Favorite Game Console Of All-Time

29 posts

Flag Post

Mine is a tie between…
N64 and NES.

 
Flag Post

ps2 or nintendo 64

its surprising how n64 had better graphics over ps2

 
Flag Post

Playstation 2. The variety of games for it is just HUGE

 
Flag Post

Gameboy

 
Flag Post

Pretty tough one there. First ever console was the Mega Drive (or Genesis to you Americans :P) and I played a lot of Sonic and Mega Man The Wily Wars on that. Which of course led me on to play the rest of the series many years later. Nowadays however, the one I find myself returning to most often is PS2. The games I have for it… they just never feel old to me. Plus there’s the bonus of having backwards compatibility.

 
Flag Post

PS2.

It is clearly superior to PS1 because it can play both PS1 and PS2 games, and I think it was better from PS3 because it was free of DLC, all stupid updates and “social” stuff and other useless stuff that delay you from start playing. Also, PS3 doesn’t play PS2 games. PS3 could compare with PS2 if it could play PS2 games, which is something it could do but it doesn’t because people would buy less consoles and games if it did.

 
Flag Post

Gone are the days of hitting Power and having the game menu appear immediately… Our powerful new hardware takes longer to boot whatever OS is running, our massive capacity discs take longer to access and load information, and our multiple production/publishing/development team software adds longer waits as each company involved gets its own several seconds to display its logo before progressing toward the menu.

Small wonder so many people like playing on emulators with save states, eh?

 
Flag Post

Part GBA, part NES, part SNES and part PS3. Dream console right there.

 
Flag Post

Nintendo 64

 
Flag Post

SNES

 
Flag Post

Playstation series and Nintendo.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darver:

Playstation 2. The variety of games for it is just HUGE

Yup, I had like 50-60 games on the PS2.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GamerGuy75:
Originally posted by Darver:

Playstation 2. The variety of games for it is just HUGE

Yup, I had like 50-60 games on the PS2.

yeah.

 
Flag Post

Does PC count? If not then:

Originally posted by Darver:

Playstation 2. The variety of games for it is just HUGE

 
Flag Post

Gamecube.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by mosemizrahi:

PS2.

It is clearly superior to PS1 because it can play both PS1 and PS2 games, and I think it was better from PS3 because it was free of DLC, all stupid updates and “social” stuff and other useless stuff that delay you from start playing. Also, PS3 doesn’t play PS2 games. PS3 could compare with PS2 if it could play PS2 games, which is something it could do but it doesn’t because people would buy less consoles and games if it did.

I agree. You could play the old PS1 games on the PS2, so if you could play the PS2 games on the PS3, you could play all PS games on the PS3, which will make the PS3 have 5 times as much games then it does now.

 
Flag Post
Also, PS3 doesn’t play PS2 games. PS3 could compare with PS2 if it could play PS2 games, which is something it could do but it doesn’t because people would buy less consoles and games if it did.

By the time the PS3 came out, Sony wasn’t making any money on console sales, and retaining backwards compatibility would likely sell more games because PS3 users would have access to the PS2 library and might buy those games too. Nevermind that by that logic, the PS2 wouldn’t have sold so well, given its backwards compatibility with the PSX.

You could play the old PS1 games on the PS2, so if you could play the PS2 games on the PS3, you could play all PS games on the PS3, which will make the PS3 have 5 times as much games then it does now.

Being able to emulate PS2 hardware doesn’t mean you can emulate PSX hardware.


Setting aside nostalgia, PS2. SNES is a close second.

 
Flag Post

PS2, for reasons already elaborated on.

 
Flag Post

PS2 has all the options that it needs. The PS3 focused on stuff that aren’t important instead of the more productive ones.

 
Flag Post

PS2. It is shown it has sold more copies than ANY other console. Just a shame how new PS3s don’t play PS2 games, bad move by Sony there…

 
Flag Post

the best yet isn’t wii u or ps3,its ps vita

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheUnstopibleLeo:

the best yet isn’t wii u or ps3,its ps vita

The PS Vita is basically a portable PS3…

 
Flag Post

philips cdi

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Fireseal:
Also, PS3 doesn’t play PS2 games. PS3 could compare with PS2 if it could play PS2 games, which is something it could do but it doesn’t because people would buy less consoles and games if it did.

By the time the PS3 came out, Sony wasn’t making any money on console sales, and retaining backwards compatibility would likely sell more games because PS3 users would have access to the PS2 library and might buy those games too. Nevermind that by that logic, the PS2 wouldn’t have sold so well, given its backwards compatibility with the PSX.

You could play the old PS1 games on the PS2, so if you could play the PS2 games on the PS3, you could play all PS games on the PS3, which will make the PS3 have 5 times as much games then it does now.

Being able to emulate PS2 hardware doesn’t mean you can emulate PSX hardware.


Setting aside nostalgia, PS2. SNES is a close second.

Don’t forget that the first PS3 models HAD PS2 compatibility. It had to, because PS3 didn’t have games for itself. Then they removed it in the advanced models, so they could sell remakes and new PS3 games.

 
Flag Post

Don’t forget that the first PS3 models HAD PS2 compatibility. It had to, because PS3 didn’t have games for itself. Then they removed it in the advanced models, so they could sell remakes and new PS3 games.

…sigh. On with the reading glasses, off with the tinfoil hat this time, okay? Firstly:

Originally posted by Fireseal:
and retaining backwards compatibility

Pretty sure I don’t need a reminder of the original capabilities.

Secondly:

You seem to be claiming the original model’s compatibility was there to sell the console despite it not having much of a release lineup. “It doesn’t matter that there’s no games, you can play your old ones!” Absurd. There hasn’t been a game console released in two decades with a strong release lineup, and the only other one that had any sort of backwards compatibility was the DS. Yet, somehow, they sold just fine.

And nobody buys a new console to play their old games. You claim they took it out so they could sell more PS3 games. So you think someone at Sony’s marketing division actually said something like, “Gamers could be buying the new Metal Gear Solid, but since the console can play PS2 games, they’ll just buy/play the old ones instead.” and that’s why they took it out. If anyone at Sony actually said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were fired on the spot, and ordered to commit seppuku for their disgrace. The sort of people that would pass up new releases to play old ones are the sort of people that don’t buy the system in the first place.

And I repeat: Why didn’t this happen on the PS2? The PS2 didn’t have anything even close to a good game for months after its release, but the library exploded. Sony didn’t wait a year and go, ‘oh, here, we’ve got a new model that doesn’t play your old games.’ And yet, somehow, PS2 games sold extremely well.

In fact—one huge, huge difference between the PS2’s market and the PS3’s, is Sony actually has competition now. There really wasn’t any for a few years after the PS2. The Xbox was a complete non-factor early on, and the Gamecube never got much of a market share. In an environment where people might be choosing between a PS3 and a 360, removal of a selling point is a mistake, unless that selling point was somehow holding back sales.

Like, for example, building the hardware with the capability to emulate the PS2 was costly, and marketing research showed that it wasn’t a heavily-used feature anyway, so they could release a cheaper system (more sales!) and increase their market share. Exactly, like, you know, what happened. Hmmmmmm.