So is general consensus that the SNES is better than the NES?

[Flam]

So I’ve been pondering on this recently and it seems that the typical response is that the NES is what ‘got me into gaming’ but the SNES took it to another level. I love the NES and never owned a SNES (I had a Sega Genesis during that period); hell I’ve never really even played an SNES except for a handful of times. I was thinking about getting a SNES and maybe like 10 of the top games, but it seems cost prohibitive at this point.

So am I wrong to think that most Nintendo die-hards consider the SNES to be the better of the two. Personally I don’t care of RPG’s or beatem up’s which seems to be the SNES forte, I’m more of a platformer fan.

[sfchakan]

I've got great news for you. The majority of the popular games have been re-released multiple times and are pretty available. It's only when you get away from Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, etc; that you start having to go with the real deal or emulators.

If you're wanting to sample the library, I'd go for re-releases, personally. A Wii with the classic controller would be adequate. You could probably buy a Wii, a classic controller, and all of the games you'd want for less than the cost of just the carts for what you're looking for. Because this (https://www.google.com/search?q=mario+kart+snes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#fp=298d48b7c1fb523e&q=mario+kart+snes&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=off&tbm=shop) shit ain't as cheap as (https://www.google.com/shopping/product/308514895091227494?q=snes+zelda&oq=snes+zelda&sa=X&ei=S2IdUqj2OrOlsQTD54GIDA&ved=0CGsQ8wIwAA) it (https://www.google.com/search?q=final+fantasy+II&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#fp=298d48b7c1fb523e&q=final+fantasy+II&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=off&tbm=shop) should (https://www.google.com/shopping/product/9155015804653407789?safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=eTC&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sclient=psy-ab&q=snes+mario+rpg&oq=snes+mario+rpg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.51156542,d.cWc,pv.xjs.s.en_US.iz6Z5q8RWbs.O&biw=1440&bih=780&tch=1&ech=1&psi=FWIdUvvUJ7KlsQT1n4HQAQ.1377657369048.7&sa=X&ei=ImIdUuG8O4q5sQTz3oHoBg&ved=0CGMQ8wIwAA) be (https://www.google.com/search?q=earthboun&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#fp=298d48b7c1fb523e&q=earthbound&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=off&tbm=shop)!

Of the two, I find NES games generally funner to play nowadays, but I have stronger nostalgia for the experiences on the SNES. So much so that I buy way too make of the earlier mention re-releases and just toy around with them for a bit, rather than fully play through them again. Now, to be fair, SNES games were typically longer in length than most NES games.

[retroman]

Not sure how to answer this one. I love both systems. Got my NES in 86, and the SNES the day it came out. I will say that I tend to play the NES a lot more though. Best I could answer.

[Aussie2B]

Not really. Among younger gamers/collectors, yeah, they probably lean toward the SNES, but there are plenty of gamers who prefer the NES. I slightly prefer the SNES myself, but I have immense love for the NES too.

[ccovell]

The SNES does win out in driving / flying simulations, brawlers, (probably) RPGs, and in graphics and sound.

I still, however, prefer the NES due to the sheer variety in gaming, period. It is heavy on the action-adventure genre, long, explorational platformers, classic arcade games, and shooters & run 'n guns. A lot of my favourite NES games never got a sequel or "equivalent" on the SNES, so it's impossible to let go of the NES even if you have an SNES.

[Koa Zo]

The NES wins out in fun, challenge, creativity, and awesomeness.

[JakeM]

I had more NES games as a kid, but nowadays I love the SNES more. Theres more variety, but both systems are equally as creative as people could be with game play elements. No sense in trying to put one over the other, maybe some will put the one they grew up with as the best one, but I cant do that.

[bb_hood]

Personally I like the NES more than the SNES. I had them both as a kid and over the past few years Ive found I play NES alot more than SNES. To say that one system is just better is kinda silly because it all comes down to personal preference.

[Jack_Burton_BYOAC]

I prefer the NES to the SNES. And the N64 to them both. People may say the N64 doesn't have that many games, but what it does have are the greatest games I ever played.

[Edmond Dantes]

Wait, SNES versus NES?

No. Not having this argument. That's like a big brother fighting a little brother. Why can't we all just get along?

We all know the Sega CD beat both anyway ;) [/troll]

[Haoie]

There's not really much of a content - SNES is a huge leap forward. Look at all the classics!

[Atarileaf]

I'm an NES man myself - more arcade classics on that system. SNES is cute and all and gets a pat on the head but its NES all the way.

[8-Bit Archeology]

I love both consoles. The only downside to the nes in my opinion is finding good platformers. NO i didnt say it doesnt have them, I just cant find them for a good price. I love roger rabbit, kid icarus, and kirby. But i really want to find prince of persia, rockin kats, bonks adventure (will likely end up getting it for tg16), little samson< never gonna happen with my wallet and more.

My favorite game for the nes is kirbys adventure. For the snes is earthbound.

[wiggyx]

SNES.

The NES was my first console and I loved and still love it. The SNES was like the NES on steroids IMO. Many of the same franchises and genres, just with better everything.

[Flam]

I always felt that the ‘nostalgia factor’ might have clouded some of the NES fan’s judgment (people like myself), and caused them to feel the NES was better. By some of the comments I’ve read here that might not always be the case. I know it’s hard to pick one over the other, and in the end you could say ‘who really cares’, but this is a discussion forum and it’s fun to discuss.

[Flam]

[QUOTE=bb_hood;1980396]Personally I like the NES more than the SNES. I had them both as a kid and over the past few years Ive found I play NES alot more than SNES. QUOTE]

I don't see this comment very often

[Greg2600]

Very difficult to pick between them. Obviously the SNES is "better" in all technical comparisons. All I would say is that the SNES did not screw anything up that the NES did well, only improved it. Its only downside is that most of the consoles have turned yellow.

[Flam]

Very difficult to pick between them. Obviously the SNES is "better" in all technical comparisons. All I would say is that the SNES did not screw anything up that the NES did well, only improved it. Its only downside is that most of the consoles have turned yellow.

So besides turing yellow you'd probably go with the SNES?

[Flam]

I remember being attracted to the Genesis over the SNES because at that time I was in the 11-13 year old age range and the SNES felt like a kids console with the Genesis was more 'edgy' (if that's the right word). Hell, the reason I probably went with the Genesis is because Mortal Kombat had blood and the SNES version did not, and the fact I was getting more into sports games which I think the Genesis did a better job with.

[Tanooki]

Too hard to answer the opening question. The NES brought forth a lot of genres and styles, refined some old stuff that wasn't working well at home too, gave us a lot of franchises that still exist, but it was in a way a bit limited by the time and being a ported 1983 system. The SNES though it did all that, but it hit a tier where the audio was near CD quality using samples and the video could pick from 32K colors and 256+ on screen even a mid-tier 'high res' mode even too with it. It had what the NES had in genres and styles, but it gave us a few more and some more franchises were born there too. The SNES unlike the NES with titles that had some decent to amazing attention to design still stand up as looking 'new' enough today and had to even have minimal work done to stuff them on GBA a decade later or even in recent years in the tablet market like the Square SNES games they ported over. I think the SNES maybe better in that it doesn't feel visually and aurally dated depending on the title, but if it's better overall probably not and I'd say dead even for their own reasons.

[goob47]

Well obviously, the SNES had much better looking RPGs with deeper stories and a more advanced battle system, but Dragon Warrior for the NES is as bare-bones as an RPG can get. I love that game because of that. There's no messing with equipment for an entire party of characters, and it's really easy to get the hang of. Now if only I could afford 2 and 3... ROFL

[Aussie2B]

I always felt that the ‘nostalgia factor’ might have clouded some of the NES fan’s judgment (people like myself), and caused them to feel the NES was better.

I think it's more likely the other way around. The younger gamers who grew up with the SNES are very nostalgic for it, and, since the NES came before their time, they don't care about the NES as much (I've come across some who flat-out won't play anything before the 16-bit generation because they think NES games are too archaic). Those who are a bit older and grew up with BOTH the NES and SNES probably have fairly equal nostalgia for both, so they're coming from a less biased perspective.

Anyway, to those who say that the SNES did everything the NES did and better, I'd have to strongly disagree. There are definitely areas in which the NES is superior. Take for example, challenge. Games got A LOT easier with the 16-bit generation on the whole, sometimes so easy that it makes the games seem boring compared to their predecessors. Super Mario World is a good game, but it's a total pushover. I'd much rather play Super Mario Bros. 3. I love Super Castlevania IV, but it's more a game I play to relax, as opposed to the intense platforming and boss battles of Castlevania 1 and 3. Zelda 3 is a lot more polished compared to the NES games, but it starts the tradition of Zelda hand-holding and practically having to TRY to lose, as opposed to the pure exploration and challenge of the first Zelda.

Or if you look at certain genres, the NES easily comes out on top. Ask any shmup fan if they prefer NES or SNES for shmups. The SNES shmup library is pretty pathetically small, and with the Super Nintendo's relatively slow processor, many of them are plagued with slowdown. The NES, on the other hand, has quite a few excellent, fast shmups, especially if you include Japanese releases.

[TonyTheTiger]

Very difficult to pick between them. Obviously the SNES is "better" in all technical comparisons. All I would say is that the SNES did not screw anything up that the NES did well, only improved it.

Those are my thoughts, too. The SNES took what the NES did and just refined it. Most of the "big" NES games have SNES counterparts anyway that are at least as good, if not better. The big thing about the SNES, though, is how quality control improved as a whole. Yeah, there are shitty games but the NES was plagued with software that often times barely functioned properly. And even if the games weren't outright broken, they often suffered from severe balance issues. The NES is great and all but a cursory glance at the library as a whole tells you that it was clearly treading new ground and not everyone knew what they were doing. The SNES was basically the NES with some actual experience behind it.


Super Mario World is a good game, but it's a total pushover. I'd much rather play Super Mario Bros. 3. I love Super Castlevania IV, but it's more a game I play to relax, as opposed to the intense platforming and boss battles of Castlevania 1 and 3. Zelda 3 is a lot more polished compared to the NES games, but it starts the tradition of Zelda hand-holding and practically having to TRY to lose, as opposed to the pure exploration and challenge of the first Zelda.

See, I'm not sure I'd call that challenge. Zelda 1 isn't any harder than Zelda 3. It just gets you lost if you don't know where to go. That's not difficulty. That's just...getting you lost. Metroid is the same way. You pretty much had two options. 1) Draw your own maps or 2) Wander until you find something. Blaster Master goes the extra mile of getting you lost and not even giving you a password or save feature. The NES was big on turning hour long games into six hour long games through sheer obtuseness. Either that or unfairness such as being forced to replay large segments of the game after dying.

Admittedly, it's hard for me to comment on the difficulty of a lot of these games, though, since I've played them so much that they're all pushovers now. And, honestly, I think the best 16 bit Castlevanias are on the Genesis and Turbo CD, both of which hold up better as an actual evolution from the NES versions than Super Castlevania IV and Dracula X which are both kinda weird in the own ways. Although if we are talking about challenge, the SNES Dracula X is probably hands down the hardest Castlevania ever.

[bb_hood]

Although if we are talking about challenge, the SNES Dracula X is probably hands down the hardest Castlevania ever.

Gotta disagree with this, In my opinion its one of the easiest.


The SNES shmup library is pretty pathetically small, and with the Super Nintendo's relatively slow processor, many of them are plagued with slowdown. The NES, on the other hand, has quite a few excellent, fast shmups, especially if you include Japanese releases.

Yes, I gotta agree with this. So much slowdown on snes shumps.

[Aussie2B]

For the challenge of Zelda, I was referring more to combat. A room full of Darknuts in the first Zelda is easily more difficult than ANY enemy encounter in Zelda 3, boss or otherwise. Like I said, you really have to go out of your way to die in Zelda 3. Although there is more challenge to the exploration too. There are subtle hints in the first Zelda, so it's rewarding to discover a new dungeon or secret. Zelda 3 flat-out points you where to go. I wouldn't really compare the exploration of the first Zelda to Metroid either. Metroid genuinely is wandering and stumbling across what you need. There's really no rhyme or reason to where near-essential items like the Varia Suit are, while there's a logic to the world of Zelda that rewards the observant and clever. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many gamers who don't think Super Metroid is an improvement over the original Metroid, but there are plenty of gamers who still like the original Zelda best. That said, the one notable flaw of Super Metroid is that it's WAY too easy, just like all these other SNES follow-ups. There's little fear of ever dying in that game either.

As for the SNES Dracula X, I'd say it's more a matter of just being tedious and plodding. If you rush it, you get slaughtered, but it's not that hard (although definitely harder than CV4). I'd still say the first and third Castlevania games are more difficult, along with some other Castlevania games too.

[bb_hood]

As for the SNES Dracula X, I'd say it's more a matter of just being tedious and plodding. If you rush it, you get slaughtered, but it's not that hard (although definitely harder than CV4). I'd still say the first and third Castlevania games are more difficult, along with some other Castlevania games too.

Ive heard a few people say that Dracula X is hard and I dont know why, the last boss is kinda tricky, but not hard. Just throw axes and dodge fireballs.

With CasetleVania 1 and 3, they can be really easy if you know what to do. In castle 1 the only really hard part is the Grim Reaper, and he becomes easy with the holy water. This sub weapon is not found in the stage where grim is the boss so you have to keep it from the previous stage.
Castlevania 3 is easy if you use grant, but harder if you use alucard or sylpha. The shapeshifter boss can be tough but there is a trick to get him to just stand there while you stab him to death with grant.

[TonyTheTiger]

The thing is, it's a balance. Super Metroid is easier than the original? Maybe. But it's also longer and has a lot more shit to find. The thing about NES difficulty is that it wasn't really about posing a challenge. It was about making the games last longer than 15 minutes. The combination of high prices and the prevalence of rental stores made it almost essential to see to it that your players didn't beat the game in the first day or so. Later generations, when games became inherently long enough to naturally require a longer time investment, developers didn't have to play nasty. Sure, sometimes they still did but there was a gradual balancing act. Other kinds of challenges that didn't just involve killing you a lot became more commonplace.

Super Mario World is easier than Mario 3? Well, depends. Mario 3 kills you more often but it doesn't have multiple exits to discover for half the levels, some of which in Mario World are actually kind of tricky. It's not always about the threat of death. Finding 100% of items in Super Metroid is arguably harder to do than simply not dying in the original. Same with Zelda 3 vs. Zelda 1. The game points stuff out to you more often? Well, there's also more stuff in general and more robust puzzles so it balances out rather nicely.

[bb_hood]

Super Mario World is easier than Mario 3? Well, sure. But Mario 3 doesn't have multiple exits to discover for half the levels, either, some of which are actually kind of tricky. It's not always about the threat of death. .

I dont know which I would consider harder, smb3 or world, but Mario 3 does have hidden stuff. It has 3 hidden whistles, all the white toadstool houses and the golden airship.

[Flam]

[QUOTE=Aussie2B;1980461] Take for example, challenge. Games got A LOT easier with the 16-bit generation on the whole, sometimes so easy that it makes the games seem boring compared to their predecessors.[QUOTE]

This is what I was kind of thinking, I've played Donkey Kong Country before and it really wasn't for me. Not saying I'm going to dismiss a whole system over one game, but it seems like DKC is always in someone's top 10 for SNES games. No saying the NES has easy games (ie Kirby), but in general it seems that the games I'd be interested in (platformers) are easier on the SNES.

[Aussie2B]

A game can be difficult without being poorly balanced (and I'd say a game that's too easy is just as poorly balanced in difficulty as a hard game that's cheap), and the developers can have more reasons for including a healthy challenge than just extending the play time, not that that is a meritless goal. I quite enjoy games that take time to master but can then be replayed quickly by a good player. I will take that any day over a piss-easy game bloated with busywork just to stretch out the play time, as if often the case with modern games. I WISH a game like Super Mario World had been made more challenging if only to last longer. The secret exits don't make much of a difference; I still had the game beaten 100% after just a couple days of casual playing the first time I ever played through the game. And being done with it that fast the first time I played resulted in it not being a very memorable experience because I was already moving on to something else practically as soon as I began.

[TonyTheTiger]

I dont know which I would consider harder, smb3 or world, but Mario 3 does have hidden stuff. It has 3 hidden whistles, all the white toadstool houses and the golden airship.

Small potatoes in comparison, though. The game doesn't keep track of that stuff and you aren't prevented from gaining access to other parts of the game if you fail to discover those secrets. Plus, getting all the whistles is only slightly more complex than finding the warp zones in the original Super Mario Bros. Although the whole white blocks thing and especially the white mushroom houses and coin ship are great examples of NES style obscurity. That's not "challenge." That's just...obscurity. Those aren't things people could figure out on their own. Either it happens by accident and you make the connection or someone tells you. Then you can do it all the time without fail.

And I'm not saying the SNES is innocent, either. Donkey Kong Country loved to play the "jump in random holes to see if there's a secret barrel" game. And getting the Hadoken in Mega Man X is retarded. Both games have sequels that are much better at planting the hidden stuff.

I'm of the mindset that it doesn't really matter how hard a challenge is. What's important is that if the game is going to challenge you to do something that it actually lets you know that you're being challenged in the first place. NES games had a really bad habit of not doing that second part. The early Final Fantasies basically forced you to grind. You'd just walk somewhere, get slaughtered without warning, and have to deal with that once you saw it happen. Ninja Gaiden puts you back at stage 6-1 if you die at the last boss. It's actually not normal to go back that far after dying. It's just a special condition the game imposes when you die at that particular point. Mario 3 has hidden stuff that is basically there only to sell a strategy guide. Again, the SNES does this stuff, too. But it was more prevalent on the NES.

[SparTonberry]

Then you can do it all the time without fail.

LOL one Let's Play where the guy wastes probably at least 10 lives and all his power-ups to get the world 6 house just to spite the game. "I don't even want the damn anchor." And then still misses one coin.

[TonyTheTiger]

It's funny that the anchor is the most obscure item in the game despite being the most useless. Other than World 5, it serves little purpose if you don't constantly skip levels.

Another thing about Mario 3 is that, while you die more often than you do in Mario World, it hands you lives like candy. So there's another kind of balancing that goes on. World still hands you lives but it's slightly stingier about it. They're both such good games and ultimately so similar to each other that comparing them is either completely futile or an exercise in just how nitpicky one can be.

[Buyatari]

We sell more SNES here at our store for one reason and one reason alone. All of the SNES systems still work as is. No huffing and puffing and no pin replacements.

[Aussie2B]

I definitely don't think Super Mario World is stingier about the extra lives. They're pretty easy to rack up in both SMB3 and SMW, but definitely easier to rack up in the latter and harder to blow through once you've accumulated a lot (as opposed to worlds 7 and 8 in SMB3, which can drain a lot of lives from lesser-skilled players). I also don't think the games are THAT similar. They have the same overall structure and concept, but the execution is different enough that I consider SMB3 quite possibly the best 2D platformer ever made while SMW is merely a good, somewhat forgettable platformer to me. The level design in SMB3 is so well-crafted and clever that practically every stage is burned into my memory, and the perfectly balanced difficulty level contributes to that, but SMW is one big blur. No individual level is particularly notable to me. It's not a matter of being nitpicky, quibbling over tiny, insignificant details, but rather the impression each game gives me as a whole.


I'm of the mindset that it doesn't really matter how hard a challenge is. What's important is that if the game is going to challenge you to do something that it actually lets you know that you're being challenged in the first place. NES games had a really bad habit of not doing that second part. The early Final Fantasies basically forced you to grind. You'd just walk somewhere, get slaughtered without warning, and have to deal with that once you saw it happen. Ninja Gaiden puts you back at stage 6-1 if you die at the last boss. It's actually not normal to go back that far after dying. It's just a special condition the game imposes when you die at that particular point. Mario 3 has hidden stuff that is basically there only to sell a strategy guide. Again, the SNES does this stuff, too. But it was more prevalent on the NES.

The very definition of the word "game" tells you that you're being challenged to accomplish something, so I don't really get your point here. NES and SNES games are the same here, it's just that NES games tend to be more difficult and less forgiving. Some gamers prefer more difficulty and don't like to blow through a game too quickly without ever feeling challenged.

[CastlevaniaDude]

So I’ve been pondering on this recently and it seems that the typical response is that the NES is what ‘got me into gaming’ but the SNES took it to another level. I love the NES and never owned a SNES (I had a Sega Genesis during that period); hell I’ve never really even played an SNES except for a handful of times. I was thinking about getting a SNES and maybe like 10 of the top games, but it seems cost prohibitive at this point.

So am I wrong to think that most Nintendo die-hards consider the SNES to be the better of the two. Personally I don’t care of RPG’s or beatem up’s which seems to be the SNES forte, I’m more of a platformer fan.

I dunno. I prefer the NES generally, but I love them both.

[sloan]

Both consoles are basically 2-D platformers at heart. Yes, Super had FX and the like, but its main advantage is higher resolution graphics.

That said, I have to say that NES wins out in this battle for me. I never cared for the 'flavor' that many SNES ports carried. You know, like the sound chip and color palette. SNES games have always sounded 'tinny' to me. NES does everything SNES does in my book, even with pseudo 3D games like Rad Racer and RC Pro Am.

Don't get me wrong, I have large collections for both systems. It's just that NES has the advantage over SNES for me.

[treismac]

Although I dropped my NES into the dark abyss that was my childhood closet once I bought the SNES [it was, to be fair, getting significantly less play anyway after my purchase of the TG-16], in retrospect, I truly believe I had more fun playing the NES back then and certainly now. Yeah, there are some amazing games for the SNES, games that the NES could have never hoped to offer, but overall I just find there to be far more fun games to play on the NES.

On a side note, the Fourth Generation is the last generation of video games that I have any nostalgia for and collect games for.

[The 1 2 P]

I prefer the Nes over the Snes. I had an Nes when it was current and then switched to a Genesis during next gen. I currently own both an Nes and Snes and for awhile I was playing the Snes more to beat games but I still find the Nes alot more fun to play.

[snes_collector]

Even though I greatly prefer the SNES to NES, I feel overall the NES is more loved. More people collect for it, and I see way more discussion about it.

[Gamevet]

Even though I greatly prefer the SNES to NES, I feel overall the NES is more loved. More people collect for it, and I see way more discussion about it.

There were a lot more people that owned the NES over the SNES. Collecting for the NES isn't quite as expensive as collecting for the SNES either.

[Gameguy]

Personally I prefer the NES over the SNES, but it really depends on what types of games you like the most. If you like RPGs then the SNES is going to be your prefered console. Of course there's great games like the Zelda, Super Metroid, and Castlevania games, but there are more games I'd enjoy playing on the NES system. Still I wouldn't get rid of my SNES, it's way better than an N64 or Dreamcast.

For me I like platformers, and most games that are on the SNES are also on the Genesis and I mostly prefer them on the Genesis for various reasons. The NES has great puzzle games too, the LOLO games are worth owning for sure. Heck, I bought a large collection of games for $600 mainly just to get LOLO 3, it took me about 4 months to clean and sort through everything but I kept a handful of games for myself and broke even with the rest. To me the work was worth it.

[TonyTheTiger]

I definitely don't think Super Mario World is stingier about the extra lives. They're pretty easy to rack up in both SMB3 and SMW, but definitely easier to rack up in the latter.

Really? Because so long as your approach is consistent, Mario 3 gives you five extra lives every third level. I suppose it's moot because in Mario World you can easily just go in and out of the Donut Secret to rack up lives but Mario 3 maxes you out just through ordinary play.


The very definition of the word "game" tells you that you're being challenged to accomplish something, so I don't really get your point here. NES and SNES games are the same here, it's just that NES games tend to be more difficult and less forgiving. Some gamers prefer more difficulty and don't like to blow through a game too quickly without ever feeling challenged.

It's not the hardness of the challenge that's the problem. It's how it's conveyed to the player. A proper challenge is actually established first. The game does something subtle to pique your curiosity or guide you (for a spectacular example of this, pay attention to the use of lighting in The Last of Us). Basically anything to let you know that something is on the table (Mario World's yellow and red stage dots, for example). A lot of NES games don't do that. They just kill you first without warning which is really an exercise in repetition, not challenge. If you've ever played Ninja Gaiden you know exactly what I'm talking about. The game challenges you to jump to a platform. There's nothing around. No enemies. Looks like a simple task. The jump itself is the challenge, right? So you jump. Then an enemy that wasn't visible careens into you and in the hole you go. That's not "challenge." There was no way to know that you were being challenged by that particular enemy. You just have to die first and then alter your approach to account for this newly discovered information. If that's a challenge then I can "challenge" Michael Jordan if I ask him to make a free throw and then kick him in the shin just as he's releasing the ball.

This video is perfect at explaining the whole thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

Interestingly, I think the Hadoken capsule is actually a bad kind of challenge since it violates the whole conveyance thing. The game never informs you that dying over and over and returning to this unremarkable location (there's already a hidden item on the platform so why would the player expect another one, right?) a few times is a terrible way to hide a secret.

The best NES games were actually very good at conveying to the player what needed to be done. But there were so very many that just failed miserably at it. And some games did both. Mario 3 was actually pretty great at it for the most part. The way the second whistle is hidden is flawless. The game puts you in a fortress, gives you a leaf that you already know lets you fly, and gives you a short but effective runway right underneath a wall that extends above visible range. Hm... That's a challenge. That's how you hide something.

But compare that to the coin ship or white mushroom houses. Those things aren't really challenges as much as they are "this thing appeared and I have no idea why." While there may be something cool about having little bonuses just happen in order to excite the player, that's not something you want to make necessary to advance in the game. Which is probably why Mario 3 didn't hide anything suuuuper important that way. And which is why it's a good thing that Mario World made sure the player knew beforehand whether or not a stage had a second exit. The lack of this conveyance is why Final Fantasy II's "stick to the right path on the overworld or die horribly" methodology is absolutely terrible. The game does nothing to warn you. It just throws you into a fight with monsters way out of your league without so much as a hint to what the "right" path is.

[Aussie2B]

The things you're complaining about seem more like instances of a game being cheap, and I'd say it's something the game shouldn't be doing at all, not explaining better. Like I said before, not all difficulty is good difficulty, but lack of difficulty isn't good either. But the last thing I'd want is for NES games to have endless tutorials like modern games, pointing out each and every hazard and how you should address it, as if you're too stupid to figure it out yourself. Neither Super Mario Bros. nor Super Mario World tell you that if you drop down a pit, you'll lose a life, but we don't need them to. And I don't say that because of established knowledge, but because every kid who was playing a platformer for the very first time, without knowing a pit equals death, made that mistake once and then learned from that. I really don't mind if I take a hit or lose a life from something I don't see coming, as long as the game isn't being exceptionally cheap about it. Not all challenges should be reflex-based. Memorization-based challenge is fun too, and it basically necessitates that you learn through failure until you figure out exactly the best course of attack is and develop the skill to pull it off. And when you finally succeed, it's very satisfying. Maybe younger gamers would be appalled by the idea, but I think some degree of repetition in gaming is a GOOD thing. I don't want to beat everything on my very first try or only replay a stage because there's still some alternate secret doodad to collect.

[TonyTheTiger]

Well that's why I'd argue the SNES refined the NES. Because just about every example of bad design was more common on the NES. The NES is one of those systems that had a number of really fantastic games but if you picked up a game completely at random you might end up with something that was nigh unplayable or went really far out of its way to screw you over ala Final Fantasy II. For example, a lot of NES platformers didn't understand the concept of hitstun and mercy invincibility and why they're so important.

The SNES had a lot of terrible and/or unfair games, also, but I think its percentage of cheap or laughably terrible games was lower while the great games were at least as competent and numerous as their NES counterparts. I think the systems are essentially equals with the NES just having a lot more bullshit.

[bb_hood]

Really? Because so long as your approach is consistent, Mario 3 gives you five extra lives every third level. I suppose it's moot because in Mario World you can easily just go in and out of the Donut Secret to rack up lives but Mario 3 maxes you out just through ordinary play.



Getting 3 star cards every time is not a given, the approach is not always constant. Sometime you come out of a pipe or there is a flying goomba in your face. Comparing Mario 3 to Super Mario world in terms of difficulty is kinda silly because I think both games are mega easy. I do think that the final stages in Mario 3 are tougher than the final stages in mario world though. In mario world not only do you have yoshi (most of the time) but you also have the item drop down box. Its harder to die in Mario world than in 3.

Also I think the original mario games on Nes/famicom are superior to the Mario games on Super mario all-stars. I dont really care for the fancier graphics, and the nes games sound and play better in my opinion. Super Mario 2 on the famicom disk system plays alot better than the lost levels on the super mario all-stars cart.



The NES has great puzzle games too, the LOLO games are worth owning for sure.
Hell YES! All the lolo games on Nintendo are excellent. And talk about a challenge, Lolo 3 is really really hard. Especially really late in the game. Ive beaten the first 2 but I just cant beat the last few stages in lolo 3.

[Atarileaf]

Yes, I gotta agree with this. So much slowdown on snes shumps.

I haven't played a lot of shmups on the SNES but Space Megaforce doesn't seem to have any slowdown.

[bb_hood]

I haven't played a lot of shmups on the SNES but Space Megaforce doesn't seem to have any slowdown.
It can be bad in Gradius III, especially the 2nd level. But to be fair quite a few Nes games have slowdown also. Its quite apparent in the Mega Man games.

[TonyTheTiger]

Comparing Mario 3 to Super Mario world in terms of difficulty is kinda silly because I think both games are mega easy. I do think that the final stages in Mario 3 are tougher than the final stages in mario world though. In mario world not only do you have yoshi (most of the time) but you also have the item drop down box. Its harder to die in Mario world than in 3.

This is why I think it's mostly a wash because it really depends on which level you're talking about. Something like the World 8 fortress in Mario 3 took me a long ass time to figure out as a kid but not because it's hard. It's just confusing if you don't know which doors to take. But the World 8 fortress in Mario World is the real kind of hard and can kill you if you aren't very careful. And that ghost house secret exit is a pain in the ass.

Mario 3 has the planes and tanks but those are both short and perfect P-Wing candidates. And the boat has the swimming trick. So it's kind of a situational thing. It depends on how you approach the game. Mario 3 has harder levels overall but it also gives you a lot of tools to navigate or outright skip them. Mario World has the item box but you can't store up a multitude of special suits and utilities nor can you take Yoshi in the castles and ghost houses. You can fly over a lot of levels with one of the standard items in Mario World while Mario 3 requires a special item but you actually have to control the process rather than just mashing a single button. The planes pose a challenge if you do it "for real" but are stages like Tubular and Soda Lake really that pathetically easy? If you think about it from the perspective of a new player who isn't well-practiced, both games have their moments of "what a joke" and "wow, this is tough." Sometimes back to back, even. I think SMB3's 8-1 is pretty tough but 8-2 is a cake walk and actually lets you skip half the level right from the start.


Also I think the original mario games on Nes/famicom are superior to the Mario games on Super mario all-stars. I dont really care for the fancier graphics, and the nes games sound and play better in my opinion. Super Mario 2 on the famicom disk system plays alot better than the lost levels on the super mario all-stars cart.

I'll agree with this insofar as the original SMB. All-Stars messed with the physics enough that the feel is completely off. But Mario 2 and 3 are essentially identical, I think. And Lost Levels is much nicer about how the hidden worlds are revealed so you don't have to beat the game over and over to access them.

[Crystalian]

Man, I almost didn't have to come in here; BB, Tony, and Aussie have this on lockdown! WOW! Whoever told you that the SNES is "better" needs a good recto-cranial extraction. I love both, but they COMPLEMENT each other, not COMPETE with one another.

1. SMB3 is more fun than SMW (probably due to not having all the extra stuff in it), and we got the sledge suit, frog suit, and Tanooki suit, along with the only appearance of Kuribo's shoe. Koopa kids are fun, too.
1a. SMW gave us Yoshi and nice lush graphics. The cape and balloon, dust kicks, wiggler, checkpoints, flippy chain-link fences, star world... I know the franchise wouldn't be the same without it, but it's no SMB3.
2. Legend of Zelda- I've played so much I can beat the whole game start-to-finish in under two hours. I had a dream when I was a kid andwoke up the next morning just KNOWING how to get the Silver Arrow AND that I needed it to beat Gannon! (very weird, but true) The challenge of a room full of wizzrobes, blue darknuts, or even a flock of Digdoggers if you screw up is definitely more challenging than ALTTP. Sometimes I even do a "no-ring" run just to challenge myself...
2a. ALTTP is much like SMW, very pretty, essential to the development of the franchise, but ultimately plays second fiddle to it's daddy.
3. Contra stands in a league of it's own.
3a. Contra III; noticing a pattern here? Same as SMW and ALTTP...
4. Time to play fair...Final Fantasy for NES. Loved it Astos, Matoya, Garland, Kary, Tiamat, Warmech, talking brooms, invisible man, Bikke the Pirate, and F-ing Bahamut. I'll never lose the wonderful memories I have of that game, OR the pointless grinding in the Marsh cave/Earth cave/Temple of Trials/Castle in the Sky...
4a. Final Fantasy VI IS MY JACK!! If they were to remake ANY game in the whole franchise, I would want it to be this one. Celes is my girl, Kefka is the man, Mog is a yeti-pimp, Sabin is Bruce Lee on steroids, the relics are B-R-O-K-E-N, Ultros is hilarious, Brachosaurs are WEAK (Graedus, Atma Weapon, Genji Glove, Exp Egg), Minerva Armour is awesome (No Damage all the way to Kefka in the End Game!), etc, etc, etc. NOTHING competes with the FF perfection on the SNES! Also, Mystic Quest is cool...
5. Kirby's Adventure=outstanding in every way.
5a. Kirby's Dreamland 3=more of that.
6. Metroid=many a night with the lights out just enjoying the atmosphere, whomping the crap out of Kraid, hoping I had enough missiles(I can never remember how many he takes)!
6a. Who's Justin Bailey?!? Not the chick with the Mother Brain-smashing arm cannon, that's for sure. My nostalgia for the NES version is the only thing that poison's my judgement call on this one. I know I SHOULD like this one more, because it IS BETTER in every way you could concieve of. I just can't force my self to prefer it, when I grew up with 8-bit Samus tucking me in at night...
7. Crystalis; I always said this SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN SNES GAME. It tried so hard graphics-wise, but that little box just couldn't handle it. What we got was SO GOOD, I just can't help but wonder how much BETTER it could have been...
7a. Actually I KNOW how much better it could have been, because Illusion of Gaia/Time and Terranigma showed me the light. Will/Freedan/Shadow, Princess Kara, and (I kid you not) a pig named HAMlet set out to save the world, except that they don't. They just kind of get sucked into that little side quest. Ark at least has a bit of a reason to whoop all of that 16-bit, Mode 7-enhanced keister! Either way you've got to hand it to SNES on this one...
8. Gun-Nac is amazing. Just don't lose your power-ups at the end or you're uber-screwed. Abadox=way under-rated. Image Fight, anyone? Terra Cresta is a thumb-killer.
8a. Ummmm, Raiden Trad maybe? R-type III, sure I guess. I mean they're fine and all, it just doesn't seem that "the magic" was really there for SNES...TO ME. This, or Zelda, is probably where I'll take some flak, but everybody's got their own opinions and this is just mine.
9. Puzznic, Tetris, LoLo, Kickle Cubicle. Loved 'em all (except when Kickle gets infuriating, GAAAHHHH!).
9a. Lemmings, Tetris Attack. Dat's about it. The SNES puzzle genre takes a back seat to the NES originators. Also the NES has Othello, Grrr.
10. Mega Man 3 alone is better than X1,2,and 3. Mega Man 2 routinely hits top 5 and 10 lists. Elec Beam+Rapid Fire Pause=Dead Rock Monster. Pharoah Shot charged above your head for tons of free kills. Absolutely killer music. No comparison.
10a. X was a necessary evolution of the franchise, and highly enjoyable. It just ultimately falls victim to SMW syndrome; very pretty, revolutionary even, but failing to capture the lightning in a bottle that the great originals seemed to do so effortlessly...
11. Mortal Kombaaa, no wait. Ultra, Ultra, Ultraaa-waitasecond. Ha-Do-Ke,er Ho-Da-Ke, um... Hoo-Da-heckdoIthinkImkidding. Nes has got nothing on it's younger brother in this genre.
11a. Flawless Victory.
12. Rad Racer, RC Pro-Am, Days of Thunder, maybe Ferrari Grand Prix? Lots of fun, but I always felt limited by the hardware, even as a child.
12a. Mario Kart, F-Zero, Kyle Petty's No Fear Racing, and even the Micro Machines game was superior to its 8-bit counterpart. Until we got to N64, I always felt a little let down with racing games, but much less so with the SNES. N64 was solid gold for me in this genre, but that's not what's being discussed here...

Sooo, the SNES is not a definitive "BETTER" console. Some things it does better, some things NES does better. Some things there are no comparison for. McKids is not Star Fox, Donkey Kong Country is not Battletoads, and Faria is not Yoshi's Island. This can never have an answer because, to lovers of games, it's not a valid question. Our lives have been enriched by the presence of both, and would be diminished by the loss of either. Have a wonderful night.

[Lictalon]

Is it just me, or did it seem like there was more "experimental" variety for the NES?

Someone mentioned Who Framed Roger Rabbit; I'm thinking of a lot of games that may not have been the best, but were definitely different. Princess Tomato, Jekyll & Hyde, Golga 13. Some (many) of those games were crap, but like someone else said, it was a wider variety.

You also got entirely different gameplay ideas for the regular series: I'm thinking Castlevania II and Zelda II, and above all, SMB2. I really thought SMB2 stood out as entirely different.

I didn't see as much as that with the SNES. Of course, I was older by then, and I'm sure the nostalgia factor comes in (care for a late-night Contra pizza party, anyone?).

[Gamevet]

Is it just me, or did it seem like there was more "experimental" variety for the NES?

Someone mentioned Who Framed Roger Rabbit; I'm thinking of a lot of games that may not have been the best, but were definitely different. Princess Tomato, Jekyll & Hyde, Golga 13. Some (many) of those games were crap, but like someone else said, it was a wider variety.

You also got entirely different gameplay ideas for the regular series: I'm thinking Castlevania II and Zelda II, and above all, SMB2. I really thought SMB2 stood out as entirely different.

I didn't see as much as that with the SNES. Of course, I was older by then, and I'm sure the nostalgia factor comes in (care for a late-night Contra pizza party, anyone?).



We saw a lot of experimentation with the 8-bit computers. And a lot of those games did make it over to the NES during its first couple of years.

The SNES did have somewhat unique titles like F-Zero, Pilotwings, Super Mario Kart, Star Fox, Rock N' Roll Racing, Ogre Battle, Super Mario RPG and Chrono Trigger. Let's not forget that Super Metroid had a huge influence on the Castlevania series, after its release.


I didn't get the NES until the late 80s', because I already had a ton of great games to play on the C-64. I only got the console because of how much I liked Mike Tyson's Punchout!!!! and the Super Mario Bros. games. My enjoyment of the NES would be short lived though, when I ended up buying my friend's Genesis from him in early 1990. I didn't buy the SNES until @ late 1993, when the really good titles started coming out for the console, and those titles helped make the SNES on of my top 3 favorite gaming consoles of all-time.

[Aussie2B]

Yeah, I don't think even the biggest SNES fan could argue that it hosts more experimentation and innovation than the NES (and its contemporaries). Before the NES/Famicom, there was practically nothing but arcade-style games, most being one-screen games focused on score. In the NES era (although not specifically on the NES; there was also plenty of innovation happening in the arcades and on PCs), a huge number of new genres came into existence, or huge evolutions of established genres. The SNES mostly just continued on with what was established in the previous generation, tweaking older concepts. And since all this innovation was going on in the NES's time, there was some experimentation that went down weird paths and lead to dead ends but they're still fun to check out these days.

[Gamevet]

Yeah, I don't think even the biggest SNES fan could argue that it hosts more experimentation and innovation than the NES (and its contemporaries). Before the NES/Famicom, there was practically nothing but arcade-style games, most being one-screen games focused on score. In the NES era (although not specifically on the NES; there was also plenty of innovation happening in the arcades and on PCs), a huge number of new genres came into existence, or huge evolutions of established genres. The SNES mostly just continued on with what was established in the previous generation, tweaking older concepts. And since all this innovation was going on in the NES's time, there was some experimentation that went down weird paths and lead to dead ends but they're still fun to check out these days.

The NES has a lot of games that got their influences from 8-bit computer games as well. Super Mario Bros. was not the first side-scrolling platformer; I believe Mountain King may have been the 1st. Super Mario Bros. is certainly deserving of making that style of platformer popular, but it wasn't the 1st. I have a very Metroid like game (I can't recall the name of it) on the C-64 as well, but it doesn't work right, since all cracked versions become locked after so many levels.

[bb_hood]

4. Time to play fair...Final Fantasy for NES. Loved it Astos, Matoya, Garland, Kary, Tiamat, Warmech, talking brooms, invisible man, Bikke the Pirate, and F-ing Bahamut. I'll never lose the wonderful memories I have of that game, OR the pointless grinding in the Marsh cave/Earth cave/Temple of Trials/Castle in the Sky...
4a. Final Fantasy VI IS MY JACK!! If they were to remake ANY game in the whole franchise, I would want it to be this one. Celes is my girl, Kefka is the man, Mog is a yeti-pimp, Sabin is Bruce Lee on steroids, the relics are B-R-O-K-E-N, Ultros is hilarious, Brachosaurs are WEAK (Graedus, Atma Weapon, Genji Glove, Exp Egg), Minerva Armour is awesome (No Damage all the way to Kefka in the End Game!), etc, etc, etc. NOTHING competes with the FF perfection on the SNES! Also, Mystic Quest is cool...
5. Kirby's Adventure=outstanding in every way.
5a. Kirby's Dreamland 3=more of that.
6. Metroid=many a night with the lights out just enjoying the atmosphere, whomping the crap out of Kraid, hoping I had enough missiles(I can never remember how many he takes)!
6a. Who's Justin Bailey?!? Not the chick with the Mother Brain-smashing arm cannon, that's for sure. My nostalgia for the NES version is the only thing that poison's my judgement call on this one. I know I SHOULD like this one more, because it IS BETTER in every way you could concieve of. I just can't force my self to prefer it, when I grew up with 8-bit Samus tucking me in at night...


Yes, some of my all-time absolute favorite games are on the SNES, them mainly being FF6, FF4, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger. Quite frankly I think these ARE the best rpgs available on any system in my opinion. I do agree that nothing compares to the FF perfection on the SNES, especially FF6. Im always amazed at how FF5 is just not as good as either FF4 or 6. Its an alright game, but coming after FF4 it just should have been better. It feels like it was rushed, the enemies are not as cool, and it always pisses me off that you can not change the character names. I mean really, Galuf? What a horrible name.
Any fan of FF4 should check out the FF4 hard-type, its an excellent hack that adds alot more to the game than increased difficulty. I found that the toad spell becomes very very useful in this version, which is cool because I hate it when RPG games give you spells with very little or no use at all.

If you are gonna mention Kirby you gotta mention Kirby Superstar, which is just awesome. Kirby's Dream course is also quite fun once you get the hang of it.

But when it comes to metroid, I do prefer the original. The atmosphere is soo creepy and chilling.. its just perfect. I love the texture of the blocks & the terrain and how it looks against the black background.

And yeah, Mog is a wicked yeti-pimp.

[Flam]

I really don't mind if I take a hit or lose a life from something I don't see coming, as long as the game isn't being exceptionally cheap about it. Not all challenges should be reflex-based. Memorization-based challenge is fun too, and it basically necessitates that you learn through failure until you figure out exactly the best course of attack is and develop the skill to pull it off. And when you finally succeed, it's very satisfying. Maybe younger gamers would be appalled by the idea, but I think some degree of repetition in gaming is a GOOD thing. I don't want to beat everything on my very first try or only replay a stage because there's still some alternate secret doodad to collect.

This is how I feel. Good summary!

[TheRetroVideoGameAddict]

This is a tough one for me. I loved my NES as a kid and still love it to this day and it remains my favorite console of all-time, but the SNES DID take things to a new level and the games were a blast to play. The NES wins my vote due to the memories and nostalgia factor but the SNES has really come on strong over the past couple of years for me as I discover more and more gems to play, but the same could be said for discovering NES gems I've never tried as well. So yeah, the NES wins in my book but the SNES isn't far behind in my eyes, I just love them both so damn much.

[Steven]

I have always personally felt like the general consensus is both systems are EPIC but YES, in general, it does "feel like" people think SNES overall has the stronger library of games and thus, is a superior system. Someone said it, SNES is like NES on steroids. Personally, just speaking for myself, I know I see the SNES as the best of the best. The games have aged so much better IMHO than NES' games. I can still play SNES games today and be "wow'ed" by them in subtle ways. There's not too many games I play on SNES where I feel wow it sucks or wow it's aged badly. I just can't say the same for a lot of the old NES games. Not trying to hate, it's just how I feel. I got love for 8-bit NES, but to me it's more of a historian system. Fun when you were a kid 25 years ago, but SNES is the one I can still play and love genuinely. It's like fine wine.

[Tanooki]

That really is it they're similar and not, but ultimately the SNES has aged like a fine wine while the NES in some ways has and other ways like old milk.

[GhostDog]

I have always personally felt like the general consensus is both systems are EPIC but YES, in general, it does "feel like" people think SNES overall has the stronger library of games and thus, is a superior system. Someone said it, SNES is like NES on steroids. Personally, just speaking for myself, I know I see the SNES as the best of the best. The games have aged so much better IMHO than NES' games. I can still play SNES games today and be "wow'ed" by them in subtle ways. There's not too many games I play on SNES where I feel wow it sucks or wow it's aged badly. I just can't say the same for a lot of the old NES games. Not trying to hate, it's just how I feel. I got love for 8-bit NES, but to me it's more of a historian system. Fun when you were a kid 25 years ago, but SNES is the one I can still play and love genuinely. It's like fine wine.

The SNES was one heck of a system. I agree that it's like the NES but on steroids. Where else can you make a game with huge sprites of roided up players like in Ken Griffey Jr's Baseball? Not on the NES. I still think the simplicity of certain NES games definitely have their charm and are very much playable like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Ninja Gaiden II among others.

[FrankSerpico]

That really is it they're similar and not, but ultimately the SNES has aged like a fine wine while the NES in some ways has and other ways like old milk.

I agree. The classic NES titles I used to love certainly hold up, but it did have more shovelware than just about any console ever, except maybe PSOne, and those games just get even more intolerable as the years go by.

[Rickstilwell1]

I don't think the suspected consensus has anything to do with innovation or game quality at all. Every generation of systems, an additional group of people - the new kids, join in the gaming experience. Unlike me, most parents buy them the current system only rather than both the current and the previous systems. Some of them only get one system or another instead of both or all three. So there are probably more people out there who had a Super Nintendo than an original Nintendo.

Super Nintendo brought video games to a point where the graphics while still 2D look smooth and detailed enough to not seem pixelated, with certain titles on the Genesis doing the same such as Sonic. I haven't heard of anyone who won't play 2D unless it was on the 3DO, Playstation, Saturn or Neo Geo. They always go at least as far back as the SNES and Genesis unless they don't like 2D at all in which case they will only go back as far as Playstation, Saturn and Nintendo 64 + maybe Jaguar and 3DO.

To me the 2D gamers who won't go back to 8-bit systems have something in common with the 3D gamers who won't go back to the Playstation, Saturn and Nintendo 64. Neither one likes the early stages of said point of view. It doesn't make them graphics whores but it does show that they aren't really willing to get into things from before their time. These are usually the people who didn't grow up with an older console in their house.

My first video game was a handheld Entex brand Space Invaders game from 1981 even though my first consoles were Genesis and NES almost simultaneously, so I have always appreciated what the systems like the Atari brand had to offer even though they were before my time. When someone is a kid, I think that is the best time to get them excited about old systems. They don't care about graphics as much. They just want to have fun. My younger cousin who is turning 19 used to have a lot of fun and laughed quite a bit when we played Warlords for Atari 2600 and reacted to the craziness displayed by the computer players and the ball, and we'll never forget how my old cat used to bat at the ships on the screen when playing Combat (airplane mode).

So back on topic, I think it just feels that way because the SNES has more gamers who started with it than the NES did. There are more 20 year olds in the world than 30 year olds.

[Flam]

When someone is a kid, I think that is the best time to get them excited about old systems. They don't care about graphics as much. They just want to have fun.

This is how my 5 year old feels about my NES

[o.pwuaioc]

I think most people on this forum will say NES over SNES, but most gamers across many forums (many of which with younger crowds) will go SNES over NES. Personally I love them both, my NES collection dwarfs my SNES collection, but I think the SNES has an edge. It's just the NES polished. That said, there are a ton of platformers on the SNES:

Super Mario World
Donkey Kong Country 1-3
Super Adventure Island
Mega Man X 1-3
Super Metroid
Contra III (more of a run n gun, but you can't deny the platforming elements)
Super Turrican (ditto)
Demon's Crest
Skyblazer
ActRaiser
Super Castlevania IV

In some cases, like CV III and SCIV or SMW and SMB3, I'd place the NES over the originals, but then again Contra III > Super C, Mega Man X > Mega Man any, and Super Metroid > Metroid

[Neb6]

I didn't have either one back in the day. I spent all my cash on the ColecoVision and all the add-ons. Then I swore off of consoles for years and went to the PC and Amiga.

In the last number of years I've played the NES and SNES extensively.

Conclusion: SNES wins.

E.g.) Metroid on NES verus Metroid on the SNES (no comparison. SNES blows the NES version away).

Between that and games like Operation Logic Bomb, Street Fighter, Gods, Brain Lord, Strider, Run Saber, and numerous others, I'd say the SNES is the way to go. I don't even like Mode 7 and I still prefer the SNES.

I'll say one thing though, the NES has a near-perfect version of Donkey Kong Junior.

[JSoup]

Generally speaking, I don't think any non-collector/avid gamer would debate that the SNES is better, just in terms of sheer power and the whole graphics thing. In my mind, they come out about even. Both do what they do well, both have large libraries of fun (and some not so fun) games, both are just generally good pieces of technology. I never had many NES games growing up, compared to the SNES (and even then I didn't have many SNES games), so I'd have to give the edge to the SNES based on that, simply do to my level of exposure.

On the other hand, the NES introduced me to the concept of RPGs and the SNES defined the term further. Not sure where to take that thought, as I find myself going around in circles, neither is really better in terms of actual games, they are both amazing and did what I needed them to do.

[Black_Tiger]

So I’ve been pondering on this recently and it seems that the typical response is that the NES is what ‘got me into gaming’ but the SNES took it to another level. I love the NES and never owned a SNES (I had a Sega Genesis during that period); hell I’ve never really even played an SNES except for a handful of times. I was thinking about getting a SNES and maybe like 10 of the top games, but it seems cost prohibitive at this point.

So am I wrong to think that most Nintendo die-hards consider the SNES to be the better of the two. Personally I don’t care of RPG’s or beatem up’s which seems to be the SNES forte, I’m more of a platformer fan.

If you aren't looking for beat em ups and RPGs and you like platformers, then the NES is definitely better for you.

If a SNES and games is looking cost prohibitive, then it's likely not worthwhile at this time. 16-bit games often sacrificed key elements in games like platformers as their priority was technical feats. Unfortunately, 16-bit+ platformers tend to be light on actual platforming.