^ LOL It does... right?
Can somebody help me out with this? Earlier today I got to thinking about the early days of PS2 vs. Dreamcast and forgot which had the better textures. Looking at my PS2 games, everything seems softer, blurrier and jaggier whereas Dreamcast games had fewer polys but sharper graphics and better textures. Is that technically correct? Or is my fanboy mind playing tricks on me?
Yeah, there are some emulator bootdiscs that run NeoGeoCD games.. His lifelong dream(cast) is now complete
That is a bit on the bullshit side. It took some years for the PS2 to show significantly better polygon numbers. The "60 million" tossed around by Sony was pure marketing bullshit (along with Emotion Engine and "sun effects that make you wear sunglasses" and "superprocessor that is helping medicine fight cancer").
Although the main EE processor was fairly stronger than the Dreamcast, the PS2's graphic processor had little graphic memory. The usefulness of the EE being cut in half.
The PS2 had 4MB V-RAM while the Dreamcast had 8, if I remember correctly.
The Dreamcast's graphic processor could decompress textures on the fly, so it would process a compressed texture (a 5th of the size) and display it decompressed. The PS2 could not do this. It had to process everything. Add the low visual-memory and the higher polygon count, and textures took a blow.
That being said, GT4 looks pretty in HD.
But yeah, most 1st and many 2nd gen PS2 games had nothing on the DC..
(someone correct me if I said something stupid)
