How powerful was the dreamcast?

General Dreamcast discussion applies here. Before posting here please check the other forums in the Dreamcast section to see if your topic would fit better in those categories.

Moderators: pcwzrd13, mazonemayu

Forum rules
Please check the other forums in the Dreamcast section before posting here to see if your topic would fit better in those categories. Example: A new game/homebrew release would go in the New Releases/Homebrew/Emulation section: http://dreamcast-talk.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=5 or if you're having an issue with getting your Dreamcast to work or a game to boot it would go in the Support section: http://dreamcast-talk.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=42
Creedyfbaby
shadow
Posts: 10

How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#1 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:53 pm

I mean compared to 1999 standards? Was it ahead of PCs at the time? Or was it equal to the most powerful PC components you could get at the time? Or was it not as powerful?

User avatar
Aleron Ives
Outrun
Posts: 1117
Contact:

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#2 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:21 am

The Dreamcast was most ahead of its time by integrating online features when home Internet use was just taking off. Most games are online these days, but in 1999, having a video game console with a modem as a standard peripheral (let alone the option of having an Ethernet adapter) was unheard of. To my knowledge, PSO was the first structured online game for a console, and today MMOs are everywhere. Earlier online games appeared on the Saturn, for instance, but those games required you to dial directly into your friend's Saturn for P2P gameplay; Sega introduced console gamers to the concept of games with central servers that anyone could connect to. Although PC games had already been doing that for some time, Sega proved that the model would work for consoles, too.

As for the hardware, the DC has the ability to provide AA to its games, which is something the PS2 can't do. It's hard to compare it directly to PC hardware, though, as the DC's CPU doesn't use the same architecture. Using the same hardware in arcades as on their home console gave Sega a development advantage, though: since Soul Calibur was designed for the NAOMI arcade hardware, Namco didn't have to spend time porting it to the Dreamcast, because the game ran natively. As such, they were able to spend their development time improving the game, instead, which was why Soul Calibur was one of the first console games to be graphically superior to the original arcade version. Could a PC game of the same era have achieved the same level of graphical impressiveness if it had had the same development advantages? I don't know.
"Fear the HUnewearl."
Image

User avatar
CD AGES
Shark Patrol
Posts: 2374
Contact:

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#3 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:06 am

Aleron Ives wrote:since Soul Calibur was designed for the NAOMI arcade hardware, Namco didn't have to spend time porting it to the Dreamcast, because the game ran natively. As such, they were able to spend their development time improving the game, instead, which was why Soul Calibur was one of the first console games to be graphically superior to the original arcade version.

Soul Calibur was not designed for NAOMI. The arcade version ran on Namco's own System 12 board which was essentially a suped up ps1.
It's STILL Thinking Dreamcast Channel

The ReviveDC Project blog; reviews for our releases and news

User avatar
Aleron Ives
Outrun
Posts: 1117
Contact:

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#4 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:34 am

I sit corrected. I guess Namco is just that good. ;)
"Fear the HUnewearl."
Image

User avatar
CD AGES
Shark Patrol
Posts: 2374
Contact:

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#5 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:40 am

They are. Namco's one of the best studios out there for 3D fighters. What they achieved in such a short span of 7 months of development on the DC port with only half of the staff working from the arcade version is pretty astounding. It goes show how the systems true strength was in its ability to be relatively easy to develop for and utilizing most the features the system had to offer.

I personally found the system to be rather powerful for its time, and unfortunately, perhaps never had the opportunity for the hardware to be harnessed to its full potential -.-
It's STILL Thinking Dreamcast Channel

The ReviveDC Project blog; reviews for our releases and news

EnternalHope
dark night
Posts: 52

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#6 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:21 pm

CD AGES wrote:
Aleron Ives wrote:since Soul Calibur was designed for the NAOMI arcade hardware, Namco didn't have to spend time porting it to the Dreamcast, because the game ran natively. As such, they were able to spend their development time improving the game, instead, which was why Soul Calibur was one of the first console games to be graphically superior to the original arcade version.

Soul Calibur was not designed for NAOMI. The arcade version ran on Namco's own System 12 board which was essentially a suped up ps1.


Correct. Soul Calibur was a System 12 game. The same architecture that Tekken 3 was built on. Henceforth, it was a generation behind NAOMI/Katana.

PSO
dark night
Posts: 64

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#7 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:07 pm

It was FAR behind PC standards for the time. Let's not kid around here....

User avatar
dirtydav
stalker
Posts: 284

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#8 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:44 pm

What is it 200Mhz and 16Mb ??

Creedyfbaby
shadow
Posts: 10

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#9 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:16 am

I guess it's hard to release a system in modern times and be ahead of the PC curve I know the Xbox 360 was but can't think of another.

User avatar
Bob Dobbs
Sub Genius
Posts: 4393
Contact:

Re: How powerful was the dreamcast?

Post#10 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:30 am

What makes a game console run great vs a PC was that the PC was always needing "more memory", "bigger vid card" or suffer with each new game that came out back then. Also the console only had to run the game but the PC was always running things in the background needing resources.
Regards,
Bob Dobbs

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]