The next GameFAQs contest is here! Sign in and enter a Best Year in Gaming bracket for a chance at a $1000 grand prize!

Dreamcast was great in displaying clean graphics and crisp textures...

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
This topic contains spoilers - you can click, tap, or highlight to reveal them
  1. Boards
  2. Dreamcast
  3. Dreamcast was great in displaying clean graphics and crisp textures...

User Info: TiGHT_CTRLs

TiGHT_CTRLs
4 years ago#1
... and delight us with vibrant colors. But I cant help but feel these are still too hard and piercing on the eyes when in motion. Thatīs why I preferred some PS2 games back then, because of the effects applied to mask some inferior traits, smoothing the whole look. But the question is, is it just a matter of choice from the developers, or could the Dreamcast also display awesome effects, or even better effects?

I do photography and clean looking photoshop montages, but I consume the raw images that are great to learn filters and effects. Maybe if I was a game designer, I would take my preference for PS2 gamesī looks and develop crisp looking ones like those on the Dreamcast, so dont take my preference as a statement of which one is better.

User Info: metroid00700

metroid00700
4 years ago#2
PS2 games always came off as muddy to me, and keep in mind I did not own a Dreamcast until a few years ago while I had a PS2 since launch. Comparing the two today, the Dreamcast looks more vibrant than the PS2, and through VGA the DC is more of a stunner. Later on PS2 games started to look better but most early titles did not look good at all.
Intel Core i7-3610QM/2 GB DDR5 NVIDIA GeForceGT/12GB DDR3 RAM
SEGA Dreamcast: THE Best Gaming System since 9/9/99

User Info: qeoijlijw

qeoijlijw
4 years ago#3
http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2005/11/blue-sky-in-games-campaign-launched.html

User Info: TiGHT_CTRLs

TiGHT_CTRLs
4 years ago#4
metroid00700 posted...
PS2 games always came off as muddy to me, and keep in mind I did not own a Dreamcast until a few years ago while I had a PS2 since launch. Comparing the two today, the Dreamcast looks more vibrant than the PS2, and through VGA the DC is more of a stunner. Later on PS2 games started to look better but most early titles did not look good at all.


Iīm mostly comparing titles from 2001, the first great year for PS2 (GTA3, Gran Turismo 3, FFX, Metal Gear Solid 2, Jak and Daxter). Itīs just that while crisp and clean, some Dreamcast games still look very polygon-ish, which has a special charm of its own (makes it feel more like a game) it doesnt compare to the cinematic look of Metal Gear Solid 2 or doesnt accomplish the sense of scale given by the draw distance of a Jak game, for example.

But letīs change the question here, I dont want to start a PS2 vs. Dreamcast debate. I just want to know if you prefer bright, arcade-like and colorful games, or darker, grittier and cinematic looking games.

User Info: samxx1x

samxx1x
4 years ago#5
I think the games can be a mix, like in Shenmue. That had loads of grungy city type areas, but still had the crisp colourful style of Sega games. And there are some gritty looking games on the DC - Quake 3 and even Ikaruga.
So how's that working out for you, being clever?

User Info: spiffyone

spiffyone
4 years ago#6
TiGHT_CTRLs posted...

But letīs change the question here, I dont want to start a PS2 vs. Dreamcast debate. I just want to know if you prefer bright, arcade-like and colorful games, or darker, grittier and cinematic looking games.


I'll start answering your question, and then make a few comments on the hardware.

I don't "prefer" games either way: the aesthetic choices in the game should reflect the overall "mood"/"feel" that game designers wish to convey. It'd seem odd to, say, show a post-apocalyptic world in the grips of a bloody war as overtly colorful, just as it would seem very strange to have a cartoony mascot platformer sans a bright palette of color. Of course, one can do either, but it really depends on the game overall.

Now, as to why DC games may look "brighter" or "more colorful" than quite a few PS2 games:

From my understanding, it all really boils down to the very texture support to which you later alluded. DC not only had in hardware support for texture compression (8:1 texture compression is the "max", typical was 5:1), it also had very good image quality on said compressed textures with lots of colors. PS2 did have texture compression as well, contrary to popular belief, but it only supported a lower quality compression standard that didn't store as many colors. The end result was PS2 had very "same-y" looking textures with less color variation and more "blur", which was probably added to because quite a few earlier PS2 games were developed at 480i or even lower resolutions (whereas most DC games were developed for 480p rendering).

PS2's polys look "rounder" and less "edgy" because, well, it could render a lot more polys than DC could on average, which made for rounder characters, for one. That said, every time an effect was added, good textures, etc., the PS2 poly rate would come tumbling down. But on average, PS2 had better poly support, DC had better texture support. GC had the best of both worlds, as did XBox.

From my understanding, there were still some things that were not done on DC to the heights that they could've been had the system lived a fuller life (bump mapping, normal mapping, increased use of modifiers, etc.), but that's neither here nor there.

Going back to your revised question: a game like Skies of Arcadia would suffer if it didn't look as "colorful", and a game like, say, MGS2 probably would if it didn't have that very "greyish" color scheme going on to belie the militaristic and, later, virtual reality aesthetic.

User Info: TiGHT_CTRLs

TiGHT_CTRLs
4 years ago#7
So it all boils down to design choices, with technical advantages here and there. Thank you.

But there is one thing that could interest some people: Jet Set Radio took a turn with Future by adding a subtle brown tint (or filter), which helped reduce the aggressive whites of the first game. Theme has something to do with design choices, but in JSRF case, I think they did the best ones. Sleeker, more subtle and mature. What do you think?

User Info: metroid00700

metroid00700
4 years ago#8
TiGHT_CTRLs posted...
metroid00700 posted...
PS2 games always came off as muddy to me, and keep in mind I did not own a Dreamcast until a few years ago while I had a PS2 since launch. Comparing the two today, the Dreamcast looks more vibrant than the PS2, and through VGA the DC is more of a stunner. Later on PS2 games started to look better but most early titles did not look good at all.


Iīm mostly comparing titles from 2001, the first great year for PS2 (GTA3, Gran Turismo 3, FFX, Metal Gear Solid 2, Jak and Daxter). Itīs just that while crisp and clean, some Dreamcast games still look very polygon-ish, which has a special charm of its own (makes it feel more like a game) it doesnt compare to the cinematic look of Metal Gear Solid 2 or doesnt accomplish the sense of scale given by the draw distance of a Jak game, for example.

But letīs change the question here, I dont want to start a PS2 vs. Dreamcast debate. I just want to know if you prefer bright, arcade-like and colorful games, or darker, grittier and cinematic looking games.


I prefer bright, arcade visuals unless the gritty visuals fit the game, like MGS2. Some games used the "grittier" visuals to a very poor effect on PS2 like Smuggler's Run, and it made the game not look good at all. All boils down to the game type.

Also the majority of early PS2 games didn't really look all that great, MGS2 is one of the best looking games on the system, but few games matched that level of quality. Dreamcast was the same way in its early (Japanese) days, with game releases often looking blocky, muddy, or like possible PSOne releases. As time went on, Dreamcast games like PS2 games started to overall look a lot better.

So, to me, PS2 games, for the most part, looked worse than Dreamcast games during its first year because devs did not have the hardware figured out. As years past the PS2 started to get some amazing looking titles (and MGS2 in its first year), but in the early days, it did not look that great. IMO of course.
Intel Core i7-3610QM/2 GB DDR5 NVIDIA GeForceGT/12GB DDR3 RAM
SEGA Dreamcast: THE Best Gaming System since 9/9/99

User Info: WarioGBA

WarioGBA
4 years ago#9
spiffyone summed it up perfectly. It really amazed me how incredible the DC's games actually looked when I finally got a VGA box. I always assumed the PS2 to have better graphics back in the day probably due to playing on an SD TV through RF cables (yeah, I know), but man... So incredible to think what they could've done with the machine with just two more years looking at stuff like SA2, Shenmue 2, Ecco, Headhunter, etc, still some of the best looking games of that gen amazingly enough.
This sig is damn clever.

User Info: TiGHT_CTRLs

TiGHT_CTRLs
4 years ago#10
SEGA did all the right decisions in terms of hardware with this console. Probably the first one that had pefect arcade conversions of games that existed around the same time. The same cant be said for the Genesis though, but AM2 games were very ambitious in graphics (in terms of scaling and rotation). If the Dreamcast had lived on, they would probably catch Naomi 2 games, but I guess with a few sacrifices in translation. Was the Dreamcast inferior to the first Naomi board? (wikipedia says so)
  1. Boards
  2. Dreamcast
  3. Dreamcast was great in displaying clean graphics and crisp textures...

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived