Who was the best developer of the 16-bit period?

[Strider]

The obvious choice seems Konami as their output from what I remembered was consistently good across a range of systems.
Treasure's ratio of hits to duds was incredibly high too, more so when you consider the un-mega Drive things they were doing on the system.
Nintendo and Sega both delivered excellent games too, but I'm sure there are others with higher hit to dud ratios than them.
What does everyone else think?

[nakamura]

Personally it is Konami for me. So many good games across genres on multiple formats. They made all of the systems sing of that time. Would have been ace to see them on the Neo Geo.Nintendo are on a par for me actually. Pilotwings, F Zero, Mario Kart etc. So many great games. Capcom were good in clumps but played it safe too often. I'd put Sega above Capcom too if you can discount the behemoth that was Street Fighter.

[Strider]

Konami certainly does seem consistent, particularly from a technical point of view, but they must have released some rubbish on the SNES and Mega Drive that wasn't up to scratch. I can't think of anything off the top of my head mind.

[nakamura]

I think Animaniacs was pretty poor but even that has its fans.

[Strider]

well technically it looks ace, but i remember the gameplay being a bit wishy washy. the second sparkster md game is a bit naff too. oh and that tiny toons sequel.

[Wools]

It's odd you mention Konami as I had almost zero exposure to them as a kid and only became aware of them during the 32bit era with Metal Gear Solid, Pro Evo and Silent Hill. I've since gone back and appreciated what they done but as I have no fondness for their work when I was a kid, I don't have that connection others had.

For me, it would be a toss up between Sega and Nintendo, the real heavyweights of that era in my eyes. At the time, I loved both the Mega Drive and SNES but I could only have 1 so grew up with the Mega Drive. As such, the Sega developed titles make me the most nostalgic but as I got older and could re-visit both catalogues, the Nintendo developed games stand up so well, I might be inclined to vote Nintendo.

Truth is, they were both equally as good. Sega were the masters of the Arcade, big, bold, beautiful games that sucked you in for 20 adrenaline soaked minutes and then spat you out again. Nintendo were masters of the home, slower paced, considered, beautifully designed games that were full of hidden depth, it was only last night I discovered you could do things in Super Mario World (Thanks to Super Mario Maker) I never thought possible.

I'm going to put forward Sega and Nintendo as the 2 are inseparable to me, different sides of the same coin. The 16bit ear can be distilled with those 2 powerhouses.

[nakamura]

I think in games like F-Zero, Pilot wings, Mario Kart, Starfox and more, Nintendo nailed the adrenaline rush type of game too.

[J0e Musashi]

SNK. We're done here.

[Strider]

It's odd you mention Konami as I had almost zero exposure to them as a kid and only became aware of them during the 32bit era with Metal Gear Solid, Pro Evo and Silent Hill. I've since gone back and appreciated what they done but as I have no fondness for their work when I was a kid, I don't have that connection others had.

Maybe it's an age thing? I was 18 and working when things like Super Castlevania IV and Sparkster were out. They were very much on my radar at the time and in mags like Super Play, Konami and Capcom were constantly bandied about as the publishers to be excited about.

I think both Sega and Nintendo are really solid choices, possible because in the case of Ninty it's easier to narrow their games down to a single console. Sega had a lot of pap though (the Golden Axe sequels for a start) so for all their great work there's just as much stuff that's poor. That's why I think that Konami and Treasure might be better choices. Only might mind, I don't think we're going to get a definitive answer!

[Strider]

SNK. We're done here.

I don't think the consistency is there for them personally.

[nakamura]

SNK no chance. Of course some absolute crackers but lots of similar stuff too. Plus it's easy to make games look with with all that memory.

[J0e Musashi]

I suppose they only made arcade titles, but they were producing 16-bit titles some ten years after everyone else had moved on. Very few SNK games are considered bad. For me no other developer comes close.

[Asura]

I suppose they only made arcade titles, but they were producing 16-bit titles some ten years after everyone else had moved on. Very few SNK games are considered bad. For me no other developer comes close.

They're certainly "up there". I remember seeing an interview with James Rolfe, aka The Angry Videogame Nerd, where he was asked if he was ever going to do a Neo Geo programme, because he clearly has some Neo Geo hardware in the background of his room. He's said that he was never able to do one because he couldn't find enough genuinely bad games for the platform.

To throw a wild-card in here, perhaps not the best in the eyes of some, but I would say Lucasarts. Largely because in the 16-bit era and before the videogames associated with Episode 1, I think they had the best track-record of any developer.

[Strider]

Valid points, but I don't think they were consistently solid so I wouldn't choose them myself personally. When you look at the stuff they personally developed it's all over the place IMO.
LucasArts is a good call too.

[Asura]

Valid points, but I don't think they were consistently solid so I wouldn't choose them myself personally. When you look at the stuff they personally developed it's all over the place IMO.
LucasArts is a good call too.

You think? I struggle to think of a bad game by Lucasarts in that era. All their SCUMM adventure games were superb, the X-Wing series was amazing, Dark Forces may have aged badly but it was very impressive at the time...