Which of these old school consoles do you think is better and why? Personally, I would rather own an SNES due to its variety of RPG's....i would really like to play Chrono-Trigger
I've got literally every SNES game emulated (*runs*), but the NES games are of a rarer breed. But really, those mario Bros games were way to good to ignore the. Oh, and NES is the Emo choice 8)
I have both and was there for both launches and still own almost every game for both. I know that the snes was superior in every way and had much greater success in terms of sales and not to mention way beter games.
SNES is better. When I look at my collection, SNES have games that are classics. SNES fired up the video game world with its games and graphics. I must say that NES started it all.
I would have to go with NES ! I'm an old-school gamer and i always will be ! there were just to many great games that came out on NES and it always seems to be one hit game after another,but don't get me wrong i like actually  i love my SNES ,but if i had only one choise between the two NES all the way !
SNES for me - the games were just better for me, and they lost some of the insane difficulty some of the NES games had towards the end. The SNES has more refined gameplay, decent graphics and an awesome controller layout.
Titles like Chrono Trigger, A Link to the Past and Super Mario World are still lots of fun.
After thinking more on the subject andd since i realise only a few where there for both launches i thought i might mention that the Nes was definatley the bigger breakthrough with hardware and stuff plus it launched our future faivorite franchises, but like i said earlier the snes was the games. The snes i believe cemented every famous franchise as a classic, plus the competiotion was fierce with each game really improving o the older ones. I know that the snes has played the biggest impact on our world of software no doubt.
SNES. I mean, just compare the two. SNES is like a super version of the NES, hence the name. I can admit, man, there would be no SNES if there was no NES - you got a point. But you cant focus on if it would or exist or not, you got to focus on the quality, k? NES might have a wide selection of games but the SNES has some of the best.
SNES. I mean, just compare the two. SNES is like a super version of the NES, hence the name. I can admit, man, there would be no SNES if there was no NES - you got a point. But you cant focus on if it would or exist or not, you got to focus on the quality, k? NES might have a wide selection of games but the SNES has some of the best.Tri-Mind
Well, to me the point is that the SNES wouldn't have even half of those good games without the NES. All of Nintendo's top notch franchises started on the NES.... not to mention tons of other classics. The SNES just expanded upon that, instead of creating a new batch of classics (for the most part). The SNES obviously has a higher quality in some of its games because of newer technology, however if you take away those technological advantages I'd say the NES is better.
[QUOTE="Tri-Mind"]SNES. I mean, just compare the two. SNES is like a super version of the NES, hence the name. I can admit, man, there would be no SNES if there was no NES - you got a point. But you cant focus on if it would or exist or not, you got to focus on the quality, k? NES might have a wide selection of games but the SNES has some of the best.REVOLUTIONfreak
Well, to me the point is that the SNES wouldn't have even half of those good games without the NES. All of Nintendo's top notch franchises started on the NES.... not to mention tons of other classics. The SNES just expanded upon that, instead of creating a new batch of classics (for the most part). The SNES obviously has a higher quality in some of its games because of newer technology, however if you take away those technological advantages I'd say the NES is better. But the SNES generation was Nintendo's best generation yet ! It has spawned many great titles such as F-zero, Chrono trigger, X-men:Mutant Apocalypse, donkey kong country, Mario Kart, Prince Of persia 2 and many more ....
[QUOTE="REVOLUTIONfreak"][QUOTE="Tri-Mind"]SNES. I mean, just compare the two. SNES is like a super version of the NES, hence the name. I can admit, man, there would be no SNES if there was no NES - you got a point. But you cant focus on if it would or exist or not, you got to focus on the quality, k? NES might have a wide selection of games but the SNES has some of the best.lebanese_boy
Well, to me the point is that the SNES wouldn't have even half of those good games without the NES. All of Nintendo's top notch franchises started on the NES.... not to mention tons of other classics. The SNES just expanded upon that, instead of creating a new batch of classics (for the most part). The SNES obviously has a higher quality in some of its games because of newer technology, however if you take away those technological advantages I'd say the NES is better. But the SNES generation was Nintendo's best generation yet ! It has spawned many great titles such as F-zero, Chrono trigger, X-men:Mutant Apocalypse, donkey kong country, Mario Kart, Prince Of persia 2 and many more ....Meanwhile the NES has spawned the GREATEST titles such as Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Tecmo Bowl, SMB3, Ice Climbers, Final Fantasy, and more. I'd say that's pretty impressive.
I don't feel like continuing the quote chain so I will just state my opinion on the SNES vs. NES. Revfreak makes a good argument that the NES is what started it all. But the thing is, is that the SNES make those franchises better in every way. Just because it was the first of its kind doesn't make it the best. And in this day in age it is rare when a sequel is better then the original; so it is amazing that the SNES games were better then the NES ones(Please don't say that it is because of the upgrade in power, it is the same for next gen games, they are worse even with the extra power for the most part).
I don't feel like continuing the quote chain so I will just state my opinion on the SNES vs. NES. Revfreak makes a good argument that the NES is what started it all. But the thing is, is that the SNES make those franchises better in every way. Just because it was the first of its kind doesn't make it the best. And in this day in age it is rare when a sequel is better then the original; so it is amazing that the SNES games were better then the NES ones(Please don't say that it is because of the upgrade in power, it is the same for next gen games, they are worse even with the extra power for the most part).bededog
True, however I think it has to be compared as if we were playing the games for the first time, and disregarding technology differences. It's like OoT, compared to TP it may not look as great, and some of the mechanics have aged slightly in the combat system, however almost everyone still considers it to be the best Zelda game and the best video game of all time. Of course, personally, I think OoT is still better than all of the Zelda games with the consideration of more recent technology.
[QUOTE="bededog"]I don't feel like continuing the quote chain so I will just state my opinion on the SNES vs. NES. Revfreak makes a good argument that the NES is what started it all. But the thing is, is that the SNES make those franchises better in every way. Just because it was the first of its kind doesn't make it the best. And in this day in age it is rare when a sequel is better then the original; so it is amazing that the SNES games were better then the NES ones(Please don't say that it is because of the upgrade in power, it is the same for next gen games, they are worse even with the extra power for the most part).REVOLUTIONfreak
True, however I think it has to be compared as if we were playing the games for the first time, and disregarding technology differences. It's like OoT, compared to TP it may not look as great, and some of the mechanics have aged slightly in the combat system, however almost everyone still considers it to be the best Zelda game and the best video game of all time. Of course, personally, I think OoT is still better than all of the Zelda games with the consideration of more recent technology.Â
I think part of the problem is anticipation, people know what they want in a sequel and if a franchise changes the formula more times then not people will not be satisfied. I honestly have a similar feeling with some old games too. Sometimes I will think man today's games suck crap and wonder why they are so much worse when the potential to improve has increased monumentally. After thinking about the subject I just realized it was more nostalgia and memories that shifted my view. So my advice is to not over think any up coming game, go in fresh and you really will be much more satisfied, judge it like you have never played the series and look beyond one aspect. A thing I have started to pay much more attention too these days is the scenery sound and attention to detail even though it sounds lame it will give you much needed perspective. Ill give you an example: I played Star Fox Adventures and thought it sucked beyond reason, but after a revisit pulled a 360 and would now love nothing more then a sequel. This happened also with Metroid Prime I bough 1 barley played it and then 2 for collection purposes, however this summer I finished both and they are probably among my GC favorites just cause of the other aspects like scope, detail, graphics, sound, environment as a whole and of course it helped that IU completely blocked previous installments.
Back on subject though I still stick by my original analysis of the two systems and today it stands more then ever.
[QUOTE="lebanese_boy"][QUOTE="REVOLUTIONfreak"][QUOTE="Tri-Mind"]SNES. I mean, just compare the two. SNES is like a super version of the NES, hence the name. I can admit, man, there would be no SNES if there was no NES - you got a point. But you cant focus on if it would or exist or not, you got to focus on the quality, k? NES might have a wide selection of games but the SNES has some of the best.REVOLUTIONfreak
Well, to me the point is that the SNES wouldn't have even half of those good games without the NES. All of Nintendo's top notch franchises started on the NES.... not to mention tons of other classics. The SNES just expanded upon that, instead of creating a new batch of classics (for the most part). The SNES obviously has a higher quality in some of its games because of newer technology, however if you take away those technological advantages I'd say the NES is better. But the SNES generation was Nintendo's best generation yet ! It has spawned many great titles such as F-zero, Chrono trigger, X-men:Mutant Apocalypse, donkey kong country, Mario Kart, Prince Of persia 2 and many more ....Meanwhile the NES has spawned the GREATEST titles such as Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Tecmo Bowl, SMB3, Ice Climbers, Final Fantasy, and more. I'd say that's pretty impressive. Yes I know, I'm not trying to deny your statement. I'm just saying that the SNES was close to be as much successful as the NES but was the best Nintendo console yet !
Log in to comment