It’s funny to see there’s pretty huge differences between everyone’s preferences, what one person says is a disappointment is another’s favorite.

To pick one out of these; I’m surprised quite a few are mentioning N64 for a variety of reasons. Personally, it represents the best time I ever had on any console. I know it doesn’t have many games compared to most other main systems, but the ratio of great ones is surely very high; of the 200-250 games on it, I own almost a quarter of those, more than any other system I have (except PC) all bought back then!

The 360 (at least here in the US) was by far the most popular console last gen. It's not even debatable. I should have just said US, versus making a general statement to mean all. It doesn't matter that it sold the least. It was still close to PS3 as far as sales go. However, more gamers here in the US preferred 360 over the rest. It had better online connection, it also was the preferred console for fighting game tourneys like EVO, CEO, etc. The 360 was also featured in a lot of tv shows and movies. More than the others. That's what I mean by popularity.

Sub 1080p?! The machine runs most games at 1080. Sure the Pro is a little bit better, but hardly anything significant. Not that big of jump like the Xbox One to the One X. The regular PS4 seems to handle games just fine in my opinion. I don't really hear complaints from gamers about hardware performance when it comes to the PS4. My "it's really no different than Xbox One and Switch" stance was in response to how you made all of the hardware gripes about PS4 when for the longest time was the strongest console in the world. I was just surprised you didn't make the same claims towards the other 2.

Trust me when I say I love the Switch. It's a phenomenal console that's creative, innovative, and just downright enjoyable. If I had to say anything negative about the Switch, it would have been that joy-con drift issue. Which is being taken care of. So I don't have anything against Switch. Again, I was just wondering why you chose the strongest hardware (at the time)out of the 3 for hardware limitations and didn't list it for the other 2. It was just baffling for me. Your preference is your preference. I'll never argue why you like a console better than another. That's not why I replied to you.

I do agree with you about the pricing of the PS3. I don't see it as a negative because they had other models down the line that had a much less considerable price. However, I understand that there are few who have been turned off completely by that price and decided not to touch the PS3 at all. So maybe some of those same folks are here. Same situation with the Xbox One. Pricing and forced Kinect bundling. Although there are other models with a much reduced price and no Kinect...some gamers just got turned off from that.

Anyway, please don't take my reply to you as to questioning your preference. I was just curious about the hardware view for one, but not all of them. Also I was wondering about the remaster thing when the other 2 consoles have just as many. That's the whole gist of "no different than Xbox One and Switch" bit. Hope that clears it up.

Sony: The PS1, a lot of 2D fighting games were cut-down, audio & FMV skipping. The PS3, goodness it was pricey & the third party developers couldn't optimize their games.

Microsoft: The OG Xbox, for god sake the case is heavy & thicc

Nintendo: The Wii, GCN controller don't work on Wii menu. SIGH

Nintendo: In terms of when I my experience when it was a current gen console, the GameCube. In terms of hindsight, the N64. I bought a Gamecube at launch, and a lot of people seem to forget just how vast the software droughts for the thing were. It’s third party support was scant, and it often got the worst versions of multi platform games despite being more powerful than PS2. Nintendo games were few and far inbetween, and could vary wildly in quality, from game of the year contenders like Metroid Prime, to trashy disasters like Geist. It’s still a damn good console with some amazing games, but it had the worst combination of third party and first party support of all of Nintendo’s consoles. While its controller is great for Nintendo games, it was infamously ill-suited for certain genres, especially fighting games.

N64 is the worst in hindsight. Its controller is awful, and most of its games, being early 3D games, have aged poorly. But for the time, I also can’t deny just how groundbreaking and innovative many of its games were.


Sony: PlayStation TV (HA, LOOP HOLE, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE PS1). I will never understand the thinking behind this thing: let’s make a microconsole out of the Vita that can play MOST Vita and PSP games, but not all, including some pretty major games that should have been functional on it.

Putting that aside, I guess I’d go with PS1, if only because, again, many of its biggest games aged poorly (though it does have more sidescrollers than the N64, which aged better)

Microsoft: I’ve only loved their Xbox consoles, but I guess I’ll go with Xbox One. I love the services on it (Xbox Live and Game Pass) and I enjoy being able to run my cable box through it, which effectively makes the Xbox One my default TV interface. It’s SUPER convenient. But I only got this thing as a Christmas gift to begin with, and while it had superior exclusives to PS4 early on, at this point its hard to recommend the system based on its exclusive software. Unless you want Game Pass, there is simply no reason to own this thing if you already have a PS4 or PC, which have everything the Xbone has plus loads of great exclusives. Soon, even Game Pass won’t be a selling point anymore.

SEGA: Hey, they’ve been in as many console gens as Sony and Microsoft, so I’m gonna include them! Anyway, worst from SEGA was Master System. On top of 8-bit games not really aging great, and much of the library being made up of significantly scaled-down arcade ports, the Master System definitely falls short of SEGA’s other console efforts.

PS3 - High cost at launch, suffered performance issues compared to 360.
X1 - Little reason for me to play anything on it as most of what I play is either on PS4, Switch, or both.
WiiU - Biggest software droughts of any Nintendo console. Still prefer it over X1 however.

I have no idea why you're defending a lie.  The PS4, like the Xbox One, does sub-1080p gaming, and dropping frames.  Just because you dont notice it, doesn't mean it's not happening.  I have both a PS4, and a PS4 Pro, and I also have a PC.  I have games across all three.  I notice pretty easily when there's frame dropping.

And here's a list of PS4 games that are sub-1080.  Most are actually 900p, and all it took was a quick google search.  Thanks, IGN.

Ark: Survival Evolved = 680p/Detailed Graphics runs at 1280x720p (TAA)
Assassin's Creed: Syndicate = 1600x900p (FXAA)
Assassin's Creed: Unity = 1600x900p (FXAA)
Battlefield 1 = Conquest ran between 1100x620p and 1807x1014, campaign runs between 1422x795 and 1807x1016; DICE did note that they adjusted the resolution scaler, so the lowest pixel count could be a lot higher, but I have yet to look (TAA)
Battlefield 4 = 1600x900p (FXAA)
Battlefield: Hardline = 1600x900p (FXAA)
Batman: Return to Arkham = 1344x1080p up to 1920x1080p (FXAA)
Batman: The Telltale Series = 1600x900p in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio (no AA)
Call of Duty: Black Ops III = 1360x1080p up to 1920x1080p/split screen runs between 1080x1080p up to 1536x1080p (Filmic SMAA T2x)
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare = 960x1080p up to 1920x1080p (Filmic SMAA T2x, appears to be a temporal technique used that improves the resolution over time for parts of the frame that are similar to previous frames)
EA Sports MMA = 1600x900p (4x MSAA)
Final Fantasy XV = 1600x900p up to 1920x1080p (TAA)
Lichdom: Battlemage = 1600x900p (Post-AA)
Paragon = 1600x900p (TAA)
Nier: Automata = 1600x900p (no AA)
Nioh = 1280x720, occasional spikes up to 1600x900p and 1728x972p (no AA)
Shadow of the Beast = 1600x900p (post-AA? Not sure as I don't plan on getting it.)
Star Wars: Battlefront = 1600x900p (FXAA)
Uncharted 4 multiplayer = 1600x900p (TAA)
Wash_Dawgs = 1600x900p (SMAA T2x)
The Witness = 1600x900p (2x MSAA)
Titanfall 2 = 1280x720p

About the PS3s costs.  What really costs more?  Do you know how many people I knew that went out and paid for multiple xbox 360s with their own money?...  It was foolish.  I had 1 PS3 from 2009, until like 4 months ago.  No, it didn't break.  I still have it.  I bought a SECOND one for the backwards compatibility, since my original didn't have PS2 backwards compatibility.

And, about the Switch, it's meant to be portable.  How can you knock it for power when having more power would mean it wouldn't have been a portable console.  You're getting something out of it.  With the PS4, it's just... weak, and a one-trick-pony on top of it all.  It can't play PS1 games, for some odd reason.  Every version of playstation except PS4s can play PS1 games.  PS3 games are understandable, but it's just odd that the PS4 can't do much of anything else.  The PS3 has more features that the PS4, but PS4 has better graphics.

Nintendo: Wii U only a handful of quality games compared to previous generations.

Sony: PS3 $600 at launch and weak start although it got better later.

Microsoft: Xbox One lack of compelling exculsive games and always online policy when it was announced.

I legit want to know why people say PS3, and then list issues that were remedied during the lifespan of the console, yet the PS4, has issues, with games being sub 1080p for 2 generations in a row, and a Pro model is release and still doesn't fix the issue.

It mainly has to do with the Jaguar CPU holding it back. Unfortunately they had to use the same CPU in the PS4 Pro, same goes for the Xbox One and X. It is literally bottlenecking the GPU in both the Pro and X models. These people believe a GPU is the be all end all for graphs and performance. It doesn't matter how good your GPU is if your CPU is crap.