Sega Dreamcast VS. My PC...which is better?
Raheen Ballard
I'm trying to figure out which platform will be the best overall
system for games, the new Sega Dreamcast, or my current PC. Here's my
basic setup:
Pentium II 400mhz
128 Megs PC 100 RAM
Voodoo 3 3000
36X CD-ROM
Yamaha A3D surround sound card
Well....I've seen some of the demos for Sega's new system, and to be
quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I admit...do
you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as far as
proccessing power? Or maybe with the next generation of video cards,
PC's will take over again? Any advice, info, etc. appreciated!
Dee
like eye candy you can't go wrong with either system. (But dang, look
at Shenmue...wow!)
You obviously know what kind of games will be out on the DC. The type
of games coming out on the PC will be the same as usually just done
with better technology.
I too have a p2-400 and worry about it being dated quickly. We should
be able to run any game that comes out this upcoming holiday season as
long as we don't jump up past the 800x600 res. Plus with the new crop
vid cards coming out by xmas, things should be better.
But I WON'T play 1st PPOV games on the DC simply because I can't stand
doing those games with a joypad instead of a mouse! (couldn't stand
Goldeneye on the N64 for that reason) And I won't even look at the
pathetic fighters on the PC, exp after you see something like Soul
Calibur!
So I guess it just depends on what you like will decide which is
better. Nothing wrong with having both be the best. :)
---
AZIZ... LIGHT!
---
(I do not get email at this addr)
Steve Cutting
wrote:
>Hi!
> I'm trying to figure out which platform will be the best overall
>system for games, the new Sega Dreamcast, or my current PC. Here's my
>basic setup:
>
>Pentium II 400mhz
>128 Megs PC 100 RAM
>Voodoo 3 3000
>36X CD-ROM
>Yamaha A3D surround sound card
>
>
>Well....I've seen some of the demos for Sega's new system, and to be
>quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I admit...do
>you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as far as
>proccessing power? Or maybe with the next generation of video cards,
>PC's will take over again? Any advice, info, etc. appreciated!
Well my PC is almost identical to yours apart from the soundcard. My
DC is much more powerful when it comes to graphics processing. My PC
couldn't dream of pushing around the number of polygons that Soul
Caliber on DC does for instance. DC handles it easily though, and at a
silky 60fps with no slowdown.
The next gen of PC video cards and CPU's will make things more
interesting, if you're prepared to wait.
Also depends on the type of games you like of course. It's irrelevant
how powerful a system is if it has no games you like. If you like the
look of the DC lineup then I'd say go for it. I bought an import DC
about 6 months ago, and have barely touched a PC game since.
Steve
Ed
for Hardcore Gaming Network, Inc.
/s/ Ed Cruz
By: ED- Senior HG Editor
<http://www.hardcoregaming.com> e-mail: h...@hardcoregaming.com
Raheen Ballard <rah...@nni.com> wrote in message
news:37BB9D6B...@nni.com...
freshie
wrote:
Your dreamcast won't run other applications like word processors or
spreadsheets. I tend to think you will get a richer internet
experience with PC based software.
Your PC is going to lack like those apps liek Soul Calibur and Sonic.
There are some games that are only available to the console.
Console gaming and PC gaming tend to be two different animals. I
would recommend you keep the PC and buy a dreamcast also.
Dr Yassam
Raheen Ballard <rah...@nni.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out which platform will be the best overall
> system for games, the new Sega Dreamcast, or my current PC
> <snip>...
> Well....I've seen some of the demos for Sega's new system, and to be
> quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I
> admit...do you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as
> far as proccessing power? Or maybe with the next generation of video
> cards, PC's will take over again? Any advice, info, etc. appreciated!
As correctly mentioned by some others on this thread, it very much
depends on the sort of games you prefer (I enjoy both PC and console
games!).
Provided your PC is of good build, there should not be that much
performance difference between your PC and the DC (although the DC will
have the edge right now in terms of polygon pushing power). No doubt
some here will disagree! :-)
With regards to your own PC, well not all PCs are the same! I've used
some excellent/fast PII300s which actually perform just as well as some
very poor (cheap) PII400s at work! (found this out when testing the V2
in a colleage's PC early this year!). The PII400 in my office when
tested with a V3 card ran Q3test silky smooth at 1024*768, so yours
should do the same! :-)
Anyway, if you've got the money, buy the DC when it's available. It
costs the same as a typical PC upgrade and you'll enjoy the best of
both worlds! :-)
:)
Dr Yassam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
John Smith
wrote:
>Hi!
> I'm trying to figure out which platform will be the best overall
>system for games, the new Sega Dreamcast, or my current PC. Here's my
>basic setup:
>
>Pentium II 400mhz
>128 Megs PC 100 RAM
>Voodoo 3 3000
>36X CD-ROM
>Yamaha A3D surround sound card
>
>
>Well....I've seen some of the demos for Sega's new system, and to be
>quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I admit...do
>you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as far as
>proccessing power? Or maybe with the next generation of video cards,
>PC's will take over again? Any advice, info, etc. appreciated!
It's not really a question of which is better absolutely. The
question is which is better for you. Your PC is technologically
superior in terms of polygon counts (7 million on the Voodoo3 vs. 3
million on the DC's graphics chip). However, in terms of playability,
console systems excel. If you like fun, arcade style gaming, then
console gaming is going to be more pleasing to you. PCs are better at
doing complicated games like strategy and simulation, and also better
at Quake clones due to the large amount of memory needed.
If graphics are all that matter to you, stick with your PC. Games
like Vampire the Masquerade are already beginning to make the DC look
outdated.
Alfonso Gutierrez
The PC version looks much better .
PII 450 with Voodoo3 3500
David
David
Raheen Ballard <rah...@nni.com> wrote in message
news:37BB9D6B...@nni.com...
revs...@my-deja.com
> console systems excel. If you like fun, arcade style gaming, then
> console gaming is going to be more pleasing to you. PCs are better at
Hmm, Now that I think about it i DO like the "fun" games.
-Glenwood
Andrew R. Gillett
> Well....I've seen some of the demos for Sega's new system, and to be
> quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I admit...do
> you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as far as
> proccessing power? Or maybe with the next generation of video cards,
> PC's will take over again? Any advice, info, etc. appreciated!
The 3D chipset (PowerVR) which the Dreamcast uses should be available for
the PC next month, and Videologic still say (despite the forthcoming
second generation card being delayed for over a year) that the third
generation of PowerVR will be finished before the end of this year.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"I've always wanted to be a sandcastle." - Chelmer Monkton, Starship Losers
John
Smith) wrote:
> Your PC is technologically superior in terms of polygon
> counts (7 million on the Voodoo3 vs. 3 million on the
> DC's graphics chip).
Not quite. Sure these video chips may be able to accept
these insane number of polygons, but you're completely
neglecting the ability of the CPU to transform and light
all these wonderful triangles. There is no way you're going
to see any Intel CPU in the near future process anything
close to 7 million polygons.
This point in time, the Hitachi SH-4's 3D-centric FPU
unit just has it all over Intel. The 200MHz SH-4 rates
900 sustained MFLOPs (1200 peak), while the Pentium III 500
rates 650 MFLOPs. It'll be interesting to see the next
iterations of 3DFX and Nvidia boards with dedicated
transform engines, but for now, don't count on your
Voodoo3 pushing around anything close to 7 million
polygons.
Bodo Knudsen
>
> But I WON'T play 1st PPOV games on the DC simply because I can't stand
> doing those games with a joypad instead of a mouse! (couldn't stand
> Goldeneye on the N64 for that reason) And I won't even look at the
> pathetic fighters on the PC, exp after you see something like Soul
> Calibur!
>
> So I guess it just depends on what you like will decide which is
> better. Nothing wrong with having both be the best. :)
>
I agree 100%. The DC and the PC definitely compliment each other. First
person perspective games like Quake3, Unreal Tournament, and Team Fortress
II are something I will only play on my PC. Also strategy games like
StarCraft, TA: Kingdoms and Myth II are also PC only in my opinion.
But, sports and fighting games like NFL 2k, Soul Calibur, and Ready 2
Rumble are games that I will play on Dreamcast on my large television.
They are also games that I will play when the guys come over and want to
play.
Both systems have their own strengths and weaknesses but in the big
picture by owning both you really cover all the bases. The low cost of
the Dreamcast certainly makes owning both a realistic option.
L8R,
Bodo Knudsen
Remove .nospam. from email to reply
APR1
How about the fact that most PC games still have to be made to work
with the first generation of 3D cards which can only push around about
250,000 triangles/sec (I don't know the exact specs and so I'm taking
a reasonable guess here)? This sort of makes the high polygon counts
of Voodoo 3 and TNT2 pointless for today's games. Although, the
upcoming "Messiah" by Shiny features a technology where the polygon
count is scaled according to your systems capabilities. Hopefully more
PC games in the future will utilize something similar. Until then,
most DC games will have higher polygon count, or so it seems to me.
-APR1
"There is nothing out there, but the endless human stupidity."
Remove "NOSPAM" from e-mail addy to reply via e-mail.
Joe
>Not quite. Sure these video chips may be able to accept
>these insane number of polygons, but you're completely
>neglecting the ability of the CPU to transform and light
>all these wonderful triangles. There is no way you're going
>to see any Intel CPU in the near future process anything
>close to 7 million polygons.
But they may not have to. Next-generation 3D cards will almost
certainly include T&L hardware support.
Joe
John
om (Joe) wrote:
> But they may not have to. Next-generation 3D cards will almost
> certainly include T&L hardware support.
Right. That's pretty much what I wrote in the second half
of the post you just quoted, pointing out the upcoming chipsets
from 3DFX and NVidia.
CC
>superior in terms of polygon counts (7 million on the Voodoo3 vs. 3
>million on the DC's graphics chip).
In the real world you will never see a PC push that many polys...and
consequently the Dreamcast WILL outperform the current crop of 3d
accelerated PCs on every front. There are too many factors stopping the PC
from reaching the Video Card's potential performance:
1) CPU power. Not much to argue here, the Dreamcast's SH4 makes even the
fastest Pentium III look like a dog, no exceptions. This also ties into
component integration (see below)...right now, most video cards are hampered
by CPU processing power. The Dreamcast is not. The DC's SH4 is a monster
at FPU calculations, and so the PowerVR GFX accelerator in the DC is free to
push out as many polys and effects as it wants...the SH4 will easily handle
all of them. In the PC world, the Voodoo3 may WANT to push 7 million polys,
but YOU WILL NEVER get the PIII 700MHz processor to support it. DC wins
this battle.
2) Loose HW Integration: the different pieces of the PC don't integrate
tightly. Sometimes, they have a hard time working together at all. This
slows down communication across components and buses, and hence slows
overall real-world performance for the PC. The DC is integrated more
tightly, and developers can squeeze more performance out of it.
3) Market - publishers want a broad market base (more potential customers),
and so the games need to be designe dto work with older graphics cards/CPUs.
As a result, PC game programmers will never be free to fully push all the
polys they want (assuming even if the PIII CPU could handle them, which it
can't) because it will mean they have less people to sell games to. The DC
is not limited like this.
Steve Hilberg
>>Your PC is technologically
>>superior in terms of polygon counts (7 million on the Voodoo3 vs. 3
>>million on the DC's graphics chip).
>In the real world you will never see a PC push that many polys...and
>consequently the Dreamcast WILL outperform the current crop of 3d
>accelerated PCs on every front. There are too many factors stopping the PC
>from reaching the Video Card's potential performance:
>1) CPU power. Not much to argue here, the Dreamcast's SH4 makes even the
>fastest Pentium III look like a dog, no exceptions. This also ties into
>component integration (see below)...right now, most video cards are hampered
>by CPU processing power. The Dreamcast is not. The DC's SH4 is a monster
>at FPU calculations, and so the PowerVR GFX accelerator in the DC is free to
>push out as many polys and effects as it wants...the SH4 will easily handle
>all of them. In the PC world, the Voodoo3 may WANT to push 7 million polys,
>but YOU WILL NEVER get the PIII 700MHz processor to support it. DC wins
>this battle.
This is a joke, right? There's already 600 MHz P3's and 650 MHz Athlon's.
By this time next year we'll definitely have _at least_ 700 MHz processors.
Meanwhile, the console systems are stuck with their original hardware. Not
to mention the next generation of video cards is going to be released before
the end of the year, supposedly.
>2) Loose HW Integration: the different pieces of the PC don't integrate
>tightly. Sometimes, they have a hard time working together at all. This
>slows down communication across components and buses, and hence slows
>overall real-world performance for the PC. The DC is integrated more
>tightly, and developers can squeeze more performance out of it.
It also means the DC is stuck the way it is now. Not to mention, I'm not
really sure about the lack of integration you're citing here....I don't
think its quite as big a deal as you are making it sound.
>3) Market - publishers want a broad market base (more potential customers),
>and so the games need to be designe dto work with older graphics cards/CPUs.
>As a result, PC game programmers will never be free to fully push all the
>polys they want (assuming even if the PIII CPU could handle them, which it
>can't) because it will mean they have less people to sell games to. The DC
>is not limited like this.
That is why they have graphics settings that you can adjust -- but yes, it
does mean that for a while they will still have to support older hardware.
But there's already games that require a P2 or better and at least a first
generation (Voodoo1) card to reach any sort of good framerates.
This doesn't even get into the fact that the resolution on a TV sucks ass
compared to almost any monitor on the market...even my six year old 15"
screen that's slowly dying can do 1024x768 without flinching, while TVs
are stuck at something like 640x480 at the best....
--
Steve Hilberg <Necromancer> CCSO Workstation Support Group
<hil...@uiuc.edu> Unpublished Fiction Author
KB9TEV CCSO _still_ doesn't pay me enough to
speak for them, so I still don't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And if He ever suffered, it was me who did His crying...."
-- Concrete Blonde, "Tomorrow Wendy"
poldy
>Not quite. Sure these video chips may be able to accept
>these insane number of polygons, but you're completely
>neglecting the ability of the CPU to transform and light
>all these wonderful triangles. There is no way you're going
>to see any Intel CPU in the near future process anything
>close to 7 million polygons.
>
>This point in time, the Hitachi SH-4's 3D-centric FPU
>unit just has it all over Intel. The 200MHz SH-4 rates
>900 sustained MFLOPs (1200 peak), while the Pentium III 500
>rates 650 MFLOPs. It'll be interesting to see the next
>iterations of 3DFX and Nvidia boards with dedicated
>transform engines, but for now, don't count on your
>Voodoo3 pushing around anything close to 7 million
>polygons.
Any games anywhere which use anywhere near these capacities? Three or 7
million polygons per second? Or would these kinds of graphics only occur
on non-interactive tech demos?
CC
>By this time next year we'll definitely have _at least_ 700 MHz processors.
>Meanwhile, the console systems are stuck with their original hardware. Not
>to mention the next generation of video cards is going to be released
before
>the end of the year, supposedly.
You don't get it. I don't care how fast the Pentiums become...they CAN"T
COMPARE TO A 200MHz SH4 processor when it comes to FPU. FPU is ALL THAT
MATTERS WHEN IT COMES TO 3D. So go ahead and compare your 700MHz PIII to
the SH4...it WILL LOSE!!
>
>>2) Loose HW Integration: the different pieces of the PC don't integrate
>>tightly. Sometimes, they have a hard time working together at all. This
>>slows down communication across components and buses, and hence slows
>>overall real-world performance for the PC. The DC is integrated more
>>tightly, and developers can squeeze more performance out of it.
>
You're right, its not a big deal, but does have an impact (however
insignificant)
>
>>3) Market - publishers want a broad market base (more potential
customers),
>>and so the games need to be designe dto work with older graphics
cards/CPUs.
>>As a result, PC game programmers will never be free to fully push all the
>>polys they want (assuming even if the PIII CPU could handle them, which it
>>can't) because it will mean they have less people to sell games to. The
DC
>>is not limited like this.
>
>That is why they have graphics settings that you can adjust -- but yes, it
>does mean that for a while they will still have to support older hardware.
>But there's already games that require a P2 or better and at least a first
>generation (Voodoo1) card to reach any sort of good framerates.
>
And if you write your game to work with the first generation Voodoo1 card,
then your game is lame. Its poly count will not top 300,000 polys (all
Voodoo1 could handle was around 200,000 polys), and the DC beats it.
>This doesn't even get into the fact that the resolution on a TV sucks ass
>compared to almost any monitor on the market...even my six year old 15"
>screen that's slowly dying can do 1024x768 without flinching, while TVs
>are stuck at something like 640x480 at the best....
>
Right, PCs win here, but that's the only place they win. I'll hook up my DC
to a VGA box, get decent resolution (much better than a TVs 200+ lines), and
get a much HIGHER ploy count than any PC game to date. I prefer this over
high res but low poly gaming.
Joe
>Right. That's pretty much what I wrote in the second half
>of the post you just quoted, pointing out the upcoming chipsets
>from 3DFX and NVidia.
Doh! That's what I get for reading the first paragraph carefully and
just skimming the second. ;-)
Joe
PorkChicken
monitor with respect to resolution. What good are 7 billion trillion
polygons/second it you are stuck viewing them on a 640x480 resolution TV?
You might as well be playing Doom on a 486. Unreal in 1024x768 is
unbelieveable. Actually, I'd prefer playing Doom on a 486 than some glitzy
game-pad game on a DreamCast--- MULTIPLAYER! Ok, if they ship DCs with a
10baseT (not gonna happen) then maybe...
We all must admitt, console games are dummied down for mass appeal.
Console-only gamers miss out on so many cool game titles (I've yet to see a
good/fun flight sim on a console). Also, there simply aren't any good
controlers made for consoles (although I once heard a rumour that Sega made
some kind mouse). There are so many genres of computer games that cannot
effectively be played with a gamepad.
Consoles: low res, poor title selection, bad interface, and no multiplayer
(1 on 1 modem play doesn't count). If you get only one game machine, get a
PC. If you like to sit on the floor in front of your mom and dad's TV, get a
Sega.
--the other WhiteMeat
John wrote in message <7phgm9$p...@journal.concentric.net>...
>In article <37bc18c2...@nntp.mindspring.com>, jsm...@company.com (John
>Smith) wrote:
>
>> Your PC is technologically superior in terms of polygon
>> counts (7 million on the Voodoo3 vs. 3 million on the
>> DC's graphics chip).
>
Kisersose
Raheen Ballard <rah...@nni.com> wrote in message
news:37BB9D6B...@nni.com...
> Hi!
> I'm trying to figure out which platform will be the best overall
> system for games, the new Sega Dreamcast, or my current PC. Here's my
> basic setup:
>
> Pentium II 400mhz
> 128 Megs PC 100 RAM
> Voodoo 3 3000
> 36X CD-ROM
> Yamaha A3D surround sound card
>
>
> quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I admit...do
> you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as far as
> proccessing power? Or maybe with the next generation of video cards,
> PC's will take over again? Any advice, info, etc. appreciated!
Look at it this way. Without a Dreamcast, you won't be able to
play games like Soul Calibur, Crazy Taxi, Shenmue, etc. etc. On the pc side,
you have great exclusive games like System Shock 2 and Drakan that were just
released. So if you are real gamer that likes games of all genres, it's best
to own it all because you'll miss out on some hot exclusive games. If the
Dreamcast was a US based product marketed exclusively as a small pc, then
there would be no reason to get one. But because its supported by major
Japanese developers (pc gaming in Japan is nonexistent), you'll find great
exclusive arcade style games (if you are into that) that will only be seen
on Dreamcast.
As far as graphics power, this is where it gets sticky. The pc
destroys the Dreamcast in memory. No question about it. In fact, John
Carmack was recently asked about porting Quake 3 to the Dreamcast and he
said that he would have to remodel and retexture the levels because the
Dreamcast's smaller amount of memory couldn't handle an entire level
designed for the pc. Not only physical ram, but ever so important texture
memory like that found on the V3 and the 32 meg TNT2s. This basically means
more higher resolution, varied, and detailed texturing exists on the pc than
the Dreamcast. You also have your hard drive, which allows for more storage,
manipulation, and retrieval of data for games, not available on consoles.
That's why on almost all pc games, you can save anywhere you want, amongst
the many other things you can do, like creating new levels or mods.
Geometry or number of polygons is debatable. I think a game that
supports say a P3 with SSE or an Athlon with 3dnow will probably yield more
polys than what the Dreamcast is capable of. But this is the main problem in
the pc gaming world. PC developers can't develop their games with too high
of a required spec. They still have to yield to a slower speced machine
because they know that there is a smaller amount of pc gamers owning the
latest P3 or Athlon. The Dreamcast on the other hand is one machine. So the
developer on that platform can maximize the graphics output of their game,
knowing that it will run the same on all Dreamcasts. Also, geometry
acceleration (technically, tranform and lighting) is rumored to be done by
the next generation of pc 3d cards, like Nvidia's rumored NV10. Imagine
putting a PSX2 Emotion Engine like chip on a 3d card, which on top of that
will have higher fill rates to boot. 1600x1200x32 with 10 million polygons
per second w/texture compression, environmental bump-mapping, etc. running
at 60fps without the need to upgrade your CPU/motherboard/ram yet again
sounds very delightful, don't you agree?
Than you have positional 3D environmental audio surround sound
with the 3d sound cards on the pc. I'm sure the Yamaha DSP on the Dreamcast
is no slouch but I think you'll find a richer audio experience if you have
say a SB live card with 4 speakers connected (2 in the front and 2 in the
back) and crank up a game that has positional EAX support. Sounds incredible
if the EAX is programmed right and you have high quality speakers. Plus, you
have real force feedback joysticks, steering wheels, guns (yes, guns, Act
Labs is releasing their gun system for the pc), all sorts of gamepads (my
favorite is the Gravis Xterminator, this baby has everything and has the
best setup software). Damn, you even have 3d LCD shutterglasses, like the
Revelator glasses from Elsa. There are so many cool gaming components for
the pc that enhance your gaming experience.
BTW, Sega Rally 2 for the PC is out in Japan. Who knows, maybe
this will be the game that kickstarts a trend in 3d pc gaming over there and
gives Namco or Sega some motivation in porting some of their fighting games
for the pc. Anyways, the ones who have seen the game say that it not only
looks better than the Dreamcast version, probably due to running the game at
a higer resolution, but it runs alot faster as far as framerate goes. No
hiccups whatsoever, which was evident in the Dreamcast version. Finally, a
Sega PC game that's worthy of buying. Combine that with a force feedback
steering wheel, like the Act Labs Force RS, 3D LCD shutterglasses, and RIVA
TNT2 Ultra and you're set.
Mark H.
wrote:
>Hi!
> I'm trying to figure out which platform will be the best overall
>system for games, the new Sega Dreamcast, or my current PC. Here's my
>basic setup:
snip
>
>Well....I've seen some of the demos for Sega's new system, and to be
>quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I admit...do
>you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as far as
>proccessing power?
I don't like to look at it as a competition. I see them as being more
complimentary of each other. There will always be games that are on
the consoles that never make it to pc and vice versa. The Dc really
hasn't been out that long and so the developers haven't had the chance
to really push the hardware and learn all the tricks.
Remember how crappy some of the games were for the old SNES systems,
then towards the fading out of the system some of the best games
started to come out that I couldn't even beleive the snes was capable
of doing.
> Or maybe with the next generation of video cards,
>PC's will take over again? Any advice, info, etc. appreciated!
PC's will always regain the lead in the hardware race simply because
of their expandibility. With that comes 2 problems though.
Compatibility - How many times have you bought a pc game only to have
to wrestle with hardware, drivers, patches to get a playable
experience ?
Price - remember the DC is only selling for 199.00 . Thats about what
the average person will spend upgrading the video card or cpu, memory,
etc. With a console you get stability without the need for constant
upgrades just to play the latest game.
They each have there respective roles. I'll do both the pc and DC.
Sometimes I like the idea of just being able to buy a game , pop in
the cd and play without all the config hassles.
cc_daredevil
long. I mean consoles have computers inside them so PC's will always have
the edge of newer and better things on the bend. And as for your existing
computer, Keep that cause that stupid Console won't play HL, SS2, Q3A,
Tribes 2 and more. And the multiplayer is gunna suk. A 56K modem? It's
like going backwards in Technology. I'd rather have a ISDN, ADSL, T1. T3,
anything but that!
Richard Chang
cc_daredevil <vch...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7phjbb$iqn$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Even if consoles become more powerful than PC's it obviously won't last
for
> long. I mean consoles have computers inside them so PC's will always have
> the edge of newer and better things on the bend. And as for your existing
> computer, Keep that cause that stupid Console won't play HL, SS2, Q3A,
> Tribes 2 and more.
Yeah, PC has exclusives, but can you play SC, SA, NFL 2K, and Powerstone on
yourp PC? That one's a two way street that makes owning both a much better
idea. Besides, buying a DC and some games sets you back about the cost of a
new video card and sound card. Just skip the TNT2 upgrade or whatever's
next on your PC and pick up a DC.
> And the multiplayer is gunna suk. A 56K modem? It's
> like going backwards in Technology. I'd rather have a ISDN, ADSL, T1. T3,
> anything but that!
If you look on the back of the DC, there's a high-bandwidth slot for modems
and cards that will support DSL, cable, and LAN. At least that's what EGM
says. Besides, when the heck will any of the above standards become
widespread and cheap? All of those are still in their infancy at best.
Richard.
marcco
>Actually, what I would like to see on a console is a gamepad with a
>trackball. Imagine a N64 controller with those four yellow arrow buttons
That sounds like a great idea. Why the hell aren't console developers
doing that?
mark_kemp
It is bound to happen given the amount of PC conversions being talked
about for the DC.
mark_kemp
ICQ address: 36663572
email: mark...@bigpond.com
Human history becomes more and more a race between
education and catastrophe - H.G. Wells
David <mrpr...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ezxvi9l6#GA.51@cpmsnbbsa05...
| This one is simple... Can you say Mouse/Keyboard combo?
|
| David
|
| Raheen Ballard <rah...@nni.com> wrote in message
| news:37BB9D6B...@nni.com...
| > Hi!
| > I'm trying to figure out which platform will be the best
overall
| > system for games, the new Sega Dreamcast, or my current PC.
Here's my
| > basic setup:
| >
| > Pentium II 400mhz
| > 128 Megs PC 100 RAM
| > Voodoo 3 3000
| > 36X CD-ROM
| > Yamaha A3D surround sound card
| >
| >
| > Well....I've seen some of the demos for Sega's new system, and to
be
| > quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I
admit...do
| > you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as far as
| > proccessing power? Or maybe with the next generation of video
mark_kemp
hold off for the Playstation 2 which will probably sweep all before
it.
mark_kemp
ICQ address: 36663572
email: mark...@bigpond.com
Human history becomes more and more a race between
education and catastrophe - H.G. Wells
Dee
nice, but I have seen a lot of DC games in action and you don't even
take the lower res as a drawback. Things look better in that res
when they are designed to be seen that way. I am not saying it looks
as good, but the quality is a lot better than you think.
>Ok, what everyone seems to forget is the inferiority of a TV over a computer
>monitor with respect to resolution. What good are 7 billion trillion
>polygons/second it you are stuck viewing them on a 640x480 resolution TV?
---
AZIZ... LIGHT!
---
(I do not get email at this addr)
Sub-Z
television I don't think I will be bitching all that much about res. At the
moment all res does for me on PC is clean up the jagged edges on low poly
count PC games. If the edges are smooth to begin with at 640 there is not
much reason to complain.
Kisersose
PorkChicken <PorkC...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pi3s7$9o...@iac7.navix.net...
> Ok, what everyone seems to forget is the inferiority of a TV over a
computer
> monitor with respect to resolution. What good are 7 billion trillion
> polygons/second it you are stuck viewing them on a 640x480 resolution TV?
Blocky head, arms, body, legs, and any other body extremity
will still look blocky at 1600x1200. Two hot games were just released for
the PC, Drakan and SS2. Funny, I'm playing both games at 1024/768 and the
characters still look like shit, especially in SS2. Rynn needs some serious
plastic surgery. Her hands look like 2 cubes. When you see the character
detail in a game like Soul Calibur, which I doubt you have and will probably
never see, you will realize that it takes more than higher resolutions to
create a detailed environment with realistic looking characters that don't
have 2x4s for hands. Why do think there's been such a frenzy over the need
for T&L in the next generation of 3d cards for the pc. Because the Pentium
x86 architecture, which includes the Athlon, sucks dick when it comes to FPU
performance compared to a dedicated FPU chip, like the Hitachi SH-4 on the
Dreamcast. Add true hardware antialiasing or really, supersampling at
640x480, and the image looks just as good as 1600x1200, if not better. In
fact, the Dreamcast has a VGA output box that you can buy. Frankly, I still
see jagged edges on polygons in pc games, even at 1600x1200, as well as the
mentioned angular environments, objects, and characters. Adding more
polygons to a scene is more important to me than running at a higher
resolution, especially if you can add true hardware antialiasing, which none
of the current generation 3d cards can do on the pc. Only the T-buffer
technology is shown to do this without a performance penalty. The Dreamcast
I heard can do this right now. The problem is that there isn't a game that
takes advantage of its supersampling capability. I heard the upcoming Ready
to Rumble (think NFL Blitz meets boxing) will be the first to use this
untapped feature.
> We all must admitt, console games are dummied down for mass appeal.
> Console-only gamers miss out on so many cool game titles (I've yet to see
a
> good/fun flight sim on a console).
The same can be said the other way around. Thank god I
didn't miss Grand Turismo and Metal Gear Solid on the PSX. For the most
part, it's true that most console games are quick action arcade style games.
But there are mature gamers like myself that like to play those games once
in a while, especially if they are fun and have great graphics, which is
really what it's all about. Have you ever played Crazy Taxi in the arcades?
I have a blast playing this. One of the many arcade games coming out for the
Dreamcast that will be arcade perfect.
Also, there simply aren't any good
> controlers made for consoles (although I once heard a rumour that Sega
made
> some kind mouse). There are so many genres of computer games that cannot
> effectively be played with a gamepad.
The main reason is simply because there are hardly any FPS
games for the consoles. I'm pretty sure there will be a mouse and keyboard
released. It comes with internet software, primarily designed to set up your
multiplayer internet game. For surfing, no doubt it's better to use your
higher resolution pc, but for those that can't afford a pc, it's a great
added feature for them. How does Sega expect users to move around the net,
with their gamepads?
> Consoles: low res, poor title selection, bad interface, and no multiplayer
> (1 on 1 modem play doesn't count). If you get only one game machine, get a
> PC. If you like to sit on the floor in front of your mom and dad's TV, get
a
> Sega.
This is BS. This is exactly why I hate these threads.
Because it brings forth so much misinformation on both sides due to plain
ignorance. The Dreamcast comes with a builit in modem for online
multiplayer gaming and 4 built in gameports. Does this count enough as a
multiplayer capable machine to you? Low res? Get the VGA box. Bad interface?
For each individual game? Lots of pc games have bad interfaces. And I'm sure
if you can afford to upgrade your pc, an extra $199 for a Dreamcast isn't a
major investment. You get the best of both worlds. I'll use my standard VGA
DB15 input on my monitor for the Dreamcast and the BNC connection for my
TNT2 Ultra.
Ajaipal Tanwar
Kisersose <ama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The main reason is simply because there are hardly any FPS
>games for the consoles. I'm pretty sure there will be a mouse and keyboard
>released. It comes with internet software, primarily designed to set up your
>multiplayer internet game. For surfing, no doubt it's better to use your
>higher resolution pc, but for those that can't afford a pc, it's a great
>added feature for them. How does Sega expect users to move around the net,
>with their gamepads?
Actually, what I would like to see on a console is a gamepad with a
trackball. Imagine a N64 controller with those four yellow arrow buttons
spaced out a little further with a trackball in the center. The left hand
could use the joystick, and the right could aim with the trackball.
--
Ajay Tanwar, University of Texas at Austin
Ajaipal Tanwar
>You don't get it. I don't care how fast the Pentiums become...they CAN"T
>COMPARE TO A 200MHz SH4 processor when it comes to FPU. FPU is ALL THAT
>MATTERS WHEN IT COMES TO 3D. So go ahead and compare your 700MHz PIII to
>the SH4...it WILL LOSE!!
Gee, I wonder where the stereotype that console users are immature got
started :-)
(Disclaimer: I'm not calling all console users immature, just this
particular one)
Consoles and PCs are apples and oranges when it comes to games. Console
games are strong in some genres, PCs are stronger than others. Even in
terms of hardware, PCs are more expensive, more flexible, and upgradable.
Consoles are cheaper, usually more impressive eyecandy-wise when they
debut (although PC catch up and exceed them rather quickly), and less
flexible.
When it comes down on which one to buy, if you can afford a PC, you can
probably afford to get a console as well and get the best of both worlds.
(ironic twist: My wife does not mind me spending $2500 on a PC, but balks
at spending $99 for a Playstation).
Rob Hughes
Yeah, that reminded me of when the N64 came out and it's graphics were just
stunning. Then, like a year later I got a V2 card and played some eye-candy
games like Unreal. A friend of mine then got Zelda. Well, no more stunning
graphics. They were good, but not as good. I imagine it will be a similar
thing here. The Dreamcast will be able to push more poly's now, but in 6-8
months, the PC will probably catch up. I'm still gonna get one though :).
-Rob Hughes, also UT-Austin
cc_daredevil
>Yeah, PC has exclusives, but can you play SC, SA, NFL 2K, and Powerstone on
>yourp PC? That one's a two way street that makes owning both a much better
>idea. Besides, buying a DC and some games sets you back about the cost of
a
>new video card and sound card. Just skip the TNT2 upgrade or whatever's
>next on your PC and pick up a DC.
>
That may be true for now but in a year or two the DC will turn out just like
the Genesis or Saturn. Never played and forgotten. At least the video card
and sound card u bought will still have life. Look at a game like Quake.
for the price of a voodoo and the game in 1996 u could have bought whatever
was good back then. after beating it then what?? at least Quake and that
voodoo lasted.
>> And the multiplayer is gunna suk. A 56K modem? It's
>> like going backwards in Technology. I'd rather have a ISDN, ADSL, T1.
T3,
>> anything but that!
>
>If you look on the back of the DC, there's a high-bandwidth slot for modems
>and cards that will support DSL, cable, and LAN. At least that's what EGM
>says. Besides, when the heck will any of the above standards become
>widespread and cheap? All of those are still in their infancy at best.
>
Maybe but these technololgies are more common among PC gamers because
playing Pc games requires a little more knowlegde than consoles. I doubt
the majority of console players even know what ADSL or ISDN are or that they
could be used for better gaming
Bob Lionel
matter how good dreamcast games look they are still at low resolution and
make me want to puke. An example is NHL 99, play it on a Playstation then
play it in hi-res on a computer. There is just not any comparison.
Bob Lionel
Combat Systems, Inc
Bob Lionel
other low resolution.
Bob Lionel
Combat Systems, Inc
poldy <h...@nospam.kfu.com> wrote in message
news:hyn-190899...@paris11-48-26.dial.proxad.net...
> In article <7phgm9$p...@journal.concentric.net>, nos...@here.com (John)
wrote:
>
> >Not quite. Sure these video chips may be able to accept
> >these insane number of polygons, but you're completely
> >neglecting the ability of the CPU to transform and light
> >all these wonderful triangles. There is no way you're going
> >to see any Intel CPU in the near future process anything
> >close to 7 million polygons.
> >
> >This point in time, the Hitachi SH-4's 3D-centric FPU
> >unit just has it all over Intel. The 200MHz SH-4 rates
> >900 sustained MFLOPs (1200 peak), while the Pentium III 500
> >rates 650 MFLOPs. It'll be interesting to see the next
> >iterations of 3DFX and Nvidia boards with dedicated
> >transform engines, but for now, don't count on your
> >Voodoo3 pushing around anything close to 7 million
> >polygons.
>
Raheen Ballard
monitor than your TV...up close 640 on my 25" TV might look like crap, but from
6 or 7 feet away (as opposed to a foot or two from my 17" monitor), it looks
pretty damn good to me!
Sub-Z wrote:
> When we get to the day a console produces graphics just like real life on a
> television I don't think I will be bitching all that much about res. At the
> moment all res does for me on PC is clean up the jagged edges on low poly
> count PC games. If the edges are smooth to begin with at 640 there is not
> much reason to complain.
>
> >>Ok, what everyone seems to forget is the inferiority of a TV over a
> computer
> >>monitor with respect to resolution. What good are 7 billion trillion
> >>polygons/second it you are stuck viewing them on a 640x480 resolution TV?
> >
Sub-Z
Tempora
Bob Lionel <blionelJ...@home.com> wrote in message
news:aZhv3.13341$_H.7...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> I'd puke before I'd play any game at a resolutionis below 1024x768 again.
No
> matter how good dreamcast games look they are still at low resolution and
> make me want to puke. An example is NHL 99, play it on a Playstation then
> play it in hi-res on a computer. There is just not any comparison.
>
We're comparing to a Dreamcast here, not PSX games that runs at 320x240 with
super low-res textures. You obviously never seen a Dreamcast game running,
with that statement.
> Bob Lionel
> Combat Systems, Inc
>
>
Mike R. Ponicki
Knudsen) wrote:
>
>>
>> But I WON'T play 1st PPOV games on the DC simply because I can't stand
>> doing those games with a joypad instead of a mouse! (couldn't stand
>> Goldeneye on the N64 for that reason) And I won't even look at the
>> pathetic fighters on the PC, exp after you see something like Soul
>> Calibur!
>>
>> So I guess it just depends on what you like will decide which is
>> better. Nothing wrong with having both be the best. :)
>>
>
>
>I agree 100%. The DC and the PC definitely compliment each other. First
>person perspective games like Quake3, Unreal Tournament, and Team Fortress
>II are something I will only play on my PC. Also strategy games like
>StarCraft, TA: Kingdoms and Myth II are also PC only in my opinion.
>
>But, sports and fighting games like NFL 2k, Soul Calibur, and Ready 2
>Rumble are games that I will play on Dreamcast on my large television.
>They are also games that I will play when the guys come over and want to
>play.
>
>Both systems have their own strengths and weaknesses but in the big
>picture by owning both you really cover all the bases. The low cost of
>the Dreamcast certainly makes owning both a realistic option.
>
>
>L8R,
>
>Bodo Knudsen
>Remove .nospam. from email to reply
Yup, I agree with that too. That's always been the case: consoles do
platformers, fighters, and japanese RPG's. PC's do rts, fps, and
ultima-esque RPG's
-Sniper
Blaze Firestormer
640X480 ISN'T THAT BAD!!!
Especially if the games are being made with that res. in mind.
--
Homer Simpson- "Come on Mojo, do your happy dance"
*PRAY FOR MOJO*
**_BLAZE FIRESTORMER_**
Sub-Z <s...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:yLiv3.277$744....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Blaze Firestormer
They day Dreamcast is out, my P2 450 with Banshee will be gathering dust.
Well, cept when I need to play Civ 2.
You are obviously ignorant. Makes you want to puke? Go right ahead. I
hate Fanboys!!!!
I like WCW, I like WWF. I like 3dfx, I like anything else. I like
Microsoft, I like Apple. (Well, that's a lie...) I like Rock and roll and I
like Will Smith!
So keep defending what you've spent so much money on, trying to make
yourself feel better. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. And that's the
bottom line, Who's next, brother?
--
Homer Simpson- "Come on Mojo, do your happy dance"
*PRAY FOR MOJO*
**_BLAZE FIRESTORMER_**
Bob Lionel <blionelJ...@home.com> wrote in message
news:aZhv3.13341$_H.7...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> I'd puke before I'd play any game at a resolutionis below 1024x768 again.
No
> matter how good dreamcast games look they are still at low resolution and
> make me want to puke. An example is NHL 99, play it on a Playstation then
> play it in hi-res on a computer. There is just not any comparison.
>
John
<Han...@erinet.com> wrote:
> 640X480 ISN'T THAT BAD!!!
Not at all, and if you consider the natural antialiasing effect
that your TV set has, 640x480 is more than reasonable for a
game console.
John
<blionelJ...@home.com> wrote:
> Those numbers mean nothing if you are forced to play at
> 640x480 or some other low resolution.
Man, must be tough watching those crummy 640x480 DVDs on
your TV, eh? Oh the pain!
Blaze Firestormer
I find that hard to believe.....
> I saw a Dreamcast at Best Buy and was not at all impressed.
> -Terry
Michael R. Baraniecki
<i_hv3.13344$_H.7...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>:
> Those numbers mean nothing if you are forced to play at 640x480 or some
>other low resolution.
>
It's odd how a DC game like Sonic running at 640*480 looks much more
detailed and higher res than pc games running at 800*600.
People can tout graphics, numbers, specs. papers, etc etc... but the proof
is in the pudding... and for now, the pudding's tastier on the DC. :)
--
-Mike
Michael R. Baraniecki
uni...@netcom.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6470
Videogame MIDIs and Space Ghost sounds galore
Terry
-Terry
Bill Montgomery
It's all about the type of Games that you like to play. I have a similar
setup on my PC at home. I have 500mhz P3, 128mb PC100 RAM, DVD drive,
CD-R/RW, 16mb TNT card, 19" monitor. This setup may sound impressive and it
may look good on paper, but ask yourself "what kind of games do I like to
play?" I love fighting games, but I'm out of luck with my PC. The PC only
does a small number of genres very well. The first-person-shooter,
strategy, and wargames. That's about it. If you want good action or arcade
type games, then I would have to say that the DC is better.
Bob Lionel
are good for. I'm kinda old to play Sonic the Hedgehog. They will also never
release a flight sim for the DC either so that kinda steers me clear too. A
console will never outperform a PC as a gaming platform. The pc is just too
versatile, too useful. What the fuck is a fanboy anyway? As for the money
I've spent on my pc? Hey its a write off, business expense. I upgrade every
time a faster processor comes out. I love changing hardware, hell it even
gives me a hard on. All I have to do is just think about my P3 600 being
fedex'd to me next week so I can yank out this P3 550 and put it in one of
my workstations. To the above poster, I have seen DC games, TV resolution
will just never impress me. I've also got one of the first Sony High
Definition TV's but there are only 2 stations broadcasting in HD here in
Dallas so its playing low res right now. Oh well...thats what the PC is for.
Bob Lionel
Combat Systems, Inc.
Blaze Firestormer <Han...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:yRjv3.708$3j1....@news.oh.voyager.net...
John
<blionelJ...@home.com> wrote:
>I'd puke before I'd play any game at a resolutionis below 1024x768 again.
Good lord. Does frame-rate even matter to you? I have a Pentium II 400
and a TNT-based card, and I run all of the newer games (Quake 3,
Half-Life, Kingpin, etc.) at 640x480 or lower. I don't even play Quake
1 at 1024x768. I'd rather play a consistant 60fps game than a
consistant 20fps picture.
>No matter how good dreamcast games look they are still at low resolution and
>make me want to puke.
Since when is 640x480 low resolution? All Dreamcast games run at a
default resolution of 640x480. That's on par with DVD, and both
Dreamcast and DVD are meant to be played on a television set, not a
monitor.
>An example is NHL 99, play it on a Playstation then
>play it in hi-res on a computer. There is just not any comparison.
You don't mention the fact that the PlayStation version runs at
320x240 with no texture filtering or any other hardware-based effects
that make polygons and textures look nicer. The PlayStation came out
in Novermber of 1994 in Japan. Considering that 75MHz Pentium
processors were state-of-the-art at that time, it's amazing that the
PlayStation can still produce halfway decent graphics (Final Fantasy,
Resident Evil, numerous cell-based 2D games, etc.).
What on God's green earth does a 5 year old system have to do with the
Dreamcast anyway? That's like comparing said Pentium 75 to a current
Pentium III 500.
>Bob Lionel
>Combat Systems, Inc
Combat Systems? Is that a development house? If so, it's a shame that
you're too close-minded to draw influences from console games. John
Romero's greatest influences were Japanese developers, and you and I
both know that he was the mastermind behind how Wolfenstein, Doom, and
Quake played (Carmack did the engines, and he made the games--he was
the lead designed of all of id's games up until he got fired shortly
after Quake came out). You need to open your mind and realize that
there's more to video gaming than the American PC scene. Some of the
best PC developers draw influences from console games and vice-versa.
Variety is a good thing.
John
<blionelJ...@home.com> wrote:
>I guess consoles are ok if you like braindead games but thats about all they
>are good for.
Anyone who says something like this is obviously too biased to listen
to reason. This is like saying that Fords are for rednecks who live in
a mobile home or that anyone who participates in team sports is a
mindless jock. Stereotypes usually have little to do with fact.
>I'm kinda old to play Sonic the Hedgehog.
So you measure a game's worth by how "cute" it is? Do you think that
playing a game with a "cute" main character will somehow rob you of
your masculinity? Do you have something against surreal video games?
Are you obsessed with realism?
Just because something doesn't have the same sort of depth as a flight
sim doesn't mean that it isn't deep. There are many degrees of depth.
Just because a game only uses a few buttons doesn't automatically make
it more shallow than a flight sim that uses an entire keyboard. Depth
is measured in how a game plays, not how complex the control system
is. For example, does a game like Street Fighter, with hundreds and
hundreds of moves and controller combination (maybe even thousands, if
you count each variation of a given combo), have more depth than a
flight sim because it has more complex button combinations? There is
no answer to this because depth of gameplay is subjective.
>They will also never release a flight sim for the DC either so that kinda steers
>me clear too.
How do you know? It's relatively easy to port a PC game to the
Dreamcast. If there's any sort of demand for flight sims in the
console marketplace, someone will eventually release one. Hardware
isn't holding it back--demand is.
>A
>console will never outperform a PC as a gaming platform.
That depends on how you define gaming. As much as I like my PC, I'm
not too blind to see that the variety of what comes out for it is
rather limited. If you're a hardcore first-person shooter, strategy,
or flight sim fan, then you'll be happy with only your PC. If your
tastes are more diversified (Japanese arcade ports, fighting games,
third-person action platformers, Japanese-style scripted RPGs, etc.),
a PC will not be enough. This is why I keep up with both PCs and
consoles.
>The pc is just too
>versatile, too useful.
Lets focus on the subject at hand. The poster who started this thread
asked how well a Dreamcast can play games when compared to his PC, not
how well it could run Wordperfect. We all know that you can't
multi-task on a console, so that argument is moot. Consoles are
game-playing machines.
>What the fuck is a fanboy anyway?
Somebody who is too close-minded to see another point-of-view and
thinks that their opinion is gospel. This is a term used mainly to
describe certain console elitists, but it can be used to describe
other sorts of elitists as well. PC and console advocates hate each
other with a passion, but they're more alike than they care to admit.
>I upgrade every
>time a faster processor comes out. I love changing hardware, hell it even
>gives me a hard on. All I have to do is just think about my P3 600 being
>fedex'd to me next week so I can yank out this P3 550 and put it in one of
>my workstations.
I'm glad you enjoy hardware that much. I enjoy yanking my PC apart
myself. I got it a little over three years ago, and it took me all of
6 months to open it up for the first time and take it apart. I learned
how to take apart and rebuild PCs on my own, and it's something that I
enjoy doing. We're getting off the subject again, though.
>To the above poster, I have seen DC games, TV resolution
>will just never impress me.
You can find fault in anything if you try hard enough. If you don't
want to be impressed something, you won't be, no matter how good
something is. You aren't in the right frame-of-mind to be impressed by
a console--that much is readily apparent. So far, 400,000 American
disagree with you, but I'm sure you'll dismiss them as being
"braindead", since they're buying a "braindead" console (guilty by
association), and they're impressed by that wretched 640x480 "TV
resolution".
>I've also got one of the first Sony High
>Definition TV's but there are only 2 stations broadcasting in HD here in
>Dallas so its playing low res right now.
I know from first-hand experience that digital sources (DVD, DSS, all
post-NES consoles that use S-Video/RGB) look great on HDTV sets. I
don't know what you're complaining about since digital sets looks much
better than standard analog sets when displaying any sort of signal.
Most early adopters bought a digital set for that reason alone. Take
advantage of that "TV resolution". instead of complaining about it.
Until HDTV signals become more common, enjoy what you currently have.
>Oh well...thats what the PC is for.
Then why did you buy an HDTV set? Obviously you didn't buy it on
potential alone because you think that the PC is the only device that
is meant to display high resolution images. "That's what the PC is
for", right?
>Bob Lionel
>Combat Systems, Inc.
<snip>
Masu...@yahoo.com
Dreamcast Games then buy Dreamcast like me but, since Dreamcast uses
Microsoft Windows CE OS and because of that I heard from many reliable
sources like next-generation online and nuke.com that Dreamcast Games
can and will be ported to the PC very shortly and easily. I myself want
a Dreamcast and will buy it because theres no hassle about requirements
and it costs very cheap! Dreamcast is made for multiplayer games and I
will buy it for that reason, so will others. It all depends on what you
want to do with it. If you want to play Multiplayer games very smoothly
and not want to waste electricity then get a Dreamcast but if not then
stay with the PC. One more thing, not all Dreamcast Games will be on
the PC!
In article <37BB9D6B...@nni.com>,
Raheen Ballard <rah...@nni.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> I'm trying to figure out which platform will be the best overall
> system for games, the new Sega Dreamcast, or my current PC. Here's my
> basic setup:
>
> Pentium II 400mhz
> 128 Megs PC 100 RAM
> Voodoo 3 3000
> 36X CD-ROM
> Yamaha A3D surround sound card
>
> Well....I've seen some of the demos for Sega's new system, and to be
> quite honest, I'm VERY impressed. I'm all about eye candy, I
admit...do
> you guys think PC's (like mine) will be able to compete as far as
> proccessing power? Or maybe with the next generation of video cards,
> PC's will take over again? Any advice, info, etc. appreciated!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
The Artful Dodger
>games are strong in some genres, PCs are stronger than others. Even in
>terms of hardware, PCs are more expensive, more flexible, and upgradable.
>Consoles are cheaper, usually more impressive eyecandy-wise when they
>debut (although PC catch up and exceed them rather quickly), and less
>flexible.
Well, it depends. Consoles and PCs take different routes when it comes
to "eye candy". PC eye candy seems to depend on hardware: how much
frames per second you can push, what the res of the screen is, that
sort of thing. A lot of the time the actual art and/or textures are
only OK, but the PC pushes them to look really good. This is mostly
because of the fact that PC developers have to support a lot of stuff,
and can't really aim high-end it seems. A console developer has set
parameters; although the PC quickly surpasses them, a console
developer has time and inclination to squeeze every drop of beauty the
console can provide, working within the limitations of the console and
using the familiarity to make it dance. MGS is a great example; even
on a relative 3d dog like the PSX, it's still pretty special, because
it uses a combination of good texturing, 2d stuff blended in (consoles
handle 2d like a dream and the developers know it like the back of
their hands) and creative camera work/artistic work to make it look
good DESPITE the system, rather than because of it. FF8 looks to be
the same way; by smart texturing and design, integration of FMV and
flat background images even the PSX can put out something truly
beautiful. It's all about the developer, not the system.
>
>When it comes down on which one to buy, if you can afford a PC, you can
>probably afford to get a console as well and get the best of both worlds.
>(ironic twist: My wife does not mind me spending $2500 on a PC, but balks
>at spending $99 for a Playstation).
Too bad; A PSX costs two PC games, and has an enormous library.
Sounds like she can't get over the "video games are for kids" thing.
It isn't as big as it was years ago, but it still rears its ugly head
now and then. :D
>--
>Ajay Tanwar, University of Texas at Austin
The Artful Dodger
(cbam...@bconnex.net)
The Artful Dodger
wrote:
>This one is simple... Can you say Mouse/Keyboard combo?
For Sonic? No thanks. Soul Calibur would be a mite tricky with this
setup too. :D
Then again, the other poster is right; a mouse/KB thing for the DC
would be simple enough.
The Artful Dodger
(cbam...@bconnex.net)
The Artful Dodger
<vch...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, PC has exclusives, but can you play SC, SA, NFL 2K, and Powerstone on
>>yourp PC? That one's a two way street that makes owning both a much better
>>idea. Besides, buying a DC and some games sets you back about the cost of
>a
>>new video card and sound card. Just skip the TNT2 upgrade or whatever's
>>next on your PC and pick up a DC.
>>
>
>That may be true for now but in a year or two the DC will turn out just like
>the Genesis or Saturn. Never played and forgotten. At least the video card
>and sound card u bought will still have life. Look at a game like Quake.
>for the price of a voodoo and the game in 1996 u could have bought whatever
>was good back then. after beating it then what?? at least Quake and that
>voodoo lasted.
"Never played and forgotten"? Huh? The genesis I have I STILL play.
Great games are great games. Um, and quake lasts because it's a
multiplayer game. So is Virtua Fighter 2, and it's on the saturn. Both
have followings; both are dedicated. So your point is?
>
>
>>> And the multiplayer is gunna suk. A 56K modem? It's
>>> like going backwards in Technology. I'd rather have a ISDN, ADSL, T1.
>T3,
>>> anything but that!
>>
>>If you look on the back of the DC, there's a high-bandwidth slot for modems
>>and cards that will support DSL, cable, and LAN. At least that's what EGM
>>says. Besides, when the heck will any of the above standards become
>>widespread and cheap? All of those are still in their infancy at best.
>>
>
>Maybe but these technololgies are more common among PC gamers because
>playing Pc games requires a little more knowlegde than consoles. I doubt
>the majority of console players even know what ADSL or ISDN are or that they
>could be used for better gaming
They're more common because they've been on the PC only. The majority
of console players who would care about online gaming would know
perfectly well about high-bandwidth, a large proportion of them being
online; if they weren't Sega would make sure they found out when Sega
starts developing high-bandwidth connectivity. They're already
investing in it in Japan; the modem is detachable and replacable for a
reason. Can you say "cable companies with DC connectors hooking the DC
up to the cable modem to your house"? Sure you could. Ditto ISDN.
>
>
>
>
The Artful Dodger
(cbam...@bconnex.net)
The Artful Dodger
<mark...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Your PC will be good for gaming for a while yet. You might want to
>hold off for the Playstation 2 which will probably sweep all before
>it.
Unlikely. It'll be about as ahead of the curve when released as the DC
is now. The specs are only scary because they were released early and
compared to the already-out DC. When viewed in light of the probably
PC market when it hits the states, it's powerful but not overwhelming.
Meanwhile the DC will have some great games, and it'll still have them
when the PSX2 comes out. Get both.
The Artful Dodger
(cbam...@bconnex.net)
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>>probably afford to get a console as well and get the best of both worlds.
>>(ironic twist: My wife does not mind me spending $2500 on a PC, but balks
>>at spending $99 for a Playstation).
>
>Too bad; A PSX costs two PC games, and has an enormous library.
>Sounds like she can't get over the "video games are for kids" thing.
>It isn't as big as it was years ago, but it still rears its ugly head
>now and then. :D
>
My solution is to run bleem.
Kay-Yut
MC
My solution is to dump my psx for the salvos..
Soni-ku
Brian Osserman wrote in message <7pvmo0$mj8$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
>In article <37c35b69...@news.ntplx.net>, Taz <taz...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>The DC has full scene AA so it gets rid of the jaged edges anyways :)
>>thats why their 640x480 res looks so darn good...
>
> Actually, hardly any games use this. I believe the first to do so will
>be Ready 2 Rumble, hopefully to be followed by several others. Of course,
>when it is used, it should make games look exceedingly good for their
>resolution.
Um...nearly all DC games (especially the ones supporting the VGA box) run in
640x480.
FutureDreamcastBuyer
news:7pvmo0$mj8$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Actually, hardly any games use this. I believe the first to do so will
> be Ready 2 Rumble, hopefully to be followed by several others. Of course,
> when it is used, it should make games look exceedingly good for their
> resolution.
I just hope it doesn't make things look exceedingly soft,
especially through VGA.
FutureDreamcastBuyer
news:7pvpbg$ab0$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> Um...nearly all DC games (especially the ones supporting
> the VGA box) run in 640x480.
It sounded like the guy was talking about AA, not
resolution.
Brian Osserman
>The DC has full scene AA so it gets rid of the jaged edges anyways :)
>thats why their 640x480 res looks so darn good...
Actually, hardly any games use this. I believe the first to do so will
be Ready 2 Rumble, hopefully to be followed by several others. Of course,
when it is used, it should make games look exceedingly good for their
resolution.
Brian
www.sega-dreams.com
astropup
ol gaming is a very select bunch. Ask my cousins (who own a psx,
n64, sega saturn, sega and NES) wtf a dsl line is and they won't know.
Face it; the vast majority of consoles are owned by kiddies. Not knocking
any of the adult console owners; i still break out the snes and play return
of the jedi now and again, but really, that is the target audience. There are
relatively few of these people out there.
LK
>but you forget that this "majority" of console players who care about
>ol gaming is a very select bunch. Ask my cousins (who own a psx,
>n64, sega saturn, sega and NES) wtf a dsl line is and they won't know.
>Face it; the vast majority of consoles are owned by kiddies. Not knocking
>any of the adult console owners; i still break out the snes and play return
>of the jedi now and again, but really, that is the target audience. There are
>relatively few of these people out there.
I think you can safely say the N64 is targeted at kids, but the PSX is
targeted at all age levels...and the selection and subject matter of the games
shows it.
Rodrigo Andrade
you want games with content and real gameplay, where eye candy is just an
accessory to enhance gameplay--not gameplay itself--then you want to stick
with your PC.
--
RODRIGO
====================================================================
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
-- Black
Sabbath
Dee
C&C, or Homeworld , then yes you are correct. However seeing how C&C
showed up on the Playstation you can't say PC is the winner there. But
the mass of PC games are action types :)
But MANY console games do have a good sense of game play for their
kind of games. There are a lot of Resident Evil type games, which
have their own brand of solid gameplay. They have all sorts of great
sport games, which have all of good gameplay. Tons of fighting
games..all have their own quality game play. Tons of arcade racing
games which again, have their own solid gameplay. All of the above is
done better on the DC than on the PC. All have content a real
gameplay.
So I see a lot of great game play. Maybe it is not your style of
game, but that doesn't make it any less of what it is. But the fact
is, most PC games are going the route of all eyecandy as well. How
much 3dfx goodies can we squeeze in etc. :) The PC does have great
games, but they have a DIFFERENT kind of gameplay, not better.
---
Trent
>
> If you're all eye candy, get a DC; that's what it's all about. However, if
> you want games with content and real gameplay, where eye candy is just an
> accessory to enhance gameplay--not gameplay itself--then you want to stick
> with your PC.
>
> --
> RODRIGO
I think lots of console games have deep gameplay. Gran Turismo for the
PlayStation is the deepest and most complex racing game I've ever
played. Other racers just pale in comparison. Many console RPG's,
while linear, still have great gameplay.
Another plus is that console games can be a lot cheaper. There are a
TON of PlayStation games that are $20 now, including Final Fantasy 7,
Tomb Raider 1 & 2, and the aforementioned Gran Turismp.
Sondog
favorite.
Sondog
Trent <Drumm...@aol.com> wrote in message news:37C7F2...@aol.com...
Paul Rice
800x600 plus. If you look at textured sky water and stuff get out of here with
that 640x480. Do falcon 4.0 on DC and lets talk . I admit DC has eye candy but
res counts too and anyone whom tells you differently is lying or not looking.
If you care to differ turn and keep your pc on 640x480.
Paul
Bob Lionel wrote:
> Those numbers mean nothing if you are forced to play at 640x480 or some
> other low resolution.
>
> Bob Lionel
> Combat Systems, Inc
>
> poldy <h...@nospam.kfu.com> wrote in message
> news:hyn-190899...@paris11-48-26.dial.proxad.net...
> > In article <7phgm9$p...@journal.concentric.net>, nos...@here.com (John)
> wrote:
> >
> > >Not quite. Sure these video chips may be able to accept
> > >these insane number of polygons, but you're completely
> > >neglecting the ability of the CPU to transform and light
> > >all these wonderful triangles. There is no way you're going
> > >to see any Intel CPU in the near future process anything
> > >close to 7 million polygons.
> > >
> > >This point in time, the Hitachi SH-4's 3D-centric FPU
> > >unit just has it all over Intel. The 200MHz SH-4 rates
> > >900 sustained MFLOPs (1200 peak), while the Pentium III 500
> > >rates 650 MFLOPs. It'll be interesting to see the next
> > >iterations of 3DFX and Nvidia boards with dedicated
> > >transform engines, but for now, don't count on your
> > >Voodoo3 pushing around anything close to 7 million
> > >polygons.
> >
> > Any games anywhere which use anywhere near these capacities? Three or 7
> > million polygons per second? Or would these kinds of graphics only occur
> > on non-interactive tech demos?