I agree the master system versus nintendo e.s. should stand but falcon how would you list the consoles per generation as you said now its flawed and some here agree http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...parison/page14
Printable View
I agree the master system versus nintendo e.s. should stand but falcon how would you list the consoles per generation as you said now its flawed and some here agree http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...parison/page14
Console generations are annoying, personally I judge the generations by the games that appeared on the systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennab
I put the 5200, SG-1000 and the Colecovision on the 2nd generation because the games released for them were 2nd generation style games. The hardware though fits better as the start of the 3rd generation (judging by the games on the Atari 8bit computers and the MSX, which share the same hardware).
Eh, I'm not sure about that. When I think of Atari 2600 games, even in a positive way, it's games like Yars' Revenge or Kaboom -- very repetitive, fun in short bursts only, though they may have high replayability. The Atari 2600's attempts at more complex/substantive types of games are usually noble failures at best. Even Solaris, which some consider the most "advanced" game of all for the 2600, is certainly impressive for the hardware, but to me it's worth playing only as a curiosity. Try to sit down and really give it a good, serious play and it kinda falls apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
The Colecovision and 5200, due to the time period, do have a lot of those games, especially early 80s arcade ports, and there were quite a few 2600 ports from the likes of Activision. But the Commodore 64 and NES/Famicom have plenty of those games too, especially earlier on, and you do see a bit of the more advanced stuff on Colecovision and 5200, with stuff like WarGames, Rock n' Bolt, and Rescue on Fractulus.
I'm kind of rambling but I guess what I'm saying is I don't put Colecovision/5200 games in the same category as Atari 2600 games, apart from the admittedly sizable amount of overlap.
Yep, and in particular the Atari XEGS is extremely similar to the 5200, but with more RAM. Same CPU at the same speed, and same graphics and sound chips.Quote:
The hardware though fits better as the start of the 3rd generation (judging by the games on the Atari 8bit computers and the MSX, which share the same hardware).
The Intellivision hardware can do this:Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSdj3_t9Xfg
Or maybe a demo port of a 4th gen game?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKOurrFwyNY
Of course, that's a homebrew, but the gameplay is pretty damn 3rd gen no? Of course nobody thinks of the Intellivision as 3rd gen, or as the start of the 3rd gen, because the games released for it are pretty much 2nd gen games.
The NES and C64 are 3rd gen systems because they existed during that time period, when games started having a proper beginning, middle, and end.
It can, but it didn't, at least not in terms of actual released games. The games I mentioned are games that were actually published, packaged and sold by a real company (and were just a few examples from a larger set).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
I don't think that's the reason. The reason is that Intellivision was positioned as a competitor to the Atari 2600, rather than a replacement. The majority of Jaguar games are pretty much 4th gen games but it's generally agreed to be a 5th gen console.Quote:
Of course, that's a homebrew, but the gameplay is pretty damn 3rd gen no? Of course nobody thinks of the Intellivision as 3rd gen, or as the start of the 3rd gen, because the games released for it are pretty much 2nd gen games.
Not every game for those systems is Final Fantasy or Maniac Mansion. You seriously underestimate the number of NES and C64 games that do not have a proper beginning, middle, and end.Quote:
The NES and C64 are 3rd gen systems because they existed during that time period, when games started having a proper beginning, middle, and end.
I'm not sure what your point is; are you saying that you don't like the concept of console generations in general? I think that the idea does make sense. This is an industry where people have thought of new systems as being a 'generation' above the previous one. I agree with most of the standard definitions of which consoles go in which generation (as seen on Wikipedia for instance), except for the systems of 1982, which they get entirely wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennab
I should also say, for handhelds the generations don't always hold up. They do for the GBA and beyond, but the handhelds of 1997-2001 particularly make things difficult, generation-wise. The problem is, on TV consoles there are usually time and power gaps between generations. But on handhelds, because of the limitations of portable technology and the differences of the market, those things don't always happen. So, the generation labels for the handhelds of '98 to '00 particularly always will be somewhat arbitrary. It almost might be better to abandon generation labels for that era of handhelds, I'm not sure... But anyway, there are no such issues for TV systems.
This is the primary excuse I've seen for people who want to keep those systems in the second generation; some people on Atari-Age say this for example. I think it's flawed logic, though. I mean, I really do think that the main reason why those systems were put in the "second gen" to begin with is more because of the crash than the games... and as I've said before, I don't think the crash is a valid breaking point between generations because it doesn't hold up when you consider the world market and not only the US, if you look at release dates worldwide, or if you look at hardware power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
As for game types though, the 4th gen has a lot of NES-style games, the new current (8th) gen so far is mostly 7th-gen style games, etc. The Xbox One and PS4 aren't 7th gen consoles just because they do nothing so far but play last gen style games with better graphics! Most Colecovision and 5200 games are exactly the same in that respect, graphically enhanced versions of last-gen games. I think there's a double-standard here for 2nd-gen games, and don't think it makes sense. And anyway, games like Ghostblaster show that those systems can do more than the 2600 and co. ever could. Or look at the 2600 version of Buck Rogers: Planet of Zoom and then the Colecovision version! If that's not a generational leap nothing is.
And also, this argument ignores that most early NES games are "2nd-gen-style" games too. It's only a couple of years into the NES's life, with mappers and such, that it clearly differentiates itself. The Colecovision and 5200 didn't last long enough to get to that point, but that's not their faults, we shouldn't retroactively take away their proper generation just because of that. And the games they do have are more than enough to clearly be a generation above the 2600, O2, and such, anyway.
Yeah, this is true, but it's also important to mention that release dates also clearly make those systems next-gen.Quote:
The hardware though fits better as the start of the 3rd generation (judging by the games on the Atari 8bit computers and the MSX, which share the same hardware).
The PC-Engine is full of NES level games, nobody considers it 3rd gen either. You can't just look at it like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
California Games (BEST VERSION OF THIS GAME)
Castle of Illusion
Land of Illusion
Legend of Illusion
KENSEIDEN
STAR WARS
Dynamite Headdy
Captain Silver
The Lucky Dime Caper - Starring Donald Duck
Deep Duck Trouble - Starring Donald Duck
Dynamite Dux
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Asterix
Moonwalker
Shinobi
Alex Kidd in Miracle World
Alex Kidd in Shinobi World
Ah yes. that creepy bastard. Am I mistaken or it's actually possible to defeat him ? I think that I did it once on an Emulator.Quote:
Originally Posted by tryphon
Yeah, it's not unusual to get lost in Phantasy Star when you don't have a guide ( Dezolis is an Ice Hell both in PS1 and 2 ). But the final part where you need to meet the 'Governor' and think that the game is over, only to be surprised with a new dungeon and a final battle with Dark Force, who had possessed him, is just great.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesegadude
Gotta love Phantasy Star.
That's the problem, the dichotomy of video game generations is itself a "retroactive" label and an act of historical interpretation, hence the "problem" of where certain systems lie on the "generational" chart.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Edit: this side discussion should probably be moved to Insert Coin
What's wrong with games that don't have a proper beginning, middle, and end?
Nothing, it's just that the 2nd generation and 3rd generations had different game styles as the major focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by zetastrike
EDIT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lwp91w0u6c
DAT Bass. That's what every soundtrack on the SMS should have sounded like!
Yeah, Ghostblaster is really impressive stuff.
No, I've seen at least one newspaper article talking about how the Colecovision was bringing in a new generation of videogames. Nobody said that about the Master System. Then they did again with the Turbografx and Genesis. The most retroactive thing here is assigning the Colecovision and 5200 to the same generation as the 2600! I still think that mistake should be corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
It is indeed :) You're stronger than me, I never succeeded (whereas I once killed Neifirst with Nei alone hoping it would keep her alive. Too bad.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottino
Nothing to add :)Quote:
Gotta love Phantasy Star.
The point...it was a question. How would you type and list the consoles in the generation you think they go in lets say up to genesis. I do like the general idea of generations and also do think putting a 8 bit sega machine versus a 8bit nintendo machine both released a year of each other is fair. I understand sg1000 same date as famicim argument but was sg1000 8bit? If not only fair to pit 8bit master system versus 8bit nintendo e.s. because hey nobody has a problem with pitting genesis versus a way later released snesQuote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Quote:
As for game types though, the 4th gen has a lot of NES-style games, the new current (8th) gen so far is mostly 7th-gen style games, etc. The Xbox One and PS4 aren't 7th gen consoles just because they do nothing so far but play last gen style games with better graphics! Most Colecovision and 5200 games are exactly the same in that respect, graphically enhanced versions of last-gen games. I think there's a double-standard here for 2nd-gen games, and don't think it makes sense. And anyway, games like Ghostblaster show that those systems can do more than the 2600 and co. ever could. Or look at the 2600 version of Buck Rogers: Planet of Zoom and then the Colecovision version! If that's not a generational leap nothing is.
And also, this argument ignores that most early NES games are "2nd-gen-style" games too. It's only a couple of years into the NES's life, with mappers and such, that it clearly differentiates itself. The Colecovision and 5200 didn't last long enough to get to that point, but that's not their faults, we shouldn't retroactively take away their proper generation just because of that. And the games they do have are more than enough to clearly be a generation above the 2600, O2, and such, anyway.
Yeah, this is true, but it's also important to mention that release dates also clearly make those systems next-gen.
The generation debate is never going to be fully settled, much like the ages of comics debate. Is it a year? Is it the technology? Is it the artistic style? Everybody's got their own opinion on it. There may be a "consensus" but it's a fuzzy one.
Personally I think it it would be more useful to look at the evolution of the games themselves than rather than the hardware, though that leaves the door open for a lot more debate.
I stick by my opinion that the 5200 and Colecovision are 2nd gen, or at least there should be a 2.5 generation (though I understand ABFs argument). They're a gamecube and an xbox compared to the dreamcast (intellivision). They both use 1979 hardware (available on home computers with proper gaming capabilities), same as the intellivision's release date.
If they're a separate generation from the 2600, then so are the intellivision and vectrex. The NES is a far superior beast to them, even without mappers.
A lot of people make the argument that it makes no sense for the 5200 to be in the same generation as the 2600, but then you have the problem of it being in the same generation as the 7800 (which is quite a bit more powerful, except for the audio), and you have the problem of the Colecovision existing in the same generation as the MSX2 and SMS, both of which have second generation versions of its VDP.
They both kinda suck at the genre that pretty much defined the 3rd generation, sidecrolling platformers (for different hardware reasons), which doesn't help either.
No. Don't mix computer and console tech! Sure, the Colecovision and 5200 are adapted 1979 computers, but computers are more expensive and usually more powerful than consoles. A console based on a computer of several years ago could well be a generation ahead of a console from the same year as the computer. Not always, but it's certainly very possible. Also, release dates matter as much for generations as system power does. I don't know why you keep under-rating this argument, but it's really a critical one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
I think I've been over this -- the Vectrex (and Arcadia 2001) are also 1982 releases, so of course they'd go into the 3rd gen too. I was only focusing on the two most popular systems.Quote:
If they're a separate generation from the 2600, then so are the intellivision and vectrex. The NES is a far superior beast to them, even without mappers.
And? The Nintendo DS and DSi are in the same generation, the 3DS and New 3DS are in the same generation, the Genesis and 32X are in the same generation, the Wii U and PS4 are in the same generation... I don't think this point matters. Sometimes a company releases updated hardware which is more powerful, but not enough so to be a full next-generation machine. Usually these are in the form of addons, but in the SMS's case it was sold as a new system. Is the 5200 to 7800 power increase REALLY that much more than Genesis to 32X, DC to Xbox, or such? I don't think so, particularly when the 5200 has better audio in most games.Quote:
A lot of people make the argument that it makes no sense for the 5200 to be in the same generation as the 2600, but then you have the problem of it being in the same generation as the 7800 (which is quite a bit more powerful, except for the audio), and you have the problem of the Colecovision existing in the same generation as the MSX2 and SMS, both of which have second generation versions of its VDP.
Sure, but the Atari 7800 isn't very good at those either and it's certainly 3rd gen, even if most of its games are "2nd-gen-style" too. Same goes for the Sega SG-1000. Come on, there's no reason for the ridiculous double standard that those two are 3rd-gen while the essentially very similar 1982 systems aren't!Quote:
They both kinda suck at the genre that pretty much defined the 3rd generation, sidecrolling platformers (for different hardware reasons), which doesn't help either.
Now, I may prefer the '1982 is 3rd-gen' argument, but as I believe I have said before, that there are two solutions to this problem. First, you can break the second and third generations somewhere between 1980 and 1982 instead of mid 1983, or second, you could add a new generation for the systems of 1979 to 1982. Here's a list of all major TV-based consoles with cartridge games (so not 1st-gen or handheld) from the period:
1976 - Fairchild Channel F
1977 - RCA Studio II, Atari 2600, Coleco Telstar Arcade
1978 - Bally Professional Arcade, Odyssey 2, APF MP-1000, Intertron VC-4000 (& clones) (Europe)
1979 - Intellivision (test market, end of the year; 1980 wide release), Bandai Super Vision 8000 (Japan)
1980 - nothing
1981 - nothing in the US (Epoch Cassette Vision releases in Japan [clearly a 2nd gen system], and the V'Tech CreatiVision in Hong Kong and Europe, if you count it as a console and not a computer -- it's a hybrid, probably more computer than console)
1982 - Colecovision, Atari 5200, Vectrex, Arcadia 2001 (& European clones)
1983 - Famicom (NES) (Japan), SG-1000 (Japan)
1984 - Super Cassette Vision (Japan), Atari 7800 (US test-market; 1986 full release)
1985 - Sega Master System
1986 - nothing
1987 - PC Engine (Turbografx-16) - the first 4th-gen console
For handhelds: Microvision - 1979; Entex Select-A-Game: 1981; Entex Game Pocket Computer - 1984 (Japan)
Going by release dates, if we're going to break this up, the most natural break is to say that through 1981 is 2nd-gen and then 1982 starts the third gen, as I have said before -- put the break in the period with no new major systems releasing. That works for release dates, and going by system power that works for US-released consoles.
As for those two systems of 1981, one is a late Japan-only 2nd-gen machine, the Cassette Vision, and the other a computer/console hybrid, the CreatiVision. The Cassette Vision, in hardware, graphics, and games, is clearly 2nd-gen; it's much more Atari 2600 than 5200 or even Arcadia 2001. And the CreatiVision, while more powerful, is as much an early computer as it is a console, so it can perhaps be ruled out because of that -- consoles are machines focused on gaming first, after all.
There is an argument for adding a generation for 1979-1982, though. The Intellivision clearly was a step above previous consoles, after all, and then the same goes for the NES 3 1/2 years later. And if you count the CreatiVision in between, then you have systems releasing between '79 and '82 which increase on power. But still, the longer time gap is that between the Intellivision and Colecovision, not the O2 and Intellivision! Actually, the Atari 2600 and Intellivision have closer release dates than the Intellivision and Colecovision do -- the Intellivision is 2 years 3 months after the 2600, and 2 years 8 months before the Colecovision, and the 5200 released after that. And with that solution you'd still have the problem that several later systems, most notably the 7800 and SG-1000, would still be in the same generation as the NES with games and designs that are quite "last-gen".
It's definitely much easier to break the generations after the mid '80s, things get much clearer... but there has to be a better solution here than "everything from '76 to '82 is 2nd-gen", and I think that '1982 starts the 3rd gen' makes sense.
The problem with those early systems is that hardware was evolving so fast a single year makes a huge difference, so setting a breakpoint is tough.
The 5th gen is annoying too. You say the 32X is a 4th gen system (as does wikipedia)? It was released when the 5th gen was already well underway.
The hardware matches too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l9pT5lyHNI
There's just no way to discuss this objectively. Dates don't work, hardware doesn't work, going by games only kinda sorta works.
Oh, man, that tantalizing final screen:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/attachm...4&d=1421445240
What do you have to do to get that last (or, really, 5th of six) missing medal?!
Honestly, this discussion is reminding me intensely of why all this "generation" stuff is a total waste of time. It's a nerdy taxonomy that has no real-world meaning -- pointless, obsessive list-making that doesn't shed any light on anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
The 32X is closer to the 3DO than to the other 5th gen consoles, but indeed could be considered of this generation. However, I think it's a mistake to put it and the Sega CD as consoles, for me they're just add-ons to the MD, like the Kinect is for the 360.
I'll admit my OCD makes me want to cram systems into generations/lists (I really like making lists). I've found that to be impossible to do without feeling some are misplaced. I can't disagree with ABFs arguments even though I'd place the systems differently. Then there's the 32X. It's an addon for a 4th gen console with 5th gen hardware. How the heck do you place that?Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenband
I will say though that there are some clear eras in gaming:
The first era was marked by the Odyssey ("games" with many more "").
The second era by the 2600 (programmable cartridges, classic arcady games).
The third by the NES (depth, sidescrolling, music).
The forth by the Genesis/SNES (parallax, refined gameplay, proper ports).
The 5th by the PS1 (crappy 3D).
The 6th by the PS2 (good 3D, crappy online).
The 7th by the Xbox 360/PS3 (HD, ubiquitous online, "handholding").
The 8th by the Xbox One/PS4 (awful updates, DLC, indies)
The dates and systems that actually fit into these eras? That's a lot harder to pinpoint. I'll do what I should have done a long time ago and stop caring.
^I think that grouping is worthwhile. It's the whole "we have to specify exactly what generation each system fits into, and then argue about it" thing that is now striking me as meaningless. There are just too many variables.
Anyway, you know what Master System game I kind of like? Air Rescue. The physics are totally screwed up, but I found it somewhat addictive for a little while. It's also the only home "port" of the arcade game, though (as my air quotes suggest) the SMS release has almost nothing in common with the original.
Lists are great. Also, categorizing things into periods is useful and important...
Oh, and I should add that looking at those three portable systems, setting 1982 as the break point holds up -- the '79 and '81 handhelds are very basic technology, while the one from '84 is more advanced. The two from '79 and '81 are clearly either both 2nd-gen, or from that prospective 1979-82 generation which I don't think makes any sense because of how close the NES and 5200/Colecovision are in power and release dates.
And that is indeed why it is 4th generation. Had it been a stand-alone system it'd probably be considered 5th-gen, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxi
The number of bits a system uses doesn't really matter all that much, there are better ways of comparing system power than that... (the Intellivision is 16-bit, for a well-known example.) But yes, just like all of the systems of 1976-1985 that aren't the Intellivision, the SG-1000 is 8-bit. You can't separate the 2nd and 3rd generations by looking at bits, they're all 8-bit except for that one exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennab
I don't know, ABF. I used to enjoy it, but now so much of this console-comparison thing seems irredeemably meta. It's the illusion of content, but doesn't really say anything. And it's such a plague on this site -- and on the Internet in general, which is overrun with clickbait that largely revolves around lists -- that I really think it does more harm than good.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
I mean, look 3 posts earlier, and there's an example of a game that isn't 100% understood -- no one seems to have any idea what the deal is with the medals -- and that's one of many on the 32X that we simply don't 100% know how it works or what the in-game goals are. Finding out what's going on with that, or with any of the hundreds of underexplored games on Sega systems alone, would be worthwhile. Write reviews, beat them for the beat-'em-all thread, post a video, make a translation patch -- anything that resembles content creation.
But endlessly discussing whether the SG-1000 or the Atari 5200 or whatever should be Generation Ø or Generation ∞? I don't see it as constructive anymore.
(I do enjoy your console library reviews, though.)
Dude master of darkness versus castlevania2 what wins?
Good question. I have not played Master of Darkness all the way through but I think it is a top notch game! Better than Castlevania 2....?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessie
True dude and I concur too the master system ninjas gaiden is way better overall than nes'
Easy win to Master of Darkness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennab
The first NG one NES or any of them? Even compared to the first NG on NES, the MS version is inferior over all. Care to list your qualifiers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennab
Hum...
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shot...een-ninjas.png http://www.mobygames.com/images/shot...ep-jungles.png
The MS version offers a better game design and much more fairer challenge, as it doesn't rely on an absurd amount of cheap hits for a challenge, like the NES version.
Music is pretty good on both versions.
IMO this whole thing occurs so often because most of people aren't really willing to provide any content or contribute to anything bigger, they just want to leave their own "mark" on the subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenband
Why should I care to play the games if I can just argue endlessly about definitions of this or that, making me feel great and self-important?
So true dude....like the master system one has better graphics with responsive smooth gameplay and music in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottino
Heh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
http://i58.tinypic.com/1h9ev8.jpg
True indeed, but to be fair :Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennab
NES version = 1988
SMS version = 1992
And the last games of the console were quite awesome...
Better colors, sure, but not graphics. The MS graphic tiles and overall background pixel art has a very limited look to it, as well as the depth of the graphic design is gone: it's all now simplistic 2D (no depth or angle to the graphics, and a fairly squarish look to it). The pixel art in the MS version is clean, but most of it is pretty bland looking - just with extra colors thrown on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennab
The MS Ninja Gaiden stage design graphics are a minimal style with average design, regardless of having more colors. The variety and choices for the design is rather bland-to-average as well. The enemy designs are ok, but the bosses don't have that Ninja Gaiden flavor or flare. But yeah, the bosses. In the NES series, the bosses are definitely a large part of the atmosphere both design wise and gameplay mechanics. Which brings me to the controls..
Despite some of the cheap hits on the NES game (birds, edge respawns, etc), the gameplay mechanics (also relative to the stage designs) overall feel fine and are rewarding. The SMS gameplay is pretty good, and fairer enemy design is a welcome plus, but when coupled with the stage designs - the gameplay ends up feeling rather mundane by comparison. Matter of fact, when playing it - I tend to get the feeling of Ryu in generic Shinobi clone world. It has that weird (simplistic?) Master System/Gamegear vibe to it. I dunno. I guess that's no surprise since Sega made this.
The PSG music on the MS one doesn't make my ears bleed, like a lot of MS games, and that's a real plus (not to be understated). But compared to any of the NES ones, or even just the first NES one - the MS version's music is only average at best by comparison. It's not in the same league. There's nothing exciting about it, there's nothing about it that makes me want to listen to it (I had a mix tape of the NES one), and just lacks any atmosphere of the first one. Which is my last point...
The MS game lacks the atmosphere just oozing from the NES one. And I mean every category; story, music, design, etc. Instead, everything about the MS version is simplified. If anything, it should have had everything from the NES series because of the late release. I don't hold that against it per se, but it should at least measure up to the first game in the main 8bit series. But as is, it appears that Sega just licensed the name and made their own game - with some loose fitting aesthetics to keep up appearances.
The MS version is an alright game, but there's nothing special about. And that's the problem with it: it has that Ninja Gaiden title. Despite the few flaws of the NES one (and difficulty, which IMO is just fine; I beat the game multiple times in middle school), the MS lacks all the character and traits that mades the NES series great. Change the name to Shinobi something-or-other, and the main sprite, none would be the wiser. If you think this is a better Ninja Gaiden game, despite its inferior atmosphere and scope by comparison, then you're mostly likely not an 8bit Ninja Gaiden fan. That's fine, but that doesn't make it (MS) a better 'Ninja Gaiden'. The increased colors doesn't negate the other deficiencies in its overall mundane design.
Ninja Gaiden 3 did away with the "3D" look though :p. It's also the best Ninja Gaiden. Having machines and mutants as enemies isn't as cool, but no respawning enemies sure is.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
I'm speaking of the Japanese version of course, as the western version took the working designs approach of making everything harder for no reason, which is really bad when the game is already hard to begin with.
I honestly think Ninja Gaiden SMS is a better game than the NES game, but I never thought Ninja Gaiden was more than "alright" to begin with. The SMS game controls a lot better, and that's really important to me.
Some guy at Shmups.com, named BIL, says NES Ninja Gaiden is his gold standard for action games (which he says this is his second post of this topic; http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=45206).
He even posts a video of him beating the game in the opening post, so you can see his skills. Don't recall him saying anything about this game being unfair, though? He even gives advice to this other guy after seeing his vid too, which was also interesting. So until I finally beat these Ninja Gaiden games myself, I think I'll actually settle for his word. But yeah, overall, his chat on this game at that forum really left an impression on me.
I like both of those ports, but the nes feels more "solid". I find some MS games have floaty jumps or the feel of it doesn't feel as solid or like the character is really standing or hitting anything. Very odd. Maybe it's just me.