Well, I have some spare time on my hands (well actually I don't, but ey, what the hell...), so I thought I'd reply to a few things that bugs me. Now, Rockman, even though I might come off as taking Paul's side, I am not so don't get this the wrong way or anything.
Rockman said:
Ps2 has'nt surpassed DC in graphics period, just as ps2 improved in time DC would have improved in time. DC has fewer limitations in hardware aside from raw power than the ps2.
Rockman said:
The DC doesn't need to process all the polygons that the ps2 does, maybe you should read up on the hardware before making such a crude comment.
Rockman said:
The nature of the DC hardware was deferred rendering so tell me why does it NEED to render the same amount of polygons as the ps2 ? Like I said if development continued for the DC you would see it as a firm competitor as the ps2.
Firstly, I wouldn't call it a fact that
PS2 hasn't surpassed DC in graphics as that is a pretty subjectiv matter. How do you define "better graphics"? By simply looking at it or actually comparing technical aspects of the games available? Either way, you can have a game that is technically less impressive but still might look significantly better than another game that might have it beat in all the technical features. That of course makes it quite subjective. Looking at things objectively, it's hard to argue that there are many areas where PS2 does not have the DC beat. While you may bring up
deferred rendering, I'd say that the difference in the polygon throughoutput of PS2 and the end result of a quite efficiant DC game is still quite large. Deferred rendering might save you performance here and there, it however still does not come close to what the PS2 is capable of pushing. Still, given that we are argueing here over if PS2 surpasses DC, polygons of course don't tell the whole picture.
Considering both hardware, or all consoles of this generation, I would have to say that
none has really surpassed their competitiors. Lets face it, a really talented developer could make a great looking game on Dreamcast without all those particles and polygons and perhaps mistake it for a Xbox game. On the other hand, there are various PS2 games that are quite incredible and are easily up to par with Xbox or GameCube's best. Does that mean that DC is as capable as Xbox? Does it mean PS2 is as capable? No. While each consoles best games do look equal in their best times to their opponents, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the technical potentials the different hardware's do push. For instance, Dreamcast obviously can not push the amount of geometry or particles of PS2 - yet at the same time, PS2 can't match the Xbox in textures or certain effects such as bump mapping and others. So, technically, PS2 is ahead of Dreamcast if you agree or not, just as well as Xbox is ahead of PS2. Games don't change this. Yet, if the best games on either platform do look to be equal as impressive as the rest of games on the other platform, I do wonder why we tend to argue over these kind of things. :?
