By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - IGN Top 25 Consoles -- TOP 5......SHOCKING WINNER! (Atari 2600 > PS2)!!

darthdevidem01 on 04 September 2009
Khuutra said:
darthdevidem01 said:
EXACTLY as Wii_Master said

IGN's basis for the list is to be frank, muddled, confuzzled & random

this has led to me being disappointed by it.

Atari 2600 is so high as it changed the world....fine

Then why is the fastest selling home console of all time Wii.....in 10th.

why is the console that has brought in more newcomers to gaming than even PS1, PS2, NES even in 10th

They don't like its library or what it stands for?

" IGN has forged a list of the Top 25 Videogame Consoles of All Time, where we have selected and ranked the most influential systems in the history of gaming"

 

http://www.ign.com/top-25-consoles/

_______

its not based on what "they (IGN)" like

Its based on influence & influencial titles

so why is Wii not in the top 5

it has the TOP SELLING GAME EVER!

& why is PS1 not there



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Around the Network
Stats87 on 04 September 2009
kowenicki said:

@stats

no a model t wouldnt

but an E-Type Jag would....

an AC cobra would.....

lots of classic cars would....

 

 

I used the Model T in reference to the Atari 2600, I should have made that more clear.

Don't get me wrong, I love my classics as much as the next guy, but we humans tend to overrate things due to nostalgia.

It's actually a kind of offshoot of elitism. For example, people who still say NHL 94 is the best hockey game ever. Yes, the game was amazing at the time and really changed hockey games for ever, but it is not better then the current NHL games, not even close.



stika on 04 September 2009
darthdevidem01 said:
Khuutra said:
darthdevidem01 said:
EXACTLY as Wii_Master said

IGN's basis for the list is to be frank, muddled, confuzzled & random

this has led to me being disappointed by it.

Atari 2600 is so high as it changed the world....fine

Then why is the fastest selling home console of all time Wii.....in 10th.

why is the console that has brought in more newcomers to gaming than even PS1, PS2, NES even in 10th

They don't like its library or what it stands for?

" IGN has forged a list of the Top 25 Videogame Consoles of All Time, where we have selected and ranked the most influential systems in the history of gaming"

 

http://www.ign.com/top-25-consoles/

_______

its not based on what "they (IGN)" like

Its based on influence & influencial titles

so why is Wii not in the top 5

it has the TOP SELLING GAME EVER!

& why is PS1 not there

Influence does not equal sales.

 

you are mistaking influence with popularity

 



Khuutra on 04 September 2009
darthdevidem01 said:
Khuutra said:
darthdevidem01 said:
EXACTLY as Wii_Master said

IGN's basis for the list is to be frank, muddled, confuzzled & random

this has led to me being disappointed by it.

Atari 2600 is so high as it changed the world....fine

Then why is the fastest selling home console of all time Wii.....in 10th.

why is the console that has brought in more newcomers to gaming than even PS1, PS2, NES even in 10th

They don't like its library or what it stands for?

" IGN has forged a list of the Top 25 Videogame Consoles of All Time, where we have selected and ranked the most influential systems in the history of gaming"

 

http://www.ign.com/top-25-consoles/

_______

its not based on what "they (IGN)" like

Its based on influence & influencial titles

so why is Wii not in the top 5

it has the TOP SELLING GAME EVER!

& why is PS1 not there

Clearly influence is not their only criteria, regardless of whether or not they say it is.

There. How about that.



darthdevidem01 on 04 September 2009
Kasz216 said:
darthdevidem01 said:
Kasz216 said:
darthdevidem01 said:
Kasz216 said:
darthdevidem01 said:
@kas

without a PS1 there wouldn't be an xbox 360 or PS2

so should it be ranked higher than them?

according to your logic yes

Why wouldn't there have been a PS2 or 360?

Sure there would of been.  They just wouldn't of been made by Sony or Microsoft.

They would of had different names.  The Sega Dreamcast could of just as eaisly took on the role the PS2 took on had the PS2 not existed.

the market won't have grown that much

SEGA would still be there

Micrsoft entered BECAUSE PLAYSTATION was dominating

so why is PS1 below them?

Why wouldn't the market have grown that much?

What did the PS2 do that expanded the market?

Can you even name one thing?

I doubt it.  It didn't do anything except be the most popular system at the right time.

The market would of expanded just as much.  The 360 and PS2 didn't bring anything new to the table that wouldn't of been added on anyway.  They didn't disrupt the scene in any way and bring in something new.

No, but it DID expand it......can you deny that? (I myself never got it till a year before Ps3 came out)

If I have to name 1 thing I'll say, it made the sanbox genre with GTA.

@2nd bolded

Then why the hell is PS1 BEHIND xbox 360 & PS2........my problem is with IGN's basis of ranking this list......it seems very random

As you agree 360 & PS2 did not dirupt the market or expand it......you must also agree then that PS1 should be in front of both?

Ask yourself.  What would of happened had the PS2 not been around?

Would Grand Theft Auto 3 never been released?  Or would it of been on the Dreamcast.

 

As for why the PS1 is behind the PS2?

3D was an eventuallity.  All the next gen systems had 3D in mind and went 3D.  The playstation took that same revolutionary jump with every other console that generation.

Furthermore while it was more successfull and had more good games... it was the N64 that had the best few games that topped the PS1 when it came to 3D innovation.

 

Playstation also expanded the market but it didn't really do anything special to expand it... the market expands every generation.  It's got nothing to do with the individual consoles so much as that videogames are being more accetped as people who played them grow up.

now I have a new problem with the list

" IGN has forged a list of the Top 25 Videogame Consoles of All Time, where we have selected and ranked the most influential systems in the history of gaming"

 

http://www.ign.com/top-25-consoles/

)_)_____________

thats what IGN state

so Atari 2600 is fine

but then why is Wii 10th & Ps1 not in the top 5?



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Around the Network
fluffy on 04 September 2009

If IGN was listing based on influence than the Top 5 was essentially spot on. I would argue that the top 3 (NES, A2600 & PS2) are far, far, far ahead of the rest of the list.



Khuutra on 04 September 2009
kowenicki said:
Is there anyone that isnt a sony fan or isnt under 20 bitching about this list?

I don't mean to say I agree with it, because I don't, but it's not a bad list.



Fame_Mcswagg on 04 September 2009

Im over 20 and I have a problem with this list.



I'm not martin luther king. I don't have a dream. I have a plan

Sell a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you just ruined a perfect business opportunity.

We didn't emerge out of the stone age because we ran out of stones. Its time to be proactive not reactive.

Kasz216 on 04 September 2009

The Wii is too soon to be in the top 3.

Nobody knows what kind of legacy it will have after this generation. Motion controls could die out or be a "Light gun" in next gen systems.

As for the PS1.

The PS1 wasn't revolutionary either. Everyone went 3D. That was the most logical step.

the 2600, NES and Wii are basically the only systems who did something that was visionary.

Well and the Dreamcast but the Dreamcast failed.



darthdevidem01 on 04 September 2009
kowenicki said:
Is there anyone that isnt a sony fan or isnt under 20 bitching about this list?

Do you have some age complex kowenicki?

all you have been doing is bitching about sony fans & people below 20 in this thread

once again, stop generalizing & act more mature for your age



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey