Price Reduction and All, Should I get the DC (1 Viewer)

[Iain Lambert]

Only Sega and Capcom? And there was me liking my copies of MSR, Soul Calibur, Fur Fighters, Rayman 2 and Mr. Driller while umming and aahing about buying Quake III, Tony Hawks 2 and Soldier of Fortune...
Still, to be fair Morgan has explained elsewhere that Soul Calibur isn't to his taste.

 

[Andre F]

Good system, great games...why not buy the system? If you are like me and have to play the newest games (and systems)then it is not worth it...
-Andre
------------------
-= Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape! =-

 

[BrianB]

quote: Also, could you post a link to the site you got that info from. I'm just curious[/quote] http://www.segatech.com/
------------------
Nothing In Particular
[Edited last by BrianB on August 22, 2001 at 12:14 PM]

 

[Trace Downing]

For 3rd party games...
I like the Atari made Gauntlet Legends and Hydro Thunder very well. I think Midway released them on DC. I also like MDK2, although it's real hard for my "old man" skills.

I just think that ECCO: Tides of something or other, is absolutely beautiful, but I can't get past the first lagoon.

Anybody know of a cheat book for ECCO?
I have most of the other good ones that were previously mentioned.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Make a list of all the DC games that are good. Now cross off the ports. Now cross off the games that are made by Sega or Capcom. Now you are left with a small list of good, exclusive titles. Most of the PSX's good games (if not all) were made by third parties and not by Sony. A lot of games that ended up as sequels on the DC actually started on the PSX (like Rayman, Dead or Alive, Tony Hawk, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil). The problem with the DC is that Sega (and Capcom for RE and fighting games) was the only company making any good exclusive titles for the system, besides those few titles that would later be ported to another console or were actually good and stayed on the DC.

 

[BrianB]

(like Rayman, Dead or Alive, Tony Hawk, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil).

I LOVE the fact that two of them actually started on the Saturn - DOA was a Saturn game before it was a PSX game, and Tomb Raider launched first on the Saturn, thanks to an exclusivity deal with Sega Europe.
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Iain Lambert]

I hearby swear to go easy on Morgan from now on. Sorry Morgan, while you've been making some pretty brash statements recently, its rather harsh of us the way we keep pulling you apart. Shall we all accept that Dreamcast games are less to his taste than Nintendo ones are?
In Morgan's defence many of the games we are holding up as Dreamcast greats have equivalents either now or in the future on other platforms (the DC was never enough of a success to justify the budget for that many exclusive titles). And many of them he either didn't like at the time or has tired of. If I published reviews online I'm sure you could all embarrass me with my high opinions of some games that got old real quick, or for that matter when for the first six months of its release I maintained that Quake's full 3d world was a waste of resources and Doom was a much better looking game.

 

[Trace Downing]

Morgan, if your going to play the "cross off the ports" game, then play it right. These appeared on these systems first...
Rayman: Sega Genesis/SNES simultaneously
Resident Evil: 3D0
Why should PSX be the only system that should lay claim to any ports? Remove the ports off of PSX and you go down in number by about 400 titles, leaving an awful lot of really BAD games.
Whether they're ports or not, if it's available on DC, then it should count, especially if it's a well made game.
[Edited last by Trace Downing on August 23, 2001 at 11:42 AM]

 

[BrianB]

Shall we all accept that Dreamcast games are less to his taste than Nintendo ones are?

I said that a few days ago... Basically, just accept that some gamestyles aren't to your taste & accept that a LOT of people DO like those gamestyles/structures. Ho hum.
I'm just fed up going over the same argument again & again. I'm sure we had this /exact/ same message from Morgan talking about how minus Capcom + Sega + ports, there are no good DC games.
Which is nonsense of course, but ho hum. I'm getting seriously bored.
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Rayman started on the PSX. If you can get a link to prove otherwise, please do.
What I was saying is that there are few (if any) exclusive DC games that were not sequels, ports, or first party games. The problem with that is that you could buy Rayman 2 for PC or PSX or PS2 or N64 or get RE:C-VX for PS2 instead or Crazy Taxi for PS2 (etc., etc.,....) so buying the games on a DC would be pointless if there is a better version out there. That is my big problem with porting games (there's always a better version than the one you have).
I have said before that the DC is a good console and has some good games. I will say that I got my money's worth out of it (which is probably why its only $70 right now).

 

[Calvin Watts III]

The problem with that is that you could buy Rayman 2 for PC or PSX or PS2 or N64 or get RE:C-VX for PS2 instead or Crazy Taxi for PS2 (etc., etc.,....) so buying the games on a DC would be pointless if there is a better version out there.

Morgan, if you look at the DC ports, almost all of them are better then other platforms - ( Soul Reaver, Spiderman, Tony Hawk, Star Wars: Racer,etc. )
So, there is a reason.
The DC, if you are a videogamer, is a good buy - IMHO
Then again...I play almost anything...

------------------
"Never give up!!! .......... Never surrender!!!!!!!!!."

 

[Peter Loan]

Ya, last time I checked, Rayman 2 on the DC is better than on the PS2 (16x9 support, 480p, better graphics and less slowdown), and its only $20 rather than $50 on the PS2. The same goes for Crazy Taxi, and Crazy Taxi 2 is a hell of a lot better. The DC also has the best port of Tony Hawk 2, Spiderman, and Soul Reaver (only $10!). We also have online versions of Virtua Tennis, NFL and NBA 2K2 to look forward to as well as Phantasy Star V2.0. If you are a gaming enthusiast rather than a platform whore, the DC is a good buy.
[Edited last by Peter Loan on August 23, 2001 at 08:55 PM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Most of the enhancements of a game on the DC as opposed to another console are just the graphics or technical aspects (or price). If I could get every game that was on a DC on another console, then I would rather buy the other versions and not buy a DC. Even if the graphics were worse or the loading times were worse.
Most of the ports of games from another console to the DC are only graphically better and offer nothing new in the gameplay department. Rayman has extras on the DC that aren't on the PC, but the PS2 version has even more extras (I could care less about 16x9 since I would rather play racing games in 16x9, just personal preference).
The 2K series of sports games will end up on other consoles (online, too) and Phantasy Star Online will be on DC with more features than PSOv2.
The DC is a good buy, but if companies are going to port all of the good games, you don't need it to get the same gameplay experience (besides the graphics, but those aren't that important if the gameplay is the same).

 

[Drew Dockery]

So you would rather have a slower loading, graphically inferior port? Do you want your movies is mono with Pan N Scan too?

 

[Jason Seaver]

(besides the graphics, but those aren't that important if the gameplay is the same).

Explain this logic. I would think that if the gameplay is the same, the better-looking version would be preferable. (That's not even taking into account that the DC version is probably less expensive, since that's really a function of stores trying to clear space for the Xbox)

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The better looking version would be preferrable. Let me explain what I said:
Imagine that every game that I would ever buy for the Dreamcast was ported to another console. What would be the point of buying a DC if I could get games that had the same experience of the versions for DC?
I like games that look good and play good, but it is more important if they play good. Blue Stinger on the DC sucked because of graphics and gameplay put together. Shenmue was a bad game because the gameplay sucked, but it looked beautiful (not anymore though, Final Fantasy X looks way better).
I would rather have the superior port, but if there is a way to not buy an entire console to get any sort of port of the game, then I would rather get an inferior port.

 

[BrianB]

but it looked beautiful (not anymore though, Final Fantasy X looks way better).

Sigh.
Another game /looking better/ does not make the first game instantly look 'bad'.
Sigh.
Think before you post, Morgan, you're spouting more & more nonsense by the post!
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Shenmue was great, but Final Fantasy X sets a benchmark above it in a visual sense. People say that the PS2 is bad because the X-Box is better, so I am just applying the same arguement to Shenmue and Final Fantasy X (I've also heard that FFX is better than Shenmue gameplay-wise, but thats what I heard).

 

[BrianB]

Shenmue was a bad game because the gameplay sucked, but it looked beautiful (not anymore though, Final Fantasy X looks way better).

You still haven't explained how a game coming out 6 or 7 months after it instantly makes the /previous/ game seem ugly.
Gameplay's got nothing to do with it, especially since you haven't played FFX (by your own admission). You don't like Shenmue - fine. Don't keep going on about it.
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I was saying that Shenmue was an example of a game that looked good but played bad. I then went on to say that Final Fantasy X looks better than Shenmue and (from what I have read from people who have played through all of both games) Final Fantasy X is a better gameplay experience overall than Shenmue.