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
Chris Hu said:
Aeolus451 said:

Who gives a shit whether it's first party or third party games, It doesn't matter which one it is in the context of our disagreement.  The games are still on the console either way and are considered a part of the console's library. 

As for Captian Planet...

Looks like you're wrong again.

So what that game must be super rare since that version isn't mentioned on the games wiki page.  Anyway all the games you mentioned where obscure and like I said before all of them are third party and none of them had any kind of sigificant marketing.  Like I said before the only game that actually sold well and had a lot of marketing aimed at kids was Sonic The Hedgehog but the majority of all Genesis first party games where marked at teens and older folks not kids.  The SNES on the other hand had a lot more games aimed at kids and a ton of first party games for kids and most of the advertising by Nintendo was actually aimed at kids.  And even if all that weren't true the PS1 was still not the first console mainly aimed at adults that would be the NEO GEO none of its games where aimed at kids and with a launch price of $649.99 and games going for over $100 dollars pretty much no kid could afford one unless they where born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

This is basically what you're doing.



Around the Network
Aeolus451 said:
Chris Hu said:

So what that game must be super rare since that version isn't mentioned on the games wiki page.  Anyway all the games you mentioned where obscure and like I said before all of them are third party and none of them had any kind of sigificant marketing.  Like I said before the only game that actually sold well and had a lot of marketing aimed at kids was Sonic The Hedgehog but the majority of all Genesis first party games where marked at teens and older folks not kids.  The SNES on the other hand had a lot more games aimed at kids and a ton of first party games for kids and most of the advertising by Nintendo was actually aimed at kids.  And even if all that weren't true the PS1 was still not the first console mainly aimed at adults that would be the NEO GEO none of its games where aimed at kids and with a launch price of $649.99 and games going for over $100 dollars pretty much no kid could afford one unless they where born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

This is basically what you're doing.

Nope I'm just telling it like it is.



mountaindewslave 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.

that's just absurdity. that argument would be like saying the DvD player in 2000 was more significant than the first ever created film projector for theater entertainment just because it potentially brought movies to more eyes and popularity. A fallacy in logic 

not only do you not have the Playstation 1 without the systems that preceded it, but you don't even have Sony in the video game market without Nintendo being their first (hence their attempts to collaborate with Nintendo after the giant steps of the NES). And it's not even like the Playstation itself was particularly innovative- it wasn't the first analog stick and there had already been a number of CD video game systems at the time (Sega CD, Turbo CD, 3Do, etc.). Again, streamlining something that's already been created is not more relevant imo

The Playstation 1 was successful in streamlining gaming further, yes, but after the market/hobby had already exploded. Sorry, but making video games even more popular in the target audience of young adults is not that remarkable of an accomplishment in itself

The reality is the video game market was inevitably heading into the direction of getting larger and larger as technology progressed and we entered an internet age. If the PS1 didn't exist then almost certainly someone like Sega (or even Nintendo) would have picked up the reigns where the PS1 no longer existed, because obviously CD based games were already a thing and going to be pushed even more. It's not as if the players who filled the backbone of the PS1 library would have magically disappeared and stopped making games (cough Squaresoft, Enix, Konami, Capcom, etc.)

 

Anyone picking the PS1 is just out of touch with reality. The most difficult thing you could ever do is essentially create (or relaunch) a dead industry and create the fundamentals for it that would ensure it's survive. the NES in its quality, controller, game library and revolutionary mechanics (save states, D pad, etc>) alone is far beyond what any other system has achieved in terms of relevance on the industry

I mean before the PS1 there were a plethora of systems that in some respect made video gaming popular in public opinion. NES, SNES, Gameboy, Genesis, Game Gear, Master System, 2600, etc.,   The PS1 used CDs, had a solid controller (although somewhat deritive of other existing things just more balanced), and had an awesome array of third party support. It didn't create or really do anything that particularly impressive as a piece of hardware. CDs were already becoming a thing. If anything the PS2 would probably have a better argument than the PS1 because it achieved infiltration into a massive # of households with packing in a DVD player as well, succeeding in a way merging the video game market with the general media entertainment market

 

NES >>>>>>>>> all other systems in terms of relevance. 2600 probably behind it. Remember we're talking about significance on the video game market going forward here. Not what system we like the most or what system got into technically the most hands. I don't think it's rocket science. 

LOL, me picking PS1 over NES is no different than you picking NES over Atari, a fallacy based on your own logic!!  For the console to be most important, it has to have done something that otherwise would not have been done.  Just being first isn't enough (otherwise, why even open the thread?).

Nintendo and Sega were another in a line of gaming company's to release consoles.  Like many of the companies that preceded them, they had a breakout hit, followed by declining sales which each new console launch until Sega exited and the Wii massive success.

Sony was the first conglomorate to (successfully) enter the market in a big way, a move which changed the trajectory of the industry from boom and bust to a stable business model attacting Microsoft into the fold.



Lifetime Sales Prediction - 6/29/2013
Wii U - 38 million
XBOX One - 88 million
Playstation 4 - 145 million

The NES as it brought gaming back from the abyss in the US, but among other reasons Nintendo has been the innovator in general when it has come to console gaming. It's hard to imagine where Sony or Microsoft would be without them.



Current gaming platforms - Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Wii U, New 3DS, PC

Kai_Mao said:
Ruler said:

Those are Handhelds

That doesn't mean that they didn't have an influence for the future. Plus handhelds are consoles regardless, even if they aren't "home consoles."

They arent consoles



Around the Network
PenguinZ said:

The NES as it brought gaming back from the abyss in the US, but among other reasons Nintendo has been the innovator in general when it has come to console gaming. It's hard to imagine where Sony or Microsoft would be without them.

Gaming never died as the 2600 fizzled out.  Gamers grew up.  We moved onto Commodores and other home computers, but we still gamed.  There were a lot of options available to us so there was no standard or huge success story.  In fact, it was common to buy a competing computer than what our friends owned for wider gaming options.  Nintendo brought back a dedicated videogame system, but they didn't exactly reinvent the wheel.



NES > Atari 2600: Atari 2600 was IMO the definitive birth of home console gaming. However, the NES profusely introduced full-fledged games that are completable rather than aimlessly achieving a high score. The Atari 2600 certainly had games that are beatable but 9 times out of 10 they were either extremely easy or downright impossible. The NES was also one of the first consoles that actually had characters and environments looking similar enough to what was on the boxart, and properly arranged music in games that have become memorable. The NES had save functionality (though some were secretive unless you read the Nintendo Power magazine e.g. Mario Bros). The NES was also the debut of some of the most renown video game franchises of all-time which inspired other developers. The Legend Of Zelda, Mario Bros, Metroid, Castlevania, Mega Man, Bomberman, among other classics. The controller for the NES was also the pioneer to what is classified as a traditional controller nowadays. Nintendo created the d-pad, which is widely used in those. The SNES was more revolutionary in this aspect generally though, as it introduced shoulder buttons and the ABXY format which the Xbox brand recycled.

NES games don't really hold up today, but back then, it was a turning point for gaming- even aside the NA crash of 1983. No other console has managed to match that level improvement in one generation, at all. As for other consoles, I would argue the PlayStation brand helped expose the gaming audience to home consoles as currently, it dominates in those for lifetime sales. However, the conception of "significance" dwells on progression IMO. So PSX helped standardize CD ROM technology, much better negotiation with third party developers, actual cinematic cutscenes...but I can't think of much more than that



Ruler said:
Kai_Mao said:

That doesn't mean that they didn't have an influence for the future. Plus handhelds are consoles regardless, even if they aren't "home consoles."

They arent consoles

yes they are, handheld does not describe the device, it describes the form factor similar to laptap/desktop.

there are home consoles and handheld consoles.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Ruler said:
Kai_Mao said:

That doesn't mean that they didn't have an influence for the future. Plus handhelds are consoles regardless, even if they aren't "home consoles."

They arent consoles

A home 'console' and handheld' console' are still both gaming consoles. They do the exact same thing as each other, the only difference is the size of the screen, but now the Switch since you can do that too shows this more than ever.

A game console is a piece of hardware that is designed first and for most to dedicatedly play gaming software.

If they're not consoles then why do litterally have 'consoles' in the name.



NES/Famicom especially for USA. Else we won't get any other consoles.