this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
285 points (87.6% liked)
Technology
59284 readers
4276 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Dreamcast library can feel underwhelming because of how shortlived the console was. Most Dreamcast games didn't get to fully realize the console's power because it didn't last long enough for the potential to be fully realized. EA was afraid of piracy so didnt even try to develop for it, and the Dreamcast launched too close to the Saturn for most people. However, it was the fastest selling console in the US at the time. But then like, a year and a half later the PS2 launched and killed any chance the Dreamcast had.
Dreamcast had a lot of good games. Notably, Sonic Adventure, Soul Calibur, Shenmue, Grandia 2, and Record of Lodoss War. But what I think makes the library good is how experimental all the games on it were. Games like Illbleed. Its hard to find "duplicate" games on the Dreamcast, unless you look at like, the Resident Evil port and Dino Crisis port.
For a console that realistically only existed for about 18 months, it did quite well. Had the Dreamcast not launched so close to the Saturn, had SEGA supported the Saturn in the US more, had the PS2 not come along to kick it down, and had EA not dropped it instantly, then I definitely think the console would have done well.
It didn't have a chance. Those are a lot of "ifs". You're basically saying if the other console manufacturers hadn't manufactured consoles then the Dreamcast would have done great.
Look, from a design perspective, the DC was ahead of its time: cram a PC in a console shell, focus on sharp resolutions and online support. The template ended up becoming the Xbox and eventually after the 360 era it's what all modern consoles are.
But in the context of them trying to bounce back from the Saturn's very mishandled Western run, it was the absolute wrong console to make. All the arguments from Sega fans about how the games looked nicer than the PS2 and whatnot just didn't hold up to scrutiny on the displays of the time. Was the resolution much higher? Yep. Did it matter when plugged in using component cables to a crummy consumer CRT? Absolutely not. It looked a whole generation behind.
And again, be careful about rating worldwide success from what happened in the US. The DC did surprisingly well there, like the N64 did, but much less elsewhere. The Gamecube outsold it 2:1, as did the original Xbox, and the PS2 ended up outselling both of those 10:1. The Dreamcast was in stores over here, for sure, but I have never met anybody who owned one.