Was the Saturn really inferior? I don't think so. After playing games for the PSX and the Saturn over the past 3 years, I find it ridiculous that the Saturn is now dead here in the U.S.. Why did the Saturn die? Was it the games? Was it the hardware? Was it Bernard Stolar? I think it happens to be none of those things. I believe it was all due to ignorance.

If it was the games, I find it really hard to believe that the Saturn had nothing but "crap". I've played Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 2, and a lot of titles on the PSX, but they pale in comparison to some of the games I've played on the Saturn. I realize that this is my opinion, but when you play a game like Final Fantasy 7 and compare it to Panzer Dragoon Saga, Panzer simply takes the cake. The graphics might not be as sharp looking, but that's because of the way they are presented. If you look at both games really closely, you'll see that there is a LOT more depth in Panzer Saga. And this is just a comparison between these two games. Compare Crash Bandicoot to Nights and at first, Crash seems to have more to it. However, after you beat both games, you end up playing Nights again and again and again. Why? Because the sole purpose of the game was to have nothing but fun. Isn't that what we play games for? Fun? I know that the PSX has a MUCH larger selection, but most of them are cinema-packed crapola. You can't play a cinema.

Was the Saturn's hardware inferior? I don't think so at all. In fact, you'd be suprised at how similar the systems really are. The PSX is slightly stronger than the Saturn in the 3D department, just as the Saturn is slightly stronger than the PSX in the 2D department, but saying that the Saturn can't do polygons is bull****. I've been reading myths about the Saturn being inferior since it was released, and now, with the release of games like Shining Force 3, Radient Silvergun, Grandia, Panzer Dragoon Saga, and countless other titles, those myths are now all proven to be false. One might argue over the fact that the PSX has a 28 MHZ processor compared to the 2 22MHZ processors in the Saturn, but then the Saturn has twice the RAM. But this is all meaningless since no one system really excels over the other.

Was it all Bernard Stolar's fault? Yes, of course it is. Well, seriously though, I've come to realize that it isn't all his fault. Mostly, but not all of it. He made many poor choices, but I don't think the Saturn's failure is all due to his doing. I have friends who have told me nothing but "Sega sucks" since the 16-bit wars, and there are many like them. Their arguments have always been that Sega's hardware is weaker. Well, that's true in the Genesis' case, but the Genesis was released 2 years before the SNES. Regardless, what's the point of complaining about hardware? The Sega Master system was much more powerful than the NES. The NES won because the games on it were much more fun. The N64 lacks a CD drive, but does that keep people from playing Zelda 64? Yes and No. There are a bunch of people that will not touch the N64, simply because they are loyal to Sony. The Saturn failed because of this same reason. Many people were ignorant and turned their noses on the Saturn because the name, "Sega" was on the system.

Now, the Dreamcast has drawn near, and already I hear people screaming about how the Dreamcast will fail, and it sucks, and Sony will release a better system, blah blah blah. Of course Sony's system will be better, because it's released AFTER the Dreamcast. Regardless, I say, who cares? It is the games that matter, so don't destroy the system before it even comes overseas. To end this boring and really poorly written editorial, I want to say "thank you" to all the people that ruined the Saturn. I may never get to see some great games on the system that never should have died so soon. I'll have to import all the newer Saturn games from Japan now, which is ridiculous.

Written by Parn