What is it about Dreamcast graphics that is so distinctly ugly?
>check out PS2 game
>can immediately tell it was in development for Dreamcast first
Is it the flat lighting and gaudy but yet earthy/vomity color mix?
What is it about Dreamcast graphics that is so distinctly ugly? >check out PS2 game
Going to dump a bunch of ugly dreamcast games
See those greens? It's what I mean
Everything about dreamcast screams fail. It's not a 5th gen or even a 6th gen console.
Released way too soon.
It has similar Shaders capability to the N64. Reason why the Dreamcast does not belong to the 6th gen and its graphics looks bland. Soul Calibur 3 vs 1 is a great example;
It is just a budget and capped win98 PC from 1998
Bro you'd need a Geforce (1999) to even pull off certain DC games on PC.
Dreamcast looks great. It was released in 1998. So it only needed to last until about 2003/2004. That's 5 to 6 years. If Sega kept going, they probably would have released Dreamcast 2 using the latest Sega arcade hardware. Probably would have gotten Virtua Fighter 5 for Dreamcast 2.
That’s the underlying problem: It was a console from 1998. The lack of GD-ROM capacity and slow disc drive would’ve quickly become a hindrance. Sega would’ve been forced yet again to release a new console mid-generation at a time when the real sixth gen consoles were really hitting their stride.
>The lack of GD-ROM capacity
It's fine. It's 1GB. Gamecube wasn't much bigger either at around 1.4 GB.
Most developers weren't even really pushing the limits of DVD
during the Ps2 era. If you actually examine the game files (I have), most of the files are fluff and redundant files - only there to help loading faster. They didn't even max out DVD space. GTA 3 fits on a single CD-ROM when you delete the redundant fluff files.
>slow disc drive would’ve quickly become a hindrance.
Dreamcast 2 wouldn't use a GD-ROM. Most likely would have used a newer standard that isn't Sony owned by Sony. It would probably use an HD-DVD disc which was owned by Toshiba. Or another larger disc standard made by Yamaha.
>Sega would’ve been forced yet again to release a new console mid-generation at a time when the real sixth gen consoles were really hitting their stride.
Sega releases console hardware based on THEIR arcade hardware releases and updates in Japan. Not some arbitrary window you seem concerned with.
You seem to be obsessed with categorizing everything into "generations" with a specific release date windows. Not everything fits neatly like you want. There will be a always variance of a few years. If you have what Sega did, then be glad you didn't live in the 1980s and early 90s. Every game company releasing consoles whenever they pleased.
If Sega released a new console in 2005. Then it would probably be based on Sega Lindberg arcade hardware which was being used at the time. So we would get games that look like Virtua Fighter 5 (pic related)
>It's fine. It's 1GB. Gamecube wasn't much bigger either at around 1.4 GB
Except GameCube ended up getting several gimped multiplats due to lack of disc space.
>Except GameCube ended up getting several gimped multiplats due to lack of disc space.
They still sold well. It wasn't a huge difference. What matters is that the game releases still looked "relatively" the same and part of the same generation. Close enough.
Yes, but the difference is that the GameCube hardware is a good deal more advanced than the Dreamcast. If GameCube multiplats had cut content compared to PS2/Xbox, theoretical Dreamcast versions would fare much worse, and that’s assuming third party devs bothered to even make the effort at all.
>Yes, but the difference is that the GameCube hardware is a good deal more advanced than the Dreamcast
They are still the same generation of 128-bit consoles. What sets the standard for a generation is bits. Not release date.
Exactly.
If some company today decided to release a cheap 128 Bit console using old hardware, we would still call it a 6th generation console.
It doesn't matter if it is released 20 years later.
The point of that post is that the Dreamcast would have been at a major disadvantage trying to keep up with sixth generation multiplat releases. I don’t care which console generation you consider it to be a part of.
They actually didn’t sell that well which was the problem. For example, EA stopped putting their annual sports games on GameCube after a couple years because sales were way lower compared to PS2/Xbox.
Third party games made for kids game sold decently on the cube and always better than the xbox versions atleast.
>If you have what Sega did, then be glad you didn't live in the 1980s and early 90s. Every game company releasing consoles whenever they pleased.
Not really, at least when it came to the 'main' consoles. The Mega Drive/Genesis launched within a year of the SNES and the Saturn came out the same year as the PS1. Sega jumped the gun with the Dreamcast, launching it in Japan in 1998 when the PlayStation was in its prime and cranking out hits.
>Starts talking about mid and late 90s stuff
I don't think you read the sentence properly.
Well then what did you mean? Sega’s successful consoles generally released around the same time as the competition.
Anon clearly said 1980s and early 90s.
Okay? The Master System launched the same year as the NES (obviously the Famicom was earlier), Genesis within a year of the SNES and then Saturn the same year as PlayStation.
Oh, and the Game Gear launched a year after the Game Boy.
Are Nintendo and Sega the only companies you know? That's really disappointing.
And what else matters from that time? The CDi lol?
*Laughs in Neo Geo*
Ah yes, I totally remember walking into my local Walmart in 1993 and finding the Neo Geo AES and its giant cartridges sitting on the shelves next to the SNES and Genesis stuff.
>local Walmart
Lol
Yes, anon, that’s my point. You couldn’t just walk into your local 90s era department store and buy a Neo Geo. It wasn’t a mainstream console that directly competed with the Genesis/SNES.
>expecting to find a Neo Geo at the most bottom tier bargain store in the USA.
Maybe stop shopping at Walmart.
That’s some astounding reading comprehension, anon.
>That’s some astounding reading comprehension, anon.
How many times do you need to be told by other anons? If you wanted a Neo Geo stop shopping at Walmart.
They were around. Just not at Walmart. lmao
See
. I’d imagine the bulk of U.S, Neo Geo sales were mail order, not brick and mortar retail.
>Walmart
Savemart nig*a
Kek, but yeah. Your chances of seeing a Neo Geo in the wild as a kid were practically zero unless you live in New York or L.A.
>Your chances of seeing a Neo Geo in the wild as a kid were practically zero unless you live in New York or L.A.
My local Funcoland had Neo Geos. I didn't live in New York or LA or a big city
If you had a local Funcoland, you were at least in a place with a decent sized population is more my point I guess.
>Ah yes, I totally remember walking into my local Walmart in 1993 and finding the Neo Geo AES and its giant cartridges sitting on the shelves next to the SNES and Genesis stuff.
Never went to Walmart to buy games. I did see Neo Geos at Toys R Us and Electronics Boutique
Because you lived in a larger city.
I lived in the suburbs.
Of a large city.
>Of a large city.
Listen anon. Don't be mad at me because you never shopped at anywhere besides Walmart. Neo Geos were around. I lived in freaking Colorado as a kid and we had them.
So near Denver, a larger city. What are you even trying to say here?
Now I'm insulted. Do you thinking Colorado is ONLY Denver? That we all live huddled around Denver? Colorado is big state. Probably bigger than some Euro countries.
Okay, which suburbs of Colorado did you grow up in?
Turbo Grafx 16 / PC Engine
That was another one that you probably never saw as a kid unless you lived near a larger city with a big Toys R Us location or Babbages or whatever.
>And what else matters from that time? The CDi lol?
Do you know anything from the 1980s? There's an entire decade of consoles you seem to be avoiding.
For me it's the reds that are most garish on early 6th gen games
This conversation reminds me of dogshit color schemes on N64 games.
It's using the Dreamcast Conversion mod but doesn't have the Dreamcast Characters pack installed (which didn't exist at the time of this screenshot). It's a faithful recreation, so yes, Sonic Adventure DOES have ugly colors.
Speaking of which, afaik the game entirely relies on its lighting engine to light every area of the game and barely has any baked vertex lighting to speak of, giving a flat unblended look to everything. It's a real shame because Sonic Adventure is one of the few games on the Dreamcast that has half-decent lighting system, but they just used it to cover the lack of polish on their environment art. Even Soul Calibur fucked up their lighting going from arcade to Dreamcast, the bright additive lighting turned into muted "QuakeGL overbrights". If you know, you know.
>Even Soul Calibur fucked up their lighting going from Naomi (Dreamcast) to Dreamcast
Dumb tech illiterate PS2homosexual
Go shove four hundred and eighty lines of blurry garbage into your own asshole since you love shiterlaced blurry trash so much.
:I I never defended PS2. It's cool, and so is Dreamcast. I just like playing along with threads. The Dreamcast is absolutely capable of good lighting systems, and Soul Calibur is still a gorgeous game. All I'm saying is that I wish Soul Calibur kept the cool lighting from the arcade version, and that Sonic Adventure's lighting engine could've done that job.
And also Sonic Adventure is an ugly game with a cool lighting system.
Wasn’t the original arcade version of SoulCalibur significantly worse graphically than the Dreamcast release? I remember it looking more like a PS1 game.
>Wasn’t the original arcade version of SoulCalibur significantly worse graphically than the Dreamcast release?
Soul Calibur Arcade wasn't released on Naomi Hardware.
>I remember it looking more like a PS1 game.
Because it WAS a PS1 game. Soul Calibur Arcade was released on the Namco System 11 arcade board. Which is basically a modified Playstation 1 machine with some extra hardware to make it look a bit nicer for arcades. Namco System 11 was already almost 5 years old by that point.
I don't know why Namco decided to use PS1 arcade hardware for their Soul Calibur arcade release (they should have used Naomi), but that's what they did I guess. That's why the arcade version looks so bad in comparison to Dreamcast.
The Dreamcast port is essentially a remade game with newer updated graphics.
Yup, it's a fantastic port. Literally the only thing that would make it better is the bright lighting from the arcade. It mogs the original arcade version in every single way graphically, I'm just a sucker for additive lighting.
SA is weird. I think it's charming, but not pretty. I think the lack of any sort of vertex baked lighting is what hurts it the most, 2nd most being the sometimes weird color choices.
Sonic Adventure looks amazing in every way on the Dream :3
Japan doesn't have green, only "ao"
You can tell it from the bright blue SEGA sky
The most kino of all styles
>disingenuous comparison and you know it.
Lmao
>disingenuous comparison
Why did you quote the first post?
Damn, i love Runabout Series, glad to see that mentionned to say shit.
>Damn, i love Runabout Series, glad to see that mentionned to say shit.
The Runabout games aren't even running on the Dreamcast natively, they are using Windows CE runtime environment, which means that they have some performance hitches.
>they are using Windows CE runtime environment, which means that they have some performance hitches
Wait, isn't that also why the Sega Rally 2 port was kinda shit?
>Wait, isn't that also why the Sega Rally 2 port was kinda shit?
Yes. I don't know what team ported Sega Rally to the DC, but it was confirmed that Sega made the PC port of Sega Rally 2 first, and then ported the PC game to Windows CE. The Dreamcast version is a 1:1 port of the PC game. I think they did it, because Sega/ AM2 wanted to use Sega Rally 2 as a test bed to showcase the performance of WindowsCE using one of their own games. Sega Rally 2 runs at a wildly uncapped 60fps that jumps between 30-60 because of this.
?t=154
The easiest way to tell if a DC game is using WindowsCE is if the "Produced by or under license from Sega Enterprises, LTD" boot screen has a "powered by Windows CE" logo on it. Like image related.
Sega should have hidden the Dreamcast's imperfections with the flicker and blur of interlaced field rendering
If we had a time machine and told them what to do they'd still mess it all up.
PS2 won
Nope. I won.
?si=aAdiL1EvOUoxh-Dr&t=170
PS2 don't miss.
Dreamcast has such weak graphics that even N64 games were indistinguishable from them.
A lot of ps2 games is recycled ideas. I'm realizing it's similar to nes that way.
Bunch of games feel and play the exact same
PS2 is nothing but misses
Objectively the worst console of its era
Kek, such saltiness. Who pissed in your serial, sweaty?
I'm not, just saying what's true
Captcha: MYT
Mighty indeed
The second time she says I WON is literally what I think of whenever I see a WE WON thread
I always told Sega about you, always. But, no, they were busy fighting Sony, they said you posed no threat. You may have fooled them, but I always saw through everything you did.
The real hero.
Gamecube won actually
most games on the dreamcast don't even support progressive anyway
all but like 15 games support it and of those 3/4ths are awful acclaim wrestling games and KoF ports.
Hydro Thunder is the only notable game that doesnt
HYDRO THUNDER
CHOOSE YOUR TRACK
LOST ISLAND
CHOOSE YOUR BOAT
MISS BEHAVE
you're out of your mind
No OP is right
That's the type of greens Sega uses since after Dreamcast. Seems like they were somehow limited on Dreamcast and had to use dull colors
That's not even Dreamcast
on a CRT it wouldve looked better retard
That's the GameCube version. You're not clever.
It’s even worse than that. It’s the PC version modded to have Dreamcast lighting and and environmental textures but with the DX models still intact. That anon is a massive autist who’s made multiple useless threads about it.
This looks like shit and I love the cope replies. This is what it looks like on Dreamcast
>not enabling the dreamcast models as well
tasteless pleb
The dreamcast is peak sovl and the op is a flaming homosexual. Some truths are absolute and immutable.
dreamcast is actually such a gay name, what was the response when it was first unveiled?
It's casting dreams directly into your mind, they're sent in low res to not overload your brain. You might want better graphics, but you wouldn't be able to handle the better graphics mentally
What is it about mental iliness that is so distinctly dumb?
>check out dumb thread
>can immediately tell it's low quality
Is it the retarded wording?
Why did you post a screencap of the OP?
You know we can scroll up to see it, right?
Kek what is it about mental illness that is so distinctly dumb?
>posts a beautiful game like crazy taxi or fucking jetset
>calls it ugly
Go ahead, post whatever native PS2 diarrhea spray graphics you like. I'm going to stab you to death
>Yfw (you)
Face facts, dreamcast lost for a reason.
Face facts, this thread sucks. And Dreamcast died because SEGA's past retardation, but what can I expect from a dumb shitposter.
>this thread sucks
Take a look at your own posts. Try sticking to topic in future.
it lost because snoy drowned it out with it's massive marketing budget yeah
The PS2 really didn’t need to be hyped up by marketing seeing as the PlayStation was the most popular console on the planet.
Correct.
Incorrect
PS2 won because it was better than the competition, especially gamecube and dreamcast.
It literally won for every reason EXCEPT being better.
>wahhh its popular so its not better! My whole persona is RIDING on this! The console mommy bought me HAS TO BE THE BEST
It just doesn't have many games that interest me.
Yeah, the PS2 was 'weaker' but the Emotion Engine GPU was still quite capable and cutting edge for its day. It produced a lot of great looking games.
It doesn't seem like it was weaker, can't fathom dc running anything close to god of war 2. Seems like once the tools matured and devs got a grip they were pushing the best looking games on PS2. The berserk game comes to mind, same team but the sequel completely rolls the original visually.
Exactly, and that’s why those early PS2 ports that one anon keeps posting look worse than the Dreamcast originals. They were quick and dirty ports from before devs got a handle on the new hardware.
Excuses
Sure, anon, sure. A Dreamcast port of GTA3 would’ve been trash btw.
Samefag
The retard with the shitty recording setup has been samefagging up a storm in this thread.
>The retard with the shitty recording setup has been samefagging up a storm in this thread.
It's really obvious.
Ok
Don't know what it is then, the progression and encounters feels way sloggier.
>A Dreamcast port of GTA3
Big yikes!
Urbas Chaos already shows how bad it would be
Urban Chaos mogs
Looks aside, it definitely plays worse, disappointingly.
Oh no it's much better on ps2. They were building on the foundation of that dc game.
The PS2 certainly cemented its status in Europe and South America, who will continue buying Sony consoles almost solely for Gran Turismo and soccer until the end of civilization.
The controller for it kinds sucked. The L and R are in the wrong spot and there's only 1 analog stick for it
Their games aren't that bad. at least 10 or so games for it, but the ps2 beat it and ,not sure you can even say that, because it was between a ps1/ps2
Tell your mother I said hello
op is a homosexual, no exceptions
Yeah I don't get why people claim it looks good. That Daytona port looks fucking horrendous.
>can't into obsolete graphics
Sounds like you need a new hobby, thread hidden
I love the dreamcast look. It has aged very well for early 3D too.
Low quality thread.
/v/-tier slop thread
How can people on this website ask these stupid f****** questions
Nah, you're just a retarded cum guzzling tranny homosexual.
10398517
tasteless! that's your new name make sure and tell your family and friends tasteless! you will get no (you) from me tasteless!
SA should've been on the Saturn.
You are FUCKING high if you think it would have looked anything like those.
I love it.
Enough horse power for high res (for the time) texturing, but no hardware for bloom or pixel shaders so everything is very sharp/clean looking.
Its annoying when a game has nice assets and you never really get to appriciate them under 10 layers of pixel shaders and color "correction".
PS2
>480i
>Patented PS2 hardware blur smear used in every game
Dreamcast games tend to have a massive disparity in their graphics. Like the player models and all the important areas are all really high quality, but then the general environments or side NPCs all look an entire gen behind. Dreamcast games also tend to have textures so sharp they look out of place. It's like a really weird in between between the 5th and 6th gen
Glad I'm not the only one. At least this look is kind of fitting in Shenmue
it's literally goyslop. american israelites started sega
>american israelites started sega
Is this actually true?
No, it was Hawaiians
Hawaiian israelites, to be precise.
Hawaiian muslims, to be accurate.
Now this explains the Saturn name
black cube
its a gray cube with blue accents everywhere else that isnt amerishart
Not sure but their co-op arcade fighter/fps games were fun
dreamcast has crazy sharp textures with low poly models and environments. it's a weird contrast
It's basically what the N64 should have been.
I don't know why the light is so flat, look at the rocks in the background it's the same shade, the bottom should be darker but it's lit the same.
Makes it look better to me. I don't need dingy shit.
I can see it, it suits arcade games as it is less distracting but for other games they look a bit dark.
Now compare with the PS1, the color range is a lot higher even with the dithering.
It seems to be related to vertex coloring:
https://dreamcastify.unreliable.network/index.php/lighting-downgrades/
Which the N64 also used, maybe that's where the similarities are.
oh shit my bad at
, didn't mean to reply to this Spyro post, I meant to reply to
Sonic Adventure post.
>effortlessly mogs every DC game
The magic of colors
Less processing power but more VRAM means that a lot of details that would be polygonal on the PS2 are textures on the Dreamcast. It makes its games look more "fake", like everything's a facade
Like your viewpoint
Reminds me of when your mom would lay outside in her bikini and play the radio loud. She would turn over and her bra would fall off sometimes
Either it was timed perfect or she did that right when I walked by on purpose
ZOOMER ALERT
Dumbest thread in all of Ganker, but then again, what can you expect from 512x448 converted to 480i/poorly upscaled to 480p with a god awful bilinear filter through the worst video output signal known to man, AND sometimes even with field rendering for an even jaggier, more washed out, low quality image PS2 cockslurping homosexuals like OP?
Here's Ridge Racer V, perfectly good game from Namco, the only devs on par with Sega's best at their peak, SHAT UP COMPLETELY by the PS2's god awful underpowered meme architecture, like the Saturn's but with no redeeming factors whatsoever.
>Field rendering (game is actually running at some assinine 512x224 resolution, line doubled so it looks even worse, all early PS2 games had to do this because the console was total dogshit)
>Interlaced only (most PS2 games are 480i only and the ones that aren't have FAKE 480p, GT4/TT even has a fake 1080i mode that looks WORSE than its already poor 480i mode.)
>Washed out textures from the VRAMlet GPU
>Looks like shit regardless of display, doesn't matter if it's a 15khz CRT or a top end OLED with the most expensive RetroTink.
What, you don't like field rendering and interlacing?
I'm seizuring.
To be fair if you magoo it up on a CRT + composite it looks pretty-okay.
This was NOT Namco's fault. Alongside Psygnosis they pretty much built the PS1 for Sony.
This is all on Ken Kutaragi's dicksucking meme console.
the ps2 is the nagger trash console exclusively for naggers
low poly and more simple lighting.
I liked the dreamcast and love the ps2. playing ace combat 4 right now
Dreamcast games looked beautiful, phenomenal and often distinctly better than PS2 games due to the 60Hz refresh rate.
Particularly those two games that you've just posted the images of. Thanks for reminding us how great they looked, of course it would be better on a CRT and at the high speeds they are going.
Based Dreamcast enjoyers
>Dreamcast games looked beautiful, phenomenal and often distinctly better than PS2 games due to the 60Hz refresh rate.
Dreamcast also had better Anti-Aliasing than PS2.
Dreamcast always looked good to me
Heck yeah
Everyone knows PS2 looks one thousand times better and saying other wise is peak contrarianism.
Too sharp for low poly environments. Makes some games look like those fanmade texture packs for N64 games.
Ok
SA2 is genuinely one of the ugliest games I had the displeasure of seeing. The art "direction" is absolutely horrid with realistic high-resolution textures being plastered over super low-poly environments.
One of the prettiest games I've ever seen to this day :3
Yet there is no Dreamcast port that looks as good as its native hometown. :3
Wow! I love 480i (line doubled and upscaled from 224p), jaggies, non-square pixels, stretched to shit images, low quality washed out textures AND the worst possible video output signals possible regardless of your choice of composite, RGB or component! The BlackStation 2 is so good!
I'll flay your skin and use it as a fucking rug, you mongrel.
>jaggies
You never played the PS2 on a CRT, did you?
I literally have a 27 inch trinitron and a PS2 w/ component next to me
This looks like fucking shit. Waste of a good game on hardware that never was and never will be good.
OP is a huge nagger btw
Lol tbis post really goes to show that the spoiled don't deserve their toys.
Make sure to mod your PS2 to apply Progressive hacks to games (not sure if it's possible with real discs but I think it might be). It'll clean up the image considerably, though it'll still be a flickering mess for most games since many of them don't have proper mipmapping. I think many games still output sub-480p as well, but it's not something I'm knowledgeable about.
Dreamcast is literally and unironically 2 N64s taped together.
This.
Sega sabotaged their ports once dreamcast died. They went from putting in low effort to zero effort.
It's funny how people at the time were coping with
>well SEGA hardware may have died but that just means they'll focus extra hard on software
If only they knew...
It was a good console with actually GOOD games.
The controller on the other side is horrible and outdated.
Literally zero issue playing with it 😀
Do people not remember what games in the late 90s looked like?
Dark engine games were hardly the pinnacle of graphical tech of the time, as great as Thief and SS2 were. SS2 was also meant to be dark for both atmosphere and shit-graphics-hiding reasons.
It looks like a beefed up N64, higher polycount and texture size but lacking in special effects and shading that are ubiqitous on PS2, Gamecube, Xbox. Games look very flat.
>It looks like a beefed up N64, higher polycount and texture size but lacking in special effects and shading that are ubiqitous on PS2
Lmao
I like the Dreamcast but come the fuck on man this is a shitport and a disingenuous comparison and you know it. Now post the games that maxed each out in motion.
nta how can an image be disingenous retard? The image right there there in front of you proves him wrong and that's what you don't like about it.
There is no contest that the machines go something like:
Xbox=Gamecube>PS2>Dreamcast>>N64.
Yes the PS2 is better than dreamcast when pushed. What he said about it being a "beefed up N64" that can't do PS2 stuff is plain false.
>nta how can an image be disingenous retard? The image right there there in front of you proves him wrong and that's what you don't like about it.
>There is no contest that the machines go something like:
>Xbox=Gamecube>PS2>Dreamcast>>N64.
>Yes the PS2 is better than dreamcast when pushed. What he said about it being a "beefed up N64" that can't do PS2 stuff is plain false.
Not to mention the Dreamcast wasn't pushed either. It was cancelled early. Developers in the USA only had about a year and half to play with the Dreamcast hardware. Then it was cancelled. They didn't have time to optimize, and learn to push the Dreamcast to the limit. I'm not saying it would look "hugely dramatically better" or anything if Dreamcast stuck around for another 3 years. But with a little more time, the Dreamcast still had a little more it could give developers in terms of performance.
Meanwhile the gsme devs had 5 to 6 years to play with with Ps2/Xbox/Gamecube hardware. They learned the hardware inside and out. The knew the limits and how to get the most out the hardware.
If you actually look at the specs on paper. The PS2 is only about 20% faster in raw polygon performance than Dreamcast. The PS2 can handle putting more things on screen at once. But PS2 was worse when it came to Anti-Aliasing and shading compared to Dreamcast. That's why all the comparison photos of Dreamcast VS PS2 always have the Dreamcast looking sharper and crisper compared to PS2. I'm sure the PS2 could have more bots and NPCs on screen at once, but those NPCs will look blurry compared to Dreamcast.
Of course Xbox, Gamecube, and PC stomp PS2 and Dreamcast. If we are looking at raw performance numbers.
it was in fact pushed pretty close to its max and the hardware was simply fucking incapable of lighting/vertex shit on PS2's level let alone the others. Yes it had a bit more texture memory and a sharper image but that's fucking it.
because that's hardly an example of a game that pushes either system to its maximum potential, and it's clear the PS2 version is just fucked up. It doesn't prove jack shit about what system is better. Now show me SH3 tier models and lighting on DC fuckhead.
>Fails to even reach full 480i
>Needs a 15khz CRT to even look somewhat acceptable
>Video signal through component/RGB still looks worse than the fucking Saturn through composite
>Saturn tier shitshow hardware, emulation still sucks dick and doesn't fix any of the video quality problems
Honestly the worst, most low quality, most overhyped piece of hardware ever shat out onto the market alongside maybe the Nintendo Switch.
>Shits up your game
Yep, that's the PS2 alright.
Alright then
Dumping more ugly DC graphics.
Retarded low quality console warring thread.
The fact this extremely dumb shitshow excuse of a thread is proof that this board is dead
Soulcalibur pretty much maxed out the graphics from the get go, I don't think other games matched it or surpassed it.
Holy cow, the Dreamcast picture is beautiful. I own it. I've played it. I know how good it looks. Yet even now when I'm not ready for it, I'm in awe at its beauty. What the fuck.
Dreamcast graphics is better than your mom's vagina and anus combined.
Bluest blues in all of gaming. Can't be beat. OP is a fag.
GOD DAMN RIGHT
Ps2 haters and dreamcast apologists, come back when you got a game as good looking as xenosaga on your console.
Impressive models for the time, but slightly off-putting style-wise lol. But pretty much any game with competent facial animations on PS2 surpasses what Dreamcast is capable of. It almost feels like Dreamcast didn't have proper support for skeletal animations, only a few games got it right.
I've noticed this too, dreamcast games usually had the old gi joe segmented models, it was weird because lots of PS1 games had moved onto more proper skeletal rigging setups.
It didn’t, Dreamcast used a pretty unique system for animation to make development cheaper. PowerVR was really fast and really good at transformation. BUT, monkeys paw, all of your characters and models move like they have a stick up their butt. It’s a very manual process. The Dreamcast potentially could have tons of very detailed animation. But limited ram and the weird system it used hampered it a lot. If it had double the ram it would’ve been trivial to use Segas converter to convert standard animated models to PowerVr transformations. But the way PowerVR did things was very ram heavy. So this is how the console ended up because of ram prices at the time.
It finally makes sense why DC games are (for the most part) animated so clunkily. Thanks. Makes me wish the Dreamcast had Naomi 2 specs even more, though it probably would've been doomed even more than the Dreamcast due to high price + still using GD-ROM. It doesn't make business sense but it would've made geeks like me happy.
It just didn’t have enough ram and manually converting animations from industry standards really sucked. Times were changing rapidly and the DC chose an opposite route to everything else. I knew people wouldn’t really read what I wrote out and explained. Because people on VR don’t actually want answers to their inane questions. They often just want to argue. I’m glad you found my explanation helpful. If the DC had double the ram animations would’ve easily been superior to PS2. But it didn’t! And they weren’t!
Ugh...anon. Dreamcast had more VRAM than PS2. Anti-Aliasing options were much better on Dreamcast too.
no 6th gen console used antialiasing
>no 6th gen console used antialiasing
So are you going to admit you were wrong and apologize? You pretty much got your ass handed to you by several anons and official documents from Sega.
See:
I was an itty bitty wrong
The only complaints I've received are people expressing how bad the game looks because the edge AA hit a bottleneck scenario, not from the cables. If poorer quality capture convinces people I'm not showing emulation, good. Saves me a step. If it's such a problem for you, it's likely from my signal duplicator that I got from radioshack over a decade ago. Point me to a good signal duplicator that can send the signal to at least 3 sources.
People are expressing that it looks bad because it doesn't look like how it looks under normal circumstances.
They're providing no proof, so nobody is convinced.
Your setup results in this shit being so blurry the text almost looks like it has chromatic aberration.
Oh no. Looks fine in the resize.
No problem, here's the fat human ranger saturnizBETR proving once and for all the shitty4 sux by running around the staging area of forest1
Yeah that’s a really solid picture. If my TVs component is up to snuff this could be a nice little upgrade to my setup.
Hope they meet your needs, I mostly use the 480i mode for light gun games on my bigger TV.
The only “need” I have is to waste money on cables lol. Thanks anon I hope you enjoy your day.
You’re making me want these cables. Sorry for dogging on you. You were a bit wrong in some stuff you said but these cables clearly give a solid picture in most situations. I appreciate you downloading PSO just to show me.
if only those were the only metrics for scene complexity and graphical capabilities, anon...
I don’t know what you’re countering. I’m the anon that wrote out detailed explanations above on how the DC worked.
Both of these are clearly anti aliased. There’s still Aliasing with AA applied. Just less. Go look at early PS2 games if you want to see some seriously bad aliasing or zero texture filtering. It’s way worse than you remember trust me.
I don’t think anyone’s saying that. People are just pointing out why the console has the quirks it does. It would’ve looked better as time went on, that’s just factual. The best looking games pushed higher PPS than any game on the PS2 or GameCube because they played to the Dreamcasts strengths. Border down and Under Defeat abused the transparency and transformation features to make really good effects. Border Down in particular pushes more PPS than even god if war 2. Obviously it doesn’t look nearly as good. But it’s still super interesting and that’s why people discuss the console still today.
>Both of these are clearly anti aliased
ehhhh
lmao no
I don’t know how you’re taking screenshots anon. But DoA2 in particular got a lot of praise for the anti aliasing method it used. There’s tons of articles comparing it to the jagged PS2 version. And again. It isn’t MSAA or anything. It’s essentially an edge detected post processed filter like FXAA. And at 640x480 there’s certainly always jaggies. But less so than there otherwise would be
I'm using real hardware with component cables over a scaler. DOA2 on dreamcast is just higher res, PS2's is field rendered.
Nope. You can just see all the aliases because it's not resized to its typical resolution. Every console that generation has aliased games, they often used softening filters to combat aliasing and interlacing. Here's metroid prime in all its aliased glory.
Soul Calibur 2 in its lovely 480p mode on the gaycube (so everything is a little greener for you re4 fans) presented from original hardware with all its jaggy glory.
Nobody really used anti-aliasing back then like you think of it today. Maybe some Xbox game here or there, but not what you remember playing.
There’s like. Very obviously AA applied in that image anon. I don’t think you realize how bad zero AA looks. Even the N64 practiced a form of Anti Aliasing. Most people, myself included, used AA in 3d games. The GameCube in particular had sub-pixel anti aliasing that most of its games used.
>640x480 4:3 game blown up to 1920x1080 16:9
Anon I don’t know what to tell you then. You can find several sources confirming what I’m telling you. The Dreamcast didn’t have great AA, but it did have it. The reason there’s so much focus on DLAA and modern techniques now is because these old ones did not get rid of Aliasing completely. That’s just impossible. And for DoA2 specifically it was a big point for it. Your DoA2 looks really really bad and I’m not really sure why. But just because there’s still aliased edges does not mean there’s no AA applied. Here’s a chart to show the difference. The Dreamcast also has a vertical blurring that’s usually applied to its output. Maybe your setup disables it in the video output somehow? It’s meant to reduce the stepping you see in your image.
real hardware > your 5000 sources
Because my entire set up is built around component and the signal being pulled from the dreamcast is VGA, just converted. It's identical.
That looks blurry as shit compared to VGA.
None of you are free of sin by the way, here's the Xbox version in 480p.
It's literally VGA. You don't seem to own a dreamcast.
Whatever ghetto scaler and capture card you're using looks like ass.
>It's literally VGA. You don't seem to own a dreamcast.
That's literally *not* VGA. You're using some sort of weird Chinese adaptor cable aren't you? And then running that cable to some unknown scaler you refuse to talk about.
You can literally see the edge detected AA in her pits anon
Fuck thats hot
>component
Why do you keep saying component? Dreamcast officially doesn't use component cables. Dreamcast used old style RF, Composite, S-Video, and VGA. What is going on with your cable setup?
I think his cable setup is disabling the Dreamcast blurring filter. How it’s doing that would be super interesting because I thought it was basically permanently applied. And it works in conjunction with the AA filter.
?si=gRSLlZ3cfkf6Hd_S
Nope. OSSC.
You can get nicer S-video cables than this.
You think s-video looks better than VGA?
Looks fine to me, that's just how Dreamcast looks.
I'm playing on a CRT.
>You think s-video looks better than VGA?
It looks better than whatever the fuck that shit is you keep posting.
Yeah look at all this proof you keep sharing:
My monitor uses component video, and it integrates better into my setup. I hope you aren't mistaking a scaled image for what it actually looks like. That would explain why you think it looks bad.
the DC just looks like that, maybe you don't like DC graphics, maybe you like the idea of DC graphics. Nobody seems to have a problem with it in motion and sized to the actual resolution:
There's nothing off. That's just what a scaled image looks like. Xbox also has dick for AA, the 6th generation barely has any anti-aliased games. Do you need me to keep posting proof?
Most games of the generation used some kind of AA solution. Early AA isn’t good, but even in the screenshots you posted you can easily see it. If you look at the one I zoomed in on above you’ll see what I’m talking about. It’s also very difficult to apply AA to such a low render resolution. I think your misunderstanding is just about what AA is.
That looks blurred to shit compared to VGA.
It's not hard to pick up a CRT VGA monitor, that's what I use.
The Dreamcast certainly does have lots of aliasing. But there’s something off about how you’re playing it and I can’t quite say. Regardless as long as you’re having fun that’s fine. But it would be incorrect to say it didn’t have AA for the reasons many of us have outlined. Of that generation GC and Xbox clearly had the best AA solutions. DC and PS2 lagged significantly behind
>I'm playing on a CRT.
Then why aren't you just using the official Sega VGA cable, and then connecting a "VGA to Component" adapter for your CRT monitor?
You should never rely on questionable third party cables as the "first link" that connects to your console. You should always get the best possible image out of the Dreamcast FIRST (which is a VGA cable), and THEN add adapters further down the chain. This eliminates the possibility of the source cable coming from The Dreamcast being the issue.
Getting pointless accessories when I can just get a single one with better features than the old one would be a terrible idea for both quality and convenience. Why do you insist on doing things the wrong way?
hmmm
looks as good as the dc digital to me
That’s fair anon. That looks good. But you can literally see it has AA applied and that’s my only point of contention. DoA2 looked weirdly bad in the screenshot above. But maybe it’s just that screenshot because
Looks pretty fine.
>DoA2 looked weirdly bad in the screenshot above
Because the complex geometry in the background likely didn't work well with the edge AA which I concede the dreamcast seems to do in some scenarios, but not all. I'm staring at a screen right now which has some edges cleaned up, others not. DC benefits most from its high res output.
This is VGA, just with a different connector.
Making capture easier. Capture cards do not like 240p.
It looks more like the left.
>It looks more like the left.
You can see the shadowing on the letters easily even without zooming in. That's not supposed to be there.
>This is VGA, just with a different connector.
You didn't answer the question. Have you ever seen a pure Dreamcast VGA cable with a CRT screen that has a VGA port?
Yes. Have you?
>still visible shadowing
lol
That’s a valid explanation. It’s just worst case scenario for the edge AA filter. VGA isn’t the same as component. But you kind of have me wanting these cables now. Maybe they’re better than the chink set I owned before. You have any PSO screenshots? Thats primarily what I play on my Dreamcast.
>This is VGA, just with a different connector.
No that's not VGA, or you have a faulty cable and should order another one, or your scaler settings aren't correct, or your scaler capture settings aren't correct. Something is wrong in your chain. You are not getting the best image out of the Dreamcast.
Notice how your BIOS picture looks more like the right than the left.
Copefag BTFO.
>I'm playing on a CRT.
Then why the fuck do you have a HD Scaler then? You should just be able to connect directly like it's 1999 all over again.
Anon your cables aren’t outputting correctly. You should exchange them if you bought official retro vision cables. Your games should not look like that. The DC doesn’t and isn’t meant to have a super sharp image. I get the best results and others do by simply using a vga-hdmi adapter. It’s inexpensive and works very well with any setup. Especially for capturing images.
Based actually-knows-what-he's-talking-about anon.
Wouldn't it be hilarious that he keeps making these Dreamcast hate threads because he honestly thinks Dreamcast looks that bad, but in reality his setup is ruining the image? Rofl
Lmao
This exactly. I think I'm finally starting to understand how so many fucked up opinions and threads get started on here. Perspectives are getting really fucked up and deluded on a physical level. Guess we just got to be more understanding and patient as the future moves forward.
Honestly I never even knew these cables existed. I’ve tried the $30 Chinese component cables before and they look really bad. Maybe even similar to the bad DOA2 screenshot above. The wrong setup can really ruin the image of lots of consoles, especially DC, N64 and GameCube.
Agreed, setups can make or break an image, they're very easily influenced. Requires some fine tuning in some cases.
>doing signal conversions
Found your problem
Please tell me you've at least tried the VGA cable and used it on a CRT screen that has a VGA connection. If you haven't, then you need to find an old CRT screen somewhere for cheap and try it. It looks much better than your screenshots.
>I'm using real hardware with component cables over a scaler
Why aren't you using a VGA cable? That's the best connection for the Dreamcast.
Why does this anon's picture look so much better than this other picture?
I think the explanation he thought of above is correct. It’s basically worst case scenario for Edge AA detection. And his setup disables the Dreamcasts Blur filter somehow. Edge AA relies on less complex geometry and high relative contrast to work. If it’s too noisy or just busy it can’t detect edges and you get aliasing.
>I think the explanation he thought of above is correct.
No it absolutely is notcorrect. Until that anon posts much more screenshots of Soul Calibur games on his setup for examination, then the problem is his setup. At least half a dozen other anons besides me have commented on how bad his image looks and potential problems with his setup. But he refuses to listen or even try to test what others have said.
That's fair.
We need to see more Screenshots from SC
There's been enough soul calibur, if I'm playing another soul game it's going to be soul edge because calibur is weak
S-video tier blurry.
>no proof
Thank you for conceding.
Why is your game blurry? That's not how a good VGA Dreamcast signal looks like.
I left the deinterlacing option on in OBS from my PS2 capture
Anon both of these images are soft. It's not helping your case here.
One is emulation, one is real hardware.
They're mike chi's cables, The integrated 480i/p switch is really useful for unsupported/autistic games. Downloading PSO now to show it to you.
>Damn that looks good. Holy shit. Makes me want to actually play the game.
Looks fine for most it seems
>Looks fine for most it seems
People have low standards. I've posted 30FPS Dazzle DVC100 recordings of games and people tell me it's emulated.
Anon is bizarrely taking 480p screenshots, and stretching them to 1080p. He should just post the 480p screenshots.
There is something wrong with your setup or the way you are taking your screenshots. Dreamcast normally looks better than that.
What is going on with that image? Something is not right.
Whatever scaler you are using is messing up your image.
Real hardware with real disc anon here. It's never looked this bad.
Too bad, it does. Your fantasy dreamcast in your head is not the one that exists in reality.
Nope, it's great. It's the resize that you don't like.
Mm, yes, the fantasy Dreamcast I have hooked up to a VGA monitor right now.
Everyone in this thread knows what these consoles look like in person.
Apparently not. I'm convinced none of you own the real hardware.
pic
You spent $60+ on cables that dark and blurry. Or you plugged them into some completely shit scaler and or capture card.
Anon. Use a vga to hdmi converter. These cheap cables ruin the picture. They do not output correctly. There’s a reason people recommend against them. The DC does not have component out and they are not the same as VGA.
Why aren't you just using a VGA to HDMI adapter? It's such a cleaner way of doing things and getting the best image out of the Dreamcast.
What the hell is your screenshot?
Are you playing on an HDTV or a CRT?
What the hell is going on there
>Huge dreamcast fan sees a dreamcast game for the first time
that's analog noise from the conversion to digital, happens with VGA too, not visible on CRT.
Wrong on both
According to
, that extra VRAM got used for realtime animation conversions. Or was it system RAM? In either case, the VRAM advantage ended up not being enough compared to raw poly-pushing and lighting+effects capabilities. The PS2 just has a better selling point graphics-wise, your average person prefers higher-poly games with prettier lighting and animations over the Dreamcast's excellent texturing and clean as fuck video output.
The Dreamcast may have been more palatable if it had Naomi 2 hardware which kicked ass and would BTFO the PS2 in every way, only exception maybe being fillrate-heavy effects like the famous Silent Hill 2 fog, which can be compensated for with other hardware features. NAOMI 2 had the VRAM (or RAM?) to handle realtime animation conversions, too.
The way the Dreamcast handles assets is just very ram heavy. The PS2 got away with so little because it had a very fast total pipeline, and basically forced developers to dump ram chewing features. AA, AF, VGa resolutions, progressive scan, 60fps, mip mapping and basically only use FF style “shaders”. It was designed in a very slim way so you could only use those very fast/cheap raster effects. The way the DC was designed forced all of those more expensive options. So you make concessions in other areas. Over time the games the DC had may have been more balanced effects wise. And we could’ve seen some really nice stuff that abused DC features ala God of War 2 style. GoW2 and GT4 heavily abuse PS2 specific functionality. Stuff learned by spending years working on a system.
>VR don’t actually want answers to their inane questions. They often just want to argue.
>no 6th gen console used antialiasing
Dreamcast has Anti-Aliasing. Eat a d1ck and do better research you wannabe.
has Anti-Aliasing
It did? In which games. My man gus is looking pretty aliased.
Anti-aliasing == no-aliasing
My dreamcasts Anti Aliasing chip drive capacitor is broken, because none of my games have auntie aliasing.
Oops, meant for
to also reply to this anon:
Different anon here. It was up to the developers to choose to use AA. Some did. Some didn't. But look at the Crazy Taxi on Dreamcast VS PS2. The PS2 version has freaking jaggies everywhere.
The image is darker on PS2, but honestly? The edges look cleaner. The darker image I probably wouldn't notice unless I directly compared them. Doesn't help I'm not forcing the PS2 into 480p.
Wow that look horrible.
Looks a little better on PS2 overall.
Dark and blurry 480i looks bad on its own but especially in comparison to the crystal clear VGA of the Dreamcast version.
JESUS CHRIST
I can't even the see game, someone turn the lights on.
>anon uses PS2 emulator
>forgets to turn off emulator-only AA options in the graphics settings.
>says PS2 looks better
You can't make this shit up.
You just made it up, I'm running real hardware.
Even better.
Oh damn. This anon busted out Sega's internal hardware documents. Hes not playing around.
> BAMP mapping
That's a funny term I haven't heard before. Is that referring to bump mapping?
A lot of the time, people mistake mipmapping for anti-aliasing. Anti-aliasing is for handling polygonal edge shimmering which few Dreamcast games did as it was too much of a performance hit. Not such a big deal in the end, as most of the anti-flickering can be attributed to mipmapping which the Dreamcast was excellent at.
Dreamcast did have bump mapping in a few games. If you’ve played Shenmue you see lots of weird texture tricks. Which is why the Xbox port is so different. None of those things translated to modern hardware. But the DC did use “AA” in most games. It was more like an FXAA but it did have built in anti aliasing functions. To call it even 2x AA like the other anon did would be very generous however.
Hm. I know the GPU supports anti-aliasing as a feature, but Google searching isn't turning anything up in terms of results. I found these conflicting unsourced claims from Plebbit:
> "Any game that's not listed as VGA compatible [has anti-aliasing]."
Sounds plausible, though there's only 10-20 DC games that don't have VGA support.
> "Most use it, since it was built in. It's more remarkable to find one that doesn't. Shenmue's the one that most immediately comes to mind."
Perhaps some VGA-compatible games don't use anti-aliasing?
> "Pretty much all Dreamcast games use the vertical downsampling filter to implement deflickering on 480i (converting 640x480 to 640x240), which is turned off for VGA mode.
The only GD-ROM game I know of to use 2x horizontal FSAA is Omikron: The Nomad Soul, and it still works on VGA (converting 1280x480 to 640x240 on 480i and to 640x480 on VGA)."
I don't have a Dreamcast anymore, I can't verify this. Youtube videos are so compressed I don't know that they can be trusted.
And, picrel, unsourced claim from Twitter. Literally everything is unsourced and seems subject to opinion. The question then is: For most games, is the Dreamcast using one of its anti-aliasing features, or is it really just using its de-flickering blur feature? While that is technically using its downsampling AA feature, my assumption was that it was AA at its native 480p output resolution. Downsampling to 240 vertical pixels makes the Dreamcast's AA features seem a bit more weak.
And does anyone know if Shenmue does or does not use de-flickering?
And could it be that
is playing in true 480p while other people aren't? Is the Dreamcast downsampling on some people's VGA/HDMI output for some reason?
dc games use anti aliasing by having post processing effects to round the pixels a bit, it's a very basic process but it can be seen on subsequent ports of dc games, the thing is that the anti aliasing doesn't use modern processes which interpolate but just generates corrective pixels which in turn cause the roundness with squares effect, something that looks more round than chunks of squares of all 6th gen consoles but it's still perfectly round like the modern conviction of what anti aliasing is.
Is that what EdgeAA is? I'm not familiar with EdgeAA.
It's just AA. Sega gave it a different name. Back in 1998, companies hadnt completely settled on the common terminology yet (Like saying Blast processing!). Not like today where everything is homogenized across the board. Everything is just a PC in box.
I dunno. That just sounds like it would cause slightly blurry output, which the Dreamcast doesn't have a problem with because its output is razor sharp. It also wouldn't help aliasing at all since the PS2's blurry output doesn't hide its problems. It doesn't sound like proper AA at all, so I think the Dreamcast is doing something else to combat flickering (besides the 240 vertical pixel downscaling which was already discussed earlier). The main sources of flickering are bad mipmaps/lack of mipmaps, and lack of anti-aliasing on entire lines of edges. Not just the individual pixels on the edges, the entire line of pixels taken together. This is caused by lack of rendering resolution, and no amount of image softening fix that (as we see on PS2's blurry output).
There's also no documentation on this pixel-rounding feature anywhere? PowerVR's anti-aliasing features seem fairly standard (according to that one image posted earlier in the thread, that is) with no weird unmentioned features. It's possible the Dreamcast had a unique feature but where is this documented?
To clarify about the "no amount of image softening" thing, that's referring to indiscriminate softening of the whole image. AA requires either post-processing edge detection (FXAA, SMAA), extra samples for polygonal edges (MSAA), or supersampling from a higher resolution (SSAA).
SSAA is for sure not used in the vast majority of Dreamcast games unless we assume they're all rendering at at least 960x720. 480p was already a lot for game systems of the time, and SSAA doesn't selectively apply edges. The claims in this thread point out anti-aliasing that is *selectively* applied if it exists (Dead or Alive 2 armpit anti-aliasing claim from this thread), it doesn't apply to all edges so it can't be doing SSAA.
MSAA is a similar case but it's more plausible. It's a performance hit but not a huge one. However, it doesn't discriminate between polygonal edges. Dreamcast's AA solution discriminates, plus MSAA won't apply to textures at all as it's for polygonal edges only.
The only thing left is for Dreamcast to be doing some kind of post processing. Could be the rounded pixels thing, but would that really do it? Not if it doesn't target specific edges. And if it's targeting edges, you'd have yourself a modern AA solution right there - either MSAA or a primitive post-processing edge detection. So what could it be? Assuming we're playing on VGA/HDMI with the sharpest possible output.
>SSAA is for sure not used in the vast majority of Dreamcast games
Dreamcast has SSAA up to 4x, and Anti-Aliasing as well.
Yes, it has it as a hardware feature. But there's no games I've seen that have any of the hallmarks of using that feature. I've seen people in this thread mistake soft image quality for AA when it simply isn't. The Dreamcast is capable of such good output. It will output perfect square pixels with the proper setup. We need strictly examples of that with SSAA or MSAA in action.
But "texture supersampling"— now that's interesting, and that could be it! Low-resolution polygon edges are only a small part of what makes an image flicker. If you can naturally reduce the flickering on textures for free (this is an assumption on my part), you'll have fixed a huge part of aliasing. Is the Dreamcast actively doing this?
You gotta give credit where credit is due. Dreamcast did have antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, done natively in hardware. Something the PS2 lacks. It's why the Dreamcast games will always look sharper and crisper than PS2.
My only hangup is whether the hardware feature of anti-aliasing got used in most titles. It's support for a feature vs. actually using it. As for anisotropic filtering, can't remember seeing mipmap cascades in any Dreamcast game (except for Sonic Adventure 1 lol) which is a good sign. It's either anisotropy or very good mipmapping/trilinear filtering.
Dreamcast definitely did use them for games. You can tell just by looking at the video comparisons of multi-platform releases. Dreamcast is absolutely sharper and cleaner than PS2. Combining that with the fact that Dreamcast has twice the amount of VRAM (compared to PS2) which means better texture rendering and compression as well. It makes for an overall much better image.
Dreamcast may be weaker in terms of polygon count (vs PS2), but it's GPU has a bunch of hardware supported extra options that PS2 did not have. The Dreamcast GPU is the one thing Sega did not cut corners on. Gotta give credit to Sega there.
Looking at footage of Dreamcast games, I don't see any of them using anti-aliasing. Here's the sharpest footage I can find, and it's pretty damn sharp:
There's nothing in here that looks anything like anti-aliasing. There's clean-as-fuck textures and mipmaps though, something the PS2 has a very hard time with.
OK. What is your baseline standard for a game that doesn't use Anti-Aliasing? You can't just eyeball a DC game and go, "Ehh...I don't think this uses Anti-Aliasing."
You can't just eyeball a spec sheet and just say every game is antialiased especially when actual results are all over the place
>You can't just eyeball a spec sheet and just say every game is antialiased especially when actual results are all over the place
How could you POSSIBLY know it doesn't have antialiasing applied when you don't know what the game looks like without antialiasing? For all you know the Dreamcast cleaned up a good amount of aliasing. Not all but a good amount.
Unfortunately, you do just have to eyeball it. There's no other way unless you're a tech wizard which I'm sure none of us are. Best bet would be to ask an emulator dev if they know anything about the functionality, despite that no emulator can do PowerVR anti-aliasing. It's likely that emudevs have at least come across use cases for AA or have observed something related to it, even if it's not implemented in the emulator.
Dude.
L. M. A. O.
What, do you have some secret anti-aliasing measuring technique we don't know about? 😛
n-no 🙁
>Unfortunately, you do just have to eyeball it.
Even if you eyeball it, Dreamcast uses anti-aliasing. It's clear as day. Look at the multi-platform releases of Dreamcast vs PS2. The PS2 has jagged edges everywhere. Far more than Dreamcast. And like other anon said, Dreamcast uses the same Edge Anti-Aliasing as Sega Model 3 arcade boards. So if you really want to be anal about how it works, you should be investigating Sega Model 3. Of course prepare to be laughed at by the Arcade community for suggesting Sega Model 3 doesn't use Anti-Aliasing like you're doing here with Dreamcast.
I have no knowledge of Sega Model 3 hardware, and coming across clean footage is very difficult. 🙁 I've said it before, so I'll repeat: Dreamcast has excellent texturing which reduces aliasing, so in a literal sense it is anti-aliasing. It's not the graphical technique that one would call Anti-Aliasing (SSAA, MSAA, FXAA, SMAA, etc), but that's okay because edge-finding is only a small part of what makes an image aliased. Mipmapping and Anisotropic Filtering are literally anti-aliasing, they just aren't what people talk about when they refer to anti-aliasing usually.
This is why the Dreamcast has less aliasing than PS2: excellent texture filtering which does a vast majority of the heavy lifting when it comes to de-aliasing an image. PS2's texture filtering was really bad, especially early in the console's life cycle. This is why there's so much aliasing in PS2 games. We don't realize how important mipmaps and AF are until they're not being used.
Edge-finding graphical techniques (which is what we usually think of when we say Anti-Aliasing) just aren't that important. My nitpicking is just that, nitpicking. It's geekery for the sake of it. So what if the Dreamcast isn't using 2xMSAA or SSAA in its games? No other console was either. Dreamcast still has less aliasing at the end of the day.
>I have no knowledge of Sega Model 3 hardware, and coming across clean footage is very difficult.
Go look up YouTube videos. Spend a few hours researching and familiarizing yourself. There's no excuses in 2023. Information is at your finger tips.
>Dreamcast has excellent texturing which reduces aliasing, so in a literal sense it is anti-aliasing. It's not the graphical technique that one would call Anti-Aliasing (SSAA, MSAA, FXAA, SMAA, etc)
Yes, the Dreamcast has excellent texturing. It's well known. But there's no reason that can't be used in conjuction with AA. Anon literally posted official docs that say it has SSAA and Edge AA. Meanwhile You have presented nothing but speculation and suHispanicions. It seems like you just don't WANT it to be anti aliasing for whatever reason.
I'm starting to suspect it's because you like PS2 or Gamecube more, and it bothers you that Dreamcast has something that PS2 doesn't have.
What is the debate here? Why is that anon refusing to accept Dreamcast can do some antialiasing? My old computer could do antialiasing back in 1999.
He knows Dreamcast can do AA. He just wants to troll people in this thread and generate more angry replies. Stop replying.
>So what if the Dreamcast isn't using 2xMSAA or SSAA in its games
It literally does does though. DC has FSAA which is just another name for SSAA
Fuck that.
It should be that anon's job to convince the rest of us that the Dreamcast does not use anti-aliasing.
Sega says the Dreamcast uses hardware anti-aliasing in the official documentation to developers. But this anon who has autism is saying Sega is lying.
Look at any comparison between Dreamcast VS PS2. The PS2 textures looks way more jaggy as fuck. Of course the Dreamcast uses anti-aliasing!
Gtfo with this bullshit.
Smooth texture transitions are the result of good mipmapping, different from what we strictly know as anti-aliasing. However, mipmapping itself is a form of "anti-aliasing" of you take the term literally, as it reduces aliasing! There's no denying the Dreamcast's image quality is superior to the PS2's (and the Gamecube's too lol), especially while in motion. It's just that Dreamcast doesn't catch polygon edges, and no other console's games did either outside of a select few. Omikron has actual 2x MSAA on Dreamcast! And Star Wars Rogue Squadron 2 (or was it 3?) apparently has some weird "3x MSAA" setup. (Tried to find the Dolphin Progress Report about this but couldn't. Ah well.)
In the end, anti-aliasing as a graphical technique isn't super important. There are many other ways to reduce flickering in motion, and the Dreamcast provably does many of those things.
I don't know what to tell you anon. The Sega Dreamcast uses the same Edge Anti-Aliasing system as the Sega Model 3 arcade board. But you aren't here arguing the Sega Model 3 doesn't use Anti-Aliasing (because it doesn't meet whatever Anti-Aliasing standards you have in your head). You are the first anon I've encountered who argues that Dreamcast doesn't use Anti-Aliasing. If you really care, then go look at the Sega Model 3 board videos. It uses the same Edge Anti-Aliasing system.
Keep in mind this was 1998. The very early days of Anti-Aliasing in consoles. Back then having any anti-aliasing at all...was nice. Also your video doesn't make sense for this discussion. You shouldn't be looking at videos of Dreamcast versus itself with different outputs. You should be looking at Dreamcast using the same game versus different consoles. Probably the PS2 since we know the PS2 does not have hardware Anti-Aliasing. So the differences in texture aliasing are more apparent.
The spaz you're replying to thinks anything that isn't completely smooth isn't anti-aliasing, lamao. Really demonstrates his lack of competence and understanding in the discussion. "I-it has any amount of perpendicular geometry whatsoever, what do you say to that!" Jesus.
Different anon here but Im glad someone pointed out their stupidity.
This was the 1990s !!! We barely just had 3D games.
Give me a break with complaints about anti-aliasing not being perfect
What does perpendicular geometry have to do with any of this? Also, I'm just nitpicking terminology for the sake of nitpicking, looking for people more knowledgeable than me. Another anon posted that PowerVR animations weren't industry-standard and that on-the-fly conversions took a lot of RAM, which was neat to learn about. I'm not negging on Dreamcast games. They've got the smoothest in-motion presentation of any of the 6th gen consoles, almost without exception.
Have you seen how shitty the PS2 looks in anti aliasing comparison?
Honestly PS2 games look a generation ahead.
Actually, there is that 480i deinterlacer mode... It reduces the image to 240p, sure, but it looks nice. The video I posted shows it in Hydro Thunder at around 12m 30s.
Lmao.
RF comparison?
I am in no way defending PS2's terrible video output.
Stop replying to yourself. You have 2 minutes to post the screenshot to prove us wrong. Otherwise we're assuming you are just samefagging.
... Huh? Dreamcast can't run Xenogears or anything close to it. No verification needed, I don't have a screenshot because I'm in agreement. Also not samefag.
Xenosaga* dammit
I’m going to give the actual answer even though no one will really listen. I don’t see anyone who actually explained or seems to know about the DC Dev cycle to say. But here’s why DC games have this odd look to them.
1. The limited development time/budget of most DC games seriously hampered the console. Lots of games were made using tons of prebuilt assets from texture compilations. So while the DC could handle detailed textures, lots of it was kind of like how Devs now use Unity store assets. You buy the CD, convert it over to your format and use it. Usually there’s steps between to make the textures match and more detailed. This did not happen with DC.
2. DC was the first console to market with any type of “shaders” and the way it functions is very different to PS2/Xbox/Gamecube. You essentially have “free” shadows and “free” AA/AF. You can also increase the resolution quite cheap. PowerVR in the dreamcast had dedicated hardware to convert the culled portion of models to shadows in a mini cache. So shadows masks/transparencies could be done 100% free. You only paid for the transformation of them which PowerVr also had dedicated functionality for.
3. Sega dev kit was insanely good. They had lots of functionality in it that Devs took full advantage of to make games cheaper and faster. Also they had tons of premade assets.
4. Last point. Transformations were cheaper in Dreamcast than any of the other consoles. But the way animations/transformations were done is super goofy. Hence why the Dreamcast had weirdly smooth animation that just kind of looked off. The poor budget/short dev cycle didn’t give them time to really figure it out. Go try to animate a Katana model it’s super easy but also super weird!
Repeat after me
Sony was never good
Sony was never good
I grew up in State College in central Pennsylvania, so the closest Toys R Us would have been three-ish hours away in either Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. We had a small Electronics Boutique at the mall, but you would’ve had to special order the Neo Geo from them. They didn’t just have it in stock regularly.
I just love the Dreamcast because it feels like the Swan song of that era of games. PS2 kinda had some arcadey games but the goyslop had already started. I still love the PS2 but it feels very different as a library.
This exactly. PS2 is the beginning of modern slop. Still had some leftover pockets of soul, but really set the wrong precedents in every light. Dreamcast was the last example of a fully 3D library wholly embracing the values before that era.
While I would say wholeheartedly that PS2 > Gamecube and Dreamcast on every level, I will also fully admit that those two consoles deserved to win that generation. As it stands the PS2 won, the Xbox managed to succeed it with the 360 and it's dudebro demographic. The PS3 introduced the concept of long, expensive dev times, and the Wii was the pinnacle of making money > everything else.
If Sega and Nintendo had one the 6th Gen, and things had gone differently, then we'd still be in a world where consoles offered a console experience, handhelds were handhelds, PC did it's own thing, and arcades could still be the place where graphical showcases could happen.
Instead we got gimmicks, overpriced crap, and a line blurred between console and PC with both sides losing in the bargain. Lowest common denominator garbage FPS with matchmaking and no dedicated servers took over what arcades offered and PC's FPS with dedicated servers and games built and geared towards KB+M instead of just console ports with higher spec requirements.
PS2 had the best games of the generation, Gamecube should have put Nintendo out of business because the games were so bad.
Nah, GameCube had lots of good exclusives even if you consider Wind Waker and Sunshine inferior to their N64 predecessors.
I find them to be terrible or awful, the quality of GC games is embarrassing and after taking enough recommendations know with absolute certainty the people praising it have not played anything else.
Are you American by chance?
America was the Gamecube's best selling country. It's probably a bong.
Yeah, that was actually a trick question. Bongs have a bizarre, irrational hatred of the Cube.
Europe never liked Nintendo much to begin with. Even in the 8-bit/16-bit era Sega was far more popular. The N64 also had a bit of a cult following from fans of Rareware, and the Gamecube was when they went to Microsoft after releasing a single disappointing game.
I think Europe has been firmly PlayStation territory ever since the PS1. Mainly due to Gran Turismo and FIFA.
You weren't there, you have NO idea of what the Cube did to Britain. You wouldn't last five seconds in our place. I'm a survivor, and I remember who my enemies are.
>PS2 kinda had some arcadey games but the goyslop had already started.
Yes. There was a ton of shitty cash grab games released on PS2. Sony didn't give a shit. They wanted big sales numbers and nothing more.
Dreamcast felt closer to gaming arcade machine with fun games. It had much fewer crappy games. Sega was definitely a game company that cared. Too bad they made some bad business decisions before the Dreamcast was made.
Absolutely based and kneeled, my friend. Keep keeping on.
Is there anything worse than a deluded what-ifing Sega homosexual?
>THE SATURN COULDA DONE 60FPS RAYTRACING BRO
Talk about an inferiority complex masquerading as superiority. Not winning enough?
I like those consoles, it's just stupid.
All speculation is stupid. Let's just enjoy things.
>THE DC WAS PS3 TIER IT JUST NEED MORE TIME, MANNNN
Do people here not know that the anti-aliasing standards for the late 90s/early 2000s are different than today?
Are your eyes so spoiled by modern games doing 16x anti-aliasing that your brain can't spot a standard 2x anti-aliasing filter applied to a Dreamcast game?
Having any anti-aliasing at all on a late 90s console is great.
Are you fucking kidding me???
Are you telling me we've had to deal with these shitty Sega Dreamcast hate threads because some anons don't have the right cables....? That they literally thought their questionable Chinese cable was pulling the best possible image out of the Dreamcast and that's what the Dreamcast is support to look like? We've wasted months...if not years on these bullshit debates because they had the wrong setup this WHOLE TIMR.
Fuck.
I'm going to ask every single Sega hater now what their setup is now before talking.
Literally laughing my ass off. It all makes sense now. Glad we can all have a hearty chuckle as we walk out into a new world of understanding.
It's always the simplest things we often overlook.
My man spent $400 on a weird ass setup instead of $30 just converting his consoles to hdmi
Weird schizophrenic episode you're having there anon
>Most games of the generation used some kind of AA solution
Nope
Looks fine.
>Looks fine
Have you ever seen what DC looks like in VGA?
Looks like this:
if you disagree prove it
So no you haven't actually seen what it looks like, only what some shitty component adapter looks like.
dreamcast looks fine even if there's no anti-aliasing
Damn that looks good. Holy shit. Makes me want to actually play the game.
I thought my capture setup looked bad?
You don’t have to convince everyone to be as retarded as you, just keep your bad opinion to yourself.
I don't think this anon has ever seen what the Dreamcast video looks like with VGA. From the way he's responding, that adapter is the only cable he's used.
You can't show us, can you?
These are not how Dreamcast should look. Your setup is weird and hurting your picture quality.
It is how it should look
No. Your image looks like trash. Also replying 8 hours later to bump your own thread is cringe.
Component in 2023? This isn't 1998. Update your setup to HDMI already.
Do the HDMI mod for your Dreamcast for the best image. You call yourself a gamer?
Nta, but you know Ganker was down for over 8 hours? You're such a shit stained penis while, I think I'll buy a few Dreamcasts and smash them with a hammer in your honor. Then I'll go play PS1 on my 4klcd, with widescreen
>Nta
You are the same anon. Its cringe you think anyone believes you
You make 5 threads a week saying about how much you hate Dreamcast
But you have one connected to your TV and play it
You are cringe and mentally ill
Nta but that's how dreamcast looks
Flycast emulator shots are a much closer approximation of Dreamcast VGA than your clusterfucked component setup.
Emulation doesn't look like real hardware
What an exceptionally retarded statement. This isn't UltraHLE we're talking about here.
VGA is an analog connection, it looks nothing like lossless capture. What a stupid thing to insinuate. You don't even own a dreamcast.
It looks a hell of a lot closer to a framebuffer shot than your shitty setup.
>You don't even own a dreamcast
Why is this always your go to cope when people call you a retard?
Post proof.
>doesn't even wait between posts
Obvious samefagging
nta but I wasn’t that anon
You have 1 minute to post screenshot.
nta but I just like mocking you.
OP your emulation doesn't look like what an actual dreamcast does. Why do you hate a console you never owned?
This is a Dreamcast connected with an original VGA cable. Even taking a picture of a CRT screen with a phone camera looks way better than your shit screenshots.
Looks a lot worse, idgi
Nta but wheres the vga capture?
Here is an ultra zoom in to show the shitty ringing/shadowing in your text because your setup is shit.
Yours looks worse tho
Lol is your """setup""" that important?
I bet you autists can't sit and play a game for more than 2 minutes before tweaking your picture settings.
>Lol is your """setup""" that important?
When you're saying "this is what the system looks like in VGA" before showing a clearly shittier image than even the cheapest third party VGA cables then yes the setup is quite important.
Yours looks worse. It's clearly cheap unofficial component likely a $10 hyperkin cable. Look at the lines on the taxi lmao
nice jailbars
That's clearly a moiré effect from taking a photo of a CRT screen.
It's the worst looking thing posted in this thread and that's saying a lot:
>That's clearly a moiré effect from taking a photo of a CRT screen.
He doesn't know because he's never connected his Dreamcast directly before.
nta but post kind of makes it sound like you don’t own an actual Dreamcast and emulate instead.
>Emulation doesn't look like real hardware
You don't know what real hardware looks like because you haven't used a Dreamcast normally before in your life. You have 3 different adapters between your Dreamcast and TV warping the signal.
You don't own a dreamcast do you? Post proof otherwise.
>You make 5 threads a week saying about how much you hate Dreamcast
>But you have one connected to your TV and play it
This is the worst part. I don't know if that anon has a mental condition, but it's so tiresome.
Kek, you're a delusional reddit nagger aren't you?
The console had similar technology to the Ps2, devs weren't really used to being able to make games like that yet. They were pretty much making Ps1 games but in a console with more horse power
Shenmue and Shenmue II were some of the most graphically advanced games on the Dreamcast and both take major frame rate hits at times when in crowded areas. I really don’t think devs could’ve gotten all that much more out of the NAOMI-based hardware even if it had stuck around.
Snoy is a cult
This thread is STILL going? It was proven yesterday that OP had a shit setup and we all laughed at him. Why are you still giving him replies?
They just can't let it go, my superior component based setup and accurate hw capture btfos their fake emugayshun setup
Auster troon dox when
>makes a Dreamcast hate thread
>posts shitty low quality screencaps
>plan backfires and everyone makes fun of OP's set up
>OP panics and has to increase quality of screencaps to prove his equipment isn't shit and accidently defends Dreamcast
>everyone notices his equipment is shit
>OP now defends shit set up and incidentally the Dreamcast
>OP samefags half the thread talking to himself.
This thread is a joke. OP is a fag
If OP hates Dreamcast so much then why did he admit to spending $200 dollars buying special cables and adapters to connect it to his TV? OP didn't really think his plan through. What a dumbass.
op emulates and doesn't use real hardware
All PS2 games look bad and the Dreamcast could have handled them all at 480p and increased the texture resolution. Imagine Resident Evil 4 on the Dreamcast. It could have been graphically superior to the GameCube version if you take a moment to think about it.
PS2 only sold well because of DVD. PSX selling millions and its meaning reddit games means absolutely.
Despite only having one analog stick, the Dreamcast controller design is the best controller ever. The industry rejected the design because they were jealous of the Dreamcast.
GD-Rom is the best disc storage created. It contains 1200 MB... more than enough for any decent developer to work with.
VMU is ahead of its time because it allows players to further expand their interaction and immersion within the game.
Nothing but truth.
Dreamcast defenders are as ignorant and naive as Sega itself in the late 90s.
The only thing the Dreamcast does well is to handle 1998 to 2001 pc games and arcade graphics/games from that time. It has all the power necessary for this task. It does this well because it was designed strictly with that goal in mind. I respect that a lot.
Dreamcast does not have the technology and power necessary to handle graphics technologies from 2002 and onwards.
Found this disturbing video of Need for speed underground running on a 1999 PC
>from 2002 and onwards.
ATi cards from this era sucked but in this case it really isn't the card's fault, it predates the version of DirectX the game uses by several years.
PS2 has the worst looking mult-platform games of the entire generation.
Except they were usually the worst on gaycube
No, he's right, PS2 was always the worst. GameCube usually right next to it though.
She is incorrect, PS2 versions were usually the best. Anything is is a cult of denial built around 3 games.
Show me.
Name anything other than Gran Turismo.
They probably don't really, what people are seeing is the higher res. John linnemann is probably correct. Just googled and he has the dc hdmi mod and this is a raw pixel capture he posted
look at all that anti aliasing lmao
>true crime NYC
When will you learn to stop posting this dogshit game as a positive example of anything?
hi n64autist/1cc autist/anti playstation autist
better tell john lineman his dreamcast capture is bad.. becuz its a direct digital capture
Hello guy who licks John's balls in youtube comments.
why are you defending the dreamcast today? you hate sega judging by your history of saturn shitposting. are you going to be the one to tell him these are worse than vga?
also did you know that the bug in
is from a memory leak? you can fix it by resetting the ps2
this looks worse wtf
You pulled this memory leak thing straight out of your ass before. While the game is a giant pile of shit so memory leaks wouldn't be surprising, this isn't an example of one. The game runs like this the whole time.
You forgot to reply to the rest of the post. Are you a pussy?
Literally making shit up
Dreamcast has literally never looked like that lmao
>mult-platform
PS2 was the hardest to develop and port for.
Meanwhile its exclusives had groundbreaking visuals, starting with Gran Turismo 3 in 2001.
It’s beyond naivete, it’s straight up delusion. Dreamcast dorks on this board seriously believe that it could’ve run GTA3 or MGS2 with "just a few minor tweaks" lmao.
Regardless of what it could run, it looks great c:
Sure, but it was nowhere near as advanced as the PS2 in actual practice.
That's ok by me. Not sure what the other arguments were in terms of actual details, but I don't like to speculate on what could've been, either it's made or it's not, and that's fine, whatever we have in life is whatever we have
Every game a geforce256 + pentium 3 (PC equivalent to Dreamcast) can run, a dreamcast also can run
Now try GTASA on this rig
This right here is the sort of insane delusion I’m talking about.
>a geforce256
>pentium 3
>PC equivalent to Dreamcast
What? That's not even close to accurate. The GPU in the Dreamcast is similar to the VideoLogic Neon 250, which doesn't even stack up to a TNT2 card. Which is much older than the 256. Though, granted the Holly GPU does do some things different from the Neon 250. But I think the Neon 250 is probably the closest GP in relation to Holly.
>it’s straight up delusion
Dreamcast could run more graphic intensive games than GTA already.
See
. And no, anon, the Dreamcast port of Quake III isn’t more advanced than GTA3.
Its interesting you brought up shenmue as thats a game ps2 was incapable of running. And there are people currently porting doom 3 to dreamcast but I'm sure you'll spout gta3 as being more demanding.
Mmhmm. And what does said Doom 3 port look like on the Dreamcast?
>there are people currently porting doom 3 to dreamcast
Will it run? Yes, except it will look like when you run the game on a Voodoo 2
Yeah, looks about right. Is it running on an actual Dreamcast GD-ROM?
That was a screenshot of the PC version running with a Voodoo 2. Here's what it looks like on Dreamcast
https://twitter.com/falco_girgis/status/1707598923060138021
Cool project, but yeah, that’s about what I’d expect from Dreamcast hardware.
>but yeah, that’s about what I’d expect from Dreamcast hardware.
I thought you said it was delusional to think it would even run at all.
No I didn’t. It’s delusional to think a Dreamcast version of Doom 3 would look even close to the original, same deal with GTA3.
>Every single multiplat looks better on dreamcast than PS2
That’s nice, anon. Anything else?
It would be no different with GTA. Just say you don't care PS2 looks worse and be happy. Move on.
GTA3 on Dreamcast would be a visual downgrade in every way compared to the PS2 version. No amount of Dreamcast vs PS2 port comparisons you post can change this, I’m sorry.
No it wouldn't. Gta 3 would be the same as Headhunter on Dreamcast.
Do you unironically think the Dreamcast is as powerful as the PS2 except with an even better video output so objectively better than the PS2 hardware wise?
What does that have to do with Headhunter on Dreamcast? I simply pointed to an open world game on Dreamcast to show that an open world game could be done.
Give me 3 examples of multiplats that look better on DC than on PS2 that weren't first DC game and only got a cheap PS2 port later
Dead or Alive 2
Quake III
Head Hunter
18 Wheeler: American Pro Trucker
Marvel Vs Capcom 2
F355 Challenge
>Marvel Vs Capcom 2
I'm gonna take you for a Ride ~
I'm gonna take you for a Ride ~
Most of those are better on PS2 or came out on DC first
I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
It must be nice to have the hindsight of being sperm at the time.
Imagine RE 4 but with graphics and lighting of Shenmue II
Honestly probably pretty close to what a Dreamcast port of RE4 would look like.
You're also playing the PS2 version, and that graphics chip makes everything ugly with its fucking auto-interlacing.
Seeing the state of this thread or tbh this board, I'm glad the PS2 killed Sega
Damn that is one ugly game.
Even if that's true(it's not), your Dreamcast would melt trying to do the same IK, lighting, fur shader, self shadows, draw distance and the list goes on
The game looks like shit and already runs at sub 20FPS on PS2. At least the textures wouldn't be so hideous on Dreamcast.
Holy vomit
Maybe a lack of filtering? Something just looks jank about this console.