> > Wasn't it supposed to be difficult to develop for, or something? That never helps a
> > system's success.
>
> Nope. They went to a lot of effort to make it feel very similar to the then-popular
> standard of developing for 3dfx GLIDE. By contrast, PS2 used an architecture very
> similar to Sega's own Model 2 board which required writing DSP assembly to draw a
> single triangle on the screen. Developers complained bitterly, and a lot went with
> Criterion's Renderware engine to avoid the issue (most famously GTA 3/Vice City/San
> Andreas), but even niche PS2 titles sold well given how huge the hardware installed
> base was.
>
> Specs was kind of a wash. PS2 could do more geometery detail and had a little more
> CPU grunt, Dreamcast could do more texture detail and SH-series code compiles to
> about 2/3rds the size of MIPS so you had more RAM available. But PS2 had more RAM,
> period.
>
> If it was hard to develop for, it wouldn't have been wildly popular in arcades.
> There's a *lot* of Naomi (and later Atomiswave) titles.
Did we ever see the best of the Dreamcast, Shenmue 2 was pretty but still looked outdated compared to Xbox the PS2 titles. I think the Dreamcast hardware was just outdated by the PS2 and Xbox to put it simply, as you would expect, as they were released after. The Naomi 2 games didn't look outdated but they used 2 boards, Initial D stage 3 everything looked fantastic except for the rocks, something had to give i guess to make the games not look outdated to those without a keen eye.
I am the original retro game dork.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Where did SEGA go wrong with the Dreamcast!
Reply
