Talk:Sega Saturn/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this for you Red, though I probably will not get to it until tomorrow.
 * Oh, you caught me by surprise that you picked up this review so quickly. I'm honored, and I'll be glad to wait.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 04:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy
So I think the best way to do this is to take two separate passes at the article. Before I get to the heart of the GA criteria, there are several accuracy concerns that need to be addressed. I specifically wanted to review this article because there is some bad misinformation and speculation taken as fact that has crept into the few reliable sources on the topic and I was afraid that a less well-versed reviewer might pass this along on the GA criteria without delving deeper into these factual issues. Once these issues have been addressed to my satisfaction, I will do a second evaluation that addresses issues of structure, coverage, image and reference formatting, etc. With that in mind, here are my first round of comments:

✅ *Original designs for the Saturn began in the early 1990s at Sega of Japan's research and development department, as "GigaDrive" The GigaDrive name comes up sometimes as a code name for what became the Saturn, but this appears to be just rumor and speculation rather than verifiable fact. The GigaDrive name apparently first appeared in EGM #15 in October 1990. This is well before the Saturn was in development, as an interview with a Sega product manager in June 1994 reveals that the system had been in development just over two years at that point (and that specifically includes the conception stage). Looking at the text of that original EGM article, the news about GigaDrive is merely part of their rumor section and even the author himself is not particularly convinced by what he has heard. The common belief today is that this "Gigadrive" project was probably actually the Sega CD. As for the name, it continues to appear sporadically for a couple of years, but there is no proof it was actually an official code name for anything. It would be okay to include the Gigadrive name in the article, but you would need to say something like "rumors of a 32-bit Sega console first surfaced in 1990, when EGM reported that a new system code-named 'Gigadrive' was in development. While this name has never been publicly confirmed by Sega, the system did eventually acquire the code name 'Saturn.'
 * Retro Gamer hedges their bets here by saying "early 1990s" as well. You don't happen to have access to this article with EGM, do you?  It would be an interesting read.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This forum post quotes the material in EGM 15 and 16. I do not have access to 15, but I can confirm the poster quotes 16 accurately.  Long story short, GigaDrive does not appear to have ever been a name for the Saturn and may not have been the name of anything at all. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Check me, I think I've got this weeded out. Phew, the tough part about accuracy in these circumstances is that it's tricky to weed out what is and what isn't the actual, synthesized truth.  It's taking me a little while to get through all of these; I'm actively working them out one at a time.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is still a problem here. The GigaDrive name appears to have been invented by the press.  It would be better to first state that rumors first circulated about a new 32-bit console in 1990 that the gaming press labelled GigaDrive, then go with the quote from the Sega employee that indicates that development actually started in 1992.  Then we can say the project acquired the internal codename Saturn, which ended up being the final name.  These are all facts backed in sources and sidesteps the issue of whether it was actually named GigaDrive by Sega without ignoring the name entirely.  To do it any other way risks spreading GigaDrive as an official Sega codename when it may not be true. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned EGM here specifically since that's the earliest occurrence we have, and I removed the future release dating of GigaDrive as that's more than likely speculation. Hopefully that fixes it.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to go in-depth on this right now, but since I believe I may not have made my original objection completely clear, I did want to pop on for a second to further explain. Rumors of a new console began circulating in 1990, but there is no evidence that Sega was actually working on anything at that time.  For all we know, these rumors could have started because of the Mega CD project, which was not publicly announced yet, they could have started because some arcade hardware was mistaken for consumer hardware, they could have just started because someone was bored one day.  The only concrete info we have is that the Saturn project was in development for "over two years" as of June 1994.  This implies a start date no later than early 1992.  Its okay to say that rumors of a new console began circulating in 1990.  It is not okay to say that Sega actually started to develop a console in 1990.  There are no good sources to support that claim. Indrian (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't clear. I feel like we've been beating around the bush this whole time.  It would have been simpler to say, "Your source is wrong.  Get rid of it."   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable source removal by fiat? That is the exact wrong way to do it.  Its also disingenuous to claim that if I said that without any proof that you would have not argued against it.  Also, I clearly stated in previous posts that "the GigaDrive name appears to have been invented by the press" and that "GigaDrive may not have been a code name for anything at all" and yet the name continued to appear in the article as an official code name for a 32-bit system.  I also stated in the very first comment that most observers believe the GigaDrive rumor started because of the development of the Sega CD rather than a 32-bit system, and followed that up by suggesting we mention a 32-bit system was rumored to be in development in 1990, but that there was no actual development until 1992.  Beating around the bush?  Hardly.
 * The reason I did not tell you to "get rid of it" is because I wanted to leave it up to you whether mentioning the GigaDrive rumor was worthwhile to the article. There is nothing wrong with saying that a 32-bit system was rumored in 1990; the only problem is treating that rumor as fact.  I even gave suggestions on how that could work.  I think it's only fair to let the nominator decide what he thinks is best so long as accuracy is maintained in the final results.  Finally, if you are going to be so sensitive about criticism regarding your editing, you should avoid being overly critical of another editor's reviewing.  We are all on the same side here. Indrian (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Responding to the PlayStation announcement, Sega redesigned the GigaDrive into the Saturn So this gets messy in a hurry, and there are probably not any good reliable sources to sort it out perfectly. It does not appear that the Saturn was redesigned so much as enhanced by cramming more chips and more RAM in.  This would explain why the board layout is so haphazard and why certain features were not well documented at launch and not used by early games.  There would have been no time to redesign the system and still hit the launch date.


 * According to specs published in Edge Magazine, the system was originally going to be powered by an SH1. This would make sense, because an SH1 is included as a CD-ROM controller on the final system, which is really overkill for that function.  These were rumored specs though, not from Sega itself, so they cannot be certain.  Even if the SH2 was planned from the start, it probably had just a single SH2 and a single VDP.  There is a fairly elaborate discussion about this here that includes some interesting technical information and includes scans and quotes from relevant magazine articles (be sure to click on some of Koolkitty's links to previous discussions).  The forum stuff is not a reliable source, of course, but the magazines they reference are useful for attempting to straighten this out.  We will not be able to come up with a perfect solution, but some of this material needs to be taken into account.
 * Actually, yes, Retro Gamer mentions GigaDrive as a single-CPU system, and yes, I know it's not made clear in the article (something I missed, I guess). Nothing about the SH1 has come up in anything I've looked at, though.  The role of Jupiter is one I didn't even go into because of its complexity and odd role as well in Project Mars, the Sega 32X.  I would happen to agree with you on the cramming chips in, and we can use Retro Gamer to back the addition of the second processor, but it will be tough to hammer out what really went down.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read through the forum post links I provided above, they provide information about 1990s magazine articles that discuss the SH1 and some of the other points. There is no definitive information on Sega's intent, so any discussion in this article on how Sega may have altered the Saturn in response to the PlayStation needs to be treated as speculation by reliable sources rather than as provable fact. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have any SH1 stuff here, but I've added the note from Retro Gamer about GigaDrive's single CPU planning and made it a little more ambiguous about whether or not Saturn was altered due to PlayStation. The problem with calling it speculation is that both Retro Gamer and Next Generation (a 1995 issue, no less), speak of it like they're absolutely certain of it - no bet hedging, nothing of that sort.  That being said, I've tried to remove the connection by creating a new paragraph.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is okay. Its not the whole truth, but I think its as far as we can get with currently available reliable sources and does not introduce any information that may be false. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's look at this from another perspective. 32X was born at the January 1994 CES following a teleconference with Hayao Nakayama, Joe Miller, Hideki Sato, Scot Bayless, and Marty Franz. You must have access to Retro Gamer's 32X "Retroinspection" (issue 77), since you used it in the Sega 32X page. It seems that the dual SH-2s inside the Saturn were already well-known by January 1994, when Franz sketched two SH-2 processors with individual frame buffers on a hotel notepad and 32X was conceived. In his Retro Gamer interview (pg. 47), Franz elaborates on his design: "We really liked the Hitachi SH-2 CPUs that the Saturn had and felt they were the star of the show." Bayless (perhaps unsurprisingly showing preference for his team's design) notes that while Saturn and 32X shared the same dual CPUs, they used them very differently: Saturn's hardware rendering was bottlenecked by a "very high" pixel overwrite rate and "memory access stalls," whereas 32X "did everything in software" but had "two fast RISC chips tied to great big frame buffers and complete control to the programmer." Bayless concludes (pg. 46) "There's a part of me that wishes the Saturn had adopted the 32X graphics strategy, but that ship had sailed long before the greenlight call from Nakayama." While I don't know just how how "long before" 1994 the Saturn's design was finalized, Bayless' recollection casts doubt upon the popular theory that Saturn was redesigned in response to the announcement of PlayStation's specs in November 1993.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence that Saturn was redesigned late in development is pervasive and convincing. One interview with a vague timeframe comment does not really refute it.  It's possible that Sega had a rough idea about the PlayStations capabilities before the public unveiling, of course.  If we change this it should just be to hedge bets on the timing by taking out the November 1993 date and saying it was tweaked when Sega learned of the PlayStation's capabilities. Indrian (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just the interviews; it's the fact that 32X was conceived in January 1994, at which point Saturn's shared dual-CPU approach must have been known throughout Sega. Either there was no redesign, Saturn was redesigned within one month, or Saturn was redesigned prior to PlayStation's public unveiling in November 1993. Since you are no doubt better informed about this from a technical point of view, I yield to your authority when it comes to determining which of these possibilities is most likely.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, first I want to be clear that I am not particularly technical. People far more technical than I, however, find it strange that the system uses an SH1 for a CD-ROM controller because that is complete overkill.  They also note that there are two different blocks of RAM with different speeds, which would be a really odd choice for a cohesive design.  It would therefore logically follow that the system was originally built around a single SH1 chip and less RAM.  This actually matches up perfectly with rumored specs published by Mean Machines and Edge in 1993.  While all rumors have to be taken with a grain of salt, the rumored specs and the strange final architecture sync up perfectly in this case.  As I understand it, plugging in two SH2 chips, a second VDP, and more RAM would not require extensive changes since the board would already be configured for an SH chip architecture.  I don't think its outside the realm of possibility that a decision could be made on that in November and up in a rudimentary form by January.  The fact that Sega was apparently uncertain in early 1994 when the Saturn might finally ship lends credence to the idea that the project had suddenly and unexpectedly changed recently.  For these reasons, I think its okay to go with what the reliable secondary literature says.  We cannot prove 100% that they are correct, but we can give them the benefit of the doubt under WP:V and WP:TRUTH. Indrian (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Within the same week, David Rosen resigned as the chairman of Sega, and Nakayama resigned as CEO of Sega of Japan, though they remained with the company. Kalinske was replaced by Bernie Stolar, Sega of America's COO and a former Sony employee who had secured third-party developers to create games for the PlayStation. This is not accurate at all and is a good example of how Kent messes up his facts quite a bit. David Rosen and Hayao Nakayama were co-chairmen of Sega of America.  This is the position Nakayama left in 1996.  He remained CEO of Sega Enterprises until 1998, when he stepped down in the wake of a failed merger attempt with Bandai.  Stolar was brought in as COO when Kalinske resigned, but he was not placed in charge of SOA.  Shoichiro Irimajiri was named president of Sega of America in 1996 and would later become CEO of Sega Enterprises in 1998 when Nakayama resigned.  Irimajiri had been specifically brought into Sega in 1993 as an executive vice president to bolster Sega' in the consumer realm since Nakayama's prime experience was in the arcade.  Therefore, while Stolar's opinions on the Saturn were no doubt important, Irimiajiri was almost certainly calling the shots on how to handle the Saturn in the U.S. between 1996 and 1998.
 * Kent doesn't clarify this, you're right, and even IGN has this slipped up if that's the case (they mention Irimajiri but not at all in context of Saturn, only in Dreamcast). I have a little on the Bandai merger, but much of this is pretty scattershot across my sources and not too well tied in.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need to discuss the Bandai merger in the context of the Saturn, but the article needs to be changed so that it no longer claims that Nakayama left the company in 1996. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I think this ought to be all straightened out.  Still not anything said about Irimiajiri, but Stolar certainly does have fame for his correlation with Saturn and, of course, what he said at E3 in 1997.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stolar was clearly the public face of the company as the top ranking American, just like Reggie was the public face of NOA even before he was the president. I have no doubt he was intimately involved in the decision-making process as well.  Ultimately, however, he was answerable to Irimajiri, who was in charge of the North American subsidiary.  With Dreamcast it was different, because by then Irimajiri had moved on to Japan. Indrian (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not quite done yet, since there is still no mention of Irimajiri. Here is the press release that discusses both his and Stolar's appointments (Note: if you follow that link directly it wants you to log in, if you access the same press release through google instead, it displays the full thing.  Even the truncated version shows that Irimajiri was in charge of SOA). Indrian (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That worked for me too. Weird... oh well.  I've got that press release cited now, although I'm not so sure about where I put the subscription required template.  That now has Irimajiri added.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I reworded this because it still implied more power than Stolar had in this period. The press release is clear that Irimajiri replaced Kalinske and that Stolar was brought in as an EVP to improve the software situation for the system.  With my changes, I am now satisfied that this concern has been addressed. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not so much an accuracy thing, but if you look at the sales conversation near the top of the Saturn talk page, you will see that some European figures were unearthed. These should be added to the article for completeness.
 * Done.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And that's it for round one. Once we have dealt with these issues, I will look at the other criteria more closely. A quick browse leads me to believe there will be few problems in this regard, but I will not make a detailed evaluation until we are done with the above. I believe this article will have no trouble achieving GA status with just a little work, so I am placing the nomination as we work to resolve these relatively minor issues. Indrian (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a common issue with retrospectives, especially since they tend to use ambiguous wording. My access to period sources, though, is limited, so I appreciate the accuracy review.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, points 2, 3, and 4 have been satisfied. I am still not satisfied with the GigaDrive situation and feel we need to discuss that some more.  I will start a more formal GA review below now, though it will probably be a few more hours before my comments are posted.  I believe we are getting fairly close. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside drive-by comment from an uninvolved editor- A-freaking-plus to both of you for going so in depth on sorting out these complex, murky issues from 20 years ago. Indrian's right- most GA reviewers would have never even known to look for this stuff. -- Pres N  03:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Round 2
I will start my formal review now, taking the article a section at a time. Of course, as previously stated, the GigaDrive concerns above also still stand.

Lead
✅ Note: I should have included this in as a placeholder from the beginning. I am not going to comment on the lead yet because the changes I have requested to the body will ultimately require changes to the lead as well, so I feel it is better to tackle all of that at once. I have also moved a thread from below up to here for better organization.
 * I'm not sure where to put this, but the lead states that "the Saturn's development was originally designed to play titles popular on Sega's arcade system hardware, but was modified for 3D capabilities in response to the announcement of the PlayStation". Sega arcade games like Virtua Racing and Virtua Fighter were pioneers in 3D graphics; whatever Saturn's 3D limitations, it's dubious to allege that 3D was added at the last minute to combat Sony.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this was a case where over simplifying to keep the lead concise led to trouble. As the body of the article correctly states, the original specs would have been capable of 3D, but would not have done it nearly as well as the PlayStation, so the specs were beefed up.  Honestly, I deliberately avoided commenting on the lead yet, because some of the changes I have asked for in the body will probably result in the need for extensive changes in the lead so that it accurately summarizes the whole article. Indrian (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of updating the lead to reflect some of the changes made to the decline section. I believe the lead covers the salient points of the article and requires no further changes at this time. Indrian (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History

 * ✅ As this is an article about the Saturn, starting with the Mega Drive comes across as a little jarring. I know this is your standard MO and I don't have a problem with the concept at all, but there should probably be a topic sentence to start the section that ties it in better.  Something to the effect of "At the time Sega was developing the Saturn, the company was enjoying great success with its 16-bit home console."  Then the paragraph can continue with the info you already have.  Feel free to use different wording, but this helps the reader understand why the article is no longer talking about the Saturn after the intro.
 * Inserted "Prior to the release of the Saturn", to introduce Saturn first. I felt it was important to start here as it was the precursor, without going back to Sega's formation as we did with the Genesis article.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ "Success for Sega had also come in arcade games." This sentence is really awkward. The subject of the sentence should be "Sega," but instead it is the object of a preposition and "success" is the subject.
 * Reworded.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ "which were very well received by gamers." This needs a better source. The Retro Gamer article says the games on the Model 1 were "wowing gamers," which is a vague statement that is probably more about technical capabilities than whether or not the games were actually liked.  Now, I realize that Virtua Racer and Virtua Fighter were, in fact, well-received; I would just appreciate better sourcing of this fact.
 * Changed to "impressing gamers". I'm not sure I have a better source about the Model 1.  Heck, if I had better sources at all, I'd have redone List of Sega arcade system boards a while ago.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Development

 * ✅ "The later commercial failure of the 3DO also suggested to Sega that the console marketplace may not have been ready for full 3D technology." The source does not actually say this.  It claims Sega was worried the market was not ready for 3D and argues that the later failure of the 3DO vindicated that concern.  In other words, the source claims Sega was already concerned before the 3DO failed.
 * Rectified.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ "Observers of the PlayStation who were involved with Saturn development said that the PlayStation appeared to be more powerful than the Saturn project." Another overly long and convoluted sentence.
 * This should be clearer.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ "By 1994, the Genesis was starting to lag in its capabilities when compared to its main rival..." Again, this sudden transition is jarring.  The entire section is about the Saturn, but suddenly we have a paragraph that starts off talking about the Genesis.  Again, its not the info itself that is bad, but rather the transition.  It should read something like "As Saturn development continued into early 1994 with no release date in sight, Nakayama worried more advanced systems like the Atari Jaguar and technically impressive games slated for release on the SNES would undermine the Genesis and seriously damage Sega's home console business."  Then you can start in on the 32X stuff with a stronger foundation in Saturn development.  Again, the sentence above is just an example and you can be free to use different words.
 * Took this right out of the 32X article with some alterations, so I'm not surprised. I rephrased the opening into this.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Launch

 * ✅ "Within the first two days, the system sold over 250,000 units, but sales diminished over the next few months." I realize that this is what Retro Gamer says, but it feels pretty off to me. The Saturn was fairly successful in Japan, outselling the N64 in the region.  Sales did fall off, of course, but that took more than a couple of months.  In High Score, the authors claim that by the end of 1994, Sega had an edge over Sony 500,000 to 300,000.  Momentum later shifted to Sony's favor, of course, but sales took awhile to trail off.  Its probably also worth mentioning that the reason Saturn did so well in Japan when all its previous consoles failed was the popularity of Virtua Fighter.  Kent can be used to source that.
 * I've gone ahead and removed the sale diminishing statement. I'll have to track down the Virtua Fighter Statement.
 * ✅ 32X stuff. I realize that the 32X and the Saturn were similar systems planned to fill a similar niche and launching at a similar time.  Still, there is a lot of switching between the 32X and Saturn with no clear transition.  This section is about the launch of the Saturn, yet right in the middle of a paragraph on the Japanese launch, the reader is suddenly confronted with the 32X.  There is no good reason for this.  Furthermore, I see no reason in discussing the market performance of the 32X at all unless you have sources that state the 32X was important in some way to the Saturn.  The Saturn helped torpedo the 32X, but I do not believe the 32X had any real impact on Saturn.
 * I have a question. The article says Virtua Fighter was a pack-in game, but Kent pg. 502 says that "no games were packed in with the console." Which is true?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm embarrassed I missed that. Kent is correct so far as I know, as bundling was not a common practice in Japan.  The Retro Gamer article used as the primary source for that section does not claim it was a pack-in either. This needs to be changed to reflect that Virtua Fighter was available at launch and drove early sales, but was not packed-in. Indrian (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In any regard, I've removed about two or three sentences on this, basically just to highlight its similar launch time and approximate price.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes at Sega
✅ There is a lot of extraneous material here again. The market fragmentation and strain of supporting too many systems at once is relevant to Saturn, but the launch of the Sega Nomad does not matter one bit in context. Mentioning that Nintendo performed well by focusing on 16-bit is fine, but calling out specific SNES titles in an article about the Saturn? Not so much.
 * I took out a few sentences, and I agree. That's why it's nice to have an extra set of eyes on an article.  Does more need to come out?   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X-Treme
✅ This section is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Its the longest section in the entire history section and contains details better suited to the article on the game itself. This should be trimmed to stay focused on elements that are important to Saturn as a whole. It might actually be nice to rework this section to discuss NiGHTS briefly as well, which ended up being the most important release of 1996 when Sonic X-Treme failed to materialize.
 * I agree about the undue length of the section, since no-one really knows what effect X-treme might have had on the market. I'm also concerned about the following unsourced statements--misattributed to IGN's "Sonic X-treme Revisited"--which apparently were copied from the Wikipedia page on Sonic X-treme (which, in turn, does not provide a source): "The boss level engine began to evolve into a game of its own using this new source of inspiration, trying to stay closer to its 2D roots by adopting a 3D but side-scrolling viewpoint. The new boss engine gameplay prototype adopted a more pastel color scheme and organic flow of the inspirational Nights into Dreams..., made by Sonic creator Yuji Naka." Only Nintendo Life's description of the boss engine as "a NiGHTs-like 3D affair" in "The Sonic Games That Never Were" comes close to supporting these assertions; none of the sources allege (similarities aside) that the boss engine was "inspired" by NiGHTs.
 * It's unfortunate that none of the sources on X-treme are particularly good. For example, IGN's assertion that Sonic Jam was intended as "a big middle finger to STI" strikes me as sensational; Yuji Naka doesn't appear to recall this supposedly intense "rivalry". All of these journalists seem to be relying on Senn as their main/only source, and he is an interested party. Obviously, we must deal with the sources we have, but I do want to call attention to Nintendo Life's claim that "Although Sonic X-treme is the most well-known it's the untitled Sonic Saturn that arguably showed the most promise." Was there a separate, equally important cancelled project called Sonic Saturn? Apparently not, since the very Chris Senn FAQ Nintendo Life links to states that "Sonic Saturn" was merely an alternative name for X-treme!
 * How did they manage to show Nakayama an "old, outdated version of the main game's engine"? Apparently, the footage Nakayama saw was (in IGN's words) "ported by a subcontracted developer, reportedly running at a horrible frame-rate and looking less than impressive." Whether or not this is important enough to note I leave to your discretion, but according to Nintendo Life and Senn's FAQ, the name of this subcontracted developer was "POV".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've boldly trimmed down the section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to point out the UNDUE issues with Sonic Xtreme too. Don't get me wrong, I'm personally fascinated with the game...but much of that information is available at its own article. (I wrote much of it myself.) So yeah, I definitely support trimming. Sergecross73   msg me   03:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The main game levels were developed in a tubular mode, allowing level rotation and gravity directions" seemed a bit vague, so I added a little more detail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's been stripped down already; hopefully it ought to be adequate. Facts aside, I'm of the opinion that Sonic X-treme could have been what Super Mario 64 was for the Nintendo 64.  If there's one thing the Saturn was missing, it was definitely a Sonic title.  Having played Sonic R on Sonic Gems Collection, it's almost not even a fun game, as unbalanced as it is with only five tracks.  Just an interesting bit of input.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the sentiment, and that's why I support it having its own subsection like this, I just thought it was a little too long considering how much is already available at its own article, which was linked in the section. Sergecross73   msg me   19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I personally doubt X-treme would have had anything remotely comparable to Mario 64's impact on the market, I agree that the absence of an exclusive Sonic platformer is a salient fact about the Saturn.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I never advocated removing the section, just trimming it. This looks much better now, and I thank everyone who stepped in to help whip it into shape. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline
✅ I'm sorry, but the claim that Sega distancing itself from Saturn destroyed Saturn is just silly. By the time Stolar made that statement in mid-1997, the N64 had been launched and created a one-two punch with the PlayStation that buried Sega. Stolar was only stating a fact that was already obvious. This needs to be reworked to acknowledge the actual market forces that defeated Sega.
 * I do believe that Sega's issues with designing and abandoning the Saturn hurt things...but you are correct, there probably should be more emphasis on the damage done by the PS1, N64, etc. Sergecross73   msg me   03:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, to clarify, I am talking about mid-1997 on specifically and the Stolar quote in the article. Saturn was difficult to program, limited in its 3D capabilities, and did not offer the same profit margins for developers as PlayStation did, because Sega stuck to an old-fashioned royalty structure based on a ROM cartridge model unlike Sony even though they moved to CD.  This caused developers to flock to Sony with exclusives and players to flock to Sony for games that played better on that system even if they appeared on both.  Stolar publicly stating that Sega was abandoning the system may have cost them a few sales, but they were already barely above a single-digit marketshare by then, so the performance would have still been dismal.  Saturn died the minute the N64 took off in the US in late 1996, because the market was just not big enough for three systems.  Even though Nintendo lost its momentum in the latter part of 1997, Sega was in no position to catch up by then regardless of development commitment. Indrian (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Kent book notes market percentages by that point, highlighting that Sega only had 12% of the market. I know Kent's accuracy is in question periodically, but might this be a reliable figure to throw in the article to illustrate this?  Also... none of my research indicated anything about the royalties and development on Saturn.  The most I found was about developers who left in disgust after Sega abandoned the Saturn despite its success in Japan.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite the errors, Kent is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Therefore, as long as we do not have evidence that he is wrong, he can be used.  Feel free to use Kent in this instance. Indrian (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redone. I actually quite like the result - the Osborne effect is played down but not forgotten - it certainly did damage Sega's reputation a little bit, but Sega started falling out because Saturn couldn't keep up with its competitors.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While I have no objections to the current text, I will note that other sources give Sega's market share during the entire 1995-2000 period as 23% (versus Nintendo at 28% and Sony at 47%), with a fraction of that due to the Dreamcast. This doesn't contradict Kent's claim that Saturn was at 12% in 1997, but since Kent doesn't seem to provide a source for the figure or mention Saturn's standing by the time of its discontinuation, I thought it might be worth mentioning this data here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical Specifications
✅ The section starts by stating that the system contains eight processors, but it subsequently only lists six that I can see. One of the missing ones is the SH1 that served as the CD-ROM controller. I do not know what the other one was off the top of my head, but it should be easy to find. They should all be mentioned briefly.l
 * Believe it or not, I couldn't find the other two in the refs I had. It's not as easy as it looks.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I will try doing some digging as well. If they can't be found, they can't be found.  I certainly will not fail the article over it. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can leave this be for now. Indrian (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The 8 processors are: 2xSH2 CPUs, VDP1 and VDP2 graphics processors, 68EC000 sound CPU, SCSP (sound chip with integrated FH1 DSP), SH1 (CDROM controller) and a DSP in the System Control Unit (SCU). Info taken from the development manuals. 81.174.170.145 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NetLink
✅ I do not know why this section exists. Its the only subsection, which is poor form, and its just a tiny paragraph. The section header should probably be removed. The info itself is fine.
 * It exists because I was planning to do more with it, and then couldn't find any sourcing. I guess I was hoping to make it like the Network services section of Sega Genesis, but in fairness that had two sections and those were two of the hardest GAs I've ever written due to lack of sources.  Section header removed.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception
I have no concerns with this section.
 * Sweet. I am actually concerned myself with how short it is and think it needs more (akin to the reception in Sega 32X), but that can be dealt with on the pathway to an FAC if I can get it that good.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its short for a FAC, but I think it fine for a GA. It is a slightly lower standard. Indrian (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the recent deletions have harmed this section, making it less organized and informative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)