Exactly. That's kind of what I was hinting at, but I was also saying that Nintendo themselves really aren't known for pumping out manic-style action games that would require a speedy processor, or at least they weren't known for it at the time.Turrican wrote:Moogs wrote:As for Genesis ports that were better than SNES ones, look no further than Earthworm Jim. Not only was the SNES version missing a level, but it also had less voice samples. Go figure.
In the end, the SNES was my console for platformers and RPGs, whereas the Genesis gave me my fix of shooters and action games. The SNES was not designed with high speed/action games in mind. If you ask me, it was the first example of Nintendo creating hardware based around the games THEY created, everyone else outside their walls was just going to have to work around it.
Good lord.
How's that for a first post?
Snes being the first console based on the games they created: hmm, no. Why, the Famicom was built with something else in mind? The Snes came years after the Megadrive. Of course it was more powerful, and it was built to do the best "Dragon Quest" possible with the best music possible... Because in Japan, a Dragon Quest / Final Fantasy OST sells more than any shmup.
I guess my claim more or less gravitates toward the N64, GC, and DS - more specifically the way they control. Nintendo designed the controllers for these consoles without really taking conventional gaming into consideration, i.e.: games that require immediate access to all available buttons if need be (how useless was the L button on the N64 controller? Seriously.). The GC controller wasn't designed with fighters in mind, and the DS sure as hell wasn't designed for developers who want to just make a straight up, normal game without being chastised for not using the DS to its full potential. Whatever that may be.
However, this thread has gotten way off topic. I don't intend to derail it any more than it already has been.