A what-if thread - If only Sega had used high quality 3D graphic technology in Saturn

[parallaxscroll]

The Saturn went through many, many changes during its development. Even before it was called Saturn, when Sega was working on a 32-bit console in 1991, it was known as the Giga Drive, and based on their 2D-only System32 arcade board (that powered games like Golden Axe Revenge of Death Adder).
The design changed from a 2D-only to a 2D/3D console that had bolted-on, poorly concieved 3D capabilities.

Sega should've held off on releasing the version of Saturn that it did, until 1996, with this technology, the Lockheed Martin Real3D/100 chipset.





750,000 z-buffered, texture-mapped, g-shaded, lit, mip-mapped, texture-filtered, anti-aliased, alpha blended polygons/sec

It would not have been as powerful as their MODEL 3 board which used TWO Real3D/Pro-1000 GPUs, providing 1.5M polys/sec but, a Saturn with Real3D/100 (which was made of 3 processors itself: geometry processor, graphics processor, texture processor) would've been more powerful than the Sega/Martin Marietta MODEL 2 board, PlayStation, Nintendo64,
3Dfx Voodoo Graphics PC card, and 3DO's/Matsushita's unreleased M2.

A PowerPC CPU + Real3D/100 GPU based Saturn would've been able to handle upgraded ports of MODEL 2 games, and scaled-down versions of MODEL 3 games, lasted until 2001 when a new generation could've arrived with more capabilities than Dreamcast, and something more like the Xbox. Thus, there would have been no need to release Dreamcast in 1998,1999.

Instead, we had to suffer for years with the Saturn as it was, with its inability to handle proper 3D visuals. When the Dreamcast arrived in 1998/1999, it offered a huge leap in 3D visuals but wasn't compatible with MODEL 2 or MODEL 3 graphics. By then, Sega was dead as a hardware company.

[Blanka789]

I partially agree with this, but I think this exact plan would have driven prices too high. Sega's best bet would have been to actually milk a little bit more out of their 32X/Sega CD combo until a better plan could be used. I think with the wait, their 2D board would have cost less and they could have added better and cheaper 3D capabilities, plus maybe something like a DVD drive to really push the edge.

Plus, they should have focused on making it backward compatible somehow. This would have made sales much higher and given it an instant library.

[parallaxscroll]

IMO, Sega should have never released 32X or any 32-bit upgrade for Genesis.

They should've made SegaCD more powerful in 1991-1992 with additional 16-bit 68000 CPUs and custom, arcade-like co-processor chips that increased Genesis' color & sprite capabilities, added greater scaling & rotation abilities (than what SegaCD got). Upto the level of their 'X Board' (After Burner II) or 'Y Board' (Galaxy Force II) could do . This would've negated the need for a 32X, as far as 2D visuals, and there was no point in bolting on badly concieved half-assed 3D polygon capabilities that the 32X had, which were like that of Saturn but less powerful. Keeping 16-bit and 32-bit lines seperate would've been a good thing. Less confusion. Yeah, the additional 68000s and sprite co-processors would've make SegaCD somewhat more expensive, but the cost would be worth it because a 2nd upgrade (32X) would not be needed. So instead of 4 Genesis formats (Genesis, SegaCD, 32X, 32X CD), there would only be 2.

Sega would then support SegaCD from 1991/1992 with lots of super-scaler 2D arcade games, newly created RPGs (instead of FMV crap) and other quality IP until 1996 when they could've then introduced a powerful 3D console (Genesis II or whatever as long as it had Lockheed 3d graphics tech). A proper 3D console that would be capable of: 1). upgraded-MODEL 2 arcade ports without a struggle 2.) downgraded, but still impressive MODEL 3 translations, 3.) new 3D games from their consumer divisions. No need to introduce the next-generation system too early (as they did in 1998/1999 with Dreamcast), and in 2001, a worthy next-gen system would arrive, or do a partnership with Microsoft on a "Super Xbox" with more impressive tech than what the actual Xbox had, and then that system lasts 5-6 years before Xbox2 (360) arrives. I know I'm getting ahead of myself, going beyond the Saturn generation so I'll stop with that.

I just think Sega had the oppertunity to offer an advanced 3D-capable console. Sega turned down SGI's offer in 1992 for the chip or chipset that evolved into Nintendo64. Sega again turned down their own people (some faction of SoJ management) that wanted to cancel Saturn just before it launched in late 1994, and instead ask Lockheed Martin to design a new 3D system for 1996.

[CosmicMonkey]

I certainly agree that the Mega CD should have been a much more powerful machine than it was. But when it was released it cost $300/£270!! Adding more hardware would have certainly increased this cost to an even more unreasonable level. Maybe if this version of the Mega CD was delayed for 18 months or 2 years it could have been more reasonably priced. But it would always be down to 3rd party developers making proper use of the extra power and not just going for the FMV extravaganza we did get. Sega could have brought many great arcade conversions to the system, but it would always need proper 3rd party support.

Makes you wonder what would have happened had a Mega CD system of some description been a successful machine. Would this have made Nintendo continue with the Super Famicom CD project with Sony or Philips?

The resulting Saturn system could have been backwards compatible with a very large library of excellent Mega CD games. And what about the N64? Had Nintendo gained experience and confidence with the optical format from the SNES CD this would surely pave the way for a CD based N64?

[grolt]

There was something wrong with the Saturn hardware? 2D games like Astal and Rayman play great, and 3D games like Burning Rangers and Sonic R play even better, thank you very much! Look at that canned version of Shenmue - the Saturn could have definitely held its own for a few years had it not been prematurely executed by Sega of America.

[theoakwoody]

I think the mistake that Sega made was in all the add-ons. Why didn't they just do what Nintendo did with the Nes and Snes and just add in the cartridge. I know they did with a couple of games but this would have been more effective than the add-ons. I mean what could the cd games do that the cartridge games couldn't? Not that many people care about cd quality sound or FMV and the fact that no colors were added made the 32x a necessity to give them the edge over the snes in the visual department.

As far as the Saturn I think that they were so focused on Nintendo and getting a head start on the next generation that they overlooked how big 3D was going to be. Sony built their entire machine around 3D and made it easy to program for. It also seems like Sega lost favor in the third party community as they had less support than upstart Sony. I realize that Sony is a big corporation but that doesn't mean everyone automatically jumps on the bandwagon.

[otaku]

Well its all history now anyway. Alot of things sega could have done better for sure. But its to late now.

I'd argue the saturn was pretty awesome maybe not quite as awesome as Playstation but I don't think thats why it lost I think it was due more to poor marketing and a lack of better (mainstream) 3D games. In my eyes it was more of a 2D powerhouse

[parallaxscroll]

There was something wrong with the Saturn hardware? 2D games like Astal and Rayman play great, and 3D games like Burning Rangers and Sonic R play even better, thank you very much! Look at that canned version of Shenmue - the Saturn could have definitely held its own for a few years had it not been prematurely executed by Sega of America.

Yes, there was alot wrong with Saturn hardware as far as 3D. That was documented and debated to death in the 1990s and was well known.

The Saturn was and still is amazing for 2D sprite graphics but its 3D capabilities are very poor compared to the PS1 and N64 which were designed from the beginning to be 3D. The 3D graphics on Saturn were all just clever hacks since it had no true geometry engine or triangle/polygon setup engine or 3D rendering engine. The Saturn really had no hardware to produce proper polygon graphics. At least not standard triangles. Everything 3D was a hack of 2D sprites to look 3D. I'm not a technical guy so i have trouble explaining it. Maybe someone who understands the basics of 3D graphics can put it into words better than I can. I'm not saying Saturn couldn't do polygons, but it didn't have hardware designed to accelerate polygons/3D graphics.

[j_factor]

The Saturn was difficult to program for and poorly supported, but its actual capabilities were pretty even with the competition at the time. Sometimes the games displayed the former, sometimes the latter.

What I don't understand is why they made the architecture so complicated, including a bunch of side processors, but they didn't have the foresight to include an FPU.

I think the mistake that Sega made was in all the add-ons. Why didn't they just do what Nintendo did with the Nes and Snes and just add in the cartridge. I know they did with a couple of games but this would have been more effective than the add-ons. I mean what could the cd games do that the cartridge games couldn't? Not that many people care about cd quality sound or FMV and the fact that no colors were added made the 32x a necessity to give them the edge over the snes in the visual department.

The Sega CD was mainly in response to the PC Engine CD, not the SNES. I agree that the Sega CD should have had its own VDP for a higher color pallette (or the Genesis should have had more colors to begin with), but I disagree that "the edge in the visual department" is measured in color count. Plenty of Genesis, Sega CD, and Turbografx games held their own in terms of visuals.

[G-Boobie]

What I don't understand is why they made the architecture so complicated, including a bunch of side processors, but they didn't have the foresight to include an FPU.

Some good video capability from the offset would have helped too. They actually added the 3D processor WAAAY late in development because the CEO of Sega read what the Playstation specs were going to be and had a panic attack. the architecture wasn't complicated on purpose; that's just what happens when your hardware is cobbled together all crazy-like. Not a good idea, in hindsight. Of course, we all know the thing about hindsight, huh?

They should never have released the Sega CD or 32X. They should have just scrapped the 2D iteration of the Saturn hardware and started over if they wanted a good 3D machine. Then again, platform holders make weird cost compromise decisions that come back to haunt them all the time(the 256 Megs of RAM in the PS3, or the lack of a sound chip in the N64 for example).

[ReaXan]

My opinion is that they should have never released the 32X and just released the Neptune and rode it out till late 96 or early 97 when the Playstation was still finding an audience.Granted the Neptune would have been catridge based but the N64 showed us that a catridge based system could sell well compared to CDROMs.The 32X didnt have bad technology for its time and would have stood out against the Playstation in its early days as the Neptune. 94-97 would have been a good life span back in the day.Top that off with the Neptune being able to still play Genesis games and you have a solid transition.

I think sega should have then scrapped the whole saturn idea and just bought the rights to 3DO'S M2 technology which had better 3d capabilites,soup it up some and release their 32 bit cd based system by Christmas of 97 in the states.Its a plan that would have kept Sega competitive and on the market's edge. Let the M2's lifespan run from 97-2000.It would be similar to the gamecube in the sence that it would be in a solid 3rd place behind Nintendo and Sony the way Cube was against the XBox and PS2

As for the Dreamcast they should have waited another year then when they release it and included a DVD Player with it like the PS2 did and we would have a much different gaming history.

[chrisbid]

the easy answer...

sega wouldve found a different way to screw things up

[Kevincal]

Sega CD = not enough improvement over Genesis and costs way too much.

Sega 32X = A good idea, but costs a little too much and was canned too early. Sega panicked about the upcoming systems from Sony and Nintendo.

Sega Saturn = Was rushed out to market because of panick caused by Sony and Nintendo. Sega figures if they get a head start, they can win. Problem - the games are also rushed to completion. Everyone sees they could have been better. Also the Saturn cost too much in summer 1995. $400.

So basically, Sega should have released the Genesis/32X combo instead of the 32X stand alone unit in late 1994. What was it called... Neptune? They should have stuck with this format for 1 year. During this time they should have been polishing up the Saturn hardware and software and released it in late 1995, possible even after the Playstation. The kicker, 32X and Genesis (or Neptune) software will work in the Saturn cartridge slot, possibly with slightly enhanced graphics.

The other thing is, Sega was so stupid to not make a kickass 2d Sonic game for the Saturn's launch... That would have sold systems like hot cakes.

Oh and as far as making the Saturn a 3d powerhouse. Well in reality, it's only slightly behind the PS in 3d graphics capabilities. Only missing a few effects. If only the Saturn wasn't rushed, it would have been fine. Too bad Sega panicked so badly...

[16bitter]

I like this thread because I'm a big Saturn fan. The Saturn actually had a decent 3D architecture, but as far as programming it goes, it was tough for most programmers to push the system. I think that if the system had a longer lifespan, we would have seen what it was really capable of doing. I always argued (and still do) that while the Saturn's 3D games may not have looked as smooth as the Playstation's, they often played better. I still prefer Daytona USA to Ridge Racer.

Sega really screwed up the launch of the system. By releasing it early, it sat on store shelves for months with virtually no software. Also, Sony was tough to beat simply because they could outspend Sega on marketing, and afford to take big losses on Playstation sales. There's a great article over at Eidolon's Inn about the fall of the Saturn. It's worth a read. In essence, Sega made a series of blunders that led to the Saturn's early demise.
www.eidolons-inn.net/

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

As others have pointed out, the Saturn really was capable of pretty nice 3D graphics. Sonic R is an perfect example.

The problem was, utilizing the Saturn's power for 3D required some pretty advanced programming since, unlike Sony, Sega did not provide developers with comprehensive development libraries that would have enabled them to produce the kinds of games that showed off what the Saturn could do. Instead developers either had to develop their own libraries internally or work at an insanely low level. And either of those options required more programming expertise than many development houses had, especially when it came to producing impressive 3D worlds.

Low level programming had been the norm on previous consoles, but with the 32-bit generation and especially with the Saturn, higher level libraries just became a necessity. Sony realized that, but apparently Sega did not (and neither did Atari).

Eventually Sega did develop a more comphrensive SDK, but from what I've heard even that was only shared internally among Sega's AM teams and not given to third parties.

My opinion is that the Saturn as it is is probably the greatest piece of video game hardware ever released (and I'm hardly a fanboy, I don't even own a Saturn) because it was both competitive for 3D games and unrivaled for 2D games. If Sega had made developing and sharing a real SDK for the system a priority from the beginning, things would have gone much differently for them. And for us as gamers.


...word is bondage...

[parallaxscroll]

The problem with Saturn and 3D visuals is, the Saturn did not have any proper hardware to accelerate 3D like a standard 3D accelerator, workstation, arcade board, PlayStation or Nintendo64.

Saturn lacked:
a geometry engine, a triangle setup engine, a 3D rendering engine. Its co-processors were designed to push 2D sprite-based graphics and backgrounds. The Saturn was not weak, it was very very powerful in that area. It had more brute power than the PlayStation, but not power targeted toward 3D graphics. PS1 had a reasonable amount of power which was targeted at 3D graphics; the Geometry Transform Engine and the GPU. So with less power, the PS1 was able to do more impressive looking 3D than Saturn. The only times Saturn out-did PS1 in 3D is when you would compare the very best assembly-coded Saturn game with the worst, poorly done PS1 game.

Saturn came out in late 1994 in Japan, and its hardware was actually finished later than the MODEL 2 arcade board which was completed in 1993. But compared to MODEL 2, Saturn was not the right kind of hardware for 3D games. Just because Sega spent alot of time trying to translated its MODEL2 hits onto Saturn, does not mean Saturn was good at this kind of thing, it wasn't. Sega could've saved themselves alot of trouble by going with either a Lockheed Martin Real3D based or at least a 3DO/Matsushita M2 based console. Either would've handled 3D games well. a LM Real3D one even better.

[calthaer]

Are we actually approaching this issue like it's better graphics rather than better gameplay that makes or breaks a system?

If so, that's pretty asinine.

Sweater Fish's assessment of the ease-of-programming use is much more on-target. The closer to the designer in terms of ease-of-use that the system is, the better games that will result. Those who know how to program and those who know how to tap game design are not always the same person.

[crazyjackcsa]

The problem with Saturn and 3D visuals is, the Saturn did not have any proper hardware to accelerate 3D like a standard 3D accelerator, workstation, arcade board, PlayStation or Nintendo64.

Saturn lacked:
a geometry engine, a triangle setup engine, a 3D rendering engine. Its co-processors were designed to push 2D sprite-based graphics and backgrounds. The Saturn was not weak, it was very very powerful in that area. It had more brute power than the PlayStation, but not power targeted toward 3D graphics. PS1 had a reasonable amount of power which was targeted at 3D graphics; the Geometry Transform Engine and the GPU. So with less power, the PS1 was able to do more impressive looking 3D than Saturn. The only times Saturn out-did PS1 in 3D is when you would compare the very best assembly-coded Saturn game with the worst, poorly done PS1 game.

Saturn came out in late 1994 in Japan, and its hardware was actually finished later than the MODEL 2 arcade board which was completed in 1993. But compared to MODEL 2, Saturn was not the right kind of hardware for 3D games. Just because Sega spent alot of time trying to translated its MODEL2 hits onto Saturn, does not mean Saturn was good at this kind of thing, it wasn't. Sega could've saved themselves alot of trouble by going with either a Lockheed Martin Real3D based or at least a 3DO/Matsushita M2 based console. Either would've handled 3D games well. a LM Real3D one even better.

The Saturn used Quads in Polygon manipulation. Really, there is nothing wrong with quads, in fact at the the time, using quads was very common, not the accepted way mind you, but very common. The Ps1 and N64 used Triangles, which makes it harder to port to saturn. Now how can you say that the Saturn lacked a geometry engine? Do a google search and you'll see that it did. Or a 3d rendering engine? Isn't a 3d rendering engine a software issue instead of a hardware issue?

Also the Model 2 and Saturn Hardware are two entirely different things. A model 2 game had to be completely recoded to run on the Saturn. Also there were multilpe editions of the Model 2 board, each with different amounts of Ram. Listen, I'm not saying the Saturn was the most powerful systme, or that the 3D aspects weren't "tacked" on. But the issue was that the Saturn was hard to program for and used a very different set of tools than the PS 1 or N64, making ports difficult.

[parallaxscroll]

Saturn translations or adaptions of MODEL 2 games like Daytona USA (every Saturn version, original, CCE, CE) played poorly compared to the arcade due to framerate. The framerate of a 3D game effects the quality of the control & gameplay. Saturn's poor 3D abilities were not just about graphics, although that graphics was a major thing then.

There are plenty of Saturn games that play wonderfully. There are dozens of wonderful Saturn games. I think the Saturn was overall more worthwhile having than Nintendo64 which had very few really good games. Saturn had dozens, but most of those IMO were 2D, what Saturn really excelled at.

[Rob2600]

with less power, the PS1 was able to do more impressive looking 3D than Saturn.

I remember the Saturn version of Dead or Alive looked better than the PlayStation version. Am I right?

Isn't Duke Nukem 3D supposed to look better on the Saturn than on the PlayStation, as well?

I think the Saturn was overall more worthwhile having than Nintendo64 which had very few really good games.

The N64 had plenty of great games:

Top 50 and Bottom 25 Nintendo 64 games list