Never. Never. A thousand times never.
Some experiences are just fond memories. Others are formative. For me, getting 120 stars, defeating Ganondorf, unlocking Mewtwo, throwing green polka-dotted eggs-- those moments rank among the most defining times of my youth. More than Disney, Youtube, TV or any other entertainment company, Nintendo was there for me, and there for my friends.
Happy or sad, when I was alone, I'd adventure in the rolling slopes of the Mushroom Kingdom. When I was with friends, we'd obliviate one another in a final destination. And when we were nowhere near our consoles, we'd argue about our escapades and the “strats”.
Starcraft, Half Life, Age of Empires, and the like are all great, amazing games, and I love them so. But Nintendo has my childhood. Through-and-through.
It would be unfortunate if they go down the path of Sega and and ruin their franchises.
But I will cherish the memories they gave me. And I will never forget them.
Eventually we’ll likely have better versions of things like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_consider...
(Right now it’s still missing NetHack and a bunch of other basic stuff.)
Some good games that would deserve awards just don't get the media attention also.
It's rare that something will be declared "best ever" while it is still contemporary. It usually takes a little time to figure that out.
Nintendo delivers 80% of the experience and 100% of the fun with an IR camera (already in the switch) and some $4 cardboard they sell for $80. And it is portable!
While the better sensors will definitely win in the long run, this is one of the best instances of engineering simplicity and "perfect being the enemy of good enough". It's hard to be anything but speechless.
And it's not like they even try to keep quiet about their philosophy; Gunpei Yokoi called it "Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology" (枯れた技術の水平思考) and wrote a book about it.
But they are doing entirely different things. Labo is cool, but is entirely unrelated to VR tracking technology.
You just missed the point again. That's not the implication at all. The implication is not that they did the same thing, it's that they did a different thing, which is simpler, but is still a good solution for the metric they are optimizing: fun.
> Nintendo delivers 80% of the experience
I agree they are all targeting a different fidelity for emmersion, but they are all targeting the same fidelity for fun.
Why can't I compare two very different implementations trying to achieve a similar core goal?
Maybe it's living in a northern climate, or maybe we're behind the hype cycle, but I have seen 2 of those things in my life, one as a kids' toy and the other as an office toy.
Anything less and you throw up.
However, I think there's something to be said if we instead compare them as immersive experiences. Nintendo created something compelling by taking an unorthodox route. [Insert joke about thinking inside/outside the cardboard box.]
Even if they were comparable, that last 20% is a bitch (but often worth it.) It's always easy to come up with an 80% solution.
IR tracking is mostly only feasible if you can guarantee that the user is facing the IR camera at a relatively consistent distance. The original Wii did this, the Kinetic did this, TrackIR  started doing this in 2001.
The sensors and the IR camera are always in the correct orientation, regardless of player movement. And they solved it with $4 of cardboard. I can't praise enough the simplicity of their approach to the problem.
The Switch is definitely cool technology, though, but is addressing different constraints than VR.
I really hope you don't think you're just buying cardboard when you get a Labo kit.
I mean, I suspect you don't, but being this reductive makes it comes across as though it's some sort of scam.
But... at least for one of their series I loved before, Metroid, the lack of VR will probably mean I won't play it.
Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are among my favorite games ever. They made me feel like I was on another planet better than any other game. But, a year or so ago I played Farpoint on PSVR. It's not a great game and the writing is horrible but the feeling of actually being on another world is unmatched. VR is like visiting the Grand Canyon vs seeing a picture of it. A picture does not give that awe inspiring sense of vastness, size, and presence. VR does. For that particular franchise a non VR Metroid will now be a huge let down from that experience for me.
In addition, I don't think Nintendo's going to be able to kill melee and convert all of us to ultimate without also turning off lots of casuals. But without the full support of both casuals and the entire existing competitive community for smash (over half of which is for melee), ultimate is just going to be another profitable and fun game, like smash 4, but not lastingly legendary like melee happened to be.
That being said I don't really say a way that it could kill Melee either... although I bet melee players are going to buy a lot of controllers. The only thing I could imagine killing Melee is maybe if Smush had a Melee compatibility mode that implemented its mechanics exactly faithful to the original, but I don't see them doing that, and even then people probably still wouldn't leave Melee.
How successful any multiplayer game will be is a thorny question, so I think you are more likely to end up right than the gp. Established properties can suddenly go bust. Fast followers on hot trends can reap all the rewards. Multiplayer brawlers are essentially a one-series phenomenon (SSB) that has had spotty popularity. If I had to guess, I would bet that SSBU will be about as popular as Splatoon 2.
The problem with your logic is that Tekken, Street Fighter and now Dragonball Fighter Z, all made by Japanese developers, are the top fighting games on Twitch. Their popularity is much lower than PUBG/LOL/Fortnite/etc but I would submit that fighting games are simply punishing to get into - it's very difficult for a newbie to find a niche as a support character as is possible in many team games, for example. Furthermore, character balance/competitiveness issues are magnified by the 1 v 1 focus.
At the same time there has always been this tension between the fun aspects of those games and the competitive community who really wants something else from those games and the things they don't like (randomness, indirect help for lesser players) are also what keep the games fun for everyone. The competitive scene folks have some pretty strict ideas of what they want and it isn't what keeps those games fun for everyone.... bend to them too much and those games stop being fun for everyone else.
- All characters from all versions available. Important for pros because having a few players who main characters that aren't included in new versions left out can really hurt the pro scene. Can't see how this would be anything but more fun for casual players.
- All stages have Omega (single platform) and Battlefield (4 platforms) modes. Original versions of stages still exist though.
- Manufacturing new Gamecube controllers, so crucial for the competitive scene where pros have resorted to setting up their own workbenches and making franken-controllers from working components of broken controllers. Shouldn't affect casual play at all.
- An extra decimal of precision on %s allows more precise play, should be at worst a bit of extra visual noise if you don't play competitively.
- Removal of fatigue on Pokemon Trainer, effectively introduces 3 new potential main characters for pros. Takes away a subtle mechanic for new players to learn.
- Game speed, SmashU looks to be a bit faster than Smash 4 and Brawl but not as fast as Melee. This one I can definitely see the argument for being a little less new player friendly. But I think it increases the skill cap but shouldn't make the game less fun in casual play.
Probably the best example of what you're talking about is tripping, which was a mechanic in Brawl but was dropped in Smash 4 and won't be back in Ultimate, I just found that mechanic frustrating, but I'm more toward the competitive side of the spectrum. Overall though, I think Smash Ultimate is going to be the same crazy fun that you're used to from Smash games, it's just going to have a lot of settings that help out the competitive scene. At this point competitive Smash and casual Smash are really 2 very different games.
More importantly, there's a stage hazard toggle. (And also importantly, this time around the Omega stages are all functionally identical, as are the Battlefield stages.)
There is definitely room for multiple configurations though. Splatoon for example has Turf War which is exclusively non-competitive and Rainmaker etc. which are exclusively competitive (ranked). That allows them to fine tune the modes which are intended to be fun for the everyday player. The more competitive modes can be balanced separately for those with a competitive goal.
If Nintendo are serious about Smash's competitive side, they should probably consider an online competitive mode which removes some of that Smash randomness.
I don't think Nintendo was ever against its competitiveness. They probably understand that if they focus on keeping the game fun, the rest will follow, regardless of whether the competitive scene accepts it or not. For an example of getting this backwards, of trying to make a game competitive first and worrying about the fun afterwards, look at the painful example of StarCraft II. Blizzard succeeded in making that game competitive, ok. But they failed at making it fun, and as a result its energy as an eSport, i.e. its playerbase and therefore viewerbase of casual and casual-competitive players, fell out from under it.
I do agree the things Nintendo is offering the competitive scene with Ultimate is awesome. I'm buying a Switch before the holiday season starts because it's probably going to get hard to get.
Sometimes I wish the game that became the "everyone's in it!" game for Nintendo wasn't a fighting game. Limited appeal. Some sort of adventure/rpg game would have been much more Nintendo with a broader appeal. Now that would have potential to be the great Nintendo capstone epic.
I'm also waiting for Metroid Prime 4 and Pikmin 4 as I loved the two games released on GameCube.
This one was different, but wonderful. I went in knowing nothing about it, and was blown away. The first seven hours or so gave me a sense of helplessness, wonder and uncertainty that I rarely experience in a video game.
The longer you can go without reading a guide, the better. Eventually it can become a grind, but I got months of play value out of it, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Super Mario Odyssey is also excellent. It's incredibly fun, even if it's easier than other mario games. Incredible attention to detail.
Basically this "game" is a game engine on top of which a real game could be implemented, but as such I just see it as an empty open world. I'm sure that without Zelda on the title, it would have been judged more objectively, for was it is: an average game to say the least.
I have played the first zelda, and OoT, MM, and WW. In all of them, what I have really liked was the pleasure to wander into the world, (mounting epona on hyrule field, get lost in the see while discovering new island).
In the contrary I have only played the first few hours of skyward sword, because every two minutes a NPC was telling me what I should do and what I should not, and where I should go . Awful!
So I am very happy Nintendo choose to go for less story and more discoveries.
Could you post a link to your review, I would be interested to read your position with more details.
For the review, please send me an email (visible on my profile) so I can send you the link (as the blog use my real name).
Without the Zelda title, it would have been treated the same as every good Zelda-like game: as evidence that Nintendo needs to revitalize the Zelda series. Instead it was a Zelda title, and so was the revitalizing that the series definitely needed. The fact that it was an outstanding game on top of that was just icing on the cake.
Personally, I hardly cared about beating the story. Instead, I focussed on specific goals: buying the house and equipping it. Building Tarrey town. Upgrading armor. Expanding weapon slots. Exploring.
As a byproduct of this, I found I had more or less outmatched all the enemies. But it came as a surprise. I was just having fun pursuing some personal goals.
Super Mario World is one of the easiest games I’ve ever played and also one of the best.
...God Hand is the hardest game I’ve ever played that is still fun. I figured out why: it requires a lot of manual dexterity but is extremely fair. Compare Kaizo Mario et al, which are basically puzzle games in disguise.
It definitely does seem that Nintendo are showing more and more interest in the competitive aspects of their games. Some other recent examples include the Arms (which could almost be considered exclusively competitive) and Splatoon tournaments which they often run at conventions they are attending etc.
Had the Switch failed, I believe this could have been their next play. Even if they exited the console market their IP could sustain the company for decades.
A big-budget television series would push something like The Legend of Zelda into something that it's not, and likely cheapen the brand. By investing and shipping something fresh and well-crafted at a slower clip, Nintendo can ensure that its IP keeps its strength over time.
Why risk making the next Super Mario Bros. when they can print money making Pokemon videos?
That sounds terrible. GoT had volumes of an already successful story from which to build a TV Show. The problem with the Zelda TV show & the SMB movie is the fact that these franchises are pretty light on story to begin with, let alone good story.
Two things that stuck crazy-well were the touchscreen on the NDS in 2004 and the motion controls on the Wii in 2006. In either case, they were the first to market with both ideas, but before that people would've said the idea was crazy.
Two other examples that didn't stick at all, off the top of my head: Virtual Boy and the Power Glove.
(Small aside: It's long enough ago that plenty of people seem to have forgotten, but the touchscreen on the NDS was a crazy idea at the time because that was nearly 3 years before the iPhone was released, let alone smartphones becoming common/popular. The got-to-have phone at the time was the Motorola RAZR.)
The 3DS, based on hardware/system alone, should have failed. It was tremendously underpowered, and it forced a terrible 3D technology on all its users, which never really took off or became anything other than a novelty while raising the cost of manufacturing.
The Vita was a truly next-generation portable gaming device, with a beautiful screen, incredible graphics, properly analog sticks, an extremely modern interface, and great connectivity and human-interface (camera, capacitative touch) features. Even incorporating the cost of a proprietary Sony memory card, for the amount of power you got, I think it was very reasonably priced. Comparing the 3DS and Vita was like night and day in terms of a modern gaming device. Even today, I think it can stand head-to-head with the Switch in terms of portable gaming.
But Nintendo continued to pour resources into developing top-tier games for the 3DS, slashing its price to bolster adoption, and sticking to its still unorthodox 3D screen/touch screen combo. Whereas for the Vita, Sony quickly got spooked that the Vita didn't perform as well as the PSP, pulled first-party support and general marketing support, and major 3rd party developers (particularly outside Japan) fled the device.
The 3DS is now seen as a major success for Nintendo, while the Vita died (or is still dying) a slow and unceremonious death.
Sometimes sticking to your crazy guns works.
It makes good business sense when you think about it; if you try to out-engineer the competition on hardware, well, any company can hire good engineers. And they're only going to be able give you the same or slightly better. But no other company can produce Mario and Zelda games, at least, as long as they defend their IP to the extent that they do, and make decent hardware and decent Mario/Zelda games at the standards they themselves set, they will make money.
That and the fact that they're sitting on a massive pile of cash means they be creative when other companies can't because their shareholders are terrified of negative numbers. Something American companies really need to learn. Lean isn't always good.
That's a little strong, considering there's a switch to turn it off or even the option to get a 2DS.
I usually turned it off (except for Bravely Default which has gorgeous 3D art in the towns).
I own a 3DS and a Switch and you have to be on each of those platforms to buy games online. I've got a PayPal account linked to the Switch but it's unavailable on the 3DS. In Australia they never opened up ec.nintendo.com so you can't buy games in a web browser.
I'd say the 3DS is in the "dead, but doesn't know it yet" stage - killed not by a competitor, but by the Switch itself.
PS: The price of Vita memory cards is still a travesty.
...and the Wii U
The motion stuff for the wii was a lot more insane and worked out really well, there was no major market product for that stuff prior afaik, so that's a fair point.
Nintendo is fairly secretive about their inner workings and facilities, so I doubt we'd get much info about what goes on inside.
Nintendo basically funded Rare's offices before Microsoft bought them (when they were doing N64 games) and those were full of flashy bullshit
I'm not sure how you would characterize flashy bullshit, but the Rare offices were basically based on the same premise as the old offices up the road at Manor Farm... isolated developments teams in their own buildings (or at least their own floor) with a central building containing HR etc. Yes there was a full restaurant, but Manor Farm had that too, and it's kinda essential if your offices are in the countryside. The entire office was designed to be a distraction free as possible.
True the building had a bunch of expensive environmental features to help it blend in to the existing rural landscape and to reduce carbon footprint but I'm sure it was way cheaper than building or leasing any kind of generic office space in London or heaven forbid in SF.
https://i.imgur.com/0h803Ux.jpg shows a Chart.JS demo running in a canvas.
Unfortunately the File API does not work: https://i.imgur.com/GA5kNGp.jpg
There's no real way to "patch" this.
Just disable custom DNS. Only allow a few whitelisted DNS that 99.9% of people are going to use anyway.
For exploits/jailbreaks/... it'd be easy to use a local fake captive portal, so it doesn't protect against that unless they kill that feature completely, making the device unuseable with many networks.
The point is that if you own the network (and you do), then the clients are nominally at your mercy.
RCM mode is barely "intrusive". Just shove a paperclip into the joycon port, easy.
How does it hold up?
I have two, one is three and the other is seven.
We've cleared odyssey at least two times as well, and I catch the older one looking for moons from time to time. Kirby seems to be the current attraction though :)
Granted, turning those files into parts might be more work than most people want to do, but at least it’s an option.
One interesting thing is he’s super attached to it (specially the robot one) as it took him so much time to build. I’m waiting for the interest to wane a bit to go for the customizations and try to build new things.
Luckily some recent indy games have filled that itch. Yooka-Laylee, A Hat in Time, and Hollow Knight have felt like modern updates of what I grew up on.
There are some notable exceptions, but storytelling and just narrative quality and variety is .... not really there.
If they're going to fill my time with cut scenes they should be good.
I still have fond memories of Westwood's Command & Conquer cutscenes (and the CGI!) because it was so cheesy and low budget
It's such a great, great game. It offers a fantastic atmosphere supported by a fitting score, an unexpected amount of unique content, an interesting story and a fitting amount of challenge.
Fantastic experience overall!
Different configurations of the same corn, chiles, and meats. Grilled or fried. Tacos, sopes, flautas, enchiladas, gorditas, quesadillas.
Frankly sounds like all fast food except a place like Chili's, so doesn't seem like very scathing criticism.
Far Cry is a bit of a mixed bag, 3 was fun, 4 wasn't, I'm looking at 5 because it looks fun too.
No one can beat nintendo for that.
Rainbow Six Siege is still one of my favorites.
I would wish that OW-games would be more like Wildlands.
To be honest there are only a few games I played during the ps3 era (bought it for the cell chip+linux and left it unpatched when they removed it from the firmware until the system was broken wide open), but the last of us was a great story and fun game.
I know that Iwata took the company to great heights after Yamauchi stepped down but sometimes I worry that as time goes by Nintendo will lose what made it great, which is their big picture thinking. They’re not a console company, or a game studio or a game publisher; they’re a game company and to create the best experience they sometimes need to reimagine how games are played while not looking too gimmicky. It takes a special kind of philosophy to pull that off and over time I’m afraid it’ll go away.
Nintendo then said their next console wouldn't compete with MS or Sony directly. I was sure they were just going to be a handheld gaming company after that as they were sure to die in the console market.
Nope, the Wii sold like hot cakes and I bought one and had a ton of fun.
They just keep doing it...
The last time I was excited for a game was Age of Mythology back in 2002.
Nintendo solves the biggest complaint I have with modern games: they just take themselves way too seriously. So many are just trying to become wish fulfillment vehicles instead of actually being fun.
I don't care about story or sitting through 10 minute cut scenes. I don't have that kind of time or patience. If I wanted story, I'd watch HBO and get far better stuff.
I just want to launch and have fun for 30 minutes.
Nintendo gets that.
There is some serious skill in that.
From a consumer's perspective I just don't get it. The Switch costs more than a vastly more powerful PS4 or Xbox One S. It (particularly) versus a PS4 has a tiny library of games. And the PS4 has actual VR. But even more remarkable is comparing the prices of games on the systems: often you will pay 2-3x as much for a (probably inferior) version of a game (compared to PS4/Xbox/iOS/Android).
I bought a Switch a few months ago. Played (and loved) the nostalgia of Mario. Played and dropped (as it seemed frustrating/grind-y) Zelda. And as far as I can tell that is basically the two games worth getting it for it. So I sold it. As I have a dozen great games ready to go on my PS4, and seems like more excellent stuff on the way, I just don't get the point of the Switch. If I want to play games on the move I can use my iPhone.
No, not really. When it comes to videogames, most people don't care about specs, they care about having fun. Yeah, "fun" is subjective, and it's OK that you didn't find the Switch fun after playing two games. Of course, on the other side of that coin, it means you can't discount that other people enjoy the Switch more than you did.
Also, this isn't a zero sum game. The Switch and PS4 can both earn positive coverage.
I think a lot of people buy a Nintendo console because they want to play Nintendo games. For a lot of people, the cost of a Nintendo console is worth it for Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Bros, and maybe a handful of other games.
So far, the only games I have on the Switch are Zelda, Mario, and Sonic Mania. I've had a ton of fun with all three, but like with my Wii my Switch is probably going to gather dust until the next game I really want to play comes out. Most of my gaming is done on my PS4, and I think a lot of people are similar in that they'll buy two machines - a flagship gaming device, and a fun Nintendo system.
It would be great to see Nintendo try to compete with Sony and Microsoft on hardware, but I think the flagship side of gaming has left Nintendo behind. Their online serving is over a decade behind their competitors, and I simply don't think Nintendo can execute in that market.
Right now I'm away from home, but have my switch with me so I can play them, and also enjoy the 'console' level games too, on the move, with a reasonable controller.
The first party games have the same appeal as they always did -- stellar platforming in Mario, a mainline Zelda, etc. Whether those interest people is more or less a known quantity at this point (they didn't make the WiiU nearly as successful).
Splatoon 2, Bayonetta 2, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, ARMS.
Also homebrew and Linux :)
I'd argue that this is the essential game for the Switch. Most fun I've had in 30+ years of gaming.
Modifications to the Horizon OS (like Atmosphere) can be detected, but I wouldn't worry about bans if you don't pirate or cheat.
I've made plenty of small, silly games that I could release on Android, iOS and recently also on Steam. That's great, I wouldn't be able to do so on Switch.
However, I'm now also working on a bigger game that takes two years to make, and when releasing on Android, iOS and Steam it will just drown in the sea of crap, which means I will have to rely only on my own marketing efforts. It might also get a Switch port, and it's more than likely that it will be much easier to sell there.
It's a sentiment other manufacturers miss out on entirely and that's fine, but I am super glad Nintendo is still around to fill the gap.
Anybody have experience with hanafuda cards from Nintendo? I'm thinking of buying the Tengu pack. I've been learning Koi Koi (ever since watching Summer Wars.)
It has nothing to do with the hardware and their gimmicks. I can count on one hand the number of times I've used the Switch outside the house, or seriously played a Wii motion-control game, or a WiiU game that effectively used the dual/touchscreen features (does Mario Maker count?). If Nintendo released Mario Odyssey for PC I'd never even think of purchasing the Switch and very happily play the game at 4k 60fps on my puter. Being able to remap "shake your controller like an idiot" to spin-jump to a button in Dolphin made various Mario New's tolerable.
But yea, that'll never happen. So as long as Nintendo keeps producing on the games front, I'll happily keep biting. Plz take my money.
But how could I go on this rant without diverging into lionizing the glory of the SNES days, when Nintendo and videogames themselves were at a peak which shall never again be reached. The SNES was inarguably (though not at the time, Blast Processing and all) superior in graphics, audio, and control compared to other popular consoles at the time (that being Sega Genesis of course). And developers took advantage of all this power in spades. I'm still impressed by Mode 7 (what, you don't pause SMW when Bowser's clown-ship is zoomed to the max?), and many SNES game music are still among the best examples of VGM, before compressed digital audio removed all constraints on composers (with all due respect to the glorious SOTN and Mario Galaxy compositions).
Many people have stated that early 2d games have aged better than early 3d ones, and I think that is true. The SNES shows this well, with vibrant, colorful, glitzy graphics, and excellent music. But what I think has been lost with the new generation of consoles is unique character. One could tell at a glance whether a game was was produced for the NES, Genesis, or SNES, and even the PS1 and N64. Now that characterness is left up to the developer, and the consoles/PC mostly interchangeable. That's fine I suppose. But there is something impressive, especially as a programmer, about taking these limited machines to their absolute limits, and eking every bit of unexpected power out of them.
I remember once my friend messaged me, he just had to play FF3 (or FF6) like RIGHT NOW. So I sent him the ROM. We then both marveled at how it was only 4 megabytes in size. Kefka is truly rolling in his grave, laughing maniacally.
Do you live in the US and in a non-urban area (e.g. not NYC)? If so, you probably have no reason to use the Switch outside the house. You may have a car commute and live in country where playing handheld games outside isn't normal.
I say this because growing up in a suburb, not many people played their GBA/DS/3DS outside. We all just brought them to each other's houses or played them in cars.
Now that I live in NYC, you might see me playing on my 3DS or Vita during my subway commute (I'm too scared to take the Switch out since it costs $300). In Japan, handheld games and consoles are becoming the norm, so it's very common.
I will say the ability to go from couch/TV/projector to bed and still be playing the same game is awesome.
And yes, FFVI is the best JRPG of all time.
Previously my argument was that I wasn't going to spend a few hundred dollars to play games hunched over a handheld in my living room as that's the only place I play. The switch happily fills that niche of having handheld titles but still being a capable living room console.
It seems to me that Ninetendo are great at finding ideas that at first glance seem really silly, but were borne from research into the real world outside of the typical gamer echo chamber.
As for the second part of your comment, it's simple. Playing handheld video games in public is not typical or socially normal in the US... unless it's on your phone.
WiiU has your back there too, assuming your house is not too big. I do kinda wish the Switch managed to keep the feature of dual screen play. Not having it makes my hopes for a new Mario Maker for Switch pretty faint.
> And yes, FFVI is the best JRPG of all time.
And yes, I live in the US in a small town and my commute to work is on the order of ~5 minutes.
Nintendo’s gimmicks of today are tomorrow’s table stakes. See: shoulder buttons, analog sticks, rumble, wireless, motion, portability.
It was better suited to the kinds of things liked by the mainstream audience, but it wasn't inarguably better. The Genesis had higher resolution graphics for most of its games, a sound chip that didn't sound muffled all the time because of severely limited sample memory, and a faster CPU meaning less slowdown and loading delays (cartridge systems still had loading delays, because when storage space costs that much you compress things as much as possible, and decompress into ram at runtime). The SNES has nothing like the games by Treasure for the Genesis.
> a sound chip that didn't sound muffled all the time because of severely limited sample memory
Huh? SNES sound chip, SPC700 has 64KB of RAM, supported 8 voices and had 32 kHz sampling rate.
For comparison combination of Z80 and YM2612 used by Genesis had 8KB of RAM, supported 6 voices and had 22 kHz sampling rate.
That said, I agree that SNES sound does sound muffled, although this is mostly due to Guassian filter involved. The available RAM didn't help, but Sega Genesis had even worse in terms of available RAM.
> a faster CPU
Until you realize that all instruction execution times are multiples of four cycles. Yes, the CPU is 7.6 MHz, not 3.58 MHz, but effectively SNES CPU is slightly faster for FastROM games (not all games used fast cartridges however, for slower cartridges, SNES uses 2.56 MHz clock). Not much, but...
Technically true, but misleading, because the 22kHz only applied to the DAC mode. The effective sampling rate (sampling rate needed to reproduce the output using PCM synthesis) of the FM synthesis mode is about 53kHz. And the Genesis also had a 4 channel (3 square, 1 noise) SN76489 PSG integrated on the VPU die, with effective sampling rate of about 224kHz, which could be used at the same time as the YM2612. In practice the frequency response is bottlenecked by the analog parts, but it still beats the SNES. The limited RAM is also of little importance because FM synthesis can generate complex tones without it.
In contrast, SNES music is entirely sample based, so it's entirely dependent on sample RAM size (unless you're streaming samples from the cartridge, which is too expensive to do during gameplay). Theoretically it could use extremely short looping samples for PC Engine-style wavetable synthesis (which to my ears sounds better than standard SNES music), but AFAIK no commercially released game did this.
>Until you realize that all instruction execution times are multiples of four cycles. Yes, the CPU is 7.6 MHz, not 3.58 MHz, but effectively SNES CPU is slightly faster for FastROM games
The Genesis not only had a faster clock, but also a wider data bus, more registers, wider registers, and higher memory bandwidth. You're right that "megahertz myth" comparisons are invalid, but you're wrong that this lets the SNES win. https://segaretro.org/Blast_processing has some detailed technical comparisons.
The SNES was the perfect combo of better color pallet, better gfx effects, better audio, and a better controller, compared to it's main competition. And to be fair, without the slew of brilliant games produced for the system, all that would have been for naught. But it was the whole package that made that system great. It had the best of all worlds at the time.
Of course today building a "most powerful" console would be complete folly with the PC gaming platform around, and no console maker even tries, though Sony and MS might fight amongst themselves. At the time however, consoles were truly head and shoulders above what common PC's could do in the 2d and audio realm.
And don't forgot some of the excellent SNES ports of arcade games (and the controversy over the "bloodless" Mortal Kombat on an otherwise superior version compared to Genesis).
I still rue the day when my local arcade was shutdown and replaced with a clothing store. Damn you, kids these days.
Hah, come on now. For all the merits of Chrono Trigger, what goes with everything? That's right. Guile theme.
Case in point: TMNT: Turtles in Time
I think Odyssey is the first that has enough variations that you can't just use button combos for some. I tried playing it with a wired controller without accelerometer support while a nunchuk was out to get fixed, it was had to do a lot of the moves.
For me it isn't even about taking it outside or play while commuting so much as being able to pick it up and play it on the couch, at my desk, while watching food cook etc. Also the ability to just pick it up, take it to a friends and play games I own but they don't on their TV.
I use it regularly in handheld mode and in fact Switch is my first Nintendo console, which I would not buy if it wasn't portable.