Goriginal Content

EoD - 3DS choices

Hyrule Warriors RV

GN Instagram best-of

Xeodrifter diary #7

GN Podcast #474

Cubemen 2 review
 

GoNintendo 'End of Day' thought - Do you prefer SNES or Genesis sound?



Been listening to a ton of retro music lately, which is why this idea came to mind. Not out to start a fight. Just honestly interested in what you have to say! You have at the discussion while I catch some rest. See you in a few, short hours!

No, I am not trying to bring back the SNES/Genesis wars. Nintendo and SEGA are best of friends nowadays, and I happen to prefer it that way! Much better to see the two working closely together instead of jumping down each other's throats. While we enjoy their current buddy-buddy relationship, let's step back into the past for just a moment.

I'm a huge fan of chiptunes, with both the SNES and Genesis having some of the best game soundtracks out there. I really think that a lot of the tunes from games on those platforms easily stand toe-to-toe with the best work coming out today. There are plenty of games on each platform that have soundtracks that really stuck with me.

I'm just going to share one song from an SNES and Genesis game that I really think shows off what the system can do. Please enjoy a track from a couple of my personal favorites.


Oh man...goosebumps from both songs! Such fantastic soundtracks. You really should check them out if you haven't.

As you already know, the SNES and Genesis had very different sounds to them. Games that appeared on both platforms always had soundtracks and sound effects that sounded quite different. I also know that people either like one or the other better. So I'm putting the question to you! In general, do you like the SNES or Genesis sound presentation better? Please give examples, as I'd love to hear your favorite tunes!

Also check out:
Discussion Preview
56 total comments (View all)
No Avatar
07 Feb 2013 00:35

The snes sound although those street of rage musics were really good . And also the fact that the games allowed for coop play unlike say final fight snes.
No Avatar
07 Feb 2013 03:14

Devil_Rising wrote:@KevinSays
I'm sorry, but on a very fundamental level, that's just wrong. I know it's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but coming from a gamer it still just sounds wrong. Some of the best game music EVER produced (in fact I'd personally argue MOST of the best), came from the 8bit and 16bit eras of gaming.


You can't say I'm wrong on a "fundamental level" when all you're using to dispute me is opinions, as well.
User avatar
07 Feb 2013 03:52

The technical differences don't matter so much, it's what you do with them. I had a SNES and I used to record the tunes on tape...
DKC 1 2 & 3
Yoshi's Island
Zelda ALTTP
Chrono Trigger

man...awesome songs.
User avatar
07 Feb 2013 04:13

I could be the usual A-hole on this, but I never owned a Genesis console.... You got lucky RMC....
User avatar
07 Feb 2013 06:04

Super Nintendo ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8sGSKE5j14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLK8IrYrZxA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6afS8Hwfx3g (Some Sunday Morning! Some Sunday Morning! *makes more lyrics*)
*Insert the Mega Man X soundtrack and a million other songs*

SEGA Genesis ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCcJnffie48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWOy5pfaVcU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_oUfB6-JF4
*Insert yet more Sonic songs, I was so obsessed with Sonic it was the only game I played on Genesis ook..*

I like those tunes and OVER 9,000 (as much as I hate memes) more retro songs, but anyways.

I'm going with Super Nintendo. There are good songs in Genesis games, I just like the sound chip or whatever in SNES better. Genesis is too ... blurry sounding or SOMETHING, not as clear as Super Nintendo music, to me.

I didn't look at the other replies yet, so sorry if these songs were posted a million times.
User avatar
07 Feb 2013 11:08

MoldyClay wrote:Genesis had technically better music/sound and graphics.


In what parallel dimension was the Megadrive capable of producing better graphics than the SNES?

The SNES was superior on every technical level, the MD had a horribly limited color palette, no transparency, no scaling/rotation, all it had over the SNES was brute force from it's CPU, and when someone got the hang of the SNES architecture this advantage was moot. With good programming anything possible on the Genesis would be possible on SNES (and yes I do mean without enhancement chips, go look at Rendering Ranger for a good example), and that cannot be said vice versa.

Taste/preference aside (and I do love some Megadrive soundtracks) it isn't even fair to compare the MD's YM chip to the SNES' SPC700. They aren't even close to being on the same technical level. The reason Streets of Rage sounds so good is because it plays directly to the strengths of very limited hardware.
No Avatar
07 Feb 2013 14:53

Hamr wrote:The Genesis music just sounds so wild and grungy. I love it.

You have very effectively articulated the main reason why I don't care for some Genesis (and most Commodore 64) music. It sounds like scratchy, harsh, screaming guitar music, and I never developed a taste for that kind of thing.
User avatar
07 Feb 2013 16:11

Also relevant to this discussion: a direct comparison between Thunder Force 3 vs. Thunder Spirits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fs05RepMiY

As with the actual games, I think I am going to have to go with the Genesis version in this case.

@Jerome

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose!

When it comes to action games, I love the smell of harsh, screaming guitars in the morning.

Smells like... teen spirit...
User avatar
07 Feb 2013 20:01

KevinSays wrote:
Devil_Rising wrote:@KevinSays
I'm sorry, but on a very fundamental level, that's just wrong. I know it's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but coming from a gamer it still just sounds wrong. Some of the best game music EVER produced (in fact I'd personally argue MOST of the best), came from the 8bit and 16bit eras of gaming.


You can't say I'm wrong on a "fundamental level" when all you're using to dispute me is opinions, as well.



You're misquoting me. I did not say YOUR opinion was wrong. I think it is, but that's just YOUR opinion, so ultimately it holds little water, because that's simply how YOU personally feel. That does not imply that your opinion doesn't matter. However, what I DID say, if you had bothered to read it correctly, is that what you said, quite frankly, is just wrong on a fundamental level for ANY gamer to say. Why? Because it's a near-universal opinion (except for, apparently, a few such as yourself), that the 8bit and 16bit gaming eras had some games with some of THE best music of all time, when it comes to gaming history. That is not an arguable point, it's a fact, upheld by the general opinion of not only most gamers, but pretty much all gaming critics and historians.

You're implying that games like the Super Mario Bros. series, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Mega Man, Castlevania, Sonic the Hedgehog, Final Fantasy (especially the SNES ones), Chrono Trigger, Super Mario RPG, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., DIDN'T have good music? I'm sorry, it's your opinion, you have every right to it, and you're welcome to it, but that doesn't mean I can't still say that it's rather absurd to say that. The SNES especially, in general, with games like Super Mario World, A Link to the Past, Super Metroid, Demon's Crest, Killer Instinct, Street Fighter II, Mega Man X, Super Turricane II, the Super Star Wars series, Super Ghouls n Ghosts, Super Mario Kart, Super Mario RPG, Kirby's Super Star, Super Castlevania IV, Yoshi's Island, the DKC series, FF IV-VI, Chrono Trigger, Illusion of Gaia, Secret of Mana, Actraiser 1 & 2, TMNT IV, Final Fight, Terranigma, Breath of Fire, and the list goes on and on, had some downright FANTASTIC music.

So I'm sorry. No, I'm not disproving your opinion with just MY opinion. What I AM doing however, is saying that while you're more than welcome to feel that "chiptunes" suck, just know that you are in the extreme minority when it comes to that belief. Have a nice day.




@ MoldyClay


Sorry Moldy, but the Genesis in no way, no matter how you spin the specs, had "technically superior sounds OR graphics" to the SNES. Hell, the Genesis needed the 32X attachment just to handle Mode 7 type graphics. The SNES could do Mode 7 scaling and rotation, transparency, massive sprites, far more colors, more pixels on screen per second, it could produce GOOD looking pre-rendered sprites, and could actually handle early 3D polygon games like Star Fox and Stunt Race FX. The Genesis could do none of that, not even on it's best day. The ONE thing, literally one thing, that Genesis hardware did better, was that it had a faster processor. And quite frankly, it wasn't even a super-significantly faster processor, just noticeably. With few exceptions, almost every SNES/Genesis multi-platform title was better on SNES. Even Mortal Kombat, the one thing the first game had was the "blood code". However, the SNES version STILL had superior graphics and sound. And when MKII for SNES had blood, it was game over, no comparison.

The Genesis was a great console, and it had a lot of great games. It even has games with great music and graphics. But the Genesis was in no way technically superior, except processor speed, to the SNES. Just saying.
No Avatar
07 Feb 2013 20:42

Devil_Rising wrote:
KevinSays wrote:
Devil_Rising wrote:@KevinSays
I'm sorry, but on a very fundamental level, that's just wrong. I know it's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but coming from a gamer it still just sounds wrong. Some of the best game music EVER produced (in fact I'd personally argue MOST of the best), came from the 8bit and 16bit eras of gaming.


You can't say I'm wrong on a "fundamental level" when all you're using to dispute me is opinions, as well.



You're misquoting me. I did not say YOUR opinion was wrong. I think it is, but that's just YOUR opinion, so ultimately it holds little water, because that's simply how YOU personally feel. That does not imply that your opinion doesn't matter. However, what I DID say, if you had bothered to read it correctly, is that what you said, quite frankly, is just wrong on a fundamental level for ANY gamer to say. Why? Because it's a near-universal opinion (except for, apparently, a few such as yourself), that the 8bit and 16bit gaming eras had some games with some of THE best music of all time, when it comes to gaming history. That is not an arguable point, it's a fact, upheld by the general opinion of not only most gamers, but pretty much all gaming critics and historians. .


An opinion held by many is still an opinion. I'm not wrong on a "fundamental level" just because I don't share it. That's not how fundamentals work.
User avatar
07 Feb 2013 22:03

The Sparkster music is actually closer than I originally remembered between versions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sleBRd6WSfE

@Devil_Rising

"And quite frankly, it wasn't even a super-significantly faster processor, just noticeably"

7.67 MHz is not significantly faster than 3.58 Mhz? What a bizarre argument to make, given that the 4 Mhz difference alone is bigger than the entirety of what the SNES was capable of.

I kind of like that logic, though, because it is basically the same thing as saying the SNES's clock speed was not significantly faster than if literally it had no CPU at all. :lol:
User avatar
08 Feb 2013 00:10

I don't have any particular preference. SNES might have more capable hardware, but good music is dependent on musician, not machine. A lot of "classic" SNES games OSTs are not really as great as people think they are, and Genesis had plenty of good songs than just Green Hill Zone. Overall however, I would say there are more SNES game who's OSTs I enjoy most of the songs.

@Reynard

"when someone got the hang of the SNES architecture this advantage was moot."

Examples? I really doubt this since even Nintendo's own games like SMW and Metroid suffers from crippling slowdown even when nothing is happening on screen.

I checked out Rendering Ranger and as far as basic gameplay is concerned, it looks pretty awful. As for slowdown, I would have to test it out, but even if it magically end up being at consistent, playable framerate, it would prove your point to an extent, but is kind of pointless since vast majority of the SNES games, including the essentials have such severe fps drops that they become virtually unplayable.
User avatar
08 Feb 2013 01:00

MegaShock100 wrote:I don't have any particular preference. SNES might have more capable hardware, but good music is dependent on musician, not machine. A lot of "classic" SNES games OSTs are not really as great as people think they are, and Genesis had plenty of good songs than just Green Hill Zone.

@Reynard

"when someone got the hang of the SNES architecture this advantage was moot."

Examples? I really doubt this since even Nintendo's own games like SMW and Metroid suffers from crippling slowdown even when nothing is happening on screen.

I checked out Rendering Ranger and as far as basic gameplay is concerned, it looks pretty awful. As for slowdown, I would have to test it out, but even if it magically end up being at consistent, playable framerate, it would prove your point to an extent, but is kind of pointless since vast majority of the SNES games, including the essentials have such severe fps drops that they become virtually unplayable.


Rendering Ranger is not only a deceptively good game, it is also a technical marvel, especially the Hori Shooter stages which showcase very high sprite counts, massive sprites and bosses, extensive parallax and transparency, all without ANY slowdown. Also check out Space Megaforce, a manic shooter that matches anything done on the MD.

What essentials have 'severe, virtually unplayable' slowdown? This feels like hyperbole as I have owned, and played a LOT of SNES games over the decades and other than a few poorly coded b-grade games like Bio-Metal and early titles like Super R-Type & Gradius 3, I rarely even noticed. I'm not saying there weren't slowdowns, but really most were brief or negligible amongst the quality titles.
User avatar
08 Feb 2013 02:19

Hamr wrote:The Sparkster music is actually closer than I originally remembered between versions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sleBRd6WSfE

@Devil_Rising

"And quite frankly, it wasn't even a super-significantly faster processor, just noticeably"

7.67 MHz is not significantly faster than 3.58 Mhz? What a bizarre argument to make, given that the 4 Mhz difference alone is bigger than the entirety of what the SNES was capable of.

I kind of like that logic, though, because it is basically the same thing as saying the SNES's clock speed was not significantly faster than if literally it had no CPU at all. :lol:



I don't often bother replying to you, with good reason. But just because why not, the argument you're making doesn't hold much water. If you line up the two consoles stats all around, no, the Mhz difference between the two is literally negligable. Sure, okay, the Genesis had a faster processor. So.......what? Processor speed doesn't matter. It's what you DO with the power that matters. What did Genesis do with all that speed? Make Sonic go fast? So what? I clearly remember an old issue of EGM back in the day clocking the "running speed" of several platformer game characters, and Mario in Super Mario Bros. 3 (on NES) was actually clocked as moving faster than Sonic in Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

So yes, the processor speed was negligible when you consider what all the SNES could do. Very few SNES games ever had serious issues with slowdown, and we're talking about games that were graphically and processor-wise far more intense than what most Genesis games had going on. That is in no way disparaging the Genesis or it's games. I've already said that it was a good system with good games. It truly was. But the SNES was superior in every way. People drudging up the old argument to the contrary from the 90s, talking about "Blast Processing" and how "But, but the CLOCK SPEED is faster". Again, so what? The SNES CPU clocked as fast as it needed to, and it had a more POWERFUL CPU to boot. So all of Genesis' speed at the end of the day, equaled to almost nothing, when trying to make any argument to the effect that Genesis was "Technically superior". It simply wasn't.

That's like trying to argue that the Gamecube was more powerful than the original Xbox. Gamecube was a powerful machine, superior in many ways to the PS2. But it was in no way more powerful in any measurable way that mattered, than the Xbox. Same deal with the SNES vs. Genesis argument.
User avatar
08 Feb 2013 05:02

Simon's Theme: Bloodlines vs. Super

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI7f5Wb2DAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sX3fjpkFwk

*poker face*

@Devil_Rising

"If you line up the two consoles stats all around, no, the Mhz difference between the two is literally negligable"

So you are now amending your argument from 'The Genesis did not have a significantly stronger process' which is factually incorrect to 'I do not know what a processor does and do not personally consider it important', which is still silly but is at least arguable.

"literally negligable"

I do not think the word 'literally' means what you think it means.

"negligable"

Negligible.

"What did Genesis do with all that speed? Make Sonic go fast?"

Make tons of fast-paced games with complex mechanics, tons of sprites and effects, and the ability to handle it without buckling under the increased load. All the stuff that is important for a decent action game, really.

(It is rather a bit sad that you need me to explain what a processor does, and why the speed of that processor is important.)

"Make Sonic go fast?"

Not something I care about personally, since platformers are not action games, and Mario was always the superior platformer anyway.

Although if want you go there, it is undeniable that all of the Mario games on the SNES would have been vastly improved with a higher and more stable framerate.

“I clearly remember an old issue of EGM back in the day clocking the "running speed" of several platformer game characters, and Mario in Super Mario Bros. 3 (on NES) was actually clocked as moving faster than Sonic in Sonic the Hedgehog 2.”

I would not be surprised if Samus in the original Metroid moved faster than Sonic either. Although that is not particularly impressive, since NES games were built around the inherent weaknesses of the system (lack of detail in environment and sprites, stuff like only being able to shoot three bullets at once because the processor could not handle more).

"Very few SNES games ever had serious issues with slowdown"

:lol: Ahahaha, oh my god, you actually just said it. That's adorable.

Dude, the SNES was (is) infamous for its slowdown, which was (is) exactly consistent with what one expects from a CPU like that. You actually say you didn't notice? Holy crap.

(Sure, there were ways to bypass the slowdown -- i.e., as with the NES, designing the game around the system's inherent limitations by making them slower, cutting down on the detail, prerendering everything, and reducing the objects on-screen – basically reducing the action. Which is perfectly fine if you do not care about getting fewer, more gimped action games.)

“and we're talking about games that were graphically and processor-wise far more intense than what most Genesis games had going on”

Er, you do realize that processing speed and processing ‘intensity’ are literally the exact same thing, right? That the speed of the clock cycles is what people are literally referring to when they denote the CPU’s processing ‘power’? It is all referring to the amount of data that can be processed at once. This is why when the SNES tried to run something with tons of objects on the screen like Super R-Type, the processor crapped out and the game turned into a slideshow.

“The SNES CPU clocked as fast as it needed to”

Provided you do not care about slowdown, nor about the type of you are getting as a result of the system's inherent handicap, sure.

“all of Genesis' speed at the end of the day, equaled to almost nothing”

It equaled nothing to you personally, but that is because you apparently do not care about slowdown or having more compllex games -- which is fine! But that is an argument of taste and not of anything rooted in reality as we know it.

“when trying to make any argument to the effect that Genesis was "Technically superior"”

Which would make sense, if that were not the exact opposite of what ‘technically superior’ means. :lol:

You do not get to just ignore technical specifications because you do not understand what those specs mean, just like you do not get to make up your own random definitions for words that have no basis in anything.

“But the SNES was superior in every way”

Nope. Despite being superior in many ways, perhaps even most ways, the SNES has an inferior CPU. I realize this contradicts your need to believe that the SNES is perfect in every way and that saying anything less is some sort of blasphemy, but sorry -- it is technical fact.
User avatar
09 Feb 2013 10:26

@Reynard

I only saw video of the first level and it looks pretty bland in both the gameplay and art design. I just feel like playing Contra or Metal Slug. :P Well, there's only one way to found out how it really is, so I've added it to my list of games to play.

As for the SNES slowdown, I suppose it matter of a perspective. If you grew up with these games, than is understandble that you are used to or don't mind the slowdown. The first time I play most of these games was from various re-release (ports, remakes, compilations) or via emulators, and most of those have speed boosts and stuff, so is not at all accurate. Now there is emulators like bsnes and snesGT which are trying to be as accuracy as possible, so I tested out games like SMW and Contra III and after having played these games at fast and consistent framerate, it was impossible for me to enjoy them in their original form.

In SMW, Mario will be on very basic, flat platform with nothing on-screen (no enemy, item, nothing moving), and the moment he start moving, the framerate takes a deep dive. It's not just bad for gameplay, but it ruins the aesthetic as well since the animations are messed up and the screen is flickering so you can't properly appreciate the sprite work and art design.

Contra III was even worse. The framerate would get so bad, not only would it turn into slideshow, but the game would not register inputs, so many times my character wouldn't shoot or move out of harm's way.

On the other hand, Hard Corps, you have no slowdown at all even during the "cutscenes" that introduce bosses and minibosses, lots of explosions on-screen, more complex enemies and weapons, and the game had its own distinct cyberpunk-apocalypse art style that imo was prettier and more unique than Contra III.
User avatar
09 Feb 2013 12:08

MegaShock100 wrote:@Reynard

I only saw video of the first level and it looks pretty bland in both the gameplay and art design. I just feel like playing Contra or Metal Slug. :P Well, there's only one way to found out how it really is, so I've added it to my list of games to play.

As for the SNES slowdown, I suppose it matter of a perspective. If you grew up with these games, than is understandble that you are used to or don't mind the slowdown. The first time I play most of these games was from various re-release (ports, remakes, compilations) or via emulators, and most of those have speed boosts and stuff, so is not at all accurate. Now there is emulators like bsnes and snesGT which are trying to be as accuracy as possible, so I tested out games like SMW and Contra III and after having played these games at fast and consistent framerate, it was impossible for me to enjoy them in their original form.

In SMW, Mario will be on very basic, flat platform with nothing on-screen (no enemy, item, nothing moving), and the moment he start moving, the framerate takes a deep dive. It's not just bad for gameplay, but it ruins the aesthetic as well since the animations are messed up and the screen is flickering so you can't properly appreciate the sprite work and art design.

Contra III was even worse. The framerate would get so bad, not only would it turn into slideshow, but the game would not register inputs, so many times my character wouldn't shoot or move out of harm's way.

On the other hand, Hard Corps, you have no slowdown at all even during the "cutscenes" that introduce bosses and minibosses, lots of explosions on-screen, more complex enemies and weapons, and the game had its own distinct cyberpunk-apocalypse art style that imo was prettier and more unique than Contra III.


I've played SMW and Contra 3 a hell of a lot over the decades, both on my shovel PAL SNES and on emulators. I have never experienced a single frame drop on Mario World and while Contra has some slowdown, not once have I experienced input lag on either it nor Super Probotector. :? I don't know where you would have played Contra 3 without slowdown, it's not possible for an emulator to improve the framerate, any extra speed would come from the whole game running at the wrong speed. You'd have to hack/port some of the game code directly for that. That could happen on the VC version, but I'm not willing to go back to 50hz to find out.

Hardcorps does throw a crapton of stuff at you, and I did like it, but for me, Contra 3 is the far superior game in both gameplay and art direction, plus it's soundtrack is god tier. :P On a technical level I think it's unfair to compare the two though, as Contra 3 was an early SNES game, while hard corps was a late MD game. Contra 3 could have easily run without slowdown given more experience.
User avatar
10 Feb 2013 10:41

@Reynard

"I have never experienced a single frame drop on Mario World"

That sounds odd, but I will take your word here. In any case, these things are very random so I guess you are just more fortunate. There are people who say they never had any problems with Bayonetta PS3 and other will claim they never ran into a glitch in Skyrim, but that doesn't deny the fact that others have and that the possibility of experiencing those problems is always there.

"I don't know where you would have played Contra 3 without slowdown, it's not possible for an emulator to improve the framerate, any extra speed would come from the whole game running at the wrong speed."

Yes, this is what I mean when I say that emulators had speed boosts which made the game run without and slowdown. I first played Contra III on an old build of ZSNES... yeah, not really the most accurate of emulators lol. On VC, the game has some slowdown, but is not as bad as when I tried it in bsnes and snesGT, two emulators who's whole point is to run SNES game as accurate as possible.

"On a technical level I think it's unfair to compare the two though, as Contra 3 was an early SNES game, while hard corps was a late MD game."

I would have to disagree on a fundamental level. HC is the superior game precisely because it came out later and was an direct improvement over Contra III. Sure, if CIII has been released later then it might have been better, but it wasn't and the fact remains that HC took everything good about CIII and made it better (while removing the lame parts like the top-down stages). It's a fair comparison imo to say that HC is a better overall game. You can personally like CIII more, but objectively speaking, HC does more things and better.
No Avatar
10 Feb 2013 15:37

MegaShock100 wrote:I would have to disagree on a fundamental level. HC is the superior game precisely because it came out later and was an direct improvement over Contra III.

I think Reynard's point was that it wasn't really fair to compare the two games for the purpose of gauging the comparative strength of the Genesis and SNES hardware. By the same token, it wouldn't be fair to compare a recent Xbox 360 game to a PS3 launch title for the purpose of determining those console's relative performance, as development techniques have advanced a lot since they were released.
User avatar
10 Feb 2013 17:17

I would suggest playing the games on an actual SNES. From what I've played of them, games just don't run as well, and the sound is terrible on emulators rather than the actual system.
User avatar
11 Feb 2013 00:46

Jerome wrote:
MegaShock100 wrote:I would have to disagree on a fundamental level. HC is the superior game precisely because it came out later and was an direct improvement over Contra III.

I think Reynard's point was that it wasn't really fair to compare the two games for the purpose of gauging the comparative strength of the Genesis and SNES hardware. By the same token, it wouldn't be fair to compare a recent Xbox 360 game to a PS3 launch title for the purpose of determining those console's relative performance, as development techniques have advanced a lot since they were released.


That was my point exactly. :) Which game you think is better boils down to personal preference, but the games themselves are from distinctly different periods in their respective console's lifespans and can't fairly be used as a comparative measure of their capabilities.

Koopzilla wrote:I would suggest playing the games on an actual SNES. From what I've played of them, games just don't run as well, and the sound is terrible on emulators rather than the actual system.


This depends on your PC and the emulator. If you have a 3ghz PC and use BSNES/Higan you will get exactly the same performance/experience as on a real SNES. With perfect sound to boot.

I'm guessing you tried ZSNES Koop? That emulator is a relic of the past and a cancer on modern emulation, with flat out wrong sound and sometimes completely broken game timing, it disturbs me that it's still so widely used.
User avatar
12 Feb 2013 00:23

@Reynard

Oh, then my apology for the misunderstanding and thanks to Jerome for pointing it out. Yes, for technical aspects, comparing HC and CIII is not a fair comparison.

@Koopzilla

I have some of these games on SNES, just the SNES itself doesn't work properly, unfortunately.

Most emulators are not accurate in their emulation, but in terms of game speed, that is not crappy quality like the music, but rather they make the game run faster than it normally does. The whole idea of emulator is to play these games on your computer, but most computers can't run these games because of a lack of processing power, so for the longest time emulators were programmed to optimize the game for as best, slowdown-less performance as possible. Even Wii VC games are optimized to run as fast as possible. In other words, if I play on a real SNES, if anything, I would probably experience even more slowdown.

Now the domestic standard for household computers is rising, so we have something like bsnes, which if you have the good enough computer (3ghz, which is still slightly high relative to current standards, but is not uncommon), then you can get the legit SNES experience.

Anyway, over the weekend I tested out SMW on bsnes, and while I didn't run into anything game-breaking, there *was* a noticeable stutter in the framerate. Maybe some people's eyes cannot notice it, but it is most certainly there and probably gets worse in the more complex levels (though that is something I need to test myself to really be sure).

Now that I think about, and tying into what Hamr said about cutting the detail and reducing the action, I can see why overall SMW never really reaches the level of complexity in level design in SMB3 or NSMBWii. Because the SNES simply wouldn't be able to handle it and the developers saw this and tried to design the game as best as possible while taking the SNES's weakness into consideration. It might even explain why many levels are so huge, because instead of fitting everything into one screen and causing bullet-time platforming, they just spaced everything out so you only see a handful of objects on-screen. Though that could just be a lot of nonsense, I'm just theorizing here.

Btw, I'm not trashing the SNES. I'm on a Nintendo site, so obviously I love the system and lots of its games (incl. SMW and CIII of course). I'm just pointing out a legitimate weakness it had and why Genesis was better for developing faster and more complex action games (and why SNES action games would be better on Genesis).
User avatar
12 Feb 2013 04:13

MegaShock100 wrote:
Anyway, over the weekend I tested out SMW on bsnes, and while I didn't run into anything game-breaking, there *was* a noticeable stutter in the framerate. Maybe some people's eyes cannot notice it, but it is most certainly there and probably gets worse in the more complex levels (though that is something I need to test myself to really be sure).


What's the refresh rate of your monitor and the speed of your CPU? If your monitor isn't the same as (60hz, well 59.97) or an exact multiple of the original hardware it will have some stuttering as the game's frame rate can't accurately sync to the monitor. Also any CPU with cores under 3ghz is going to have trouble with BSNES.

This is a big issue with the fixed refresh on modern monitors, that's why I still use, and swear by, good ol' CRT monitors.
No Avatar
14 Feb 2013 19:49

AUGH STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT! The Genesis and the SNES are completely different consoles, made to cater different kinds of games - Action for Genesis, RPGs for SNES.

The sound was also completely different - The Genesis uses the Yamaha YM2612, wich is a FM synth/PCM sample soundchip with a SN PSG soundchip attached to it. The SNES uses the Sony SPC700, wich is a SPC-sample based soundchip. They're completely different chips, with completely different capabilities and functions and CAN'T BE COMPARED IN ANY WAY. I sincerely prefer the YM2612, though.

The processor in the Genesis was wayyyy better - It's the Motorola 68000, used since the 70's on high-spec PCs, then used in the 80's and 90's in videogames such as the Genesis, Neo-Geo and Saturn as the sound processor. The Genesis' sound processor was a Zilog Z80, another 70's one, used previously on SEGA's failed Master System. The SNES' processor was a slowpoke in comparison. Not only that, it used an awkard, complex, exclusive programming language, wich made programming for it harder as nails.

While the SNES has all that graphical shmuck such as scaling and transparencies, the Genesis didn't have it, forcing developers to be actually CREATIVE when using the hardware. Brighter colors and transparencies were achieved by dithering, making use of a problem in old CRT TVs, as an example. Scaling could also be done by smart programming - check out M.U.S.H.A., Mega Turrican and Treasure's games for it, they have some impressive scaling/rotation.

Also, SCREW MODE7. SEGA, Namco and Taito were the real geniuses behind scaling, waaaayyy back in the 80's. Go play yourself some After Burner, Outrun, Night Striker and Legend Of Valkyrie, please.
No Avatar
14 Feb 2013 23:44

guicunha99 wrote:AUGH STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT! The Genesis and the SNES are completely different consoles, made to cater different kinds of games - Action for Genesis, RPGs for SNES.

The sound was also completely different - The Genesis uses the Yamaha YM2612, wich is a FM synth/PCM sample soundchip with a SN PSG soundchip attached to it. The SNES uses the Sony SPC700, wich is a SPC-sample based soundchip. They're completely different chips, with completely different capabilities and functions and CAN'T BE COMPARED IN ANY WAY. I sincerely prefer the YM2612, though.

The processor in the Genesis was wayyyy better - It's the Motorola 68000, used since the 70's on high-spec PCs, then used in the 80's and 90's in videogames such as the Genesis, Neo-Geo and Saturn as the sound processor. The Genesis' sound processor was a Zilog Z80, another 70's one, used previously on SEGA's failed Master System. The SNES' processor was a slowpoke in comparison. Not only that, it used an awkard, complex, exclusive programming language, wich made programming for it harder as nails.

While the SNES has all that graphical shmuck such as scaling and transparencies, the Genesis didn't have it, forcing developers to be actually CREATIVE when using the hardware. Brighter colors and transparencies were achieved by dithering, making use of a problem in old CRT TVs, as an example. Scaling could also be done by smart programming - check out M.U.S.H.A., Mega Turrican and Treasure's games for it, they have some impressive scaling/rotation.

Also, SCREW MODE7. SEGA, Namco and Taito were the real geniuses behind scaling, waaaayyy back in the 80's. Go play yourself some After Burner, Outrun, Night Striker and Legend Of Valkyrie, please.

I don't know if you realize this, but you're really contradicting yourself here. You start out saying that the two systems shouldn't be compared, then you go on to compare them, downplaying one system's strengths and extolling the other's limitations in order to support your bias. If Genesis had transparency or Mode 7-style graphics, I bet you wouldn't be cursing them. What about just enjoying stuff you like and not caring if something else is possibly better in some way? I prefer the original Game Boy to the Sega Game Gear or Atari Lynx, and I won't hesitate a moment to say both those systems kicked its butt in nearly every technical aspect.

View the full discussion!

Quickie Search

"Advanced" Search

Anti-social Tendencies

Advertisements

RSS feed trough

News Feed
Top Stories
Console News
Portables News
Podcast Feed
GoNintendo Radio Feed
Twitter Feed

Affiliates + Friends

Destructoid
Gamersyde
Modojo
TheBitBlock
Anime Your Way