MARCUSDJACKSON on 07 May 2010
| slowmo said: I actually thought the list was pretty fair. The 360 is on there because of the impact Xbox Live has had and will have for gaming in the future. Live in years to come will be seen as more important than most people on here are willing to admit, that is why its inclusion is good. The PS1 is worthy of its place as it introduced disc based gaming that relied upon more than just FMV. It was a important step in the transition from 2d to 3d. The Wii made motion control a success, arguing its not important given the huge number of new gamers it as attracted is madness. The PS2 didn't really innovate anything, it was arguable the weakest console last generation techinically, it didn't have any stand out features to blitz the opposition besides a lot of games and price. In my opinion it didn't bring anything new to the table or reboot flagging games sales either. The Dreamcast was a failure on so many levels, the only importance history will place on the console is as an example of how not to release a piece of gaming hardware. It's was and always will be seen as a disaster, time to throw those rose tinted spectacles away. The PS3 is worth a shout on that list but not quite yet imo. If in the future we move to playing 3d games on our home consoles then the PS3 is in a prime position to raise its hand and say it started with me on consoles. To be important you should have really innovated and that is something the PS3 cannot claim it has done outright, not quite yet... |
come on man. PS3 is the only console (other then PC debatable) to bring a variety of games from almost every genre. being published by the manufacture.
