There is a lot of fail in this post.

How about you use your debating skills rather than insulting other users input on a subject snidely.

I don't think there is any need to defend their choice; a bunch of people here disagree, but that doesn't make them more "right" or "wrong" than IGN...

Personally if I was given a choice of a PS3 or 360 to play over the next 3-5 years, OR a PS1, the PS1 would be my last choice. Not that it didn't have great games, but I expect much more from my system now (on-line play, HD graphics, wireless controllers, downloadable content).

I don't think you can in any way include Natal...it isn't out and we have absolutely no idea how well it will be implemented.  It could be a huge game-changer, or it could be a complete and total flop.  I'm not trying to be hard on the 360, I just don't think you can include anything that isn't even close to being out yet.  Including the PS3s motion controller or supposed 3-D graphics would be equally ridiculous.

Anyway...the list is all subjective, so I'm not going to get worked up over any of it...

Debate on what? subjective views on consoles? The fail in this thread comes from trying to fight because of a subjective list made by IGN, fail from the beggining, we all know debating about this leads to nowhere.

edit: not going to bother

don't know about the atari 2600, i wasn't even born then, but other than that the list was pretty good. 360> PS1 i thought was not right but it's still debatable. NES being higher than PS2 made sense, if you give thought to it you'd understand. PS3 IMO doesn't deserve to be in the top 10 because it started getting good exclusives almost 2 years after it released and it's online (online gameplay being the most important thing in today's gaming) lagged behind 360's and they had to catch up to it.

I don't think any current gen console should be considered in the list. Wait till they do all that they can do and then judge them. There is plenty of time still to become the greatest or the worst.

God who cares what they think, the whole point of there site is to get views, would they get anything if they just gave you all the things you wanted too see?

No there going to make dumb articles and countdowns which you all will click on multiple times and link to on forums then argue over all this time while IGN sit back and laugh at you because you bought it hook line and sinker.

360 being higher than PS3 was the LEAST of that list's problems.

The 360 was above the N64 and PS1. Two of the greatest consoles EVER. What has the 360 had that can compare to Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, or Crash 3 and FF7? Why aren't the PS1 and N64 in the top 5?

And finally, the MOST RIDICULOUS part of that list, is the top five. Go look. I warn you, it's not for the faint of heart. Your heart will sink at number 4, collapse at number 3, explode at number 2 and then, well, get slightly better at number 1.

Go on, look...
...
...

THE FUCKING ATARI 2600 IS ABOVE THE PS2 AND SNES?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, I like IGN's reviews, and nothing more. Their articles suck, their editorials suck, their awards suck, and above ALL, their lists suck.

I know, and I expect that crap from Destructoid, IGN AU, GameDaily, people like that. But IGN is above this, seriously. They don't need controversy hits from shitty articles.

And if we're going to believe IGN, I suppose MGS Rising is 360 exclusive, Resistance 2 is better than Killzone 2, and GTA4 is perfect.