So it can (and will) be agrued, right ? Often when comparing systems A and B of similar generations, even if A came out a couple of years before B, it's common that A can do things that B can't, as well as B can do things that A can't. Even if there's an overall technical superiority of A over B, it will still be agrued by fanboys that B is better than a because there's this little thing B can do and A can't. So I'm sure there's people that will call the Mega Drive having better graphics due to it's higher horizontal resolution.tokumaru wrote: It can't be argued that the SNES has better graphical capabilities than the Genesis, whose only real advantage is the higher horizontal resolution of 320 pixels (which does make a difference in some games).
It's like the C64 vs NES, it's pretty much the same thing, C64 has less sound channels but they can do more than NES' channels. It has worse graphics, BUT it can colour sprites individually among the 16 available colours instead of using the concept of a "sprite palette", and can colour individual BG tiles individually instead of using the concept of BG palettes and attribute tables.
