Poll: Which is the most significant gaming device?

[mikev7.0]

Thanks varulfic.

As for you other three, I hope you're all writing posts to this thread, seeing as you voted.

EDIT: Nine people now, nine, voted without posting, thanks guys, this is great discussion happening right here.

Don't feel bad Conor I put up my first thread last week about what I thought was a good defense for considering video games as art and asked people to rip it to shreds. ZERO responses.

So either my defense is ironclad or I have just recieved a very sincere compliment translated from Japanese. Either way, win/win!

For me this didn't take a lot of thought. I am one of twelve of us apparently who realizes that whether we like it or not (I myself do not own the console I voted for anymore) the Wii is literally the most influential. It changed the way games are played, and it changed the market itself. Now that market is the dominant percentage of sales as well as it has gotten the attention of financial players (day traders) and market makers and it will change the face of gaming as you know it forever. Which some us see as a really good thing. Of course that's partially because market shake ups (up or down) are always a great thing for day traders.

They say the truest form of compliment is imitation. Kinect and Move didn't happen because Microsoft and Sony are known for their creativity after all.

By the way Conor, great topic can't wait to see your next one!

 

[The Lunatic]

The PC, but, if we're going to ignore the obvious, let's say the PS1.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

I'd say the NES. I mean, how many gamers on this site got their start on the NES? That one console was responsible for, I'd bet, the majority of gamers and game creators around now.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

You need to divide it into more than just "playstation, xbox, NES etc". Why are half the Nintendo consoles in their own category while the Sony and Microsoft ones are divided? The 360 was "significantly" more popular than the original, but they're lumped together? And why are the Wii and NES divided, but no the N64? There is literally no sense to your organization.

...That you saw. The list is alphabetical; if you had read my initial post you would've seen that.

Hypothetically however, if we were talking about individual gaming CONSOLE (which you could have mentioned in the title) then it would be the PS2 hands down. It's sold the most units by a wide margin and is still in use today. The only two that might come close are the NES and the Gameboy color.

Again, please re/read my initial post, I started by using the term 'device' which I referenced as including handhelds and consoles. It's not a real definition; I made it to suit my needs of the thread. And you're talking about highest selling, which I am aware, the PS2 selling ~150 million units, is the most popular console ever, but I'm talking about significance to the gaming industry, not popularly, I could've easier just looked that up.

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device. In fact PC's are not a single item, its a catagory. Everything from the old commodores, to the Mac, to the numerous MS Windows devices are PCs, its not really specific to any device.

A gaming device is a device on which you game. End of discussion.

The PC has contributed an incredible amount to the history of gaming. To ignore one of the industry's oldest and most consistent media is ridiculous.

Ok, let's think about this. If I started playing music on a toaster, is it 'instantly' a musical instrument? My answer, is no. It was designed to make toast, it still makes toast, I just happen to be able to play music with it as well. A computer ?computes? data, you don?t put a game in, turn it on, and play the game, it does much more, and is therefore not a gaming device, but a rather, a device in which you can game, as well.

So when Mr. Wertberg says

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device.

He is correct.

PC is a valid opinion...it's all about what PC did first.. (Simpsons did it)

Should we go back to punch cards? Why not, instead, go as far back as the very beginnings or early mathematics? I'm sorry, it's not a valid option, in my poll, because it was not designed, exclusively, for, gaming - Thank you.

Since you obviously don't know your gaming history,you should probably change the title to your whole thread to something more appropriate and less misleading such as

Which SECOND GEN CONSOLE is the most significant gaming device?

 

[Irishhoodlum]

You need to divide it into more than just "playstation, xbox, NES etc". Why are half the Nintendo consoles in their own category while the Sony and Microsoft ones are divided? The 360 was "significantly" more popular than the original, but they're lumped together? And why are the Wii and NES divided, but no the N64? There is literally no sense to your organization.

...That you saw. The list is alphabetical; if you had read my initial post you would've seen that.

Hypothetically however, if we were talking about individual gaming CONSOLE (which you could have mentioned in the title) then it would be the PS2 hands down. It's sold the most units by a wide margin and is still in use today. The only two that might come close are the NES and the Gameboy color.

Again, please re/read my initial post, I started by using the term 'device' which I referenced as including handhelds and consoles. It's not a real definition; I made it to suit my needs of the thread. And you're talking about highest selling, which I am aware, the PS2 selling ~150 million units, is the most popular console ever, but I'm talking about significance to the gaming industry, not popularly, I could've easier just looked that up.

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.

So when Mr. Wertberg says

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device.

He is correct.

Also how do you get ONLY FOR GAMING from "gaming device". No where in those two words is the word or anything close to a synonym of "only". Gaming device can just as easily mean a platform for gaming, there is nothing to indicate that it is SOLELY for gaming. A phone is a gaming device because it is a platform for gaming.

 

[Conza]

Thanks varulfic.

As for you other three, I hope you're all writing posts to this thread, seeing as you voted.

EDIT: Nine people now, nine, voted without posting, thanks guys, this is great discussion happening right here.

Don't feel bad Conor I put up my first thread last week about what I thought was a good defense for considering video games as art and asked people to rip it to shreds. ZERO responses.

By the way Conor, great topic can't wait to see your next one!

Thanks mikev7.0, good luck with your next thread as well!

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.

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?

 

[Jelly ^.^]

The NES established the current era of [CONSOLE] videogaming, had internet connectivity in Japan and is the crucible where a number of the longest-running franchises were cast. From the time I was 5 until I turned 13, I didn't play 'videogames,' I played Nintendo.

And, as Bob the Overthinker puts it, VIDEOGAMES COME FROM JAPAN thanks to the establishment of early Japanese hegemony in the industry.

 

[TiefBlau]

A gaming device is a device on which you game. End of discussion.

I disagree, my calculator has a game built in but I highly doubt anyone would think to call it a gaming device. Its purpose is not gaming, its primary function is calculations and that is how people will define it.

Sure it is. You're using it as a gaming device, so it is a gaming device, at least to you. If you can call what you're playing a game, then the platform on which it is played must be, by definition, a gaming device.

Just because the TI-89 isn't a significant gaming device doesn't mean it's not a gaming device at all. Your iPod Touch is a gaming device. Your cell phone is a gaming device (not a very good one, though).

And even assuming to some wild degree that everything simply MUST fit within your neat little categories of functional fixedness, can you really say with a straight face that gaming isn't a primary purpose of PC's these days?

The PC has contributed an incredible amount to the history of gaming. To ignore one of the industry's oldest and most consistent media is ridiculous.

I would again point out that computers are not a specific thing, its a whole catagory of devices, many of which are not compatible with each other. Terminlogy wise you would compare computer to console, not to a specific model. For example I've owned the Commodore Vic20, C64 and Amiga 500 back in the day, but they were very different to a modern Windows based computer.
The arguement you are aiming towards is which did more for the games industry, consoles or computers? Now thats a tricky question, probably worthy of its own thread...

Oh Christ...

You're being pedantic. Yes, I GUESS you can define a PC's equivalent to a console be its OS, its model, or a variety of other details, but unlike consoles, PC's have no truly distinct generations, so what's the point? At most you could divide the PC up into general periods of time or certain technologies that made significant changes to gaming. Do you want to argue which graphics coprocessor offered the greatest contribution to gaming now?

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device. In fact PC's are not a single item, its a catagory. Everything from the old commodores, to the Mac, to the numerous MS Windows devices are PCs, its not really specific to any device.

A gaming device is a device on which you game. End of discussion.

The PC has contributed an incredible amount to the history of gaming. To ignore one of the industry's oldest and most consistent media is ridiculous.

Ok, let's think about this. If I started playing music on a toaster, is it 'instantly' a musical instrument?

Sure it is. If you consider what you're "playing" on that toaster to be music, then you are using that toaster as a musical instrument. The source of that music must be the instrument that created it. It's cause and effect. Do you define a musical instrument as "a mechanism that produces music" or "a mechanism WHOSE PRIMARY GOD-GIVEN PURPOSE IS TO produce music"? There are multitudes of musical groups out there focused on improvised instruments, and I'm sure every percussion instrument out there had its roots in something else. See: Musical saws, stomp, etc.

It was designed to make toast, it still makes toast, I just happen to be able to play music with it as well.

So if the manufacturer were to, say, declare that the true purpose of toasters were to fry people in bathtubs, would you classify accordingly? Does the designer speak the word of God, and we all have to oblige his sacred decree? No one prescribes a purpose to a tool but yourself.

A computer ?computes? data, you don?t put a game in, turn it on, and play the game, it does much more, and is therefore not a gaming device, but a rather, a device in which you can game, as well.

And the Wii is, of course, "A device in which you can browse with Opera."

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can make this. If you've been cooking for 12 years, are you not a chef anymore because YOU ARE BETTER AT MATHEMATICS AND THAT IS THEREFORE YOUR PRESCRIBED PURPOSE IN LIFE AND YOUR ETERNAL ADDRESS? Or is it because YOUR MOTHER RAISED YOU TO BE A DOCTOR AND YOU WENT TO MED SCHOOL AND THEREFORE MUST BE CALLED A DOCTOR AND NOTHING ELSE.

This line of reasoning isn't "wrong" so much as it is "absolutely inefficient and needlessly pedantic".

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

You need to divide it into more than just "playstation, xbox, NES etc". Why are half the Nintendo consoles in their own category while the Sony and Microsoft ones are divided? The 360 was "significantly" more popular than the original, but they're lumped together? And why are the Wii and NES divided, but no the N64? There is literally no sense to your organization.

...That you saw. The list is alphabetical; if you had read my initial post you would've seen that.

Hypothetically however, if we were talking about individual gaming CONSOLE (which you could have mentioned in the title) then it would be the PS2 hands down. It's sold the most units by a wide margin and is still in use today. The only two that might come close are the NES and the Gameboy color.

Again, please re/read my initial post, I started by using the term 'device' which I referenced as including handhelds and consoles. It's not a real definition; I made it to suit my needs of the thread. And you're talking about highest selling, which I am aware, the PS2 selling ~150 million units, is the most popular console ever, but I'm talking about significance to the gaming industry, not popularly, I could've easier just looked that up.

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.

So when Mr. Wertberg says

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device.

He is correct.

Also how do you get ONLY FOR GAMING from "gaming device". No where in those two words is the word or anything close to a synonym of "only". Gaming device can just as easily mean a platform for gaming, there is nothing to indicate that it is SOLELY for gaming. A phone is a gaming device because it is a platform for gaming.

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.

 

[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.