Reigniting the Old Console War: SNES vs. Genesis

[scalliano]

RnRR was terrible on the MD, mainly because it seems Western devs (Delphine aside) didn't really know how to get the system to do anything other than that awful tinny pseudo-guitar sound. Contrast the butchered music on the MD version of RnRR against the awesome cock-metal of Thunder Force IV on the same system and you can imagine how disgusted I was at the time :P

Then, of course, there were those games that were ace no matter what system you played them on, such as Another World and Flashback (actually got the 15th anniversary copy of AW for a fiver a few years ago - it's amazing how well the visuals hold up even today).

[fraggle]

Quasar said:

While you guys argue about the speed of Mario vs. Sonic...

Samus can move so fast that the screen starts appearing to scroll backward. How's that for "blast processing"? There's more to system speed than the MHz of your main CPU. The SNES' dedicated powerful GPU unit takes care of 99% of graphics processing, and its professional grade sound chip does all sound, rarely involving the CPU except to upload patches and programs into its internal memory. SNES also has multiple hardware DMA channels that allow blazing transfer of data through the system's different memory spaces.

You've missed the point. It isn't about the actual reality of the games, just their perception and how were they marketed. "Blast processing" was just some programming hack used on the Genesis that was ultimately irrelevant. I don't doubt that the SNES was just as capable of doing "fast" games as the Genesis was.

Quasar said:

That the approach they took worked so well has always seemed to say some unfortunate things about society, particularly in America. Sega's advertising was grotesque, rude, condescending, loud, and just in general, aesthetically disgusting in every possible way. I couldn't describe the target demographic it seems to be after any other way than kids who would otherwise be spray-painting the sides of local businesses with pictures of cock-and-balls while farting burrito gas and yelling SEGA!!!!.

It didn't work on me.

Everyone knows that marketing is bullshit, I don't dispute that either. But it's bullshit that works. I'm not too proud to admit it worked on me. I knew, as a ~11 year old (and I'm sure my friends did too) that Sega was the "cool" brand.

And I disagree with plums: of course Sonic was about speed! The clue is right there in the name. The whole concept of Sonic is a cross between a platformer and a pinball machine. Maybe speed ultimately wasn't the essential part of the gameplay, but the character is designed to be portrayed that way. "The hedgehog with attitude" he was marketed as: the perfect character to appeal to boys in the "not-quite-teen" age. Sonic was much cooler than that dork Mario.

The truth is that in terms of both hardware and games there isn't much difference at all between the Genesis and the SNES. Both had good games, and the Genesis hardware was basically inferior. If you're comparing it on those grounds you're missing the point. The SNES was just another machine in a line of Nintendo consoles, but the Genesis changed how games were perceived and marketed. It paved the way to consoles like the Playstation, which were explicitly targeted at a teenager/adult audience. Because of this, it has a much greater legacy in the history of gaming.

[Technician]

fraggle said:

Because of this, it has a much greater legacy in the history of gaming.

Which will be forever shadowed by Sega's legacy of complete incompetence in every aspect other than nineties guerrilla marketing.

[fraggle]

I can't disagree with that. It was pretty sad to see Sega's fall.

[Technician]

fraggle said:

I can't disagree with that. It was pretty sad to see Sega's fall.

The Dreamcast kicked ass, I had one; but today they do nothing but drive their intellectual property value into the ground.

I don't see Nintendo making Mario games with minimal development time, several times a year.

[Waffenak]

fraggle said:

I can't disagree with that. It was pretty sad to see Sega's fall.

I'm still hoping for dreamcast 2 or another followers, 3 consoles is not enough. I long for times with 5 or more consoles on the market

[Technician]

Waffenak said:

I'm still hoping for dreamcast 2 or another followers, 3 consoles is not enough. I long for times with 5 or more consoles on the market

I'm hoping this will be the last XBox.

[Gez]

Waffenak said:

I'm still hoping for dreamcast 2 or another followers, 3 consoles is not enough. I long for times with 5 or more consoles on the market

Why?

The hardware is already mostly identical between the Xbox and the PS. The software is also mostly identical (AAA games are developed on cross-platform kits which cover Windows PC, Xbox, and Playstation.) The consoles themselves are already sold at a loss, with the companies relying on earning their profit from fees included in the prices of games and DLCs.

Having more brands of consoles around would result in one of the following scenario:

• Doomed underdog: the new console flops something severe and dies. Years later, it is still pointed as an example of massive commercial failure (at least by the twenty people worldwide who still remembers it).
  
• BoxStation 720: the new console becomes accepted and now kids buy three consoles instead of two (while still claiming that PC gaming is too expensive, what with the video cards you have to change, man). The only difference between it and the Microsoft and Sony offerings is the color of the hat in the platform-specific exclusive preorder DLC hats for the latest Call of Fortress II.
  
• Segony: The new console succeeds, but one of the older brands die out as a result. Kinda like how Sega died but was replaced by Sony.
  
• OUYA: The new console is some sort of hippy leftist thing about open specs and free software and stuff, that finds a niche market among neckbeards, and is completely ignored by AAA game developers so let's be honest, the average gamer does not even consider it as a real console (if they even know it exists).

None of these cases are really attractive.

[plums]

fraggle said:

And I disagree with plums: of course Sonic was about speed! The clue is right there in the name. The whole concept of Sonic is a cross between a platformer and a pinball machine. Maybe speed ultimately wasn't the essential part of the gameplay, but the character is designed to be portrayed that way. "The hedgehog with attitude" he was marketed as: the perfect character to appeal to boys in the "not-quite-teen" age. Sonic was much cooler than that dork Mario.

That's what I (and that video) mean, though. Sonic (the character) was marketed as being all about going fast, but Sonic (the game) was largely about exploration and controlled jumping, with just enough moments where you're supposed to go fast to justify the marketing of the character.

And if you want to talk about a dorky character, here was Sega's mascot for a while, before Sonic:


Anyhow I'm actually surprised to hear about how effective Sega's marketing was for you guys, I kind of remember those ads but I don't remember them having a ton of influence. Maybe we got less of them in Canada, or maybe most of the people in the Sega camp got there just because the Genesis was released earlier.


While I'm back in this thread: if you look at Sega's console division, it's really just a comedy of errors with a few almost random high notes, one of which is the Genesis. I love Sega's stuff but they never really had a handle on how to manage consoles, which is a shame.

[Da Werecat]

I didn't find much appeal in playing Sonic at a slower pace, sadly. On the other hand, I have very fond memories about Sonic 3D. One of the prettiest games of 16-bit generation.

[plums]

Heh, it only occurs to me just now that people are talking about at least three different things in this thread, which is maybe the source of some disagreements:

• Which console was the most successful,
  
• Which console had the strongest influence,
  
• Which console was the most enjoyable

to which I'd reply "SNES, Genesis, it depends" with a whole lot of buts for each answer.

In the OP Kontra Kommando asks "which do you feel was the better system?" and that could really mean all sorts of things.

[Kontra Kommando]

plums said:

Heh, it only occurs to me just now that people are talking about at least three different things in this thread, which is maybe the source of some disagreements:

• Which console was the most successful,
  
• Which console had the strongest influence,
  
• Which console was the most enjoyable

to which I'd reply "SNES, Genesis, it depends" with a whole lot of buts for each answer.

In the OP Kontra Kommando asks "which do you feel was the better system?" and that could really mean all sorts of things.

Well, you can take all of those things into account, and come to a subjective conclusion of what makes one better than the other. I guess it depends on what the individual considers to be more important to them. That's why I left it as a broad question.

I look at it this way; if I like a band, it doesn't matter to me how many albums they sell, or how well they produce their recordings. Like the Latin maxim goes, De gustibus non est disputandum; "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes". The goal of the poll was to see what everyone's preference was. Nevertheless, the debate is interesting, and no doubt speaks of what influences console preference.