Why are handhelds so.......weak?

[Vince]

As for Palm, IMHO they were to late in fielding the Palm 5 OS and allowed PPC to temporarily pass them by. But, they'll be around and we'll see how it turns out.

I think the PSP wil have a hard time competing with PPCs in the coming years on a technical level.

Why does this comment not surprise me comming out of your mouth?

PPC can do more than the PSP, getting cheaper smaller lighter better. It's only a matter of time until we see low power GPUs like PowerVR MBX in PPCs. PSP will be stuck between GBX and PPCs.

So, you know what the PSP will be capable of? Whoa, care to enlighten the rest of us on what the PSP hardware can do and specifically what a PPCw with PowerVP will be so much better at?

God, I love how you'll just say anything. The damn little PCP can decode a MPG4 stream, I think we need to wait and see.

 

[Almasy]

Heh, trying to reason with the unreasonable. Futile, but keep going.. it's fun to watch.

I think you´re right, trying to state the obvious to a Nintendo fan is quite hard.

First you say you aren't anti-Nintendo, then you immediately say "GBA and their successors should disappear". WTF.

Because that´s the right thing for the industry. If all things go well, Sony, and hopefully another company would be competing and invigorate the handheld market, which is quite stagnant as of now. Nintendo is quite good at software, but their handhelds have always been unremarkable to say the least, so the best situation would be to have them focus on software and leave hardware alone, obviously IMO. Sorry if my point wasn´t evident from the beginning, sometimes I tend to do that.

Super Castlevania IV didn't have that much colour, and Castlevania: Dracula X was a laughably over-colourful attempt at living up to the great backgrounds of the TurboDuo's Dracula X: Rondo of Blood (also on a CD, thus allowing a LOT more frames to be stored).

And have you played CV: Harmony of Dissonance for GBA? It's pretty colourful, though without being oversaturated like CVX on SNES.

You´ll have to be more specific. The color in those games is quite good (well, not as good in CX, but the increase in animation frames IMO makes up for it), and is certainly a step up over either GBA Castlevanias (which I have played extensively, granted, I haven´t been able to play AoS much). The animation is also much better than in the GBA ones I´ve seen.

Although I´d like to play the PC Engine version, I´ve always been interested in anything with the Castlevania label on it.

Not really. MMZero's "lack of colour" could also have to do with the fact that the game's mood is pretty dreary overall, too, considering you're on a resistance force that's kinda in pretty dire straits.

You do realize that´s a very fragile arguement? Because considering the color palette the game does use, it´s quite obvious it tries to be colorfull. I´m not too fond of the animation in it either, but it´s somewhat acceptable.

In any case, I wasn´t trying to argue that SNES games look better than GBA ones, because they´re quite close. My point was, that the technology being used in the GBA should be quite better, much closer to more recent consoles such as PSX, or perhaps even Saturn, than what is actually being displayed.

I´m sure Nintendo could have invested more money on the R&D of the machine, use more powerfull components and such to be able to offer something significantly better than 1992 technology.

JVD, I only remember Mischeif Makers (or is that title the one you call Mystic Makers?) and Ban-Ga-I-Oh (or something...) that were 2D. I also heard the latter suffered heavily in the framerate department. I´m also quite curious to know which console had better 2D power. Granted, the N64´s limited cartdridge vs the CD present in Saturn is already a big advantage for the latter.

 

[DemoCoder]

All I know is that I can't stand looking at those tiny screens for more than 3-4 hours anyways (and that goes for the *highest quality* of those screens) So, being able to continuously play for 15 hours really means nothing to me.

Palm computing is basically dead.

Oh, they are alive and well. Palm still has the biggest marketshare and is selling better compared to PPC devices. Hardcore fans of PPC devices have been singing about Palm's death for years now, and it's just not happening.

Slow Death just like Apple. Interesting how both Apple and Palm were constrained by legacy 680x0 processors and legacy OSes and Apple almost died had they not switched to the PPC, and later OSX while they were 1 foot into the grave. Palm is in the same situation. They are just switching to a new HW platform and new OS, but it's too late. They will be relegated to a niche player just like Apple.

By death, I mean Palm's marketshare over the next few years is going to shrink until they have little market power. Even their new OS5 devices are way underpowered compared to the PPC, and for enterprise users, they lack alot of features.


Perhaps you can revel in the fact that by 2006 Palm might still be hanging on with 10% of the market, but fact is, they stagnated their hardware for years while trying to live off their claims to "battery life" and "simplicity" They couldn't even deliver something as simple as playing MP3s except for Sony.

 

[Blade]

Almasy: You're putting way too much faith behind the PSP. We know little of it. I'm anticipating it too (it might be my first Sony console..) but you're calling it a messiah for the handheld market based on only what Sony has told us.

It's coming out a whopping 3+ years after the original GBA.. of course it's going to be better. This is where your argument might falter: You think that GBA could've/should've been like a portable PSX/Saturn with the 10 hours of non-lit battery life.. but it was more like a SNES v1.5.. right? How about PSP, then? It's been 3 years and they're calling the PSP a portable PSX; Uh, hello? Going by your logic (and given your criticism of Nintendo's GBA) the PSP should be well beyond the limits of the PSX.

Maybe Sony's holding back because they don't need an uber-handheld to beat the slacking GBA hardware.. or maybe.. just maybe.. they're right on time as the GBA was. Why else wouldn't Sony try to blow the GBA out of the water?

 

[Almasy]

Almasy: You're putting way too much faith behind the PSP. We know little of it. I'm anticipating it too (it might be my first Sony console..) but you're calling it a messiah for the handheld market based on only what Sony has told us.

It's coming out a whopping 3+ years after the original GBA.. of course it's going to be better. This is where your argument might falter: You think that GBA could've/should've been like a portable PSX/Saturn with the 10 hours of non-lit battery life.. but it was more like a SNES v1.5.. right? How about PSP, then? It's been 3 years and they're calling the PSP a portable PSX; Uh, hello? Going by your logic (and given your criticism of Nintendo's GBA) the PSP should be well beyond the limits of the PSX.

Maybe Sony's holding back because they don't need an uber-handheld to beat the slacking GBA hardware.. or maybe.. just maybe.. they're right on time as the GBA was. Why else wouldn't Sony try to blow the GBA out of the water?

PSP will be able to display quite a bit better visuals than PSX. It has to, because I imagine cleaner visuals should be a priority when using such a tiny screen. Also, technology advances in a faster rate as time goes on, and the end results should be quite good, even by todays standards.

My gripe with Nintendo handheld hardware is, that in 2000, Nintendo launched an incredibly cheap device that produced visuals from 8 years ago. It´s quite proven that GBA at best, is SNES v1.01. Nintendo didn´t wanted to offer people hardware capable of great visuals, it was content with a cheap machine, and it shouldn´t have been.

However, I don´t think you get my point. I´m not saying it should have been a portable PSX, I said it should have been closer to them in terms of technology, it should have represented some sort of leap on some term when compared to SNES, and it wasn´t. It´s hard to deny that, even for a Nintendo fan.

 

[LogisticX]

I don't know.....I think Nintendo made a good move with the GBA and its features. I mean, even if it does ONLY look a bit better than SNES (I use "only" for arguements sake...i think its fine), it's what you get when you have to balance expense with performance.

I mean, this IS portable technology we are talking about.. there are a lot of factors a company needs to assess when developing such a piece of hardware, one of the biggest being on how to make a product people can be satisfied with while being able to make a PROFIT out of it. I just think you are asking for a little too much. Let the consoles handle pumping out all the latest graphical gimmicks.

 

[Almasy]

I don't know.....I think Nintendo made a good move with the GBA and its features. I mean, even if it does ONLY look a bit better than SNES (I use "only" for arguements sake...i think its fine), it's what you get when you have to balance expense with performance.

I mean, this IS portable technology we are talking about.. there are a lot of factors a company needs to assess when developing such a piece of hardware, one of the biggest being on how to make a product people can be satisfied with while being able to make a PROFIT out of it. I just think you are asking for a little too much. Let the consoles handle pumping out all the latest graphical gimmicks.

I suppose...IMO, Nintendo went with the cheapest thing they could develop, just because they had a monopoly over the industry. It´s smart in a way, it would have looked "next generation" regardless of what the end result were, because of their monopoly.

If I came across as wanting the latest and the gratest in a handheld plattform, I apologize, that wasn´t my point. However, I do believe that a machine released in 2000 should have looked better than a SNES.

 

[Blade]

Almasy: SNES v1.01? I'm guessing that you haven't seen some of the more advanced GBA games.. eheh..

GBA is more powerful, plain and simple.. and not by just a hair.

BTW, again you speculate about PSP.. while we still know nothing outside of a few details. Since the console is using NURBS on some level, I suspect that it'll easily surpass the PSX in visuals.. but by how much? Honestly, I'll admit that I'm hyped for PSP.. PS3.. and obviously GCN2/Xbox2.. but to go out on a limb and make claims without having the info is silly.

For all we know, PSP might be a gigantic disappointment like you think the GBA was. Or maybe it'll put Nintendo stocks in the gutter.. we'll see. Just keep an open mind.

 

[Tagrineth]

I'm gonna cry now. I lost a half hour's worth of typing.. God damn backspace button making IE go 'back'...

I'll try and re-do my post later... *sigh*

 

[Tagrineth]

OK. Now I have the time to re-do this.

Heh, trying to reason with the unreasonable. Futile, but keep going.. it's fun to watch.

I think you´re right, trying to state the obvious to a Nintendo fan is quite hard.

First you say you aren't anti-Nintendo, then you immediately say "GBA and their successors should disappear". WTF.

Because that´s the right thing for the industry. If all things go well, Sony, and hopefully another company would be competing and invigorate the handheld market, which is quite stagnant as of now. Nintendo is quite good at software, but their handhelds have always been unremarkable to say the least, so the best situation would be to have them focus on software and leave hardware alone, obviously IMO. Sorry if my point wasn´t evident from the beginning, sometimes I tend to do that.

Your point makes no sense. You're basically saying that because Nintendo has a monopoly on the handheld market, they should die at the hands of PSP. But that's just plain stupid and anti-Nintendo, because then Sony would have a monopoly instead, and you'd better be damned aware that Sony will take advantage of that monopoly, much more than Nintendo ever would at this point.

Super Castlevania IV didn't have that much colour, and Castlevania: Dracula X was a laughably over-colourful attempt at living up to the great backgrounds of the TurboDuo's Dracula X: Rondo of Blood (also on a CD, thus allowing a LOT more frames to be stored).

And have you played CV: Harmony of Dissonance for GBA? It's pretty colourful, though without being oversaturated like CVX on SNES.

You´ll have to be more specific. The color in those games is quite good (well, not as good in CX, but the increase in animation frames IMO makes up for it), and is certainly a step up over either GBA Castlevanias (which I have played extensively, granted, I haven´t been able to play AoS much). The animation is also much better than in the GBA ones I´ve seen.

The colour in CV:DX is ridiculously EXCESSIVE. "Not as good" in this case means "Far far better" because NO CV game should ever be as pathetically over-saturated as Dracula X. Konami basically over-did Dracula X in an attempt to make the game as eye-catching as Rondo of Blood, because RoB has dull tones just like other CV games, but massively cool parallax effects and scrolling, animated backgrounds which SNES simply can't do - they basically made DX play to SNES's excellent colour output capability.

Continued after this next quote -

Not really. MMZero's "lack of colour" could also have to do with the fact that the game's mood is pretty dreary overall, too, considering you're on a resistance force that's kinda in pretty dire straits.

You do realize that´s a very fragile arguement? Because considering the color palette the game does use, it´s quite obvious it tries to be colorfull. I´m not too fond of the animation in it either, but it´s somewhat acceptable.

It is just as fragile as the "PS2 sucks at colours because Metal Gear Solid 2 is all drab looking" argument.

Megaman Zero hardly tries to be colourful. Yes, the game uses a lot of different colours and hues, but everything has a muted tone, and a very drab look overall. It's deliberate. And put it this way: If CAPCOM wanted MMZ to be colourful, don't you think they would have? Breath of Fire II GBA, for example, is very colourful, and came out before Megaman Zero. You really think CAPCOM is going to make a sickly-looking game after proving they don't have to by releasing a colourful one, without a good reason to do so? It fits Zero's mood perfectly, IMO.

In any case, I wasn´t trying to argue that SNES games look better than GBA ones, because they´re quite close. My point was, that the technology being used in the GBA should be quite better, much closer to more recent consoles such as PSX, or perhaps even Saturn, than what is actually being displayed.

That's a wonderful load of crap. To quote YOU:

Really, Tag, you have to admit GBA was made with the objective of having both super cheap hardware, and a long battery life. Graphics power came as an afterthought, and I´m not really satisfied with games that in many cases don´t even look as good as the SNES ones.

Wash that red off your hands please.

I´m sure Nintendo could have invested more money on the R&D of the machine, use more powerfull components and such to be able to offer something significantly better than 1992 technology.

Of course they could have! But would the result have been able to pull ~14 hours out of 2 AA batteries?

Other handhelds which were released to compete with Nintendo's, have been more powerful but at the expense of MASSIVE battery life issues.

Game Gear, for example, beat Game Boy pretty soundly at just about everything... but it lost in the end. And you know why? Because it took six AA batteries for 2-4 hours of play time. Batteries = heavy and expensive in those amounts.

Lynx had similar issues.

JVD, I only remember Mischeif Makers (or is that title the one you call Mystic Makers?) and Ban-Ga-I-Oh (or something...) that were 2D. I also heard the latter suffered heavily in the framerate department. I´m also quite curious to know which console had better 2D power. Granted, the N64´s limited cartdridge vs the CD present in Saturn is already a big advantage for the latter.

N64 and Saturn... interesting comparison.

N64 Pros: Storage-limited but fast-loading cartridge, fast rasterisation and good geometry calculation rate (used for 2D as well as 3D), excellent Edge AA that can work in 2D - depth-sorting on 2D objects is a piece of cake

N64 Cons: Terribly small texture cache (2D objects are textures applied to pairs of triangles making "quads"), terribly high memory latency, lower resolution if you want remotely decent performance

Saturn Pros: Tremendously powerful dedicated 2D engine, SECOND video processor for up to 5 background planes (or 2 if you use rotate/scale), low memory latency, large usable RAM (6MB usable if you use a 4MB ram cartridge - rest of RAM is segmented), no individual object space limitations, virtually unlimited sprites per line and per screen, very high resolution (Full, overscanned NTSC and PAL).

Saturn cons: Limited transparency capabilities, high resolution flickers badly due to poor default flicker filter, very frustrating dual-processor architecture which needs a lot more bandwidth than it has.

Comparisons: N64 has 8MB total RAM with expansion pak, but some of that is needed for a frame buffer. Saturn, OTOH, has dedicated frame/audio/etc. RAM, and up to 6MB *usable* RAM.

All N64 textures (and therefore 2D objects) have to fit in the microscopic texture cache (forgot the size) which limits individual tex size severely; Saturn has no such restriction - if it fits in main RAM, it can be used as an object.

N64 can anti-alias 2D objects flawlessly (take a look at Ogre Battle 64. The 2D objects in that game look incredibly smooth) in reasonably high res; Saturn OTOH, while capable of sustained performance in a higher resolution, has a very poor default flicker filter (ever tried Virtua Fighter 2 for Saturn on a normal TV? *shudder*).

N64 uses a storage-limited but very quick cartridge format, while Saturn uses a slow but massive CD format. Saturn gets the nod here, IMO, because its incredibly huge CD buffer (compared to PSX) allows load times to be masked pretty well in some cases, and mass storage = very good thing for 2D objects.

Pretty much everything N64 does better than Saturn has more to do with 3D output than 2D...

 

[Simon F]

I'm gonna cry now. I lost a half hour's worth of typing.. God damn backspace button making IE go 'back'...

/me imagines Tag' changing her sig...
Bias meters:
IE[-----|----X]Anything Else

 

[Deepak]

I'm gonna cry now. I lost a half hour's worth of typing.. God damn backspace button making IE go 'back'...

I'll try and re-do my post later... *sigh*

thats why I always do ctrl+c on the text.....

 

[Crazyace]

n64 v Saturn...

I think that you may be getting a little bit emotional about the Saturns capabilities Tagrineth

The only place objects could be source from as sprites is the 1Mbyte VDP1 memory, and you also needed to store two frame buffers there as well. Background character maps and tile sets were stored seperately in the 512kbyte VDP2 memory.. to get stuff from main memory you had to copy it into the VDP memory before using it..

The N64 with 8Mbytes would be far more powerfull than the Saturn for 2D work and 3D work - there is no comparision. Any differences that you might see that favour Saturn over N64 ( or DC ) for 2D are purely the result of different coding proficiency...

Why not bring in the PSX - It's 2D features were actually more powerfull than the Saturns, the memory was low latency - and the main difference for 2D titles was that there was no additional memory cartridge available to hold animation frames..

 

[Tagrineth]

Re: n64 v Saturn...

I think that you may be getting a little bit emotional about the Saturns capabilities Tagrineth

The only place objects could be source from as sprites is the 1Mbyte VDP1 memory, and you also needed to store two frame buffers there as well. Background character maps and tile sets were stored seperately in the 512kbyte VDP2 memory.. to get stuff from main memory you had to copy it into the VDP memory before using it..

So why do some 2D games (in fact, many 2D games) use SNK's 1MB and Capcom's 4MB RAM expansions? What do you think Vampire Saviour and Street Fighter Zero 3 are using the 4MB expansion for?

Also, Saturn dedicates 1MB to the VDP1. So if a game is using a full 720x525 (ish) frame, where do you store the textures for the quads?

The N64 with 8Mbytes would be far more powerfull than the Saturn for 2D work and 3D work - there is no comparision. Any differences that you might see that favour Saturn over N64 ( or DC ) for 2D are purely the result of different coding proficiency...

Why not bring in the PSX - It's 2D features were actually more powerfull than the Saturns, the memory was low latency - and the main difference for 2D titles was that there was no additional memory cartridge available to hold animation frames..

Saturn has low-latency memory as well.

And Saturn has one huge advantage, the VDP2 - which can do up to five flat independant background planes, or up to two with scaling/rotation, with no effects on VDP1 and very small effects on the SH-2s' performance.

And would you kindly give me an example of PSX's superiourity over Saturn in 2D? And do not list Akamujo: Dracula X / Symphony of the Night - Konami really screwed up the Saturn port of that game.

I'll give you four examples of games that are better on Saturn right now:

Lunar: Silver Star Story, Lunar 2: Eternal Blue, Grandia, and Quake.

 

[PC-Engine]

When Dracula X came out for the PC-Engine CD-ROM, I bought the import game for $80. The opening sequence in the game is in German 8)

 

[Crazyace]

... sigh...

Tag,

The memory cartridges expanded the main memory, not the VDP1 or VFP2 memory... Of course animation frames would be stored there, but the transfer into vdp1 memory was quite slow..

If a game is using the full 720x525 res ( approx ) you are suddenly only allowed 256 colours for all of the VDP1 sprites ( This is why VF2 was high res flat shaded, yet VFremix/FVs had to drop to 320/360 low res to support 16 bit gourard shaded sprites/polygons ). Also because you need double buffering you require two 720x262 res buffers, one for even and one for odd... and there was no subpixel accuracy to mix them really effectively.. ( N64 had suppixel precision, and PSX had special interlace mode double buffering )

both Saturn and PS1 have low latency memory, but the N64s was clocked higher - so the real latency ( in useconds ) wasn't really that different..

VDP2 was cool, but a real legacy of older arcade HW.. The biggest single advantage it gave the Saturn over the PSX was the extra 512k memory. ( For 2D games on the stock machine this was a big advantage though... as memory for animation frames was always the problem )

For PSX superiority over Saturn I'd have to pick the side scrolling sections of crash - Why couldn't I list Akamujo , is it merely your opinion that Konami screwed up the saturn port - maybe the PSX version was just more capable... Rayman was excellent though.

Saturn had more 2D games mainly because the architecture was more 2D oriented, and ( as far as I can recall ) many of the big arcade houses handle Saturn versions internally ( probally because of the Titan arcade hardware ) and subcontracted out PS1 versions to conversion house...
Also, with 2D being such a small section of the PS market, resources weren't really focussed in that area...

Never played Quake on PS1, only Quake2 - but they were both excellent technical conversions of PC titles that needed far higher specs...

In terms of conversions though Tagrineth, it's very often true that the original version is better than the conversion, even if the target is more powerfull on paper, as the look of a game is often a reflection of the idiosynchrasies of the machine running it.. ( It used to be very annoying converting SNES to Genesis or back again - SNES had nicer colour ranges and Mode 7, Genesis had a faster CPU and higher res 320 against 256 )

I loved the Saturn - but more for the Sega games on it than the actual HW ( well, I did love the HW, but mainly because of the cpu arrangement and the Sound, graphically it was way behind the PS1 )

 

[chaphack]

Are you sure PSX owns Saturn in both 2D and 3D????? Did you work on both of them???
now thats some revelation, we had always thought PSX = 3D, Saturn = 2D? Sega fans are not going to like this....

 

[Crazyace]

still have the saturn docs somewhere - amazingly garbled japanese translations...
Actual 2D capabilities are actually that important though - for 2D games memory to hold the animation frames was more important, which is why the Saturn 4MB pack was great.

 

[Fafalada]

Slow Death just like Apple. Interesting how both Apple and Palm were constrained by legacy 680x0 processors and legacy OSes and Apple almost died had they not switched to the PPC, and later OSX while they were 1 foot into the grave. Palm is in the same situation. They are just switching to a new HW platform and new OS, but it's too late. They will be relegated to a niche player just like Apple.

As long as Sony has the license and keeps making Clie line, Palm computing will survive in some form, even if the core company will not.
And considering Sony's current pace, they seem to be after much more then just being niche player too.
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised at all if PSP will tie in directly with their future line of Clies as well, especially if hw will be anything like people speculate.
The interesting thing will be how that will impact mobile gaming and Nintendo - especially when the inevitable game version of PocketPC line comes from M$ as well...

I think the PSP wil have a hard time competing with PPCs in the coming years on a technical level. PPC can do more than the PSP, getting cheaper smaller lighter better.

Exact same argument that has been around for 20years in regards to home PC vs Consoles.
Anyway, read what I said above.
Also, Clie achieved hw parity with PPCs in just under a year, and I'd say it's pretty likely they'll work to maintain that at least. If the whole Cell in PSP thing holds any water, it's likely the entire Sony's pocket line will use same hw, including future Clies, which would also imply it's the kind of hw that can keep up well.

 

[Tagrineth]

Re: ... sigh...

The memory cartridges expanded the main memory, not the VDP1 or VFP2 memory... Of course animation frames would be stored there, but the transfer into vdp1 memory was quite slow..

Odd, becuase Street Fighter Zero 3 and Vampire Saviour are perfect 60fps, and 100% identical to their arcade versions... "slow"? You're SURE?

If a game is using the full 720x525 res ( approx ) you are suddenly only allowed 256 colours for all of the VDP1 sprites ( This is why VF2 was high res flat shaded, yet VFremix/FVs had to drop to 320/360 low res to support 16 bit gourard shaded sprites/polygons ). Also because you need double buffering you require two 720x262 res buffers, one for even and one for odd... and there was no subpixel accuracy to mix them really effectively.. ( N64 had suppixel precision, and PSX had special interlace mode double buffering )

VF2 flat shaded? Have you PLAYED the Saturn version of that game?

Although yes, Saturn's high-res mode flickers VERY badly on normal TV's...

both Saturn and PS1 have low latency memory, but the N64s was clocked higher - so the real latency ( in useconds ) wasn't really that different..

Hahaha... not quite. N64's memory latency is bad. Like very, very bad. Like horribly unpredictable performance as a result bad. Why do you think very few N64 games really seriously beat PSX's visuals? Because the ridiculously high-latency RAM is causing the poor r4300i to stall constantly, that's why.

VDP2 was cool, but a real legacy of older arcade HW.. The biggest single advantage it gave the Saturn over the PSX was the extra 512k memory. ( For 2D games on the stock machine this was a big advantage though... as memory for animation frames was always the problem )

And five scrolling background planes at no performance hit...

Or two "Mode 7" background planes at no performance hit...

Or how about the Saturn's only true "Transparency" - between VDP1 objects and VDP2 backgrounds?

For PSX superiority over Saturn I'd have to pick the side scrolling sections of crash - Why couldn't I list Akamujo , is it merely your opinion that Konami screwed up the saturn port - maybe the PSX version was just more capable... Rayman was excellent though.

Akamujo Dracula X attempts to manage everything on VDP1, and even does 3D projection even though it shouldn't need to at all. If Konami had replaced the 3D backgrounds (which there weren't too many of, and they could've easily been replaced with 2D animations), they could've done them on VDP2.

Saturn had more 2D games mainly because the architecture was more 2D oriented, and ( as far as I can recall ) many of the big arcade houses handle Saturn versions internally ( probally because of the Titan arcade hardware ) and subcontracted out PS1 versions to conversion house...
Also, with 2D being such a small section of the PS market, resources weren't really focussed in that area...

I'm talking about quality, not quantity. 8)

Never played Quake on PS1, only Quake2 - but they were both excellent technical conversions of PC titles that needed far higher specs...

Quake2 on both PSX and N64 was a nightmare.

Quake1, OTOH, runs at a solid 24fps on Saturn, with the only differences from the PC version being 1. Much better lighting effects, and 2. levels had to be zoned, because Lobotomy couldn't fit everything in a single level into its RAM.

In terms of conversions though Tagrineth, it's very often true that the original version is better than the conversion, even if the target is more powerfull on paper, as the look of a game is often a reflection of the idiosynchrasies of the machine running it.. ( It used to be very annoying converting SNES to Genesis or back again - SNES had nicer colour ranges and Mode 7, Genesis had a faster CPU and higher res 320 against 256 )

Also true.

I loved the Saturn - but more for the Sega games on it than the actual HW ( well, I did love the HW, but mainly because of the cpu arrangement and the Sound, graphically it was way behind the PS1 )

Graphically "way behind"? Have you played Shining Force 3 scenarios 2 and 3? =)