Lot of games released for both console but Megadrive has better graphics and sound
Wait, what?
SNES has better graphics (see Seiken Densetsu 3 aka Secret of Mana 2 for a good example) and better audio (Star Ocean, Tales of Phantasia, or this).
Lot of games released for both console but Megadrive has better graphics and sound
Wait, what?
Yeah, that claim confuses me too. The SNES had things like additive alpha blending, while in the Megadrive you only had 1-bit transparency (which means that if you want to simulate a semitransparent layer, you have to use a checkerboard pattern of fully transparent pixels).
Also, the SNES uses PCM sound samples (which are mixed by a dedicated processor), while the Megadrive has a sound chip which is basically the precursor to the one used in the Adlib soundcard (and it really sounds like it).
That's like saying that Twilight looks better than Citizen Kane because it has color and was recorded with better cameras.
In my opinion, Genesis has better graphics thanks to a much faster processor. Just watch the Genesis version of Thunder Force III: the SNES could never make all those beautiful effects at that speed; in fact, the SNES "port" of TF3 (Thunder Spirits) is so slow and awful that it's just unplayable, like most SNES shooters. And what about all the effects of Genesis games like Batman & Robin or any by Treasure or Konami? The SNES would need 3 extra chips to do something like that...
Also, that 1-minute track sounds great, but it's just as useful as an static image of a scanned photo. The real fact is that the SNES could never have something as good as this in a real game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLvG-Al6tOg :P
You're just fucking stupid, everyone hates you, sorry to tell you the truth. no one likes you, you're someone pretentious and TASes only to be on speed game, but don't have any hope, you won't get there.
That's like saying that Twilight looks better than Citizen Kane because it has color and was recorded with better cameras.
And that would be true. We're comparing technical aspects after all, not content.
mz wrote:
In my opinion, Genesis has better graphics thanks to a much faster processor.
But when you're comparing "graphics" you can do so objectively only by comparing the specs, and the SNES is just better here. If you're comparing processors you're no longer comparing graphical capabilities, imo.
"Effects" can be created either by hardware (for example SNES' transparencies) or by software, i.e. the programmer. And programmers differ in creativity and ability. Look at Rendering Ranger R2 for what is possible with the SNES when it's programmed properly.
mz wrote:
Also, that 1-minute track sounds great, but it's just as useful as an static image of a scanned photo. The real fact is that the SNES could never have something as good as this in a real game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLvG-Al6tOg :P
And that would be true. We're comparing technical aspects after all, not content.
[...]
But when you're comparing "graphics" you can do so objectively only by comparing the specs, and the SNES is just better here. If you're comparing processors you're no longer comparing graphical capabilities, imo.
My point was that some technical aspects don't mean a thing in the big picture. It's like saying "The N64 looked much better than the PSX because it could do trilinear filtering, show 500000 polygons per second, had high resolution, a 64-bit CPU, etc etc.", but then most games looked like this:
While the PSX had things like this:
In the end, you have to weight in every component. And the SNES had a very slow processor compared to the SMD, which resulted in worse graphics (just in my opinion, of course; I know most people prefer DKC graphics over Gunstar Heroes, just because they have thousands of colors.)
You're just fucking stupid, everyone hates you, sorry to tell you the truth. no one likes you, you're someone pretentious and TASes only to be on speed game, but don't have any hope, you won't get there.
My point was that some technical aspects don't mean a thing in the big picture.
Maybe for you, but then you should say "I like the effects that are possible with a faster processor" instead of "The Genesis has better graphics than the SNES". Because then you're comparing specifically the graphic chips of both consoles.
That was my point. :)
mz wrote:
It's like saying "The N64 looked much better than the PSX because it could do trilinear filtering, show 500000 polygons per second, had high resolution, a 64-bit CPU, etc etc.", but then most games looked like this:
<img>http://i39.tinypic.com/vru15l.png</img>
While the PSX had things like this:
Yeah, but PSX graphics had their problems too - warping textures, and vertices jumping all over the place.
Conker's Bad Fur Day is a good example how programmers are able to work around the limitations of a console, but then you're comparing the programmers instead of the consoles. And since you're mostly looking at the games, saying "machine x is better than machine y" is not correct, imo.
mz wrote:
I know most people prefer DKC graphics over Gunstar Heroes, just because they have thousands of colors.)
Actually it's just 256 most of the time. :)
DKC uses just Mode1 graphics (2 BGs of 16 colors per tile and 1 BG of 4 colors per tile), and of course 16-color sprites. If there are more than 256 colors on screen it's either because of changing the palette after each line, or because of transparencies.
title screenlevel 1 bg 1
I split this topic, as Newbie Corner is not the place to have hardware debates.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Yeah, but PSX graphics had their problems too - warping textures, and vertices jumping all over the place.
i think the warping textures were good. it made the games look more realistic and alive. for example in metal gear solid, when the characters were talking, it seemed like they were moving their lips because the pixels were moving, unlike in n64 games which often looked so blurry and they didn't have much details/textures.
Yeah, but PSX graphics had their problems too - warping textures, and vertices jumping all over the place.
i think the warping textures were good. it made the games look more realistic and alive. for example in metal gear solid, when the characters were talking, it seemed like they were moving their lips because the pixels were moving, unlike in n64 games which often looked so blurry and they didn't have much details/textures.
I don't think you're talking about the same thing.
video
Texture warping at 00:04 and 00:10. Moving vertices = the polygon points are "wobbling" when the view is changed; see the floor at the end when the camera stabilizes.
Joined: 1/16/2008
Posts: 358
Location: The Netherlands
creaothceann wrote:
SNES has better graphics (see Seiken Densetsu 3 aka Secret of Mana 2 for a good example)
There is no Gens version of SoM2 so how can you compare the two platforms by mentioning SoM2?
Anyway... afaik there's no point in trying to compare the two platforms in general because you'll need to make a decision per game (i believe examples exists where game X has better gfx on SNES than on Gens, yet game Y has better gfx on Gens than on SNES)
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
If games are important in this discussion, then you could say that the average beauty of games in platform X is better than the average beauty of games in platform Y. It would still be your opinion.
SNES has better graphics (see Seiken Densetsu 3 aka Secret of Mana 2 for a good example)
There is no Gens version of SoM2 so how can you compare the two platforms by mentioning SoM2?
SoM2 is a game that uses the hardware quite well, so it's a real-world example (instead of a tech demo) that shows what difference a larger palette can make.
Joined: 1/16/2008
Posts: 358
Location: The Netherlands
FODA wrote:
If games are important in this discussion, then you could say that the average beauty of games in platform X is better than the average beauty of games in platform Y. It would still be your opinion.
Even if anyone would come to any conclusion as to what system 'has better graphics', then what is the point in having this information?
creaothceann wrote:
SoM2 is a game that uses the hardware quite well, so it's a real-world example (instead of a tech demo) that shows what difference a larger palette can make.
I think that's only an argument that SoM2 has better graphics than most SNES games... so SoM2 might serve (by example) as an upper-bound on the SNES graphics. Still, to me that does not defend the statement that "SNES has better graphics" because you didn't say anything about the MasterDrive?
I think Steve Snake (author of Kega) summed it up pretty well in a response to byuu (author of bsnes) a few years ago:
Snake wrote:
However you can't compare SNES and Genesis sound. At all. They are very different. Personally, I much prefer a system that allows for decent synthesis and not just samples. I think most musicians would agree.
And I would add, as a programmer, if I want to make cool looking games, I much prefer a system with a much faster processor than just a system with more colors and Mode 7 effects. I guess that's why there's a much richer homebrew community for the Genesis and why most of the homebrew software for the SNES are just hentai slide shows. :P
So yeah... Just let Ozmozis01 have his own opinion. He's not the only one in the world who thinks that the SMD has better graphics and sound than the SNES.
You're just fucking stupid, everyone hates you, sorry to tell you the truth. no one likes you, you're someone pretentious and TASes only to be on speed game, but don't have any hope, you won't get there.
I guess you could sum up the two stances as such: one stance wants to compare individual still frames, and the other wants to compare the total visual experience. Is that accurate?
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
I think the graphics are very similar.. But the snes surpasses the genesis in the sound department by a great margin. And we know that sound make up a whole lot of the experience.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Genesis is an inferior console with a faster cpu.
Always poor graphics and bad techno music with unbearable sound effects. When anyone says a genesis game had good music, it's always Sonic or Streets of Rage.... or some other game from sega.
The SNES has uncountable examples of arcade-like graphics and epic soundtracks.
Go home, poorly disguised trolls.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
You're just fucking stupid, everyone hates you, sorry to tell you the truth. no one likes you, you're someone pretentious and TASes only to be on speed game, but don't have any hope, you won't get there.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Personally, I find the Mega Drive and SNES sound systems incomparable.
Both suck in different areas, and both rock in others.
I can't be assed going into specific examples right now, but I really do get the feeling that the crappy audio circuitry in the Model II's really gave the Mega Drive a horrid rep.
That, and no one ever bothered to use the GEMS sound driver as anything more than a MIDI to Mega Drive converter (Though, there are exceptions). Makes me sort of wonder why it was the standard North American sound driver, ease of use put aside.
Amusingly, your first link has a repeat of this discussion in the comments. I think the takeaway lesson here is that you can make good music on just about any platform. Hell, the NES is replete with awesome soundtracks. It's all a matter of understanding your tools and making good use of them. If you don't do that, then no amount of awesome technology is going to save your music from sucking.
(Also, I rather liked several of the tracks from SCIV and Dracula X)
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
On the topic of Genesis vs SNES on hardware merits:
Genesis had a much faster processor, and a separate CPU for sound code to run on, allowing for more complicated game engines. Additionally, the genesis was easier to program for because it had 32-bit address lines so programmers never had to worry about memory paging. (Well, except for 64KB boundaries during VDP-controlled DMA copies to VRAM, but that issue rarely came up during development, and was trivial to fix without even involving programmers in most cases.)
Also the CPU had a ton more registers (8 data and 8 address registers) than the SNES's (1 Data and 3 Address), so you could work on more than one value at a time without having to juggle stuff back and forth between RAM and the arithmetic register.
The SNES, though, had much more graphical capability. 256 colors per scanline, translucency, and a full 16-bit master palette to genesis' 61 colors per scanline, "either it is drawn or it isn't" transparency, and 512 color master palette. The SNES graphics chip also had a ton more features, like the ability to program it to mass-copy values from a pre-set location to its graphics registers in hardware at the end of every line rendered. The SNES just wins this hands down. Even with the 32X (which lets you treat the screen as a bitmap instead of a tilemap, and brings a full 16-bit palette to bear), and SegaCD (which had special hardware to deform graphics similarly to the common use of SNES' mode 7) the SNES is graphically superior in many respects.
In sound, though, they are incomparable. Comparing Genesis' sound hardware to SNES' is like comparing apples to carrots. Yes they are both food, yes they both have flavors, but they are so dissimilar in all other aspects that "better" can't really enter into the equation. Personally, I don't like carrots much, and I prefer the output timbre of the Genesis' synth unit, but there's nothing here that can really be argued. Both sound systems provided tons of flexibility and room for creativity, in totally different ways.
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
When anyone says a genesis game had good music, it's always Sonic or Streets of Rage.... or some other game from sega.
Fuckin' Ecco the Dolphin, man (mostlythesequel, TidesofTime). And have you heard Alisia Dragoon? They both sound better than any Sonic game, and neither was developed by Sega. not that you'll care, you poorly disguised trollFlygon wrote:
No one ever bothered to use the GEMS sound driver as anything more than a MIDI to Mega Drive converter (Though, there are exceptions). Makes me sort of wonder why it was the standard North American sound driver, ease of use put aside.
Ease of use is just it. With GEMS you could plug a keyboard in via midi interface and just record. No effort required. Every other sound driver forces devs to program all the notes and voices by hand, which is slow and difficult, and therefore costs more money.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
While the PSX had things like this:
In the end, you have to weight in every component. And the SNES had a very slow processor compared to the SMD, which resulted in worse graphics (just in my opinion, of course; I know most people prefer DKC graphics over Gunstar Heroes, just because they have thousands of colors.)
