N64/PS1/Saturn/DC sales - US NPD

[Da_Shocker]

A Black Falcon lol you just don't get it do you. We keep posting these numerous 2D games that were released for the PSx yet Sony was somehow anti-2D!? Then you're on believing everything Vic Ireland said. The same guy that stated he would NEVER work for Sega as long as Bernie Stolar was there. Only to turn around and say that the DC software sales were to bad to go back to Sega.

[A Black Falcon]

A Black Falcon lol you just don't get it do you. We keep posting these numerous 2D games that were released for the PSx yet Sony was somehow anti-2D!?

Please read the thread again, and you might understand that I, Barone, and Team Andromeda have already thoroughly explained what SCEA's policies were, and how they were enacted. If you actually don't understand, that can only be beause you haven't read this discussion. Because we've addressed this point, over and over again. I am done with repeating myself. This comment shows that you have no interest in actually paying attention to our points, unfortunately. SCEA's dislike of 2d was not a complete ban, it was a restriction and a "we don't want to publish this unless you make us / put it in a compilation / are from a publisher who has the leverage to get it through / etc" kind of thing. And it got worse over time; on the PS1 there were a fair number of 2d games that they let through, but on PS2 there were many fewer, particularly from before 2007 (ie, pre-PS3).

Seriously, I can't understand why I have to keep repeating myself over and over, but you people just can't get it into your heads (or else are just trolling for the point of trolling, which would not surprise me one bit) that SCEA could possibly have been doing what every single person who ever commented on their 2d policies, from SCEA people down to publishers, said that they were doing. There's a reason why there is unanimous agreement on this, aside from a few people on forums (like yourselves) with insane, false theories -- it happened. They were real policies, and they were a serious headache for anyone wanting to publish 2d games on Sony platforms.

Why you people think "but it wasn't a 100% ban which none of us ever said or implied that it was, so that proves that the bias and restrictions didn't exist!" is actually an argument is completely beyond me. All you're doing is intentionally-ignoring-the-point trolling. Stop it.

Then you're on believing everything Vic Ireland said.

He is very far from the only source, you know. Just one of many people corroborating what happened. You people just keep focusing on him because you hate him, for whichever reasons.

The same guy that stated he would NEVER work for Sega as long as Bernie Stolar was there.

He's said this many times. Look at my post a few posts ago -- there are posts from Vic from 2009-2010 where he says that Bernie was the main reason why he didn't support the Dreamcast, and also saying how much he hated Bernie and the anti-RPG, anti-2d policies he supported.

Only to turn around and say that the DC software sales were to bad to go back to Sega.

Uh, no, he didn't "turn around". He initially refused to support the DC because Bernie was still at Sega, and then later didn't support it because software sales were poor. Both of those are good reasons to not support the DC; most third parties who had been initially supporting it (in the US) began cutting back DC software support before not too long because of how mediocre the software sales were. His NeoGAF posts that I have quoted mostly focus on Bernie as his reason for not supporting the DC, but there was at least one mention of mediocre DC software sales -- he said that the DC had a good launch, but faded quickly after that. That is true. DC sales, hardware and softeware, dropped badly after the good launch. Not exactly a great environment for publishers.

[j_factor]

I don't know how Sega managed to convince SCEA to allow them to release that thing without English voice work, but it's surely because the game is a 2008 release, and thus released long after the PS3. SCEA DEFINTELY had that restriction on their systems during those systems' main lives (ie, before their successors came out). There is no question about this whatsoever. Lots of proof.

You said "hard restriction, no exceptions". Now you're moving the goalposts. You also have no evidence that Sega needed to "convince" SCEA of anything.

I think the guy was slightly exaggerating because of how angry he was, but the core of the complaint is accurate and valid.

No, he's not only demonstrably false, he's also directly contradicting himself.

No, the anti-2d thing is a reality. Sony did publish two 2d games in 1995, but did they publish even one more after that, for PS1 or PS2? I can't think of anything. But sure, they did allow a few 2d games here and there. I don't know why you people can't understand that Sony's internal bias agaisnt 2d existed, regardless of what games they could be convinced to approve. I haven't seen even ONE SINGLE QUOTE FROM ANYONE saying that Sony actually wasn't biased against 2d. I mean, quotes from people who would know. Nothing. Everything I have seen says that they were biased against 2d, all of it.

A lot of 2D games came out for the Playstation. Not just a few here and there. If they had some sort of rule against 2D games, the library sure doesn't show it.

And as for your "not one single quote", I believe I've posted this interview before. It's from 2005.

Gamasutra: Have you had any trouble getting SCEA to approve 2D games?

Niida: Sony's been very helpful, actually. We've been able to bring over all the titles that we submitted, and they seem to like the titles we brought over.

Gamasutra: Why do you think they're so receptive, when other companies complain of the difficulty of bringing out 2D titles on Sony consoles?

Niida: That's actually a surprise to me. We carefully select the games we want to bring over, making sure they're titles that we have a good chance of getting approved. We don't a long shot title that is a waste of time. In the end it comes down to the way you present it to Sony, it's fairly easy to convince them. They're actually really great guys to work for. We've built a mutual relationship and we're able to work together. They love 2D anime just as much as we do.

Gamasutra: Are they more willing to approve a 2D title if it's more of a budget price, or is that a factor?

Niida: I don't think it really matters, because with games like Atelier Iris, we just show the game, talk about it, convince them, and get approval. They didn't really mention the 2D part. We actually emphasize the 2D aspect of the game, saying there's 3D everywhere and there's still that niche 2D market out there, and Sony was willing to take the chance to try it.

Can you find any proof whatsoever that Sony actually wasn't biased against 2d? It'll be difficult though, since no such proof exists. And no, the list of released games is NOT proof.

You are asking me to prove a negative, and you are using the word "biased" in a vague way. It takes almost nothing to be able to claim a bias, and in fact it says almost nothing to say that Sony was biased against 2D when 3D was predominant. I'm not going to say they were totally unbiased... but then, neither was Nintendo. Neither was Sega. Neither was the media, nor the gaming public at large.

Also, I have said that clearly Sony's anti-2d policies got even stricter after the PS2 released, versus what they had been on PS1.

Then I guess there wasn't much of a policy there on the PS1, was there?

Sure, but that's apparently what Sony said. And remember that Sakura Wars V released in 2010 for the PS2. Very, very late release. I can understand why SCEA would be more forgiving on an extremely late PS2 release than they would a main-lifespan PSP game, that fits their standard way of doing things. And it did have full English voices.

That was MGS though. Konami has leverage.

Okay, how do you explain Ar Tonelico then?

Yes they do (and I own Growlanser Generations).

On another Growlanser note, Growlanser (4): Wayfarer of Time for PSP is probably my #1 favorite PSP game. Amazing, amazing game.

I don't think they do. Growlanser 2 in particular is very short for that type of game, and both feel kinda cheap.

Vic spent years improving the game and making it significantly better, but SCEA didn't care and blocked it from release anyway. They use backwards, anti-2d, anti-"too Japanese", anti-port on PSP (games must be 30% original to get approved!), etc. metrics for game releases. Some games that break these rules do get approved here and there, but that shows how third parties are willing to fight for games they really want to release, even against SCEA's opposition, and that sometimes they win and get approval for things. Other times, like with Goemon or Shadow Tower Abyss on the PS2, they lose and the releases are blocked. Blocking niche games from release just because they are niche is a horrible, horrible thing, but it has always been standard SCEA policy.

BS. You can't just say they had a rule, and then when there's a bunch of counterexamples, say "that just means they fought for it!" Um, right. That's circular. By your logic, I could make the same claim about practically any type of game being disallowed by whatever console maker.

Sega of America had a rule against shmups in the Saturn era.
"What about Galactic Attack and In the Hunt?"
That shows how third parties are willing to fight for games they really want to release, even against Sega's opposition, and that sometimes they win and get approval for things.

Microsoft had a policy against survival horror games on the original Xbox.
"What about Dino Crisis 3 and Fatal Frame?"
That shows how third parties are willing to fight for games they really want to release, even against Microsoft's opposition, and that sometimes they win and get approval for things.

and on and on.

I think he was implying that there were some other games he had an interest in that they said 'no way' to.

I might believe it, if he actually spills it. But so far he's said nothing of the kind. And, you know, he was pretty vocal about Goemon, so there's no real reason he couldn't speak up about another game, if there was one.

I didn't quote that in my post there, but did mention this earlier in the thread I think: Vic has agreed with this on NeoGAF. He said that being so loyal to Sony was a big mistake and that was why WD went out of business. He also said that he had some opportunities to do stuff for the Xbox (original Xbox, I believe), but passed on them to stick with Sony, something he now would not do.

I didn't see the post where he said that, but if so, I'm glad he's acknowledged it. It was very frustrating when WD went out of business, and he basically squarely blamed Sony for blocking Goemon. The company had one release in the last three years of its existence, and all of its woes were from SCEA disapproving of Goemon? As if Goemon would have been some massive hit that would have saved the company. The old adage, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" comes to mind.

Personally, I would've loved it if WD had brought over Metal Wolf Chaos, for starters.

[A Black Falcon]

You said "hard restriction, no exceptions". Now you're moving the goalposts. You also have no evidence that Sega needed to "convince" SCEA of anything.

I never, ever said "hard restriction, no exceptions". Not about 2d. I do think that Bernie Stolar at Sony had no exceptions for his anti-RPG policy (unless you count King's Field), but of course there are 2d games on the PS1 and PS2. I said that Sony made approval hard, and sometimes blocked 2d games, or games which were "too Japanese (like PS2 Goemon), or games which "looked old', from release. These things are proven facts.

No, he's not only demonstrably false, he's also directly contradicting himself.

You're ignoring the point that SCEA blocked that game from release for specious reasons, you know. You know, exactly the kind of thing people complaining about SCEA are complaining about. And that game wasn't even 2d!

A lot of 2D games came out for the Playstation. Not just a few here and there. If they had some sort of rule against 2D games, the library sure doesn't show it.

Once again, there's a reason why so many of the PS1's 2d games were released in 2001 or later, or for earlier titles, were from major publishers (often franchise titles as well)... major publishers could get stuff approved, and post-PS2 Sony dropped restrictions. It is true that there were some scattered other 2d games in the 1995-2000 period, but only a few here and there. Europe got quite a few more, because SCEE never had SCEA's stupid restrictions.

And as for your "not one single quote", I believe I've posted this interview before. It's from 2005.

Interesting, I do wonder how NISA managed to release so many 2d games. It probably helped them that the first Disgaea was a big hit, and Atlus published it, a company with a long history with Sony. So then NISA may have had an easier time because of that?

Now many of NISA's 2d PS2 games were post-PS3 (Ar Tonelico was 2007, for example), but it is true that Disgaea, the first two Atelier Iris games, Phantom Brave, Disgaea 2, and (from another publisher, not NISA) La Pucelle Tactics were all released here in 2003-2006. It's a definite oddity compared to all the other publishers who had such a hard time getting SCEA to approve 2d games on the PS2.

You are asking me to prove a negative, and you are using the word "biased" in a vague way. It takes almost nothing to be able to claim a bias, and in fact it says almost nothing to say that Sony was biased against 2D when 3D was predominant. I'm not going to say they were totally unbiased... but then, neither was Nintendo. Neither was Sega. Neither was the media, nor the gaming public at large.

I don't think Nintendo was ever biased against 2d, no. For one thing they had their handhelds, and almost all Nintendo handheld games in the '90s were 2d and most in the '00s were 2d too. And on their consoles, the N64 had a few first-party 2d games, such as their puzzle games, Yoshi's Story, etc. Nintendo did have a sort of 2d low point on the Gamecube, but of course the GBA had lots of 2d games, and with the Wii and DS Nintendo got back into 2d and 2.5d games in a big way.

It is of course true that most N64 games were 3d, but that's just because that's what the market wanted. Nintendo itself wasn't biased against 2d. I don't believe I've ever heard of Nintendo blocking games from release on the basis of their being 2d.

As for Sega, Bernie Stolar's Sega was anti-2d of course, but we knew that already. Before and after that they weren't really.

I will agree that the media and gaming public were biased towards 3d as well. It's true, and that's why Sony said things like 'only 3d games are real games' and why most N64 games are 3d -- they thought, probably accurately, that that's what the largest market wanted. The problem is that by putting roadblocks on 2d games, Sony kept publishers from releasing niche titles which could have sold well enough to justify their release, and which the publishers wanted to try releasing here. And hardcore gamers often love such niche titles, even if the mass market didn't and doesn't care.

Then I guess there wasn't much of a policy there on the PS1, was there?

No, there was. Just look at that explosion of 2d games that released in 2001-2003, after Sony dropped restrictions on PS1 games!

Okay, how do you explain Ar Tonelico then?

Addressed above (that game is a 2007 release, but I do wonder about earlier NISA titles.)

I don't think they do. Growlanser 2 in particular is very short for that type of game, and both feel kinda cheap.

Well, remember that if Vic had had his way, the games would have released years earlier. The Japanese versions of those two games released in mid and late 2001, and Vic said that he had the rights to the first one (2) by six months after the release, so late 2001. Generations took until late 2004 largely because of Sony interference; otherwise the two games would have released much earlier. They'd still be short-ish, of course, but there wouldn't have been such a long wait, which I think might have helped peoples' opinions of them (higher expectations when you've been waiting years...).

BS. You can't just say they had a rule, and then when there's a bunch of counterexamples, say "that just means they fought for it!" Um, right. That's circular. By your logic, I could make the same claim about practically any type of game being disallowed by whatever console maker.

Sega of America had a rule against shmups in the Saturn era.
"What about Galactic Attack and In the Hunt?"
That shows how third parties are willing to fight for games they really want to release, even against Sega's opposition, and that sometimes they win and get approval for things.

Microsoft had a policy against survival horror games on the original Xbox.
"What about Dino Crisis 3 and Fatal Frame?"
That shows how third parties are willing to fight for games they really want to release, even against Microsoft's opposition, and that sometimes they win and get approval for things.

and on and on.

Are those actual rules, or did you just make them up? The difference is that the 2d bias is an actual thing Sony did. I haven't heard of those other ones offhand.

I might believe it, if he actually spills it. But so far he's said nothing of the kind. And, you know, he was pretty vocal about Goemon, so there's no real reason he couldn't speak up about another game, if there was one.

I'd love to know if he was thinking of anything else, sure.

I didn't see the post where he said that, but if so, I'm glad he's acknowledged it. It was very frustrating when WD went out of business, and he basically squarely blamed Sony for blocking Goemon. The company had one release in the last three years of its existence, and all of its woes were from SCEA disapproving of Goemon? As if Goemon would have been some massive hit that would have saved the company. The old adage, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" comes to mind.

Personally, I would've loved it if WD had brought over Metal Wolf Chaos, for starters.

Yeah, he's made it clear that he has learned this lesson. And Metal Wolf Chaos would have been awesome to see, it's crazy we didn't see it here. I'm not sure what else he'd have brought over (he was vague and wouldn't name any specific titles, and the Xbox doesn't exactly have many non-localized RPGs; I see one or two minor ones, but none I've heard of before), but apparently he did have other games that could have been localized too. Metal Wolf Chaos definitely seems like a natural though, at least.

[j_factor]

I never, ever said "hard restriction, no exceptions". Not about 2d.

That wasn't in reference to 2D.

I do think that Bernie Stolar at Sony had no exceptions for his anti-RPG policy (unless you count King's Field), but of course there are 2d games on the PS1 and PS2. I said that Sony made approval hard, and sometimes blocked 2d games, or games which were "too Japanese (like PS2 Goemon), or games which "looked old', from release. These things are proven facts.

Yes, Sony sometimes blocked games. But it is not a proven fact that Sony ever had a standing policy of blocking 2D games for the mere fact of being 2D.

Once again, there's a reason why so many of the PS1's 2d games were released in 2001 or later, or for earlier titles, were from major publishers (often franchise titles as well)... major publishers could get stuff approved, and post-PS2 Sony dropped restrictions. It is true that there were some scattered other 2d games in the 1995-2000 period, but only a few here and there. Europe got quite a few more, because SCEE never had SCEA's stupid restrictions.

You're adding quite a few qualifiers now. So Sony was anti-2D... except after 2001, except with major publishers, except with franchises. And even then they still let some games through.

If that constitutes anti-2D, they were very mildly anti-2D.

How else do you explain games like Alundra, Punky Skunk, and Oddworld? The latter was even included on an official Playstation demo disc, and later made a Greatest Hits title. If SCEA had a huge disdain for it, they sure had a funny way of showing it.

As for the later releases. From 2001, Sony lowered the licensing cost for PS1 games. The system was positioned in the marketplace as a budget console, with a lot of budget-priced releases. A lot of cheap games were coming out. Some of those games were 3D, like The Italian Job and Skydiving Extreme for example. Many of them were 2D, yes, but that's incidental. The main thing is that they were cheap.

Did Europe really get that many more 2D games? I know about Mickey's Wild Adventure and Earthworm Jim 2, but I think it's understandable that those didn't get a release due to the fact that they were straight ports of Genesis games. There's also Vib Ribbon and Rapid Reload, but those are first-party games, and choosing not to publish one of their own titles in North America isn't the same issue as approval of third-party games. Beyond that, I know Cryo had a bunch of Europe-only ports of their 2D adventure games, but I'm not sure Sony rejected them, more likely their US publisher simply preferred to release them on PC only.

I don't think Nintendo was ever biased against 2d, no. For one thing they had their handhelds, and almost all Nintendo handheld games in the '90s were 2d and most in the '00s were 2d too. And on their consoles, the N64 had a few first-party 2d games, such as their puzzle games, Yoshi's Story, etc. Nintendo did have a sort of 2d low point on the Gamecube, but of course the GBA had lots of 2d games, and with the Wii and DS Nintendo got back into 2d and 2.5d games in a big way.

It is of course true that most N64 games were 3d, but that's just because that's what the market wanted. Nintendo itself wasn't biased against 2d. I don't believe I've ever heard of Nintendo blocking games from release on the basis of their being 2d.

Nintendo was just as biased against 2D.

Well, remember that if Vic had had his way, the games would have released years earlier. The Japanese versions of those two games released in mid and late 2001, and Vic said that he had the rights to the first one (2) by six months after the release, so late 2001.

Yeah right. Working Designs were not exactly known for their promptness.

[A Black Falcon]

That wasn't in reference to 2D.

Oh, right, voice acting, sorry. I don't know how Sega managed to convince SCEA that one time, but if that's the one and only exception to the rule, well, that's what it is: the one and only exception to the rule SCEA otherwise always enforced.

Yes, Sony sometimes blocked games. But it is not a proven fact that Sony ever had a standing policy of blocking 2D games for the mere fact of being 2D.

It is a proven fact that SCEA blocked some games because they had 2d graphics which "looked too old", and that years before that they said how they disliked 2d. You're arguing semantics.

You're adding quite a few qualifiers now. So Sony was anti-2D... except after 2001, except with major publishers, except with franchises. And even then they still let some games through.

Now? What? I've said since the beginning of this discussion that Sony loosened their anti-2d restrictions on previous systems after the next system released! So, PS1 games 2001 and later, and PS2 games 2007 and later, had a much easier time getting approved. Same for PSP games post-Vita. That's how SCEA works.

If that constitutes anti-2D, they were very mildly anti-2D.

"Very mildly"...

How else do you explain games like Alundra, Punky Skunk, and Oddworld? The latter was even included on an official Playstation demo disc, and later made a Greatest Hits title. If SCEA had a huge disdain for it, they sure had a funny way of showing it.

Those first two were, ultimately, quite niche releases, and Oddworld... well, at least it had that CGI introduction and rendered graphics...

As for the later releases. From 2001, Sony lowered the licensing cost for PS1 games. The system was positioned in the marketplace as a budget console, with a lot of budget-priced releases. A lot of cheap games were coming out. Some of those games were 3D, like The Italian Job and Skydiving Extreme for example. Many of them were 2D, yes, but that's incidental. The main thing is that they were cheap.

Sure, but they weren't just cheap, they also were more likely to be 2d than previously. Some of those 2001-2003 games (including many of the 2d ones) were games that had released years earlier in Japan, but only got a US release post-PS2 because of the cheaper costs and lowered restrictions. Both were factors.

Did Europe really get that many more 2D games? I know about Mickey's Wild Adventure and Earthworm Jim 2, but I think it's understandable that those didn't get a release due to the fact that they were straight ports of Genesis games. There's also Vib Ribbon and Rapid Reload, but those are first-party games, and choosing not to publish one of their own titles in North America isn't the same issue as approval of third-party games. Beyond that, I know Cryo had a bunch of Europe-only ports of their 2D adventure games, but I'm not sure Sony rejected them, more likely their US publisher simply preferred to release them on PC only.

Look earlier in the thread, Barone did a nice quick list of some 2d games released in Europe and Japan but not the US.

Nintendo was just as biased against 2D.

They most definitely were not. To the best of my knowledge, Nintendo did not block game releases just because they were 2d. Why do you think otherwise? Nintendo has passed on Western releases for many titles on every console they've ever released, but the reasons are never just whether the games are 2d, 3d, or otherwise. And for third party titles, I don't think I've ever heard of Nintendo throwing up roadblocks like SCEA did. If you have heard such things, cite sources.

Yeah right. Working Designs were not exactly known for their promptness.

True, but when things took a very long time (Growlanser Generations, MKR, Goemon PS2...), there were usually some good reasons... lost source code, SCEA being jerks, and such.

[gamevet]

The game is a collection of 2d games with a 3d museum to also explore. What is so hard about that to understand?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the 3D Museum had nothing to do with the Namco 2D game collections getting approval? The 3D museum looks like ass, even when those collections were released.

Uh, he didn't have MKR. Have you REALLY forgotten that he cancelled everything else as soon as he heard about the whole "Saturn is not our future" thing, and the bad back-of-the-booth place Bernie had put him in, too? He was going to announce a bunch of stuff at E3. I think Team Andromeda listed some prospective ones earlier, but he's definitely said that some Techno Soft stuff was going to be released, until Sega's E3 disaster warded him away from it. I've already said this, I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

Edit: WD also was showing Albert Odyssey at E3 '97, surely, since they released that game in late July '97 in the US, as well as MKR, and would have had more if not for Bernie Stolar.

.

He had MKR for quite a while. So, the only games he probably had to show at that E3 were MKR and Albert Odyssey. He wouldn't have had future games he was going to pursue, on display.

Working Designs was hardly a top-tier publisher for Sega, and VI expecting top treatment from Sega was par for the course for him. The guy thought he was bigger than the industry that allowed his company to exist.


I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your drivel. I didn't even plan on returning to this thread, but I decided to cover this part of your silly rant.

[parallaxscroll]

I remember the Dreamcast being referred to as 128-bit sometime during its early release,
it was right about that time that people and magazines started saying "yeah.. the bit thing is kinda over"

Yeah by then the "bit thing" was over. It was really over during the Saturn, PS1, N64 era. It never really applied once 3D polygon graphics were introduced to consumers in the mid 1990s.

Heh, technically the Sega/Lockheed-Martin Real3D based Model 3 is a 32-Bit board since the PowerPC 603e CPU is 32-Bit.

The Nintendo 64 is technically 64-Bit with its CPU, the NEC VR4300, a cost-reduced derivative of the 64-bit MIPS R4300i.

Yet everyone knows Model 3 is around an order of magnitude (10 times) more powerful than Nintendo 64.


I believe Dreamcast was called 128-Bit because of the SH-4 CPU's 128-bit floating point bus.

Sega officially said Dreamcast was 10 times more powerful than N64, but Sega was being very conservative.
Even if we limit Dreamcast to 3,000,000 (3M) textured, fully featured polys/sec (its known that SH-4 + PowerVR2DC could do more), that's still over 18 times more than N64.
N64 could only render 160,000 textured, fully featured polys/sec.
PS1 could render 180,000 textured, g-shaded, and lit polys/sec without the extra effects N64 could do. Or, 360,000 flat shaded polys/sec, no texture, no g-shading, no lights.


In short, bits only really kinda mattered during the transistion from the 8-Bit NES, SMS and Atari 7800 to the 16-Bit Genesis, SNES, Neo-Geo (and I guess the TG-16 with its two 16-Bit graphics chips or something like that).

[A Black Falcon]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the 3D Museum had nothing to do with the Namco 2D game collections getting approval? The 3D museum looks like ass, even when those collections were released.

How do you know this? You certianly have no proof, I'm sure. But then again almost nothing you've said here has much connection to actual SCEA policy or actions. What is your thinking here? "I dislike the 3d museums, so they had nothing to do with SCEA approving Namco Museum"? There's certainly no logic I can think of behind it.

I mean, sure, maybe Namco just used its leverage, as one of the PS1's biggest supporters, and SCEA said 'sure, do what you want'. That's quite possible. But you don't know that.

He had MKR for quite a while. So, the only games he probably had to show at that E3 were MKR and Albert Odyssey. He wouldn't have had future games he was going to pursue, on display.

Um, he has specifically said that he had four more Saturn games he was going to announce and show at E3 1997, one of which would have been a collection including the Thunder Force Gold Pack(s?), Blast Wind, and Hyper Duel, but he cancelled all four of them the day before the show floor opened, immediately after hearing Bernie's speech and seeing how WD was put behind a wall. So, he would have had a lot more stuff than just those two games to show had Bernie not been an idiot.

Working Designs was hardly a top-tier publisher for Sega, and VI expecting top treatment from Sega was par for the course for him. The guy thought he was bigger than the industry that allowed his company to exist.

He was paying Sega for booth space. Expecting Sega to do what he was paying them to do is quite thoroughly reasonable.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your drivel. I didn't even plan on returning to this thread, but I decided to cover this part of your silly rant.

Yes, yes, extensive amounts of fact-supported, well-backed-up (with research) information is "drivel" now, simply because your unsupported opinion disagrees with it. That makes lots of sense.

[gamevet]

How do you know this? You certianly have no proof, I'm sure. But then again almost nothing you've said here has much connection to actual SCEA policy or actions. What is your thinking here? "I dislike the 3d museums, so they had nothing to do with SCEA approving Namco Museum"? There's certainly no logic I can think of behind it.

And you have no proof that Namco had to add that 3D museum to get approval for their 2D compilations.

There's certainly logic behind that, when a western publisher like Midway had a lot of 2D games early on for the Playstation. Midway was allowed to publish, MK3,Mortal Kombat Trilogy, Wrestlemania: The Arcade Game, NBA Jam T.E., Midway Arcade's Greatest Hits, Williams Arcade's Greatest Hits and Arcade's Greatest Hits: The Atari Collection. You also had Akklaim's ripoff of NBA Jam, with College Slam.

I mean, sure, maybe Namco just used its leverage, as one of the PS1's biggest supporters, and SCEA said 'sure, do what you want'. That's quite possible. But you don't know that.

How do you figure that? Your excuse is that the 3D museum was needed to get approval from SCEA for those 2D collections. It's highly unlikely, considering that Midway didn't have to do that.

Um, he has specifically said that he had four more Saturn games he was going to announce and show at E3 1997, one of which would have been a collection including the Thunder Force Gold Pack(s?), Blast Wind, and Hyper Duel, but he cancelled all four of them the day before the show floor opened, immediately after hearing Bernie's speech and seeing how WD was put behind a wall. So, he would have had a lot more stuff than just those two games to show had Bernie not been an idiot.

Yeah, he was dumb enough to cancel those easy ports (that he supposedly had working examples of), in favor of MKR, that wouldn't appear in retail for another 14 months.

He was paying Sega for booth space. Expecting Sega to do what he was paying them to do is quite thoroughly reasonable.

Again, you contradict yourself.

Uh, they'd paid for his booths the last couple of years before that, and he'd been Sega-exclusive for several years at that point. First parties often help out third parties who are releasing exclusive stuff on their consoles.

Yes, yes, extensive amounts of fact-supported, well-backed-up (with research) information is "drivel" now, simply because your unsupported opinion disagrees with it. That makes lots of sense.

I guess the other people calling you out on the last page must be clueless as well.

And here's a perfect example of drivel:

GameFAQs correctly lists Alundra as an Action-Adventure game (Alundra is like Zelda, and other than Zelda 2, Zelda games aren't RPGs either. No experience points, no RPG.) and Tactics Ogre and Vanguard Bandits as strategy games. Those are their proper genres. I think it's great that GameFAQs ignores that stupid "Tactics games are RPGs" thing a lot of people say, and correctly lists them as strategy games, which is of course what they are. They are RPG-heavy strategy games, but strategy is their primary genre.

The very same GameFAQs lists Alundra 2 under the RPG category, yet doesn't list Alundra. GameFAQs is not a reliable source for listing games.

Tactics Ogre and Vanguard Bandits are Tactical RPGs and should be listed under the RPG category. They aren't the same as a game like Panzer General.

[A Black Falcon]

And you have no proof that Namco had to add that 3D museum to get approval for their 2D compilations.

There's certainly logic behind that, when a western publisher like Midway had a lot of 2D games early on for the Playstation. Midway was allowed to publish, MK3, Wrestlemania: The Arcade Game, NBA Jam T.E., Midway Arcade's Treasures, Williams Arcade's Greatest Hits and Arcade's Greatest Hits: The Atari Collection. You also had Akklaim's ripoff of NBA Jam, with College Slam.

How do you figure that? Your excuse is that the 3D museum was needed to get approval from SCEA for those 2D collections. It's highly unlikely, considering that Midway didn't have to do that.

Sure, you're right, I have no proof they did need the museum. There's no proof either way.

As for Midway, they did have some polygonal games as well... though their best games that generation were on the N64, not Playstation. Same for Acclaim. Their Sega support levels were quite different, though... Acclaim released lots of Saturn and Dreamcast games (in the early years of both systems' lives; they dropped the Saturn by '97 and the DC by early '01, but lots before that). Midway, however, had quite thin support on Saturn -- cheap ports of a couple of 2d games only, no more (remember that Acclaim developed and published the Saturn versions of MK2 and NBA Jam T.E.; Midway only did UMK3, MK Trilogy, the Arcade's Greatest Hits collections, Rampage World Tour, Area 51, Maximum Force, and that's about it.). Midway's DC support was better, of course, though like with most publishers it trailed off after 2000. But I can see why people who only had PS1s or Saturns wouldn't think too great of Midway and Acclaim that generation... they had some good releases, but lots of mediocrity. But on the N64? Both released some great stuff. And this did pay off; both made a quite significant amount of their console-game income from the N64, for a few years in the late '90s. Maybe even the largest single share? I do remember reading something like that, about one of them at least. But anyway.

Oh, and College Slam isn't a NBA Jam ripoff, not really... just like Acclaim's Space Jam game, College Slam runs in the NBA Jam T.E. engine, because they had the rights to it, along with the "NBA Jam" name for home console games, since they'd gotten the rights to both in the agreement with Midway that let them publish the home console ports of Jam and Jam T.E. This is why Midway had to change names for its arcade basketball game; Midway and Acclaim had a sort of falling-out after Midway got into the console game publishing business itself in about 1996, and after that Midway didn't have the rights to NBA Jam anymore. So Midway did "NBA Hangtime", the next NBA Jam game, while Acclaim did "NBA Jam Extreme", which is a completely different, and not nearly as good, thing. But anyway.

Yeah, he was dumb enough to cancel those easy ports (that he supposedly had working examples of), in favor of MKR, that wouldn't appear in retail for another 14 months.

He kept MKR because it'd already been announced, and he didn't want to ever cancel a game which he'd already announced. He canned the games that hadn't been announced yet, but kept the ones that had been for that reason. His determination to release every game he announced has to be why he spent so, so long reworking Goemon PS2 again and again, instead of giving up and moving on to other things. But games that he had not announced yet? Those he could cancel without anyone knowing, and so he did. Was it nice? No. I wish he hadn't cancelled those games, because the Saturn's US library would be better. But, because of how Bernie Stolar was acting, he unfortunately gave up on Sega. Ah well.

And anyway, that one may have been an easy port, but I'd imagine that the others wouldn't have been; I highly doubt all three other cancelled-at-E3 WD Saturn titles were shmups too, after all.

Again, you contradict yourself.

That quote there of mine was from before I went and found a direct quote from Vic saying how he'd paid somewhere between $25,000 and $50,000 (I think that was the number) for the booth space. It's in one of the links from that post full of NeoGAF quotes of Vic's. So yeah, I posted some speculation that you cite there, but then found correct information, and posted that more recently in the thread. It is true that WD had been in Sega's booth before E3 '97, but he was paying for the space, and wasn't just being given it. That fact makes more sense than my incomplete speculation, certainly.

The fact that he'd paid for it has to be why Bernie was eventually forced to give him the booth space, but he got back at Vic by putting him behind a wall (so you couldn't get from the Sega booth to the WD area without going outside and around to the back, or something). The results of that were as described.

I guess the other people calling you out on the last page must be clueless as then.

It looks to me like J_factor agrees that Sony had some degree of bias against 2d, actually; the only question is how much, not whether.

[gamevet]

Sure, you're right, I have no proof they did need the museum. There's no proof either way.

As for Midway, they did have some polygonal games as well... though their best games that generation were on the N64, not Playstation. Same for Acclaim. Their Sega support levels were quite different, though... Acclaim released lots of Saturn and Dreamcast games (in the early years of both systems' lives; they dropped the Saturn by '97 and the DC by early '01, but lots before that). Midway, however, had quite thin support on Saturn -- cheap ports of a couple of 2d games only, no more (remember that Acclaim developed and published the Saturn versions of MK2 and NBA Jam T.E.; Midway only did UMK3, MK Trilogy, the Arcade's Greatest Hits collections, Rampage World Tour, Area 51, Maximum Force, and that's about it.). Midway's DC support was better, of course, though like with most publishers it trailed off after 2000. But I can see why people who only had PS1s or Saturns wouldn't think too great of Midway and Acclaim that generation... they had some good releases, but lots of mediocrity. But on the N64? Both released some great stuff. And this did pay off; both made a quite significant amount of their console-game income from the N64, for a few years in the late '90s. Maybe even the largest single share? I do remember reading something like that, about one of them at least. But anyway.

It doesn't matter that Midway had 3D games as well. They got approval for their 2D games on the Playstation console, and those games didn't require some kind of special 3D enhancements to get that approval.

Oh, and College Slam isn't a NBA Jam ripoff, not really... just like Acclaim's Space Jam game, College Slam runs in the NBA Jam T.E. engine, because they had the rights to it, along with the "NBA Jam" name for home console games, since they'd gotten the rights to both in the agreement with Midway that let them publish the home console ports of Jam and Jam T.E. This is why Midway had to change names for its arcade basketball game; Midway and Acclaim had a sort of falling-out after Midway got into the console game publishing business itself in about 1996, and after that Midway didn't have the rights to NBA Jam anymore. So Midway did "NBA Hangtime", the next NBA Jam game, while Acclaim did "NBA Jam Extreme", which is a completely different, and not nearly as good, thing. But anyway.

Doesn't change the fact that Midway (and Akklaim) were allowed to publish those 2D games on the Playstation.

He kept MKR because it'd already been announced, and he didn't want to ever cancel a game which he'd already announced. He canned the games that hadn't been announced yet, but kept the ones that had been for that reason. His determination to release every game he announced has to be why he spent so, so long reworking Goemon PS2 again and again, instead of giving up and moving on to other things. But games that he had not announced yet? Those he could cancel without anyone knowing, and so he did. Was it nice? No. I wish he hadn't cancelled those games, because the Saturn's US library would be better. But, because of how Bernie Stolar was acting, he unfortunately gave up on Sega. Ah well.

And anyway, that one may have been an easy port, but I'd imagine that the others wouldn't have been; I highly doubt all three other cancelled-at-E3 WD Saturn titles were shmups too, after all.

He wasn't going to show games that he had yet to announce. There's no proof that he would have working prototypes of those games he was working on for the Saturn.

That quote there of mine was from before I went and found a direct quote from Vic saying how he'd paid somewhere between $25,000 and $50,000 (I think that was the number) for the booth space. It's in one of the links from that post full of NeoGAF quotes of Vic's. So yeah, I posted some speculation that you cite there, but then found correct information, and posted that more recently in the thread. It is true that WD had been in Sega's booth before E3 '97, but he was paying for the space, and wasn't just being given it. That fact makes more sense than my incomplete speculation, certainly.

The fact that he'd paid for it has to be why Bernie was eventually forced to give him the booth space, but he got back at Vic by putting him behind a wall (so you couldn't get from the Sega booth to the WD area without going outside and around to the back, or something). The results of that were as described.

Questionable at best.

It looks to me like J_factor agrees that Sony had some degree of bias against 2d, actually; the only question is how much, not whether.

I don't see any reason to believe that he was agreeing with your assessment.

[A Black Falcon]

It doesn't matter that Midway had 3D games as well. They got approval for their 2D games on the Playstation console, and those games didn't require some kind of special 3D enhancements to get that approval.

I think it does matter that Midway also did 3d games; a company publishing only 2d games would likely have had more trouble from Sony, I think... particularly if those 2d games only got niche sales, not wide success.

Doesn't change the fact that Midway (and Akklaim) were allowed to publish those 2D games on the Playstation.

Sure, that's true. They published a few 2d games (though given their FMV elements, perhaps Area 51 and Maximum Force shouldn't be listed there?) on PS1. I'm still not sure why you think that the fact that some 2d games were released for PS1 proves that Sony had no bias against 2d, though. The one does not prove the other.

He wasn't going to show games that he had yet to announce. There's no proof that he would have working prototypes of those games he was working on for the Saturn.

I don't know what you're talking about, but announcing things at E3 is, or at least was in the days before livestreamed web conferences (which only took off in the last year or two), one of the most common ways to announce a game. You announced your games by showing them at a conference, and E3 is the biggest conference.

Questionable at best.

What's questionable? Are you saying that he's lying? No, if he was lying, I think he'd have been caught in it at some point. That hasn't happened, at all. There's no good reason to believe that he's not telling the truth, he paid for that booth space.

As for my speculation there, of course I don't know exactly why Bernie relented. But he did, and Vic had paid for space in Sega's booth.

I don't see any reason to believe that he was agreeing with your assessment.

That's not the point, the point is he isn't agreeing entirely with yours either.

[j_factor]

Oh, right, voice acting, sorry. I don't know how Sega managed to convince SCEA that one time, but if that's the one and only exception to the rule, well, that's what it is: the one and only exception to the rule SCEA otherwise always enforced.

It only takes one counterexample to disprove a conjecture.

It is a proven fact that SCEA blocked some games because they had 2d graphics which "looked too old", and that years before that they said how they disliked 2d. You're arguing semantics.

I must have missed where you actually named 2d games that were blocked by SCEA, to say nothing of backing that up with solid sources. So it's certainly not a proven fact. The only thing I've seen that's conclusive is Metal Slug 3 and some of SNK's other games. But, is that because they were 2d? Or because they were straight ports of Neo Geo games? Later on, the PS2 got Neo Geo compilations, which is surely more appropriate.

And being against 2d games that "looked too old" isn't the same thing as being anti-2d, fullstop, which is what you were saying a bit ago. In fact, a more parsimonious explanation would be that Sony took issue with games that "looked old", whether 2d or 3d -- which puts Shadow Tower Abyss in the same category.

Those first two were, ultimately, quite niche releases, and Oddworld... well, at least it had that CGI introduction and rendered graphics...

They were niche releases, sure, but what does that have to do with anything? You're just handwaving.

Sure, but they weren't just cheap, they also were more likely to be 2d than previously.

That's because cheap games are more likely to be 2d, not because the floodgates were opened for 2d games.

Look earlier in the thread, Barone did a nice quick list of some 2d games released in Europe and Japan but not the US.

That wasn't much of a list. The games he mentioned are neither all that significant nor known to have been rejected by SCEA (unless you have some information I don't). Let's review:

Hebereke's Popoitto - This game was on Saturn too, and that version didn't come out in the US either. So either they chose not to publish it here, or Sega and Sony agreed on something. Note that it's a sequel to an NES game, and that game was also released in Japan and Europe only. So, it seems pretty clear to me that this wasn't SCEA's doing.

Puchi Carat - This game's European publisher was only in business in Europe, and Taito didn't have a US division at the time either. Sure, some other publisher could have taken it, but being a random obscure puzzle game, it's not hard to see why none did.

Magical Tetris Challenge - I'm not sure why this didn't come out here, but PSX had two 2d Tetris games release in North America, with another coming for PS2 later, so obviously SCEA weren't categorically against it.

Smash Court 1 & 2 - Both of these were published in Europe by SCEE, not Namco. Apparently Namco didn't have confidence in these games' overseas viability. I suppose SCEA could have published it here and didn't, but passing on a publishing deal isn't the same thing as blocking third-party releases.

Yeh Yeh Tennis - Sunsoft USA, in an attempt to keep afloat, had switched to only publishing for the Game Boy Color. They faded soon after.

Note also that tennis games fared poorly in North America, and many were not released here, 2d or 3d. A quick search gives me 23 PSX games with the word "Tennis" in the title, a whopping four of which were released here. I'm not going to go through the effort of checking whether each one of those remaining 19 is 2d or 3d, but I'm sure a good portion of them are 3d.

Fun fact: According to the sales data I've found, Virtua Tennis for Dreamcast sold approximately 2.6 times as many copies as all four PSX tennis games combined.

Earthworm Jim 2 - This is an after-the-fact, direct port of a Genesis/SNES game. That's a bit more than simply being 2d.

Mickey's Wild Adventure - Also a Genesis port, and plus this was Sony's game to choose to publish or not publish as they saw fit. On top of that, I don't think this came out in Japan.

They most definitely were not. To the best of my knowledge, Nintendo did not block game releases just because they were 2d.

To the best of my knowledge, Sony didn't either. And when I try to pin you down on this, you shy away from directly claiming they did, and instead you equivocate and talk about "too old" looking games. Which is not the same thing.

Why do you think otherwise?

I don't, I was illustrating a point.

But, you know, where were all the 2d N64 games? A much smaller proportion of its library is 2d compared to the Playstation. Why didn't Bangaioh come out here? Why did Command & Conquer get its graphics redone in 3d for the N64 version -- maybe because Nintendo wouldn't let them release it in 2d?

It looks to me like J_factor agrees that Sony had some degree of bias against 2d, actually; the only question is how much, not whether.

I'm not sure, but you're seriously moving the goalposts if your claim becomes "Sony had some level, however minute, of bias against 2d." Maybe they did, but if that was all you said, I wouldn't even be in this conversation, because I don't find that controversial or particularly interesting.

I'm still not sure why you think that the fact that some 2d games were released for PS1 proves that Sony had no bias against 2d, though.

It doesn't. But the quantity and variety of 2d games that were released does seem to disprove the notion that Sony had some sort of concrete policy against 2d games.

[A Black Falcon]

It only takes one counterexample to disprove a conjecture.

I must have missed where you actually named 2d games that were blocked by SCEA, to say nothing of backing that up with solid sources. So it's certainly not a proven fact. The only thing I've seen that's conclusive is Metal Slug 3 and some of SNK's other games. But, is that because they were 2d? Or because they were straight ports of Neo Geo games? Later on, the PS2 got Neo Geo compilations, which is surely more appropriate.

Why is it "more appropriate" to get a collection of games than a single game? Metal Slug 3 and Samurai Shodown V were not old games when ported to the PS2 and Xbox; MS3 had only released in arcades a couple of years earlier, and SSV was quite recent. It shouldn't matter that it was running on older hardware, but sadly, it did to SCEA. SCEA explicitly blocked both of these games from US release: http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php...2/#entry637109

The same goes for KOF NeoWave and SNK vs. Capcom: SVCCHAOS, and those were on even newer arcade hardware (Atomiswave). And Metal Slug 6 and Samurai Shodown 6 only came here in their series Anthology collections, because I don't think SNK even tried to get SCEA approve the stand-alone releases that those games both had in Japan.

I already did a bunch of links about the awful stuff SCEA did on the last page I believe, but here are even more of them, since you people don't believe the mountains of evidence of SCEA's misbehavior.

http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php...2/#entry637205 - not really about 2d, but it is about SCEA being stupid.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103765 - SCEA didn't approve PS2 Viewtiful Joe until after the game sold well on Gamecube; before that they said no. Also more citations for SNK's PS2 games SCEA blocked.

Both of the above links also mention that SCEA blocked the 3d game "Gregory Horror Show" from a US release, because they didn't like the content or something. How nice. The NeoGAF thread also mentions that a PS2 game called "OZ" was also blocked from US release, for unspecified reasons, like Gregory Horror Show and Shadow Tower: Abyss. More on Oz here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...1&postcount=26 That link also once again references the rumor that Capcom had to threaten Sony in order to get them to approve 2d PS1 Mega Man games in the US. The post also says that SCEA forced Ys VI (for PS2) to have the 2d sprite main character be replaced with a polygonal model, because they wouldn't approve the game otherwise -- proven in developer interviews.

More on Mega Man 8/X4 US here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...1&postcount=42 This time the rumor is that Capcom of Japan had to step in and threaten to not release Resident Evil here, in order to force Sony to allow them to release MM8 and MMX4. Quite similar to the other version of the rumor, which says that Capcom threatened to make RE2 Saturn-exclusive in order to force them to let them release MM8. It would actually make even more sense with RE1 than RE2, since RE1 Saturn released in early 1997, and MM8 was also an early '97 release in the US.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...2&postcount=55 - Mention of a Sony "performance analyzer" -- the more system power your game uses, the better it is, right?

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/631516-wii-u/64093958 - And here's someone mentioning how Sony's double standards let Sega do Japanese-only voices for Yakuza 2, but never would allow such a thing for releases from smaller studios.

http://www.atlus.com/forum/showpost....64&postcount=3 - SCEA also blocked a DonPachi/DoDonPachi combo disc? But since Sony/publisher talks are of course confidential, it's extremely uncommon for us to hear about games Sony blocked -- developers usually are legally not allowed to talk about it.

Here's a list of confirmed and rumored SCEA blocks: http://www.gamecritics.com/forums/pr...p?t=7049&pp=40 It's a mixture of 2d and 3d games, but the point that SCEA were really, really restrictive for pointless reasons should be clear.

SCEA PS2 Product Approval hit list

With the recent rumblings of product approval cancelations, I'd like to amass a list of all PS2 games that didn't make it due to SCEA.

CONFIRMED BLOCKS
-Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare (Infogrames)
-Bomberman Kart (Konami)
-Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon (Dreamcatcher)
-Charlie's Angels (UbiSoft)
-Circus Maximus (Encore)
-Curse: Eye of the Isis (Dreamcatcher)
-Dragon's Lair 3D (UbiSoft)
-Ghost Vibration (Atari)
-Gio Gio's Bizarre Adventure (Capcom)
-Goemon (Working Designs)
-Gregory Horror Show (Capcom)
-Growlanser II: The Sense of Justice (Working Designs)*
-Growlanser III: The Dual Darkness (Working Designs)*
-Kengo II (UbiSoft)
-Metal Slug 3 (SNK NeoGeo)
-Outlaw Golf (Simon & Schuster)
-Outlaw Volleyball (Simon & Schuster)
-Shadow Tower Abyss (Agetec)
-Smashing Drive (Namco)
-SNK Vs Capcom: SVC Chaos (SNK NeoGeo)
-Space Channel 5 (Agetec)**
-Space Channel 5 Part 2 (Agetec)**
-Spirits & Spells (Dreamcatcher)
-Syberia (XS Games)
-Syberia II (XS Games)
-Ys I & II Eternal Story (NEC Interchannel)

RUMORED BLOCKS
-Bomberman Jetters (Majesco)
-Bonk's Adventure (tba)
-DoDonPachi Dai-Oujou (Agetec)
-Everblue (Capcom)
-Glass Rose (Capcom)
-Hyper Street Fighter II Turbo: Anniversary Edition (Capcom)
-Killer 7 (Capcom)
-Puyo Pop Fever (Sega)
-Psyvariar (tba)
-Samurai Showdown V (SNK NeoGeo)
-Worms Blast (UbiSoft)

*repackaged into Growlanser Generations
** repackaged into Space Channel 5 Special Edition

Worms Blast and Killer 7 did release in the US, but no other titles on this list did as standalone titles.

Hyper SFII got released in the Street Fighter Anniversary Collection, packed into a collection along with Street Fighter III: Third Strike and some goodies. So it did get here, but not on its own, unlike Japan.


Oh, and while Outlaw Golf and Outlaw Volleyball were indeed Xbox exclusives in the US, both were successful there, so Sony did deign to approve their sequels for US PS2 release.

And being against 2d games that "looked too old" isn't the same thing as being anti-2d, fullstop, which is what you were saying a bit ago. In fact, a more parsimonious explanation would be that Sony took issue with games that "looked old", whether 2d or 3d -- which puts Shadow Tower Abyss in the same category.

Well, they allowed plenty of terrible-looking 3d games on the PS2 early in its life... maybe their standards for that changed later? Or maybe they just disliked that game because it was "niche" and used the graphics as an excuse. Sounds like an SCEA-stupid kind of thing to do. But as for 2d, there their restrictions seem to have only gotten stricter over time.

They were niche releases, sure, but what does that have to do with anything? You're just handwaving.

That's because cheap games are more likely to be 2d, not because the floodgates were opened for 2d games.

No, I don't think that's the main reason. Not at all.

That wasn't much of a list. The games he mentioned are neither all that significant nor known to have been rejected by SCEA (unless you have some information I don't). Let's review:

Hebereke's Popoitto - This game was on Saturn too, and that version didn't come out in the US either. So either they chose not to publish it here, or Sega and Sony agreed on something. Note that it's a sequel to an NES game, and that game was also released in Japan and Europe only. So, it seems pretty clear to me that this wasn't SCEA's doing.

Well, the US did finally get a version of the original NES title many years later, on Wii Virtual Console... But who knows about this one.

Puchi Carat - This game's European publisher was only in business in Europe, and Taito didn't have a US division at the time either. Sure, some other publisher could have taken it, but being a random obscure puzzle game, it's not hard to see why none did.

Yeah, I can see why no one picked up this awesome, awesome game... not wanting to deal with SCEA about it, likely. (And Puchi Carat is really a versus Breakout/Arkanoid game, not just a puzzle game.)

Magical Tetris Challenge - I'm not sure why this didn't come out here, but PSX had two 2d Tetris games release in North America, with another coming for PS2 later, so obviously SCEA weren't categorically against it.

It's annoying that we didn't get this one, because the N64 version has a bizarre design flaw -- it has no saving at all! No score save, in a 5th gen Tetris game, seriously? What happened there? The PS1 version does save, but no US release of course. Who knows why.

Smash Court 1 & 2 - Both of these were published in Europe by SCEE, not Namco. Apparently Namco didn't have confidence in these games' overseas viability. I suppose SCEA could have published it here and didn't, but passing on a publishing deal isn't the same thing as blocking third-party releases.

While those two things are technically different, the results are identical.

Yeh Yeh Tennis - Sunsoft USA, in an attempt to keep afloat, had switched to only publishing for the Game Boy Color. They faded soon after.

Note also that tennis games fared poorly in North America, and many were not released here, 2d or 3d. A quick search gives me 23 PSX games with the word "Tennis" in the title, a whopping four of which were released here. I'm not going to go through the effort of checking whether each one of those remaining 19 is 2d or 3d, but I'm sure a good portion of them are 3d.

Tennis games may be more popular in Japan, yeah. Who knows why we got some and not others though.

Earthworm Jim 2 - This is an after-the-fact, direct port of a Genesis/SNES game. That's a bit more than simply being 2d.

No it isn't, it's a graphically-enhanced port. And the Saturn version DID see a US release, so it seems plausible that SCEA could be the reason why we didn't see the PS1 release.

Mickey's Wild Adventure - Also a Genesis port, and plus this was Sony's game to choose to publish or not publish as they saw fit. On top of that, I don't think this came out in Japan.

Better known as Mickey Mania here, and yeah, that was Europe-only on PS1.


Some other 2d games released in Europe but not the US that gen... well, there was also Parodius (Deluxe Pack), which Konami released in Europe and Japan for PS1 and Saturn, but not here at all. That was a trend though; they'd released a couple of SNES Parodius and Twinbee games in Europe too, but none in either franchise in the US (other than Stinger for NES, which technically is a Twinbee game).

To the best of my knowledge, Sony didn't either. And when I try to pin you down on this, you shy away from directly claiming they did, and instead you equivocate and talk about "too old" looking games. Which is not the same thing.

Sony blocked games for specious reasons. That is proven. Nintendo didn't. This we also know. There's a big difference there.

I don't, I was illustrating a point.

What point, that Nintendo of America never had stupid rules like SCEA? Well, that is true then. They had content restrictions, but that's quite different from what SCEA was doing.

But, you know, where were all the 2d N64 games? A much smaller proportion of its library is 2d compared to the Playstation. Why didn't Bangaioh come out here?

A much smaller proportion of the N64 library in Japan is 2d too; it's not like they got piles of 2d games we didn't. There were some 2d games on the N64 in Japan that didn't release here, but most are either minor puzzle games or things we'd never have gotten anywhere. The N64 just didn't have as many 2d games made for it, which is why not as many released here.

As for Bangaioh, I'd imagine that that's because of most publishers' bias against 2d games. I'm sure Nintendo would not have blocked it had someone wanted to localize it.

Why did Command & Conquer get its graphics redone in 3d for the N64 version -- maybe because Nintendo wouldn't let them release it in 2d?

Hah, no. Nintendo actually had that game made and published it. By the time C&C for N64 released, the 2d graphics would have looked very badly dated; it's a 1995 game, and the N64 version released in 1999. The graphical overhaul was put in in order to give the game something new, so people who'd played it before might get it again, and to make up for the fact that they had to cut all of the FMVs out of the N64 version, I believe. It was a good idea, and it worked -- C&C 64 plays pretty well, while the still-2d Starcraft 64 struggles much worse on the system.

Also, Nintendo published most of the few 2d games they made for N64 in the US (Yoshi's Story, for instance), and even made some that only released in the US and in some cases Europe, such as Pokemon Puzzle League and Dr. Mario 64.

I'm not sure, but you're seriously moving the goalposts if your claim becomes "Sony had some level, however minute, of bias against 2d." Maybe they did, but if that was all you said, I wouldn't even be in this conversation, because I don't find that controversial or particularly interesting.

It's pretty absurd that you're still saying that it was only "minute" given the evidence that has been presented, but at least that's something.

It doesn't. But the quantity and variety of 2d games that were released does seem to disprove the notion that Sony had some sort of concrete policy against 2d games.

Well sure, but I never said that they had that.