Anything that is gaming related that doesn't fit well anywhere else
User avatar
pepharytheworm
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by pepharytheworm Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:45 pm

So, all this shows Genesis Vs. SNES how again or did I miss something?
Where's my chippy? There's my chippy.
User avatar
EvilRyu2099
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 9:59 am
Location: Street Fighter Alpha 2 and 3

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by EvilRyu2099 Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:46 pm

flamepanther wrote:I found Panzer Dragoon easily more impressive than any of those, and it came out in 1995. In a perfect world, it would be games and hardware that decide a console war, not developer laziness, release dates, or marketing campaigns--so if you want to convince me that the right console won, you're on the wrong track ;)

Panzer dragoon was an action RPG.... The first one was great but the saturn had better games as well like Guardian Heroes, Dragon Force and Albert Odyssey.. NiGHTS was tremendous as well... Saturn's downfall was that they never marketed those games, and didn't even release or market some of the latter releases like PD Saga, Burning Rangers, Radiant Silvergun or Thunderforce V..... The Playstation had great games in it's own right and had a tremendous lineup of 3rd party games.. I just find it hard to believe that you think lazy development was part of Sony's lineup.. It had the biggest library so of course you're going to get lots of shovelware as well.. Saturn may have been a great console, but it's more of their fault they failed then anyone else's..(Bernie Stolar helped fuel the flame)
Image
PSN: GoTigers9999
Live: Iori8000
Nintendo:Iori9999 3DS Friend Code: 4012-3366-0941
My Twitch stream channel!
User avatar
flamepanther
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:40 pm

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by flamepanther Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:05 pm

EvilRyu2099 wrote:Panzer dragoon was an action RPG....
Um, Panzer Dragoon was a rail shooter?
The first one was great but the saturn had better games as well like Guardian Heroes, Dragon Force and Albert Odyssey.. NiGHTS was tremendous as well...
Yes, but I mention the original Panzer Dragoon because it came out before the PS1 games you mentioned, and is definitely not graphically inferior to them.
Saturn's downfall was that they never marketed those games, and didn't even release or market some of the latter releases like PD Saga, Burning Rangers, Radiant Silvergun or Thunderforce V.....
Yes, but that only says something about Sega's and Sony's marketing teams, not about the consoles they were selling. The hype is neither a part of the machine, nor of the game library
The Playstation had great games in it's own right and had a tremendous lineup of 3rd party games.. I just find it hard to believe that you think lazy development was part of Sony's lineup..
Not so much part of Sony's lineup as it was a large part of why developers chose to develop those good PS1 games on the PS1 instead of on the Saturn. Doing it right on the Saturn was more difficult, and therefore more time-consuming, and therefore more expensive. That being true, the usual approach was to do it right first on the PS1, then do it poorly or not at all on the Saturn. That was the right approach from a business perspective, but not the right approach ideologically.

Incidentally, nearly all of the good PS1 games were from 3rd parties. To me that makes it all the more tragic that these games didn't go to other platforms.
It had the biggest library so of course you're going to get lots of shovelware as well.. Saturn may have been a great console, but it's more of their fault they failed then anyone else's..(Bernie Stolar helped fuel the flame)
Yes, but again, that has everything to do with lots of poor choices that Sega made (and a few underhanded ones that Sony made) and not much at all to do with the Saturn itself or the games that were on it.

Imagine if you will, that an Olympic runner could win the gold medal by having the best PR team, talking the most smack, and having the most commercial sponsors, despite being only an average runner at best. You could cite those reasons all day long as being the rational real-world ways to win a competition, but the truth would still be that he's the wrong guy to get the gold.
Image
User avatar
Breetai
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 5100
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:13 am
Location: Make you humble in Canada

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by Breetai Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:46 pm

Wim_Senna wrote:PC Engine avatar!

You have a PC Engine avatar! You win!
User avatar
EvilRyu2099
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 9:59 am
Location: Street Fighter Alpha 2 and 3

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by EvilRyu2099 Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:59 am

flamepanther wrote:Um, Panzer Dragoon was a rail shooter?
A rail shooter with RPG elements
flamepanther wrote:Yes, but I mention the original Panzer Dragoon because it came out before the PS1 games you mentioned, and is definitely not graphically inferior to them.
In some ways it was.. It was one of the best looking Saturn games early on but it was a decent looking game in comparison to the PS1 games, even the early ones
flamepanther wrote:Yes, but that only says something about Sega's and Sony's marketing teams, not about the consoles they were selling. The hype is neither a part of the machine, nor of the game library
You may be right, but it doesn't take away from the fact that there was really no games on the saturn that showed off the power of say Soul Blade, not even VF 2.. I've had both consoles and a bunch of games and the best graphical 3d games I've played on it was Fighting Vipers and Burning Rangers...
flamepanther wrote:Not so much part of Sony's lineup as it was a large part of why developers chose to develop those good PS1 games on the PS1 instead of on the Saturn. Doing it right on the Saturn was more difficult, and therefore more time-consuming, and therefore more expensive. That being true, the usual approach was to do it right first on the PS1, then do it poorly or not at all on the Saturn. That was the right approach from a business perspective, but not the right approach ideologically. Incidentally, nearly all of the good PS1 games were from 3rd parties. To me that makes it all the more tragic that these games didn't go to other platforms.
It was the right approach because not only was it easier to program for, but PS1 was opening up with the developers as well you have to look at it both ways.. Neither nintendo nor sega wanted to open up the market to a more widespread audience the way sony did.. And not all successful parties were 3rd party, because Sony helped established the landscape for new developers such as Naughty Dog, PD and Psygonisis.

flamepanther wrote:Yes, but again, that has everything to do with lots of poor choices that Sega made (and a few underhanded ones that Sony made) and not much at all to do with the Saturn itself or the games that were on it.

Imagine if you will, that an Olympic runner could win the gold medal by having the best PR team, talking the most smack, and having the most commercial sponsors, despite being only an average runner at best. You could cite those reasons all day long as being the rational real-world ways to win a competition, but the truth would still be that he's the wrong guy to get the gold.

Sega burying themselves played a factor, but you have to credit Sony for marketing their console to new audiences.. Not to mention introduce new developers, that opened up even more resources for the industry.. I could see you making more of this case for the PS2 than the PS1... Prior to Playstation being released, the video game industry wasn't as mainstream as it is today, and a lot of that had to do with the foundation Sony laid..

Also your Olympic analogy doesn't really hold water because he would actually have to beat his competitors times rather than just be the most marketable.. Take Marion Jones, hyped up to win 5 gold medals(being very marketable), and only won 3 because her times weren't better than her competitors... In this case, the video game industry is apples to oranges and part of the game is good advertisement and PR, while with athletes it's 90% about actual performance..
Image
PSN: GoTigers9999
Live: Iori8000
Nintendo:Iori9999 3DS Friend Code: 4012-3366-0941
My Twitch stream channel!
User avatar
flamepanther
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:40 pm

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by flamepanther Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:27 am

EvilRyu2099 wrote:
flamepanther wrote:Um, Panzer Dragoon was a rail shooter?
A rail shooter with RPG elements
Not the first one.
flamepanther wrote:Yes, but I mention the original Panzer Dragoon because it came out before the PS1 games you mentioned, and is definitely not graphically inferior to them.
In some ways it was.. It was one of the best looking Saturn games early on but it was a decent looking game in comparison to the PS1 games, even the early ones[/quote]I cannot think of one Ps1 game that looked better than Panzer Dragoon in 1995.
flamepanther wrote:Yes, but that only says something about Sega's and Sony's marketing teams, not about the consoles they were selling. The hype is neither a part of the machine, nor of the game library
You may be right, but it doesn't take away from the fact that there was really no games on the saturn that showed off the power of say Soul Blade, not even VF 2.. I've had both consoles and a bunch of games and the best graphical 3d games I've played on it was Fighting Vipers and Burning Rangers...[/quote]From the Shenmue beta footage, we've seen that the Saturn was capable of doing at least that well and more. It never saw its full potential due to having its life cut short, and due to lack of effort from third parties.
It was the right approach because not only was it easier to program for, but PS1 was opening up with the developers as well you have to look at it both ways.. Neither nintendo nor sega wanted to open up the market to a more widespread audience the way sony did..
What, by marketing to jocks?
And not all successful parties were 3rd party, because Sony helped established the landscape for new developers such as Naughty Dog, PD and Psygonisis.
Two of those three were already veteran developers. Naughty Dog having previously made games for Sega consoles and Psygnosis already having several hit games under their belt--Lemmings doesn't ring a bell? Sony buying off a few developers they already knew were good doesn't count as opening up the market or establishing new developers. It's no different than what Nintendo did with Rare in the mid 1990s.

flamepanther wrote:Prior to Playstation being released, the video game industry wasn't as mainstream as it is today, and a lot of that had to do with the foundation Sony laid..
WTF? Everyone and his dog had an NES, and an Atari or some kind of Pong clone before that. Those were both massive phenomena that hit it big with all age groups and were as mainstream as the PlayStation brand has ever been--more accessible too.
Also your Olympic analogy doesn't really hold water because he would actually have to beat his competitors times rather than just be the most marketable.. Take Marion Jones, hyped up to win 5 gold medals(being very marketable), and only won 3 because her times weren't better than her competitors... In this case, the video game industry is apples to oranges and part of the game is good advertisement and PR, while with athletes it's 90% about actual performance..
You missed the entire premise of the analogy. I said imagine that an Olympic runner could win on a media blitz alone. If it was a popularity contest rather than based on performance, think of how wrong that would be... Athletes winning based on how many companies supported them or how many in the crowd cheered for them, or how much money their publicist spent, not based on their abilities and hard work. Fortunately, yes, I understand that it doesn't work that way (except maybe in figure skating). The fact that it doesn't work that way was supposed to be a contrast. Sony basically bought their first console war, and rode the hype to take their second. In an ideal world, it would be the capabilities of the hardware and the quality of the first party titles would win these battles--not advertising hype, not bribing developers, not having the easiest devkit to learn.

Advertising and marketing is not a merit of the console. Ever.
Image
User avatar
EvilRyu2099
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 9:59 am
Location: Street Fighter Alpha 2 and 3

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by EvilRyu2099 Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:45 am

I cannot think of one Ps1 game that looked better than Panzer Dragoon in 1995.


While it may not be the best game, Battle Arena Toshinden had very good graphics... Wipeout was very nice looking as well..

Yes, but that only says something about Sega's and Sony's marketing teams, not about the consoles they were selling. From the Shenmue beta footage, we've seen that the Saturn was capable of doing at least that well and more. It never saw its full potential due to having its life cut short, and due to lack of effort from third parties.

I remember you posting earlier on how Tech demos look much better due to limited activity on screen.. Well this is a perfect example.

What, by marketing to jocks?


Is that all you think is marketing jocks? That's part of the business!!

Two of those three were already veteran developers. Naughty Dog having previously made games for Sega consoles and Psygnosis already having several hit games under their belt--Lemmings doesn't ring a bell? Sony buying off a few developers they already knew were good doesn't count as opening up the market or establishing new developers. It's no different than what Nintendo did with Rare in the mid 1990s.


Naughty dog made two crappy games prior to establishing themselves on the Playstation.. Way of the Warrior and Rings of Power and I guess you want to count Keef the Thief as well? Please, ND was hardly established.. You were right with Psygnosis, but they only made Lemmings which was an established franchise..

WTF? Everyone and his dog had an NES, and an Atari or some kind of Pong clone before that. Those were both massive phenomena that hit it big with all age groups and were as mainstream as the PlayStation brand has ever been--more accessible too.


Name me one console prior to Playstation that sold 100 million units.. Don't name gameboy either because those sold to 100 million when you figure GBC sales as well.. Face it, Sony tapped in brand new audiences similar to what Nintendo is doing today..


You missed the entire premise of the analogy. I said imagine that an Olympic runner could win on a media blitz alone. If it was a popularity contest rather than based on performance, think of how wrong that would be... Athletes winning based on how many companies supported them or how many in the crowd cheered for them, or how much money their publicist spent, not based on their abilities and hard work. Fortunately, yes, I understand that it doesn't work that way (except maybe in figure skating). The fact that it doesn't work that way was supposed to be a contrast. Sony basically bought their first console war, and rode the hype to take their second. In an ideal world, it would be the capabilities of the hardware and the quality of the first party titles would win these battles--not advertising hype, not bribing developers, not having the easiest devkit to learn.
Advertising and marketing is not a merit of the console. Ever..


Yes it does, this is a business of sales, and advertising and marketing has a lot to do with it.. You act as if those two aspects of business means nothing... If not for that, we wouldn't have nintendo let alone MS, Sega, Sony etc... Also, you act like the Saturn was the most powerful console in it's era, when it really wasn't... I think it was identical to PS being that was superior in 2d but inferior in 3d and besides, the N64 was the most powerful so the point is moot anyways... I can't believe we are still discussing this because I'm a sega fanboy as well.. I just think you are selling Sony a bit short.. And the only reasons Sony got some of the developers is because Nintendo and Sega messed up, and they gave said developers a great pitch about the freedoms of making polygonal games.. Now if we had this discussion about PS2, I would wholeheartedly agree with you... BTW what do you feel about Microsoft? I would only imagine you don't like them as well because their business practices are very similar to Sony... I'm not saying I agree with everything Sony does or did back then, but you have to give them some credit....

Also, I didn't miss anything with the analogy... I get it.. It's still a bad one..
Image
PSN: GoTigers9999
Live: Iori8000
Nintendo:Iori9999 3DS Friend Code: 4012-3366-0941
My Twitch stream channel!
User avatar
EvilRyu2099
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 9:59 am
Location: Street Fighter Alpha 2 and 3

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by EvilRyu2099 Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:01 am

BTW good discussion... I loved the Saturn as well, and in my perfect world I wished they would have sold 400 million consoles..
Image
PSN: GoTigers9999
Live: Iori8000
Nintendo:Iori9999 3DS Friend Code: 4012-3366-0941
My Twitch stream channel!
User avatar
flamepanther
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:40 pm

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by flamepanther Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:06 am

Sales don't make a product better. Marketing strategies make sales, not good products. I'm arguing that the better console didn't win the 32-bit wars. You're trying to counter my assertion by arguing that the shrewdest company did win. Those two ideas are not contradictory. We're not even having the same conversation here.
Image
User avatar
EvilRyu2099
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 9:59 am
Location: Street Fighter Alpha 2 and 3

Re: Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

by EvilRyu2099 Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:14 am

flamepanther wrote:Sales don't make a product better. Marketing strategies make sales, not good products. I'm arguing that the better console didn't win the 32-bit wars. You're trying to counter my assertion by arguing that the shrewdest company did win. Those two ideas are not contradictory. We're not even having the same conversation here.

I thought the product was good, never had a high failure rate and ran the software properly.. I never said the PS was better than the Saturn and I still don't think that, but I'm just arguing on why it outsold the other consoles.. All three consoles in that era were identical... Actually scratch that, the PS and Saturn were identical consoles for the most part... The N64 actually ran on more powerful hardware.. Define what makes a console Better? I can only think of how it functions and what software is available.. In fact, the playstation had slightly faster loading times from what I remember... I purchased a Saturn prior to getting a PS and didn't even have one until christmas 1996..
Image
PSN: GoTigers9999
Live: Iori8000
Nintendo:Iori9999 3DS Friend Code: 4012-3366-0941
My Twitch stream channel!
Return to General Gaming

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests