Support NeoGAF

[SturokBGD]

That's very true, but then again Nintendo had a MUCH higher color palette of 32,000 colors to work with on the SNES while Sega had a paltry 512. Obviously, they had limitations with what they could display on screen, but I guess that's why I expected Mario too decimate Sonic visually back in the day. I had both systems and games though, so I loved both anyway.

Yes, this was pretty much the reason. On paper the SNES set some crazy expectations at the time, then Super Mario World actually came out and it looked just like a nicer SMB3. Some might even say the gameplay was regressive in comparison to SMB3.

 

[guek]

I thought this was about SM 3D world and was like "no."

But seeing as how it's about Super Mario World, I'm like, "no."

 

[BocoDragon]

I remember seeing a Super Famicom in the mall in 1990 and being utterly shocked by how good SMW looked, so no.

At the time, just the colours, the parallax scrolling, the super large sprites and the fact that blocks would flip and explode was impressive. Now I think we can't even see it for what it was back then.

I can appreciate that if you got into the Genesis early, it might have diminished, but I think for the majority of people it was a jaw dropper circa 1990-1991.

 

[Spiritwalker]

yes, it was meh

 

[nkarafo]

This was actually a topic in that Console Wars book. According to that, Sega America was really relieved when they saw Mario World for the first time, since they found it to be rather underwhelming graphically and mostly just more of the same on the gamplay side.

Of course, the way the book is written, you never know what actually happened and what is just a fabrication of the author.

That's pretty interesting, first time i read about this.

 

[ninjaboyjohn]

Now Mario 64, THAT was a game changer.

 

[maxcriden]

Man, if SMW1 looked like SMW2...

SMB3 would surely quiver in its boots at the least, then.

 

[Razlo]

No, not at all, it was impressive as all hell. Still looks great!

 

[Peltz]

It wasn't underwhelming by any means but it also did not have the same visual impact as the original Sonic.

Also, the original Sonic's gameplay is still superb and holds up very well. Not sure how people think it looks noisy or plays poorly.

SMW is clearly the better game, but people are way too quick to criticize Sonic 1's quality

 

[Ryde3]

I don't think so, super super clean - my favourite art style ever actually.

 

[120v]

i remember the "wow" factor came from seeing it in motion. it was more a showcase of the snes' effects rather than sheer graphical output

 

[eXistor]

Not to me, the art-style is impeccable. Simple it may be, but it's very striking.

 

[JeffGrubb]

There's a reason half of all Super Mario Maker stages are World palette. The art design is still beautiful.

 

[Randomizer]

It was impressive to me being the first 16-bit game I both saw and played. I never really liked Sonic 1' s art style, it's too busy and all over the place. Sonic 2 was a huge step up in every way.

 

[petran79]

Although i started gaming in the late 80's, i missed most of what Nintendo was doing early on because, in my country, they started selling Nintendo stuff officially somewhere in 1991/92. Yeah, the NES was officially a new console for our market in 1991. That's a couple of years after the Mega Drive...

Anyway, along with the NES and Game Boy there was also the SNES and SMW. But when i played it for the first time around late 1991/early 92 i thought it looked pretty mediocre for a "super system" like the SNES.

Fortunately I lived in Germany during that time, so I had played NES games since 1987. This is why when I returned no one was that keen on Nintendo...
But you had comparisons, I mean Amiga 500 and AtariSTs were very popular prior to 1991 and DOS PCs as well.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I don't think so, super super clean - my favourite art style ever actually.

Yeah it's definitely timeless. SMW Mario Maker levels are eye candy

 

[Sapiens]

I love Sanic 1 and SMW's visuals for different reasons. They're both great.

 

[Kevtones]

Sonic always felt messy and imprecise, kind of like its gameplay. Still pretty though.


Mario wasn't a looker but it was clean and crafty. Holds up well and the whole stage play atmosphere is brilliant.

 

[Type40]

Sonic had more to prove, and barely had 19 stages/levels.

 

[beril]

I was blown away when I first saw it as a kid, so no.
It's not that technically advanced but it looks super clean and still uses some nifty graphical effects here and there. It's aged better than many other SNES games IMO, including Yoshis Island.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

For a launch title with a relatively short development period on new hardware Super Mario World looks great.

Some folks tend to forget that the Genesis launched in '89 and Sonic the Hedgehog was two years into its lifespan. Developers were more accustomed to its hardware and it shows.

 

[Raysoul]

This GIF impresses me.

 

[Stevey]

Yeah, it looks trash, like it did at launch, but gameplay was on point.

 

[Already Torn]

Mario World is still by far the best looking 2D Mario.

 

[Steiner84]

not kidding, I think its still the best looking mario game.

 

[CronoRobo]

maybe... but we weren't so cynicals and picky about that stuff back in the day.

if the game was fun, it could be as ugly as they wanted.

 

[Shamrock7r]

I think, much like Earthbound (Whose graphics were maligned when launched), it's benefited from the passage of time, and the clean, very deliberate and easy to understand look has made the game age gracefully. The visuals are looked at fondly today, and some of the visuals are even iconic in the Mario universe.

That Charlie Brown effect.

That's what makes Yoshi's Island so great. It combined everything above, and also was a graphical showcase for the SNES. Took it to the next level.

 

[ar4757]

Super Mario World didn't even look as good as SMB3, aesthetically.

Yup SMB3 always looked more colorful and such to me

 

[gigantor21]

It looked pretty bland to me. Yoshi's Island, on the other hand, still looks incredible to me.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

This GIF impresses me.

Touch Fuzzy, get dizzy was more impressive, but then again, there were a lot of stages in this game that impressed.

 

[MrBadger]

It doesn't look bad, but the art style isn't anything mind blowing. It's uses of mode 7 are fairly poor and gimmicky but it was a launch game and it still looks nice so I can't fault it. Sonic looks better, though. Also some sprites in SMW are especially odd or poor looking, even in comparison to its NES predecessor

 

[DorkyMohr]

The death sprite still looks strange to me - with the red eyes and all

Small mario has beady eyes, what you're seeing is a flushed forehead.

 

[RealityCheque]

It's got a nice, clean style which services the gameplay (ie accurate and skillful platforming) very well.

Sonic may be better looking in theory. But all these years later I know which I'd rather play.

 

[Tain]

Sonic was an aesthetic triumph, making extremely smart use of tech and showcasing tons of artistic talent. It's appropriately busy, and make no mistake: it's timeless.

SMW was clean and quaint. Not bad, but not as impressive as Mario 3 was on its release, so I could see it being underwhelming.

You're seeing a difference in aesthetics, not "graphics," and Sonic is a masterclass on how to clutter a screen and make gameplay confusing.

Graphic tech is a deeply integrated subset of aesthetics. People often act like they're inseparable, but that's ridiculous.

Well, if you want lots of stuff on screen, you have to compromise.

That's what the people here that think SMW doesn't look good don't get.

kinda nonsense given the differences in CPU power, but it doesn't even matter since this is a thread about aesthetics.

 

[Calamari41]

TBH, I've always felt that the 2D Mario platformers have always been really meat-and-potatoes as far as their art and presentation are concerned. That's why I've never been that down on the aesthetic of the NSMB series as some have because they're in line with what the first four games were, outside of the SMB2 detour that the west got. Nothing wrong with that, but it's solely been the 3D games that have excelled in the art department.

If I'm recalling developer discussions correctly, the art style for 2D Mario is the way it is in order to make it as crisp and clean as possible so that the player instinctively knows where everything is and what can and cannot be interacted with. There's no wondering "is that a platform or not?" in a 2D Mario game. I'm not saying Sonic meaningfully suffered from this, but many contemporary platformers did in a big way.

 

[PandaShake]

It's crisp and clean. Holds up now and forever.

 

[Joey Ravn]

I much prefer the clear and clean look of SMW. I honestly never liked Sonic's graphics during the Genesis era. Sonic 3 is a specially clear offender, IMO. I would post a picture, but they are all from emulators, so it's kinda cheating.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

If I'm recalling developer discussions correctly, the art style for 2D Mario is the way it is in order to make it as crisp and clean as possible so that the player instinctively knows where everything is and what can and cannot be interacted with. There's no wondering "is that a platform or not?" in a 2D Mario game. I'm not saying Sonic meaningfully suffered from this, but many contemporary platformers did in a big way.

NSMB games should have better art style though. They played it way too safe

 

[Calamari41]

NSMB games should have better art style though. They played it way too safe

I'm not really as down on the NSMB art style as most, but I do think that they should have changed it up in the second generation of the NSMB games (3DS and Wii U) just for variety's sake if nothing else. Improvements were indeed made, though. But with the way those first two games sold, I can't really fault Nintendo for sticking with the same style.

 

[Nocturno999]

Lol no. It still looks great.

 

[Jack Random]

it was considered gorgeous at the time (but i think i was 13 or so when it came out)

 

[Coinspinner]

I can't say I was underwhelmed, I was a little kid and had no expectations. At the time I was very impressed by the large moving objects, like the crushers and spiked pillars. The color depth also helped, as compared to NES and what little I had seen of the Genesis. Years later I I would notice both that the SMW had fairly sparse graphics, but also that the sparseness aided the game's clarity. It's easy to identify the edges of things, spot hazzards, etc.

 

[Goldenroad]

It was the most mindblowing thing I'd ever seen at the time. I remember telling my parents that we needed to get a SNES because "the graphics aren't quite realistic, but they're probably the closest video games will ever come to looking real". LOL. What did I know?

 

[Pancake Mix]

You need to remember, it was 1990 in Japan, not 1991 or 1992 like in the West.

As a launch title that year, it was beautiful graphically and the art style at least still shines today. Not sure what on Super Famicom in 1990 would look better, and certainly no Mega Drive/Genesis games.

The audio is where it really shines for 1990 though, 'dat expensive Sony sound system.

If it had come out in 1994 or later you might have had a point, but it was a Super Famicom launch title in freaking 1990.

 

[plentyofmilhouse]

My favourite Mario sprite and a game oozing with timeless style. It might not have been a technical marvel but it was perfectly suited to the gameplay and premise and it'll always be one of my favourite looking games.

I was blown away when I first saw it, especially with all the colours compared to Mario 3, an already pretty game with such a limited palette.

Playing Super Mario World always feels like coming home after a long trip away somewhere. You might have seen some glorious sights, but everything just feels alright and good when you're running through Dinosaur World.

 

[VariantX]

It had clean and good visuals, but it was kind of boring to look at compared to the sonic games with its much higher visual complexity.

 

[Shig]

I think Mario 3 is the more stylistically interesting game at the base level, so Mario World was a bit flat in that respect, but the execution of it all was pretty damn impressive.

Especially given that it was a game that came with every system on day one. Not many launch games have showcased their system's new capabilities better, and certainly no other pack-in launch games have.

 

[petran79]

You need to remember, it was 1990 in Japan, not 1991 or 1992 like in the West.

As a launch title that year, it was beautiful graphically and the art style at least still shines today. Not sure what on Super Famicom in 1990 would look better, and certainly no Mega Drive/Genesis games.

The audio is where it really shines for 1990 though, 'dat expensive Sony sound system.

He means not the SNES, but the NES! It seems as both systems launched with a few months differences when he was young, in contrast to the Mega Drive. Sega took Europe more seriously than Nintendo

 

[Calamari41]

The other thing is, I don't think I ever got hit by an enemy in Mario World without knowing it was there first. I've been hit plenty of times, though, by enemies that at least somewhat blended into the Sonic environment, especially when moving with some speed. That's due entirely to the difference in art style, in my opinion.

I say this as an unequivocal lover of both series.

 

[Griss]

It was graphically unimpressive but a visual delight.

Yoshi's Island ended up showing what the SNES could really do, though.