LogFAQs > #956658863

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The Sega Saturn should have been 64-bit and come out in 1996.
limp-bizkit-89 07/31/21 11:29:42 PM #22:	Scotty_Rogers posted... Researching it more, I don't think the Saturn's hardware was as bad as a lot of insiders would want you to believe. Ultimately, it was worse than the PS1's, but I don't think it was much worse than the N64's. If the N64 could have significant success despite having such flawed hardware, then surely so could have the Saturn had it been marketed much better. Furthermore, the Saturn's hardware did have some pros over its competitors, mainly being that it was the best at 2D games. And while it certainly would have been better to prioritize doing 3D games like the PS1 was, no one seriously thought of making a 3D-based console before Sony did. Sega should have just spent a much longer time developing the Saturn after learning of the PS1's specs, so it could handle 3D better. The Saturn didn't have to be 64-bit and it didn't have to come out in 1996. It should have just first been released in late 1995 instead of 1994; with the extra time in development, Sega could have improved its hardware while maintaining its own specific advantages. lol no. the ps1 was the easiest to develop for, but it was theoretically comparable to the Saturn in terms of raw power. the n64 was by far the most powerful but it was a nightmare to develop for. the Saturn was even worse than the n64 to develop for, this is why you see a lot of ps1 emulation but far less n64 emulation and even less Saturn emulation. --- Keep Rollin Rollin Rollin (yeah!) <cite>limp-bizkit-89 posted [p:956658863] in The Sega S... [t:79590694]...</cite> <quote>Scotty_Rogers posted... </cite> <quote>Researching it more, I don't think the Saturn's hardware was as bad as a lot of insiders would want you to believe. Ultimately, it was worse than the PS1's, but I don't think it was much worse than the N64's. If the N64 could have significant success despite having such flawed hardware, then surely so could have the Saturn had it been marketed much better. Furthermore, the Saturn's hardware did have some pros over its competitors, mainly being that it was the best at 2D games. And while it certainly would have been better to prioritize doing 3D games like the PS1 was, no one seriously thought of making a 3D-based console before Sony did. Sega should have just spent a much longer time developing the Saturn after learning of the PS1's specs, so it could handle 3D better. The Saturn didn't have to be 64-bit and it didn't have to come out in 1996. It should have just first been released in late 1995 instead of 1994; with the extra time in development, Sega could have improved its hardware while maintaining its own specific advantages.</quote> lol no. the ps1 was the easiest to develop for, but it was theoretically comparable to the Saturn in terms of raw power. the n64 was by far the most powerful but it was a nightmare to develop for. the Saturn was even worse than the n64 to develop for, this is why you see a lot of ps1 emulation but far less n64 emulation and even less Saturn emulation. --- Keep Rollin Rollin Rollin (yeah!)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1