Games Consoles Tier List

[Phoenix Wright]

Well, time to waste some responses. Though I think I covered enough for it to go down.

You didn't cover anything.

Supposedly, this wasn't a failed attempt, and even the point of it being a major threat of having your identity taken away takes away points from it being a reliable system in general. Every system is hackable; even Macs. People who write viruses and such just don't put in much time for Macs because of the # of people who have Windows in comparison to Macs.

No more Linux = no more access. It was not a failed attempt until Sony took Linux out.

Emulators are also illegal, so the Virtual Console still stands tall.

No, they are not. But, I suppose you win since ROM's are illegal. But, I don't see what this has to do with the PS3 dropping.

The PS3 being partially a computer barely matters. It can't do other functions that most computers can. In fact, PC > PS2 please.

Yeah, you said this in my comment box yesterday. Pretty much nothing can beat a PC, so...

Which is sad indeed because Sony was losing mega bucks on the PS3s for a while.

Not really. The games made up for it big time ($60! Ridiculous!).

I do not see them as "shitty" and "stupid consumers fall for it". Most consumers at least do a little research behind their games before purchase, which is why most of the "shitty games", such as Wii Music, is really irrelevant. I admit to enjoying things like Wii Sports because it's something different in general. Nintendo also has had a decent amount of First Party games, and even have other great games that are coming out (Metroid: Other M). I admit in comparison that some of the games can be lackluster to others, but I assure you: I'm not attracted to FPS games whatsoever. They make me sick just playing. I enjoy 2D much more than 3D, and while the Wii is a 3-D system, it still has some games that coincide with 2D elements.

No they don't. People like us are the minority. They don't look up reviews, images, gameplay videos, nothing beyond the commercial. Usually they see a cool cover art and just buy it. Other times it'll be ten year olds buying Wii Sports Resort and Wii Music and such.

Also the DS prints money for it being a portable console. PSP must be also a gimmick if the DS is supposedly a gimmick. The only advantage PSP had over the DS was, temporarily, an Internet Browser and being able to emulate games. The latter was the only reason why I considered a PSP at one point, and that's about it.

I don't think it was a gimmick. Then three other versions came out, proving me wrong. Just like the PSP, yes. We aren't arguing about the PSP though. The only reason I want a PSP is for the MGS games, God of War games, and Ratchet and Clank games.

That's a counter? "It's up to the developers?" If it was up to the developers, Wii would've been one of Nintendo's best systems to date if it wasn't for the NES and SNES having their epic eras (and the SNES had a huge epic era, to add). No, it is entirely up to the consumer to decide if the system is good or not. The developers have no say in the matter.

Er, it is up to the developers to integrate backwards compatibility. The market doesn't control the corporation, sadly. If that were true, the PS3 would have backwards compatibility. I don't know where "good" or "bad" console came from. You're digressing from the argument.

Sure. Can we start with NATTO or w/e it's called?

If you mean NATAL, that isn't a game. It's an upcoming feature. If that isn't what you mean, well then I have no idea what you're talking about...

I'm sorry to say this, but casual gamers are the best targets in general. They also have little to complain with video games as well. Most hardcore gamers can rip even into the best of games created. Not all Casual gamers are stupid either. Many of them obviously chose the Wii for a reason. The sales show that. I'm probably more or less a "casual" than a "hardcore" if you consider hardcore being people who play FPS like crazy and what not.

There's no fine line between "casual" and "hardcore" any more. In fact, there's pretty much no such thing. "Casual" gamers are people who buy a game just because they think it looks cool. "Hardcore" gamers research. I can interpret them any way I like. I think we should both stop using those terms from now on, since they're subjective and are also ambiguous on their definitions.

Which then I can safely say that the Wii not imitating a poor computer doesn't hinder it either.

I see your point. Whether it tries to emulate a computer or not doesn't matter. Whether it does it successfully or not also does not matter.

[Raven]

Gamecube had Eternal Darkness. I'm happy with where it is. I suppose there are a bunch of games on N64, but I still adore the Gamecube. But considering snes, nes, and genesis should probably all be in awesome tier or at least top tier, I'm not too concerned about anything on the list.

If you think SNES and MD should be in Top Tier, all you'd have to do is convince me as to why it should be there. As it stands, the consoles above it are more sought after. NES is simply old, and it is obvious that, despite being the most respected machine, many newer things do what it does, only better. NES isn't one of the best consoles, even if it did take up half a person's childhood. The Wii etc. are doing what NES did 20 years ago, only better, which are why they are higher than it.

[Narga_Rocks]

If you think SNES and MD should be in Top Tier, all you'd have to do is convince me as to why it should be there. As it stands, the consoles above it are more sought after. NES is simply old, and it is obvious that, despite being the most respected machine, many newer things do what it does, only better. NES isn't one of the best consoles, even if it did take up half a person's childhood. The Wii etc. are doing what NES did 20 years ago, only better, which are why they are higher than it.

so this is an endgame tier list then? I'm not interested if that's the case. Leave it however you want. Endgame tier lists are stupid.

[Colonel M]

so this is an endgame tier list then? I'm not interested if that's the case. Leave it however you want. Endgame tier lists are stupid.

That is how one can concieve it seeing as PS3 is Top Tier despite its rigid start. The SNES and Megadrive topple PS3 and the DS and the 360 is "eh". Probably doesn't really win vs PS2 in the end. There is no real criteria either as otherwise Wii would not be so low and PS3 would not be so high.

[Rikter]

Add the Magnavox Odyssey to the Shit Tier. Despite it beeing the first home video game console. It had a poor user interface and most games had little to no actual programing to back up the rules of the game. The majority of the games also required semi-transparant overlays to be placed right on the TV screen.

[ReformBlade]

so this is an endgame tier list then? I'm not interested if that's the case. Leave it however you want. Endgame tier lists are stupid.

JUST Endgame tier lists? *sigh*

[Raven]

so this is an endgame tier list then? I'm not interested if that's the case. Leave it however you want. Endgame tier lists are stupid.

When you put it like that, I can understand what you mean much better. Hmm. I may change the criteria to "overall" instead of "endgame", as you had put it, which would undoubtedly place older machines up, and some newer ones down.

[Fayt Zelpher]

so this is an endgame tier list then? I'm not interested if that's the case. Leave it however you want. Endgame tier lists are stupid.

Agreed. I don't care to see a ranking list based on raw performance and power. I can look up hardware specs if I were interested in what each machine was capable of. I want an impact list - which machines did the most to shape the video game industry and fandom as a whole.

[Narga_Rocks]

Agreed. I don't care to see a ranking list based on raw performance and power. I can look up hardware specs if I were interested in what each machine was capable of. I want an impact list - which machines did the most to shape the video game industry and fandom as a whole.

And on that note, the original nes and the ps1 should be in the highest tier. snes and genesis should probably be next. Maybe I'm missing something in there too.

Why ps1? Well, as much as I hate ff7 fanboys, I think playstation is probably responsible for dragging gaming into the mainstream. nes apparently saved video games. Those should be two obvious choices. And their games (at the time) were pretty good too. Maybe even groundbreaking for some of them.

[Raven]

Agreed. I don't care to see a ranking list based on raw performance and power. I can look up hardware specs if I were interested in what each machine was capable of. I want an impact list - which machines did the most to shape the video game industry and fandom as a whole.

The way the thing is currently set up is not based on raw performance and power. If that were the case, why is PS2 above the likes of Xbox, PS3 and the 360?

[ReformBlade]

The way the thing is currently set up is not based on raw performance and power. If that were the case, why is PS2 above the likes of Xbox, PS3 and the 360?

We don't know.

[Phoenix Wright]

Is this, more or less, how it should look?

Awesome Tier

Nintendo Entertainment System

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

PlayStation 2

Nintendo 64

PlayStation

Top Tier

Xbox 360

Wii

Nintendo DS

PlayStation 3

Game Boy Advance

Top Mid Tier

Nintendo GameCube

Mega Drive

Dreamcast

Mid Tier

Xbox

PlayStation Portable

Game Boy Colour

Low Mid Tier

Master System

Saturn

Game Boy

Game Gear

Low Tier

Atari 2600

Sega CD

Commodore 64

Bottom Tier

N-Gage

Neo Geo Pocket Color

Neo Geo Pocket

CD-i

[Fayt Zelpher]

Is this, more or less, how it should look?

Awesome Tier

Nintendo Entertainment System

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

PlayStation 2

Nintendo 64 - Flip with PS1

PlayStation - Flip with N64

Top Tier

Xbox 360

Wii - Flip with DS

Nintendo DS - Flip with Wii

PlayStation 3

Game Boy Advance

Top Mid Tier

Nintendo GameCube

Mega Drive

Dreamcast

Mid Tier

Xbox - Top Mid. no change in rank order

PlayStation Portable

Game Boy Colour

Low Mid Tier

Master System

Saturn

Game Boy

Game Gear

Low Tier

Atari 2600

Sega CD

Commodore 64

Bottom Tier

N-Gage

Neo Geo Pocket Color

Neo Geo Pocket

CD-i

See my comments. Other than that, I have no complaints with this list.

[ReformBlade]

I'd of switched DS and Wii, TBQH. DS just has a much better library. Wii has better grafix, but the library (in terms of awesome to mediocre titles) is just meh.

Other than that, no problems.

[Raven]

Is this, more or less, how it should look?

Awesome Tier

Nintendo Entertainment System

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

PlayStation 2

Nintendo 64

PlayStation

Top Tier

Xbox 360

Wii

Nintendo DS

PlayStation 3

Game Boy Advance

Top Mid Tier

Nintendo GameCube

Mega Drive

Dreamcast

Mid Tier

Xbox

PlayStation Portable

Game Boy Colour

Low Mid Tier

Master System

Saturn

Game Boy

Game Gear

Low Tier

Atari 2600

Sega CD

Commodore 64

Bottom Tier

N-Gage

Neo Geo Pocket Color

Neo Geo Pocket

CD-i

When I will edit the first post, I'll incorporate this list into it. I'll also be arguing some things up and some down.

Edit: Not a whole lot was changed, only large differences were the position of the NES and SNES, which I believe you have given too much credit to. The SNES can not be that high while the Mega Drive stays in Top Mid. To think there is such a huge gap between the two systems is quite lolworthy.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Raven

[AceNoctali]

Is this, more or less, how it should look?

Awesome Tier

Nintendo Entertainment System

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

PlayStation 2

Nintendo 64

PlayStation

Top Tier

Xbox 360

Wii

Nintendo DS

PlayStation 3

Game Boy Advance

Top Mid Tier

Nintendo GameCube

Mega Drive

Dreamcast

Mid Tier

Xbox

PlayStation Portable

Game Boy Colour

Low Mid Tier

Master System

Saturn

Game Boy

Game Gear

Low Tier

Atari 2600

Sega CD

Commodore 64

Bottom Tier

N-Gage

Neo Geo Pocket Color

Neo Geo Pocket

CD-i

Playstation 2 and Super Nintendo should switch places, Megadrive bumped to Awesome Tier just under Super Nintendo, Saturn and Master System should switch places, and there this new list will be fine, IMO.

BTW, just noticed it, but none of the lists mention the PC-Engine (aka the Turbografx-16) nor the Neo Geo. Haven't played those consoles so I can't rate them... Your opinion about them ?

Edited June 10, 2010 by AceNoctali

[Phoenix Wright]

When I will edit the first post, I'll incorporate this list into it. I'll also be arguing some things up and some down.

Edit: Not a whole lot was changed, only large differences were the position of the NES and SNES, which I believe you have given too much credit to. The SNES can not be that high while the Mega Drive stays in Top Mid. To think there is such a huge gap between the two systems is quite lolworthy.

Whoops, I forgot about the Mega Drive. My bad.

It was based off of user comments. Personally, I'd put the NES on top, N64 on the bottom, and the SNES below the Playstation. Mega Drive goes above or below the N64, not quite sure yet (probably above).

EDIT: I don't know what I was thinking with putting the Wii over the DS. I've practically been bashing the Wii ever since my first post in here. You guys are right, DS over Wii.

Edited June 10, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Narga_Rocks]

I like the new list more than the old, and the changes suggested since the post with the new list also work.

so what are we looking at, by the way? I'm thinking:

length of lifetime (basically, from first game made to last game made for the system)

level of graphics compared to other systems during its lifetime

game library

impact on the gaming industry

Though probably not in that order.

[Esau of Isaac]

I like the new list more than the old, and the changes suggested since the post with the new list also work.

so what are we looking at, by the way? I'm thinking:

length of lifetime (basically, from first game made to last game made for the system)

level of graphics compared to other systems during its lifetime

game library

impact on the gaming industry

Though probably not in that order.

I find this the fairest means by which to judge them.

[Fayt Zelpher]

I like the new list more than the old, and the changes suggested since the post with the new list also work.

so what are we looking at, by the way? I'm thinking:

length of lifetime (basically, from first game made to last game made for the system)

level of graphics compared to other systems during its lifetime

game library

impact on the gaming industry

Though probably not in that order.

I'd like to add music quality as well. But only because of my own bias for good music in video games.

Other than that, I think that's a fair set of criteria. Obviously game library and impact would be more important...

Edited June 11, 2010 by Fayt Zelpher

[ReformBlade]

Impact on Industry (Duh)

Quality as a whole (Music and graphics included)

Library Size (Amount of Good to bad titles as well)

Life (First game made to last game made)

I think that would be the best order in which to judge, but that's just me.

[Phoenix Wright]

I don't think library size really matters. As SlaveBlade said (sorta), there should just be a comparison between the good and bad titles for a console. No use in allowing the DS to rise just because it has nearly five thousand games and four thousand aren't even worth a rent.

What I'm saying is, no console should be raised or lowered on the tier list just because of the amount of games it has. It's quality over quantity.

I, of course, agree with the criteria as well.

That being said, PS2 and SNES switch spots. The PS2 library is phenomenal and perhaps is unrivaled in the sheer amount of good games compared to any system. It dominated is sales as well. It's lifetime was long (and still going for some), and it was a major component to making gaming mainstream.

Edited June 11, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Narga_Rocks]

I don't think library size really matters. As SlaveBlade said (sorta), there should just be a comparison between the good and bad titles for a console. No use in allowing the DS to rise just because it has nearly five thousand games and four thousand aren't even worth a rent.

What I'm saying is, no console should be raised or lowered on the tier list just because of the amount of games it has. It's quality over quantity.

I, of course, agree with the criteria as well.

That being said, PS2 and SNES switch spots. The PS2 library is phenomenal and perhaps is unrivaled in the sheer amount of good games compared to any system. It dominated is sales as well. It's lifetime was long (and still going for some), and it was a major component to making gaming mainstream.

Well, the question about game library is pretty complicated.

If you had two systems, everything else the same, and both had 2000 equally good games but console A also has 3000 terrible games and console B doesn't, then would we consider them to be equal or B superior?

It's just, do we look at only the amount of good games or do we look at all games the system has to offer? Also, size should matter. 1000 good games compared to 2000 good games, if each game is equally good it should be obvious which is better. Now, 5000 horrible games vs. 500 good games it's again obvious which one wins (quality over quantity), but the amount of games matters when they are good enough.

[ReformBlade]

Well, the question about game library is pretty complicated.

If you had two systems, everything else the same, and both had 2000 equally good games but console A also has 3000 terrible games and console B doesn't, then would we consider them to be equal or B superior?

It's just, do we look at only the amount of good games or do we look at all games the system has to offer? Also, size should matter. 1000 good games compared to 2000 good games, if each game is equally good it should be obvious which is better. Now, 5000 horrible games vs. 500 good games it's again obvious which one wins (quality over quantity), but the amount of games matters when they are good enough.

You bring up very valid points. However, I was merely wanting the library to be seen at a glance, as a general consensus of how good the quality of a system is. I know we can't sit and go through every game made right here right now and for sure say what games are undeniably good (or bad), but... IDK exactly where I was going with this... Frickin tired...

[Narga_Rocks]

You bring up very valid points. However, I was merely wanting the library to be seen at a glance, as a general consensus of how good the quality of a system is. I know we can't sit and go through every game made right here right now and for sure say what games are undeniably good (or bad), but... IDK exactly where I was going with this... Frickin tired...

Yeah, we don't need to go too in-depth with that. Just a general understanding.

Anyway, I'm wondering if we should consider:

"If I order the games on a system from 1 to #games, then roll an RN from 1 to #games, how likely am I to get a good game?"

Or if we are simply wondering about the top level of games on the system. Look at all the decent to good games, how many are there?

It's not like you have to play the bad games, so maybe the system shouldn't be punished?