Super Nintendo Games with Super Speed?

[Gentlegamer]

I've heard over and over how the Genesis with its "Blast Processing" was able to create "faster" games than the Super Nintendo. Going purely by the hardware specs, this appears to be true. Yet, I recall playing a few SNES games that made use of speed in the "blast processing" sense of scrolling the screen and moving sprites.

Super Metroid: Using the Speed Booster, Samus can run very quickly, scrolling screen very fast, as fast if not faster than Sonic the Hedgehog

Smash TV: This game had dozens of sprites on each screen, each moving quickly. When the game is finished, it starts over . . . and everything is twice as fast, with no slowdown!

Can you give examples of the Super Nintendo moving things at super speed?

[badinsults]

I think you totally misunderstand the differences. By 1994, due to improved programming, the difference in processor speed did not hinder the performance of many games, unlike say in 1991, when games like Gradius III had tons of slowdown. For instance, games like Uniracers easily showed that a game like Sonic 2 could easily be be done on the snes. A good proxy on the improvements of programming come from the EA Sports series. NBA Showdown is full of rampant slowdown that basically makes the game unplayable. However, if you play NBA Live 96, the animation is smooth and actually holds up to this day. If you look at a game like Rendering Ranger, the speed and graphics far outpace anything that the Genesis could achieve.

[InsaneDavid]

"Blast Processing" was nothing more than a marketing gimmick. One that MANY people bought right in to - and some Sega fanboys continue to buy in to as well.

[Gentlegamer]

By 1994, due to improved programming, the difference in processor speed did not hinder the performance of many games, unlike say in 1991, when games like Gradius III had tons of slowdown. So the difference was primarily one of familiarity programming for the console and not any inherent limitation in CPU processing speed?


For instance, games like Uniracers easily showed that a game like Sonic 2 could easily be be done on the snes. A good proxy on the improvements of programming come from the EA Sports series. NBA Showdown is full of rampant slowdown that basically makes the game unplayable. However, if you play NBA Live 96, the animation is smooth and actually holds up to this day. If you look at a game like Rendering Ranger, the speed and graphics far outpace anything that the Genesis could achieve.Very interesting!

And just to be clear, I fully understand that "Blast Processing" was purely a marketing term; however, going by pure hardware specs, the Genesis did have a CPU that was about twice as fast as that of the SNES.

Despite that, I recalled playing many games on the SNES that made use of speed that belied what the Sega marketing asserted and what many later-day video game critics continually crow about the relative speed of the Genesis and Super Nintendo.

I wanted to see if others had experienced the same thing, that the SNES could very well do "speed" as well as the Genesis (just as the Genesis could do scaling and rotation through skilled programming).

[Wraith Storm]

I remember a game for the SNES called Claymates. It had some character like a mouse and when you got a certain power up he could move incredibly fast. I was a Genny guy and my friend that had the game was a SNES guy and when he showed it to me I remember it putting Sonic's speed to shame. I didnt want to admitt a SNES game was moving that fast.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The 68k and Z80 in the Genesis were familiar to programmers and heavily used in other consoles (Neo Geo, SMS ect) and arcade games throughout the 80's and early 90's. The snes chips were custom made IIRC. Try Thunder Force 3 on Genny and then Thunder Spirits on SNES... Thunder Spirits is basicly unplayable by comparison. Just took some time to figure the SNES arcitecture out.

Some SNES games that I've noticed that run at a good clip. (Either fast or little/no slowdown)
Uniracers (fastness)
Space Megaforce (no slo)

??? Aero Fighters ??? it has no slowdown emulated. Haven't tried it on real hardware yet to verify.

[smokehouse]

"Blast Processing" was nothing more than a marketing gimmick. One that MANY people bought right in to - and some Sega fanboys continue to buy in to as well.

Quoted for truth...

I was just a gimmick pointing out a single hardware aspect. In the end it accounted for jack shit. once people figured out what the SNES could do...it was an amazing console.

Check out this old "blast processing" commercial here:

http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/2478/

I find it amusing that the one SNES game they actually show is one the Genesis isn't capable of doing without the extra processing the Sega CD brought to the table...

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Well, the idea that the fast processor in the Genesis will actually allow individual sprites in games to "move faster" is silly of course. Both systems are running at 60fps and can move sprites by any number of pixels per frame. The Atari 2600 can move a sprite across the screen just as fast as either the SNES or Genesis.

That's just not what the faster processor allows. It allows you to do more in each frame than a slower processor, so while individual sprites can still move at the same speeds on both system, when you have a lot of sprites on the screen simultaneously and moving independently, it's much harder for the SNES to do it without slowing down (i.e. doing less per frame, which is not the same as a drop in framerate, which was never a problem in older systems). Of course it's possible to find a game here or there on the SNES that pushes around a ton of sprites or does other cycle intensive operations in every frame, but other parts of the game had to be sacrificed to accomplish that and low level programming tricks were probably used. Same with games on the Genesis that showed more than 64 colors on screen simultaneously.

This is why no one bothers to point out the games on the Genesis that do things like this, because any game on the Genesis can without any special programming skills. Again, just like no one points out the games on the SNES that use lots of on-screen colors.


...word is bondage...

[Zebbe]

I find it amusing that the one SNES game they actually show is one the Genesis isn't capable of doing without the extra processing the Sega CD brought to the table...

Another amusing thing is that the SNES rarely used scaling/rotation without the extra help of special chips - for example in this case of Super Mario Kart - because the processor was too slow to handle it on its own. Sega had the CD add-on, Nintendo the enhancement chips. Go figure.

Some SNES games are faster than Genesis games, some Genesis games are prettier than SNES games. It's not miracle, just natural.

[j_factor]

Sweater Fish Deluxe has it right. "Blast processing" may have been a dumb marketing gimmick, but the processor difference doesn't really have anything to do with how fast games are, per se. I mean, there are games for NES and SMS that move as fast as anything else. The faster processor just allows you to do more processing.

To illustrate that point, one could answer the topic by noting that Zool (which is a pretty fast game) is just as fast on SNES as it is on Genesis. But, it's also just as fast on Master System.

It's not about programming tricks, nor does it mean that the difference in processor speed is meaningless. It has more to do with whether the individual games actually utilize/require the speed. Platformers in general really aren't demanding on processing.

As for the processor speed accounting for "jack shit"... Go play Red Zone or something.

[MarioMania]

Does Street Fighter 2 Turbo count

[Kitsune Sniper]

Speedy Gonzales. Faster than Sonic. :p

[smokehouse]

As for the processor speed accounting for "jack shit"... Go play Red Zone or something.

In the end it did account for jack shit though...

Both systems had amazing titles that pushed the crap ou tof the hardware, both systems had amazing games, neither took a solid lead in the "16-bit game wars". The faster processor in the Genesis didn't help conjure up the stolen data tapes...

There was no clear cut victory on either side due to either strengths or weaknesses...then again Finl Fantasy III was amazing...

[108Stars]

Well, the Genesis COULD handle Mario Kart. There is a demo existing in the developers´scene letting you drive around a bit, showing a good looking Mario Kart on Genny with 2-player-splitscreen. If developers truly put some effort in it they could surely make it.

About superiority: I think none of the two were clearly superior. The SNES had to use various special chips in games in order to get as smooth results as the Genesis because the SNES-CPU was just weak. Also the resolution was lower. But it surpassed the Genesis in terms of colours. A very important matter, the Genesis only major flaw. I give a damn about 32 000 colours, but having 256 at once is what makes a significant difference. The other advantage of SNES was the digi-sounds it could handle.
I would say there are 2 major advantages for Genesis, two for SNES. It is a clear draw imho.

[Rob2600]

going by pure hardware specs, the Genesis did have a CPU that was about twice as fast as that of the SNES.

As Intel, AMD, Motorola, and IBM have shown us throughout the years, CPU clock speed (MHz, GHz, etc.) can be misleading and irrelevant in many cases. For example, a 500 MHz G4 CPU is more powerful than a 700 MHz Pentium III CPU. Likewise, a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU is more powerful than a 3 GHz Pentium 4 CPU.

However, ignorant consumers associate the highest clock speed with the best product, so to many, the Genesis is considered more powerful than the SNES because its CPU has more Megahertz. Sega's bogus yet clever "Blast Processing" marketing campaign only helped to spread the misinformation, but don't be fooled; the SNES was more powerful than the Genesis.

[Rob2600]

the [SNES] resolution was lower.

That's not true. According to Wikipedia.org:

SNES resolutions (NTSC):
256x224, 256x239, 512x224, 512x239, 512x448, 512x478

Genesis resolutions (NTSC):
256x224, 256x448, 320x224, 320x448

[Rob2600]

neither took a solid lead in the "16-bit game wars". ... There was no clear cut victory on either side

Really? According to Wikipedia.org and vgchartz.com:


Hardware:

SNES: 49.04 million worldwide
Sega Genesis: 29.9 million worldwide


Top 10 Software:

SNES:
Super Mario World: 20.5 million
Super Mario All-Stars: 10.6 million
Donkey Kong Country: 8.8 million
Super Mario Kart: 8.4 million
Street Fighter II: 6.3 million
Donkey Kong Country 2: 4.8 million
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past: 4.6 million
Street Fighter II Turbo: 4.1 million
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island: 4.1 million
Final Fantasy VI: 3.4 million
total top ten: 75.6 million

Genesis:
Sonic the Hedgehog 2: 6 million
Sonic the Hedgehog: 4.2 million
Aladdin: 4 million
Mortal Kombat: 2.7 million
Streets of Rage: 2.6 million
Mortal Kombat II: 2.1 million
NBA Jam: 2 million
Street Fighter II: 1.7 million
Sonic and Knuckles: 1.5 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 1.4 million
total top ten: 28.2 million

[Zebbe]

As Intel, AMD, Motorola, and IBM have shown us throughout the years, CPU clock speed (MHz, GHz, etc.) can be misleading and irrelevant in many cases. For example, a 500 MHz G4 CPU is more powerful than a 700 MHz Pentium III CPU. Likewise, a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU is more powerful than a 3 GHz Pentium 4 CPU.

So does this mean that a 7.67MHz M68k is less powerful than a 3.58MHz 65c816? I find it strange that Treasure and Tecnosoft put their games like Gunstar Heroes and Thunder Force IV on the Mega Drive when they could have been even BETTER on the SNES.


However, ignorant consumers associate the highest clock speed with the best product

Really? I thought the number of colours made the best product. :roll:


That's not true. According to Wikipedia.org: [...]

He is referring to the standard resolution.

[Rob2600]

So does this mean that a 7.67MHz M68k is less powerful than a 3.58MHz 65c816?

I don't know which CPU is more powerful, but MHz does not tell the whole story.


Really? I thought the number of colours made the best product.

You must not be a typical consumer. :)


He is referring to the standard resolution.

In that case, the standard resolution for the SNES and Genesis is the same.

[108Stars]

Wow, that seem to be pretty fanboyish posts.
1. The SNES was not more powerfull. Sorry, but that´s bullshit. I grew up without Blast Processing, that campaign never happened in Germany. Julian Eggebrecht of Factor 5 wrote an comparitive article about SNES and MD hardware. The man was involved in the Turrican-games, so he knew both systems. He clearly stated that the SNES CPU was ultra-slow trash. No matter if clockspeeds are not that important always, everybody who knows a little bit about hardware can tell you that the Genny´s CPU was clearly superior. This is a fact. That´s why I called it a draw; this fact makes up for other parts where the Genesis lacks. Thanks to the MD´s CPU a lot of 3D-effects were possible although the Genesis lacked the special-chips for 3D the SNES had.
Live with it: the SNES had one major flaw, and that was the lame CPU.

2. SNES games usually run in 256x224 pixels. Those higher modes are either untrue (Wikipedia...) or are limited to stills. The Genesis´usual resolution was 320x224 pixels; but many multiplatform-games ran in the SNES-resolution of 256x224.

3.Your sales figures. You should know that there are no exact sales figures available. They range from 28 million Gennies to 36 million.
Note: Those sales figures usually go until 1998 only.
The point is, that the Mega Drive unlike the SNES is still sold to this very day. You can still buy it in Brazil, Russia and Asia. Because Sega did not publish the system themselves in Brazil for example, the sales there are most likely not counted. These numbers you say are heavily biased towards the SNES against the Genesis.
Same with the game-charts: The SNES had more sales per hit afaik, more "blockbusters", but the Genesis had a wider range of good sales across games. Every jump´n ru fan bought Mario World on SNES. On Genesis they bought either Sonic or maybe the Disney-titles...or Kid Chameleon.

In the end it is hard to tell a winner. I think until 1998 Nintendo won by a relatively small number...much thanks to the MD´s flop in Japan. In Europe Sega won. In the US the SNESwon, but with the Genny as a close second. The Genesis 3 sold twice as much as the SNES rerelease.
However, as long as you cannot get reliable sources for ales figures until today, your judgement is foolish.

[Gentlegamer]

I see my friends from Sega-16 have joined the discussion. Welcome!

This thread is starting to take a console war turn into debating the technical specs (both concrete and hypothetical) of the two systems. Please, keep the discussion on actual games demonstrating technical qualities; in this case, "speed." :)

[j_factor]

Jeez, I didn't mean to launch a spec war...


In the end it did account for jack shit though...

Both systems had amazing titles that pushed the crap ou tof the hardware, both systems had amazing games, neither took a solid lead in the "16-bit game wars". The faster processor in the Genesis didn't help conjure up the stolen data tapes...

There was no clear cut victory on either side due to either strengths or weaknesses...then again Finl Fantasy III was amazing...

I agree that both systems had some amazing games and there was no clear-cut victory, but to imply that the CPU difference is insignificant is just wrong IMO. The 16-bit era was the only era where neither system was clearly superior -- each system had its advantages and disadvantages. The big advantage of the Genesis was the superior CPU.

The 65816 was chosen as the SNES CPU because of its backwards-compatibility functions. When NES compatibility was dropped, they didn't have time to redesign the system. Backwards compatibility always requires a trade-off in performance (or cost). The 65816 had a relatively poor cost:performance ratio. That's why the Apple IIgs wasn't so popular. The Genesis design didn't have that problem because backwards-compatibility was accomplished by just having the older hardware (Z80) in there separately (although that did account for some cost, likely requiring cost-cutting elsewhere).

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Hardware:

SNES: 49.04 million worldwide
Sega Genesis: 29.9 million worldwide

These data may be true, but it's mostly because the Mega Drive was such a huge failure in Japan. When you factor out Japanese sales, I think the Genesis sales would be at least equal to SNES. But of course, it's more complicated than that. Like 108Stars said, the Megadrive seems to have been clearly more successful than the SNES in most of Europe. In the U.S., most sources I've seen have the Genesis leading through 1995, by which time Sega had already more or less moved on to the Saturn and had confused the hell out of most of their 16-bit fans with their convoluted hardware lines. After 1995, through 1997, the SNES pulls ahead as Nintendo continued to support it (with many of the best games on the system coming out during this time) against the Playstation and Saturn since the N64 wasn't ready yet. I'm not sure that sales since 1997 that 108Stars mentioned are really large enough to be significant. Maybe up until 1999, but probably not beyond that, and I think both systems probably sold about equally for those couple years. I'm sure it's still more complicated than that, but the fact is that the two system competed very closely with one another, particularly in the U.S.

I don't want to put too much emphasis on the hardware of either system because I think the real reason both systems were so successful was because they both had great games, not because of their hardware capabilities. Since this topic is about the hardware, though, I think it's pretty safe to say that a big part of why the Genesis was able to be successful (and get so many of its great games) was because of the CPU it used, so saying that it meant "jack shit" is just wrong. It didn't make the Genesis dominant, but it kept it competitive.


...word is bondage...

[Rob2600]

This thread is starting to take a console war turn into debating the technical specs (both concrete and hypothetical) of the two systems. Please, keep the discussion on actual games demonstrating technical qualities

I believe SNES games such as F-Zero, Pilotwings, Super Mario RPG, Donkey Kong Country 2, Super Castlevania IV, Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, Star Fox, Mortal Kombat 2, Killer Instinct, and Street Fighter II Turbo are more impressive than most of the games that were done on the Genesis.

That doesn't mean Genesis games were bad; some were very impressive, but overall, I think there were many SNES games that were even more impressive.

By the way, don't underestimate the importance of RAM. The SNES had almost twice as much more. The SNES could also display more scrolling backgrounds (4 vs. 2), handle more sprites (128 vs. 64, 32 per line vs. 16 per line), and do alpha-channel transparency effects and mosaic effects.

[Rob2600]

These data may be true, but it's mostly because the Mega Drive was such a huge failure in Japan. When you factor out Japanese sales, I think the Genesis sales would be at least equal to SNES.

I've seen similar arguments made for the Xbox and the Xbox 360, which is silly. Since when does Japan not count?

Anyway, here is the sales data broken down by region:

Sega Genesis:
North America: 13 to 17.8 million
PAL territories: 9.4 million
Japan: 3.6 million
total: 26 to 30.8 million (22.4 to 27.2 million, excluding Japan)

SNES:
North America: 23.4 million
PAL territories: 8.6 million
Japan: 17 million
total: 49 million (32 million, excluding Japan)

In North America, the SNES outsold the Genesis by at least 5.6 million, if not 10.4 million. In Japan, the SNES outsold the Genesis by 13.4 million, but some people don't count Japan for some reason.

On the other hand, in PAL territories, the Genesis outsold the SNES by 0.8 million.

In PAL territories, the Genesis narrowly edged-out the SNES, but overall, the SNES was clearly the "winner."

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

I think what 108Stars and I explained previously about the success of each system *OVER TIME* explains your dry statistics, Rob. You can continue looking at things however you want, but reality is something different apparently.

As for whether or not Japan should be considered, of course it should, and we all agree the Mega Drive did not do well in Japan. So it is being considered. Lumping the sales numbers from Japan together with sales numbers from other regions gives a false picture of how well the Genesis competed in those other regions, though, so that's why it should not be considered in that case. That's a basic statistical method.


...word is bondage...

[Rob2600]

I think what 108Stars and I explained previously about the success of each system *OVER TIME* explains your dry statistics, Rob. You can continue looking at things however you want, but reality is something different apparently.

In PAL territories, the Genesis outsold the SNES by about 10 percent, but in North America, the SNES outsold the Genesis by over 31 percent.

I am not living in my own version of reality, I am presenting facts. You can come up with all of the explanations, theories, and spin you want, but in the end, the sales data speaks for itself.

[mailman187666]

you guys went over my head with all the processing talk and what not, but when I was younger, I remember the Roadrunner game for SNES was toated as being faster than sonic. Check out the roadrunner game and you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't remember if it was a good game or not, I just remember being able to run pretty fast in it.

[Steven]

There are sections in Rendering Ranger (R2) that accomplish unheard of things on SNES. Some flying bits have 100's of sprites coming at you 100 MPH with no slowdown. It's pretty sick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5a0VobeXLM

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

In PAL territories, the Genesis outsold the SNES by about 10 percent, but in North America, the SNES outsold the Genesis by over 31 percent.

I am not living in my own version of reality, I am presenting facts. You can come up with all of the explanations, theories, and spin you want, but in the end, the sales data speaks for itself.
No, sales data do not speak for themselves. That is one thing statistics are simply not capable of doing, as any good scientist or statistician will tell you. Sales data are all well and good, but they are absolutely meaningless without a thoughtful interpetation. That's just how statistics work. In this case, we need to look not only at the distribution of these numbers over space, but as I said (and tried to emphasize in my last post) "OVER TIME*.

To repeat what I said earlier, even in the U.S., the Genesis seems to have been slightly ahead of the SNES in raw sales or at least even with it up until 1995. The SNES continued to get new high-profile games and sell well (better than ever, in fact) through 1995, 1996 and into 1997, while the Genesis which received almost no games and dropped in popularity very quickly after 1995.

Of course, the Genesis was released two years before the SNES, so it could be argued that the SNESes continued success after 1995 would even out that head start, but the Genesis begin didn't sell really well until 1991 anyway and I think most people would agree that the heart of the 16-bit era was from 1991 to 1995. During that time the two systems seem to have split the market just about in half. The SNES probably still sold better in the U.S. even at that time, but by a very small margin I think.

It's strange to me that you would want to argue about this stuff and even stranger that you got me to argue with you about it. If there's one thing more meaningless to video games than hardware specifications, it's sales data. But there you have it. It just chaps my hide to see people mangling statistics to suit their own ends, whether it be politics or fanboy stuff.

...word is bondage...

[smokehouse]

If you’re comparing apples to apples titles I have the following to add:

Mortal Kombat- In terms of overall presentation, the W goes to the SNES. It looks and sounds more like the real deal than the genesis version.

MK2- Same as MK1.

Ys III- The SNES version is once again better looking and sounding. It also runs smoother than even the original.

Street Fighter II- Once again the SNES version is closer to the arcade in terms of looks and sound.

Please take in mind that I’m looking at the pure presentation of the game, we all know MKI on the SNES was shit but that wasn’t due to a hardware shortcoming.

Hell, look at this in terms of graphics. This is a shot from Super Castlevania IV, released Dec 1991…VERY early in the SNES life:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/smokehouse/Game%20reviews/SuperCastlevania.jpg

This is Bloodlines on the Genesis, released March 1994, over 2 years later and on an established system:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/smokehouse/Game%20reviews/Bloodlines.jpg

The difference is staggering in terms of graphics and sound on these two games. This is by the SAME company and in the same game line and the best they could do with the Genesis hardware is what you see (BTW…forgive the muddy shots, this was taken from a direct feed through my capture card).

[tritium]

I've seen similar arguments made for the Xbox and the Xbox 360, which is silly. Since when does Japan not count?

Anyway, here is the sales data broken down by region:

Sega Genesis:
North America: 13 to 17.8 million
PAL territories: 9.4 million
Japan: 3.6 million
total: 26 to 30.8 million (22.4 to 27.2 million, excluding Japan)

SNES:
North America: 23.4 million
PAL territories: 8.6 million
Japan: 17 million
total: 49 million (32 million, excluding Japan)

In North America, the SNES outsold the Genesis by at least 5.6 million, if not 10.4 million. In Japan, the SNES outsold the Genesis by 13.4 million, but some people don't count Japan for some reason.

On the other hand, in PAL territories, the Genesis outsold the SNES by 0.8 million.

In PAL territories, the Genesis narrowly edged-out the SNES, but overall, the SNES was clearly the "winner."

Japan doesn't get counted because the megadrive did poorly there. The PCEngine I think had the lead. Also US Numbers are off because the Genesis in the states was pushed out of the picture in '95. The SNES Was still being sold in stores in '98 (I bought one at Toys R Us in '95 and no Genesis to be found there).

Sales doesn't dictate a clear winner. It was a good generation because there was healthy and even competition imho.

Oh and mines is bigger than yours.

[Rob2600]

Japan doesn't get counted because the megadrive did poorly there.

So just because a console sells poorly in one region, that means the sales data from that region doesn't count? Sorry, I was never told about this new form of logic.


US numbers are off because the Genesis in the states was pushed out of the picture in '95. The SNES Was still being sold in stores in '98 (I bought one at Toys R Us in '95 and no Genesis to be found there).

Don't forget, as Sweater Fish Deluxe pointed out, the Genesis was released two years before the SNES. That doesn't seem to count for anything though. Once again, some people are using new logic.


Sales doesn't dictate a clear winner. It was a good generation because there was healthy and even competition imho.

You're right, there was a lot of competition during the early and mid 1990s, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a "winner." Worldwide, more people bought the SNES. It's that simple. Don't take it personally. It doesn't mean the Genesis was a worthless piece of junk. The Genesis was good.


Anyway, back on topic:

Some fast SNES games I remember are F-Zero, Street Fighter II Turbo, and Donkey Kong Country (blasting through a series of barrels).

[j_factor]

I believe SNES games such as F-Zero, Pilotwings, Super Mario RPG, Donkey Kong Country 2, Super Castlevania IV, Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, Star Fox, Mortal Kombat 2, Killer Instinct, and Street Fighter II Turbo are more impressive than most of the games that were done on the Genesis.

I like how half the games you listed don't run on stock SNES hardware. I might as well say that Virtua Racing was more impressive than anything on SNES.


Sega Genesis:
North America: 13 to 17.8 million
PAL territories: 9.4 million
Japan: 3.6 million
total: 26 to 30.8 million (22.4 to 27.2 million, excluding Japan)

SNES:
North America: 23.4 million
PAL territories: 8.6 million
Japan: 17 million
total: 49 million (32 million, excluding Japan)

I don't know where you got these sales figures, but they are most likely wrong. In particular, the "PAL territories" figure just seems incorrect, and it's also unclear exact which countries are included in that -- no way is that a complete figure for every single country that uses some form of PAL, and also, France uses SECAM (but French sales are counted with European sales, so is it counted here, or not?). And for North America, that number must be excluding Genesis 3 or something. Furthermore, Japan plus North America plus "PAL territories" does not equal the whole world.

But I don't even get why we're talking about sales. What does sales have to do with anything?

[badinsults]

Why are sales data brought up in a thread discussing pure hardware? 10 years after the systems were arguably abandoned, does it really matter how well they sold? Let's face it, the Genesis had better versions of sports games, which helped drive sales in North America and Europe. While in Japan, the plenthora of RPGs on the snes and shooters on the PC Engine made the Genesis a third rate console.

As far as comparing the Genesis and the Snes, I can only go off of the few games that I have played. The Genesis did have great games like the Sonic series and Aladdin. Lets face it, the Genesis could not compete with the snes as far as graphics and sound went (the sound on Genesis games are only a step up from the NES, as far as I can tell). A game like Donkey Kong Country would not likely look nearly as good on the Genesis. And it is very likely that Sonic could have been ported to the snes without slowdown.

However, since the Genesis did have a faster processor, it was much easier for developers to create games without slowdown. This was to the benefit of companies like EA, who's early attempts at sports games on the snes were terrible. Because of the clever marketing with the Sonic series and the superior sports games, the Genesis succeeded outside of Japan. As I mentioned in my earlier post, because of improved programming, slowdown was not much of an issue with games released later in the life of the snes. Hell, a game like Rendering Ranger looks like it belongs on a 32 bit system, and moves along without any slowdown, despite having more sprites onscreen than Gradius III. By 1995, the superior game selection on the snes, added with consumer fatigue of the introduction of the 32X and Sega CD, allowed the snes to overtake the Genesis in sales in North America.

[j_factor]

If you’re comparing apples to apples titles I have the following to add:

Mortal Kombat- In terms of overall presentation, the W goes to the SNES. It looks and sounds more like the real deal than the genesis version.

MK2- Same as MK1.

Ys III- The SNES version is once again better looking and sounding. It also runs smoother than even the original.

Street Fighter II- Once again the SNES version is closer to the arcade in terms of looks and sound.

Please take in mind that I’m looking at the pure presentation of the game, we all know MKI on the SNES was shit but that wasn’t due to a hardware shortcoming.

Kinda seems like you're cherrypicking. There's lots of games that are better on SNES, and lots that are better on Genesis. What about Fatal Fury, Raiden Trad, Soldiers of Fortune, Thunderforce III / Thunder Spirits, Flashback, Desert Strike, etc. etc.?


Hell, look at this in terms of graphics. This is a shot from Super Castlevania IV, released Dec 1991…VERY early in the SNES life:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/smokehouse/Game%20reviews/SuperCastlevania.jpg

This is Bloodlines on the Genesis, released March 1994, over 2 years later and on an established system:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/smokehouse/Game%20reviews/Bloodlines.jpg

The difference is staggering in terms of graphics and sound on these two games. This is by the SAME company and in the same game line and the best they could do with the Genesis hardware is what you see (BTW…forgive the muddy shots, this was taken from a direct feed through my capture card).

On the other hand, compare Contra Hard Corps to Contra III. Hard Corps is clearly superior (at least on a technical level) -- there's a lot more going on at once, more explosions, almost no slowdown even with two players (Contra III had a lot of slowdown in 2-player), and more multi-jointed bosses, etc. Two games by the same company (and the same company that did Castlevania, no less) in the same game line.

Neither Castlevania game is that great to look at IMO. Castlevania IV is very brown-looking and kind of rough around the edges, especially in later levels. I don't get why people praise its graphics so much.

[108Stars]

If you’re comparing apples to apples titles I have the following to add:

Ys III- The SNES version is once again better looking and sounding. It also runs smoother than even the original.

Street Fighter II- Once again the SNES version is closer to the arcade in terms of looks and sound.

Please take in mind that I’m looking at the pure presentation of the game, we all know MKI on the SNES was shit but that wasn’t due to a hardware shortcoming.

Ys III does not look better on SNES than on MD. I have read many times that the SNES-version really suffers from it´s too colourfull look in this case. Street Fighter looks a little bit better on SNES, but the sound is much, MUCH closer to the arcade on the Genesis. I don´t say I find it better; but it is closer to the original.

About Castlevania: The difference is that the graphics of the Genesis-version were not even regarded as very good by Sega-fans. It was a let-down in 1994, for Genny-standards.

Take Contra: Hard Corps: It runs smoother and still has more action going on than the SNES-Contra. Too bad you can´t show that on screenshots.

[crazyjackcsa]

If you’re comparing apples to apples titles I have the following to add:

Mortal Kombat- In terms of overall presentation, the W goes to the SNES. It looks and sounds more like the real deal than the genesis version.

MK2- Same as MK1.

Ys III- The SNES version is once again better looking and sounding. It also runs smoother than even the original.

Street Fighter II- Once again the SNES version is closer to the arcade in terms of looks and sound.

Please take in mind that I’m looking at the pure presentation of the game, we all know MKI on the SNES was shit but that wasn’t due to a hardware shortcoming.

Hell, look at this in terms of graphics. This is a shot from Super Castlevania IV, released Dec 1991…VERY early in the SNES life:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/smokehouse/Game%20reviews/SuperCastlevania.jpg

This is Bloodlines on the Genesis, released March 1994, over 2 years later and on an established system:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/smokehouse/Game%20reviews/Bloodlines.jpg

The difference is staggering in terms of graphics and sound on these two games. This is by the SAME company and in the same game line and the best they could do with the Genesis hardware is what you see (BTW…forgive the muddy shots, this was taken from a direct feed through my capture card).

You also forgot to point out that as far as gameplay was concerned, The Genny version of MK1 was superior to the SNES version.

[smokehouse]

You also forgot to point out that as far as gameplay was concerned, The Genny version of MK1 was superior to the SNES version.

Meh, gameplay is not relevant to the thread. The SNES version was neutered unfortunately but it still plays well and overall, if FAR closer to the arcade in terms of graphics and sound. The content sucked, but that's not a hardware limitation.

[smokehouse]

Take Contra: Hard Corps: It runs smoother and still has more action going on than the SNES-Contra. Too bad you can´t show that on screenshots.

I'll grab it tonight, I'll have to get my consoles out but I'll get it done just for you...:)

[108Stars]

I'll grab it tonight, I'll have to get my consoles out but I'll get it done just for you...:)

You mean you´ll record movies of it?
Screenshots are easy to make, what I mean is that you cannot see the advantage of the Genny-version when the game is not moving.

[Rob2600]

I like how half the games you listed don't run on stock SNES hardware. I might as well say that Virtua Racing was more impressive than anything on SNES.

The SNES games I listed didn't require add-ons and didn't cost more than other SNES games, so my comparison is fine.

As impressive as Virtua Racing was on the Genesis, it was not more impressive than the best SNES games.


I don't know where you got these sales figures, but they are most likely wrong. In particular, the "PAL territories" figure just seems incorrect, and it's also unclear exact which countries are included in that ... And for North America, that number must be excluding Genesis 3 or something.

The sales data is from Wikipedia.org and vgchartz.com. I'm sorry that the PAL figures "seem" incorrect to you, but that is the data that is available on the internet. If you can find data that proves otherwise, then please post it.

I don't know which countries are included in the "PAL territories" category, but that's how vgchartz.com breaks down the figures.

Why must the North American sales data be excluding the Genesis 3? The SNES was more popular in North America. It's okay. It doesn't mean the Genesis was bad and you shouldn't take it as a personal attack.


Why are sales data brought up in a thread discussing pure hardware?

Smokehouse wrote, "neither took a solid lead in the 16-bit game wars. ... There was no clear cut victory on either side."

However, from the data that is available on the internet, there was a clear cut victor worldwide: the SNES. The clear-cut victor in Japan and the U.S. was the SNES as well, but as some of you have pointed out, the victor in Europe was the Genesis/Mega Drive.

[Matt-El]

/me weeds through the spec babble....



Ever try Sparkster for SNES? Fast as hell. Fast as a sonic game IMO.

[Zebbe]

The SNES games I listed didn't require add-ons and didn't cost more than other SNES games, so my comparison is fine

They used chips to fill the hole of the SNES hardware, in the same way CD and 32X games did with the Mega Drive. I could take any 32X game at the same price level as the Mega Drive games as an argument if that's the case. As said, the SNES used chips, the Mega Drive add-ons. This thread is AFAIK about fast SNES games based on its own hardware (e.g. a slow processor). Including games with extra chips would be like letting sportsmen dope themselves in competition.

[Gentlegamer]

It is a feature and strength of cart games to be able to use "extra" chips to accomodate technical feats. Additionally, this not about theoretical limitations, but actual games. If SNES games used extra chips to accomplish "speed," that means the accusation that SNES games were slow is false, regardless of how it was accomplished. I don't think extra chips were the whole story though.

[Rob2600]

They used chips to fill the hole of the SNES hardware, in the same way CD and 32X games did with the Mega Drive.

Most of those games I listed run off the SNES hardware without the aid of special chips:

Donkey Kong Country (no special chip)
Donkey Kong Country 2 (no special chip)
F-Zero (no special chip)
Killer Instinct (no special chip)
Mortal Kombat 2 (no special chip)
Pilotwings (DSP-1)
Star Fox (Super FX)
Street Fighter II Turbo (no special chip)
Super Castlevania IV (no special chip)
Super Mario RPG (SA-1)
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (Super FX 2)

The Sega CD and 32X were add-ons that cost over $100. On the other hand, games like Pilotwings and Super Mario RPG were just ordinary SNES cartridges to most consumers and can not be considered add-ons.


I could take any 32X game at the same price level as the Mega Drive games as an argument if that's the case. As said, the SNES used chips, the Mega Drive add-ons.

You're right, the SNES used special chips and the Genesis used add-ons, but cartridges with special chips inside aren't add-ons. When my parents bought Pilotwings for me in 1992, they went to the store and paid $60 for it, just like any other SNES game. There were no add-ons involved. In fact, we didn't even know there were special chips involved! To my parents, my friends, and me, it was just another SNES cartridge.

Add-ons, like the Sega CD or the 32X, cost extra money and make the console larger. Pilotwings did not cost more than other SNES cartridges, nor did it alter the size of the SNES itself. Again, at the time, it was just another SNES cartridge.


It is a feature and strength of cart games to be able to use "extra" chips to accomodate technical feats. Additionally, this not about theoretical limitations, but actual games. If SNES games used extra chips to accomplish "speed," that means the accusation that SNES games were slow is false, regardless of how it was accomplished. I don't think extra chips were the whole story though.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Zebbe]

The Sega CD and 32X were add-ons that cost over $100. On the other hand, games like Pilotwings and Super Mario RPG were just ordinary SNES cartridges to most consumers and can not be considered add-ons.

Why does the price matter? Pretty much all SNES games were at least 100 Swedish Kronor more expensive than the size-equivalent Mega Drive game here in Sweden, and the SNES was also more expensive than the Mega Drive. The point from the beginning was to tell about SNES games that could compare to Mega Drive games like Gunstar Heroes, Sonic 2, Thunder Force IV etc. on its own. Being forced to use so many chips for so many games proves that the processor was indeed lacking to accomplish such task.


You're right, the SNES used chips, the Genesis used add-ons, but cartridges with special chips inside aren't add-ons.

And add-ons aren't extra chips in cartridges. But both enhance the original hardware, and that's what it is all about.


Add-ons, like the Sega CD or the 32X, cost extra money and make the console larger.

As said, SNES games were more expensive than MD games. And I don't see how size of a console could matter in this argument about hardware, not the price either. I could buy the Multi-Mega, a combo of the CD and MD which is smaller than the SNES. And to that I buy cheaper cartridge games and CD games, which also are cheaper and can do many things that the SNES can't do.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Add-ons, like the Sega CD or the 32X, cost extra money and make the console larger. Pilotwings did not cost more than other SNES cartridges, nor did it alter the size of the SNES itself. Again, at the time, it was just another SNES cartridge.
You're wrong, Pilotwings did cost more. As did every the other SNES cartridge that used additional hardware. They may not have always cost more for you or your parents, but they cost more for the developers and publishers. Nintendo seems to have had a policy of not charging more for enhanced cartridges (or at least trying to recoup 100% of the additional cost) and they even held third parties to this or perhaps third parties voluntarily made it their own policy. However, the cost still exists and it was something developers had to keep in mind when they were designing a game.

Limitations on developers is what this topic is about and having to put an additional chip in a cartridge and eat the cost was definitely a limitation on developers.

You're right, though, that we don't need to even discuss the enhancement chips if we're talking about games on the SNES that can push around a large number of sprites, but there was still undeniably a limitation on developers in this respect because they had to work harder to accomplish it on the SNES and limit other aspects of the game.

And why are people still talking about how fast games scroll? That seriously has absolutely nothing to do with processor speed. Obviously neither do the quality of still screenshots like the ones smokehouse posted.


...word is bondage...

[Rob2600]

Why does the price matter? Pretty much all SNES games were at least 100 Swedish Kronor more expensive than the size-equivalent Mega Drive game here in Sweden, and the SNES was also more expensive than the Mega Drive.

I didn't know that in Europe, SNES games were much more expensive than Genesis games. I live in the U.S., where the prices of Genesis and SNES games were similar. That's probably why we have different perspectives.


Being forced to use so many chips for so many games proves that the processor was indeed lacking to accomplish such task.

So what? Many cartridge-based games for many different consoles have special chips inside, including Genesis games.


The point from the beginning was to tell about SNES games that could compare to Mega Drive games on its own.

Okay:

ActRaiser (no special chip)
Axelay (no special chip)
Chrono Trigger (no special chip)
Donkey Kong Country (no special chip)
Donkey Kong Country 2 (no special chip)
F-Zero (no special chip)
Joe & Mac (no special chip)
Killer Instinct (no special chip)
Mortal Kombat 2 (no special chip)
Rendering Ranger: R2 (no special chip)
Secret of Mana (no special chip)
Secret of Mana 2 (Seiken Densetsu 3) (no special chip)
Street Fighter II Turbo (no special chip)
Super Castlevania IV (no special chip)
U.N. Squadron (no special chip)
etc.

Those games are more impressive than all of the Genesis games I've ever played. Keep in mind, that doesn't necessarily mean the Genesis games are bad.

[idrougge]

If you take the PAL version of Super Aleste, which is recoded to run at 50 Hz speed, and run it on an NTSC console, you get an additional boost.

[idrougge]

Lets face it, the Genesis could not compete with the snes as far as graphics and sound went (the sound on Genesis games are only a step up from the NES, as far as I can tell).

The sound on the Megadrive is a step up from the NES in the same way that the sound on the SNES is a step up from the NES.
Personally, I prefer the rich sound of the Megadrive (Sonic, Streets of Rage...) to the screechy sound on the SNES, but that is a matter of taste more than technology.

On the other hand, the smaller colour palette of the Megadrive would make Donkey Kong Country look much worse, but then again I was never very impressed by the graphics of that title to begin with; anyone can render sprites on an SGI.

[Rob2600]

The sound on the Megadrive is a step up from the NES in the same way that the sound on the SNES is a step up from the NES.
Personally, I prefer the rich sound of the Megadrive (Sonic, Streets of Rage...) to the screechy sound on the SNES, but that is a matter of taste more than technology.

On the other hand, the smaller colour palette of the Megadrive would make Donkey Kong Country look much worse, but then again I was never very impressed by the graphics of that title to begin with

For a second, I actually took what you wrote seriously.

For real though...SNES games (Super Castlevania IV, Chrono Trigger, F-Zero, Batman Returns, etc.) have "screechy" sound? Since when?

[smokehouse]

TPersonally, I prefer the rich sound of the Megadrive (Sonic, Streets of Rage...) to the screechy sound on the SNES, but that is a matter of taste more than technology.

Screechy?

I guess sound is up to personal interpretation but I've never heard the SNES's sound described that way. When it comes to sound alone, there are some amazing soundtracks to be found on SNES titles. The Genesis may have sounded more like the arcade but the arcade was flawed as well. 5 min of playing most of the titles on the Midway Arcade Treasures and you'll see what I mean. Many arcade games of the late 80's were rather plain in the sound/music department (other than explosions and stuff...that draws attention and quarters) Games like Super Castlevania IV and Final Fantasy III proved just what could be done on the SNES in terms of sound quality.

[Iron Draggon]

If you’re comparing apples to apples titles I have the following to add:

Mortal Kombat- In terms of overall presentation, the W goes to the SNES. It looks and sounds more like the real deal than the genesis version.

how the hell can you say that with a straight face, when you know damn good and well that the SNES version didn't even have any blood in it? or at least it changed all the blood to sweat... and this makes it a winner in your book? BULLSHIT... the only thing that made it win was the BOOBY PRIZE, as shown by much stronger sales of MK on Genesis over MK on SNES, and later by Nintendo's wise decisions to not fuck up MK2 & MK3 in the same way...

[Rob2600]

If you’re comparing apples to apples titles I have the following to add:

Mortal Kombat- In terms of overall presentation, the W goes to the SNES. It looks and sounds more like the real deal than the genesis version.

how the hell can you say that with a straight face, when you know damn good and well that the SNES version didn't even have any blood in it?

I believe smokehouse meant that even though the Genesis version had blood, the SNES version had better graphics and sound, which is true.

Mortal Kombat II would be a better comparison though. The SNES version was near arcade-perfect.

[smokehouse]

how the hell can you say that with a straight face, when you know damn good and well that the SNES version didn't even have any blood in it? or at least it changed all the blood to sweat... and this makes it a winner in your book? BULLSHIT... the only thing that made it win was the BOOBY PRIZE, as shown by much stronger sales of MK on Genesis over MK on SNES, and later by Nintendo's wise decisions to not fuck up MK2 & MK3 in the same way...

Rob2600 said it best…I was comparing pure presentation, not the fact that it was censored to death, that part has zippo to do with hardware…just stupidity on Nintendo’s part. I was one of the masses that felt 100% let down by the SNES title simply due to it’s being censored.

Pure arcade to console comparison though, the SNES version is better in terms of graphics and sound.

[smokehouse]

Mortal Kombat II would be a better comparison though. The SNES version was near arcade-perfect.

At least Nintendo removed the head from their ass on that one...

[j_factor]

The SNES games I listed didn't require add-ons and didn't cost more than other SNES games, so my comparison is fine.

No, the comparison is not valid at all. If it were merely responding to the OT, then maybe, but in terms of comparing SNES to Genesis, chipped games are not a valid comparison. PilotWings doesn't run on SNES hardware; it runs on SNES and DSP hardware. A game with an additional processor says nothing about the original hardware.


As impressive as Virtua Racing was on the Genesis, it was not more impressive than the best SNES games.

It runs smoother than any polygonal title for Super FX or any other SNES chip. That makes it more impressive, IMO. But it doesn't even matter.


The sales data is from Wikipedia.org and vgchartz.com. I'm sorry that the PAL figures "seem" incorrect to you, but that is the data that is available on the internet. If you can find data that proves otherwise, then please post it.

What Wikipedia says means zilch unless it's well-sourced. VG Chartz's sales figures are incomplete, particularly for anything non-recent.

An article in Newsweek stated that Sega sold over 19 million Genesis systems in North America. I'm going to believe that over Wikipedia, for now (although it still doesn't clarify the issue).


Why must the North American sales data be excluding the Genesis 3?

Because the Genesis 3 was manufactured and sold by Majesco. It's very likely that any given figure for "Sega Genesis" excludes the Genesis 3, which isn't a Sega Genesis. Same goes for the X'Eye, but I doubt that sold enough to make a significant difference.


The SNES was more popular in North America.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I've seen sources that said both. The general consensus seems to be that Genesis was more popular until sometime in 1994, when SNES edged ahead, and then Genesis went back to outselling SNES in the era of Genesis 3. For total sales, I've been unable to find truly reliable statistics. And believe me, I've looked.


It's okay. It doesn't mean the Genesis was bad and you shouldn't take it as a personal attack.

I'm not taking it as a personal attack, I just don't see why Wikipedia figures should be taken at face value. Also, your patronizing attitude is a little irritating.

[Jorpho]

I was going to mention Road Runner, Sparkster, and Speedy Gonzales, but they've already been referenced.


Same with games on the Genesis that showed more than 64 colors on screen simultaneously.

Such things existed? I thought Eternal Champions for the Sega CD was the only one to do such a thing.


The point is, that the Mega Drive unlike the SNES is still sold to this very day. You can still buy it in Brazil, Russia and Asia. Because Sega did not publish the system themselves in Brazil for example, the sales there are most likely not counted. These numbers you say are heavily biased towards the SNES against the Genesis.

This is more an issue of Sega's more relaxed policy towards licensing (or at least the relatively lower cost of Genesis components) than it is about popularity.

[Rob2600]

chipped games are not a valid comparison. PilotWings doesn't run on SNES hardware; it runs on SNES and DSP hardware. A game with an additional processor says nothing about the original hardware.

I see your point, but on the other hand, when my parents and I bought SNES games in the 1990s, we didn't know there were special chips inside several of the games. To us, they were regular SNES cartridges. The boxes didn't indicate the use of special chips (excluding Super FX games), so we had no way of knowing the various chips even existed. We got home, turned the games on, and were impressed. I assume the same went for most consumers at the time.

When my friends saw Pilotwings, Super Mario Kart, and Super Mario RPG on the SNES, they were impressed and we agreed that those games were better than what the Genesis could do. As far as we were concerned, there were no add-ons or extra cost involved. Again, they appeared to be ordinary SNES cartridges sitting in the cartridge slot. Do you know what I mean?

Anyway, even if it's not fair to count enhanced games, the SNES still had plenty of unenhanced games that were more impressive than the games I've played on the Genesis (F-Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Donkey Kong Country 2, Batman Returns, Super Castlevania IV, Axelay, Chrono Trigger, Mortal Kombat II, Super Street Fighter II Turbo, etc.). Again, that doesn't mean the Genesis was bad.

[smokehouse]

I see your point, but on the other hand, when my parents and I bought SNES games in the 1990s, we didn't know there were special chips inside several of the games. To us, they were regular SNES cartridges. The boxes didn't indicate the use of special chips (excluding Super FX games), so we had no way of knowing the various chips even existed. We got home, turned the games on, and were impressed. I assume the same went for most consumers at the time.

When my friends saw Pilotwings, Super Mario Kart, and Super Mario RPG on the SNES, they were impressed and we agreed that those games were better than what the Genesis could do. As far as we were concerned, there were no add-ons or extra cost involved. Again, they appeared to be ordinary SNES cartridges sitting in the cartridge slot. Do you know what I mean?

Anyway, even if it's not fair to count enhanced games, the SNES still had plenty of unenhanced games that were more impressive than the games I've played on the Genesis (F-Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Donkey Kong Country 2, Batman Returns, Super Castlevania IV, Axelay, Chrono Trigger, Mortal Kombat II, Super Street Fighter II Turbo, etc.). Again, that doesn't mean the Genesis was bad.


I think this post hits it on the head. Many of the special chip SNES games were just that…games. They didn’t have a huger price tag, they didn’t require any add-ons or extra $$ in order to play them. You bought the game, plugged it and it worked.

Virtua Racing on the Genesis was no different except for the fact that I had a HUGE price tag attached to it and was the only game to use the SVP chip.

I do count these “chipped” games as regular SNES titles. I can’t see why something like that would not count in the first place. To be honest with you, I had NO ideal Mario Kart even used an extra chip until this thread was made. For the most part, It was not advertised (I think that Starfox was and a small # had the “Super FX” logo but other chipped games like Mario RPG did not), it didn’t add insane cost to the cart and it required no extra hardware…I say it counts as an example of the SNES’s processing power.

[Rob2600]

I think this post hits it on the head. Many of the special chip SNES games were just that…games. They didn’t have a huger price tag, they didn’t require any add-ons or extra $$ in order to play them. You bought the game, plugged it and it worked.

Exactly.


To be honest with you, I had NO ideal Mario Kart even used an extra chip until this thread was made. For the most part, It was not advertised (I think that Starfox was and a small # had the “Super FX” logo but other chipped games like Mario RPG did not), it didn’t add insane cost to the cart and it required no extra hardware.

Roughly 4 percent of SNES games released in the U.S. and 8 percent of SNES games released worldwide have a special chip inside. That's not very many (27 U.S. games, 74 worldwide games). Here's a list of games released in the U.S. (unless otherwise noted) that feature special chips inside:

Capcom Cx4 chip:
Megaman X2
Megaman X3


DSP-1 chip:
Ballz 3D
Lock On
Michael Andretti's Indy Car Challenge
Pilotwings
Super Bases Loaded 2
Super Mario Kart
Suzuka 8 Hours


DSP-2 chip:
Dungeon Master


DSP-3 chip:
SD Gundam GX (Japan only)


DSP-4 chip:
Top Gear 3000


Hudson SPC7110 chip:
Far East of Eden Zero (Japan only)
Far East of Eden Zero - Shounen Jump no Shou (Japan only)
Momotarou Dentetsu Happy (Japan only)
Super Power League 4 (Japan only)


OBC1 chip:
Metal Combat: Falcon's Revenge


S-DD1 chip:
Star Ocean
Street Fighter Alpha 2


S-RTC chip:
Dai Kaijuu Monogatari II (Japan only)


SA-1 chip:
Dragon Ball Z - Hyper Dimension
Kirby Super Star
Kirby's Dream Land 3
PGA European Tour
PGA Tour 96
Power Rangers Zeo - Battle Racers
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars


Seta ST010 chip:
F1 ROC II: Race of Champions


Seta ST011 chip:
Hayazashi Nidan Morita Shougi (Japan only)


Seta ST018 chip:
Hayazashi Nidan Morita Shougi 2 (Japan only)


Super FX chip:
Dirt Trax FX
Star Fox
Stunt Race FX
Vortex


Super FX 2 chip:
Doom
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island
Winter Gold (Europe only)

[j_factor]

I see your point, but on the other hand, when my parents and I bought SNES games in the 1990s, we didn't know there were special chips inside several of the games. To us, they were regular SNES cartridges. The boxes didn't indicate the use of special chips (excluding Super FX games), so we had no way of knowing the various chips even existed. We got home, turned the games on, and were impressed. I assume the same went for most consumers at the time.

When my friends saw Pilotwings, Super Mario Kart, and Super Mario RPG on the SNES, they were impressed and we agreed that those games were better than what the Genesis could do. As far as we were concerned, there were no add-ons or extra cost involved. Again, they appeared to be ordinary SNES cartridges sitting in the cartridge slot. Do you know what I mean?

I know what you mean, but specifically in the context of hardware discussion, they still don't apply. Whether or not you personally, or consumers in general, were aware of the hardware inside is irrelevant. The hardware (and software) is what we're talking about, not marketing or consumer impact. That's an entirely different discussion.


Anyway, even if it's not fair to count enhanced games, the SNES still had plenty of unenhanced games that were more impressive than the games I've played on the Genesis (F-Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Donkey Kong Country 2, Batman Returns, Super Castlevania IV, Axelay, Chrono Trigger, Mortal Kombat II, Super Street Fighter II Turbo, etc.). Again, that doesn't mean the Genesis was bad.

I don't see what's so impressive about F-Zero. All it ever has on the screen is one scrolling background, one rotating background, and at most 4 or 5 sprites. Although it is definitely a game that utilizes one of the SNES's hardware strengths, it's not that amazing IMO. I suppose it was impressive for 1991, as rotating playfields were not common, but I certainly don't see how it trumps the Genesis version of Street Racer or anything.

The only thing special about Donkey Kong Country was that Nintendo bought the fanciest, most expensive SGI workstations available to make high-quality computer-generated art and translate the cgi images (rather than the normal hand-drawn images) into sprites. Great-looking games, but it doesn't have anything to do with the SNES itself, other than the fact that it's easier to do with a larger color pallette. Genesis did have some games with pre-rendered sprites that looked great, such as Tinhead.

I don't see how there's anything special about the SNES version of Batman Returns whatsoever. I just downloaded the ROM (omg pir8) to double check that I hadn't forgotten or something, and I was unimpressed. Granted, I only played it for like 5 minutes, but unless there's something big and noteworthy later in the game, I remain unimpressed. I didn't see any special effects or anything, the animation wasn't particularly noteworthy, and there was never more than 3 or 4 enemies on screen. I don't see what this offers over Streets of Rage 2, or anything else really.

Castlevania IV is okay, but not a stand-out by any means. It has a few Mode 7 effects, but they don't "do" all that much and they're kind of ugly.

Axelay? Seriously? Good game, but I've never heard anyone imply it was more impressive than shooters on Genesis. Do you honestly think Axelay is more impressive technically than Lightening Force?

Chrono Trigger does look fantastic, and better than any traditional RPG on Genesis, but that's more to do with having exceptionally well-done art than anything in the hardware. It's worth mentioning that most of Genesis's RPGs were older, and by the time Chrono Trigger came out, there were only two Genesis RPGs released that year, and both were action-RPGs. Beyond Oasis doesn't deserve any accolades for its graphics, but Light Crusader beats Chrono Trigger on a purely technical level IMO (but not on an artistic level, as it wasn't that well-drawn).

The fighters I'll give you. Genesis pretty much got the shaft with regards to fighting games. Virtua Fighter 2(d) was kind of impressive (3D floor), but other than that, meh.

I don't know why I went through all that effort to address specific games, but anyway, my point isn't "zomg Genesis beats SNES in every way", but merely that the two systems each have their advantages and disadvantages. For every SNES game that outdoes anything on Genesis, there is a Genesis game that outdoes anything on SNES.

[smokehouse]

The problem is that you’re crossing the line between gaming quality and presentation quality. Although an Amazing game, Streets of Rage 2 isn’t all that impressive in terms of graphics (the sound is great but that’s because it was done by the master). Hell, Turtles in Time is more impressive in terms of animation and backgrounds. Gameplay wise, SOR2 is the shit but once again, one has little to do with processing power, the other has a lot to do with it.




If you want a prime example of pure SNES power with NO chips involved, look no further than Final Fantasy VI (III). That game is amazing on almost every level. The use of colors is amazing as is the special effects and the music is outstanding for a cart…possibly the best of that generation (again, this is up to personal thoughts).

No rendering, no special chips, no gimmicks, FFVI is the real deal. No way around it, that game is too much for the Genesis to handle on many levels.

[j_factor]

The problem is that you’re crossing the line between gaming quality and presentation quality. Although an Amazing game, Streets of Rage 2 isn’t all that impressive in terms of graphics (the sound is great but that’s because it was done by the master).

I agree that Streets of Rage 2 isn't all that impressive in terms of graphics. I didn't mean to imply that it was. In fact, the reason I mentioned it was specifically because its graphics aren't particularly impressive -- which is also my opinion of Batman Returns on SNES.

I don't think I'm crossing the line between gaming quality and presentation quality. All of my comments were specifically regarding graphics/presentation, and nothing else.


If you want a prime example of pure SNES power with NO chips involved, look no further than Final Fantasy VI (III). That game is amazing on almost every level. The use of colors is amazing as is the special effects and the music is outstanding for a cart…possibly the best of that generation (again, this is up to personal thoughts).

No rendering, no special chips, no gimmicks, FFVI is the real deal. No way around it, that game is too much for the Genesis to handle on many levels.

Final Fantasy 3/6 is one of my favorite 16-bit games. But "pure SNES power" is a bit hyperbolic IMO. The battles aren't even really animated.. the enemy flashes and a hit is registered. Not exactly graphical intensity.

[Rob2600]

I don't see what's so impressive about F-Zero.

In 1991, F-Zero was amazing. Home video games hadn't featured 3D effects like that before. Imagine going from racing games like Pole Position II, Rad Racer, Final Lap Twin, and Super Monaco GP to F-Zero. My friends and I were blown away.

The music is great, too. :)


I don't see how there's anything special about the SNES version of Batman Returns whatsoever. ... Granted, I only played it for like 5 minutes ... I didn't see any special effects or anything

In one level, you go through a burning building and there's a nice rippling heat effect in the background. In another level, you go through an alley and there are some nice lighting effects. The street lights affect the characters as they walk past them. There are also pseudo-3D driving stages.

Overall, the graphics are very detailed and colorful. In addition, there are multiple levels of scrolling backgrounds and even some foreground elements, like street signs. Little touches like that make a difference.

Again, the music is great, too...very impressive.


Castlevania IV is okay, but not a stand-out by any means. It has a few Mode 7 effects, but they don't "do" all that much and they're kind of ugly.

That's one of my favorite games. I'm still impressed by the blue level that constantly spins as I walk through it. Once again, top notch music.


Axelay? Seriously? Good game, but I've never heard anyone imply it was more impressive than shooters on Genesis. Do you honestly think Axelay is more impressive technically than Lightening Force?

Axelay used Mode 7 effects on some levels for pseudo-3D scrolling. I've always thought that was pretty fancy.


For every SNES game that outdoes anything on Genesis, there is a Genesis game that outdoes anything on SNES.

Several of my friends had a Genesis. The only games that impressed me were Altered Beast, Space Harrier II, Joe Montana Football, and Golden Axe, but that was in 1989 and 1990. Once I received a SNES in 1991, the Genesis no longer impressed me.

That said, you seem to have more experience with Genesis games than I do. What are some of the Genesis games that outdo the SNES? If I can find ROMs, I'll give them a shot.

[j_factor]

In 1991, F-Zero was amazing. Home video games hadn't featured 3D effects like that before. Imagine going from racing games like Pole Position II, Rad Racer, Final Lap Twin, and Super Monaco GP to F-Zero.

...But on the other hand, the tracks were awfully generic, and it feels so "flat" and sparse. The playfield rotation was new, but in the process it sacrificed detail. Its graphics are entirely made up of vehicle sprites and two flat background layers, with nothing else. I would say it decidedly does not have a 3D effect, as there's no depth at all; the barriers on each side of the track look like marks on the road. Road Rash came out for Genesis around the same time, and it features more racers, civilian traffic, variable terrain, and lots of details such as trees and road signs and etc. Road Rash didn't rely on some special effect, but all that combined is better than a simple rotating effect IMO.

But that's just a matter of perspective, I guess.


In one level, you go through a burning building and there's a nice rippling heat effect in the background. In another level, you go through an alley and there are some nice lighting effects. The street lights affect the characters as they walk past them. There are also pseudo-3D driving stages.

Overall, the graphics are very detailed and colorful. In addition, there are multiple levels of scrolling backgrounds and even some foreground elements, like street signs. Little touches like that make a difference.

Okay, whatever you say. :p I got too bored of that game too quickly to have any desire to go back and play it again. So I'll just take your word for it.


Several of my friends had a Genesis. The only games that impressed me were Altered Beast, Space Harrier II, Joe Montana Football, and Golden Axe, but that was in 1989 and 1990. Once I received a SNES in 1991, the Genesis no longer impressed me.

Admittedly, I was not "around" for the Genesis launch, but ugh, I can't imagine those games being impressive by any standard. Actually, I would even say those games are bettered by other early Genesis games of the time like Thunderforce II, Phantasy Star II, Revenge of Shinobi, etc.


That said, you seem to have more experience with Genesis games than I do. What are some of the Genesis games that outdo the SNES? If I can find ROMs, I'll give them a shot.

Well...

Red Zone is probably the most impressive game for the system. When you start it, the first screen proudly states:

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9545/116936011900dx3.png

And the game lives up to that (although the FMV is red monochrome, it's still impressive). Gameplay-wise, it is a mission-based helicopter combat game like Desert Strike, except with a top-down view (which rotates with your helicopter), and on-foot missions (like Urban Strike, but this game came out first). It has a lot of snazzy 3Dish effects and minimal slowdown. It's also extremely hard, and controlling it on a keyboard (via emu) is awkward. You have been warned. :p

Next would be The Adventures of Batman & Robin (based on the cartoon). This game has a lot of weird effects not seen anywhere else. The bosses in particular are a sight to behold. It's absolutely filled with 3D effects, fluid animation, rotation, parallax, line scrolls, and so on and so forth. Slowdown is nil. This is another game with brutal difficulty.

Also worthy of a mention is Toy Story. Although it was released for both systems and both versions look great, there is one particular part I'm talking about. Exclusive to the Genesis version is a first-person segment that is both detailed and smooth, exceeding not only anything on a stock SNES, but it's even superior to SuperFX Doom. Seriously.

For a somewhat older game, try out Lightening Force. Its predecessor, Thunder Force III, was pseudo-ported to SNES, and the system couldn't handle that. The sequel is a step up and it's easy to see why a port was not attempted. Large amounts of enemies/projectiles on screen with multiple layers of parallax scrolling.

Another rather impressive shooter (although not a shmup) is Ranger-X. Nice animation, explosions, parallax, etc. and a beautiful game overall. One of the later stages features a very convincing 3D effect that makes the environment appear to be a tube.

I'm only going to mention one Treasure game, and that's Yu Yu Hakusho. This game proves that Genesis could've done some amazing fighting games if certain developers had put in more effort (screw you, Probe!). Aside from having just generally nice graphics overall, this fighter features the ability to play with four players simultaneously. Yes, long before Super Smash Bros. or Power Stone 2, there was a 4-player fighting game for Mega Drive. Even with all four players, it is very smooth, not to mention frantic, and has not even a hint of slowdown. Nothing like this was done on SNES.

[j_factor]

Such things existed? I thought Eternal Champions for the Sega CD was the only one to do such a thing.

There are actually two main ways to exceed 64 simultaneous colors on Genesis.

The first, and easier/more common of the two, is a trick that dates back to the Atari 2600 -- changing colors on a scanline basis. This is done, for example, in the Sonic games when you have part of the screen above water and part below; the colors are changed at the water line, creating (essentially) two separate sections that can have 64 simultaneous colors each. This is also commonly used for split-screen games (otherwise the colors would be very limited). The main limitation of this trick is that it only works vertically. This is a trick that can be done multiple times on screen, and IIRC, even in an independently layered fashion, but implementation for actual gameplay becomes a nightmare (not due to the hardware, but simple logistics). In theory, that multiple-use craziness could be used for static/non-gameplay images somewhat easily, but the only games I know of that do that are Toy Story and Puggsy.

The second method is to use hardware features of the Genesis known as "raster effects" and "shadow & highlight mode". These features not only let you have more than 64 colors on screen, but also let you extend beyond the Genesis's pallette of 512 colors to something like triple the amount. It seems to require some expertise (and was not utilised very often), and I don't really know the nitty-gritty details as to how it works.

[Zebbe]

So what? Many cartridge-based games for many different consoles have special chips inside, including Genesis games.

I didn't know that. Please tell me which Genesis games have special chips, except for Virtua Racing.


Okay:
ActRaiser (no special chip)
Axelay (no special chip)
F-Zero (no special chip)
Rendering Ranger: R2 (no special chip)

Those games are more impressive than all of the Genesis games I've ever played. Keep in mind, that doesn't necessarily mean the Genesis games are bad.

Nice for you, but the topic was about games that utilizes speed/power/multi-jointed objects/many sprites etc., things that forces a lot of processor usage. Of those mentioned, I only find these four to do that. But there are still no games on the SNES that are like Streets of Rage 2 on Mania, Thunder Force IV, Yu Yu Hakusho with four players, NHL with four players, Herzog Zwei with two players etc. etc.

[badinsults]

How about Super Bomberman with 4 players? No slowdown in that game, despite much action.

I tend to doubt the fact that a game is four players simultaneously really affects the processing (in fact it likely decreases it, because it is one less thing for the AI to do). Processing input is a pretty simple and non-processor intensive thing (I have never heard of an instance where excessive controller input actually slows down a game).

[idrougge]

I don't see what's so impressive about F-Zero. All it ever has on the screen is one scrolling background, one rotating background, and at most 4 or 5 sprites.


I don't see what's so impressive either, on the SNES, that is. One the Megadrive, it would have been very impressive.


Axelay? Seriously? Good game, but I've never heard anyone imply it was more impressive than shooters on Genesis. Do you honestly think Axelay is more impressive technically than Lightening Force?


I haven't played Lightning Force, but Axelay would have had programmers scratching their heads had it been implemented on another console than the SNES.

[idrougge]

For a second, I actually took what you wrote seriously.

For real though...SNES games (Super Castlevania IV, Chrono Trigger, F-Zero, Batman Returns, etc.) have "screechy" sound? Since when?

Wavetable sound usually sounds screechy. Nintendo knew how to make the most out of the SNES's sound, but a lot of games have aged quite badly. In particular, the "epic" RPG soundtracks sound thin and screechy because it's difficult to make truthful renditions of real instruments.

As usual, it's a matter of using what you've got. Some couldn't handle the Megadrive, some couldn't handle the SNES. It's as simple as that, and debating whether wavetable or frequency modulation is better is as pointless as debating whether yellow is prettier than green. Neither the MD nor the SNES was very impressive (sound-wise) for its age, actually.

[idrougge]

Screechy?

I guess sound is up to personal interpretation but I've never heard the SNES's sound described that way. When it comes to sound alone, there are some amazing soundtracks to be found on SNES titles. The Genesis may have sounded more like the arcade but the arcade was flawed as well. 5 min of playing most of the titles on the Midway Arcade Treasures and you'll see what I mean. Many arcade games of the late 80's were rather plain in the sound/music department (other than explosions and stuff...that draws attention and quarters) Games like Super Castlevania IV and Final Fantasy III proved just what could be done on the SNES in terms of sound quality.

Can you imagine the new jack swing of Sonic rendered on the SNES? Or the techno-house of Streets of Rage rendered on the SNES? Final Fantasy III is one of those games which fail to impress me. Perhaps I don't estimate the sound capabilities of the SNES correctly, but apart from taking hardware limitations in mind, the SNES doesn't impress me when it comes to sound output. It just fulfills what I expect if its specifications and from experience.

I can't imagine Super Castlevania IV outdoing Castlevania on the Megadrive.

Besides, explosions is one field where FM synthesis lets down particularly. Usually, it's just a drum sound replayed really slowly.

[idrougge]

In 1991, F-Zero was amazing. Home video games hadn't featured 3D effects like that before. Imagine going from racing games like Pole Position II, Rad Racer, Final Lap Twin, and Super Monaco GP to F-Zero. My friends and I were blown away.

The music is great, too. :)

Just to make clear that I am in no way a SNES hater, let me say that I agree. The music is great, and the graphics are, too.

[idrougge]

Red Zone is probably the most impressive game for the system. When you start it, the first screen proudly states:

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9545/116936011900dx3.png

It takes Amiga programmers...


For a somewhat older game, try out Lightening Force. Its predecessor, Thunder Force III, was pseudo-ported to SNES, and the system couldn't handle that. The sequel is a step up and it's easy to see why a port was not attempted. Large amounts of enemies/projectiles on screen with multiple layers of parallax scrolling.

This is particularly problematic. That a game suffers in conversion does not prove much more than:
1) The porters were unfamiliar with the target hardware.
2) The original game was made up with the specifications of the original hardware in mind.