Wouldn't It Have Been Cool If...

Just another kinda pointless post. I thought It'd be cool if every one posted stuff that you would have liked to have happened but never did:

The Saturn could play MD games.
The Saturn emulator for the DC was real.
The DC was still going in Euro land.
Sony hadn't destroyed the soul of video gaming.

Tony

PS, must be video game related, no "if J Lo would sleep with me"

 

A memory upgrade for the DC would have been nice.
It would utilize the expansion port (more than just
the modem but including the modem)

This would have allowed for larger games I'm sure.
(I always hear someone say something about memory blah)

The DC is near perfect in every other way.

 

Memory was fine I think, you can't complain about Shenmue . I hear you about the expansion port though, modems and a karioke unit are far from exciting.

Tony

 

I don't have any personal problem with the amount of RAM the DC has... but I think had it the option to have memory upgraded... or expanded... that you could easily have any game out currently on GC or PS2 running on the DC just as fine if not better.

(we're not going to get into the xbox subject here

 

Well technically, there's nothing the PS2 can do that the DC can't, and in fact, some games actually look and play far superior on DC, partially because the PS2 does no hardware antialiasing. Take a look at both Guilty Gear X and Dead or Alive 2, for example, for PS2 and DC, and you'll see them looking a lot prettier on Sega's console.

 

I'd be happy in a world where the 3D revolution never happened.

1994 - Nintendo release Super Famicom CD unit. Sony, in partnership with the big N, release the stand alone version. The MegaCD is going strong (no 32X). Squaresoft carry on making quality SNES-CD RPGs.

1996/97 - Nintendo release an all-in-one SNES/CD unit (Wondermega stylee) SNK NeoGeo is still selling well. NEC release a proper successor to the PCEngine.

2000 - The original Saturn is released, as the sprite pushing beast it always was, without the dual CPU/3D chip setup.

2001 - Nintendo release a CD based 32/64bit 2D based unit.

2004 - Were all playing quality 2D shooters, RPGs and platform games.

 

I can agree with that.

When I was playing Code Veronica for days then went to a buddies
house who had Code Veronica for his PS2... I was like... wow...
that looks like utter shit compared to the Dreamcast version
and just smiled happily as ever haha...
:toimonster:

 

-

I wish..

Sony had included hardware AA and texture compression in the PS2.

Sega had hired decent voice actors for the english release of Shenmue.

Sega had not pulled the plug on the DC(yes yes I know it's "alive" in Japan but you know what I mean).

Suikoden 3 wasn't such a massive dissapointment.

The face mapping feature in Perfect Dark wasn't axed.

The 64DD was released earlier and worldwide thus giving it a chance to reach it's potential. Also giving me chance to own one.

The Amiga was still the powerhouse it use to be.

Those great dev's from the Amiga days(Bitmap Bros, Bullfrog, Team17) were still the powerhouses they use to be.

People would stop saying Sony destroyed the soul of videogaming.

 

The lack of RAM and the relatively slow streaming speeds(800k or 800m ps, can't remember) would prevent it from doing large open areas wouldn't it?
Like those seen in the Jak, Ratchet and GTA series.

Jaggies have been pretty much a non-issue since the 2nd gen of PS2 games. Still wish there was hardware AA so the Jaggies had never been an issue.

Is it really fair to judge the power of a system via ports? GGX, DOA2 and RE:CV were all coded from the ground up for the dreamcast and were then ported to the PS2. Ports are never going to use the machine as well as a game coded from the ground up.
Example: MGS2: SOL for Xbox had slowdown in places the PS2 version didn't. Does that make the PS2 more powerfull then the Xbox?
I find it far more fair to compare similar games gen vs gen.
Example: Sega GT(2nd gen DC racer) vs GT3(2nd gen PS2 racer).
Both games are similar and both are around the same gen(Sega Gt was released 15 months after the DC, GT3 was released 13 months after the PS2) and both are made by 1st partys(therefore they should know plenty about the hardware).

 

ports

Well I guess where we differ is that I think a port should atleast look as good as the original. How can you port it to another console and have it look worse and play worse. Oh and Sega is no longer a 1st party to anyone.

 

I don't think Sony is that big monster most people think. I know i collect mostly PS1, PS2, but i never was and never will be a Sony Fanboy

Nobody criticizes Nintendo for their tactics when the NES had all games by contract, not letting the better Master System and even Game Gear to have succesful franchises.

Stil, those systems were succesful in Brazil / Europe.

I know SCEA is kinda stupid blocking releases of games like Puyo Puyo Fever and other 2D titles, but SCEJ isn't that stupid

Anyway, here are my additions:

- The Master System ruled the NES :axe:
- Sega CD / 32X had better support = better games
- Sega didn't drop the DC
- PS2 with more ram and FSAA by hardware

 

I completley agree with you but I believe it says a lot more about the dev's then the hardware.
I just do not think it is fair to compare the power of 2 systems using a game that is coded from the ground up for one of them. It's an unfair advantage.

Sega were a 1st party when Sega GT came out.

 

Ah....

Hail to the Dreamcast, it rules all!
rayer:

PS2 can take a hike haha

 

True... but how the hell can you do it.

How can you take an older game from an older system, port it to a NEW system and have WORSE graphics than before?
(Doesn't that sort of take back the whole point of a new system? better , faster.... umm.. yea?

ok.. I give
:Hangman:

 

Sometimes the Team that ported did a bad job. Example?

Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2.

They did the game for PS2 and ported to Xbox and Gamecube. What happened? PS2 game is the best one, runs flawlessly. The Xbox and Gamecube version have slowdowns, car control is far too floaty and unresponsive.

A part of the Gamespy Review of the X-Box version:

"Technically speaking, the Xbox version of Hot Pursuit 2 is a train wreck. All the special effects that make the PlayStation 2 version look so sharp -- like volumetric fogging and excellent lighting -- are completely absent. Gone are the sandstorms that would completely blind you or the way the cars glow with yellow light as you drive past large fires. The textures are incredibly blurry and the colors are washed-out and bland. Despite the sacrifices made on the technical end of things, the game can get quite jumpy when there are several cars onscreen at once. This drastically undermines the game's sense of speed -- one of its major selling points. "

And we all know Xbox is way more powerful than PS2.

Multi-platform will always end up on this discussion :toimonster:

PS: I'm not protecting PS2. I'm just saying it can happen vice-versa :smt023

 

That's very true

However.... do you really think if that... let's say... Resident Evil Code Veronica would actually be better/ look better on the PS2 instead of the DC had it been coded ground up on the PS2?

but I believe the whole porting thing.. it just blows me away you can take a 2 year old game and make it look worse on a newer console.

Even though ports can have problems.... how should this affect graphics? So far... every single port I've seen on the PS2 looks like crap compared to the DC (of with any luck on-par)

Don't get me wrong... some people can port lazy ass around... but to say every single port is going to look worse than the originals because of bad porting? that seems a little odd to me.

and has anyone played the ps2 version of Virtua Tennis? *or whatever it's called for the PS2?* That is truly terrible. The graphics are EXTREMELY edgy and the whole game is slow / plays like crap.

Things I like about the PS2:

Burnout 2
GTA III
Vice City
Max Payne

and that's it....

I feel that every one of those games could be done on the DC with the same quality. It may have slower loading times due to memory or whatnot... but the gameplay and graphics are still going to be there.

 

DC Vision does have a point. There isn't one PS2 conversion of a Dreamcast games that even looks on par as the DC version, never mind better. Can't see why they are always shite on the PS2. Are Sega doing crappy ports just to prove the DC was better? Probably not since it would lose them money. So why are all the ports crap? Shenmue 2 on the XBOX also has a few issues that it couldn't solve such as the Dreamcast's transparencies which had to be removed or completely changed for the Xbox version. Over all though the XBox Shenmue 2 does look nicer than the DC but not that much. maybe the PS2 just isn't capable of a port of a DC game. Who knows. :smt027

Yakumo

 

Well the biggest problems of PS2 are: Lack of Ram and Full Screen Anti-Aliasing not made by hardware.

Instead, you have to code on the software to use CPU power.

I'm not saying SEGA does shit ports to prove the DC is best. I'm just saying comparing multi-platform games does not make justice. The Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 is a good example

How a game can look amazing (on the whole graphics department), with no slowdowns, with Anti-Aliasing, 60fps, on the PS2 and the same game look terrible on the Xbox, with slowdowns , blurry textures, on the Xbox, a way more powerful machine? :smt017

Another example is Sonic Heroes. The best version is the Gamecube, with the Xbox having texture problems, and lots of bugs (sometimes the characters don't have shadows). Won't even comment the PS2 job. They probably did that in a hurry. At worst it had to look like the one of Sonic Adventure games, adding aliasing :smt043

 

I think it would have been cool if the n64 had been a cd based system rather then the old cart style, i think way more company's would have signed on to develop for the n64

 

Ditto