Call them what you want but there is a reason NES/SNES/Genesis games are still considered playable and aged considerably well (not all of them but a pretty good amount of them). While PS1 games were great for their time, you can't say they aged well compared to even the SNES games. And I think the kiddiness is based on perception ultimately, whether its good or bad.

It was saved from nintendo from holding the market back in terms of what kind of consumer it attracts and perpetuating the stigma about gaming being a kid's hobby. You said it yourself by bringing up "strongest generation" being the 4th gen until the 5th gen came about the PS1 releasing. The gen after that PS2 set the bar even higher with it's sales.

If something was holding back in 4. generation that was because hardware that still wanst strong enuf for more complex 3DS games, not because Nintendo or Sega, biggest leap in industry was going from 2D to 3D games, going from 4. gen to 5. gen. But even with 4. generation we had plenty of games games that are wasn't just for kids, Mortal Kombat is still one most famous games even today, Sega on Dreamcast had even much more games, and of course that with 3D consoles we had more realistic and mature games.

When 3. generation (NES) arrived, console market was dead for quiet time, 3. generation (NES) saved console market, and from that generation every generation has sold better. 3. generation was best selling generation, after 4. generation was best selling generation of consoles until 5. generation did not arrived, 5. until 6. did not arrived, and 6. until 7. generation did not arrived. You offcourse see here patern, from 3. gen evre gen sold better than prevous, that didnt start with PS1 and 5. gen, and NES was console that saved console market not PS1, because when NES arrived on market console market was completely dead.

You're spot on here actually I think. 

Too many people confusing "successful" with "influential". 

I'm not completely sure the change came with Playstation, although Playstation indeed happened in the time of the change. Sega did market to them, so they were probably significant before. But yes, it can be seen that most of the change happened while Playstation was introduced.

Also the whole "games were just kiddie stuff" before Playstation is one of the most disingenuous bullshit fairy tales that's pushed by a certain segment. It's pure revisionist history.

SEGA went to fucking US FEDERAL COURT for the right to have violent M-rated video games to be allowed onto market. SEGA was the one selling game systems that looked like hifi stereo equipment ages before Sony. SEGA was the one marketing to an older MTV audience while Sony was making sound chips for the Super NES. Sports sim games as a major genre came first on the Genesis. Sega was making games like Virtua Fighter (3D fighter), Virtua Racing (3D racing). Sega and NEC were doing CD-ROM gaming ages before Sony, and yes the Sega CD played music CDs, big whoop.

If there was no Sega, Nintendo would have had a 99% monopoly on the game industry and there would be no Playstation in the first place as Sony's brass was already not keen on making a game console to begin with, with no blueprint to follow (under Sega) on how to compete, Sony would have never even bothered in the first place.

The NES was not only the birth of Mario, Zelda and Nintendo, but also where Squaresoft, Enix, Capcom, and Konami turned into global iconic brands with the Final Fantasy series, Dragon Quest, Megaman, Metal Gear, Contra, Castlevania, etc.

The NES more than doubled the sales of the previous best selling game console (Atari 2600), the Playstation did not do that to the NES either (way below doubling the NES) as well.

games were just kiddie stuff before Playstation

And there's also the fact the reason Sega created Sonic in the first place was to be cooler and edgier than Mario.

Complete bullshit, but yeah doesn't suprise me that kids who weren't around in the 80s/early 90s actually believe that. Because SEGA is basically completely washed away from the history of gaming and they don't understand what Sega actually did for the market and think Sony actually did most of that stuff when they didn't. 

Sony just copied what Sega was doing while taking Nintendo's developer support and refined it. And there's nothing wrong with refining something. But if the debate is "significance" that's a whole other criteria. 

I'm not even a Sega fan, but as someone who actually grew up during that time, the misrepresentation in this thread about what actually happened is hilariously onesided, half the shit Sony gets credit for was in actuality really done and popularized first by Sega. 

Nintendo wasn't even that "kiddie" of a company by 94/95, they were doing stuff like the M-rated Killer Instinct, licensed sports games like Ken Griffey Jr., and greenlighting games like GoldenEye 007 (the game that would birth the shooter genre on consoles) already, and that was mainly due to competetion from Sega. 

Eh Snatcher is on SEGA CD and it was a much more gory version of Blade Runner plus nudity and swearing. Also Policenauts. MGS on PS1. Tomb Raider Saturn/PS1,same with RE. Sweet Home on NES. Many games existed before Xbox that were towards a mature audience and the average age of gamers in the early 90s were mid 20s. They already tapped into the mature audience market and with Mature games. SEGA with Night Trap and Midway with Mortal Kombat are pretty much the sole reasons why gaming even has a ratings system. SEGA and Nintendo sat before the United States Senate to debate such a system and these gory and mature games. The mature era of gaming began there.