Games Consoles Tier List

[Phoenix Wright]

You bring up awesome points. Which helps bring me to an answer.

Console B is superior. In a ratio 2:3, there is an overwhelming amount of bad games to good ones (when they are in the thousands, or even hundreds). As I've suggested, the comparison from good titles to bad titles should matter. If someone were to purchase Console A, they'd have a harder time finding good games. It won't hurt the sales of the company, but it will hurt customer satisfaction and possibly the sales of their next console from having a bad reputation.

It is becoming too theoretical though. On it's most basic level, Console B is superior (3000 bad games to 2000 good ones; quality over quantity).

EDIT: In the event where both consoles have good games, but one console has more than the other, then yes I agree with you. Quantity does matter.

Edited June 11, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Raven]

I think the quality of games can be determined through the number of units sold. There must be some sort of correlation between number of good games and number of console units sold.

[Zkirsche]

I think the quality of games can be determined through the number of units sold. There must be some sort of correlation between number of good games and number of console units sold.

Considering the "imagine" series has been running a solid 3 years now, I can't agree with this at all. I'm sorry if I don't sound excited over "Imagine: astronaught" or some other shit being released. Heck, some good games, like Okami on the wii, did not sell many copies at all in places (only 66000 copies in Japan. Comapre this to OoT's sales totalling 1.14 million in Japan).

The same can be said of movies, think "The day after tomorrow", a high grossing film, which scored only 45% overall on rotten tomatoes.

So no, I'm afraid not. Quality of games should not be examined through sales figures.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Kirsche

[Anouleth]

I would like to preemptively nominate the 3DS for God Tier.

[Raven]

Finally got round to editing the list.

Changes: SNES below PS2, Mega Drive below SNES, DS above Wii.

I'm still wondering if PS2 is truly dominated by the NES. I know it "saved" the whole gaming industry and all, but to be put above the PS2 for that one reason... Really?

[Fayt Zelpher]

Anyway, I'd like to argue PS1 > N64.

My grounds are rather simple. PS1 has several very good RPG games (including FFVII, which, while overrated, is far from a bad game even by todays standards) while N64 has maybe... I think 3 RPG's, none of which are spectacular. While the N64 does have several excellent titles, I believe that the severe lack of this genre means that this console must remain inferior to the PS1.

Any thoughts on this?

[Nightmare]

Wait what, how the hell are PS2 and PS1 not at the top of this list? Anyone who has played those two consoles would know how they both beat everything else out there. They are really the best consoles! I mean, really, they have so many amazing games I can't even count them all in my head, while I can do that for NES, SNES, N64 and every other console above these two.

Just so my argument is more complete, let me tell you that the Playstation has Symphony of the Night, Breath of Fire III, Brigandine, Megaman X4, Metal Gear Solid, and other such greats, and Playstation 2 has GOD HAND, Metal Gear Solid 3, Shadow of the Colossus, and much, much more. These games are virtually unrivalled, and what the hell, I see Nintendo consoles above these two godly consoles?

[Raven]

Wait what, how the hell are PS2 and PS1 not at the top of this list? Anyone who has played those two consoles would know how they both beat everything else out there. They are really the best consoles! I mean, really, they have so many amazing games I can't even count them all in my head, while I can do that for NES, SNES, N64 and every other console above these two.

Just so my argument is more complete, let me tell you that the Playstation has Symphony of the Night, Breath of Fire III, Brigandine, Megaman X4, Metal Gear Solid, and other such greats, and Playstation 2 has GOD HAND, Metal Gear Solid 3, Shadow of the Colossus, and much, much more. These games are virtually unrivalled, and what the hell, I see Nintendo consoles above these two godly consoles?

Basically my thoughts put into words there. The PS2 should be above the NES. History is history as far as I'm concerned.

Lyn is the only available unit in Ch1 of FE7. Does that automatically make her the best unit in the game? The same rule should be used where the NES is concerned. It's not like the Master System wasn't around to "save" the game industry. Way too much credit is given to it.

Also I thought PS1 was already above N64. I'll look into that.

[Esau of Isaac]

Wait what, how the hell are PS2 and PS1 not at the top of this list? Anyone who has played those two consoles would know how they both beat everything else out there. They are really the best consoles! I mean, really, they have so many amazing games I can't even count them all in my head, while I can do that for NES, SNES, N64 and every other console above these two.

Just so my argument is more complete, let me tell you that the Playstation has Symphony of the Night, Breath of Fire III, Brigandine, Megaman X4, Metal Gear Solid, and other such greats, and Playstation 2 has GOD HAND, Metal Gear Solid 3, Shadow of the Colossus, and much, much more. These games are virtually unrivalled, and what the hell, I see Nintendo consoles above these two godly consoles?

I believe this is what you were looking for, sir.

Though I'm personally of the opinion that the PSX is better than the PS2.

[Nightmare]

I was of the same opinion, but consider how the PS2 has backwards compatibility and can play PSX games too. That means about all of PSX's games (I think? or most of them) plus the PS2's own games and...you get the idea.

[Narga_Rocks]

I was of the same opinion, but consider how the PS2 has backwards compatibility and can play PSX games too. That means about all of PSX's games (I think? or most of them) plus the PS2's own games and...you get the idea.

But the psx could play them from 1994 to 2000. That's pretty important. If you look at it from your perspective, any system that is backwards compatible could never ever be < its predecessor. Which doesn't make all that much sense given their "prime" was in different years. After all, you aren't saying ps3 > ps2, and yet doesn't the same statement hold true? ps3 has all the games from psx, ps2, and ps3 (such as they are).

[Nightmare]

The thing here is backwards compatibility plus the console's own worth. PS3 has some pretty good games, but so far it's been lacking, especially in comparison to the two that came before it. The PS2 is an excellent console on its own; by having the capability to play the games of another console which had a game selection that was just as good (or better), it goes beyond excellent.

[Narga_Rocks]

The thing here is backwards compatibility plus the console's own worth. PS3 has some pretty good games, but so far it's been lacking, especially in comparison to the two that came before it. The PS2 is an excellent console on its own; by having the capability to play the games of another console which had a game selection that was just as good (or better), it goes beyond excellent.

so half-decent + excellent + excellent < excellent + excellent? Unless ps3 is negative, I'd think that considering backwards compatibility makes ps3 the winner. As long as there is just one enjoyable game unique to the ps3 (unique compared to ps1, ps2 and not, say, xbox 360), it wins.

[Nightmare]

Whoops, looks like I shot myself in the foot. You win this one.

Though...what about the price of the console and its games?

EDIT: HOLD IT! I was too quick to give in to your deceptive tactics there, but recall if you will that backwards compatible PS3's are out of production now and very difficult to find. Even if you find one, it's probably going to be overpriced. The newer slim models don't have it either.

But say all PS3 consoles were backwards compatible. There are possibly over a hundred games from both the PSX and the PS2 (among them, God Hand!!!) that are incompatible.

I still stand my point that PS2 is top of top and PSX comes right after.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Nightmare

[Narga_Rocks]

Whoops, looks like I shot myself in the foot. You win this one.

Though...what about the price of the console and its games?

EDIT: HOLD IT! I was too quick to give in to your deceptive tactics there, but recall if you will that backwards compatible PS3's are out of production now and very difficult to find. Even if you find one, it's probably going to be overpriced. The newer slim models don't have it either.

But say all PS3 consoles were backwards compatible. There are possibly over a hundred games from both the PSX and the PS2 (among them, God Hand!!!) that are incompatible.

I still stand my point that PS2 is top of top and PSX comes right after.

Wow. What was sony thinking? Oh well, at least the super-expensive original ps3s were mostly backwards compatible. But why aren't the newer ones backwards compatible? They have to know that people seem to like psx and ps2 more than ps3. Oh well. That was dumb of them.

Anyone ever wonder what video games might be like if Nintendo never split from sony on the snes-cd idea?

[Esau of Isaac]

I was of the same opinion, but consider how the PS2 has backwards compatibility and can play PSX games too. That means about all of PSX's games (I think? or most of them) plus the PS2's own games and...you get the idea.

I think it's best to look at the console for that console's own games' merit.

[Raven]

I think it's best to look at the console for that console's own games' merit.

I believe it's hard to overlook the fact a machine can play a previous system's games. And just to confirm it, only really early PS3 models could play PS2 games, which is why it isn't above the PS2. The PS3 was mentioned earlier in the thread, and why it isn't in Awesome. It's lack of backwards compatibility with the PS2 is the reason why. Otherwise, it would be above the PS2.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Backwards compatibility shouldn't be overlooked but at the same time, it shouldn't have too much weight. As in, if a console during its generation had backwards compatibility when it wasn't really standard, that should be a plus (GBA comes to mind). If a console lacks backwards compatibility when it's pretty much a standard thing among the others, it should be a minus (PS3 comes to mind due to the newer models and DSi).

The console's own game library should have more weight on how good the console is than the games of a previous console it can play.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Esau of Isaac]

I believe it's hard to overlook the fact a machine can play a previous system's games. And just to confirm it, only really early PS3 models could play PS2 games, which is why it isn't above the PS2. The PS3 was mentioned earlier in the thread, and why it isn't in Awesome. It's lack of backwards compatibility with the PS2 is the reason why. Otherwise, it would be above the PS2.

So again, you would agree that were Sony to not have implemented their patch that removed support for Linux users, Playstation 3 would be at the top of the list because of its capability to emulate most of the other systems on the list?

If this is how it really goes, then why the hell aren't the Wii and 360 higher? Are you telling me that both the Wii and Gamecube's expansive library don't warrant being above the fucking Mega Drive? Or the 360 and Xbox's? And wait, what the hell is the NES doing above the SNES in this case? Why is the N64 above either of them, specifically the Wii? The Virtual Console provides for a majority of all the good titles on every single Nintendo home console that's ever existed, there's no reason for it not to be above every single one of them if we hold with emulation and backwards compatibility.

Also, I don't think I've mentioned this, but the Mega Drive has absolutely no place at the top of that list. Its library is utterly paltry compared to the entire top tier, excepting the PS3 if we have to suddenly rule out its earlier backwards compatibility with Playstation and Playstation 2 titles.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Defeatist Elitist]

Wii up for durability, 360 down for hardware malfunctions. Considering the 360 has a huge failure rate, I don't see how it's so high up. On the other hand, my Wii has been dropped from fair heights on numerous occasions and escaped without damage. If you take into account the fact that humans will be playing these things, I think durability, or hardware malfunctions, especially to these extents, should at least move things one position. Although, actually, maybe Wii not up, because it's under the DS, and the DS just won't fucking die. 360 under both? I dunno...

[Raven]

Calm the fuck down Esau. I don't enjoy reading your posts when you appear to be raging in them. This list is always up for change, so cool your engines.

As Speedwagon said, backwards compatibility is considered, but it's not a huge deal, and not the sole reason why PS3 is where it is. The PS2's own library is enough to keep it up and above the PS1 any day, anyway. The PS1 is an amazing machine in its own right with a spectacular range of games, and is why it's right up there with its predecessor.

Good points Revan, I'll consider them into the list if nobody is willing to argue well against it.

[Nightmare]

How is Esau raging? I think it's just you being really tense, Raven.

On the other hand, I am raging because:

Also, I don't think I've mentioned this, but the Mega Drive has absolutely no place at the top of that list. Its library is utterly paltry compared to the entire top tier, excepting the PS3 if we have to suddenly rule out its earlier backwards compatibility with Playstation and Playstation 2 titles.

What? The Mega Drive is absolutely amazing. It's on the same level as the SNES, if not higher. The only reason I can think of that you would say this is that you're not very familiar with its library of games. I'd list the games that are an absolute must play right now but I don't feel like it. Maybe later.

Also, PS3's backwards compatibility is half-assed because it doesn't play a good number of the really good games from both the PS1 and PS2.

[Raven]

How is Esau raging? I think it's just you being really tense, Raven.

On the other hand, I am raging because:

What? The Mega Drive is absolutely amazing. It's on the same level as the SNES, if not higher. The only reason I can think of that you would say this is that you're not very familiar with its library of games. I'd list the games that are an absolute must play right now but I don't feel like it. Maybe later.

Also, PS3's backwards compatibility is half-assed because it doesn't play a good number of the really good games from both the PS1 and PS2.

By raging, I meant the unnecessary use of language. I should have been more precise.

I also agree with you on the Mega Drive.

[Esau of Isaac]

What? The Mega Drive is absolutely amazing. It's on the same level as the SNES, if not higher. The only reason I can think of that you would say this is that you're not very familiar with its library of games. I'd list the games that are an absolute must play right now but I don't feel like it. Maybe later.

I grew up with practically only Sega consoles. I played the Genesis for years, and it's one of my favorite consoles of all time. If anything, I'm a fanatic for the Mega Drive, and especially the Dreamcast. Loved that fucking thing; anyways, that said, if we take backwards compatibility to be important, it shouldn't be in the top, as it stands alone. Its library is smaller than most of those in top tier, and paltry if we include their backwards compatibility.

By raging, I meant the unnecessary use of language. I should have been more precise.

What the fuck are you talking about?

FUCK

[Zkirsche]

By raging, I meant the unnecessary use of language. I should have been more precise.

I believe he said fucking once. Unless you consider hell to be bad language :/

360 down for hardware malfunctions. Considering the 360 has a huge failure rate, I don't see how it's so high up.

Is a ~30% failure rate (well, 5% according to Microsoft themselves, but that might be biased, so let's stick with the retailers' figures)(source), really better than a larger, and better, library of games? As well as better online play in general? I do not think so. Sure, super mario galaxy is probably better tahn whatever Xbox has to offer inidividually, but looking at games like Gears of War, Splinter Cell and Halo (all Xbox exclusives IIRC), Microsoft just puts in a better variety of games, which I think will outdo the 30% failure rate.