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

[LoganRuckman1]

2nd Gen- Atari 2600
3rd Gen- NES
4th Gen- SNES
5th Gen- N64
6th Gen- GameCube
7th Gen- DS

[scotland171]

You give too much credit to the Playstation for making video gaming conversations more respectable. That was the 90s in general, with the internet, PCs everywhere at home and work, the dot com boom, etc. The Playstation just was the console du jour.

[PSX1]

You make some good points there, Scotland.  I can't disagree.  But the PS1 is often given a lot of credit for the increased age of gamers- not just by me, but by a lot of so-called "experts".  But I think it's a fair point that the PC world had a lot to do with that as well.  And undoubtedly, the uptick in gamers in the 18-35 range has only increased since the 90s, with the Microsoft and Sony consoles helping to push that trend (sure, the Wii also got grandmas and grandpas everywhere trying their hand at bowling, but as far as serious gamers go, it has been the Playstation and Xbox consoles leading that push).  At the same time, I think you're also slightly downplaying the significance of the PS1 for console gamers.  If the N64 was the only console of that generation, I think the "kiddie" moniker would have stayed with video games and older gamers would have went to the PC.  The PS1 had the "adult" games and the charisma necessary to draw the attention of grownup gamers away from PC games.  Goldeneye was really the only top-notch N64 game that could draw that same interest.  Sure, the N64 might have continued to satisfy the NES and SNES owners who were entering adulthood, but it wasn't creating new gamers out of adults.  For the Playstation to become the best-selling console at the time, demolishing all previous sales records, it had to have done that. Not to mention, even with PCs in more homes, it was still PS1 games that outsold PC games during that era.  So without the PS1, there's a chance that a lot more adult gamers would have become PC gamers (if gamers at all) rather than gravitating toward consoles.

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Segatarious]The PS1 launched with an obsolete controller, and had to abandon it almost immediately. Their follow up controller features analog thumb sticks in a counter intuitive, awkward position, which Sony stubbornly sticks to to this day, the only game company to do so. Sony invented a horrible dpad (that did not infringe on Nintendo patents)  with PS1, and again, stubbornly sticks to it. They are not the best, they just have been, on average, the most popular. It is not an objective indication of quality, but rather a workmanlike effort at mass market manufacturing of generic games, copying competitors innovations, and slapping them slip shod on their own products after the fact. And they continue this to this day, look at the Move.

The greatest 'innovation' of PS1 was disc media. The reason PS1 vaulted to high mainstream success in the second half of its life was, simply - cheap games (most of them shovelware). The drawback for games and gameplay on the PS1 were  terrible draw distances (esp in mutliplayer), long load times,  ugly textures, and overall worse 3D graphics than the N64. The N64 is not without problems, in this area, but it did trump PS1, hands down. That is not objective superiority, it is a cheaper, inferior product.

The other innovation of PS1 was FMV videos, and this led to the worst and most negative trend in gaming - terrible story telling. Anyone who is proud of the level and quality of story telling in gaming is deluding themselves, and should not talk about gaming in public to anyone. The PS1 is not an adult console, it is a man child console. Nintendo is the king of arcade gaming, Sony and later MS are the champions of man child gaming. Simple, dumb, and often violent stories placed around mediocre game play. That is not objective superiority, that is pleasing the masses with lowest common denominator products, coupled with 'cool'/'edgy' corporate branding and advertising.

Quality matter more than quantity. A handful of truly great N64 games - that the PS1 can not match in its entire library in any way, shape, or form - beats out 100's of spin off, mediocre, uninspired mass market titles. Sony-only console owners had to settle for lower quality software that was built on Nintendo made templates. Sony-only owners had to convince themselves that the CG movies in Metal Gear Solid were quality cinema, which is, objectively, a joke.  Go look on Ebay, see which games are more in demand and command far higher prices today. The 'greatest hits' of PS1 are long frogotten and very few care about them. Those 'dead lions' are dogs today.[/QUOTE]


All very strong points. the N64 and Gamecube both play games better than their respective rival consoles and exhibit better longevity, originality, and design flair. The point stands, however, that both consoles failed to reach the critical mass of quality software needed to compete with Sony. Say what you want about their (admittedly quite poor) build quality, controllers, loading times, or graphics--Sony consoles were the only way to play Final Fantasy VII-XII, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Suikoden, Einhander, Shadow Hearts, Shin Megami Tensei games, God of War...I mean, the list could take up this whole page...

What I'm getting at is that there are different ways of determining the "best." Best in terms of overall design/vision? The Gamecube might actually be the best console ever in that respect. Best in terms of software library? Despite the fact that I like Nintendo games better on an individual basis, the PS2 wins in every category. It was such a massive explosion of creativity that it's almost too much for one individual to take in.

[Sut1]

Strange how time skews memories, I am largely in agreement with PSX.
The PS1 not only made gaming 'cool' but broke the Nintendo/Sega dominance and in essence made games 'grown up'.
Metal Gear Solid was a game changer and the series is a major success because of what this game did.

Yes the N64 had some great games, but as PSX alluded to they were months apart. PS1 had games of every genre coming out every month, it truly was a phenomenon.

I loved my Saturn, but PS1 blitzed that generation.

[PSX1]

Fair enough, Segatarious.  I don't plan to go any deeper into that debate.  At this point, I'm just surprised that you picked the PS2 over the Gamecube, so I give you credit for that.  I have nothing against the N64, or any Nintendo console.  I owned a PS1 and N64, and still do.  And I agree with a lot of what you're saying -- If I was setting aside a Saturday this weekend for gaming, yes, there's a good chance I'd choose to play the N64 over the PS1.  Sure, the graphics hold up better, definitely.  But if I was taking a time machine back to 1999 and could only own one console, it would be the PS1 over and over.  It had the stronger library of games and, if we're considering influence and historical impact, it has been infinitely more impactful on the industry and culture.  That's why I'd say, objectively, it was the best of that gen.

[scotland171]

Thanks for a nice conversation PSX.

Don't forget Sega. Sure the Saturn and Dreamcast were poor sellers, but had there been no Playstation the Sega vs Nintendo wars would have continued with gusto, with Sega going more adult themed. So even without the PS1, consoles would not have gone all kiddy Nintendo. The increased age of gamers is due to lots of things including the Genesis, Madden, and the rise of first fighting games then FPSs.

I have no data, but I surmise many gamers cross the console and PC lines alot...and have done so. For gamers like Sut and the Spectrum, the worlds were one and the same in the 80s. In the 90s, maybe you did a FPS on a PC, but raced friends on a console. Today we do Steam and GOG on a PC and spend at Gamestop for consoles games and spend more on a mobile phone.

You bring up a neat point of view though. Seems the PS1 is well respected, but does it get the nostalgic good vibes of other consoles? Even some newer consoles like the Dreacast and Gamecube seem to get more love.

[scotland171]

2nd Gen- Colecovision - it could do everything the Atari 2600 could and Pepper 2. Also load test a glass coffee table.
3rd Gen- ZX Spectrum - could do so much, and games were cheap. No Zelda, but Zork. A Zed for a Zed.
4th Gen- Genesis - rivaled the SNES and had bloody MK fatalities and Night Trap and Star Wars Arcade on 32x CD if you could assemble it. Its like 3/5ths of Voltron.

[BanjoPickles1]

[QUOTE=Segatarious]The PS1 launched with an obsolete controller, and had to abandon it almost immediately. Their follow up controller features analog thumb sticks in a counter intuitive, awkward position, which Sony stubbornly sticks to to this day, the only game company to do so. Sony invented a horrible dpad (that did not infringe on Nintendo patents)  with PS1, and again, stubbornly sticks to it. They are not the best, they just have been, on average, the most popular. It is not an objective indication of quality, but rather a workmanlike effort at mass market manufacturing of generic games, copying competitors innovations, and slapping them slip shod on their own products after the fact. And they continue this to this day, look at the Move.

The greatest 'innovation' of PS1 was disc media. The reason PS1 vaulted to high mainstream success in the second half of its life was, simply - cheap games (most of them shovelware). The drawback for games and gameplay on the PS1 were  terrible draw distances (esp in mutliplayer), long load times,  ugly textures, and overall worse 3D graphics than the N64. The N64 is not without problems, in this area, but it did trump PS1, hands down. That is not objective superiority, it is a cheaper, inferior product.

The other innovation of PS1 was FMV videos, and this led to the worst and most negative trend in gaming - terrible story telling. Anyone who is proud of the level and quality of story telling in gaming is deluding themselves, and should not talk about gaming in public to anyone. The PS1 is not an adult console, it is a man child console. Nintendo is the king of arcade gaming, Sony and later MS are the champions of man child gaming. Simple, dumb, and often violent stories placed around mediocre game play. That is not objective superiority, that is pleasing the masses with lowest common denominator products, coupled with 'cool'/'edgy' corporate branding and advertising.

Quality matter more than quantity. A handful of truly great N64 games - that the PS1 can not match in its entire library in any way, shape, or form - beats out 100's of spin off, mediocre, uninspired mass market titles. Sony-only console owners had to settle for lower quality software that was built on Nintendo made templates. Sony-only owners had to convince themselves that the CG movies in Metal Gear Solid were quality cinema, which is, objectively, a joke.  Go look on Ebay, see which games are more in demand and command far higher prices today. The 'greatest hits' of PS1 are long frogotten and very few care about them. Those 'dead lions' are dogs today.[/QUOTE]

I have to take issue with your description of both MS and Sony's respective consoles as being "man child systems." Why do you feel the need to throw that sort of childish generalization out there? That, to me, is as stupid as those who make the claim that Nintendo is solely for children.

Would a "man child" really be into Shin Tensei? Suikoden? Civilization Revolution? I know that you're referring to GTA, but you can't seriously believe that the only people who bought the PS3/360 only did so for the latest GTA?

You mention "quality over quantity," which was Nintendo's line during the N64 era...but there's another side to that, which I believe PSX covered. Nintendo definitely had quality over quantity, but the PS1 had quality AND quantity! You also mention the ludicrous amount of shovel ware released for the PS1. I actually had to laugh at the hypocrisy of that statement, as you used to tear into anybody who made mention of the very same shovel ware problem that impacted the Wii. You once told people that they didn't have to buy those games, so.....wouldn't the same logic apply to the PS1? Why buy Smurf's Racing when you can pick up Medieval or Metal Gear Solid? Why pick up Birthday Mini Game Bash when Super Mario Galaxy 2 is readily available? The point of being objective is to take your blinders down a notch.

[Tron1]

I listed best in each generation, but forgot to post the #1 of all time. My vote for all time champion is the PS2. Though personally I have more love for the NES.