Top 7

We Recommend By ZergNet


  • danielcourtney - August 19, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    Dreamcast, what a system... Nothing wrong with it, fantastic in every way, just .. PS2 was better... in every way.
  • jedisamurai - August 19, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    Actually, you have it reversed. The PS2 was worse in every way except one. Marketing. Worse graphics, worse controller, worse price, worse games, worse company, worse experience. If only things had gone the other way and SONY had had a flop in the PS2, things would have been so much better.
  • BladedFalcon - August 19, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    Wow, fanboy much? I know a lot of people have a beef with the dualshock... But worse than the mammoth of a controller the dreamcast had? no fucking way. Also, the PS2 had a pretty crappy launch, yes, but you're seriously delusional if you honestly believe that any dreamcast game looks better than almost any latter day PS2 game such as God of War 2, Shadow of the Colossus, or Final Fantasy XII. Not to mention... the PS2 had a much wider and better selection of games in total than the Xbox, GameCube, and Dreamcast combined... And this is a registered thing, you're free to check and compare game lists if you want. Everyone has their opinion of course... but wow, way to miss the mark buddy, also, something tells me you've never even touched, much less owned a PS2, which makes you even less qualified to shit on it.
  • TokenGamesRadarFurry - August 19, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    God dammit BladedFalcon. Every time I scroll down through the comments, and find some awful, fanboy-fuelled tirade like the one above, I get ready to try and make a response...only to find you already destroyed said post. Keep bein' awesome.
  • BladedFalcon - August 19, 2013 5:01 p.m.

    Um... sorry for stealing your kill? ^^; Anyway, I'm sure this dude is going to disagree about the me being awesome part :P but thanks! also, if he does reply with some similarly asinine stuff, feel free to join in the fun XD
  • Vonter - August 19, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    I had a PS2 mainly for GTA and MGS, but then it fail on me, it couldn't survive my brothers and the laser faded many times. It had good games and astounding ones like Shadow of the Colossus. I want to just ask more like morbid curiosity. What is the difference the PS2 had when it launched than the Wii U doesn't have. I'll likely be woring but from it's generation it was the system with the lower tech wasn't it, it also didn't pick up more or less until GTA III came out, didn't it?
  • BladedFalcon - August 19, 2013 6:31 p.m.

    Okay, few things: PS2 wasn't the system with he lowest tech like the Wii U is now, the Dreamcast is actually the system with the lowest specs of those 6th gen consoles. It was still very capable, but the Dreamcast could never be able to handle any late period PS2, GC or Xbox games. WHICH IS WHY if anything, I'd compare the Wii U with the Dreamcast more than with the PS2, both are systems that came out a year earlier or more than the competition, but with significantly weaker hardware and despite a strong launch line-up, a dropped third party support soon after. Regarding the PS2 launch, yes, the system definitely had a dry first year, but even then it wasn't entirely barren, with the likes of SSX, TimeSplitters and Dinasty Warriors 2. (Y'know, the entry that WOWED everyone before it became the same game every single time after.) And by next year, 2001, you had not only GTA III, but also other megatons like Final Fantasy X, Devil May Cry, Onimusha, Silent Hill 2, Capcom vs SNK 2, ICO and Gran turismo 3. A lot of these are still regarded as great games to this day. So you see, it took the PS2 a bit to pick up, but not nearly that long. And while yes, the Wii U is now getting Pikmin 3, and is getting DK: Tropical Freeze, SM3D World and such. It's unlikely any of those titles will be the watermarks that games like ICO, SH2 and FFX are. But more importantly... yes, a year after the PS2 along came the Xbox and the GC, but the thing is that neither of those systems were really that much more powerful compared to the PS2, at least, not in the way the PS2 was more powerful compared to the Dreamcast. Even though a lot of games arguably ran better on an Xbox, the PS2 even late in the game was able to run pretty much anything the Xbox did, with perhaps possible exceptions like Doom 3 or Morrowind. But those were in the minority. The biggest thing of why the PS2 ended up being the snot out of everyone though, wasn't the date it launched, wasn't the hardware. It was the obscene amount of quality games that came out for it. WHY or HOW did Sony managed to get the support they got from almost every major third company to make so many good games for them over others is up to speculation, but the fact of the matter is that it as the games that ultimately allowed the system to become the most sold home console to this day. And that is why I frankly wouldn't count on the Wii U making even half a good a comeback... It's not just that the PS4 and the Xbone are looking significantly more powerful... Nintendo simply doesn't have the third party support that the PS2 was rocking a year after it's release. It's undeniable that the Wii U WILL get good games from Nintendo itself... but 4-5 first party games per year at most simply isn't going to cut it.
  • jedisamurai - August 19, 2013 7:27 p.m.

    It always confuses me when people say that SONY hardware is so powerful. The PS2 games that I've played that were multi-platform looked better on Xbox or Dreamcast for the most part. I'm rebuying Outrun 2006:Coast to Coast on Xbox because the PS2 version looks muddy in comparison. And the Dreamcast version of Hydro Thunder and Marvel Vs. Capcom still managed to look better than the PS2 versions. With the release of the PS3 I thought SONY would FINALLY stop releasing games with horrible aliasing problems, but sadly this was not the case. The games that most wowed me on SONY systems were not due to technical specs, but rather superior programming skill (the load-less Jak and Daxter Series which managed to hide the shortcoming of PS2 hardware with clever viewpoint tricks, lovely cell-shading effects in Valkyria Chroncles by SEGA). On the whole, with consoles I would say sheer power is always trumped by ease of programming. Because while there may be a lot of power waiting to be used, very few developers can afford the time and effort to harness all that power, and usually only when everyone is looking to move on and buy the next generation. The Dreamcast was a shining example of ease-of-creation for Developers, as was the Xbox, and both had lovely games at launch as a result. The Nintendo systems, on the other hand, suffer from laughably under-powered hardware which is by Nintendo's choice. Nintendo can't have enormous profit margins if they take a loss on every sale as SONY and Microsoft do with every console release, and so they rely on gimmicks to sell new hardware.
  • Vonter - August 19, 2013 7:57 p.m.

    Well thanks for both for replying. I don't have time to read all right now but glad to see passion and not just hate in the argument. At the end of the day I think what makes you happy is what matters. Others don't have to agree for what brings you joy. That's why even if I also have my doubts with the Wii U, it's still gonna have the games I love the most. Hope you both continue with your passion for games.
  • jedisamurai - August 19, 2013 8:07 p.m.

    Thanks Vonter! You're right, passion is the key! At the end of the day I hope everyone just keeps playing and enjoying what they love, be it Atari games, PC games, Dreamcast games, or PS4 games. And a little debate now and then to spice things up eh? If you're a fan of any of the game I mentioned (Valkyria Chronicles, Sky Gunner, Sega Rally 2, etc) check the reviews on I have many, many reviews posted to stir up the passion for those classics!
  • Effinae - August 20, 2013 9:19 p.m.

    I was in total agreement until the last sentence.
  • sandplasma - August 20, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    Nicely said. Nintendo needs to get its act together.
  • Effinae - August 20, 2013 9:15 p.m.

    You spelled Xbox One wrong.
  • jedisamurai - August 19, 2013 6:36 p.m.

    If you think that was a fanboy-fuelled tirade you ain't seen nuthin' yet! And I'm afraid you will find if you strike me down I will just become more powerful than you can possibly imagine....
  • jedisamurai - August 19, 2013 6:31 p.m.

    Ah, how I do love being called a fanboy by other fanboys! :D I know most people are filled with love for SONY like girl they crushed on in high school, but as a person who owns a Dreamcast, A PS2, a Saturn, and poorly ye have judged me. The difference is...SONy made games that sold. SEGA made games that you fell in love with. Don't get me wrong. Gran Turismo 3 and 4 are okay. Gradius V is outstanding. The Red Star is one-of-a-kind. all of EA Big's sports titles were loads of fun, and the only decent games Naughty Dog ever made were on PS2 and PS1...but the Dreamcast.... oh man! Where to begin? The Dreamcast was the first system to give us Ikargua, Rez, Space Channel 5, and Jet Set Radio. ANY of those games alone are worth buying a system for. In addition we got SEGA Rally 2 (the best SEGA Rally game ever made), Skies of Arcadia, Sonic Adventure, Ferrari F355 Challenge, Chu Chu Rocket, and better-than-arcade-perfect Soul Calibur, Marvel Vs Capcom 2, and Hydro Thunder. Plus of course there are loads of imports, homebrew, and quirky Japanese releases and PC ports that are loads of fun to play. And don't get me started on how a friend came to visit, I showed him every good console game I had, and he spent the whole weekend playing Get Bass Fishing... When I think about the overall QUALITY of the titles vs the QUANTITY of the titles, the Dreamcast wins hands down. The PS2 releases were plagued with aliasing issues, usually supported only 2 players instead of 4 (Power Stone 2 anyone?). The graphics were usually worse (Dead or Alive 2, Hydro Thunder), and the system cost TWICE as much at launch. I understand that EA Sports fanatics who just have to have their Madden or fans of SONY's ultra-violent God of War and the out-there Shadow of the Colossus/ICO may find it essential alongside the Square fans... But I never cared for ICO/Colossus (too creepy), hate EA with a passion, and never enjoyed any of the Square relases on PS2 (just can't seem to get into FFX and XII has a horrible bug where a character permanently was poisoned and could not be healed, plus the combat in that game sucked). Will I keep my PS2? Sure. For Gradius V and the Red Star Alone, along with a few titles that for whatever reason got a superior release on the System (Hot Pursuit 2). It's unfortunate that the system on the whole is so over-rated though. Aside from some games that are not availabe on PS3 and a few strange, quirky titles that Game Hunters like me are after, it has little to offer besides blurry, muddy versions of titles available on Xbox. If the Dreamcast had won that round, however. We would have pretty much been guaranteed a future filled with gorgeous arcade perfect 2D and 3D titles, fun and original games, and four-player simultaneous mayhem in the living room. As it stands, I will NEVER sell my Dreamcast because there are more good games for than for the PS2. I personally believe part of SEGA's downfall was trying to release too many new original games rather than just relying on endless sequels and DVD playback to sell systems the way SONY did.
  • BladedFalcon - August 19, 2013 7:15 p.m.

    Er... you realize that games like Rez, Crazy taxi and Marvel VS Capcom 2 came out for the PS2 as well, right? They may have arrived for the Dreamcast first, but they can't really be waved as cards in the Dremcast favor if the system you're arguing against has them as well. Also, you're just simply wrong, Sony didn't made games that sold, and it didn't just make a "bunch" of games either. It made a LOT of good games, of all sizes and flavors, both original and sequels. See, it's not a matter of quantity over quality. The PS2 had both quantity AND quality. I don't deny that the Dremcast had some pretty good games, in fact, notice that I never called the Dreamcast a bad console, personally, i actually prefer it over the GameCube or the Xbox. But you can't in all seriousness compare the catalogs just because the PS2 games you mentioned are the ones you're aware of. Aside from the already mentioned original titles like ICO, SotC and GoW. You also have other good to amazing original titles and series such as SSX, Devil May Cry, Kingdom Hearts, GTA III, (Which let's be real, it's original in it's type of gameplay and presentation.) Onimusha, Burnout, Disgaea, Fatal Frame, Frequency and Amplitude, Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratcher & Clank, Okami and X-Men: legends. All of these are series that are very well regarded to this day, and all of them had their origin on the PS2. Also, please do note not just the quality and quantity of the above titles, but also the VARIETY in them, you have racing games, sports games, turn based RPGS, strategy games, sandbox games, brawlers, survival horror, platformers, music and rhythm games. The PS2 had pretty much everything for everyone. And see, i just mentioned Original games, to say nothing of all the series that got better and perfected on the PS2. I COULD go on, but even I am running out of free time right now. Anyway, if this isn't enough to make you realize that you're not being entirely fair regarding the PS2. Then going on further would be meaningless anyway.
  • jedisamurai - August 19, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    You'll note that I never said the PS2 was a bad system either. I merely said it was WORSE. Just to use your logic, since the ultimate success of both systems was determined by the titles released in the first few years, yes, the games I mentioned CAN be waved as cards, just as the series you mentioned can be despite their rerelease on other systems. The fact that you can buy PS2 games on PS3 does not negate their existance on PS2 first, and the fact that Dreamcast games were ported to PlayStation 2 does not negate their existence on Dreamcast first. I'll concede the point that SONY did indeed release a lot of games, as well SEGA would have had the Dreamcast continued. Compared to say...the Virtual Boy, I will also concede that the Playstation 2 had some quality titles. But in comparison to the Dreamcast? Sorry. SONY loses that round. I've played tons of obscure PS2 games looking for these Bastions of quality, and found them very few and far between. Sure, there are the usual tentpole ultra-violent games like Devil May Cry and Grand Theft Auto, but these don't impress me at all. The Sly and Jak series were outstanding, on the other hand, and definitely great examples of what the system was capable of if developers could afford the time and effort required to get past the programming difficulties. SSX was a terrific title but was release in near-idential fashion for the Gamecube and Xbox. The PS2 version was superior in my estimation because of the excellent controls. As for Kingdom Hearts, the first game was a terribly over-rated game that was definitely worth playing once, and the Sequel is the only Square produced game worth owning for the PS2 (thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten about it). In my opinion the absolute best game ever made for the PS2 was definitely Sky Gunner, but sadly that game was marred by the technical limitations of the PS2. All in all though, I just don't see the equivalents of the Dreamcast library in the PS2 library. Until its XBLA re-release Ikargua was only available on Dreamcast and it is undoubtedly the greatest top-down shooter ever made. Until its XBLA release Jet Set Radio was a dreamcast exclusive, and again, it was the greatest cell-shaded game ever made. It goes on and on. Get Bass Fishing (greatest fishing game ever made). SEGA Rally 2 (greatest arcade rally game ever made), Chu Chu Rocket (greatest four player puzzle game ever made), Virtua Tennis (greatest four player sports game ever made). If SEGA had won that round we would be 5-10 years further along in gamplay development than we are now, no doubt about it. Don't get me wrong, I DO enjoy the PS2, and it's arguable the greatest console of it's generation because it was just around for so long. It's just not the BEST, because it many ways (two controller ports, aliasing issues, difficulty of developing games, high price point) it was decidedly a step backward.
  • Fhiend - August 20, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    Ikaruga came out on gamecube. I have it. It is awesome. Falcon is right though. OS2 just had more better games than DC. I should know. I loved my Dreamcast. I still have both of them. But PS2......Could not be beat. My fav system of all time is SNES, but PS2 is right up there. It was awesome.
  • Effinae - August 20, 2013 9:13 p.m.

    If someone made me give up my Dreamcast collection or PS2 collection the PS2 stuff would be gone without thought. I probably have 3x as many games for it too.
  • shawksta - August 19, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Great list. I frankly cant wait to hear it on the podcast
  • Sjoeki - August 19, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Why isn't the CDI not on this list? It had the best zelda and mario games I ever played, they had voice acting that studios like naughty dog can only dream of and visuals that I haven't seen since the last time I fired up MS Paint. All of that in the 90's people, those were the days!
  • avery78 - August 19, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    I had a Dreamcast and thought it was a great system. Power Stone and Marvel Vs Capcom on it was beast.

Showing 21-40 of 41 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.