The most important console for gaming thus far....

[G-Boobie]

I was thinking about this the other day when I was organizing my games collection...

I have absolutely NO brand affiliation; brand loyalty is just about the dumbest thing to happen to our alleged 'culture' since the sitcom. With that said, I notice a hugely disproportionate amount of SNES and PS2 games in my collection, games that help define the modern videogame as an entity. Games like Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Chrono Trigger, Super Castlevania IV, Super Metroid, Rez, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3, GTA San Andreas, etc. etc. etc.

Consoles are nothing without the software they enable. Some consoles, though, have taken on a state of grace all their own. What gamer doesn't have a soft spot for the Dreamcast, Saturn, or Xbox? Many important games have appeared on those consoles; Shenmue, Radiant Silvergun, Ninja Gaiden, Halo, etc. etc....

So my question is this: What console do you think has been the most important or influential so far? Why? What games help define said console? What console from the current crop of 'new gen' consoles do you think will be most important in the future?

G-Boobie, out.

[SkiDragon]

I will take the easy route and say the most important console was the Atari VCS. Being the first popular console, I wonder what would have happened if it never came out.

A year ago I would have said the Wii would be the most influential current console. Now I am not too sure, but it's still probably the strongest candidate. It's just that so many developers have the ability to make uninnovative games using the most innovative control system to come along in a long while.

[BHvrd]

I would say the NES cause that's when gaming really seemed to boom and pretty much hasn't stopped since. I can't think of a videogame system since that has had quite the impact that the NES did. To this day I have yet to meet a person that doesn't know/remember/hasn't played the game Duck Hunt.

The bases were very well covered with that system, there was a game for everybody. My sister was an Arkanoid freak, My bro loved Kung-fu, My dad liked Mario, My mom was into Othello, and I was into Metroid.

Never since has a system peaked so many interests at the same time. The system really had the bases covered for the whole family, and then some. It would be awesome if Nintendo could get the same kind of recognition from gamers and non-gamers alike with the Wii like the NES, but i'm just not sure if they can. So far they seem to be trying.

Yeah I would definetely say the NES cause it didn't just get the attention of gamers, but non-gamers as well.

[Maxx]

I second the NES. My mom liked Mario, Dad liked Duck Hunt and Zelda, and I was addicted to Final Fantasy. My parents were into Atari, so naturaly they loved games; simplistic games where the only goal was high score. Nes games were more complex and yet still simplistic. The goal was not so much score anymore, but finishing the adventure.

Today, games are so complex in controls/storyline/graphics they can't bring a family together. I remember my Mom tried to play Halo. 15 minutes into the game and she got so sick, she threw up for 3 hours. Good luck trying to get them to play anything again.

[BydoEmpire]

Hm, 2600 or NES - nothing else even comes close. On one hand, the VCS really put gaming into the mainstream and built the industry. It seems doubtful to me that its competitors could have done that (at least to such a degree). On the other hand, there *were* other systems out, so it's possible gaming could have taken off without it. The NES revived a basically dead industry. Without the NES, we'd all be playing computer games now.

I still have to go with the 2600, though, since it really built much of the industry in the first place.

[neogamer]

The NES!

It revitalized an industry that was completely wiped out and washed up.

Enough said!

[Nebagram]

2600 or NES, even though I'm not a huge fan of either. My vote'd probably be the NES.

[Mayhem]

Three most important consoles ever imo are 2600, NES and PS1...

[Dangerboy]

You'd have to look at it from each generation, no one console brought everything to the table.

Case in point:

1. Odyssey 1 by default - took the first baby step
2. Atari 2600 - Allowed the first 3rd party, first true home versions
3. NES - The console equivalent of a Phoenix Down
4. Turbo Grafx - First baby step into CD format
5. PlayStation - ZOMG <3...ahem...first true 'mainstream' gamer crowd*
6. Xbox - First time multimedia storage console taken seriously**
7. Wii - First time a long running standard was challeneged...and 'won'

I truly believe the Wii has been the biggest step in years, almost 11+ to be precise, where a world took notice and suddenly admitted that hey, this really isn't just for kids / hardcore people.

* - As much as I love the PSX, it has both ushered in a new breed of gamers, as well as started the alienation of the hardcore gamer. I think Microsoft is the only real company left attempting to grasp the hardcore by way of Achievements and all the rare down loads (Rez, Puzzle Fighter, etc).

** - By time table, techinically the CD-I and 3DO would have been first with the first attempts at movies on a CD (VCD?), however, their early death/instant death defeats the purpose of the post.

It'll be interesting to see what this thread looks like in another 15 years.

[KingCobra]

VCS for being the first to be wide spread.

SNES took 2D over the top to the masses, who doesen't know of the Super Nintendo System?

and the Dreamcast for the first true 3D level jump, it brought some of the first true near perfect arcade ports right into the living room.

Many systems and PC's were far more powerfull than these, but these were the ones than blew me away.

I don't know about these newer modern system yet, their all cool! But they all seem to be missing something? They got alot of power and sure have some nice features, I guess they're all missing that game that goes over the top that's not from last gen.

[smokehouse]

Three most important consoles ever imo are 2600, NES and PS1...

Nuff said.

2600- made home gaming popular and made “video game” a household name

NES- Came form the ashes of the completely destroyed US gaming market and made Nintendo more known that Mickey Mouse.

PS1- Made gaming transcend into the realm of “mainstream”. In other words, it mae gaming ok for the “normal” Joe’s to play.











The next one in my opinion…the Wii…only time will tell but in as I see it, it’s doing something NO console has ever done before.

Bringing video games to people who are not prone to or do not like traditional gaming.

I’ve heard many stories of older people who would never touch a video game playing Wii titles…this is the next level of gaming in my opinion.



As for some of the other consoles listed, they mostly made technological jumps…something that was bound to happen no matter what.

The 4 listed above have made major social changes…that’s far harder to attain. Some might not have been the best on the market but it had that “something” that made it special and the public picked up on it and it took off from there.

[KingCobra]

Nuff said.

2600- made home gaming popular and made “video game” a household name

NES- Came form the ashes of the completely destroyed US gaming market and made Nintendo more known that Mickey Mouse.

PS1- Made gaming transcend into the realm of “mainstream”. In other words, it mae gaming ok for the “normal” Joe’s to play.














The next one in my opinion…the Wii…only time will tell but in as I see it, it’s doing something NO console has ever done before.

Bringing video games to people who are not prone to or do not like traditional gaming.

I’ve heard many stories of older people who would never touch a video game playing Wii titles…this is the next level of gaming in my opinion.



As for some of the other consoles listed, they mostly made technological jumps…something that was bound to happen no matter what.

The 4 listed above have made major social changes…that’s far harder to attain. Some might not have been the best on the market but it had that “something” that made it special and the public picked up on it and it took off from there.


Good post! technological jumps force other gaming componies to step it up though, thus moving other consoles to the top, I'd say as long as gaming has been around now at this point, we'd really have to seperate it by two area's 2D and 3D. There's just been too many jump's at this point to call one or two consoles the "King"!

[7th lutz]

From each generation I have to say:

1.)Odyssey- default

2.)VCS-first popular video game system, 1st system to have 3rd parties, 1st system to have arcade ports

3.) Nes-revived the videogame home console market

4.) Tied between tg cd and Sega Genesis- Tg-cd was the first cd based system was an add-on. Sega Genesis proved there was a big market for Mature games. While Nintendo didn't accept Mature games in orginal form, Sega did. Sega allowed games with blood and fatilities on the Genesis like Mortal Kombat and the system started to make gamers think Sega's rivil Nintend was klddy. Sega Genesis also was partly responsible for having a ratings system.

5.) Playstation-first non cartidge system to be a major sucess. First Mainstream system

6.) X-box or dreamcast-While the dream cast was a niche system, it was the first game console to have older games from older games systems ready to be downloaded. First system to have on-line gaming. X-box was the first game console to have orginal games downloaded for an onlin service.

7.) Wii-different type of controls from other game consoles before this generation, brought the virtual game console idea from the Sega Dreamcast to a new level. The system is created a market that didn't exist before in videogames.

I have to the 2600 is the most important at this point. It the first of many things for gaming like creating the foundations for future genres and about everything with videogames at that point except for Cartridges and being the first 1st system released.

[UniHamachi]

The VCS, NES, and PSX are defintely the top three, but if I had to pick just one, I'd say the NES only because it was such a great product that it almost didn't make it to the US market specifically because the VCS was such a disaster that home console systems became radioactive. I would argue that the NES would have made it to market even without the VCS -- in fact, it may have had a harder time coming to the market because of the VCS. In a sense, the VCS is sort of like a species in the family tree that was an evolutionary dead end.

PSX is a very strong second -- before the PSX, videogames were a kid's endeavor -- the stereotype of a videogamer used to be a little snot nosed kid. Now it's of a slacker nerd who has no girlfriend. Somehow, it's still progress.

[suppafly]

Im NOT an atari lover, but I have to agree that the Atari 2600 is the most important console ever.

[diskoboy]

I vote Odyssey. Simply because it was the first.

2nd place - Fairchild Channel F for making systems programmable by simply changing a cartridge.

3rd place - The VCS for bringing video games to the mainstream.

4. NES for reviving the almost dead US market

5. TG16/PC Engine for introducing the CD-ROM as a viable storage medium.

6. Dreamcast for introducing online play as a standard feature.

[neogamer]

No offense, but the "question" was what is the most important console thus far! Why do we have people listing three consoles?

[neuropolitique]

The 2600 should be discounted straight off. It's sales were mostly to non-hardcore parental types.

Therefore, the most important console was the TG-16. It was really the first console to target the hardcore gamer.

[smokehouse]

No offense, but the "question" was what is the most important console thus far! Why do we have people listing three consoles?

Because you can’t separate the three big ones (2600, NES, PS1). Al three are equally important to the grand picture of gaming. How can you say what any of the three accomplished is larger than what others have done?

You can’t.

All three had major flaws but all three transcended being a simple “home game machine”.

[Trebuken]

The 2600 popularized video games, but the NES was a dramatic advance and it is the source from which most soubsequent games derived.

So I believe the NES wins.

Props for the TG-16 plug though...

[heybtbm]

I'm going to have to say Atari 2600. It was the first mainstream video game console in this country. NES was a bigger deal (looking back), but the 2600 was "first".

[8bitgamer]

Atari 2600. Just set up an Atari 2600 at a public place and watch the response. (I don't expect anyone to do this, but I've done this at a couple of book signings, and the response has been incredible. People's eyes light up light crazy, and they have an instant story to tell about their Atari when they were younger).

http://brettweisswords.blogspot.com/

[smokehouse]

Atari 2600. Just set up an Atari 2600 at a public place and watch the response. (I don't expect anyone to do this, but I've done this at a couple of book signings, and the response has been incredible. People's eyes light up light crazy, and they have an instant story to tell about their Atari when they were younger).

http://brettweisswords.blogspot.com/

The original NES toaster would have the same effect as well though…

[UniHamachi]

I'm going to take another crack at this.

Let's clarify what "important" means in the context of this thread. It doesn't mean first, it doesn't mean the one with the most nostalgia.

When I say "important", it means, which console, if taken out of history, would have the largest affect on gaming today? The VCS ended in a radioactive fireball that destroyed console gaming. If it didn't exist, we'd lose some memories, but it really has no direct bearing on gaming today.

The NES did two things: first, it recreated the console game market, and it can be argued that the VCS made it more difficult for Nintendo to break through, not easier. The second was that it brought Japan into console gaming. And that alone is worth anything the VCS accomplished.

As stated earlier, the NES is the console that all modern consoles spring from. If the NES never existed, modern gaming wod be on the PC. If the NES never existed, Sony would never have developed the Playstation and MS would never need to create the XBox.

[neogamer]

Because you can’t separate the three big ones (2600, NES, PS1). Al three are equally important to the grand picture of gaming. How can you say what any of the three accomplished is larger than what others have done?

You can’t.

All three had major flaws but all three transcended being a simple “home game machine”.

I think you can remove the PS1 from the list. Gaming would still have gone on without it.

The 2600 started gaming. The NES revitalized it. The PS1 just continued it, but it would of lived on without it....

[neogamer]

I think you can remove the PS1 from the list. Gaming would still have gone on without it.

The 2600 started gaming. The NES revitalized it. The PS1 just continued it, but it would of lived on without it....


Of course, by importance, there obviously would be no PS2 or PS3 without a PS1, so if you are looking at it from that perspective, I do see your point.

We would however, still have Nintendo and probably, the Xbox as well!

[smokehouse]

I'm going to take another crack at this.

Let's clarify what "important" means in the context of this thread. It doesn't mean first, it doesn't mean the one with the most nostalgia.

When I say "important", it means, which console, if taken out of history, would have the largest affect on gaming today? The VCS ended in a radioactive fireball that destroyed console gaming. If it didn't exist, we'd lose some memories, but it really has no direct bearing on gaming today.

The NES did two things: first, it recreated the console game market, and it can be argued that the VCS made it more difficult for Nintendo to break through, not easier. The second was that it brought Japan into console gaming. And that alone is worth anything the VCS accomplished.

As stated earlier, the NES is the console that all modern consoles spring from. If the NES never existed, modern gaming wod be on the PC. If the NES never existed, Sony would never have developed the Playstation and MS would never need to create the XBox.



I agree. All systems have their “ups and downs” though. I will say that the NES was crucial to modern gaming….but in the same way, the Playstation did it’s part as well.


I guess I just have a hard time with the big three…I can’t separate them.

I look at it this way:

The Big book of video game history

Chapter 1- the 2600 and the original of home gaming
Chapter 2- the NES and the resurrection of the US gaming market
Chapter 3- PS1 and the move to adult mainstream
Chapter 4- ??? Like I said earlier…possibly the Wii



Remove any one chapter and the book wouldn’t be complete. End the book with chapter 1 and you’d think the US gaming market was in the can. End with 2 and you’d think that the gaming market had taken over the children’s market…

You get the point. If you’re comparing the big three you can’t really separate them…it’s like a gaming trinity; separate but equal.

[neogamer]

I agree. All systems have their “ups and downs” though. I will say that the NES was crucial to modern gaming….but in the same way, the Playstation did it’s part as well.


I guess I just have a hard time with the big three…I can’t separate them.

I look at it this way:

The Big book of video game history

Chapter 1- the 2600 and the original of home gaming
Chapter 2- the NES and the resurrection of the US gaming market
Chapter 3- PS1 and the move to adult mainstream
Chapter 4- ??? Like I said earlier…possibly the Wii



Remove any one chapter and the book wouldn’t be complete. End the book with chapter 1 and you’d think the US gaming market was in the can. End with 2 and you’d think that the gaming market had taken over the children’s market…

You get the point. If you’re comparing the big three you can’t really separate them…it’s like a gaming trinity; separate but equal.

I do see your point, but the question asked for one system, no more, no less. By that measure, you can only pick one.

Again though, all the systems you mentioned are equally important. I just picked the NES the most.

It should be noted that I did own an Atari 2600 when it first came out as well, so I am not biased against or towards any.

[smokehouse]

I think you can remove the PS1 from the list. Gaming would still have gone on without it.

The 2600 started gaming. The NES revitalized it. The PS1 just continued it, but it would of lived on without it....

Sure, it would have gone on but would it have transcended into mainstream culture? If that generation would have been the N64 and Saturn only, gaming would not be where it is today. The Playstation made it “cool” for adult gamers to step into the ring. The N64, Saturn, Dreamcast and even the Xbox wasn’t like that.

I truly believe the PS1 took gaming to a different level…no different than the foundation the 2600 laid or the market the NES rejuvenated.

[smokehouse]

I do see your point, but the question asked for one system, no more, no less. By that measure, you can only pick one.

Again though, all the systems you mentioned are equally important. I just picked the NES the most.

It should be noted that I did own an Atari 2600 when it first came out as well, so I am not biased against or towards any.



If I have to pick one…….then it goes to the NES...

[otaku]

for me the SNES and 64 started it all so they are special to me. sega though is my all time favorite for the genesis, saturn and dreamcast they're just special machines with such great games.

[Icarus Moonsight]

What is this Highlander? I think I'm going to separate my Flashback 2, NES and PS1. I don't want to be playing a game and all of the sudden end up in the middle of a console turf war. You gotta keep an eye out for them Atari Flashback units... not having a cartridge port, they don't fear prison. LOL

Ralph Baer and his early creations get the nod from me if I have to chose a single source. If Zenith had listened to him we would have had the first home (albeit extreamly primative) video games built into TV sets as early as the mid 50's. Nothing would be the same today without him, hence, most important.

[boatofcar]

The original NES toaster would have the same effect as well though…

If it wasn't blinking ;)


I kid! I kid!

[neogamer]

for me the SNES and 64 started it all so they are special to me. sega though is my all time favorite for the genesis, saturn and dreamcast they're just special machines with such great games.

Again, the question is:

What is the most important gaming machine thus far?

Not what you have the fondest memories of!

I do NOT mean to sound like a jerk, but that was the question! It's quite simple actually. It just depends on how you define "important" and I think, there in lies the problem!

[jcalder8]

I would say the NES by far. The market was dead before it came out. Sure there was a boom from the 2600 but there was a backlash going on when the NES came out. Thusly why its the Entertainment System. IIRC Nintendo didn't want it to be seen as a traditional video game console because no one was buying them. Also it got an entire generation to love all things Nintendo.

Jumping forward: I think that it depends on how you look at it. What makes a game console important. If its how many people play that one system then its got to be the Wii. but if it has to do with how many people it turns into hardcore gamers I think that nod goes to the 360.

The Wii has lots of people who have never played video games before buying consoles but how many of them are going to hang around for the rest of the generation or continue into the next gen. How many of the grandparents are really going to care when the Wii2 comes out? Even looking at the younger kids playing this I would imagine them wanting to get something more "mature" when the next gen comes out.

The 360 with its online play and lineup of games I think is the most important. This is the system that is going to get gamers to keep buying games and stick with MS.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Are we talking classic systems? Like most have said- the NES. Affordable and tons of great games. Modern systems? Not saying it's the best I think the XBOX standardized some current generation trends (although PS2 was the software and sales king): Standard Broadband Online service brought multiplayer to the masses like no other, and gave gamers downloadable bonus content. Hard drive- no expensive memory cards, I hate memory cards. High Def (a few games were 720p or 1080i).

[neogamer]

Are we talking classic systems? Like most have said- the NES. Affordable and tons of great games. Modern systems? Not saying it's the best I think the XBOX standardized some current generation trends (although PS2 was the software and sales king): Standard Broadband Online service brought multiplayer to the masses like no other, and gave gamers downloadable bonus content. Hard drive- no expensive memory cards, I hate memory cards. High Def (a few games were 720p or 1080i).


Once again: The question or statement reads: Most important console thus far.

It does not matter, classic or modern.

[neogamer]

I would say the NES by far. The market was dead before it came out. Sure there was a boom from the 2600 but there was a backlash going on when the NES came out. Thusly why its the Entertainment System. IIRC Nintendo didn't want it to be seen as a traditional video game console because no one was buying them. Also it got an entire generation to love all things Nintendo.

Jumping forward: I think that it depends on how you look at it. What makes a game console important. If its how many people play that one system then its got to be the Wii. but if it has to do with how many people it turns into hardcore gamers I think that nod goes to the 360.

The Wii has lots of people who have never played video games before buying consoles but how many of them are going to hang around for the rest of the generation or continue into the next gen. How many of the grandparents are really going to care when the Wii2 comes out? Even looking at the younger kids playing this I would imagine them wanting to get something more "mature" when the next gen comes out.

The 360 with its online play and lineup of games I think is the most important. This is the system that is going to get gamers to keep buying games and stick with MS.

Without the success of previous Nintendo systems there would be no Wii! Keep that in mind!

Fortune magazine states that it costs about 500 million dollars to successfully bring a video game console to market! This is one reason Sega stopped making great (my opinion) game consoles. Unfortunately for Sega, they were never able to recoup their costs, thus plunging them into massive amounts of debt that they are still trying to work their way out of! It's sad really. Especially if you are like me, a true Sega fan!

[sabre2922]

the most important game consoles within the last 35+ years of videogames by Sabre2922 S.W.

#1. Atari 2600

#2. N.E.S.

#3. Playstation 2 - thats right the PS2 NOT the PSone

#4. the Nintendo Wii

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Once again: The question or statement reads: Most important console thus far.

It does not matter, classic or modern.

Well... this is the MODERN GAMING forum, if I'm not mistaken. And seeing how a lot of people have listed several, that's why I gave both- just in case. Thanks for singling out my post and really clearing things up for me.

[neogamer]

Well... this is the MODERN GAMING forum, if I'm not mistaken. And seeing how a lot of people have listed several, that's why I gave both- just in case. Thanks for singling out my post and really clearing things up for me.


No offense to you. If you would go back and read my other posts, I singled out more than one person. It just amazes me that when something asks for one choice, people will post as many as they feel a need to in order to get their point accross.

It read one! It's that simple!

[agbulls]

I understand and live the passion that is the 2600. However, I really don't think video games would be video games if we didn't have the NES. After all, didn't Nolan Bushnell admit to totally destroying the video game business around '84? I realize that isn't entirely relevant to me dismissing the Atari, but it is relevant in the importance of NES.

However, now that I'm typing while I'm thinking...I think it's really just a matter or perspective on which of the two. And, the more I think about it, the harder it becomes for me to even consider any system besides the 2600 and NES.

Without the 2600 we wouldn't have video game consoles. PERIOD.

Without the NES we wouldn't have the video game industry as we now know it. PERIOD.

Which is more important? Well, everyone has their opinion, but I don't think you can quantify one over the other. I suppose you could say the NES wouldn't have existed without the Atari - which is true. However, we wouldn't have gotten the SNES, PS2 or any other console without the NES. A

Argue to your heart's content, I'm calling this a TIE.

[otaku]

Ralph baer and the odyssey for starting it all! How's that? I can see the NES for having "saved" gaming but the odysey and baer basically got it started

[neogamer]

Ralph baer and the odyssey for starting it all! How's that? I can see the NES for having "saved" gaming but the odysey and baer basically got it started

You have a point, but Atari still would have moved forward without them/him, wouldn't they?

I would say yes.

As for the Atari 2600, I think after the great market crash, some other company would of revitalized the market, whether it be Nintendo, Sega, or another company!

It just happened to be Nintendo at the time, but couldn't it of been another company as well?

[agbulls]

You have a point, but Atari still would have moved forward without them/him, wouldn't they?

I would say yes.

As for the Atari 2600, I think after the great market crash, some other company would of revitalized the market, whether it be Nintendo, Sega, or another company!

It just happened to be Nintendo at the time, but couldn't it of been another company as well?

I don't know, I suppose if we're going to play the "What If?" game, then...

What if Sony had made the first popular gaming system, and not Atari? Wouldn't SOME company have come into the market, whether it be Texas Instruments or IBM to make the first system?

Kinda a stupid way to go about the conversation. For all of our sanities, lets stay with what actually DID happen. Both Atari and Nintendo deserve equal credit. I don't see how you can argue either way.

[neogamer]

I don't know, I suppose if we're going to play the "What If?" game, then...

What if Sony had made the first popular gaming system, and not Atari? Wouldn't SOME company have come into the market, whether it be Texas Instruments of IBM to make the first system?

Kinda a stupid way to go about the conversation. For all of our sanities, lets stay with what actually DID happen. Both Atari and Nintendo deserve equal credit. I don't see how you can argue either way.


Sorry, just thinking in print!

You are right, but my initial thought (and post for that matter) was the NES!

[mailman187666]

The NES!

It revitalized an industry that was completely wiped out and washed up.

Enough said!

thats all I was really going to say here too. It changed the way videogames were back then.

As for today's current gen systems, its hard to say with Wii and PS3 still being new. I'd go as far to say MS's online system is important for the future of videogames, PS3's blue ray tech and multimedia functions could influence later decisions, and wii's control sceme is up there too. So I can't really put a finger on any of them, but I'd say the 360 and thier online capabilities will, from this point on, always be built upon in any future concoles. Hopefully they don't do away with disks.

[Cinder6]

The 2600 started gaming. The NES revitalized it. The PS1 just continued it, but it would of lived on without it....

I don't think you can so easily discount the impact the 2600 had. If you can, then we can take out the NES, because we could just say that somebody else would have come along and brought back the video game market.

The fact is, Nintendo might not even have considered making a video game system had Atari not come around (and thus inspired all sorts of competition). Sure, they might have, but nobody can really say for sure.

And to the person who discounts the 2600 because of the crash: that seems like a pretty important event to me. Importance doesn't take into account positive or negative impact. It's impartial.

[scooterb23]

No offense to you. If you would go back and read my other posts, I singled out more than one person. It just amazes me that when something asks for one choice, people will post as many as they feel a need to in order to get their point accross.

It read one! It's that simple!


Did you ever think if people need more than one, than the answer is really not that simple for most people?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

No offense to you. If you would go back and read my other posts, I singled out more than one person. It just amazes me that when something asks for one choice, people will post as many as they feel a need to in order to get their point accross.

It read one! It's that simple!

And while your being the thread police, why not see if you can get a special seperate forum set up for threads that talk about classic and modern consoles at the same time. Because bringing up the NES in a modern gaming forum, doesn't exactly follow the rules either, does it?

It's that simple!

[7th lutz]

[QUOTE=agbulls;1247218]I understand and live the passion that is the 2600. However, I really don't think video games would be video games if we didn't have the NES. After all, didn't Nolan Bushnell admit to totally destroying the video game business around '84?

QUOTE]

Bushnell didn't destroy the videogame business around 1984. He was really not the videogames at that time. He was not involved with the videogame industry at the time. He was the owner of Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre around 1984 when the crash happened. He left Atari months after I was born. I was born in the year Space Invaders was first released in the arcades. That means Bushnell had no impact from a video game company stand point.

There was many factors to the crash with some of them being blamed on Atari management like doing the e.t deal. The other factor was Jack Tramiel. He made computers cheap at the time and computers offered more then a video game console could at the time in terms of games. Computer games offered more genres in terms of advancement then the videogame home console did. The price of the c64 on keys to the crash. Jack made computers affordable at the time under the Commdore brand.

[SkiDragon]

I still vote 2600, and there is no bias there as it really predates me. I own one now and I enjoy it but it is not my favorite system. But it has to be the most important. The NES had competitors that would have had more market share and could have done the same thing as the NES if the NES wasn't there.

The Odyssey would be a candidate, but I don't think it was ever very popular, and it hardly even qualifies as a "console". It's more of a plug-and-play device that happens to use jumpers to select the game.

The 2600 was what really made gaming popular. It could be argued that another system eventually would have, but then we are basically saying that the development of video games was inevitable, and that no single console really changed the eventual course of things. There has been no Thermopylae in video games.

[neogamer]

Did you ever think if people need more than one, than the answer is really not that simple for most people?


Do you know how to follow instructions?

Most of us learned that before the age of five!

Are you special or just different?

Again, the thread reads: "The Most Important Console for Gaming Thus Far..."

[scooterb23]

So my question is this: What console do you think has been the most important or influential so far? Why? What games help define said console? What console from the current crop of 'new gen' consoles do you think will be most important in the future?

G-Boobie, out.


Do you know how to follow instructions?

Most of us learned that before the age of five!

Are you special or just different?

Again, the thread reads: "The Most Important Console for Gaming Thus Far..."


Actually, the question is what G-Boobie, not you, wrote above. I didn't see where G-Boobie made you the lifeguard of this thread, so please, stop doing...whatever the hell it is you are doing in this thread. There is no need for the name calling and the repeated insults. ESPECIALLY since you only seem to have only read the thread title, and not the actual thread content.

To answer the REAL question, not the imaginary one, it's obviously very complicated. My gut is telling me to say 2600 because of how it helped bring gaming into our houses, and helped bridge the gap between the arcade and the family.Also, wasn't the 2600 pretty much the start of the third party developed game? If not then it brought their importance to the forefront.

On the other hand the NES brought video gaming back from the crash, plus think of how it many genres of games that were, in many senses perfected on the system. Also, the NES brought us the most recognizable mascot in the industry. I'm not sure if I put the Playstation up to that level of importance yet, but it's not very far behind.

It's hard to tell though; how much of our gaming world now was shaped by the Jaguar's failure? Or the Game.com? Sometimes events like those can have just as much, if not more influence on an industry than a success... we just may not know about it because it is behind the scenes.

As for today's consoles with the most future impact? Ask again in a year ;) But the continued popularity of the Digital Distribution may hold a lot of the keys to what we may see in the future.


Or to answer it in a way neogamer can handle: there isn't one.

[PallarAndersVisa]

dreamcast needs credit where its due. The most important thing to happen to gaming since the introduction of the game pad has been online gaming, and the dreamcast made it work, and brought it to the mainstream. Gaming wouldn't be squat without functional online multiplayer (and im not talking about the Xband, that was garbage.)

[smokehouse]

dreamcast needs credit where its due. The most important thing to happen to gaming since the introduction of the game pad has been online gaming, and the dreamcast made it work, and brought it to the mainstream. Gaming wouldn't be squat without functional online multiplayer (and im not talking about the Xband, that was garbage.)




So online gaming was the most important thing to happen in the gaming world? More important than the startup of home gaming or the resurrection of the US gaming market?


Sure.


LOL @ Dreamcast fanboys….still delusional even after all of these years…the fact is that DC or no DC, the XBox would have still accomplished what it did and it was the system to beat for online gaming…not the DC.

[sabre2922]

So online gaming was the most important thing to happen in the gaming world? More important than the startup of home gaming or the resurrection of the US gaming market?


Sure.



AGREED

Online gaming is HIGHLY overrated in my opinion:moon:

The only ppl I know that are hyped about online gaming are a couple Halo fanboys and amazingly enough thats the ONLY game they play online even though they have other online enables 360 and PS3 games.

Ill add that it surprises me (in a good way) that I have had many ppl ask me about how to download virtual games on their Wiis before purchasing or when hooking up the system.
Thats the only online feature that I see regular type ppl or "casuals" really interested in.

not to hijack the thread mind you.:D

[neogamer]

Actually, the question is what G-Boobie, not you, wrote above. I didn't see where G-Boobie made you the lifeguard of this thread, so please, stop doing...whatever the hell it is you are doing in this thread. There is no need for the name calling and the repeated insults. ESPECIALLY since you only seem to have only read the thread title, and not the actual thread content.

To answer the REAL question, not the imaginary one, it's obviously very complicated. My gut is telling me to say 2600 because of how it helped bring gaming into our houses, and helped bridge the gap between the arcade and the family.Also, wasn't the 2600 pretty much the start of the third party developed game? If not then it brought their importance to the forefront.

On the other hand the NES brought video gaming back from the crash, plus think of how it many genres of games that were, in many senses perfected on the system. Also, the NES brought us the most recognizable mascot in the industry. I'm not sure if I put the Playstation up to that level of importance yet, but it's not very far behind.

It's hard to tell though; how much of our gaming world now was shaped by the Jaguar's failure? Or the Game.com? Sometimes events like those can have just as much, if not more influence on an industry than a success... we just may not know about it because it is behind the scenes.

As for today's consoles with the most future impact? Ask again in a year ;) But the continued popularity of the Digital Distribution may hold a lot of the keys to what we may see in the future.


Or to answer it in a way neogamer can handle: there isn't one.

Thank you!

That is all somebody had to say and look how long it took!

to quote: "there isn't one" (meaning just one console)

Anyone disagree and want to state that there is only one console that is THE most important thus far??

[PentiumMMX]

Because NES, Atari 2600, and PSX have already been said, I'll go with the N64. It made the rumble feature and analog sticks a standerd feature of controlers, along with proving consoles can do FPSes properly.

EDIT: Yes I know the NES brought back the market, but that's been said enough times in this thread already.

[Rob2600]

To put things very simply, the Atari 2600 was important for the video game industry in America, but the NES was important for the video game industry worldwide.

[theoakwoody]

I'd say the Nes was the most influential. It drew a line in the sand between arcades and home consoles with games that were not just pick up and play games. I know the 2600 had a couple of games like Adventure and bad ports of other next generation games that fall into this category as well but not to the same degree as the nes. Now all you hear about in marketing is that this game will take 40 hours to beat and that you'll spend hours on side quests alone.

[BydoEmpire]

It drew a line in the sand between arcades and home consoles with games that were not just pick up and play games.That's an interesting point, I never thought of it in that way. Still can't decide between the 2600 and NES, though. The PSX would be a distant 3rd imho, as it already had several competitors which could have done exactly the same thing. Not only that, but the market was relatively well-established at that point which would leave the door open for somone else Sony-like to do what they did. Pure speculation, of course.

[G-Boobie]

OK, now I guess I'll weigh in ..... And to no ones surprise, it's a partial sell out.

I think the NES is the single most important console in terms of 'being the seed', or the progenitor of many of the most famous and revered franchises in gaming... But if you look at the state of the industry today, at it's structure, its traditions, and it's conventions, I think you'll find that the PSOne is the console with the heaviest mark on the industry.

What we're seeing with the Wii and the resurgence in PC gaming is an evolution of not only gaming, but the perception of gaming. WoW has 9 million subscribers; Steam boasts nearly as many registered users, and the Wii has sold millions to Alpha Moms across the world. None of this would be possible without the steps that Sony took to bring gaming to an older, more mature audience.

Nintendo has always designed their hardware to appear innocuous; like a toy. Sega followed this philosophy as well, and so did Atari in their post-2600 phase. In fact, EVERYONE did this, until the advent of the Playstation; inoffensive and friendly to kids was the rule. I'm a big fan of the Gamecube, but it looked like a lunchbox. The original Xbox looked like something to store He-Man figures in. Sony took care with the PSOne (and the PS2, something I think factored heavily into the huge numbers it eventually sold) to bring an adult sensibility to the design of the console; you wouldn't feel weird about leaving it under your TV if you weren't a hardcore gamer. It was another 'Sony' product, something that stood for quality in the minds of the average consumer.

Or so I think. Opinions, no doubt, will vary.

[zerohero]

Depends,

For me personally it was the NES, though I had an atari, the NES was most influential for me gaming wise till this day. Which is why if there ever happened to be no Nintendo, gaming would not seem right. Kinda like the feeling alot of people got when Sega stopped making consoles.

[Rob2600]

I think the NES is the single most important console in terms of 'being the seed', or the progenitor of many of the most famous and revered franchises in gaming... But if you look at the state of the industry today, at it's structure, its traditions, and it's conventions, I think you'll find that the PSOne is the console with the heaviest mark on the industry.

Exactly what structure, traditions, and conventions are a result of the PlayStation?

Nintendo is the company that started having officially licensed third-party developers, not Atari and not Sony. To this day, that is a huge part of the industry. Because of the NES, third-parties have been able to make tons of money (Capcom, Konami, Square, etc.).


Nintendo has always designed their hardware to appear innocuous; like a toy. Sega followed this philosophy as well, and so did Atari in their post-2600 phase. In fact, EVERYONE did this, until the advent of the Playstation; ... Sony took care with the PSOne to bring an adult sensibility to the design of the console

Keep in mind, the NES was designed specifically for the U.S. It was meant to resemble a front-loading VCR or other home electronics device at the time and was designed to not look like a toy.

I think the Atari 5200 and 7800 are sleek, modern, and cool looking. I also think the original PlayStation is ugly and cheap looking. It's a hideous, generic gray rectangle. The small PSOne, the PlayStation 2, and the PlayStation 3 are much better looking.

[Kittens_for_Peace]

http://www.thefunnycats.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/adorable-kitten.jpg

[neogamer]

Exactly what structure, traditions, and conventions are a result of the PlayStation?

Nintendo is the company that started having officially licensed third-party developers, not Atari and not Sony. To this day, that is a huge part of the industry. Because of the NES, third-parties have been able to make tons of money (Capcom, Konami, Square, etc.).



Keep in mind, the NES was designed specifically for the U.S. It was meant to resemble a front-loading VCR or other home electronics device at the time and was designed to not look like a toy.

I think the Atari 5200 and 7800 are sleek, modern, and cool looking. I also think the original PlayStation is ugly and cheap looking. It's a hideous, generic gray rectangle. The small PSOne, the PlayStation 2, and the PlayStation 3 are much better looking.

I got to agree with Rob on this one!

[sabre2922]

dreamcast needs credit where its due. The most important thing to happen to gaming since the introduction of the game pad has been online gaming, and the dreamcast made it work, and brought it to the mainstream. Gaming wouldn't be squat without functional online multiplayer (and im not talking about the Xband, that was garbage.)

Total Bullshit

Videogames would still exist and yes even be popular WITHOUT online gaming.

Online gaming is a nice feature for certain games but it is not a necessity for me and I doubt im the only gamer that feels that way.

[Rob2600]

Online gaming is a nice feature for certain games but it is not a necessity for me and I doubt im the only gamer that feels that way.

I agree. I've never played a console game online. I'm just not interested right now. Neither are most of my friends or relatives. The same goes for HDTV.

Perhaps in a few years, I'll be more interested in those features. We'll see.

[Slate]

It has to be the NES For reviving the market. :)

[FantasiaWHT]

The NES, for bringing gaming back from the dead (in North America at least)

The PS1, for bringing gaming to a more mainstream crowd (think of the extreme popularity of Tony Hawk & the EA sports titles)

The Wii, for bringing gaming to an even more mainstream crowd (think of all the people who never touched games until the Wii (and WiiSports in particular) brought a more interactive form of entertainment.

[neogamer]

Total Bullshit

Videogames would still exist and yes even be popular WITHOUT online gaming.

Online gaming is a nice feature for certain games but it is not a necessity for me and I doubt im the only gamer that feels that way.

Got to agree!

Online gaming does not appeal to me either!

[G-Boobie]

Got to agree!

Online gaming does not appeal to me either!

I respect both of your opinions, but they aren't at all indicative of the culture at large. Online gaming, console gaming included, is the most important step in gaming in long time.

[neogamer]

I respect both of your opinions, but they aren't at all indicative of the culture at large. Online gaming, console gaming included, is the most important step in gaming in long time.


Your taking the context of this thread away from its original purpose.

Now, are we answering the question of what is the most important console for gaming thus far (as the thread name implies).

or, are we answering the question of:

what is the most important step in gaming?

Do you see the difference?

[ozyr]

The Odyssey2 - because it is the Voice of the Future.

:wink 2: