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

[Yohko16]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ecco]

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...

[Ecco]

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.

[Blades]

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?

[Gryson]

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).

[Leynos]

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

[Sik]

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

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

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.

[combusted]

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.



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

[Gryson]

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/

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.

[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.

[Gryson]

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.

[combusted]

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.

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

[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.

[Black_Tiger]

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?

[Sik]

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