Poll: Which is the most significant gaming device?

[Chibz]

I'm gonna go with the NES, since it revitalized the gaming industry after the video game crash of 83 and brought gaming closer to the mainstream. Who knows what gaming would look like today without it? I don't.

I'm in agreement here. Video Gaming wouldn't exist without the NES, not as big as it is now at least.

 

[Jordi]

But why would you want to make a thread about what device takes a very distant second place to another device (the PC), just because it can also do other stuff. A PS3 can play Blu-ray, so does that mean it's not a gaming device according to your definition? Other consoles can play DVD. Hell, even the PS1 (which is in your poll) could play music.

Highly opinionated statement, I think a few 'in my opinion's should be added (in my opinion). Because I wanted to know the community's opinion of which of the consoles and handhelds was the most significant. I'll repeat myself from a previous post, using my own term 'Gaming Device', appears to have confused/not gone well with some people, and I should've made this a poll on 'consoles', because I doubt anyone would argue a PC is a game console now would they?

While I will readily admit that the rest of my post was thoroughly opinionated, it looks like you quoted the part that pretty much only contains facts and a question (the first sentence should have a question mark behind it, sorry). A lot of consoles can do more than play games.

Ok, let me rephrase. You have organized a list, but the list itself is entirely arbitrary. Better? You're combining some consoles (all playstations) and dividing others (NES and Wii) while missing even more (the N64), and I don't even see the words Atari or Sega.

Also how do you get ONLY FOR GAMING from "gaming device".

Key phrase here 'read my initial post'. I forgot to add the Sega Mega Drive as a voting option, but I listed it as one in the initial post, with the intent of adding it.

By defining the term 'Gaming Device' in my intial post, which was meant to avoid all of this confusion, that's how I get only for gaming. Please, re-read that post, if you want to understand the context of this thread, and why I excluded PCs.

That goes for everyone who's having a go, because I didn't include PCs. PCs were designed for business applications, and fundementally, they exist today for that reason. I don't know where I could find this information, if it even exists, but I have a feeling that the majority of PCs are still made for business.

I think that you are right in asserting that the way you phrased your OP was probably not in the best interest of what you wanted the discussion to be about. The problem is probably that "Gaming Device" is not really your term, but rather just two words that everybody has an intuitive idea about what they mean. And I think for many people those words mean "device on which games can be played". You can try to redefine the meaning of a term of course, but don't expect it to work if people already have a good idea of what the term should mean, and don't expect them to not debate your definition.

Besides, in the OP you also say you "think most devices had 'some' effect on the gaming market, yet these are the ones [you] believe are the most significant". This suggests that the reason you are focusing on consoles is that you think that the PC is not one of the devices that had the most significant impact on the gaming market. This statement is what is being disputed by me and some others.

You keep saying that people need to read the initial post. They probably did and they are responding to it. They are just not responding to the part of it that you would like them to. I think that this is caused by two things:
1) You were not as clear as you thought you were. Did you want to primarily talk about your arbitrary selection of consoles, or about what device impacted the game market the most? (We all know the answer now, but it's hard to fix it once the thread started.)
2) You put in a controversial statement, saying that PC gaming was less significant. Even if you were completely clear and you would have said "I want to talk about the significance of the different gaming consoles, because they are more significant than the PC", you are going to get pro-PC reactions.

In response to your last point (and to have at least something in this post that isn't "meta"): Just because PCs don't exist primarily for gaming (but for "business" according to you) doesn't necessarily mean that gaming doesn't primarily exist because of the PC.

 

[A Sense Of Decorum]

SNES.
Purely for Mystic Quest, that game was The Bomb, The Shit... Every single description beginning with the word 'The'

 

[Spartan1175]

Nintendo 64, any Atari, and Sega Genesis.

 

[Conza]

IDK how or why you changed it to look like I said that that he was right in saying PC should not be there, cause it's wrong. I have been arguing FOR PC as a gaming device, and for it being the most influential.

Yes, it seems there was some issue with the quoting codes there. You're actually creditted for my quote, obviously just an honest mistake, I'm sure no slander was intended.

This suggests that the reason you are focusing on consoles is that you think that the PC is not one of the devices that had the most significant impact on the gaming market.

The reason is because these are the devices I wanted to discuss, not PCs, simple as that.

Did you want to primarily talk about your arbitrary selection of consoles, or about what device impacted the game market the most?

Both, actually. A combination of those two questions in statement form, 'this discussion is meant to be focused on the selection of consoles, which, impacted the gaming market the most significantly'. And I still believe the majority of us, voted NES, and I've read some very good posts to support that vote as well. If we get another 33 more votes for PlayStation, and no more for NES, then the conclusion will shift, but currently NES is far and away the winner here.

Even if you were completely clear and you would have said "I want to talk about the significance of the different gaming consoles, because they are more significant than the PC", you are going to get pro-PC reactions.

In response to your last point (and to have at least something in this post that isn't "meta"): Just because PCs don't exist primarily for gaming (but for "business" according to you) doesn't necessarily mean that gaming doesn't primarily exist because of the PC.

Allow me to be perfectly crystal clear. This discussion, has nothing to do with PCs, period. I'm not comparing them to consoles or handhelds, I'm not saying either group is better, more significant, or more influential to the gaming market, my focus, and the focus this thread should be on, is on consoles and handhelds.

The question you appear to be looking for would be "Which is the most significant Consoles, Handhelds, or the Personal Computer to the gaming market?"

 

[FinalHeart95]

NES, it's the reason there's a gaming industry at all.
I'd say that's damn near impossible to beat, since the Odyssey isn't up there.

 

[OldAccount]

Without the NES video games would likely not be a thing today and I'd probably be into silly things like work or self improvement.

 

[thelonewolf266]

I put the Microsoft xbox because it ushered in the creation of xbox live which in my opinion is the best way to play games online.

 

[HandsomeZer0]

Playstation definitely. If not for the technological advancements, then for the immense amount of games that were created for the first two models.

 

[The Floating Nose]

The first Xbox was (and still is) a piece of shit the only thing that was interesting about it was it's hardware (gamecube had a better library than the Xbox) ! The NES wins this because in brought back video games to life (after the crash of 83) AND because it had a SHITLOAD of good games and series that still lives to this day. The PS1 is a close call due to it's MASSIVE amount of good games.

 

[Epslion.Bear]

I voted PlayStation but meant PS2 :S

But yeah the Ps2 and 1 were breakthroughs

also why no N64? OP