snes is better than sega genesis.

[Jellyfish]

the snes is just superior, the sound is better, the graphics are better, the games are better, the controllers are better. can the genesis handle 3D graphics? i dont think so. nintendoes what genesis dont.

"While the Sega Genesis had a CPU advantage — leading to the "Blast Processing" ad campaign — the SNES outclassed Sega in terms of power. Without getting too much into numbers, the SNES could produce more colors on the screen at once. Sprites could be bigger, and it could produce a higher resolution. In short, games looked and ran better on the SNES compared to the Genesis, and it was noticeable." -GameRant

heres some 3D games that the genesis cant handle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bICtLp5JcMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3TydpBzUy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9XZYwqOpLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EkVHxE0Y8I

and heres some bonus footage of the snes being superior to the sega genesis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bCK-qGwJB8

[Devsman]

Автор сообщения: Ulfrinn

Автор сообщения: Devsman's Comet

Well, that depends on the upscaler.

I wish the did nearest neighbor scaling instead of the blurry garbage they generally do do. I tried to make my own once using a raspberry pi and VLC, but I thi k my digital recorder was borked.

It doesn't. An old video game console will never display a higher resolution than what it was built for. A SNES will always be 256x224 pixels. If you're going to stretch those up to be a physically larger size on your screen, a scaler will do that, but it's not going to make the image sharper, or add new detail.

Yeah, of course.

Generally what they do, though, instead of the nearest neighbor upscaling you described ("double, triple or quadruple pixels") is interpolate with linear combinations of the four nearest pixels. Sometimes if they're especially slick, they'll also convert to a progressive scan output, but that's really only marginally better.

The fundamental problem is that upscalers generally assume you're watching a live action film, and upscale in such a way to avoid jaggies, since after all, most images from the real world have fairly continuous color, and most things you want to look at take up a lot of the screen. But this assumption falls flat on its face for video games--especially retro ones--because the colors and details are a lot more discrete. Especially in the pixel art world, where there will often be a particular number of colors per sprite and details are often drawn at the pixel-to-pixel level. For example, one pixel for each eye, or fonts that are literally 5x7 pixels per character.

Nearest Neighbor upscaling looks, in my opinion, way better in these cases. Sure, some things might be weirdly proportioned as a result (like, maybe your character's right eye is bigger than his left) but at least you can read the dang text and make out the dang details.

[Ulfrinn]

Автор сообщения: crunchyfrog

Автор сообщения: Ulfrinn

It doesn't. An old video game console will never display a higher resolution than what it was built for. A SNES will always be 256x224 pixels. If you're going to stretch those up to be a physically larger size on your screen, a scaler will do that, but it's not going to make the image sharper, or add new detail.

Indeed, but it can improve issues where the TVs native scaler isn't so good, and heaven knows things like that often get cheapned on TVs.

Yeah, they're cheap, and the big problem with that is they induce a lot of display lag, meaning it takes a noticeable amount of time between you pushing a button, and seeing that intended action occur on screen. You may have already ran off the edge in a game before you actually hit the jump button. Emulation adds a small amount of lag too, but it's usually not even noticeable, and in most cases if you add a couple frames of run-ahead mode, it eliminates it completely. It's also only an issue on older analog home consoles. Later consoles like PS2/Gamecube era, or handhelds aren't really subject to it.

[Ulfrinn]

Автор сообщения: crunchyfrog

Автор сообщения: Jej

It's especially annoying that so many expensive TV's nowadays have practically no input. It's HDMI or nuthin. Cheap ones here still thankfully have SCART but even then it's usually a single one.

I wish premium TV's had WEGA levels of input. I'd like to run composite, component, S-Video and SCART all in one TV without resorting to converter boxes which muddy the signal.

I've noticed it tends to be a predominantly American thing largely.

Here in Europe and Britain we tend to (but not always) get more options. We still tend to get a SCART or two, and component maybe.

I defo hear you though. I only keep a maximum of 13 consoles and computers rigged up besides my bed at any time because that's all my boxes maxed out for inputs.

Just remember SCART is only a connector. That connector has pins for RGBs, but also composite video, audio, etc. It was designed to be a single connector for all things multimedia. Just plug in a SCART cable and whatever signal your hardware supported would find a connection. Many cheap TVs in the PAL regions had SCART connectors, but didn't bother to have RGBs capabilities, and a SCART connector would only be able to deliver the same composite video signal that the yellow RCA cable in a set of A/V cables would offer.

Professional monitors like PVMs do usually have Y/C (S-video) inputs on them though, which is another reason they're so sought after for retro gaming.

[Crashed]

Автор сообщения: SnakeFist

Автор сообщения: Crashed

I assume these are RGB modded consoles? Because this is definitely not how my SNES looked.

SNES is normally 256x224 resolution and Genesis can be 256x224 or 320x224, of which Sonic used the latter.

Nope the original USA NTSC versions of the consoles that was sold in the usa in the 90's. They wasn't modded at all. I used the rf switch that came with the sega that screws on to your coaxial screw on on the back of the old tv's but i used it on my capture card. Do you know what a video capture card is? All the program does that came with it is to record what ever comes through the coaxial. The reason the screen shots are so big is because i'm was using my ultrawide gaming monitor and put the recording program into full screen to take the picture. My sega is a model 1 NTSC version with the ear phone jack and volume slider with the white power button. My snes used that weird oval port where you had to plug in the video connector then it had the rca plugs on it that went to the rca jacks on the back of the tv. None of my consoles are modded as that will destroy the resale value.

I'm not sure what RGB modded means unless you mean the red green blue ports that look like rca that high end tv's at the time had like sony trinitron big screens tvs.

But regardless the games showed the pixels. They was pixelated cause they was only 16 bit graphics so saying they looked smooth with no pixelization and jagged edges then your full of it. Because even on old picture tube tv's (crt) you could see the pixelization and jagged edges. But the sega had the less of the pixelization of the 2. And you can't go by any video on you tube as they also have been stretched to fit the screen they are playing on. so they would look worse then mine.

It shows none of the artifacts from the RF modulator.

[Haruspex]

The biggest thing the Genesis has going for it is speed. I'm not talking about "blast processing". The CPU is just faster. This makes it better suited for things like side scrolling and vertical shooters and super scalers. Gunstar Heroes would have been a challenge to run well on the SNES. Contra Hard Corps did things that would be difficult to achieve on the SNES, and I think it's a better game than Contra III. I've never seen anything like Ranger X on the SNES.

You're right though. Technically, everything else about the SNES is just more advanced. People have nostalgia for the crunchy sound of the Genesis' FM audio, but technically speaking the SNES sound chip is a lot more advanced.

[Jellyfish]

Автор сообщения: SnakeFist

Автор сообщения: Jellyfish

your lying, ive played these games very recently on real snes hardware and they look incredible, just like they do in the videos. there not using shaders. lie all you want kid, its not gonna get you anywhere.

Listen kiddo. The super mario all stars video has an overlay on it hence the black and gray square borders only an emulator can do that. The real snes didn't do that at all. So yes they are using and emulator. And i know i'm alot older then you kid.

Looks ok, faces look very pixelated. Which was expected at the time in the 90's. This screenshot was taken from the North American SNES which i hooked up to my pc's capture card so no emulators are involved just pure SNES hardware involved.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943788750

Looks nice with some jagged edges on the face and text which was expected at the time in the 90's. Very little pixelization over all. This screen shot is from a North American Sega Genesis which i hooked up to my pc's capture card so no emulators are involved just pure Sega Genesis hardware involved.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943789508

Overall the SEGA Genesis had better looking graphics because of less pixelization.

1st of all:
i play on actual snes hardware too, a real one from 1991. i just played super mario all stars on my snes like 2 days ago and it looks incredible. this is not a modded snes or anything, its real and unmodded, and it looks just as pixelated as the video i linked.

2nd of all:
ive also played dkc and super mario world and they look just like the other videos ive linked in this thread.

3rd of all, the sonic screenshot you linked is literally just as pixelated as the all stars screenshot you linked, yet you claim the sonic one looks "nice" and the all stars one is "ok", kinda sounds like your just a huge sega fanboy (IM NOT INSULTING YOU OR TRYING TO BE RUDE)

and finally:

you are very rude and have been reported, cry some more.

[Moogal™]

Imma continue playing Super Metroid some day now.

[GlaceonChireiden]

Let's all just settle down and go play some sonic 2
Maybe even some megaman 7 for the snes dudes happiness

[Polverrati]

If it weren't for the two 10/10 games that are Super Metroid and A Link to the Past, I'd prefer the Genesis overall, though I tend to like the Genesis library a little more than the SNES library. I don't care about which 90's console had better graphics, hell I don't even care about which modern consoles have the best graphics, I use my damn Switch significantly more than my Series X. If we're talkin' consoles, it's all about the games.

[Raelic]

Both were good in their own way and we didn't even know there was a "console war" when I was young. I'd imagine we'd just shrug about it and go play whatever game one of us had at the moment in the neighborhood.

At the time of Genesis and SNES, none of us were really blessed enough to think of it as a either or. We just played whatever was available.

My neighborhood had a blast with Mortal Kombat, Streets of Rage, Secret of Mana, Phantasy Star 4, Might and Magic, Altered Beast, Sonic, Ecco, Zelda, SMB, Lion King, Street Fighter 2.

[Lupinus Rictus]

Автор сообщения: permanent name

Автор сообщения: Ganger

I left the snes vs sega debate back in the school playground back in the 90's. That horse has long bolted.

It’s an interesting case study in how an inferior product with more market control can crush its opposition.

Don't know about crush the opposition, snes was newer and fresher when it came out. It seems like nintendo was and always will be a technically inferior product, but a polished one with clever + ruthless marketing

[Haruspex]

Автор сообщения: SAINROK

It seems like nintendo was and always will be a technically inferior product...

Not always, but I don't think it's ever been the most powerful available, excepting maybe the N64, but that had it's own list of drawbacks.

Sega Master System could display more colors and had better sound compared to the NES, but they weren't super far-apart in terms of capability.

SNES and Genesis were relatively toe-to-toe. There were things the SNES could do better, but the Genesis was technically faster. Still, I would mark this as even on a technical level. It's impressive the Genesis was faster even though it came out two years before the SNES, but those two years allowed Nintendo to include some fancy stuff in the SNES that the Genesis lacked.

N64 was certainly the more powerful system compared to the Playstation and Saturn. It's the limited cartridge format that handicapped it. Look at any multiplatform game, discount the fact that the N64 lacked CD Audio and lots of space for voice and FMVs, and the N64 version ran better and looked nicer.

The Gamecube was about twice as powerful as the PS2, but only about half as powerful as the Xbox. Nintendo really wasn't screwing around with the capabilities of the cube. This is a good example of performance not always predicting the winner. The least powerful system, the PS2, won this generation hands-down.

The Wii is the start of where Nintendo gets their reputation for being low-spec. Everyone else was pushing for HD graphics while Nintendo decided another SD console with the performance of two Gamecubes duct-taped together and a waggley remote control thing was the way to go. It paid off though, because everyone and their grandma really like Wii-sports for some reason.

Wii-U was finally HD, but this was old news and the whole thing was just confusing, as all those Wii-sports loving grandmas had moved on and everyone else didn't know what it was. Is it a console? Is it a peripheral for the Wii?

Switch, another underpowered system compared to the competition, but this one is portable. I theorized back in the Wii days that Nintendo might one day drop out of the home console market and just focus on their handhelds where they've always struck home runs. I didn't really expect them to just fuse the two departments like Voltron or something. It seems to be really paying off for them too, though their customers are really hurting for something with more oomph. Particularly when you look at some of their newer releases that struggle hard to run well.

[Ulfrinn]

Yeah, as the guy above said, Nintendo has released powerful hardware several times, and those ended up being some of their poorest selling hardware. Then the Wii came out, noticeably weaker than the X360 and PS3 and destroyed them in sales just like the noticeably weaker Switch is decimating it's competition over Sony's and Microsoft's offerings. People care more about good games, than the latest buzzwords in graphics, and buzzwords is really all their competitors are offering so far. It's why Sony laughably put "4K120" on the PS5 box, which it's never going to deliver, on a piece of hardware that at the time didn't even have games.

[mr_raze]

Автор сообщения: Jellyfish

heres some 3D games that the genesis cant handle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9XZYwqOpLs

This is on Sega Genesis too. What is this guy even talking about?

[HistoricKombat]

Автор сообщения: mr_raze

Автор сообщения: Jellyfish

heres some 3D games that the genesis cant handle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9XZYwqOpLs

This is on Sega Genesis too. What is this guy even talking about?

That game sucks anyways. A really bad example of 3D on SNES.