Gametrailers.com "Top 10 Consoles" [Archive]

Nature Boy

04-20-2007, 11:37 AM

DarthKur

04-20-2007, 12:37 PM

Atari 2600 should be #1 since it pretty much fathered all of the ones that came after. Admittedly I am quite biased since the VCS is my all time favorite.

Gabriel

04-20-2007, 12:38 PM

http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=2111

(scroll down - you'll see the video under "Newest" and "Features" if you look at it today, April 20th)

To summarize:
10. Dreamcast
9. Atari 2600
8. GameBoy
7. N64
6. Genesis
5. GBA
4. PS2
3. NES
2. SNES
1. PlayStation

The only one that bothered me was the N64, but they do make a good case for it. I have a hard time seeing the VCS ranked below it though, as they ripped that in part for causing the crash, so why not rip Nintendo for holding onto a format that made games cost too much and had 3rd parties fleeing to their competition?

If the PS2 made the list, why not Xbox? It did introduce XBL. Every other major manufacturer makes the list but XBL isn't enough to squeeze in at number 10?

They have to list nearly all the Nintendo consoles because it's mandatory that the press suck Nintendo's dirty balls. Quite frankly, I'm amazed they didn't put the Wii at the top of the list.

Any semi-objective list would have the PS2 and PS1 topping the list, with the NES at third (it was shit, but there were some third parties forced to make good games for it because it was the only game in town due to Nintendo's strong arm tactics). Genesis, SNES, and GBA could all fight amongst themselves for slots 4, 5, and 6 respectively. Atari 2600 would be a shoe-in at number 7.

Since the chart obviously isn't based on sales, the rest would be sheer conjecture. The N64 definitely shouldn't be on any list of good consoles, and neither should the original Game boy. Both sold more based on Nintendo's typical bullshit and marketing tactics than on any merits of the systems or games.

A case could definitely be made that the Commodore 64 should be on the list. It's a computer, but back in the day most people didn't (and still don't) consider it a "real" computer. The Dreamcast can at least arguably make the list.

What would the last one be? I don't know. Even though I'm an Atari 5200 fanboy, I think classics and the Colecovision could use a nod. However, it seems to be "cool" to bash the Colecovision considering several various media references to it as something comedically inferior.

Clownzilla

04-20-2007, 01:15 PM

They need to replace the N64 with the Neo Geo AES

Hwj_Chim

04-20-2007, 01:37 PM

They need to replace the N64 with the Neo Geo AES

If this list was based on games alone than yes. But it sounds like this list was made for the sheeple so nintendo wins.

Poofta!

04-20-2007, 02:01 PM

The only one that bothered me was the N64, but they do make a good case for it. I have a hard time seeing the VCS ranked below it though, as they ripped that in part for causing the crash, so why not rip Nintendo for holding onto a format that made games cost too much and had 3rd parties fleeing to their competition?

because the n64 didnt hurt the gaming industry, just improved it (by opening the door for analog, good 3d platforming). anyone who had a problem with n64's carts could go to the ps (which they did) or the saturn.

i think the list is surprisingly dead on. i agree on all the games. neogeo doesnt belong... dude 400 dollar games, fuck that.

RCM

04-20-2007, 02:20 PM

Clownzilla

04-20-2007, 02:36 PM

because the n64 didnt hurt the gaming industry, just improved it (by opening the door for analog, good 3d platforming). anyone who had a problem with n64's carts could go to the ps (which they did) or the saturn.

i think the list is surprisingly dead on. i agree on all the games. neogeo doesnt belong... dude 400 dollar games, fuck that.

The Neo Geo might be expensive, but you get what you pay for.

jajaja

04-20-2007, 02:46 PM

Its a good list i guess, i dont have much to complain about. Alittle wierd that they included the Gameboy since its not a console tho.

About Neo Geo, i wonder how the forums would have been if they excisted back then like they do today. "OMG Neo Geo is doomed!!" LOL Too bad the games were so expencive, would have sold so much more if it was price competitive :)

diskoboy

04-20-2007, 03:02 PM

Mine would go something like this.

1. Dreamcast
2. Intellivision
3. Atari VCS
4. SMS
5. Sega Saturn
6. SNES
7. NES
8. DS
9. Odyssey 2
10. Xbox 360

Nature Boy

04-20-2007, 04:16 PM

I disagree with certain systems on the list. They're also off on a few facts/statements which is troubling. They only seem to take into account what systems were like in the states. I would have liked to see them consider consoles impact in other areas too.

Nice try though, it could have been worse.

Which facts are they off on, out of curiousity?

I see what you're saying about the US bias, but I don't really blame them for not taking the rest of the world into account. A Japanese list would be interesting though, wouldn't it? Maybe include the Saturn? Leaving the US console off the list (Atari) perhaps?

Nature Boy

04-20-2007, 04:23 PM

10. Xbox 360

Personally I think it's too early to include any current gen machines on the list. The PS2 era is cool with me, but even then I'd prefer a few more years gap between then and the list, just to see how everything feels. The Xbox could get mentioned for XBL I would think, especially if we see XBL on the 360 take off.

Frica89

04-20-2007, 06:28 PM

I actually thought the list was perfect, except I would have the SNES and the PSX change spots, though I respect their decision.

goemon

04-20-2007, 10:37 PM

Tron 2.0

04-20-2007, 10:42 PM

I watch it last night heck i'm not surpise they list system that, had the most commercial sucess in the u.s.

I know the some of my favorite cult systems wouldn't be on there.

Such as the NeoGeo,TG16/PCE or even the Saturn.

k8track

04-20-2007, 11:01 PM

The near-total lack of pre-NES systems really rubbed me the wrong way. I'd have to go with:

10. Vectrex and Bally Astrocade (tie!)
9. TG-16/PC-Engine family
8. Sega Master System/Mark III
7. Sony Playstation
6. Commodore 64 (yep, I'm counting this as a console, it's my list)
5. Intellivision
4. Colecovision
3. NES/Famicom/Famicom Disk System
2. Atari VCS
1. Atari 5200/8-bit

FlufflePuff

04-20-2007, 11:21 PM

For the most part I'd agree. My only changes would be moving N64 back to the Dreamcast spot and replacing it with Xbox.

Muscelli

04-20-2007, 11:30 PM

ah, the typical bitching that goes along with "top 10" threads

bangtango

04-20-2007, 11:31 PM

It isn't as easy to make a list like this as people might think it is. My list has nothing to do with sales, it would be made up of systems I've enjoyed playing the most over the years. Unlike some lists, it isn't based on their influence, sales or even their complete libraries. It was based on what I thought of them, what I played most and what I have memories of.

1. NES
2. Game Boy (original through Advance)
3. Dreamcast
4. XBox
5. Sega Master System
6. Genesis
7. Super NES
8. Atari 2600
9. Playstation
10. Intellivision

cyberfluxor

04-20-2007, 11:35 PM

For the most part I'd agree. My only changes would be moving N64 back to the Dreamcast spot and replacing it with Xbox.

What's so special about the Xbox. Online gaming is the only thing that I even see as remotely special but PC gaming had been doing it for such a longer amount of time plus previous systems had done online/dial-up services or devices, they just happened to be ahead of their times in technology. That's just my opinion though but even today still just not impressed by the XBox or PS2 for that matter. Both feel like normal systems with better graphics... I'm feeling a rant comming on about modern games so I'll just stop. :D

swlovinist

04-21-2007, 12:01 AM

Well, I will enter this post knowing that everyone is biased, including me. Most Atari Fanboys think that the Nintendo was japanese cutie crap, Most Nintendo fanboys hate Vintage one screen crap. You also have the "old" vs. "new" and what is better. What you grow up with definately has an impact on what you prefer, or at least like. Here is my list of just the consoles that I prefer to play on due to their libraries of games(All good consoles had loads of crap)

10. N64...It belongs on the system for the great multiplayer games
9. Dreamcast(good system, just did not stay around long enough)
8. Xbox(The whole live addition to gaming, I have put some serious hours on
Halo 2)
7. Turbo Duo(the ability to play imports on CD and what it offered was cool)
6. Snes(great platform titles and first party games, I love it)
5. Atari 2600(one of the most versatle systems ever made, a great quick
gaming fix!)
4. GBA SP one of the best portable systems ever made, still holds it ground
3. Playstation 2(still going after 7 or so years, with support from Sony)
2. Genesis(I prefer the grittier games this system had, awsome liberary)
1. Nes, although it had alot of crap, it also had a ton of gems. The one system that put the game industry back on track. I have been collecting for a ton of years and I still enjoy playing the games to this day.

I think that I go off what I actually play and still play. I grew up with the Neo Classics and missed the whole Atari bug, but still think that it is one of the best systems ever. I have over 60 different consoles, and the list above is what I prefer.

ubersaurus

04-21-2007, 01:43 PM

Given the sheer IMPACT of the NES in the US, and the fact that the Famicom practically created the japanese video game market, should make that number 2, possibly even number 1. The only system that came close is the PS2.

Beyond that it gets a bit murkier. The 2600 was the major console of the early era, and rightfully so. But the Genesis, Turbografx, SNES time frame all three systems had periods and locations of dominance, so you can't exactly pin one down as being the "most important".

Original Playstation makes sense given how big a success it was, and the N64 introduced(or reintroduced) a lot of features that are standard issue now. But the Dreamcast didn't really do a hell of a lot to warrant a spot. The game boy certainly made the handheld market what it is now, but is the gba really so much bigger a deal that it gets ranked higher?

I'd have pulled the Dreamcast as put the Xbox in it's place. Yes, the Dreamcast was the first system to really make use of online gaming, and it had some cool games on there. But the Xbox really made online gaming seem like an integral part of the package, and the fact it had a hell of a lot of onboard memory, the license to print money in Halo, and was in a sense the first console to really push progressive scan gaming, puts it at some level on the list.

ShenmueFan

04-21-2007, 02:01 PM

My Top 10 Systems Of All Time (*Based On Historical Significance & Overall Industry Evolution*)

1. Atari 2600
2. Nintendo Entertainment System
3. Playstation
4. Game Boy
5. Sega Genesis
6. Super Nintendo
7. Dreamcast
8. X-Box
9. Playstation 2
10. Nintendo 64

My Top 5 Systems Of All Time (*Based On Technical Advancement At The Time*)

1. NES (Blows 2600 away visually, interactively)
2. Playstation (First console to embrace 3D visuals)
3. Dreamcast (First console to embrace online play, hi-res visuals)
4. Super Nintendo (Significant advance in visuals, sound quality & controls)
5. Game Boy Advance (Officially made the leap from 8-bit to 16-bit visuals, sound & controls)

My Top 5 Systems Of All Time (*Based On Quality Of Game Library*)
1. Super Nintendo
2. Dreamcast
3. Playstation
4. NES
5. Sega Genesis

My Top 5 Systems Of All Time (*Based On Fanboy Love*)
1. Dreamcast
2. Super Nintendo
3. Sega Saturn
4. Atari Jaguar
5. Neo Geo / Neo Geo CD

Gametrailers should have been a bit more descriptive on the criteria they used to compile this list because as you can see, depending on what you're basing it on, you can have completely different "top 10" orders.

.

Aswald

04-21-2007, 02:35 PM

If not for the Atari VCS (2600), there would probably not be the later ones. So, it should have been on top. Plus, look at how much superior its later games were to the earliest ones.

The NES helped bring back a murdered industry in America. It earned its place.

I would have included the ColecoVision. It was the last of the great American game systems, it had the world's first battery-backed game (Lord of the Dungeon), and seems to be the most popular homebrew-supported system, so it literally has returned, Phoenix-like, from the grave. Consider the list of rediscovered (e.g. Steamroller, LOTD) and outright-programmed new games (Pac-Man Collection, Ms. Space Fury, Star Fortress, Astro Invader, Sky Jaguar, Space Invaders Collection, Reversi, etc...).

BHvrd

04-21-2007, 04:34 PM

I thought it would be fun to pull up this old thread where we had our picks.

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=854970#post854970

My original picks: 11-24-2005, 05:08 PM

#1 Atari 2600/5200
#2 Playstation (1 and 2)
#3 Nes
#4 Snes
#5 Genesis
#6 Gameboy (all versions)
#7 Gamecube
#8 Xbox
#9 N64
#10 Sega Dreamcast

I hate that I had to leave Sega Saturn out, but when all is said and done, it's the one that had to be cut.

Cryomancer

04-21-2007, 04:53 PM

Everyone knows that top ten lists of consoles have a secret number zero. As in, better than number 1. And that slot is reserved for the Vectrex.

7th lutz

04-21-2007, 06:33 PM

I think they got a fact wrong. Stating the 2600 almost killing the gaming industry is a bit unaccurate. There were other factor almost killed videogames. The games were not as advanced as computer games were, there were to many game consoles on the market in 1982 and 1983. It took the 128 bit era to show that 3 game consoles from one generation to the market was bit enough for that. You also got stuff not directed from the 2600 like computer add-ons from coleco and mattel. Also it can be blamed on the commodore 64. There also was the fact there seemed to be more my too games at the time and not advancing from those.

I feel game trailers shouldn't have counted handhelds like GBA and Game Boy. They great hand helds.

Here is my top 10, with me not owning a couple of them with me look at Quality of games,what impact the system made and how well balanced the system was in genres
10.) Tg -16/turbo duo- Underrated system with first cd attachment
9.) Saturn great 2d system, good games, but lacking more in the rpg deparment then the Genesis was in the states and lack of 3d power effected the system.
8.) n64- I never own one, but I can it has great 1st parties games and best graphics in the 32/64 bit era. It's biggest issue beside cartidges is some genres were lacking in games. (this also plagued the game cube somewhat) I might be overrating it it still with its ranking
7.) Sega Dreamcast-last great 2d console system, along with better looking 3d games, great niche games, and first game console with online system in the states
6.) Atari 2600- First system to have bankswitching cartridges, along with adding chips in cartidges like sound chips for an examples. Had a lot bad games, but a lot of classics also. a good of number game console genres got there starts with the 2600.
5.)Sega genesis- One of my all time favorite systems of all time. Great games in all genres despite being a bit on the low side on a couple generes. Great sports games, platform games and shooters, and had quality games in each genre despite the fact the snes had it beat in fighting games and rpgs.
4.) ps 2- not one of my top 5 game systems personally, but it did created new franchises, and was the best game system of the generation along with being the first system with the dvd format.
3.)snes- great system, but not as good the nes in terms of great games in genres also slowdown effected some games for the system
2.)nes- Great game selection
1.) ps 1- had great games for each genre, first disk game console to be a sucess in the states

7th lutz

04-21-2007, 06:41 PM

[url]
If the PS2 made the list, why not Xbox? It did introduce XBL. Every other major manufacturer makes the list but XBL isn't enough to squeeze in at number 10?

The xbox for XBL was not the first system to go online. While you were able to play multiplayer games online unlike most gamecube games. I think what game trailers did for this was how many marqee games the system had for xbox and factored in XBL. The true Marqee games for the system were the Halo games for exlusives.

7th lutz

04-21-2007, 06:46 PM

They need to replace the N64 with the Neo Geo AES

If this was on games yes, it belong on top 10. It lack more on genres then the n64 did. It also had the issue of prices for its games.

chicnstu

04-22-2007, 08:16 PM

bangtango

04-22-2007, 09:53 PM

They have to list nearly all the Nintendo consoles because it's mandatory that the press suck Nintendo's dirty balls. Quite frankly, I'm amazed they didn't put the Wii at the top of the list.

Any semi-objective list would have the PS2 and PS1 topping the list, with the NES at third (it was shit, but there were some third parties forced to make good games for it because it was the only game in town due to Nintendo's strong arm tactics). Genesis, SNES, and GBA could all fight amongst themselves for slots 4, 5, and 6 respectively. Atari 2600 would be a shoe-in at number 7.

Since the chart obviously isn't based on sales, the rest would be sheer conjecture. The N64 definitely shouldn't be on any list of good consoles, and neither should the original Game boy. Both sold more based on Nintendo's typical bullshit and marketing tactics than on any merits of the systems or games.

A few things.......

1. Sony finished at the top of this particular countdown that the thread is talking about. So Nintendo didn't "win" anything.

2. Nintendo isn't the only company who ever used "strong-arm tactics", "BS" or "marketing tactics" to sell their products. Sony has been doing the same thing since 1994-1995.

3. The difference between Sony and Nintendo is Nintendo at least earned most of their "good" press by being successful first and getting credit for it later. Sony was getting praise handed to them months before the original Playstation came out and before they had even done anything. All I read for months leading up to the PS1 release was how awesome the system was and how awesome Sony was, this is in nearly every magazine that was on the shelf back then. You didn't have a bunch of people in the industry on Nintendo's bandwagon leading up to the release of the NES. Sony had most of the industry in their corner before they even had product in the stores. They were given a ton of credit all over the game industry before they'd even "earned" it in the video game marketplace.

Yeah, Nintendo really had everything they've accomplished handed to them. As for Nintendo bullying third-parties or ending up with a monopoly for awhile, so what? Atari and Sega would have done the exact same thing if they'd gotten the upper hand. Who says their "people" are any more (or less) honorable than the meanies over at Nintendo in the late 80's and early 90's? Nearly any company would have done what Nintendo did, to get on top and stay there, if they had the means to do so.

Personally, I don't prefer one company over the other and own systems by both. I'm just saying it is funny how one group of people calls Nintendo the saviours of gaming and a totally different group of people say Sony saved the industry from "bad guys" like Nintendo and Sega who were "out of touch" or whatever other inventive adjective someone can concoct to make a statement.

psychic1

04-22-2007, 10:04 PM

#1 - The Saturn takes a big fat dump on the Dreamcast.
#2 - The N64 shouldn't be anywhere near this list.
#3 - The Game Boy and GBA need to go as well because they aren't even consoles!

My personal Top 10

1) Playstation
2) NES
3) CDX
4) SNES
5) Genesis
6) Saturn
7) Playstation 2
8) Master System
9) Atari 2600
10) Xbox

ShenmueFan

04-23-2007, 01:20 AM

^^^ I love the CDX as a system too - because it was a cool design --- but how can you make that #3 and Genesis #5 as well? Shouldn't it be either/or....or have the Genesis be #3 and Sega CD #5?

But yeah, I agree with you that portables aren't technically consoles. But as a system (not a console or portable), GameBoy is much more significant and important than the majority of systems ever made.

Nature Boy

04-23-2007, 08:59 AM

The xbox for XBL was not the first system to go online.

That's not the issue though. The issue is that it's the first to go online with a totally integrated plan, and a sense of community. That's enough uniqueness, IMO, to put it into the top 10. Upon further thought, though I'd probably keep the N64 in the top 10 (I can't overlook Mario 64 and Zelda: OOT) and drop the Dreamcast.

psychic1

04-23-2007, 10:39 AM

^^^ I love the CDX as a system too - because it was a cool design --- but how can you make that #3 and Genesis #5 as well? Shouldn't it be either/or....or have the Genesis be #3 and Sega CD #5?

The CDX is the only console that plays Sega CD games. The Sega CD was an add-on for the Genesis. The Sega CD by itself was useless and the Genesis by itself couldn't play CD-ROMs. This fact alone should be reason enough as to consider the CDX a separate console from the Genesis. I mean the Genesis is cartridge based, the CDX is CD based, how can you say them in the same breath?
That would be like saying the Game Boy isn't separate from a SNES because the SNES has a Super Game Boy add on to allow it to play Game Boy games. Only that would be even less absurd because they both use the cartridge format.

Don't take this as an attack on you personally either, as you are right, the gaming world does consider the CDX and Genesis as the same thing but I think it's completely wrong to do so.

And yeah I agree that if we're talking the best video game systems or platforms then the a Game Boy should make the top 10 but the question wasn't that it was top consoles. If we call Game Boys consoles then we would have to call mobile phones consoles and pdas and pocket pcs consoles and tiger games consoles and we should definitely be able to call a PC a console too.

ShenmueFan

04-23-2007, 07:44 PM

^^^ I guess I go based on the chronological release of systems, rather than their specific use.

For instance, the Sega CD add-on existed before the Sega CDX came out, and even if it required a Genesis, the Sega CD was it's own console once attached to the system. You couldn't use a Sega CD without a Genesis, just like the CDX requires the Genesis hardware in it also. The Super Gameboy isn't a fair comparison because the GameBoy existed as a seperate system before the SNES adapter arrived. The Sega CD was designed and announced to be a completely new system which just happened to be an "add-on" for existing hardware.

By your description, the Wii is nothing more than an "add-on" because it is based off Gamecube technology in many, many ways. And since you can't seperate the Wii functionality from the Gamecube functionality, we'll never know how tightly integrated the two really are. But we still agree that the Wii is a console, not an add-on - because it was marketed as a new system.

The same could be said for the PS2 because I've never seen a PS2 that couldn't play PS1 games...perhaps some part of the PS2 requires that PS1 technology/code to function properly. Even if it did need something from the pS1 though, it'd be silly to say the PS2 is an "add-on" because of technological minutia.

j_factor

04-24-2007, 02:30 AM

If you're gonna say CDX, isn't it redundant to include Genesis later on in the list? Why not just lump Genesis with its add-ons as one whole she-bang? Sure the add-ons were optional, but they're really just parts of the Genesis, and the CDX is just a Genesis with one otherwise optional add-on built in. I don't get why people treat Sega CD as a separate system from Genesis; IMO it's no different from the 2600 Supercharger or Saturn games that required RAM carts.

If I were writing a top 10 console article for a site, it would be substantially different from my own "personal" top 10. Am I alone in this? Like, my personal list would have Saturn at #2, but if I were actually writing an article, it would be more like 6 or 7.

ShenmueFan

04-24-2007, 02:38 AM

I guess if the Sega CD or 32x were only made to enhance a few select Genesis games, I wouldn't consider them consoles - but since they both have several games made exclusively for them you can't really get on the Genesis, the "add-on" thing in my head goes out the window and instead I no longer see a 32x attached to a Genesis, I only see a 32x.

And the RAM cart for Saturn or the RAM Expansion Pak for the N64 aren't the same as the Sega CD or 32x either because they were made specifically for certain N64 games. Developers didn't build a game for the RAM Cart/Pak, they built the RAM Cart/Pak for games.

IntelliDude

08-12-2007, 10:58 AM

1. NES -- the system that brought home video games back from the dead. When I was a kid, I always dreamed about having a system that could play ACCURATE translations of all my favorite arcade games. When I saw NES the first time, it was like my dream came true. A mind-blowing array of games, a wide variety of first and third party controllers that actually WORKED, and later battery-backed games saves--this was the STUFF!!!

2. Intellivision -- My first and favorite retro-console. Some hated the INTV controller; I thought it ruled. I remember asking for Atari for Christmas one year and being disappointed when I got Intellivision instead. Then I played AD&D Cloudy Mountain, MLB Baseball, and Burgertime and I never looked back. The controller allowed for a depth of gameplay that Atari could never even dream of. And while the system may have had only 1/10th the library that Atari had, I was always amazed at how many TERRIBLE games were available for the 2600. Better graphics, better sound, 16 bit architecture, and a great library of quality games--this was the system that started it all for me.

3. Sega Dreamcast -- this often-overlooked system was obviously built for hardcore gamers. The sports games were great, there were many innovative titles (Seaman, Soul Calibur, DOA 2, Phantasy Star Online, Grandia, Skies of Arcadia, REZ, and House of the Dead 2, for example), it was the first console to feature online play and the controller was very flexible. Unfortunately, the PS2 and rampant piracy led to the early demise of this wonderful system.

4. XBOX -- the first console to have a built-in hard drive was designed for broadband online play. Yes, the system was big and clunky. Yes, the first controller was atrocious. And, yes, it took a little while for this system to gain a following. But Microsoft's first foray into console gaming was an eventual success that won over a lot of converts. Halo, Forza Motorsport and Crimson Skies are worth the price of admission alone. And the impact of XBOX LIVE is unquestionable.

5. Game Boy series -- the most popular console of all time is a handheld. This platform tied Nintendo over until they could finally design a console that people would actually WANT. Without the Game Boy platform, Nintendo would have folded years ago. I wonder how many family vacations were saved by this little console--I'm sure my parents would have loved to have an "electronic pacifier" like this for me when I was growing up...

The remaining five? Well, I guess I'd have to say:

6. Atari 2600 -- the one that really started it all

7. Sony PS1 -- Sony's first console really was a grand-slam. They got the controller right from the getgo.

8. Apple ][ (technically not a console, but so many current game developers cut their teeth programming on it that it deserves mention nevertheless)

9. Colecovision -- great arcade ports and good peripherals; terrible controllers

10. Vectrex -- the king of COOL!!! I love this system and need a better one.

:cheers:

Rob2600

08-12-2007, 05:13 PM

The Neo Geo might be expensive, but you get what you pay for.

One out of every four Neo-Geo games is a tournament fighting game. That's great for fans of the genre, but I assume most gamers want a much wider variety of titles. Therefore, it should not be considered one of the top ten home video game consoles.

smokehouse

08-12-2007, 07:53 PM

Rob2600

08-12-2007, 08:34 PM

I couldn’t care less what order you put them in but these consoles had the largest influence on the gaming public:

2600
NES
Playstation (1,2)
Genesis
SNES

Most of the others are just filler consoles that failed. Sure, some had a few memorable titles here and there but to say they’re in the top 10 is absurd. For a console to make a “top-10” list it had to be more than some small market, small appeal console. Many listed were failures and while they may be loved in small numbers, they did little to change how/when we game.

I would add the Nintendo 64 to your list. Please hear me out:

Four-player gaming was available on the Nintendo 64 from day one and at no extra cost (unlike Sony's Multitap). Its four controller ports brought multiplayer gaming into the mainstream and influenced Nintendo's competitors (Dreamcast, Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3). Its analog stick and Rumble Pak also influenced competitors (Sony's Dual Shock, Sega's Jump Pack, etc.). Super Mario 64 marked a new era in video gaming and inspired hundreds of imitations. Even Wave Race 64 and Mario Kart 64 inspired a slew of imitations on competing consoles. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time was declared the greatest video game ever created by many video game journalists.

33 million Nintendo 64 consoles were sold worldwide, which is more than the Sega Genesis (29 million), and Nintendo 64 games were the top selling games year after year. 11 million copies of Super Mario 64, 8.5 million copies of Mario Kart 64, 8 million copies of Goldeneye 007, 7.6 million copies of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and 5 million copies of Super Smash Bros. have been sold. Surely, that can not be considered "small market" or "small appeal."

The Nintendo 64 wasn't perfect, but it made a big impact and changed the industry. Some people refuse to admit that. If it weren't for the Nintendo 64, we might still be using d-pads, force feedback might not be mainstream, and 3D action/adventure games might still stink.

smokehouse

08-12-2007, 09:46 PM

The multiplayer thing had been around for years, the N64 simply put 4 ports on the console, there’s little innovation there.

The N64 was also grasping on to a dying format, the cartridge. It’ may have been 3D, but it was in no way revolutionary.

Lastly, sales alone mean jack squat when it comes to innovation. While the N64 sold well it did little to further the industry. As much as it grieves me to say it, the Playstation took gaming where no other console had ever tread, mainstream. Simply looking at game sales does not paint a complete picture. Halo 1 on the XBOX sold a ton of copies but it is in no way revolutionary nor will it be remembered for anything more than a flash in the pan popularity lifespan.

For a console to make the "best ever made" list it has to have something more than a few good sellers. Hell, most consoles can boast some hit games but not all are great/greatest systems. I look at it this way:

2600- Started the entire home gaming craze in the first place. It put home gaming on the map and is one of the most important consoles ever made. There were other consoles to compete with the 2600 but none penetrated the market or captured the gaming public like the 2600. Thus gaming evolution stage 1

NES- Single-handedly reignited the gaming industry in the US. The NES became and still is one of most recognized game consoles ever made. It also saw the origins of some of the best gaming franchises ever released. Like it or hate it, there’s no denying that the NES is truly a legendary system. Gaming evolution stage 2.

SNES/Genesis- These two consoles pushed gaming to it’s next level; gaming competition and the move towards mainstream American culture. Not only did this round introduce the meaning of gaming competition on a large scale, they both made for a complete gaming package in the 16-bit world and set the stage for the Playstation. While neither did everything correctly, together they changed the gaming world. Gaming evolution stage 3

Playstation- This console accomplished something no other console had ever done before. Mainstream acceptance. Not only did this console take gaming to an adult level, it was truly the next step in gaming with a complete multimedia experience. Gaming evolution stage 4

Evolution stage 5…who knows. Possibly the Wii? I’m not sure. I have yet to see a leap that was attained in the other 4 with any current console. Things like online gaming are neat-o but it is in no way an accomplishment like the other steps provided.

So many of the other consoles listed are just filler. None really accomplished something great in their lifespan. I’m not saying that they weren’t/aren’t loved, I’m saying that they did nothing spectacular to change the industry or how we gamers see gaming. The N64 is no exception. While a solid system with a large fan base, it was in no way revolutionary. Games like Mario 64 might have been a big deal, but the console wasn’t. Had Nintendo chose a CD format for the N64 things might have been different. Unfortunately they chose a dying media that really stunted what the system could do (some argue this statement, I stand by it. CD pushed the PS1 in the same way DVD did the PS2). The N64 was labeled a "child's system" by the mass public and right or wrong, for "serious gamers" it was a secondary system at best for the entire life of the system. Something you owned for a few games only, unlike the PS1. The gaming industry and gamers alike picked up on this and that’s why the PS1 came out on top that round.

Rob2600

08-12-2007, 10:12 PM

The multiplayer thing had been around for years

You're right, but almost always at an additional cost via an accessory (Nintendo Four Score, Sony Multitap, etc.). The Nintendo 64 did it out of the box and had great games to support it. As a result, multiplayer became mainstream. Games like Mario Kart 64 and Goldeneye 007 changed the industry. From then on, four-player modes became a standard feature in many video games.

While the N64 sold well it did little to further the industry. ... it was in no way revolutionary.

I disagree. If the Nintendo 64 wasn't a big deal, Sony, Sega, and Microsoft would not have copied its analog stick, force feedback, and built in multiplayer support. Sony released the Dual Shock controller. Sega released the Saturn analog pad, included four controller ports on the Dreamcast, and released the Jump Pack. Microsoft included four controller ports on the Xbox. Why did these companies do this? Because the Nintendo 64 had changed the industry.

The Nintendo 64 also introduced portable-to-home-console connectivity via the Transfer Pak. This is another feature that still exists in consoles today.

Your points about the Sony PlayStation are correct. It was an important console that outsold the Nintendo 64 and brought video gaming into the mainstream, but that doesn't mean the Nintendo 64 wasn't important, too.

Zap!

08-13-2007, 01:10 AM

My Top 5 Systems Of All Time (*Based On Technical Advancement At The Time*)

1. NES (Blows 2600 away visually, interactively)
2. Playstation (First console to embrace 3D visuals)
3. Dreamcast (First console to embrace online play, hi-res visuals)
4. Super Nintendo (Significant advance in visuals, sound quality & controls)
5. Game Boy Advance (Officially made the leap from 8-bit to 16-bit visuals, sound & controls)

I think by far and away, the Neo-Geo deserves the top spot for tech advancement. It blew away the consoles of its generation (Genesis, SNES, TG16) like nothing ever blew away in the history of technology. I'll address you're systems now:

1. Unfair of you to compare the NES to the 2600, since it's from the previous generation (1977 vs. 1985).

2. The PS certainly didn't blow away the Saturn. The Saturn actually was the better piece of hardware, but the problem is it was too hard to program. Game designers finally mastered it when it was too late.

3. Yeah, but it did have a two year head start on PS2 and GC. Kinda like saying the Xbox 360 belongs in there because of its start.

4. 1991's SNES was a bit better then the Genesis, but not THAT much different. And the Neo-Geo was its generation, and we all know which was more powerful there.

5. I won't comment on that one. Not too into handhelds. :)

Cinder6

08-13-2007, 02:11 AM

2. The PS certainly didn't blow away the Saturn. The Saturn actually was the better piece of hardware, but the problem is it was too hard to program. Game designers finally mastered it when it was too late.

The two had different strengths. The Saturn was much better at 2D work (it could actually do 2D work, unlike the PS1, and could stream 2D and 3D together simultaneously), but it was inferior in the 3D department. Whether the Saturn was ultimately superior due to its 2D capabilities is debatable, but ultimately moot: the industry went 3D and the Saturn's much-vaunted 2D capabilities were for naught.

Rob2600

08-13-2007, 10:08 AM

I think by far and away, the Neo-Geo deserves the top spot for tech advancement.

This is what I posted yesterday: The Neo-Geo should not be considered one of the top ten home video game consoles. One out of every four games is a tournament fighting game. That's great for fans of the genre, but I assume most gamers want a much wider variety of titles.

1991's SNES was a bit better then the Genesis, but not THAT much different.

You're wrong. 32,768 colors vs. 512 colors. 128 sprites vs. 64 sprites. 4 scrolling backgrounds vs. 2 scrolling backgrounds. 8 PCM sound channels vs. 6 FM sound channels. Transparency effects, mosaic effects, and Mode 7 3D effects vs. nothing. The SNES hardware was more than just a "bit better" than that of the Genesis.

MF_Luder

08-13-2007, 10:18 AM

What's so special about the Xbox. Online gaming is the only thing that I even see as remotely special but PC gaming had been doing it for such a longer amount of time plus previous systems had done online/dial-up services or devices, they just happened to be ahead of their times in technology. That's just my opinion though but even today still just not impressed by the XBox or PS2 for that matter. Both feel like normal systems with better graphics... I'm feeling a rant comming on about modern games so I'll just stop. :D

I was thinking the same thing while reading through everyone's posts. XBL is not enough to put the Xbox on this list. First of all, the Dreamcast was the first system with a practical online service. Second, yes the Xbox kicked off XBL but only with the 360 has it really evolved into something great. But still, great online service aside, you don't get to be a Top 10 All-Time system just because you had a nice online service. I did use my Xbox more than any system of the past era because it was superior for crossplatform 3rd party games... HOWEVER, the PS2 is a superior system from a gameplay standpoint, as games like Halo 1/2 and Ninja Gaiden are the only must-have exclusives on the Xbox. 20 years from now no one will care about the Xbox, but with the way the 360 is going right now I wouldn't be surprised if that is worthy of the Top 10 list some day.

ssjlance

08-13-2007, 11:36 AM

There is a major problem with these lists, and that is that you can never have everyone agree on them. For example, some people love the SNES because of it's large RPG library, while others think it has too many RPG's, so they go for the Genesis with it's more action oriented games, a la Gunsar Heroes.

Anyways, here's my personal list. The choices are all based on the console's games in my opinion.

10. Commodore Vic-20 - A bit of a surprise maybe, but I love it. It was my first retro computer, and it introduced me to programming. I still have a program on tape somewhere that calculates the power level (Dragonball Z) of a person after asking 4 questions.
9. Neo Geo Pocket - My personal favorite handheld of all time. Metal Slug 1st Mission is a great action fix while you're on a six and a half hour drive. Trust me on that :)
8. Turbografx 16/PC Engine - The runner-up in Japan that failed here in the States
7. Virtual Boy - There are some true gems on this system, and even if it is monochrome, it is pretty immersive)
6. Playstation - I never gave this a chance when this was new, but at the age of 7 I was a Nintendo fanboy. And I am now addicted to Alundra and Chrono Cross.
5. Neo Geo - Don't own one yet, but I've played the ports on others and briefly had an MVS cabinet. And emulators :)
4. Genesis - Can anything be said about this that hasn't already?
3. NES - Lots of classics on this one, plus many series had their beginnings here.
2. Dreamcast - Great homebrew system with plenty of 2D fighters/Shmups, my less addictive drug.
1. SNES - My first system, plus RPG's are my crack, so this is the perfect system for me.

Honorable mentions:

Game Gear - My first handheld other than a GameBoy. Showed me exactly why all handhelds should have backlit screens. Plus, a very good port of Gunstar Heroes.
Master System - Just a good system.
Atari 2600 - Pretty much defined video games of the 70's and 80's.

THE SECRET NUMBER ZERO!
0 - Atari Jaguar - It's an orgasm in a plastic shell.

GarrettCRW

08-13-2007, 12:12 PM

THE SECRET NUMBER ZERO!
0 - Atari Jaguar - It's an orgasm in a plastic shell.

More like an orgasm with a girl you're ashamed to have done the deed with before disrobing. ;)

ssjlance

08-13-2007, 01:04 PM

I swear, writing that nearly gave me a sarcasm overload.

Sweater Fish Deluxe

08-13-2007, 02:01 PM

This thread reeks of fanboys and their lofty thoughts on failed consoles�

Some of the votes here for the �top 10� consoles made me chuckle to myself.

I couldn�t care less what order you put them in but these consoles had the largest influence on the gaming public:

2600
NES
Playstation (1,2)
Genesis
SNES

Most of the others are just filler consoles that failed. Sure, some had a few memorable titles here and there but to say they�re in the top 10 is absurd. For a console to make a �top-10� list it had to be more than some small market, small appeal console. Many listed were failures and while they may be loved in small numbers, they did little to change how/when we game.
First, you only named six consoles, so at least four of your "lesser" consoles *HAVE* to be on the list or else it won't be a "Top 10" list. That's not absurd, it's arithmetic.

Second, who said it was a list of the top 10 most influential systems? (Actually, maybe gametrailers.com did, I don't know...but if they did, screw 'em anyway, because that's a stupid sort of list.) It's a list of the best consoles and history has shown time and again that the best thing is not necessarily the most popular or influential.

Third, I tried to make a list of my own, but couldn't do it. Dreamcast has to be at number 1, though! Yay, Dreamcast!

...word is bondage...

Zap!

08-13-2007, 02:34 PM

This is what I posted yesterday: The Neo-Geo should not be considered one of the top ten home video game consoles. One out of every four games is a tournament fighting game. That's great for fans of the genre, but I assume most gamers want a much wider variety of titles.

And that has to do with technology just how? I would never put it in the top 10 systems, but I I would put it at #1 for most tech. powerful system when compared to others of its genration. By far.

You're wrong. 32,768 colors vs. 512 colors. 128 sprites vs. 64 sprites. 4 scrolling backgrounds vs. 2 scrolling backgrounds. 8 PCM sound channels vs. 6 FM sound channels. Transparency effects, mosaic effects, and Mode 7 3D effects vs. nothing. The SNES hardware was more than just a "bit better" than that of the Genesis.

On paper, but next to it, the difference wasn't huge. Not like the Neo-Geo compared to the others. SNES also had a slower clock, resulting in some slowdown.

smokehouse

08-13-2007, 04:51 PM

First, you only named six consoles, so at least four of your "lesser" consoles *HAVE* to be on the list or else it won't be a "Top 10" list. That's not absurd, it's arithmetic.

Such power of observation. I only listed 4 sets or places:

-2600
-NES
-SNES/Genesis
-PS1/PS2

These consoles fit in the fashion. The SNES and Genesis are too close to split them but both reigned as king of the 16-bit consoles. The same goes with the PS1/PS2. The PS2 is nothing more than a continuation or updated of the original PS1. They are too hard to split in a “one is better than the other” decision.

So I have only listed 4 slots in a top 10…why have I done this? Because I feel the other 6 are yet to be decided or made. To simply throw a shitty system in the list to fill a spot is a waste of typing.

Second, who said it was a list of the top 10 most influential systems? (Actually, maybe gametrailers.com did, I don't know...but if they did, screw 'em anyway, because that's a stupid sort of list.) It's a list of the best consoles and history has shown time and again that the best thing is not necessarily the most popular or influential.

Whenever you make a end all be all list such as this, you have to throw out your personal feeling and look at the big picture. You like the Master System or Jaguar? So what, the majority of gamers walked right past it. In the grand scheme of things, your (and my) tiny opinions mean jack-squat. The things I listed about the “top 4” are true no matter who you are or what your personal opinion is. The fact is that the 2600 birthed home gaming, the NES reignited the US market and made gaming a household name, the Genesis/SNES war started the first level of high publicity competition and the PS1/2 brought gaming to the mainstream public…how can anyone (like them or love them) dispute that? Saying a system is the best ever made because it has 5-10 (that's even a stretch for some of the consoles listed) neat-o games is absurd.

Third, I tried to make a list of my own, but couldn't do it. Dreamcast has to be at number 1, though! Yay, Dreamcast!

This statement here proved my point to the fullest. You pick one of the largest console failures as #1 although the system was dumped by the majority of the public, developers and even it’s creator, Sega. I will say that the Dreamcast was a neat little console but it was dropped from the market in less than 2 years…it was a disaster. If you like it, good for you but saying it’s the best console ever made shows you are nothing more than a rose colored glasses wearing fanboy.

smokehouse

08-13-2007, 05:05 PM

I disagree. If the Nintendo 64 wasn't a big deal, Sony, Sega, and Microsoft would not have copied its analog stick, force feedback, and built in multiplayer support. Sony released the Dual Shock controller. Sega released the Saturn analog pad, included four controller ports on the Dreamcast, and released the Jump Pack. Microsoft included four controller ports on the Xbox. Why did these companies do this? Because the Nintendo 64 had changed the industry.

The Nintendo 64 also introduced portable-to-home-console connectivity via the Transfer Pak. This is another feature that still exists in consoles today.

Your points about the Sony PlayStation are correct. It was an important console that outsold the Nintendo 64 and brought video gaming into the mainstream, but that doesn't mean the Nintendo 64 wasn't important, too.

I do agree with what you’ve listed here but the problem is the half-ass approach to these innovations. Let me address these one by one.

-Analog stick. Agreed, the problem is that the analog stick on the N64 is shit. There’s a reason why the Dual Shock has lasted so long…it’s almost a perfect controller. Like I said, I am a Nintendo fanboy but there’s no topping the Dual shock. Nintendo may have been first to the scene but Sony took it to perfection in the same console generation.

-Force Feedback. Again, great thought, half-ass application. The Rumble pack that you have to plug into the N64 controller is a boat anchor (batteries needed that weighed even more) and it does nothing more than vibrate. Again, Sony took it to perfection with the Dual Shock. Not only is it included for no extra cost, it also added little weight to the controller and did not upset balance. Again, great idea, BAD application.

-Built-in multiplayer support. Can’t argue with you there. Although not a new concept back in 1996, Nintendo did perfect the application.

-Transfer Pack. Yet another case of good thought, bad application. The extremely short list of games that could use this thing made it a total waste of $$.

These are all good ideas but in the end, most of them either didn’t come across well or were immediately “one-up’d” by the competition. It’s almost like saying “Son, you ran a great race but in the end you got you ass kicked by everyone else.” It’s a nice try but little else. I've always viewed the N64 as "The ystem that could have been." Like the Dreamcast, the N64 did a ton of interesting things but in the end it was beat to death by another system and cost Nintendo their throne.

smokehouse

08-13-2007, 05:08 PM

On paper, but next to it, the difference wasn't huge. Not like the Neo-Geo compared to the others. SNES also had a slower clock, resulting in some slowdown.

No offense, but have you played many SNES games? The slowdown thing was mostly fixed within 6-8 months of the SNES release. People make the SNES sound like a majority of the games came to a screeching halt during game play when in reality, most don�t show a single sign of it. Look at Starfox for crying out loud�

Like I�ve said in most of my posts, the Genesis/SNES are equals in my book but when it came to �wow� factor, the SNES blew the Genesis out of the water. Games like Final Fantasy III or Donkey Kong Country weren�t even possible on the Genesis�

Sweater Fish Deluxe

08-13-2007, 05:12 PM

Whenever you make a end all be all list such as this, you have to throw out your personal feeling and look at the big picture.
You do? That's too bad since throwing out personal opinion will always be an impossible task for a person. If science can recognize that, why can't you?

It's your opinion that this top-10 (or top-4-that-actually-contains-6) list should be decided in one way, it's my opinion that it should be decided in another way. How to you suggest that we throw out our personal opinions and figure out how the lists should actually be decided?

The answer is that there's no answer. Personal opinion is a part of every human judgement, so it's just a question of whether you acknowledge that fact or not. If you don't, then you're only setting yourself up for bigger troubles.

You like the Master System or Jaguar? So what, the majority of gamers walked right past it. In the grand scheme of things, your (and my) tiny opinions mean jack-squat. The things I listed about the �top 4� are true no matter who you are or what your personal opinion is. The fact is that the 2600 birthed home gaming, the NES reignited the US market and made gaming a household name, the Genesis/SNES war started the first level of high publicity competition and the PS1/2 brought gaming to the mainstream public�how can anyone (like them or love them) dispute that?
Well, if you want to get snotty about it...

1) Pong units actually "birthed home gaming,"
2) I can't fathom what "high publicity competition" has to do with making a system great
3)which one actually "brought gaming to the mainstream?" the NES or the Playstation? You claim it for both (when it seems obvious to me that it has just been a continuous development ever since the beginning of video games that can't rightly be attributed to any single console).

Saying a system is the best ever made because it has 5-10 (that's even a stretch for some of the consoles listed) neat-o games is absurd.
You're absurd, poopie-head! How's that for an opinion?

...word is bondage...

smokehouse

08-13-2007, 05:35 PM

I feel I did a pretty good job of putting my personal feeling aside. Can you dispute the huge effect that the consoles I listed had on the US gaming industry? It�s not personal opinion the NES became a household name and transcended the status of simply being a �game console�. The same goes for the others I listed.

Rob2600

08-13-2007, 05:41 PM

I do agree with what you’ve listed here but the problem is the half-ass approach to these innovations.

Joysticks have steadily improved over time. Does that mean the original Atari 2600 joysticks were a "half-ass" innovation? Of course not. Light bulbs have steadily improved over time. Does that mean Thomas Edison's original light bulb was a "half-ass" innovation? Of course not.

Let me address these one by one.

-Analog stick. Agreed, the problem is that the analog stick on the N64 is shit. ...

-Force Feedback. Again, great thought, half-ass application. ...

-Built-in multiplayer support. Can’t argue with you there. Although not a new concept back in 1996, Nintendo did perfect the application.

-Transfer Pack. Yet another case of good thought, bad application. The extremely short list of games that could use this thing made it a total waste of $$.

These are all good ideas but in the end, most of them either didn’t come across well or were immediately “one-up’d” by the competition.

I disagree with your criticisms and don't think the competition "one-upped" Nintendo. If Nintendo's implementations of analog control and force feedback were as poor and shoddy as you claim, Sony and Sega would have ignored Nintendo and stuck with their own superior technology. That wasn't the case though. Instead, Sony and Sega rushed to copy Nintendo's features. Why? Because Nintendo's technology was superior.

The results: the Saturn analog pad was uncomfortable and awkward. The Sega Dreamcast controller was too, especially with the wire coming out of the bottom. Sony's Dual Shock was just two small joysticks added to a plain old regular PlayStation controller, which was already very similar to the SNES controller.

-Force Feedback. The Rumble pack that you have to plug into the N64 controller is a boat anchor (batteries needed that weighed even more) and it does nothing more than vibrate.

What else is the Rumble Pak supposed to do other than vibrate? You claim Sony's Dual Shock controller is far superior, but all that does is vibrate, too. The same goes for Sega's Jump Pack and Microsoft's Xbox controllers.

When determining the importance of technology, we have to judge it in its original context. In 2007, the Rumble Pak might seem cheap and heavy, but in 1997, it was new, exciting, and fun...and it was thoroughly supported by all N64 developers.

smokehouse

08-13-2007, 05:51 PM

I didn’t say the N64 wasn’t innovative, I said it was half-ass in it’s approach. The analog stick on the N64 was and still is shitty, the same goes with the total controller design overall. Anyone with normal, non-Japanese sized hands were cramming them together to use the damn thing. Good idea, bad application.

The point is that part of innovation is taking something good and making it great. The original PS1 controller was a remake of the SNES controller but why not, the SNES controller was awesome, Sony simply made it better. The Dual Shock was a far better controller than the N64 controller…it was better in every way. To me that’s innovation. As for the Rumble pack, owning both the N64 version and the PS1 version, they are completely different. One vibrates, the other actually shakes and moves. The Dual Shock was also more balanced then the top heavy monstrosity that was a N64 controller with a Rumble Pack.

I agree that Sony is a copycat company, personally I hate them as a business. That however does not mean that they did not do things better than Nintendo…including their controllers.

When determining the importance of technology, we have to judge it in its original context. In 2007, the Rumble Pak might seem cheap and heavy, but in 1997, it was new, exciting, and fun...and it was thoroughly supported by all N64 developers.

Here you contradict yourself. You stated earlier that the N64 perfected the multiplayer technology although it had been around for years…then you say you have to look at innovation in it’s infancy only. If this was true, the N64 was no different than what Sony did in this area.

It’s innovation and refinement that make changes, not rough concepts poorly applied….thus my point with the entire N64.

Rob2600

08-13-2007, 06:09 PM

you contradict yourself. You stated earlier that the N64 perfected the multiplayer technology although it had been around for years…then you say you have to look at innovation in it’s infancy only.

You're wrong. I didn't contradict myself and I never used the word "infancy." I wrote, "When determining the importance of technology, we have to judge it in its original context." The Nintendo 64 is a piece of technology and its original context is 1996 to 2001. In the home console market before 1996, four player gaming was a novelty and the concept of analog sticks died with the Atari 5200. Force feedback didn't exist on consoles at the time, either. The Nintendo 64 launched and changed all of that.

Perhaps I should have written, "When determining the importance of a piece of technology, we have to judge it in its original context."

Barbarianoutkast85

08-13-2007, 07:11 PM

I agree with the list on some aspects, and disagree on other aspects.

cyberfluxor

08-13-2007, 08:16 PM

You're right, but almost always at an additional cost via an accessory (Nintendo Four Score, Sony Multitap, etc.). The Nintendo 64 did it out of the box and had great games to support it. As a result, multiplayer became mainstream. Games like Mario Kart 64 and Goldeneye 007 changed the industry. From then on, four-player modes became a standard feature in many video games.
Nothing against you, but it's statements like this that I really wish the 4-port Atari 5200 would have been more popular. I wasn't alive at the time but after owning this system for just over a week I can see high potential. It's so simplistic and smooth plus the trackball controller is pure bliss. After contemplating over vacation last week I'm edging towards learning about the system operations and programming some 4-player games. It'll take a good amount of research but I'm up for the task. :)

MF_Luder:
The biggest game server that comes to mind personally and should trump XBL is Battle.net. For online playing, Yahoo takes the pie. Casual gamers delight. :D

Gentlegamer

08-13-2007, 11:32 PM

No offense, but have you played many SNES games? The slowdown thing was mostly fixed within 6-8 months of the SNES release. People make the SNES sound like a majority of the games came to a screeching halt during game play when in reality, most don�t show a single sign of it.
Or Smash TV. It has tons of sprites moving very quickly in each room . . . then when you finish the game, it starts over TWICE as fast!

smokehouse

08-14-2007, 07:23 AM

Or Smash TV. It has tons of sprites moving very quickly in each room . . . then when you finish the game, it starts over TWICE as fast!

True, Super Smash TV is an insanely fast game. If the SNES were some slowdown-plagued machine, it would be able to accomplish titles like that.

ssjlance

08-14-2007, 11:34 AM

Whether or not the system was lacking some CPU power, it had some amazing games for it. A Link To The Past, Chrono Trigger, Street Fighter Alpha 2, Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country, Super R-Type, and so on. Sometimes I wonder if the SNES could have handled a port of Gunstar Heroes? It would have to be cut in some ways, but the Game Gear got a pretty good port, so it's not impossible. That will forever be Sega's trump card, LOL.

MF_Luder

08-14-2007, 07:54 PM

Sometimes I wonder if the SNES could have handled a port of Gunstar Heroes? It would have to be cut in some ways, but the Game Gear got a pretty good port, so it's not impossible. That will forever be Sega's trump card, LOL.

Seeing as how the SNES was easily technical superior to the Genesis, I don't think there's any way it'd be an issue and nothing would need to be cut at all. Where does this misconception come from lately that the Genny is superior to the SNES? Same thing with people thinking the Saturn was technically superior to the PSX.

Sweater Fish Deluxe

08-14-2007, 08:49 PM

ssjlance

08-14-2007, 09:21 PM

bangtango

08-14-2007, 10:14 PM

It really just amounts to different strengths in each system. The SNES had a much more powerful graphics processor and superior sound, although the Genesis could handle more action due to slightly faster CPU.

QFT. There is no right or wrong answer.

It all depends on what your needs are. I'm not obsessed with getting the system that has "better" graphics. For my needs, Genesis does a better job and is a better system.

Rob2600

08-15-2007, 10:55 AM

Seeing as how the SNES was easily technical superior to the Genesis, I don't think there's any way it'd be an issue and nothing would need to be cut at all. Where does this misconception come from lately that the Genny is superior to the SNES? Same thing with people thinking the Saturn was technically superior to the PSX.

I agree with you that the SNES was more powerful than the Genesis. As Intel, AMD, Motorola, and IBM have shown us throughout the years, CPU clock speed (MHz, GHz, etc.) can be misleading and irrelevant in many cases. For example, a 500 MHz G4 CPU is more powerful than a 700 MHz Pentium III CPU. Likewise, a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU is more powerful than a 3 GHz Pentium 4 CPU.

However, ignorant consumers associate the highest clock speed with the best product, so to many, the Genesis is considered more powerful than the SNES because its CPU has more Megahertz. Sega's bogus yet clever "Blast Processing" marketing campaign only helped to spread the misinformation.

That said, the Saturn was actually more powerful than the PlayStation in terms of 2D graphics. I remember reviews in old magazines stating that games like X-Men vs. Street Fighter, Marvel Super Heroes, and Mega Man 8 featured more frames of animation per sprite and/or more sprites on the screen at the same time in the Saturn versions.

DJ Daishi

01-24-2008, 12:01 AM

Mine would go something like this.

1. Dreamcast
2. Intellivision
3. Atari VCS
4. SMS
5. Sega Saturn
6. SNES
7. NES
8. DS
9. Odyssey 2
10. Xbox 360

nah, I think dreamcast should also be in 2nd and 3rd place

Chainsaw_Charlie

01-24-2008, 11:46 AM

my top ten

10.Saturn
9.N64
8.360
7.Genesis
6.Ps1
5.Nes
4.Ds
3.Ps2
2.Snes
1.Sega CD

xaer0knight

01-24-2008, 01:13 PM

GOEMON'S US VERSION
10. DS
9. Intellivision
8. N64
7. Genesis
6. SNES
5. XBox (Made online gaming practical)
4. Gameboy (Made portable gaming fun and practical)
3. Playstation (Made gaming socially acceptable and cool)
2. NES (Brought video games back from the dead!)
1. Atari 2600 (Started everything, many games are still fun today)

GOEMON'S JAPANESE VERSION
10. N64
9. Gameboy
8. PS2
7. DS
6. Dreamcast
5. SFC
4. Saturn
3. PC Engine
2. Playstation
1. Famicom

i totally agree with the US list there. The Japanese have a ton of systems. I would argue the fact that Japan had a good Standalone PC fanbase. Systems like Sharp X68000, MSX Computer Series, Amiga, FM Towns... but after all just talking Consoles. It would be intresting to see a list of the "best" UK Consoles.