough edges in Virtua Fighter 4 for VF 4: Evolution.[/quote]
Modern PS2 and XBox games look excellent because programmer can squeeze everything pout of the consoles now (look at Ninja Gaiden or Halo 2). Althought the DC probabley lacked behind a bit (notice complaints in XBox and GC magazines that DC ports havenlt been spruced up) the final result I think would fall just below that prodcued by the PS2 now.
But the quality of graphics on a console is often determined by the skill of the programmers (i.e. Pazer Dragoon Saga) and it is very much an artform that is lacking, which is why with the majority of average games I cant tell which console it is on.
[quote=âAbaddâ]Havenât read the whole post yet, but I just wanted to clarify two things.
-
Huh? The âslitting your wristsâ comment offended you? Did you even read what I said? I was referring to VC âslitting its own wristsâ (i.e. dropping their price point to $20) to gain attention, but due to the severe drop in profits-per-unit-sold, they were screwing themselves in the long run. Itâs called hyperbole.
-
Itâs not a âpick on the n00bâ thing. Itâs a âinform the n00b who goes to various message boards and spouts basless rumors as factsâ thing (i.e. Skies 2 is coming out, etc.)
Thank you for your time.
Edit: Just finished reading the rest of your post, goonboy. sigh I honestly wish I could show you my sources. Iâm being truly honest here. The only reason why Iâm hard on Sega is because I know Sega can do so much better than what itâs doing right now. Shinobi? That was arse compared to what it should have been. And youâve seen how everyone goes off about how poorly conceived the new Shining Force game is, right? Iâm not the only one. Iâm just not afraid to say that Sega should and could be doing much better.
However, what doesnât help is baseless speculation about what Sega is/isnât doing. It comes across as blatant fanboyism and does nothing more than polarize the pro-Sega/anti-Sega camp. There are many things Sega should be doing right now, but that doesnât mean they actually are doing them.
Right now, in its current state, Sega simply isnât good. Very few games developed at Sega are up to par with the rest of the industry. Sega canât afford to fund vanity projects like Rez and the days of the viability of arcade ports on home consoles are long gone. Users are much more sophisticated now and want an experience that is fun for more than 10 minutes at a time. The problem is that the majority of Segaâs developers cut their teeth in the arcades and itâs very hard to change mentality.
Just my two cents. You can take what I say however you want, but trust me when I say that I bleed blue.[/quote]
Thatâs fair enough then. I will take your word for it when it comes to the market sales. I cannot say that you didnât listen to my points when you thought they were valid and I will do the same as you seem genuine about
this matter.
I admit that i am a zealot when it comes to Sega but that is due to experiences in socialising with other players however i should nât have jump the gun like that. This wonât happen again.
In the case of the games then yes I as well as anyone else here have no idea what theyâre are doing. I was speculating on the games that they may/
or may not be making on old interviews from Sega staff as well as i personally donât think Sega will invest itâs money on an original and unknown title as much as they did when they had a hardware platform. All were seeing from them are remakes and sequels on games that IMHO if Sega still had a game system would never see the light of day. With a known title half the work is done for them because they know that the Sega fans will buy them or so thatâs their logic. From what you said about these games and from what i said it all depends on how much the Sammy management can control the volcano that is Sega.
In my experience in interviews with Sega they follow a certain pattern in that a developer that is being interviewed says he wishes that they could do this game or something only for that title to be released two years down the line. It seems to be their way of hinting to the fans to whatâs coming. If i had access to the interviews with Overworks then i could show you what i meant. Anyway itâs fun to speculate on Sega itâs what getâs me through the nightâŚ
From a buisness point of view maybe none of the games should return if they didnât make good sales. I was always on the assumption that a game
had a projected sales base that the company had set and if it reached the target then it was considered a success. Like SHINING TEARS Sega only released a limited number of units which 98% of it sold out in the first week.
This is what I picked up on in another forum. I would like to know the actual way that companies measure profit to determine a success of a game. Must the game overcome itâs development costs to be considered a hit?
If you know please inform me.
Again i agree that Sega is at a low right now. I canât really complain because none of these games are going on a Sega platform so to me it wonât make a difference but if the going to sully the name of well respected franchises with poor enteries like SHINING FORCE NEO and SONIC HEROES
then in the long run they wonât do themselves any favors.
Youâre correct about the way expectations vs. sales works. A company will set an expected sales goal (which may or may not be a sales number that will produce a profit⌠thatâs where politics come in) based on user reaction to previews, retailer response to early playables, etc.
A big problem is that, well, a game may come really close to selling through its stock, but if retailers donât want to buy any more from the publisher, it means nothing =\ Retailers are extremely intimate with their own sales patterns and sales curves, and if they donât feel confident that they can sell through another order, so be it. Publishers forcing retailers to take certain products end up shooting themselves in the foot more often than not (by having to pay extra money to allow for price drops, retailers having extra inventory which takes up space, etc).
As far as interviews go, well, unless thereâs been an absolutely clear directive from above that there never will be a sequel (and that hardly happens), developers are free to say that theyâd like to make a sequel for anything. Doesnât mean they actually have a brilliant idea that would sell⌠they might have some crappy ideas for all we know. =\
As for Sonic Heroes⌠well, unfortunately, the game sold well. One of the few Sega games that actually does sell. 
With so many people âbaisngâ Sonic Heroes I tend to get very curious.I wanna play it.Reverse effect 
Btw yesterday I thought of a good example to explain my point AbaddâŚIâll try to remember itâŚ
Yes I agree with that but Iâm basing it on an interview in which SHINOBI was mentioned. As I recall the developer said he wished Overworks returned
to more american action games and mentioned three specific titles like SHINOBI, SOR and CLOCKWORK KNIGHT because many of the people involved in those games are now/were in Overworks. A year later SHINOBI appered as a title in development. Now it could mean that the game was
greenlighted way after that interview or as I suspect a title that was in development for the DC and got switched for a PS2 release. If it was the latter then it was a crafty way to hint at upcoming games. So since then I 've been reading between the lines. Thatâs the reason I keep insisting that EA2 might appear because they appeared around the same time from of course the same company.
Another intresting thing about Sega that you probably know is that it takes in a lot of young inexperienced(Proffesionally) programmers and a few
of them make it to prominent positions. Maybe these guys might be fans of
certain old titles and try to push for an update of said titles at one point.
Actually, if a game was truly in development, it probably wouldnât be mentioned at all. That would more likely get them in trouble than anything. Most of the time, developers drop little hints like that to try and stir up some interest to gauge reactions. Shinobi, Iâm pretty sure, had been talked about for years, but the decision to actually move forward with the title wasnât made until about 2001. It was meant to be a more âwesternâ style action game, but IMO, didnât really achieve that goal =\
As for the hiring of inexperienced people, most companies do that. Itâs the best way to get cheaper labor and mold them to your desires. âCode monkeys,â as theyâre sometimes referred to. And itâs actually usually the marketing guys that push for the resurrection of older IP. Itâs much easier to market/sell than bringing something new to the market. The awareness levels are already there to a degree, and it gives you the excuse to be able to say things like, âThe classic _______ is back in action!â even if nobody really cared about it. A lot of aspiring developers want to leave their own personal mark in the industry, to they want to create new stuff. If youâre a creative type, why shackle yourself with someone elseâs vision, when youâve got a million ideas of your own? <-- is most likely what theyâre thinking.
Yeah, unfortunately. >:)
And Yuji Naka confirmed that another Sonic game is in development for the GameCube which will be released by the end of 2005. Why am I not surprised?
Btw, itâs interesting how Sonic Team practically ostracized the PS2. Good thing it paid off.
I canât remember if I found this out from a genuinely reliable source, but Iâve read somewhere at least half-convincing that this game is Sonic Heroes 2. But of course, that wouldnât be particularly surprising (given, as Abadd says, that Sonic Heroes sold)âŚ