No.  Your confusing what a game console is.

A game console is something that plays games.

Therefore a console is only as good as the games that play it.

But as the technology improves, so do the games. Games are a lot more complex and interesting now than they ever were in the past because the hardware is capable of so much more.

There are very few games from the SNES era that still hold up today, and they certainly are nowhere near the level of current top games.

Don't let nostalgia blind your objectivity.

OT: I don't agree with IGN's list, or even in ranking systems in this way, but IGN are definitely one of the least offensive review sites. Their biggest problem is the number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors that slip through the net. At least they don't bitch about games being too difficult or completely ignore key features like 1up, who seem to be far more respected than they deserve.

I can play games I never played before and picked up on ebay and they're still often better. 

I'm actually being completly objective.  Better technology does not always make better games.

Why are some of the top movies of all time back from the black and white days?

Or some of the best stories ones told way back in the days of shakespeare and such when more modern ways of telling stories have arisen?

Etc.

The best recipies don't always use the most ingridents.

How come... despite the advancement of photography... Photographs still play a backseat to painting when it comes to art?  Despite photographs being technically better?

Older systems had their own distinctive styles and sounds that just don't exist now a days.

FF6 is still seen to have one of the best soundtracks in gaming and that was done with SNES level technology... an atari or NES sprite is distinctive and has it's own style.  Something that most modern games lack.

This has nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with craftmanship and quality.  Back then teams were smaller, projects were more coherent and designs differed more radically.

Today everything is much more similar, and much more bland.  Stretched out, with the samish character models and looks for the characters because you can't have stuff being too distinct when you need so many artitsts to make one game.

It's all bland in comparison and sameish in comparison due to the need to have huge staffs and sell huge numbers.

Despite greater technology... the games released today are more simiar to each other in the past when developers had so little to work with. 

The modern systems are just trying to be a better PS2 rather then be their own systems.

Even the Wii in some regards.

Not EVERY older console is better then the current geneation ones... however a lot are... and it has nothing to do with nostalgia, and everything to do with the fact that the games made for it were just more fun... period.

I don't think too many people are upset that IGN placed the 360 above the PS3 but more that it was ranked higher than the PS1. Personally I would rank the PS3 higher than the 360 as I prefer the games it offers (hence why I own a PS3 and not a 360) but I accept that many others disagree and I really can't complain that IGN went with that school of thought. Ranking the 360 above the PS1 though seems a little strange, maybe in 5 years when the 360 has a larger games library but at the minute I don't think it even comes close to the PS1. All that said, these lists are nothing more than a way to generate traffic as they are completely subjective and no one is going to completely agree with it.

i agree.

ps1=best rpg library ever

360=worst rpg library ever.

I think the list has a bias towards Microsoft because it is one of the companies they currently have staff covering. There is NO WAY Xbox or Xbox 360 should be that high, they don't appeal to the majority of gamers, who aren't hardcore/L337/nerd/haxxor/uber or whatever you people call yourselves, Noreen have they revolutionized anything.

PSX ruled a generation and did a HELL of a lot more than Xbox and Xbox 360 did combined. This generation, it makes more sense to have the Wii up there. They expanded the horizons of gaming whereas Xbox 360 and PS3 just borrowed things already made popular from both Nintendo and the PC gaming industry, revolutionizing nothing. Consumers also voted Wii number 1 this generation by an astonishing margin.

Besides, IGNs bias has shined through all the time when reviewing games. Unfortunately, IGN and Gamespot have a strong hold on gaming media, and so many smaller sites usually minimally play the games and then paraphrase IGN's review even when the vast majority of game players on each of those games disagree.

Honestly, IGN lost what respect I had for them a long time ago, and right now they feel like a site with very few worthwhile reasons to visit, and this list is something I cannot be bothered to look at in the slightest.

Why IGN is still held up as a great site by many fanboys is beyond me.

If IGN were judging the consoles without regard for the software then why is the N64 so high.... the N64 has some amazing games yes, but the console as a piece of tech was not good.

Similary the X360 should be almost bottom of the pile along with PS2... things that break  so much more easily are not good consoles.

BY that logic, since my Wii can not only play Wii and Gamecube games, but also many NES, SNES, and N64 games, it must be the greatest console of all time (since the console is only as good as the games that play it).