Original_Name wrote:LIST OF AWESOME SATURN GAMES!!!
Can you even say the same about the Nintendo 64? I think the Saturn made a really good showing for itself, in spite of the mistakes of SoA.
I can name a bunch of Nintendo 64 games I enjoyed, but I wouldn't go so far as to declare them all "great." That brings up another question though. The Nintendo 64's library is pitifully small when compared to other Nintendo or Sega consoles. Does anybody know the numbers for how many titles were released on the Saturn, both in the US or worldwide?
rainnyx4 wrote:I think whether or not you agree with this article depends on what you think a MAJOR console is. Starting from the NES era I'd list major consoles as the following:
NES SNES/Genesis Saturn/PSX/N64 Dreamcast/PS2/GameCube/XBox Wii/XBox360/PS3
Of these, it starts to become more clearly understandable that someone would say that the Saturn is the worst console of all time. For me however, I'd say the N64 was the worst of these.
Note: My criteria for what a major console is: I had to know more than 5 at the time who actually owned one of these. I didn't know a single person that owned a MS, TG-16, Jaguar, Neo-Geo, 3DO, etc.
I pretty much agree with this. Can the Jaguar really be considered a major console? I don't think so. And therefore, it's a lot more understandable why the writer considers the Saturn to be the worst of this bunch. Confession time - I've never played a Saturn nor have I ever known someone who has owned one. So you could say, I agree - Saturn is the worst major console of all time. (haters gonna hate)
Edit: (Although I'm sure it has a lot of fun games that I, and other people, are ignorant of)
Last edited by Incognito D on Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
Why does the Jaguar get a pass again? I mean it had the Atari name on it...they were kinda known for that sort of thing. Yeah, it was an epic flop but it wasn't some fly by the night gizmondo type game system.
Maybe now Nintendo will acknowledge Metroid has a fanbase?
Yeah, the Jaguar was clearly created and marketed as a serious competitor from an established game company. Look at gaming magazines from the time and it gets plenty of attention. It may have failed at that, but that's kind of the point when we're talking about the worst major console.
I'd say the 3DO also counts. It had serious publisher support from EA, and its library is even larger (and better) than the Jaguar. It also got a lot of attention from the gaming press back in the day.
And yes, I'd readily agree that the N64 is worse than the Saturn. It may have had more commercial success, but that's irrelevant. RPGs, shmups, fighting games, beat-em-ups, are all genres that are better represented on the Saturn. Unless you have a hard on for 3d platformers, I'd say the Saturn wins pretty handily. Which isn't to say I don't love my N64, I just know which I'd choose.
We are prepared to live in the plain and die in the plain!
The standards being espoused for a "major" console here are extremely subjective. I had no fewer than three friends who had a Sega Master System when I was growing up, but nobody who had a Saturn--at least not until I started hanging out with the sort of console gamers who would also buy TG16s, import Famicoms, etc. Does that mean I should not consider Saturn a major console, but should consider the SMS major? What about other countries where the popularity of the systems was different? Should a Japanese gamer not consider the Xbox a major console? Wonder Swan was big in Japan, but is it not major because most of us in the West have never known anybody who had one? What about the beginning of a new generation of consoles when none of them are common in households? Was the SNES not a major console until X number of households had one? What's the threshold for that and who gets to decide it?
I think a "major console" would be one that had a considerable marketing push and high public visibility (TV and magazine ads, store kiosks, etc.) and had the support of enough third-party developers to seem viable. If a console has these things, then it was clearly a major effort within the console industry, whether or not it succeeded. If it had all that but nobody bought one, then it was a major console that failed.
A console that wasn't major, I believe, would have be one that was utterly obscure (like the ones sold only by mail order, or that were never advertised much) or that never had enough third-party backing to have any promise despite a major advertising push (Game.com, R-Zone).
That said, being a failure does not make a product bad, so being the biggest failure would not make it the worst. It might be the biggest failure but still be awesome. The Saturn was definitely a very good console in many ways, or it should have faded into obscurity by now. Even if it was the biggest failure, which I doubt, it's totally inappropriate to label it "the worst."
Ack wrote:I can name a bunch of Nintendo 64 games I enjoyed, but I wouldn't go so far as to declare them all "great."
I may be misinterpreting what you're saying, but are you saying my list had a few "filler" items? Not that I would be upset if that's what you're saying -- it would be a valid concern. I tried to be as objective as possible, and have even gone back and tried to compare them to industry standards via edit. Enemy Zero did not make the cut, sadly -- shame... I think it's pretty awesome myself.
Anyway, restricted to US releases, I'd say that the Saturn and Nintendo 64 are fairly evenly matched, with my preference for the Saturn most likely being based in nostalgia -- if you import, though, whether you know Japanese or not, the Saturn comes out the clear winner in my honest opinion. That's not to say that the Nintendo 64 is a BAD console -- quite the opposite. Anyway, I think we're touching on the whole point of Racketboy -- every major console is worth owning and enjoying, regardless of its age or the company which produced it.
Last edited by Original_Name on Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah man, add as many as you want! I'd just listed all the "great" NTSC-U releases as they came to my head, and only held them up to comparison with Gamerankings later. Apparently I was on the money for the most part, except for the fact that Enemy Zero is less-than-great in the eyes of most gamers.
...I wouldn't exactly swear by the scores, though... Lord knows how misleading video game review scores can be. I'm being pretty tongue-in-cheek when I say that the Gamerankings scores "validate" their objective greatness.
Original_Name wrote:...I wouldn't exactly swear by the scores, though... Lord knows how misleading video game review scores can be. I'm being pretty tongue-in-cheek when I say that the Gamerankings scores "validate" their objective greatness.
Hatta wrote:I'd say the 3DO also counts. It had serious publisher support from EA, and its library is even larger (and better) than the Jaguar. It also got a lot of attention from the gaming press back in the day.
I had to look it up on Wikipedia to find out what it even was. Turns out it didn't even come out in Europe. I'd say that one of the criteria to be considered a "major console" would be worldwide availability. ("worldwide" meaning in terms of the gaming world - i.e. available in North America, Japan and Europe/Australia)
