What is the best console EVER?

[crisium]

Sega Saturn, Super NES, and Game Boy Advance.

Yes, good to see another Saturn fan. It's either my number 2 or number 3, can't decide between it and the N64 (SNES is #1 of course). I got mine modded so I can play any burnt game including Japanese only releases and it has such a strong library from it's first two years of 1995-1996 it's crazy that it failed. It basically died after 1996's Nights didn't move as much systems as they hoped, but there's even a couple gems from it's final, very short lived year of 1998 worth playing.

If I could take any console lineup for any single year as the best ever, it would be Sega Saturn in 1996. Nights, Guardian Heroes, Dragon Force, Mr. Bones, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Virtua On, Virtua Fighter 2, Death Tank, etc.

From 1995-1996 it was way better than the PS1. Hard to believe it failed so badly until you consider the fiasco that was the launch.

 

[CZroe]

The revenge of Shinobi had motion video in it too.

Lots of games did. I remember another: The SNES had a Bruce Lee fighting game with FMV cutscenes. "Rise of the Robots" for SNES also had CG FMV character intros.

Without a disc it was always short and sweet until Resident Evil 2 on N64, but it was there.

 

[CZroe]

Yes, good to see another Saturn fan. It's either my number 2 or number 3, can't decide between it and the N64 (SNES is #1 of course). I got mine modded so I can play any burnt game including Japanese only releases and it has such a strong library from it's first two years of 1995-1996 it's crazy that it failed. It basically died after 1996's Nights didn't move as much systems as they hoped, but there's even a couple gems from it's final, very short lived year of 1998 worth playing.

If I could take any console lineup for any single year as the best ever, it would be Sega Saturn in 1996. Nights, Guardian Heroes, Dragon Force, Mr. Bones, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Virtua On, Virtua Fighter 2, Death Tank, etc.

From 1995-1996 it was way better than the PS1. Hard to believe it failed so badly until you consider the fiasco that was the launch.

You didn't need a mod chip for imports. Action Replay, FTW!

Mine is plugged in the the import Panzer Dragoon right now.

 

[crispytreat]

Toss up between the NES and SNES.

 

[nemesismk2]

Has to be the SNES for me

 

[KaOTiK]

SNES

 

[Corthalis]

i personally probably had the most fun with the SNES. has a lot of great games that still are fun to play to this day and have aged greatly. a lot of it though also has to do with the fact that i was a kid and had no worries in the world at the time when SNES was king.

+1 Good times.

 

[BenSkywalker]

SNES by miles.

I started off with Pong, owned every remotely major console until the WiiU(only consoles at launch I have no intention of ever buying).

I would say the runner up would be the PSX or NES. There is a rather profound difference between the SNES and the PSX which people seem to not take into consideration- the PSX was missing all three of what is considered that generations best games(OoT, M64, 007). The PSX was also the poorest built machine we saw until the 360, had the worst load times of any console I can recall ever using and forced us to upgrade the hardware due to massive oversights in design(no analog stick at launch, everyone knew that was stupid then and so did Sony). The PSX stays in the running because of its' overall library, but the SNES had *everything* in its' generation. Best reliability, most solid hardware(no add ons we had to run out and buy to play the latest game), every single one of the top games of its' generation- the SNES just obliterated the competition.

The biggest advantage that the PSX had was every other console from its' generation was absolutely terrible. Most of us have fond memories of the N64, but take away M64, OoT, 007 and MK64 and the console flat out sucked. Yes, no load times rocked, and the analog stick is still the most precise I have used on a console(although flimsy as hell and needed to be replace constantly)- but the PSX so utterly dominated the games released landscape that the N64 was just hopelessly outclassed. Sega actually tried to put up a fight with the Genesis, they just had no hope against all of the forces lined up in Nintendo's corner.

The DreamCast was an embarassment to the gaming industry. Sega's last cash grab. The hardware was terrible, unreliable and fragile, the controller an abomination, the VMU a stupid gimmick- it just happened to be the most powerful when it hit and had a small handful of gems released for it. This was much like the N64. Sure, we all have fond memories of the DC, but take off the rose colored glasses and it was really a bad system that Sega bailed on to noone's surprise.

The NES top loader was great for its' time, truly ushering in a new era, but the reliability issues of the pins, the painful ergonomics of the controller and the numerous gimmicks they pushed with the system have to be recalled. ROB, Zapper, SuperGlove, PowerPad etc, etc. The NES also had so much shovelware it would make the Wii blush. Yes, it had every single title of worth from its' generation(or very close to it), but it also had every one of the poorest titles of its' generation as well.

I think honestly after the SNES I'd have to give second place to the almighty 2600. If they hadn't royally screwed up so badly in the end(let's pay millions of dollars to get the ET license, then spend $800 to develop the game.....), it may have even toppled the SNES as the greatest console of all time.

Placing third is tough, between the NES and the PSX. Guess I'd have to go with a tie there, followed up by the PS2. This gen is still going so I'd have to get back on that one. At this point I think Sony has the edge when looking at it from the long haul for several different reasons(exclusives and significantly stronger overall reliability being the two largest- Wii is too much shovelware).

 

[Sulaco]

The DreamCast was an embarassment to the gaming industry. Sega's last cash grab. The hardware was terrible, unreliable and fragile, the controller an abomination, the VMU a stupid gimmick- it just happened to be the most powerful when it hit and had a small handful of gems released for it. This was much like the N64. Sure, we all have fond memories of the DC, but take off the rose colored glasses and it was really a bad system that Sega bailed on to noone's surprise.

Total nonsense.

I've owned the same Dreamcast since launch (that's 1999, btw), and STILL own it to this day. Works and runs just fine. It's currently hooked up between the Wii and 360.
Also still using the original controller and VMU. Aside from the outrageously loud GD-ROM loading, there was nothing anymore "fragile" or "unreliable" about it than its contemporaries. Sorry if you had bad luck, but your experience speaks for no one else. I mean seriously, I've been through THREE Xbox 360s, 2 PS2s, 2 PSXs and 2 original Xboxes. I suppose because my PS1 drive crapped out, it's a "terrible" system? Please.

The VMU was indeed a gimmick, but it was just a memory unit at the end of the day, and was no worse than the exorbitantly overpriced PS1 and PS2 memory cards. This one just had an under-utilized screen, but considering pricing was about the same, what's the harm exactly?

You're also conveniently forgetting how it was the first console to truly revolutionize online play, and make it actually accessible and appealing, even in the days of 56k. Playing Phantasy Stay Online or NFL 2k1 with friends online was something no console before did, and truly paved the way for the future.

As far as games go, again, the Dreamcast's effective lifespan was TWO YEARS. For such a tiny window, the quality and originality of many of the games was astounding. Many of those games were later ported to the PS2, but during it's heyday the quality of the games was unsurpassed, easily outpacing PS2 offerings of the time, and providing some of the best experiences of that generation.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Shenmue and power stone alone easily made the Dreamcast not suck. The library just didn't fill up as fast as the ps2 library.

 

[sonambulo]

Always a tough question to answer.

I have to say SNES takes it overall though, especially if you have access to the Japanese library. Everything great we got in America plus Terranigma, DQ remakes, etc. It also says something that the hardware can take an absolute beating and still keep on kicking; you just need to swap out game batteries every 15 years or so.

PS2 is a close second but it's library lacks that laser focus and the monopoly of dev talent the SNES had. I'd say the DS is a pretty close third.

 

[CZroe]

I do think his Dreamcast comments were a too harsh, but let's not white-wash the thing's history. I've had many hardware issues with them including overheating after the first few minutes (disc stops loading once console warms) to not powering up.

I was it's biggest critic back then but almost all of my criticisms apply to current-gen controllers too. For example, it didn't have six well-placed action buttons for arcade fighters (squeezy progressive analog triggers don't count). I played XBAND online with the Genesis and SNES and was also a PC gamer, so the online functionality wasn't a big new thing for me either. I was completely surprised that EA snubbed it and so many gamers held out for the PS2. The PS2 really wasn't so much better than the DC that it could play something the DC couldn't. Yes, I know that that was also Nintendo's argument for the Wii's graphics compared to 360 and PS3, but things were MUCH closer between the DC and PS2. I couldn't imagine Dead or Alive 2 looking any better and the seamless transitions from FMV to gameplay that disguised loading was ahead of its time.

 

[waggy]

NES or SNES. both were great systems for the time.

 

[ghost recon88]

SNES for sure, followed by the N64.

 

[rayfieldclement]

I honestly don't know how you could say any of those things. Were you even around then?!


Easily scratch-able games, cracking disc hubs, over-heating causing laser misalignment (having to play upside-down was extremely common with the early units). It had a reputation of being particularly UNreliable.


Sony used the absolute slowed optical drives available (2x) and only bumped up to 4x when 2x supplies dried up. Games had mini-games to play while they loaded. It is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with disc load times.

The GameCube, on the other hand, was Nintendo's first disc-based console and used lots of tricks to hide loads. On first party games I never saw anything take longer than a highly compressed N64 cartridge (Diddy Kong Racing level selection previews on N64 come to mind). I don't think I've ever seen a load screen on a first party game and most 3rd-party games with them only had them because they were quick and dirty unoptimized ports from other console versions that had them. I noticed hoe Metroid Prime was delaying a door opening for a second longer than others and realized what it was doing a long time ago and was very impressed. Even loading off a HDD, PC games could never load that seamlessly in the middle of gameplay. Sony, on the other hand, went and released the PSP with load times on a PORTABLE console. Battery life is wasted physically spinning a disc just to get to the data and even more is wasted as you wait for titles, menus, levels, etc. What a BAD format choice! I'll admit that the gaming world was more than ready for discs when the PSX came around, but the least they could have done was to integrate it into a caddy-cartridge so that the discs would not get scratched and common data could be loaded from a small ROM instead of reloaded every time (character, title, menu, etc). It would also have allowed for expansion and built-in save. If they had done this then the game wouldn't have had to freeze every time Shang Tsung changed forms in Mortal Kombat 3 and the Sega Saturn memory advantage for 2D fighters (RAM cart) could have been erased.


The controllers are derivative. It was originally just a handled version of the SNES controller with two sets of shoulder buttons instead of one and no innovation at all. When the competition innovated, they just shoe-horned everything onto their existing pad and doubled it for symmetry. They added the dual-analog thumb-sticks and the force-motors as an afterthought. That's why the D-Pad is still prioritized on their controllers in this day and age (SO backwards!). There's a reason it took ten years for anyone else to make a dual-analog controller with a prioritized D-pad (Nintendo Wii Classic Controller). Even that is probably only because PSX/PSX were so popular in Japan but they wanted to attract those gamers and make those kinds of games seem tongue-in-cheek old ("classic") when compared to their new controllers that didn't even have dual analog.


OK, I guess I can see how you would say ONE of those things. This one is certainly true.


Huh? How was it any easier to use than anything before or after it? Now you are just fluffing it up!

Maybe I am overstating the ease of use for the Playstation 1. To me the console On/reset/eject buttons were easy to see and so were the controller buttons. The CD door was also durable and easy to see. I do have a vision problem so my opinions are based on that too possibly.

 

[smakme7757]

My Sega Megadrive was really good fun. All my friends had Nintendo 64, but i loved the Sega. Me and my bro played all the co-operative games together (Bless him).

 

[Dice144]

Love my Sega Saturn and PSX, did not own a SNES when it was new but it had alot of good RPG's.

 

[Fingolfin269]

It is interesting that in most best of threads it's always something old that wins. Yet nostalgia supposedly has nothing to do with it!

 

[Sulaco]

It is interesting that in most best of threads it's always something old that wins. Yet nostalgia supposedly has nothing to do with it!

Or it could be...you know...they might have some of the greatest, most iconic games of all time.

No. That couldn't be it.

 

[Sureshot324]

Tie between NES and SNES. The classics on those systems have withstood the test of time, unlike PSX games, which nobody plays anymore. Even the N64 is played a lot more now than PSX.

 

[exdeath]

It is interesting that in most best of threads it's always something old that wins. Yet nostalgia supposedly has nothing to do with it!

Then why isn't it always Atari 2600 or Colecovision? People saying SNES had those also. If old and nostalgia are all that matters, why hasn't anyone voted for Vectrex or Odyssey?

Also other systems since SNES have long come and gone and are now "old" but you don't see any 'nostalgia' over the Sega 32x or original Xbox do you? Has nothing to do with nostalgia when people of all ages who have had all systems ever made constantlyand overwhelmingly nominate one or two notable system.

Hint: its the games not the system.

 

[exdeath]

Tie between NES and SNES. The classics on those systems have withstood the test of time, unlike PSX games, which nobody plays anymore. Even the N64 is played a lot more now than PSX.

Heh I just picked up a PSOne and a RGB cable, going to put it to good use in the next couple months. Recently picked up Tales of Destiny complete for $5, among others.

Most people who remember and play PS1 probably remember it for continuing some of the best franchises introduced on the SNES, and the start of many new once great franchises that have since been milked to the ground on current gen.

Beyond PS1/PS2 we start to see lack of any new franchises except the same dozen or so we see every summer and holiday season (Halo, Gears, CoD, Assasins Creed, etc )

 

[AdamantC]

...Recently picked up Tales of Destiny complete for $5...

You got a complete copy of ToD for five bucks? You're one lucky sun of a gun!

I'll never forget the day I went into a local used game shop years back that was having a going out of business sale. On my way out I ran into this middle aged woman bringing in a pile of her daughter's (who had just moved out) video games. As the store was not taking any more games I bought a bunch of them from her.

I made off with Lunar 2 Complete, Arc the Lad Collection, .hack parts 1-3, and Xenosaga Episode 1 plus an official PS2 memory card for around $70-80. All in good condition. The only things missing were the manual from .hack part 3 and a few of the analog stick covers from AtLC.

-

Now back on topic, my vote goes to the Playstation 2. The sheer volume of games released for the system, and how many of them were good, is mind boggling. I own over 90 games for my PS2 and there is at least 90-100 (a number that seems to be ever growing) more that I want. A solid second and third go to the PS1 and SNES respectively.

 

[exdeath]

Not a bad haul; any one of those Working Designs sets alone is worth the $80.

I'd be jelly as hell if I didn't already have all of those

I have both Lunar games on PS and SegaCD from when I bought them in the store.


Definitely though the time between SNES and PS2 inclusive were the best decade of gaming.

Then the original MS ShooterBox pretty much brought an end to that with drab mainstream mature "adult" oriented (read military or samurai theme ad infinitum) games took over.

 

[RedRooster]

I'd actually go with the Genesis over the SNES I think, there was just something about the games and controller that I liked better. You'd play NHL or Mortal Kombat on both, and the Genesis version just felt better. Plus it had Road Rash, oh momma. I still enjoyed the SNES too though for its exclusive games.