Could Dreamcast et al handle this/that game/effect? *DC tech retrospective *spawn

[function]

Dreamcast had to render at 640 x 480 if it wanted to use its hardware tiling engine, iirc. And every game did.

Low res 320 x 240 games just doubled up in each direction.

You could have letterboxed to save work, or used borders to effectively lower resolution and then scale up using texture samplers I guess, but that would have led to additional blurring.

640 x 448 (excluding none display lines) and also not drawing the overscan area might have been an option, but that would have been a disappointment for us VGA users!

 

[Simon F]

Dreamcast had to render at 640 x 480 if it wanted to use its hardware tiling engine,.

That doesn't sound quite right to me, but I really don't have time to go and hunt down a programming document.

I do seem to recall some sort of limit on the maximum number of tiles but just what that is I cannot remember.

 

[EsppiraK]

And what about adaptive vsync? If I recall correctly, many games on Ps2, Xbox and gamecube used it to maintain better frame rates, games such, jak and daxter II or MGS2, on ps2, Fable, Ninja gaiden and DOA on Xbox and Star fox on Gamecube among others,used it, when the game couldn't reach the targeted frame rate tearing was introduced.

I don't remember a single game on the Dreamcast with tearing, was it possible or the way the hardware renders made it infeasible?

 

[tuna]

Sega Rally 2 on Dreamcast (despite it being a shoddy port) ran at 640x480p

Meanwhile Sega Rally 2006 run at 512x240i on Ps2.

Obviously rendering at lower resolution allows to free resources and so making it possible to display complex graphics.

In this particular case the Dreamcast is pushing 640x480=307200 pixels
and the ps2 512x240=122880

More than twice the pixels.(now that pixel counts is a hot topic xD)

Does anyone have knowledge if this is actually possible?

I think SR2006 is 60 fps so the pps (pixels per second) should be the same. Also, SR2006 has an arcade perfect Sega Rally 1995 as a bonus disc making it infinity better than SR2.

 

[Sonic]

I think SR2006 is 60 fps so the pps (pixels per second) should be the same. Also, SR2006 has an arcade perfect Sega Rally 1995 as a bonus disc making it infinity better than SR2.

There was actually a cheat code for the DC SR2 to enable 60 fps. It removed trees and other details on the side of the road, and I think it eliminated some smoke from tires/It definitely made the game more playable and enjoyable.

 

[Akumajou]

There was actually a cheat code for the DC SR2 to enable 60 fps. It removed trees and other details on the side of the road, and I think it eliminated some smoke from tires/It definitely made the game more playable and enjoyable.

Despite the short lifecycle of the Dreamcast the biggest problem with Sega Rally 2 DC version inspired by the Model 3 Arcade board is that Sega Rally 2 is a launch game while curiously the Model 3 Arcade version came years after the first version revisions of the Model 3 Arcade board.

Same problem with Virtua Fighter 3TB and Fighting Vipers 2 as both have lower polygon counts and detail compared to the older Model 3 Arcade board.

I played VF3 in the arcades (trained with Fighters Megamix on Saturn ) and I felt let down and dissapointed by both VF3tb and Fighting Vipers 2 on DC which I really looked forward to back then and still wish there was a reprogrammed higher definition version however VF3TB (like Tekken 4 and DoA2) had problems in Arcades with players not liking the changing elevation much hence why most sequels went back to flat grounds.

I played the N64 MK4 and the MK4G on DC and previously used to watch and play the first and later revisions on Zeus based Arcade Mortal Kombat 4 and honestly despite the DC launch port appearing a bit sharper and cleaner and maybe having a higher poly count over the N64 version, they all pale and bow down (including the PC which I got for the Komic) in terms of poly count and detail and more importantly the N64 was the most accurate version of MK4 because of its huge cartridge access time advantage.

Note that unfortunately the 4MB expansion pack and higher cartridge MBs counts and mature dev tools were not standard and came late as the DC came and eventually all consoles were being replaced.

A theoretical far superior version of MK4G could be done on N64 plus a large (DK64/Majoras Mask) cartridge if it would have been done.

Specially cause only cartridge could replicate.Shinnok's copying of other character's moves lists ala Shang Tsung in older games.

Games like TTT and RRV were PS2 launch titles...I don't see the logic that says T5 looked inferior as T5 was pushing higher details and lighting

If RRV was reprogrammed using 2005 era PS2 dev tools and a DVD-Rom, I highly doubt it wouldn't look far more impressive however there was an ugly trend around that gen of being too critical of arcade style racers (which RRV was actually a sitdown arcade game in Japan)

As for VF4 on DC...I understand the feeling and research...however the PS2 version could be argued to maybe be possible on DC compared to advanced DC tools that never existed...

However the PS2 version of Virtua Fighter 4 that was released as a greatest hits and was on a DVD-ROM and was a higher revision of VF4...was just unreachable to Dreamcast period.

I played VF4 in Arcades heavily...I practically was one of the few who played at the large multi-entertainment center arcade.

I was so heavily dissapointed in the PS2 version that was a CD-ROM btw that I returned it...but later bought the DVD upgraded version.

The Naomi 2 boasted a full 10 million polygon count capability plus it had the Transform and Lighting Elan chip that most of that lighting was respectably nearly reproduced by the last PS2 version of VF4.

I used to be in the camp that Shenmue 1 or 2 wasn't possible on PS2 however being that game's huge budget, unfair comparisons by Western reviewers to GTA3...I feel that we never saw that because there was already a consensus that (specially when Shenmue 2 sold poorly on Xbox) that the game was not capable of breaking even.

 

[Akumajou]

There's also another issue or maybe problem having to do with Japanese Arcade devs back then...mainly Sega of NEVER aiming to make accurate 1:1 or even heavily enhanced Arcade versions of their games all the way up until the first port or reprogrammed version of VF4 on PS2.

Most of those Arcade to Dreamcast games that were heavily enhanced were made by other companies like Capcom and Namco and most of those games were heavily enhanced versions of PlayStation 1 arcade hardware games that greatly benefited from the Dreamcast's capabilities.

TechRomancer, SoulCalibur, Project Justice or Rival Schools.

Back then Sega was mismanaging imho many of their Arcade library games to Dreamcast as opposed to the Saturn days.

Dirt Devils became TNN Hardcore Racing?, Dirt Devils btw is a spiritual brother to Sega Rally series.

Sega Rally 2 was rendered a launch title or near launch...VF3TB, etc etc...my personal last straw was Fighting Vipers 2 because by the time that game came out there was no excuse for it to cut down graphical details and not offer much extras.

 

[Nesh]

Games like TTT and RRV were PS2 launch titles...I don't see the logic that says T5 looked inferior as T5 was pushing higher details and lighting

Just for comparison sakes

 

[Akumajou]

Just for comparison sakes

I have Tekken Tag Tournament and Tekken 5 on PlayStation 2.

Those games you are comparing were made for PlayStation 3...meaning that isn't a reasonable comparison.

Also T5 Dark Ressurection was a near launch title for PS3 even if visuals were PS2-ish, it was not PS2 Tekken 5.

Polygon counts aren't the end all be all when it comes to made for console specific hardware games.

TTT really started life as an enhanced PlayStation 1 based Arcade board.

On PS2 there are two versions of TTT, the Japanese release and the later North America region release which according to my old "Gamelan, or Game's Republic" boasted improved revision and visual enhancements that Ridge Racer V didn't get because at the time RRV was made not just as a launch title but also as an arcade board running game.

Which brings me again to the point I was referring to Sega.

For most of the PlayStation 1 era, Namco, Capcom and others used PS1 hardware based Arcade boards that later Namco (or Sony) enhanced for arcade use.

However those games of that era all had the same similar PS1 graphics "look" so eventually if a home console version was made it was nearly identical or the same graphics.

Sony followed suit with PS2 and it's Arcade board version and later enhanced Arcade board for certain games.

Basically Sony had NeoGeo arcade accurate or near accurate games for obvious reasons and those devs no doubt were pushing (depending on their visions) each of their games as best they could at the time that even SEGA-AM2 used the PS2 Arcade board to make a couple games that most stayed in Japan if released on PS2 console.

Tekken 5 did more lighting effects that TTT ever could...viewed on a CRT.

HDTVs expose flaws because their resolutions are just much higher so it becomes a flawed thing to compare.

While Sega did have their Naomi and NaomiGD Arcade boards, they later replaced it's use depending on certain games like Brave FireFighters and Virtual On Force on Sega Hikaru which doesn't use the PVR graphics chip, instead used a custom Sega chip.

Naomi 2 was the end all be all because apparent from the T&L Elan chip, it used TWO PVR graphics chips which combined yielded the 10 Million polygon count.

Too bad we didn't see a Brave FireFighters 2 or Virtual On Five on Naomi 2 to compare what might be different as implied.

Too bad System 357 wasn't as widely used (as System 246) or we would have had a larger selection of games to compare.

 

[Nesh]

I have Tekken Tag Tournament and Tekken 5 on PlayStation 2.

Those games you are comparing were made for PlayStation 3...meaning that isn't a reasonable comparison.

Also T5 Dark Ressurection was a near launch title for PS3 even if visuals were PS2-ish, it was not PS2 Tekken 5.

Polygon counts aren't the end all be all when it comes to made for console specific hardware games.

TTT really started life as an enhanced PlayStation 1 based Arcade board.

On PS2 there are two versions of TTT, the Japanese release and the later North America region release which according to my old "Gamelan, or Game's Republic" boasted improved revision and visual enhancements that Ridge Racer V didn't get because at the time RRV was made not just as a launch title but also as an arcade board running game.

Which brings me again to the point I was referring to Sega.

For most of the PlayStation 1 era, Namco, Capcom and others used PS1 hardware based Arcade boards that later Namco (or Sony) enhanced for arcade use.

However those games of that era all had the same similar PS1 graphics "look" so eventually if a home console version was made it was nearly identical or the same graphics.

Sony followed suit with PS2 and it's Arcade board version and later enhanced Arcade board for certain games.

Basically Sony had NeoGeo arcade accurate or near accurate games for obvious reasons and those devs no doubt were pushing (depending on their visions) each of their games as best they could at the time that even SEGA-AM2 used the PS2 Arcade board to make a couple games that most stayed in Japan if released on PS2 console.

Tekken 5 did more lighting effects that TTT ever could...viewed on a CRT.

HDTVs expose flaws because their resolutions are just much higher so it becomes a flawed thing to compare.

While Sega did have their Naomi and NaomiGD Arcade boards, they later replaced it's use depending on certain games like Brave FireFighters and Virtual On Force on Sega Hikaru which doesn't use the PVR graphics chip, instead used a custom Sega chip.

Naomi 2 was the end all be all because apparent from the T&L Elan chip, it used TWO PVR graphics chips which combined yielded the 10 Million polygon count.

Too bad we didn't see a Brave FireFighters 2 or Virtual On Five on Naomi 2 to compare what might be different as implied.

Too bad System 357 wasn't as widely used (as System 246) or we would have had a larger selection of games to compare.

The reason I choose the PS3 versions is because the assets are identical to their older counterparts and due to their HD its easier to find proper HQ youtube videos where we can see clearer the quality of the assets and the effects. Even if I chose the PS2 versions the argument wouldnt have changed one bit. The PS3 versions did not receive any special treatment beyond their improved resolution. What you see in the video of TTT above is how the game looked on the PS2 minus the improved resolution. Yes TTT looked that good

Also the system 12 TTT version is absolutely irrelevant to the highlighted point of my post. We are talking solely about the PS2 versions as they are and how the PS2 version of TTT fairs next to T5. The main and probably only difference between the Japanese and western versions of TTT was better aliasing. Again this is irrelevant. All PS2 versions were visually built from the ground up with the PS2 in mind and we are talking about that regardless how TTT looked on the System 12 arcade board,

Neither TTT on the PS2 or Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast looked similar to their arcade versions. The difference in quality was night and day. It doesnt matter how the arcade versions faired. What matters is how well they looked on their home platforms.

According to your argument TTT HD should have fared worse next to T5:BR on an HDTV but this isnt the case. I also owned both games on my PS2 which I played to death on my old SD TV. I know how both games look on a CRT.

 

[Akumajou]

The reason I choose the PS3 versions is because the assets are identical to their older counterparts and due to their HD its easier to find proper HQ youtube videos where we can see clearer the quality of the assets and the effects. Even if I chose the PS2 versions the argument wouldnt have changed one bit. The PS3 versions did not receive any special treatment beyond their improved resolution. What you see in the video of TTT above is how the game looked on the PS2 minus the improved resolution. Yes TTT looked that good

Also the system 12 TTT version is absolutely irrelevant to the highlighted point of my post. We are talking solely about the PS2 versions as they are and how the PS2 version of TTT fairs next to T5. The main and probably only difference between the Japanese and western versions of TTT was better aliasing. Again this is irrelevant. All PS2 versions were visually built from the ground up with the PS2 in mind and we are talking about that regardless how TTT looked on the System 12 arcade board,

Neither TTT on the PS2 or Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast looked similar to their arcade versions. The difference in quality was night and day. It doesnt matter how the arcade versions faired. What matters is how well they looked on their home platforms.

According to your argument TTT HD should have fared worse next to T5:BR on an HDTV but this isnt the case. I also owned both games on my PS2 which I played to death on my old SD TV. I know how both games look on a CRT.

Ok Nesh, I understand your point about assets being the same on PS3.

I came away understanding that you basically said that TTT looked better than T5 implying there was no technology improvements or many more effects being handled on screen.

I still feel T5 DR had some improvements over regular T5. Or had to have some slight improvements.

 

[Nesh]

Ok Nesh, I understand your point about assets being the same on PS3.

I came away understanding that you basically said that TTT looked better than T5 implying there was no technology improvements or many more effects being handled on screen.

I still feel T5 DR had some improvements over regular T5. Or had to have some slight improvements.

To be honest I really cant discern the technological improvements they made for T5 even thought they might be there.
Going from TTT to T4 to T5, all these games used completely different engines with completely different priorities. To me at least visual appeal was like this. TTT>T4>T5. They went from "wow" to "nice". Tekken 4 was amazing in the respect that it had huge and complex interactive backgrounds.
TTT did some things that I didnt see other games doing on the PS2 ever. The materials and lighting looked very close to their real life counterparts and demonstrated attributes that ware never seen in other Namco fighters. Not even in Tekken 6.
For example take Jin's stage

Wood looks exactly like wood, and the floor gives the illusion that it is not completely flat. The second image is even more interesting. The floor isnt treated as one unified flat surface. Hence the reflection of the neon signs isnt one simple reflection on the floor. We get different refracted reflections from each wood plunk.
Almost every object had its own reflection or specular. Tekken 5 appears a lot flatter.

This stage had very nice speculars on the ground that made it look like it had bumb mapping. It really conveyed wet ground. Leaves had their own shadows and were animated.

They even went to the extend to make clothes have their own speculars or lack thereof based on what they were made of.

Every stage and character in TTT was like a special tech demo that tried to demonstrate the capabilities of the console. It was as if Namco fell into the PS2 CGI hype and tried to do all kinds of crazy stuff in order to meet the huge expectations people were expecting from CGI visuals.

 

[xaeroxcore]

OMG! didn´t notice that the thread was still alive! Awesome. Nesh i´m totally agree with you. i´ve compared TTT and T5 by different circunstances on HD Revisions on PS3, emulated on PC, on the real PS2 hooked into a HDTV by RCA Cable, on the PS2 hooked into a HDTV by component cable, on PS2 in CRT TV both with RCA and Component....and all i can say is TTT stands better the test of time than T5 in overall picture quality and texturing departament...and even poly count in characters...

One of the stages that always blow my mind every time i play TTT is this one:

look at the grass and specially the detail on the big rock behind...it looks like it has bump mapping (may be is not...but it looks like)! and i don´t know how they manged to put DAT texture on it!

And look at this snowy stage

Shadows deforming with the terrain on real time...For fuck sake!! XD

Anyway...the major flaw on TTT was using 32 Bit basis on i´ts engine...and you can notice this with the quality on animations, AI, and it´s beautiful stages that are flawed with it´s weird PSX era 2.5 D desing with noticiable multilayer. In other hand T4 and T5 improved all the pints where TTT failed, added better lighting, interactive stages and character less detailed geometry wise, but smart built to appear more detailed, bigger and less plastic. But due that, T4 and T5 look horrible, specially on HDTVs...So, at the end of the day, TTT wasb (just image quailty wise) the most visual future proof Tekken of PS2...ironic, isn´t?

And now that we are talkin´bout Tekken, how do you think would look an
hypothetical Dreamcast Tekken, if Namco would have decided to launch on DC...may be because of the success of Soul Calibur

 

[Globalisateur]

Meh. Textures and polygons aren't everything, image quality (static) and motion quality (dynamic) are important too. Still nothing can beat my first impression of playing Soul Calibur on Dreamcast played on a VGA CRT monitor.

NOTHING.

 

[xaeroxcore]

Undeniable...Soul Calibur is beautiful game...In motion, more beautiful than TTT.

 

[Nesh]

Undeniable...Soul Calibur is beautiful game...In motion, more beautiful than TTT.

I disagree. I believe you like SC's art more which is a matter if taste. I that regard I understand why someone may like SC more visually. But looking at the graphics beyond art style, everything is done better by TTT

 

[insanepunkclown]

Undeniable...Soul Calibur is beautiful game...In motion, more beautiful than TTT.

Anything is better than PlayStation 2's output, specially on HDTV which Dreamcast, Gamecube with Macrox RGB and Xbox take a dump on it in terms of output quality to the TV which emulation can do the justice.

 

[EsppiraK]

Yes, it is a matter of taste, it is unarguably that, TTT is way better graphically than SC, worth to mention that its roots also come from a 32 bits hardware and it is clearly noticeable.

I never understood why SC graphics are so praised, they are beautiful indeed but nothing spectacular, the character models alone is pretty basic even compared to other games on the Dreamcast.

That being said I don't think it is fair to post upresed screenshots from the ps3 version, it may the artwork shine, but it is not representative of how the game looks on the actual hardware.

If we take that route I can post Dreamcast Le Mans 24h screenshots at higher resolutions,

did the game look good, yes, but not that good and it is not representative of how the game looks on the Dreamcast, even though the assets really shine at higher resolutions and shows how good the textures and 3D models are.

Also resolution and texture filtering has an impact on FPS performance, so this are things that must be taken in to consideration when we talk about graphics/ console capabilities.

 

[xaeroxcore]

I disagree. I believe you like SC's art more which is a matter if taste. I that regard I understand why someone may like SC more visually. But looking at the graphics beyond art style, everything is done better by TTT

TTT has more advanced visual tecnology in several aspects, even compared with late PS2 games, but all bent together doesn´t look that good as Soul Calibur or DOA 2, because TTT also remain two critical aspects of the 32 bit engine: Dated Animations and Stage integration. TTT is a 2.5 game scheme, while SC and it´s 8 way run resulted something more innovative (despite it was also created originally into a 32 bit hardware -System 12-), all bent with true 3D stages . I mean, in TTT stages are real time 3D too and with better poly count, textures and effects than SC, but not in the same layer as where all the action happens...So everything seems strange in motion. SC does more with less, because uses more efficiently it´s limited resources. I mean TTT characters are built with at least twice the poly count of the SC ones, but the TTT one looks more like a plastic CGish dolls. In SC they apparent to be more detailed (but in reality they´re not), thanks to smarter art decisions,reflected in the details in their outfit, hair movement, breathing simulation, etc and all of this
is synchronized with smoother animatons. In the lighting department i think that SC beats TTT for the same reason, beceause they use the lighting resources to strenght the beauty of the game, just instead to show a technology upgrade against the competition ...TTT is an amazing game (i bought my PS2 just for that game), but in the graphical area seems more like a tech demo than a true "next gen" (of the 6th gen) game, while SC is more innovative and some aspects, and uses it´s limited engine resources more efficiently and smarter. Obviously TTT is a graphically more advanced game that SC in lotta of aspects, as PS2 is more poweful than Dreamcast. But the gap between both systems is not generational, so SC showed that is possible to do something way impressive with less resources.

 

[xaeroxcore]

Yes, it is a matter of taste, it is unarguably that, TTT is way better graphically than SC, worth to mention that its roots also come from a 32 bits hardware and it is clearly noticeable.

I never understood why SC graphics are so praised, they are beautiful indeed but nothing spectacular, the character models alone is pretty basic even compared to other games on the Dreamcast.

That being said I don't think it is fair to post upresed screenshots from the ps3 version, it may the artwork shine, but it is not representative of how the game looks on the actual hardware.

If we take that route I can post Dreamcast Le Mans 24h screenshots at higher resolutions,

did the game look good, yes, but not that good and it is not representative of how the game looks on the Dreamcast, even though the assets really shine at higher resolutions and shows how good the textures and 3D models are.

Also resolution and texture filtering has an impact on FPS performance, so this are things that must be taken in to consideration when we talk about graphics/ console capabilities.

Those shots are IMPRESSIVE!!! I always have been jaw dropped by the old Le Mans...

I don´t know nothing about develep games, but...there aren´t possibilities to someone to mod this and turn it to a newer game for Dreamcast? I mean...just wondering how a Sega GT would look with the Le Mans engine, instead of it´s mediocre original graphic engine meant to beat the PSX GT, but clearly not conceived to compete against real 6th gen racers, especially in the future rival consoles like PS2.