Sega, what really went wrong?...

[mediamachine]

Obviously still producing games but what really went wrong with the saturn and dreamcast? both great systems with awesome games (albeit a limited library for each system respectively). Ive read loads of stuff regarding segas post genesis console curse but what does everyone on here think?

In my opinion the dreamcast is superior to the psx in most respects apart from obviously quantity of games available, but, graphix/sonix are superior as are most other features (controllers, use of vmus, internet compatibility etc), same kinda thing goes for the saturn so what really went wrong, surely game producers could see the dreamcast especially was a major player so why didnt they give it (or the saturn) a chance?

Maybe ive missed something here and please be aware this is only my opinion so dont flame me for this one please!

Gimme your feedback on it, id be interested to get everyones views.

[Ruudos]

I remember that it was really hard to develop for the Saturn and that the console was released too fast.

[zmweasel]

Obviously still producing games but what really went wrong with the saturn and dreamcast? both great systems with awesome games (albeit a limited library for each system respectively). Ive read loads of stuff regarding segas post genesis console curse but what does everyone on here think?

In my opinion the dreamcast is superior to the psx in most respects apart from obviously quantity of games available, but, graphix/sonix are superior as are most other features (controllers, use of vmus, internet compatibility etc), same kinda thing goes for the saturn so what really went wrong, surely game producers could see the dreamcast especially was a major player so why didnt they give it (or the saturn) a chance?

Maybe ive missed something here and please be aware this is only my opinion so dont flame me for this one please!

Gimme your feedback on it, id be interested to get everyones views.

The Saturn launched too early and with too high a price point, suffered from poor marketing (which had once been SEGA's greatest strength), and was a 2D machine in a 3D world.

The Dreamcast was overshadowed by the continued success of the PS1 and the pending launch of the PS2, burdened by SEGA's weak relationships with retailers and publishers, and ended up as a "tweener" system, bridging the gap between PS1 and PS2 like the 3DO and Jaguar filled the gap between the Genesis/Super NES and PS1/Saturn.

(There are those who argue that piracy also played a considerable role in the Dreamcast's downfall, but I strongly disagree.)

-- Z.

[thegreatescape]

Its a little too early for me to write up what went wrong at best.company.ever, so ill let someone else. My question is did you really think the dreamcast VMUs were really all that ? or better than the vanilla psone style ?

I mean, they werent really that useful and the batteries only lasted a few hours when in use outside the controller.
Sure there were a couple of games that used it well (sonic adventure), and being able to link was nifty, but in the end i can never see the justification for the extra cost they took to make/sell.

[fahrvergnugen]

Saturn - expensive, technically inferior to the Playstation, bad launch.

Dreamcast - shot down by the PS2 hype machine. Everyone was willing to wait for PS2, which turned out not to be too much different from the DC, but by then it was too late. Also piracy and no EA.

[YoshiM]

For one Sega really tarnished their name in the hardware arena for customers and publishers/developers. 32X is a good reason as they pushed that hard but due to internal conflicts (Sega of America wanted 32X and to support the popular Genesis, Sega of Japan wanted a true 32 bit system) and the impending release of the Saturn and Playstation Sega dropped the 32X. And pretty much the Sega CD with the Genesis eventually losing momentum. And fans got burned as their entertainment investment (especially the 32X) did not get the support Sega promised.

The Saturn, some say, was released too soon as it didn't have a very strong stable of launch titles. But Sega wanted to get the jump on Playstation. Didn't help. With the Playstation taking the majority of publishers' and developers' attentions, the Saturn pretty much wallowed and Sega pretty much wrote the system off publically (if I'm not mistaken). So fans were burned yet again.

Then came Dreamcast. Helluva good system. But no one cared. At least not enough people to make it a contender. The Sega name was sullied. Plus there wasn't very strong 3rd party support like PS2 or even N64 (namely EA and that's a LOT of games right there). Couple that with Sega running them selves dry with the hardware failures it just was a matter of time.

[esquire]

In my opinion the dreamcast is superior to the psx in most respects apart from obviously quantity of games available, but, graphix/sonix are superior as are most other features (controllers, use of vmus, internet compatibility etc), same kinda thing goes for the saturn so what really went wrong, surely game producers could see the dreamcast especially was a major player so why didnt they give it (or the saturn) a chance?

Maybe ive missed something here and please be aware this is only my opinion so dont flame me for this one please!

Well the dreamcast was never really meant to compete with the PSX, especially since it was released in 1999, one year prior to the release of the PS2. The Saturn was the console Sega wanted to compete with the PSX. Both were 32bit consoles, released about the same time period. I believe the Dreamcast was 128bit, so yeah it was superior to the PSX.

The main problem with the Dreamcast is that Sega had allowed the Sony hype machine to build up the PS2. This was particularly the result of the extreme popularity of the PSX. The PSX really didn't have a direct competitor. The Saturn flopped and the N64, a cartridge based system, was viewed as more for the younger gamers. Thus, people were already familiar and happy with their Sony Playstation. Therefore, many people were hesitant to buy the DC originally. For those people, it was more of an economic reason than anything else. Why buy a console from a company whose last console was a flop, when 1) they were happy with their PSX; 2) they had a huge software library to choose from (take the Resident Evil, Syphon Filter, Metal Gear Solid, Crash Bandicoot, Final Fantasy, Mega Man series for instance); and 3) the PS2 was just around the corner. I think most people were waiting to see if the DC was any good, and if the PS2 would be better. That is just my opinion.

[fishsandwich]

For one Sega really tarnished their name in the hardware arena for customers and publishers/developers. 32X is a good reason as they pushed that hard but due to internal conflicts (Sega of America wanted 32X and to support the popular Genesis, Sega of Japan wanted a true 32 bit system) and the impending release of the Saturn and Playstation Sega dropped the 32X. And pretty much the Sega CD with the Genesis eventually losing momentum. And fans got burned as their entertainment investment (especially the 32X) did not get the support Sega promised.

The Saturn, some say, was released too soon as it didn't have a very strong stable of launch titles. But Sega wanted to get the jump on Playstation. Didn't help. With the Playstation taking the majority of publishers' and developers' attentions, the Saturn pretty much wallowed and Sega pretty much wrote the system off publically (if I'm not mistaken). So fans were burned yet again.

Then came Dreamcast. Helluva good system. But no one cared. At least not enough people to make it a contender. The Sega name was sullied. Plus there wasn't very strong 3rd party support like PS2 or even N64 (namely EA and that's a LOT of games right there). Couple that with Sega running them selves dry with the hardware failures it just was a matter of time.

It's been my understanding that Sega of JAPAN wanted the 32x... they wanted to prolong the popularity of the Genesis until they could get the Saturn ready. Plus, the 32x shares some basic similarities with the Saturn (dual 32-bit processors, additional processors like those from the Genny, convoluted layout, etc) and Sega wanted developers to have a "break-in" period with the 32x.

Check www.geocities.com/the32xmemorial to find out more.

I think that Sega could have hung around in the hardware business had they not introduced the Sega CD or 32x, supported the Genesis against the SNES, and gotten an outside company to design a simple-to-process Saturn with good 3-D power.

My 2 cents, anyway.

Cheers

Fish Sandwich

[Habeeb Hamusta]

Yea Saturn did come out rather early. Sega also had a lot of poor marketing in America. A lot of awesome games came out in Japan that didn't come out in America.[/b]

[Ed Oscuro]

It's been my understanding that Sega of JAPAN wanted the 32x... they wanted to prolong the popularity of the Genesis until they could get the Saturn ready. Plus, the 32x shares some basic similarities with the Saturn (dual 32-bit processors, additional processors like those from the Genny, convoluted layout, etc) and Sega wanted developers to have a "break-in" period with the 32x.

Check www.geocities.com/the32xmemorial to find out more.
Yes, that's what I've read as well, that Sega of America was the unfortunate recipient of Sega Japan's "grand experiment." It makes no sense whatsoever for SoA to be dabbling in console design outside of recommending features for the US market; what's more, I doubt they would've been silly enough to suggest that the 32x (or even the Sega CD, for that matter) would've been adequate replacements for a proper console. Sega CD came somewhat close, but "close" and "made it" in this business are the difference between being respected and becoming the laughingstock, or making money and losing it.

Unfortunately, this "SoA wanted the 32x" nonsense seems to taint a lot of readings, and misconceptions about the console in general leak onto even brilliant sites (i.e. Mr. P's Castlevania: Bloodletting page has no small number of 32x errors and likely errors).

[Push Upstairs]

I think the problem started with the underwhelming games for the Sega CD.

If Sega had taken the effort to show off what a CD based system could do instead of pumping out lame FMV games or games that were just cart games with some redbook audio. Perhaps people would have warmed up to the idea of an all CD based system in 1995.

And the Saturn...how i have grown to love it and its wonderful Import games. I know SEGA was hurting for money but damn, why didnt they bring some of the good stuff over here?

[suppafly]

Im a HUGE sega fan, but i have to admit that the saturn sucked and was blown away by better games on PSX

By the time the dreamcast was announced, most of people didnthave a reason to leave sony...they had a psx with hundreds of games, and were waiting to get the PS2

[Ed Oscuro]

And the Saturn...how i have grown to love it and its wonderful Import games. I know SEGA was hurting for money but damn, why didnt they bring some of the good stuff over here?
Baffling indeed. Even Shinrei Jusatsushi Taromaru (omg! I remember how to spell it now! Whee) only got something like a few thousand copies printed in Japan, making it an instant rarity and insanely collectable today.

[Jive3D]

I was a Sega CD-ahollic back in the day. There are alot of TERRIBLE games for it but there are a lot of great gems too that kept it going. CD based systems back then were not very well accepted. The 3DO didn't perform very well even though it was capable. My beloved CD-i fell through the cracks and now only performs as a common VCD player and a poor business presenation display unit. Too many games were based on FMV rather than gameplay and that focus just mucked things up. This connects to our conversation in that, at least stateside, all we got was crappy stuffed-with-fmv games (Citizen X??).

I was working at EB while still in college when the Dreamcast was close to it's release. And though we did sell out when the system was released, a LOT of customers told me that they were waiting for PS2. Hell, I bought the DC and then after not appreciated any of the launch games aside from Sonic & SC, I returned the thing. (Later purchasing the a pre-launch system which I love)

As far as the DC goes - there were a lot of crappy games. There were some good gems, but they were far and few, nothing strong enough to save the system. And the dam camera in Sonic Adventure pissed a lot of people off. The PS2 Hype machine did it in hardcore.

[Habeeb Hamusta]

Im a HUGE sega fan, but i have to admit that the saturn sucked and was blown away by better games on PSX

By the time the dreamcast was announced, most of people didnthave a reason to leave sony...they had a psx with hundreds of games, and were waiting to get the PS2

The Sega Saturn is awesome. Play Station has 8969875578 million games and 95% of those games are horrible. Saturn has a lot of great games to choose from, it may not have the best 3D graphics but in my opinion, it blows Playstation out of the water.

[whoisKeel]

As mentioned earlier, once the snes/genesis were fizzling out, it seemed sega just started pumping out expansions/systems every year. I remember conversations i had with friends, discussing which we thought would be best saturn vs psx vs n64 (although i don't think we know all the names at the time). Saturn was out, because they didn't show any support for their last 2 systems. Sony was out, because...the games they had made so far for nes/snes etc. were complete crap, as were the first year or two of games. I guess the n64 was the only choice...until they made every wrong decision possible and sony came and ate them.

so when sega came out with ANOTHER system, dreamcast...we were like 'yeah right, it'll be 2 years till you put out something else' Plus it came out at a weird time. what, 3 years after the psx was released? It takes alot of people a good 2 years to buy the next-gens, and those people aren't gonna buy another a year later. plus i couldn't stand sonic adventure...absolutely could not stand it...still can't...sold it. but i think dreamcast has an amazing library, maybe top5 post-nes era....too bad i, nor practically anybody else, noticed at the time.

[RCM]

Obviously still producing games but what really went wrong with the saturn and dreamcast? both great systems with awesome games (albeit a limited library for each system respectively). Ive read loads of stuff regarding segas post genesis console curse but what does everyone on here think?

In my opinion the dreamcast is superior to the psx in most respects apart from obviously quantity of games available, but, graphix/sonix are superior as are most other features (controllers, use of vmus, internet compatibility etc), same kinda thing goes for the saturn so what really went wrong, surely game producers could see the dreamcast especially was a major player so why didnt they give it (or the saturn) a chance?

Maybe ive missed something here and please be aware this is only my opinion so dont flame me for this one please!

Gimme your feedback on it, id be interested to get everyones views.

If I was to point to one thing that killed Sega it would have to be casual gamers. More often then not, they lack taste. Not buying many Sega games released in the past 9 years proves it! Ha!

THE ONE, THE ONLY-

[RCM]

THE ONE, THE ONLY-

RCM

[Mark III]

Piracy is what really put the nail in the dreamcast's coffin. Once people were able to download and play full versions of any game in the dreamcast library on an unmodified system, the dreamcast was dead in the water. Still, holds true today, in my store I get asked about dreamcast systems at least 3 times a day, yet there is almost zero interest in the games. Pretty much the only people who buy the games are collectors.

[Iron Draggon]

My explanation is in a post that I made on a somewhat unrelated topic here:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41573&start=25

To repeat myself, here is my post in that thread for those too lazy to scroll:

The original Daytona USA for Saturn. What the hell were they thinking? Was it really that necessary for them to rush the release of the system and this game in particular as a launch title that they just had to release this obviously unfinished game at launch in an effort to sell more systems? Fortunately, the Championship Circuit Edition was released later to correct this huge blunder, but the damage had already been done. IMO, the release of Daytona USA in it's hyper-rushed unfinished state and the audacity to still charge $50 for it anyway, rather than just include it as a pack-in demo or something was very largely responsible for the Saturn never really catching on here in the US.

Sony wasn't that stupid, so when the PS came out a few months later and all the highly polished launch titles blew away the highly rushed launch titles of the Saturn, it was simply no contest. Sony was gonna kill Sega on brand recognition anyway, and they knew it, so they should've just taken their time and released the Saturn on the original planned release date instead of rushing it out the door several months early just to be first and pissing off pretty much everyone in the process. They shot themselves and all that they had worked so hard for in the foot with that blunder, and it only got worse for them after that. They did so much wrong and so little right that it boggles the mind why Sega of Japan didn't just disown Sega of America and revoke all their licenses. I'm sure that they probably wanted to do just that.

Sega of America passed on so many titles that were considered unpassable by both gamers and the press, starting with the last days of the Genesis and Treasure's awesome Alien Soldier for example, that it's a miracle they didn't end up having to get out of the hardware business before the Dreamcast was released. If they hadn't beaten everyone to market with that one too, they probably never would've sold any of them. But the Dreamcast was different, they actually had finally learned from most of their mistakes by then, but it was too little too late. Most people simply didn't trust them anymore, and that's why the Dreamcast failed too. So it's really all Sega of America's fault for screwing up everything for Sega of Japan. They became so arrogant after the success of the Genesis that they thought they could do no wrong, and that was their biggest mistake. They committed suicide, not hari-kiri, and Daytona USA for Saturn is just one example that proves it.

[evilmess]

I think a lot of us who were in the Sega 16 bit camp got burned by the 32X and Sega CD. Both of which set up some HUGE expectations that couldn't be met by Sega. Now the real Sega faithful stuck with Sega and bought Saturn’s but many more of us jumped on the PS1 which changed the gaming landscape in more ways than one.

To the mass of gamers 2D was dead and 3D was the hot new thing and the PS1 delivered the goods 10 fold. The Saturn tried real hard and maybe it could have competed if Sega had given it and the developers a chance to tap into the power it had to offer but the sad fact is that Sega gave up on the Saturn. (side note: I jumped off the Sega ship and paid $300 for a PS1 after feeling burned by the 32X. )

The Saturn’s demise in not due only to the new kid on the block, the PS1 but Sega had a fierce rivalry with Nintendo. Mario 64 probably had more impact on the "new improved" 3D gaming scene than the entire PS1 library up to that point.

Now the N64 wasn't perfect but it was doing things the PS1 couldn't and I think Sega decided that they needed to switch their focus to competing with the N64 and Nintendo. A dream is born, or should I say a Dreamcast is born. The DC was a great system in comparison to the PS1 and the N64. The DC combined the best of both of those consoles and added features like online and 4 player built in controller ports. To little, to late.
(side note: I later bought an N64 after my PS1 died, swearing to never buy another Sony product for the rest of my life, well that lasted about 7 years until I reluctantly bought a PS2)

There were already a BAJILLION satisfied PS1 owners on the planet who had enough faith in their PS1 to wait for the successor, the mighty PS2, and they did wait and they did buy PS2’s.

There's much more to how and why Sega ended up where they are today but this is my own personal experience from the 16 bit to current generations as a gamer.

[Anexanhume]

You know, it's a shame that the Saturn was developed as a 2d system with limited 3d capabalities, but was forced to use them to compete with the games on other systems. What does everyone think of the Saturn's chances of success had it stuck to 2d gaming?

[potatobob]

Sega was just too cool to compete with everyone else.

[zmweasel]

Im a HUGE sega fan, but i have to admit that the saturn sucked and was blown away by better games on PSX

By the time the dreamcast was announced, most of people didnthave a reason to leave sony...they had a psx with hundreds of games, and were waiting to get the PS2

The Sega Saturn is awesome. Play Station has 8969875578 million games and 95% of those games are horrible. Saturn has a lot of great games to choose from, it may not have the best 3D graphics but in my opinion, it blows Playstation out of the water.

You're not seriously claiming that the Saturn has more great games in its library than the PlayStation. Are you?

-- Z.

[RCM]

You're not seriously claiming that the Saturn has more great games in its library than the PlayStation. Are you?

-- Z.

I enjoy Saturn titles over PS titles. I've played 100's if not 1000's of titles for both systems, included a majority of "high ranking" titles. I would back Habeeb up in saying that the Saturn has an amazing library of AAA titles. Saturn's best is better then the PS best!

My name is RCM, and I approve this message.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Algol]

Looking back, the downfall of Sega probably began with the Sega CD, which was a great idea at the time, but the world just wasn't ready for it. As for the 32X,... well, it cost $150 and the true 32 bit systems were just around the corner. The Saturn never took off because it was difficult to program, was launched before many games were ready, and had serious competition from Sony. The launch of the PS2 alone really hurt the Dreamcast's chances of succeeding. Not to mention consumer apathy and piracy.


What does everyone think of the Saturn's chances of success had it stuck to 2d gaming?

Slim to none. Remember, 3D was the rage back then. If Sega concentrated on 2D, the Saturn likely would have been totally ignored and killed off more quickly than it already was.

[lendelin]

Why the Dreamcast failed and with it Sega is a very good Q. Actually, these are TWO Qs which should be distinguished. First, why did the Dreamcast fail, and second, why did Sega fail. I never read a satisfying answer to both Qs, and I can't give them. Probably a good economist could answer it.

About the Dreamcast: The launch in Japan had lots of flaws, however, the launch in the US was perfect, Sega of America did everything right, from agressive marketing, price point, to launch titles. After 9 months the fantastic sales figures declined; and it is true that the image of the PS2 and the marketing of Sony made the DC look like an outdated system soon after the DC launch;

still, why wasn't the DC competitive? why didn't the great game library save the DC? and even with the upcoming GC and the Xbox as heavy competitors around the corner, why couldn't the DC survive in a similar situation as the N64 did in a worse situation two years after it's launch? (no, it is not the success of SM64 and the established fanbase of N) When it comes to sheer market situations, the GC and with it N should fail also because of a similar market situation.

About Sega: I suspect (!!) the answers to the Qs above are more microeconomics than the often stressed macroeconiomic factors which certainly contributed to Segas downfall, but explain very little. Sega was in the red for a long time before the DC launch;

additionally, I suspect that the independent development sections within Sega weren't cost effective. They produced great games, and probably still took losses despite good sales figures because the development costs were too high. The sections might have become indeed too 'independent,' and there were certainly rivalries and crosscutting interest conflicts between them. (some analysts give a hint about it and stress some indicators)

I think the in-house situation of Sega is THE explanatory factor to answer the two Qs. It seems the DC was an 'all-or-nothing'-gamble by Sega, and it's financial situation, structure, cost-effectiveness, and cost calculations were in awful shape; in such awful shape, that Sega couldn't even take a moderate hit without going under as a hardware manufacturer. The GC and N do also much better in a similar market situation becasue of microeconomic factors, N is much healthier becasue of the monopoly in the handheld market; once lost, N has to calculate costs for the console market differently.

As I said, there are too many speculations, too many Qs and not really good answers out there. The Qs remain still unanswered; but I strongly believe the answers lie in the microeconomic situation of Sega; and in this context the previous couple of years before the demise of the DC (failure of systems and the resulting lack of consumer confidence and heavy losses) are certainly relevant.

[YoshiM]

For one Sega really tarnished their name in the hardware arena for customers and publishers/developers. 32X is a good reason as they pushed that hard but due to internal conflicts (Sega of America wanted 32X and to support the popular Genesis, Sega of Japan wanted a true 32 bit system) and the impending release of the Saturn and Playstation Sega dropped the 32X. And pretty much the Sega CD with the Genesis eventually losing momentum. And fans got burned as their entertainment investment (especially the 32X) did not get the support Sega promised.

The Saturn, some say, was released too soon as it didn't have a very strong stable of launch titles. But Sega wanted to get the jump on Playstation. Didn't help. With the Playstation taking the majority of publishers' and developers' attentions, the Saturn pretty much wallowed and Sega pretty much wrote the system off publically (if I'm not mistaken). So fans were burned yet again.

Then came Dreamcast. Helluva good system. But no one cared. At least not enough people to make it a contender. The Sega name was sullied. Plus there wasn't very strong 3rd party support like PS2 or even N64 (namely EA and that's a LOT of games right there). Couple that with Sega running them selves dry with the hardware failures it just was a matter of time.

It's been my understanding that Sega of JAPAN wanted the 32x... they wanted to prolong the popularity of the Genesis until they could get the Saturn ready. Plus, the 32x shares some basic similarities with the Saturn (dual 32-bit processors, additional processors like those from the Genny, convoluted layout, etc) and Sega wanted developers to have a "break-in" period with the 32x.

Check www.geocities.com/the32xmemorial to find out more.

I think that Sega could have hung around in the hardware business had they not introduced the Sega CD or 32x, supported the Genesis against the SNES, and gotten an outside company to design a simple-to-process Saturn with good 3-D power.

My 2 cents, anyway.

Cheers

Fish Sandwich

Ack! My bad. The sites I happen to hit on when looking up info on the 32X gave flip flopped info. May I be beaned with Altered Beast cartridges or flogged with a Cat-5 o' nine tails :D .

[Iron Draggon]

You're not seriously claiming that the Saturn has more great games in its library than the PlayStation. Are you?

-- Z.

I enjoy Saturn titles over PS titles. I've played 100's if not 1000's of titles for both systems, included a majority of "high ranking" titles. I would back Habeeb up in saying that the Saturn has an amazing library of AAA titles. Saturn's best is better then the PS best!

My name is RCM, and I approve this message.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

I have to agree with this too. All games produced on both Saturn & PSX look infinitely better on the Saturn, and play infinitely better on the Saturn also. This goes for both 2D games and 3D games, but 2D games especially. The Playstation apparently has a vastly inferior graphics processor. All Playstation games have a kinda washed-out blurriness to them that isn't really obvious until you compare them to the same game on the Saturn. Then you finally notice just how much more crisp and vibrant the graphics are on the Saturn.

But unfortunately, nobody seems to have made this comparison back in the day, except me. All we heard was Sony this and Playstation that, and the bitter rumblings of Sega this and Saturn that, which usually had very little to do with the systems themselves or their games. Everyone was so excited that Sony had entered the market that it wouldn't have mattered if they were selling Viewmasters that you could plug into your TV. And that's the exact same thing that happened between the PS2 & the Dreamcast too.

The number of titles available for the Playstation doesn't mean anything to me. There's a ton more games for the 2600 than there are for most of the modern systems too, but most of them are crap. And the Playstation has gotten to be the 2600 of the '90's, in a very big way. Everybody and their dogs are developing for that system, and most of the games coming out for it now look like they were probably developed by a pack of rabid dogs too.

It's like a feeding frenzy, just shovel any old thing out on the PSX, you'll still sell enough copies to make a profit on it, and even have hordes of people begging you for a sequel too. Just look at some of the "Greatest Hits" lately. They sell enough copies of them to make them become "Greatest Hits" not because they're really all that great, but just because there's enough people who own a PSX now to make almost every game ever made for it become a "Greatest Hits" reissue. The PSX is thriving on quantity now, not quality.

Now contrast that with the way it was in the early days of the PSX. A ton of quality titles never made it into stores, or at least not into American stores, because they simply didn't meet Sony's demands for quality over quantity. However, Sony apparently has thrown that old policy out the window now, and will simply approve just about any old thing that you care to develop for the PSX. I'm surprised they haven't started allowing X-rated games for it yet. Yeah I know, all the PSX porn games are in Japan, but I mean I'm surprised that they haven't started approving a bunch of PSX porn games here too. Remember the 3DO? It proved there was a market for them, so why not?

Anyway, I sold off about half of my Playstation collection a few years ago, but I would never sell off any of my Saturn collection, so it'll be interesting to see how many other Playstation owners end up throwing out half of their collections to eliminate all the crap and make room for more quality games too. I bought Dreamcast games with the money I made from selling off my Playstation throwaway games, and I would never sell off any of those games either, so my only regret is that I wasted so much of my money on crappy Playstation games to begin with. I only got one for the few exclusives that I couldn't get on the Saturn anyway, so in my house the Playstation always took a backseat to the Saturn, and it always will. Now don't get me wrong here, because I do love my Playstation quite a bit, but I just don't love it nearly as much as I love my Saturn. The Saturn is by far a superior system.

[YoshiM]

All games produced on both Saturn & PSX look infinitely better on the Saturn, and play infinitely better on the Saturn also. This goes for both 2D games and 3D games, but 2D games especially. The Playstation apparently has a vastly inferior graphics processor. All Playstation games have a kinda washed-out blurriness to them that isn't really obvious until you compare them to the same game on the Saturn. Then you finally notice just how much more crisp and vibrant the graphics are on the Saturn.

I can't agree with that, especially in regards to 3D. Playstation was pretty much designed for 3D while with Saturn it seemed to be an afterthought. Comparing some of the ports (like Wipeout for example) you can see a definite difference with the PSX coming out on top. Even if you compare similar titles like Burning Rangers to Spyro the Dragon or Tomb Raider II (both released about the same time as B.R.) the PSX shows where its strengths lie.


But unfortunately, nobody seems to have made this comparison back in the day, except me. All we heard was Sony this and Playstation that, and the bitter rumblings of Sega this and Saturn that, which usually had very little to do with the systems themselves or their games. Everyone was so excited that Sony had entered the market that it wouldn't have mattered if they were selling Viewmasters that you could plug into your TV. And that's the exact same thing that happened between the PS2 & the Dreamcast too.

I guess it depends if you look at the Playstation's life as a whole or if we are talking about the early days. Back when the PSX came out it didn't seem to spark much in sales, well at least in my neck o' the woods (a friend of mine ran a game store in the local mall and PSX wasn't jumping off the shelves). It took a bit for the PSX to get some decent games before I started hearing people talking about it and before I saw it really moving off of shelves. But that's an observation from one small area of the country so YMMV.


The number of titles available for the Playstation doesn't mean anything to me. There's a ton more games for the 2600 than there are for most of the modern systems too, but most of them are crap. And the Playstation has gotten to be the 2600 of the '90's, in a very big way. Everybody and their dogs are developing for that system, and most of the games coming out for it now look like they were probably developed by a pack of rabid dogs too.

True, but PSX got the lion's share of the "Good" stuff and got a lot of the good exclusive stuff that Saturn never did (or at least didn't get over here). With the backing of a lot of 3rd party companies that people know and love, the Saturn was looking less and less appealing.


Now don't think I'm a PSX lover: I dislike that system with a passion. But I gotta call it like I see it: the PSX had everything going for it (ease of programming, looser licensing, decent hardware, a strong brand name, strong developer/publisher backing). The Saturn seemed to be a system people spoke about in hushed voices when they say they owned one, as if someone would pick them up and give them a swirly or yank their jockies up or something. Of all the gamers I knew during this time frame only two had a Saturn. When asked what system they had it was a monotone "I have a Saturn" and that was it.

[SegaAges]

sega discussion, you know i have to jump in...

The saturn was an excellent system. The main problem with it was that it was built around handling 2d games. I mean, go ahead and compare capcom fighting games on saturn to those of the psx. the saturn ones are way better. the psx came out and supported 3d technology. i guess sega didn't think that 3d would blow up the way it did. it exploded, and everybody wanted 3d games. sure the saturn had 3d games, but it couldn't handle the graphics like the ps1 did.

it was said by somebody else as well, but it is also my opinion that sega released the 32x and sega cd to try and keep the system in business, but people did not want to buy all these add-ons for a system they already had.

the n64 then came out and had capabilities way better than that of the saturn. the 64 exploded onto the market. i don't know specific numbers, but i am pretty sure that over here in the states, the 64 sold extremely well.

the segacd/32x made people not trust in sega as much (i always trusted sega, but everyone else did not).

by the time that the dc was released, the ps1 was booming, and the fact of knowing that it's new big brother would be 4 times as powerful just made people not want the dc as much. don't get me wrong, i got a dc on launch day, but i don't count, i am a sega fan. the dc basically had 1 year to prove that it was a good system and to release as many quality titles as possible before the ps2 came out. the problem was that many of the titles that came out were total crap. even with mainstream games like soul calibur, the dc just wasn't as good of a seller. people blame piracy, but hell man, you can pirate for the xbox and ps2 pretty easily and nobody is blaming piracy for them. people just used piracy as a scapegoat because they couldn't explain why a quality system was not selling very well. i know from experience, that every single pirate i dealt with, back when i was in the scene, would buy every single good game that they burnt (i know i did as well).

the dc is now the way of atari. atari just did it years before. granted, atari is selling a new console later on, but i think it is just an attempt to gain some of the market from all these little joystick things that are coming out. i honestly don't see the new atari console as a true console, just because i don't feel like paying that much for something i could get for 19.99 on a joystick.

like i said in my sig, the sega never died, it just stopped getting played. it pretty much just faded off the radar screen. one minute there are games everywhere, then a few months later best buy is selling every game for $5 (getting fighters megamix at $5 brand new from best buy was awesome).

I am a fighting game guy, so it should be known that I love the saturn. i think it had a ton of very good games. it's fighters were excellent. i own every single virtua fighter from 1 on through 4:evo, and with the games history, it is pretty cool to play the 1st 1 on the saturn and make my way up and actually see the progress. i mean, comparing vf1 to vf2 is like comparing street fighter 2 to capcom vs. snk2.

[zmweasel]

You're not seriously claiming that the Saturn has more great games in its library than the PlayStation. Are you?

-- Z.

I enjoy Saturn titles over PS titles. I've played 100's if not 1000's of titles for both systems, included a majority of "high ranking" titles. I would back Habeeb up in saying that the Saturn has an amazing library of AAA titles. Saturn's best is better then the PS best!

My name is RCM, and I approve this message.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

"An amazing library of AAA titles"? There are a handful of great games in the Saturn's U.S. library, most of them selling for insane prices because they're the only Saturn games worth having: Burning Rangers, Dragon Force, Guardian Heroes, NiGHTS, Panzer Dragoon Saga, and Shining Force III.

A healthy percentage of the Saturn's library is made up of games also available for the PS1, and those versions are usually preferable because of the PS1's superior 3D performance.

Your name is Rob Faraldi, and you're wrong.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

like i said in my sig, the sega never died, it just stopped getting played.

I've been meaning to mention this for a while: while I understand the sentiment of your .sig, the same thing can be said of *all* video game systems.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

I have to agree with this too. All games produced on both Saturn & PSX look infinitely better on the Saturn, and play infinitely better on the Saturn also. This goes for both 2D games and 3D games, but 2D games especially. The Playstation apparently has a vastly inferior graphics processor. All Playstation games have a kinda washed-out blurriness to them that isn't really obvious until you compare them to the same game on the Saturn. Then you finally notice just how much more crisp and vibrant the graphics are on the Saturn.

"Play infinitely better"? Could you go into more detail about why you feel this way? Do you simply prefer the Saturn controller to the PS1 controller, which has nothing to do with programming or design?

As for PS1 games having a "kinda washed-out blurriness," I never noticed such a phenomenon. Then again, I always played the PS1 via S-video or RGB.

-- Z.

[fahrvergnugen]

I have to agree with this too. All games produced on both Saturn & PSX look infinitely better on the Saturn, and play infinitely better on the Saturn also. This goes for both 2D games and 3D games, but 2D games especially.

Three reasons why I don't agree with you:

Castlevania: SOTN.
Tomb Raider.
Wipeout.

Yes, Capcom games and SNK fighters are better on Saturn, but that doesn't mean it was superior hardware. The lack of texture transparency really was a big deal.

[SegaTecToy]

1) Sega's management in Japan made unbelievable stupid decisions.
2) The 32X add-on should have never been created.
3) A extensive library of great Saturn games were sold only in Japan
(Everyone knows the big money is in the western countries)
4) FMV "games"
5) Sony's markenting liars and dumb consumers (emotion engine my ass!)
6) Squaresoft being wooed by Sony instead of Sega
7) Lack of support for developers for the extremely hard to program for (but WAY technically superior) Saturn

There were more things that Sega did wrong but these seven f***** them enough for two lifetimes.

[SegaAges]

oh yeah, i forgot. sega had a butt load of pimp ass arcade ports.

sony sucks.

[Avenger]

Sega And Nintendo prefer to focuz mor on quality than quantity

Sony prefers to focuz on Quantity than Quality...

Casual gamers (majority) would have been lookin at the options and sayin "well PSX has more games thanall of the other systems"...too bad they dont care about how good a game is

thats y i personally love Sega and Nintendo...if they are puttin their name on something you know its most likely gunna be special...Sony just wants as many games to come out as quickly as possible, becuz most gamers can get over the fact the PSX and PS2 combined have roughly 4.5 billions games :P

[racecar]

itwas all about the marketing and timing (dreamcast), due to the lack of hype for the ps2 everyone overlook the DC , then there was the fact that segaDC game can be burned and played ... the flaws are everywhere sega should have kill all of the marketings people..

[RCM]

"An amazing library of AAA titles"? There are a handful of great games in the Saturn's U.S. library, most of them selling for insane prices because they're the only Saturn games worth having: Burning Rangers, Dragon Force, Guardian Heroes, NiGHTS, Panzer Dragoon Saga, and Shining Force III.

A healthy percentage of the Saturn's library is made up of games also available for the PS1, and those versions are usually preferable because of the PS1's superior 3D performance.

Your name is Rob Faraldi, and you're wrong.

-- Z.

You made me smile on that one! I will agree to disagree as we usually do. To be more specific, I was commenting on the Saturn's entire library, not just the 270 or so US titles.

You think you know who I am huh? Everybody does but only Rob and I know for sure.

I'm not going to say you're wrong for liiking whatever shite you like, although you probably are! just a joke, i know you're sensitive. So please don't say i'm wrong for what i prefer. I know it's hard sometimes to keep your mouth shut! Same goes fer old RCM.

My name is RCM, and I approve this message.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Habeeb Hamusta]

You know, it's a shame that the Saturn was developed as a 2d system with limited 3d capabalities, but was forced to use them to compete with the games on other systems. What does everyone think of the Saturn's chances of success had it stuck to 2d gaming?

Oh yea. They should have stuck with 2D.

[Habeeb Hamusta]

Im a HUGE sega fan, but i have to admit that the saturn sucked and was blown away by better games on PSX

By the time the dreamcast was announced, most of people didnthave a reason to leave sony...they had a psx with hundreds of games, and were waiting to get the PS2

The Sega Saturn is awesome. Play Station has 8969875578 million games and 95% of those games are horrible. Saturn has a lot of great games to choose from, it may not have the best 3D graphics but in my opinion, it blows Playstation out of the water.

You're not seriously claiming that the Saturn has more great games in its library than the PlayStation. Are you?

-- Z.

Yes, I think the Saturn had a much better selection.

[zmweasel]

Im a HUGE sega fan, but i have to admit that the saturn sucked and was blown away by better games on PSX

By the time the dreamcast was announced, most of people didnthave a reason to leave sony...they had a psx with hundreds of games, and were waiting to get the PS2

The Sega Saturn is awesome. Play Station has 8969875578 million games and 95% of those games are horrible. Saturn has a lot of great games to choose from, it may not have the best 3D graphics but in my opinion, it blows Playstation out of the water.

You're not seriously claiming that the Saturn has more great games in its library than the PlayStation. Are you?

-- Z.

Yes, I think the Saturn had a much better selection.

Are you referring to a higher overall percentage of great games ("15% of the Saturn's library was great, but only 10% of the PlayStation's library was great"), or more great games, period ("There are 30 great Saturn games, but only 15 great PlayStation games")? The first claim is debatable, the second claim absurd.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

"An amazing library of AAA titles"? There are a handful of great games in the Saturn's U.S. library, most of them selling for insane prices because they're the only Saturn games worth having: Burning Rangers, Dragon Force, Guardian Heroes, NiGHTS, Panzer Dragoon Saga, and Shining Force III.

A healthy percentage of the Saturn's library is made up of games also available for the PS1, and those versions are usually preferable because of the PS1's superior 3D performance.

Your name is Rob Faraldi, and you're wrong.

-- Z.

You made me smile on that one! I will agree to disagree as we usually do. To be more specific, I was commenting on the Saturn's entire library, not just the 270 or so US titles.

You think you know who I am huh? Everybody does but only Rob and I know for sure.

I'm not going to say you're wrong for liiking whatever shite you like, although you probably are! just a joke, i know you're sensitive. So please don't say i'm wrong for what i prefer. I know it's hard sometimes to keep your mouth shut! Same goes fer old RCM.

My name is RCM, and I approve this message.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

If you include the Saturn's Japanese output, you also have to include the PlayStation's Japanese output, which boosts the number of PS1 selections to more than 3,000 games. Any gamer, regardless of personal tastes, will find more PS1 games than Saturn games worth playing in a library of that size...unless he's blinded by fanboi loyalties. But, hey, no one in this forum would be so silly as to attach his ego to a particular console or publisher.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

You know, it's a shame that the Saturn was developed as a 2d system with limited 3d capabalities, but was forced to use them to compete with the games on other systems. What does everyone think of the Saturn's chances of success had it stuck to 2d gaming?

Oh yea. They should have stuck with 2D.

I suppose the Saturn could've flopped a *little* harder in the U.S. if it had stuck with an all-2D library. But not much.

Developers have wanted 3D since forever. Mainstream gamers have wanted 3D since forever. The Saturn was caught flat-footed by those wants.

-- Z.

[theoakwoody]

I think that the problem with sega is that they tried to be everything to everyone. They were supporting the Genesis, Pico, 32x, Sega CD, Game Gear, Nomad, AND the Saturn all simultaneously. I'm not sure if they were officially supporting the SMS in South America(Brazil)?Then instead of focusing on what made money they dropped the support of everything except the Saturn and put all their eggs in on basket. From one extreme to the other and the same thing happened when the DC came along and the stopped supporting the Saturn. How hard is it to translate a damn game, there were so many Saturn games that weren't brought over here. Okay I'm getting ahead of myself, dropping the 32x and the sega CD probably wasn't that bad of an idea as their install base wasn't that large but they cut off all ties with their Genesis fans. I think when Saturn was released Nintendo had one of their biggest sales years in several years and what were they selling? 16 bit games like DKC and Killer Instinct. So basically I think it was cool that Sega was always trying to be the innovator but sometimes you have to milk your products dry like nintendo does. I mean Nintendo didn't even add color to the gameboy until what 1998?

[zmweasel]

How hard is it to translate a damn game, there were so many Saturn games that weren't brought over here.

Speaking from abundant personal experience, harder than you think. I don't blame SEGA for not localizing everything, just for mostly choosing the wrong games to localize (the NEC Syndrome).

-- Z.

[Backgammon]

How hard is it to translate a damn game, there were so many Saturn games that weren't brought over here.

Speaking from abundant personal experience, harder than you think. I don't blame SEGA for not localizing everything, just for mostly choosing the wrong games to localize (the NEC Syndrome).

-- Z.

Couldn't they develop the games both to the japanese and american markets? Couldn't they risk releasing some games like Sakura Taisen, or any other, to test the waters? After this system was put to work the additional costs would be minimal and I don't believe that all japanese translators suck.
"all your base are belong to us" :D

[lendelin]

I think you are all a little bit off track here.

The central Q is why did the Dreamcast fail.

I say, the DC did not fail, but Sega did!

The DC had moderate success, the sales figures were ok, the sales figures for the games were ok, the third-party support was there, and the game quality was there. It had marketshares similar to the N64, and similar to the GC and Xbox today. Loss in consumer confidence because of the failed 32X, Sega CD, Saturn, and the competition by Sony which made the DC look outdated shortly after it's release is not enough to explain the DCs demise.

The key is Segas terrible financial situation which accumulated for years. They lived literally from borrowed money. After the last success of the Genesis, the president of Sega pumped money like crazy into Sega year after year. Every other company on a healthy financial basis could have lived well with the DC, but Sega was in an awful financial shape and had in-house problems which contributed to finacial losses. (see my previous post) The key is Sega, not the Dreamcast, not the PS1, not the PS2, not the future competition by the GC and XBox, not game quality, and not image factors.

Ask you this: if a company launches a game system, and it can only survive (!) if it comes out on top of the competition, is this realistic economics or a gamble? To expect that the DC beat the PS2 was completely unrealistic considering the success of the PS1.

The DC didn't fail, Sega did.

[esquire]

Sega And Nintendo prefer to focuz mor on quality than quantity

Sony prefers to focuz on Quantity than Quality...

Casual gamers (majority) would have been lookin at the options and sayin "well PSX has more games thanall of the other systems"...too bad they dont care about how good a game is

thats y i personally love Sega and Nintendo...if they are puttin their name on something you know its most likely gunna be special...Sony just wants as many games to come out as quickly as possible, becuz most gamers can get over the fact the PSX and PS2 combined have roughly 4.5 billions games :P

I agree. Sony games like Ape Escape, Armored Core, Blasto, Bloody Roar, Bushido Blade, Cool Boarders, the Crash Bandicoot series, Gran Turismo 1 & 2, Grandia, Jet Moto, MediEvil, Omega Boost, Parappa the Rapper, Philosoma, The Raiden Project, the Spyro series, Star Ocean, Tomba!, the Twisted Metal series and Wild Arms 1 & 2 are all not known for their quality gameplay. x_x

By the way, if Sega preferred to focus on quality over quantity, how do you explain Daytona USA for the Saturn?

[RCM]

If you include the Saturn's Japanese output, you also have to include the PlayStation's Japanese output, which boosts the number of PS1 selections to more than 3,000 games. Any gamer, regardless of personal tastes, will find more PS1 games than Saturn games worth playing in a library of that size...unless he's blinded by fanboi loyalties. But, hey, no one in this forum would be so silly as to attach his ego to a particular console or publisher.

-- Z.

I never excluded anything, you did.

I sense a little sarcasm with "no one in this forum would be so silly as to attach his ego to a particular console or publisher." funny.

You don't have to blindly follow Sony or Sega to prefer the PS or Saturn library over the other. You're totally incorrect. It's all opinion and some seem to prefer Saturn over PS for more of a reason then the simple fact that Sega put out the Saturn. Let's get serious here!

My name is RCM, and I approve this message

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[fishsandwich]

You're not seriously claiming that the Saturn has more great games in its library than the PlayStation. Are you?

-- Z.

I enjoy Saturn titles over PS titles. I've played 100's if not 1000's of titles for both systems, included a majority of "high ranking" titles. I would back Habeeb up in saying that the Saturn has an amazing library of AAA titles. Saturn's best is better then the PS best!

My name is RCM, and I approve this message.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

Yo... there were less than 800 games made for the Saturn (this includes Japanese and UK exclusive games) so it would be impossible to play 1000's. If you figure in innumerable dating simulators and "Idol" Cd's, the Saturn library is even less impressive.

The Saturn is *superb* for shooters and 2-D fighters. However, it's library of "AAA" 3-D games (like it or not, 3-D is more popular than 2-D) pales in comparison to that of the PSone.

I love the Saturn... it's my favorite system. Still, I think that the PSone has more good games than the Saturn... the library is just so much bigger. It's just the law of averages.

Cheers

Fish Sandwich

[RCM]

Yo... there were less than 800 games made for the Saturn (this includes Japanese and UK exclusive games) so it would be impossible to play 1000's. If you figure in innumerable dating simulators and "Idol" Cd's, the Saturn library is even less impressive.

If you take a look at my post you qouted i said:


I enjoy Saturn titles over PS titles. I've played 100's if not 1000's of titles for both systems,

I was talking about both systems combined if you havent figured it out yet! No offense.

To say that System X has better games then system y is all opinion, or somebodys opinion that you've put in place of your own. I'm not singling anyone out with that by the way, but i've noticed a lot of people will deem a game "good" or "bad" without even playing it.

I've played a good majority of Saturn titles and 100's of PS titles. I've played just about every title the press has deemed "AAA" or "good" or whatever for each system. I enjoy Saturn more. Is that a crime? I think there are better titles on Saturn. I've owned a PS for almost as long as ive owned a Saturn. I enjoy both systems. But nobody is going to tell me my fuckin opinion is wrong cause "PS has more games" or "PS can do better 3D" or whatever. It's opinion, and i'm entitled to mine as everyone else is entitled to theirs! amen

My name is RCM, and I approve of this message.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[zmweasel]

How hard is it to translate a damn game, there were so many Saturn games that weren't brought over here.

Speaking from abundant personal experience, harder than you think. I don't blame SEGA for not localizing everything, just for mostly choosing the wrong games to localize (the NEC Syndrome).

-- Z.

Couldn't they develop the games both to the japanese and american markets? Couldn't they risk releasing some games like Sakura Taisen, or any other, to test the waters? After this system was put to work the additional costs would be minimal and I don't believe that all japanese translators suck.
"all your base are belong to us" :D

"Develop the games both to the Japanese and American markets"? I'm not sure what you mean there. Some games have cross-cultural appeal, some don't, and most of the former come to America, especially these days. No company is going to waste time and money on a U.S. localization of a game that will never sell in the American market, such as a creepy dating sim (Sakura Taisen).

"Additional costs would be minimal"? Localization requires programmers (to implement new data), artists (to alter Eastern graphics for Western consumption), voice actors (to redub the dialogue, unless you do what SEGA infamously did with Shining Force III and use testers), et cetera. Localizing a Japanese game for North America costs less than building a game from scratch, but it's hardly cheap.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

The Saturn is *superb* for shooters and 2-D fighters. However, it's library of "AAA" 3-D games (like it or not, 3-D is more popular than 2-D) pales in comparison to that of the PSone.

You've nailed the two genres in which the Saturn excels, although you still need to factor imports into the equation, which rather limits the system's appeal to the truly hardcore. I presume these are the two genres RCM values above all others, since the PS1 has better (and more) games in every other genre.

-- Z.

[Iron Draggon]

OK, first of all I'm not a Sega fanboy anymore, but I must admit that I used to be one, so I probably do still have a little more bias toward Sega systems.

I do prefer the Saturn controller over the PSX controller. I use the standard American controllers, and unfortunately I never had the pleasure of using the standard Japanese controllers yet, but IMO both of them are far better than the PSX controllers. The PSX controllers make my hands hurt. Always. Even when I'm playing for a very short period of time. In fact, just thinking about playing the PSX makes my hands hurt. I have big manly American hands, not petite girly Japanese hands, so the PSX controllers are just simply wretched.

Now, ergonomics aside, the Saturn controllers are far more responsive than the PSX controllers are. This may have something to do with why Saturn games seem to play better than PSX games, or it may not, but either way Saturn games seem to move alot more fluidly than PSX games. PSX games feel stiff, just like their controllers. Saturn games feel just right, kinda like an analog pad, but not that loose, just right. Unfortunately I never had the pleasure of using the Saturn 3D analog controller yet either, but someday I will, and I'm sure that it'll be just as responsive and perfect as the others. Unfortunately I never had the pleasure of using the PSX analog controllers yet either, but someday I will, and I'm sure that it will become a displeasure very quickly, but I hope not. I really want to like the PSX controllers, but they just hurt my hands too much. Perhaps the problem is I need the analog controllers? I really don't know what the problem is, but it's very painful.

Next, back to the graphics, what kind of TV's do y'all play your games on? I use a 13" Samsung GXTV now, because none of my systems are in my living room anymore, but back in the day I used a 35" Toshiba Black Matrix TV, which is what I watch DVD's on now. On the Samsung, the screen is so small that it's kinda hard to see any difference, but you can still see a major difference. However, on the Toshiba, the difference between the Saturn and the PSX is like the difference between a DVD and a VHS tape! And no, there is nothing wrong with my PSX at all, it has always seemed to have a lower resolution or something than my other 32bit systems. Even the 3DO looks better than the PSX, so IMO the PSX graphics processor just sucks.

Finally, back to the games. I believe that I have about the same amount of games for the Saturn as I do for the PSX now, but I'm not really sure. I'd have to count them all again. However, as I said before, I sold off about half of my PSX collection a while back and traded those in for Dreamcast games, so I used to have about twice as many PSX games as I do Saturn games. I know that this supports the opinions of the kill 'em with numbers people who think that more games is always automatically better, and therefore indicitave of a superior system, but for my records it just means that I've had twice as many PSX games to compare to my Saturn games to support my own opinions. And my opinion remains the same, every Saturn game I own looks better than every PSX game I own, or have ever owned in the past.

Yes, I own all the Saturn 2D shooters, and all the Saturn 2D fighters, but I also own all the Saturn 3D racers and 3D shooters and 3D fighters. Well, not all the 3D fighters, but you get the idea. I have a wide variety of games for comparison. And the same applies to my PSX collection, I still own or have owned dozens of different types of games for that system, so I have or have had a wide variety of games for comparison. And no matter what type of game it is, be it 2D or 3D, it always looks better on the Saturn than the PSX, and it always plays better on the Saturn than the PSX. Castlevania SOTN is probably the best looking game ever on the PSX, and the only one that I've ever seen that even comes close to looking as good as a Saturn game, but considering that it's just one game out of a library of thousands, I'd hardly say that it means the PSX is a superior system because of it. Saturn Wipeout looks better than PSX Wipeout to me. I don't do Tomb Raider, so I wouldn't know.

I don't know how to describe what's wrong with PSX graphics accurately, in terms that convey what I mean, but they just don't look very sharp. They're fuzzy and grainy and all washed out. Like you're viewing them through a silk screen or something. On some games, this effect is pretty cool, and it works pretty well, but on most games, it just looks like crap. So I asume that's why the major selling point of PSX Bleem for the PC was always improved graphics.

Sorry if I pissed anyone off. I'm not a PSX hater either, but I gotta call this one as I see it, and the Saturn wins hands down. The PSX is a hype machine.

[EnemyZero]

The head honcho of marketing left sega after the genesis, and then they fumbled about trying to market the saturn...personally the saturn is my fav console of all time...i think the price def. through everyone off. If you notice any of the commercials..where sega is dropping playstation off a roof..then the sega logo flys on the screen...all the commercials came in when playstation did....

They really didnt market the saturn at ALL untill sony walked into the gaming world...if they woulda got the saturns name out there and made some early commercials..and maybe start at even 299 over 399 people would of bit it..it was the first 32bit machines....but unless you read magazines ...or shopped often at video game outlets you wouldn't know its around...

Games make or break a system..well saturn had amazing games, but if theres no one buying them then of course there won't be as many...sony really pushed the psx out there and now look where they are? Yeah sony had good games but they also had MORE crap than the saturn did...saturn had 264 US games...at least half of which are pretty good...sony had over 1,000 which maybe 250-350 were worth buying...like i said...sony marketed the hell out of playstation, and saturn could of but waited to long.


The DC is amazing, best 128 gen system, the marketing guy from genesis came back, and they did market the hell out of the DC BUT....they were just walking in the wake of psones major success...so of course by that time most people were waiting on ps2..which in my opinion was a massive dissapointment.

[SegaTecToy]

@zmweasel
I don't understand why americans need so much localization. In countries like mine we consume japanese products without any localization besides translation (anime, manga, that TV shows which are transformed into Power Rangers :hmm: before they are transformed into Power Rangers x_x ...) and they are fairly popular. If these producers think thay are fooling anyone trying to hide the cultural origin of these product they are only fooling themselves.

About the "creepy" Sakura Taisen, as a white, healthy and normal guy I played and liked it and I don't think it's creepy, it's more like an anime show like Love Hina or Tenchi Muyo in game form. (But I agree that the Hentai games are creepy, geez... tentacles and slime @_@ never more...)

[YoshiM]

@zmweasel
I don't understand why americans need so much localization. In countries like mine we consume japanese products without any localization besides translation (anime, manga, that TV shows which are transformed into Power Rangers :hmm: before they are transformed into Power Rangers x_x ...) and they are fairly popular. If these producers think thay are cheating anyone trying to hide the cultural origin of these product they are only fooling themselves.

I'd like to know if the localization is due to consumer demand or if the developers/publishers think that the localized versions is what Americans want. I do know that, at least in the past, religious icons or scenery/characters that were deemed risque' were usually changed. I remember reading about a scene showing a stone cross that was obliterated by lightning was changed to a monument that didn't resemble the Christian symbol as much (I think this was in Castlvania but I don't think I have that magazine anymore that shows this). Of course there is the dressing of the fairies (as in adding a few pixels) in Stormlord. Beyond that I never really found a good solid reason that says "this is definitely why we localize".

[mdoerty]

In reading all of this regarding Sega, it seems one thing was forgotten.
If I recall correctly, at least in the American (USA) market, Sega and Sony had an "informal agreement" to launch at about the same time.

Then Sega jumped and released the Saturn to "selected" stores a few months early. This hurt Sega much more than Sony. For example, Kaybee Toys NEVER carried the Saturn as a result -- shutting Sega out of the biggest mall toy chain.

This is just one of the many "less than smart" decisions that doomed the company.

Mike from Morgantown

[mediamachine]

wow, a thriving thread, what i like to see! great to read everyones input on this. I can say from a personal perspective that of all the ps1 games i have in my collection (and there are alot) there are probably 3 or 4 games i can actually say i enjoy, the rest to me are pretty lame.

Its a damn shame that the saturn failed along with the dreamcast but some very true and valid points have been raised here, i personally think segas biggest flaw was their timing, maybe if theyd pushed the genesis a bit further then really polished the saturn and made sure it struck a chord with the right people then the whole story could have been alot different.....

Dreamcast, well, what an awesome system but by then the sony juggernaut had picked up alot of steam and even the name sega (albeit a tarnished image by this point) wasnt enough to slow it down.

[zmweasel]

OK, first of all I'm not a Sega fanboy anymore, but I must admit that I used to be one, so I probably do still have a little more bias toward Sega systems.

When and why did you stop being a SEGA fanboy?


I have big manly American hands, not petite girly Japanese hands, so the PSX controllers are just simply wretched.

Thus implying that anyone who prefers the PS1 controller has "petite girly Japanese hands," an ill-advised and incorrect generalization.


Now, ergonomics aside, the Saturn controllers are far more responsive than the PSX controllers are. This may have something to do with why Saturn games seem to play better than PSX games, or it may not, but either way Saturn games seem to move alot more fluidly than PSX games.

Having played umpteen Saturn and PS1 games, I've never noticed the Saturn's controller to be "more responsive," or the Dual Shock to be less responsive. As personal opinion, your statement is fine, but as "fact," it's laughable.

As for Saturn games moving "more fluidly," Saturn and PS1 games' frame rates are affected by tight or sloppy programming. Blaming the hardware is absurd.


Unfortunately I never had the pleasure of using the Saturn 3D analog controller yet either, but someday I will, and I'm sure that it'll be just as responsive and perfect as the others.

Good to see you're approaching your Saturn analog-controller experience with no bias whatsoever.


However, on the Toshiba, the difference between the Saturn and the PSX is like the difference between a DVD and a VHS tape! And no, there is nothing wrong with my PSX at all, it has always seemed to have a lower resolution or something than my other 32bit systems. Even the 3DO looks better than the PSX, so IMO the PSX graphics processor just sucks.

Have you checked your PS1 video cable and/or output port? Maybe that's the problem.


I know that this supports the opinions of the kill 'em with numbers people who think that more games is always automatically better, and therefore indicitave of a superior system, but for my records it just means that I've had twice as many PSX games to compare to my Saturn games to support my own opinions. And my opinion remains the same, every Saturn game I own looks better than every PSX game I own, or have ever owned in the past.

No one's arguing that more games means a better system, but it certainly indicates a more popular system--and more popular systems attract better developers and publishers because they can sell more games.

(It also attracts bottom-feeding publishers who want to cash in on the beefy user base, but that was also a problem with the Atari 2600 and NES, and there doesn't seem to be much Atari or Nintendo hate in this forum.)


So I asume that's why the major selling point of PSX Bleem for the PC was always improved graphics.

Duh. But it wasn't to "correct" PS1 graphics, as you imply; it was to take advantage of high-end PC rigs.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

@zmweasel
I don't understand why americans need so much localization. In countries like mine we consume japanese products without any localization besides translation (anime, manga, that TV shows which are transformed into Power Rangers :hmm: before they are transformed into Power Rangers x_x ...) and they are fairly popular. If these producers think thay are fooling anyone trying to hide the cultural origin of these product they are only fooling themselves.

Localization is all about making a game more accessible to the unwashed masses, not about hiding cultural origins. A game with a clunky "faithful" translation and subtitled CG sequences can't reach beyond the hardcore, whereas a game with a naturalized translation and an English dub can. The extent of localization also depends on the type of game being localized, of course, although Mastiff raised the bar with its work on Gungrave: Overdose. They did English dubs when they could've skated with Japanese voices (as SEGA did with the original), and they took care with the text when they could've run with a rough draft. For a tiny publisher to lavish this much attention on a $15 shooter is stunning.

I admit that a good part of the reason for Working Designs' extensive localization process (WD being my former employer) was to feed Victor's creative ego, but most of it was done for good instead of evil. There's no doubt, for example, that Lunar: SSSC tremendously benefitted from its "unfaithful" translation and extensive dubbing.

-- Z.

[rpepper9]

[quote="mediamachine"In my opinion the dreamcast is superior to the psx in most respects apart from obviously quantity of games available[/quote]

Don't forget that the Dreamcast was not in direct compitition with the PSX. The PSX was at the end of it's lifespan and was about to be replaced with the PS2. Sega just released the Dreamcast early in what is the current generation.

So if anything it was a pretty weak system when compaired to the current generation: XBox, PS2 and GameCube.

[dethink]

Sega still continues to make boneheaded decisions today...I literally was giddy when the DC failed and Sega was going 3rd party. Sega could focus on doing what they do best and make GAMES. Face it, as much as I LOVE my DC, it was a stopgap, last chance gamble. It literally came out of nowhere in the life of the PS1, when most consumers just don't care. Tony Hawk 1 and Madden were selling fine. Sega did everything right with the launch, and accomplished a lot for console gaming with the DC, but once again, their timing was off. The PS2 was nowhere near as close to eclipsing the DC at the outset like Sony made it sound, but the hype machine was already underway (i.e. "Toy Story" graphics, anyone?). And honestly, do you really think the DC could still compete today, right now at 5 years old, with the current generation of consoles? I love Sega, but the answer is a resounding NO. Sony's developers have come to grips with the hardware, and there are things being done on the PS2 that could never be done on the DC, despite the rocky opening round...

Then Sammy bought them and put the finishing touches on the ultimate failure of Sega. Sega played the third party game wrong and they lost. No more lives, no more continues. And nary a ring in sight...


Now we have Sega as a 3rd party dev. Sweet. HOWEVER, while they made their Panzer Dragoon Orta, Virtua Fighters, Phantasy Star Online, Sega GT, Jet Set, Crazy Taxi, Super Monkey Balls etc., the problem is that they spread them strangely across the different consoles. Sega needed to put all of its games on one console or all of its games ported to all consoles to allow Sega fans to buy only one console and still lock into Sega titles. The way Sega approached third party had them making a few games on one console, a few on another, which forced the real Sega fans, the diehards, to buy every console to have access to every Sega title. Which no Sega fan could afford to do.

Hence, Sega ended up selling less because they couldn't have all of their target audience in one place buying their titles. When a company like Sega or Nintendo goes third party after having a loyal fanbase for some time, they need to lock in their games to be able to be bought all for one console. Either port every game to every console to guarantee that or partner with one and boost that console's portfolio. Don't matter if its Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. Sega should have allowed gamers to buy one console only to have every Sega title. Then, maybe, the diehards would have focused more readily on Sega titles and ensured Sega titles sold better, guaranteeing more money to produce more games.

But instead Sega spread its games out so that the only way a loyal Sega fan could buy all the Sega games was to buy three consoles which was a large chunk of change back in the day (199.99+299.99+299.99+memory cards/accessories).

This caused gamers to pick one console, lose out on many Sega games they might have bought, and eventually for them to see Sega as just another third party rather than the powerhouse they once were. Without a lot of money to make games with when their software sold poorer than they expected and their money reserves drained from the Sega Game Gear->SegaCD->Sega 32X->Sega Saturn->Sega Nomad->Sega Dreamcast failures, they simply ran out of steam.

I went with the Xbox for the promise of games like JSRF/SGT/PDO/etc., and while they delivered, you're never going to see another jet set radio or panzer dragoon, because they sold piss poor due to the Xbox's small (and even smaller back when these games came out) install base, and the fact that these aren't titles mainstream gamers play, or the type of games most Xbox buyers play. While I commend Smilebit for wanting to put their games out on hardware that wouldn't sacrifice their vision, the fact that a Japanese comapny would put out two potentially high-profile "japan-centric" titles on a console that doesn't sell for shit in Japan, is why Sega is in the position they are now. Look at VF4 - most of Japan owns PS2's. The Japanese love VF. It sold enough to warrant a greatest hit in the US, and to ensure that VF4: Evo made it over here. I'm sure VF4 would sell on Xbox, just not in those kinds of numbers, and I'm sure Jet Set Radio would sell on the PS2 in greater numbers merely due to the huge install base. Large install bases don't mean hardcore gamers shun the system. In fact, even if the same small percentage of people bought JSR on the PS2 as they did on the Xbox, (before it was packed in), Sega would have sold a LOT more copies, and possibly ensured that we would see more games like this.

Honestly, their only hope now is the 2K sports series, which they have done quite well with. NFL2K5 is selling very well, almost as well as Madden, and has outsold it on the Xbox. However, this is at a less than 50% price point of Madden. I would argue that even at $30, they would have gotten similar numbers, and yielded a much higher profit, but I guess we'll wait until this time next year to see what they decide to do.