johnlucas said:
gmcmen said:
johnlucas said:
gmcmen said:
johnlucas said:
I'm a Nintendo fan. Nobody doubts that, I'm sure.
But no one can deny the whomping the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive put on the SNES in the 4th generation.
SNES outsold the Genesis as Sega moved onto the 5th gen with the Sega Saturn.
Sort of like how PS3's now outselling the 360 in the extra innings of the 7th gen when originally it was behind.
As powerful as the Super Nintendo was to the Genesis, the race should not have even been close.
Yet it was.
I was there to witness it live as it happened.
And I love my Super Nintendo to this day.
But the Genesis rocked the SNES in the 4th gen. That is undeniable.
John Lucas
|
super nes 49 million total sales
sega genesis 30 million total sales
super nes kicked the genesis a$s
|
Remember I said that SNES overtook the Genesis as Sega moved on towards the 5th gen with the Saturn in 1994.
Between about 1991-1993, Genesis got the better of the SNES in America.
SNES was the descendant of the last generation's market leader, the NES, so it had advantage going in.
But the Genesis overcame those advantages in the heat of the 4th gen fight.
Genesis could only display a palette of 512 colors while SNES had a palette of 32,768 colors.
The powerful SNES should not have even struggled against the Genesis AT ALL if hardware power determined dominance.
Those who brag about being the strongest always end up having the weaker sales as a rule.
Outside of those special exceptions—which I explained how they became the exceptions—the strongest never wins.
John Lucas
|
It really doesn't matter nes was strongest console and it won, super nes samething, if your talking about the playstation brand, sony always wants to have the most powerful console, it's just with the playstaion and 2 there competition came out a 1,5 years later so they had more powerful hardware, sony always bragged about the power of playstaion 2 the emotion engine and it can do toy story graphics.
|
The Sega Master System/Mark III was STRONGER than the NES.
NES was weaker than the Sega Master System.
The PlayStation was weaker than the Nintendo 64.
PS1 = 32-bit. N64 = 64-bit.
The PlayStation 2 was weaker than the Nintendo Gamecube & Microsoft XBox, Toy Story graphics or no.
The Emotion Engine was surpassed by the purple lunchbox & the black & green behemoth.
Don't even go into the handhelds or we'll be here all day.
The only exceptions to this rule was because Sega ran out of money with the Dreamcast & had to cut bait & when SNES ran extra innings in the Donkey Kong Country/Killer Instinct days as Sega moved from Genesis to Saturn in the switch from the 4th generation to the 5th generation.
An older example was when the Atari Video Computer System AKA the Atari 2600 dominated the stronger Mattel Intellivision in the 2nd generation.
It matters.
And it will matter AGAIN this generation.
John Lucas
|
This is where the terminology gets thrown into chaos again though sir.
The PS1 won that generation because of more experiences that would've been impossible on the N64 than vice versa. I really don't think some of you guys realize the full scale extent of just how badly the N64 was crippled by it's use of cartridges. The Atari Jaguar was also '64-bit', go figure.
Even in Japan, the Saturn had the initial stronghold because of it's more compelling library of superior arcade ports over the PS1, and maintained a lead over the N64 due to it's intricate library of RPGs. Sega's catastrophic 3rd party relations is what fucked it over everywhere else to the point where how well it was doing in Japan wasn't enough to suffice.
Hardware does indeed matter. It's just easier to point out that THE most powerful system of the generation has never been the market leader.
