Super NES or Sega Genesis?

[WCP]

But I have to bring up one thing...

If you're going to mention the NBA Live series and hand it to the SNES you have to mention the EA NHL series and hand that one to the Genesis. Take any year and compare Genesis to SNES. The SNES version will always feel sluggish and the frame rate on the SNES is terrible. It's easy to tell that some of the frames of animation are cut from the SNES.

I freely admit that the Genesis is definitely the better system if you're a sports game nut, or a shmup nut. No question about it. NHL '94 was one of the greatest sports games ever made, and the Genesis versions of the NHL series are much, much better. Madden '93 on Genesis is one of the best football games ever made, and the SNES doesn't really have one decent football game. Genesis was the sports gamers system of choice, no question. The NBA Live games on Genesis are very good too, I just think the color and sound of the SNES versions push them over the top.


As for shmups, the SNES does have Axelay and U.N. Squadron and Space Megaforce and a few others, but for the most part, the Genesis outnumbered the shmups, and also had better standout shmups.



But, I still think the SNES kills the Genesis overall, because those are only 2 categories out of many, many available genres of games.

[genesisguy]

I freely admit that the Genesis is definitely the better system if you're a sports game nut, or a shmup nut. No question about it. NHL '94 was one of the greatest sports games ever made, and the Genesis versions of the NHL series are much, much better. Madden '93 on Genesis is one of the best football games ever made, and the SNES doesn't really have one decent football game. Genesis was the sports gamers system of choice, no question. The NBA Live games on Genesis are very good too, I just think the color and sound of the SNES versions push them over the top.


As for shmups, the SNES does have Axelay and U.N. Squadron and Space Megaforce and a few others, but for the most part, the Genesis outnumbered the shmups, and also had better standout shmups.



But, I still think the SNES kills the Genesis overall, because those are only 2 categories out of many, many available genres of games.

Well it all comes down to opinion. But aside from RPGs which I will never play the Genesis beats the SNES on all categories.
Like I say this is just personal opinions but I own a SNES Everdrive any I have more fun with my physical collection of Genesis carts than I do with the entire SNES library at my fingertips on the flash cart.

[WCP]

I have more fun with my physical collection of Genesis carts than I do with the entire SNES library at my fingertips on the flash cart.

It's always more fun to plug in the physical, real cart.


I find myself really taking games for granted via flash carts. It's like if your dad owned Blockbuster video, and each nite you could pick from 1,000 different movies to watch. You start to take all of them for granted.


but yeah, this argument is all about varying opinions. There is no right or wrong answer. The good news is that at least you are passionate about one side or the other if not both.

[genesisguy]

It's always more fun to plug in the physical, real cart.


I find myself really taking games for granted via flash carts. It's like if your dad owned Blockbuster video, and each nite you could pick from 1,000 different movies to watch. You start to take all of them for granted.


but yeah, this argument is all about varying opinions. There is no right or wrong answer. The good news is that at least you are passionate about one side or the other if not both.

Right! I sold all but a few of my SNES games this summer. So I DID have them. But I always go Genesis when I have 30 mins to play.
That all said, I still love the SNES and think those games are classic masterpieces.

[Leo_A]

Genesis that's a given, EA halfassed every single game they put on the SNES.

While I'm not a sports fan and I'm not aware of much of EA's earlier work, I've certainly played some fine EA games on the Super Nintendo. And at least three also were on the Genesis, yet were as good or better on the Super Nintendo.

I'm talking about the Strike series. I think Desert Strike compares well with the Genesis original, and I prefer the SuperNes versions for the two sequels.

[kupomogli]

Both are great systems, but the SNES has a better library of games.

[Tanooki]

Well if you feel Leo they're nicer on there that's good for you and that's great. I guess it comes down to what you expect I suppose. The games EA made for the SNES were all straight ports of the Genesis stuff, so maybe I'm a light bit hard on the games, but when they don't bother to improve the game over the Genesis despite the ability to do more with the colors/visuals and the audio, it just reeked of a cheap dirty port to me which didn't amuse me. Strike games were the best they did offer though, that's fair to say, because when you get into the sports stuff, it was shovelware compared.

Overall game wise, away from EA stuff I think one has to have a unique taste in games, certain genres really or they'd be fairly delusional throwback fanboy of the period to choose it over the SNES as it had the variety and better presentation value going on but that's also just opinion really despite the fact it came out 2 years later and had the time to put up a better product. I also agree with the argument, flash carts dumb the value of the game down to nothing more than a distraction with little reason to meddle with as you have no investment in it other than a download. I learned that going through a few of them and playing almost nothing on the things.

[Leo_A]

You've never compared the Strike series much, if you think the SuperNes versions are identical.





Having played both through to completion several times over the years (Also including most other versions of Jungle Strike and the other games in the franchise), the SuperNes version is definitely noticeably enhanced. Even more so with Urban Strike (I wasn't able to find a good video of the SuperNes version).

And Desert Strike is at least as good as the Genesis original, although it doesn't really push the system any. But they're fine, well programmed games and a sad reminder of how good Electronic Arts once was. That the SuperNes versions aren't radically different isn't an indictment of them since they weren't meant to be, but they also didn't lazily just ignore the capabilities of the system or do sloppy conversions, either.

[celerystalker]

I'll admit racers aren't something I've paid attention to, but whereas Koranot from Super Castlevania IV is a background object, the growing/shrinking(when taking a hit) final form of Dracula on the Genesis, with a background with effects, was a sprite. That kind of scaling you never saw in SNES sprites during action games. There's a lot more examples, but that's the only one fresh on my mind, plus being games from the same series made that comparison easier. Alianger's 2nd link shows off some of the others.



Not exactly relevant to the conversation at hand, but again how much of that is Japan exclusive, from the disc add-on(for the record it's not like the Sega CD doesn't add anything to the genre either), or both? The list I made was specific to the console without add-ons, or from non-NA regions, about half of which of which still made it to Europe.

The reason I bring up Turbografx is not to attempt to derail anything, but rather because it's always been considered irrelevant in the 16 bit comparisons. I just want to throw out some of the other options to try from my favorite era of gaming to people who may forget about it when getting lost in a console war that, while awesome, was only that way in North America. In Japan, the Mega Drive was a distant third behind the SNES and PC Engine, and the Engine had a really great library that's worth exploring, especially to shooter fans. However, restricting that to NA Turbografx shooters on HuCards, Blazing Lazers, Super Star Soldier, Air Zonk, Aero Blasters, Sinistron, Psychosis, Magical Chase (that's totally not worth what it costs now, though), Dragon Spirit, and SideArms off the top of my head were all good-to-awesome shooters that run faster with less flicker and slow-down than most of what either SNES or Genesis can offer. It's not that they suck; Turbo just deserves a little love in the 16 bit conversation, and if you like shmups, like I said before, you're only causing yourself to miss out if you don't play Turbo games. There's a ton of fun to be had there, and not all of it is ridiculously priced.

Seriously, though, why not play Ninja Spirit, Samurai Ghost, the Bonk games, Bloody Wolf, Cadash, Dungeon Explorer, or Neutopia I and II when they're there in English to be played on stock hardware with no CD attachment? I still like SNES better than either, but by now no one should be so entrenched as to ignore the competitors and miss out on the great games on all of them.

[MidnightRider]

I had a Turbo, so I'm not exactly against it, it's just that I'm looking at a thread that it's not really a part of. An old one btw, that started, and died, in 2012 before someone resurrected it.

[celerystalker]

Yep. It's an old thread that's quite active and that a lot of people are talking in, and I'm certainly not the only one who mentioned the Turbo. Since a good chunk recently surrounded shooters, well, that's probably where it's most relevant, and has become a bigger part of the retro market posthumously. I don't see what's wrong about being positive about an inclusive view of 16 bit gaming.

I still think SNES is the best and most relevant of all, and the secondary market seems to agree. SNES picture and sound quality without system modification are the clearest, and Genesis is the muddiest using stock cables regardless of resolution capabilities. The SNES library contains an excellent array of Capcom arcade ports, polished first party Nintendo releases, and many more high quality releases from Konami, even though I prefer Contra: Hard Corps to Contra III. SNES has a much larger import selection to explore.

The RPG/shooter/sports thing has been done to death, largely because it holds water, and system capabilities mean almost nothing when comparing dead systems. What you can actually play on these systems is all that matters anymore. Everyone should try to play all of them if they really love old games. Like what you want. Encourage other people to try new things so you can share the experience. This sort of thread is a great opportunity to tell each other about the quirky games that stole our young hearts to compare systems instead of beating the Sonic vs Mario debate of 1992 over the head or comparing lackluster tech demos to show who failed less at what they sucked at.

I was just hoping to hear more about what made people really love their favorite, and a great way to increase others' understanding of your point of view is to include new-to-them games that might hit where the obvious classics didn't. I would never have gotten so into Genesis without a friend turning me on to some less-mentioned co-op games like Gain Ground, ToeJam and Earl, CrackDown, Alien Storm, General Chaos,etc. That same friend got into his SNES after trying less talked about games like Magic Sword, Run Saber, King of Dragons, Sonic Blastman 2, Brawl Brothers, King Arthur's World, Stone Protectors, and FireStriker. While it didn't make me forsake my favorite console, those experiences playing different games with friends gave me new memories and a different nostalgia I wouldn't have had without expanding the conversation.

[MidnightRider]

I like the Genesis better, regardless of who agrees, but you're not going to see discussion of lesser known titles for any of them in this particular thread. All a thread like this does is reignite the old argument.

Now, I personally am not against anyone preferring the SNES, or TurboGrafx, or whatever. It's when fanboys try to make it sound like the SNES is unquestionably, objectively, the best, that I get irritated. Mainly because there is no objectivity to be had.

Specs come in because the SNES fanboy makes sweeping generalizations that the SNES is better. That makes the Genesis fanboy actually do some research in retaliation, because the SNES fanboy is just stating something, without knowing what the consoles actually are capable of.

Then there's the software libraries. The SNES' is supposedly better because Nintendo and their 3rd parties franchised more than Sega and theirs did? That's the only way anyone can rationalize that thought, unless they still choose to remain completely ignorant of what the Genesis actually has for games, while still commenting on threads like this. People have complained about a lack of innovation in the industry, and yet years later turn it around that the one company that did almost nothing but innovate is supposed to be inferior to the company that still milks the same cows to this day(yeah Sega still milks Sonic, but at least it's the 1 series). Then the same people 180 again over Madden and Call of Duty, like those are doing anything different from Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, etc.





I shouldn't care that the nerdiest invention going cares more for the console that has the most games based off the concepts started by Dungeons and Dragons, but I end up doing so, because they can't voice their opinions without trying to make the other side sound beneath them. That makes me turn toward the fanboy side, because of the kind of people that have been making ignorant sweeping comments all over forums like this, as well as the average Youtuber, against Sega, all in the name of making Nintendo come off looking better, just because that's what they had 20 years ago.

I share the same sentiments that you do, that anyone with a true passion for this hobby should be able to enjoy it all, and yet I still see people say they won't ever pick up console/handheld x, or one made by company z, to this day.





Btw, if you want to talk about relevance, what has the SNES exactly done to shape the industry moving forward?

With the Genesis, Sega:
-Opened up the competitive market.
-Created a rating system that eventually became the ESRB.
-Got most of the European market to look at home consoles in place of microcomputers for gaming.
-Had the first online services that actually allowed people to download and play games.
-Brought western development back to home consoles in a much grander capacity than the NES.

Probably more I can't think of off the top of my head, but I don't think a home console gets much, if any, more relevant than what I already listed.

[Steven]

I obviously prefer the SNES myself (heh, after all, I've been running a SNES-dedicated fansite for nearly 8 years now). That's not to suggest I loathe the Genesis or anything. I had both systems as a kid in the early-mid '90s, enjoyed both but was always more of a SNES guy. This continues to this day. Lot of AAA classics but also a lot of playable, solid games that not many talk about that much that you could get lost in for a weekend or two. It's discovering these lesser known games that makes it so rewarding and fun.

[celerystalker]

You'd have to be crazy to think the SNES was more innovative than the Genesis. Sega has always been more forward thinking. Probably too much. The SNES most lasting impact aside from a legacy of quality games was controller design with its diamond face buttons and shoulder buttons that have been incorporated into most controllers that followed. Sega was the vanguard for trying new ideas, for sure.

Innovation in accessories doesn't make me like the game library any better, though, and playing games is what gives these things personal relevance to my experience. Historical significance and personal are definitively different, and I'm coming from a personal stance to state why I like a system best.

As far as franchising goes, every game company does it as much as they can get away with. How many Golden Axes were on Genesis? Streets of Rage? Thunderforce? Valis? Shining? Phantasy Star? Sega was especially then not at all above trying to franchise their properties, and third parties made the effort, too. In Europe, ports of Amiga franchises like Turrican and Shadow of the Beast are part of what brought relevance culturally. Sega has just always been better at creating than managing their properties, but they tried. Nintendo has been less innovative, but has always displayed better business sense.

For third parties, though, yeah, both consoles had a ton of franchise action. The SNES ones just came from more successful companies. Technosoft went after the Genesis hard. Capcom favored the SNES. Konami favored the SNES. EAwent after the Genesis with tons of Amiga and PC ports and franchises. Renovation was Genesis crazy with Wolf Team. Square and Enix pumped their games into the SNES. Everyone tried to franchise and make money on both systems. The SNES games that get so much more recognition aren't just a result of marketing. Sega ran the most TV ads of any console maker at the time. The Sega scream, blast processing, and Nintendon't are more iconic than any campaign Nintendo ran.

It's not a matter of research or being uninformed about third parties. SNES resonated with a different crowd, and posthumously, a bigger one.

[JoshDragon]

Since I owned a Super Nintendo as a kid, I would say that one was better. The Genesis was marketed to an older crowd.

[MidnightRider]

Where were most of those post-Genesis though? They didn't try bringing Streets of Rage or Phantasy Star to the next generation. Instead they made Panzer Dragoon, and Nights into Dreams. N64 still had the same properties from the SNES, which came from the NES before it. That's what I was talking about.

You really think that has no relevance to how these consoles are viewed across the internet now?

[celerystalker]

Sega tried to bring back Streets of Rage several times, and kept cancelling it. They did include it as a pack-in with the Sega CD and slapped it on a bunch of compilations. Golden Axe had an additional arcade sequel, a Saturn fighter, a last Gen game based on Tyris, a PS2 remake, and Game Gear spinoff. Phantasy Star Online and Zero perpetuated the franchise. Sega Superstars Tennis? Sega All Stars racing? Shinobi Legions on Saturn, the PS2 reboot and spinoff Nightshade? Shining Wisdom, the Holy Ark, Shining Force CD, III, the Sword of Hajya, Shining Tears, and Shining Force Neo? How about the whole 3D Ages line and the Genesis compilations and plug and plays that flooded the market? That's without touching Sonic or Sega Sports. Sega pushes their old brands as hard as anyone. Hell, they even tried to reboot Vectorman and Rent a Hero, and Space Harrier...

[MidnightRider]

They still weren't there throughout all the generations of Sega consoles, and then as a 3rd party developer for other consoles, and even the 3rd party titles from the Genesis that you brought up didn't keep going.

Still, I highly doubt most(if any) exclaiming the SNES has a better library are doing so due to their extensive knowledge of Musya, Whirlo, and Hagane, while being equally knowledgeable about Ranger X, Herzog Zwei, and Alien Soldier.

As I said, I don't mind that anyone has a preference for the SNES, I just wish there were more Steven's about it, and less of what is generally seen.

[celerystalker]

Wait, so ThunderForce V and VI didn't happen? Contra isn't still around? Castlevania died? The third parties did go on. In fact, Capcom loved the Saturn and loaded it with arcade ports. If anything, the N64 and GameCube had terrible 3rd party support. In fact, new IPs defined that generation when Sony got into the picture.

I don't see how appearing specifically on every console is relevant for franchising. Metroid skipped 8 years and a generation between games. Kid Icarus had one NA exclusive Game Boy sequel before the 3DS, but still is venerated as a classic. Earthbound has a rabid following based on what, marketing and sequels? Nintendo has two franchises that have appeared each generation: Mario and Zelda. Sega certainly pumped out just as much Sonic in that time, and I can't see how ignoring all the Sega first party sequels I mentioned in my last post makes them somehow irrelevant in branding. Nintendo has never pushed re-releases and compilations as hard as Sega until recent portable remakes.

Isn't it just possible that the SNES has a lot of games that stayed relevant to new generations because they weren't so tied to a date or era? Comix Zone was neat, but have you looked at Sketch Turner or listened to the promo CD it came with lately? Streets of Rage plays like a boss, but did anyone have a more cringeworthy design than Skate? Genesis went so hard on being current and in the moment that it might not speak to a kid born after 1995. Well, that kid's now an adult with an opinion, and they lack historical context to find a lot of these old designs anything but amusingly retro, whereas ActRaiser and those "games based on Dungeons and Dragons" don't rely as much on context.

Seriously, though, the only game you listed that I don't own and haven't played extensively is Whirlo, and that was never released in NA. Last I checked I was criticized for talking non-stock, non-NA games, but that's not the point. I absolutely agree that the extended libraries are what this conversation should be about. You told me that wasn't possible in a thread like this. Why not? No one ever convinced anyone that a console was worth playing after its death by quoting specs and capabilities, or by showing who had the less horrid 3D racers. I was convinced that the Genesis could be fun for me by a friend willing to show me some games I hadn't tried yet. It's up to us to keep an open mind and talk about those offbeat ganes if we want to spread the love for our systems of choice. However, just as you get sick of SNES fans going on about Mario, Zelda, and RPGs, I get sick of Genesis fanboys assuming I'm uneducated because I don't think it's the better console. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree and people being entitled to their opinions. I'm not okay with being told I don't get it or that I'm a fanboy because I don't agree. I just really enjoy talking games, and I would love to see people offer games to try to each other so we can see why we all get passionate about this stuff.

Edit: Also, I agree. Steven is awesome. I love RVGfanatic. Great stories!

[MidnightRider]

Obviously their games are still going(aside from some of the major ones nowadays), but you never listed anything by Konami or Capcom, who weren't exclusive, despite any favoritism shown.

Alien Soldier wasn't NA either, so that was 1 for 1 in that case. I didn't say foreign regions don't count, but when you talk about something like the various genres of gaming on the whole, you have to take into account what's accessible. How does a console having more of a genre exclusive to Japan matter to the average person buying games, unless they're in Japan? Not everyone is willing to import. Emulation may be a thing now, but I think of the collectors on this issue as well.

You're saying character design/setting are important to relevance? So no one should like old TV shows/movies in a what-was-then modern setting, as opposed to what's current, or what was fantasy, or sci-fi? So Back to the Future isn't relevant because of what Michael J. Fox was wearing when he was depicting Marty McFly, or how it's set in the '80's and goes to a '50's setting?; or does it remain relevant only because of the sci-fi time travel aspect?

I'm not sick of SNES fanboys talking about the same games(but it is very noticeable, like they don't know what they have on their own console), I'm sick of them putting down the Genesis to try to make the SNES look better.