Most SNES games ran at a lower resolution and speed than Genesis games. But...

#21billsfanno1Posted 3/3/2014 7:51:50 AM
TC, you are so right on. I often think about the Genesis/SNES era when seeing the debate around here. At the time, I owned a Genesis because I mostly played sports titles and it clearly had an edge with these types of games. Today I own an X1 because I find sports games nowadays to be dull/rehashed messes, whereas X1 has a lot of fun games.
#22adampeltz(Topic Creator)Posted 3/3/2014 8:55:01 AM
The point of my topic was that resolution really isn't the only way to measure graphics. There are other considerations.
---
XBL Gamertag: Peltz | PSN ID: Peltz-0
Wii U NNID: Peltz-0 | 3DS Friend code: 1161-0129-0691 | Check out my profile for the list of consoles I own.
#23SinisterSlayPosted 3/3/2014 9:33:02 AM
SNES cheated. The cartridges could have processors in them to boost the speed. A famous one was the FX chip which allowed the SNES to create 3D graphics.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#24AsellusPosted 3/3/2014 11:36:31 AM(edited)
The point of my topic was that resolution really isn't the only way to measure graphics. There are other considerations.

But what else is there here though? The ps4 and x-bone are virtually identical systems, both based on the exact same AMD Jaguar apu. Both systems can do pretty much the exact same things only the ps4 has a definite advantage in having a good fifty-percent more gpu cores to do those things with. It's certainly not a SNES vs Genesis comparison where a Genesis game's marginally higher resolution will be offset by the SNES better-everything-else.

And going back to the more important SNES vs Genesis debate,
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~dherring/cgt141/project1/comparison.html

Let's tally up the wins on each side.

Just off the bat we have 9 categories the SNES wins and 5 for the Genesis.

Even the five is looking a bit bloated though. Did anyone really care that the Genesis was backwards compatible with Master System games (doubly so since it required an obscure adapter to get the cartridges to fit) or that it had a headphone jack?

So 9 SNES and 3 Genesis. But even that seems like a stretch. The internal rom doesn't do anything for games (and only later Genesis models had it) and the Genesis' synthesizer in no way gave it better sound quality than the SNES.

So yeah... the sole meaningful catagory the Genesis wins in is in having a higher clocked cpu. Which doesn't even necessarily mean that it's actually faster since they're entirely unrealted chips.
#25adampeltz(Topic Creator)Posted 3/3/2014 11:42:14 AM
Asellus posted...
The point of my topic was that resolution really isn't the only way to measure graphics. There are other considerations.

But what else is there here though? The ps4 and x-bone are virtually identical systems, both based on the exact same AMD Jaguar apu. Both systems can do pretty much the exact same things only the ps4 has a definite advantage in having a good fifty-percent more gpu cores to do those things with. It's certainly not a SNES vs Genesis comparison where a Genesis game's marginally higher resolution will be offset by the SNES better-everything-else.

And going back to the more important SNES vs Genesis debate,
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~dherring/cgt141/project1/comparison.html

Let's tally up the wins on each side.

Just off the bat we have 9 categories the SNES wins and 5 for the Genesis.

Even the five is looking a bit bloated though. Did anyone really care that the Genesis was backwards compatible with Master System games (doubly so since it required an obscure adapter to get the cartridges to fit) or that it had a headphone jack?

So 9 SNES and 3 Genesis. But even that seems like a stretch. The internal rom doesn't do anything for games (and only later Genesis models had it) and the Genesis' synthesizer in no way gave it better sound quality than the SNES.

So yeah... the sole meaningful catagory the Genesis wins in is in having a higher clocked cpu. Which doesn't even necessarily mean that it's actually faster since they're entirely unrealted chips.



But that's exactly my point. Everything OTHER THAN resolution mattered when comparing the capability of the two consoles. Within reason, resolution really isn't that big of a deal and is only ONE ASPECT of graphic design. Just because a game hits 1080p and 60fps, doesn't mean it's going to look good. Just because a game runs at 720p, doesn't mean it can't look better than a 1080p game.
---
XBL Gamertag: Peltz | PSN ID: Peltz-0
Wii U NNID: Peltz-0 | 3DS Friend code: 1161-0129-0691 | Check out my profile for the list of consoles I own.
#26AsellusPosted 3/3/2014 11:56:44 AM
But that's exactly my point. Everything OTHER THAN resolution mattered when comparing the capability of the two consoles.

Because there's really not much difference between 256 x 224 (57,344 pixels) and 320 x 224 (71,680)? Especially when you're outputting to blurry, interlaced televisions over at best composite? The genesis' advantage here was only about 25%, the difference from 720p to 1080p is 125%.

Within reason, resolution really isn't that big of a deal and is only ONE ASPECT of graphic design. Just because a game hits 1080p and 60fps, doesn't mean it's going to look good. Just because a game runs at 720p, doesn't mean it can't look better than a 1080p game.

All other things being equal though a game will always look better at a higher resolution. And again, as I said before, the two systems here are essentially identical from a capabilities standpoint only with the ps4 having a definite power advantage.

Any "aspect of graphic design" you can do on the X-Bone you can do better on the ps4.
#27MertensCWPosted 3/3/2014 3:34:57 PM
Duke_of_Nuke posted...
BraveDogBFG posted...
You are talking about the early days of gaming. Noone was talking about graphics in the early 90s!


LOL you clearly didn't game in the 90s if you think that.


They were but not in a vs kind of way. Only in appreciating games. Perhaps you had the honor of knowing some of the earliest fanboys and trolls.
---
Few Favorites- Ninja gaiden 1-2, Colony Wars 1-3,Xenogears,MarioKart,Lunar 2 GTA:SA,S&K,FF6-7,Zanac,S.Metroid,SMB2,NFL2K5,Halo 2, NG2,Vanquish,Witcher 2.
#28AzaneAzerPosted 3/3/2014 3:41:36 PM(edited)
I bet 95% of people didnt even know what resolution was before the Ps3/360 Era

Graphics were debated in the 90's, but most of it was only praising the top games, or frustration over graphics that made games too hard to play.
#29teehee23Posted 3/3/2014 3:50:05 PM
TC makes valid points but fails to comprehend that you cannot reason with immaturity or wickedness.
---
Don't hate us because we're beautiful...
#30Xeeh_BitzPosted 3/3/2014 3:53:27 PM(edited)
adampeltz posted...
The point of my topic was that resolution really isn't the only way to measure graphics. There are other considerations.


Look at the resolution you are comparing, it's very minimal at best. It's like comparing 1080P to 1075P
---
3770K | 780 Ti x 2
Steam: Xeeh Origin: TurboPeasant