PSX vs. N64 or SNES vs. Genesis: Which war was better?

  • 158 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="Supertornado"]

Ok it seems I'm the only one who can see the pics I've posted. Next try.

Orginal Footage

IMAG0013_zpse6afb20f.jpg

IMAG0014_zps626497b3.jpg

IMAG0016_zpsd90b4c6d.jpg

IMAG0012_zps9dc1589e.jpg

IMAG0009_zps1aa698ae.jpg

IMAG0018_zps97234632.jpg

IMAG0020_zpsc415411b.jpg

Heirren

Nice pics. People usually just grab garbled google pics or emulator shots.

this is actually worse though, fotographing a TV will hide the imperfections

#-48 Posted by Heirren (17393 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Supertornado"]

Ok it seems I'm the only one who can see the pics I've posted. Next try.

Orginal Footage

IMAG0013_zpse6afb20f.jpg

IMAG0014_zps626497b3.jpg

IMAG0016_zpsd90b4c6d.jpg

IMAG0012_zps9dc1589e.jpg

IMAG0009_zps1aa698ae.jpg

IMAG0018_zps97234632.jpg

IMAG0020_zpsc415411b.jpg

rilpas

Nice pics. People usually just grab garbled google pics or emulator shots.

this is actually worse though, fotographing a TV will hide the imperfections

This is how they were played, and meant to be played. In fact, Genesis designers, because of its low color palette, often used the scanlines as a means to achieve a smoother gradient. I'm sure this logic applied to other consoles as well.
#-47 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

This is how they were played, and meant to be played. In fact, Genesis designers, because of its low color palette, often used the scanlines as a means to achieve a smoother gradient. I'm sure this logic applied to other consoles as well.Heirren

I wasn't aware games were meant to be played while looking at camera that is aimed at a TV

#-46 Posted by Heirren (17393 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"] This is how they were played, and meant to be played. In fact, Genesis designers, because of its low color palette, often used the scanlines as a means to achieve a smoother gradient. I'm sure this logic applied to other consoles as well.rilpas

I wasn't aware games were meant to be played while looking at camera that is aimed at a TV

A decent photograph of a game running on a tv from the era these games were released is a more accurate portrayal of how they actually looked.
#-45 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] This is how they were played, and meant to be played. In fact, Genesis designers, because of its low color palette, often used the scanlines as a means to achieve a smoother gradient. I'm sure this logic applied to other consoles as well.Heirren

I wasn't aware games were meant to be played while looking at camera that is aimed at a TV

A decent photograph of a game running on a tv from the era these games were released is a more accurate portrayal of how they actually looked.

not really, for starters photographs tend to hide jaggies, something which TVs do not

#-44 Posted by Heirren (17393 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

I wasn't aware games were meant to be played while looking at camera that is aimed at a TV

rilpas

A decent photograph of a game running on a tv from the era these games were released is a more accurate portrayal of how they actually looked.

not really, for starters photographs tend to hide jaggies, something which TVs do not

Actually the quality of the image from the older gens was greatly dependent on the display device. These were different times--I agree with you if we're talking about ps3 or 360, though. But even then in the case of the ps3, which doesn't hardware upscale to 1080p, depends a lot on the quality of your tv.
#-43 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] A decent photograph of a game running on a tv from the era these games were released is a more accurate portrayal of how they actually looked. Heirren

not really, for starters photographs tend to hide jaggies, something which TVs do not

Actually the quality of the image from the older gens was greatly dependent on the display device. These were different times--I agree with you if we're talking about ps3 or 360, though. But even then in the case of the ps3, which doesn't hardware upscale to 1080p, depends a lot on the quality of your tv.

I don't think you understand me. I'm not denying that TV's have an impact

what I'm saying is, Photographing a TV screen will hide imperfections which are shown on the actual TV, the main offender usually being jaggies, but there are others

#-42 Posted by Heirren (17393 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

not really, for starters photographs tend to hide jaggies, something which TVs do not

rilpas

Actually the quality of the image from the older gens was greatly dependent on the display device. These were different times--I agree with you if we're talking about ps3 or 360, though. But even then in the case of the ps3, which doesn't hardware upscale to 1080p, depends a lot on the quality of your tv.

I don't think you understand me. I'm not denying that TV's have an impact

what I'm saying is, Photographing a TV screen will hide imperfections which are shown on the actual TV, the main offender usually being jaggies, but there are others

It's still the most accurate way, IMO. When do we ever see direct feed snes games running on the actual hardware?
#-41 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] Actually the quality of the image from the older gens was greatly dependent on the display device. These were different times--I agree with you if we're talking about ps3 or 360, though. But even then in the case of the ps3, which doesn't hardware upscale to 1080p, depends a lot on the quality of your tv. Heirren

I don't think you understand me. I'm not denying that TV's have an impact

what I'm saying is, Photographing a TV screen will hide imperfections which are shown on the actual TV, the main offender usually being jaggies, but there are others

It's still the most accurate way, IMO. When do we ever see direct feed snes games running on the actual hardware?

quite often actually

everytime you see a Cla ssic game room SNES review for example

#-40 Posted by Heirren (17393 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

I don't think you understand me. I'm not denying that TV's have an impact

what I'm saying is, Photographing a TV screen will hide imperfections which are shown on the actual TV, the main offender usually being jaggies, but there are others

rilpas

It's still the most accurate way, IMO. When do we ever see direct feed snes games running on the actual hardware?

quite often actually

everytime you see a Cla ssic game room SNES review for example

Snes output up to svideo, component if the system is modded. These are analog outputs. How are these guys getting lossless image output? How many of us played, and continue to play, in a direct feed format?
#-39 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] It's still the most accurate way, IMO. When do we ever see direct feed snes games running on the actual hardware?Heirren

quite often actually

everytime you see a Cla ssic game room SNES review for example

Snes output up to svideo, component if the system is modded. These are analog outputs. How are these guys getting lossless image output? How many of us played, and continue to play, in a direct feed format?

they use capture cards, it's possible they mod the system to output components but they always play using the real hardware, in fact often they switch up, like you often see mark play a gameboy game, on a gameboy, a GBA, the SNES super gamboy and the gamecube gameboy player all on the same video

#-38 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

I wasn't aware games were meant to be played while looking at camera that is aimed at a TV

rilpas

A decent photograph of a game running on a tv from the era these games were released is a more accurate portrayal of how they actually looked.

not really, for starters photographs tend to hide jaggies, something which TVs do not

He is right.

Old CRT TVs had a smoother picture than modern HDTVs do.

Direct feed console shots all look terrible becuase they are not running on their native display device.

#-37 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] A decent photograph of a game running on a tv from the era these games were released is a more accurate portrayal of how they actually looked. nameless12345

not really, for starters photographs tend to hide jaggies, something which TVs do not

He is right.

Old CRT TVs had a smoother picture than modern HDTVs do.

Direct feed console shots all look terrible becuase they are not running on their native display device.

I'm not denying any of that

#-36 Posted by abcdefgabcdefgz (547 posts) -

Oh its snes verse genesis hands down. I think the winner was the snes and that the snes was the best console ever made with the best and largest collection of good games such as rpgs like chrono trigger and final fantasy 3 which have yet to be beaten to this day,

#-35 Posted by homegirl2180 (7161 posts) -

When I think of the phrase 'Console War' I think SNES v Genesis

Blueresident87
#-34 Posted by luckykoopsie (320 posts) -
[QUOTE="glez13"]

PS vs. N64 wasn't even a war. It was a massacre. Only Nintendo fanboys think it was ever a real competition.Dudersaper

PS1 - N64 wasn't a war.

The N64 was a gen ahead, only Sony fanatics can't handle the truth.

Supertornado
Anyone else find this funny? :P

i think its funny how you find that funny
#-33 Posted by luckykoopsie (320 posts) -

i liked the snes genesis war. i chose the supernintendo. i mean it had donkey kong country the most advanced technology in 3d modeling at the time.

as for the n64 psx war,l the psx won in sales and library diversity but the n64 won in game quality.

#-32 Posted by Jag85 (4628 posts) -

i liked the snes genesis war. i chose the supernintendo. i mean it had donkey kong country the most advanced technology in 3d modeling at the time.

luckykoopsie

The "most advanced technology in 3d modeling at the time"? That would have been Sega's Virtua series, not DKC.

#-31 Posted by AtelierFan (1544 posts) -
I'll say the Genesis and SNES. Like other people have said, it was the start of 'vs' thinking in marketing (in video games) and the age group it was geared at was just the right target audience for that kind of b.s.. I never felt the N64 and PSX were in a war. I felt that it was the Saturn and the PSX that were in competition. To me, the N64 was kind of just doing it's own thing.
#-30 Posted by Jag85 (4628 posts) -
I'll say the Genesis and SNES. Like other people have said, it was the start of 'vs' thinking in marketing (in video games) and the age group it was geared at was just the right target audience for that kind of b.s.. I never felt the N64 and PSX were in a war. I felt that it was the Saturn and the PSX that were in competition. To me, the N64 was kind of just doing it's own thing. AtelierFan
Actually, the whole "vs" thinking thing began way back in the Atari era. But otherwise, I agree the real "war" of the 32-bit era was the PS1 vs Saturn, not the PS1 vs N64. While there was plenty of rivalry between Sony and Nintendo, the rivalry between Sega and Sony was far more deadly. When the PS1 and Saturn launched, it was pretty much a battle to the death, with complete uncertainty which would emerge victorious and which would be eliminated from the race. By the time the N64 came along, it was already obvious the PS1 had already won that era. Also, it's worth pointing out that in Japan, the Saturn actually outsold the N64 by a considerable margin.
#-29 Posted by littlestreakier (2931 posts) -

SNES vs. Genesis for me because both systems have aged extremely well.

For PS1 vs N64 I feel like PS1 did not age well at all but N64 has aged better than PS1.

#-28 Posted by BigBen11111 (1528 posts) -

N64 & SNES over PS1 & Genesis, although all great systems in thier own right.

#-27 Posted by conkertheking1 (833 posts) -

N64 & SNES over PS1 & Genesis, although all great systems in thier own right.

BigBen11111
i agree with this.
#-26 Posted by GaussRiemann (183 posts) -
Genesis vs. SNES PSX vs. N64 was just a one-sided beatdown, regardless of each system's quality.
#-25 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

[QUOTE="BigBen11111"]

N64 & SNES over PS1 & Genesis, although all great systems in thier own right.

conkertheking1

i agree with this.

He's not asking what were the best systems. He asking what you thought was the bigger war: PSX vs. N64 or SNES vs. Genesis.

#-24 Posted by godzillavskong (7899 posts) -
Genesis vs SNES was better imo. Sega does want Nintendon't. Great times.
#-23 Posted by godzillavskong (7899 posts) -
[QUOTE="GaussRiemann"]Genesis vs. SNES PSX vs. N64 was just a one-sided beatdown, regardless of each system's quality.

Agreed. PSX just owned everyone else.
#-22 Posted by Jag85 (4628 posts) -
[QUOTE="GaussRiemann"]Genesis vs. SNES PSX vs. N64 was just a one-sided beatdown, regardless of each system's quality.

No other console era was as closely fought as the Mega Drive vs SNES war... so much so that gamers are still debating which console won right down to this very day.
#-21 Posted by godzillavskong (7899 posts) -
exactly Jag85. My best friend growing up had a NES and I had a Sega Master System. Then when he got the SNES , I decided to go with the Genesis. When I would stay at his house I would get to play all the awesome NES and SNES games, and then when he would stay over he would get to play all the great SMS, and Genesis games. Those were great times. We never really thought of it as one against the other back then. We just liked different games. I remember playing Altered Beast at the arcades and I really marveled at the chance to get to play it on a home console. I even subscribed to Sega Visions.
#-20 Posted by luckykoopsie (320 posts) -

Nintendo for the win... hehehe

#-19 Posted by PSP107 (11956 posts) -
PS1 > Genesis = SNES > N64rilpas
You got it backwards. SNES>>>>>Genesis PS1>>>>>N64
#-18 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]PS1 > Genesis = SNES > N64PSP107
You got it backwards. SNES>>>>>Genesis PS1>>>>>N64

Snes better then the Genesis? nah

Genesis has the best version of shadowrun

#-17 Posted by conkertheking1 (833 posts) -

[QUOTE="PSP107"][QUOTE="rilpas"]PS1 > Genesis = SNES > N64rilpas

You got it backwards. SNES>>>>>Genesis PS1>>>>>N64

Snes better then the Genesis? nah

Genesis has the best version of shadowrun

snes has a better version of doom. so what about shadowrun
#-16 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -
[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="PSP107"] You got it backwards. SNES>>>>>Genesis PS1>>>>>N64 conkertheking1

Snes better then the Genesis? nah

Genesis has the best version of shadowrun

snes has a better version of doom. so what about shadowrun

how is the SNES version of Doom better?
#-14 Posted by luckykoopsie (320 posts) -

have you heard the genesis soundtrack ha.

#-13 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

have you heard the genesis soundtrack ha.

luckykoopsie
so the fact it looks and runs worse is somewhat offset by better music? I thought how a game played and even looked , is more important than how it sounds.
#-12 Posted by conkertheking1 (833 posts) -
[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

have you heard the genesis soundtrack ha.

Darkman2007
so the fact it looks and runs worse is somewhat offset by better music? I thought how a game played and even looked , is more important than how it sounds.

The snes version has a better user score than the 32x version.
#-11 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

have you heard the genesis soundtrack ha.

conkertheking1
so the fact it looks and runs worse is somewhat offset by better music? I thought how a game played and even looked , is more important than how it sounds.

The snes version has a better user score than the 32x version.

user score? the fact is , it runs and looks better, those 2 things , especially the former, are not things to be overlooked.
#-10 Posted by conkertheking1 (833 posts) -
[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

have you heard the genesis soundtrack ha.

Darkman2007
so the fact it looks and runs worse is somewhat offset by better music? I thought how a game played and even looked , is more important than how it sounds.

also how a game is played depends on the music and the feeling it gives the player. If your playing doom on the genesis you might as well put the tv on mute, and also expect a shorter game cause half the levels are missing
#-9 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="PSP107"] You got it backwards. SNES>>>>>Genesis PS1>>>>>N64 conkertheking1

Snes better then the Genesis? nah

Genesis has the best version of shadowrun

snes has a better version of doom. so what about shadowrun

why would you want to play either version of Doom? :?

#-8 Posted by conkertheking1 (833 posts) -
and i guess your saying graphics are everything when it comes to a game now right since the graphics have to look better for the game to be better
#-7 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -
and i guess your saying graphics are everything when it comes to a game now right since the graphics have to look better for the game to be betterconkertheking1
graphics matter just as much as sound imo . especially if youre comparing 2 versions of a game, but no , graphics are not everything, the 32X version runs better too , its faster , and thus , closer to the PC in that aspect. so youre being a hypocrite , apparently to you , music means more than gameplay.
#-6 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="conkertheking1"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

Snes better then the Genesis? nah

Genesis has the best version of shadowrun

rilpas

snes has a better version of doom. so what about shadowrun

why would you want to play either version of Doom? :?

well , to be fair, not everybody had a 486 PC at the time.
#-5 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="conkertheking1"] snes has a better version of doom. so what about shadowrunDarkman2007

why would you want to play either version of Doom? :?

well , to be fair, not everybody had a 486 PC at the time.

I'm asking, why would anyone want to play either version of Doom today :P

the SNES version looks terrible and has massive framerate and input lag issues

and the 32x version sounds terrible and is missing a lot of the levels

#-4 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

why would you want to play either version of Doom? :?

rilpas

well , to be fair, not everybody had a 486 PC at the time.

I'm asking, why would anyone want to play either version of Doom today :P

the SNES version looks terrible and has massive framerate and input lag issues

and the 32x version sounds terrible and is missing a lot of the levels

well , today there would be no reason to play any version of Doom on a console, apart from the 360 version I suppose.
#-3 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well , to be fair, not everybody had a 486 PC at the time.Darkman2007

I'm asking, why would anyone want to play either version of Doom today :P

the SNES version looks terrible and has massive framerate and input lag issues

and the 32x version sounds terrible and is missing a lot of the levels

well , today there would be no reason to play any version of Doom on a console, apart from the 360 version I suppose.

I don't agree, from what I hear the PS1 version is pretty good.

It's not about having the best looking version, it's just that... well.. the SNES and 32x versions are not what I could call good games :P

#-2 Posted by conkertheking1 (833 posts) -

it goes mechanics/gameplay>sound>graphics

#-1 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

it goes mechanics/gameplay>sound>graphics

conkertheking1
but the snes has the worst gameplay out of the two :?
#0 Posted by conkertheking1 (833 posts) -

but why are we arguing over this we all know why sega no longer sells consoles lol