I can't understand all the arguing over the SNES era, it clearly wasn't the most powerful.

I think the OP is right. Just look at the specs on wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(first_generation) - I have no clue who one... so this may be up in the air, but I think the Atari Pong one won and it isn't the most powerful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(second_generation) - Atari 2600 won and it clearly isn't he most powerful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(third_generation) - NES won and its was easily the weakest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(fourth_generation) - SNES won and the NEO GEO was clearly the powerhouse and Genesis was more powerful as well.

No need to show the rest as we all lived it.

5th (Xbox 2nd place)
6th (PS3 probably last)

SNES beats the Genesis  in most areas but that is beside the point as the CD-i was the most powerful system followed by the Commodore CDTV then the Neo Geo then the SNES and Genesis were basically tied as they had different advantages and dissadvantages genesis had a faster CPU but SNES had more RAM and could display more colors etc

The most powerful console will win when it gets the other parts of the equation right as well.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time there's been a thread about this. Why is this an obssession for everybody?

Graphics might not be everything but they are becomign more and more important each gen. Sure you could argue that the wii has sold the most this gen despite lacking graphics but as far as game sales goes unless its got nintendo on the box 99% of wii games fail to seell very well.

This is false, the most powerful system (or close) always wins given enough time.

This is why Dreamcast died, Saturn, Jaguar, 3DO, they all died because they weren't powerful enough. They came out early in a generation, and more powerful consoles eclipsed them.

This is also why Xbox beat Gamecube even though Gamecube had a HUGEEEEEEEEEEEEE software lineup advantage (I remember Nintendo fans telling me over and over at the time, Xbox was dead as soon as Mario came out, as soon as Zelda, as soon as Starfox, whichever, they were wrong every time).

Also, if you say Wii won even though it's less powerful, it really didn't. The PS3 and 360 are more or less the same console, with mostly the same games. The fact they split the HD market doesnt matter, any more than if the hypothetical apple wagglemaster took half of Wii sales and say, PS3 was the only HD console and "dominated" the market. Combined, the Ps3 and 360 are beating the Wii very easily now. More homes own a HD console, and they buy far far more software, than Wii hardware or software (and the gap is growing very fast lately, in most markets they are outselling Wii at least 2-1, 3-1 in software).

This is also why Ps3 fans are obessed with proving that Ps3 is more powerful than 360, and why most of their posts are about graphics, how much better than 360 supposedly Ps3 exclusives look, etc. Because they know how important it is. If it wasnt important, then why are most PS3 fans post across the internet about PS3 exclusives games supposedly great graphics?

Also, most people say N64 was more powerful than PS1. It wasnt, so stop that right there. PS1 could process more polygons than N64 and thats technical fact.

The only more powerful console that didn't win was Xbox, but it would have won if that generation had gone on forever, and moreover it did much better than expected, and it beat the Gamecube which had every advantage (price, software, brand recognition) except one, power.

Also, people saying the Genesis was more powerful than SNES are wrong. The SNES had more colors (256 colors onscreen versus 64 for Sega), mode 7 scaling and rotation, and far better audio. The colors alone made SNES games look much better than Genesis ones. Just look at Donkey Kong Country, that game was considering amazing at it's time almost as good as 32 bit games, and there was nothing like it on Genesis. Genesis and SNES were very similar in power it's true, that's why they sold similar, but SNES gets the nod.

Neo Geo clearly was the most powerful, but come on. The games cost $200. It wasnt reasonably priced. Lets not be ridiculous here. Stay within reason.

Put it this way, if power didnt matter, there would never be new consoles. Why wouldn't Sony just stay with the Ps2?? Why did they bother making PS3 at all??? PS3 lost billions but Ps2 hardware was highly profitable. Because Xbox 360 graphics would have killed the PS2 eventually and everybody knows it! If you can understand that, then you can understand that power always wins, it's not arguable. If you think it doesnt, then why didnt Sony make the Ps3 LESS powerful than the PS2?? After all it would have beemn cheaper, and given it the best chance to win since most powerful never wins!!

(haha, that last was obviously a joke, yet is a serious question too).

Even Wii is kind of struggling now because of it's lack of power. We all know it gets zero third party support, and is struggling with a lack of longevity right now. Wii is a bit of an exception to the power rules though as it sold on a gimmick.

You should have said "The most powerful systems are almost never the sales leaders" That would have been much more accurate.

If the most powerful never wins, why didn't Sony make the Ps3 less powerful than the PS2 and cost $79?

Simple question.

If anybody who thinks most powerful doesnt win can answer it satisfactorily, I will surrender.

I read your post and my heart stopped beating for almost 20 seconds.

We said the most powerful never wins.  We didn't say the least powerful always wins.  Otherwise we'd be remembereing all of the good games we played on our Turbografx 16's and Sega Dreamcasts.  The winner is the one that finds the balance between great price (usually the weaker system), adequate power (usually close to the best but not the very best), and great games (usually not the Wii).

Please place your surrender flag on my steps by sundown.