Printable View
I'm not saying it's what I personally believe, I'm just saying that's what it really sounds like, if you think about what's being said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obviously
Also, can anyone keep a straight face while reading this?:
http://the-dce.deviantart.com/art/Th...e-war-53400861
Quoting for posterity. The use of 'retro metacritic scores' to 'do the math!' is a new hilarious low for Genesis fanbabbies.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightrider
the easiest way to tell which is better is which one makes you personally satisfied as opposed to what the crowd say
What are lettered grades supposed to represent? As I sad in the post you clearly just missed before you made your own, it's not even my own personal belief, this is just what SNES "fanbabbies" sound like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
if you want to determine what console was the best then it would be the one that had the most different kinds games and the one that kept interesting enough until the 32 bit eraQuote:
Originally Posted by midnightrider
Leave that to the Atari fanboys, amirite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
I don't really care what's "best," I was trying to explain how that particular argument to make the SNES sound better than the Genesis has a double edge. It is kind of complimentary to consider the consoles library to be of consistent good quality, over a console that's library has a few aces, while it's never stated if they have anything else of note, by comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Modelboard4
fair point, but if those few aces have enough of an impact it makes a difference, i had both a megadrive and snes, i personally would have a snes but would have recommended the megadrive as more better all round, the snes is like frank lampard and the megadrive wayne rooney
Well, we've also had this conversation before, possibly earlier in this thread. Are they aces on their quality alone, or because they have been, and continue to be, part of a long lasting franchise?
Ex: Would A Link to the Past be seen the same way if it was a standalone SNES game, like Beyond Oasis is for the Genesis?
That was the major Sega vs. Nintendo difference. Sega was innovative almost all the time(like only ever returning to the Sonic franchise), and that may have been what put them where they are now, even though some people complain about a lack of innovation in the industry.
Edit: Yes, I just remembered there is a sequel to Beyond Oasis on the Saturn, but the question still stands.
I agree with you on that to a point. Nintendo always play sweet and safe and they stay with what they know. that's been the problem and while Mario kart 8 is selling well its number 8. Sega have all different types of games. I agree sega are more creative than Nintendo and they take risks with new ideas but at the same time Nintendo do polish games well. I would compare it to sega being like a keyboard that can play multi instrument and Nintendo a sweet Spanish guitar.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightrider
I think people buy into oh its Nintendo but not oh its another Mario game kart game.
Had it not been for competition from the likes of Sega, Nintendo would still be happy to keep peddling the NES, even in this day and age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Modelboard4
Sega took more chances and were at the forefront of innovation, which ultimately propelled the industry foreward, even when at times this came about at Sega's expense (e.g. innovations which were ahead of its time like the Mega CD). For this reason I have a lot of respect for Sega. With Nintendo, the only truly original products where the Gameboy, Virtual Boy (commercial failure, but kudos for having the balls to do something different and with potential that still to this day remains untapped) and the Wii. In all other areas they were always following behind and being reactive rather than proactive.
You mean that PC Engine CD imitator that came out 3 years later ;)?Quote:
Originally Posted by MtothaJ
Regardless it's not like Nintendo wasn't looking into CD media at the time too, their plans just never panned out.
I get your point, but for the public at large outside of Japan knowledge regarding the PC Engine CD was pretty much non exsistant nor were there any killer apps that would really point you in the direction of purchasing one. Its Sega who put a lot of time, effort and money into marketing and educating people about the new format and its benefits. Without their involvement the switch to CD would have no doubt been a lot slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
The original PCE-CD with, what, 64KB of RAM was a far cry from the Sega CD. I wonder if the PCE-CD could even do full screen streaming video with that little RAM, much less Scaling and Rotation or added effects that the 12Mhz Sub CPU in the SEGA CD could do. Altered Beast on the PCE-CD is an original PCE-CD game and it is actually less detailed than the HuCard version. Valis II and Altered Beast CD have gameplay halting load times mid level. I guess Valis III and IV are significantly better than this, it is actually hard to believe they aren't Super CD games (256KB of RAM).
Still, it actually was the PCE-CD that Sega targeted at first for the Mega CD's creation and only added the extra RAM, Sub CPU and Graphics CoProcessor at the ever reprehensible "last minute" to allow for Super Scaler Arcade ports that SOJ never delivered on. This is according to the Mega CD's designer Tomio Takami according to the December 1991 issue of Gamepro.
I can't comment adequately on my phone, but you have it completely backwards and your overall logic basically credits Nintendo with creating the Genesis and is responsible for all of Sega's success in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by MtothaJ
This is like "blonde or redhead?". Well... both xD
The SNES had cleaner sound effects, but while music sounded better (as in "more realistic") back in the day, I think nowadays the Mega Drive sound chip is proven as the best. We're used to realistic sound since the PlayStation (or even Mega CD), but the Genesis had an awesome synth inside. The SNES now sound like cheap realistic sound to me, while the MD is good electronic sound.
The SNES had the better controller, until the MD 6-button controller was released and there was a tie (I love the 6 button one for fighting games, although the SNES's shoulder buttons were really useful)
Regarding games, each console had it's strengths. If Sega hadn't gone out of control with peripherals like the Mega CD and the 32X, and had focused on getting better games on the 16bit, maybe Nintendo wouldn't have "won" the EOL battle.
As platforming is my favorite genre, I think I prefer Mega Drive's exclusives (Sonic series, Rocketknight, Ristar, Dynamite Headdy, Tiny Toons...), but Nintendo had Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island, Donkey Kong Country series...
The SNES was super on RPGs, although I'm really fond of Soleil/Crusader of Centy for the MD.
I don't actually think one system is much better than the other, but I admit nostalgia is strong on me, so I pick the Mega Drive. However, I bought the SNES Mini and I still enjoy playing games I add with hackchi. When the Mega Drive mini is released, I'll sure be happy to have them together in my living room.
You can make the case that Genesis was better before Sega started putting their effort towards CD and 32X, but SNES is a clear half a step past Genesis if you count the late library imo.
what a perv! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by molul
There is a lot of personal preference involved, SEGA does have faster games / cpu. I genuinely prefer the limited colors and synth music for the most part, although SNES does have at least some exclusive highlights, such as the music of Metroid. While Genesis has exclusives too, like the music of the Ecco games.
The Genesis was technically the better machine. Nintendo pulled off a successful misinformation campaign that convinced many people of the opposite, much as Apple did with PC. But at the end of the day it's the games that you really enjoy, and both systems had something to offer that the other didn't. I bought and enjoyed both. The Genesis was my favourite, but there were games I loved that were exclusive to the SNES. The Genesis' audio experience was more lively and engaging overall, but if you liked games with more 'atmosperic' music, the SNES did that better.
The problem with these comparisons is that back in the 90's, very few people knew that the SNES was using so many "cheater" chips. Nintendo only advertised the Super FX chip, but many games had extra chips inside. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that from Nintendo's standpoint. As far as consumers knew, they plugged in the game and played it. If the extra chips made the game technically better than a competing Genesis game, that was a win for Nintendo. We know better now, but I can't blame Nintendo for secretly increasing the performance of certain games with extra chips. With the exception of the Super FX games, the cartridges with extra chips didn't cost more than other games.
The best comparisons today would be between Genesis games and games that run on a "stock" SNES.
SNES miss fast games.
Without slowdown.
I have no idea in the USA, but in the UK many SEGA mags, CVG and indeed even Super Play (UK Nintendo mag) would list the games that used extra chips. Super Play even did a 4-page feature on what chips did what and what game used the chips. It wasn't new either, I remember CVG review of NES games noting the use of the extra chips to add more effects for games like Double Dragon All that said, I much prefer the standard Snes games, nearly all my fav Snes games like Contra III, Axelay, Super R-Type, Super Aleste, Mario IV, Super Metroid, Mystical Ninja,Castlevania IV, F-Zero, Prince of Persia were stock games.Quote:
Originally Posted by redsox2013
The only real exception was Pilotwings (other than the FX games)
Well I think Montgomery Gentry here would certainly agree that the GEN is indeed better in terms of the one part he cares about most! :)
https://youtu.be/2-S-PaMWhwI
(I already had this at NintendoAge awhile back but I thought you guys might like this too; also the Gentry part of his duo sadly passed away in 2017 from a helicopter crash :( )
I only rewrote the first versus and chorus. Still wouldn't this have been a cute commercial had they been around during the Genesis' prime? See, SNES blows the GEN away for most of the specs, but perhaps for a Genesis fan/gamer, perhaps they only care about that one key edge the GEN does have! :)
I'm tired of clunky 8 bit games
I need to find a system that's true 16 bit
I need to buy one pretty quick
Hey mister, what you got out on that shelf
Maybe one of them souped up next gen systems
The kind that makes you think you've brought the arcades home
Color palette don't matter, no I don't need no mode 7
All that really concerns me is:
Speeeeeeed, an' how fast will it go
Can it get me over da'loops quickly
Blast processing can it outrun that fat plumber
Yeah, what I really need
Is a blue hedgehog
An' a whole lot of speed
The extra chips were routinely mentioned in Nintendo Power as a selling point of the system, that it could use more advanced technology without you having to purchase a new console. Prior to the SNES they did a feature on the various mapper chips used in the NES carts as one of the reasons for its longevity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
That's okay because few people also knew the SNES was running on half the bits (transfer rate) the Genesis was. The SNES needed all the help it could get. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by redsox2013
Is it possible to get the list of SNES games which use additional chip? Where can we find it out?
EDIT: Okay it wasn't hard to find.
Back in the day i was convinced that the Super Famicom/Snes was a better machine than the Mega Drive. Just based on how SFII looked more colourful and sounded bearable. Maybe coupled with the never ending list of 3rd party developers. Snes back then really gave you the feeling that this is where you wanna be. These days i have to say i prefer the Mega Drive. I hate the reduced resolution on Snes games. The chorus/ reverb audio makes me cringe. But most of all i hate the slug of a cpu that makes explosive arcade style games impossible. Everything feels soft, 8-bit'ey, dull and slow. Oh and last but not least i hate the crappy SNES controller that gives me blisters on both index fingers pretty quick. This thing wasn't made for long gaming sessions. In closing if nintendo wouldn't have been so damn stingy, and they actually would have went ahead with choosing the m68k for their cpu as they had planned initially; what a beast of a machine the Snes would have been!
Funny reading your name because Super Aleste is more hectic and exciting than Musha :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by MushaAleste
Smash TV features more sprites and is more hectic than the Mega Drive version and a far closer port. No extra or 'sectret' chips needed tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Vludi
The odd one out in that regard is Ninja Warriors, again. It almost makes you think its a neogeo game. Super aleste did absolutely nothing for me back in the day.
Sorry if this has been answered before but why was the snes more accessible to adding chips to their games compare to the Mega Drive? With the Mega Drive, I even get surprise to even find a battery inside some of the games, as that too was also pretty uncommon for Mega Drive titles to have compare to the snes.Quote:
Originally Posted by gio
Not 100% sure but I think the main problem with extra chips was the increased cartridge cost. Nintendo went that route to beat the Mega Drive in the 16bit generation EOL and also keep the SNES interesting in the early PSX days while the N64 was ready to launch, but Sega already had the Saturn (and the 32X) and quickly abandoned the Mega Drive. There was no business on adding extra chips to Mega Drive games because the battle had shifted to 32bit generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderblaze16
Sega made it really well with Mega Drive, but after that, they made so many bad choices: ignoring Sony led to the PSX birth, ignoring Silicon Graphics led to N64 birth. Sega was so fond of itself that they didn't notice that the 32X was totally unnecessary (especially after Mega CD) and that Saturn wasn't ready for the new generation. Too sad, but hey, at least they made the Mega Drive.
It wasn't and not very many SNES games have extra chips either. It's a myth carried over by NES fans that insist that the Famicom was always supposed to be upgraded game by game and that it was a special design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderblaze16
NES hardware simply lacks ram and it's included in each cart game. Which likely increased their costs. Anything beyond that was just extra stuff to try to get more performance with the hardware.
SMS, MD and PCE can all use extra stuff on-cart, but they never needed them to outperform Nintendo games.
The myth that Nintendo pushed during the 16-bit generation and which is still believed by some fanboys, is that the SNES' slow cpu didn't matter, because it has so many "helper" chips under the hood that do all of the heavy lifting of running 2D games.
Yup. This. ^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
Not to mention that technically every time you plugged in a game cartridge or other device, you were 'adding chips' to the base console. Sega also extended the Genesis' reach by offering plug in devices; just not using the same approach. And as mentioned, they didn't need to 'prop up' their individual games in quite the same way SNES did.
Back in the day where's snes is hot most of the hype comes when you see the photos of the games on magazine..
usually seems to be bigger sprites due low resolution and because people tries pass these fealing to players..
Final Fight series is a good example.. bigger sprites on the screen... big bosses..
but lacks speed, good gameplay, slowdown every time and the console cant put more thant 3 enemys on the screen on 2p mode,
the game get tedious.. they raises the life bar of each enemy to compensate the number,
the fat guys that's running fast as hell on arcade is like a fusca running in first march on snes..
Now if you look at sor2 for example you got the same bigger sprites with alot more action and enemys on the screen with 2p mode
just play on mania and see.
Alot of games on snes is hard to me accept because the controls lacks of responsentive and major of action games pass the impression
that the system gonna freeze anytime
Snes is a great console with amazing games, hes got a pretty advanced grafic chip for the time and can display a deep and rich image,
but in the end on a crt TV even on RGB (rbg on snes is less impressive of all system) you didn't take much advantage of that rich pallete
in the end for me who growing up on arcades and play them even today , in most the time i played the mega drive version of port games
for the better gameplay and for the sound remenbers me more the arcade..
after that i go do PCE and in the last place to Snes
But i know alot of people that snes is their first console and are familiar with these visuals in first place and gameplay on the last and loves snes
everyone have their own preferences.