Are any game systems now much better than the DC?

[zektor]

Graphically, I really don't think so. I remember being so amazed at the transition from the 8-bit gaming world to 16-bit with the Genesis and SNES. The graphics really made me say "WOW" when I saw them. Then from the Snes and Genesis to the Saturn, N64, and PSX I was "wowed" again. Then the DC came, and once again I was amazed. Then the PS2 came and it really didn't seem much different graphically. Well, nothing to make me think the DC was out dated. Now the Gamecube and X-Box. Is it just me, or are there others that just aren't all that amazed anymore? Don't get me wrong, these systems are no doubt powerhouses with absolutely incredible graphics, but I just don't get that "wow" feeling like I used to. I don't want to give the wrong impression in that I am only looking at graphic capabilities, because some of my favorite titles come from the 8-bit world, but just for the sake of argrument, has anyone been "wowed" graphically AFTER the DC?

[Mayhem]

Resident Evil 0... and then Zelda. Pick that jaw up, it's a whole new game once you're into it and watching the graphics move right in front of you...

[digitalpress]

I'd say NO.

Sure, Resident Evil 0 and Splinter Cell have breathtaking graphics and Zelda spot-on smooth cel shading but are they SIGNIFICANTLY better than Dreamcast? I didn't think so. The reactions I had to these games were nothing like when I played Soul Calibur or Jet Grind Radio (the Dreamcast versions of "breathtaknig graphics and spot-on smooth cel shading).

So far, you're really not missing too much, Bruce. I own all of the new systems and still my Dreamcast gets the most use :)

[stonecutter]

I have all of the new systems as well, and none have " WOWED " me in terms I was use to either. But I love every one of my new machines. I was sort of not into gaming as much as I use to be for a little bit. Then I saw the Dreamcast with the new NBA2K outside of an EB, I said holy shit look at that. I walked in the store that same minute and bought a DC and the baskeball, and I wasn't even much of a basketball fan or video game player at the time. I was in such awe that I had to have it immediately, and never looked back after. It rejuvenated gaming for me at that time.

[Nature Boy]

If the question is are the newer systems "much better" then I'd say no. But I do think they are better. If I had to rank the current generation of systems in order (i.e. my best to 'worst') I'd definitely put DC in 4th place (out of DC, GC, PS2, Xbox - I don't compare the GBA to consoles).

To be honest I'm generally wowed only by my first purcase of a new generation. For me that wasn't a DC. But the machine I did have first I wouldn't have ranked #1 in that above list anyway.

[Charlesaway]

I don't think the transition from DC to PS2 is comparable to the transition from NES to SNES or NES to Genesis, simply because, as far as I'm concerned, the DC is the same generation or stage of consoles as the PS2 anyhow. Now go back and look at a PSX and then look at the dreamcast and see if you get that wow feeling. You may, or you may not. But I did.

Just me 2 'ere govrner... ;)

[kainemaxwell]

My PS2 and DC get the most use now myself. The graphics still amaze me at times with both systems regardless of age.

[YoshiM]

I have to say "no". While the consoles now have more oomph to make the graphics better, it hasn't been a major step up graphically like NES to Genesis/SNES, SNES to Playstation, etc. While there have been some games that are just stunning to look at, if you look back at games like Soul Calibur those games are put into a more realistic perspective. Alas, after Dreamcast I haven't been "wowed" graphically since. I've been "wowed" by the depiction of scenes in the game and the events going on at the time (good example, the portal guardian in the cathedral in Time Splitters 2-THAT made my jaw drop seeing this behemoth CROUCHING trying to get at me).

[jaybird]

For me, graphics wise, it's not been a huge leap like past generations.

But, the Xbox has upped what a machine can do besides just display pretty graphics (hard-drive, high speed internet, awesome sound).

So, it's a big jump for me going from Dreamcast to Xbox just because of the additional features available. I love not having to switch out memory cards & Xbox Live is unbelievable.

Visually, the GameCube has impressed me the most out of the 3 new systems. You'd think it'd be the Xbox just because it's technically superior, but the GameCube has released better looking games so far.

[Chunky]

What are everyone’s top games that influenced “DC Graphically better” decision?

[jaybird]

I don't know that I agree that the DC is graphically better, but I don't think it's that much worse than the newer ones.

I honestly can't see a big graphical difference in the DC version of DOA 2 compared to the Xbox one. There's a difference, but it's not like going from Super Mario World to Mario 64 or anything.

[Achika]

I remember getting the DC on release day and picking up Sonic. Watching that first opening video with the tidal wave...I nearly wet myself. Sure, the PSX had CG/FMV, but they were so grainy. And the rest of the games---there was so much dialogue in the games now! They became more intimate.

PS2 came out, with the first games, it was like..."Ok, they hyped it to be so much better" But here's X game on DC that looks way better. Not to mention, a release game, Silent Scope was faster on the DC than the PS2.

As far as Resident Evil 0, Zelda. Remember how awe inspiriting RE: Code Veronica and JGR was? Two of my favorite games.

[digitalpress]

What are everyone’s top games that influenced “DC Graphically better” decision?

Yeah, I never said DC was "graphically better". The question was are game systems now much better than DC, and to THAT, I say no. They simply lack the WOW factor that DC had when I saw its games.

But take a look at Splinter Cell, I don't think I've ever seen graphics THAT impressive on any game system. Still, it seemed more a slow and expected progression, unlike the DC's BAM-it's 1999 impact.

[slapdash]

You know... I don't think the new consoles are all that big a jump from the DC either, but I've got a theory, of sorts, about that...

Once the move was made to 3D games, and even in 2D, you can only make things so detailed before you start to reach the limits of what the TV screen can show you. Use a monitor, maybe it gets even nicer.

The real jump should be when you move to HDTV (has anyone here been playing HDTV games?), because now you can reach a higher level of detail. I don't know if even the XBox -- which I know has games using higher modes -- can push HDTV yet, but the next gen of systems might be able to.

And of course, the only thing more wow after that -- when you can push so many polygons that you fill the pixel limit of HDTV -- is when you can apply textures/etc that make the games look less artificial. Then it's up to less tangible things, like better facial expressions, lip-syncing, fabric & hair movements, physics, etc, which won't necessarily be very "wow" because you won't even notice, they'll be so real (in least in the good games).

[Happy_Dude]

My experience with the GC was the exact WOW factor you're all
talking about. Saw the Res 0 opening sceen and thought it was
really cool but then I played the game :o Holy crap.
Sure it's not a technical leap but "The Games" are what make a system
and I want a GC just for R.E 0 (and PikMin ;) )

[buttasuperb]

I honestly can't see a big graphical difference in the DC version of DOA 2 compared to the Xbox one. There's a difference, but it's not like going from Super Mario World to Mario 64 or anything.

Super Mario World has better graphics than Mario 64. Those early 3D games were ugly as hell.

[gamingguy]

Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube, and X-box are all the *same* generation. Naturally there's not much difference. Wait until PS3,GC2,Xbox2, (DC2?) come out in 2005/6 and you'll be going "WOW" again.

[Raedon]

I've said it sooo many times that the DC has more power then the ps2, but I like the ps2 more because of the games.

As for best power to games ratio the GC wins with a 3 punch knockout - Mario, Metroid, Zelda.

[NE146]

I own an Xbox, PS2, and a Gamecube.. What's getting played the most currently is Gamecube and Dreamcast.

However, I mainly play emulators on the dreamcast, I rarely play any actual "Dreamcast Games".

And that's just the facts. To me, all consoles are the same. I'd sit and play Xbox for the next year if it had a game I really liked. It's all good :)

[Sylentwulf]

<cough> All of them <cough>

[Kid Ice]

Soul Calibur was one of the first DC games to come out. I don't know that I've seen a game w/ better graphics since.

the kid

[Captain Wrong]

Soul Calibur was one of the first DC games to come out. I don't know that I've seen a game w/ better graphics since.

the kid

More importaintly I don't think I've bought a current game since then I've gotten more replay out of.

[kevincure]

As for the limits of 3d:

Let's be conservative and say that the PS2 is doing 10 million polys a second, textured, which is concievable, though few games approach that. From a pure calculation perspective, the PS3 is said to do a trillion calculations a second. That's almost 1000 times what the PS2 can do. However, to keep Sony honest, let's say the max possible textured polys with one light will be 100x the PS2, which is quite possible. That'd be 1 billion polys a second, or 16 million per frame at 60fps. Now, there's no reason anyone would do this - a million polys a frame is pretty much the best you can make something look (a million would be a very advanced CG film - Toy Story +).

So there's a million polys a second, plus tons of extra cycles for calculating physics and for (more importantly) adding light sources. Assuming a similar memory jump as from PS to PS2, the PS3 is probably going to have 256 megs of dedicated video RAM, which should mean no cuts as to texture quality.

Suffice to say, you shouldn't expect much difference between DC and PS2 - they came out only a year apart. The five years between PS2 and PS3 (and well as whatever new systems Nintendo and Msoft have ready) will definitely be another "wow" moment.

[Lady Jaye]

Well, I was wowed by Metroid Prime when I saw it first. I can't compare to the DC because I've seen the Dreamcast in action only once or twice, but the GameCube is a far cry from the early PS2 games (witness a game like Oni, which looked barely more advanced graphically than any N64 game), so in terms of console evolution, it took longer for the PS2 to come of age graphically than it did for the GC.

Oh, and I was playing Aladdin on the Genesis for the first time this morning. That was a wow moment too (one of the very nice looking games of the Genny, IMO!).

[cerex]

I have to agree with kevin cure's post,the dreamcast and ps2 were released a year apart so you can't really expect too much of a difference i think seeing the transition of the psx and n64 to the dc was a huge difference in what graphics a system could push as opposed to 128 bit system going to another 128 bit sytem,so im sure after the years pass and new consoles comes out we will see a bigger difference then what we see now.

[leonk]

My ultimate test is how good do games look when compared to things like Final Fantasy the movie.

The reason I say this is because the graphics in that more took SO MUCH CPU time on super powerful machines, that there does not exist a single machine in the world that can do that in real time (unless the NSA has some top secret machines we don't know about).

So, if the graphics there are TOPS for early 21st century, any video game that comes close to it basically reaches the limit of technology for the next dozen years.

I think the XBOX does a great job of coming close to that (a few million poly's won't hurt to make things like hands rounder) but hope you get my point.

LK