SNES vs Genesis/MD: Game Quality

best 16 bit game ever maderilpas

Super Metroid

[QUOTE="rilpas"]best 16 bit game ever madeEmerald_Warrior

Super Metroid

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]best 16 bit game ever maderilpas

Super Metroid

[QUOTE="rilpas"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Super Metroid

Heirren

For the longest time Super Metroid was my favourite 16 bit game, mostly because of how unique it was, but then games like GBA Castlevania games and the GBA Metroid games were made and while for the most part they were not as good as super Metroid (Well, Maybe Crastlevania Aria of Dissonance was better) Super metroid suddenly wasn't quite so unique.

Shadowrun on the other hand to this day there is nothing like it on a any console of it's type, 16 bit or the GBA, it's like Fallout 3 if it were developed for the Sega Genesis, heck, it still does many things that today's WRPGs don't.

Mario world, meh, while I think mario is leagues ahead of Sonic, I'd honestly take Mario 3 over world anyday and with that said, I always felt the mario games were pretty overrated.

As for a Link to the Past, I liked the game, but I didn't care much for its dungeon layout

I was a lot closer to SNES exclusives like Yoshi's Island, Mega Man X, and Donkey Kong Country growing up, but there are plenty of Genesis games I would have loved back then if only I owned one

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="rilpas"] that's the 2nd best imo :Prilpas

For the longest time Super Metroid was my favourite 16 bit game, mostly because of how unique it was, but then games like GBA Castlevania games and the GBA Metroid games were made and while for the most part they were not as good as super Metroid (Well, Maybe Crastlevania Aria of Dissonance was better) Super metroid suddenly wasn't quite so unique.

Shadowrun on the other hand to this day there is nothing like it on a any console of it's type, 16 bit or the GBA, it's like Fallout 3 if it were developed for the Sega Genesis, heck, it still does many things that today's WRPGs don't.

Mario world, meh, while I think mario is leagues ahead of Sonic, I'd honestly take Mario 3 over world anyday and with that said, I always felt the mario games were pretty overrated.

As for a Link to the Past, I liked the game, but I didn't care much for its dungeon layout

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] Metroid is a more polished game. I honestly thought Shadowrun was nothing special, and in ways kind of bad, and yes I've played it. Link to the Past and Mario World are the best.Heirren

For the longest time Super Metroid was my favourite 16 bit game, mostly because of how unique it was, but then games like GBA Castlevania games and the GBA Metroid games were made and while for the most part they were not as good as super Metroid (Well, Maybe Crastlevania Aria of Dissonance was better) Super metroid suddenly wasn't quite so unique.

Shadowrun on the other hand to this day there is nothing like it on a any console of it's type, 16 bit or the GBA, it's like Fallout 3 if it were developed for the Sega Genesis, heck, it still does many things that today's WRPGs don't.

Mario world, meh, while I think mario is leagues ahead of Sonic, I'd honestly take Mario 3 over world anyday and with that said, I always felt the mario games were pretty overrated.

As for a Link to the Past, I liked the game, but I didn't care much for its dungeon layout

I agree that all of those games are solid, I just happen to think Shadowrun is the finest example of a console game of its time, it was an extremely ambitious project that in my opinion is only held back by the limited hardware of the time :P

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

For the longest time Super Metroid was my favourite 16 bit game, mostly because of how unique it was, but then games like GBA Castlevania games and the GBA Metroid games were made and while for the most part they were not as good as super Metroid (Well, Maybe Crastlevania Aria of Dissonance was better) Super metroid suddenly wasn't quite so unique.

Shadowrun on the other hand to this day there is nothing like it on a any console of it's type, 16 bit or the GBA, it's like Fallout 3 if it were developed for the Sega Genesis, heck, it still does many things that today's WRPGs don't.

 

Mario world, meh, while I think mario is leagues ahead of Sonic, I'd honestly take Mario 3 over world anyday and with that said, I always felt the mario games were pretty overrated.

As for a Link to the Past, I liked the game, but I didn't care much for its dungeon layout

rilpas

I agree that all of those games are solid, I just happen to think Shadowrun is the finest example of a console game of its time, it was an extremely ambitious project that in my opinion is only held back by the limited hardware of the time :P

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] I'm actually not the biggest Metroid fan. I like the original and Super, mostly. However, Super exhibits extremely tight game design. Its got killer audio and visual direction, and a very pleasing structure. Shadowrun has ideas but IMO it doesn't execute them as well as was perhaps hoped by the developers. I played it back in the day when the war was still going on, but also tried it a year or two ago due to all the raving on this forum. The gba metroids weren't nearly as good. The viewpoint was just too restricted. ...Mario world and Link to the Past also have the same tight game design as Metroid. Those games are ideas thought out to their fullest and executed so accordingly. I won't argue who likes what, but the design of those games is just rock solid.Heirren

I agree that all of those games are solid, I just happen to think Shadowrun is the finest example of a console game of its time, it was an extremely ambitious project that in my opinion is only held back by the limited hardware of the time :P

Sure, but in this case, I think shadowrun pulled it off, but again that's just me :P

[QUOTE="rilpas"][QUOTE="YoshiYogurt"]SNES game quality blows the Genesis out of the water. Not much I care for on the Genesis besides the Sonics and Castlevania Bloodlines.Jag85

Shadowrun > All of those

[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="rilpas"] play shadowrun, best 16 bit game ever maderilpas

Shadowrun > All of those

Is Sword of Vermillion a good game? I Have a really torn up cart of it I found cleaning out a garage once, is it even worth playing? YoshiYogurt

It seems to have somewhat of a cult-following. Although I'm not sure why. It's one of the strangest, and most awkward games I've ever played.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] That's a very bold claim to make, especially when there are more highly acclaimed timeless 16-bit classics around like Chrono Trigger, Super Metroid, Super Mario World, Sonic 2, Streets of Rage 2, Street Fighter II, etc.Jag85

Shadowrun > All of those

Both are amazing systems but I gotta go with the Genesis

[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

Shadowrun > All of those

rilpas

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] In your opinion.Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="rilpas"] almost everything that was said here is an opinion, including  how you referred to Chrono Trigger, Super Metroid, Super Mario World, Sonic 2, Streets of Rage 2 and Street Fighter II as "timeless"

rilpas

  Those are high quality games no matter how you look at them...  How is that an opinion?  They are timeless because they age very well.  Even with all the technology of today, there has not been a better looking sonic game, a better looking super mario world, streets of rage, and etc.  They all share that attention to detail aspect.  Everything was very well thought out.  Its like movies, there are those movies where they really will never be topped by anything of the same genre.  

  Genesis had a lot more quality, Super Nintendo had that "trumpet syndrome," which killed most good games for me.  Trumpet syndrome sums it up quite nicely, I always just referred it as the pitch of the sound was always higher on SNES multiplats, even the color scheme.  Genesis wins because it was able to stand up to a much heavier champion and even beat them at their own game, Sonic made Mario look like an old man!  

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] I disagree. The games he mentioned had a goal in design and all achieved it flawlessly. Whether or not someone likes them is irrelevant--it's the fact that the game design is solid.mahlasor

  Those are high quality games no matter how you look at them...  How is that an opinion?  They are timeless because they age very well.  Even with all the technology of today, there has not been a better looking sonic game, a better looking super mario world, streets of rage, and etc.  They all share that attention to detail aspect.  Everything was very well thought out.  Its like movies, there are those movies where they really will never be topped by anything of the same genre.  

I'm not saying I disagree that these are great great games, but you do realize that everything you just said was an opinion, right?

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] I disagree. The games he mentioned had a goal in design and all achieved it flawlessly. Whether or not someone likes them is irrelevant--it's the fact that the game design is solid.mahlasor

Those are high quality games no matter how you look at them... How is that an opinion? They are timeless because they age very well. Even with all the technology of today, there has not been a better looking sonic game, a better looking super mario world, streets of rage, and etc. They all share that attention to detail aspect. Everything was very well thought out. Its like movies, there are those movies where they really will never be topped by anything of the same genre.

Genesis had a lot more quality, Super Nintendo had that "trumpet syndrome," which killed most good games for me. Trumpet syndrome sums it up quite nicely, I always just referred it as the pitch of the sound was always higher on SNES multiplats, even the color scheme. Genesis wins because it was able to stand up to a much heavier champion and even beat them at their own game, Sonic made Mario look like an old man!

Definetly a difference of opinion on the audio. I love both systems. But one thing that stands out the most as being weaker on Genesis than on SNES, IMO, is the audio. A LOT of games on the Genesis sound tinny and metallic sounding almost. Many of the sound effects are also very similar on many Genesis games (the "explosion" sound always sounds similar and generic on most Genesis games, for example). While on the other hand the SNES seemed very versatile in the audio department. You could have charming chip tunes like on Super Mario World, orchestral music like in the FF games, rocking upbeat tunes like F-Zero, and the just plain impressive sounding like in Donkey Kong Country.

However the Sonic the Hedgehog games stand out as prime examples of what the Genesis was capable of audially. It's just too bad that so many Genesis game developers couldn't squeeze the same audio quality out of the Genesis as Sega themselves could with the Sonic games.

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]actually that's an opinion, not a fact

rilpas

  Those are high quality games no matter how you look at them...  How is that an opinion?  They are timeless because they age very well.  Even with all the technology of today, there has not been a better looking sonic game, a better looking super mario world, streets of rage, and etc.  They all share that attention to detail aspect.  Everything was very well thought out.  Its like movies, there are those movies where they really will never be topped by anything of the same genre.  

I'm not saying I disagree that these are great great games, but you do realize that everything you just said was an opinion, right?

It's weird how people can't tell the difference between opinion and fact on these forums.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] In your opinion.Heirren

And when you say the game design is solid, you're stating an opinion. Granted, it's a widely held opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless.

If you think that it is a fact, you're going to need to cite the source that says, without a doubt, that what you're stating is fact.

Is Sword of Vermillion a good game? I Have a really torn up cart of it I found cleaning out a garage once, is it even worth playing? YoshiYogurt

I've heard that the game is ass, tho I kind of wanted to try it out because I used to have a manual for it just lying around for some reason. I never owned the game, I just had the manual and I thought the game looked really cool from rifling through it. Then I read some reviews of it recently and watched some footage and the game looks really poor. The ugly town visuals kind of reminds me of Phantasy Star 3.

Either way, the same could be said for Nintendo's consoles to an extent. The NES was the leader in Japan and North America but came second place in Europe, while the SNES was the leader in Japan but came second place overseas. As for the N64, that did well overseas but sold poorly in Japan.Jag85

actually the Saturn is the console with the most games, it's just that most of them were Japan exclusiverilpas

I really don't think so, I've seen worldwide software lists and Saturn looks easily 2nd place for games.

Saturn is only first if you include non-game software such as picture CDs, & Karaoke CDs (of which there were tons), or re-releases and special editions (of which there were also tons).

[QUOTE="rilpas"]actually the Saturn is the console with the most games, it's just that most of them were Japan exclusiveDomino_slayer

I really don't think so, I've seen worldwide software lists and Saturn looks easily 2nd place for games.

Saturn is only first if you include non-game software such as picture CDs, & Karaoke CDs (of which there were tons), or re-releases and special editions (of which there were also tons).

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="rilpas"] almost everything that was said here is an opinion, including  how you referred to Chrono Trigger, Super Metroid, Super Mario World, Sonic 2, Streets of Rage 2 and Street Fighter II as "timeless"

GreySeal9

And when you say the game design is solid, you're stating an opinion. Granted, it's a widely held opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless.

If you think that it is a fact, you're going to need to cite the source that says, without a doubt, that what you're stating is fact.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] I disagree. The games he mentioned had a goal in design and all achieved it flawlessly. Whether or not someone likes them is irrelevant--it's the fact that the game design is solid.Heirren

And when you say the game design is solid, you're stating an opinion. Granted, it's a widely held opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless.

If you think that it is a fact, you're going to need to cite the source that says, without a doubt, that what you're stating is fact.

You are doing nothing more than stating a very widely held opinion.

Fact: Chrono Trigger was first released on the SNES. 

Opinion: The developer achieved what they set out to do flawlessly.

Facts are NOT subject to human judgment. When you say something is done flawlessly, you are making a judgment and thus stating an opinion. Chrono Trigger was released on SNES and nothing will ever change that, thus it's a fact. The degree of its excellence is something that can be judged and debated, hence it is an opinion.

If you still believe that what you said is a fact, show me that it is a fact with a credible source that does not make any sort of judgment.

Why in the world does this kind of stuff need to be explained? I don't mean to be rude, but I thought the difference between fact and opinion was something that was taught in elementary school.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] I disagree. The games he mentioned had a goal in design and all achieved it flawlessly. Whether or not someone likes them is irrelevant--it's the fact that the game design is solid.Heirren

And when you say the game design is solid, you're stating an opinion. Granted, it's a widely held opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless.

If you think that it is a fact, you're going to need to cite the source that says, without a doubt, that what you're stating is fact.

I agree with you. All those games are fantastic, high-quality games. However, even though I agree with your opinion, it is still an opinion nonetheless.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

And when you say the game design is solid, you're stating an opinion. Granted, it's a widely held opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless.

If you think that it is a fact, you're going to need to cite the source that says, without a doubt, that what you're stating is fact.

Emerald_Warrior

I agree with you. All those games are fantastic, high-quality games. However, even though I agree with your opinion, it is still an opinion nonetheless.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] The developers achieved what they set out to do, flawlessly. No technicalities got in the way. Heirren

I agree with you. All those games are fantastic, high-quality games. However, even though I agree with your opinion, it is still an opinion nonetheless.

Prove it then.

Prove, using a credible source that does not make a value judgment, that [insert game] has factually solid game design.

Prove, using a credible source that does not make a value judgment, that [insert game] has factually solid game design.

GreySeal9

Video games Srs busnis! If you want to argue facts I'm sure their are some great medical causes out there in the world today that would love your dictator like approach to opinion. Art is opinion, only techniques have guidelines.

Feel free to address this post like a moron.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Prove, using a credible source that does not make a value judgment, that [insert game] has factually solid game design.

Valknut4

Video games Srs busnis! If you want to argue facts I'm sure their are some great medical causes out there in the world today that would love your dictator like approach to opinion. Art is opinion, only techniques have guidelines.

Feel free to address this post like a moron.

If we were in a medical forum I'm sure we'd discuss medicine, but this is a game forum so we discuss games however we feel like, so your post was entirely pointless

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Prove, using a credible source that does not make a value judgment, that [insert game] has factually solid game design.

Valknut4

Video games Srs busnis! If you want to argue facts I'm sure their are some great medical causes out there in the world today that would love your dictator like approach to opinion. Art is opinion, only techniques have guidelines.

Feel free to address this post like a moron.

lol, someone's mad.

First of all, I'm not sure what "medical causes" has to do with anything.

Also, how do I have a dictator-like approach to opinion? :lol: I've simply said that opinion/=/fact. Do you disagree wih that? Do you not realize that I am making the argument that art is opinion? Why is your reading comprehension always so abysmal? Why don't you use your brain before hitting the submit button?

The reason I asked for a credible source is that one needs a source to establish a fact. Simply saying that something has solid design does not make it a fact. A fact needs to be backed up with a source. Otherwise, there's no way of knowing if it is a fact.

Heirren seems to have the idea in his head that solid game design is not a matter of opinion, so I want him to prove it, and the only way that can be done is with a source.

[QUOTE="Valknut4"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Prove, using a credible source that does not make a value judgment, that [insert game] has factually solid game design.

rilpas

Video games Srs busnis! If you want to argue facts I'm sure their are some great medical causes out there in the world today that would love your dictator like approach to opinion. Art is opinion, only techniques have guidelines.

Feel free to address this post like a moron.

If we were in a medical forum I'm sure we'd discuss medicine, but this is a game forum so we discuss games however we feel like, so your post was entirely pointless

He's always going off on weird tangents. I, for one, am surprised that he refrained from mentioning Twilight or Justin Beiber.

Also, there was a thead in which he tried to throw around his opinion as if it was the be-all, end-all, and I didn't put much stock in his supposedly awesome opinions, so he's probably still mad about that. The ego is strong on this one.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

I agree with you. All those games are fantastic, high-quality games. However, even though I agree with your opinion, it is still an opinion nonetheless.

GreySeal9

Prove it then.

Prove, using a credible source that does not make a value judgment, that [insert game] has factually solid game design.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] Regardless of people claiming everything is opinion, it simply isn't the case. There is objectivity to any craft, be it knife construction, painting, music, and even game design. Tetris is a prime example, because it's mechanics are so simple, of solid game design. There's an idea, and the execution follows this idea through. Now there's a million versions of Tetris. Some of which might hitch on a mechanical level which don't provide the experience to its fullest.Heirren

Prove it then.

Prove, using a credible source that does not make a value judgment, that [insert game] has factually solid game design.

I'm not denying that there are objective things about game design. It is true that Mario platformers are factually timing-based since we can actually observe that success in a Mario game relies on getting the timing right on certain jumps (after all, if you fail to get the timing right, you die), but what I'm saying is to make a judgment such as "solid" and "timeless" goes into opinion territory. "Solid" and "timeless" means different things to people. For instance, I think Chrono Cross is timeless but there are many people who would disagree.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Prove it then.

Prove, using a credible source that does not make a value judgment, that [insert game] has factually solid game design.

GreySeal9

I'm not denying that there are objective things about game design. It is true that Mario platformers are factually timing-based since we can actually observe that success in a Mario game relies on getting the timing right on certain jumps (after all, if you fail to get the timing right, you die), but what I'm saying is to make a judgment such as "solid" and "timeless" goes into opinion territory. "Solid" and "timeless" means different things to people. For instance, I think Chrono Cross is timeless but there are many people who would disagree.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] As factual as can get? Simple math is as factual as things are, even Einstein said his theory's my be disproven one day. With that said, and oddly enough, the entire Mario series is rhythmic--timing based. The gameplay, while open ended to allow for player improvement, revolves around players rhythmically pressing buttons in conjunction to what is occurring on screen and zero technicalities get in the way. Heirren

I'm not denying that there are objective things about game design. It is true that Mario platformers are factually timing-based since we can actually observe that success in a Mario game relies on getting the timing right on certain jumps (after all, if you fail to get the timing right, you die), but what I'm saying is to make a judgment such as "solid" and "timeless" goes into opinion territory. "Solid" and "timeless" means different things to people. For instance, I think Chrono Cross is timeless but there are many people who would disagree.

If one wants to say that objectively the controls reliably respond to player imput, then I guess that's a valid claim to make since we can measure that in an objective way, just as we can objective measure framerate and resolution. But there are other aspects of platformer game design that are highly subjective, like level design and pacing for instance. And anyway, like I said, facts are things that are not subject to human judgment. Mario's jumps will always respond to the player's imput just as certain games will run at certain framerates (how well they respond however it is up for debate), regardless of what one thinks. However, there can, and will, be varying opinions in respect to the quality of the level design, pacing, enemy design, interface, etc. which are all parts of judging game design.

Grey seal in a nut shell "I argue about facts over art! Cause its 100% objective in all cases from professional reviews to the common user review. You can quote anything an its all objective. Even one famous developer saying one game is perfect means nothing as its objective."

So why ever bring it up? Why ever even run off on people for stating something is good? You know he cannot proove it, you know you cannot dissprove it.

You are talking about nothing. How can you not see that?

So, let's settle this once and for all... :P

Which system, do you believe, had the, overall, higher-quality games that aged better and were generally more polished, better designed and superior in every way?

I expect some heavy arguments but try not to flame each other or bring down the personal attacks so that we can still discuss in a civilized (if passionate) manner. ;)

Anyway, it was SNES, obviously.

The games were just of a higher quality than anything on a Sega console.

 

Let arguing begin :D

nameless12345

SNES was way better! Not only did they have my best series of all time DKC made by Rare they had sick games. Like Mario World, A Link to the past, metroid, Star Fox, F-Zero, Earth Bound, and more the system was amazing. 10 out of 10 system in my opinion the best console of all time! They sure don't make them like they use too!

Grey seal in a nut shell "I argue about facts over art! Cause its 100% objective in all cases from professional reviews to the common user review. You can quote anything an its all objective. Even one famous developer saying one game is perfect means nothing as its objective."

So why ever bring it up? Why ever even run off on people for stating something is good? You know he cannot proove it, you know you cannot dissprove it.

You are talking about nothing. How can you not see that?

Valknut4

Grey seal in a nut shell "I argue about facts over art! Cause its 100% objective in all cases from professional reviews to the common user review. You can quote anything an its all objective. Even one famous developer saying one game is perfect means nothing as its objective."

So why ever bring it up? Why ever even run off on people for stating something is good? You know he cannot proove it, you know you cannot dissprove it.

You are talking about nothing. How can you not see that?

Valknut4

Valknut, why can't you for once apply some actual reading comprehension? I don't understand how it's possible to be an adult and fvck up basic reading comprehension so badly. Instead of writing a post as quickly as possible and clicking submit, actually think about what you're saying. Terrible reading comprehension has become a pattern with you.

My argument is that art is not objective. It is Heirren that is arguing that the quality of game design is objective. I am saying that it is not. Professional reviews and user reviews (including my own) are both subjective pieces of writing with some facts sprinkled in where it is neccessary.

Also, when have I "run off on people" for stating something is good? The same games that Heirren thinks are objectively solid in their design are games that I like as well (for instance, he said Chrono Trigger is timeless and I obviously agree since I gave the game a perfect 10; where we disagree is that I don't think the quality of game design is objective),so you're obviously very confused about the conversation that we're having. Which is fine, but if you are confused, please hold your tongue for the sake of the thread. 

And no, I am not talking about nothing. I am saying that opinions/=/fact. How can you not see that?

Really tho, I think you're butthurt about something I've said to you in the past, which is why you're sitting here nitpicking at my posts when you don't even understand them. If that's the case, you're going to have to get some cortizone cream for your ass and get over it.

[QUOTE="Valknut4"]

Grey seal in a nut shell "I argue about facts over art! Cause its 100% objective in all cases from professional reviews to the common user review. You can quote anything an its all objective. Even one famous developer saying one game is perfect means nothing as its objective."

So why ever bring it up? Why ever even run off on people for stating something is good? You know he cannot proove it, you know you cannot dissprove it.

You are talking about nothing. How can you not see that?

rilpas

BTW, riplas, I've been meaning to ask you: what do you think of Shadowrun Returns so far?

Personally, I think the visuals look too shiny. It needs to have that more gritty feel that the original did.

Nintendos first party games destory what sega had.

osirisx3

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm not denying that there are objective things about game design. It is true that Mario platformers are factually timing-based since we can actually observe that success in a Mario game relies on getting the timing right on certain jumps (after all, if you fail to get the timing right, you die), but what I'm saying is to make a judgment such as "solid" and "timeless" goes into opinion territory. "Solid" and "timeless" means different things to people. For instance, I think Chrono Cross is timeless but there are many people who would disagree.

GreySeal9

If one wants to say that objectively the controls reliably respond to player imput, then I guess that's a valid claim to make since we can measure that in an objective way, just as we can objective measure framerate and resolution. But there are other aspects of platformer game design that are highly subjective, like level design and pacing for instance. And anyway, like I said, facts are things that are not subject to human judgment. Mario's jumps will always respond to the player's imput just as certain games will run at certain framerates (how well they respond however it is up for debate), regardless of what one thinks. However, there can, and will, be varying opinions in respect to the quality of the level design, pacing, enemy design, interface, etc. which are all parts of judging game design.

So, let's settle this once and for all... :P

Which system, do you believe, had the, overall, higher-quality games that aged better and were generally more polished, better designed and superior in every way?

I expect some heavy arguments but try not to flame each other or bring down the personal attacks so that we can still discuss in a civilized (if passionate) manner. ;)

Anyway, it was SNES, obviously.

The games were just of a higher quality than anything on a Sega console.

 

Let arguing begin :D

nameless12345

Sega will always be a Nintendo wanna be woohoowoohoo!

In the real world I think it's fair to say things are objectively good. Mario is a great example. You bring up level design. The further you get, the more difficult the rhythms become. They are designed like a book about learning music, in the sense that the players skill set improves over the span of the game. Heirren

' Video games on their own may be objects with set values, just numbers and algorithms, but they dont function completely until people play them, and people have unique and different points of view - its what makes us people, and its also what makes playing video games so damn interesting and fun. Games are ultimately subjective experiences, meaning that at some point objective analysis falls apart. '

A quote i picked up a wile ago, forgot from who.