Quantcast
Which is the most significant (important) console in history?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which is the most significant (important) console in history?

Which is the most important console ever?

Atari 2600 119 6.86%
 
NES 806 46.48%
 
SNES 109 6.29%
 
Sega Genesis 25 1.44%
 
N64 54 3.11%
 
PSX 303 17.47%
 
XBox 14 0.81%
 
PS2 225 12.98%
 
XB360 20 1.15%
 
Other - please explain 59 3.40%
 
Total:1,734
nuckles87 said:
PAOerfulone said:

If there was no NES, there would be no industry for PlayStation to expand. And if there was an industry, I doubt Sony would've even bothered putting any money into something that they would've viewed as playing with fire. It was the partnership with Nintendo that led the way to PlayStation being a thing in the first place.
- The western market was the ONLY substantial market at the time. 
- They also created the Japanese market. 
And the market was expanding anyways. All the kids who were brought in with the NES and SNES/Genesis, would've been adults and teenagers by the time the Saturn and N64 hit the market, along with all the kids and new generation that THOSE systems would have brought in. 

If there was no Atari Pong, there would have been no industry for Nintendo to resurrect, because there wouldn't be one, and Nintendo would still be making cards and toys.

Lets not forget, Nintendo's first foray into home gaming wasn't the NES. It was a pong clone. :P

And also, the NES did not resurrect the gaming industry. The industry was still quite alive on home computers like Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, and MSX, which were very popular gaming devices in their own right. NES simply re-legitimized standalone game consoles in the US market.

Last I checked, this was a thread about the most significant CONSOLE in history. Since when was this discussion about home computers?
There have been numerous rises and crashes for the video game market, it wasn't until Nintendo entered the fray when gaming stabilized and grew into what it is today and there hasn't been a crash since. 



Pancho A. Ovies

Nintendo Switch in Japan (Famitsu): 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=238945&page=2

PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=239387

Around the Network
catofellow said:
Probably Playstation. To me the question needs to be viewed backwards. If any one console hadn't happened, what would be different today? Playstation crushed Sega, took all of Nintendo's 3rd party support, and probably drew Microsoft into the market the following generation. Absent Sony, Nintendo and Sega were both faltering to an extent, it is possible the overall market would have declined, and maybe the market would not have reached the same mass market level.

NES is probably second.

I like that idea - looking at it backwards. It is absolutely true that if PlayStation wasn't here, we wouldn't be gaming now. If the NES wasn't around, Sega would have been Nintendo and things would have carried on as there were and the Master System would have been leading this poll.

Personally, I was introduced to gaming by Nintendo - the NES was my first console though I preferred the games on the Master System but I left console gaming after that, dabbled into PC gaming and then quit PC gaming altogether. It was PlayStation that got me back into gaming and made a gamer. I haven't stopped gaming since. And looking at how PS1 sales exploded while Sega and Nintendo's systems sold less, I think this is a common thing amongst modern gamers.



Shadow1980 said:
Lawlight said:

A couple of things wrong here:

- The console market crashed in 1983 in the US only

- The console market crashed because Atari (having been sold) messed up badly and bad games just flooded the market.

The console market crashed in the U.S. only because the U.S. essentially was the console market in the early 80s. Consoles were irrelevant in Europe until PlayStation came along, and that first generation of cartridge-based consoles didn't arrive in Japan until 1982 (the Atari 2800, the 2600's Japanese counterpart, was actually launched after the NES was).

And it wasn't just a glut of bad video games (largely a consequence of a lack of publishing control by the console makers, though Atari-published 2600 titles like E.T. and Pac-Man contributed to the mess) that triggered the Crash of '83. It was a glut of hardware as well. But regardless of the causes, it showed that console games, a market still in its infancy, was something consumers could easily sour on and reject entirely en masse. At the time, one could easily characterize consoles as a fad, and many did just that (arcade revenues were declining rapidly at the time as well).

Another reason why the PS is the most significant console in history - busted open that PC stronghold that was Europe and the rest... well, Europe is not called Sonyland for nothing.



Lawlight said:
catofellow said:
Probably Playstation. To me the question needs to be viewed backwards. If any one console hadn't happened, what would be different today? Playstation crushed Sega, took all of Nintendo's 3rd party support, and probably drew Microsoft into the market the following generation. Absent Sony, Nintendo and Sega were both faltering to an extent, it is possible the overall market would have declined, and maybe the market would not have reached the same mass market level.

NES is probably second.

I like that idea - looking at it backwards. It is absolutely true that if PlayStation wasn't here, we wouldn't be gaming now. If the NES wasn't around, Sega would have been Nintendo and things would have carried on as there were and the Master System would have been leading this poll.

Personally, I was introduced to gaming by Nintendo - the NES was my first console though I preferred the games on the Master System but I left console gaming after that, dabbled into PC gaming and then quit PC gaming altogether. It was PlayStation that got me back into gaming and made a gamer. I haven't stopped gaming since. And looking at how PS1 sales exploded while Sega and Nintendo's systems sold less, I think this is a common thing amongst modern gamers.

lol, gaming would've been just fine without the Playstation. 

All that would've happened is FF7, MGS would've been on Sega Saturn and it would've done great as a result. Sony didn't bring jack all the table other than Gran Turismo in 1998 and a Sonic rip off in Crash, big whoop. The rest was driven by third parties who were close to Nintendo to that point that would've made those games anyway. 

The console business NEEDED Nintendo on the other hand, Mario was gaming's first (and still largest) superstar, he would become in time as popular as Mickey Mouse and that changed everything, then third parties like Capcom, Squaresoft, Konami ... all these companies cashed in on the Nintendo craze and made a name for themselves. Capcom wasn't shit before the NES. Squaresoft wasn't shit before the NES. Konami same deal. 

Honestly I'd prefer an industry with Nintendo + Sega over the current setup we have. Sony/MS have drained the industry of a lot of its charm IMO, what we have now are basically just boxed, boring ass PCs really that are called consoles. 



VAMatt said:
Mnementh said:

The first video game home console ever and it isn't even listed in the poll?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnavox_Odyssey

If I could do it again, I'd list the Odyessy.  I just didn't think anyone would choose it, because it barely moved the needle in terms of sales.  But, after reading the comments in this thread, I realize that many people think otherwise.  

It sold 350,000 units at a time where console gaming did not exist and it also require Magnavox TVs. Imagine that - selling 350,000 when it was the first of its kind and required that you buy it from Magnavox dealerships and their TVs and would only play built-in games.



Around the Network

I'm kinda bummed out that the Atari 2600 doesn't get the credit it deserves for being the absolute first to show that there was mass market potential for consoles ...

You can talk about the NES all you want about reviving the console market in North America with stronger it's stronger licensing rights and that it brought console gaming to Japan but that doesn't compare with the Atari 2600 alone for setting setting trends in the new console generations to come thereafter ...



mountaindewslave said:

NES and it's not remotely close objectively. The NES and Nintendo's standards and regulations around that period of time (particularly in terms of quality control) defined the industry and really built the industry.

Video games as a hobby and market would undoubtedly be much smaller than they are today if not for Nintendo so carefully and perfectly bringing the subject back into the limelight.

yes- if Nintendo hadn't been around eventually someone else probably would have revived the home console market- but to the level and effect that Nintendo did? I doubt that. The quality and talent involved in bringing the NES and its library to life is incredible considering how the retail market was so afraid of video games in the USA after the Atari crash. I mean it's probably already been mentioned a bunch of times in this thread but just to get the NES in stores Nintendo had to market it more as a toy bundle to retailers by pairing it with a robot accessory.

And the reality is if another company had been the first to innovate and rebirth the game industry they could have easily started with a much messier route of middling quality and customer service. There could have been ANOTHER video game crash, it could have been fad. All it would have taken was another hardware manufacturer popping up that didn't implement serious regulation on what software was allowed on their system (quality control).

In a weird way Nintendo's shrewdness for control and specificity over their first big video game platform is why the video game market ended up flourising. It set a baseline and grounds for how things should be done and made consumers more comfortable and confident in purchasing video games because they trusted that they weren't investing into an Atari 2600 like system with a ton of shovelware. 

I think it's difficult to really credit the NES as much as it deserves. Considering how leaps and bounds it was above any other home console before it in terms of accessibillity and performance I think it's particularly impressive the roster of games it had as well. I mean think of plugging in a Nintendo system with Mario Bros and compare that to ANY home console experience before then- it's an incredible difference.

In the end the quality emergence between the NES and the generaion before it is a wider gap than any other generational gap in video game history and by a massive margin.

Before Nintendo video games, at least in the living room, were not taken very seriously or reliably in terms of the product you were going to receive.

 

We can talk all day long about how relevant and signifcant systems like the Playstation 1, PS2, and Wii were in terms of culture and their effects on the industry at the time and beyond it- but the reality is the foundation for all of these platforms was laid by the NES. I mean things like the NES's controller, save features, the 'seal of quality', multiple genres of games- so much was innovated in that period. 

I mentioned a point you made from another thread about Nintendo and their IPs. We forget the types of games that were being made prior to the NES. Can you imagine being someone during that time whether as a kid or as an adult playing a game like Super Mario Bros. or The Legend of Zelda? It was almost night and day compared to the games before. And it doesn't hurt that characters like Mario, Donkey Kong, and Link were, and still are, endearing among the community. Even Samus to a smaller extent, especially as a surprise being known as a woman, the first known female video game protagonist. Then adding characters like Simon Belmont, Mega Man, Chocobo, and others, it worked out for the NES with the help of these characters.

Edit: Consider this, why was Mario among the few characters who helped with the changing of the host from Rio to Tokyo? Why wasn't there anyone from Playstation, Square, Capcom, Sega, etc? Plus, his numerous appearances and/or references in a variety of show and other public events such as Dancing with the Stars? Hell, outside of the NES, Pokemon was given the job of repping the Japanese soccer team during the most recent World Cup. This is what made the NES an important console. Not just saving the US and Japan recover from the crash or providing new gaming experiences, but also introducing characters that we continue to talk about and cherish for so many years. 30 years and counting and these characters are still around and just as relevant.



Soundwave said:
Lawlight said:

I like that idea - looking at it backwards. It is absolutely true that if PlayStation wasn't here, we wouldn't be gaming now. If the NES wasn't around, Sega would have been Nintendo and things would have carried on as there were and the Master System would have been leading this poll.

Personally, I was introduced to gaming by Nintendo - the NES was my first console though I preferred the games on the Master System but I left console gaming after that, dabbled into PC gaming and then quit PC gaming altogether. It was PlayStation that got me back into gaming and made a gamer. I haven't stopped gaming since. And looking at how PS1 sales exploded while Sega and Nintendo's systems sold less, I think this is a common thing amongst modern gamers.

lol, gaming would've been just fine without the Playstation. 

All that would've happened is FF7, MGS would've been on Sega Saturn and it would've done great as a result. Sony didn't bring jack all the table other than Gran Turismo in 1998 and a Sonic rip off in Crash, big whoop. The rest was driven by third parties who were close to Nintendo to that point that would've made those games anyway. 

The console business NEEDED Nintendo on the other hand, Mario was gaming's first (and still largest) superstar, he would become in time as popular as Mickey Mouse and that changed everything, then third parties like Capcom, Squaresoft, Konami ... all these companies cashed in on the Nintendo craze and made a name for themselves. Capcom wasn't shit before the NES. Squaresoft wasn't shit before the NES. Konami same deal. 

Honestly I'd prefer an industry with Nintendo + Sega over the current setup we have. Sony/MS have drained the industry of a lot of its charm IMO, what we have now are basically just boxed, boring ass PCs really that are called consoles. 

Those 3rd parties would have gone bust with just Nintendo and Sega around. FF7 would not have looked as good as it did back then, would not have sold as much as a result - and even less without Sony's marketing money. Sega was already going bust anyway. With no platform , apart from the PS, to handle the games that drove the gaming evolution, those third party games would not have been sustained.

And what you call charm by Nintendo/Sega - I call staleness and kiddiness.

Btw, Capcom made it big thanks to 2 games - Street Fighter which was an arcade game and Resident Evil, which debuted on the PS1. They would have been fine without Nintendo. Even Monster Hunter made it big thanks to the PSP.

Squaresoft didn't even release FFVI in the west. FFVII is what made it a household name worldwide.

Konami - Contra, Frogger and DDR are all arcade games, MGS, Silent Hill and DMC became big on the PS. Winning Eleven was the football for years thanks to the PS.



Kai_Mao said:
mountaindewslave said:

NES and it's not remotely close objectively. The NES and Nintendo's standards and regulations around that period of time (particularly in terms of quality control) defined the industry and really built the industry.

Video games as a hobby and market would undoubtedly be much smaller than they are today if not for Nintendo so carefully and perfectly bringing the subject back into the limelight.

yes- if Nintendo hadn't been around eventually someone else probably would have revived the home console market- but to the level and effect that Nintendo did? I doubt that. The quality and talent involved in bringing the NES and its library to life is incredible considering how the retail market was so afraid of video games in the USA after the Atari crash. I mean it's probably already been mentioned a bunch of times in this thread but just to get the NES in stores Nintendo had to market it more as a toy bundle to retailers by pairing it with a robot accessory.

And the reality is if another company had been the first to innovate and rebirth the game industry they could have easily started with a much messier route of middling quality and customer service. There could have been ANOTHER video game crash, it could have been fad. All it would have taken was another hardware manufacturer popping up that didn't implement serious regulation on what software was allowed on their system (quality control).

In a weird way Nintendo's shrewdness for control and specificity over their first big video game platform is why the video game market ended up flourising. It set a baseline and grounds for how things should be done and made consumers more comfortable and confident in purchasing video games because they trusted that they weren't investing into an Atari 2600 like system with a ton of shovelware. 

I think it's difficult to really credit the NES as much as it deserves. Considering how leaps and bounds it was above any other home console before it in terms of accessibillity and performance I think it's particularly impressive the roster of games it had as well. I mean think of plugging in a Nintendo system with Mario Bros and compare that to ANY home console experience before then- it's an incredible difference.

In the end the quality emergence between the NES and the generaion before it is a wider gap than any other generational gap in video game history and by a massive margin.

Before Nintendo video games, at least in the living room, were not taken very seriously or reliably in terms of the product you were going to receive.

 

We can talk all day long about how relevant and signifcant systems like the Playstation 1, PS2, and Wii were in terms of culture and their effects on the industry at the time and beyond it- but the reality is the foundation for all of these platforms was laid by the NES. I mean things like the NES's controller, save features, the 'seal of quality', multiple genres of games- so much was innovated in that period. 

I mentioned a point you made from another thread about Nintendo and their IPs. We forget the types of games that were being made prior to the NES. Can you imagine being someone during that time whether as a kid or as an adult playing a game like Super Mario Bros. or The Legend of Zelda? It was almost night and day compared to the games before. And it doesn't hurt that characters like Mario, Donkey Kong, and Link were, and still are, endearing among the community. Even Samus to a smaller extent, especially as a surprise being known as a woman. Then adding characters like Simon Belmont, Mega Man, Chocobo, and others, it worked out for the NES with the help of these characters.

Not quite right according to the history of video games - arcades had similar games before Nintendo created those games. Check out Hydlide - came out 1.5 years before Zelda. You can see the inspiration right there.



leo-j said:

secoundly the ps1 was the one to change how we view gaming, as it was the system to draw in a mature audience to gaming.... games stopped being for 5-9 year olds who wante mario.

Actually the original XBox did bring in the mature component. Before that - look at PS1 and PS2 games: cartoony, colorful, wacky, mostly kid-friendly. Xbox changed that and PS3 and X360 followed that path.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter