Plus, it also didn't help the Saturn itself was a confusing machine for developers. John Linneman at DF did an episode on it for DF Retro and did a deep dive. It was made more as a machine that could do 2D games really well, but it made it difficult to make 3D games for it, which is where the industry was headed once N64/ Mario 64 hit and it was clear 3D was the new thing. But the system was rushed and they weren't forward thinking enough to see how important 3D would be. So, that didn't help! Also the controller was just a bummer and nothing special.
Well, kind of a problem with that simplification is, the Saturn was
always going to have 3D support from Day 1. 3D wasn't an afterthought; it's just that SEGA though 3D on the level of Model 2 wouldn't be cost-effective in a console until the following gen, and they also didn't want to completely encroach on their arcade market.
That's why Saturn's 3D at first was likely going to be more modest, probably something like half of Model 1's polygonal rate but supporting some form of texture-mapping (Model 1 could do texture mapping in theory, but it had to be software-based). They were considering an NEC V60, same CPU in Model 1 system, but probably a MUCH simpler/cheaper DSP setup than that arcade board, which is probably what the SCU DSP was being developed for.
And I'm not sure if VDP2 was a part of the original Saturn/GigaDrive design spec or if it was, if it was a much simpler version. I.e if things like the 3D rotation planes were added at a later date or even post-PS1 announcement in October 1993. We know for sure the 2nd SH-2 was post-PS1 announcement, for example.
Burning Ranger uses the Sega Saturn's memory, CPU, and polygon count to its fullest. The most advanced Sega Saturn games are Sonic R, Duke Nukem 3D, Burning Rangers, Last Bronx, and Nights.
A hypothetical PS1 version of Burning Rangers would have some geometry tweaks, but the end result would be a 30fps game.
A hypothetical N64 version of Burning Rangers would have some texture cuts, but the end result would be an uglier game because texture cuts aren't really the best tradeoff.
How would you even quantify Burning Rangers used the memory to its fullest? Like what metric is used to measure that? Same with polygon count, which gets affected by things like polygon shading type, texturing, polygon size, overdraw, and general game logic in the same frame?
As for a version on N64, well the N64 did support mipmapping and had a 4 MB RAM Expansion cart; games like Banjo Tooie and Conker's Bad Fur Day had amazing texture work so there would've been ways to get equivalent or even slightly better textures from a Burning Rangers on N64. Also, custom microcode for the RSP could've boosted polygon fillrate significantly, if the team got approval from Nintendo of course.
Many developers had a hard time working on the system and many said the DC or more so the Game Cube was easier to work with, not that made any difference to developers when the market share was so good
Even Shinji Mikami had to work on the PS2 after calling the hardware crap and how he wouldn't work on it.
TBF, I imagine many of the devs saying Xbox was easier, were from the PC scene where x86 was the standard and they already had some years of experience with earlier DirectX APIs from Windows 95-onward. Which for many console-centric devs of the era, would've seemed alien. You definitely get that impression from most of the Windows CE ports on Dreamcast, which seemed to always have performance issues one way or another compared to Dreamcast games that ignored Windows CE altogether.
The Gamecube, I would say was just overall an easier system to design for. Nintendo & Silicon Graphics learned a lot from the mistakes of the N64. But the small storage format of the mini-DVD discs would present its own challenges for 3P ports to the platform, so in a way they negated some of the advances they made between generations.
-Virtua Fighter had popping while looking more dated than Toshiden.
-Daytona USA, although is a better game, looked archaic compared to Ridge Racer.
-Games that I've played on my Saturn or on a friend's one that looked worst: Loaded, Destruction Derby, WipEout…
-I remember every third party with its mandatory Saturn vs PS section on the review where rarely the Saturn one was better (Marvel Super Heroes was).
The Saturn didn't run out of steam, it was born being steamrolled by the PlayStation.
This is just outright a bad take. VF and Toshinden were just two of multiple fighting games on both systems. Games like Zero Divide looked great on both and in some areas arguably looked better on the Saturn (those games have awesome OSTS btw). A lot of the 3P multiplats you mentioned were PS1 originals that then got converted to Saturn, usually outsourced to cheap 3P porting studios and rushed in a constrained timeframe.
If you took Saturn games that extensively used VDP2's tiled rendering approach for Mode 7-style 3D backgrounds, and ported those to PlayStation, you often got a compromised port in areas related to the background graphics because the PS1 doesn't have a VDP2 that can render an equivalent of 500 Mpixels/sec for "free" through tiled compression. All of that would have to be replicated through polygons and subdividing those polygons as they pulled closer to the near plane of the view frustum ("camera").
You guys always argue graphics but that had little to do with it. Sega didn't carry over any of their big series that were popular on the genesis / mega drive. They had a rushed launch. They had distribution problems. They had internal problems. They pushed shallow arcade ports as their big games. They shunned rpgs ports to NA. They didn't have the money to make deals with third parties like Sony did. They didn't provide any software sdk for 2 years after launch.
There's even more but I think you guys get the picture. It was a massive fuck up across the board.
Yeah SEGA messed up big IMO by not bringing over IP like Streets of Rage (tho that one was planned), or Eternal Champions. An enhanced port of Eternal Champions: Challenge From The Dark Side for Saturn with, say, super-enhanced backgrounds, updated character animation frames and some bonus modes for some 3D stuff, could've done well for its American launch when Sony had timed exclusivity to the 32-bit home console port of Mortal Kombat 3.
I kinda disagree about SEGA not having the money to compete for 3P exclusives, tho, because they did have some that gen. They got timed exclusivity on Tomb Raider, for example, and the typical prices for timed exclusives that gen was probably WAYYY smaller than even the gen afterwards, let alone nowadays, because game budgets were a lot smaller back in that gen. SEGA had the money to compete for 3P exclusivity pricing that gen, but they went and spent hundreds of millions on failed (but cool) ventures like SEGA Gameworks instead.
You are mixxing everything up bro. Surely the arcade board version of VF1 is far more elaborated than what a hardware priced for home console market can do. However, stating that the 1994/1995 version of VF1 on Saturn, or whatever nonsense you made up, maxxed the Saturn is a complete joke.
Yeah there is no timeline where the VF1 port to Saturn maxed the system out. You'd have to be very unaware of the Saturn's technical capabilities to make such a claim. Also the Saturn had hardware-implemented texture-mapping, something the Model 1 lacked.
So even if Model 1 could push more polys, Saturn games could fake more detail through texture mapping. Same with PS1 games compared to the System 21 arcade board from Namco.
.
. The list of why Sega failed is so extensive, now we are talking about Soccer, I mean Football!