CPU comparison: SNES vs. Genesis vs. TG16

[kool kitty89]

Even using full 32bit regs on the original 68k, it's not that much faster than the Txx opcodes of the 6280. I wrote a few mem copy routines for the 68k. A copy loop that did fourteen 32it regs for 56 bytes per instance took 5.1 cpu cycles (just the copy and loop, excludes the prep overhead). Txx instructions are 6 cpu cycles a byte. If you unrolled the copy part of the 68k loop, 26 times to negate overhead of the sub/branch - you're looking at 4.64 cpu cycles per byte. More limited though (need multiples of 26*56bytes). 6 vs 5.1 cycle per byte isn't that big of a difference.

 

It's DMA on the MD that gives it the block-move bandwidth it has.

If it was down to CPU writes to the VRAM I/O ports, you'd be comprehensively worse for VRAM data updates and animation on the MD compared to PCE (still maybe not as bad as the SNES though).

 

As it is, the PCE has a lead for instances where you can get away with updaring VRAM during active display (ie buffered sprites/tiles in locations that aren't being drawn on-screen that frame) as long as you can spare a lot of CPU time to handle all that copying.

MD has an edge for CPU bottlenecked games, and games with animation styles with heavy need for animtion updates mainly in vblank (between frames), and cases where you'd be willing to extend vblank for more DMA time. (more so in H40 and more still in 50 Hz)

 

OTOH, imagine if the PCE had a DMA engine doing block transfer at near max bandwidth (limited mostly by ROM/RAM speed). Or if they'd added something like that in the SGX . . . or Super CD. (except if you put the DMA unit or blitter -etc- external to the VDP bus, you'd be limited to about 1/2 the peak bandwidth possible compared to a dual-ported DMA engine sitting between the main bus and video bus, more like what the MD does -which seems more bottlenecked by the 68k RAM/ROM timing than VRAM)

[JamesD]

...

Oh, and aside from platforms that actually demanded backwards compatibility with 650x CPUs, another interesting 8/16-bit CPU in a similar role would be the 6809, or HC6309 in particular. The latter still went no higher than 3.58 MHz, but from what I understand it's a very powerful little CPU (in general and clock for clock), and probably could have made a very interesting inclusion into a console design. (then again, those MOS designs were generally inexpensive to license and customize, so that would be a counter point there . . . still it makes an interesting alternative to console or arcade manufactuers considering Z80, x86, or 68k based CPUs in the late 80s -and as it is, certainly should have made a better CPU for the SNES) It still only has 16-bit addressing natively, but external memory mapping logic works around that quite well. (and quite possibly in more useful ways than the likes of the 65816's segmented 24-bit memory . . . let alone 808x, or even 286 protected mode's odd continuation of the 64k segments)

 

Actually in a sort of "design a hypothetical early 90s console" sort fo scenario on Atariage a few years back, the 6309 came up rather prominently. (that and the ARM2 in a slightly different context)

...

The 65816's segments are 64K so as long as you are careful with code and data placement segmenting isn't horrible.

I don't think segments would be much worse code wise than dealing with 256 byte pages on the 6502.

The movable direct page and larger stack/index register make a huge difference vs the 6502.

I do know one game dev went from 6809 + MMU on the CoCo 3 to SNES and he didn't seem to like the transition.

 

The big problem with the 65816 is that you have to switch register modes often.

For example, to go from 8 to 16 bit (or vice versa) registers you have to switch modes in between.

The 6809 has separate 8 and 16 bit instructions so you can switch between 8 and 16 bits from one instruction to the next at will.

The 6502 can't load the 16 bit accumulator in one instruction and deal with the data as 2 8 bit values in the next instruction, you have to switch modes first. It's not a huge deal but after working with the 6809 you'll find a lot of the optimizations you'd use on the 6809 don't work on the 65816. That makes the 65815 code noticeably larger and more tedious to write than for the 6809. But then 65816 code is still better than the 6502.

 

The 6803 is a rather impressive CPU. It has additional 8/16 bit registers that can be combined with the standard 6809 registers to form a 32 bit accumulator, there is a 16 x 16 multiply, memory move instructions, instruction prefetch, etc... so it's noticeably faster than the 6809.

It is not perfect though. The new instructions supporting the added registers require an additional byte which adds 1 clock cycle for each instruction when you use them and when combined into the 32 bit register the new registers are used for the least significant digits rather than as the most significant digits. This means if you perform a type conversion from an 8 bit byte or 16 bit word to 32 bit long you use more bytes/cycles than if they had ordered the registers the other way. While this is minor it would certainly mean smaller and faster code especially from a compiler.

Edited August 27, 2013 by JamesD

[kool kitty89]

The 6803 is a rather impressive CPU. It has additional 8/16 bit registers that can be combined with the standard 6809 registers to form a 32 bit accumulator, there is a 16 x 16 multiply, memory move instructions, instruction prefetch, etc... so it's noticeably faster than the 6809.

It is not perfect though. The new instructions supporting the added registers require an additional byte which adds 1 clock cycle for each instruction when you use them and when combined into the 32 bit register the new registers are used for the least significant digits rather than as the most significant digits. This means if you perform a type conversion from an 8 bit byte or 16 bit word to 32 bit long you use more bytes/cycles than if they had ordered the registers the other way. While this is minor it would certainly mean smaller and faster code especially from a compiler.

Just to be clear, you meant 6309 . . . 6803 is a 6800 based MCU family.

 

On another note, there's also the issue of neither the 65816 nor 6809/6309 having 16-bit bus versions, unlike several other 16-bit CPU families, like 8088/8086. (I forget if the Z8000 did that too . . . I know the 68008 did, but that's another story )

Obviously, having the 8-bit bus versions made a ton of sense (cost and more direct 6800 bus/peripheral compatibiltiy), but there should have been useful applications for either.

 

[Kirk_Johnston]

I find it utterly hilarious, but more just sad, how so many people have actually convinced themselves that the Genesis and even PC Engine are better [2D*] consoles than the SNES--wake up and come back to reality--using a game like say Street Fighter II Championship/Turbo as a perfect example and pointing out all the areas where those system's versions are apparently superior to SNES, as they see it.

 

It's very clear to me that almost none of you have genuinely stopped and compared these games properly side by side and in all the main areas:

 

SNES: More colours than both versions, around 1.5x as many compared to PC Engine and almost double as many in every single instance as Genesis. The HUD on PC Engine is on a black bar, which isn't the case on SNES or Genesis. There's actual parallax in both the SNES and Genesis versions, not the PC Engine version, but at times the SNES just has a little more, such as the scrolling clouds on Blanka's stage, the details behind the background fence in Zangief's stage, the moving castle in Ryu's stage, etc. Resolution is 256x224 for all of them, so the Genesis' much touted "higher resolution"--horizontally only, and for the standard resolution only because SNES can technically get up to 512x448, which beast both Genesis and PC Engine--means absolutely nothing here. The Genesis version has an ever so slightly smaller border at the top of the screen that SNES (like maybe 8 pixels), which ultimately means nothing as that's where the energy bar and score covers anyway, and both SNES and Genesis have much smaller borders at both the top and bottom of the screen than the PC Engine version. The sound fx and voices are patently superior to both Genesis and PC Engine--the Genesis fx and especially the voices are abysmal here--and you can debate which version's music you prefer but the SNES' is technically more advanced, fact. The SNES standard controller utterly blows away both the Genesis and PC Engine controllers--it's not even a competition--and if you have to go out and buy a new controller at additional expense so you get the "arcade" experience then the C&L Championship Joystick for SNES beats anything on Genesis and PC Engine, by a country mile. So it has the vastly superior standard controller free in the box and the best [pay extra for it] arcade-style controller for fighting games too. It's missing the intro--whoop de do.

 

Genesis: The tiniest bit bigger vertical resolution than SNES, and a lot bigger than PC Engine. Less colours than every other version (and more dithering and even some missing visual details are a result of this too). Much worse sound fx and voices than both SNES and PC Engine--you can debate what music you prefer but the SNES' music is technically more advanced--but it has the intro. And apparently is has some link moves or single frame hits or whatever it is, which 99.9% of people will never give one flying crap about and, I guarantee you, 99.9% of people who played these games back in the day never even noticed, so they ultimately mean jack in the grand scheme of things.

 

PC Engine: More colours then Genesis, about 1.5x as many, but less than SNES. Better voices than Genesis for sure, but not as good as SNES. That's about it.

 

Graphics: SNES (overall, it's not particularly close)

Audio: SNES (overall, it's not even close)

Gameplay: Draw (they're all genuinely brilliant here, with minor variations that might give the Genesis the tiniest edge to the most hardcore competition-type players only, but is meaningless otherwise)--so long as you shell out additional money to play the Genesis and PC engine versions properly in the first place, otherwise SNES obliterates them both.

Controls: SNES (whether you go standard or shell out for the ultimate controller to play your Street Fighter II).

 

Overall: SNES Wins--how much clearer can it be.

 

Now, this wasn't so much me proving the SNES is the best console of the three, which is another debate I'm happy to have, but more proving how utterly misguided and completely blinded by your bias most of you are.

 

*I put that there because these consoles really aren't 3D systems, so debating which is better for 3D is largely meaningless as most of the 3D games on them are crap anyway, although I'd rate Star Fox on SNES as the better overall experience above any 3D game on the other systems ultimately (as in more fun).

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

BLAH BLAH BLAH

 

It's very clear to me that almost none of you have genuinely stopped and compared these games properly side by side and in all the main areas:

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH

 

Now, this wasn't so much me proving the SNES is the best console of the three, which is another debate I'm happy to have, but more proving how utterly misguided and completely blinded by your bias most of you are.

 

 

 

So a BRAND new member appears in the 5th page of a thread just to tell everyone why most of you are wrong ?

Interesting way to start off in a community. So, who's sock account might this belong too ?

IF I AM WRONG WELCOME TO ATARIAGE, no doubt you will contribute and get along with everyone and we will all be wiser knowing you. ?

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by OldSchoolRetroGamer

[Kirk_Johnston]

  

1 hour ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said:

So a BRAND new member appears in the 5th page of a thread just to tell everyone why most of you are wrong ?

Interesting way to start off in a community. So, who's sock account might this belong too ?

IF I AM WRONG WELCOME TO ATARIAGE, no doubt you will contribute and get along with everyone and we will all be wiser knowing you. ?

 

 

I have do idea what a "sock" account is but can tell you I'm just a dude who saw some of the really "well informed" and completely "unbiased" comments in this thread trying to knock down the SNES and felt compelled to respond.

 

Now, anyone who wants to come at me trying to convince me either the Genesis or PC Engine are better overall consoles than the SNES--and overall is all that matters in the grand scheme of things--come at me.

 

But, what I will say is this: The stock Genesis is indeed better designed to blunt force 3D than the stock SNES. I openly admit this--and dang impressive it can get at times too, for what it is. Although see my position on 3D on any of these systems in my previous comment. But 2D is an entirely different matter, the only one that truly matters when discussing these three console, and I promise you, as a starting point, that you will not be able to show me a single Genesis game [and certainly not PC Engine game] pushing more fully overlapping background layers than the SNES is technically capable of in a fashion like this: 

 

 

 

And I'm happy to also tackle colour limits, sprite limits, background layer limits (on screen and per scanline), effects like transparency/colour math, shape/window masking,  mosaicing, Mode 7 background rotation and scaling, audio channels and capabilities, controllers (amount of inputs and versatility), games on the Top 100 Games of All Time list, etc.

 

So, best overall 2D system of the three, from graphics and sound to controllers and even the games library. . . .

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

20 minutes ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

Now, anyone who wants to come at me trying to convince me either the Genesis or PC Engine are better overall consoles than the SNES--and overall is all that matters in the grand scheme of things--come at me.

 

The point being, when a new member suddenly appears with a snarky attitude like yours it is always suspect. Your FIRST POST here is to be a condescending a*hole challenging everyone?, not introduce yourself, share some interest, no, just come storming in like your opinion is more important then established members?  Why so hostile? Why attempt to belittle others in this community that you have just arrived? What is with the hostility? "COME AT ME" - it's not that important buddy,  feel free to give your opinion, state your case etc and leave it at that, no need to come off so aggressive or be such a smart ass, YOU ARE NEW HERE or at least this is your claim, if that is true ACT LIKE IT, show some respect, you are the guest and to start off the stranger here, cool your jets or trust me you wont be here long. We've seen this behavior endlessly from some "new members" and we all know how it ends, so if that is your decision so be it but if you want to actually be here and be taken seriously earn it, is this how you come off on every forum you first appear? 

Edited April 24, 2022 by OldSchoolRetroGamer

[Kirk_Johnston]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said:

The point being, when a new member suddenly appears with a snarky attitude like yours it is always suspect. Your FIRST POST here is to be a condescending a*hole challenging everyone?, not introduce yourself, share some interest, no, just come storming in like your opinion is more important then established members?  Why so hostile? Why attempt to belittle others in this community that you have just arrived? What is with the hostility? "COME AT ME" - it's not the important buddy,  feel free to give your opinion, state your case etc and leave it at that, no need to come off so aggressive or be such a smart ass, YOU ARE NEW HERE or at least this is your claim, if that is true ACT LIKE IT, show some respect, you are the guest and to start off the stranger here, cool your jets or trust me you wont be here long. We've seen this behavior endlessly from some "new members" and we all know how it ends, so if that is your decision so be it but if you want to actually be here and be taken seriously earn it, is this how you come off on every forum you first appear? 

Don't really care to be pals. I came here specifically to comment in regard to the ignoramuses knocking down the SNES based on such ignorance and blind bias. I mean, when I read crap like this, "The SNES was really weak, because Nintendo was too cheap to include Blast Processing.", and when I see that some people can't even legitimately tell when one version of a game is superior almost across the board in every meaningful way, and certainly overall--I'm talking about Street Fighter II Turbo vs the other console versions of the game--because they're blinded by their bias, yet they're happy to hate on the SNES based on that bias, I'll come in here and give my two cents too. Again, the goal for me is not to come in here and make buddies; the idea is to defend the 16-bit system that I personally consider the best overall, and for actual legit reasons, against all the haters that have sprouted up in modern times. I've had enough of seeing random forum threads like this pop up when I do some Google search only to see a bunch of blindly loyal Genesis fanboys and the like try to crap on the SNES these days for no good reason--or maybe because they lost the console war in the '90s and simply can't get over it. So, yeah, I say let's have at it.

 

People wanna say the SNES is "slow" because they can't see past one spec on a bit of paper (the CPU speed), and my response is, show me the slow here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of those examples are running on a stock SNES (no expansion chips) and they're even stuck just using SlowROm too, so aren't even taking full advantage of the base SNES capabilities. The "slow" SNES running on basically the low setting is pulling it all off on its lonesome.

 

And, just to really get into it, I of course know the SNES does have examples of stutter and slowdown*--I'm not a blind fanboy--much like this:

 

 

But it's impossible! This is the almighty Genesis we're talking about, and it just never stutters or slows down, right, and certainly not in one of the games that is oft' touted as the most technically impressive on the system. . . .

 

If certain people are going to continue to attack the SNES or just play down what it achieved and how great an all round system it actually was and indeed still is in these modern times, I'm happy to respond in any way that fits.

 

*Of course, I also know that many of the examples of slowdown seen in SNES games are a victim of cheap publishers using SlowROM cartridges rather than FastROM ones (along with some clunky unoptimized code), especially the titles released early in its lifespan, which isn't remotely an inherent limitation of the console and its capabilities.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Kirk_Johnston
Just cleaning up some text and sentences

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

13 minutes ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

Don't really care to be pals. I came here specifically to comment in regard to the ignoramuses knocking down the SNES based on such ignorance and blind bias. I mean, when I read crap like this "The SNES was really weak, because Nintendo was too cheap to include Blast Processing." and see that some people can't even legitimately when one version of a game is patently superior almost across the board in every meaningful way, and certainly overall, because they're blinded by their bias, yet they're happy to hate on the SNES based on that bias, I'll come in here and give me two cents too. Again, the idea is not to make buddies for me; the idea is to defend the system that I personally call the best overall and for the actual legit reasons against all the haters that have sprouted up in modern times. I've had enough of seeing random forums like this pop up when I do some Google search and see a bunch of blindly loyal Genesis fanboys and the like try to crap on the SNES these days for no good reason--or maybe because they lost the console war in the '90s and simply can't get over it. So, yeah, I say let's have at it.

Curious, are you a child? Or just behave like one? ?Ah ok, ok got it, know your type, seen it many times, just here to argue and be overly sensitive and white knight for a company and their glorious hunk of plastic because again, for some reason, you cannot just state your views in a civil adult manner. COOL! Enjoy what is likely to be your short time here while worrying about what others think and arguing over a console......carry on......

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by OldSchoolRetroGamer

[Tanooki]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said:

 

 

So a BRAND new member appears in the 5th page of a thread just to tell everyone why most of you are wrong ?

Interesting way to start off in a community. So, who's sock account might this belong too ?

IF I AM WRONG WELCOME TO ATARIAGE, no doubt you will contribute and get along with everyone and we will all be wiser knowing you. ?

 

 

 

He may be brand new, and acting a bit like a blowhard, but if it tldr out the bullshit and stick to the more irrefutable facts and some fairly well substantiated opinion there he's largely correct on that long winded necropost.

 

Look I have both, currently I'm leaning more into play largely the Genesis and exploring what I can find locally, and some other tasty choices on a multicart I grabbed overseas because well MD prices of Japanese stuff (like Gleylancer, Battlemania 2, etc) are frankly bullshit.

 

The SNES on mhz, sure it loses on that front from the raw general clock speed of the Genesis.  The thing is, you have to look into the secondary things thrown around between the two to see where the Genesis raw power has some advantages like polygon pushing better on base hardware and throwing a few (but not large) amount more sprites.  A nice example would be where Star Trek on SNES has maybe a few dozen or so with the ships and in a view window unassisted, the Genesis can do the entire terrain, cliffsides, etc of Test Drive II the Duel. Those areas are a real win for them.  But leaving that, when you get into the capabilities of colors, transparency, hardware generated resolutions and scaling/rotation the fabled Mode7 and coupled with the RAM it has and the DMA capabilities the SNES is a clearer cut win on that end.  Audio, some would say subjective, and they wouldn't be totally off on that, but SNES does generally have far superior audio because it uses samples of instruments or recorded tibits of sound (voice, sound effects, samples, etc.)  The Genesis if you have someone who just puts out an average or subpar job, perhaps using junk tools from the west the GEMS resources, but then those who know it well from the arcade, know the processor, or perhaps the solid Cube kit can do something that's if not on par, but superior in ways to SNES audio especially when it comes to things happier on that like guitars or deeper bass.

 

Gameplay that's again preference, but even Sega kind of admitted defeat going from 3 buttons to 6 with that pad and games supporting it in full or partly as a choice.  SNES has a nice layout, key one for the industry that Sony stole outright then dual shocked and dual analoged by close to 2000.  If you do mean gameplay as far as game design goes, that's an utter and complete scratch and uncomparable...it's preference of games in the end there.

 

Which leads into games, again preference.  Sometimes the SNES got the superior port, sometimes the SNES got the lazy one, more so in the earlier era when Sega had the lead (like Boogerman on SNES is crap) but Thunder Spirits on SNES is as nice if not better.

 

 

In the end the SNES has slightly newer and slightly more better hardware that's compatable with more peoples tastes into this 15 year long 'retro' garbage going on with games trying more to look like it than the other, same with NES vs SMS style ports or homages... but neither is an utter destroyer of the other in the 16bit realm.

[Kirk_Johnston]

13 minutes ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said:

Curious, are you a child? Or just behave like one? ?Ah ok, ok got it, know your type, seen it many times, just here to argue and be overly sensitive and white knight for a company and their glorious hunk of plastic because again, for some reason, you cannot just state your views in a civil adult manner. COOL! Enjoy what is likely to be your short time here while worrying about what others think and arguing over a console......carry on......

 

 

 

I don't think how old I am matters to the point, so long as I can keep posting stuff to counter the ignorant claims of the SNES' apparent terribleness and/or respond in kind where and when necessary.

[+jeremiahjt]

Quick question Super Nintendo_Fanboy, I mean Kirk_Johnston, in your eyes is whatever system Nintendo released always the best system in each generation?

[Kirk_Johnston]

37 minutes ago, jeremiahjt said:

Quick question Super Nintendo_Fanboy, I mean Kirk_Johnston, in your eyes is whatever system Nintendo released always the best system in each generation?

Nope. For example, N64 was my system of choice in that particular generation but I can still admit the PlayStation did quite a few things better and was an equally great experience for those who owned it for its lifespan (I sold mine to get the N64 on launch day, and I'm happy with that choice). And the GameCube was probably the worst of three consoles of that generation imo. Now, it was still a great little system and had lots of very good games, to be clear, but they just felt like obvious next iterations of all the previous versions and honestly never did anything to wow me in anyway--they felt quite by-the-numbers for the most part. So it just wasn't a system to get excited about for me personally. Although I really did like Eternal Darkness. Technically speaking there's debates that it was actually just as powerful as the Xbox, and some even say more powerful, but that's an argument I don't really care about because I don't really care about the console. I much preferred my Xbox in that generation, with Halo being the game of that generation for me personally, even though I went out and bought a GameCube because I was up until that point extremely pleased with every Nintendo console I'd owned prior. And I'd rather play a PS4 with PSVR, and the upcoming PS5 with PSVR2, than the Switch by a country mile--it's the VR bit I care about. So, no, whatever system Nintendo releases is not always the best system in each generation as far as I'm concerned. This is just about SNES vs Genesis vs PC Engine and certain bunch of people these days trying to act like the SNES wasn't all that, when, in reality, it actually was.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Kirk_Johnston

[+jeremiahjt]

51 minutes ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

Nope. For example, N64 was my system of choice in that particular generation but I can still admit the PlayStation did quite a few things better and was an equally great experience for those who owned it for its lifespan (I sold mine to get the N64 on launch day, and I'm happy with that choice). And the GameCube was probably the worst of three consoles of that generation imo. Now, it was still a great little system and had lots of very good games, to be clear, but they just felt like obvious next iterations of all the previous versions and honestly never did anything to wow me in anyway--they felt quite by-the-numbers for the most part. So it just wasn't a system to get excited about for me personally. Although I really did like Eternal Darkness. Technically speaking there's debates that it was actually just as powerful as the Xbox, and some even say more powerful, but that's an argument I don't really care about because I don't really care about the console. I much preferred my Xbox in that generation, with Halo being the game of that generation for me personally, even though I went out and bought a GameCube because I was up until that point extremely pleased with every Nintendo console I'd owned prior. And I'd rather play a PS4 with PSVR, and the upcoming PS5 with PSVR2, than the Switch by a country mile--it's the VR bit I care about. So, no, whatever system Nintendo releases is not always the best system in each generation as far as I'm concerned. This is just about SNES vs Genesis vs PC Engine and certain bunch of people these days trying to act like the SNES wasn't all that, when, in reality, it actually was.

Good answer, welcome to ATARIAge.

[Tanooki]

Had me right up until dumping on the Gamecube.   The after years appeal makes it clearer about that system as time goes on.  Sometimes it's not the hardware that fails, but parroting that original post, the dipshit fanboys of the media who like some CCP media outfit would groom so many into it, or you ended up in the or else dumped on and bugged by the drones gullet deep in kool-aid.   Sony and Nintendo really had the best offerings on hand that set generation, but largely helped by the utter bomb of the N64 coupled with the insane percent of the margin the PS1 had it really helped shove another era into their pockets, not that it didn't help having a DVD capable system to stand out either.   I think it would be far far easier, too easy, to pull the kool-aid card again for the next two generations with the non-gamer appeal of the Wii, and the utter failure before it arrived zombified PiiU that stunk them into near oblivion had the 3DS not kept them fairly propped up because only homebrew/hacker people and Nintendo-4-lifers could ever excuse that crap fest off as a good thing.

 

As far as 16bit goes I stand on that last post it's fair, and I only excluded the TG16/PCE because NEC was so insanely craven and ignorant they phased themselves right out of relevant existence outside of Japan pretty quickly.  Had I argued it into the picture it would have been a good hard battle with the Genesis as it really did outdo that system quite well in many respects, and it's even the oldest hardware of the three.

[Kirk_Johnston]

1 hour ago, jeremiahjt said:

Good answer, welcome to ATARIAge.

Also, Master System was actually my first ever games console, so I have a soft spot for that over NES (love me some Alex Kid in Miracle World, Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap and Fantasy Zone II on Master System), even though I wholeheartedly admit the NES was the better overall experience, mostly due the utterly brilliant library of games and the just better controller, regardless of the Master System having clearly better looking graphics most of the time.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Kirk_Johnston

[Kirk_Johnston]

26 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

Had me right up until dumping on the Gamecube.   The after years appeal makes it clearer about that system as time goes on.  Sometimes it's not the hardware that fails, but parroting that original post, the dipshit fanboys of the media who like some CCP media outfit would groom so many into it, or you ended up in the or else dumped on and bugged by the drones gullet deep in kool-aid.   Sony and Nintendo really had the best offerings on hand that set generation, but largely helped by the utter bomb of the N64 coupled with the insane percent of the margin the PS1 had it really helped shove another era into their pockets, not that it didn't help having a DVD capable system to stand out either.   I think it would be far far easier, too easy, to pull the kool-aid card again for the next two generations with the non-gamer appeal of the Wii, and the utter failure before it arrived zombified PiiU that stunk them into near oblivion had the 3DS not kept them fairly propped up because only homebrew/hacker people and Nintendo-4-lifers could ever excuse that crap fest off as a good thing.

 

As far as 16bit goes I stand on that last post it's fair, and I only excluded the TG16/PCE because NEC was so insanely craven and ignorant they phased themselves right out of relevant existence outside of Japan pretty quickly.  Had I argued it into the picture it would have been a good hard battle with the Genesis as it really did outdo that system quite well in many respects, and it's even the oldest hardware of the three.

It's just a personal thing for me with the GameCube because it was obviously a really good all round system, and lots of people genuinely love it, but I just wanted it to actually surprise and excite me much more, and it never really did. For me, every new version of a popular Nintendo game/franchise was better in either it's N64 incarnation or even its SNES incarnation, so they all ultimately felt rather underwhelming and obvious. GameCube just needed more magic in some of the titles for me personally to truly love it. Eternal Darkness did manage that though. I totally wish someone would make a full VR remake of Eternal Darkness much like the recent and genuinely brilliant Resident Evil 4 VR for Quest 2--the sheer awesomeness of what that could be like in VR . . .

 

Yeah, and I don't want people to misunderstand, because I actually really like both the Genesis and PC Engine, which have surprised me more and more as I've discovered more about them over the years, having never owned either of them personally back in the day. But I just can't stand fans of those systems trying to tear the SNES down completely and utterly unfairly in modern times, and usually based on very misguided beliefs about what the SNES was and was not truly capable of. The SNES was and is awesome, and I'll debate [argue] with anyone that it was the overall greatest console of the 16-bit generation--my personal favourite console of all time--and actually capable of a lot more than most people give it credit for, especially these days. Hence why I'm doing those Mode 0 tests, just to show people there's stuff it can do that they probably never even thought. Most people have dismissed Mode 0 for decades because they couldn't see how it could do anything good if it's kinda stuck with NES-level colour limitations (which isn't the whole truth of it). But there's actually a lot more to it than that, and it can do a lot more than people imagine. And that actually goes for some of the other modes too, which I'd love to do stuff similarly for in the future (if my Mode 0 stuff ever properly takes off). So I just want certain people to start showing SNES the respect it deserves again, and indeed has earned.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Kirk_Johnston
Just adding some extra stuff

[Bloodreign]

I've seen this sudden resurgence in crapping on the SNES plenty the last year or two on Youtube, especially on channels like VC Deicide, which often compares games that aren't even the same on both consoles, or a CD game versus a cart game when the games are also vastly different. I've even seen that channel compare two different games, and some folks say that the channel owner does what she can to make the SNES and the PS1 look crippled. Her channel has sadly been overrun in the comments section by Genesis/MD fans, it really is a toxic environment on the channel. I've even seen a site, Sega Retro I believe, where they compare the consoles, and skew every, and I mean EVERY number in the Genesis favor. It's like the console war turned some of these people mad, it's not about the games, and how fun they are for both consoles on that channel, they MUST beat their chest and proclaim the Genesis the King of the 16 bit wars. I've even had or 1 or 2 comments over time on that Youtube channel, and a couple other channels, tell me that the Genesis outsold the SNES in the US and overall, when we all know it won in Europe, but not anywhere else. They don't answer back when you throw the 49.1 million worldwide SNES units sold versus the 40 million Genesis units sold worldwide, and claim anything still made in Brazil as counting officially. I honestly don't know what sparked this sudden influx of Genesis being the superior console, because for years it was known and not debated that the SNES was the better console, and sold more worldwide, and it was left at that, and people just played and loved games for both 16 bit consoles. My guess is, a lot of them doing this on Youtube are likely too young to even remember the 16 bit wars, or most of the games that came out for both consoles. I was lucky enough to be in high school  when both consoles launched in the US, Genesis 89, SNES 91.

 

 

Makes me throw my hands up in the air, because some people cannot be convinced otherwise. As for the PC Engine/TG-16 I harbor no ill will to the console, there's a lot of games I love for that console.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Bloodreign

[Kirk_Johnston]

10 minutes ago, Bloodreign said:

I've seen this sudden resurgence in crapping on the SNES plenty the last year or two on Youtube, especially on channels like VC Deicide, which often compares games that aren't even the same on both consoles, or a CD game versus a cart game when the games are also vastly different. I've even seen that channel compare two different games, and some folks say that the channel owner does what she can to make the SNES and the PS1 look crippled. Her channel has sadly been overrun in the comments section by Genesis/MD fans, it really is a toxic environment on the channel. I've even seen a site, Sega Retro I believe, where they compare the consoles, and skew every, and I mean EVERY number in the Genesis favor. It's like the console war turned some of these people mad, it's not about the games, and how fun they are for both consoles on that channel, they MUST beat their chest and proclaim the Genesis the King of the 16 bit wars. I've even had or 1 or 2 comments over time on that Youtube channel, and a couple other channels, tell me that the Genesis outsold the SNES in the US and overall, when we all know it won in Europe, but not anywhere else. They don't answer back when you throw the 49.1 million worldwide SNES units sold versus the 40 million Genesis units sold worldwide, and claim anything still made in Brazil as counting officially.

 

 

Makes me throw my hands up in the air, because some people cannot be convinced otherwise.

Tell me about it.

 

Although, just to correct a point: It's actually officially 30.75 million Genesis units sold (and 49.1 for SNES). Or at least those are the most official figures anyone has, and they are the ones most people use in any official capacity. But we now have some really hardcore Genesis enthusiasts posting all these new figures taken from endless unofficial sources and guestimates by gaming magazines from the day and the like that apparently "prove" it actually sold around 40 million, and even more in some cases, once they add up all these random figures from various random sources.

 

It's all getting a bit absurd at this point.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Kirk_Johnston
I'm OCD about correct writing mistakes

[DeathAdderSF]

Super A'can do what those others can't. ?

[Lost Monkey]

30 minutes ago, Bloodreign said:

I've seen this sudden resurgence in crapping on the SNES plenty the last year or two on Youtube...

This thread is 10 fucking years old.

[Bloodreign]

2 minutes ago, Lost Monkey said:

This thread is 10 fucking years old.

Yeah, the thread is old, but the things I speak of, are quite recent.

[+jeremiahjt]

1 hour ago, Bloodreign said:

I honestly don't know what sparked this sudden influx of Genesis being the superior console, because for years it was known and not debated that the SNES was the better console, and sold more worldwide, and it was left at that, and people just played and loved games for both 16 bit consoles.

This is 100% not true and straight up Nintendo fanboyism. I mean the numbers, yea that is true, but Super NES being the better console and it was not debated has never been the case. Ever. I had a Genesis back then, but I have all three now and all are hooked up, and the Genesis has been and still is my favorite of the three. There was never a time when Super NES was known by all, or even a significant majority, as the better console without debate.

[bubufubu]

40 minutes ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

It's just a personal thing for me with the GameCube because it was obviously a really good all round system, and lots of people genuinely love it, but I just wanted it to actually surprise and excite me much more, and it never really did. For me, every new version of a popular Nintendo game/franchise was better in either it's N64 incarnation or even its SNES incarnation, so they all ultimately felt rather underwhelming and obvious.

 

Perhaps you're right for most titles, but not all.  Double Dash is way, way, way better than the Super Famicom/SNES and N64 entries, and I played the hell out of Super Mario Kart.  Still love that game.  The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures was better than Four Swords on the GBA (kinda/sorta comparable to the SFC/SNES).  Metroid Prime is no slouch, either.  I was very pleasantly surprised by it as I hold Super Metroid in such high esteem, rightfully so.  You could also consider Mario Power Tennis and Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour.  And how about Animal Crossing?  I never played Dōbutsu no Mori and I've no idea how popular it was at the time, but I'd like to think the GC version is better.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

Yeah, and I don't want people to misunderstand, because I actually really like both the Genesis and PC Engine, which have surprised me more and more as I've discovered more about them over the years, having never owned either of them personally back in the day. But I just can't stand fans of those systems trying to tear the SNES down completely and utterly unfairly in modern times, and usually based on very misguided beliefs about what the SNES was and was not truly capable of. The SNES was and is awesome, and I'll debate [argue] with anyone that it was the overall greatest console of the 16-bit generation--my personal favourite console of all time--and actually capable of a lot more than most people give it credit for, especially these days.

 

Good on you for showing respect for the SFC/SNES.  It will be one of my favorite systems for the rest of my life.  A tremendous library of quality games.  ?

[Bloodreign]

11 minutes ago, jeremiahjt said:

This is 100% not true and straight up Nintendo fanboyism. I mean the numbers, yea that is true, but Super NES being the better console and it was not debated has never been the case. Ever. I had a Genesis back then, but I have all three now and all are hooked up, and the Genesis has been and still is my favorite of the three. There was never a time when Super NES was known by all, or even a significant majority, as the better console without debate.

I've watched Youtube videos for years on games for both consoles, no I have not seen the tribalism I have seen now from either side, but then again I tend to watch videos from more respectable content creators, and not the dreck of Youtube, where this type of tribalism about which console is better and worse, is allowed or encouraged.

 

 

No fanboyism from me, I own consoles from both Nintendo, and Sega. If I were a fanboy, I'd not be collecting for consoles from each one.

 

The SNES was the better console of it's era, much like the Saturn was the better console of it's era, despite the Saturn never getting a fair shot in the US.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Bloodreign