Team Ninja sticking with MS?
- Thread starter -NakedZ-
- Start date
PC-Engine said:
You think what the consoles actually delivered is irrelevant, and only peak specs with no consideration of actual applicability matters? lol. I don't see you taking that attitude in the Cell threads.
Presumeably there was a great cost or severe limitations when running the SNES in its hi-res interlaced mode as it almost never got used. The MD ran all it's most impressive games in its "SNES beating" 320 x 224 resolution. Also, the Megadrive was a lot better at vector based graphics and decoding full motion video, so your final assessment somewhat off.
But for goodness sake, my original (somwhat off topic) comment was about next gen development, and how differences in hardware may or may not be be perceived by customers. This isn't about bringing back fanboi schoolyard arguments from the early nineties - we have quite enough problems with ones surrounding the present generation!
function said:
Yes MD beats SNES in graphics because most of it's games ran at a higher resolution than most SNES games...LOL indeed. BTW decoding full motion video was even possible with the 8-bit cpu in the PC-Engine...LOL. SNES's graphics superiority over MD was/is so rediculously apparent only a blind person would say otherwise. Next generation the difference in graphics will come down to developers not hardware.
fulcizombie said:
Dead or Alive was always the one with the least market presence back on the PSone days. Even later as DoA2 came, Tekken and the Virtua Fighter series always had a much better mindshare among its fan as being more deep and demanding than the "breast bouncing DoA". Ultimately by going onto Xbox and being the only beat'em up (quality) supporter, they are in the limelight and earned themselves quite a fanbase that probably already followed onto Xbox after the Dreamcast's failure. It's just taken more seriously on the Xbox than it would have on any other platform.
PC-Engine said:
No-one said "MD beats SNES in graphics", except you, just then.
LOL. I know. LOL. Who said it wasn't? In what way does this have any relevance to my post or anyone elses?
Who are you talking to now? Who said the Super Nintnedo didn't have better graphics (except you, above)? If someone points out an area where the MD had an advantage, first you try to deny it, then when you can't any more you flip out and misrepresent what's said to you in your reply, spew general points points that have no bearing on the discussion and then back it up with a schoolyard insult like "only a blind person would say otherwise"?
Why do you so desperately try to misrepresent the points people make, and build them into some comepletely unrepresentative, ridiculous argument that it has no meaning to attack (but you do anyway, in a childish manner)?
There was an article a couple of years back about how MS courted all the Japanese developers (around the time they suposedly made an offer to acquire Square). It talked about how MS had forged personal relationships with some Tecmo people.
If you remember, DOA got prime time advertising when the Xbox launched, as did the Oddworld game which didn't do too well. Obviously MS paid for that expensive air time.
Probably other inducements as well.
If you remember, DOA got prime time advertising when the Xbox launched, as did the Oddworld game which didn't do too well. Obviously MS paid for that expensive air time.
Probably other inducements as well.
Agisthos said:PC-Engine said:SNES's graphics superiority over MD was/is so rediculously apparent only a blind person would say otherwise.
Are you serious man???
SNES absolutely destroys MD in the graphics department from colors, to sprites, to multilayering, to transparencies, to scaling, to rotation, to get the point yet?
Sometimes when you are tech obsessed (like we are with these upcoming consoles) it is good to just ignore the specs and look at what is onscreen. Visually speaking there was not a lot between most Snes and MD games.
Snes always had better color and smoother animation but not by a huge margin. The only games that really are head and shoulder above MD were the Donkey Kong Country series. Oh and F-Zero but didnt that have the fx chips in the cart so does not count?
Snes always had better color and smoother animation but not by a huge margin. The only games that really are head and shoulder above MD were the Donkey Kong Country series. Oh and F-Zero but didnt that have the fx chips in the cart so does not count?
MightyHedgehog
Newcomer
Naw, there were 3D polygonal games on consoles well before Starfox.
PC-Engine said:
You're doing it again. It's absolutely incredible. I'm staggered at your inability to interpret simple and clearly made points, when they're made repeatedly over a short space of time.
I didn't say number of colours was the Super Nintendo's only advantage, "understand"? I said it was it's most apparent. You even quoted me saying that - how did you immediately go on to misrepresent me when replying?!
Its better colour palette made everything look better, all the time, regardless of whatever else was being used. Only titles specifically and skillfully made to work well on a limited palette (like the Sonic games) could look as good as top tier SNES games. Why the hell are you "laughing your ass off" at that? How can you disagree? The hardware alpha channel was cool, but used fairly infrequently and often with little impact (the Donkey Kong games were a terrific exception). Mode Seven was great at rotating a background, but occasions when it could be used for anything other than a map screen or something similarly limited were rare. Its advantage in terms of sprites on screen was also less apparent, and probably not helped by limited CPU power to throw that number around.
The Super Nintendo's greatest, most apparent and frequently beneficial graphics advantage was its colour palette. What a terrible thing for me to say.
Have you flipped out because I said the SNES had a "moderate" advantage in terms of graphics, rather than something extreme and one sided like "absolutely destroys" like you'd clearly like to hear? The MD and SNES were perceived by the gaming public as being close in terms of capability, and they were. They got many of the same games, competed directly in the market place for similar prices and both sold well.
Ultimately, the SNES was percieved as superior hardware because the games looked on the whole "moderately" better (with Neo Geo games looking on the whole "somewhat" better than these), and the issue of general purpose processing power wasn't considered. That was the point that seemed relevant to consider wrt to the PS3 and Xbox 2 and the way they may be recieved, but you've turned this thread into "how much I love the SNES".
Not this again.
MD had better main CPU. SO if you could lets say run SETI@home or install linux on it it would run faster than Snes. But the Snes was surrounded by better co-processors and was capable of more. I think the misconception of MD>SNES came about because of some of the god awful SNES launch games (ie. Home Alone) and it took devs longer to learn how to make games for it. (cough madden cough) Many western devs were already seasoned motorola 68000 coders from the AtariST, Amiga, MAC, and lots of arcade boards. So when the MD hit the hardware was very familar. After all SNES it did come out 2 years after the MD where I lived also. SNES games also normally run at slightly lower resolution as I remember. Very slighty.
MD had better main CPU. SO if you could lets say run SETI@home or install linux on it it would run faster than Snes. But the Snes was surrounded by better co-processors and was capable of more. I think the misconception of MD>SNES came about because of some of the god awful SNES launch games (ie. Home Alone) and it took devs longer to learn how to make games for it. (cough madden cough) Many western devs were already seasoned motorola 68000 coders from the AtariST, Amiga, MAC, and lots of arcade boards. So when the MD hit the hardware was very familar. After all SNES it did come out 2 years after the MD where I lived also. SNES games also normally run at slightly lower resolution as I remember. Very slighty.
not only is this off topic, does it even matter? my cell phone is more powerfull than both machines put together.random off topic posts said:
and on topic...
team ninja has always portrayed the image that they only wanted to work with the most powerful hardware. i'm sure they will make games for XB320, and to be honest i'd be surprised if they didn't at least test the waters of revolution or PS3. though, we might not see any fruit from that tree.
function said:
Let's just agree to disagree ok? FWIW I never purchased a SNES, but I did purchase both TG16 and Genesis at launch. From seeing what the SNES could do with scaling and rotation effects alone is was much more powerful in the graphics department and that's before factoring in the 32K color palette and 256 simultaneous color display. The SNES was closer to the Neo Geo in graphics power than to the MD.
