View Full Version : What if Final Fantasy 7 8 and 9 would have been designed for the Dreamcast??

01-28-2002, 03:30 PM
Well ok Final Fantasy 7 MAY have been out before the Dreamcast was, but Imagine how much better Final Fantasy 8 and 9 would have been graphics wise if they had been designed on the Dreamcast instead of the Playstation. I don't mean ported over to the system, but actually designed for it.

I know that it won't happen due to Sony and Squares agreement, but it would have been great if they had.

Nanaki XIII
01-28-2002, 03:50 PM
No way. It should stay Sony even if the graphics would of been better.

The Unknown
01-28-2002, 04:26 PM
I like Sony better too

01-28-2002, 05:02 PM
Dreamcast doesn't have better graphics. Before I buy a game I check out their reviews here ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) Playstation consistently gets better reviews than Dreamcast (when comparing the same game for both systems). Mostly because if it was released on Dreamcast first - it's improved upon by the time it gets to Playstation. - - and Dreamcast can't touch the games that Playstation had first.

The only system that portends to have better graphics than Playstation(2) is the X-Box, and of the reviews I've read (when comparing the same game for both systems) even when the X-box does have better graphics the game has glitches as a result.

01-28-2002, 05:35 PM
Whats so big about PS1's graphics. Dreamcast kills them by a mile although Dreamcast really isn't a system I like. I like FF's on sony and really wouldn't like them on Dream, but It would still look cool just to see it.

01-28-2002, 05:48 PM
I can't argue 'bout it, because I've never seen a Dreamcast. I just go by the reviews. :)

01-29-2002, 04:49 AM
Well, I too prefer PS than Dreamcast, because I'm also have Dreamcast so i know how it feel to play with it, The graphics might be very cool, but the system data in Dreamcast are very unprotected, why???? because when I saved my game data, two months later, the data have already deleted, I wonder why,. THAT"s why i choose PS/PS2, both of this console are really great.:)

01-29-2002, 11:57 PM
Sorry but your way off if you think the ps1 has better graphics then the Dreamcast. The Dreamcast is a good system but most of the games on it basically sucked and thats why it went down hill. Actually the Sega Saturn was a better system then the ps1 but same deal the games sucked on it. Also I hear the Saturn was hard to program games for but I dunno.

01-31-2002, 09:10 PM
sega dreamcast games mostly sucked?!?! you cant be further from the truth! the dreamcast had some of the most original and fun games, but the reason why it went down hill is because sega never really advertised it well and everyone was waiting for the PS2. it wasnt really considered mainstream and as a result mostly only true gamers acually bought it.

02-01-2002, 01:00 AM
Well I thought most of the games for Sega Dreamcast sucked. Lets see I enjoyed Sonic Adventure 1, D2 was ok, Well thats it. Sonic Adventure 2 was just gay I hate sports and Fighting games, and Shenmue was boreing. Sure this is just my opinion, but apparently I am not the only person who felt this way otherwise the system would still be going.

I guess if you like sports games and fighting games its good to have. If it wasn't for the emulators for Dreamcast Id have sold mine a LOOOOONG time ago.

No point in argueing this it is just a matter opinion. I like RPG and Adventure games, and lets face it Dreamcast didnt' offer very many GOOD games like this. I know there was Timestalkers but that game was so pathetic I won't even go into it. I have heard there was a couple of good ones but I never played them (nor can I find them) so I can't say for sure.

02-11-2002, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by veggita2099
Actually the Sega Saturn was a better system then the ps1 but same deal the games sucked on it. Also I hear the Saturn was hard to program games for but I dunno.

First, What the hell are you thinking? "the Saturn better than the PS" ? Most people don't even consider the Dreamcast as good and you are going on about a system that is the prison bitch of all the OLD systems...

I'm sorry but I cannot even try to comprehend what was going through your head when you decided to taint your post with that gibberish.

As for graphics, it all depends on the game, some games on PS have better graphics than DC and the other way around.

02-12-2002, 04:29 AM
Well I think that sony graphics are waaaaaaay beter than dreamcasts

02-13-2002, 12:03 PM
IT was proved through several game reviews the Sega Saturn WAS better system in terms of hardware (which is what I was compareing in my last post). I remember reading in game magazines back when it was just the ps1 and Saturn, and almost every game that was released for the ps1 AND Saturn was slightly better on Sega Saturn. Obviously the ps1 had a hell of alot better games for it and the Saturn bombed.

Anyone who thinks the ps1 has better hardware then the Dreamcast is plum eat up with it. While yes still more good games was on the ps1, the Dreamcasts HARDWARE was superior to the ps1's. But, much like the Saturn the games on the Dreamcast sucked.

Before you go on talking trash about me read the post completely. While the ps1 has better games then the Saturn or the Dreamcast, and I would sell my Saturn AND Dreamcast before I sold my ps1 as well. However fact remains the Hardware on the Dreamcast is better, and the Hardware on the Saturn is slightly better. I beleive the reason the Saturn suffered is the way games had to be made for it. Something about it was hard to program for or something. And of course they didn't have Squaresoft games.