Saturn vs. PS1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd have to say Sega's Saturn is my favorite console ever. Not only is it my favorite, but the 1st model (the one with oval power and reset buttons) is still the best looking system ever and probably always will be. Quite reliable as well, especially compared to it's 93% defective competitor lol.

Anyway, I had a question, probably only someone here could answer.

In the hands of the very best programmers making their very best efforts, the saturn could overtake (or at least equal) the ps1 in 3D image quality and performance, not just 2D, right?

Yu Suzuki once said something like only the top 1% percent of programmers could get the most out of the saturn.

Also, why did SOA always advertise how powerful the genesis was compared to the super nes, yet Tom Kalinske today reflects that he felt horrible marketing the saturn b/c he knew it's performance was terrible? The people at SOA (definitely including Tom Kalinske) in that era were the coolest people to ever work in the game industry though.
 
...

Your last thread was locked for a reason, dude.

The genesis was only more powerful than the SNES when you compared their CPUs. The SNES had a crap one, the Genesis had a good one.

Edit: and in no frigging way are 93% of PS1s defective. Where in the hell did you pull that statistic from?
 
...

Your last thread was locked for a reason, dude.

The genesis was only more powerful than the SNES when you compared their CPUs. The SNES had a crap one, the Genesis had a good one.

Edit: and in no frigging way are 93% of PS1s defective. Where in the hell did you pull that statistic from?
I didn't see that my last one was locked until after I posted this one.

You're right, because the genesis used a Motorola 68000 clocked 2x as fast as the super nes 65c816.

100% of ps1's were defective until the dual shock models came out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top