Poll: Which console "won" this generation?

[veloper]

IBM is the clear winner of this console generation.

360 has triple core PowerPC
PS3 has Cell processor
Wii has Broadway cpu

Big blue controls all the games in town.

 

[Iyon]

Overall I'd give it to the Xbox. Though the last few years have been close thanks to the PS3 finally getting some good games with lots of them being exclusives.

 

[malestrithe]

The Wii had the most sales. It also defined the E3 this years and it defined the last 3 years of the generation with Microsoft and Sony competing with each other for their wii also controller.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Overall I say this generation has been the weakest one since Generation 1; so I don't really think there is a winner, just a whole bunch of losers.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Unless you're talking about who won in terms of sales and overall impact, this thread is just a "What was your favourite console" thread.

So yeah, seeing as the Wii got so many new gamers into the industry and sold more consoles than anyone else it wins.

That was going to be my answer. The Wii wins with sales but personally, I think all three were failures.
The 360 had that rrod issue and online you have to pay for.
The ps3 has decent hardware but Sony gave it nothing but crap firmware.
The wii sold a lot of units but not a lot of software.

 

[Overusedname]

Speaking as someone who wasn't personally impressed with this generation as a whole...I guess the Wii for me (we're not talking about this objectively, but I guess the Wii won with sales and expanding the market anyway).

But I don't regard that as much of an accomplishment. PC is a close second determined solely by personal preference. I just like the Wii Games more.

I can appreciate the simplicity, but the 360 and PS3 truly are 'limited PC's' in a lot of ways. The Wii ruled in terms of high-quality exclusive games you couldn't play elsewhere. I acknowledge most people never gave half of the unique titles on Wii a chance (No More Heroes 1+2, Epic Mickey, Radiant Dawn, etc.), but I don't think that discredits them. Certainly didn't effect my enjoyment of them.

Also, never been a fan of online gaming on consoles. Much less sociable and less community driven. And I hate DRM and all the Installation crap involved in the the other 2 consoles, and then there is the RROD. Yes, I know it's a stale punchline but it really is pretty shameless how high the fail rate got.

I guess I just wanted a console that let me play several good games with no hassle or constant breakdown. Wii provided that for dirt-cheap. And besides Lost Odyssey, no other console exclusive came out this whole gen that interested me. Some of the PS2 exclusives looked fine, but nothing that made me really desperate to try. I was perfectly content with Steam and Nintendo for the whole duration.

It's odd. I was a 'Sony Kid' in the nineties. Now I look at them, wondering why they're still here when all other platforms have kicked them to the curb.

 

[Awexsome]

Marketing standpoint the Wii was the winner, while 360 won with more traditional gamers the west and the PS3 won with them in Japan.

Perhaps I'm wrong on the PS3's performance in Japan but that's the impression I had at least.

 

[Rednog]

[snip] The thing with it is, it's not really one to be affected by console generations [...] [snip]

We are, actually. Because consoles are where the money is, many developers prefer to make games for 360/PS3 instead and then porting it to PC. Thing is, the consoles are almost 7-8 year old hardware, so the best we usually get are shitty ports with an upscaled 720p, making the games look absolutely atrocious due to blurry textures and what not.

I honestly wish they'd just develop for PC first and then 'dumb it down' for consoles. That way everyone would get the highest quality they can manage.

Well developing for the PC first would probably cost more money than to just scale it, the cheap bastards.

Actually a lot of companies do in fact develop it for the PC and it is cheaper to port down to consoles than vice versa. We just don't see PC version ever released...god knows why. And the reason that developing for PC first and porting down to consoles is that it is much easier to knock things down, resolution, textures etc than to build up.

OT: I honestly want a vote for none of them, because at the end of the day they all have a couple of huge flaws and the "winner" for most people depends on which flaw they have an easier time ignoring.

 

[TheScottishFella]

[snip] The thing with it is, it's not really one to be affected by console generations [...] [snip]

We are, actually. Because consoles are where the money is, many developers prefer to make games for 360/PS3 instead and then porting it to PC. Thing is, the consoles are almost 7-8 year old hardware, so the best we usually get are shitty ports with an upscaled 720p, making the games look absolutely atrocious due to blurry textures and what not.

I honestly wish they'd just develop for PC first and then 'dumb it down' for consoles. That way everyone would get the highest quality they can manage.

Well developing for the PC first would probably cost more money than to just scale it, the cheap bastards.

Actually a lot of companies do in fact develop it for the PC and it is cheaper to port down to consoles than vice versa. We just don't see PC version ever released...god knows why. And the reason that developing for PC first and porting down to consoles is that it is much easier to knock things down, resolution, textures etc than to build up.

OT: I honestly want a vote for none of them, because at the end of the day they all have a couple of huge flaws and the "winner" for most people depends on which flaw they have an easier time ignoring.

Just strange.

Also on the second point about voting, he's right. You can't really vote because everybody is tinged by their bias. So really there is no way to actually judge who one. Even trying to look at it objectively, it all comes down to preference of the individual.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

As far as the console wars go, at best it would be a winner-by-decision. The only clear loser this generation is the game industry itself. As far as exclusives go, Zelda: Twilight Princess was also available on the CG. Gears of War and Halo? Please. . . I will replay Half-Life 2 for the 20th time rather than play those a second time. And the only PS3 exclusive that I really cared for was MGS 4, in fact, I mostly use my PS3 to play PSone classics, and HD remakes of Resident Evil 4 and Shadow of the Colossus.

So, yeah, This generation, while having some great games like Portal and Rayman Origins, is mostly just a wash of generic shooters with unoriginal plots, pumped out so that industry executives can have golden parachutes when their company goes under.

 

[wookiee777]

In terms of making money probably the Wii or the 360. Though, outside of money, I'm not so sure how you could declare an objective winner of this generation's war.

Personally I prefer the PlayStation 3 out of the whopping three consoles to choose from this gen.

 

[bioject]

As this generation winds to a close, it comes time to look back on this past generation. Having been, in my opinion, the best generation thus far, which console really stood out? In my opinion the ps3 is easily the winner. The xbox beats it in user interface and online accessibility, and the wii wins in term of innovative design, but the ps3 wins where it counts the most, games. Uncharted, Infamous, Resistance, the ps3 started the most franchises this generation and all of them were huge successes and innovated in unique ways. In addition they continued great franchises like killzone and ratchet and clank and took them to new heights. Add to that great downloadable games like journey and pixeljunk, and the ps3 had the best lineup i've ever seen. What do you think?

I would say during the first half it was the Xbox 360 as the PS3 at the time was still difficult to program for and was expensive. For the last couple of years though, I would say the PS3 wins. The Xbox 360 is severely behind these days and most of the games I want to play on it also come out on PC. The Xbox is sort of like the ***** console now because all developers have changed their focus onto the PS3 and PC market since the Xbox can no longer push games graphically anymore. In addition my Xbox got the red ring of death and I refuse to buy another console. In fact I don't think I will ever buy another Xbox again as I imagine the next one will break too and I can just play the same games with an Xbox controller on PC.

As for the Wii, I used to think it was going to be amazing, but I personally think it failed. It never really had any interesting games and the core franchises all sucked this time. I hate both Zelda games, Mario was bleh, and Metroid is dead.

On a surprising note, I think the PC is right up there with the PS3. Virtually every console game now comes out on PC and developers are getting really good at optimizing them for PC so that they run smooth even on an older PC. My last PC lasted five years running all games on virtually max settings. With Steam and all the great deals it offers, I think the PC is now a viable option especially now that consoles are starting to cost a lot of money. I wouldn't be surprised if the next console costs over $600. For a $1000 you could easily build a really good PC.

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

[snip] The thing with it is, it's not really one to be affected by console generations [...] [snip]

We are, actually. Because consoles are where the money is, many developers prefer to make games for 360/PS3 instead and then porting it to PC. Thing is, the consoles are almost 7-8 year old hardware, so the best we usually get are shitty ports with an upscaled 720p, making the games look absolutely atrocious due to blurry textures and what not.

I honestly wish they'd just develop for PC first and then 'dumb it down' for consoles. That way everyone would get the highest quality they can manage.

Well developing for the PC first would probably cost more money than to just scale it, the cheap bastards.

It's actually quite the opposite. You don't have to pay a licensing fee to develop on the PC, since it's an open platform. The only thing keeping devs from developing for PC is the massively over-sensationalized threat of piracy.

 

[Aeshi]

Probably the Wii (assuming by 'win' we mean 'made the most money'), simply because of how little it cost to make.

 

[Jaeke]

Personally or literally?

If both... yeah, it's still the Xbox 360.
It was the first console of this generation that I got my hands on (not my first EVER), and as an owner of multiple 360's, two PS3's, and a Wii, by far I'd give my vote to the 360.

It dominated sales and still continues to stand head-and-shoulders over its competition to this day.
The exclusives, when compared to PS3, are of course less in number, but I believe they make up for in value of their space. Uncharted you say? Well I have enough Action/Adventure with just Assassin's Creed alone... "but that's not an exclusive!!"... well, exactly, I don't need the exclusive, I've already got multi-platforms that are better than Uncharted, I don't NEED to a buy a PS3 just for it.
You see, on the other hand, the 360's exclusive have their own monumental place in the genre's and niche's they encompass.
Halo is the watermark first-person shooter for consoles, it essentially mainstreamed the genre into the platform. Killzone didn't exactly innovate or change that much in the FPS genre. Sure it was fun but not anything I haven't seen/played before.
Gears of War changed the way we see modern day 3rd person shooters, with chest-high walls and generic cover based shooting mechanics that round out most 3rd person shooters today.


And to be honest, I despise the whole "Well PSN is free! hah!"

I wasn't aware that $5 a month was so horrible, but I guess you just can't go without $5. Hey don't get me wrong, I love a good pie from Little Caesar's but it's not worth a 3 week-long shutdown and the following months having to worry about my personal identity but whatever. And also, it seems the short end is always being slammed in the PS3's face when it comes to 3rd party DLC, and even just 3rd party in general.
So yeah, in regards to DLC, 3rd party support, and anything non-exclusive, I guess all I can say is:

Spoiler: U Mad Bro?

Sorry to be rude(ish), especially to my fellow PS3 players, but really, in the end, the whole thing is kinda pointless. Nintendo fans are Nintendo fans, Xbox fans are Xbox fans, and PS fans are PS fans.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that at one point there were more 360's being sold in Japan than PS3's!

Fair play to the Yanks for that!

The 360 sold so poorly in Japan that it's practically been pulled. [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2011/08/18/xbox-360-being-phased-out-of-japanese-shops]

I think Xbox won mainly for Xbox Live. The controller and Xbox Live is why I am not a PC gamer.

That's a strange pair of reasons... most PC games support the 360 controller and I can't think of anything you can do on XBL that you can't on PC for free (sans the cost of your ISP). I mean, I can understand if you don't want the hassle of DRM, the cost of a PC compared to a console or like how it's a little easier to set up a console in a living room... but what does XBL do that a PC can't? What's different about using a 360 controller for a PC game over a 360 game?

I'm not trying to 'convert' you or anything, I'm just genuinely curious.

OT: Of the 3 consoles, I preferred the Wii, just because it had more exclusives that I liked. Brawl, Xenoblade, Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid Prime 3, Madworld, etc. The PS3 comes in at a close second, largely because of Infamous and Demon Souls, but I can't really think of any 360 exclusives that I really liked. I saw someone earlier listing L4D and Mass Effect as exclusives but I have those on PC. The only noteworthy 360 exclusives I can think of are Gears and Halo and I'm not very fond of either of them. Apparently there are some good XBLA games, but I've not found that many (and many of the ones I've had recommended to me were available on PC, when they said 'exclusive', they really meant 'not on PS3') and there were a ton of JRPGs early in it's life but most of them were dire. If you don't have a PC, though, it normally has the best version of multiformat games (in some cases, it even has a better version than the PC does, eg. Saint's Row 2) and it gets all those timed exclusive DLCs (although I almost never buy DLC), so even the 360 has it's advantages. Plus, it's clearly the iconic console of this generation. Just as many refer to the last couple of generations as the "PS1" and "PS2" generations, respectively, this will be remembered as the "Xbox generation" (because no-one ever remembers the '360' bit for some reason.)

 

[mrdude2010]

Depends on what type of games you want to play. Since I'm more of a WRPG/FPS player, xbox 360 by far.

 

[Promethax]

Looking at the big picture, I'd say the Xbox 360 won, with the Wii in a close second. In the end, I thought the Xbox's proving that games can rival blockbuster films as entertainment was a more important contribution than the Wii's expanding of the market.

 

[Jaeke]

The Wii had the most sales. It also defined the E3 this years and it defined the last 3 years of the generation with Microsoft and Sony competing with each other for their wii also controller.

There's so many odd things about that statement.
I think most people would agree that Nintenedo by FAR had the most disappointing show at E3 this year, and even then, E3 conventions shoulnd't dictate a consoles place in the whole "console-war."

What do you mean it defind the last 3 years of the generation? I can't think of anything titanic that came from the Wii that blasted it's way through the genre.

And the controller? Are you kidding? The clumsy nunchuck? The 360 controller by far, and this is agreed vastly so by the community, the best handling controller of the generation, possibly ever.

 

[deathzero021]

This is dumb, people actually trying to argue that systems that sold less than the Wii are some how the dominating force in the console industry? do any of you actually question why it is that both Microsoft and Sony attempted to accessorize motion controls? It's because Nintendo dominated in console sales.

The Wii won, every one knows it. However certain fanboys don't want to admit that their favorite shitbox didn't do well. Sony hardly profited at all from the PS3 and Microsoft had tremendous problems with their Xbox system, they had to deal with thousands of hardware failure reports and warranty claims however at least Microsoft made a good deal of profit in the end. Still the Wii dominated the market and due to their success they're going to be the first ones to push us into the next generation.

Don't misinterpret my standing though, i'm not a Nintendo fanboy - i'm far from it. I thought almost all of the first-party games were re-packaged retro shit and it almost has no games at all to my liking and the console itself can't really compare in terms of hardware. It looks like shit on my HDTV as well.

If i'm going to throw a vote out to any console for quality, it'll be the PS3. I own all consoles but the PS3 seems the most solid to me. However i have way more games on the 360. I just don't like playing on the 360 because of how obnoxiously loud it is and how it occasionally overheats and freezes up on me. (also i can't stand Microsoft's greedy accessorizing. They want you to pay extra for wifi and online service - when both of the other consoles come with this for free)