• 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Raven_Sword (3438 posts) -

Because im looking at some Genesis and SNES games, and the Genesis looks better. was it only certain games that looked better on SNES? Because, Aladdin looked better on Genesis. Was it just the SNES had ebtter colors? Is that why people said its games looked better than genesis? What are some game that showcased this better graphics?
#2 Posted by carlthenimrod (1589 posts) -

They are essentially the same. SNES was technically more powerful I believe but it didn't really matter.
 
Joe Montana Sports Talk Football RIP

#3 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -

Yes, and we've had this thread before too, but not by you I think.  Aladdin is one of the rare exceptions.  SNES was quite a bit more technically capable.  Ignoring Super FX2 chip games like Yoshi's Island, there's stuff like Donkey Kong Country.  However most SNES games simply displayed more colors than Genesis could on a technical level, so almost every game could be an example.

#4 Posted by eclipsesis (1242 posts) -

Genesis is better simply because of Blast processing.

lol Sega how you crack me up.

I think the SNES was slightly superior, think back to games such as Donkey Kong Country and Star Fox which were crazy good looking games but i can't think of a Genesis equivalent. 

#5 Posted by dingraha (27 posts) -

mode7 Bro, mode7.

#6 Posted by Video_Game_King (36098 posts) -
@Diamond said:
Aladdin is one of the rare exceptions.
Especially since they were two different games made by two different companies using two different methods. That's the reason.
#7 Posted by dbz1995 (4790 posts) -

With most games, SNES and Genesis looked about the same. However, the better looking games on SNES (KI, DK, and Chrono Trigger) looked much better than the best looking Genesis games.

#8 Posted by Spiritof (2023 posts) -

I'd put it this way; Genesis graphics were passable and it was a great system for shooters, but SNES graphics were just more vibrant and it had WAY better sound capabilities than the Genesis.

#9 Posted by Yelix (333 posts) -
@eclipsesis said:
"

Genesis is better simply because of Blast processing.

lol Sega how you crack me up.

I think the SNES was slightly superior, think back to games such as Donkey Kong Country and Star Fox which were crazy good looking games but i can't think of a Genesis equivalent. 

"
Sega's answer to Donkey Kong Country was Vectorman, I guess. Both of them are totally graphics > gameplay, but I actually prefer Vectorman's gameplay over DKC. 
 
Anyway, yeah, the SNES was more powerful than the Genesis, both in terms of graphics and definitely in sound. I know the Genesis synth has a cult following and it definitely has its own sound, but the SNES was just capable of more clarity overall. 
 
SNES was overall a better console in just about every way.
#10 Posted by ImperiousRix (2963 posts) -

I think the SNES had smoother looking pixels and animations, not to mention the "Mode 7" and FX innovations of games like F-Zero and Starfox.

However, the Genesis seemed to be "faster", and had some nice looking particle effects.  Overall, though, I think the SNES has a leg up.

#11 Edited by Raven_Sword (3438 posts) -

Would it be worth paying 40 bucks for one? Im trying to decide wether I want to pay 40 bucks for a SNES or not. Plus, i dont know where to get SNES games for cheap. Place I go to have most of them price 15 dollars up.
#12 Posted by AgentJ (8778 posts) -
@Diamond said:
" Yes, and we've had this thread before too, but not by you I think.  Aladdin is one of the rare exceptions.  SNES was quite a bit more technically capable.  Ignoring Super FX2 chip games like Yoshi's Island, there's stuff like Donkey Kong Country.  However most SNES games simply displayed more colors than Genesis could on a technical level, so almost every game could be an example. "
This 
@Raven_Sword said:
" Would it be worth paying 40 bucks for one? "
For an SNES? Only if the games you want aren't available on Virtual Console
#13 Posted by turbomonkey138 (4950 posts) -

I haven't seen this argument since the 90s  . My friend was Sega i was Nintendo . ironic now isn't it ?

#14 Posted by yakov456 (1899 posts) -
@Raven_Sword said:
" Would it be worth paying 40 bucks for one? Im trying to decide wether I want to pay 40 bucks for a SNES or not. Plus, i dont know where to get SNES games for cheap. Place I go to have most of them price 15 dollars up. "
If you want to collect games, I would say 40 is worth it for the SNES. Search around, I'm sure you can find SNES games for cheaper then their VC counterparts, plus you'll be collecting a REAL copy of the game.
#15 Posted by Swaboo (451 posts) -
@Video_Game_King said:
" @Diamond said:
Aladdin is one of the rare exceptions.
Especially since they were two different games made by two different companies using two different methods. That's the reason. "
that
#16 Edited by teh_pwnzorer (1482 posts) -
@Raven_Sword said:

" Because im looking at some Genesis and SNES games, and the Genesis looks better. was it only certain games that looked better on SNES? Because, Aladdin looked better on Genesis. Was it just the SNES had ebtter colors? Is that why people said its games looked better than genesis? What are some game that showcased this better graphics? "

Genesis had a more limited colour palette but in some multi-platform games it ran in higher resolution.  Some SNES games had slowdown as a feature (including Donkey Kong; note how few sprites you encounter per screen in DK).   With too many sprites, it was very noticeable.   SNES had mode 7, Genesis had faster scrolling in their side scrollers (Sonic 1, which I like).  Genesis had smoother animation and bigger sprites in some games (Aladdin).  It's difficult to compare.
#17 Posted by Siphillis (1290 posts) -

Two words: Blast Processing!

#18 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

there was a great thread on the gaf about this. and snes won hands down in all of the graphics comparison photos. 

#19 Posted by teh_pwnzorer (1482 posts) -
@TwoOneFive said:
" there was a great thread on the gaf about this. and snes won hands down in all of the graphics comparison photos.  "
Yup.  Games are just static images on a screen....Wait, what?
#20 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

That arguement is irrelevent nowdays, it's really about 2d art style and both graphics on those consoles are horrible. Quit living in the past.

#21 Posted by teh_pwnzorer (1482 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" Quit living in the past. "
Tell me why.
#22 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@teh_pwnzorer: figure it out yourself, maybe we are playing 3d games, it's like comparing 2d street fighter games. There is no difference they look almost the same and it's 2d and it's about pixels. Honestly who cares about the snes and genesis right now?
#23 Posted by teh_pwnzorer (1482 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" Honestly who cares about the snes and genesis right now? "
Uhh, the original poster.   :P
#24 Posted by HAMMERCLAW (298 posts) -

Quit living in the past? That attitude is quite the exception, not the rule. Tens of millions of gamers are very content to live in a smaller but more vibrant version of the past, on their DSs, and console online services, every day.

#25 Posted by Jeff (3425 posts) -

There was something raw and edgy about the way Genesis games looked back then. Sure, the SNES was capable of more colors and nifty effects, but I always thought that a lot of SNES games looked kind of blurry. 
 
And then there's the Mortal Kombat I debacle, where the Genesis game played like the arcade (but looked and sounded rotten) while the SNES version looked like the arcade version on a bad, fuzzy monitor, played like total garbage, and was a heavily edited version of the game. 
 
I don't know, the SNES is technically more powerful, but I always loved the way some Genesis games looked.

Staff
#26 Posted by AgentJ (8778 posts) -
@HAMMERCLAW said:
" Quit living in the past? That attitude is quite the exception, not the rule. Tens of millions of gamers are very content to live in a smaller but more vibrant version of the past, on their DSs, and console online services, every day. "
This. Hitman isn't worthy of having the word "Agent" in his username!
#27 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@AgentJ: You don't know me very well, I am way more famous than you on other sites. I have no idea who you are and I am offended you have an agent part of your name. I have been using this user name for years now. Also I used to argue about the genesis vs the snes way back then at school, when I argued the snes side because I thought genesis graphics were overly pixely.
 
How can anyone determine which one is better? I meant you have to count the pixels, it's color pallette and art design. It's all 2d and like these days, even like animation, that is irrelevent, your comparing 2d to 2d, which is all by which games has a better design.
 
Today games has half art design and half technical graphics like uncharted 2, that cartoony game, unlike crysis which doesn't use alot of art design. My point is this thread is irrelevent, we don't play 2d games as much anymore and I was arguing this in the seventh grade and we didn't have internet forums back then. Second of all, how are you going to possibly determine which one is technically better? You can't, it's art design vs another art design. They both are 16 bit consoles with really lousy graphics. Does anyone have the spec info for these two consoles and what it's capable of? Also screenshots of the games? I really don't care to look for it. Maybe I am so used to good graphics theses days, I can't stand 2d snes genesis games.
#28 Posted by AgentJ (8778 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" @AgentJ: You don't know me very well, I am way more famous than you on other sites. I have no idea who you are and I am offended you have an agent part of your name. I have been using this user name for years now. Also I used to argue about the genesis vs the snes way back then at school, when I argued the snes side.   How can anyone determine which one is better? I meant you have to count the pixels, it's color pallette and art design. It's all 2d and like these days, even like animation, that is irrelevent, your comparing 2d to 2d, which is all by which games has a better design.  Today games has half art design and half technical graphics like uncharted 2, that cartoony game, unlike crysis which doesn't use alot of art design. My point is this thread is irrelevent, we don't play 2d games as much anymore and I was arguing this in the seventh grade and we didn't have internet forums back then. Second of all, how are you going to possibly determine which one is technically better? You can't, it's art design vs another art design. They both are 16 bit consoles with really lousy graphics. Maybe I am so used to good graphics theses days, I can't stand 2d snes genesis games. "
I'm sure you are more famous on other sites. After all, the only other sites I use are obscure sports blogs.But really dude, it was a joke, so chill out a bit. I don't at all understand how someone could call 16 bit "lousy", but thats a matter of opinion. 
#29 Posted by bonbolapti (1599 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
"@AgentJ: You don't know me very well, I am way more famous than you on other sites."

Can I have your autograph?
#30 Posted by buzz_clik (6931 posts) -

Short answer:

Yes.
 

Longer answer:

There are still a lot of shitty looking SNES games, and when you stack up the quality titles for both machines it's hard to pick a clear victor. Some of my favourite games of all time pushed the MD / Genesis to do some insanely cool things. So that's still a 'yes', but the voting-with-my-heart winner is Sega's machine.
Moderator
#31 Posted by HAMMERCLAW (298 posts) -

The SNES was the perfect 16 bit system, but Sega's system had a charm all it's own. If you're into retro-gaming, both systems are well worth your attention. The fact That 2D gaming is STILL a multi-million dollar a year industry, seems to have escaped some people's attention.

#32 Posted by buzz_clik (6931 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" Honestly who cares about the snes and genesis right now? "
More people than your naive opinion would imply.
Moderator
#33 Posted by AlexB (1023 posts) -

The SNES peaked at DKC3. Go watch a video of the Giant Barrel Boss, looks incredible for its time. SNES was a little bit better looking, but really they were about the same.

#34 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Jeff said:
There was something raw and edgy about the way Genesis games looked back then. Sure, the SNES was capable of more colors and nifty effects, but I always thought that a lot of SNES games looked kind of blurry.  And then there's the Mortal Kombat I debacle, where the Genesis game played like the arcade (but looked and sounded rotten) while the SNES version looked like the arcade version on a bad, fuzzy monitor, played like total garbage, and was a heavily edited version of the game.  I don't know, the SNES is technically more powerful, but I always loved the way some Genesis games looked.
Can't say I'd agree with you on Mortal Kombat 1, but there were games like Contra Hard Corps and Sonic 3 that seemed to have more parallax scrolling and bigger bosses than SNES seemed capable of.
#35 Posted by TheHBK (5466 posts) -

I always did think that Genesis games looked worse but you need to really see it on games that were the same on the systems.  Street Fighter 2 and MK are good examples.  Ninja Turtles IV and the Hyper Stone Heist were essentially the same game but changes had to be made to the Genesis one.  For me there was just something special about the way the games on the genesis looked and sounded.
Also remember, the Genesis had Blast Processing.

#36 Posted by buzz_clik (6931 posts) -
@Jeff said:
" And then there's the Mortal Kombat I debacle, where the Genesis game played like the arcade (but looked and sounded rotten) while the SNES version looked like the arcade version on a bad, fuzzy monitor, played like total garbage, and was a heavily edited version of the game. "
Edited? Have you never hit a dude so hard that huge gobs of what-may-be-sweat flew out of him? That's not censorship, that's real life!
Moderator
#37 Posted by SJSchmidt93 (4888 posts) -

If it looks way better then it's way better. 
 
Who cares what anyone else thinks. 
 
If you think one has better graphics than the other then it does.

#38 Posted by FesteringNeon (2158 posts) -

Genesis games always felt grainy, and raw.. but clear 
 
SNES, while more colorful, always felt like it had a slight film, or buffer over the top.
#39 Posted by Yelix (333 posts) -
@Diamond said:
" @Jeff said:
There was something raw and edgy about the way Genesis games looked back then. Sure, the SNES was capable of more colors and nifty effects, but I always thought that a lot of SNES games looked kind of blurry.  And then there's the Mortal Kombat I debacle, where the Genesis game played like the arcade (but looked and sounded rotten) while the SNES version looked like the arcade version on a bad, fuzzy monitor, played like total garbage, and was a heavily edited version of the game.  I don't know, the SNES is technically more powerful, but I always loved the way some Genesis games looked.
Can't say I'd agree with you on Mortal Kombat 1, but there were games like Contra Hard Corps and Sonic 3 that seemed to have more parallax scrolling and bigger bosses than SNES seemed capable of. "
I think that was just an issue of better developers knowing how to use the console to the fullest. Sonic Team games always looked and sounded leagues better than most Genesis games. Just look at Ristar, their best game and a series that needs to be brought back, but with dreadlocks and Mike Patton like Bionic Commando.
#40 Posted by Willy105 (4688 posts) -

The SNES did not have better graphics than the Genesis.
 

The SNES did not have better graphics than the Genesis.

 
 
That said, the SNES was a superior game console.
#41 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Willy105 said:
" The SNES did not have better graphics than the Genesis.
 

The SNES did not have better graphics than the Genesis.

   That said, the SNES was a superior game console. "
but... but it did...
#42 Posted by hunkaburningluv (568 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" @AgentJ: You don't know me very well, I am way more famous than you on other sites. 
 I'm sorry, but this made me chuckle. Who the fuck cares if people know you on other sites? 
#43 Edited by TobyD81 (1227 posts) -

SNES had a broader color palette and more special effects available ( Mode 7 and such), and it tended to have better graphics than most Genesis games. Aladdin is an exception, but the two different versions were very different games, and the Genesis Aladdin used a newer, spiffier animation technique. But on the whole, SNES had better graphics.

#44 Posted by Raven_Sword (3438 posts) -
@Jeff:

Thanks Jeff. Im probaly going to get both eventually anyway (SNES and a Genesis). im mainly deciding which one I wanna get first. I may go SNES first, so I can get Star Fox and the other great nintendo games.
#45 Edited by _k1_ (197 posts) -
 
SNES games could look better, but Genesis games played better... essentially the SNES had better graphics hardware, but the Genesis had a better CPU.  This made the SNES look better and work passably for slow paced games like RPGs, but the SNES never fielded anything close to Sonic, and any of the real graphically advanced games had extra hardware in their carts.    
 
Because of the SNES's larger color pallet and higher resolution, SNES games will almost always look better in static screenshots, but that won't capture the feel of how they played.  Both have achieved classic console status in a way that neither of their next-generation consoles (N64 / Saturn) did.  Do you like 2D video games?  Get them both. 
 
@Jeff
said:

 I don't know, the SNES is technically more powerful, but I always loved the way some Genesis games looked. "

I agree with this.  I'm not sure if it was the typical "blue skies/green earth" color scheme of classic Sega titles or what, but personally I've always liked the Genesis more. 
#46 Posted by MasturbatingBear (1781 posts) -
@Jeff said:

" There was something raw and edgy about the way Genesis games looked back then. Sure, the SNES was capable of more colors and nifty effects, but I always thought that a lot of SNES games looked kind of blurry. 
 
And then there's the I debacle, where the Genesis game played like the arcade (but looked and sounded rotten) while the SNES version looked like the arcade version on a bad, fuzzy monitor, played like total garbage, and was a heavily edited version of the game.  I don't know, the SNES is technically more powerful, but I always loved the way some Genesis games looked. "

kinda agree with this. While super mario rpg looks amazing. streets of rage 2... i dont need to say anymore.     
#47 Posted by Willy105 (4688 posts) -
@Diamond said:

" @Willy105 said:

" The SNES did not have better graphics than the Genesis.
 

The SNES did not have better graphics than the Genesis.

   That said, the SNES was a superior game console. "
but... but it did... "
Well, let's do a simple exercise.
 
Let's play Super Mario World:
 
  
And now, let's play Sonic the Hedgehog:
 
  
It's obvious which has more colors on screens, more detail onscreen, and goes by more faster.
 
Of course, Super Mario World is a superior game, but not graphically.
#48 Posted by raddevon (437 posts) -

The SNES had an odd technical limitation that prevented it from displaying blood. You'd think they would have caught that in QA. Weird.

#49 Posted by GunnBjorn (2911 posts) -
@raddevon said:
"The SNES had an odd technical limitation that prevented it from displaying blood. You'd think they would have caught that in QA. Weird. "


They've corrected that with the release of MK II...
#50 Posted by Khann (2793 posts) -

THE CAVES WON'T SAVE US!