Quantcast

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: I think they scewed up

  1. #1
    So's your old man! Raging in the Streets zetastrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    3,713
    Rep Power
    91

    Default I think they scewed up

    I've always thought about what a huge missed opportunity Sega had with the Saturn. They could have made an awesome new 2D Sonic game, but they seemed to think that they had to make a 3D one to compete with sony, which they ended up scrapping anyway. There's no way a 2D Sonic 4 would have not sold. It probably would have looked great with the Saturn's 2D capabilities. I freaking hate sony with their "2D is obsolete, 3D is the future" crap.

  2. #2
    WCPO Agent Scooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Waverly, NE, USA
    Posts
    901
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Well, where are we now? 3D does dominate 2D by quite a stretch too.

    I think it would be more appropriate to blame Sega for letting Sony dictate what Sega did and did not chose to do. While 3D was all the rage at the time, and still is of course, I still firmly believe that good games are good games and that Sega could have sold lots of successful 2D games if they would have just made GOOD 2D games at the time and brought them to market. They created their own success in the Genesis era by doing what they wanted to do instead of letting Nintendo dictate to them what they would and would not do.
    Ow! My small intestine!

  3. #3
    Child in Time Nameless One Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    73
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Another franchise that made its 32-bit debut in 2D was Castlevania. The game "Symphony of the Night" (1997) was very well received and is still considered one of the best games of its kind. Legacy of Kain had average 2D graphics, and it was a minor hit because of its story and gameplay. I don't see a reason why Sonic's debut couldn't have been a vast and amazing 2D game for Saturn, despite the fact that 3D games were (and still are, of course) the "real" thing and what gaming is supposed to be. I agree that what matters is if it's a good game, and not if it's 2D or 3D.

  4. #4
    Angry Liberal Arts Major Hero of Algol Iron Lizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bisbee, AZ
    Age
    44
    Posts
    7,861
    Rep Power
    113

    Default

    Everyone would have cried "Why isn't it 3d?" back then. Games like Castlevania ruled but they were the exception.

  5. #5
    Child in Time Nameless One Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    73
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    There were people saying the same about Castlevania SotN. Magazines gave it comments like "it sure looks like a horse's ass but it's fun to play" etc. In the end all that mattered was that it was good, unlike Castlevania's 3D history which is similar to Sonic's (i.e. mediocre at best).

  6. #6
    Systemwars vs Sega-16 Master of Shinobi gamegenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    IN, USA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,311
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    I agree with Iron. I remember the mid nineties quite greatly and there was a huge shifting occurring then in graphics. 2D seem to have ran it's course. It was either going to be VR or 3D to be the future of gaming. Thank god VR failed, and only Nintendo was caught naked when the lights were turned on (Virtual Boy).

    In hindsight Sega blew it by distancing itself from Nintendo and going after Sony. Sonic was a competitor to Mario, and when the Nintendo 64 debuted with Super Mario 64 many looked to Sega then to come out with a new Sonic, and Sega failed to deliver.

  7. #7
    So's your old man! Raging in the Streets zetastrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    3,713
    Rep Power
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    There were people saying the same about Castlevania SotN. Magazines gave it comments like "it sure looks like a horse's ass but it's fun to play" etc. In the end all that mattered was that it was good, unlike Castlevania's 3D history which is similar to Sonic's (i.e. mediocre at best).
    SOTN looks like a horse's ass? Stupid ignorant reviewer. Question: which game looks better today, SOTN or any 3D PSone game? I hate how Sony put the idea that 2D isn't needed anymore in younger gamers' heads. At least I'm able to recognize that the gameplay makes the game. Most people my age only care about how good a game looks. Being a classic gamer is very lonely for a 17 year old. I can only discuss it with people online. sigh

  8. #8
    Blast processor Melf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cabo Rojo, PR
    Posts
    9,804
    Rep Power
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    There were people saying the same about Castlevania SotN. Magazines gave it comments like "it sure looks like a horse's ass but it's fun to play" etc.
    A lot of those magazines are the same ones that later called it a "2D classic" and went on about how gorgeous it was. I guess they fell off the bandwagon.

  9. #9
    Road Rasher Diosoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    424
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Bernie Stolar killed the Saturn. Claimed RPGs wouldn't sell, which basically gave all the big seller titles to Sony without a fight. In fact, he basically refused lots of titles that would have been big sellers. Of course, he tried the same stuff at Sony first and they had the good sense to fire him... though one has to wonder if Sony didn't set him up to go ruin the Saturn.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •