DC is SO current gen.

Post by **Christuserloeser** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:05 pm

Nick wrote:You're not refuting any of my points.

...where are your points ? You got an option, that's good. It's still wrong.

Nick wrote:If the DC's lifespan was '98 to '00, or '99 to '01, those dates pit it around the death of the PS1/N64. It had more power than those, but the nature in which it was released was a combination of PS1/N64 ports and PS2/DC multiplatform releases.

They even released (a damn lot of) NeoGeo or Capcom CPS2 ports, or released Atari / Williams classics for it. That still doesn't mean the DC is a 16 or 8-bit system.

DC started with what's standard today:
Full TV resolution. 640x480. It literally doubled the power of the SAT/PS1/N64 generation.
From my point of view the N64 could be what you describe "mid-gen", because it introduced professional (low res) 3D graphics compared to the crappy & buggy JAG/3DO/PS1/SAT (3D-)graphics. Even in HiRes in some games (via the Memory Expansion pack) when DC was around.

It's true that the PS1 (MGS) and the N64 (Zelda: OoT) revolution "killed" the DC, still, it's 128 bit = current gen. Get over it.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:17 pm

I'm not wrong. It's an opinion. Evidently you didn't read my post, since I made my points for the Dreamcast being last gen.

You're telling me to get over it, yet you're continuing to argue. I don't see why you insist that I'm wrong. I'm not. It's just a classification, and people have been known to classify things differently. It depends on what you take into account.

And since when did bits make a difference in system power? It's been proven for awhile that such a statistic does not really make a difference, can be construed to ones' liking, and is not a measure of system power. Or generation for that matter.

kingbuzzo · Post by **kingbuzzo** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:17 pm

there's semi valid points for either side it seems. Seems to be varying ideas on what a generation is as well.

Since we're all so stubborn, why don't we just have a poll and see where the community stands. Not that it would really solve anything, but it's clear this argument isn't going anywhere fast anyway.

Caboose · Post by **Caboose** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:21 pm

If your definition of "current generation" means a 128-bit console, and meant to compete with PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube, then the Dreamcast is current gen.

If your definition of "current generation" means commercially alive, hardware is still being produced, and you don't have to hunt around for things, then the Dreamcast is previous gen.

Simple as that.

MetaFox · Post by **MetaFox** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:43 pm

Crazy Caboose wrote:If your definition of "current generation" means a 128-bit console, and meant to compete with PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube, then the Dreamcast is current gen.

If your definition of "current generation" means commercially alive, hardware is still being produced, and you don't have to hunt around for things, then the Dreamcast is previous gen.

Simple as that.

Certainly can't beat that logic. Since this is becoming nothing more than flamebait - I'm locking the topic and leaving it at that.