Read the info and it was pretty informative but it seemed to paint an unclear picture which makes me question its motives.  They criticize Gamepro and EGM for being excited about the coming of the successor to the most popular console of all time (at the time).  The writer seems totally oblivious to the fact that Sonic the Hedgehog beat Super Mario World for Game of the Year and the Genesis beat the Super Nes for console of the year at the time.  I still have the issue of EGM (1991 Buyer's Guide, I think.  I'd have to dig it out) where they said, "If Nintendo hadn't been busy suing everybody and made a REAL Super Nintendo, they would be the winner--complete with reviews from each editor who unanimously chose the Genesis that year).

In the end, the Super Nes won because it was doing things graphically via the hardware that the Genesis was trying to do with software or not at all.  It had support that the Genesis just didn't have and it had more capable versions of many big multi-plat games.  On top of this, it seemed like Sega just quit bringing their "A-Game" when the Super Nes started to come into its own.

Now, the games look so similar that the average gamer couldn't even tell which game was on which system if you showed them two screenshots.  At the time, though, the difference seemed so big.  Kinda like comparing PS3 and 360, today.  But then, I admit that I'm a Nintendo guy.  I much more willing to accept anything that says Nintendo won and be skeptical of anything that shows Sega was awesome.  I eventually became a Sega fan, for what it's worth.