Sega Saturn Vs Sony Playstation 1

[gman72]

Whenever I see topics like this now I can't help but think, who cares. Both have awesome games and games are all that matter.

I agree totally but there is nowt wrong with a bit of healthy debate is there?

[nakamura]

It never really stays that way though! But no there isn't.

[retrosofer]

I kind of like these types of threads as they can lead to some healthy debate, and a chance to learn things i didn't know about before.

I still get the feeling though that the Saturn just cant shake off that bad 3D image though, that it cant match the PS1 in 3D and its not a good console for 3D which is all untrue. But its true enough that both consoles are great with great games for them so both are winners really.

[SteveHarrold]

Both systems have a massive, interesting library of games IMHO.
From a technical perspective (I'm a developer myself), the Saturn has more 3D capabilities than PSX, but marketing doomed it.

[gman72]

the Saturn has more 3D capabilities than PSX, but marketing doomed it.

Marketing doomed the Saturn or its 3D capabilities?

[gman72]

Both systems have a massive, interesting library of games IMHO.
From a technical perspective (I'm a developer myself), the Saturn has more 3D capabilities than PSX, but marketing doomed it.

Like Nakamura said its games that matter. It doesn't matter how powerful the Saturns 3D capabilities may have been the majority of its 3D games were inferior to the PSX versions, not all but most.

[silvergunner]

Both systems have a massive, interesting library of games IMHO.
From a technical perspective (I'm a developer myself), the Saturn has more 3D capabilities than PSX, but marketing doomed it.

I would say more like the fact not many developers could do what needed to be done to make it sing. But as has already been said yes certain spec was better but was pretty much useless due to other spec not being up to par so the machine could never truely use what it had been given.

[retrosofer]

Both systems have a massive, interesting library of games IMHO.
From a technical perspective (I'm a developer myself), the Saturn has more 3D capabilities than PSX, but marketing doomed it.

I'm not sure it was such a problem with marketing, although they could have done way better tbh, but i think it was more of a problem with Sega themselves. They made all the wrong moves with the Mega CD/32X regardless of how good or bad those systems were depending on your opinion and perception of them, and Sega just never really recovered after. But they did at least see a reversal in fortunes in Japan though, as the Saturn and Dreamcast proved extreamly popular over there.

[llj]

I can't help but think that if the Saturn had concentrated on bringing more of its great 2D games to America, people might have a better view of the console today. Of course, it would have not been the popular or even smart move back in 1996 or 1997, but time would have looked more kindly at it, as many 3D games from this gaming era have aged badly anyway. Instead we have a hard-to- program-for console that tried to but didn't quite get as many good 3D games as the PS1 did, instead of being known as the 2D dream machine it ought to have been known as.

That said, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, the Saturn is a great machine to have sitting around, like a corvette that is never used . It's super quiet and has a nice chunky look to it that feels substantial. The PS1 is stll an ugly looking machine in my eyes, and it wasn't the quietest machine around either.

[JennyTablina]

I heard it said somewhere that the whole double processor business being added so late - and it being such a rare occurrence then for a console to have a hardware design that complicated - meant there wasn't the easy dev environment that Playstation offered, most of the time devs were using only half of Saturn's power because they had no desire to spend extra time figuring out how to get Saturn's 2 processors talking to each other.

Also speaking as someone who owned a Saturn in it's heyday, the other problem besides hardware...was that a LOT of titles got left in Japan or sold very limited amounts if they did get prints, I recall really wanting NiGHTS - but finding a copy was nigh impossible, I found a preowned copy which had been horribly scratched up. It played the main game fine, but the CGI endings were mucked up. Konami never bothered to release their (very small) retro title bundles, and even Sega was guilty of this thanks to not bothering with localising the Sega Ages collections.

At this point in time, despite a few titles being passed up for strange reasons (like Tomba or the stupid low print run for Klonoa) - Playstation was starting to get al kinds of quirky Japanese imports and titles. Sega could of tried to get the quirky imports over but failed, so it looked like Saturn not only failed in the power department, they failed to bring the variety too. Sega at least learned with Dreamcast that if it was going to succeed, they needed to bring more unique titles over. It's just unfortunate that the Dreamcast was sadly also saddled with Sega's past baggage, otherwise I think it would of stood more of a chance

[Megamixer]

I heard it said somewhere that the whole double processor business being added so late - and it being such a rare occurrence then for a console to have a hardware design that complicated - meant there wasn't the easy dev environment that Playstation offered, most of the time devs were using only half of Saturn's power because they had no desire to spend extra time figuring out how to get Saturn's 2 processors talking to each other.

I'm sure it was detailed in a really old RG Saturn feature that the console was meant to be predominately 2D with secondary 3D capabilities but the second processor was added when it was clear that the PS1 and 3D gaming in general was going to take off. They tried to boost the Saturn's power to compete but it was a late, rushed move that didn't completely pay off.

It's a moot point really though isn't it? If I had the space then I'd permanently keep both my Saturn and PS1 beneath the TV for there are enough games on both machines that I enjoy. There's also plenty of 3D stuff on the Saturn such as Sega Rally and Fighters Megamix which I think look the business for the time period so I don't find it difficult switching between both consoles at all.

[davyK]

Those few 3D games on Saturn that were done as well as possible have aged extremely well - better than PS1 games.

Stuff like VF2 and Athlete Kings still look really solid today - though a lot of that is to do with that Sega sparkly design. The bosses in RSG still pass muster too.

As above - the 2 consoles actually compliment each other really well. Sega is more arcade style and PS1 tends more toward PC-style. Both have huge catalogues of Japanese weirdness if you want to import. The Saturn controller stomps all over the PS effort though - and I include the Saturn 3D controller in that statement - though it wouldn't have been as effective at an FPS as the PS1 controller once they got around to adding analogue sticks - the original PS1 controller was censored poor really.

Think its fair to say that the Saturn probably suffered from port-itis after a while - titles would have been developed for PS1 and then hacked for Saturn which couldn't have been good - my original statement above follows on from that - anything that was written for the Saturn would have been the stronger titles. Sony did a great job of the developer libs that hid the hardware complexity and allowed for fast and effective development.

I believe that Castlevania:SOTN was actually a 3D game on PS1 but with polygons viewed side on - this was then ported to the saturn which was trying to deal with the overhead of that - its a miracle it worked at all. A ground up 2D version on Saturn would have been at least as good as the PS1 original.

[abraxxious]

Again, it all depends on your interpretation of the original question posed:

If you are interpreting the question as "Which console had the majority of superior 3d ports/version of games?" then the psx is the winner.

However, if you interpret the question as "Which console is more powerful? then the answer is the Saturn.

The Saturn is simply the superior hardware. This can be answered/measured/explained easily by posing the following superstition - if you took any 2d or 3d game concept and had unlimited time/expertise to create the very best possible representation of said concept on both the PS1 and Saturn pushing the hardware to its limits, the Saturn version would be superior to the PS1.

Whether the PS1 was easier to get results from than the Saturn is beside the point - Saturn IS the more powerful hardware.

[gman72]

perhaps but that does not make it the better console.

[Nemesis]

Again, it all depends on your interpretation of the original question posed:

If you are interpreting the question as "Which console had the majority of superior 3d ports/version of games?" then the psx is the winner.

However, if you interpret the question as "Which console is more powerful? then the answer is the Saturn.

The Saturn is simply the superior hardware. This can be answered/measured/explained easily by posing the following superstition - if you took any 2d or 3d game concept and had unlimited time/expertise to create the very best possible representation of said concept on both the PS1 and Saturn pushing the hardware to its limits, the Saturn version would be superior to the PS1.

Whether the PS1 was easier to get results from than the Saturn is beside the point - Saturn IS the more powerful hardware.

You can keep telling yourself this but it doesn't make it true. Potential means nothing if it isn't realised.