The dreamcast is such a weird thing. Living and dying right between end of the P s one but also the beginning of the p s two. Having a weird selection of games
The DC certainly was ahead of it's time in a few areas, and the games i have on it are all high quality, shame it died in the way it did, and we didn't get a DC 2.
@@estebandanger25Realmente me gustan ambas versiones, pero creo que prefiero el color de la versión Dreamcast a los colores apagados de PS2, por lo que probablemente diría que DC lo supera en un pequeño porcentaje. Me gustan bastante los pisos brillantes de la PS2
@@MH-yp6wg The DC has these texture filters... Filtering: Point filtering, bilinear filtering, trilinear filtering (2-pass), anisotropic filtering. Anti‑aliasing: Super‑sample anti‑aliasing (up to 4× SSAA), full‑scene anti‑aliasing (FSAA), edge anti‑aliasing.
@@ribenasquash We're not talking about texture filtering here. We're talking about Anti-Aliasing. And the DC-Version of this game does not use it. BTW: Dreamcast supports only SSAA. Or more precise: OGSSAA in the form of rendering into a large supersampling buffer. Since this is a form of FSAA, it is pointless to mention both SSAA and FSAA, as both is the same here. Dreamcast's GPU does not support "edge anti aliasing".
This was a Naomi port so it was always suited to the DC. Was a quick & nasty conversion to ps2 from memory so not surprised it suffered a bit. I think Sony mandated the use of field rendering in the early days of their new console so that didn't help either...
I don't know what field rendering is, but remember Edge magazine praising the lighting in the PS2 version (is field rendering anything to do with lighting?) Forgot this was a Naomi game so yeah easier to whack it out on the DC.
@retrospiritsgaiden The PS2 is seemingly better with subtle effects like lighting and particle affects. Also higher polys. The issue is the video signal.
@@retrospiritsgaidenWhat about the bad jagged edges of the PS2 or the unwanted fog making the draw distance even worse.I love the crispiness of the Dreamcast version due to the antianylyzing.
@@JoeMaze-y5z PS2 does suffer from jaggys in a lot of games, and it's not nice. However i think the fog in the PS2 version is more of an artistic choice than a technical one, it adds some atmosphere to a couple of stages.
Not seen the arcade version, but from what i understand it was a Naomi arcade board (basically a Dreamcast) - so i'm surprised there's a difference TBH - interesting!
@@retrospiritsgaiden that is because people play down just how much a Dreamcast is cut down from a Naomi. Bandwidth i/o, memory,sound,vram,gpu are all more and better than dreamcast. The cpu being the same is not really a factor as the cpu was very special at assisting graphics for games so it could drive the more powerful and faster Naomi also.
@@DeanError You are joking? DoA2 on Naomi looks almost EXACTLY the same as the DC-version. The only difference I could ever spot were some slightly sharper textures in the background, and only in a direct comparison - unnoticable in normal gameplay. And the GPU is the same in both Naomi and DC and so is the bandwith, what's your source on that? Please don't say Segaretro...
@@MH-yp6wg The dc port was very good. I took the arcade game and emulated with the renderer going up to 4k there were three things that stood out to me compared to doing the same with the DC port. The textures, the music vibrancy and the transitions in the levels not having a split second delay. That was why I said what I said.
@@DeanError Well it's never a good sign if you have to use 27x (!) as many pixels to spot the differences. : D Textures in the distance are a bit sharper on Naomi, I give you that. Loading times are faster on Naomi of course, since it uses either mROMS or GD-ROMs, which are loaded into the drive's RAM (where they stay until the system is turned off). But I have to make it clear: I would take DoA2 as an example for a game that shows how LITTLE differences there are between the games on both systems. They look so much alike that it really makes me wonder why it does not look much better on Naomi, since Naomi is clearly the more powerful system with double the RAM and double the VRAM. Same story for many other games. People say it's due to a lot of textures being uncompressed on Naomi. But... why should they do that? Naomi supports texture compression as well as the DC. Maybe it's because on the PowerVR2, textures lose a bit of sharpness due to compression (it's not lossless)... I dont know. And then still, Naomi had much more RAM for storing vertices, which is (next to fillrate) THE limiting factor of DCs graphics... so it should look better on Naomi, yet it doesn't. Maybe they just did not care to put in the extra work for a better Naomi-Version, I dont know.
You need to compare console vs console not console vs emulation... I don't said that PS2 version locks better but doesn't lock that worse as you video neither with the original PS2 component cables
i don't have PS2 hardware to run the game unfortunately. TBH i was more interested in what they added or changed rather than which version looks better, the lighting colour for instance is very different, but i have no idea why they changed it for PS2, when the original looked pretty cool.
@@retrospiritsgaiden Sony and Sega have different goals in both the presentation of a 3D scene and game design, which is why the subtle hue's aim for realism.
A pointless comparison. Nobody used the VGA box to a computer monitor. Not even scart. It's rf. The PS2 as well. Everyone using RF because we didn't really know what scart was for. It was only if there wasn't an arial to plug in. We were dumb! So really. Only a real console captured over rf cable will tell you the actual image quality. Even if it needs to be captured expensively, as a crt will all have different results depending on quality and condition. Filming crt's might be even harder than capturing analogue and converting it to digital.
not true. i used VGA for Dreamcast back in the day. i had the official Sega adaptor (now very expensive). The only issue with it was that some games were not VGA compatible (but you could force most into VGA with an action replay disc). I also only used RGB scart on my TV. I never owned a ps2 back in the day so i don't know what the options were for that back then
lol a LOT of people used RGB scart and the VGA-box, myself included. Why buy a brand new, powerful gaming system and then settle for terrible image quality?
My thoughts and observations are in the info box above - cheers!
The dreamcast is such a weird thing. Living and dying right between end of the P s one but also the beginning of the p s two.
Having a weird selection of games
The DC certainly was ahead of it's time in a few areas, and the games i have on it are all high quality, shame it died in the way it did, and we didn't get a DC 2.
The graphical leap from Saturn to Dreamcast is unbelievable
agreed - it was massive!
🤯🤯🤯 Amazing Sega Dreamcast
Dreamcast looks vivid !
its very saturated, i quite like that tho:)
Dreamcast en este juego gana.
yo tengo las 2 versiones las conecto en el mismo 📺 y dreamcast va mucho mejor los gráficos son más llamativos y mejores.
@@estebandanger25Realmente me gustan ambas versiones, pero creo que prefiero el color de la versión Dreamcast a los colores apagados de PS2, por lo que probablemente diría que DC lo supera en un pequeño porcentaje. Me gustan bastante los pisos brillantes de la PS2
Do all the combos from the Dreamcast version work on the PS2 version?
I'm a pretty low level player, everything i've tried on the Dreamcast also works on the PS2 tho.
Thank you
@@christophermarshall2362 no problem:)
Looks like a lot more jaggies in the character models for the PS2 version. Colors also look different. I prefer the Dreamcast colors personally.
agree!
PS2 has no anti-aliasing.
@@ribenasquash DC-version does not have it either.
@@MH-yp6wg The DC has these texture filters...
Filtering: Point filtering, bilinear filtering, trilinear filtering (2-pass), anisotropic filtering.
Anti‑aliasing: Super‑sample anti‑aliasing (up to 4× SSAA), full‑scene anti‑aliasing (FSAA), edge anti‑aliasing.
@@ribenasquash We're not talking about texture filtering here.
We're talking about Anti-Aliasing.
And the DC-Version of this game does not use it.
BTW: Dreamcast supports only SSAA. Or more precise: OGSSAA in the form of rendering into a large supersampling buffer. Since this is a form of FSAA, it is pointless to mention both SSAA and FSAA, as both is the same here.
Dreamcast's GPU does not support "edge anti aliasing".
This was a Naomi port so it was always suited to the DC. Was a quick & nasty conversion to ps2 from memory so not surprised it suffered a bit. I think Sony mandated the use of field rendering in the early days of their new console so that didn't help either...
I don't know what field rendering is, but remember Edge magazine praising the lighting in the PS2 version (is field rendering anything to do with lighting?) Forgot this was a Naomi game so yeah easier to whack it out on the DC.
@retrospiritsgaiden The PS2 is seemingly better with subtle effects like lighting and particle affects. Also higher polys. The issue is the video signal.
Dreamcast wins
one of the biggest weaknesses of the ps2 was the bad anti aliasing the games looked terrible I hated it 😑
Totally agree, for me emulation with all its options has really helped the art shine on PS2 games.
480p vs 480i
True!
Dreamcast looks way better here.
I see you are a fan of colour saturation and contrast - nice:)
@@retrospiritsgaidenwe are fans of a smoother look with less jaggies and vibrancy thats it thats all
nice:)
@@retrospiritsgaidenWhat about the bad jagged edges of the PS2 or the unwanted fog making the draw distance even worse.I love the crispiness of the Dreamcast version due to the antianylyzing.
@@JoeMaze-y5z PS2 does suffer from jaggys in a lot of games, and it's not nice. However i think the fog in the PS2 version is more of an artistic choice than a technical one, it adds some atmosphere to a couple of stages.
PS2 dientes de sierra, Dreamcast era increible 😍 SEGA no se que paso😥
Media.
Desde un movil es dificil apreciar la diferencia. Pero si tienes en cuenta el precio de las maquinas y del juego tienes un claro vencedor
you are right, it is probably difficult to see the difference on a mobile!
the arcade version is stunning and sounds amazing compared to both and I like it over the xbox enhanced version even.
Not seen the arcade version, but from what i understand it was a Naomi arcade board (basically a Dreamcast) - so i'm surprised there's a difference TBH - interesting!
@@retrospiritsgaiden that is because people play down just how much a Dreamcast is cut down from a Naomi. Bandwidth i/o, memory,sound,vram,gpu are all more and better than dreamcast. The cpu being the same is not really a factor as the cpu was very special at assisting graphics for games so it could drive the more powerful and faster Naomi also.
@@DeanError You are joking? DoA2 on Naomi looks almost EXACTLY the same as the DC-version.
The only difference I could ever spot were some slightly sharper textures in the background, and only in a direct comparison - unnoticable in normal gameplay.
And the GPU is the same in both Naomi and DC and so is the bandwith, what's your source on that? Please don't say Segaretro...
@@MH-yp6wg The dc port was very good. I took the arcade game and emulated with the renderer going up to 4k there were three things that stood out to me compared to doing the same with the DC port. The textures, the music vibrancy and the transitions in the levels not having a split second delay. That was why I said what I said.
@@DeanError Well it's never a good sign if you have to use 27x (!) as many pixels to spot the differences. : D
Textures in the distance are a bit sharper on Naomi, I give you that.
Loading times are faster on Naomi of course, since it uses either mROMS or GD-ROMs, which are loaded into the drive's RAM (where they stay until the system is turned off).
But I have to make it clear: I would take DoA2 as an example for a game that shows how LITTLE differences there are between the games on both systems. They look so much alike that it really makes me wonder why it does not look much better on Naomi, since Naomi is clearly the more powerful system with double the RAM and double the VRAM. Same story for many other games.
People say it's due to a lot of textures being uncompressed on Naomi. But... why should they do that? Naomi supports texture compression as well as the DC.
Maybe it's because on the PowerVR2, textures lose a bit of sharpness due to compression (it's not lossless)... I dont know.
And then still, Naomi had much more RAM for storing vertices, which is (next to fillrate) THE limiting factor of DCs graphics... so it should look better on Naomi, yet it doesn't.
Maybe they just did not care to put in the extra work for a better Naomi-Version, I dont know.
Dreamcast wins!
D R E A M C A S T
wtf? Dreamcast looks like a remaster.
You need to compare console vs console not console vs emulation... I don't said that PS2 version locks better but doesn't lock that worse as you video neither with the original PS2 component cables
i don't have PS2 hardware to run the game unfortunately. TBH i was more interested in what they added or changed rather than which version looks better, the lighting colour for instance is very different, but i have no idea why they changed it for PS2, when the original looked pretty cool.
@@retrospiritsgaiden Sony and Sega have different goals in both the presentation of a 3D scene and game design, which is why the subtle hue's aim for realism.
@@ribenasquash i remember back in the day that Sony would always be going for the 'more is more' and 'more realistic' angle with everything
@@retrospiritsgaiden It was their mission statement when they announced the PS1 to combine the film and game entertainment divisions.
@@retrospiritsgaiden he says it in the E3 presentation. A swedish man.
Dreamcast looks like HDR compared to ps2
The ps2 graphics look good for the sandy level
@@ConnorlUvz some of the environments on the Ps2 have extra details which is a nice thing to have
Nice Video ! Sub & Big Like ! And Love Dod Games !
awesome! thanks!
Dreamcast нагибает SP и xBox. Если бы сейчас SEGA существовала, она бы выиграла и нагнула всех. K.O. - Sega Wins
haha nice!
A pointless comparison. Nobody used the VGA box to a computer monitor. Not even scart. It's rf. The PS2 as well. Everyone using RF because we didn't really know what scart was for. It was only if there wasn't an arial to plug in. We were dumb!
So really. Only a real console captured over rf cable will tell you the actual image quality. Even if it needs to be captured expensively, as a crt will all have different results depending on quality and condition.
Filming crt's might be even harder than capturing analogue and converting it to digital.
not true. i used VGA for Dreamcast back in the day. i had the official Sega adaptor (now very expensive). The only issue with it was that some games were not VGA compatible (but you could force most into VGA with an action replay disc). I also only used RGB scart on my TV.
I never owned a ps2 back in the day so i don't know what the options were for that back then
@@retrospiritsgaiden I'm sure you did.
lol a LOT of people used RGB scart and the VGA-box, myself included. Why buy a brand new, powerful gaming system and then settle for terrible image quality?
@@MH-yp6wg because I'm dumb and the coax had good quality output.
@@ribenasquash Well... if you call that "good", you are easy to please my friend. ; D
I kinda prefer the ps2 though since it has better lighting and also some new content
the lighting differences are interesting. i think i prefer the more saturated DC lighting myself, but both versions look good.
Play The New 56 mod series on Free Step Dodge thread. Totally Overhauled much more content than retail outlet here.
Interesting!
Ps2 blew the dream away i think the cast look like a better design model