![]() ![]() I don't know if they technically reused the same textures in the gcn version but someone else here probably does.Īll that being said, higher texture resolution or not, the DC version does look worlds better via vga, it is as simple as that. So what is being rendered in the gcn internally (higher poly count or not) is bottlenecked by the interlaced output so you can't even tell if it uses better textures or not. I have component cables for the gcn and even with the cables any game that isn't progressive scan compatible(Skies) looks muddy and just terrible like a ps2 game. OGDCFAN99 wrote:I own both versions as well.ĭoes it look the same as Dreamcast on an emulator? If Nintendo would have Shipped SOA with Progressive Scan support and GBA to GCN link functionality to act similarly to the VMU functionality, I think the GCN version would be right on par with the DC one but that's just my opinion.Įverything I said above also goes for RECV and quite a few others that I cant think of off the top of my head but probably will the second after I post this message. Its a shame this dual screen type of gameplay didn't gain much popularity with the DC or later on with Nintendo's GBA to GCN link and the Wii U. While the older DC version technically uses less detailed graphics, lower polygon counts, it outputs them at better video quality (480P) through VGA which you will find very noticeable if you had the two versions side by side.Īnd then there's the VMU functionality which is purely subjective- Personally I really like the asymmetrical gameplay they were going for with it. As Aleron said, the sound is downgraded too due to it being crammed onto one disc. There is a difference between "graphics" and "video quality." While the GCN does have better graphics due to the higher polygon models, it only outputs at 480i so the interlaced video quality looks rather mediocre (not counting emulators).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |