If you are asking which console is the best system, I would have to say the Wii is better than the SNES.

Reasons:
Better graphics than the SNES.
Ability to play SNES games on VC.
Has downloadable games.
Has motion controls and classic controls.

Now if you ask which console has the better game library for it's time, I would have to say SNES or NES.  But that is not the question you asked.

It was a good one. Much better than NES imo because the stories in the rps were much better than what had been on consoles before. It was also much better than VB, OGB, GBC, N64, and Gamecube. Playstation 1 and 2 were the true successors to SNES due to the rpgs they had. GBA and DS finally showed Nintendo could have worthwhile systems again. The Wii seems more about sales than having good games so far but that could change as it did on DS. So far, the 360 has been getting the most jrpgs but I still think PS3's best days are ahead of it and it has had the best Japanese exclusives by far of the hd systems -- Valkyrie Chronicles, Kenshin!, White Knight Chronicles, Folklore, Yakuza 3, and MGS 4. If you care more for other types of games than just Jrpgs, a case can be made for Genesis being better than SNES and Sega CD had some of the greatest JRPGs of all time too.

C64 and PC for me.

@SkyRender

Well, I enjoyed the SNES a lot more than the NES, so I´d have to go with the 'perspective of the dedicated gamer', though I kinda understand what you mean by the other perspective....you think if it were completely up to the 'mainstream' gamers back then, the NES would´ve kept on going for several more years?...and no SNES till like, 1995?

Its great but... I prefer PS1.

Try no SNES ever. The mainstream perspective on new products is, was, and always will be "why should I upgrade when nothing I care about has changed?". To the mainstream gamer, graphics have never been a dominating value; most people have to leave the mainstream and become interested in the products themselves instead of just the experience they provide to care about things like that.

It doesn't matter to a mainstream gamer how deep or refined a game is beneath the surface; what counts is if they can get into the experience right away and start enjoying themselves without delay. Instant gratification, if you will; depth and refinement are just there to make the experience last longer, as secondary values. And the experience has to be something genuinely new (not just an upgrade to a past experience) for the mainstream gamer to really stand a chance of being drawn in in the first place.

360 for me, it's given me the most enjoyment I can remember in video gaming, :)

My top 5:

• Xbox 360
• Sega Dreamcast
• Sony PS3
• SNES
• Nintendo Wee
  

@SkyRender

So the secret is to try and strike the perfect balance between mainstream and dedicated gamers?

I mean, neither dedicated nor mainstream can have everything their way, right?

Pretty much, yeah. Although when it doubt, appealing to the mainstream works best. With very few exceptions, every industry has more non-participants than participants to draw from for customers.

The real problem is, unless you're wise enough to realize that you cannot accurately gauge mainstream interests with outsourced polling and consumer observation services, you're going to have no idea where actual mainstream interests lie. I could go into quite a long discussion on how watching people's behavior can tell you what sort of product would best suit them, but for now, I'll leave it at that.

Ahem....

GENESIS DOES!


It also plays games that were NEVER released (like that Joe Montana Football that got replaced with one using the Madden engine).