this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
264 points (88.2% liked)
Technology
59135 readers
2921 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
GameCube was good, but I say the SEGA Dreamcast definitely takes the Underrated and Underutilized Console award.
Wii U: Am I a joke to you?
Everyone: YES
It's a shame the Wii U never really saw the modding community the Vita had
It finally got there though at the end of it's life. I have mine available still because it's basically a modded Wii with the ability to also play WiiU Roms too.
Does it really compare to the Vita's though? There's a lot of source ports and homebrew for the Vita being made even now
WiiU was underpowered when it launched. Even if someone had utilized it 100%, it still would have been behind compared to the Xbox360 and PS3. 720p only when the Xbox and PS2 were already supporting 720p and 1080i was also a bad choice.
WiiU was just a bunch of bad choices combined in a single product. Bad hardware choices, bad marketing, bad name, requiring the massive gamepad for console setup, etc.
I dunno who told you the Wii U was 720p-only. Mine ran at 1080p all day, every day - albeit some games used upscaling to reduce the graphical workload.
Some of this is factually wrong, some of this I disagree with personally.
I'm not gonna stand here and claim the WiiU was a good business choice or the best possible design for what they were going for. That was the Switch, and... well, yeah, it's the biggest console out there for a reason.
I'll say for it that, like the GameCube, it's less of an interesting retro ownership piece just because so much of its library ended up getting Switch ports. Given the scarcity, some of the reliability issues and the rarity of some games, though, you can be sure I'm sitting on my Wii U and physical games indefinitely. I'm not a speculative collector, but that Wii U copy of The Wonderful 101 is gonna be a good investment at some point.
Kind of missing the point of Nintendo. They make epic games. The Wii-U was a massive miss step for Nintendo from a marketing perspective and even the control pad had some massive flaws around it too but damn I love this console for what it was and the games.
It was a stepping stone to get to the Switch though. It was super under powered compared to the PS4 and Xbox when released and even more so with the PS5 and Xbox Fridge or Toaster or whatever the One is called these days. Based on specs but it played great and looks damn good on my 4k UHD tv and the OLED console display really pops for its size. But all and all it’s shit on paper based on specs and that’s fine as Nintendo knows how to work with what they got and it’s a mighty fine console.
Also Blast Processing!!!!!! Bro
Nintendo used to make powerful hardware that was actually competitive too. I wish they'd go back to that. So many third parties dropped most Nintendo support because they keep making decisions that severely limit third party developers. N64 lacked CDs, Gamecube had tiny CDs, Wii was literally just the Gamecube in a different shell and therefore underpowered, WiiU was underpowered, Switch is underpowered.
Nintendo literally changed their entire business strategy because they want to repeat the sales of the Wii.
Imagine how much better TotK could have been if it had an actually powerful console. Korok Forest would get more than 15 fps.
tbf 720p and 1080i are pretty similar
Not really. They're nearly as similar as 1080p and 720p, really. 1080i is a vertical resolution 1.5 times bigger than 720p, just like 1080p.
The only difference actually is that 720p is a progressive scan inage, not an interlaced image. This means the field is constructed top down row by row. Once the field is constructed, it is displayed as a single field.
An interlaced image constructs two fields separately in short succession, with one field having only odd rows and the other having only even rows. They're displayed on screen fast enough so that the image appears complete, but an interlaced image can have a noticeable "jitter" effect because every other vertical row on screen is updated slightly later than the others. Depending on the display, it can also have decreased brightness or a flashing like effect because the time inbetween both fields being displayed can be visible to the human eye.
The only thing wrong with the wiiu was the price of the games. People call it the "switch tax" but I had to pay $90 for pikmin 3 in 2013, when the idea of $70 games was still rocking the world of Sony and MS fans. If it wasn't for a gift I never would have accepted that price.
Had an internet browser.
Controllers had mini screens available.
Shit was OP, ahead of its time.
It did cloud game streaming in 2012 and, unlike the Sony Portal, the Steam Link or Xbox Cloud, it actually worked.
Granted, while you were within spitting distance of the unit and had clear line of sight, but still. Impressively lagless wireless video out of a console in the early 2010s? We don't respect that enough.
The Dreamcast did that in 2012? How?
I think he got it mixed up with the Wii U...
I think it's safe to say that Sega wasn't doing anything with Dreamcast in 2012, ten years after it was discontinued.
Man issue with most things is $$$.
No point in releasing the most advanced console if people can't afford it or its features, ensuring no developers actually make games for it.
I'm not a fan of the Dreamcast library at all. If you ask me, that'd be the Saturn, which has more interesting games by a wide margin, IMO. If anything, I feel the DC has been mythologized unfairly. It has good ports of a bunch of great ports of fighting games from the worst period for fighting games and a few 3D arcade ports from the worst period for 3D arcade games.
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.
It had Sonic Adventure which was and is a really great game. The chao garden made great use of the little screen thingy compared to other games.
Oh and Crazy Taxi was an arcade port but pretty dang decent despite that!
And uh... Sonic adventure 2?
OK maybe not a lot of greats but that's part of the mythos of DC, it could'a been a contend'a but games didn't make good use of its capabilities.
Shenmue!
Skies of Arcadia!
Grandia II!
Ikaruga!
MvC2!
Phantasy Star Online (WITH ONLINE PLAY?!)
DoA with age slider for boobies!
D2! (Criminally underrated)
Elemental Gimmick Gear!
Caution: Seaman!
ALL THE NES GAMES, SNES GAMES, GENESIS GAMES, MAME, GAMEBOY, you could just burn em on a regular CD and play them! In fact, NO COPY PROTECTION, just download whatever game you want and burn it, doesn’t even need to be a GD-ROM!
Interestingly, the GameCube ended up having all of those, so... more related than one would think, I guess?