A Super Nes with no slowdown would be the perfect console!

[Anthony1]

I was just playing some Super Ghouls and Ghosts last night on the SNES, and I started thinking. Man, if the SNES didn't have it's problems with Slowdown, then it would be the perfect gaming machine.


I wish there was some way that you could modify your Super Nintendo's by putting a little chip in them, and then...VOILA! No Slowdown!

That would be sweet.

The slowdown is the only thing that is keeping the SNES from being the absolute perfect system in my book.

Sure it isn't the most advanced system, when looking at todays latest and greatest hardware. It doesn't even hold a candle to todays systems, much less the PS1 or anything like that.

But in it's day the Super Nes was amazing. Is there any system that could put more colorfull and bright games on the screen? To this day, I still feel that the Super Nintendo can put more color on the screen than a Playstation 2. (To me everything on the PS2 looks drab and dark and colorless).

And then you have that sound chip. What a great sound chip for that period of time. In the hands of the right artists, that SNES sound chip can do some amazing things.

On a side note, can any of the emulators that are out there for the Super Nintendo eliminate the slow down issue?

[ManekiNeko]

I've got one of those. It's called a Game Boy Advance.

JR

[Anthony1]

You know, I was thinking about that. I was wondering if any of the SNES games that were plagued with horrible slowdown issues have been translated to the Game Boy advance, and if so, did they complete erradicate the Slowdown problem.


Of all the games from the SNES that I know of, that they have brought to the GBA, none of them had horrible slowdown issues.

[bargora]

I've got one of those. It's called a Game Boy Advance.

JR
Zing! Or as I'll call it for the purposes of this post, the IBSDNES (Itty-Bitty-Super-Duper-Nintendo-Entertainment-System).

[Dobie]

You know, I was thinking about that. I was wondering if any of the SNES games that were plagued with horrible slowdown issues have been translated to the Game Boy advance, and if so, did they complete erradicate the Slowdown problem.

I don't know specifically about SNES ports, because I tend to shy away from those, but I have noticed that the GBA SP and the Gameboy Player still have slowdown on a lot of the older gameboy titles that were plagued with it back in the day. Titles from the Mega Man series for GB, as well as Castlevania and others i have noticed still slow down, despite the faster processors and such in the newer systems.

I did notice that Mega Man and Bass (Super Famicom port) for the GBA slows only slightly in spots, but I really can't compare it to the original, since I've only played it through emulation.

[badinsults]

Yeah, Nintendo made a big mistake by releasing a system with a slower processor than the Genesis. If it had of made it with an equivalent speed processor, in all likelyhood the Genesis would have been crushed.

[digitalpress]

But in it's day the Super Nes was amazing. Is there any system that could put more colorfull and bright games on the screen? To this day, I still feel that the Super Nintendo can put more color on the screen than a Playstation 2. (To me everything on the PS2 looks drab and dark and colorless).

You must not have tried FreQuency or Amplitude or Rez or even a DDR game. Those games are so colorful they'll give you seizures. If you're into that kind of thing. I am :)


And then you have that sound chip. What a great sound chip for that period of time. In the hands of the right artists, that SNES sound chip can do some amazing things.

There are few sound chips that have a personality of their own. SNES has one of them. Commodore 64 is another. There are others with lesser skills but lots of personality like Intellivision for example, but few can match the sheer wonder a SNES sound chip can do when it's pushed a little. The soundtrack to Final Fantasy III is to this day my favorite console-orchestrated music I've heard.

[zmeston]

Yeah, Nintendo made a big mistake by releasing a system with a slower processor than the Genesis. If it had of made it with an equivalent speed processor, in all likelyhood the Genesis would have been crushed.

This isn't quite as easy to discredit as most fanboy theories, which is nice.

Would Sega have been as successful without the advantage of "Blast Processing"? Most likely, since Sega's primary advantages were its third-party support (especially EA/Madden) and its pioneering appeal to a hipper, older audience.

Would the SNES have received different types of games with a faster processor? Probably not. Super Mario World and A Link to the Past wouldn't have been turbo-charged, for example.

Also, dozens of third-party games were released for both systems without drastic differences in speed. Slowdown, as I vaguely recall, mostly plagued the first generation of SNES titles; once programmers figured out the hardware, slowdown was minimized or eliminated.

And, hey, the SNES (barely) won the war despite its slower CPU, thanks to the graphic whores who snapped up Donkey Kong Country uno, dos y tres.

-- Z.

[digitalpress]

Another thought: sure, maybe SNES would have "crushed" the Genny if it had a faster processor, but by that same logic could you not also say that the Genny would have "crushed" the SNES if it had had a more robust color palette and advanced sound chip?

[zmeston]

But in it's day the Super Nes was amazing. Is there any system that could put more colorfull and bright games on the screen? To this day, I still feel that the Super Nintendo can put more color on the screen than a Playstation 2. (To me everything on the PS2 looks drab and dark and colorless).

I gave you grief about this claim before, but I take it all back. I recently reviewed the PS2 and Xbox versions of Mace Griffin: Bounty Hunter, and the difference in brightness and contrast between the two was striking. The Xbox version was clear and bright; the PS2 version was muddy and dark. Same monitor, same settings. I suppose it could be blamed on programming as opposed to hardware differences, but my gut says it's the latter. I imagine the most colorful PS2 games carefully choose their palettes to minimize the PS2's display weaknesses.

-- Z.

[hydr0x]

Another thought: sure, maybe SNES would have "crushed" the Genny if it had a faster processor, but by that same logic could you not also say that the Genny would have "crushed" the SNES if it had had a more robust color palette and advanced sound chip?

mh mabye, but fact is that the snes DID crush the genny/md in some countries (e.g. germany) and the genny didn't really crush the snes anywhere

[ManekiNeko]

Well, the Genesis gave the Super NES a damned good run for its money. The only reason why it fell behind was because Nintendo kept supporting the Super NES long after Sega became distracted with silly add-ons.

JR

[calthaer]

It's actually ridiculously easy to produce slowdown on the GBA...they've just become more adept at programming for it and there are a lot of tricks. Like, instead of using huge sprites for big bad guys, they sometimes use tiles...and stuff like that.

[zmeston]

Another thought: sure, maybe SNES would have "crushed" the Genny if it had a faster processor, but by that same logic could you not also say that the Genny would have "crushed" the SNES if it had had a more robust color palette and advanced sound chip?

mh mabye, but fact is that the snes DID crush the genny/md in some countries (e.g. germany) and the genny didn't really crush the snes anywhere

Geez, now we're narrowing the System Wars down to individual European countries? "The Dreamcast had a 43% market share in Luxembourg, you PlayStation-loving a-holes!"

I think of the videogame "world," for better or worse, as does the industry as a whole: North America, Europe, and Japan. Videogame gales in South America, Africa, and Asia -- where running water is a luxury (HELLO, sweeping generalization!) -- are negligible.

(Waiting for the angry posts from our Argentinian friend...)

-- Z.

[zmeston]

It's actually ridiculously easy to produce slowdown on the GBA...they've just become more adept at programming for it and there are a lot of tricks. Like, instead of using huge sprites for big bad guys, they sometimes use tiles...and stuff like that.

Yep. There are slowdown seizures in a lot of GBA games I review, most recently Jet Grind Radio (which also has some very dismaying crash bugs).

-- Z.

[ShinobiMan]

I rememebr playing Gradius 3 on SNES and just letting my mouth drop in awe at the absurd ammount of slow down. In a shooter, you shouldnt have slow down!

[badinsults]

This isn't quite as easy to discredit as most fanboy theories, which is nice.

Would Sega have been as successful without the advantage of "Blast Processing"? Most likely, since Sega's primary advantages were its third-party support (especially EA/Madden) and its pioneering appeal to a hipper, older audience.
-- Z.

That is exactly my point... sports games were a large reason why the genesis was popular, because most early sports games on the snes were slow and had poor frame rates (try playing John Madden Football, bleh). Would a Sonic game have worked in the early years of the snes? I doubt it, without tweaks. The first Mortal Kombat was also a lot smoother on the Genesis (although the prescense of blood helped that case). Although I never have owned a Genesis, I would say it is just as good as the snes.

[zmeston]

This isn't quite as easy to discredit as most fanboy theories, which is nice.

Would Sega have been as successful without the advantage of "Blast Processing"? Most likely, since Sega's primary advantages were its third-party support (especially EA/Madden) and its pioneering appeal to a hipper, older audience.
-- Z.

That is exactly my point... sports games were a large reason why the genesis was popular, because most early sports games on the snes were slow and had poor frame rates (try playing John Madden Football, bleh). Would a Sonic game have worked in the early years of the snes? I doubt it, without tweaks. The first Mortal Kombat was also a lot smoother on the Genesis (although the prescense of blood helped that case). Although I never have owned a Genesis, I would say it is just as good as the snes.

EA went with the Genesis in the beginning because Sega was an easier/friendlier company to work with than Nintendo. (The Sega/EA relationship back then was much like the current Sony/EA relationship.)

EA's later Madden SNES ports were good, but by then, the Genesis had become firmly entrenched as the sports-game console of choice. Processor speed wasn't a factor; politics, marketing, and timing were.

Anyone who's followed the Hardware Wars for a while knows that technology is usually the least important factor in a console's success or failure. The Game Boy has been outclassed by other handhelds since the beginning, the PS2 is outclassed by the Xbox and GCN, etc., etc.

The uncensored blood & gore is the only reason the Genesis version of MK outsold the SNES version, not faster gameplay speed. And while Nintendo may boast that "Mario will never shoot hookers," they gave up the right to that ridiculous holier-than-thou attitude a decade ago, when they chased the money and allowed Acclaim to ship an uncensored Mortal Kombat II. Hypocritical bastiches.

All this talk about slowdown is ironic to me, given that I'm currently playing through Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, which suffers from bizarre bouts of slowdown at random moments. (Then again, I'm of the opinion that anything less than 60 frames per second is slowdown.)

So what were the "fastest" Super NES games?

-- Z.

[badinsults]

Fastest snes game? Probably anything using the SA-1 chip (like Super Mario RPG). It increased the clock speed by quite a bit (I think it was something like 16 MHz).

[hydr0x]

Another thought: sure, maybe SNES would have "crushed" the Genny if it had a faster processor, but by that same logic could you not also say that the Genny would have "crushed" the SNES if it had had a more robust color palette and advanced sound chip?

mh mabye, but fact is that the snes DID crush the genny/md in some countries (e.g. germany) and the genny didn't really crush the snes anywhere

Geez, now we're narrowing the System Wars down to individual European countries? "The Dreamcast had a 43% market share in Luxembourg, you PlayStation-loving a-holes!"

I think of the videogame "world," for better or worse, as does the industry as a whole: North America, Europe, and Japan. Videogame gales in South America, Africa, and Asia -- where running water is a luxury (HELLO, sweeping generalization!) -- are negligible.

(Waiting for the angry posts from our Argentinian friend...)

-- Z.

guy you have NO CLUE, germany is a huge market, 80 million people are NOT negligible and the genny was crushed here!! Argentina for example also has A LOT people, although the market is not as big as it could be

to compare Luxemburg with Germany in terms of market-share is the most idiotic thing i've ever seen

[zmeston]

Another thought: sure, maybe SNES would have "crushed" the Genny if it had a faster processor, but by that same logic could you not also say that the Genny would have "crushed" the SNES if it had had a more robust color palette and advanced sound chip?

mh mabye, but fact is that the snes DID crush the genny/md in some countries (e.g. germany) and the genny didn't really crush the snes anywhere

Geez, now we're narrowing the System Wars down to individual European countries? "The Dreamcast had a 43% market share in Luxembourg, you PlayStation-loving a-holes!"

I think of the videogame "world," for better or worse, as does the industry as a whole: North America, Europe, and Japan. Videogame gales in South America, Africa, and Asia -- where running water is a luxury (HELLO, sweeping generalization!) -- are negligible.

(Waiting for the angry posts from our Argentinian friend...)

-- Z.

guy you have NO CLUE, germany is a huge market, 80 million people are NOT negligible and the genny was crushed here!! Argentina for example also has A LOT people, although the market is not as big as it could be

to compare Luxemburg with Germany in terms of market-share is the most idiotic thing i've ever seen

Whoa... angry posts from our German friend instead. As you will note if you re-read my post, I'm not comparing Luxembourg to Germany; you made that leap in your own mind. I'm mocking those one-system-rules-all fanboys -- such as, uh, you -- who will stop at nothing to declare victory: "The Dreamcast was a juggernaut in Vatican City!", "northeast Guam was a Jaguar stronghold!", et cetera.

Also, as I said in my post, I think of Europe, only in terms of videogame sales, as one big lump of humanity, since I've never been privy to sales figures from individual European nations.

While I'd love to take your word that the SNES ruled all in Germany, Momma told me never to trust a SNES-addicted freak. Is there a website where German SNES sales info would be available? Or perhaps you have a German magazine article you could scan? I'm always interested in edumacating myself.

-- Z.

[NvrMore]

Um, at the risk of interjecting in this potential thread based flame pit can I just bring up one point regarding the hypothetical console crushing.

Processor speed, colour palette, sound chip etc. weren't the major factor in the popularity of the two consoles. Sure harware specs were thrown around in the trypical "my console is better than yours" arguments, but in the end more than anything else it was the actual character of the systems which drew their audience/fansbase.

By character I mean gaming feel/style.

The two systems just feel notably different to play. Sure they've both got a wide selection of different games and genres available for them, but despite having games of the same genre, the libraries just have a different feel to them.
Hard to explain but it can basically be summised in the systems mascot games. Mario and Sonic are both, in essence, platform games but they play and feel very differently and it's basically the same for the systems themselves.

The two systems had different gaming styles/feels to them which appealed to different sides of the market and as a result the gaming market was divided between the consoles as gamers chose the gaming feel/style which most appealed to their gaming tastes.

Regarding H/W specs, the SNES's processor speed wasn't so much a factor as it's sprite limits were, but in the end such technical limitations can be and were overcome by talented programmers (which, respectively, is as if not more important than the base H/W spec). E.g. Super Aleste/Space Megaforce (US Name?), lots of active on screen elements, solid speed buut according to H/W naysayers it wasn't possible. Likewise the MD/Gen has numerous titles which have vivid colour and noteworthy sound.

Hell, hardware is one of the lowest factors regarding what could have affected the result of the SNES/MD war. I would have thought the porting or not of potential big hit titles from Japan to US and Europe or US <-> Europe would have been far more influential in shifting the sales numbers, after all there's a lot great games which didn't make it to markets where they could have been huge successes or even system sellers.

(On a side note, someone mentioned Contra 3 having pretty bad slowdown whereas I've found the PAL version super probotector runs pretty smoothly, meh)

Anthony1: in terms of emulators zSNES seems to run SNES games without slowdown but to an extent it would depend on your computer's specs.

[Captain Wrong]

Hmm...you could put a faster processor in the SNES but there still wouldn't be a whole lot I'd be interested in playing. :P

Seriously though, I recognize the SNES could put up some beautiful GFX, but I think the "ultimate gaming machine" (with the addition of a speeder processor) claim is a little off. What I would love to have seen is a way for the Neo to have become a mass market item. I'll always imagine that machine having a library more like it's 16 bit contemporaries and know that would be the ultimate gaming machine.

Sidenote: I'd be interested in seeing the SNES up against some other strong 2d machines (such as the Neo, Saturn, etc.) It's hard to make a compairson without a "level playing field" kind of game, but I've always wondered how some of the really pretty SNES games would have looked on a Neo or Saturn.

[zmeston]

Sure harware specs were thrown around in the trypical "my console is better than yours" arguments, but in the end more than anything else it was the actual character of the systems which drew their audience/fansbase.

Uh... no. The fact that different games on the same system (whether SNES or Genesis) have markedly different look and feel, and the fact that games released for both systems (SNES and Genesis) often have identical look and feel, kills your argument dead.

Hardware sets limits on what a developer can do, but the look and feel of a game is dictated by the programmers and designers. Odyssey2 games have a particular look and feel because one guy pretty much did 'em all. On a system with a large library -- Super NES, Genesis, PlayStation -- you'll experience the entire spectrum of look and feel.

Casual gamers bought the Genesis for Sonic and sports games, and the Super NES for Mario and Zelda. That's it, that's all. No "feel" involved in their decisions.

Sega took the early 16-bit lead with great marketing, superior third-party support, and sports games; Nintendo won at the wire with the eye candy of Donkey Kong Country (and the unstoppable Mario), while Sega lost focus and kicked off a Decade of Dumbassedness with the Sega CD and 32X. A much-simplified version of the early-'90s, but an accurate one.

-- Z.

[BenT]

(On a side note, someone mentioned Contra 3 having pretty bad slowdown whereas I've found the PAL version super probotector runs pretty smoothly, meh)There's actually a very good reason for this. Since PAL games run at 50hz instead of 60, they have to update the screen about 17% less times per second. The extra processing power this frees up can then be devoted toward other things, which can help reduce or eliminate slowdown in PAL versions. So, PAL isn't ALL bad.

(This is the sort of thing that comes up when you have dinner with French game designers.)

[wberdan]

But in it's day the Super Nes was amazing. Is there any system that could put more colorfull and bright games on the screen? To this day, I still feel that the Super Nintendo can put more color on the screen than a Playstation 2. (To me everything on the PS2 looks drab and dark and colorless).

I gave you grief about this claim before, but I take it all back. I recently reviewed the PS2 and Xbox versions of Mace Griffin: Bounty Hunter, and the difference in brightness and contrast between the two was striking. The Xbox version was clear and bright; the PS2 version was muddy and dark. Same monitor, same settings. I suppose it could be blamed on programming as opposed to hardware differences, but my gut says it's the latter. I imagine the most colorful PS2 games carefully choose their palettes to minimize the PS2's display weaknesses.

-- Z.

it could also be that the systems dont have the color patterns (for lack of a more technical term) adjusted the same, which might explain why one system seems to have more color than the other. if only games came with the ntsc 'color bars' so you could adjust the system and then compare...

willie

[BenT]

I think the only real color differences between modern systems would stem from differences in their display output circuitry. Seeing as they can all display any of 16.7 million colors, it's not like one console can show RGB values another cannot.

I personally can't describe the PS2 as being particularly drab. It just depends on what game is running. Does a bright and colorful PSX title look darker when running on PS2? Probably not noticeably, if at all. Guess you'd have to test to be sure, though.

[NvrMore]

Uh... no. The fact that different games on the same system (whether SNES or Genesis) have markedly different look and feel, and the fact that games released for both systems (SNES and Genesis) often have identical look and feel, kills your argument dead.

What? Sorry but the SNES and MD/Gen game libraries are distinctly different in their general style (lets call it flavor) even despite the diversity of titles and genres on the two systems. Take for example the RPG's of the two different platforms, yeah they've both got RPG's but their is a distinctive difference in the general style of the RPG's available on either system.


Hardware sets limits on what a developer can do, but the look and feel of a game is dictated by the programmers and designers. Odyssey2 games have a particular look and feel because one guy pretty much did 'em all. On a system with a large library -- Super NES, Genesis, PlayStation -- you'll experience the entire spectrum of look and feel.

Not quite, you're missing the fact that developers tended to lean towards the system they prefer to work with, often because they feel that said system's fan base is more in line with their own creative direction. Granted it doesn't hold as much pull with developers in the modern game market because of the huge financial demands that modern productions require, but nonetheless the gaming tastes of a systems audience and a developers measurement of how a system lines up with their creative direction does play a factor in game development and held quite a bit more sway back in a time when either system could potentially equal the sales harvest of the other.

Which leads me onto the other development factor which is that although the developer determines the style and feel of a game, they also tailor said feel and style to the gaming tastes of the audience they are aiming for to ensure their product appeals to the gaming audience, thereby adding to the general gaming feel of the systems library despite their products (varyingly) individual nature.


Sega took the early 16-bit lead with great marketing, superior third-party support, and sports games; Nintendo won at the wire with the eye candy of Donkey Kong Country (and the unstoppable Mario), while Sega lost focus and kicked off a Decade of Dumbassedness with the Sega CD and 32X. A much-simplified version of the early-'90s, but an accurate one.

Now here's the problem. One minute you're putting down someone for bringing up specific market regions (the influence a system had there and how it got it) under the premise that it's the bigger, world picture that matters but in the next breath you're basing your arguments on the events and strategies used in the US market x_x .

Sports games may have done the business in the US, but in Japan (who's impact market influence at that time was considerable to say the least) sports games didn't play a huge role. Likewise in europe EA's American football games and other US sports games didn't make all that big a hit proportionally, the football games did well but they weren't the market swingers that sports games were in the US.

Likewise, Sega's marketing wasn't exactly hitting much more than Nintendo's in Europe and Japan. Basically, before the PS and Sony came along the gaming market was actually judged by the general market on the gaming goodness that a system had rather than relentless overhyping and selling games to trend gamers on the premise of an advertising campaign.

And as for the DK bashing, hell if you didn't like the game that was one thing but it's actually a pretty good game/series and apart from it's graphics it holds a lot of character and threw a few new angles into the platform series, that's why it sold so well. Heck if it was just about overhyped graphics then Rise of the Robots would have outsold any other game in history, as would KI, Primal rage etc..

[zmeston]

Uh... no. The fact that different games on the same system (whether SNES or Genesis) have markedly different look and feel, and the fact that games released for both systems (SNES and Genesis) often have identical look and feel, kills your argument dead.

What? Sorry but the SNES and MD/Gen game libraries are distinctly different in their general style (lets call it flavor) even despite the diversity of titles and genres on the two systems. Take for example the RPG's of the two different platforms, yeah they've both got RPG's but their is a distinctive difference in the general style of the RPG's available on either system.

Still not buying it, sorry. I've played hundreds of SNES games and hundreds of Genesis games, and never noted a certain "flavor" to either system's library, or even a genre within either library. Games from a certain developer have a certain "flavor," but an entire genre of games for a system with the scope of the SNES, made by a host of developers, do not.



Hardware sets limits on what a developer can do, but the look and feel of a game is dictated by the programmers and designers. Odyssey2 games have a particular look and feel because one guy pretty much did 'em all. On a system with a large library -- Super NES, Genesis, PlayStation -- you'll experience the entire spectrum of look and feel.

Not quite, you're missing the fact that developers tended to lean towards the system they prefer to work with, often because they feel that said system's fan base is more in line with their own creative direction. Granted it doesn't hold as much pull with developers in the modern game market because of the huge financial demands that modern productions require, but nonetheless the gaming tastes of a systems audience and a developers measurement of how a system lines up with their creative direction does play a factor in game development and held quite a bit more sway back in a time when either system could potentially equal the sales harvest of the other.

Totally wrong. Politics and economics are why certain developers choose certain platforms.

From the start of the home videogame industry, developers and publishers have chosen platforms with which they felt they could make the most money, and they died when they chose poorly. "Creative directions" and "fanbases" have nothing to do with it.

The only major exception I can think of is Cinemaware, which chose the Amiga for its flashy graphics, but even C-Ware ported its games to the PC, and then jumped to the TG-16 because it thought that console would succeed in the U.S.

You're romanticizing the business of game development, which has never been the way you describe.



Sega took the early 16-bit lead with great marketing, superior third-party support, and sports games; Nintendo won at the wire with the eye candy of Donkey Kong Country (and the unstoppable Mario), while Sega lost focus and kicked off a Decade of Dumbassedness with the Sega CD and 32X. A much-simplified version of the early-'90s, but an accurate one.

Now here's the problem. One minute you're putting down someone for bringing up specific market regions (the influence a system had there and how it got it) under the premise that it's the bigger, world picture that matters but in the next breath you're basing your arguments on the events and strategies used in the US market x_x .

Wow, my Luxembourg "joke" didn't go over well. As I explained to hydrox, that wisecrack was mocking fanboys who would grasp upon the feeblest facts to bolster their arguments of the success of their favored console.

I didn't claim to be describing the 16-bit-era events of the various world markets; of course I realize that the markets in Japan and Europe were and are wildly different.


And as for the DK bashing, hell if you didn't like the game that was one thing but it's actually a pretty good game/series and apart from it's graphics it holds a lot of character and threw a few new angles into the platform series, that's why it sold so well. Heck if it was just about overhyped graphics then Rise of the Robots would have outsold any other game in history, as would KI, Primal rage etc..

Why do you say I'm bashing the DKC series? Because I'm pointing out that eye candy is why it sold? I didn't disparage the gameplay (which has held up modestly well) at all. You're reading things into my post that aren't there.

And I leave you with the last word, as I've already broken my recent vow not to hijack any more threads.

-- Z.

[NvrMore]

Still not buying it, sorry. I've played hundreds of SNES games and hundreds of Genesis games, and never noted a certain "flavor" to either system's library, or even a genre within either library. Games from a certain developer have a certain "flavor," but an entire genre of games for a system with the scope of the SNES, made by a host of developers, do not.

Sorry, but hell, peoples preferences alone should be more than enough of an indicator as to the differences in the gaming libraries between the two systems. It's not just about those who are into the MD/Gen liking sports games above all other games, heck if that were true you'd be seeing MD/Gen sports titles running up decent prices because they were so highly sought after by all the rabid MD/Gen nostalgics and collectors. There's a reason why many people like one system and not the other and it's certainly not down to fanboy-ism.


Totally wrong. Politics and economics are why certain developers choose certain platforms.

From the start of the home videogame industry, developers and publishers have chosen platforms with which they felt they could make the most money, and they died when they chose poorly. "Creative directions" and "fanbases" have nothing to do with it.

The only major exception I can think of is Cinemaware, which chose the Amiga for its flashy graphics, but even C-Ware ported its games to the PC, and then jumped to the TG-16 because it thought that console would succeed in the U.S.

You're romanticizing the business of game development, which has never been the way you describe.

Sorry but you're completely missing an understanding of the guys working in the development side of the business if you believe they have always thrown creative preferences aside in favor of choosing the most profitable platform on which to develop. Granted in the current market economical viability plays a far higher role than creative preference or incentive but it certainly does not eradicate the developer's personal creative aspirations completely.

Moreso in the past when development wasn't nearly as costly, Developers were far more inclined to press forward their creative preferences with regard to platform and audience selection because they are so passionate about their work and concepts that they want it to reach it's potential not just financially but often moreso creatively.

Developers aren't a bunch of mindless drones (note: there are exceptions) looking to make a bit of fast cash, damn if that were the case most wouldn't even be working in the industry to begin with, they'd be working in other areas of SE and Dev getting paid a damn sight more than they would/could earn working in game development.

Most of these guys go into the job because they're passionate about games and moreso about actually creating games, putting their ideas and concepts into form and making them available to the people who will appreciate them most. That's why many bloody talented people go into the industry with a starting salary of 10K or less when they could be earning 30K+.

Hell even in modern development houses they guys still push the publisher to reach the platform and fanbase they want and many of the vets still mention it being easier to exert creative demands before the introduction of 3D and the resulting spiralling dev costs. Nonetheless I've sat with a team of 20 guys discussing their determination to release their game specifically on one of the modern systems despite it not holding the highest yield potential, simply because they believe said system's fanbase would be more appreciative of their game and conceptual style. Developers are gamers, they're as, if not more passionate about games than even the most hardcore collectors here and most place a hell of a lot of concern in their game being fully appreciated and respected rather than just making money and being tossed aside for the next "product".

You're looking at it from the view of a publisher (all cash and funny handshakes) in the modern gaming market where the costs of development are so high developers are held at knifepoint and drip fed financing.


I didn't claim to be describing the 16-bit-era events of the various world markets; of course I realize that the markets in Japan and Europe were and are wildly different.

But you're generalising the 16-bit console war based on the events and actions undertaken in the US market while at the same time knocking back other remarks made on a similarily single market view as closed minded and inaccurate.


Why do you say I'm bashing the DKC series? Because I'm pointing out that eye candy is why it sold? I didn't disparage the gameplay (which has held up modestly well) at all. You're reading things into my post that aren't there.

But the very fact that games with far more hyped eye candy, which were basically just eye candy at that time, didn't sell nearly as well as the DK games really just disproves that notion. The game sold well for the game it was, not because it was a nice looker.

[hydr0x]

I didn't claim to be describing the 16-bit-era events of the various world markets; of course I realize that the markets in Japan and Europe were and are wildly different.

But you're generalising the 16-bit console war based on the events and actions undertaken in the US market while at the same time knocking back other remarks made on a similarily single market view as closed minded and inaccurate.

Exactly, and you totally ignore the possibility that the genny did only have a chance in the us BECAUSE of the sports games, in all the countries where those sport games did not really matter the genny was (clearly) defeated by the snes. I know, you want numbers, i don't have numbers for germany, but i know what the charts looked like back in the days and how many snes are on ebay compared to the genny, and those things show how bad the genny did make it (another thing, e.g. at my school back then, i knew perhaps up to 5 people having a genny compared to about 50 having a snes). The only numbers i know of are worldwide sales of genny and snes systems, and even without japan the snes did outsell the genny by about 10 million units




Why do you say I'm bashing the DKC series? Because I'm pointing out that eye candy is why it sold? I didn't disparage the gameplay (which has held up modestly well) at all. You're reading things into my post that aren't there.

But the very fact that games with far more hyped eye candy, which were basically just eye candy at that time, didn't sell nearly as well as the DK games really just disproves that notion. The game sold well for the game it was, not because it was a nice looker.

I can remember that i wasn't impressed by the graphics in any way, i never really liked that prerendered stuff too much, but i was amazed by DKC, just because of the gameplay

[zmeston]

Sorry, but hell, peoples preferences alone should be more than enough of an indicator as to the differences in the gaming libraries between the two systems. It's not just about those who are into the MD/Gen liking sports games above all other games, heck if that were true you'd be seeing MD/Gen sports titles running up decent prices because they were so highly sought after by all the rabid MD/Gen nostalgics and collectors. There's a reason why many people like one system and not the other and it's certainly not down to fanboy-ism.

If you can clearly define the "flavor" of the Genesis versus the flavor of the SNES -- hell, if you can define the "flavor" of Genesis RPGs versus the "flavor" of SNES RPGs -- I might start to believe you.


Moreso in the past when development wasn't nearly as costly, Developers were far more inclined to press forward their creative preferences with regard to platform and audience selection because they are so passionate about their work and concepts that they want it to reach it's potential not just financially but often moreso creatively.

Once again, romantization. To cite the past, as you do: how many Atari VCS-era developers were expressing their "creative aspirations," and how many were cashing in because everything labeled "VCS" flew off the shelves?

On an unrelated note: Do you consider the 16-bit era the creative apex of videogaming?

There are rare and wonderful examples of creative games from daring developers, and those are the ones I treasure the most -- but for every developer that tries something new and different, there are many, many more that don't. The solid majority of games, both old and new, are unoriginal crap.

What's with the passionate defense of developers, out of curiosity? Are you involved with development, or aspiring to development? I sense that I'm striking a nerve.


Most of these guys go into the job because they're passionate about games and moreso about actually creating games, putting their ideas and concepts into form and making them available to the people who will appreciate them most. That's why many bloody talented people go into the industry with a starting salary of 10K or less when they could be earning 30K+.

Which is one of the current game industry's biggest problems, but that's an entirely different discussion.


You're looking at it from the view of a publisher (all cash and funny handshakes) in the modern gaming market where the costs of development are so high developers are held at knifepoint and drip fed financing.

I do tend to look at it from the publishers' perspective because (in the console industry) they're in complete control of what ships and what doesn't. If a developer really, truly wanted to realize its 'creative aspirations," it would self-publish a PC game, with no publishers and no console politics to get in the way. But most developers sign up with publishers and willingly exchange creative autonomy for the chance of having their games purchased and played by millions of people.


But you're generalising the 16-bit console war based on the events and actions undertaken in the US market while at the same time knocking back other remarks made on a similarily single market view as closed minded and inaccurate.

Sigh... once again, allow me to explain that the Luxembourg comment was a "joke." And as I said earlier, if hydrox wishes to edumacate me on 16-bit sales in Europe, or even Germany, I'd greatly appreciate it.


But the very fact that games with far more hyped eye candy, which were basically just eye candy at that time, didn't sell nearly as well as the DK games really just disproves that notion. The game sold well for the game it was, not because it was a nice looker.

Which games of the time had more hype regarding their eye candy than DKC, which had the marketing of Nintendo behind it?

-- Z.

[zmeston]

Exactly, and you totally ignore the possibility that the genny did only have a chance in the us BECAUSE of the sports games, in all the countries where those sport games did not really matter the genny was (clearly) defeated by the snes. I know, you want numbers, i don't have numbers for germany, but i know what the charts looked like back in the days and how many snes are on ebay compared to the genny, and those things show how bad the genny did make it (another thing, e.g. at my school back then, i knew perhaps up to 5 people having a genny compared to about 50 having a snes). The only numbers i know of are worldwide sales of genny and snes systems, and even without japan the snes did outsell the genny by about 10 million units

You see what I mean about the fanboy thing? "The SNES was way more popular than the Genesis at my school!" Yeah, and the jocks were way more popular than the nerds. Your point being?

As for those worldwide 16-bit sales figures, I'd love to see them for myself. Are they at a credible website?


I can remember that i wasn't impressed by the graphics in any way, i never really liked that prerendered stuff too much, but i was amazed by DKC, just because of the gameplay

I believe this to be a false claim to discredit my argument -- shit, I was impressed with DKC's visuals, and I was a jaded bastard even back then -- but of course I can't prove that.

-- Z.

[Kid Fenris]

But the very fact that games with far more hyped eye candy, which were basically just eye candy at that time, didn't sell nearly as well as the DK games really just disproves that notion. The game sold well for the game it was, not because it was a nice looker.

Which games of the time had more hype regarding their eye candy than DKC, which had the marketing of Nintendo behind it?

-- Z.

It's also true that DKC featured a widely popular character. No major names were attached to Rise of the Robots or Killer Instinct, but who wouldn't recognize Donkey Kong?

[Anonymous]

Another thought: sure, maybe SNES would have "crushed" the Genny if it had a faster processor, but by that same logic could you not also say that the Genny would have "crushed" the SNES if it had had a more robust color palette and advanced sound chip?

mh mabye, but fact is that the snes DID crush the genny/md in some countries (e.g. germany) and the genny didn't really crush the snes anywhere

Geez, now we're narrowing the System Wars down to individual European countries? "The Dreamcast had a 43% market share in Luxembourg, you PlayStation-loving a-holes!"

I think of the videogame "world," for better or worse, as does the industry as a whole: North America, Europe, and Japan. Videogame gales in South America, Africa, and Asia -- where running water is a luxury (HELLO, sweeping generalization!) -- are negligible.

(Waiting for the angry posts from our Argentinian friend...)

-- Z.

guy you have NO CLUE, germany is a huge market, 80 million people are NOT negligible and the genny was crushed here!! Argentina for example also has A LOT people, although the market is not as big as it could be

to compare Luxemburg with Germany in terms of market-share is the most idiotic thing i've ever seen

Whoa... angry posts from our German friend instead. As you will note if you re-read my post, I'm not comparing Luxembourg to Germany; you made that leap in your own mind. I'm mocking those one-system-rules-all fanboys -- such as, uh, you -- who will stop at nothing to declare victory: "The Dreamcast was a juggernaut in Vatican City!", "northeast Guam was a Jaguar stronghold!", et cetera.

Also, as I said in my post, I think of Europe, only in terms of videogame sales, as one big lump of humanity, since I've never been privy to sales figures from individual European nations.

While I'd love to take your word that the SNES ruled all in Germany, Momma told me never to trust a SNES-addicted freak. Is there a website where German SNES sales info would be available? Or perhaps you have a German magazine article you could scan? I'm always interested in edumacating myself.

-- Z.
Zach, I've been meaning to ask this for awhile. When you quote someone, could you maybe pick out the relevant quotes instead of just quoting the whole darn thing? It's just a pet peeve, but you otherwise make some good points.

although I do think the Luxemburg quote was an implied comparision, if not overtly stated.

[zmeston]

Zach, I've been meaning to ask this for awhile. When you quote someone, could you maybe pick out the relevant quotes instead of just quoting the whole darn thing? It's just a pet peeve, but you otherwise make some good points.

although I do think the Luxemburg quote was an implied comparision, if not overtly stated.

I'm always dubious about taking quotes out of context, so I tend to include entire paragraphs instead of certain lines, but your peeve is duly noted.

And I really wasn't making a comparison, implied or otherwise. I was merely amused at the lengths to which fanboys of a system will go. (As demonstrated by hydrox later when he mentions the SNES's 10-to-1 dominance over the Genesis amongst his schoolmates.)

-- Z.

[Anonymous]

true, but your arguments are always well founded and backed with logic and information. good tactic though, I don't mind when you (or others) break up the whole post into sections and reply to the sections, but the above example that I quoted is the type that is unwieldy.

[/Hijack]

[hydr0x]

damnit zmeston, read my post again and u'll see that the school thing was just a sidenote, not an argument, i talked about sales charts and stuff (i know u want to see them, i asked media control about it, they told me vud has got them, so i asked them, i'm still waiting for their answer) but you can believe me, i bought a lot of multi-system-mags that featured the Media Control (they control cd/dvd/vhs/game/... sales in germany) charts and the snes games where always selling much more units, i read those 10 million difference on several sites, just search on google for "Super Nintendo sales 1993" or something like that, i don't know how reliable those sites are though (one thing you could look at are the top 100 bestselling games somone posted a few days/weeks ago, it featured far more snes games than genny games in the top regions, another sign that the genny didn't do to good)

and that dkc statement was NOT a false claim, i just don't like that graphics style, i don't like Killer Instinct graphics two, although i do like the game

btw, why do u assume i am a snes or nintendo fanboy? just because of that freak thing? snes interests me the most (mainly because of the lot of jap rpgs) and i didn't want to stick with the default entry so i wrote that thing. but i also do have a ms, mega drive, 32x, saturn and dreamcast with a lot of games, md has some great games, but most of those games would have been better on the snes, i'm pretty sure of that (sonic of course NOT, due to the speed factor)

[NvrMore]

Damn, hijack wise this is getting silly, and my current failure/inablity to respond on a regular basis is really screwing the discussion up :/


If you can clearly define the "flavor" of the Genesis versus the flavor of the SNES -- hell, if you can define the "flavor" of Genesis RPGs versus the "flavor" of SNES RPGs -- I might start to believe you.

As I've previously mentioned it's tough to accurately describe, especially without referring to it on a Sega Vs. Nintendo manner, and is a question far more suited to a larger cross section of SNES and MD/Gen gamers, but to take a swing at it from one side of the line.. MD/Gen has a arcade-ish teen gamer basis/flavor whereas the SNES has a more family/home-gaming basis/feel to it.

Vague - Yes, likely to be in line with what others gamers may feel about their chosen sys - No, but hell it's an entire discussion unto itself.


Once again, romantization. To cite the past, as you do: how many Atari VCS-era developers were expressing their "creative aspirations," and how many were cashing in because everything labeled "VCS" flew off the shelves?

Now you're swinging into "cashing in" territory with regard to a different point in the market timescale. You've always got those looking to cash in on the easy money, and in the current market said types are considerably more prevalent and in part responsible for the sorry state of development diversity today. However, as I made point of before, not only were development costs way lower back in the 16bit era, the market was split down the middle with each system able to match the potential sales yield of the other (literally), thereby resulting in a far less financially-critical platform selection risk which in turn raised the relevance/value of developer preferences and audience appreciation.



On an unrelated note: Do you consider the 16-bit era the creative apex of videogaming?

Hell no, not by a long shot.


There are rare and wonderful examples of creative games from daring developers, and those are the ones I treasure the most -- but for every developer that tries something new and different, there are many, many more that don't. The solid majority of games, both old and new, are unoriginal crap.

Yes and No.

Yes there is always and has alway been unoriginality and money spinning quick cash projects, it occurs in most if not all business fields, especially those with a basis in creativity and in the current gaming market it's spreading like cancer.

No, in respect to the fact that the creativity/originality to clone/crap/money-spinner ratio varies depending on market timeline, state and balance. Swing into the some of the earlier and least costly platforms on which financial outlay was minimal and platform development was accessible and you'll find one hell of a lot of creativity, diversity and originality.



Which is one of the current game industry's biggest problems, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Very true.


I do tend to look at it from the publishers' perspective because (in the console industry) they're in complete control of what ships and what doesn't. If a developer really, truly wanted to realize its 'creative aspirations," it would self-publish a PC game, with no publishers and no console politics to get in the way. But most developers sign up with publishers and willingly exchange creative autonomy for the chance of having their games purchased and played by millions of people.

*ding* modern market focus again. In todays market, the development costs demanded by a project are simply unfeasible without financial backing which in turn leads to the purse-string strangle hold publishers have over modern developers, however that isn't to say that developers immediately roll over and take it (some do, but in many cases they're the aforementioned cash chasers and sadly the new starteers). Even now developers still fight for their creative scope and preferences and although it varies from case to case they can manage to get their way or negotiate a balance (This proves moreso the case in respect to dev houses contended for because of their potential or track record).

With regard to developing on the PC, well that goes back to two things I've mentioned.

Firstly, audience. PC gamers have notably different tastes to console gamers. They love FPSs, RTS's and greatly prefer western style RPG's, thus if a developers stlye or proposed ideas don't fit into the appeal range then they lose on both appreciation and sales. Definate no go there for many.

Secondly, developers are gamers and they want to see their games on the platforms they intended them for, which they came up with their ideas for and for the systems they enjoy using. Console platform differences are insignificant to the divide between PC's and consoles as gaming platforms (I'm not knocking PC gaming, I like PC gaming) but they are two different breeds.


Sigh... once again, allow me to explain that the Luxembourg comment was a "joke." And as I said earlier, if hydrox wishes to edumacate me on 16-bit sales in Europe, or even Germany, I'd greatly appreciate it.

and my point wasn't centered on the Luxembourg remark, it was on your remarlks regarding Sega and Nintendo's market gains based on the events of the US market.


Which games of the time had more hype regarding their eye candy than DKC, which had the marketing of Nintendo behind it?

Killer Instinct - it was "cooler" from a social point of view, it's graphics were hyped beyond concievable limits, it had a HUGE marketing campaign based on it's "revolutionary graphical style" behind it. It was the eye candy hype whore of the times.

Rise of the Robots - Again it had a far cooler image, it's pre-rendering techniques were hyped, promoted and generally whored as the next graphical evolution in console gaming.


Is it just me or is this topic becoming the equivalent of 3-5 others all squeezed into 1? :/

[zmeston]

As I've previously mentioned it's tough to accurately describe, especially without referring to it on a Sega Vs. Nintendo manner, and is a question far more suited to a larger cross section of SNES and MD/Gen gamers, but to take a swing at it from one side of the line.. MD/Gen has a arcade-ish teen gamer basis/flavor whereas the SNES has a more family/home-gaming basis/feel to it.

Yeah, that's a fair statement, as Sega's best designers were all from the coin-op world, and Nintendo's censorious policies (until the dam-bursting Mortal Kombat II) made it more family-friendly. You still get the entire range of gameplay look and feel in the libraries of both systems, though; certain types might be more prevalent, but all of them are there.


not only were development costs way lower back in the 16bit era, the market was split down the middle with each system able to match the potential sales yield of the other (literally), thereby resulting in a far less financially-critical platform selection risk which in turn raised the relevance/value of developer preferences and audience appreciation.

So you're saying that the 16-bit era was the only one in which platform selection was far less financially criticial, since with two equally dominant systems, a SNES or Genesis game had an equal chance of success. Developers chose one or the other based primarily on their hardware preferences and perception of each system's fanbase. Kiddie/family games = SNES; edgy/mature games = Genesis.

Eh... I would call choosing a system based on its demographic a common-sense/marketing thing, as opposed to a creative/development thing. And while programmers certainly have their hardware preferences, they generally don't shun any system. Again (and again, and again), you're romanticizing the development process.

And what about the good/great 16-bit games that appeared on both systems? Are those cash-ins or creative endeavors?

I'm not saying creativity played no role in game development of earlier eras. But I'm saying that the ratio of genuine creativity to lack thereof in the game industry has always been the same from the very beginning, when Nolan Bushnell ripped off Spacewar and Odyssey and called them Computer Space and Pong. Every mainstream game system -- Atari VCS, NES, Genesis, SNES, PlayStation, PS2 -- has had a few truly creative developers and a ton of copycats and cash-ins.

(The failed Dreamcast was an anomaly, with the best percentage of good/great games of any console, which makes its failure that much more depressing.)

You'd need to give me specific examples of games that were developed for one 16-bit system or the other because a developer said to itself, "The SNES is more fun to program" or "The Genesis is more suited to this game's arcade feel," as opposed to "Nintendo owns us" or "Sega's licensing fees are less punitive."


No, in respect to the fact that the creativity/originality to clone/crap/money-spinner ratio varies depending on market timeline, state and balance. Swing into the some of the earlier and least costly platforms on which financial outlay was minimal and platform development was accessible and you'll find one hell of a lot of creativity, diversity and originality.

Now if THIS isn't romantization, I don't know WHAT is. Which earlier/less costly platforms do you mean? The consoles of the '80s, when genres hadn't been defined and developers were fumbling in the dark, making shit up as they went along? That was the creative apex of the game industry by default -- although, again, there was tons of crap, at least as much then as now.


Killer Instinct - it was "cooler" from a social point of view, it's graphics were hyped beyond concievable limits, it had a HUGE marketing campaign based on it's "revolutionary graphical style" behind it. It was the eye candy hype whore of the times.

This was Nintendo-hyped, like DKC, and fighting games were still in the process of shifting from the mainstream genre of SFII to the niche of today, so you're almost right here.


Rise of the Robots - Again it had a far cooler image, it's pre-rendering techniques were hyped, promoted and generally whored as the next graphical evolution in console gaming.

At the time, I remember it being hyped to hell on European computer systems, being a Euro-developed game, but drawing much less attention on console platforms. Certainly not DKC-level hype -- if so, only in Europe (which you would know better than I) and not America and Japan.

And you never answered my question about whether or not you're a developer or developer wanna-be. You speak with such passion about the process that I have to assume you're one or the other -- but almost certainly the latter, as a real developer wouldn't have time to post on the DP forum. Not that being a wanna-be would discredit your arguments; just curious if you have actual experience in the console-development realm.

-- Z.

[Jorpho]

Why exactly do people always say that the Genesis had a faster processor than the SNES?

This puzzles me. Clock speeds alone are a poor standard of measurement; surely a 100 MHz 386 and a Pentium 100 are not equivalent in terms of speed! So how can a Motorola 68k and a 16-bit MOS 6502 (whatever it was called) be compared on terms of clock speeds alone? Have definitive benchmarks been run?

It's not just Sonic, is it? I have yet to play it myself, but I've heard that Road Runner: Death Valley Rally for the SNES is just as fast.

(Incidently, I have heard of a Genesis mod in which the old 68k processor is replaced with a faster one, but it seems that it is not without its complications.)
________
Scottish recipes (http://www.cooking-chef.com/scottish/)

[badinsults]

I cannot recall the actual clock speeds, but I think that the Genesis' processor is aproximately twice as fast.

And if you want to show the difference it makes, try NHL 94 on the snes, and then try it on the Genesis. On the Genesis, the animation is smooth, on the snes it is jerky. That isn't to say that NHL 94 on the snes sucked, but it was better on the Genesis because of that. Other sports games had similar problems, from what I have heard, and that gave the Genesis an advantage in the US market.

[The Manimal]

The SNES would be my favorite system of all-time if the game selection was a bit better :)

As far as SNES vs GENESIS.


SNES crushed it, IMO. Yes, the Genesis was faster, and I don't think Sonic would work very well on the SNES...but for the most part, how many games really benefited from this 'speed'? I would have to say that the main weakness in Sega was that they were too d*mn concerned with putting out sports games and ignoring the rest. Probably 50% of all Genesis games were sports. If you loved sports games and that's all you played, it would be perfect, I guess. The SNES had much better sound, and far better picture (color palette was legions better!). Overall, SPEED vs SOUND/PICTURE. Genesis is a cool system, and had games exclusive to it that I love (Castlevania Bloodlines, the Contra game, Sonic series), and that makes it a must have. but then again, there were games that were even slower than SNES Ultraman....like Altered Beast (I think that was the one....guy that turns to beast, in super slooooow side scrolling action). Sega has and had made good 1st party games, and now I'm glad that they are no longer making systems and just being a game maker for other systems. Less systems to buy for me... Look at NHL '98 for both systems. Playwise, they are about the same, but the Genesis version has plain blue ice whereas the SNES had white ice with 'skate marks' everywhere. Far more detail, and realism. But if you go back to like NHLPA '93, the SNES version looks the same about, and seems slow while the GENESIS version doesn't. Ultimately, if I had to choose a game that was available on either system on one, I would buy the SNES version...unless of course, the SNES version was 'tampered' with or censored or something.

Who wonders where the v.g. industry would be had Nintendo not sold that disc drive add-on to Sony which would later become the PSX, I believe... Nintendo's biggest mistake of all-time. Other being Nintendo's continuing to market children and ignoring their original NES fanbase who had grown up (Nintendo didnt' grow up with them). Not saying they needed sex and violence....but less fluffy characters and more complex and 'deep' games.

[Jorpho]

Who wonders where the v.g. industry would be had Nintendo not sold that disc drive add-on to Sony which would later become the PSX, I believe... Nintendo's biggest mistake of all-time.

Considering the "multimedia" crap that passed for CD-ROM games at the time, I'd say it was probably a Good Thing. But that's a whole other story.
________
Colorado Medical Marijuana (http://colorado.dispensaries.org/)