POLL: Objectively, what is the best console ever? And in each generation?

[PSX1]

[QUOTE=scotland17]Yet JustLikeHeaven did not say that the SNES was an absolute unbeatable no-argument winner over the Genesis. ... You still might prefer the SNES, and I love my SNES, but I think the Genesis is a worthy challenger. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'd agree.  Like I mentioned earlier, besides the recent Wii/360/PS3 gen, the SNES vs. Genesis console war was the closest I've ever seen.  And in other parts of the world outside the US, the Genesis was even the preferred console.  But by about 1995 just about every gaming magazine and so-called industry expert in the US had declared the SNES the victor of that war, so that's why I tend to go with the SNES if I'm trying to be objective.

Also, my statement before was more about the PS1 vs. N64, which was nowhere near as close as the SNES/Genesis battle.  The PS1 dominated worldwide during that generation, and I think it is simply the heightened interest in the N64 as a retro console and the decreased interest in the PS1 as a retro console that has skewed certain memories and made us forget how much better it was to own a PS1 in the late 90s.

[QUOTE=scotland17] are we ignoring everything but libraries...cause if so, the colecovision could play all the 2600 games and more.  Does that mean colecovision wins Gen 2? [/QUOTE]

That's a pretty slippery slope.  If we were looking at it that way, the Retron 5 would be the best console ever, which wouldn't be a fair choice.  I think it's fair to consider things like software, hardware features, and the console's impact on gaming culture (and IMO, software should be the most important consideration).  But it would skew everything if you considered games from other systems that it could play, whether it be through expansion modules (i.e., Colecovision) or backwards compatibility (i.e., PS2, PS3, Wii) or downloads (i.e., Wii VC) or compilations.  As an example, IMO, backwards compatibility is worth considering, but only as a hardware feature -- just the same as a good controller is a feature worthy of considering -- but I think it would be unfair to say that the PS3 is automatically better than the PS1 because you can play all PS1 games on the PS3, or the Colecovision is better than the 2600 for the same reason, or that the Retron 5 beats the NES because it can play NES games, etc.  (In other words, no one bought the PS3 in order to play Final Fantasy VII, so the PS3 shouldn't get credit for FF7.)  And you sorta have to consider each system within its own era, or else the newer and more powerful systems would obviously end up being considered "better", especially when they can play some of the retro games.

[scotland171]

Good points PSX

The SNES argument in particular seems to be about the library.  Do you want to give it a relative weight, where the weights of all the factors add up to 100%.  What is the library worth?  50%?  More?  Careful, or you'll fall into that Colecovision trap. 

I would actually weigh that 'impact on gaming culture' fairly high, which would bolster that PS1 over N64 (and Saturn) claim considerably, and the Atari 2600, and the NES.   However, I think it would bolster the Genesis over the SNES too.  The SNES was the NES mark II, the Genesis was a vessel for innovation (some of it too early, some just ill conceived), and I think did begin the console wars deliberately, and even its eventual pratfalls had a bigger impact on gaming culture than the SNES.

The Retron 5 is a modern console, so that is a false trail, which you agreed to at the end.  I differ on expansion modules though.  Those are fair game.  The SNES could play Gameboy games, the Gamecube could play GBA games...those are valuable features.  The Genesis had three major expansions.   That's little different from refusing from a firmware update, or adding in games on the eshop, or any of that. 

Backwards compatibility is a major feature.  That the Wii U can play Wii games is wonderful, and that the PS2 could play PS1 games helped Sony cement an advantage.   Nintendo could have built a SNES that played NES games.  Atari took heat for building the 5200 that could not play 2600 games.  That was important, and the reason the 7800 could.  Now when you get to the PS3 being able to play PS1 games, well, that's not a big deal at all.   So, it does depend, and maybe by generation.

I thoroughly enjoyed your post PSX.   Hope I hit your main points, and you make good ones.

 

[Jon1]

I'm sorry, but the PS1 is not that great of a console. I think people are misjudging it and placing it up there with the 2600 and NES. It's damn good. But so are a lot of consoles. And, believe it or not, there are people that prefer the Jag and 3do. And as far as Tempest 2000 being ported to other consoles, and therefore not needing to play the Jag version, that's not a great argument. The ports weren't nearly as good as the original. Not everyone thinks the PS1 had a ton of great games.   

[Segatarious1]

[QUOTE=Jon]Not everyone thinks the PS1 had a ton of great games.   [/QUOTE]

I agree and I tried to make a topic to discuss this in depth.

The PS1 has very few titles that stand out as 'must play' today. Most of it is very very pedestrian, even the hit games of its era.

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Jon]I'm sorry, but the PS1 is not that great of a console. I think people are misjudging it and placing it up there with the 2600 and NES. It's damn good. But so are a lot of consoles. And, believe it or not, there are people that prefer the Jag and 3do. And as far as Tempest 2000 being ported to other consoles, and therefore not needing to play the Jag version, that's not a great argument. The ports weren't nearly as good as the original. Not everyone thinks the PS1 had a ton of great games.   [/QUOTE]

I can stomach the argument for the 3DO. It is legitimately underrated. But the Jaguar? Let's try a challenge. Can you name just ten Jag games that belong on a list of greatest games of all time? After that, we'll do the same for the PSX.

[pacguy191]

[QUOTE=Jon]I'm sorry, but the PS1 is not that great of a console. I think people are misjudging it and placing it up there with the 2600 and NES. It's damn good. But so are a lot of consoles. And, believe it or not, there are people that prefer the Jag and 3do.[/QUOTE]
We call those people a "minority". The PS1 had better graphics, a better library, a better controller, and is superior in every way. There is no comparison. Note how everyone remembers the PS1 and people revisit it all the time. I've never seen someone fondly remember the 3DO.

[Rev1]

Wow...

Trying to argue that the Jaguar is "objectively" better then the Ps1/N64/or even the Saturn is ridiculous. The Jaguar may have some retro or nostalgic appeal but it did nothing better then its competitors and flat out failed as a console. I don't see how something like that could be "objectively" better then its competition. Seriously... If you think the Jaguar was so great what made it that way and why would it deserve that title over any of the other consoles? I could see arguments for any of the other 3 consoles but not that.

N64 argument- strong 1st party titles, innovative games, games that shaped future 3D games, innovative controller, sturdy console design, cartridges made quick load times and removed a need for memory cards.

Saturn argument- strong 2D graphics, best at specific genres like shmups and 2D fighters, excellent Saturn II controller, games that supported huge multiplayer like Saturn Bomberman, strong support overseas.

PS1 argument- strong 3D graphics, huge selection of games across all genres, memory cards, innovative controller, strong music and supported bigger games, large sales.

Jaguar- ???? I can't think of a single thing. Design maybe?

[Jon1]

I'd rather have a Jag and 3do than a PS1 and N64. The reasons are, I was a little disappointed in those systems, and didn't blindly accept that the PS1 and N64 were the be all end all or even "must haves". The Jag is worth owning for Tempest 2000 alone, which now that we're on the topic, should probably be rated higher. And there's about 10 other great games. And that's my point precisely (thank God I have Sega on my side). I don't feel the PS1 or N64 has that many great games. Have I made my argument?

[pacguy191]

[QUOTE=Jon]I'd rather have a Jag and 3do than a PS1 and N64. The reasons are, I was a little disappointed in those systems, and didn't blindly accept that the PS1 and N64 were the be all end all or even "must haves". The Jag is worth owning for Tempest 2000 alone, which now that we're on the topic, should probably be rated higher. And there's about 10 other great games. And that's my point precisely (thank God I have Sega on my side). I don't feel the PS1 or N64 has that many great games. Have I made my argument?[/QUOTE]
Yeah but your argument sucks. If you're telling me that Tempest 2000 and Alien vs. Predator is supposed to stand up against Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Gran Turismo, FF7, Tony Hawk, MGS, Vandal Hearts, Silent Hill, and the myriad of other legitimate game-changing PS1 games, then you're deluded. No one owned a 3DO because it was overpriced and without games. It has Road Rash. That's about it. The Jag is also lacking. Again, Tempest and AVP. That's about it. How you can be disappointed in the PS1 and not the Jag takes mental acrobatics.

Can you name those 10 other games? I can't.

[Greisha1]

I don't think I can name 5 Jaguar or 3DO games.