The title says it all. Use whatever criteria you like to determine your champion; software library, power relevant to its time period, market share, etc. Here is an explanation as to why I left several systems out: Pre-NES Systems: Atari 2600, Intellivision, etc. Just because they're old doesn't mean they're classics. Also, none of these systems were good enough to stop or even survive the great video game crash. Sega Master System: Really a tough one for me to exclude, but it just never had the user base (in US at least) to compete with the NES. Turbografx 16, 3DO, CDi, Neo Geo, Atari Jaguar: The only one that I've actually seen in person is the TG16. These systems weren't popular enough to make the list. Sega Saturn and Sega Dreamcast: Nice systems, no doubt, but they had short lifespans and are considered failures. Handhelds: Arguably, the original Gameboy deserves a spot because of its record lifespan, but I chose not to include any handhelds since they are basically portable rehashes of past consoles. Also, note that Sega CD and 32X will be considered as part of the Genesis since they were dependent peripherals. That could work for or against it. I really didn't want to include any of the current generation, but there is a PS2 in almost every home, Gamecube has too many instant classics to ignore, and XBox is the only system in history so coveted that people will beat families to death with baseball bats to get one. DEFEND YOUR CHAMPION.
You can leave Atari 2600 off but I'm voting for it anyway. Maybe you just had to be there, but when coin-op games hit the home for the first time (even in crappy Atari version) it was HUGE.
In retrospect, that was pretty harsh... I should've at least left an "other" option for you old-timers.
NES. Like Harrisment said; paved the way for everything else. Started a number of great characters/franchises that would continue to every console today. Hell, the NES games probably got a lot of the guys making video games today interested to begin with. Can't mess with the classics.
Atari dominated its era. And was the original gaming system (before, there was just pong). How crap like the Genesis and N64, which were inferior in their own time, can get included and not the Atari is beyond me. The original Nintendo outdid Atari, I think, but I wouldn't put any other system above them. This isn't an old-timer argument, it's just facts. Leaving Atari off is like having a "greatest centers" argument and leaving Moses Malone off in favor of Alonzo Mourning.
What he said. Atari brought the games into households. That created the market for everything that followed.
Atari was awesome, but I think that by the time NES came out that the graphics and gameplay were good enough to market the video game characters (ex: Mario, Luigi, Link, etc...). Nintendo just did a really really good job of doing that. Getting people to really connect with the little white stick figure from "Tennis" for Atari is rather difficult even though the game is fun. Just my opinion.
It never went away. FYI, for us gamer's, Apple IIe came out after the 2600. THAT was the gaming system in between Atari and Nintendo.
Anti, I mean no offense here, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Some of us were actually around when the Atari was, and have played all the systems since then. You were 1 when the "video game crash" took place, and so you really have no frame of reference other than what you've read. In other words, you're talking out of your ass.
Space Invaders for the 2600 was the home gaming cultural revolution. Could the 8 bit(?) games stay great forever? Hell no. This is like the idiotic argument that Lord of The Rings is better than Star Wars. People just don't remember how revolutionary things were 30 years ago.
That's weak. By that logic, any history teacher is simply talking out of their ass because all they have is second hand accounts. You do realize that unlike other forms of history, video games can be re-lived as individual consoles survive and can be played over and over until they break. No one "had to be there" to see a system's strengths and weaknesses. Anyway, I think a better analogy than what you said up there would be leaving George Mikan off in favor of Patrick Ewing and David Robinson. That's all I will say regarding the "golden age" consoles... So where's the love for SNES? Very surprising. Come on- Chrono Trigger! Zelda 3! Super Metroid! And N64, arguably the best for multi-player games...
BTW, a great read on Atari, for those that weren't around. E.T. single-handedly killed Atari. http://www.snopes.com/business/market/atari.asp
Genesis and Turbo Duo revolutionized the industry with CDs. Are they better than any other CD-based system because they were first to implement them?
Really? Then you are having the problem. It's like Citizen Kane. For those who weren't around until after it came out, it's an unspectacular movie. For those that saw it originally, it was ground-breaking. Atari was a hell of a lot more revolutionary than Nintendo. To say otherwise is foolish.
