Did SNES really have better Graphics than Genesis? (Topic is SIX YEARS OLD)

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?

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

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.

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. 

mode7 Bro, mode7.

Aladdin is one of the rare exceptions.

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.

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.

"

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. 

"

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.

" 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. "

" Would it be worth paying 40 bucks for one? "

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

" 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. "

" @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. "

" 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? "

Two words: Blast Processing!

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

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

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.

" Quit living in the past. "

" Honestly who cares about the snes and genesis right now? "

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.

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.

" 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. "

" @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. "

"@AgentJ: You don't know me very well, I am way more famous than you on other sites."

Short answer:

Longer answer:

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.

" Honestly who cares about the snes and genesis right now? "

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.

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.

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.

" 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. "

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.

" @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. "

The SNES did not have better graphics than the Genesis.
 

The SNES did not have better graphics than the Genesis.

" 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. "

" @AgentJ: You don't know me very well, I am way more famous than you on other sites. 

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.

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

" 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. "

" @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... "

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

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

THE CAVES WON'T SAVE US!