Well, like I've said before, there is a difference between technical superiority and personal preference. In the former catagory, the PSX triumphed in almost all areas where it really mattered. No-one at the time cared for 2D gaming. Not in the West anyways. Sure, I liked me some Street Fighter Alpha 2, 3 Dirty Dwarfs, etc, but 3D was the dish of the day, and Sony delivered to what consumers at the time wanted most of all.
Sure, the Saturn had arcade perfect ports of Capcom and SNK fighters. But seriously, outside of fighter elitists, who gave a flying fudge? How many people were willing to drop the PSX or N64 in favour of playing just a handful of fighters with faster loading times a few more frames of animation? And considering almost none of the fighters that made use of the ram carts even made it to the west, it's pretty much a moot point really.
Yeah, there's the odd Saturn title that holds up pretty well, like Panzer Dragoon. But these are the exception AND these games weren't released on the PSX, so how can you compare if they wouldn't have looked and ran better with the PSX architecture?
If you've not watched them before, I highly recommend
you check out 'therealbluedragon's youtube channel, and watch vids of his 'Battle of the Ports' videos. Link here:https://www.youtube.com/user/therealbluedragon
Seriously, this guy does the best comparisons around. Sometimes the Saturn prevails, usually when developers put a lot of effort in their ports, or due to a few technicalities. However, most 3D games clearly look and run better on the PSX.
But, yeah, nothing wrong in saying that you have a personal preference for the Saturn. I honestly couldn't tell you which one I like more, as I love them both for different reasons. The Saturn is more nostalgia for me, whilst it was only a few hours ago I returned to the PSX for a few games of Tenchu: Stealth Assassins, and I'm currently grinding through FFVII again. Rarely do I find myself setting up the Saturn for anything more than the odd game of Sega Rally or Wipeout. Or, if I've a friend over, Saturn Bomberman or Guardian Heroes. On that subject, despite being the most inferior version of it, I much prefer the Saturn version of Wipeout. The brighter colour palette, more consistent soundtrack (IMO), and glitches here and there that make the game more forgiving hence more playable. Anyways...
Am I biased against Sony because their marketing douchiness caused Sega to go under?
I know we're always likely to have a disagreement here, but honestly, I don't see how Sony have got anything to do with Sega's demise. Sega were perfectly capable of digging their own grave.
It's certainly not Sony's fault that they provided developers with the best hardware at the time to program for, at very competitive rates, whilst selling their console to consumers at a very approachable price, were able to win over Nintendo and Sega fans alike by delivering the games people wanted AND had the knack for spotting the next big thing (Gran Turismo, Tomb Raider, etc), all the while targeting demographics whom before were never associated with video games.
Seriously, taking playable copies of Wipeout to night clubs and rave parties? Genius. The Saturn got Tomb Raider first, but it was Sony who realised using Lara's sex appeal was the way of making the game a hit, and so the first true virtual sex symbol in the West was born.
At the end of the day, Sega shot themselves in both feet due to the failures of systems prior to the Saturn. But it didn't help that they initially built the Saturn to be even more inferior
to the console we now know and, when they saw the specs of Sony's console, panicked and, out of sheer stupidity and arrogance, ignored the sound advice of Sega of America for a cheaper, more powerful, and more user friendly alternative, and instead Sega of Japan chose a setup that was counter-productive to developers, both 1st and 3rd parties alike.
Lets also not forget that, if we want to look at dodgy business practices, Sony doesn't hold a candle to the iron grip Nintendo exercised on 3rd parties in forcing allegiance to their console back in the nes and snes days (and to a lesser extent, Sega did the same thing, I believe).
Sony's Playstation was the democracy of games consoles (although I do acknowledge they initially did their best to deter 2D gaming, which is where the Saturn held an advantage in Japan). Sony allowed it easier for developers to make the games they wanted to make, with minimal constraints, using user friendly technology (having worked closely with 3rd parties for feedback, which is how they won over developers in the first place), all the while being economically sound. The Saturn was a bastard to program for, and just about anything 3D looked terrible without putting double the time and effort into, whilst the N64 disabled itself by sticking to cartridges.
Going PSX was a no brainer for everyone other than elitists and niche markets. If you're in those categories, there's no shame in having chosen those consoles instead. I was a Sega elitist, so I saddled with a Saturn. Heck, I didn't even ask for one. My family knew I was a Sega fanatic and got it for me for Christmas. But I loved the thing until the day the disc drive died, and I part exchanged my 30 games for a PSX, something which in a way I regret to this day. However, I've had equally great times with the PSX, if not even more, I must admit.
The Playstation and it's marketing was far douchbaggish. They revolutionised the gaming market, levelled the playing field on business practices, and widened it to a greater audience. Regardless if you were a Sega or Nintendo fanboy at the time, Sony deserves respect for, simply put, bringing out the best rounded console and knowing best at how to sell it.
Don't make war! Play video games.