Sega Master System Versus Nintendo Entertainment System.

[SegaTecToy]

SMS is still being sold in Brazil. It is a version with 30 games built-in. It's not a pirate console because the company that make them is licensed by Sega. I bought a brazilian DC some weeks ago and I will get today a new brazilian Saturn in my post office. They make new Genesis(Mega Drive) consoles too. I guess they are the only place in world still making Sega hardware. Unfortunately they didn't make Sega CD units anymore...

[SegaTecToy]

Oh, by the way I'll vote in SMS. I support the underdogs...

[Wavelflack]

"Sometimes selling the best technology isn't enough to win the market.... just ask VCR-manufacturer BETA"

That would be Sony, and they certainly learned their lesson, didn't they?
"Next time we put out a technological platform, let's make sure it's inferior!"

Eventually the idea paid off, and we got PS2.

[Jasoco]

1980's:
NES has more games. SMS is more powerful.
NES wins.

1990's-2000's:
PSX/PS2 have more games. Other systems are technically superior.
PSX/PS2 win.

What am I missing here?

I'm a Nintendo fan at heart. But have my mind open to everyone else.

But as a kid, I was a NES kid. I had never heard of Sega until the Genesis.. and I watched A LOT of TV and looked at LOTS of magazines. Where was Sega's ad campaign? I never saw a commercial for the SMS. Tells you a lot, doesn't it?

[Neonsolid]

Gone.

[Brian_Provinciano]

It's all about the games, and the NES wins there.

As for hardware, the NES is more powerful. Yes, the SMS is 3.58Mhz, and the NES is only 1.78. However! The NES uses the 6502 CPU and the SMS uses the Z80 CPU. The Z80 CPU isn't bad, but it's a very inefficient CPU, and takes about a minimum of four cycles per instruction, although most need at least eight, and some as much as 23! The 6502 does instructions in as little as two! As a result, that 3.58Mhz can't simply be compared to the 1.78Mhz as it is! The 6502 is about three times the speed of the Z80, if not more.

As well, ever wonder why those NES carts have 72 pins while the SMS only have 50? It's because the cartridge has direct access to the PPU video processor. With that, the possibilites are endless! With an FPGA or other hardware, one could render 3D on the NES easily since you can control what's in the video memory without having to execute any game code! With the SMS, to alter the graphics, the code must indirectly access the video processor.

I'm not into Atari 2600 development, but the 2600 and NES are two very unique systems, which are capable of many wacky things with very limited hardware due to how they were designed. With the 2600, you have direct control over each scanline and how it is drawn. With the NES, you can also have control over each scanline (in slightly different ways though). As well, the NES' CHR (graphics) bankswitching alone can save frames of code, thanks to the direct PPU access.

[Wavelflack]

Hee hee! I guess that would explain why NES games ended up with an entire series of MMC chips integrated into the carts. Because the technically superior NES..er..um..required such crutches to accomplish things such as windows and split playfields.

This reminds me of when Nintendo argued that the SNES was actually faster than the Genesis because it had a lower memory latency, or something to that effect.

Remember, Choplifter (1st gen game--naybe even a launch game?) featured line scrolling and at least 2 separate backgrounds. Have you seen that in any NES games? I notice a curious lack of assistance chips in SMS carts...

[Brian_Provinciano]

Hee hee! I guess that would explain why NES games ended up with an entire series of MMC chips integrated into the carts. Because the technically superior NES..er..um..required such crutches to accomplish things such as windows and split playfields.

This reminds me of when Nintendo argued that the SNES was actually faster than the Genesis because it had a lower memory latency, or something to that effect.

Remember, Choplifter (1st gen game--naybe even a launch game?) featured line scrolling and at least 2 separate backgrounds. Have you seen that in any NES games? I notice a curious lack of assistance chips in SMS carts...

The SMS have almost the same memory limits as the NES and also have MMC equivilant chips. However, because SMS carts do not have direct access to the video, they are limited in what they can do. Much like Game Boy games. The old NES MMCs are much more powerful than the GBs MMCs (or "MBC"s as they are called for the GB), even the GB Color MBC is less powerful!

The NES was first released in Japan in 1983, in which RAM was expensive, so it shipped with 2K of WRAM and 2K of VRAM. Later games had up to 32K of built in RAM! This was simply because memory was cheaper later. The SMS being from 1986 had potential to be more powerful, since games already often had 8K of on board CHRRAM (such as Rad Racer, Metroid). The NES is more capable and more extendable, the best of both worlds.

Both the SMS and NES limit you to a 64K of program memory space. They are arranged a bit differently. For example, tje NES by default gives you 32K of space into the high memory area, although with mappers, it can be mapped into other areas and such.

Anyway, to sum it up, SMS carts use mapper hardware as well. All systems which use CPUs with limited memory space like the NES' 6502, SMS/GG's Z80, the GB's i80 clone, etc. must use memory mappers or there games will all look first gen. Every GBC cart for example, uses the MBC5 chip. Otherwise the games would be limited to 32K!

[Wavelflack]

Without opening up Choplifter (which I suppose I can do), for instance, would you care to give me an example of SMS games which use memory mapping chips?

I know very little about programming, but I have read much about the NES' variety of MMCs, and it seems that there are unique capabilities to each one incorporated. For instance, some of the earliest MMCs were used apparently to facilitate bank switching and memory limitations, and the examples given are the "golden three"--Metroid, Kid Icarus, and Zelda--larger games. Later MMcs were used to facilitate special fx, such as diagonal scrolling (or was it 3-way scrolling?), windows, split screens (Mario 3's utility bar is an example given), and limited independent scrolling. In this regard, it seems that the MMCs (5 or 6 in the NES series) are functioning more in a coprocessor role. Perhaps they are listed as "MMC" for convenience, but in actuality are more than just a postman? I don't know, but it's there.

in any case, are you arguing that the SMS' native capabilities are less than the NES'? Give some conclusive proof, not just theoreticals (ie; PS2 66MPPS). It's readily apparent that SMS not only has a larger palette, but also can handle more sprites (and MUCH larger ones at that), as well as little graphical subroutines such as line scrolling, etc. It has inferior sound; I'll concede that. But arguing that SMS doesn't have a raw horsepower advantage over NES just seems ludicrous. The examples are out there to look at. You can argue that the Dreamcast is somehow more powerful (or efficient) than Xbox because of deferred rendering, but the reality just overwhelmes the theoretical. I remind you that Nintendo (well, their consumer service dept.) personally assured me that SNES was faster than Genesis based on memory access time. Where is the proof? It doesn't exist.



I'll open up Choplifter in a second. Let's see what's inside to help it run line scrolling and independent backgrounds.

Someone should put up an example of the ultimate technical achievement of NES vs. the ultimate technical achievement of SMS.

[Brian_Provinciano]

Without opening up Choplifter (which I suppose I can do), for instance, would you care to give me an example of SMS games which use memory mapping chips?

I know very little about programming, but I have read much about the NES' variety of MMCs, and it seems that there are unique capabilities to each one incorporated. For instance, some of the earliest MMCs were used apparently to facilitate bank switching and memory limitations, and the examples given are the "golden three"--Metroid, Kid Icarus, and Zelda--larger games. Later MMcs were used to facilitate special fx, such as diagonal scrolling (or was it 3-way scrolling?), windows, split screens (Mario 3's utility bar is an example given), and limited independent scrolling. In this regard, it seems that the MMCs (5 or 6 in the NES series) are functioning more in a coprocessor role. Perhaps they are listed as "MMC" for convenience, but in actuality are more than just a postman? I don't know, but it's there.

in any case, are you arguing that the SMS' native capabilities are less than the NES'? Give some conclusive proof, not just theoreticals (ie; PS2 66MPPS). It's readily apparent that SMS not only has a larger palette, but also can handle more sprites (and MUCH larger ones at that), as well as little graphical subroutines such as line scrolling, etc. It has inferior sound; I'll concede that. But arguing that SMS doesn't have a raw horsepower advantage over NES just seems ludicrous. The examples are out there to look at. You can argue that the Dreamcast is somehow more powerful (or efficient) than Xbox because of deferred rendering, but the reality just overwhelmes the theoretical. I remind you that Nintendo (well, their consumer service dept.) personally assured me that SNES was faster than Genesis based on memory access time. Where is the proof? It doesn't exist.



I'll open up Choplifter in a second. Let's see what's inside to help it run line scrolling and independent backgrounds.

Someone should put up an example of the ultimate technical achievement of NES vs. the ultimate technical achievement of SMS.

Choplifter on the NES uses no mapper hardware for it's scrolling, just the use of the built in VBLANK (NMI) interrupt, and precise timing. You might not notice, but Super Mario Bros. does the same thing! It sets the scroll value on vblank, kills a few CPU cycles with useless code, then changes the scroll register again. The game actually barely uses any mapper at all, just the simplest graphical bankswitching.

Most SMS games use mappers (anything over 32K, which are most). The difference is that while NES games use Mapper Chips + PRG ROM + CHR ROM/RAM, most SMS games use custom chips with the mapper+ROM built in one! As a result, if making an SMS devcart that runs anything > 32K, you need to find specific ones which do not use this layout.

The non-mapper based NES and SMS have both areas in their graphics in which the NES is better, and areas in which the SMS is better.

NES: The NES can have 512 tiles loaded at once, the SMS 448.
NES: The NES can have 32x60/64x30 background tile maps, the SMS only 32x28
NES: The NES screen is 256x240, the SMS is 256x192
SMS: The NES can have 25 colours on screen at once (more with special coding, no extra hardware required). The SMS can have 32 without trickery.
DRAW: SMS tiles are 4-bit of one palette. The NES are 2-bit of four palettes, using an additional attribute table for which of the four palettes to use. This allows the use of more unique tiles, since the same tile with different colours only needs to be in memory once.
SMS: The NES palettes can be selected from 52 different colours, the SMS from 64.
NES: NES can use CHR ROM or RAM (no mapper needed). With CHR ROM load times can be reduced. SMS uses a CHRRAM equivilant method.

They are both good systems, I'll put it like that. Another misconception of the SMS' features though, is of the Game Gear. The Game Gear _is_ SMS compatible, but not vice-versa. The Game Gear is an extended SMS, so that 4096 colours junk and such is _only_ Game Gear, not SMS.

Beause the NES' hardware is so limited, much much much more can be accomplished with less hardware. For example, to animate the background, all you need to to is spend four CPU cycles to change the CHR ROM bank! With SMS, GG, GB, GBA, etc., you must rewrite a bunch of tiles to the graphics RAM, which can really really reduce a framerate.

But like I said, they are both good systems.

[-hellvin-]

My vote goes to the sega master system. I had a game gear back in the day and my friend had a SMS so I have a huge nostalgia for it. My favorite game gear game which was a Euro release is defenitely Land Of Illusion! Kick ass graphics and gameplay and sweet music as well. Great game.

[Cauterize]

Master System all the way! Easily!

[Wavelflack]

Choplifter on the NES uses no mapper hardware for it's scrolling, just the use of the built in VBLANK (NMI) interrupt, and precise timing. You might not notice, but Super Mario Bros. does the same thing! It sets the scroll value on vblank, kills a few CPU cycles with useless code, then changes the scroll register again. The game actually barely uses any mapper at all, just the simplest graphical bankswitching.

There is no Choplifter on NES. I presume that you meant SMS, but I wonder.
In any case, I am not talking about scrolling the entire screen, but line scrolling. There is nothing of the sort in SMB, and indeed (to my awareness) not at ALL on NES. Perhaps line scrolling is an archaic term, so I'll explain: Individual scanlines scrolling at independent rates. Street Fighter 2 reviewers called this "warping". Look at the floors of SF2, or the water in Sonic 1 or 2. Now you know what I mean. Got get a copy of Choplifter and an SMS, and play it. Then tell me if it could be attempted on NES, and if so, why have I seen nothing of this technique on NES?
Not only does it have the line scrolling, but also has independent (ie; separately scrolling) background layers. The game is not slow, either, nor does it slowdown.

Incidentally, I can see careful timing and VDP tricks creating a pseudo line scrolling effect, but not when foreground objects are present; they would warp as well, and that's no good. Again, look at Choplifter. Rocks, tanks, buildings, etc.

This is an early 1st gen SMS game. I have only seen pictures of the last gen SMS games, but they are extremely impressive and I literally cannot imagine the NES coming remotely close to pulling some of that off. See the MK series, or whatever you like. If NES could do any of that (even Choplifter graphical techniques), then it would have. Look at the number of developers NES had working on it. They were not sitting on their thumbs. Look at the Nintendo R&D depts., Rare, Codemasters, whoever, all working to squeeze what they can out of the NES. Somehow they overlooked ways to beat SMS on all of this? I doubt it.

Give examples. Show where the peak of NES achievement outshone SMS. Until then, it's a theoretical dream that has proven insuperable.

[Brian_Provinciano]

There is no Choplifter on NES. I presume that you meant SMS, but I wonder.
In any case, I am not talking about scrolling the entire screen, but line scrolling. There is nothing of the sort in SMB, and indeed (to my awareness) not at ALL on NES. Perhaps line scrolling is an archaic term, so I'll explain: Individual scanlines scrolling at independent rates. Street Fighter 2 reviewers called this "warping". Look at the floors of SF2, or the water in Sonic 1 or 2. Now you know what I mean. Got get a copy of Choplifter and an SMS, and play it. Then tell me if it could be attempted on NES, and if so, why have I seen nothing of this technique on NES?
Not only does it have the line scrolling, but also has independent (ie; separately scrolling) background layers. The game is not slow, either, nor does it slowdown.

Incidentally, I can see careful timing and VDP tricks creating a pseudo line scrolling effect, but not when foreground objects are present; they would warp as well, and that's no good. Again, look at Choplifter. Rocks, tanks, buildings, etc.

This is an early 1st gen SMS game. I have only seen pictures of the last gen SMS games, but they are extremely impressive and I literally cannot imagine the NES coming remotely close to pulling some of that off. See the MK series, or whatever you like. If NES could do any of that (even Choplifter graphical techniques), then it would have. Look at the number of developers NES had working on it. They were not sitting on their thumbs. Look at the Nintendo R&D depts., Rare, Codemasters, whoever, all working to squeeze what they can out of the NES. Somehow they overlooked ways to beat SMS on all of this? I doubt it.

Give examples. Show where the peak of NES achievement outshone SMS. Until then, it's a theoretical dream that has proven insuperable.

There is a choplifter for the NES, a first gen game also--although it's actually a Famicom only game (Famicom and NES are the same system).

None the less, the NES can do "line scrolling" as well, it's called parallax scrolling, an effect to give a pseudo 3D effect. I know of a lot of games that do this on the NES. In the background, Batman Return of the Joker uses it a bit, 3D World Runner does as well (in a slightly different way). Super Mario Bros. 3, of course, uses it for the warp zones, on the entire screen, making waves. In fact the homebrew game Solar Wars does this, and many other demos exist as well. It can be done without a mapper, but it's more efficient to use one, in which case, one with an IRQ such as MMC3-6 is good.

Neither the NES or SMS have background layers, that was in the SNES, etc. Parallax scrolling can be done in two different ways, by "line scrolling" the background (and when the graphics are done properly, it really can look like different layers), or by sprites. There are many NES games which use sprites, which would give a layered effect as well. There are also homebrew demos (nesdev.parodius.com).

As well, Super Mario World ( http://www.bripro.com/low/obscure/in...p?page=hko_smw ) was ported to the NES (Famicom), as well as many incarnations of Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat (even Tekken), all in the past years by pirate companies. MK and SFII were also officially ported to the SMS, GG, and Game Boy! They were simply not ported to the NES officially because the system was dead. None of these fighters are that great though, not for the NES, GB, SMS, or GG, heh. Some of the SFIIs on Famicom are alright though.

To explain why new SMS games can be better than the old NES ones is simple. Two reasons: 1) companies usually won't put more effort into their games than they need to, until other companies come out with more impressive stuff, in which case they'd need to improve their stuff to compete. Games were simpler then, so developers didn't have to put as much into them. 2) Do you know how much easier it is now to do the games? heh. With emulators, Windows and other GUIs, good bitmap editing software, fast PCs, efficient compilers--if they had the tools we have now, the NES and SMS games would be incredible!

Systems are all about the games, and it's clear that you love the SMS for them. I love the NES more for the games I'm nostalgic about. It's all good. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter which system is more powerful. Same reason I play PS2 over X-Box and GC, it's all about the games. I do in fact have a couple SMS consoles, a handful of GGs, and many games, so I do play it too.

As a programmer, I'm developing an NES game because not only am I nostalgic about the system, it really does, no questions asked, give a developer the ability to be more creative and do more.

The fact that NES games use mappers is not very important, as all of the systems did, other than for first gen games. The mappers were generally very little cost compared to the ROMs, and were pretty much built into the price.

The MMC5 gives the NES graphics overall, far more superior to the SMS or even GG. It allows 16384 background tiles at once (vs. the SMS 256). It also allows automatic horzontal split screen, and a scanline IRQ allowing for easy vertical split screen. It gives enhanced graphic and program banks switching, and also includes hardware aided 8bit*8bit->16bit multiplication. It's very powerful, but as for code, other than the aided multiplication, I wouldn't exactly call it a co-processor. It's really just a bankswitcher still, with a few bonus features (basically just counters).

The MMC6 is just a slightly modified MMC3, which is nothing compared to MMC5. Just a bankswitcher + scanline counter IRQ.

As for the peak of NES outshining the SMS, you'll see soon enough, when I release my ultimate homebrew NES game, heh. I've been working on it for well over a year, and will hopefully have it done by the end of this one.

Every graphical effect the SMS can do, the NES can do as well, and then some! If you find an SMS game that does something completely wacky that you don't think the NES can do, let me know. I'll explain how it can be done on the NES as well

[Brian_Provinciano]

Re: my previous post

SMB3 actually doesn't do the "line scrolling" on the NES, that was the GBA version I was thinking of, heh. But sas well as the other games I mentioned, the title screen for the Adventures of Bayou Billy does it, as well as the racing game "High Speed" on the NES. F1-Race, a first gen, no mapper game did small amounts of it as well, as well as Rad Racer, a second gen game using MMC1.

[Psycho Mantis]

nes all the way! I love the nes so much! it's got so many better games than the
sega master system.

[pixelsnpolygons]

Master System. Nothing against the NES, but I choose the SMS hands down. Great design, great games - wonderful color. I dunno, a lot of my choice has to do with nostaglia - I spent a lot of time with that system.

[HC Andersson]

Master System is my absolute favourite! But the there are greater melodies in the NES-games.

[Ernster]

To the above posts why the hell are you debating which was more powerful? Who gives a f--k, were talking about two 8-bit systems, does it matter which had better graphics or was more powerful? I thought we played retro consoles for the gameplay not graphics....

Anyway to answer this threads question, NES is better, im not going to waste my time answering why because the answer is so obvious.

[slip81]

That's though, The NES has a lot of great games I like, but I would have to go with SMS because it did have a lot of the same games, plus a bunch of great ones the NES doesn't have. And it's waaaay easier and cheaper to collect for. Plus I'm just a bigger Sega fan in general.