Sega Saturn Vs Sony Playstation 1

[Lord Innit]

I remember seeing Parker games for the 2600 selling for £35 back in 1982! That was nearly a whole weeks wages for me back then.

[che_don_john]

I think it's even more prevalent this generation because the consoles are much more expensive than they used to be

I think games and consoles are no more expensive than they used to be (and almost certainly less so), Atari ST games were £20 and the machine £300 in the 1980s, some N64 games were £60 in the 90s...

Correct - and they were prices AT THE TIME. Today, an Atari ST is equivalent to something like £700! £40 NES games are equivalent prices today about £65!

Gaming is cheap these days, if you play the game that is i.e. don't buy on release.

Yes, but those prices dipped in the early 90s and lasted right through to the current gen; no console during that period cost a great deal more than £200. When the PS3 was released it was £350-400. That would almost buy you two consoles in the previous generation.

What should also be considered is that most fanboys are young kids and teenagers; people who usually have their consoles bought for them. Even if they understood the differences in the cost of gaming over the years and thus think that owning two consoles is reasonable, it doesn't mean that their parents will understand or agree. I can imagine most 'layman' parents asking, "One console is enough, why do you need two?!". Hence my point about why fanboyism develops and thrives - kids can only have one console and therefore do their best to justify the choice they've made.

[Freestyler]

Games - and by extension Consoles - have to be cheaper these days, since not only is the market much larger in size it also has much more competition to contend with for people's cash.

Back in the day you had your Games and Computers, but there wasn't really anything else to waste your cash on. Nowadays there are so many ways to have your wallet lightened it's not even funny. In fact it's actually depressing the level of "pressure to purchase" young people are under. How anyone has any spare cash these days is frankly amazing.

I may have complained about how the latest Spectrum game was costing me a whopping £12.99 (up from £9.99 the fuckin' THIEVES!! ) but that's because there was little else to spend it on. I certainly didn't have to buy mobile phone credit for all those thousands of text message, or Ba-jillions of Apps costing a few pennies a time. It all adds up!

[abraxxious]

Weird...

Having been a hardcore gamer since the early 80s there was never any question of whether I should purchase a Saturn or Playstation when they were released in '95 - I simply purchased both as soon as they were released.

However, being a techy junkie, I already knew the specs of the Saturn ran circles around the Playstation, and that goes for 3D as well. Of course, the Saturn was a pig to program for, especially if you intended to make use of BOTH SH2s (which shared the same ram pool) and was missing some of the hardware 3d effects (such as transparency). But in raw processing power the Saturn is actually the more powerful console.

The Saturn has more ram, more vram, high resolutions, more processor power, a slightly faster cdrom (320kbps as opposed to 300kbps). Then, if you go into the realms of the VDPs.... the Saturn can handle far more and larger sprites, more playfields, higher colour depth etc.

On the other hand, the Playstation was MUCH easier to program and was released with far better dev kits. There was only a single cpu to interact with and a lot of the graphical effects (such as transparencies and video compression) were built into the hardware and accessed by easy to use dev libraries.

The upshot of all of this is simple - more developers programmed for the Psx as it was easier to get results out of. Also, MOST developers would only use a SINGLE SH2 processor in the Saturn as it was far too difficult to get them to work in tandem, so one sat idle and literally half of the Saturns power sat dormant. Luckily the SH2s were roughly the same power as the R3000 in the psx, so even with "one hand tied behind its back" the Saturn could ALMOST keep up with the Psx - usually substituting dithering for transparencies and a dropping of frame rate.

However, the other upshot is that WHEN a skilled developer actually managed to harness the dual cpu power of the Saturn the results invariably left the psx for dead. Duke Nukem 3d has amazing coloured light sourcing in the Saturn version - this was not possible in the PSX version as there was not enough cpu power for the calculations. Also, look at Powerslave/Exhumed on both etc.

Having a higher texture bit depth and more vram meant the Saturn could have more and better textures - compare PSX Grandia to the Saturn version.

It is a sad myth that the Psx is actually better at 3d - it simply isn't in the same way that a Pentium 2 cannot be better at 3d than a Pentium 3 - the Saturn has more ram and more processing horsepower than the Psx - this is simple fact.

It IS very true however, that MOST 3D games that came out on both systems have a superior version on the Psx for the reasons stated above. The Saturn was more than capable of bettering the Psx, but the complicated and messy way the hardware was designed meant that only a few developers were capable and took the time to harness this power. Most simply used a single SH2 and "got the job done".

Quake is a good example. Quake was originally going to be released on both formats, however it was found the Psx lacked the ram and cpu grunt to carry off an acceptable port so this version was dropped. Now before some smartarse says "Duh, but Quake 2 came out on the PSX!" - yes it did. HOWEVER, it actually cut back the number of displayed polygons drastically (it appears to display LESS polys per scene that Quake on the Saturn!) by use of extra doorways and clever texturing. The lack of ram in the Psx was also offset by continuous loading of sections into ram as you passed through these introduced doors. In all, the developers did a very good job and found a way around the limitations of the hardware - my hat off to them, but apples to apples it is not a more impressive display than the original Quake on Saturn.

So the next time you see Tombraider compared on the Saturn and Psx don't read anything more into it than the Saturn version using half its available power (Tombraider on the Saturn only uses one Sh2, the other sits idle) due to its difficult development nature.

After this long winded rant you could be forgiven thinking I was a Sega fan. Well I am, but I am every bit as much a Sony fan, I just find different qualities in the different platforms that appeal to me.

The Saturn was a very powerful system with a high build quality and some great games (especially Japanese Shmups which I love).

The Psx was a very elegantly designed system that was a dream to produce on and has a huge and varied library.

Both have their pros and cons.

[retrosofer]

For better or worse, the Saturn is only really seen as a 2D powerhouse, which it is, but its also a 3D powerhouse to, it just never got the chance to shine quite as much as the PS1 did for many reasons. But it can easily match the PS1 in 3D, as the 3 titles from Labotomy Software and Team Andromeda proved, but also see games such as EO, Soviet Strike, Grandia, Sonic R, Pandemonium, RE and more besides.

[pantal00ns]

For better or worse, the Saturn is only really seen as a 2D powerhouse, which it is, but its also a 3D powerhouse to, it just never got the chance to shine quite as much as the PS1 did for many reasons. But it can easily match the PS1 in 3D, as the 3 titles from Labotomy Software and Team Andromeda proved, but also see games such as EO, Soviet Strike, Grandia, Sonic R, Pandemonium, RE and more besides.

I think it could be as simple a PS1 showed 3D gaming to the masses at the right time. That and better marketing.

I was personally gaming on a PC then, but bought a PS1 at launch for playing CD's and some of the launch titles looked that good! It was fickle yes, but I didn't know the Saturn even existed until a mate said his brother bought one. a year or so later.

[retrojc]

To be honest, Saturns have very rarely interested me.

Have a few games, but prefer the PC Engine for all the right reasons. (Yep, I compare Saturn with PC Engine). I have never considered Saturn to actually be PS1 competition.

[gman72]

Weird...

Having been a hardcore gamer since the early 80s there was never any question of whether I should purchase a Saturn or Playstation when they were released in '95 - I simply purchased both as soon as they were released.

However, being a techy junkie, I already knew the specs of the Saturn ran circles around the Playstation, and that goes for 3D as well. Of course, the Saturn was a pig to program for, especially if you intended to make use of BOTH SH2s (which shared the same ram pool) and was missing some of the hardware 3d effects (such as transparency). But in raw processing power the Saturn is actually the more powerful console.

The Saturn has more ram, more vram, high resolutions, more processor power, a slightly faster cdrom (320kbps as opposed to 300kbps). Then, if you go into the realms of the VDPs.... the Saturn can handle far more and larger sprites, more playfields, higher colour depth etc.

On the other hand, the Playstation was MUCH easier to program and was released with far better dev kits. There was only a single cpu to interact with and a lot of the graphical effects (such as transparencies and video compression) were built into the hardware and accessed by easy to use dev libraries.

The upshot of all of this is simple - more developers programmed for the Psx as it was easier to get results out of. Also, MOST developers would only use a SINGLE SH2 processor in the Saturn as it was far too difficult to get them to work in tandem, so one sat idle and literally half of the Saturns power sat dormant. Luckily the SH2s were roughly the same power as the R3000 in the psx, so even with "one hand tied behind its back" the Saturn could ALMOST keep up with the Psx - usually substituting dithering for transparencies and a dropping of frame rate.

However, the other upshot is that WHEN a skilled developer actually managed to harness the dual cpu power of the Saturn the results invariably left the psx for dead. Duke Nukem 3d has amazing coloured light sourcing in the Saturn version - this was not possible in the PSX version as there was not enough cpu power for the calculations. Also, look at Powerslave/Exhumed on both etc.

Having a higher texture bit depth and more vram meant the Saturn could have more and better textures - compare PSX Grandia to the Saturn version.

It is a sad myth that the Psx is actually better at 3d - it simply isn't in the same way that a Pentium 2 cannot be better at 3d than a Pentium 3 - the Saturn has more ram and more processing horsepower than the Psx - this is simple fact.

It IS very true however, that MOST 3D games that came out on both systems have a superior version on the Psx for the reasons stated above. The Saturn was more than capable of bettering the Psx, but the complicated and messy way the hardware was designed meant that only a few developers were capable and took the time to harness this power. Most simply used a single SH2 and "got the job done".

Quake is a good example. Quake was originally going to be released on both formats, however it was found the Psx lacked the ram and cpu grunt to carry off an acceptable port so this version was dropped. Now before some smartarse says "Duh, but Quake 2 came out on the PSX!" - yes it did. HOWEVER, it actually cut back the number of displayed polygons drastically (it appears to display LESS polys per scene that Quake on the Saturn!) by use of extra doorways and clever texturing. The lack of ram in the Psx was also offset by continuous loading of sections into ram as you passed through these introduced doors. In all, the developers did a very good job and found a way around the limitations of the hardware - my hat off to them, but apples to apples it is not a more impressive display than the original Quake on Saturn.

So the next time you see Tombraider compared on the Saturn and Psx don't read anything more into it than the Saturn version using half its available power (Tombraider on the Saturn only uses one Sh2, the other sits idle) due to its difficult development nature.

After this long winded rant you could be forgiven thinking I was a Sega fan. Well I am, but I am every bit as much a Sony fan, I just find different qualities in the different platforms that appeal to me.

The Saturn was a very powerful system with a high build quality and some great games (especially Japanese Shmups which I love).

The Psx was a very elegantly designed system that was a dream to produce on and has a huge and varied library.

Both have their pros and cons.

Whatever, mate. It doesn't matter to me how much of the Saturns processing power Tombraider used it is still gash compared to the PSX version. Duke Nukem not withstanding so were most of the other 3D ports.

[retrosofer]

Tomb Raider on the Saturn suffered from a ropy engine that was barly adequate for the job at hand, better could have been achieved on the system, but that all depended on how much time, money and effort a developer wanted to put into a Saturn game.

Not all multiformat games turned out terrible though: Wipeout/Wipeout 2097 were just as good as the PlayStation games in terms of gameplay and gfx, they just lacked the Soundtracks present on PS1 versions and of course transparent effects. The Saturn version of RE is considered by some to be the best version of the game, everything is there that makes the game what it is, its just the 3D models are blockier than those in PS1 version. Soviet Strike has a much richer colour pallet than its rival version and Croc/Pandemonium are just as good (croc lacks transparent effects, but who cares.) Also the Saturn has the best console versions of Exhumed, Duke Nukem 3D and Quake.

[gman72]

Tomb Raider on the Saturn suffered from a ropy engine that was barly adequate for the job at hand, better could have been achieved on the system, but that all depended on how much time, money and effort a developer wanted to put into a Saturn game.

Not all multiformat games turned out terrible though: Wipeout/Wipeout 2097 were just as good as the PlayStation games in terms of gameplay and gfx, they just lacked the Soundtracks present on PS1 versions and of course transparent effects. The Saturn version of RE is considered by some to be the best version of the game, everything is there that makes the game what it is, its just the 3D models are blockier than those in PS1 version. Soviet Strike has a much richer colour pallet than its rival version and Croc/Pandemonium are just as good (croc lacks transparent effects, but who cares.) Also the Saturn has the best console versions of Exhumed, Duke Nukem 3D and Quake.

But not Doom. Unbeaten on PSX.

[retrosofer]

Tomb Raider on the Saturn suffered from a ropy engine that was barly adequate for the job at hand, better could have been achieved on the system, but that all depended on how much time, money and effort a developer wanted to put into a Saturn game.

Not all multiformat games turned out terrible though: Wipeout/Wipeout 2097 were just as good as the PlayStation games in terms of gameplay and gfx, they just lacked the Soundtracks present on PS1 versions and of course transparent effects. The Saturn version of RE is considered by some to be the best version of the game, everything is there that makes the game what it is, its just the 3D models are blockier than those in PS1 version. Soviet Strike has a much richer colour pallet than its rival version and Croc/Pandemonium are just as good (croc lacks transparent effects, but who cares.) Also the Saturn has the best console versions of Exhumed, Duke Nukem 3D and Quake.

But not Doom. Unbeaten on PSX.

True that, Die Hard Trilogy isn't great on the Saturn either.

[snowkatt]

ps1 for the moment because my ps 1 isnt dead

[mr gryzor]

I never played on a Saturn.
I recall going through a phase around about then (94 ish) where i was disinterested in gaming.
As a consumer,i was a bit baffled by the Mega CD,and the Sega 32X and felt (at the time) that Sega had lost the plot somewhat.


I did buy a Dreamcast though.

[abraxxious]

Hmmmm, either I missed something, or I am not as well versed in the English language as I previously thought.

If we are talking about the general quality of 3d games on the PSX vs Saturn, then the PSX is the superior console.

HOWEVER, if, as the thread title suggests, we are simply pitting the power and features of each console against the other, then the Saturn is the clear winner.

The Saturn MAY be a pig to program, but it does have the more powerful hardware.

Saturn has more system ram, more video ram, higher resolutions, high texture bit depth, more cpu power, more sound channels PLUS additional FM channels, faster CDrom and can easily be upgraded to double its system ram. This is not counting the 2d features where the Saturn REALLY runs rings around the PSX as well as the Neo Geo etc.

The PSX is easier to program and has some transparency effects, video and sound compression features built in.

Doom is not a very good title to sell the merits of a console of this era as both the PSX and Saturn (and even Atari Jaguar, 32x etc) could handle a port of Doom..... if written correctly. Saturn Doom was an absolute joke, PSX Doom was decent, so it wins by Default. Why not compare games that push the hardware more? Duke Nukem 3d is a considerably more complex game engine than Doom.... how does the PSX version compare to the Saturn? The only situation I could envisage that the much lower spec PSX could keep up with the Saturn (when properly utilised) is when rendered multiple transparency layers in realtime 3d. This could (and has) been done in software on the Saturn, but this would use up considerable cpu time, thus giving the PSX a chance to keep up with its lesser cpu power (since on the PSX transparencies are done in hardware independent of the cpu).

The other nice thing about the Saturn is that it had a much better build quality than the PSX, so whilst looking nicer it also lasts longer - none of those wearing out cdrom units on the Saturn.

[Nemesis]

Hmmmm, either I missed something, or I am not as well versed in the English language as I previously thought.

If we are talking about the general quality of 3d games on the PSX vs Saturn, then the PSX is the superior console.

HOWEVER, if, as the thread title suggests, we are simply pitting the power and features of each console against the other, then the Saturn is the clear winner.

The Saturn MAY be a pig to program, but it does have the more powerful hardware.

Saturn has more system ram, more video ram, higher resolutions, high texture bit depth, more cpu power, more sound channels PLUS additional FM channels, faster CDrom and can easily be upgraded to double its system ram. This is not counting the 2d features where the Saturn REALLY runs rings around the PSX as well as the Neo Geo etc.

The PSX is easier to program and has some transparency effects, video and sound compression features built in.

Doom is not a very good title to sell the merits of a console of this era as both the PSX and Saturn (and even Atari Jaguar, 32x etc) could handle a port of Doom..... if written correctly. Saturn Doom was an absolute joke, PSX Doom was decent, so it wins by Default. Why not compare games that push the hardware more? Duke Nukem 3d is a considerably more complex game engine than Doom.... how does the PSX version compare to the Saturn? The only situation I could envisage that the much lower spec PSX could keep up with the Saturn (when properly utilised) is when rendered multiple transparency layers in realtime 3d. This could (and has) been done in software on the Saturn, but this would use up considerable cpu time, thus giving the PSX a chance to keep up with its lesser cpu power (since on the PSX transparencies are done in hardware independent of the cpu).

The other nice thing about the Saturn is that it had a much better build quality than the PSX, so whilst looking nicer it also lasts longer - none of those wearing out cdrom units on the Saturn.

Unfortunately, despite what you've said above, a console (or computer) is only as good as the sum of its parts. You've listed all the supposed technical benefits of a Saturn over a PSX but that means very little in the real world. It is not just about how powerful certain components of a machine are but how well they work together as a unit to produce the desired results. There was a reason (or several perhaps) why the Saturn was hard to program for and that was because the individual parts didn't talk to other easily. That's even before Sega shoved another Hitachi CPU processor in the mix to compound things further.

There's not much doubting that the Saturn was a 2D powerhouse but the elegance of Sony's designed hardware made it more efficient at 3D, nullifying any supposed power advantage Sega's machine might've had overall. You can always name one or two games that buck a particular trend or go against the grain. Sony's hardware was not supposed to be adept at 2D, yet was released with Rapid Reload and had a superior version of Castlevania SOTN compared to the Saturn despite additional content being added. The end product spoke volumes over tech specs on a sheet of paper and your post doesn't alter my view on that.