NES and it's not remotely close objectively. The NES and Nintendo's standards and regulations around that period of time (particularly in terms of quality control) defined the industry and really built the industry.

Video games as a hobby and market would undoubtedly be much smaller than they are today if not for Nintendo so carefully and perfectly bringing the subject back into the limelight.

yes- if Nintendo hadn't been around eventually someone else probably would have revived the home console market- but to the level and effect that Nintendo did? I doubt that. The quality and talent involved in bringing the NES and its library to life is incredible considering how the retail market was so afraid of video games in the USA after the Atari crash. I mean it's probably already been mentioned a bunch of times in this thread but just to get the NES in stores Nintendo had to market it more as a toy bundle to retailers by pairing it with a robot accessory.

And the reality is if another company had been the first to innovate and rebirth the game industry they could have easily started with a much messier route of middling quality and customer service. There could have been ANOTHER video game crash, it could have been fad. All it would have taken was another hardware manufacturer popping up that didn't implement serious regulation on what software was allowed on their system (quality control).

In a weird way Nintendo's shrewdness for control and specificity over their first big video game platform is why the video game market ended up flourising. It set a baseline and grounds for how things should be done and made consumers more comfortable and confident in purchasing video games because they trusted that they weren't investing into an Atari 2600 like system with a ton of shovelware. 

I think it's difficult to really credit the NES as much as it deserves. Considering how leaps and bounds it was above any other home console before it in terms of accessibillity and performance I think it's particularly impressive the roster of games it had as well. I mean think of plugging in a Nintendo system with Mario Bros and compare that to ANY home console experience before then- it's an incredible difference.

In the end the quality emergence between the NES and the generaion before it is a wider gap than any other generational gap in video game history and by a massive margin.

Before Nintendo video games, at least in the living room, were not taken very seriously or reliably in terms of the product you were going to receive.

 

We can talk all day long about how relevant and signifcant systems like the Playstation 1, PS2, and Wii were in terms of culture and their effects on the industry at the time and beyond it- but the reality is the foundation for all of these platforms was laid by the NES. I mean things like the NES's controller, save features, the 'seal of quality', multiple genres of games- so much was innovated in that period. 

catofellow said: Probably Playstation. To me the question needs to be viewed backwards. If any one console hadn't happened, what would be different today? Playstation crushed Sega, took all of Nintendo's 3rd party support, and probably drew Microsoft into the market the following generation. Absent Sony, Nintendo and Sega were both faltering to an extent, it is possible the overall market would have declined, and maybe the market would not have reached the same mass market level. NES is probably second.

that's just absurdity. that argument would be like saying the DvD player in 2000 was more significant than the first ever created film projector for theater entertainment just because it potentially brought movies to more eyes and popularity. A fallacy in logic 

not only do you not have the Playstation 1 without the systems that preceded it, but you don't even have Sony in the video game market without Nintendo being their first (hence their attempts to collaborate with Nintendo after the giant steps of the NES). And it's not even like the Playstation itself was particularly innovative- it wasn't the first analog stick and there had already been a number of CD video game systems at the time (Sega CD, Turbo CD, 3Do, etc.). Again, streamlining something that's already been created is not more relevant imo

The Playstation 1 was successful in streamlining gaming further, yes, but after the market/hobby had already exploded. Sorry, but making video games even more popular in the target audience of young adults is not that remarkable of an accomplishment in itself

The reality is the video game market was inevitably heading into the direction of getting larger and larger as technology progressed and we entered an internet age. If the PS1 didn't exist then almost certainly someone like Sega (or even Nintendo) would have picked up the reigns where the PS1 no longer existed, because obviously CD based games were already a thing and going to be pushed even more. It's not as if the players who filled the backbone of the PS1 library would have magically disappeared and stopped making games (cough Squaresoft, Enix, Konami, Capcom, etc.)

 

Anyone picking the PS1 is just out of touch with reality. The most difficult thing you could ever do is essentially create (or relaunch) a dead industry and create the fundamentals for it that would ensure it's survive. the NES in its quality, controller, game library and revolutionary mechanics (save states, D pad, etc>) alone is far beyond what any other system has achieved in terms of relevance on the industry

I mean before the PS1 there were a plethora of systems that in some respect made video gaming popular in public opinion. NES, SNES, Gameboy, Genesis, Game Gear, Master System, 2600, etc.,   The PS1 used CDs, had a solid controller (although somewhat deritive of other existing things just more balanced), and had an awesome array of third party support. It didn't create or really do anything that particularly impressive as a piece of hardware. CDs were already becoming a thing. If anything the PS2 would probably have a better argument than the PS1 because it achieved infiltration into a massive # of households with packing in a DVD player as well, succeeding in a way merging the video game market with the general media entertainment market

 

NES >>>>>>>>> all other systems in terms of relevance. 2600 probably behind it. Remember we're talking about significance on the video game market going forward here. Not what system we like the most or what system got into technically the most hands. I don't think it's rocket science. 

NES brought the market back from the western VG market collapse, but PlayStation vastly expanded the industry. The

Metal Gear Solid and Konami? Was already one of the top partners with Nintendo and Metal Gear was already on the NES.

Final Fantasy? Squaresoft was one of Nintendo's top partners and Final Fantasy was associated with Nintendo first.

Resident Evil was on Saturn too and Capcom was famous due to its work on the NES and SNES.

Playstation simply took the expanding industry and capitalized on Nintendo/Sega's mistakes by taking the strengths of each side (Nintendo's third party support like Squaresoft, Capcom, and Konami) and Sega (edgy marketing, sports/jock gamer focus, violent edgy games, emphasis on genres like racing/fighters/action games, a Sonic the Hedgehog knock-off) and combining it into one.

I knew like 40 people that owned a PS1, virtually all of them owned a NES before it. Plus with the new kids coming into the industry at that time, they needed a new console to buy too, so you basically had a new wave of kids and the NES/Genesis/SNES crowd needing a console too.

The industry was going to expand no matter what because the NES generation was never going to lose interest in games so quickly. The only "big" series that really brought a lot new to the industry because of PS1 IMO was Gran Turismo. Final Fantasy VII, Resident Evil, MGS, etc. would've just been on Saturn or Nintendo would've been pushed by third parties and finally come to their senses and made a CD-drive for the N64.

If there was no NES, there would be no industry for PlayStation to expand. And if there was an industry, I doubt Sony would've even bothered putting any money into something that they would've viewed as playing with fire. It was the partnership with Nintendo that led the way to PlayStation being a thing in the first place.
- The western market was the ONLY substantial market at the time. 
- They also created the Japanese market. 
- And the market was expanding anyways. All the kids who were brought in with the NES and SNES/Genesis, would've been adults and teenagers by the time the Saturn and N64 hit the market, along with all the kids and new generation that THOSE systems would have brought in. 

PAOerfulone said: If there was no NES, there would be no industry for PlayStation to expand. And if there was an industry, I doubt Sony would've even bothered putting any money into something that they would've viewed as playing with fire. It was the partnership with Nintendo that led the way to PlayStation being a thing in the first place. - The western market was the ONLY substantial market at the time.  - They also created the Japanese market.  - And the market was expanding anyways. All the kids who were brought in with the NES and SNES/Genesis, would've been adults and teenagers by the time the Saturn and N64 hit the market, along with all the kids and new generation that THOSE systems would have brought in.

If there was no Atari Pong, there would have been no industry for Nintendo to resurrect, because there wouldn't be one, and Nintendo would still be making cards and toys.

Lets not forget, Nintendo's first foray into home gaming wasn't the NES. It was a pong clone. :P

And also, the NES did not resurrect the gaming industry. The industry was still quite alive on home computers like Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, and MSX, which were very popular gaming devices in their own right. NES simply re-legitimized standalone game consoles in the US market.

nuckles87 said: PAOerfulone said: If there was no NES, there would be no industry for PlayStation to expand. And if there was an industry, I doubt Sony would've even bothered putting any money into something that they would've viewed as playing with fire. It was the partnership with Nintendo that led the way to PlayStation being a thing in the first place. - The western market was the ONLY substantial market at the time.  - They also created the Japanese market.  - And the market was expanding anyways. All the kids who were brought in with the NES and SNES/Genesis, would've been adults and teenagers by the time the Saturn and N64 hit the market, along with all the kids and new generation that THOSE systems would have brought in.  If there was no Atari Pong, there would have been no industry for Nintendo to resurrect, because there wouldn't be one, and Nintendo would still be making cards and toys. Lets not forget, Nintendo's first foray into home gaming wasn't the NES. It was a pong clone. :P And also, the NES did not resurrect the gaming industry. The industry was still quite alive on home computers like Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, and MSX, which were very popular gaming devices in their own right. NES simply re-legitimized standalone game consoles in the US market.

Last I checked, this was a thread about the most significant CONSOLE in history. Since when was this discussion about home computers?
There have been numerous rises and crashes for the video game market, it wasn't until Nintendo entered the fray when gaming stabilized and grew into what it is today and there hasn't been a crash since. 

catofellow said: Probably Playstation. To me the question needs to be viewed backwards. If any one console hadn't happened, what would be different today? Playstation crushed Sega, took all of Nintendo's 3rd party support, and probably drew Microsoft into the market the following generation. Absent Sony, Nintendo and Sega were both faltering to an extent, it is possible the overall market would have declined, and maybe the market would not have reached the same mass market level. NES is probably second.

I like that idea - looking at it backwards. It is absolutely true that if PlayStation wasn't here, we wouldn't be gaming now. If the NES wasn't around, Sega would have been Nintendo and things would have carried on as there were and the Master System would have been leading this poll.

Personally, I was introduced to gaming by Nintendo - the NES was my first console though I preferred the games on the Master System but I left console gaming after that, dabbled into PC gaming and then quit PC gaming altogether. It was PlayStation that got me back into gaming and made a gamer. I haven't stopped gaming since. And looking at how PS1 sales exploded while Sega and Nintendo's systems sold less, I think this is a common thing amongst modern gamers.

Shadow1980 said: Lawlight said: A couple of things wrong here: - The console market crashed in 1983 in the US only - The console market crashed because Atari (having been sold) messed up badly and bad games just flooded the market. The console market crashed in the U.S. only because the U.S. essentially was the console market in the early 80s. Consoles were irrelevant in Europe until PlayStation came along, and that first generation of cartridge-based consoles didn't arrive in Japan until 1982 (the Atari 2800, the 2600's Japanese counterpart, was actually launched after the NES was). And it wasn't just a glut of bad video games (largely a consequence of a lack of publishing control by the console makers, though Atari-published 2600 titles like E.T. and Pac-Man contributed to the mess) that triggered the Crash of '83. It was a glut of hardware as well. But regardless of the causes, it showed that console games, a market still in its infancy, was something consumers could easily sour on and reject entirely en masse. At the time, one could easily characterize consoles as a fad, and many did just that (arcade revenues were declining rapidly at the time as well).

Another reason why the PS is the most significant console in history - busted open that PC stronghold that was Europe and the rest... well, Europe is not called Sonyland for nothing.

Lawlight said: catofellow said: Probably Playstation. To me the question needs to be viewed backwards. If any one console hadn't happened, what would be different today? Playstation crushed Sega, took all of Nintendo's 3rd party support, and probably drew Microsoft into the market the following generation. Absent Sony, Nintendo and Sega were both faltering to an extent, it is possible the overall market would have declined, and maybe the market would not have reached the same mass market level. NES is probably second. I like that idea - looking at it backwards. It is absolutely true that if PlayStation wasn't here, we wouldn't be gaming now. If the NES wasn't around, Sega would have been Nintendo and things would have carried on as there were and the Master System would have been leading this poll. Personally, I was introduced to gaming by Nintendo - the NES was my first console though I preferred the games on the Master System but I left console gaming after that, dabbled into PC gaming and then quit PC gaming altogether. It was PlayStation that got me back into gaming and made a gamer. I haven't stopped gaming since. And looking at how PS1 sales exploded while Sega and Nintendo's systems sold less, I think this is a common thing amongst modern gamers.

lol, gaming would've been just fine without the Playstation. 

All that would've happened is FF7, MGS would've been on Sega Saturn and it would've done great as a result. Sony didn't bring jack all the table other than Gran Turismo in 1998 and a Sonic rip off in Crash, big whoop. The rest was driven by third parties who were close to Nintendo to that point that would've made those games anyway. 

The console business NEEDED Nintendo on the other hand, Mario was gaming's first (and still largest) superstar, he would become in time as popular as Mickey Mouse and that changed everything, then third parties like Capcom, Squaresoft, Konami ... all these companies cashed in on the Nintendo craze and made a name for themselves. Capcom wasn't shit before the NES. Squaresoft wasn't shit before the NES. Konami same deal. 

Honestly I'd prefer an industry with Nintendo + Sega over the current setup we have. Sony/MS have drained the industry of a lot of its charm IMO, what we have now are basically just boxed, boring ass PCs really that are called consoles.