What do you consider Atari?

[Warmsignal]

i dont think that we had 2d sprites only if it wasnt for sony

ocarina of time and super mario 64 exist afer all 3d games where the future. in terms of fluent gameplay it was the n64. ps1 was in general for way slower less fluent games

n64 had pretty much no 2d games at all all aboard the 3d train with carts while sony had a ton of them. heck ps1 had tons of 2d fighting games that western saturn owners did not get and where excluded to japan only.

even in 2d ps1 has a ton of great games. action platformers run & gun shoot em ups.

there are exceptions but those where mostly 2d not 3d like mario 64 or ocarina of time majoras mask you name it.

ps1 could not handle action packed 3d games aka the reason why games like FF VII resident evil had camera angles at fixed positions.

fast pace action games like mario 64 ocarina of time or smash bros would not work on ps1

also it seems to me that atari jaguar lacked great developers. withouth developers your games are mediocre doesnt matter if the console had decent or excellent specs.

Yes, but the final product that became the N64 was in response to what Sony had did. Other hardware producers didn't quite have the opportunity or the resources. Nintendo had the best opportunity to try and beat them at their own game, although ultimately the console wasn't nearly as successful. For all it's polygonal prowess, it had it's shortcomings.

You have to look at this from the perspective of the time in which it all transpired, rather than retrospectively. Sony wasn't the only reason 3D came about, but they played a huge role in propelling it forward. The PlayStation was all about the theory of polygon intensive games, even back in the early stages of it's hardware development. Few others were even contemplating this, as it was quite a leap forward from the early 90s. Once it became clear that Sony's machine was going to be capable of what it was, everyone else basically crapped their pants or tried to save face. It was a game changer for both SEGA and Nintendo, and pretty much game over for the rest.

It's true that most were not on board with the Jaguar for it's complex multi-processor architecture. Atari wasn't offering people much help. A lot of games were in fact ports of 16-bit games, which didn't even utilize the two 64-bit processors it had, as it was easier to use it's go-between 16-bit processor to port a game and call it a day. Moral of the story back then was not to have multi-processor hardware.

[bikingjahuty]

My Atari/Sega comment was comparing late 70s Atari and how successful they were on the console and arcade fronts, to how they floundered heavily in the mid and late 80s, all the way into the 90s with the Lynx and Jag. Likewise Sega was up there with Nintendo in the early 90s, and they also dominated the arcades at that time; then they released all their failed Genesis add ons, then the Saturn which flopped, and then the Dreamcast, which was their last stand.


I'm not disputing that Sega didn't have anything good coming out after their Genesis glory day; personally I like the Saturn and Dreamcast more than the Genesis, in fact the Dreamcast is my favorite console of all time. However, their demise was similar, at least in terms of their prominence as hardware devs.

[sworddude]

There is one major difference though

The atari market the era in the end of it's dominacne, the videogame market in general was dying at the time until The nes saved it

When sega was failing on the other hand the videogame market was booming tons of exciting games in both 2 but obviously 3d with ps1 n64 and the upcoming ps2 as the final nail in the coffin.

Quite a different scenario. If not for the nintendo NES atari couldnt even produce an atari jaguar because the market would have been gone by than. with the atari jaguar it was more like atari refusing to die and being some leftovers on the ground somewhere on the road competing with giants.