People should stop freaking out about the Snes's cpu

[Tr3vor]

16-bits is about 8-bits too many.

No problem, the 65816 is backwards compatible with the 6502, so I guess the SNES should be able to run 8-bit code too.

 

That is true. Actually, if you happen across the Super8, you can play NES and Famicom games on your SNES.

 

Oooh, that looks VERY sexy. Is that available for North American SNES?

[tz101]

Ford vs. Chevy. Chevy vs. Ford.

 

Both systems had their good points, and games. These days both are cheap enough to collect for, so get both. That's what I did, with ~60 games for each so far. Each is a nice gaming platform in my opinion.

[Vic George 2K3]

i think someone's just upset coz genesis does what nintendon't, and that's a fact.

 

Or the Super NES is what the Genesisn't, but frankly the argument is so outdated.

[malducci]

16-bits is about 8-bits too many.

No problem, the 65816 is backwards compatible with the 6502, so I guess the SNES should be able to run 8-bit code too.

 

That is true. Actually, if you happen across the Super8, you can play NES and Famicom games on your SNES.

 

Some how I doubt it's using the SNES processor in 8bit mode. More like it's a mini NES packed via crappy emulation and the video (register writes and data updates) is passed onto the snes cpu to send to the sPPU (like how the wideboy works for the NES and the super gameboy works for the SNES).

Edited April 15, 2010 by malducci

[Video]

They both handle being overloaded in different ways, the Genesis would flicker like crazy with a high sprite count, while the SNES would slow down. It's just how the system processes video.

 

But IMO, most of what makes a great game is going to be the programmer. They did awesome on Doom for the SNES, Sega didn't even try it (no, the 32X doesn't count as it's a whole nother piece of hardware)

 

Look at a game done really well though, take Bubsy, I love that game, it is escentually the same on both systems. The snes has better graphics and certainly sound, but it's still the same on t genesis. (though IMO, the snes handles flipping the levels far better than the genesis, it seems disjointed on the genny)

 

Or look at Lemmings, again, a great game on both systems, but both games display the systems weaknesses too, the SNES slows down when as it exceeds 100 lemmings (lots of animated BG sprites) while the Genesis flickers as it passes 80, for the same reason.

 

Like someone said above, get both. They have their own lines of games that kick ass. I like (and back in the day too) both Mario and sonic about equally well. The SNES single console that runs everything was cool for us poor folks back in the day (though the genny was cheaper, at least in these parts) but the genesis had all the accessories, it gets pretty scarry wlooking if you got everything for it

 

Or just got the even cheaper rout and get one of those X in one game consoles. The ones with Genesis and SNES in it kick ass ( even if they don't handle a few games, and the forgotten accessories for each)

[DickNixonArisen]

I think SNES gets the edge in the very end, only due to total number of great games released. There are awesome gen titles of course, but a think not quite as many. Also, the great gen games are often fairly hard to find in the wild whereas the better SNES games are a little more common. Can't pass me up some shining force, Castlevania, general chaos, mutant league, vectorman, landstalker, beyond oasis, phantasy star's, a bunch of good shooters... but I'll still say the SNES has the slight edge. A lot of GEN games are very pretty and deep but have control issues compared to the SNES versions of the same game. I haven't found any good fighters outside of SF2 and the MK's on the gen. I have TMNT, Eternal heroes (is that it?), world heroes, samurai shodown, justice league, primal rage .. uh.. shaq fu (which isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be). None of them control well or feel right as a fighter. There are some real turds on gen's record like shadow of the beast - that would never have gotten released on the SNES. To be fair, though, they didn't come out at the same time, so the genesis should not be expected to be at quite the same level - it's older.

 

I also tend to think gen games are harder on the average - which is not necessarily bad, but I own way too many games to have any game time to spend messing around with Chakan, ecco or even the GEN contra. Even some random platformers like taz games, greendog, turrican... wicked hard.

 

Oh, yea. Much nicer pad on the SNES too - gen is a little too big and the dpad isn't as smooth, plus fewer buttons in total. The genpad looks cool, like a batarang.

 

Gen's are nicer looking consoles, at least the second model is pretty sexy. The SNES is kinda weird looking if you can look at it with fresh eyes.

 

Both have the sports curse, but Gen does have it worse...

 

The 32x and even CD were kinda iffy, with not too many great titles released for each - again, the bad ones (sewer shark, dragon's lair, night trap) are everywhere but the good shooters and LUNAR are not in my collection.

 

Still, there's no reason not to own both consoles and store them next to each other, where they will cuddle lovingly when you are not looking.

[roland p]

Some how I doubt it's using the SNES processor in 8bit mode. More like it's a mini NES packed via crappy emulation and the video (register writes and data updates) is passed onto the snes cpu to send to the sPPU (like how the wideboy works for the NES and the super gameboy works for the SNES).

Wiki says its a NOAC (NES On A Chip).

[per]

sega is better it has blast processing!

Isn't "blast processing" just a fancy name of DMA (Direct Memory Access)?

 

But as others said, the fact that a game is produced for powerfull hardware doesn't automaticly make it good.

[chrisbid]

I'm also sick of the Snes being thought of as an rpg-only system.

 

I'm sick of Genesis being thought of as a sports games and Sonic-only system.

 

Both of you have good points. I had a SNES and loved it growing up, but I played a lot of Genesis at a friends house during the time also, so I think both systems are very good.

 

Each system had it's pluses. The Genesis had a faster processor so it was better at doing action and shoot-em-ups. The SNES had superior sound and video hardware, so it featured better graphics and music.

 

But a great game could be made for EITHER system if the programer knew what they were doing.

 

The Genesis had some awsome RPG's made for it (the Phantasy Star and Shining Force games) and the SNES had some great fast paced shooting and action games for it (Gradius III, F-Zero, and Contra III)

 

After all, it's not the HARDWARE that determines if a system does well or not -- it's the GAMES.

 

 

 

the kumbaya speil fails when you list the snes port of gradius iii as 'great' and 'fast-paced'

 

the snes port of gradius iii is an abomination, the quintessential example of 'great graphics are more important than great gameplay'

 

fact is, nintendo had 2 years to come up with a system that bested the genesis in every way imaginable. they didnt

[Multijointed Monster Maker]

I don't think it's only number of sprites onscreen that make action games look good. I think part of it goes to sprite animation.

[Reaperman]

Genesis and SNES were both awfully underpowered systems. Heck that was (and still is) most of their charm. What I think is odd is that the 16-bit debate still focuses on the same two Kmart-grade game consoles. Especially when there were just a ton of early 90's systems out there.

 

Nobody ever accused the Neo Geo of sloth--at least not for the first half decade.

[jeremysart]

I get sick of the Super Nintendo's Power (supply) as well! Everytime you think you got a good super nintendo to play game son the Power runs out. Damn AC cable breaks or the port goes bad...Then you gotta find another one?

 

For some reason now when I play Doom my SNES gets these bade refresh lines scrolling down the TV. Im not sure if its an AV or Power Suply issue, but both are third party replacements

[+wood_jl]

The only thing that gets me really irritated is when people go on about how terrible the SNES port of Doom was, and they go on to compare it to the "better" 32X version.

I mean sure, the resolution is pretty low and the frame rate is slow, BUT, it is the only version of Doom ported to console that had all of the levels faithfully reproduced with all the correct textures and sprites, they only cut a couple of the levels out, but kept all the original secret levels, had all three episodes, all the enemies and bosses, and all of the weapons, plus the music was excellent.

 

The best thing about SNES DOOM is that they pulled it off at all. It's an interesting tech demo, if nothing more. It's (was) pretty unexpected (at least to me) when it came out, and it's still playable and has the positive attributes you mention.

 

Now the 32X version, though it was fast and had higher resolution.. the music was god awful, it was missing more than half the levels, both of the bosses were missing, and the textures were all wrong.

Another thing, people complain that the enemies only face forward in the SNES version.. but I would also like to point out that they only face forward in the 32X version as well.

 

Agreed. The 32x DOOM sucks big time. Have to compensate by playing 32x Virtua Racing.

 

Good thing we don't have to choose sides in this battle. I'll bet most people here bought $10 systems at thrift stores years ago and play both.

[shadow460]

OK, I'm officially partial to the Genesis, but not by much. It's only because I have a few games and a system to play them on.

[+wood_jl]

Ford vs. Chevy. Chevy vs. Ford.

 

Hey - what about Chrysler and the imports?

[+wood_jl]

Genesis and SNES were both awfully underpowered systems. Heck that was (and still is) most of their charm. What I think is odd is that the 16-bit debate still focuses on the same two Kmart-grade game consoles. Especially when there were just a ton of early 90's systems out there.

 

Nobody ever accused the Neo Geo of sloth--at least not for the first half decade.

 

If your greatest attraction to video games is 2-D Japanese-style fighters, and you were willing to invest thousands of dollars to play them, then more power to you. Thankfully for people with varied taste in games and who operated on a budget, it wasn't the only game in town.....a rather small part, really. Mortal Kombat II on SNES took care of that dept for me as I'm not really a fan of the genre but had hours and hours of great fun with that one.

Edited April 15, 2010 by wood_jl

[Tr3vor]

I know there are good games for the genesis, but, for some reason when I play those games (I mean, when I did) they made me think "Gross!" and I shut off the console. Even before I knew it was a competitor of the SNES, my first console, I disliked it.

 

I know there are some times when the SNES slows down (D-Force is horrible) But who cares about if the cpu is slower, and for the genesis, who cares that the sound and graphics are inferrior, they bolth have thier classics, like Sonic 2 (the only game I could bear playing) and Super Mario World, so enjoy bolth worlds (sure I should be saying that, I sold my genesis...)

[chrisbid]

Genesis and SNES were both awfully underpowered systems. Heck that was (and still is) most of their charm. What I think is odd is that the 16-bit debate still focuses on the same two Kmart-grade game consoles. Especially when there were just a ton of early 90's systems out there.

 

Nobody ever accused the Neo Geo of sloth--at least not for the first half decade.

 

 

the whole point of video game consoles are to provide a cheap and easy to use box to play video games. one of the reasons the ps3 and xbox 360 arent doing so well are that they strayed too far from these basic purposes.

[malducci]

I'm also sick of the Snes being thought of as an rpg-only system.

 

I'm sick of Genesis being thought of as a sports games and Sonic-only system.

 

Both of you have good points. I had a SNES and loved it growing up, but I played a lot of Genesis at a friends house during the time also, so I think both systems are very good.

 

Each system had it's pluses. The Genesis had a faster processor so it was better at doing action and shoot-em-ups. The SNES had superior sound and video hardware, so it featured better graphics and music.

 

But a great game could be made for EITHER system if the programer knew what they were doing.

 

The Genesis had some awsome RPG's made for it (the Phantasy Star and Shining Force games) and the SNES had some great fast paced shooting and action games for it (Gradius III, F-Zero, and Contra III)

 

After all, it's not the HARDWARE that determines if a system does well or not -- it's the GAMES.

 

 

 

the kumbaya speil fails when you list the snes port of gradius iii as 'great' and 'fast-paced'

 

the snes port of gradius iii is an abomination, the quintessential example of 'great graphics are more important than great gameplay'

 

fact is, nintendo had 2 years to come up with a system that bested the genesis in every way imaginable. they didnt

I'd say that they remedied that one sole problem with via cart addons (the way the bottom half of the logic address range is layed out/fixed - it's obvious that they planned on this idea from some point of developing the SFC).

[gdement]

Nobody ever accused the Neo Geo of sloth--at least not for the first half decade.

Looks like the slightly-censored version.

I remember the first one said "dick around" in EGM, then they changed it to "fool around" a month later. There maybe were other differences I don't remember. What bugged me about those ads is that kids used the specs chart to compare the cheaper systems, and the info is inaccurate. I think Sega took issue with it also.

 

The price and marketing gave Neo Geo an aura of presumed awesomeness, just because it was that expensive arcade system nobody could afford. But after I tried an emulator many years later, I wasn't very impressed. I've never used the real thing though, or even seen one outside of the box, so my opinion isn't worth much. I've even only seen a NeoGeo arcade about twice in my life, and didn't love either of those games enough to drop a 2nd quarter.

Edited April 16, 2010 by gdement

[Herbarius]

The graphs in tho ads, when they say "Nintendo", I guess they mean NES? (i.e. when the ad came out the SNES wasn't out yet?)

Edited April 16, 2010 by Herbarius

[+wood_jl]

the whole point of video game consoles are to provide a cheap and easy to use box to play video games. one of the reasons the ps3 and xbox 360 arent doing so well are that they strayed too far from these basic purposes.

 

They're not cheap, or at least they didn't launch cheap. But if you convert the classic systems to today's dollars, they're not too far off.

 

But I don't get the implication that they are NOT easy to use. I mean, you turn it on and put in a disc, right? How much easier do you want it? Fewer buttons on the controllers, or something?

[Vic George 2K3]

Rather biased ad about the Neo-Geo, considering at the time one is paying mucho moola for a rather limited game selection.

[chrisbid]

the whole point of video game consoles are to provide a cheap and easy to use box to play video games. one of the reasons the ps3 and xbox 360 arent doing so well are that they strayed too far from these basic purposes.

 

They're not cheap, or at least they didn't launch cheap. But if you convert the classic systems to today's dollars, they're not too far off.

 

But I don't get the implication that they are NOT easy to use. I mean, you turn it on and put in a disc, right? How much easier do you want it? Fewer buttons on the controllers, or something?

 

 

cheap is a relative term, a $199 snes or genesis in 1991 was much cheaper than a $1500+ PC. $300+ today is a bit pricey for a video game machine, there are a lot of other cheaper and even free options for video games.

 

consoles these days are not as easy to use as they were in the day. online features, hi-def settings, software updates, memory management, downloadable content, wireless controllers and other 'features' are not used by a significant number of console owners. the benchmark for ease of use would be this question, "would your parents or grandparents have trouble setting up and using x console". the success of the wii this generation largely comes from the fact that among the big three, it is the cheapest and easiest to use, though compared to the nes, it is still pretty complicated.

[Chris Leach]

The Super Nintendo made Sony's Playstation become a reality...therefore Super Nintendo Wins...

Playstation was better and Playstation 2 was even better....

 

"Long Live Playstation 1 and 2, Playstation 3, I hope you die!"