Which console is better? Super Nintendo or PlayStation 2?

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I completely disagree with controls and level design. I've always thought Sonic's level design, while good, feels more lazy because it feels alot more repetitive. It seems like it relies way too much of sending the player through loops and tubes for variation and excitement; Mario's levels have more actual variety (I can give you some examples if you like). Mario also has far more enemy variety. The robots in Sonic are pretty repetitive and lazy. I also think the controls in Sonic feel more touchy.

Atmosphere is a very subjective measure that I'd probably agree with you on. Music I absolutely agree with it, but I don't feel that's particularly pertinent to quality.

Also, getting keys is not an optional thing in Mario and for the bulk of stages, you simply get to the end, so I'm not sure what you mean with the bolded.

GreySeal9

I don't think they're lazy, they're different styles. Mario World stages are more about messing around, and Sonic's are quick and to the point. I like the latter.

Control, isn't even a question to me. It's the momentum based gameplay that allows the player to do things like this. No other platformer makes me feel in control like Sonic, while Mario feels very run of the mill.

I like my platformers to be straightforward and not have any filler. In Mario World, you do need to find keys, figure out the right path, and in one particular level there is a sign that flat out tells you to either get a certain amount of coins or beat it as fast as you can to beat the game. I find all of this to be nonsense. The reason Super Mario Bros. for the NES is my favorite of the series is because it doesn't consist of so much BS and time wasters.

You may be able to mess around more in Mario World stages, but I don't think they are about that all. Like Sonic, they are about getting to the end. The difference is that the developers throw a wider variety of obstacles at the player in Mario. I'm not knocking Sonic for having a different playstyle. That's fine. But I do feel that the Sonic level designers were not nearly as creative. And while the levels in Sonic are well-designed, they seem to use the same tricks alot.

About control: Sonic's control might be faster and more momentum-based, but that doesn't make it more "quality". Also, I'd disagree that one feels more in control with Sonic. I feel that Sonic is the one that often takes control away, even if it's for short periods, from the player while Mario doesn't.

Furthermore, you call Mario's controls run of the mill, but it only seems that way because more platformers copied Mario's style. I don't think it makes sense to call the pioneer run of the mill.

I do admit that I could be remembering wrong about the keys and what not. It's been a while since I played Mario World.

I disagree. In World they give you a big stage , too many powerups, and want you to go looking for secrets. Super Mario Bros. didn't do this. It was one powerup and go right, which I think is the better formula. Lacking creativity? Mario uses the same tropes over and over again with the same music playing. Sorry, I don't know how you can say Sonic's levels lack imagination with zones like springyard, scrap brain, starlight, chemical plant, casino night, metropolis, hydrocity, marble garden, ice cap,  launch base, lava reef, and death egg. Again their playstyles are different, and so I think you are knocking Sonic's levels for that.

What? If I feel like I can move and handle better with the momentum based gameplay, how is that not pertaining to the level of quality? I feel like I can do anything with Sonic, and I don't get that with Mario.

I call it run of the mill, beause that's what it is. It's not distinctive. One of the reasons new 2D Sonic games get so heavily criticized is because they don't control the same as the classics. Nobody cares that New Super Mario Bros. gameplay is different from the classics because the gameplay and controls was never the standout defining attribute. If other games tried copying Sonic's gameplay, they'd be exposed for being ripoffs, which happened quite a lot back in the day.

I beat Mario World again like a month ago, so it's relativley fresh in my mind. Personally, playing Sonic and Mario back to back really exposes Super Mario World as being the most overrated game of all time IMO. Now after saying all that, I still like the game, but I think Sonic is leagues better.

I disagree. In World they give you a big stage , too many powerups, and want you to go looking for secrets. Super Mario Bros. didn't do this. It was one powerup and go right, which I think is the better formula. Lacking creativity? Mario uses the same tropes over and over again with the same music playing. Sorry, I don't know how you can say Sonic's levels lack imagination with zones like springyard, scrap brain, starlight, chemical plant, casino night, metropolis, hydrocity, marble garden, ice cap,  launch base, lava reef, and death egg. Again their playstyles are different, and so I think you are knocking Sonic's levels for that.Renegade_Fury

Sonic's levels have tons of visual imagination (I never denied that), but they use the same tricks in regards to their actual design. Mario's levels might use similar visual tropes, but in regards to the actual design, there is more variety.

Sonic levels have lots of variety in regards to the visual themes/musical themes and not much else.

Also, I told you I am not knocking Sonic's levels for the playstyles being different. You, as a fan of Sonic, are just processing it that way. I am saying that the developers reuse the same kind of obstacles over and over again, which is true. To make the levels feel exciting and dynamic, the developers constantly rely on springs, tubes, and loops and what not. And I am hardly the only one to critisize Sonic for this. 

What? If I feel like I can move and handle better with the momentum based gameplay, how is that not pertaining to the level of quality? I feel like I can do anything with Sonic, and I don't get that with Mario.Renegade_Fury

First of all, I don't really agree with the bolded. Sonic is just as much limited by its particular control manuevers and its 2D plane as any other platforming game. I can think of many things that Sonic wouldn't let you do. The video you showed me was hardly an example of skies the limit gameplay. Basically, it was an example of a very nimble player, who probably has an intimate knowledge of the stage, speed running it with a high amount of skill probably accumulated from playing it over and over. 

Secondly, you might feel like you can move and handle better, but you haven't really made an argument as to why that style of play equals better handling.

Although quality is ultimately subjective, I'm kind of looking for observations that are somewhat less subjective.

I call it run of the mill, beause that's what it is. It's not distinctive. The reason new 2D Sonic games get so heavily criticized is because they don't control the same as the classics. Nobody cares that New Super Mario Bros. gamelay is different from the classics because the gameplay and controls was never the standout defining attribute.Renegade_Fury

Again, the reason you don't see it as distinctive is because most platformers opt for its slower-paced gameplay. So, yes, Sonic is more distinctive in a way, but again, you're not acknowledging that Mario was the pioneer of platforming-type gaming in general. When it came out, it was distinctive. And also, there's more to distinctiveness than controls.

Not to mention that distinctiveness is one thing that has nothing to do with quality. The thing that is more well made is more quality, not the thing that's more distinctive.

Keep in mind that I don't actually think Mario is higher quality than Sonic (tho I do think it's a better game); I think they are about the same in terms in quality. I just don't see how Sonic is higher quality than Mario. Most of the things you've listed have to do with preference.

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]I disagree. In World they give you a big stage , too many powerups, and want you to go looking for secrets. Super Mario Bros. didn't do this. It was one powerup and go right, which I think is the better formula. Lacking creativity? Mario uses the same tropes over and over again with the same music playing. Sorry, I don't know how you can say Sonic's levels lack imagination with zones like springyard, scrap brain, starlight, chemical plant, casino night, metropolis, hydrocity, marble garden, ice cap,  launch base, lava reef, and death egg. Again their playstyles are different, and so I think you are knocking Sonic's levels for that.GreySeal9

Sonic's levels have tons of visual imagination (I never denied that), but they use the same tricks in regards to their actual design. Mario's levels might use similar visual tropes, but in regards to the actual design, there is more variety.

Sonic levels have lots of variety in regards to the visual themes/musical themes and not much else.

Also, I told you I am not knocking Sonic's levels for the playstyles being different. You, as a fan of Sonic, are just processing it that way. I am saying that the developers reuse the same kind of obstacles over and over again, which is true. To make the levels feel exciting and dynamic, the developers constantly rely on springs, tubes, and loops and what not. And I am hardly the only one to critisize Sonic for this. 

What? If I feel like I can move and handle better with the momentum based gameplay, how is that not pertaining to the level of quality? I feel like I can do anything with Sonic, and I don't get that with Mario.Renegade_Fury

First of all, I don't really agree with the bolded. Sonic is just as much limited by its particular control manuevers and its 2D plane as any other platforming game. I can think of many things that Sonic wouldn't let you do. The video you showed me was hardly an example of skies the limit gameplay. Basically, it was an example of a very nimble player, who probably has an intimate knowledge of the stage, speed running it with a high amount of skill probably accumulated from playing it over and over. 

Secondly, you might feel like you can move and handle better, but you haven't really made an argument as to why that style of play equals better handling.

Although quality is ultimately subjective, I'm kind of looking for observations that are somewhat less subjective.

I call it run of the mill, beause that's what it is. It's not distinctive. The reason new 2D Sonic games get so heavily criticized is because they don't control the same as the classics. Nobody cares that New Super Mario Bros. gamelay is different from the classics because the gameplay and controls was never the standout defining attribute.Renegade_Fury

Again, the reason you don't see it as distinctive is because most platformers opt for its slower-paced gameplay. So, yes, Sonic is more distinctive in a way, but again, you're not acknowledging that Mario was the pioneer of platforming-type gaming in general. When it came out, it was distinctive. And also, there's more to distinctiveness than controls.

Not to mention that distinctiveness is one thing that has nothing to do with quality. The thing that is more well made is more quality, not the thing that's more distinctive.

Keep in mind that I don't actually think Mario is higher quality than Sonic (tho I do think it's a better game); I think they are about the same in terms in quality. I just don't see how Sonic is higher quality than Mario. Most of the things you've listed have to do with preference.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]I disagree. In World they give you a big stage , too many powerups, and want you to go looking for secrets. Super Mario Bros. didn't do this. It was one powerup and go right, which I think is the better formula. Lacking creativity? Mario uses the same tropes over and over again with the same music playing. Sorry, I don't know how you can say Sonic's levels lack imagination with zones like springyard, scrap brain, starlight, chemical plant, casino night, metropolis, hydrocity, marble garden, ice cap,  launch base, lava reef, and death egg. Again their playstyles are different, and so I think you are knocking Sonic's levels for that.Heirren

Sonic's levels have tons of visual imagination (I never denied that), but they use the same tricks in regards to their actual design. Mario's levels might use similar visual tropes, but in regards to the actual design, there is more variety.

Sonic levels have lots of variety in regards to the visual themes/musical themes and not much else.

Also, I told you I am not knocking Sonic's levels for the playstyles being different. You, as a fan of Sonic, are just processing it that way. I am saying that the developers reuse the same kind of obstacles over and over again, which is true. To make the levels feel exciting and dynamic, the developers constantly rely on springs, tubes, and loops and what not. And I am hardly the only one to critisize Sonic for this. 

What? If I feel like I can move and handle better with the momentum based gameplay, how is that not pertaining to the level of quality? I feel like I can do anything with Sonic, and I don't get that with Mario.Renegade_Fury

First of all, I don't really agree with the bolded. Sonic is just as much limited by its particular control manuevers and its 2D plane as any other platforming game. I can think of many things that Sonic wouldn't let you do. The video you showed me was hardly an example of skies the limit gameplay. Basically, it was an example of a very nimble player, who probably has an intimate knowledge of the stage, speed running it with a high amount of skill probably accumulated from playing it over and over. 

Secondly, you might feel like you can move and handle better, but you haven't really made an argument as to why that style of play equals better handling.

Although quality is ultimately subjective, I'm kind of looking for observations that are somewhat less subjective.

I call it run of the mill, beause that's what it is. It's not distinctive. The reason new 2D Sonic games get so heavily criticized is because they don't control the same as the classics. Nobody cares that New Super Mario Bros. gamelay is different from the classics because the gameplay and controls was never the standout defining attribute.Renegade_Fury

Again, the reason you don't see it as distinctive is because most platformers opt for its slower-paced gameplay. So, yes, Sonic is more distinctive in a way, but again, you're not acknowledging that Mario was the pioneer of platforming-type gaming in general. When it came out, it was distinctive. And also, there's more to distinctiveness than controls.

Not to mention that distinctiveness is one thing that has nothing to do with quality. The thing that is more well made is more quality, not the thing that's more distinctive.

Keep in mind that I don't actually think Mario is higher quality than Sonic (tho I do think it's a better game); I think they are about the same in terms in quality. I just don't see how Sonic is higher quality than Mario. Most of the things you've listed have to do with preference.

I think Sonic feels more fresh in terms of visuals and music, but I do somewhat agree that gameplay-wise it feels more archaic (and closer to the original Mario, which is my least favorite; I guess my tastes are totally different than Renegade's in this respect). Mario 2,3, and Super Mario World 1 and 2 just have alot more to them IMO.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]I disagree. In World they give you a big stage , too many powerups, and want you to go looking for secrets. Super Mario Bros. didn't do this. It was one powerup and go right, which I think is the better formula. Lacking creativity? Mario uses the same tropes over and over again with the same music playing. Sorry, I don't know how you can say Sonic's levels lack imagination with zones like springyard, scrap brain, starlight, chemical plant, casino night, metropolis, hydrocity, marble garden, ice cap,  launch base, lava reef, and death egg. Again their playstyles are different, and so I think you are knocking Sonic's levels for that.Heirren

Sonic's levels have tons of visual imagination (I never denied that), but they use the same tricks in regards to their actual design. Mario's levels might use similar visual tropes, but in regards to the actual design, there is more variety.

Sonic levels have lots of variety in regards to the visual themes/musical themes and not much else.

Also, I told you I am not knocking Sonic's levels for the playstyles being different. You, as a fan of Sonic, are just processing it that way. I am saying that the developers reuse the same kind of obstacles over and over again, which is true. To make the levels feel exciting and dynamic, the developers constantly rely on springs, tubes, and loops and what not. And I am hardly the only one to critisize Sonic for this. 

What? If I feel like I can move and handle better with the momentum based gameplay, how is that not pertaining to the level of quality? I feel like I can do anything with Sonic, and I don't get that with Mario.Renegade_Fury

First of all, I don't really agree with the bolded. Sonic is just as much limited by its particular control manuevers and its 2D plane as any other platforming game. I can think of many things that Sonic wouldn't let you do. The video you showed me was hardly an example of skies the limit gameplay. Basically, it was an example of a very nimble player, who probably has an intimate knowledge of the stage, speed running it with a high amount of skill probably accumulated from playing it over and over. 

Secondly, you might feel like you can move and handle better, but you haven't really made an argument as to why that style of play equals better handling.

Although quality is ultimately subjective, I'm kind of looking for observations that are somewhat less subjective.

I call it run of the mill, beause that's what it is. It's not distinctive. The reason new 2D Sonic games get so heavily criticized is because they don't control the same as the classics. Nobody cares that New Super Mario Bros. gamelay is different from the classics because the gameplay and controls was never the standout defining attribute.Renegade_Fury

Again, the reason you don't see it as distinctive is because most platformers opt for its slower-paced gameplay. So, yes, Sonic is more distinctive in a way, but again, you're not acknowledging that Mario was the pioneer of platforming-type gaming in general. When it came out, it was distinctive. And also, there's more to distinctiveness than controls.

Not to mention that distinctiveness is one thing that has nothing to do with quality. The thing that is more well made is more quality, not the thing that's more distinctive.

Keep in mind that I don't actually think Mario is higher quality than Sonic (tho I do think it's a better game); I think they are about the same in terms in quality. I just don't see how Sonic is higher quality than Mario. Most of the things you've listed have to do with preference.

you always say s*** like that. trying to not look like a nintendo fanboy, other examples when you bash shenmue, but say you like it as well. just stop pretending man. you're a nintendo fanboy and it's as obvious as a guy standing naked pretending to be a doorknob

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

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]I disagree. In World they give you a big stage , too many powerups, and want you to go looking for secrets. Super Mario Bros. didn't do this. It was one powerup and go right, which I think is the better formula. Lacking creativity? Mario uses the same tropes over and over again with the same music playing. Sorry, I don't know how you can say Sonic's levels lack imagination with zones like springyard, scrap brain, starlight, chemical plant, casino night, metropolis, hydrocity, marble garden, ice cap,  launch base, lava reef, and death egg. Again their playstyles are different, and so I think you are knocking Sonic's levels for that.bultje112

Sonic's levels have tons of visual imagination (I never denied that), but they use the same tricks in regards to their actual design. Mario's levels might use similar visual tropes, but in regards to the actual design, there is more variety.

Sonic levels have lots of variety in regards to the visual themes/musical themes and not much else.

Also, I told you I am not knocking Sonic's levels for the playstyles being different. You, as a fan of Sonic, are just processing it that way. I am saying that the developers reuse the same kind of obstacles over and over again, which is true. To make the levels feel exciting and dynamic, the developers constantly rely on springs, tubes, and loops and what not. And I am hardly the only one to critisize Sonic for this. 

What? If I feel like I can move and handle better with the momentum based gameplay, how is that not pertaining to the level of quality? I feel like I can do anything with Sonic, and I don't get that with Mario.Renegade_Fury

First of all, I don't really agree with the bolded. Sonic is just as much limited by its particular control manuevers and its 2D plane as any other platforming game. I can think of many things that Sonic wouldn't let you do. The video you showed me was hardly an example of skies the limit gameplay. Basically, it was an example of a very nimble player, who probably has an intimate knowledge of the stage, speed running it with a high amount of skill probably accumulated from playing it over and over. 

Secondly, you might feel like you can move and handle better, but you haven't really made an argument as to why that style of play equals better handling.

Although quality is ultimately subjective, I'm kind of looking for observations that are somewhat less subjective.

I call it run of the mill, beause that's what it is. It's not distinctive. The reason new 2D Sonic games get so heavily criticized is because they don't control the same as the classics. Nobody cares that New Super Mario Bros. gamelay is different from the classics because the gameplay and controls was never the standout defining attribute.Renegade_Fury

Again, the reason you don't see it as distinctive is because most platformers opt for its slower-paced gameplay. So, yes, Sonic is more distinctive in a way, but again, you're not acknowledging that Mario was the pioneer of platforming-type gaming in general. When it came out, it was distinctive. And also, there's more to distinctiveness than controls.

Not to mention that distinctiveness is one thing that has nothing to do with quality. The thing that is more well made is more quality, not the thing that's more distinctive.

Keep in mind that I don't actually think Mario is higher quality than Sonic (tho I do think it's a better game); I think they are about the same in terms in quality. I just don't see how Sonic is higher quality than Mario. Most of the things you've listed have to do with preference.

you always say s*** like that. trying to not look like a nintendo fanboy, other examples when you bash shenmue, but say you like it as well. just stop pretending man. you're a nintendo fanboy and it's as obvious as a guy standing naked pretending to be a doorknob

There's really no reason to get personal.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

Actually the sonic games are much higher quality then Mario, also the SNES only had one metroid type game (singular not plural).

making the SNES feel quite dated

rilpas

In what way are the Sonic games higher quality than Mario? :?

Also, I fail to see how the SNES could feel dated relative to the Genesis since the Genesis feels more dated in terms of visuals and sound.

Actually I don't even like Sonic, but Yoshi is either fanboy, in which case I choose to troll him

or he's an idiot in which case I choose to troll him

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]I disagree. In World they give you a big stage , too many powerups, and want you to go looking for secrets. Super Mario Bros. didn't do this. It was one powerup and go right, which I think is the better formula. Lacking creativity? Mario uses the same tropes over and over again with the same music playing. Sorry, I don't know how you can say Sonic's levels lack imagination with zones like springyard, scrap brain, starlight, chemical plant, casino night, metropolis, hydrocity, marble garden, ice cap,  launch base, lava reef, and death egg. Again their playstyles are different, and so I think you are knocking Sonic's levels for that.GreySeal9

Sonic's levels have tons of visual imagination (I never denied that), but they use the same tricks in regards to their actual design. Mario's levels might use similar visual tropes, but in regards to the actual design, there is more variety.

Sonic levels have lots of variety in regards to the visual themes/musical themes and not much else.

Also, I told you I am not knocking Sonic's levels for the playstyles being different. You, as a fan of Sonic, are just processing it that way. I am saying that the developers reuse the same kind of obstacles over and over again, which is true. To make the levels feel exciting and dynamic, the developers constantly rely on springs, tubes, and loops and what not. And I am hardly the only one to critisize Sonic for this. 

What? If I feel like I can move and handle better with the momentum based gameplay, how is that not pertaining to the level of quality? I feel like I can do anything with Sonic, and I don't get that with Mario.Renegade_Fury

First of all, I don't really agree with the bolded. Sonic is just as much limited by its particular control manuevers and its 2D plane as any other platforming game. I can think of many things that Sonic wouldn't let you do. The video you showed me was hardly an example of skies the limit gameplay. Basically, it was an example of a very nimble player, who probably has an intimate knowledge of the stage, speed running it with a high amount of skill probably accumulated from playing it over and over. 

Secondly, you might feel like you can move and handle better, but you haven't really made an argument as to why that style of play equals better handling.

Although quality is ultimately subjective, I'm kind of looking for observations that are somewhat less subjective.

I call it run of the mill, beause that's what it is. It's not distinctive. The reason new 2D Sonic games get so heavily criticized is because they don't control the same as the classics. Nobody cares that New Super Mario Bros. gamelay is different from the classics because the gameplay and controls was never the standout defining attribute.Renegade_Fury

Again, the reason you don't see it as distinctive is because most platformers opt for its slower-paced gameplay. So, yes, Sonic is more distinctive in a way, but again, you're not acknowledging that Mario was the pioneer of platforming-type gaming in general. When it came out, it was distinctive. And also, there's more to distinctiveness than controls.

Not to mention that distinctiveness is one thing that has nothing to do with quality. The thing that is more well made is more quality, not the thing that's more distinctive.

Keep in mind that I don't actually think Mario is higher quality than Sonic (tho I do think it's a better game); I think they are about the same in terms in quality. I just don't see how Sonic is higher quality than Mario. Most of the things you've listed have to do with preference.

Ugh, you're posting got too complicated for me. I'll try to keep this neat and relatively short. :P

- That's playstyle. To put the type of obstacles I think that you would probably want in Sonic would hinder the gameplay. The zones are designed around Sonic's momentum, and so to put annoying enemies and pitfalls would halt the flow. The reason many people complain about metropolis zone and wing fortress zone for example, is because the enemies got more complicated and the ground wasn't uniform. Unless you're good enough to sense the danger ahead, you'll have to slow down and stop.  Sonic handles best when he's jumping at high speeds while going right. It's NOT Mario. Sonic should never have to slow down and explore so much like other platformers. There's only one button and so the type of obstacles he should be presented with should revolve around his gameplay style like screws, balloons, springs, small yet fun stuff like that. Even Sonic 1 which is the most traditional platformer of the bunch doesn't forget this. The reason I like Sonic CD the least out of the classics is because it lacks this focus and they want you to go here and there looking for things. It's easy to navigate because Sonic handles so well, but it's not using his potential fully.

-  Well first of all that video is emphasizing the possibilities and ease of movement the momentum gameplay gives you, but you want less fancy? Kay. When I have to jump to a platform in the lava like in marble zone, or flip flopping ones in wing fortress, I have an easier time controlling Sonic, because it's easier to move him in the air than with Mario. I have a hard time explaining this better without playing it in front of me, but I'm not the only one that thinks that. I remember watching CGR's review of Sonic 1 and he said the same thing about somewhat controlling better. It's hard for me to put in words, but with the build of speed and then jumping, Sonic is easier to move. Plus with the spindash I can do this and reach anywhere.

- They opt for it because it's easier to design. Ok it was first, and? Does that mean it can't be improved upon? One of Yuji Naka's biggest complaints against Super Mario Bros. was that he always had to hold the run button. I have that same complaint too, so yes I think that is pertaining to quality. Again, Sonic's gameplay and movement is easier to control and handle.

Of course I prefer Sonic, but that's because it's of a higher quality. :D

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

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]I disagree. In World they give you a big stage , too many powerups, and want you to go looking for secrets. Super Mario Bros. didn't do this. It was one powerup and go right, which I think is the better formula. Lacking creativity? Mario uses the same tropes over and over again with the same music playing. Sorry, I don't know how you can say Sonic's levels lack imagination with zones like springyard, scrap brain, starlight, chemical plant, casino night, metropolis, hydrocity, marble garden, ice cap,  launch base, lava reef, and death egg. Again their playstyles are different, and so I think you are knocking Sonic's levels for that.bultje112

Sonic's levels have tons of visual imagination (I never denied that), but they use the same tricks in regards to their actual design. Mario's levels might use similar visual tropes, but in regards to the actual design, there is more variety.

Sonic levels have lots of variety in regards to the visual themes/musical themes and not much else.

Also, I told you I am not knocking Sonic's levels for the playstyles being different. You, as a fan of Sonic, are just processing it that way. I am saying that the developers reuse the same kind of obstacles over and over again, which is true. To make the levels feel exciting and dynamic, the developers constantly rely on springs, tubes, and loops and what not. And I am hardly the only one to critisize Sonic for this. 

What? If I feel like I can move and handle better with the momentum based gameplay, how is that not pertaining to the level of quality? I feel like I can do anything with Sonic, and I don't get that with Mario.Renegade_Fury

First of all, I don't really agree with the bolded. Sonic is just as much limited by its particular control manuevers and its 2D plane as any other platforming game. I can think of many things that Sonic wouldn't let you do. The video you showed me was hardly an example of skies the limit gameplay. Basically, it was an example of a very nimble player, who probably has an intimate knowledge of the stage, speed running it with a high amount of skill probably accumulated from playing it over and over. 

Secondly, you might feel like you can move and handle better, but you haven't really made an argument as to why that style of play equals better handling.

Although quality is ultimately subjective, I'm kind of looking for observations that are somewhat less subjective.

I call it run of the mill, beause that's what it is. It's not distinctive. The reason new 2D Sonic games get so heavily criticized is because they don't control the same as the classics. Nobody cares that New Super Mario Bros. gamelay is different from the classics because the gameplay and controls was never the standout defining attribute.Renegade_Fury

Again, the reason you don't see it as distinctive is because most platformers opt for its slower-paced gameplay. So, yes, Sonic is more distinctive in a way, but again, you're not acknowledging that Mario was the pioneer of platforming-type gaming in general. When it came out, it was distinctive. And also, there's more to distinctiveness than controls.

Not to mention that distinctiveness is one thing that has nothing to do with quality. The thing that is more well made is more quality, not the thing that's more distinctive.

Keep in mind that I don't actually think Mario is higher quality than Sonic (tho I do think it's a better game); I think they are about the same in terms in quality. I just don't see how Sonic is higher quality than Mario. Most of the things you've listed have to do with preference.

you always say s*** like that. trying to not look like a nintendo fanboy, other examples when you bash shenmue, but say you like it as well. just stop pretending man. you're a nintendo fanboy and it's as obvious as a guy standing naked pretending to be a doorknob

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

In what way are the Sonic games higher quality than Mario? :?

Also, I fail to see how the SNES could feel dated relative to the Genesis since the Genesis feels more dated in terms of visuals and sound.

YoshiYogurt

Actually I don't even like Sonic, but Yoshi is either fanboy, in which case I choose to troll him

or he's an idiot in which case I choose to troll him

Did you miss the long list of great Genesis games earlier in the thread?

Super Nintendo is the best for its exclusives and PlayStation is best for its exclusives and the few multiplatform games it shares with the Super Nintendo:)

In general, when you have multiple systems that are still and were as popular as these, and if you have the money, you should own each one you find interesting. Especially with all the great games that you can't (normally) get on any other system.

Edit:  For some reason I missed the '2' in the title, my thoughts still apply - and you get the bonus of original PlayStation games being playable on the PlayStation 2 :)

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

In what way are the Sonic games higher quality than Mario? :?

Also, I fail to see how the SNES could feel dated relative to the Genesis since the Genesis feels more dated in terms of visuals and sound.

YoshiYogurt

Actually I don't even like Sonic, but Yoshi is either fanboy, in which case I choose to troll him

or he's an idiot in which case I choose to troll him

[QUOTE="YoshiYogurt"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

Actually I don't even like Sonic, but Yoshi is either fanboy, in which case I choose to troll him

or he's an idiot in which case I choose to troll him

rilpas

Yep. He's never going to be satisfied. It's not worth the effort.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="YoshiYogurt"] Show me some great Genesis games pal. I'm waiting right here. Why are you such a fanboy over the genesis? My original post was intending to see WHY you thought the genesis was so much better than the SNES...GreySeal9

Yep. He's never going to be satisfied. It's not worth the effort.

Indeed, anyone who takes the Genesis' library of 900 games and claims outside the sonic games the console's library is small and mediocre is either a fanboy or an idiot, so I choose to troll him

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]because I know your type and I know where this is going, you're just going to claim the games suck or are archaic, hell the mere fact that you ignored Emeral WArrior's list is proof enough

rilpas

Yep. He's never going to be satisfied. It's not worth the effort.

Indeed, anyone who takes the Genesis' library of 900 games and claims outside the sonic games the console's library is small and mediocre is either a fanboy or an idiot, so I choose to troll him

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Yep. He's never going to be satisfied. It's not worth the effort.

YoshiYogurt

Indeed, anyone who takes the Genesis' library of 900 games and claims outside the sonic games the console's library is small and mediocre is either a fanboy or an idiot, so I choose to troll him

good for you?

a shame the SNES can't hold a candle to the Genesis

Hmmm I would say PS2, but they are close and just different.

NES, SNES, and PS2 are the only consoles that got the actual hardware (console and controller) right.  Every other system has some glaring issues.  With that said Gamecube has the biggest list of awesome games, yet N64 has some of the best games ever and some of the most memorable and long lasting experiences.  

NES, SNES, and PS2 are the only consoles that got the actual hardware (console and controller) right.

NaveedLife

How did the PS2 do hardware right when it was hard to develop for and when it had a backwards GPU that couldn't even do anti-aliasing?

Don't get ahead of yourself - the Xbox clearly destroyed the PS2 in graphical capabilites. (and so did GC)

And as much as like NES and SNES, I have to say that the sprite flicker and occasional slowdown on NES was quite annoying and the SNES' CPU also wasn't terribly good. (as evidenced in some slowdown in games where a lot was happening at once)

Turbografx-16 (and even Master System) was clearly better hardware than NES and Neo-Geo clearly better than SNES. (altho the former was an expensive, niche console, thus not really competition for SNES)

I think what makes the games on the genesis play and look better is the blast processing the machine was capable of, so this should sort out the beef between snes vs genesis..

I think what makes the games on the genesis play and look better is the blast processing the machine was capable of, so this should sort out the beef between snes vs genesis..

TommyBarban

I think what makes the games on the genesis play and look better is the blast processing the machine was capable of, so this should sort out the beef between snes vs genesis..

TommyBarban

So, less colors & more primitive effects = better graphics, for you?

"Blast processing" is a made-up marketing term that refers to Genesis' faster CPU. (7.5 Mhz Motorola 68000 vs 3.5 Mhz Ricoh 5A22 in SNES; note that the "SA-1" game enhancement chip for the SNES was basically a Ricoh 5A22 running at 10 Mhz - used in games like Kirby Superstar and Super Mario RPG)

My favorite console is the Super Nintendo but the better console is Playstation 2.

Dang, PS2 leads at this moment...

Must be the "PlayStation generation" kicking in... :P

we got a tie,   but any way-   i say snes,  though i like ps2 i played gamecube and xbox more  so ya,  i think the snes had more of the variety i was looking for ,  

[QUOTE="TommyBarban"]

I think what makes the games on the genesis play and look better is the blast processing the machine was capable of, so this should sort out the beef between snes vs genesis..

nameless12345

So, less colors & more primitive effects = better graphics, for you?

"Blast processing" is a made-up marketing term that refers to Genesis' faster CPU. (7.5 Mhz Motorola 68000 vs 3.5 Mhz Ricoh 5A22 in SNES; note that the "SA-1" game enhancement chip for the SNES was basically a Ricoh 5A22 running at 10 Mhz - used in games like Kirby Superstar and Super Mario RPG)

I was being sarcastic, I don't blame you for not picking up on it, the internet and sarcasm do not always work well together.

[QUOTE="TommyBarban"]

I think what makes the games on the genesis play and look better is the blast processing the machine was capable of, so this should sort out the beef between snes vs genesis..

nameless12345

So, less colors & more primitive effects = better graphics, for you?

"Blast processing" is a made-up marketing term that refers to Genesis' faster CPU. (7.5 Mhz Motorola 68000 vs 3.5 Mhz Ricoh 5A22 in SNES; note that the "SA-1" game enhancement chip for the SNES was basically a Ricoh 5A22 running at 10 Mhz - used in games like Kirby Superstar and Super Mario RPG)

he's clearly joking... :roll:

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TommyBarban"]

I think what makes the games on the genesis play and look better is the blast processing the machine was capable of, so this should sort out the beef between snes vs genesis..

bultje112

So, less colors & more primitive effects = better graphics, for you?

"Blast processing" is a made-up marketing term that refers to Genesis' faster CPU. (7.5 Mhz Motorola 68000 vs 3.5 Mhz Ricoh 5A22 in SNES; note that the "SA-1" game enhancement chip for the SNES was basically a Ricoh 5A22 running at 10 Mhz - used in games like Kirby Superstar and Super Mario RPG)

he's clearly joking... :roll:

I couldn't tell...

he said blast processing

playstation 2 for the sheer fact that it had alot more genres to play, and a bigger games collection. i loved the super nintendo as a kid and i respect it for what it did for the games industry but the reality still remains the major games on that console which everyone raves about are all just side scrollers. every single game was a side scroller. only because i went frew my collection and they were alot of side scrolling games, 

The PS2 library is great. The SNES library is, too, but the PS2 is also backwards compatible with PlayStation games which is why it is a better console. The SNES is a very good console in its own way.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]The Sega Genesis beats bothYoshiYogurt

I had both Genesis an SNES at my hands when I was a kid, I also have no idea why people like playing that system more. There were so few games I enjoyed on Genesis. In fact I have a hard time naming the ones that aren't sonic games they were so unmemorable. I would love to remember the name of the game where you combine rings of different elements. Was a side scrolling game like alterd beast single player I think also. 

Then again I was more into action-adventure, and RPGS back then. Arcades were far better for bettem-ups as you could have 4 players, and Schmups were pretty even in my eyes, U.N squadron is still one of my fav games.

Its all opinion though, the only thing that is more general opinion is that SNES has 2 games that are considerd to be the best games of all time. FF6 and Chrono Trigger.

There isnt really much you can say for Sega systems in general for that respect. Either way opinions are opinions. This pole will be decided not by what is better but by what console you played when you were young. An this sites demographic should lead to a PS2 win.

Its all opinion though, the only thing that is more general opinion is that SNES has 2 games that are considerd to be the best games of all time. FF6 and Chrono Trigger.

Valknut4

If you ONLY play RPGs. These games are also generally considered some of the best of all-time

• Donkey Kong Country
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
• Sim City
• Super Mario Kart
• Super Mario World
• Super Metroid

[QUOTE="Valknut4"]

Its all opinion though, the only thing that is more general opinion is that SNES has 2 games that are considerd to be the best games of all time. FF6 and Chrono Trigger.

Emerald_Warrior

If you ONLY play RPGs. These games are also generally considered some of the best of all-time

• Donkey Kong Country
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
• Sim City
• Super Mario Kart
• Super Mario World
• Super Metroid

Oh you don't need to tell me :p Sim city is my most played SNES game, easily a 1000 hours or more on that sucker. Still havent got anywhere near 500000 people. Then agian I never had the million dollar code. Super Mario kart  isnt for me, preferd Battle Cars, Rock an Roll racing, an Top gear 2. Super metroid an Super Mario World also some of the finest crafted games I have ever played, I still listen to Metal covers of metrois music to this day xD. LttP best Zelda game imo, followed by links awakening and Oot.

I should be shot for this.... I never played DKC 2 or 3 :X. There are so many games I loved on that system. Secret of evermore an Suikoden 2 via for my favorite games of all time. I could try an list all the great SNES, PS1, PS2 or Genesis games but I would fail hard. ><

There are a lot of great games on a lot of different systems, until someone goes back an reviews them all we pretty much got 0 hard numbers to go off of to choose " The best one ".

Its all opinion though, the only thing that is more general opinion is that SNES has 2 games that are considerd to be the best games of all time. FF6 and Chrono Trigger.

Valknut4

There's a problem though, if we count PS1 B/C then the PS2 also has FF6 and Chrono Trigger

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

NES, SNES, and PS2 are the only consoles that got the actual hardware (console and controller) right.

nameless12345

How did the PS2 do hardware right when it was hard to develop for and when it had a backwards GPU that couldn't even do anti-aliasing?

Don't get ahead of yourself - the Xbox clearly destroyed the PS2 in graphical capabilites. (and so did GC)

And as much as like NES and SNES, I have to say that the sprite flicker and occasional slowdown on NES was quite annoying and the SNES' CPU also wasn't terribly good. (as evidenced in some slowdown in games where a lot was happening at once)

Turbografx-16 (and even Master System) was clearly better hardware than NES and Neo-Geo clearly better than SNES. (altho the former was an expensive, niche console, thus not really competition for SNES)

[QUOTE="TommyBarban"]

I think what makes the games on the genesis play and look better is the blast processing the machine was capable of, so this should sort out the beef between snes vs genesis..

nameless12345

So, less colors & more primitive effects = better graphics, for you?

"Blast processing" is a made-up marketing term that refers to Genesis' faster CPU. (7.5 Mhz Motorola 68000 vs 3.5 Mhz Ricoh 5A22 in SNES; note that the "SA-1" game enhancement chip for the SNES was basically a Ricoh 5A22 running at 10 Mhz - used in games like Kirby Superstar and Super Mario RPG)

 

[QUOTE="Valknut4"]

Its all opinion though, the only thing that is more general opinion is that SNES has 2 games that are considerd to be the best games of all time. FF6 and Chrono Trigger.

rilpas

There's a problem though, if we count PS1 B/C then the PS2 also has FF6 and Chrono Trigger

I guess thats true, but why stop a B/C an not right into emulation? I would take a Wii/PSP Homebrewed out over any system to date, sans PC of course.

I would guess were to assume B/C is to not be taken into account. But dem assumptions cause many a problems. PS1 an SNES have comparable RPG list, I really havent played a good RPG since PS1 an Snes though so without that B/C Ps2 has nothing I would want. I was literaly happier with my GC then my Ps2 at that time. Dark cloud was pretty cool though.

 

[QUOTE="Valknut4"]

Its all opinion though, the only thing that is more general opinion is that SNES has 2 games that are considerd to be the best games of all time. FF6 and Chrono Trigger.

rilpas

There's a problem though, if we count PS1 B/C then the PS2 also has FF6 and Chrono Trigger

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TommyBarban"]

I think what makes the games on the genesis play and look better is the blast processing the machine was capable of, so this should sort out the beef between snes vs genesis..

Kaszilla

So, less colors & more primitive effects = better graphics, for you?

"Blast processing" is a made-up marketing term that refers to Genesis' faster CPU. (7.5 Mhz Motorola 68000 vs 3.5 Mhz Ricoh 5A22 in SNES; note that the "SA-1" game enhancement chip for the SNES was basically a Ricoh 5A22 running at 10 Mhz - used in games like Kirby Superstar and Super Mario RPG)

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

 

[QUOTE="Valknut4"]

Its all opinion though, the only thing that is more general opinion is that SNES has 2 games that are considerd to be the best games of all time. FF6 and Chrono Trigger.

Holyspirit-Xbox

There's a problem though, if we count PS1 B/C then the PS2 also has FF6 and Chrono Trigger

[QUOTE="Kaszilla"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

So, less colors & more primitive effects = better graphics, for you?

"Blast processing" is a made-up marketing term that refers to Genesis' faster CPU. (7.5 Mhz Motorola 68000 vs 3.5 Mhz Ricoh 5A22 in SNES; note that the "SA-1" game enhancement chip for the SNES was basically a Ricoh 5A22 running at 10 Mhz - used in games like Kirby Superstar and Super Mario RPG)

Holyspirit-Xbox

genesis was released in Japan in 1988 and the SNES in 1990

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"][QUOTE="Kaszilla"] The Genesis imo is more impressibe considering it came years before the SNES.rilpas

genesis was released in Japan in 1988 and the SNES in 1990

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"][QUOTE="rilpas"]

 

There's a problem though, if we count PS1 B/C then the PS2 also has FF6 and Chrono Trigger

rilpas

they were both kings of their time. that being said i still find myself going back to play old snes games like the final fantasy series, super mario world, super contra & castlevania 4.