Poll: Which of the Big 3 Has Had the Largest Impact on Gaming?

[Your Fearless Captain]

I thought this was going to be about developers. Something like John Carmack, Sid Meir or Shigeru Miyamoto. If likes that then I would say John Carmack for inventing the way 3D graphics work.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well if we talk about the gaming childhood it surely was Nintendo who raised it until it could go out on it's own, but now they are the granddad we rarely visit, they still are hugely entertaining to the old folk but we got better things to do.

 

[zefichan]

Nintendo, no contest.

 

[shintakie10]

Even ignorin the home console market you still have to say Nintendo.

Think about it. The first successful mobile gaming platform was the original brick Gameboy. Before that, the idea of "mobile gaming" was a pipe dream. The only actual competition wasn't really competition at all. I doubt anyone thought that mobile gaming was even somethin that would actually take off.

Look at us now. People play games on their smart phones. They game on their tablets. They still game on their Nintendo system of choice, some people even use Vitas.

How would mobile gaming look right now if Nintendo hadn't taken the risk to try and make a console that could be played on the go in the palm of your hand (we'll ignore the fact that the original gameboy was larger than my head as a child). Would the gamegear have surfaced? Would Sony even bothered with the PSP/Vita? Hell, would mobile gamin even exist as we know it if not for Nintendo's decision?

There's not a company in gaming right now that has done more for gaming than Nintendo. Period.

Atari gets some credit for startin it all, but they cocked it up so royally that it doesn't matter.

Sega gets credit for pushin Nintendo to be the best it could possibly be, but at the end of the day they still trailer behind Nintendo.

 

[WhyWasThat]

i pretty much agree with SpunkeyMonkey.

Nin gets the nod but sony deliberately repositioned the PS1 via marketing so that games and gaming became a thing aimed at those "young adults with no responsibilities yet and thus plenty of disposable cash" so beloved of the marketing men rather than it being aimed at "kids" who had to beg mom and dad to buy them SMB or SF2 and in doing so (for good or ill) they virtually created the modern gaming industry/scene.

for those that lived through the transition it seemed like a natural thing ("gaming" sort of grew with you) but actually it wasn't and the change was actually down to sonys marketing department.

people oft forget that sony was basically the apple of its day at one point and one hell of a company.

its sobering to note that nowadays you virtually cannot even buy games "aimed at kids" for the likes of the 360 and PS3...i know this personally because i've tried to buy PS3 games suitable for my young niece and came up empty...while on the other hand Nin clearly still makes and sells them just as it did back in the day...but "we" now slag them off for it as if there is something wrong with that...

i try hard to remember sometimes that the real value of something like Duck Hunt was not actually an in depth storyline or stunning graphics or even the claim of "skill" at it but rather just a couple kids (me and my brother) falling about laughing and having fun...and i know my nephews and nieces play their Nintendos just the same today...

Hey, if you're looking to pick up some PS3 games for the youngsters then I can supply you with a suitable list. I know the PS3's games catalogue like the back of my hand, I do.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Spoiler: older stuff here...

I voted Sony. The Playstation 1's success in popularising gaming isn't to be sniffed at - I remember back in 1996-7, gaming really entered the general consciousness in no small part thanks to PlayStation. Consoles were mostly regarded as toys for children before that.

Nintendo laid the foundations, sure, but if you want to go down that road we should all be thanking Atari for creating the VCS.

snip

I dunno, arguably modern controllers take a lot more from the Sega side of the console war. There's a fairly clear evolution from Megadrive 3-button --> Megadrive 6-button --> Saturn --> Saturn Analogue --> Dreamcast --> Xbox --> Xbox 360, whereas Nintendo controllers have been screwy and experimental in every console post-SNES.

...Saturn Analogue controller?

*Goes to check Google*

Spoiler: Mother of Christ! Kill it! Kill it with fire!!!!

I don't think there's much to be said for the lasting influence of the Saturn controller, given it looks nothing like a modern gamepad. Similarly, while there is a consistency to Sega's controller designs, it's difficult to pin anything in particular they created that modern gamepads still use. Modern controllers don't tend to have face buttons in multiples of three. Maybe you could cite the 360's disc-based D-pad as a Sega influence, but the 360 D-pad is seen as one of the worst D-pads in existence, so not exactly a point worth arguing there.

Nintendo controllers follow a very clear design. Each controller takes all the elements of the previous one, and then adds to it in a (mostly) intuitive way.

The SNES Gamepad is a NES gamepad with two extra buttons, and shoulder bumpers. The N64 pad (admittedly the weirdest controller) is a SNES controller with an analogue stick in the middle, and the face buttons rearranged to a diamond+2 configuration. The Gamecube controller refined the core concepts of the N64 controller- the C-buttons became a proper, offset C analogue stick. The ABXY buttons make their return, but this time instead of being spread in a diamond, Nintendo tried a more daring design based around having a central 'Action' button. The left analogue stick and D-pad are moved to within useable distance of each other. And the bumpers are turned into fully analogue 'clickable' triggers, with the Z-trigger becoming an additional Z-bumper.

It was only with the Wiimote that Nintendo decided to radically tear up their control design, and even then there are some carry overs. The Wiimote and Nunchuck have the same 'two triggers + one bumper' of the N64 and Gamecube controllers. The D-pad and Analogue sticks are the same build they've always been (though a little larger than the Gamecube's). The A button on the Wiimote acts as the central 'Action' button just as it did on the Gamecube controller.

I'm not so sure the Wii remote is quite as radical as it might seem.

Now, it's kind of unusual in a lot of ways, but look at the elements it's made of.

The nunchuk controller is almost what would happen if you take the middle prong of an N64 controller, and move one of the buttons around.
Right down to the shape. I've held them next to one another, and the curvature of the grip is close to identical in a lot of ways.

Now, the most obvious feature of the Wii controller overall (aside from motion control) is it's modular nature.
The Wii classic controller is very much an Snes controller with analog sticks and extra triggers. (I even have one next to me that IS a perfect replica of an snes controller.)

The remote itself is a hybrid. When held in a vertical arrangement it again somewhat mimics the central portion of an n64 controller (trigger underneath), directional control under the thumb - albeit not analog in this case.
Only the placement of the A button throws it off a little, but this is otherwise close enough to things such as the gamecube's main button and trigger arrangement.

What's much more striking about the design though, is the less common, but still prevalent horizontal orientation. This results in the controller being held with both hands...

And suddenly you have a controller with a d-pad on the left, 2 buttons on the right, and (ignoring the home button, which never has a gameplay use) two buttons in the middle.
If you ignore the A & B buttons which are not the most practical things to use in that orientation, you're suddenly holding a close approximation of an NES controller...

The Wii's design suddenly doesn't look so radical... XD

 

[Teoes]

Nintendo by a league.

It's a cute thought that Microsoft or Sony might get it these days for online gaming and launch titles, when there wouldn't be a console gaming industry today without Nintendo.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nintendo is the industry essesntially. Who knows where gaming would be without them?

The Shado....Wait, that's something else.

But yeah, Nintendo practically made gaming a thing again. They're also directly responsible for Sony entering the market.

I can't see anyone else being reasonably considered to have half the impact they've had.

 

[Doom972]

For gaming as I know it? Valve had much more effect than any of these 3. Not only did they raise the bar with almost every game they released, they also changed the way I buy games for the better, and the way I play with friends.

Since you included options other than the big three, I figured you wouldn't mind other options being explored.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Nintendo easily they are one of if not the company that has had the biggest impact in gaming history and they have continued to impact gaming throughout their existance. Sony would be next from the big three then Microsoft but their impacts are small fry compared to the big three. I suppose the latest company to have a big impact on gaming is Valve but they hardly compare to what Nintendo or even Sony and Microsoft have done.

I remember Atari, Namco and Sega all shaping gaming significantly though among others ok enough rambling Nintendo wins hands down unless we include individuals then they may have some competition.