the dream cast has the mgs called the twin snakes. . . but this video is the Ps1 version. . .dude y love this game and the comparation is awesome. . .but the bug graphics just crap a little bit. . .after alll dream cat with bleem is 85% perfect. . .stay well dude
what i do love is how dremcast can keep up with a system that is almost 2 years older than it. playstation 2 also had a bigger disk drive due to dvd and dremcast only had a cd.. but still managed to do really good
@demonicxxx the Reason is Dreamcast actually belonged to the new Gen Consoles. It was on the same level as Game Cube, PS2 and XBOX. The Gamecube had the same disks with 1,2 GB as Dreamcast. The Dreamcast was in all on the same level but unfortunately came one year (not two years actually) before the PS2. And for that it was very expensive for it time. SO no body did buy it cause the Ps one and Nintendo 64 were still alive and Games were produced so why buy a new console? This destroyed Sega.
@MrJuCezar you have done your research but not all that good ;) in the start sega lost a lot of fans due to sega saturns failure!! hard to program games on it.. not to mention the epic fail of 32X and sega cd! all that technology came out to close together! dreamcast had it right the first time.. but since bad advertising. lots of sega fans lost and at the very end sega was gonna keep making sports games but they lost the EA sports contract.. That was a big HIT!!.
@MrJuCezar Actually Gamecube discs held alot more than 1.2gb. They held 1.8gb and the Dreamcast wasnt really that expensive...alot of people actually bought it at launch and in just two weeks it sold half a million units. It sold so well Sega were unable to keep up with demand lol. Bad mistakes by Sega are to blame though like the 32X and Sega CD which (In my opinion) should never have been made and well after that most people held out for the PS2 which was also a Dvd player.
@Johfunu your wrog too. thats not true I had a friend who had such disks. usually Came Cube was known to have 1,2 GB but in reality it had 1,5 GB. Thats only 300 mb more. The main Point is that the Dreamcast as a whole was definitely on the level of GC, PS2 etc. and came to bit early imo. You see it on Games like Metal Gear Solid or Sonic which was re released for GC with exactly the same Graphics.
console fanboy wars are just stupid. sony and sega are both equal contenders, with sony being the more fortunate in the advertisement business, that's what determined who would go on, so don't debate on it. it's not a question of which system is better, it's a question of which fanboys are bigger douchebags.
@hitokirimasamun you are semi correct but not entirely, i am no fan boy by no means but i would get my facts straight. dreamcast failed for a number of reasons.. 1 being poor advertisement, but sega saturns fail, 32x fail and sega cd fails . not to mention they all came together to fast.. so no game software game company would stick to something like that. + playtation took the EA games from dreamcast too..
@demonicxxx Did I call you a fanboy? No. I said console fan boy wars are stupid. There is nothing wrong with being a fanboy. lol bro calm down I am just stating facts =D k?
@hitokirimasamun did i say you called me a fanboy? NO! lol i am calm and collective.. still.. >.> and i am a fan lots of things. :) like Halo 1 and 2.. best ever.. quake 2. medal of honor for playstation sonic adventures 1 and 2 .. armored core!! any of them !! Alundra!!! Legend of Legia! Need for speed 3 hot pursuit.. Tekken 3 and my all time favorite game ever is Final Fantasy 7 & 9
@demonicxxx then why did you say "i am no fan boy by no means" and "you just said I am a fan of lots of things " calm down fanboy and just stop commenting =D ar
The reason the dreamcast has no jaggies is because of bluring,witch is a pretty cheap technique to get rid of jagged lines,most tv's now can actually do the same thing but the game looks horrible afterwards.
@vanos94 - You're confusing anti-aliasing with texture filtering. The reason that there are no jaggies on the edges of polygons is because of anti-aliasing, which is NOT the same as blurring. The texture filtering, on the other hand, is more or less blurring in this case. (Really, what else can you do with such low-res textures without replacing them entirely?)
@vanos94 no, the dreamcast did proper anti-aliasing. the anti-aliasing and a higher internal resolution then what the ps2 ran at helped dreamcast games look better then most first generation ps2 games. and games that came out on both systems looked better on dreamcast. this wouldnt have been the case for newer games (ie post 2002) as the ps2 had far superior processing power.
Kick ass comparison! MGS was a great game at the time, it looks nice emulated on the Dreamcast, unfortunately the system ended to earlier, i would have loved to see MGS2 on both Dreamcast and ps2, since at the time Konami never denied that the series could have a installment on the Dreamcast in the future for what i remember,
But one thing i'd like to see is the Sega Saturn alpha build of MGS which is said to exist, i read that at Unseen64, it would be have been great if it had come out for it,
Believe it or not, the Xbox was stuttering quite a lot trying to run MGS2, so it's hard to imagine how a Dreamcast version would've fared, if at all, sadly.
@strykah92, i heared about that to, but, to be honest, i don't know what makes MGS2 so special graphically, i mean, in terms of textures, its good for the ps2, but characters look plastic, the scenarios themselves are small and there's a loading time every corner, maybe it was the engine? Bad optimised? I don't know, i don't want to sound like a fanboy or something, but i find DC's Shenmue to look better then MGS2; MGS3 looks better then 2 in my opinion, and used a different engine,
@dinizgames - Yeah, the Xbox version's inferior performance is due to it being a shoddy port. Really, there's absolutely no reason that Xbox couldn't handle MGS2 better.
Don't get me wrong, when it came to the Xbox version, obvious lazy port was obvious, but if Konami were having trouble with porting the game to a stronger system, that doesn't fare well for a weaker system imo. That does beg the question though, WAS there ever a game that was lead developed on PS2 and ported to Dreamcast?
@strykah92, @strykah92, has far has i know/remember, there were no ps2 games ported to the DC, it ended to early, in 2001, and since it come out in 1998 and ps2 come out in late 2000 "if not mistaking" there was no time to port ps2 games to the DC,
Now, the when DC come out back in 1998 no one was prepared for the 128Bit gen, DC ended up receiving lazy ports from ps1/N64 games, ports who didn't even used DC's hardware, ended up making some people think the DC is just a ps1/N64 competitor,
@strykah92, but there were some great looking games on the DC, Shenmue, TD Le Mans, Soul Calibur...
The DC wasn't more powerful then the ps2 neither was the ps2 more powerful then the DC,
Example, DC handled textures and antialiasing like no other at the time, better then the ps2, but the ps2 handled a litle more polygons then the DC has far has i know,
I would like to see how far they could have come with the DC, look at early ps2 games and then look at MGS3, God of War 1/2, GT4...
@dinizgames - Yeah, Dreamcast handled anti-aliasing and textures better, while PlayStation 2 handled particles and polygons better. They both had their strengths. Also, I, too, would be interested to see what could truly be accomplished with Dreamcast. What a lot of people don't seem to understand about Dreamcast is that very few developers really pushed the console, because the console didn't need to be pushed to get good results. That's more than can be said of PlayStation 2.
@kubevubin You can only push a console with software, just look at the early games and the best games on the PS2.
The Dreamcast was never pushed to its limits as the PS2 was because he had no time for that. So it's unfair to say that what you see is what the Dreamcast can do it better.
We will never know the true power of the Dreamcast - PS2 we already know
@Clay3613 - How does that comment make me a fanboy? It's completely true. If my comment was intended to be that of a fanboy, then I wouldn't have mentioned that PlayStation 2 handles particles and polygons better.
When was the first time you played MGS2 just outta curiosity? And was it the first MGS you played? I thought it was mindblowing to go from the relatively average graphics of MGS1 to the production values of MGS2. Maybe it was the water effects and overall ultra-fluid animation that clinched it, but yeah I will admit, starting with MGS2 NOW would make the graphics seem extremely plastic xD
To finish though, about the whole loading thing, MGS1 was pretty much the same was it not?
@strykah92, No, MGS1 was, back in 1998/1999 when it come out, and MGS2 back in 2001, MGS2 a great evolution when compared to MGS1, no doubt, and had great water effects,
But graphically, it was not has mind blowing for me, at the time i had a DC, 128Bit generation graphics weren't has "Wow" anymore, especially when Shenmue who come out in 2000 looked has good if not better then MGS2 in terms of realistic detail,
About the loading times, there's were a lot in MGS1 to, very small open areas,
@Reaperss - There's a difference between blurring and anti-aliasing, though. The jaggies that I'm referring to are jaggies on the edges of polygons, not the pixelated nature of the textures. The edges of polygons aren't blurry on bleemcast! They're actually quite sharp.
@chingik - I'll respond to your ignorant comment, then I'll block you for insulting me. MGS wasn't "rebuilt" for Dreamcast. Dreamcast is running an emulator called bleemcast! while using the PlayStation version of the game. Same disc assets. Learn to fucking read. And I'm aware that the PC version looks better. I own it, and I'll be adding that version to the updated version of the comparison.
@Snotnarok - Or the annotations. Or the in-video text. It's really quite sad. Trust me: Whenever I make the high-definition version of this comparison, I'll make a LOT of points in spoken dialog, since a lot of people can't seem to read. :P
@kubevubin My favorite is the vast stupidity that is people asking what you use to make videos/record/hardware to record. Something they could find out in 2 seconds with google, but instead they want to waste their time and yours. I've seen people spam dozens of accounts trying to find out and the answer is ALWAYS FRAPS and SONY VEGAS. :| Seriously I feel your pain and I don't even post videos. Stupidity is just that amazing.
@Snotnarok - Well, I don't mind answering questions about capturing and editing, because individual setups can vary. As an example, yes, I do use Sony Vegas Movie Studio for editing, but my capturing setup can include my AVerTV HD DVR, Debut, Fraps or my Neuros OSD. Also, there's other hardware in the mix, such as converters, splitters, upscalers, etc. Plus, there are a variety of camcorders that one could use. It's not such a horrible question. I actually plan on making a video about this soon.
@Snotnarok - To be honest, the most annoying question that I get from people on YouTube is where they can download the game that I'm playing. I mean, it's automatically assumed that I'm using an emulator, despite the fact that I rarely even use emulators.
@kubevubin Well clearly you're using emulators in all your vids, because that's how you get an accurate comparison on how a game will compare system vs another system. You know by emulating it via software vs the actual hardware! I love when people compare games on emulators, someone on youtube was claiming Doom on SNES ran perfectly fine given his emulator experience when if you play it on the actual unit there's a lot of controller delay and a lot of squinting. Emulators are not accurate.
@Snotnarok - Haha. I used to play the Hell out of SNES DOOM. (Pun partially intended.) I didn't have a PC at the time. One of my friends, who owned the game on PC, wanted to know how I could identify enemies from so far away in the one level. I told him that I could tell that there was a Lost Soul in the distance, because I could see an orange pixel. :P
@kubevubin Hah, well at the time Doom was hardcore graphics so getting a PC that ran it wasn't always easy I gathered. So the SNES version at the time was perfect but now ...kinda better off with at least any other version haha. I dunno, my point is that making a comparison with emulated games is pointless because it doesn't accurately show the difference. What you did worked because ...well you stated emulated vs non)sorta) emulated.
@TheSomnambulist06 Yes but the compatibility issues speak volumes on how well that works all the time. In Breath of Fire 4 it has framerate trouble on the PS2 and actually freezes upon a battle on my cousins PS3 (but ran with framerate trouble on my PS3) buuuut on an actual PSOne it runs flawlessly. So while you can say PS2 does a good job, it's not always the best testing medium
@TheSomnambulist06 Actually I was mistaken. PS2 incorporates the same processor for input/output handling, but does use emulation to achieve PSX games. Sorry for my triple reply, and oversight.
@TheSomnambulist06 - I'd consider the software aspect to be emulation to an extent, but you're correct about it technically using the original architecture for the most part. That's why it's all the more disturbing that PlayStation 2 doesn't do a better job than bleemcast! does, because it actually has much more in the way of system resources not being tied up.
@zlaja1984 - This has been pointed out numerous times, and it's apparent that nobody reads annotations, descriptions or in-game text on videos. I'm completely aware that MSG wasn't released on PlayStation (1) and Dreamcast. This video is comparing the graphics on this game while running on Dreamcast and PlayStation 2, though. Comparing Dreamcast and PlayStation (1) wouldn't be fair.
ps2 lags because it not only uses hardware but a software emulator
dreamcast only has to boot up the game and run it...
whether you thought about it or not...bleem is not taking as much memory as you might think realistically its only purpose is to allow the game to launch on the DC from then on its an easy trip...ps2 has to mantain hardware/software emulation throughout because the newer chips arent really compatible
@jaredRodrigo - So says the person who clearly doesn't know English well enough to comment in this instance. If you were to simply read the annotations, description and in-video text, then you'd realize that this is the PlayStation (1) version of MGS running on Dreamcast (through the bleemcast! emulator) and on PlayStation 2 (in order to show how poorly it "enhances" the game). I'll refrain from blocking you at the moment, as long as you don't insult me or anyone else here anymore.
@dcom94 - The Dreamcast doesn't have a port of Metal Gear Solid. This is the PlayStation version, albeit emulated on Dreamcast through a commercial emulator known as bleemcast!
and yes !! this generation of videogames is the most dissapointed in the history of the videogames..im very sure (4me)
and yes i love my dreamcast to much to my ps2, but i love a lot of games on my ps2 , but in hardware and accesories and quality i love my dreamcast in all ways !
=) and im playing this in my dreamcast right now and look great ! =9 thanks for the video, and i want to this generation end quickly ! i know that the developements know that they lose his creativity in this gen ..
@sonicromer awesome, even more awesome as there is no such thing as PS3 chips, just the jailbreak program, but whathever mate, keep living in your poorly run country... usually iracy is a thing to be ASHAMED of, not proud.
@PTSnake sorry for my english but if you read im telling ps3 conecting to my pc and yes is jailbreak,bolivia its my home , but the world its my house!xD i travel for all the world every 5 months, dont ask in what is my job .. you maybe can imaginate ... like colombia xD i have my super colection i have originals and copys but i bought only original that will be clasic and i dont used .. i used the copys or isos. the originals are sealed ^^ a colecction forever must to be with products sealed
im not retro , but really i haved too much fun playing need for speed underground ( pc,xbox,ngc,ps2) that hot pursuit in ( 360,pc,ps3) is like the new games dont know how give "fun" only are graphics and history ( like hollywood, explosions,crash,etc)
i think the only hope are remake game like resident remake..
the new resident evil cross the line from survival horror game to action game !
resident evil 4 and 5 suckss in all waysss !! resident evil remake its better that the news...
Dreamcast was gonna release alot of good games around the time they canceled the system, the ONLY thing that the dreamcast lacks is not enoughh games, though there are enough great titles to keep me happy!
power of the dreamcast hear your comparison is as stupid as a fucking video game ps one in a rare dreamcast that there is no metal gear 2 for dreamcast or metal gear 3 to see what happens damn idiot
@kubevubin The PS2 has lasted for ten years. In fact, today, as I type this, is October 26, 2010, the tenth anniversary of its North American launch. That's pretty good for a system that wasn't as powerful as its surviving competetion. Even if you don't like the PS2, it's hard to overlook its lasting appeal. I can't understand why so many DC owners hate the PS2 so much.
@spicyechidna94 - PlayStation 2 is only a good console in terms of its software library. As any form of technical achievement, it's a completely mess. Also, PlayStation 2 sold very well at launch, despite having a horrible launch line-up. As such, developers were certainly wise to support it. That doesn't mean that the console, itself, wasn't an abomination.
Also, I don't so much hate PlayStation 2 as I hate Sony. It's a terrible company, and I've given my reasons in past comments.
@kubevubin The PS2 isn't an abomination. If it was, it wouldn't have sold 145 million units or lasted ten years. On the technical side of things, the PS2 was a bit more powerful than the DC, mainly in terms of polygon counts. Even if the PS2 wasn't the most powerful system, its games make up for it. Really, a system is only as good as its games.
Sony isn't a terrible company. They weren't the most innovative, but they made good consoles that were home to some truly excellent games. :D
@spicyechidna94 - From a technical standpoint, yes, PlayStation 2 IS an abomination. PlayStation 2 could never reached its intended performance potential. It launched in Japan with software that was plagued with graphical issues, and Sony rolled out fixes to its dev kits in order to resolve them for other markets' launches (and future Japanese games). Also, the system is known to have performance bottlenecks. PlayStation 2 isn't quality hardware. It's a joke. (I admit that it has good software.)
@kubevubin What? The PS2 certainly came pretty damn close to reaching its "intended performance potential" after amazing-looking games like Gran Turismo 4 and God of War came out. Somehow, the "abomination" that was the PS2 was able to pump out those games at 60 frames per second, so I fail to see your point.
In truth, no console has ever reached its full potential, nor should they, for that matter. Gaming would be really boring if developers did not find new ways to push hardware.
@spicyechidna94 - I'm not saying that PlayStation 2 didn't have good-looking games. I'm just saying that the full intended capabilities of the console weren't at all realistic. And I realize that you're failing to see my point, because I've pretty much had to say the same thing several times over now.
@kubevubin Oh, I think I see what you mean. I assume you are referring to what Sony said about the PS2's capabilities, in which case, yes, they exaggerated its technical specifications. You didn't make that clear. I thought you meant that the PS2 could never reach its ACTUAL potential, which it certainly came close to doing.
But to be fair, the DC was made out to be a lot more powerful than it was, too. Most companies have a propensity for doing that.
@spicyechidna94 - I'm not so much referring to exaggeration, though. Sony just doesn't understand good hardware performance design. PlayStation 2 was known to have bottlenecks, and PlayStation 3 was on track to be much worse in certain respects. Thing is, Sony intended for PlayStation 3 to not have a dedicated GPU, thinking that Cell alone was enough to carry the console's from a graphical perspective. Sony tossed in a GPU at the last minute. Great planning.
@spicyechidna94 - And no, Dreamcast wasn't made out to be more powerful than it really was. Check out the box. The performance numbers stated on it really aren't too far off from what the console could legitimately put out during game play. Compare that to other console manufacturers' inflated numbers, which generally comprised of figures that were only realistic without shading or other effects. Hell, count game play out, as well.
@kubevubin I'll have to take your word for it. I've never had the buring desire to read the back of a DC's box for tehnical specifications, nor have I ever wanted to do the same to a PS2's box, for that matter. I just remeber hearing about how unbelievably powerful the DC supposedly was back in the day, and it turns out that it was still less powerful than the PS2, though it was more developer-friendly.
@spicyechidna94 - Dreamcast wasn't built to be powerful. In fact, many of the decisions that were made in Dreamcast's planning were centered around cost and ease of development. It was intended to make arcade-to-home conversions, as well as PC-to-console conversions, very simple. Since it was based around one of Sega's arcade boards at the time, however, it did happen to be pretty powerful.
@spicyechidna94 - Also, Dreamcast is an excellent example of smart hardware design. While Dreamcast certainly can't handle as many polygons at once as PlayStation 2, Dreamcast's texturing capabilities are vastly superior. Not only does Dreamcast have twice as much video memory as PlayStation 2, but its GPU is smart enough to not draw certain elements that aren't visible to players, thus allowing the level of detail for elements that ARE visible to players to be so much greater.
@kubevubin That's true. The DC was capable of excellent textures, and it shows for the majority of its games. Still, its "smart" GPU didn't draw textures that were right in front of the player, either. Take Crazy Taxi, for instance. There's a LOT of pop-in in that game. Sonic Adventure is the same way. The textures were great, but they weren't loaded quickly enough. Games like Jak and Daxter had gorgeous graphics and massive draw distances.
@spicyechidna94 - Well, bear in mind that Crazy Taxi and Sonic Adventure were released very early in Dreamcast's life span. To be honest, I've never understood all of the praise that Sonic Adventure gets, and Crazy Taxi certainly did have its share of performance issues.
@kubevubin Don't get me wrong, those are great games. I should have compared Sonic Adventure 2 to Jak and Daxter, since they came out in the same year. Both SA games have a lot of issues, but they're still regarded as the last "great" Sonic games. Crazy Taxi had draw distance problems in the original arcade version, but the game is still really, really fun.
The DC certainly had issues with draw distance, even late in its lifespan, but it wasn't a serious problem.
@spicyechidna94 - My main gripe with Sonic making the jump to 3D is that his character design alone couldn't survive the jump to 3D. Instead of having the Sonic of old, we're now stuck with this awkward-looking mess. Sonic looked fine in Sonic R and Sonic Jam. Obviously, his Dreamcast rendition could've used a polygon boost, but - beyond that - they really shouldn't have touched his design. My other gripe with Sonic is that there's this misconception that Sonic = Speed. It isn't that simple.
@kubevubin I didn't really mind the change. I grew up with Genesis Sonic games, but I still didn't see that much of a difference. Sonic was still blue and he still ran fast, so I was fine with his design change.
Sonic games can certainly work in 3D, but Sonic Team could have done a better job with the controls and camera. To this day, they're still imprecise and frustrating.
@spicyechidna94 - Agreed. I tried like Hell to play through Sonic Adventure, despite dying by not holding Up while going around loops or just flying right through barriers that should've stopped me, but the camera is was ultimately killed the game for me. It's absolutely terrible.
@kubevubin It's pretty awful. It hasn't improved very much over the years, either. The newer 3D Sonic games still have terrible camera systems. They would be tolerable if the games themselves were actually good, but they aren't.
Unfortunately, the quality of Sega's games in general has dropped significantly since the demise of the DC. Sega has to cut corners and focus-group their games to death to stay in business, and Sonic games suffer the most.
@spicyechidna94 - Yeah, it's a shame. Sega's best work in the last few years has been done as a publisher, not as a developer. Dreamcast was interesting in that Sega was both at its peak and at its end from a quality perspective. Once it stopped making its own consoles, it's almost as though the company stopped caring.
@kubevubin I think Sega still cares. It's just that it doesn't have the funds needed to produce the games that define it anymore. Since its exit from the hardware business, Sega has been precariously hanging on to the gaming industry for dear life. Even today, Sega's next move could be its last, so it has to publish a lot of mainstream games to stay in business.
Expensive games like Shenmue are partially responsible for the DC's demise, so Sega doesn't take any chances these days.
@spicyechidna94 and dont forget the staff of sonic team that create sonic adventure 1 and 2 on dreamcast dont create the new sonics..... to badd for sega.
sega-ta sanshiro will come back and kick ass of all staff of sega.. sega-ta sanshiro dont died in vane !!!
@sonicromer I noticed. The newer Sonic games don't feel like the older ones.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that Sega won't come back to the hardware business. They just can't afford it. The company made some really poor business decisions in the past and essentially screwed themselves, so they no longer have the luxury of being their own bosses. Sega was an excellent game developer, but that wasn't enough to save the DC. That really sucks, but that's the way it is.
@spicyechidna94 - I agree. Sonic 4 is unplayable for me. My main gripe with it is that Sega's trying to pass it off as being faithful to the series, but it's not faithful to the original series. The game just feels wrong. And yeah, I wouldn't trust Sega to handle a console launch anymore. The Sega of today is better as a software publisher.
@kubevubin I know, right? Sonic 4, at least in the demo stage, is annoyingly slow, clunky, and fairly boring. It isn't designed to appeal to the 2D Sonic fans; it's designed to appeal to current-generation gamers. The homing jump and idiot-proof difficulty don't exactly resonate well with me, either.
I'll probably get the full version eventually, but only because I want to complete the series. Sonic 4 is certainly a step in the right direction, but Sonic Team still has a long way to go.
@sonicromer But still graphics don't make the game AND which company still makes consoles? (even if dreamcast one is better even though they look the same to me)
@kid356 I couldn't have said it better myself. Graphics are the least important thing in games.
Now, that isn't to say that the DC's ability to smooth out textures is a worthless feature. It's still a nice option to have. I personally prefer the look of the normal MGS1 textures without any smoothing at all, but that's just me. The DC is just as awesome as the PS2. :D
@spicyechidna94 - And draw distance wasn't what I was referring to. Draw distance is sacrificed even nowadays to improve performance, and I don't feel that it's anything that'll ever completely go away. I was, as an example, referring to hidden surface removal, which would only texture the side of a character that happened to be facing you, keeping much more in the way of resources available for other elements. Dreamcast has more VRAM than PlayStation 2 and uses it more efficiently.
@kubevubin Oh, I see. That's a strange technique, but I'm sure it worked wonders for some of prettier games on the DC.
I have to disagree with you about draw distance being sacrificed in newer games, though. Most current-generation games have excellent draw distances, but they have lower framerates. Draw distance has improved significantly in the past several years. It isn't much of an issue anymore.
@spicyechidna94 - Actually, I've noticed some very distracting draw distances in games that I've played very recently. I can't remember which ones right off-hand, but bear in mind that the draw distance isn't so much applied to distant objects as it is objects that're lying on the ground (which is strange to me). You'll often see this done with foliage (which is very distracting for me), but I've seen a lot of small collectible items experiencing short draw distances.
@kubevubin Furthermore, you seem to think that I'm just another mindless Sony fanboy who is here to insult your opinion. Trust me, I'm not. I've been with Sega for a lot longer than I've been with Sony. Hell, I would go as far as saying that I like Sega's games a bit better than Sony's. But the fact is, you can't judge a system by what its developers say it can do, even if they are wrong. If technical specifications made a system great or not, the Genesis should have been a complete failure.
@spicyechidna94 - You're missing my point about technical specifications. It's a matter of good hardware design without serious bottlenecks. Also, Sony makes its system architectures so needlessly complex, yet developers continue to flock to its consoles. It has nothing to do with hardware quality. Atari made Jaguar far too complex, as did Sega with Saturn. The difference? Console install base. That'll make developers put up with just about anything, although it almost backfired on Sony.
@kubevubin Fair enough. I won't lie; I actually prefer the hardware design of the DC. The PS2 was difficult to program for and had less memory than the DC, even though it was more powerful. Even so, that doesn't affect the gamer at all. Unless you're a game developer, what difference does it make how difficult it is to program games on a particular console if you aren't the one making them?
@spicyechidna94 - PlayStation 2 has more system memory, whereas Dreamcast has more video memory. In either case, consoles that're difficult to develop for most certainly do affect people other than the developers. Jaguar owners found themselves playing pretty much the same games that owners of other consoles were, despite Jaguar being so much more powerful. (One of its processors was the same as the Genesis' main processor, so most developers simply centered development on that one processor.)
@spicyechidna94 - Also, Saturn owners found themselves getting certain games long after PlayStation owners got them, since developers took so long to develop the Saturn versions. PlayStation 3, until Sony got its shit together, even had certain games completely cancelled (or significantly delayed). Thankfully, Sony's pretty good about updating its dev kits to make them more usable to compensate for its consoles' shortcomings from a development standpoint.
@kubevubin I guess I'm a bit more patient than most gamers. I can wait for a long time for games to finally be released, no matter how many years it takes. Lately, I have been especially skeptical with games that take several years to develop, seeing as two of the most important games of 2008, MGS4 and GTA IV, turned out to be very disappointing. Conversely, if a game is never released, I don't miss it very much. That's just me, though.
It would have been nice if you included the dreamcast with the vga adaptor it really makes a big difference. Thats when you will notice a hugh difference between the two systems. Dreamcast vga is totally amazing and yes soul caliber looks better then the arcade in the vga mode. see for yourself.
@Wankasky - I do own the VGA adapter, and I agree that most games look amazing on it. Thing is, I have no way of capturing through VGA, which is why I didn't use the VGA adapter for this video. To be fair, though, it wouldn't have been fair to have one console on s-video and the other on VGA. They're both on s-video in this video, which makes more sense, anyway.
I like both. I have never played on Dreamcast or seen the console in person, not a single once, but PS2 is still alive and Dreamcast has gone too young.
@kid356 LOL YOU CANT SEE THE TEXTURES??? O_o?? is a hugee diference !!
dreamcast have more memori in textures about ps2 is around the double of capacity and have antialising ! ps2 dont xD
shenmue never can be convert to ps2 ,.... ps2 will make shiit in his pants trying to run shenmue,.... xD
just look re4 the textures of ps2 are too pooorr and the antialising omfg play dc in hdtv and play ps2 and compare !! ps2 look to fucking ugly !! in hdtv! sorrry the ugly true
@PTSnake ohh mgs4??only one game? im talking about games that make history
im not retro gamer, im saying that the new games its not making for have fun,....
are made only for proov who have better graphics...
lol i have ps3 360, and wii ,. and my worst waste of money in consoles was buying ps3,360and wii.. really im not retro but if i wanna watch graphics i used my pc core i9. but the new games dont bring me fun, the only game that mark my life was shenmue , that is a game!! =)
this game from psx run too much better in dreamcast than ps2...
and i hope the next generation can make " real games" no shiit like crap hollywood movies.. only stupid efects and nothing about historys or gameplay..
i cant re-play any game in this gen... i dont know why ( maybe have 0 gameplay) i dont know, but is real.... sorry but its true the games are diying... dont have new ideas, dont have creativity,yes i will sell my ps3 for recovery my cash
@sonicromer Bleemcast is an emulator, as such, it has features like antialiasing, and was made for this specific game (MGS).
the PS2 emulated ALL GAMES using the same engine, so it's bound to experience less improvement, but has a more faithfull reproduction of the original game.
Learn to shut up once in a while, when you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Also, having a PS3 in bolivia? Damm, you must be "rich".
@PTSnake - PlayStation 2 had two main potential advantages over Dreamcast in this respect, however: 1) Some of the PlayStation [1] hardware is inside of it. 2) It was developed by the same company. Sure, this particular build of bleemcast! was tailored for this game, but many emulators that're available for various platforms have far better ability to enhance PlayStation games. And yes, these take specific games into account, but the support is still in there.
@PTSnake - PlayStation 2 definitely did a good job when not running enhancements. Thing is, Sony basically tossed in a feature and hid it away so people wouldn't find out that it was broken. And Sony very well could've used post-processing, as well as other tricks, for specific games, but only if Sony bothered to implement it. Sure, this wouldn't work well for all games, but graphical plugins for PlayStation emulators for PC obviously know how to account for certain games' visual trickery.
@PTSnake - Ouch. Really? I heard quite the opposite about emulating PlayStation games on PlayStation 3, although I suppose that it depends on the game.
@PTSnake lol you dont know santa cruz bolivia dont you?? ps3 is a crap here, i play my ps3 whit copys , here all the consoles are with mod chips or whit program whit link pc. my ps3 work whit isos link whit my pc and my 360 and wii whit modchips xD and im not rich ... the ps3 ( with the program to run pirates games cost 360$)( the wii 260$ whit modchip) and xbox 360 380$ whit mod chip.... lol really if you come to santa cruz you will be suprise xD you dont know nothing xD
@PTSnake Hey, man, calm down. He's just stating his opinion. How does that make him a fanboy? Some people love old games a lot more than new ones. I certainly do.
It's true that there are awful games in every generation, but the current one seems to have the most. Most games these days are Call of Duty rip-offs that don't give the player any freedom. Hell, I've spent enough time with MGS4 to know that isn't even even all that great, in spite of the hype. Very few gems are released these days.
@spicyechidna94 - You know, one thing that I will say about this current generation is that most of my favorite games from it could've easily been done on older consoles. I buy a lot of games on XBLA, and it's largely because games on XBLA tend to have more value for their costs.
@kubevubin Same here. Most of the games I own for my PS3 are digital copies of PS1 games and a few titles from the last generation. Not only are they cheap, but they provide much more entertainment than a new $60 game.
I think the problem is that the gaming industry is trying be like Hollywood, focusing on production values and short, heavily-scripted gameplay. Games rarely give the player any freedom of choice these days, and that doesn't exactly give them replay value.
@spicyechidna94 - Yeah, it never ceases to blow my mind how much time and effort it takes developers to make some of the assets for these games, only for them to last 6-8 hours (if that). On the other hand, I can play Castlevania: Harmony of Despair or Super Meat Boy for much longer and pay only a fraction of the cost. Castlevania: Harmony of Despair doesn't have a lot of content, but it has a TON of replay value.
@kubevubin Old games usually have quite a bit of replay value. For example, I downloaded Medal of Honor Underground off of PSN last year. Not only did that game have 24 main levels and 3 bonus levels, but it also had several hours worth of unlockables and secrets in most of the levels. The whole experience took me about twenty hours, and most of it was good fun.
I'm not asking developers to make 50-hour games; I just want them to make good games with incentives to replay them.
@spicyechidna94 - Single-player campaigns are generally very disappointing in this particular console generation. They tend to take back seats to multi-player modes, which is a shame, because I used to (and still do) purchase FPS games for single-player campaigns. It's hard to justify the price increase of games when I, personally, get less out of them.
@kubevubin Pretty much. I personally can't stand MP in current-generation games, because it seems to pander people who play like bitches. Camping, explosives-whoring, unbalanced weapons and cheap perks that take all of the skill out of playing the game are just some of the reasons why I prefer SP to MP.
The sad thing is, FPS games used to be better even if they did have major MP components. Allied Assault's expansion packs are still better than most full-blown current-generation shooters.
Bleemcast! did a better job with this game, having owned and played MGS on my PS1, my PS2, and thru Bleemcast! on my Dreamcast. Sure some of the odd things (wave effect on text) were weird, but the anti-aliasing and smoother framerate are what had me.
the annotations at 6:30 had me sold.
bahamut2k456 1 month ago
If u understand correctly you are compering ps1 game (running on ps2) to dreamcast game?
comsoft 4 months ago
@comsoft - No, you don't understand correctly. Copies straight from the video's description, which I assume you didn't read:
This video is intended to show just how well each console can "enhance" a PlayStation (1) game's graphics.
kubevubin 4 months ago
best game ever
ace9846 6 months ago
the dream cast has the mgs called the twin snakes. . . but this video is the Ps1 version. . .dude y love this game and the comparation is awesome. . .but the bug graphics just crap a little bit. . .after alll dream cat with bleem is 85% perfect. . .stay well dude
TheLican21 7 months ago
@TheLican21 - Dreamcast doesn't have Twin Snakes; GameCube does.
kubevubin 7 months ago 9
fantastic video, you do some good work
catcrapinahat 7 months ago
Someone remind me again why Sega doesn't produce consoles anymore?
Oh that's right they got dicked out of the industry by Sony and Microfail. Well that and some rather poor management choices on their end.
I owned every sega console up until they turned belly up. Every one of their consoles was cutting edge and always ahead of the curve.
It's a god damn shame they're not still making hardware, otherwise they'd be spankin Sony and Microshit.
TheXboxSux 7 months ago
Who cares about a slight difference in graphics. Just play the game on whatever console that has a better controller fit for you.
OrgasmicPancakes 7 months ago
My favourite game on my fafourite console. cool.
RhodiesNeverDie 8 months ago
At end 8:28 : "I'll let you decide the best COA (course of action)." It give you decide which that compare PS2 vs. Dreamcast.
vikingscool 8 months ago
what i do love is how dremcast can keep up with a system that is almost 2 years older than it. playstation 2 also had a bigger disk drive due to dvd and dremcast only had a cd.. but still managed to do really good
demonicxxx 8 months ago
@demonicxxx the Reason is Dreamcast actually belonged to the new Gen Consoles. It was on the same level as Game Cube, PS2 and XBOX. The Gamecube had the same disks with 1,2 GB as Dreamcast. The Dreamcast was in all on the same level but unfortunately came one year (not two years actually) before the PS2. And for that it was very expensive for it time. SO no body did buy it cause the Ps one and Nintendo 64 were still alive and Games were produced so why buy a new console? This destroyed Sega.
MrJuCezar 8 months ago
@MrJuCezar you have done your research but not all that good ;) in the start sega lost a lot of fans due to sega saturns failure!! hard to program games on it.. not to mention the epic fail of 32X and sega cd! all that technology came out to close together! dreamcast had it right the first time.. but since bad advertising. lots of sega fans lost and at the very end sega was gonna keep making sports games but they lost the EA sports contract.. That was a big HIT!!.
demonicxxx 8 months ago
@MrJuCezar Actually Gamecube discs held alot more than 1.2gb. They held 1.8gb and the Dreamcast wasnt really that expensive...alot of people actually bought it at launch and in just two weeks it sold half a million units. It sold so well Sega were unable to keep up with demand lol. Bad mistakes by Sega are to blame though like the 32X and Sega CD which (In my opinion) should never have been made and well after that most people held out for the PS2 which was also a Dvd player.
Johfunu 7 months ago
@Johfunu your wrog too. thats not true I had a friend who had such disks. usually Came Cube was known to have 1,2 GB but in reality it had 1,5 GB. Thats only 300 mb more. The main Point is that the Dreamcast as a whole was definitely on the level of GC, PS2 etc. and came to bit early imo. You see it on Games like Metal Gear Solid or Sonic which was re released for GC with exactly the same Graphics.
MrJuCezar 7 months ago
@Johfunu a small mistake. Not even 1,5 but 1,4 gb :-) 200 MB more that brought you usually almost no advantage.
MrJuCezar 7 months ago
i love my old dreamcast for ever
now i have xbox 360
fuck off the people shop sony console
levinssonclash 8 months ago
console fanboy wars are just stupid. sony and sega are both equal contenders, with sony being the more fortunate in the advertisement business, that's what determined who would go on, so don't debate on it. it's not a question of which system is better, it's a question of which fanboys are bigger douchebags.
hitokirimasamun 8 months ago
@hitokirimasamun you are semi correct but not entirely, i am no fan boy by no means but i would get my facts straight. dreamcast failed for a number of reasons.. 1 being poor advertisement, but sega saturns fail, 32x fail and sega cd fails . not to mention they all came together to fast.. so no game software game company would stick to something like that. + playtation took the EA games from dreamcast too..
demonicxxx 8 months ago
@demonicxxx i never accused you in particular -_- calm down
hitokirimasamun 8 months ago
@hitokirimasamun lol bro come on now.. that is me just stating facts is all.. i am calm and collective :) k?
demonicxxx 8 months ago
@demonicxxx Did I call you a fanboy? No. I said console fan boy wars are stupid. There is nothing wrong with being a fanboy. lol bro calm down I am just stating facts =D k?
hitokirimasamun 8 months ago
@hitokirimasamun did i say you called me a fanboy? NO! lol i am calm and collective.. still.. >.> and i am a fan lots of things. :) like Halo 1 and 2.. best ever.. quake 2. medal of honor for playstation sonic adventures 1 and 2 .. armored core!! any of them !! Alundra!!! Legend of Legia! Need for speed 3 hot pursuit.. Tekken 3 and my all time favorite game ever is Final Fantasy 7 & 9
demonicxxx 8 months ago
@demonicxxx then why did you say "i am no fan boy by no means" and "you just said I am a fan of lots of things " calm down fanboy and just stop commenting =D ar
hitokirimasamun 8 months ago
The reason the dreamcast has no jaggies is because of bluring,witch is a pretty cheap technique to get rid of jagged lines,most tv's now can actually do the same thing but the game looks horrible afterwards.
vanos94 8 months ago
@vanos94 - You're confusing anti-aliasing with texture filtering. The reason that there are no jaggies on the edges of polygons is because of anti-aliasing, which is NOT the same as blurring. The texture filtering, on the other hand, is more or less blurring in this case. (Really, what else can you do with such low-res textures without replacing them entirely?)
kubevubin 8 months ago 15
Comment removed
ShadoVRaven1337 5 months ago
@vanos94 no, the dreamcast did proper anti-aliasing. the anti-aliasing and a higher internal resolution then what the ps2 ran at helped dreamcast games look better then most first generation ps2 games. and games that came out on both systems looked better on dreamcast. this wouldnt have been the case for newer games (ie post 2002) as the ps2 had far superior processing power.
kpcart 6 months ago
ps2 vs dreamcast, dreamcast is a shit
ps1 vs dreamcast, dreamcast is better
lRockeroCrazy 9 months ago
@lRockeroCrazy no,you are shit,dreamcast owned them all!
bumtaksi 8 months ago
I love this game equally on every system. Will always be my fave game, ive beaten multiple times. Fucking Epic!!
str8kracker 9 months ago
Metal Gear Solid is a PS1 game.
xsetforwinterx 9 months ago
i realy miss the cartridge times, disks are so weak.
93Gamerz 9 months ago
@93Gamerz
The retro its cool... But, seriously, cartridge are obsolete...
RemyMetal 9 months ago
@RemyMetal discs are obsolete too -_-
hitokirimasamun 8 months ago
Kick ass comparison! MGS was a great game at the time, it looks nice emulated on the Dreamcast, unfortunately the system ended to earlier, i would have loved to see MGS2 on both Dreamcast and ps2, since at the time Konami never denied that the series could have a installment on the Dreamcast in the future for what i remember,
But one thing i'd like to see is the Sega Saturn alpha build of MGS which is said to exist, i read that at Unseen64, it would be have been great if it had come out for it,
dinizgames 11 months ago
@dinizgames
Believe it or not, the Xbox was stuttering quite a lot trying to run MGS2, so it's hard to imagine how a Dreamcast version would've fared, if at all, sadly.
strykah92 11 months ago
@strykah92, i heared about that to, but, to be honest, i don't know what makes MGS2 so special graphically, i mean, in terms of textures, its good for the ps2, but characters look plastic, the scenarios themselves are small and there's a loading time every corner, maybe it was the engine? Bad optimised? I don't know, i don't want to sound like a fanboy or something, but i find DC's Shenmue to look better then MGS2; MGS3 looks better then 2 in my opinion, and used a different engine,
dinizgames 11 months ago
@dinizgames - Yeah, the Xbox version's inferior performance is due to it being a shoddy port. Really, there's absolutely no reason that Xbox couldn't handle MGS2 better.
kubevubin 11 months ago
@kubevubin
Don't get me wrong, when it came to the Xbox version, obvious lazy port was obvious, but if Konami were having trouble with porting the game to a stronger system, that doesn't fare well for a weaker system imo. That does beg the question though, WAS there ever a game that was lead developed on PS2 and ported to Dreamcast?
strykah92 11 months ago
@strykah92, @strykah92, has far has i know/remember, there were no ps2 games ported to the DC, it ended to early, in 2001, and since it come out in 1998 and ps2 come out in late 2000 "if not mistaking" there was no time to port ps2 games to the DC,
Now, the when DC come out back in 1998 no one was prepared for the 128Bit gen, DC ended up receiving lazy ports from ps1/N64 games, ports who didn't even used DC's hardware, ended up making some people think the DC is just a ps1/N64 competitor,
dinizgames 11 months ago
@strykah92, but there were some great looking games on the DC, Shenmue, TD Le Mans, Soul Calibur...
The DC wasn't more powerful then the ps2 neither was the ps2 more powerful then the DC,
Example, DC handled textures and antialiasing like no other at the time, better then the ps2, but the ps2 handled a litle more polygons then the DC has far has i know,
I would like to see how far they could have come with the DC, look at early ps2 games and then look at MGS3, God of War 1/2, GT4...
dinizgames 11 months ago
@dinizgames - Yeah, Dreamcast handled anti-aliasing and textures better, while PlayStation 2 handled particles and polygons better. They both had their strengths. Also, I, too, would be interested to see what could truly be accomplished with Dreamcast. What a lot of people don't seem to understand about Dreamcast is that very few developers really pushed the console, because the console didn't need to be pushed to get good results. That's more than can be said of PlayStation 2.
kubevubin 11 months ago
@kubevubin You can only push a console with software, just look at the early games and the best games on the PS2.
The Dreamcast was never pushed to its limits as the PS2 was because he had no time for that. So it's unfair to say that what you see is what the Dreamcast can do it better.
We will never know the true power of the Dreamcast - PS2 we already know
PersonaBrazil 11 months ago
@PersonaBrazil - By the same token, you can't say that Dreamcast isn't capable of something if it wasn't properly pushed in its retail lifetime.
kubevubin 11 months ago
@kubevubin I agree.
PersonaBrazil 11 months ago
@kubevubin Fanboy.
Clay3613 10 months ago
@Clay3613 - How does that comment make me a fanboy? It's completely true. If my comment was intended to be that of a fanboy, then I wouldn't have mentioned that PlayStation 2 handles particles and polygons better.
kubevubin 10 months ago
@kubevubin, true
dinizgames 11 months ago
@dinizgames
When was the first time you played MGS2 just outta curiosity? And was it the first MGS you played? I thought it was mindblowing to go from the relatively average graphics of MGS1 to the production values of MGS2. Maybe it was the water effects and overall ultra-fluid animation that clinched it, but yeah I will admit, starting with MGS2 NOW would make the graphics seem extremely plastic xD
To finish though, about the whole loading thing, MGS1 was pretty much the same was it not?
strykah92 11 months ago
@strykah92, No, MGS1 was, back in 1998/1999 when it come out, and MGS2 back in 2001, MGS2 a great evolution when compared to MGS1, no doubt, and had great water effects,
But graphically, it was not has mind blowing for me, at the time i had a DC, 128Bit generation graphics weren't has "Wow" anymore, especially when Shenmue who come out in 2000 looked has good if not better then MGS2 in terms of realistic detail,
About the loading times, there's were a lot in MGS1 to, very small open areas,
dinizgames 11 months ago
It's easy to fix jaggies blurring the image...
Reaperss 11 months ago
@Reaperss - There's a difference between blurring and anti-aliasing, though. The jaggies that I'm referring to are jaggies on the edges of polygons, not the pixelated nature of the textures. The edges of polygons aren't blurry on bleemcast! They're actually quite sharp.
kubevubin 11 months ago
Comment removed
DuLe020 1 year ago
Comment removed
chingik 1 year ago
@chingik - I'll respond to your ignorant comment, then I'll block you for insulting me. MGS wasn't "rebuilt" for Dreamcast. Dreamcast is running an emulator called bleemcast! while using the PlayStation version of the game. Same disc assets. Learn to fucking read. And I'm aware that the PC version looks better. I own it, and I'll be adding that version to the updated version of the comparison.
kubevubin 1 year ago
Comment removed
chingik 1 year ago
It's amazing how many people don't read the description.
Snotnarok 1 year ago
@Snotnarok - Or the annotations. Or the in-video text. It's really quite sad. Trust me: Whenever I make the high-definition version of this comparison, I'll make a LOT of points in spoken dialog, since a lot of people can't seem to read. :P
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin My favorite is the vast stupidity that is people asking what you use to make videos/record/hardware to record. Something they could find out in 2 seconds with google, but instead they want to waste their time and yours. I've seen people spam dozens of accounts trying to find out and the answer is ALWAYS FRAPS and SONY VEGAS. :| Seriously I feel your pain and I don't even post videos. Stupidity is just that amazing.
Snotnarok 1 year ago
@Snotnarok - Well, I don't mind answering questions about capturing and editing, because individual setups can vary. As an example, yes, I do use Sony Vegas Movie Studio for editing, but my capturing setup can include my AVerTV HD DVR, Debut, Fraps or my Neuros OSD. Also, there's other hardware in the mix, such as converters, splitters, upscalers, etc. Plus, there are a variety of camcorders that one could use. It's not such a horrible question. I actually plan on making a video about this soon.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@Snotnarok - To be honest, the most annoying question that I get from people on YouTube is where they can download the game that I'm playing. I mean, it's automatically assumed that I'm using an emulator, despite the fact that I rarely even use emulators.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Well clearly you're using emulators in all your vids, because that's how you get an accurate comparison on how a game will compare system vs another system. You know by emulating it via software vs the actual hardware! I love when people compare games on emulators, someone on youtube was claiming Doom on SNES ran perfectly fine given his emulator experience when if you play it on the actual unit there's a lot of controller delay and a lot of squinting. Emulators are not accurate.
Snotnarok 1 year ago
@Snotnarok - Haha. I used to play the Hell out of SNES DOOM. (Pun partially intended.) I didn't have a PC at the time. One of my friends, who owned the game on PC, wanted to know how I could identify enemies from so far away in the one level. I told him that I could tell that there was a Lost Soul in the distance, because I could see an orange pixel. :P
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Hah, well at the time Doom was hardcore graphics so getting a PC that ran it wasn't always easy I gathered. So the SNES version at the time was perfect but now ...kinda better off with at least any other version haha. I dunno, my point is that making a comparison with emulated games is pointless because it doesn't accurately show the difference. What you did worked because ...well you stated emulated vs non)sorta) emulated.
Snotnarok 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheSomnambulist06 1 year ago
@TheSomnambulist06 Yes but the compatibility issues speak volumes on how well that works all the time. In Breath of Fire 4 it has framerate trouble on the PS2 and actually freezes upon a battle on my cousins PS3 (but ran with framerate trouble on my PS3) buuuut on an actual PSOne it runs flawlessly. So while you can say PS2 does a good job, it's not always the best testing medium
Snotnarok 1 year ago
@TheSomnambulist06 Actually I was mistaken. PS2 incorporates the same processor for input/output handling, but does use emulation to achieve PSX games. Sorry for my triple reply, and oversight.
TheSomnambulist06 1 year ago
@TheSomnambulist06 - No prob. It's not like there aren't already hundreds of comments on here, anyway. What's one or two extra gonna hurt? :P
kubevubin 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheSomnambulist06 1 year ago
@TheSomnambulist06 - I'd consider the software aspect to be emulation to an extent, but you're correct about it technically using the original architecture for the most part. That's why it's all the more disturbing that PlayStation 2 doesn't do a better job than bleemcast! does, because it actually has much more in the way of system resources not being tied up.
kubevubin 1 year ago
Metal Gear Solid is for ps1 not ps2
zlaja1984 1 year ago
@zlaja1984 - This has been pointed out numerous times, and it's apparent that nobody reads annotations, descriptions or in-game text on videos. I'm completely aware that MSG wasn't released on PlayStation (1) and Dreamcast. This video is comparing the graphics on this game while running on Dreamcast and PlayStation 2, though. Comparing Dreamcast and PlayStation (1) wouldn't be fair.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@zlaja1984 And the description bar is for reading! :D
Snotnarok 1 year ago
Perae esse jogo não é no ps2 e sim no ps1, idiota!!!
Isaac27802 1 year ago
@Isaac27802 - Thanks for not reading. By the way, you're blocked for the insult.
kubevubin 1 year ago
dreamcast looks overexposed and bland
ps2 retains original look of the game
ps2 lags because it not only uses hardware but a software emulator
dreamcast only has to boot up the game and run it...
whether you thought about it or not...bleem is not taking as much memory as you might think realistically its only purpose is to allow the game to launch on the DC from then on its an easy trip...ps2 has to mantain hardware/software emulation throughout because the newer chips arent really compatible
Scratch2C 1 year ago
which one is which=?
VideoZoo5000 1 year ago
no is ps2, is ps1 -.-
hahhahahaha stupid!!
jaredRodrigo 1 year ago
@jaredRodrigo - So says the person who clearly doesn't know English well enough to comment in this instance. If you were to simply read the annotations, description and in-video text, then you'd realize that this is the PlayStation (1) version of MGS running on Dreamcast (through the bleemcast! emulator) and on PlayStation 2 (in order to show how poorly it "enhances" the game). I'll refrain from blocking you at the moment, as long as you don't insult me or anyone else here anymore.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jaredRodrigo 1 year ago
@jaredRodrigo what the fuck do you mean by that?
VideoZoo5000 1 year ago
One thing is true text looks bether on ps2
MrPlaystationboy 1 year ago
wait theres a dreamcast version of MGS?
MetalSEGAKid1990 1 year ago
ps forever
sagass09 1 year ago
metal gear solid came out on dreamcast?
toddyfex 1 year ago
@toddyfex
PS1 first then port...
dcom94 1 year ago
@dcom94 - The Dreamcast doesn't have a port of Metal Gear Solid. This is the PlayStation version, albeit emulated on Dreamcast through a commercial emulator known as bleemcast!
kubevubin 1 year ago
and yes !! this generation of videogames is the most dissapointed in the history of the videogames..im very sure (4me)
and yes i love my dreamcast to much to my ps2, but i love a lot of games on my ps2 , but in hardware and accesories and quality i love my dreamcast in all ways !
=) and im playing this in my dreamcast right now and look great ! =9 thanks for the video, and i want to this generation end quickly ! i know that the developements know that they lose his creativity in this gen ..
sonicromer 1 year ago
@sonicromer awesome, even more awesome as there is no such thing as PS3 chips, just the jailbreak program, but whathever mate, keep living in your poorly run country... usually iracy is a thing to be ASHAMED of, not proud.
PTSnake 1 year ago
@PTSnake sorry for my english but if you read im telling ps3 conecting to my pc and yes is jailbreak,bolivia its my home , but the world its my house!xD i travel for all the world every 5 months, dont ask in what is my job .. you maybe can imaginate ... like colombia xD i have my super colection i have originals and copys but i bought only original that will be clasic and i dont used .. i used the copys or isos. the originals are sealed ^^ a colecction forever must to be with products sealed
sonicromer 1 year ago
they both have 128 bits
2LobstersandCO 1 year ago
im not retro , but really i haved too much fun playing need for speed underground ( pc,xbox,ngc,ps2) that hot pursuit in ( 360,pc,ps3) is like the new games dont know how give "fun" only are graphics and history ( like hollywood, explosions,crash,etc)
i think the only hope are remake game like resident remake..
the new resident evil cross the line from survival horror game to action game !
resident evil 4 and 5 suckss in all waysss !! resident evil remake its better that the news...
sonicromer 1 year ago
i never knew one of my fav. games of all times was on dreamcast!? if only i would have known.....gamecube version was beast!!!
A4moondoggy 1 year ago
@A4moondoggy - Well, it's just the PlayStation version being emulated on Dreamcast, but yeah, MGS is certainly on Dreamcast in some form. :)
kubevubin 1 year ago
Dreamcast was gonna release alot of good games around the time they canceled the system, the ONLY thing that the dreamcast lacks is not enoughh games, though there are enough great titles to keep me happy!
gummoboy333 1 year ago
Ps2 wins all the time. Dc sold horrably. Ps2 is the most sold console ever.
ndaniel1997 1 year ago
@ndaniel1997 - Dreamcast didn't sell horribly.
kubevubin 1 year ago
power of the dreamcast hear your comparison is as stupid as a fucking video game ps one in a rare dreamcast that there is no metal gear 2 for dreamcast or metal gear 3 to see what happens damn idiot
rycosky 1 year ago
@rycosky - Learn how to properly capitalize and punctuate a sentence before insulting someone, dumbass. Blocked.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin The PS2 has lasted for ten years. In fact, today, as I type this, is October 26, 2010, the tenth anniversary of its North American launch. That's pretty good for a system that wasn't as powerful as its surviving competetion. Even if you don't like the PS2, it's hard to overlook its lasting appeal. I can't understand why so many DC owners hate the PS2 so much.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - PlayStation 2 is only a good console in terms of its software library. As any form of technical achievement, it's a completely mess. Also, PlayStation 2 sold very well at launch, despite having a horrible launch line-up. As such, developers were certainly wise to support it. That doesn't mean that the console, itself, wasn't an abomination.
Also, I don't so much hate PlayStation 2 as I hate Sony. It's a terrible company, and I've given my reasons in past comments.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin The PS2 isn't an abomination. If it was, it wouldn't have sold 145 million units or lasted ten years. On the technical side of things, the PS2 was a bit more powerful than the DC, mainly in terms of polygon counts. Even if the PS2 wasn't the most powerful system, its games make up for it. Really, a system is only as good as its games.
Sony isn't a terrible company. They weren't the most innovative, but they made good consoles that were home to some truly excellent games. :D
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - From a technical standpoint, yes, PlayStation 2 IS an abomination. PlayStation 2 could never reached its intended performance potential. It launched in Japan with software that was plagued with graphical issues, and Sony rolled out fixes to its dev kits in order to resolve them for other markets' launches (and future Japanese games). Also, the system is known to have performance bottlenecks. PlayStation 2 isn't quality hardware. It's a joke. (I admit that it has good software.)
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin What? The PS2 certainly came pretty damn close to reaching its "intended performance potential" after amazing-looking games like Gran Turismo 4 and God of War came out. Somehow, the "abomination" that was the PS2 was able to pump out those games at 60 frames per second, so I fail to see your point.
In truth, no console has ever reached its full potential, nor should they, for that matter. Gaming would be really boring if developers did not find new ways to push hardware.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - I'm not saying that PlayStation 2 didn't have good-looking games. I'm just saying that the full intended capabilities of the console weren't at all realistic. And I realize that you're failing to see my point, because I've pretty much had to say the same thing several times over now.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Oh, I think I see what you mean. I assume you are referring to what Sony said about the PS2's capabilities, in which case, yes, they exaggerated its technical specifications. You didn't make that clear. I thought you meant that the PS2 could never reach its ACTUAL potential, which it certainly came close to doing.
But to be fair, the DC was made out to be a lot more powerful than it was, too. Most companies have a propensity for doing that.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - I'm not so much referring to exaggeration, though. Sony just doesn't understand good hardware performance design. PlayStation 2 was known to have bottlenecks, and PlayStation 3 was on track to be much worse in certain respects. Thing is, Sony intended for PlayStation 3 to not have a dedicated GPU, thinking that Cell alone was enough to carry the console's from a graphical perspective. Sony tossed in a GPU at the last minute. Great planning.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - And no, Dreamcast wasn't made out to be more powerful than it really was. Check out the box. The performance numbers stated on it really aren't too far off from what the console could legitimately put out during game play. Compare that to other console manufacturers' inflated numbers, which generally comprised of figures that were only realistic without shading or other effects. Hell, count game play out, as well.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin I'll have to take your word for it. I've never had the buring desire to read the back of a DC's box for tehnical specifications, nor have I ever wanted to do the same to a PS2's box, for that matter. I just remeber hearing about how unbelievably powerful the DC supposedly was back in the day, and it turns out that it was still less powerful than the PS2, though it was more developer-friendly.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Dreamcast wasn't built to be powerful. In fact, many of the decisions that were made in Dreamcast's planning were centered around cost and ease of development. It was intended to make arcade-to-home conversions, as well as PC-to-console conversions, very simple. Since it was based around one of Sega's arcade boards at the time, however, it did happen to be pretty powerful.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Also, Dreamcast is an excellent example of smart hardware design. While Dreamcast certainly can't handle as many polygons at once as PlayStation 2, Dreamcast's texturing capabilities are vastly superior. Not only does Dreamcast have twice as much video memory as PlayStation 2, but its GPU is smart enough to not draw certain elements that aren't visible to players, thus allowing the level of detail for elements that ARE visible to players to be so much greater.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin That's true. The DC was capable of excellent textures, and it shows for the majority of its games. Still, its "smart" GPU didn't draw textures that were right in front of the player, either. Take Crazy Taxi, for instance. There's a LOT of pop-in in that game. Sonic Adventure is the same way. The textures were great, but they weren't loaded quickly enough. Games like Jak and Daxter had gorgeous graphics and massive draw distances.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Well, bear in mind that Crazy Taxi and Sonic Adventure were released very early in Dreamcast's life span. To be honest, I've never understood all of the praise that Sonic Adventure gets, and Crazy Taxi certainly did have its share of performance issues.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Don't get me wrong, those are great games. I should have compared Sonic Adventure 2 to Jak and Daxter, since they came out in the same year. Both SA games have a lot of issues, but they're still regarded as the last "great" Sonic games. Crazy Taxi had draw distance problems in the original arcade version, but the game is still really, really fun.
The DC certainly had issues with draw distance, even late in its lifespan, but it wasn't a serious problem.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - My main gripe with Sonic making the jump to 3D is that his character design alone couldn't survive the jump to 3D. Instead of having the Sonic of old, we're now stuck with this awkward-looking mess. Sonic looked fine in Sonic R and Sonic Jam. Obviously, his Dreamcast rendition could've used a polygon boost, but - beyond that - they really shouldn't have touched his design. My other gripe with Sonic is that there's this misconception that Sonic = Speed. It isn't that simple.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin I didn't really mind the change. I grew up with Genesis Sonic games, but I still didn't see that much of a difference. Sonic was still blue and he still ran fast, so I was fine with his design change.
Sonic games can certainly work in 3D, but Sonic Team could have done a better job with the controls and camera. To this day, they're still imprecise and frustrating.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Agreed. I tried like Hell to play through Sonic Adventure, despite dying by not holding Up while going around loops or just flying right through barriers that should've stopped me, but the camera is was ultimately killed the game for me. It's absolutely terrible.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin It's pretty awful. It hasn't improved very much over the years, either. The newer 3D Sonic games still have terrible camera systems. They would be tolerable if the games themselves were actually good, but they aren't.
Unfortunately, the quality of Sega's games in general has dropped significantly since the demise of the DC. Sega has to cut corners and focus-group their games to death to stay in business, and Sonic games suffer the most.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Yeah, it's a shame. Sega's best work in the last few years has been done as a publisher, not as a developer. Dreamcast was interesting in that Sega was both at its peak and at its end from a quality perspective. Once it stopped making its own consoles, it's almost as though the company stopped caring.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin I think Sega still cares. It's just that it doesn't have the funds needed to produce the games that define it anymore. Since its exit from the hardware business, Sega has been precariously hanging on to the gaming industry for dear life. Even today, Sega's next move could be its last, so it has to publish a lot of mainstream games to stay in business.
Expensive games like Shenmue are partially responsible for the DC's demise, so Sega doesn't take any chances these days.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 and dont forget the staff of sonic team that create sonic adventure 1 and 2 on dreamcast dont create the new sonics..... to badd for sega.
sega-ta sanshiro will come back and kick ass of all staff of sega.. sega-ta sanshiro dont died in vane !!!
sonicromer 1 year ago
@sonicromer I noticed. The newer Sonic games don't feel like the older ones.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that Sega won't come back to the hardware business. They just can't afford it. The company made some really poor business decisions in the past and essentially screwed themselves, so they no longer have the luxury of being their own bosses. Sega was an excellent game developer, but that wasn't enough to save the DC. That really sucks, but that's the way it is.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - I agree. Sonic 4 is unplayable for me. My main gripe with it is that Sega's trying to pass it off as being faithful to the series, but it's not faithful to the original series. The game just feels wrong. And yeah, I wouldn't trust Sega to handle a console launch anymore. The Sega of today is better as a software publisher.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin I know, right? Sonic 4, at least in the demo stage, is annoyingly slow, clunky, and fairly boring. It isn't designed to appeal to the 2D Sonic fans; it's designed to appeal to current-generation gamers. The homing jump and idiot-proof difficulty don't exactly resonate well with me, either.
I'll probably get the full version eventually, but only because I want to complete the series. Sonic 4 is certainly a step in the right direction, but Sonic Team still has a long way to go.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@sonicromer - Hahahaha...the revenge of Segata! That'd be worth seeing!
kubevubin 1 year ago
@sonicromer But still graphics don't make the game AND which company still makes consoles? (even if dreamcast one is better even though they look the same to me)
kid356 1 year ago
@kid356 I couldn't have said it better myself. Graphics are the least important thing in games.
Now, that isn't to say that the DC's ability to smooth out textures is a worthless feature. It's still a nice option to have. I personally prefer the look of the normal MGS1 textures without any smoothing at all, but that's just me. The DC is just as awesome as the PS2. :D
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - And draw distance wasn't what I was referring to. Draw distance is sacrificed even nowadays to improve performance, and I don't feel that it's anything that'll ever completely go away. I was, as an example, referring to hidden surface removal, which would only texture the side of a character that happened to be facing you, keeping much more in the way of resources available for other elements. Dreamcast has more VRAM than PlayStation 2 and uses it more efficiently.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Oh, I see. That's a strange technique, but I'm sure it worked wonders for some of prettier games on the DC.
I have to disagree with you about draw distance being sacrificed in newer games, though. Most current-generation games have excellent draw distances, but they have lower framerates. Draw distance has improved significantly in the past several years. It isn't much of an issue anymore.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Actually, I've noticed some very distracting draw distances in games that I've played very recently. I can't remember which ones right off-hand, but bear in mind that the draw distance isn't so much applied to distant objects as it is objects that're lying on the ground (which is strange to me). You'll often see this done with foliage (which is very distracting for me), but I've seen a lot of small collectible items experiencing short draw distances.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Furthermore, you seem to think that I'm just another mindless Sony fanboy who is here to insult your opinion. Trust me, I'm not. I've been with Sega for a lot longer than I've been with Sony. Hell, I would go as far as saying that I like Sega's games a bit better than Sony's. But the fact is, you can't judge a system by what its developers say it can do, even if they are wrong. If technical specifications made a system great or not, the Genesis should have been a complete failure.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - You're missing my point about technical specifications. It's a matter of good hardware design without serious bottlenecks. Also, Sony makes its system architectures so needlessly complex, yet developers continue to flock to its consoles. It has nothing to do with hardware quality. Atari made Jaguar far too complex, as did Sega with Saturn. The difference? Console install base. That'll make developers put up with just about anything, although it almost backfired on Sony.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Fair enough. I won't lie; I actually prefer the hardware design of the DC. The PS2 was difficult to program for and had less memory than the DC, even though it was more powerful. Even so, that doesn't affect the gamer at all. Unless you're a game developer, what difference does it make how difficult it is to program games on a particular console if you aren't the one making them?
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - PlayStation 2 has more system memory, whereas Dreamcast has more video memory. In either case, consoles that're difficult to develop for most certainly do affect people other than the developers. Jaguar owners found themselves playing pretty much the same games that owners of other consoles were, despite Jaguar being so much more powerful. (One of its processors was the same as the Genesis' main processor, so most developers simply centered development on that one processor.)
kubevubin 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Also, Saturn owners found themselves getting certain games long after PlayStation owners got them, since developers took so long to develop the Saturn versions. PlayStation 3, until Sony got its shit together, even had certain games completely cancelled (or significantly delayed). Thankfully, Sony's pretty good about updating its dev kits to make them more usable to compensate for its consoles' shortcomings from a development standpoint.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin I guess I'm a bit more patient than most gamers. I can wait for a long time for games to finally be released, no matter how many years it takes. Lately, I have been especially skeptical with games that take several years to develop, seeing as two of the most important games of 2008, MGS4 and GTA IV, turned out to be very disappointing. Conversely, if a game is never released, I don't miss it very much. That's just me, though.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
It would have been nice if you included the dreamcast with the vga adaptor it really makes a big difference. Thats when you will notice a hugh difference between the two systems. Dreamcast vga is totally amazing and yes soul caliber looks better then the arcade in the vga mode. see for yourself.
Wankasky 1 year ago
@Wankasky - I do own the VGA adapter, and I agree that most games look amazing on it. Thing is, I have no way of capturing through VGA, which is why I didn't use the VGA adapter for this video. To be fair, though, it wouldn't have been fair to have one console on s-video and the other on VGA. They're both on s-video in this video, which makes more sense, anyway.
kubevubin 1 year ago
please do more videos like this. :D
seven7wenty 1 year ago
I'be got bleemcast and it's SOOOOO much nicer thant he PS2 version I think. much smoother.
BMan100 1 year ago
I like both. I have never played on Dreamcast or seen the console in person, not a single once, but PS2 is still alive and Dreamcast has gone too young.
xerxesmv 1 year ago
Besides text, dreamcast owns in graphics.
idem0n 1 year ago
@idem0n They both have same graphics in most of the cutscenes.....
kid356 1 year ago
@kid356 LOL YOU CANT SEE THE TEXTURES??? O_o?? is a hugee diference !!
dreamcast have more memori in textures about ps2 is around the double of capacity and have antialising ! ps2 dont xD
shenmue never can be convert to ps2 ,.... ps2 will make shiit in his pants trying to run shenmue,.... xD
just look re4 the textures of ps2 are too pooorr and the antialising omfg play dc in hdtv and play ps2 and compare !! ps2 look to fucking ugly !! in hdtv! sorrry the ugly true
sonicromer 1 year ago
@sonicromer easy there, fanboy.
PTSnake 1 year ago
@PTSnake im fan boy of the games ....
if you think that the games that you play now are games??
....
sorry for you you dont know nothing about the word " game"
sonicromer 1 year ago
@sonicromer I've been playing "games" for as long as you were alive, i work in the game industry.
You're thinking about nostalgy, diferent shit. Yes, i PLAY games, you're just being a old fart if you think only retro stuff is cool.
eg.: MGS4.
Was the dreamcast awesome? Yes. Was it better than a PS2? Not. At. All. (hardware wise).
that said, the DC it the console i love the most.
PTSnake 1 year ago
@PTSnake ohh mgs4??only one game? im talking about games that make history
im not retro gamer, im saying that the new games its not making for have fun,....
are made only for proov who have better graphics...
lol i have ps3 360, and wii ,. and my worst waste of money in consoles was buying ps3,360and wii.. really im not retro but if i wanna watch graphics i used my pc core i9. but the new games dont bring me fun, the only game that mark my life was shenmue , that is a game!! =)
sonicromer 1 year ago
@sonicromer i said MGS4 as it's a MGS video -.-
I like old games as i like new games, yes, it's diferent, but so what, old games had a whole worse good game/bad game ratio.
Do i enjoy new games? Some.
Did i enjoy old games? Some too.
There's crap everywhere, you just have to learn to get the good ones.
also, don't lie, i9's aren't for sale yet, the best you can get is i7 (wich i own myself).
Now, stop behaving like a prick and grow up. There's shit everywhere, deal with it, or just STFU.
PTSnake 1 year ago
@PTSnake in that case i just wanna say:
this game from psx run too much better in dreamcast than ps2...
and i hope the next generation can make " real games" no shiit like crap hollywood movies.. only stupid efects and nothing about historys or gameplay..
i cant re-play any game in this gen... i dont know why ( maybe have 0 gameplay) i dont know, but is real.... sorry but its true the games are diying... dont have new ideas, dont have creativity,yes i will sell my ps3 for recovery my cash
sonicromer 1 year ago
@sonicromer Bleemcast is an emulator, as such, it has features like antialiasing, and was made for this specific game (MGS).
the PS2 emulated ALL GAMES using the same engine, so it's bound to experience less improvement, but has a more faithfull reproduction of the original game.
Learn to shut up once in a while, when you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Also, having a PS3 in bolivia? Damm, you must be "rich".
PTSnake 1 year ago
@PTSnake - PlayStation 2 had two main potential advantages over Dreamcast in this respect, however: 1) Some of the PlayStation [1] hardware is inside of it. 2) It was developed by the same company. Sure, this particular build of bleemcast! was tailored for this game, but many emulators that're available for various platforms have far better ability to enhance PlayStation games. And yes, these take specific games into account, but the support is still in there.
Also, be nice. :P
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin it's hard to argue with fanboys who compare softwareemulation with hardware emulation man... of corse i got pissed at him.
but yeah, the PS2 emulated the PS1 as nice as it could, Bleemcast used post processing which the PS2 didn't use.
PTSnake 1 year ago
@PTSnake - PlayStation 2 definitely did a good job when not running enhancements. Thing is, Sony basically tossed in a feature and hid it away so people wouldn't find out that it was broken. And Sony very well could've used post-processing, as well as other tricks, for specific games, but only if Sony bothered to implement it. Sure, this wouldn't work well for all games, but graphical plugins for PlayStation emulators for PC obviously know how to account for certain games' visual trickery.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin yep, i love to run old PS1 games on my epsxe on max settings... on the other hand, i hate PS3 emulation... looks worse that PS2 sometimes.
PTSnake 1 year ago
@PTSnake - Ouch. Really? I heard quite the opposite about emulating PlayStation games on PlayStation 3, although I suppose that it depends on the game.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@PTSnake lol you dont know santa cruz bolivia dont you?? ps3 is a crap here, i play my ps3 whit copys , here all the consoles are with mod chips or whit program whit link pc. my ps3 work whit isos link whit my pc and my 360 and wii whit modchips xD and im not rich ... the ps3 ( with the program to run pirates games cost 360$)( the wii 260$ whit modchip) and xbox 360 380$ whit mod chip.... lol really if you come to santa cruz you will be suprise xD you dont know nothing xD
sonicromer 1 year ago
@PTSnake Hey, man, calm down. He's just stating his opinion. How does that make him a fanboy? Some people love old games a lot more than new ones. I certainly do.
It's true that there are awful games in every generation, but the current one seems to have the most. Most games these days are Call of Duty rip-offs that don't give the player any freedom. Hell, I've spent enough time with MGS4 to know that isn't even even all that great, in spite of the hype. Very few gems are released these days.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - You know, one thing that I will say about this current generation is that most of my favorite games from it could've easily been done on older consoles. I buy a lot of games on XBLA, and it's largely because games on XBLA tend to have more value for their costs.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Same here. Most of the games I own for my PS3 are digital copies of PS1 games and a few titles from the last generation. Not only are they cheap, but they provide much more entertainment than a new $60 game.
I think the problem is that the gaming industry is trying be like Hollywood, focusing on production values and short, heavily-scripted gameplay. Games rarely give the player any freedom of choice these days, and that doesn't exactly give them replay value.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Yeah, it never ceases to blow my mind how much time and effort it takes developers to make some of the assets for these games, only for them to last 6-8 hours (if that). On the other hand, I can play Castlevania: Harmony of Despair or Super Meat Boy for much longer and pay only a fraction of the cost. Castlevania: Harmony of Despair doesn't have a lot of content, but it has a TON of replay value.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Old games usually have quite a bit of replay value. For example, I downloaded Medal of Honor Underground off of PSN last year. Not only did that game have 24 main levels and 3 bonus levels, but it also had several hours worth of unlockables and secrets in most of the levels. The whole experience took me about twenty hours, and most of it was good fun.
I'm not asking developers to make 50-hour games; I just want them to make good games with incentives to replay them.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
@spicyechidna94 - Single-player campaigns are generally very disappointing in this particular console generation. They tend to take back seats to multi-player modes, which is a shame, because I used to (and still do) purchase FPS games for single-player campaigns. It's hard to justify the price increase of games when I, personally, get less out of them.
kubevubin 1 year ago
@kubevubin Pretty much. I personally can't stand MP in current-generation games, because it seems to pander people who play like bitches. Camping, explosives-whoring, unbalanced weapons and cheap perks that take all of the skill out of playing the game are just some of the reasons why I prefer SP to MP.
The sad thing is, FPS games used to be better even if they did have major MP components. Allied Assault's expansion packs are still better than most full-blown current-generation shooters.
spicyechidna94 1 year ago
can u play disc 2?
PranksAreUs83 1 year ago
@PranksAreUs83 - Yep.
kubevubin 1 year ago
Bleemcast! did a better job with this game, having owned and played MGS on my PS1, my PS2, and thru Bleemcast! on my Dreamcast. Sure some of the odd things (wave effect on text) were weird, but the anti-aliasing and smoother framerate are what had me.
battyone 1 year ago
The playstation version looks a lot better, are you stupid?
ShepperdW 1 year ago 2