Sega Genesis vs Super Nintendo

[Osiris]

Who did you have as a kid, who do you have now?

Genesis as a kid, Genesis now for me.

[Scholar]

You meant 'what'.

Anyway, I had a Sega Genesis as a kid and a Nintendo Entertainment System. I didn't have the SNES, but I'd probably pick that now over the Sega.

[Qwyjibo]

I had a SNES when I was a kid so I was clearly biased and thought it was better. Looking back now with no attachment at all to Nintendo and Sega, I still say SNES was better. The RPGs are the difference for me. As awesome as Shining Force 2 was, it cannot compete with Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Earthbound, etc.

I like fighting games too and both Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 2 were better on the SNES. Genesis had the better MK1 though (mostly due to actually having blood).

[code green]

I had a Genesis when I was a kid, a SNES much later. I vote for the SNES, hands down.

OP, you an AVGN fan? He just put out a couple of videos talking about the rivalry.

[BurningHammer]

SNES of course, mainly because of these....

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_L-x_cbnQrjI/SfUR5kAQiJI/AAAAAAAABZ0/ssyaIU9wu00/s640/smart-fx32-ufo.JPG

[NuggetsFan]

SNES. I still rock Earthbound once every few years on the emulator.

[Zan Tabak]

http://cinemassacre.com/2012/08/13/snes-vs-genesis/

Pretty sure this^^ is where the OP got the idea for the thread

AVGN ftw

For me I'd pick the SNES anyday. And I had a Genesis, not a Super Nintendo. It just had the better variety of games and gameplay.

[miller-time]

genesis. snes had the better graphics, but it didn't have this game

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/aa/X-Men_2_Clone_Wars_cover.jpg/250px-X-Men_2_Clone_Wars_cover.jpg

i still play that on the emulator. it is awesome. great graphics, controls and it gets difficult.

[LBJMVP]

ninetendo... but then again i never owner a sega genesis.


i always loved the name though.

[Sarcastic]

SNES for Street Fighter II.

Then & now.

[DetroitPiston]

I had a Genesis growing up.

In general, Genesis, for the soundchips, SNES.

Genesis had a lot of fun games like Comix Zone, the Adventures of Batman and Robin (One of the hardest games around), Ecco the Dolphin, Sonic, Vectorman, Altered Beast, and the Shinobi series.

SNES had some fun games, but I would take the Genesis.

[ViperVisor]

Genesis growing up.

Sonic and sports games were plenty fun for a kid. SNES would be the better system for an older gamer with some more patience.

[Smoke117]

I had them both so it isn't something that I really care about, but I'll take sega saturn over n64 any day of the week.

[kentatm]

Genesis was better for arcade type shooters and sports games b/c of its faster processor.

SNES pretty much rocked it for all other types of games. Its RPG collection is greatness.

I had both when I was young so I got the best of both worlds.


I was always jealous of the people with TG16s though b/c that thing was SHUMP heaven.

[Yao Ming]

Genesis for me. It had a 2 year head start before the SNES even debuted and I still remember the Genesis being very impressive for its time. The Genesis also had my favorite controller of the two.

Playing Eternal Champions with this controller was awesome.

http://www.godisageek.com/wp-content/uploads/vaultcontroller8megadrive.jpg

[Yao Ming]

Genesis was better for arcade type shooters and sports games b/c of its faster processor.

SNES pretty much rocked it for all other types of games. Its RPG collection is greatness.

I had both when I was young so I got the best of both worlds.


I was always jealous of the people with TG16s though b/c that thing was SHUMP heaven.

Did you ever play Gaiares for the Genesis? One of my favorite shooters on the system.(along with Thunder Force 3 and 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4P8iqyMnS0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1141s

I remember my jaw dropped when the ship went into warp speed.:eek: Great music too.

[miller-time]

I had them both so it isn't something that I really care about, but I'll take sega saturn over n64 any day of the week.

and playstation 1 over both of them.

[Myth]

Easily SNES for me.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Depends what I'm in the mood for. Sonic 2 or Super Mario RPG

[Myth]

Depends what I'm in the mood for. Sonic 2 or Super Mario RPG

:rockon:

[jbot]

i only had the genesis.

[SilkkTheShocker]

:rockon:
Amazing game. Takes some time to beat but well worth it

[Myth]

Amazing game. Takes some time to beat but well worth it

I re-bought the game and played to about half way through the castle at the end. Then I split with my girlfriend and the system was hers, so I didn't get to re-beat it. I'll buy one of ebay in the next few months, then finish it again.

[SilkkTheShocker]

I re-bought the game and played to about half way through the castle at the end. Then I split with my girlfriend and the system was hers, so I didn't get to re-beat it. I'll buy one of ebay in the next few months, then finish it again.
They (Mario RPG) still run like 40 bucks. Good thing it's worth it :bowdown:

[bdreason]

I had both and I'll take SNES.

[Myth]

They (Mario RPG) still run like 40 bucks. Good thing it's worth it :bowdown:

Yeah, I got mine for something like $30 on ebay. And that was after about 2 weeks of patience looking for a good deal.

[andgar923]

Who did you have as a kid, who do you have now?

Genesis as a kid, Genesis now for me.

"super nintendo Sega Genesis, when I was growing up i never pictured this."

[Mach_3]

SNES. I still rock Earthbound once every few years on the emulator.

Earthbound is one of my favorite games of all time :rockon:

And this is an easy SNES it almost had TOO many good games on it :bowdown:

[Mach_3]

I re-bought the game and played to about half way through the castle at the end. Then I split with my girlfriend and the system was hers, so I didn't get to re-beat it. I'll buy one of ebay in the next few months, then finish it again.


cough*emulator*cough

[senelcoolidge]

I had a Genesis, but looking back the Super Nintendo had more rpg's which is my favorite genre.

[Myth]

Did anybody else have the adapter for SNES that allowed you to have more than 2 controllers? We had an adapter that allowed for 5 controllers. Epic video game parties with that shit. It was great for NBA games, but my favorite game that allowed 4 or 5 players at a time was Saturday Night Slam Masters.

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

[Timmy D for MVP]

I had the SNES and then made the jump to the Dreamcast when it came out. Loved both systems.

If you told me I would be in isolation and I only got to choose one system and any games I wanted I'd likely take the PS3 just because of it's diversity and games are more replay able these days due to customization...

But the SNES is damn close.

[KDTrey5]

if havent blowed into those ninento games to make it work, u have no childhood.
no homo

[Overdrive]

genesis. snes had the better graphics, but it didn't have this game

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/aa/X-Men_2_Clone_Wars_cover.jpg/250px-X-Men_2_Clone_Wars_cover.jpg

i still play that on the emulator. it is awesome. great graphics, controls and it gets difficult.

That game was awesome.

I loved the Genesis way more than the SNES.

[Raz]

Genesis for me. It had a 2 year head start before the SNES even debuted and I still remember the Genesis being very impressive for its time. The Genesis also had my favorite controller of the two.

Playing Eternal Champions with this controller was awesome.

http://www.godisageek.com/wp-content/uploads/vaultcontroller8megadrive.jpg

GOAT 90's control pad.

[dunksby]

Sega Genesis for sure, although we call it Sega Mega Drive. Every game on that console was so good, I have the emulator too and still play a lot of the games every now and then. Btw I'm disappointed that nobody is yet to mention:
http://www.handyarchive.com/images/scr/57000.png

[Richie2k6]

had Genesis as a kid, first video game I ever owned, Sonic 2, 3 years old. I was in love. Sonic, X-Men, NBA Live 95, NHL 97, Muhammad Ali Heavyweight Boxing, FIFA 96, oh man.

which one is better? probably SNES, had a better library of games. nobody was ****ing with SNES's RPGs and adventure games. I still play both on emulation today. In fact I'd probably go out and buy a Genesis and SNES at some pawn shop if I was certain it would actually connect to my TV. lol

[JohnnySic]

Snes >

[Rake2204]

I had a Sega Genesis and I was pretty satisfied with it. Though now, if I have the urge to play games from that era, it tends to be on the Super Nintendo. At the time, my Sega lineup consisted of most Sonic games (1, 2, 3, Sonic & Knuckles), Hockey games (NHL '96, NHL '97) and a slew of basketball games (NBA Showdown '94, NBA Live '96, NBA Live '97, NBA Live '98, NBA Jam: Tournament Edition) with a touch of Fifa mixed in there somewhere.

On the flip side, my cousin had a SNES and that's usually where we got our time in with Street Fighter, Smash TV, Super Mario World, and World Series Baseball. I can still put a lot of time into Smash TV, particularly when I go the infinite lives route (it was a tough game).

Semi-related, did anyone have a Game Gear? If so, has anyone played Sonic 2 for Game Gear? My brothers found my Game Gear a few weeks ago and have been giving that Sonic game a shot, with frustrating results. I don't know what keeps bringing them back. It reminds me of one of the facts of many games created back then: not everything had a logical explanation or means of discovery. It seemed some things in games you just had to know, whether from word of mouth or luckily stumbling upon the right area when you accidentally fell into a pit. Sonic 2 on Game Gear (no resemblance to Sonic 2 for Sega) was like that; riddled with glitches and things you'd never know: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6YwD9t4D0

[DCL]

genesis got nothing to top legend of zelda: link to the past

[Bucket_Nakedz]

i had both, and i loved both dearly. its tough, because i had awesome games for both consoles.

i think what made those consoles really special for me as a kid, was that i was the only one who was fortunate to have them out of all my friends. my parents would let them sleep over at least once a month and we played non-stop. even tho we live in the age of online multiplayer; it'll never beat the feeling of had as kid.

from mario kart to nba jam tournament edition. that is why i always love being a 90's kid.

[ErhnamDjinn]

Had the Sega Genesis, I played SNES to it was definitely better but I enjoyed my Genesis the controller was sweet for fighting games, and I loved games like Shadowrun and comixzone. Played it out also for Streetfight and almost all the MK 1 to 3.

But the best buy I ever had had to be the PS1/2 and 3 with the 3 just being my favorite.

[AznTacoLover]

I only had the SNES but the they're were a huge variety of games, Chrono Trigger, DK, Mario, Killer instinct and a whole bunch more

[dunksby]

Btw anybody else had the C64GS? I didn't own one but I used to go to my friend's house to play I remember it was pretty fun.

http://www.commodore-amiga-retro.com/amiga/car_0507/a_scuzz_retro_0507_266.jpg

[Dragonyeuw]

http://agpvegas.com/agpstore/images/images_big/tmnt4snes.jpg



best video game ever made.
:cheers:

Was playing that with my son( his first time) a few weeks ago. Cool thing is he's the age I was when I first started playing it, and he loves it. ( And he's played PS2,PS3,360 etc etc....still loves this game).

[Jackass18]

Had both, but the SNES was far better. Nobody mentioned Super Metroid?

[Clippersfan86]

Sega will always be superior to it's counterparts of each generation in terms of hardware. The Genesis shits on the Super Nintendo graphics wise. The only thing that Nintendo has over Sega throughout the years is more support and games. Longer life of the console= more games and more support= more development of games.

So if you just want a variety of games go Super Nintendo. If you want quality of system and the better machine go Genesis.

[Yao Ming]

genesis got nothing to top legend of zelda: link to the past

Actually it does and it was called Crusader of Centy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq7fDSYeM84&feature=player_detailpage#t=183s

It was obviously lifting from Zelda, but it was superior in many ways.

and there was also a game called Beyond Oasis which was really good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lDevyejFoB8#t=189s

[Rake2204]

http://agpvegas.com/agpstore/images/images_big/tmnt4snes.jpg



best video game ever made.
I bought this game for the XBox360 a few years ago and it's still quite enjoyable. It's a fun one to play with friends.

I have fond memories of my dad taking me and my brother to an arcade when we were younger and him allowing me to play Turtles in Time for what had to be more than an hour. I don't think I beat it though. But later that year, at a big family part held in a Holiday Inn, I got my revenge and I beat it on SNES with some step relative kid I didn't know.

[HylianNightmare]

both were great but the SNES takes it for me

[kentatm]

Sega will always be superior to it's counterparts of each generation in terms of hardware. The Genesis shits on the Super Nintendo graphics wise. The only thing that Nintendo has over Sega throughout the years is more support and games. Longer life of the console= more games and more support= more development of games.

So if you just want a variety of games go Super Nintendo. If you want quality of system and the better machine go Genesis.


umm. no.

you dont know what you are talking about at all.

the only thing that the Genesis had over the SNES was a slightly faster processor. Otherwise the SNES whipped it terms of graphics.






On the flip side, my cousin had a SNES and that's usually where we got our time in with Street Fighter, Smash TV, Super Mario World, and World Series Baseball. I can still put a lot of time into Smash TV, particularly when I go the infinite lives route (it was a tough game).



World Series Baseball was on the Genesis.

Are you thinking about Ken Griffey Junior Baseball? That was the #1 baseball game on SNES for most people.

[miller-time]

\


umm. no.

you dont know what you are talking about at all.

the only thing that the Genesis had over the SNES was a slightly faster processor. Otherwise the SNES whipped it terms of graphics.

lol i was going to make the exact same post. but yeah, you only have to play a few games to see that the SNES looked way better. and it should - it came out like 2 years later. it also had better sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDAhgTEJ47Q

[red1]

donkey kong, super mario world, link to the past>

[Clippersfan86]

\


umm. no.

you dont know what you are talking about at all.

the only thing that the Genesis had over the SNES was a slightly faster processor. Otherwise the SNES whipped it terms of graphics.






World Series Baseball was on the Genesis.

Are you thinking about Ken Griffey Junior Baseball? That was the #1 baseball game on SNES for most people.

I was confusing Genesis with Saturn. Saturn took a dump on the 64 graphics wise and the Dreamcast did the same to the PS2 and Gamecube. In general though considering they usually came out a couple years before Nintendo, Sega's hardware is more impressive. So yes I know what I'm talking about. The general point stands.

Sega= Better hardware.

Nintendo= Better games, more support.


I prefer Sega because of some of the off the wall games they had and their systems have always been so innovative compared to Nintendo and Sony.

[kentatm]

Actraiser was one of my favs back then.

It still blows me away that this was a launch title.

I was super pissed when they got rid of the city building portion in the sequel.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/ActRaiser_Coverart.png

[kentatm]

I was confusing Genesis with Saturn. Saturn took a dump on the 64 graphics wise and the Dreamcast did the same to the PS2. In general though considering they usually came out a couple years before Nintendo, Sega's hardware is more impressive. So yes I know what I'm talking about. The general point stands.

Sega= Better hardware.

Nintendo= Better games, more support.


I prefer Sega because of some of the off the wall games they had and their systems have always been so innovative compared to Nintendo and Sony.


again you are wrong and know not of what you speak.

The Saturn had too much old tech in it and could not do many of the things an N64 could. It could not handle 3D stuff very well at all.

and LOfrigginL saying that the Dreamcast was better graphically than a PS2. I don't even know why you bring that up since PS2 is a Sony product. The Nintendo system of that gen, the Gamecube, wrecks the Dreamcast in graphical capabilities.

I loved my Dreamcast but it does not compare.

This isnt me being a fanboy. I'm silver spoon child and I had all of these systems.

[Bucket_Nakedz]

I'm silver spoon child and I had all of these systems. bastard

[kentatm]

bastard


:lol


I know, I'm a little ****er.

I did mow a lot of lawns though so it wasn't just my parents hooking me up.

[Bigsmoke]

only had a Sega Genesis so that gets my vote

[Clippersfan86]

again you are wrong and know not of what you speak.

The Saturn had too much old tech in it and could not do many of the things an N64 could. It could not handle 3D stuff very well at all.

and LOfrigginL saying that the Dreamcast was better graphically than a PS2. I don't even know why you bring that up since PS2 is a Sony product. Even then, the Gamecube wrecks the Dreamcast in graphical capabilities.

I loved my Dreamcast but it does not compare.

This isnt me being a fanboy. I'm silver spoon child and I had all of these systems.

So much bad information.

Here is a video comparison side by side. Dreamcast on the left, Gamecube on the right. Nintendo came out 2+ years later and the only difference graphics wise is Cube is darker. Nintendo always had the advantage of 2 extra years of development and still couldn't create a gap hardware wise. "Dreamcast has better shading, lighting, smoother frame rate and better quality sound. In the Gamecube version, the cutscenes are a bit choppier, have darker textures and slightly muffled sound." That's what a player who has both systems for this game says.

BTW this is a fully 3d game... so break down the video and tell me why the Gamecube clearly has more 3D power or capability?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KykDWyRprnM&feature=related

Nintendo= better games and support
Sega= Better hardware

I'll keep repeating it if you need. Coming out two years before every Nintendo system and still being able to match or beat in some cases Nintendo hardware is impressive.

[Clippersfan86]

Back on topic though.... as I said I prefer Sega due to their innovative hardware and will always defend their brilliance. But due to the sheer volume of good, classic games on Super Nintendo you have to give it the all around edge.

[kentatm]

So much bad information.

Here is a video comparison side by side. Dreamcast on the left, Gamecube on the right. Nintendo came out 2+ years later and the only difference graphics wise is Cube is darker. Nintendo always had the advantage of 2 extra years of development and still couldn't create a gap hardware wise.

BTW this is a fully 3d game... so break down the video and tell me why the Gamecube clearly has more 3D power or capability?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KykDWyRprnM&feature=related

Nintendo= better games and support
Sega= Better hardware

I'll keep repeating it if you need. Coming out two years before every Nintendo system and still being able to match Nintendo hardware is impressive.


:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm


I'm sorry but you just made an incredibly bad comparison. The Sonic game was just a simple port. They didn't attempt to do much with upgrading the graphics at all it got tagged in reviews b/c of it.

Again, the Gamecube is much more powerful than the Dreamcast. There isnt even a question about it.

[Clippersfan86]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm


I'm sorry but you just made an incredibly bad comparison. The Sonic game was just a simple port. They didn't attempt to do much with upgrading the graphics at all.

Again, the Gamecube is much more powerful than the Dreamcast. There isnt even a question about it.

Same way that Sony claimed their PS3 had 10 times the potential of the 360 or w/e and bragged about the edge in hardware and now here we are 6 years later or w/e and Sony STILL hasn't created a gap hardware wise. In fact most people I know feel 360 has a graphics/processing edge in most games. Nintendo had much more potential with a 3 year newer system than Dreamcast.... but in real every day performance Dreamcast matched up just fine and when you factor in that it came out 3 years earlier.. it's simply amazing.

Also don't forget the PS2 has significantly better specs than the Dreamcast and Dreamcast still looked better in most multi platform games.

[kentatm]

Same way that Sony claimed their PS3 had 10 times the potential of the 360 or w/e and bragged about the edge in hardware and now here we are 6 years later or w/e and Sony STILL hasn't created a gap hardware wise. Nintendo had much more potential with a 3 year newer system than Dreamcast.... but in real every day performance Dreamcast matched up just fine.


:biggums:

are you kidding me?

holy shit you are really fanboying it up.

The Dreamcast does NOT match up. It literally can't b/c of the hardware inside the system.

And while the PS3 is ahead of the 360 in terms of raw power, often that advantage is mitigated b/c companies want games to be easily made for cross platform play. Since the 360 has been the market leader for most of this gen and is easier to develop for, multi-platform games are usually designed with it and its limitations in mind first. When developers actually go all out, the PS3 does have a noticeable bump over the 360.

[Clippersfan86]

:biggums:

are you kidding me?

holy shit you are really fanboying it up.

The Dreamcast does NOT match up. It literally can't b/c of the hardware inside the system.

And while the PS3 is ahead of the 360 in terms of raw power, often that advantage is mitigated b/c companies want games to be easily made for cross platform play. Since the 360 has been the market leader for most of this gen and is easier to develop for, multi-platform games are usually designed with it and its limitations in mind first. When developers actually go all out, the PS3 does have a noticeable bump over the 360.

We are talking about how a game looks and processes right? Dreamcast matches up. I showed one video which you disregarded with an excuse but your biggest lie was saying how far apart they are on 3D. If that's the case why does ANY 3D game or game in general look better on the Dreamcast? Just doesn't make sense and if you're just going to cherry pick this is going to go on for days and it's not worth my time.

I'm not comparing paper specs. I'm comparing how the games actually looked rendered and how smoothly they ran etc. Sega is a champ and as I said the fact that Nintendo has to come out 2-3 years later to match the performance of Sega proves my point.

Here's actual gameplay. The guy making the video said he got identical results.

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

[Clippersfan86]

The Gamecube will only be remembered for the disk technology. Other than that it was a very very forgettable system where as the Dreamcast is a legend. Innovative VMU storage, ahead of it's time hardware performance. Incredibly good games and not too many "bad" games in comparison to Nintendo and other systems. On top of that the system is crazy reliable. I banged my DC around so much and had it in storage multiple times without a single issue where as I've had Nintendo's, Xbox's and Sony's all break down on me, never had a Sega do the same. Although if I remember correctly the Genesis did overheat often.

[kentatm]

We are talking about how a game looks and processes right? Dreamcast matches up. I showed one video which you disregarded with an excuse but your biggest lie was saying how far apart they are on 3D. If that's the case why does ANY 3D game or game in general look better on the Dreamcast? Just doesn't make sense and if you're just going to cherry pick this is going to go on for days and it's not worth my time.

I'm not comparing paper specs. I'm comparing how the games actually looked rendered and how smoothly they ran etc. Sega is a champ and as I said the fact that Nintendo has to come out 2-3 years later to match the performance of Sega proves my point.

Here's actual gameplay. The guy making the video said he got identical results.

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


Ok, first off, you didnt even read what I wrote correctly.

I said the SATURN could not do 3D very well compared to the N64. Again, that is just a straight up fact. N64 was designed with 3D tech in mind. Saturn was not. End of story.


second, you are comparing quick and cheap ports. That is not a good comparison. That is like comparing the graphics from the Wii version of No More Heroes to the 360 version and claiming the Wii is just as powerful b/c they look about the same.

The Dreamcast can not match the GC when both are pushed to their limits. It just cant.


And no, 3D games do NOT look better in general on Dreamcast. You are just making shit up now.

[Clippersfan86]

Ok, first off, you didnt even read what I wrote correctly.

I said the SATURN could not do 3D very well compared to the N64. Again, that is just a straight up fact. N64 was designed with 3D tech in mind. Saturn was not. End of story.


second, you are comparing quick and cheap ports. That is not a good comparison. That is like comparing the graphics from the Wii version of No More Heroes to the 360 version and claiming the Wii is just as powerful b/c they look about the same.

The Dreamcast can not match the GC when both are pushed to their limits. It just cant.


And no, 3D games do NOT look better in general on Dreamcast. You are just making shit up now.

Agree that the Dreamcast had less potential (it only lasted two years and came out 3 years earlier :hammerhead: ). Never disagreed with that. Just the games we did see in the two years Dreamcast was out vs the first year or two of Gamecube were comparable. Let's get back to the topic though because I feel guilty for derailing the thread. I'll repeat my answer for the OP. Thanks for pointing out that I confused Saturn and Genesis though.

Super Nintendo wins this battle with Genesis because of the sheer amount of classic, good games that we all played growing up. I remember tons of nostalgic, fantastic games where as with the Genesis I remember Sonic, Soul Caliber and Echo The Dolphin pretty much.

[kentatm]

Agree that the Dreamcast had less potential (it only lasted two years and came out 3 years earlier :hammerhead: ). Never disagreed with that. Just the games we did see in the two years Dreamcast was out vs the first year or two of Gamecube were comparable.


You said the Dreamcast had superior hardware which is wrong.

You said it took a dump on the PS2 graphically which is also wrong.

And even when you take just the early years, both the GC and PS2 outperformed the Dreamcast when developers actually pushed the systems.


The only two times Sega has held hardware superiority over a Nintendo system were with the Master System and the Game Gear. I'm of course not counting the Sega Cd or 32X in that discussion considering those were expensive peripherals that received little support.

[Clippersfan86]

You said the Dreamcast had superior hardware which is wrong.

You said it took a dump on the PS2 graphically which is also wrong.

And even when you take just the early years, both the GC and PS2 outperformed the Dreamcast when developers actually pushed the systems.


The only two times Sega has held hardware superiority over a Nintendo system were with the Master System and the Game Gear. I'm of course not counting the Sega Cd or 32X in that discussion considering those were expensive peripherals that received little support.

You should know by now I like to hype up and dramatize things with exaggerated words. Just like when I call a player elite and everybody gets bent out of shape. I thought all things considered Dreamcast>PS2 but "take a dump" is an big exaggeration obviously. For the comparison to be fair though you'd have to compare just the first cycle of games for the PS2, Gamecube to the Dreamcast for the reasons I already specified. Obviously later in the generation when PS2, GC was pushed to the limits it kills Dreamcast.

[kentatm]

You should know by now I like to hype up and dramatize things with exaggerated words. Just like when I call a player elite and everybody gets bent out of shape. I thought all things considered Dreamcast>PS2 but "take a dump" is an big exaggeration obviously. For the comparison to be fair though you'd have to compare just the first cycle of games for the PS2, Gamecube to the Dreamcast for the reasons I already specified. Obviously later in the generation when PS2, GC was pushed to the limits it kills Dreamcast.

when you say a system has better hardware there is no such thing as fair.

it either does or doesnt.

I loved the Dreamcast but compared to the other systems of that gen it was underpowered.

It was basically just Sega's arcade tech crammed into a tiny box. That is partly why it was so good for arcade based games.

[Clippersfan86]

when you say a system has better hardware there is no such thing as fair.

it either does or doesnt.

I loved the Dreamcast but compared to the other systems of that gen it was underpowered.

It was basically just Sega's arcade tech crammed into a tiny box. That is partly why it was so good for arcade based games.

PS2 could always boast the better specs but compare any game H2H and find videos and you'll see Dreamcast always had the smoother, clearer graphics. You seem to think Dreamcast hit max potential in two years when it clearly didn't. The same way that Sony, Nintendo improved graphics over the years Dreamcast would have as well obviously. Underpowered on paper maybe but as somebody who supposedly loved his Dreamcast you're really twisting the facts. I owned a PS2 from the first week it was released around Christmas and that thing was INCREDIBLY hard to get.

I also got the Dreamcast pretty much on launch. Having played both for and insane amount of time... I can say confidently that right out of the gate the Dreamcast>PS2 but after years of development of the games PS2 got much better looking. Dreamcast didn't get that chance so stop talking like it was maxed out already. PS2 ended up better by the mid-end of it's life cycle but in the beginning Dreamcast was better.

[kentatm]

PS2 could always boast the better specs but compare any game H2H and find videos and you'll see Dreamcast always had the smoother, clearer graphics. You seem to think Dreamcast hit max potential in two years when it clearly didn't. The same way that Sony, Nintendo improved graphics over the years Dreamcast would have as well obviously. Underpowered on paper maybe but as somebody who supposedly loved his Dreamcast you're really twisting the facts. I owned a PS2 from the first week it was released around Christmas and that thing was INCREDIBLY hard to get.

I also got the Dreamcast pretty much on launch. Having played both for and insane amount of time... I can say confidently that right out of the gate the Dreamcast>PS2 but after years of development of the games PS2 got much better looking. Dreamcast didn't get that chance so stop talking like it was maxed out already.

of course I dont think the Dreamcast was maxed out when Sega pulled the plug.

I'm not sure ANY system aside from the NES or Atari 2600 ever got pushed to its absolute fullest.

and no, I disagree that the Dreamcast always had smoother, cleaner graphics.

[AlphaWolf24]

Sega Genesis was the bomb..IMO way better then any Nintendo system (outside of he NES)

EA sports Lakers vs Celtics..

Golden Axe....

Sonic

Madden 91

Genesis merked Nintendo in the 2nd round...

[Clippersfan86]

of course I dont think the Dreamcast was maxed out when Sega pulled the plug.

I'm not sure ANY system aside from the NES or Atari 2600 ever got pushed to its absolute fullest.

and no, I disagree that the Dreamcast always had smoother, cleaner graphics.

That's just the general consensus. Look at videos on Youtube and read comments. Look at polls comparing early PS2 games that were on Dreamcast as well. You'll see it's not just me who feels that way. The point here for me is how much do you value potential and big numbers in comparison to how these games ACTUALLY look and how smooth they run?

Are you into cars? I am and can find similarities. You can find many examples of cars that have significantly more power but are slower or perform worse due to factors such as gearing, computer tech and even weight etc. Yes PS2+Gamecube>Dreamcast on paper but I never felt that way actually playing all the systems.

[crisoner]

I do not want to pick...I loved both systems!

[DuMa]

SNES. best games that had great replay value, Super Punch-Out and all the MegaMan X games.

but the only game i could never beat was Battletoads in battlemaniacs
the Bike Level is the single most insane hardest level ever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh1BSyJGtOA

[ErhnamDjinn]

again you are wrong and know not of what you speak.

The Saturn had too much old tech in it and could not do many of the things an N64 could. It could not handle 3D stuff very well at all.

and LOfrigginL saying that the Dreamcast was better graphically than a PS2. I don't even know why you bring that up since PS2 is a Sony product. The Nintendo system of that gen, the Gamecube, wrecks the Dreamcast in graphical capabilities.

I loved my Dreamcast but it does not compare.

This isnt me being a fanboy. I'm silver spoon child and I had all of these systems.
I believe the only thing the saturn was good at was 2-d fighting games like teh original x-men vs capcom games, due to the ram limitations of the Ps1 it couldnt do the character tag modes in those games, but the saturn with the ram boost card could. The problem I believe with Sega was they rushed out their products to much.

[Stuckey]

all the kids had SNES , only one kid had a Genesis in my giant building when I was a kid

[Crystallas]

I would take the Amiga over both, but SNES is better. Genesis was great as well. Both were excellent consoles.