"SNES has a more powerful CPU and higher resolution in games than the Genesis"

Which are bold claims if you ask me but it seems that some people believe this to be very true given the responses that can be found below the pinned comment there:

https://youtu.be/xu7DwMvnPE8

As far as I know, the Mega Drive runs most of its games in 320x224 pixels whereas the SNES is limited to 256x224 pixels for the vast majority of its library. Not only this means that the Mega Drive outputs a resolution which is 25% wider but this also means that the SNES has a flawed resolution as it is 8:7 shaped instead of being 4:3 leading to stretched visuals with usually wrong aspect ratio once displayed in 4:3 (which is the standard TV format for retro games so I have no idea how some designers thought that going with a different resolution shape could be a good idea...).


Then CPU. Again from what I can tell, the SNES has a few advantages in that regard such as requiring less clock cycles for some instructions but otherwise the Mega Drive CPU seems better in every ways: clock speed, data bus width, etc.


And more questionable claims can be found in those responses such as the SNES having better sound capabilities which seems to be yet another myth about this console as I've heard hundred of games on both systems and it's ultimately a tie in that regard, with some games sounding better on SNES whereas some others sound better on Mega Drive.


So, can the resident tech heads help to clarify all of this? Also it would be nice and welcome if some members have the possibility to do pics of multiplats on both systems taken on the same screen (actual TV) in order to definitely settle the resolution point. Some games that could be ideal to highlight this are the likes of Micro Machine 2 (not the first one as it uses the Mega Drive low resolution so it runs just like the SNES version), Zool, Mickey Mania or Thunder Force III versus Thunder Spirits.

It takes 10 seconds to download a RAW screenshot of a game like the lion king or mickey mania or thunder force 3 and see the obvious difference in resolution. If people can't be bothered to do that then there's nothing you can do to convince them.

As someone who wasted way too much time trying to prove to people they have no idea what they're talking about, I suggest you give up.

Are we seriously still arguing and analysing this bullshit after all these years?

YouTube comment sections are full of idiots, we all know that. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole thread appears to have been started in order to find someone who can provide backup in a youtube argument.

The SNES and NES before it used a weird resolution that got stretched to the full 4:3 display. IIRC, designers were aware of this and designed their artwork accordingly. I also seem to recall it severely messing up SNES to Saturn ports because of the change in pixel shape (Castlevania maybe).

The only way the Mega Drive and SNES can do a resolution higher than 320 x 224 is in compromised modes, which is why only one game from each library uses them.

The PC Engine has 96 resolutions, most of which are higher than 320 x 224 and at least a couple hundred games use them.

PC Engine games tend to handle more 2D action without slowdown than Mega Drive games. So in that regard it's "more poweful", but there's so much more involved in what each console can do at all, do easily or effectively. Some things aren't taxing for one console, but may be on another (like Mode 7). So they're not so much a display of power as they are a unique feature.

Multi-plats aren't a controlled comparison as they are developed under different circumstances. You can take away some indications from them, as you can any type of game, but there's no magic yard stick that lets you prove anything across the board without critical thinking.

Here we fucking go again...........

"You sound like a broken record" should be changed to " You sound like SEGA-16"

Discussing corn dogs vs. buffalo wings would be a more productive conversation than this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

The only way the Mega Drive and SNES can do a resolution higher than 320 x 224 is in compromised modes, which is why only one game from each library uses them.

---

Hey now, Sonic 2 and Combat Cars use interlaced mode. That's definitely more than one game :​P

Also the Censor Xmas picture demo, if that counts.

On that note how does the interlaced mode limit the hardware? As far as I know it still has the same count of colours, sprites, backgrounds, etc. You are only limited in that you have to populate twice the screen using the same amount of tiles and cpu power, and I don't know how the linescroll tables would be set up in such a mode (do you get twice the entries or is each entry twice as large or what).
Maybe shadow/highlight is not allowed?

Pixels having 2:1 ratio is off-putting for a lot of people (i.e. it's only hi-res vertically but not horizontally). Also, tiles become 8×16 which uses up twice the video memory (though you can try working with it if you're starting from scratch).

On SNES the situation is different… It can be hi-res in both directions (albeit you lose the ability to do blending), but it doesn't apply to sprites at all, which really kills a lot of its usefulness. A few games use it to do simple translucency though (since at 512px wide the pixels are so small it blurs completely in composite), probably easier to use than the proper blending feature.

Every response I see on Youtube, you're hating on the SNES. Who gives a damn what others think, just enjoy the damned games and don't let the technical mumbo jumbo get in the way of that.


The console wars are long dead, let it go.

This reminds me of that guy we all went to school with. The guy who would get into an argument with someone and then immediately go running around to all of his friends to try and find one person who agrees with him, just so that he can go back and say: "here, look, Johnny agrees with me, so you must be wrong".

Question for the OP: do you actually own a SNES/SFC?

Might as well beat the dead horse.

The person in that comment section, probably watched those AVGN SNES vs. Genesis videos where AVGN said the SNES could do 512x448. What AVGN didn't mention is that this resolution mode was only used for about 2 games in the entire SNES library.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blades

The SNES and NES before it used a weird resolution that got stretched to the full 4:3 display. IIRC, designers were aware of this and designed their artwork accordingly.

---

The games are almost *never* designed with 4:3 stretching in mind hence why most NES, SNES and also PC Engine games have wrong aspect ratio on TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

The PC Engine has 96 resolutions, most of which are higher than 320 x 224 and at least a couple hundred games use them.

---

The majority of PC Engine games (Hucard and CD) as well as 4 out of the 5 Supergrafx games run in the same limited and flawed resolution as the SNES, 256x224 pixels. There are screenshots and videos everywhere online if needed.

Quote:

---

PC Engine games tend to handle more 2D action without slowdown than Mega Drive games. So in that regard it's "more poweful", but there's so much more involved in what each console can do at all, do easily or effectively. Some things aren't taxing for one console, but may be on another (like Mode 7). So they're not so much a display of power as they are a unique feature.

---

I know that you're the resident PC Engine fanboy but that's yet another claim that doesn't make sense at all. Compared to the Mega Drive (or Mega-CD/32X) the PC Engine usually has games in lower resolution, with less to no parallax scrolling, with more compromised action and also usually worse sound. The genres that struggle the most on PC Engine are the most intensive ones such as beat 'em ups, run 'n guns or racing games. In that regard, the SNES actually has, or really seems to have the edge over the PC Engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SegataS

"You sound like a broken record" should be changed to " You sound like SEGA-16"

---

Then feel free to provide a link with a complete and irrefutable comparison between the Amiga, PC Engine, Mega Drive and SNES. Even just Mega Drive vs SNES is still not done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bloodreign

Every response I see on Youtube, you're hating on the SNES.

---

And every response I see on Youtube, you're downplaying Sega stuff or come with some futile claims "both versions are enjoyable" just to not admit when SNES versions are worse. But do it, admit it, you will actually feel good.

Quote:

---

The console wars are long dead, let it go.

---

On the contrary, it appears to be more alive than ever and, more importantly, in a more relevant way than ever with all the knowledge and tools to settle things for good. I personally find this to be very interesting and entertaining but the problem is that some people aren't willing to accept facts but they should deal with it. YES, the NES or SNES have broken resolution, YES, the SNES have performance issues in many games, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

Question for the OP: do you actually own a SNES/SFC?

---

Out of the fourth generation of gaming, I only own a PC Engine plus a Super CD-Rom² add-on. But I play about every other retro hardwares at friend houses at times, mainly Mega Drive and Playstation 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yharnamresident

The person in that comment section, probably watched those AVGN SNES vs. Genesis videos where AVGN said the SNES could do 512x448. What AVGN didn't mention is that this resolution mode was only used for about 2 games in the entire SNES library.

---

Exactly. Just as Sik explained above, the SNES hi-res modes are technically so compromised that they're almost useless in regular conditions hence why most of the library is basically stuck in 256x224 pixels whereas most of the Mega Drive, Mega-CD as well as every 32X games run in 320x224 pixels.

How about we just try to clarify as much as possible.

Didn't most Genesis games use a higher resolution than most SNES games. And isn't it really as simple as that? (IDK the numbers but someone else can say the exact resolutions of each console.)

I always think of how Super Mario World looks like a lower resolution than the Sonic games, which is true AFAIK, but also SMW's art-style seems to exaggerate it too, with a lot of thick black outlines...

Quote:

---

the SNES hi-res modes are technically so compromised that they're almost useless in regular conditions hence why most of the library is basically stuck in 256x224 pixels whereas most of the Mega Drive, Mega-CD as well as every 32X games run in 320x224 pixels.

---

Ah ok, so that's the normal resolution for each console. Yeah it makes MD graphics look better imo, because the graphics are sharper... But I guess it depends what matters to an individual person, because apparently a lot of people preferred the SNES' lower res with more colors, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yohko16

The games are almost *never* designed with 4:3 stretching in mind hence why most NES, SNES and also PC Engine games have wrong aspect ratio on TV.

---

What are you talking about. Sure, some games ignored it, but some didn't. Or is the Triforce at the beginning of A Link to the Past not supposed to be a triangle?

https://rsn7ug.by.files.1drv.com/y4m...&cropmode=none

Title screens are one thing, but many SNES games (including Mario, Metroid, and other first party games) do not take stretching into account in the actual game graphics. The same is true for the 256x224 Genesis games (such as Monster World IV).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yohko16

The games are almost *never* designed with 4:3 stretching in mind hence why most NES, SNES and also PC Engine games have wrong aspect ratio on TV.




The majority of PC Engine games (Hucard and CD) as well as 4 out of the 5 Supergrafx games run in the same limited and flawed resolution as the SNES, 256x224 pixels. There are screenshots and videos everywhere online if needed.



I know that you're the resident PC Engine fanboy but that's yet another claim that doesn't make sense at all. Compared to the Mega Drive (or Mega-CD/32X) the PC Engine usually has games in lower resolution, with less to no parallax scrolling, with more compromised action and also usually worse sound. The genres that struggle the most on PC Engine are the most intensive ones such as beat 'em ups, run 'n guns or racing games. In that regard, the SNES actually has, or really seems to have the edge over the PC Engine.




Then feel free to provide a link with a complete and irrefutable comparison between the Amiga, PC Engine, Mega Drive and SNES. Even just Mega Drive vs SNES is still not done.



And every response I see on Youtube, you're downplaying Sega stuff or come with some futile claims "both versions are enjoyable" just to not admit when SNES versions are worse. But do it, admit it, you will actually feel good.




On the contrary, it appears to be more alive than ever and, more importantly, in a more relevant way than ever with all the knowledge and tools to settle things for good. I personally find this to be very interesting and entertaining but the problem is that some people aren't willing to accept facts but they should deal with it. YES, the NES or SNES have broken resolution, YES, the SNES have performance issues in many games, etc.




Out of the fourth generation of gaming, I only own a PC Engine plus a Super CD-Rom² add-on. But I play about every other retro hardwares at friend houses at times, mainly Mega Drive and Playstation 1.




Exactly. Just as Sik explained above, the SNES hi-res modes are technically so compromised that they're almost useless in regular conditions hence why most of the library is basically stuck in 256x224 pixels whereas most of the Mega Drive, Mega-CD as well as every 32X games run in 320x224 pixels.

---

Gotcha fam. SNES CPU vs Mega Drive vs PC Engine

For the record, Super Mario World does account for the non-square pixel ratio

https://twitter.com/MarioBrothBlog/s...74385994317831

Quote:

---

Despite appearing to be merely a rotated version of his normal running animation, Mario's animation for running up walls in Super Mario World actually uses unique, deformed sprites.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlycrLEXoAISK5r.png:orig

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yohko16

The games are almost *never* designed with 4:3 stretching in mind hence why most NES, SNES and also PC Engine games have wrong aspect ratio on TV.

---

Most of game consoles and arcades were designed for a DAR of 4:3, there is nothing new about it.
https://i.postimg.cc/SsXQsZJV/Capcom...-Ratio-480.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHfPA4n0TRo

Since there wasn't any "rule" and CRT's displays whatever you trow at it you can see a big mess.
http://www.firebrandx.com/consoleaspectcorrection.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssluTgfkdlg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sik

For the record, Super Mario World does account for the non-square pixel ratio

---

Maybe at times, but it definitely has stretching of squares and circles in the background/HUD.

https://www.videogameperfection.com/...tion-for-snes/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by combusted

Most of game consoles and arcades were designed for a DAR of 4:3, there is nothing new about it.

---

Even Capcom, who really had no choice but to correct for AR since they were using the extreme 384x224 in their arcade systems, often did not correct the AR on the backgrounds in their SNES ports. The SNES ports of SF2 and Final Fight at least have distorted squares and circles in their backgrounds.

Again, it's important to check more than the title graphics and opening animations. Those were usually corrected, but in-game tile-based graphics were often not.

To be fair, the Super Mario World screenshots there are measuring things that had to be drawn against tile boundaries. There really isn't much to do when your tiles are non-square.

That's actually another problem… trying to correct for aspect ratio is a lot more problematic when the tiles don't align neatly with the intended size. Sometimes you can handwave it as it having been intended to be rectangular (the blocks could be a good example), but that isn't always the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sik

To be fair, the Super Mario World screenshots there are measuring things that had to be drawn against tile boundaries. There really isn't much to do when your tiles are non-square.

That's actually another problem… trying to correct for aspect ratio is a lot more problematic when the tiles don't align neatly with the intended size. Sometimes you can handwave it as it having been intended to be rectangular (the blocks could be a good example), but that isn't always the case.

---

Yes, and is there any SNES game that attempts to correct AR for tiles with squares/circles? I guess the best option would have been to just avoid those as much as possible. But it seems like in the end, we get a lot of games with corrected sprites and such, but tiles remain uncorrected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gryson

Even Capcom, who really had no choice but to correct for AR since they were using the extreme 384x224 in their arcade systems, often did not correct the AR on the backgrounds in their SNES ports. The SNES ports of SF2 and Final Fight at least have distorted squares and circles in their backgrounds.

Again, it's important to check more than the title graphics and opening animations. Those were usually corrected, but in-game tile-based graphics were often not.

---

As stated, there wasn't any rule at the time for this, many really didn't care about it, among other things include other complications like color systems like 525 lines NTSC, 625 lines PAL, SECAM, the many variations os this systems, I mean; this was too much to ask for, because of the limitations of the technology and hardware at the time, not to say the final cost of the hardware. That's why it's more simple to say that it was a mess and the games were designed with 4:3 aspect ratio in mind for about 90% of the cases.

About Capcom and their funky resolution, it was a mistake.
https://i.postimg.cc/4d8Ghrrc/design-paper-sf2.png
Akira Yasuda (AKA Akiman) complained that the pixels weren’t square at the time and later learned that it was a calculation error from the hardware engineers, it has nothing to do with correcting aspect ratios. You can read the whole story about this at the link below.
https://vgdensetsu.tumblr.com/post/1...gn-the-artists

It's funny, because the Capcom fighters on the Saturn were displayed at the arcade resolution and the CRTs did not adjust for the added lines. The monitors simply cut off the left and right sides of the screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

It's funny, because the Capcom fighters on the Saturn were displayed at the arcade resolution and the CRTs did not adjust for the added lines. The monitors simply cut off the left and right sides of the screen.

---

I thought that the Saturn can't do CPS2 resolution, so a bit off the sides isn't visible from being cropped by the lower resolution?

Yeah, Saturn can only do 320px or 352px wide (or double them), not 384px.

There are games like Decathlete that are at a higher resolution.

The Sega Mega Drive was waaaay more better than the SNES cos me and all my mates had a Mega Drive, and nobody had a SNES at school except this one kid who had no friends so there! If you want a fight about it you can meet me by the side gate after school and I'll use my Streets of Rage skills on ya!

In all seriousness are people still arguing over this?! I will always be a Sega fan boy 'til I die, but that hasn't stopped me getting a SNES in recent years and really enjoying playing games on it. I love the fact that some games of the same name are completely different on both consoles, yet both are great to play. Alien 3 is a good example of this.

Ahhh Yohko, I play games to have fun, not to run myself insane worrying about which version is better. I play the games, SNES or Genesis.


I once hated the Genesis with a passion, maybe the same way you hate the SNES, but I decided to buy a Genesis in 98, gave it a chance. Did it hurt me to try and enjoy games from a console I hated at the time, absolutely not. If anything, it opened my eyes to more games I could enjoy. I let go the hate, let it fly away, have over 170 games for each 16 bit console. I'd suggest doing the same, try and enjoy the games, quit worrying about technical mumbo jumbo that is keeping you from enjoying the games.


I don't downplay anything, as I said, I enjoy the games (so what if one version plays a little differently from the other). Between you and that Ben Owen cat (that guy needs to chill most definitely) on Youtube, you both need to open your eyes and enjoy the games. Worrying about shortcomings for SNES, there is such a thing as being too much a fanboy of one console, and it's not a good thing, trust me. The SNES, like the Genesis, has a treasure trove of excellent games, as well as stinkers, no system has an entirely flawless library.


We are alike, or were alike in some ways, me prior to my 1998 Genesis purchase, the only difference, I got older, and gave the Genesis it's due, and got rid of the hate. These days I have 3 Sega consoles in my home, a Genesis, an SMS, and a Saturn, I wouldn't trade them away for anything, just like my Nintendo systems, and Sony systems. I'd smack younger me behind the head if I ever got the chance for thinking that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bloodreign

Ahhh Yohko, I play games to have fun, not to run myself insane worrying about which version is better. I play the games, SNES or Genesis.


I once hated the Genesis with a passion, maybe the same way you hate the SNES, but I decided to buy a Genesis in 98, gave it a chance. Did it hurt me to try and enjoy games from a console I hated at the time, absolutely not. If anything, it opened my eyes to more games I could enjoy. I let go the hate, let it fly away, have over 170 games for each 16 bit console. I'd suggest doing the same, try and enjoy the games, quit worrying about technical mumbo jumbo that is keeping you from enjoying the games.


I don't downplay anything, as I said, I enjoy the games (so what if one version plays a little differently from the other). Between you and that Ben Owen cat (that guy needs to chill most definitely) on Youtube, you both need to open your eyes and enjoy the games. Worrying about shortcomings for SNES, there is such a thing as being too much a fanboy of one console, and it's not a good thing, trust me. The SNES, like the Genesis, has a treasure trove of excellent games, as well as stinkers, no system has an entirely flawless library.


We are alike, or were alike in some ways, me prior to my 1998 Genesis purchase, the only difference, I got older, and gave the Genesis it's due, and got rid of the hate. These days I have 3 Sega consoles in my home, a Genesis, an SMS, and a Saturn, I wouldn't trade them away for anything, just like my Nintendo systems, and Sony systems. I'd smack younger me behind the head if I ever got the chance for thinking that way.

---

Love it. It's funny that we came at this conclusion from polar opposite starting points in life, in terms of gaming, and yet ended at the same place. Whether you go for the Sega Mega Drive or the SNES, the bottom line is the same. The 16-bit era was arguably the greatest in gaming history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

There are games like Decathlete that are at a higher resolution.

---

The Saturn, like the Mega Drive, has specific resolutions it can do. Some are way higher than CPS2 and some are lower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

The Saturn, like the Mega Drive, has specific resolutions it can do. Some are way higher than CPS2 and some are lower.

---

Some are just weird. I just captured Last Gladiators from the Saturn. I saw that its output resolution (I can't see it now) was something like 407x267, which is a really odd number. The capture device decided to use 700x480 (or something like that) for the capture resolution. Capcom probably could have used that 470 resolution, but I believe that they were worried about using up video memory, so they decided to cut off the edges of the screen and display it at 320 x 240 instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Some are just weird. I just captured Last Gladiators from the Saturn. I saw that its output resolution (I can't see it now) was something like 407x267, which is a really odd number. The capture device decided to use 700x480 (or something like that) for the capture resolution. Capcom probably could have used that 470 resolution, but I believe that they were worried about using up video memory, so they decided to cut off the edges of the screen and display it at 320 x 240 instead.

---

I think that some of the unconventional video specs of some consoles confuse some capture devices and monitors. My RGB monitor and framemeister run some console video with issues, sometimes only after a period of time... and some don't register at all.

Well, i have seen some Super Nes fanboys arguing that because the console performs transparency effects, show more colors, background layers and tilemaps, your CPU can handle more workload than Genesis CPU, and these factors often require far more calculations horsepower than any additional screen area resolution.


That's true?

@EPSYLON EAGLE

The TG-16 and SNES are using more colors, which will require more video memory. The trade-off is using a slightly lower resolution, to save some VRAM space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

I think that some of the unconventional video specs of some consoles confuse some capture devices and monitors. My RGB monitor and framemeister run some console video with issues, sometimes only after a period of time... and some don't register at all.

---

I do know that it is one of the higher resolution Saturn games and my capture device will not recognize anything 320 x 240 or below. I do believe that it is using something below 640 x 480, but above 320 x 240.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Some are just weird. I just captured Last Gladiators from the Saturn. I saw that its output resolution (I can't see it now) was something like 407x267, which is a really odd number. The capture device decided to use 700x480 (or something like that) for the capture resolution. Capcom probably could have used that 470 resolution, but I believe that they were worried about using up video memory, so they decided to cut off the edges of the screen and display it at 320 x 240 instead.

---

That's impossible. The Saturn cannot display that resolution at all.

The following are the only modes possible on an NTSC console:

Horizontal:
320
352
640
704

Vertical:
224
240
448i
480i

You can do any combination of those, but you can't do anything but those fixed horizontal and vertical values. The values are determined by clockrate and hardware registers. And Capcom's CPS2 ports don't run at 320x240, they run at 352x224 because that's the closest you can get to 384x224 on the Saturn.