What went wrong with the Saturn?

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] because there really is only one way to interpret it, close and slight are pretty clear terms. same CPU doesn't mean alot, the Commodore 64 has basically the same CPU as the Atari 2600, and it was also used in the Atari 8 bit line (infact, the Rioch chip in the NES is a clone of the 6507 used in the 2600, just faster), doesn't mean its the same or even close, because of everything else. as for tech demos, tech demos are tech demos, they don't have any gameplay (especially not the one I know youve seen , ie, the one made by Zyrinx), no logic, no AI , nothing, its pretty obvious its going to look good.. there is a difference between something cool and actually being capable.caryslan2

So you think the difference between CD32X and Saturn was bigger than, say, SNES and N64?

I think the jump from 32X to Saturn was not that huge personally.

And if you add the CD in there and give the devs more time/resource to work on 32X/CD games, the outcome could be even closer.

Many later Saturn games look much better then anything on the 32X and are pretty comparable to PS1 games at the time. Hell, Virtua Fighter 2 looks much better then anything on the 32X and is pretty comparable to Tekken 1 on the PS1 in terms of graphics quality. And this keeping in mind the fact that VF2 was a port of a game that ran much more powerful hardware in the arcades.

Part of the problem was the poor-looking ports of Virtua Fighter and Daytona USA that launched with the system. Because of their rushed nature, they failed to take advantage of the Saturn's hardware and in the case of Virtua Fighter somehow managed to look worse then the 32X version. But if you want a direct comparison, look at Virtua Fighter Remix vs Virtua Fighter 32X. That is a game that plays to the Saturn's power and as a result looks much better.

One other thing to keep in mind is the fact that the 32X often suffered from some of the base limitations of the Genesis. These were the same issues that hurt the Sega CD.

To be honest, the Saturn was a pretty powerful system for its time and was comparable to the Playstation. The problem was the hardware itself, which was difficult to work with. But when a developer did manage to make a game that played to the Saturn's hardware, it was shown that it was a pretty capable and powerful system. Plus, it did do 2-D games much better then the Playstation. The best port's of Capcom's 2-D fighters of that era were on the Saturn.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] not sure about you, but I can't see how his game looks as good as something like Ridge Racer or Wipeout. then again , MK3 came out at the same time on the PS1, so not every game looked like that I guess.Darkman2007

There were also games like King's Field, Twisted Metal, and Time Commando which weren't nearly as good looking as Ridge Racer.

I remember most 32X 3D games looking pretty bland with a lot of the textures being nothing more than solid colors, and the polygons looking very simplistic in shape and form. There was some decent looking textures on some solid looking polygons in that Darxide video (by 32X standards).

Oh, I'm not on the side of the 32X being near the Saturn. I have seen plenty of Saturn games that look far more impressive than what I've seen on 32X. I was just commenting on that video in particular being impressive for 32X.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

There were also games like King's Field, Twisted Metal, and Time Commando which weren't nearly as good looking as Ridge Racer.

I remember most 32X 3D games looking pretty bland with a lot of the textures being nothing more than solid colors, and the polygons looking very simplistic in shape and form. There was some decent looking textures on some solid looking polygons in that Darxide video (by 32X standards).

Emerald_Warrior

Oh, I'm not on the side of the 32X being near the Saturn. I have seen plenty of Saturn games that look far more impressive than what I've seen on 32X. I was just commenting on that video in particular being impressive for 32X.

its indeed impressive. Ive also found Fifa96 on the 32X (its a PAL exclusive) , to be quite impressive

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy8-8V78fmc

just for reference , here is the PS/Saturn versions

www.youtube.com/watch?v=glqCY7hOeko

not as good, but the 32X one is impressive (and technically does what it says on the tin , its a big upgrade from the 16bit consoles)

btw, when you see textures that look like solid colours on 32X (or other consoles at the time) , it means its not textured, its flat shaded (ie a lack of textures like the 3D PC games of the late 80s)

[QUOTE="caryslan2"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

So you think the difference between CD32X and Saturn was bigger than, say, SNES and N64?

I think the jump from 32X to Saturn was not that huge personally.

And if you add the CD in there and give the devs more time/resource to work on 32X/CD games, the outcome could be even closer.

Darkman2007

Many later Saturn games look much better then anything on the 32X and are pretty comparable to PS1 games at the time. Hell, Virtua Fighter 2 looks much better then anything on the 32X and is pretty comparable to Tekken 1 on the PS1 in terms of graphics quality. And this keeping in mind the fact that VF2 was a port of a game that ran much more powerful hardware in the arcades.

Part of the problem was the poor-looking ports of Virtua Fighter and Daytona USA that launched with the system. Because of their rushed nature, they failed to take advantage of the Saturn's hardware and in the case of Virtua Fighter somehow managed to look worse then the 32X version. But if you want a direct comparison, look at Virtua Fighter Remix vs Virtua Fighter 32X. That is a game that plays to the Saturn's power and as a result looks much better.

One other thing to keep in mind is the fact that the 32X often suffered from some of the base limitations of the Genesis. These were the same issues that hurt the Sega CD.

To be honest, the Saturn was a pretty powerful system for its time and was comparable to the Playstation. The problem was the hardware itself, which was difficult to work with. But when a developer did manage to make a game that played to the Saturn's hardware, it was shown that it was a pretty capable and powerful system. Plus, it did do 2-D games much better then the Playstation. The best port's of Capcom's 2-D fighters of that era were on the Saturn.

Our opinions may differ on this, but I thought the ports of VF2 and several other games were very good from a graphical standpoint. Keep in mind, the Model 2 arcade hardware was much more powerful then the Saturn. So, the ports like VF2 not only managed to look good by Saturn standards, but they were pretty good by the standards of home consoles in 1995.

And I'll be the first to admit that the Playstation was overall the better system when it came to 3D games and FMV in games. The Saturn was a much harder system to work with, and there were certain things such as transparency effects that the Saturn could not do without programming tricks. Later games like Burning Rangers did allow the Saturn to close that gap and do things like transparency effects but that was only through programming tricks.

With that said though, I still think many people tend to underrate the Saturn's overall power. The Playstation was more powerful in terms of 3D, but its not like the two systems were generations apart. When a game properly used the Saturn's hardware, it proved that the Saturn was close to the Playstation's level in terms of power. The problem was the Saturn's hardware and the difficulty in achieving the system's full potential. The Playstation was much easier to work with, and since it was the market leader more development resources went to it. Third-parties had an easier time bringing out the PS1's power, and because it was built with 3D in mind, it did have that edge over the Saturn.

But as I said before, the Saturn was not a 32X or Jaguar when compared to the PS1. It was a powerful system in its own right. What hurt it was Sega's questionable decisions when they designed the hardware.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="caryslan2"]

Many later Saturn games look much better then anything on the 32X and are pretty comparable to PS1 games at the time. Hell, Virtua Fighter 2 looks much better then anything on the 32X and is pretty comparable to Tekken 1 on the PS1 in terms of graphics quality. And this keeping in mind the fact that VF2 was a port of a game that ran much more powerful hardware in the arcades.

Part of the problem was the poor-looking ports of Virtua Fighter and Daytona USA that launched with the system. Because of their rushed nature, they failed to take advantage of the Saturn's hardware and in the case of Virtua Fighter somehow managed to look worse then the 32X version. But if you want a direct comparison, look at Virtua Fighter Remix vs Virtua Fighter 32X. That is a game that plays to the Saturn's power and as a result looks much better.

One other thing to keep in mind is the fact that the 32X often suffered from some of the base limitations of the Genesis. These were the same issues that hurt the Sega CD.

To be honest, the Saturn was a pretty powerful system for its time and was comparable to the Playstation. The problem was the hardware itself, which was difficult to work with. But when a developer did manage to make a game that played to the Saturn's hardware, it was shown that it was a pretty capable and powerful system. Plus, it did do 2-D games much better then the Playstation. The best port's of Capcom's 2-D fighters of that era were on the Saturn.

caryslan2

Our opinions may differ on this, but I thought the ports of VF2 and several other games were very good from a graphical standpoint. Keep in mind, the Model 2 arcade hardware was much more powerful then the Saturn. So, the ports like VF2 not only managed to look good by Saturn standards, but they were pretty good by the standards of home consoles in 1995.

And I'll be the first to admit that the Playstation was overall the better system when it came to 3D games and FMV in games. The Saturn was a much harder system to work with, and there were certain things such as transparency effects that the Saturn could not do without programming tricks. Later games like Burning Rangers did allow the Saturn to close that gap and do things like transparency effects but that was only through programming tricks.

With that said though, I still think many people tend to underrate the Saturn's overall power. The Playstation was more powerful in terms of 3D, but its not like the two systems were generations apart. When a game properly used the Saturn's hardware, it proved that the Saturn was close to the Playstation's level in terms of power. The problem was the Saturn's hardware and the difficulty in achieving the system's full potential. The Playstation was much easier to work with, and since it was the market leader more development resources went to it. Third-parties had an easier time bringing out the PS1's power, and because it was built with 3D in mind, it did have the edge over the Saturn.

But as I said before, the Saturn was not a 32X or Jaguar when it came to power. It was a powerful system in its own right. What hurt it was Sega's questionable decisions when they designed the hardware.

[QUOTE="caryslan2"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] one doesn't need to look into the late library on the Saturn , VF2 was released in 1995, as did Virtua Cop and Sega Rally. although all those games are graphically overrated imo.Darkman2007

Our opinions may differ on this, but I thought the ports of VF2 and several other games were very good from a graphical standpoint. Keep in mind, the Model 2 arcade hardware was much more powerful then the Saturn. So, the ports like VF2 not only managed to look good by Saturn standards, but they were pretty good by the standards of home consoles in 1995.

And I'll be the first to admit that the Playstation was overall the better system when it came to 3D games and FMV in games. The Saturn was a much harder system to work with, and there were certain things such as transparency effects that the Saturn could not do without programming tricks. Later games like Burning Rangers did allow the Saturn to close that gap and do things like transparency effects but that was only through programming tricks.

With that said though, I still think many people tend to underrate the Saturn's overall power. The Playstation was more powerful in terms of 3D, but its not like the two systems were generations apart. When a game properly used the Saturn's hardware, it proved that the Saturn was close to the Playstation's level in terms of power. The problem was the Saturn's hardware and the difficulty in achieving the system's full potential. The Playstation was much easier to work with, and since it was the market leader more development resources went to it. Third-parties had an easier time bringing out the PS1's power, and because it was built with 3D in mind, it did have the edge over the Saturn.

But as I said before, the Saturn was not a 32X or Jaguar when it came to power. It was a powerful system in its own right. What hurt it was Sega's questionable decisions when they designed the hardware.

I think many people(myself included) turn to VF2 because it was one of the best looking games on a home console at the time. And it looked good when compared to Tekken 1 and 2 which were the Playstation's flagship fighting games at that time. It was one of the first games that kinda made people stop and realize that the Saturn was not a weak as they had thought thought.

The problem though, and something I agree with you with was the fact that many games never even made it to VF2's quality. And since many multiplats often looked worse on the Saturn, many people got the idea in their heads that the Saturn was simply not in the PS1's league when it came to 3D. Early games like Daytona USA and Virtua Fighter really hurt the system's reputation in the eyes of consumers and while good-looking games like Panzer Dragoon, Virtua Fighter 2, Fighter's Megamix, Lanst Bronx, Fighting Vipers, Virtua Fighter Remix, Dead or Alive and several others proved that the Saturn could hang with the PS1 when ti came to 3D, they were few and far between.

And that was the Saturn's greatest weakness. For every Saturn game that came out that was comparable to something on the PS1, Sony and third-party developers were putting out more games that often looked better. Many third-parties never really figured out how to get the most out of the Saturn's hardware, and many games suffered because of it. PS1 versions of multiplats often looked better, and it hurt the Saturn in the eyes of apotential consumer.

Of course, this is also leaving out the Nintendo 64 which was a powerful system in its own right. Super Mario 64 wowed everyone back in the day, and while Nights looked really good, it was not enough for Sega. Between the PS1 and N64, the Saturn gained the reputation as the system that could not handle 3D games very well.

[QUOTE="caryslan2"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] one doesn't need to look into the late library on the Saturn , VF2 was released in 1995, as did Virtua Cop and Sega Rally. although all those games are graphically overrated imo.Darkman2007

Our opinions may differ on this, but I thought the ports of VF2 and several other games were very good from a graphical standpoint. Keep in mind, the Model 2 arcade hardware was much more powerful then the Saturn. So, the ports like VF2 not only managed to look good by Saturn standards, but they were pretty good by the standards of home consoles in 1995.

And I'll be the first to admit that the Playstation was overall the better system when it came to 3D games and FMV in games. The Saturn was a much harder system to work with, and there were certain things such as transparency effects that the Saturn could not do without programming tricks. Later games like Burning Rangers did allow the Saturn to close that gap and do things like transparency effects but that was only through programming tricks.

With that said though, I still think many people tend to underrate the Saturn's overall power. The Playstation was more powerful in terms of 3D, but its not like the two systems were generations apart. When a game properly used the Saturn's hardware, it proved that the Saturn was close to the Playstation's level in terms of power. The problem was the Saturn's hardware and the difficulty in achieving the system's full potential. The Playstation was much easier to work with, and since it was the market leader more development resources went to it. Third-parties had an easier time bringing out the PS1's power, and because it was built with 3D in mind, it did have the edge over the Saturn.

But as I said before, the Saturn was not a 32X or Jaguar when it came to power. It was a powerful system in its own right. What hurt it was Sega's questionable decisions when they designed the hardware.

I've never heard anyone say vf2 is the best looking saturn games. only at that time they did and they were right and it looked better than tekken 1 or anything on the psx. so it was leverage for saturn fans and owners saying their console was great at doing 3d, just as psx.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="caryslan2"]

Our opinions may differ on this, but I thought the ports of VF2 and several other games were very good from a graphical standpoint. Keep in mind, the Model 2 arcade hardware was much more powerful then the Saturn. So, the ports like VF2 not only managed to look good by Saturn standards, but they were pretty good by the standards of home consoles in 1995.

And I'll be the first to admit that the Playstation was overall the better system when it came to 3D games and FMV in games. The Saturn was a much harder system to work with, and there were certain things such as transparency effects that the Saturn could not do without programming tricks. Later games like Burning Rangers did allow the Saturn to close that gap and do things like transparency effects but that was only through programming tricks.

With that said though, I still think many people tend to underrate the Saturn's overall power. The Playstation was more powerful in terms of 3D, but its not like the two systems were generations apart. When a game properly used the Saturn's hardware, it proved that the Saturn was close to the Playstation's level in terms of power. The problem was the Saturn's hardware and the difficulty in achieving the system's full potential. The Playstation was much easier to work with, and since it was the market leader more development resources went to it. Third-parties had an easier time bringing out the PS1's power, and because it was built with 3D in mind, it did have the edge over the Saturn.

But as I said before, the Saturn was not a 32X or Jaguar when it came to power. It was a powerful system in its own right. What hurt it was Sega's questionable decisions when they designed the hardware.

bultje112

I've never heard anyone say vf2 is the best looking saturn games. only at that time they did and they were right and it looked better than tekken 1 or anything on the psx. so it was leverage for saturn fans and owners saying their console was great at doing 3d, just as psx.

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] I agree that people tend to underrate the system's power, but its partially because the most known games are VF2 and Sega Rally. its not that those games look bad, but there is better on the system , DOA and Last Bronx are considerably better than VF2 , hell , even Anarchy in the Nippon and Zero Divide can be seen as better, and thats just one genre, why is Bug seen as an example of the system when it looks pretty basic by the system's standard. I mean if the games people think of when they think of Saturn visuals are Daytona USA on the one hand (which admittedly looked and ran badly) and VF2 on the other end (which looks better than Tekken 2 ,but not much more) , no wonder the Saturn gets an image of being terrible at anything involving polygons.Darkman2007

I've never heard anyone say vf2 is the best looking saturn games. only at that time they did and they were right and it looked better than tekken 1 or anything on the psx. so it was leverage for saturn fans and owners saying their console was great at doing 3d, just as psx.

they were at that time. you should not forget that most of the discussion was back then. not now. now most people think/say that saturn wasn't cut out for 3d and psx was better. but back then it took a few years for people to take those stands in the debate and vf2, virtua cop and sega rally came out during the heat of all this

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="bultje112"]

I've never heard anyone say vf2 is the best looking saturn games. only at that time they did and they were right and it looked better than tekken 1 or anything on the psx. so it was leverage for saturn fans and owners saying their console was great at doing 3d, just as psx.

bultje112

they were at that time. you should not forget that most of the discussion was back then. not now. now most people think/say that saturn wasn't cut out for 3d and psx was better. but back then it took a few years for people to take those stands in the debate and vf2, virtua cop and sega rally came out during the heat of all this

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] Ive certainly heard it being used plenty of times as an example of the Saturn's graphical power, usually shwon as some sort of gold standard. youre right that it looked better than Tekken 1 , heck , in most ways it beats Tekken 2 , but then , nobody is using those games as an example of what the Playstation could do.Darkman2007

they were at that time. you should not forget that most of the discussion was back then. not now. now most people think/say that saturn wasn't cut out for 3d and psx was better. but back then it took a few years for people to take those stands in the debate and vf2, virtua cop and sega rally came out during the heat of all this

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="bultje112"]

they were at that time. you should not forget that most of the discussion was back then. not now. now most people think/say that saturn wasn't cut out for 3d and psx was better. but back then it took a few years for people to take those stands in the debate and vf2, virtua cop and sega rally came out during the heat of all this

Heirren

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="bultje112"]

they were at that time. you should not forget that most of the discussion was back then. not now. now most people think/say that saturn wasn't cut out for 3d and psx was better. but back then it took a few years for people to take those stands in the debate and vf2, virtua cop and sega rally came out during the heat of all this

Heirren

there's a ton of saturn fighters that run 60 fps, doa looks legitimately better than vf2 in every way, but I guess you never played it on the saturn

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] there are 2 problems with what you said 1), not really, if they wanted to keep a decent frame rate (though I agree about the Doom soundtrack , that could have been better) 2) even if you got it to look better and more like the arcade, the game still looks like crap in comparison to the vast majority of Saturn 3D games, so there goes that theory down the toilet. anymore games youre going to throw at me ? :P this is somewhat comical actually.Emerald_Warrior

Yes.

Behold Darxide, Saturn-beating 3D on the 32X:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPUCICkqd1U

j/k :P

That's actually pretty impressive for 32X. It looks like an early-release PS1 game.

Metalhead looked pretty good too, technically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueocArqPT8A

I think there was more potential to 32X than what we have seen, esp. in combination with the Sega CD (even tho it had just two powerful CPUs and no graphics chip/dedicated 3D co-processor).

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yes.

Behold Darxide, Saturn-beating 3D on the 32X:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPUCICkqd1U

j/k :P

nameless12345

That's actually pretty impressive for 32X. It looks like an early-release PS1 game.

Metalhead looked pretty good too, technically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueocArqPT8A

I think there was more potential to 32X than what we have seen, esp. in combination with the Sega CD (even tho it had just two powerful CPUs and no graphics chip/dedicated 3D co-processor).

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

That's actually pretty impressive for 32X. It looks like an early-release PS1 game.

Darkman2007

Metalhead looked pretty good too, technically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueocArqPT8A

I think there was more potential to 32X than what we have seen, esp. in combination with the Sega CD (even tho it had just two powerful CPUs and no graphics chip/dedicated 3D co-processor).

I think a game like this would be possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiVJ5bVNeq4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tx_0JTeIV8

It should handle a game like Outrunners well and a nice port of Rayman should be viable too.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Metalhead looked pretty good too, technically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueocArqPT8A

I think there was more potential to 32X than what we have seen, esp. in combination with the Sega CD (even tho it had just two powerful CPUs and no graphics chip/dedicated 3D co-processor).

nameless12345

I think a game like this would be possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiVJ5bVNeq4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tx_0JTeIV8

It should handle a game like Outrunners well and a nice port of Rayman should be viable too.