Poll: Which is the most significant gaming device?

[BENZOOKA]

PC. Because it's superior to everything that has ever been and will be and bananas in wine bottles.

It's a bit abstract to think of the most significant. I'll just go with PC, because I prefer it over any else system, by far. Also, almost all of the games are done with it, as intelligent people have said in this thread.

 

[Dana22]

Atari 2600. Because it was the machine that set standards for consoles generations to come.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

This

When you can force a country to print more money just to keep up with you, you've made a global impact.

$500 million made.

And it ran due to an Intel 8080...which puts PC hardware in second place.

 

[Wertbag]

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device. In fact PC's are not a single item, its a catagory. Everything from the old commodores, to the Mac, to the numerous MS Windows devices are PCs, its not really specific to any device.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

I voted for the NES, and the reasons should be fairly obvious. We all know perfectly well that the modern console scene wouldn't exist (at least not outside of Japan) without it.

 

[Conza]

pc. without it. none of these would exist. very poor choice in poll options

I think this is the best example of a few peoples comments on this. If you read my further information, this is only for 'gaming devices', a PC is in part a gaming device, so were the Atari series, Apple II, Commodore 64, the list goes on, but their primary function encompasses more than that, so I couldn't include any of these, despite the fact some were quite well known for being associated with gaming.

So this is why PC isn't a valid option. I own a gaming PC, I built it, and I built it solely with games in mind, does it do anything else? Yes, it does. Some have also mentioned, that the the 'pure' game device is rarer these days, as everything is blending into one, phones are gaming devices, gaming devices are internet browsers, soon phone will be an add-on to something with another primary task, possibly (eg. iPads ect). But I still retain that something built, with the primarily objective of gaming in mind, will remain for some time, and therefore I stand by my poll choices.

 

[Conza]

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device. In fact PC's are not a single item, its a catagory. Everything from the old commodores, to the Mac, to the numerous MS Windows devices are PCs, its not really specific to any device.

One after my own heart.

 

[Teeth Kicker]

The Sega-Genesis 32X attachment. It gave me "Knuckles:Chaotix." At 5 years old I could not ask for more in life, and probably never will again. Ever.

R.I.P.

 

[Wertbag]

I voted for the NES, and the reasons should be fairly obvious. We all know perfectly well that the modern console scene wouldn't exist (at least not outside of Japan) without it.

Debatable. NES wasn't the first console (Atari had theirs out 5-6 years earlier), so the idea wasn't new. Sure the console market took a dive, but gaming survived on PCs. If the NES didn't come out at all someone else would have taken the logical step of following in Atari's foot steps and converting what was happening in the PC game market into a device designed solely for games.
Consider that both Sega and Atari had other consoles released, they didn't match the NES for sales but if the NES hadn't existed it would have simply opened up the market for the others.

 

[Custard_Angel]

The PC.

Not necessarily as a gaming platform, but for its "bricks and mortar" status as an essential element of any game development cycle.

No PC. No games.

 

[muffincakes]

I'd disagree with Nintendo. They were too early, it was back when games were quick arcade things that people had a laugh with. Its impossible to say that the industry wouldn't have existed without the NES or gameboy, sure they were great in their day but if it wasn't Nintendo someone else would have stepped into the gap (Sega, Atari etc).
I would say the Playstation series has done more for gaming than anything else. The jumps in technology from the PS1 to PS3 are huge, and unlike Nintendo who were very hit and miss with their consoles, all of the playstations have been massive hits.

First, the jump between the NES and Wii was huge too, so you have an invalid point. Second, how are Nintendo consoles so hit and miss?

NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii. Name how many of those five consoles that didn't sell fantastically and weren't well received. Let me know if you come up with a number greater than the number of consoled Sony has made.

Playstation 1 was released in 1994, so now 16 years later to still be a house hold name shows great longevity.

Guess I gotta give you this. I don't know anyone who knows Sega or Nintendo as household names.

Add to that the fact that the PS2 is now the greatest selling console in history, the related series of handhelds (helping add choice and competition to a market lacking both), all of the other acessories that have pushed the market in new directions (eye toy, singstar, buzz, move etc) and really pushing to grow the console into a full entertainment system rather than just a game device (eg internet access, blu-ray/DVD movies, digital media centre, tv tuner etc) to my mind show a company pushing and growing the games industry more than anyone else.

Creating a console that surfs the web doesn't do anything for the games industry, because it has nothing to do with games. It just increases the chance a console will be bought so they can have, say, a cheap blu-ray player. Did they buy any games? Not really helping the industry if all they want is a blu-ray player.

And did you really just cite the Move as a Playstation innovation? Really? Wow. And I would ask you what buzz even is, but I should apparently already know.

Eh, I'm done. My vote, for the topic's sake, goes to Nintendo and Sega(which should be up there) because they are the ones who actually started the in-home gaming revolution.

 

[Wertbag]

How are Nintendo consoles so hit and miss?
NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii. Name how many of those five consoles that didn't sell fantastically and weren't well received. Let me know if you come up with a number greater than the number of consoled Sony has made.

How about the fact that the SNES, N64 and Gamecube all failed to match the sales of the original NES? Or that developers pulled support for the Gamecube due to poor sales? How about these Wiki quotes: "Because of the cost of Nintendo 64 cartridges, and limited third-party support, the Nintendo 64 caused Nintendo to lose its leading position in its market share" and "Despite Nintendo's efforts, the GameCube failed to reclaim the market share lost by its predecessor, the Nintendo 64. It was in third place compared to its competitors"
And the Wii has had very mixed reviews. Plenty of talk about its last gen graphics, its short term appeal and lack of developer support.
Sure they've all been perfectly fine and sold okay, but none have really taken the market by storm, and Nintendo hasn't lead the market in a long time.

Playstation 1 was released in 1994, so now 16 years later to still be a house hold name shows great longevity.

Guess I gotta give you this. I don't know anyone who knows Sega or Nintendo as household names.

You do realise you are comparing companies to consoles? How about asking how many people know of the Gamecube or hell, can even name the last Sega console? Sure older gamers might know of them, but certainly neither is a household name.

Add to that the fact that the PS2 is now the greatest selling console in history, the related series of handhelds (helping add choice and competition to a market lacking both), all of the other acessories that have pushed the market in new directions (eye toy, singstar, buzz, move etc) and really pushing to grow the console into a full entertainment system rather than just a game device (eg internet access, blu-ray/DVD movies, digital media centre, tv tuner etc) to my mind show a company pushing and growing the games industry more than anyone else.

Creating a console that surfs the web doesn't do anything for the games industry, because it has nothing to do with games. It just increases the chance a console will be bought so they can have, say, a cheap blu-ray player. Did they buy any games? Not really helping the industry if all they want is a blu-ray player.

The internet has nothing to do with games? You actually said that on a games forum? Game news, game reviews, patches, DLC etc... you really can't see the benefit of giving people internet access? And even if people did just buy the PS3 solely for its blu-ray playing feature, then their money has gone to the gaming division, its helped increase sales and profits and thereby helps drive future investment in the industry.

And did you really just cite the Move as a Playstation innovation? Really? Wow. And I would ask you what buzz even is, but I should apparently already know.

Yes, and why not? The Move is certainly a new spin on the previous ideas and it has had good reviews. As for Buzz, your lack of knowledge doesn't make it any less of a popular accessory. The Buzz series of quiz games has been a massive hit spanning 18 games and tens of millions of sales. The 4 Buzz controllers connect through a single USB port and give multi-choice options for quiz show type games.

 

[moretimethansense]

Either the Playstation or the NES.

The PS1 brought gaming out of the age of cartriges and made gaming more popular than it had ever been before thus making the industry what it is today, on the other hand the NES brought gamin g back from the dead, if it weren't for the NES gaming may not have recovered from the great crash of '83.
Tough call.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Gotta go with the NES although the Playstation certainly destroyed Nintendo's monopoly over the gaming market. The NES was the first console after gaming's death in the 80's to make gaming more than just a hobbyists activity. In North America especially, I have yet to meet many people over the age of 20 who haven't played one as a kid or owned one as a kid.

 

[irequirefood]

I think it is the Playstation. It brought memory cards, popularised the use of CD's for games, allowing for masses of content, brought us a stellar library of games, in my opinion topped only by the PS2, and brought in the dual analog sticks we see used today. I don't really feel the other even come close, except for the NES, because it saved video games and really brought them into people's homes.

But anyways, that's what I think without doing any research, just off the top of my head. Please correct me if I'm wrong at all.

Also, feels good to post again.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

I voted for the NES, and the reasons should be fairly obvious. We all know perfectly well that the modern console scene wouldn't exist (at least not outside of Japan) without it.

Debatable. NES wasn't the first console (Atari had theirs out 5-6 years earlier), so the idea wasn't new. Sure the console market took a dive, but gaming survived on PCs. If the NES didn't come out at all someone else would have taken the logical step of following in Atari's foot steps and converting what was happening in the PC game market into a device designed solely for games.
Consider that both Sega and Atari had other consoles released, they didn't match the NES for sales but if the NES hadn't existed it would have simply opened up the market for the others.

Yes, gaming survived on PCs after the crash. My point is that, if not for the NES, it likely would have stayed there. You seem to think that Nintendo just waltzed into foreign markets and enjoyed immediate success, when it was actually more difficult than that. Once you understand why they chose to make R.O.B. a playable character in the latest Smash game, you'll figure out why the NES did so much for the industry.

By the way, the whole "if they hadn't done it, someone else would have" argument comes up a lot, in all kinds of different debates, and it virtually never holds water. If I said that Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin was overrated because someone else would have invented it if he hadn't, would you disregard his invention? How do we know that someone else would have invented the cotton gin, and even if we did, how much longer would it have taken?

 

[Conza]

Eh, I'm done. My vote, for the topic's sake, goes to Nintendo and Sega(which should be up there) because they are the ones who actually started the in-home gaming revolution.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what's wrong, I added the *scrolls up and checks* my apologies. I had intended on adding the Sega Mega Drive, I don't know what went wrong, it was meant to go between The Wii and the PlayStation. My mistake, it should be there.

"Despite Nintendo's efforts, the GameCube failed to reclaim the market share lost by its predecessor, the Nintendo 64. It was in third place compared to its competitors"
And the Wii has had very mixed reviews. Plenty of talk about its last gen graphics, its short term appeal and lack of developer support.
Sure they've all been perfectly fine and sold okay, but none have really taken the market by storm, and Nintendo hasn't lead the market in a long time.

I was about to say that the Nintendo 64 beat the Sega Saturn, but after re-reading that quote, it appears to be refering to the GameCube, who lost to the Xbox (thus third).

Also, I'd say that the Wii has been a great success for Nintendo, and the gaming industry, also making Nintendo the leaders of the console market (purely by sales, I'll admit, I own a PS3).

It has many flaws compared to PS3/360, but so did the Game Boy. It still sold more than the other consoles, thanks mostly to motion controllers and every peripheral encouraging 'movement', families saw it as the healthier video game option for their children, and even took to using it themselves.

I hope the next Nintendo system will be, closer, in graphics standards to Sony and Microsoft's offers, (and use a Blu-Ray Drive) but it'll likely still be slightly below for cost reasons, whilst maintaining all it has learnt from the Wii. This should make the 8th generation of consoles a much more difficult decision for us 'hardcore' gamers, and, it's all thanks to the success of the Wii.

 

[Chased]

I'd say the NES for starting the whole gaming revolution. On the other hand the Wii did a good job developing a new fad.

 

[Daggedawg]

NES, because it made gaming popular again, after the crash. Without it, gaming today would probably look a lot different.