Sega...
 

What do you think would be happening right now if Sega had not gone broke(or at least close to) with the Sega Dreamcast? If Sega had not released 10 different systems in between Nintendo releasing two(exageration...but still). Sega was pretty much ahead of Nintendo at the time, but alas they lost to much money with all of there systems being made(not to mention pricy so not one could afford them).

So, if Sega had released a system at the same time as Nintendo and Microsoft, how to you think they would have faired?

If Dreamcast hadn't gone broke, I would most likely be having some more Power Stoney goodness on my Dreamcast right now. However, it failed. So now I'm mad...
Well, I actually just play Super Smash Bros. instead...but yeah. I want more Power Stone!

I think too many people are too suspicious of Sega and their consoles now to the point that no one would buy them for fear of them dropping off the face of the planet again. So, no I don't think they'd have done that well.

As a console maker, they are the worst.

As a game company, they have some of the best, and most popular titles.

Stick to what you're good at.

As of right now, you are right....But that is not entirely what I ment. I ment that if Sega had not released so many consoles, they wouldn't have gone broke. If they aren't broke, then they could improve there systems...but alas...they released so many that they went broke.

Dreamcast was "the worst"? Or Saturn? The sad truth is, while far too many people haven't PLAYED much of either the Dreamcast or Saturn systems, they were, perhaps, some of the best of their times.

Yes the Dreamcast and Saturn were 'the worst' not because of what the systems were capable of, but because they were so poorly supported that years from now they'll be nothing but a minor footnote in gaming history.

A system shouldn't be based solely upon how good it's graphics capabilites are, or anything involving system resources (though that should be accounted for, of course). A system can only be good if it's supported enough to be good. In the case of Segas systems, they just weren't that well supported (with the exception of the Genesis), and therefore, they aren't what can be classified as good systems.

No the worst was the Sega Genesis. You had the Sega CD, the 32X that you put on top, and if you wanted to play with enhanced graphics Sonic the Hedgehog with Knuckles you stacked the damn thing about 5 meters in the sky.

And the reason for the lack of support. Sega of Japan only gave SoA 5 mill to support the Dreamcast from all the screwups in the past. The Saturn had some GREAT games. Panzer Dragoon, Guardian Heroes, but the thing is the fact that they scratched real easily... Copy protection was on the outside and not inside like on a PS disc.

Dreamcast was another good system. Jet Set Radio, Power Stone, Project Justice... the list goes on. But all the advertising went to Space Channel 5 and Phantasy Star. Sucked...

Now all the good Sega games are on the Xbox and I've got a Playstation... >_<

I swear I'm gonna put them all on my hard drive...

Oh, and for the Saturn, they tried to put in 3D at the last minute... You could tell for some of the first gen. games on the thing

I really liked Dreamcast. It was just before its time. It was too expensive when it was released and not recieved well. But its graphics and speed are comparable to ps2, and you can now buy it and games for it much cheaper.

...that and you can mod it to play hundreds of roms of old games...

The Dreamcast and Saturn were terribly supported by third-party developers, but they have a TON of good games for both systems. Denying that is just crazy. I would definitely call the systems unpopular, but bad? No way. Especially considering some of the other crap systems that came out that could easily be classified under 'bad' (Virtuaboy?)