Which console is better? Super Nintendo or PlayStation 2?

PlayStation 2.

Not only does it have a larger library of good games, but it's also backwards compatible with the PS1, so you can't really beat that.

Still, the poll is surprisingly very close.

PlayStation 2.

Not only does it have a larger library of good games, but it's also backwards compatible with the PS1, so you can't really beat that.

Still, the poll is surprisingly very close.

Jag85

Its all us old timers loving our childhood so much. Snes literally made my life better by a large margin, what would I have done with all those thousands of hours other wise? Certainly nothing as great as all them games.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] Like around 1 year?Holyspirit-Xbox

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

The Genesis was released in October of 1988

The snes was released in November of 1990

that's 25 months. Technology wise that's a HUGE gap

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"][QUOTE="rilpas"]two years actually

 

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

rilpas

The Genesis was released in October of 1988

The snes was released in November of 1990

that's 25 months. Technology wise that's a HUGE gap

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] To be fair I don't consider the end of 88 two years, especially since the Genesis didn't really have any games until 89. I think it was december or november it came out in japan? Especially the power gap between pre-90's TG-16 and the Genesis are no where near eachother.Holyspirit-Xbox

The Genesis was released in October of 1988

The snes was released in November of 1990

that's 25 months. Technology wise that's a HUGE gap

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

 

The Genesis was released in October of 1988

The snes was released in November of 1990

that's 25 months. Technology wise that's a HUGE gap

rilpas

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] Indeed, although imo, the SNES doesn't really show a 2 year gap from the Genesis, and the fact that SNK released there console around the same time as the SNES if not mistaken. Although Now I understand the constant comparisons between Genesis and TG arcadeports.Holyspirit-Xbox

I think the N64 was a pretty impressive piece of machinery for the time, but I'm not the most informed person to discuss hardware with

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"][QUOTE="rilpas"]indeed, it's a wonder a the Genesis held its ground in the graphics department against the SNES as well as it did considering the age difference

rilpas

I think the N64 was a pretty impressive piece of machinery for the time, but I'm not the most informed person to discuss hardware with

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] Actually though other than the Gamecube Nintendo always did cheap out on hardware. The NES was not the most impressive thing outhere compared to its too direct competitors.Holyspirit-Xbox

I think the N64 was a pretty impressive piece of machinery for the time, but I'm not the most informed person to discuss hardware with

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] Indeed, although imo, the SNES doesn't really show a 2 year gap from the Genesis, and the fact that SNK released there console around the same time as the SNES if not mistaken. Although Now I understand the constant comparisons between Genesis and TG arcadeports.Holyspirit-Xbox

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] To be fair I don't consider the end of 88 two years, especially since the Genesis didn't really have any games until 89. I think it was december or november it came out in japan? Especially the power gap between pre-90's TG-16 and the Genesis are no where near eachother.Holyspirit-Xbox

The Genesis was released in October of 1988

The snes was released in November of 1990

that's 25 months. Technology wise that's a HUGE gap

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

 

The Genesis was released in October of 1988

The snes was released in November of 1990

that's 25 months. Technology wise that's a HUGE gap

Jag85

SNES was more modern than MD.

Much more colors (32.000, 256 during gameplay - MD 512, 64 during gameplay), better sound chip (designed by Sony), Mode 7, four button controller, ect.

Only thing worse was the CPU, which wasn't that a bottleneck due to special cartridge chips like Super FX, SA-1 and DSP, which made the SNES a lot more capable.

I got the MD first but was still impressed with SNES when I got it. (more colorful graphics with advanced effects and nice stereo sound)

[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] Indeed, although imo, the SNES doesn't really show a 2 year gap from the Genesis, and the fact that SNK released there console around the same time as the SNES if not mistaken. Although Now I understand the constant comparisons between Genesis and TG arcadeports.nameless12345

SNES was more modern than MD.

Much more colors (32.000, 256 during gameplay - MD 512, 64 during gameplay), better sound chip (designed by Sony), Mode 7, four button controller, ect.

Only thing worse was the CPU, which wasn't that a bottleneck due to special cartridge chips like Super FX, SA-1 and DSP, which made the SNES a lot more capable.

I got the MD first but was still impressed with SNES when I got it. (more colorful graphics with advanced effects and nice stereo sound)

Star Cruiser

But once again, Sega failed to capitalize on the MD's 3D capabilities. Either way, you're right that the SNES was technically superior to the MD in nearly every way besides CPU speed, but that higher CPU speed would have given the MD greater 3D potential.

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"][QUOTE="rilpas"]indeed, it's a wonder a the Genesis held its ground in the graphics department against the SNES as well as it did considering the age differenceJag85

[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] Actually though other than the Gamecube Nintendo always did cheap out on hardware. The NES was not the most impressive thing outhere compared to its too direct competitors.Holyspirit-Xbox

The NES was a gimped 5200...wow.

super nintendo

[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"] Actually though other than the Gamecube Nintendo always did cheap out on hardware. The NES was not the most impressive thing outhere compared to its too direct competitors.Holyspirit-Xbox

Either way, the NES's direct competitor when it released in 1983 was neither the 5200 (which was on its deathbed due to the North American crash) nor the SMS (which came two years later), but its initial competitor was in fact the Sega SG-1000, a Japan-only console that was more or less a gimped ColecoVision. The NES and SG-1000 released the same day in 1983, but the NES proved to be the superior machine, forcing Sega to come out with the more powerful Master System in 1985.

So no, your claims about the NES being an underpowered machine for its time do not hold true at all.

EDIT:

While I may have, at one time, stated that the Atari 5200 was technically on par with the NES in theory, that doesn't really seem to hold true in practice. When I was comparing a few arcade ports between the 5200 and ColecoVision, the Coleco ports came out looking better.  Likewise, the NES had better arcade ports than the 7800 (i.e. a gimped 5200). In other words, I'd have to say the NES was most certainly a step-up from the consoles that came before it, though not by a significant margin.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] The Neo Geo was almost a generation ahead in terms of 2D graphics, but was far too expensive. For the more affordable price it was being sold for, the SNES was about as powerful as it needed to be in order to make a profit on each console sold. In contrast, Sega initially sold each Mega Drive / Genesis console at a loss, before eventually breaking even. That might explain why the gap between the Mega Drive and SNES didn't feel like two years at all.Jag85

SNES was more modern than MD.

Much more colors (32.000, 256 during gameplay - MD 512, 64 during gameplay), better sound chip (designed by Sony), Mode 7, four button controller, ect.

Only thing worse was the CPU, which wasn't that a bottleneck due to special cartridge chips like Super FX, SA-1 and DSP, which made the SNES a lot more capable.

I got the MD first but was still impressed with SNES when I got it. (more colorful graphics with advanced effects and nice stereo sound)

Star Cruiser

But once again, Sega failed to capitalize on the MD's 3D capabilities. Either way, you're right that the SNES was technically superior to the MD in nearly every way besides CPU speed, but that higher CPU speed would have given the MD greater 3D potential.

Well, I wouldn't exactly say that 3D polygon performance on the stock Genesis was terribly good.

It was better than SNES, yes, but games were still very choppy.

As you said yourself, it needed the SVP chip for better 3D performance and that was only used for Virtua Racing. (not counting 32X which did give it some quite decent 3D capability)

[QUOTE="Holyspirit-Xbox"][QUOTE="Jag85"] Actually, the NES was impressive for a 1983 console. Its main competitor, the Master System, came two years after it. In addition, the N64 was also impressive for a 1996 console.Jag85

Either way, the NES's direct competitor when it released in 1983 was neither the 5200 (which was on its deathbed due to the North American crash) nor the SMS (which came two years later), but its initial competitor was in fact the Sega SG-1000, a Japan-only console that was more or less a gimped ColecoVision. The NES and SG-1000 released the same day in 1983, but the NES proved to be the superior machine, forcing Sega to come out with the more powerful Master System in 1985.

So no, your claims about the NES being an underpowered machine for its time do not hold true at all.

EDIT:

While I may have, at one time, stated that the Atari 5200 was technically on par with the NES in theory, that doesn't really seem to hold true in practice. When I was comparing a few arcade ports between the 5200 and ColecoVision, the Coleco ports came out looking better.  Likewise, the NES had better arcade ports than the 7800 (i.e. a gimped 5200). In other words, I'd have to say the NES was most certainly a step-up from the consoles that came before it, though not by a significant margin.

NES actually set the standards for resolution, colors, parallax scrolling (which was smooth on NES), control (D-pad) and sound (see how popular "8-bit music" is - this is largly thanks to NES) when it came out.

It could also use special cartridge chips which increased it's graphical (and sound) capability.

Only things I think they could have fixed were the sprite flicker, occasional slowdown (read: higher clocked CPU), the quality of the buttons and give it a better cartridge slot system.

Master System was better, but it came out a year later and the 16-bit systems (i.e. TG-16 & Genesis) came out years later.

edit: here's two games that nicely demonstrate what NES can do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6oB-ytKhVI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbsw7nADWwY

edit 2: and let's not forget on Sunsoft's other masterpieces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvTWB611s6I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6b5hs2NXSU

Nothing beats the PS2.

I like how the poll is tied at 50-50.

I like how the poll is tied at 50-50.

Jag85

When you consider the SNES has maybe a 10th of the library size, it really brings it all into perspective.

I'm not really sure how you can compare 2 consoles that were 13 years apart from a "hardware perspective" but if we are going to compare game quality then I would have to go for the SNES because of "gems" like Chrono Trigger, Mega Man X, Kirby Super Star and Ninja Turtles IV: Turtles In Time.PokeCrysis

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I like how the poll is tied at 50-50.

Valknut4

When you consider the SNES has maybe a 10th of the library size, it really brings it all into perspective.

Also, this is the Legacy Platforms forum, so the poll results shouldn't be too surprising. If this was System Wars, I'm pretty sure the PS2 would be leading by a considerable margin (since, you know, a lot of those SW guys hate primitive graphics and despise Nintendo).

Actually, the SNES library had over 1400 games, while the PS2 library had over 3800 games (excluding PS1 games). The difference in size is about 2-3 times, not 10 times.

Also, this is the Legacy Platforms forum, so the poll results shouldn't be too surprising. If this was System Wars, I'm pretty sure the PS2 would be leading by a considerable margin (since, you know, a lot of those SW guys hate primitive graphics and despise Nintendo).

Jag85

Holy smokes so it does! I really thought the SNes had about 400-500 games, where the PS2 had closer to 4500-5000 games. Thats what I get for assuming things though xD

Agreed on the 2nd part also, I guessed the Ps2 would pull way ahead of Snes in this poll because of the demographic. Figured more people here grew up with the PS2 rather then the SNES like myself, but dem assumptions.