Bump up the Genesis and SNES. SNES and DC are a toss up for 1-2 to me. Take out the n64, add the wii based on current titles and it's potential, not to mention revolutionairy control scheme and put the PC at number 3 and the Saturn at 7 and I'm happy. Oh wait I didn't account for one system.. oh well.

WHERE IS THE MENTION OF THE ALWAYS CUTTING EDGE PC!?

@Legend11

I have come to see the platform games as a mere sub genre of the action adventure genre. I am thinking the industry is beginning to see it in the same fashion. Basically once you look beyond cute cuddly mascots jumping around colorful worlds you see that many games incorporate many of the same elements.

I have to ask the serious question what defines a platform game for you. Does it require a cute cuddly mascot, or is it more an issue of mechanics if that is the case I would purpose that Crackdown is a valid platform game, as is Naruto, or for that matter Assassins Creed. While for most people these titles do not spring to mind they share most of the same elements you find in a Mario merely in a different context.

This question has bugged me for awhile grouping them all into action adventures resolves the problem. Basically you avoid the question by not having to answer it. I think ironically Zelda is a jump button away from being a platform game. Most reviewers no longer consider it a RPG anymore, or even use the term action RPG. Strangely enough Crackdown has more role playing elements then Zelda, and we most definitely do not refer to it as a action roleplaying game. Does it require a fantasy medieval local?

I just have to know what is it that defines this supposed genre is it the cute cuddly mascot? If so why should that really matter isn't a genre defined by how the game plays. Not by the protagonist.

Gamedaily is a joke. Here's another "article" they did on the creepy side of gaming.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/galleries/the-creepy-side-of-gaming/

@Jlaff

The Wii most definitely does not belong on the list yet. The consoles biggest problem is its library, or more specifically the lack of one. There is less then a mere handful of highly regarded titles. I would argue the same for the PS3. A good library is a critical part of the equation. The games define a console and without the games you have no claim.

Nintendo has Mario, Brawl, and Metroid. Zelda and Resident Evil can't make the cut being ports. I am talking about games with critical acclaim. Previous Nintendo systems offered up a larger volume of high quality games in a shorter span of time.

Sony has Resistance, Ratchet, Drake, and perhaps Warhawk. Once again it hasn't reached the bare minimum requirement. You really need to have more critically acclaimed games to make a case.

Now will that be the case at the end of this generation thats yet to be decided, but you can't judge a console on potential. You have to judge it on performance, and right now neither Nintendo or Sony has performed in the library department in a significant way. They need more games under their belt, and they have to be dramatic. We can only anticipate right now, but if last year taught us anything its this don't count your chickens before they hatch.

 You saw Dreamcast as 2 right?  This was obviously about which systems had a very small core of really awesome games.

i don't know how they can start their number 1 pick with "Sure it breaks every 5 mins" and it not be a joke

 The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Hmmm.. I think most of us could have made a better list.. but it is nice to see the Dreamcast at #2.

 I was actually going to say I don't think even 360 supporters will claim it deserves #1 right now.  Perhaps after this generation when we look back things will be different but not right now...honestly any time one of these lists comes out its just best not to list anything current.

None of the current consoles deserve consideration for the top spot imo...there are too many questions yet to be answered this generation all around.  

a load of crap