Switch around the SNES and Atari 2600, and at least they got the top 5 right...

This may not be the best list ever, but it's better than the IGN list, at least. 360 > PS1 = fail.

Snes needs to be second or First. Really SNES and PS2 and PS1's were the greatest consoles we have ever seen

Virtual Boy, N64, Gamecube? 

Although funnily enough, I can't easily think of one definition of "failed console" that applies to all three systems. 

YES I AGREE
NES saved video gaming but PS2 redefined it

believe it or not but i actually prefer my xbox 360 over any of those and i do own most of them

1.Xbox 360

2.wii

3.n64

4.ps2

top 4 because i cant decide the rest

It didn't really redefine anything precisely. It probably redefined the multimedia function of gaming consoles though (DVD, backwards compatibility). 3D games have been appearing on PC and on Sega platforms way before that (and the PS1).

1) It is the best selling Nintendo home console. The Wii hasn't sold as much as it yet. The NES sold 62 million, the Wii is at 53 million. Yes, the Wii will overtake it, but the DS will overtake the GameBoy soon. Does that mean the GameBoy isn't currently the best selling handheld of all time?

2) Well, it's true. He's simply pointing out how long the NES was king of sales.

3) He said it was the second best console of all time! He clearly likes it, saviour or not.

Whatever, it's better than the IGN list. And the PS2 is the best console ever, by popular opinion. And PSP > DS may be bad, but worse than X360 > PS1? Worse than 2600 > PS2? I think not.

Clearly a list made with the intention of only putting PS2 at number 1 because the other 14 slots obviously didn't have much thought. No one in their right mind would put PSP over DS or Xbox over Dreamcast. Also no one would put PSP and original GB one position away from each other. Even worse is all those systems over SNES.

I think this needed just a little more thought. Despite disagreements with IGN's list, it did have legitimate thought put into every position. Not just made such that one point could be made (PS2 at #1).

Well, it's not really fair to compare the entire generation. Though, actually, the PS2 generation got nearly a 60 million boost from its competitors. The PS1 got something like 40 million.

The PS2 didn't expand gaming massively, but it did to a certain extent. That's not why it deserves the top spot. This is why it deserves the top spot (I know Metacritic is inaccurate, but for a vague idea it's great- everything is on one page, and colour coded).

1. So you're saying that's why the article is so poorly written -- because he rushed it to print before that statement became false?

2. Actually, it gives no indication of the amount of time the NES held the title. Plus, of course we know it's not still the best selling console -- there was no need for the parentheses, and it's misleading to someone uninformed who would IMO probably think from that that it only had a short time before the PS1 surpassed it.

3. I know he likes it, I'm saying he was looking for reasons to justify putting the PS2 (which he likes MORE) ahead of it.

Best by popular opinion? So when the Wii outsells the PS2 you'll agree that THAT console is the best ever?

Anyway, you're only nipping at the sides of an overarching argument. Look at his NES description. Look at his PS2 description. Heck, look at the description for the PS1, which he rated BENEATH the NES -- he gives more wholehearted credit to that for expanding the industry than he does to the NES for SAVING the industry. Are you seriously trying to say that his writeups don't betray bias?