Talk:Sega Saturn/Archive 4

So....
Indrian, Red Phoenix, Sergecross73, et al.--Do you think Sega Saturn could be a viable Featured Article Candidate? I must confess that I have never nominated an article before, and generally prefer to edit without the pressure of such responsibilities, but I think this page is at least comparable in quality to certain other FAs I've seen. Any suggestions?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have done a brilliant job with the article. If it's not FA ready, it's at least close.  I will give it a more thorough look later today or tomorrow.  One thing I will say is make sure that all your citations are in the same format, all your images are tagged with appropriate use info, and that there are no duplicate links.  These are the kinds of nitty gritty things people will look for.  One other thought: on May 13, a new book on the rivalry between Nintendo and Sega in the 16-bit era is being released.  The book is focusing on the Sega side and on Tom Kalinske in particular.  While largely about the Genesis, it sounds like it will cover Kalinske's entire tenure with the company, so there may be some useful insights for this article.  I will be purchasing it digitally on release day. Indrian (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple of archived GameSpot links have just recently died, but thankfully they should not be too hard to replace.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never nominated an article to be an FA, but the article is looking really great, and you guys have really hashed out a ton of little details until things were worded perfectly, so I would think its ready or close to it too. My only initial suggestion is in regards to the "Sega Pluto". Right now, its just one single sentence, all by itself. Is there anything else to be said about it, or anywhere it could be placed where it flows any better? Sergecross73   msg me   01:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indrian and I have been tweaking the article, so it looks better now than ever.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the Sega of Japan links has died, so I removed it. If anyone knows of an alternative source for the information I deleted, feel free to restore it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Launch sales, again
As mentioned earlier, both Kent and IGN's "History of Sega" refer to an initial shipment of 200,000 Saturns which immediately sold out. Kent says Sega waited to ship more units until the PlayStation's December 3rd launch. It turns out that Edge, February 1995, gives a strikingly similar account to Kent: "Sega's Saturn arrived to a rapturous reception in Japan on November 22. 200,000 units sold out instantly on day one, but according to a Sega source, the company held back 300,000 units so it would have stocks available when the PlayStation appeared." I don't see where the 250,000 figure in Retro Gamer comes from, and 200,000 in one day is a more impressive statistic anyway, so I will probably revise that section unless there are objections.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that confiurmed "sold out" to retailers (they mention stock being held back) or do they talk "sold out" to consumers? If the former than one could not actually say it "sold out" in the context you're using. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Edge says it "sold out"--that's not my language.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to the source? TheRealAfroMan (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer would be no--it's a magazine, and Edge hasn't posted it online--but Sega-16 forum member Sheath has graciously provided me with a PDF of the entire issue. Check page 8.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Link is now down.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wording seems weird, but I'll go with it. I'll look for more sources with similar wording and if I find any we can go over them. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would wait a little while for Indrian to respond in case I've missed something crucial, but I don't think I have here. I intend to revise the section shortly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Retro Gamer Source replacementy
The source that I have just removed recently, does have some information regarding certain aspects of Sega Saturn history. But notice, it is that nowhere in the Retro Gamer reference(s) does it have statements that tell of Sega's internal push to rush a hardware redesign (nor does it have anyone give the PlayStation reveal as the main cause for the redesign). Since the word "reportedly" was added, the source must actually have some type of confirmation of the Saturn's quick redesign. Otherwise, we can't use it.

One possible replacement may be the MCV Sega Saturn interview with Steve Race, a Sega employee during the Saturn's development, who directly told the interviewer that Sega rushed/slapped the console together in short time. It however, does not DIRECTLY state the console was REDESIGNED so that source may need to be discussed more.

Any other source can be used, as long as it has a reliable first hand statement supporting the claim that Sega redesigned the Saturn quickly during development. It's only this specific source that can not be used, the sentence otherwise sf fine as it is.

For reference, the full sentence in question is, "In response, Sega reportedly redesigned the Saturn quickly to compete with Sony's new console." TheRealAfroMan (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking this over, I have come across a few things that I feel the need to say here. Although we must go with what RS say (and there is evidence to support the claim), I've never been fully convinced that the Saturn was redesigned, in part due to the timeframe concerns I mentioned earlier and the lack of anecdotal evidence. I see a lot of similarities between its design and that of Sega's dual processing arcade games (Afterburner II, Outrun) as well as the Sega CD (which features a MC68000 processor that works in tandem with the Genesis' MC68000 processor and also includes internal back-up memory like the Saturn). The SH-1 that controls the CD-ROM drive may well be there to keep load times down ("Loading times are short. The spectacular boot sequence (in which the Sega Saturn logo coalesces from spinning polygon shards) takes five seconds, and you can expect Virtua Fighter to be up and running in another six or seven. This has confounded critics who said that even double-speed CD drives couldn't compete with carts. Sega (and Sony) have proved that with dedicated processors handling the drive (the SH-1 in the Saturn's case), negligible access times are possible."-Edge, February 1995).
 * Ignoring the digression above, I'm also skeptical of Sony's Steve Race as a source about the Saturn's development. In Next Generation, May 1995, Race says: "If you take a look at the architecture of Saturn, you can see they went around with a shopping cart and basically chose components. Then, having seen the Sony product (if we believe what we read) they re-engineered, got back out their shopping cart, and picked up a variety of Hitachi chips that they're now using." Likewise, Race cites "People in or close to the video games industry" in the MCVUK source; he is referring to rumors, not claiming to have any inside information about a redesign.
 * One oddity I have discovered is a number of minor similarities between this article and the dubious (if largely accurate) self-published history of the Saturn by Sam Pettus. Like an earlier version of this article, Pettus describes the "GigaDrive" as the original successor to the Genesis, prior to the alleged redesign. Pettus also makes similar points, quoting Suzuki's comments on Saturn Virtua Fighter development and using the same language to describe Nakayama's supposed reaction to Sony's specs ("It has been said that when Hayao Nakayama finally realized just what Ken Kuratagi and his fellows had created, he proceeded to give [Sega R&D] the ass-chewing of their lives" versus Wikipedia's "Sega CEO Hayao Nakayama is said to have approached his research and development department team members and criticized them for allowing Sony to develop a console more powerful than theirs"). I would hardly be surprised if earlier versions of this page had even more in common with the Pettus article.
 * Incidentally, the following quotes cited by Pettus from Steve Palmer of NBA Jam fame would make an interesting addition, if they could be verified in a reliable source: "To learn to program the Saturn was to learn the machine. To learn to program the [PlayStation] was to learn C. Learning C is much easier than learning the hardware of a new machine, and with the Saturn, there was a lot of hardware to learn...There was not enough time for people to learn the hardware. The same would have been true of the [PlayStation], except you didn't need to learn how to talk to the [hardware]. The libraries took care of that for you. Sega's approach was to release hardware documentation for every aspect of the Saturn. That was understandable--it was the way everyone had done it before, and it's what programmers were used to, but the industry had changed. Video games were no longer a "niche" market, and the "big boys" had moved in. Time is money. Nobody was given the time to learn new hardware anymore."
 * Back to Afroman's point: Since both Red Phoenix and Indrian apparently have access to the Saturn "Retroinspection", it would be much appreciated if either of them could clarify what exactly it says about the redesign. Afroman has been persistently claiming that Retro Gamer does not say the redesign was rushed, and that this should be removed or replaced, but no-one as yet has defended the current language.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for some interesting info and great analysis. I'll try to respond to a few of these points as best I can.  First, here is exactly what the Saturn article in Retro Gamer says:


 * "A year before the launch [of the Saturn in late 1994] Sony Computer Entertainment formally announced that it intended to enter the console market with a 3D-capable machine that not only knocked the Saturn into a cocked hat, but blew the Model 1 board that gamers had been swooning over away. Sega was in major trouble.


 * The result was a complete redesign of the Saturn. Out went the simplistic single processor that had been inteded, and in went two SH-2 RISC processors, along with dual VDPs in a bid to create a machine that was capable of 3D performances somewhere between the Model 1 and the all new Model 2 board that was being prepared to launch with Daytona USA."


 * So as you can see, the article does not hedge its bets in any way.


 * Now, here's what I think, which is going to veer into the realm of speculation a wee bit. We know Saturn development started in early 1992 (late 1991 at the absolute outside), because we have a quote from a member of the team from June 1994 that the Saturn has been in development over two years.  While this does not allow us to pinpoint the start date, if it had been much earlier than that, this person would have said its been in development for three years (or four years, or what have you).  This allows us to dismiss the Giga Drive rumors entirely.  We know they started as rumors because the first mention of Giga Drive was in EGM's rumor column.  This was in late 1990, which disqualifies them as early Saturn whispers.  Maybe they got a whiff of the Sega CD, maybe it was arcade hardware, maybe it never existed at all.  Unless we can get a more solid primary source for the existence of a GigaDrive, we can safely assume that Pettus and Retro Gamer are regurgitating the material found in EGM, which is clearly identified as rumor and not fact.


 * As for Saturn, this is a little trickier. I believe the new info you presented above explains why an SH1 is included in the system, but we still have the two blocks of RAM at different speeds, which makes no sense from a design standpoint.  We also have the two processors being unable to access system RAM at the same time.  Now maybe this was a cost thing or an oversight since using dual-processors was so new at the time, but that seems an odd choice for a dual CPU setup, but makes sense if the board was originally designed with a single CPU in mind.  Of course, I am not particularly technical, so I could be wrong about all that and it could make more sense than I think it does.


 * We also have the rumored specs for the machine in late 1993 in Edge and Mean Machines which call for a single processor. Certain of these rumors called out the SH1, but I believe that is because they were probably using the chip as a placeholder in the system until the SH2 was ready.  Next Generation makes it pretty clear that the SH2 was specifically designed for Saturn, but it did not reach first silicon until 1993, so earlier prototypes would have needed to use something else.  It is interesting to note that those rumors do mention a 27 MHz clock speed, which was close to the actual Saturn chip clock speed and beyond the capabilities of a normal SH1.  This lends credence to the idea that the system was originally designed for a single SH2 processor.  The rumors also mentions 3Mb of RAM, which is about what the system would have without that 1Mb block of RAM that according to the forum post linked in the GA review runs at a different speed.  That's not a strictly reliable source, but it fits well with the other circumstantial evidence.


 * Finally, it looks like the story that the Saturn was redesigned because of Sony was pervasive in early 1995. Next Generation mentioned it in February 1995, and you have the Steve Race quote above.  There is nothing direct from Sega, but again, the circumstantial evidence is compelling on some level.


 * So where does that leave us? I believe Sega redesigned the Saturn at some point because they realized that a single SH2 microprocessor would not be powerful enough for a 3D system.  I am not certain exactly when this occurred.  Its certainly possibly it happened earlier than the PlayStation launch, but we cannot really say either way from the direct primary sources.  This is why I am happy to give the secondary literature the benefit of the doubt.  My guess though, is that the secondary literature is pulling this info from the same magazine sources we are, which did have the habit of reporting rumor as fact.  Regardless, I think this is a story that we do not have all the details on yet. Indrian (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Yes, I think someone in the Sega-16 thread we discussed earlier also noted the odd 27 MHz clock speed cited by Edge in 1993.) I would be lying if I didn't say your analysis above is the most compelling, plausible scenario consistent with all of the evidence currently available. But what do you think about the description "quickly", as in Sega "redesigned the Saturn quickly", which Afroman finds so objectionable? Given that Sega was planning to get the Saturn out before the end of 1994 and beat the PlayStation to the market (as they ultimately did), a late 1993 redesign would have only added to the rush, but I can't say I feel strongly about the adjective either way.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I decided to start taking a more in-depth look at Next Generation as a result of all this, and I have found something interesting. In the inaugural January 1995 issue, the magazine did small profiles of each of the next-gen systems.  In the section on Saturn, they claim that Sega was tipped off by a friendly third-party publisher nine months previously about the PlayStation's abilities and has been playing catch-up ever since (for timing context, the issue was going to press before the November launch of the Saturn and PlayStation, so that's nine months from late October/early November 1994, not nine months from January 1995).  The issue still labels reports of a redesign as "rumors," but does note that third-party companies only recently received new specs and development tools from Sega.  Apparently, the difference in specs consisted of more processors to support the two CPUs.  I still believe the system started out with a single-CPU (indeed, Next Generation made that very statement in a February 1995 article), but it appears that moving to two SH-2s may not have been part of a response to Sony.  This is addiotnal evidence, however, that the system received a significant overhaul after the PlayStation was publicly announced.  Once again the plot thickens. Indrian (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I recently stumbled onto an old UST article saying that the second processor was actually being tested a few months after development started. They say that the processor was originally planned to be added to fight back against the 3DO, and was not fully included until a few months before Sony's announcement.


 * My main issue with this though, is we already know that the 32X was in response to the Jaguar, why would the 3DO, which is technically weaker, be the console they would suddenly focus on? The 32X came out late 1994 right? So none of that adds up.


 * But there are still even more problems with this article, like how their "insider" source gave them this information and while I respect the fact they would not name this "insider", they won't say where the insider is from either. The rest of the insert continues to be suspicious when they start mentioning that the 32X was made in response to the SNES chip power because "Sega cartridges did not allow additional hardware" and "Sega already reached its limit with games like MKIII and Sonic&K" which is a load of crap.


 * But since this story is something I have never heard of, I'll search the net to see if there are any similar stories (which I doubt)just in case any of this turns out to be even partially true. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How do we "already know" that the 32X was Sega's "response to the Jaguar", and not just a dramatically more powerful and cost effective way to bring games like Virtua Racing to Genesis for less than $100 a pop? (The Saturn's dual-CPU architecture was decided upon by the end of 1993, as demonstrated by Sega of America's designing the 32X with two SH-2s in January 1994; while the Sega of America employees interviewed for the 32X "Retroinspection" stated that the Saturn's design was finalized "long before" then, Retro Gamer apparently saw no contradiction between that and the popular theory of the "Gigadrive" drastically redesigned starting in December 1993 which they so uncritically regurgitated elsewhere.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would a Saturn retrospective by Damien McFerran still be reliable if posted on Nintendo Life? Because, if it is, I might consider adding it to the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a green check on it on the massive list at the bottom of WP:VG/S, which means its usable. I commonly use the source in article I create or rewrite, and its never been challenged as far as I can remember. Sergecross73   msg me   12:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I seem to recall Indrian objecting to Nintendo Life during the GA review, but McFerran's NL article (only a few days old) appears to be substantially similar to and is more recent than his "Retroinspection". If McFerran speaks with some kind of authority, then I would certainly hope that would carry over. (Not that I personally give much credence to most gaming journalists, RS rules aside; I wouldn't be surprised if McFerran's "analysis" of the Saturn's development consisted of a few gossip columns or was even taken from Wikipedia, as evidenced by sentences like "It is said that when Sega CEO Hayao Nakayama saw the impressive specifications for the PlayStation at the end of 1993, he confronted his engineering team and demanded to know how an upstart like Sony had been able to create a system which was more powerful than the Saturn." Sigh...so much of this narrative is so standardized and so widely repeated that it naturally tends to arouse my skepticism.)
 * I'm wondering if we should mention any of the conflicting rumors, even if we bury the quotes ("Sega has spent the last nine months or so playing catch-up with Sony after a publisher-friend tipped Sega off about the power of PlayStation. New specs and development tools only recently arrived with third parties, superseding Sega's original description of the project. The main difference between them is apparently the addition of more dedicated processors taking work away from the two CPUs."-Next Generation, January 1995) in the citations. Historical retrospectives might seem more ideal, but I really don't take too many game journalists to be serious historians.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding NintendoLife, yeah, I believe they're more of a "barely" reliable source, and I doubt they'd be much of an authority on the Saturn when they're a Nintendo-based website that wasn't around for the Saturn, and then Saturn has virtually no presence on any Nintendo system, as far as I can think of. I would think it would be usable for non-contentious information, but probably not for anything we have a contradictory reliable source for. Sergecross73   msg me   15:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing NL notes is the popularity of the Saturn among hardcore/import gamers due to its selection of 2D fighters and shooters, which is true but slightly difficult to source. The NL article is also the first good secondary source I've found so far on the Saturn's cartridge slot, "which permitted the use of RAM and ROM cartridges to further augment" the system's capabilities (McFerran focuses on 2D fighters, but this is also part of how Sega was planning to get the the visually astounding Virtua Fighter 3 to run on the Saturn in scaled-down form). (While he may write for NL, McFerran has personally described himself as a big Sega fan on message boards, and his "Retroinspection" is rivaled only by 1UP as the most-cited source currently used in the article.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, honestly I think he took notice of our work here and used Wikipedia as his main source. The timing and the similarity to this article makes this highly suspect.  Indrian (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, maybe I shouldn't use it even for non-redundant content...TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been checking some of the old magazine sources too, partly because Afroman claimed that there was no source for Nakayama berating Sega of Japan's R&D. Unsurprisingly, our resident Jak sock was mistaken or lying, because Next Generation December 1995 is in fact the original source for the language subsequently echoed by Pettus, Wikipedia, and McFerran: "On hearing the news, Sega's President Hayao Nakayama allegedly marched straight into the Saturn development labs and berated his team for allowing themselves to be beaten by Sony, a mere newcomer to the videogame world." (Technically, this is already sourced, but Afroman claimed it failed verification and may have been confused by the fact that the citation applied to two sentences.) In my judgement, this Next Generation article is leaps and bounds more credible than McFerran's "Retroinspection", because it is based on interviews with Sega and Hitachi technicians while McFerran's article isn't really based on anything. Next Generation tells us "It was too late to make major alterations to the system, so, at the cost of pushing the launch schedule slightly, a video processor was added to the board to boost its 2D and 3D texture-mapping abilities." However, "The real processing power of the Saturn comes from two Hitachi SH2 32-bit RISC processors running at 28 MHz" that "were specially commissioned by Sega and are optimized for fast 3D graphics work." I don't think the way Next Generation is synthesized with McFerran is appropriate; even though the current language has a nice narrative flow, the sources are not in agreement on the scope of the redesign. Without checking the sources, one might suppose that Kazuhiro Hamada's comment about the SH-2 being chosen for cost and efficiency reasons refers to McFerran's massive "Gigadrive" redesign. I also believe that the way this article focuses on negative comments about the Saturn from sources like "Curmudgeon Gamer", while omitting the programmers in Next Generation who praise the Saturn as "a real coder's machine" with greater "flexibility" than the PlayStation and hail its "phenomenal" audio, results in a subtle POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC) BTW: Hamada says "we realized", independently of Sony, "that a single CPU would not be enough to calculate a 3D world" (suggesting that the original design may well have been one SH-2 but the project evolved from there). I see no reason to believe McFerran, who apparently got his information from Pettus or Wikipedia, over Hamada.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for laying that all out. I agree with your assessment.  Both the January and December issues of Next Generation allude to the redesign adding additional graphics chips, not CPUs.  The February issue does claim that it was originally a single-CPU system, but does not claim the second SH2 was added after the PlayStation announcement.  The timing makes sense too.  Next Generation states that Sega learned of the PlayStation's capabilities nine months before the article in the January issue, which was actually written around October 1994.  That would be around February or so, and Sony had its first major demonstration for third parties in January.  This also dovetails nicely with Scot Bayless's recollections that the dual-CPU architecture had been decided on long before January 1994.


 * I believe Sega commissioned the SH2 specifically for the Sautrn as implied by Hamada'a comments, as it was optimized to function similarly to a DSP and provide 3D capabilities. I think several months into the project, they realized that one SH2 provided insufficient power, so they added a second.  This is probably why they are in a weird master-slave relationship rather than functioning as true parallel processors, as they were just trying to give the system a little boost and probably did not want to incur the additional cost of a true parallel processing setup.  When they learned of the PlayStation's capabilities after the big third-party demo, they panicked and grabbed another VDP (and maybe some additional RAM) to make sure the system had the best graphics it possibly could.  Interestingly, the VDP's were used for things like sprites, backgrounds, scaling, and rotation, while the SH2's were the primary chips for the 3D capabilities.  Therefore, it appears the response to the PlayStation was to double down on 2D, which makes sense considering the Saturn's reputation as a superior 2D console that had some issues with 3D.  Of course, it could be that the functions handled by the second VDP were being handled by the SH2s and that by breaking out some 2D functionality, the CPUs could be more focused on 3D.  I think we should use the Next Generation info for the redesign and ignore Retro Gamer in this case.  As a general rule, I find that Retro Gamer articles that are not based on direct primary accounts tend to have a lot of errors in them.  For example, both their NES and Atari 2600 retroinspections (not the more recent 2600 article by Marty Goldberg, but an earlier one) are pretty bad as well. Indrian (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, and I will get on it. I greatly appreciate all of the time you have put into sorting this out. I think I will use Next Generation February 1995 as well as January/December, because it is even more explicit about the SH-2: "But, of course, Hitachi's link with the Saturn project goes much deeper. In 1993, the Japanese electronics company set up a joint venture with Sega to develop a CPU for the Saturn based on proprietary Hitachi technology. Several Hitachi staff were seconded to Sega's Saturn division (it's now believed that the same team is now working on preliminary 64-bit technology for Sega), and the result was the SH-2".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It may also be worth noting (even though I haven't checked all of the sources) that both Trip Hawkins and Edge (closely related to Next Generation), as quoted in this Sega-16 thread, gave the same account of the Saturn's development as this article now does. Hawkins says Sega had to use two SH-2s because the chip wasn't particularly high performance; Edge reinforces your point about Sega doubling down on 2D after PlayStation's capabilities became clear. In addition, this 1993 Economist article (Highbeam subscription required) alludes to the close relationship between Sega and Hitachi, which have "teamed up" "to [jointly] develop new machines".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to believe that the dual-processor approach was decided upon relatively early, and was not a last-minute response to testing that revealed the SH-2 to be underpowered. Bayless says that the design was finalized "long before" January 1994, but the SH-2 was only finished circa October 1993. Next Generation says that the Saturn's design, sans the extra VDP, was finished by the time the 3DO launched in North America, which was in early October 1993. The criticisms many commentators (Kent, Hawkins) have directed at a single SH-2 make sense if the SH-2 was designed around the Saturn's dual-CPU architecture in the first place, and it was specially commissioned by Sega. Of course, that doesn't mean dual-processing was part of the plan when the Saturn project began in 1992. In any case, the article currently provides enough wiggle room to avoid any uncertainties.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Other editors came to similar conclusions in 2008, although I am inclined to believe the IP over Kensuke Aida.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, you claim I lied yet then say that I may not have lied and may have been confused? In reply to your other comment, you should have known that the two primary reasons (in the wiki ref) that the 32x was pushed was because of the Jaguar (either in fear of it cutting sales, or to transition players towards its more powerful console) as your very own edits have included this information (which is from that RG source). TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * AfroMan (Jakandsig), you are generally wrong about this article. Why do you think this article has gotten "worse" for you? Because Red Phoenix got it to GA status. I wasn't part of the majority of this discussion. I was busy making userboxes while you made harsh complaints about the entirety of Sega Saturn. You thought it was better before it is now GA. You were "John Mayor ERS" when you deleted "fake" and "unsourced" content out of the page several times in a edit war with me. But currently there goes you doing almost nothing to improve the article through this mistaken rhetoric about its content, especially when it comes to sources. If you're misrepresenting various sources all along, if you're a sockpuppet, and if you were angry, rude, hostile, disruptive, and violated Wikipedia rules, then you don't belong to Wikipedia at all. Sergecross73 must block you and your CrimeInvesigation&Patrol sockpuppet now, then administrators like Serge would block any other Jak sockpuppet at first sight. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 22:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea what's been going on so I am going to say this one time and one time only because your edits and reactions are....very..simialr....to.... this.... Looking at your editing history. I don't like your false and over-exaggerated claims btw. And putting words into my mouth I never actually said? Like "I thought it was better?" Then you go back to a part of a different discussion that was days ago way at the top of this page? I know you aren't one of the...Quickest for lack of a better word... Users on the site, but are you even looking? I just posted 4 constructive edits for discussion. I believe I best steer clear of you in the future. (it's almost like you were waiting for me to post against to. Creepy pasta.) TheRealAfroMan (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You just blamed me for your problems. I didn't do those problems. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 23:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)