RetroWars: Sega vs Nintendo

[importaku]

While everyone across the internet seems to rag on the original gameboys screen as total blurry crap i never had a problem seeing the screen if you got some decent light, the gamegear has that horrible sheen effect which makes getting a viewable picture a nightmare it has a extrememly narrow viewing angle. Move it barely an inch or two off angle and the screen goes all inverse or white the lynx had a similar problem. If only lcd technology had been better back then it might have stood more chance although saying that omeone should build a time machine & take Nintendo back a light mod kit and show them how to install it lol.

Battery life was a huge factor in the gameboys success, those things are not cheap especially as a kid.

[Leon Retro]

While everyone across the internet seems to rag on the original gameboys screen as total blurry crap i never had a problem seeing the screen if you got some decent light,

I remember thinking the screen was OK back in the day. But even when I bought an upgraded screen a couple of years ago, I thought it looked bad and sent it back. It's the same with the Game Gear and Lynx - the screens really were terrible but didn't seem so bad at the time.

I think one reason why the GB was such a hit, was the design, it looks really cool. I still think it's the best looking handheld ever made. I even like the chunkiness compared to the slimmer version.

[Colin]

Original Gameboy was a stroke of genius, I loved mine, it was the best handheld of the era. All those old screens are cack though, going back to them today just shows how far tech has come. That goes for GB, GG, Lynx, PCE GT and whatever else.

I sat and looked through the entire games lists for the MD & SFC last night and it reaffirmed what I said yesterday. For my personal taste, as it turns out I think the MD actually spanks the SFC as far as the libraries go. (Some genres the SFC is great for are of no interest to me, RPG's for example) It's definitely made me laugh a bit, because I've somehow managed to convince myself otherwise in all the years gone by. When I look at how many MD games I loved from back in the day, and how many I'd still go back to and enjoy now it's actually a surprisingly large amount. I'm going to have to reassess my 16-Bit era console hierarchy!

[Leon Retro]

For my personal taste, as it turns out I think the MD actually spanks the SFC as far as the libraries go.

Yeah, the MD destroys the SFC when it comes to shooters and arcade-style games. It's a shame really, because Konami proved that the SFC could run fast action games. It just took a developer who knew how to get the most out of the machine. There are even shooters on the SNES that show of the hardware well, such as Macross: Scrambled Valkyrie.

The fact is - the Mega Drive had similar tech to arcade games of the day, so it was quite easy for devs to port games and create arcade-style games for the system. The SFC required a dev to put effort in to understanding the architecture and then use clever coding for performance, so many devs - including Treasure - decided the MD was the better choice.

The SNES did have loads of stand out games though: Pilotwings, F-Zero, Mario Kart, Mario World, ActRaiser, Castlevania IV, Contra III, UN Squadron etc.. etc... Overall though, the MD has far more classic action games.

[Neon Ignition]

I had a NES and the Master System never did much for me. Whilst visually the superior machine I'd be hard pressed to name a game for it that I was fond of as I could for all its successors which made the NES and easy winner on that front.

The reverse happened with the following generation as I ended up with a Mega Drive and adored the original design before the fugly Mark II onward came on the scene. Sonic 2sday, the hyped wait for Sonic 3, finding out VR Racing was actually going to get ported, getting fooled by Ballz hype, Gunstar Heroes and on and on, it was the system that initially made up my young school life experience and Sega was the one I was happy to champion. My cousin owned a SNES so I'd spend some time on his machine but it was later on in the systems life when I got one as part of the SFIIT bundle but before the shockwave of Rare's silicon graphics drive. I came into the SNES backwards and frankly it was eye opening. It's a system where bar one or two examples, for me it categorically destroys the Mega Drive on every level. Better looking hardware, better controller, better games and has aged gracefully whereas the MD's catalogue is mostly forgettable at this point.

The Saturn was a very late bloomer though. I'd been hyped for the Mega CD and curious about the 32X but never bought into either, despite not being hyped for the PS1 either Sega failed to entice me with the new system. The games looked okay but the car crash launch approach with the Saturn kept it a no-buy as it did for many. I still played on one regularly though and when things were clearly wrapping up on it I picked a unit up just as the closing set of amazing releases hit. Despite the systems shortcomings its probably the system of that generation that I look back on most fondly and could return to most easily. The N64 was mindblowing on reveal and despite the long road to release Mario 64 was mindblowing on day one. The system hosted quite a few beloved games but the poor approach Nintendo is now famous for really kickstarted here. I liked both but would probably give Saturn the nod here.

By the time Dreamcast hit my hopes were low mostly based on how poor Sega were clearly doing. Hence the irony that the Dreamcast would prove to be a better system for its time than the GC. It's easy to think of the Gamecube as being better but a lot of what undermines the DC is how little of its catalogue has remained exclusive to it, at the time though Sega's final system was one I adored and happily champion. The controller was meh but the system itself remains one of the best looking ever made too.

It's a bit split for me in a way if you ignore how Nintendo was able to continue in a different manner than Sega but based on those four generations of primary output then Nintendo has to take it despite fondness for Sega. It's like comparing classic games to masterpieces.

Handhelds interested me less, the Game Gear was a dud for me. If it weren't for the colour screen it wouldn't have stood out at all, the Game Boy was much better but even then I don't think that highly of the games on it.

[Neon Ignition]

Kept thinking about hardware aesthetics:




For me, the Mark I is easily the best looker there, that's versus:









And here it has to be the western NES that's the best looker and better looking than the Mark I MS system too

[Leon Retro]

Whilst visually the superior machine I'd be hard pressed to name a game for it that I was fond of as I could for all its successors which made the NES and easy winner on that front.

whereas the MD's catalogue is mostly forgettable at this point.

The N64 was mindblowing on reveal and despite the long road to release Mario 64 was mindblowing on day one. The system hosted quite a few beloved games but the poor approach Nintendo is now famous for really kickstarted here.

By the time Dreamcast hit my hopes were low mostly based on how poor Sega were clearly doing. Hence the irony that the Dreamcast would prove to be a better system for its time than the GC.

the Game Boy was much better but even then I don't think that highly of the games on it.

I also much prefer the NES over the Master System. The NES/Famicom games catalogue is full of great titles that stand the test of time. I also think the idea some people have that the NES has poor graphics and sound is false, because there are plenty of NES games with nice graphics and impressive music. Of course, there are a few classic MS games, but the NES/Famicom has loads.

I would say the opposite about the Mega Drive's games catalogue. I think it has a broad range of good to great games covering all sorts of genres. Many still impress me, with some actually impressing more than they did back in the day. I appreciate games like Twinkle Tale and Alisia Dragoon more these days, because I sort of took them for granted at the time.

I'd say Mario 64 was truly mindblowing. I remember everyone - including non-gamers - thought it was incredible. So Nintendo did a great job building hardware that could do Mario 64 justice. It's just a shame that the hardware and cartridge format held the machine back when it came to games that weren't open world.

I have a lot of love for the Dreamcast, because it was the first machine to show what 21st century gaming would look like. It really was stunning to see games that had graphics that were a huge leap over 32-bit machines. The machine ushered in a new age of gaming where 3D graphics would be far easier on the eye. But as much as I liked - and still like the Dreamcast, I've always been a fan of the GameCube and think it's essentially a Dreamcast 1.5. There are few reasons why I'd choose the GameCube over the Dreamcast these days. It's quite a close call though, so I'm glad I don't have to choose one or the other. Both machines mean a lot to me.

When it comes to the Game Boy, its range of good to great games easily destroys the Game Gear's catalogue. There are so many fun games for the GB that also have good graphics and sound. You have Contra & Castlevania games that really stand up next to the console versions. The Super Mario and Wario games are also top quality in all areas. So as much as the Game Gear has a colour screen, I think the GB easily beat Sega's machine when it came to games. There's still a lot of love for the GB because it was such an attractive design, and played host to lots of fun, memorable games.

[Leon Retro]

For me, the Mark I is easily the best looker there, that's versus:

And here it has to be the western NES that's the best looker and better looking than the Mark I MS system too

I really like the design of the MK1 Master System. I think that might be a bit to do with nostalgia though, as it's quite a bulky machine for such simple tech. I hate the MK2 MS though, so smaller isn't always better.

I know a lot of people despise the NES design, but I like it quite a bit. I don't have any fondness for the Famicom design, because it just doesn't appeal to me. I think Nintendo did a great job with the Super Famicom though, which is one of the best looking consoles ever made.

So for me, it's easily MK1 MS and the NES. I'm happy to have both in my collection.

[Neon Ignition]

Again, Mark I all the way with ease and for bonus points this:




Better than this:






Pure Sex versus



Pure vomit. I suppose it couldn't be worse... oh...





Western SNES wins all

[Neon Ignition]

It's funny that after the 16bit gen hardware revisions died down. Sony's always been a fan of them but we never really got Sega produced major release revisions, same for Nintendo - the base design prevailed quite strongly so it's more clear cut in terms of what you prefer. I do find the Saturn looks fine but its pretty functional, whereas there's just something I find really appealing about the N64's design.

[Colin]

Japanese MKI MD is the best looker for me, it's funny how the colour changes and changing the 16-Bit font/deletion of the wording ruin it mind.

All the 16-Bit era Japanese systems were cool as **** though. MD, SFC, PCE, NEO.

[J0e Musashi]

Nintendo because Street Fighter II.

[Leon Retro]

Western SNES wins all

If someone nicked my Super Famicom and Super Famicom Jr, I'd feel....

If someone nicked my American SNES and American SNES Mini, I'd feel....

The Japanese design for both will always have a big place in my heart.

[Leon Retro]

Japanese MKI MD is the best looker for me, it's funny how the colour changes and changing the 16-Bit font/deletion of the wording ruin it mind.

[Neon Ignition]

Just realised I wrote Western SNES rather than PAL SNES

It's why I adore the DC design, it's like someone loved the SNES and thought how can we make a more sexy version of this?