Loved my saturn at the time, i was a big sega fan and think i held off buying the playstation for a while, but once i had a playstation found myself playing lesss of the saturn, till i needed some money to go out at the weekend and didnt make much on apprenteship i was on, so sold my saturn and all the games. But thankfuly emulation on the steam deck is amazing so now got all the games i use to play and a few that i wanted but never got change to play and it plays locked on steady frame rate on steam deck
cireza
Member
It is not an oversight, it works exactly as designed. SEGA knew from day-one how it was going to work (and not work), since they built this hardware.
Miracles do not happen when building the visuals is done through two entirely separate video processors. It always was a story of what do you gain VS what do you lose. Transparencies are important, sure, but having two separate and dedicated VDPs leads to other huge advantages. Including having proper 2D hardware as a whole. Sacrificing some use-cases of transparency was a choice they made.
The SNES did not do a better job than the Saturn at transparency. Saturn covers all the use-cases of transparencies offered by the SNES, since these are 100% 2D. They are exactly the same on that regard, with the same limitations.
Last edited:
xellos2099alpha
Member
The thing is, most the the psx 3d game look completely terrible nowsday and saturn 2d game STILL hold up perfectly fine.
gothmog
Gold Member
I worked at a game shop when the Saturn launched. It's not surprising it failed completely in the US if you saw how it was just kinda dropped in. Most people didn't even know it existed.
Sony disrupted the hell out of gaming and this was one of the weird reactionary mistakes that the other players made. A shame because there's some great games on the Saturn. I remember going to Sears when they had the Saturn fire sale and picking up 4 arcade sticks and a bunch of games for like $150.
Sony disrupted the hell out of gaming and this was one of the weird reactionary mistakes that the other players made. A shame because there's some great games on the Saturn. I remember going to Sears when they had the Saturn fire sale and picking up 4 arcade sticks and a bunch of games for like $150.
cireza
Member
Your avatar comes from a series that originated on Saturn in Japan, and did very well there.
dottme
Member
I learn about this game mainly based on the Dreamcast one
.
Badlucktroll
Member
When i was a kid i got the nintendo 64, but totally gave up on it and got a ps1. my brother had a saturn
Krathoon
Member
There are some pretty neat games on the Saturn. The core for it on the Mister is getting pretty close to finished.
Really, the only affordable way to play Saturn today is through emulation. The Beetle Saturn core in Retroarch is really good.
The Saturn version of Primal Rage is supposed to be the best one. It also had the best version of Double Switch until the remaster came out.
Really, the only affordable way to play Saturn today is through emulation. The Beetle Saturn core in Retroarch is really good.
The Saturn version of Primal Rage is supposed to be the best one. It also had the best version of Double Switch until the remaster came out.
cireza
Member
That's on Dreamcast though. Policenauts and Grandia have both been translated to English on Saturn. Grandia is a bit difficult to play nowadays because of the constant loading and transition screens. Super, super tedious.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
I bought a white Japanese Saturn in the mid-2000s, pretty much because I loved Ikaruga and I wanted to see if the hoopla about Radiant Silvergun was justified (not really, and the game cost me a pretty penny too, but I realized it must have been groundbreaking for 1998 standards).
The system was doomed in the west by Sega's higher-ups's infighting and poor management. In Europe it never stood a chance. As soon as Europeans - not really big console gamers - saw what the PS could do, and thanks to Sony's clever and aggressive marketing, it was game over. Let's not forget that one other little factor, piracy, which was easy as pie on the PS but virtually impossible on the Saturn and N64. Consoles pretty much became a thing in Italy because of piracy, and PS being the only one easy to pirate for sealed the deal - and the history of gaming in the continent.
I remember Saturn games looking incredibly poor in mag pictures. PS looked so much better in stills, and it's not like I could see actual Saturn games running live anywhere by late 1997.
A few years ago someone on the purple forum made a comment that really struck me: by 1998 - a year of gaming wonders for the other systems - most of the best games in the Saturn's library had already come out, especially in the west. Meanwhile, PS and N64 went on with big releases and monstrous technical improvements for 3 more years, literally double the lifespan they had in '98 and more.
The system really showcased how different the gaming landscape and gamers' tastes were in Japan. Japanese people had no issue buying a barebone port of Virtua Fighter, while western gamers and critics were already expecting more from home releases. Sega still being big in the arcades and the Japanese head honchos taking full control meant the console has good games… for the Japanese audience. They failed to make it international, while Sony even managed to make JRPGs mainstream in the US for a while. Not having a mainline Sonic game hurt a lot, too.
The system was doomed in the west by Sega's higher-ups's infighting and poor management. In Europe it never stood a chance. As soon as Europeans - not really big console gamers - saw what the PS could do, and thanks to Sony's clever and aggressive marketing, it was game over. Let's not forget that one other little factor, piracy, which was easy as pie on the PS but virtually impossible on the Saturn and N64. Consoles pretty much became a thing in Italy because of piracy, and PS being the only one easy to pirate for sealed the deal - and the history of gaming in the continent.
I remember Saturn games looking incredibly poor in mag pictures. PS looked so much better in stills, and it's not like I could see actual Saturn games running live anywhere by late 1997.
A few years ago someone on the purple forum made a comment that really struck me: by 1998 - a year of gaming wonders for the other systems - most of the best games in the Saturn's library had already come out, especially in the west. Meanwhile, PS and N64 went on with big releases and monstrous technical improvements for 3 more years, literally double the lifespan they had in '98 and more.
The system really showcased how different the gaming landscape and gamers' tastes were in Japan. Japanese people had no issue buying a barebone port of Virtua Fighter, while western gamers and critics were already expecting more from home releases. Sega still being big in the arcades and the Japanese head honchos taking full control meant the console has good games… for the Japanese audience. They failed to make it international, while Sony even managed to make JRPGs mainstream in the US for a while. Not having a mainline Sonic game hurt a lot, too.
Krathoon
Member
AH. Whoops. Yeah. Grandia 2 is a Dreamcast game. The Saturn has the best version of Grandia 1. They screwed up the graphics a bit in the PlayStation version.
Last edited:
SkylineRKR
Member
Saturn Piracy was identical to PSX in fact, but I think there simply wasn't much demand. I bought a Model 2 saturn one day, and it happened to play CDR. It was modded with a chip same like PSX. Disc swap was even easier on Saturn, esp. on model 1 with access light. I became a Saturn nut. I sold it off, and bought a JP model 2, and also a JP model 1. My fave was actually the grey JP model 1 with purple buttons. I've always prefered the Model 1, it looks more expensive with the glossy front and 2 lights. The great thing is all you needed was an Action Replay in the slot to play every region on it. But I pretty much only played JP games with the real RAM carts. I thought it was the real way.
But I always had a bad feeling about Saturn ever since I picked up a magazine who did a face off between the 2 the month before both systems would launch in Europe. Saturn simply looked worse. Daytona USA, though it actually plays awesome, looked worse than RR and VF looked much worse than Tekken. I was under the impression something was wrong. And the price, Saturn was quite a bit more expensive. Even though you would get a pack in game and the system could save from system memory. This is another decision from ancient times; launch a system with a pack in many gamers perhaps don't even want to play. Sony understood this better, they didn't pack in anything and kept the price lower.
Yes and another gripe was how Sega games lacked features. VF had basically nothing compared to Tekken which had cutscenes, unlockable boss characters etc.
Saturn was effectively killed in 1997. Some games came out in small quantities in 1998 in the west, but you can count them on one hand probably. In this period Sony actually dropped to a mass market price and released their games for the masses. If you look at their big sellers and games with mass appeal, they're all from 1998 onward. Like MGS, Tekken 3, Gran Turismo (released at like x-mas 1997 in Japan), Resident Evil 2, Crash 3 etc. FFVII came out late 1997 as well, in the west. Tony Hawk, etc. I know that in Benelux region, a grand total of about 30k PSX were sold from sept 1995 to late 1997. Late 1998 this had grown to 400k. I think this was happening globally.
But I always had a bad feeling about Saturn ever since I picked up a magazine who did a face off between the 2 the month before both systems would launch in Europe. Saturn simply looked worse. Daytona USA, though it actually plays awesome, looked worse than RR and VF looked much worse than Tekken. I was under the impression something was wrong. And the price, Saturn was quite a bit more expensive. Even though you would get a pack in game and the system could save from system memory. This is another decision from ancient times; launch a system with a pack in many gamers perhaps don't even want to play. Sony understood this better, they didn't pack in anything and kept the price lower.
Yes and another gripe was how Sega games lacked features. VF had basically nothing compared to Tekken which had cutscenes, unlockable boss characters etc.
Saturn was effectively killed in 1997. Some games came out in small quantities in 1998 in the west, but you can count them on one hand probably. In this period Sony actually dropped to a mass market price and released their games for the masses. If you look at their big sellers and games with mass appeal, they're all from 1998 onward. Like MGS, Tekken 3, Gran Turismo (released at like x-mas 1997 in Japan), Resident Evil 2, Crash 3 etc. FFVII came out late 1997 as well, in the west. Tony Hawk, etc. I know that in Benelux region, a grand total of about 30k PSX were sold from sept 1995 to late 1997. Late 1998 this had grown to 400k. I think this was happening globally.
Last edited:
Krathoon
Member
Oh yeah. 3D on the Saturn looks worse than the PlayStation. It is pretty low res. The shadows are not that good.
The Saturn does do a better job with 2D games. It supports an extra layer compared to the PlayStation.
I wish the Beetle Saturn emulator would let you double the resolution.
The Saturn does do a better job with 2D games. It supports an extra layer compared to the PlayStation.
I wish the Beetle Saturn emulator would let you double the resolution.
cireza
Member
And yet you have games such as Virtua Fighter 2, Last Bronx or Decathlete that are full 3D games pushing more pixels than anything on PS1.
SkylineRKR
Member
Yes there are a few, but those are ofcourse fighters, and a track n field game. However, on the other hand, I think Soul Blade was extremely impressive on PSX since it was fully 3d with sidesteps and all. Ofcourse it also had glorious FMV.
And PSX pushed stuff like Gran Turismo, Vagrant Story, Crash Bandicoot 2 and 3, MGS. GT had a hi fi mode which was impressive, and Ridge Racer 60fps version on the namco disc.
It's night and day, really.
Nintendo struggled against Sony back then too but on a totally different level from Sega.
Nintendo's TV console sales, with N64, shrunked sharply in Japan but remained close to the level of the SNES abroad, not just that but Nintendo was selling tons of first-party games (in fact Nintendo sold more first-party games on N64 than on SNES despite a contraction on third-party sales which have lower profit margins).
Saturn sold much better than Mega Drive in Japan and the third-party support from the japanese side improved considerably however overall sales paled compared to typical market leading consoles in that Country (basically it was a realtively strong also run in Japan) meanwhile sales abroad totally collapsed.
Even worse for Sega they were ill-prepared to confront strong opposition with the Saturn both for how the Saturn was conceived and due to how Sega consumer division's financial position began to precipitously falter in the latter years of the MD/Genesis.
Sony in the meantime had planned to go all out with a price war to drive off market the smaller game companies like Nintendo and Sega.
On the other hand Nintendo kept out-profiting the PlayStation division year after year.
Mega Drive/Genesis total sell-in worldwide: 30.75M
Mega Drive/Genesis total sell-in Japan: 3.58M
Mega Drive/Genesis total sell-in Abroad: 27.17M
(the above are the units manufactured by Sega, the number of units shipped by Sega)
SNES total sell-in worldwide: 49.10M
SNES total sell-in Japan: 17.17M
SNES total sell-in Abroad: 31.93M
(the above are the units manufactured by Nintendo, the number of units shipped by Nintendo)
Saturn total sell-in worldwide: 9.26M
Saturn total sell-in Japan: 5.90M
Saturn total sell-in Abroad: 3.36M
(the above are the units manufactured by Sega, the number of units shipped by Sega)
N64 total sell-in worldwide: 32.93M
N64 total sell-in Japan: 5.54M
N64 total sell-in Abroad: 27.39M
(the above are the units manufactured by Nintendo, the number of units shipped by Nintendo)
Sega, on the whole (that is including the successful arcade businesses), was never remotely close as profitable as Nintendo and began losing money around 1998.
In March 1998 Sega had to write down a huge special loss from its subsidiary Sega of America caused by the weak performance of the Saturn in North America and by unsold 16 bit inventory (!).
Mega Drive/Genesis was at the same time a blessing and a curse for Sega because it represented at first an extraordinary flywheel for the company which allowed Sega's management to make risky bets for growing the company further (most of which didn't pan out) however as fast was the rise as fast was the fall, leaving the company terribly exposed to adverse conditions (which came under the cloak of Sony).
Sega consumer divions (console) reached its profit peak in the fiscal year ending March 1993, the following year profits crashed 75% down and by the fiscal year ending March 1995 (before the Saturn launch in international markets) the division was losing money.
After that the healthy arcade divisons were effectively working to offset the losses incurred by the consumer division that was battling a desperate war against the stronger Sony and Nintendo.
The ending is known and include the launch of another console and many more losses.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
PSX of course pushed impressive games, but most of the ones you listed are pretty late games.
Elysion
Banned
What was the cause for this sudden crash in profits after 1993? Was it due to the failure of the Sega CD and 32X?
I also wonder how Nintendo managed to remain profitable throughout all this. Not just profitable, but more profitable than even Sony, the undisputed market leader. How on earth did Nintendo make more money during the Gamecube era than Sony with the PS2, despite the fact that the GameCube sold so badly that pretty early on Nintendo had to slash prices to such an extent that they sold it at a loss for a while (something they'd never done before)? And while Nintendo games sold well on the GC, especially compared to its small install base, their games weren't yet the mega blockbusters that they'd become on the DS, Wii and Switch. And it's not like the PS2 didn't have tons of huge sellers of its own. The PS2 outsold the GC to such a ridiculous degree it's not even funny, and it sold more software than any other system before and after. Not to mention that Sony actually sold the PS2 at a higher price than the GC for most of that gen, so they should've made more money from hardware and software than Nintendo, yet they didn't. Were Nintendo's profits at the time mainly due to the GBA and Pokemon? That's the only explanation I can come up with. I don't see where else all these Nintendo profits in the early 2000s were coming from.
It's also curious that Sony made more money with the PS1 than the PS2, despite the latter having higher hardware and software sales than the former.
Elysion
Banned
True. I'd also say that the timing of the Dreamcast was quite unfortunate; I'd argue it came too soon in Japan (where the Saturn was still far from dead), but too late in the west (where the Saturn had been dead since 1997 or so, and the hype train for the PS2 was getting started). I think it would've been better if Sega had launched the DC in the west first in 1998, and then in Japan in 1999. Though I'm not sure if that would've been enough to save their console business in the long run…
The Saturn could be modchipped, it was the first console i've played at my cousins' house and they had pirated games, what was a pain in the ass was the region lock still being active so you had to use the ST-KEY or solder a switch, but it was so dried on the library that most people would choose the Nintendo 64 as the non PS choice in Brazil.
Last edited:
![L*][*N*K](/data/avatars/m/842/842515.jpg?1744192062){kind=avatar}
nkarafo
Member
cartman414
Member
Better transparency support vs. better 2d? Nah.
cartman414
Member
Maybe you should check out some of the stuff on the Saturn too!I learn about this game mainly based on the Dreamcast one
GenericUser
Member
Poor 3D capabilities in a time were everything had to be 3D and it got sandwiched between the Playstation and the OOT/Mario64 Machine.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Why assume proper transparencies would necessarily gimp 2D performance?
And even if it did, would it be much worse than the Playstation? I mean, outside of the Saturn 2D games that were improved by the RAM expansion carts, the PS1 was good enough at 2D.
Not to mention 3D performance was more important than 2D in 1994/95. That was the whole selling point of "next gen". So yeah, if they had to choose they chose poorly.
cireza
Member
Back then, it would have. Had it been that easy, Sony and Nintendo would not have built consoles with 3D hardware only. 2D was achieved on both consoles through circumventing the hardware and using textures. They did not have traditional, fast performing features for scrolling layers of backgrounds, tilemaps etc... It was a greater effort, which developers accepted to deal with because the PS1 was successful enough.
Having better transparency meant having a video processor that could handle perfectly well 2D + 3D at once, thus making transparency applicable in a wider range of situations. The raw power to do all of this simply wasn't there at the time of conceiving these consoles.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Still overall, when you are looking at what the emerging trends were and what developers were asking for (as well as how to make it easy) choosing software driven 2D with great 3D acceleration compared to mostly great 2D acceleration with more software driven 3D yes they chose poorly (or not as well as the competition, let's not be harsh).
cireza
Member
But that's not the case really. The VDP1 handles proper 3D in hardware. It simply wasn't as capable as the video processor (+ the dedicated calculations component) in the PS1, but this is understandable as it could also deal with sprites effectively, and cost was probably an issue as well, since the console embedded more components.
SEGA made de choice to handle both 2D and 3D while others specialized in 3D, and pushed their entire communication around it (what other choice did they have ?), ridiculing 2D in the process.
It doesn't matter anyway. If SEGA had gone the full 3D route, it would still have been very difficult competing against Sony and the shit-ton of money thrown at marketing in the process. They were going to eat them in any case.
PeteBull
Member
I remember timed sony exclusives coming to sega saturn and looking/performing much worse, u knew it by that time console gonna flop hard AF.
It had less games and less quality exclusives vs playstation, same like n64 which was a flop too, those companies never learn, like today's microsoft too, instead of putting in honest work they try to think of a trick that gives them sales, when from first console gen till now it was always like that- high quality exclusives- aka musthaves make sure platform flourishes .
It had less games and less quality exclusives vs playstation, same like n64 which was a flop too, those companies never learn, like today's microsoft too, instead of putting in honest work they try to think of a trick that gives them sales, when from first console gen till now it was always like that- high quality exclusives- aka musthaves make sure platform flourishes .
phil_t98
#SonyToo
there went for a sprite and polygon graphics machine were Sony pumped it all into polygons. Sega should have had the know how as they were killing it in arcades at that time but delivered a massively underpowerd machine. compare PS1 ridge racer to Saturn Daytona and see the difference
cireza
Member
This isn't the case though. Saturn is certainly not underpowered. If anything, it was an extremely powerful console for the time.
Daytona scrolls very fast and has a ton of cars on screen, as well as playing perfectly well. For a launch game it was pretty good.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
I still don't see the huge gap in 2D prowess between the Saturn vs the PS1 in 2D graphics though, despite the PS1 being better at 3D and transparencies. Whatever difference must be small and (as proven) did not worth sacrificing 3D performance for it.
Again, it's not like the PS1 or even the N64 can't do nice looking 2D. All 3 consoles were a proper generational jump over the SNES/Genesis in that aspect. And, IMO, the best looking 2D game of that generation belongs to the PS1 anyway (Lomax). Not to mention how so many 2D Saturn games and ports still suffered because of the ugly dithering meshes so it's not like only the 3D games suffered. I hear all the time how the Saturn was a "2D graphics beast" but honestly, i think this is exaggerated a lot, probably because Saturn owners needed something to balance out the not so great 3D capabilities compared to PS1.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
PS1 certainly managed to have some pretty nice 2D games, but when shared with Saturn, they were not better. Same games, or slightly inferior, if not largely.
And the Saturn architecture also enabled creating infinite skies and landscapes with ease, which can be seen in a ton of 3D games.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
compare the pop in and screen tearing compared to ridge racer.
I had a Saturn and Ps1, Sega rally was my fave game of that gen but Saturn struggled in ways the PS1 didn't.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Yes, both consoles are a bit hacks in their 3D support (warping quads, which used to be best practice for modellers to avoid issues but very inefficient for the kind of budgets they use on consoles/PC gaming HW still).
Not as capable, not nearly as easy to use, and they bet on a very very very different way to do texturing (lower pixel fill rate too) than anyone else went with (HW enforced batching in a way, render texture by texture)… as you said embedding lots of components which increased costs. So yes, they did not choose as well as their competition, but it made sense internally HW wise perhaps… maybe.
No reason to get offended, 2D was not ridiculed (it did worse to the craft leaving all those games unlocalised on Saturn), you can do really good 2D with 3D HW (as long as you do not skimp too much on memory).
I disagree, 32X did damage the brand a bit (it was a marketing wasted opportunity) and Saturn would have had a lot more software (if they accepted a slightly higher cost they could have outdone Sony RAM wise and still got the best 2D games… or accepted to co develop Saturn with them as they accepted, but that is a much bigger WhatIf) and earlier in instead of the massive draught at launch in the West which in turn would have better positioned the Dreamcast that would not arrive too early or too late (in the West) to help the brand.
They had a niche they could keep carving for longer.
nkarafo
Member
These are cool looking, though very flat.
In the end though, i still think the best console for 2D graphics remained the Neo-Geo. The Saturn (and the other consoles) could do more fancy 2D effects and all, sure, but neither were capable of the most important thing about 2D graphics:
A fast storage to hold enough sprites and animations.
Both the PS1 and Saturn are slow CD based consoles so there's no way to stream the sprites in the same way Arcades or ROM cart based consoles do. And they can't use RAM either because 2MB was too small for the standards of the time (which is why the Saturn needed those RAM carts). The Neo-Geo CD needed 7 whole MB or RAM to compensate for the usage of the CD media. In that sense, i really believe the N64 was a more capable 2D console than the Sat/PS1 since it had both more RAM and ROM carts. Sure the carts were small but later in N64's life the 32MB ones were common. Those would be able to fit games like SF Alpha or Metal Slug without cuts.
So yeah, 2D beast or not, the Saturn still wasn't the ideal 2D machine IMO. Lack of fast storage and a small RAM are not a good combination for a 2D based machine.
cireza
Member
Indeed, but SEGA were dumb as a company and unable to work together between US and Japan. They could have fared better, but it was not only about having 3D as a focus in the console.
cireza
Member
It depends on what you are expecting. If you want arcade games that stream a ton of animations, then of course it is not a good fit. Cartridge all the way ! Neo Geo is awesome but it would have benefited from a bit more punch on the CPU side. You can really feel the lack of proper background features with this console.
However, a CD based machine will do wonders for 2D RPGs with a ton of content and high quality soundtrack. But for that specific type of game, Saturn did not offer much more than the SEGA-CD, in my opinion.
Last edited:
They must be confusing it with the second SH2 CPU that was added later, both the VDP 1&2 were designed to work with each other with VDP2 taking charge of the backgrounds.
The 3D processing on the Saturn took place on either the main CPU or the VLW/DSP unit located in the Saturn Control Unit, which wasn't as capable as the GTE used in the PlayStation. Sega added a second SH2 for developers to use, though it was difficult for developers to utilize all three processors for rendering. For what took a single processor to accomplish in the PlayStation, the Saturn needed three.
This article is worth a read on the Saturns hardware design
Last edited:
small_law
Member
It came down to one of the biggest mistakes in the history of video games: Sega's decision to launch the Saturn early. If I remember right, at CES in January 1995, Sega walked out on stage and said "we're launching it now." Everyone thought summer/fall '95 because until that moment, it was launching summer/fall '95. It was a snap decision by Sega execs to beat Sony to market.
Sega instead pissed off everyone. Devs weren't ready to ship games and retailers weren't ready to stock consoles. The two years of the Saturn had so many Japanese ports to fill the gap. American audiences weren't into it, so no one bought in. Then there's the infamous RISC processors geared for 2D.
I loved my Saturn. First console with an analog stick controller, first console to have memory card support. The second revised Saturn controller is one of the most comfortable controllers I've ever held. Lost Bronx was legit. So was the Virtual On port. I'm also Nights and Sonic R apologist.
Sega instead pissed off everyone. Devs weren't ready to ship games and retailers weren't ready to stock consoles. The two years of the Saturn had so many Japanese ports to fill the gap. American audiences weren't into it, so no one bought in. Then there's the infamous RISC processors geared for 2D.
I loved my Saturn. First console with an analog stick controller, first console to have memory card support. The second revised Saturn controller is one of the most comfortable controllers I've ever held. Lost Bronx was legit. So was the Virtual On port. I'm also Nights and Sonic R apologist.
Last edited:
RAIDEN1
Member
I mean we all know that Sega made some dumb decisions but not giving the cartridge slot backward compatibility with the Genesis was definitely one of them, that would have provided a better bridge to the 32 bit generation than the towering disaster that was the 32x...I mean you are Sega so-what if Atari are bringing out the Jaguar, your Saturn would wipe the floor with it anyway no need to bring out a stop-gap to tackle them...
I get people have a special place in their hearts for the Saturn. But please don't try to convince yourselves it was a powerful wonder of chips. It was thrown together with off the shelf parts and overly complex. But even when figured out it was still not as powerful or capable as the PS1 overall. Give the PS1 a 4 MEG RAM or ROM cart and see what it can do in terms of 2D games. I enjoyed the 2D Capcom master pieces and Deep Fear later in its life.
The Saturn at its best was far exceeded by later PS1 generation games. Now the question I can't answer fully is: is that because people pushed the PS1 to the max and never bother with the Saturn, or was the Saturn clearly incapable? I tend to believe the latter and that there wasn't much more left in the tank for the Saturn. The Saturn has a graphical look to it, I think people prefer that look just like some people prefer the N64 look. The arrogance of Sega design was a rite of passage to weed out poor coders on their hardware. totally misread the room and what developers wanted.
Whatever the case, Sega dropped the ball entirely on power and 3D capabilities. They failed to read the market even though 3D was already taking hold. Sega of Japan was jealous and made many stupid decisions for fear of a nearly out money Atari. But I still loved my 32X and its great launch lineup and best versions of MK2, NBA Jam, WWF Arcade (no load times!), Primal Rage and Star Wars. I still love you Sega, but you deserved to die.
The Saturn at its best was far exceeded by later PS1 generation games. Now the question I can't answer fully is: is that because people pushed the PS1 to the max and never bother with the Saturn, or was the Saturn clearly incapable? I tend to believe the latter and that there wasn't much more left in the tank for the Saturn. The Saturn has a graphical look to it, I think people prefer that look just like some people prefer the N64 look. The arrogance of Sega design was a rite of passage to weed out poor coders on their hardware. totally misread the room and what developers wanted.
Whatever the case, Sega dropped the ball entirely on power and 3D capabilities. They failed to read the market even though 3D was already taking hold. Sega of Japan was jealous and made many stupid decisions for fear of a nearly out money Atari. But I still loved my 32X and its great launch lineup and best versions of MK2, NBA Jam, WWF Arcade (no load times!), Primal Rage and Star Wars. I still love you Sega, but you deserved to die.
PeteBull
Member
Another thing u guys gotta keep in mind, is sega had 8bit then 16bit systems, then suddenly started to launch add ons, expensive af and soon abandoned them, so customers lost a lot of patience and faith in te brand too, and both of those add ons sold terribly, sega-cd and sega 32x while costing a lot(300$ for sega cd in 1992 was fricken crazy, 160$ for 32x in late 94 too ;/).