BTW, for the older folks, Adventure having the "secret" room was insanely groundbreaking. Does anyone else remember the rumour on the Star Wars game for Atari?? Basically, it was said that if you reached 100,000 points, you got to go to Hoth and battle ATAT's.
Really? I thought good movies were good no matter what time period they're from? Oh really? Passwords? Save features? NES stacks up a lot better than you think.
They weren't a revolutionary cultural phenom. Atari 2600 was like disco, Star Wars, KISS, and MTV. It's greatness lies right there.
BTW, check this out. It'll blow you away. My favorite is "MegaMania". Also, check out Phil Hartman in the hockey commercial. http://www.theoldcomputer.com/Libarary's/tv_adverts_summary.htm
What's your point? Nintendo kicks the 2600's ass. Just like Playstation kick's the NES's ass. You're saying which was the greatest. Atari 2600 was more revolutionary the Nintendo. Period.
How anyone over the age of 25 can claim anything other than the NES as the G.O.A.T. is unfathomable. The Atari had the wow factor because it was something new. Nintendo revolutionized console gaming by bringing so many of our favorite arcade games into the home and opening up vast worlds that were extremely limited on previous consoles. The consoles that came after the NES have all built upon the foundation that Nintendo laid down.
Anti, don't let the apparently huge Atari fan base get ya down, the original NES is far too great to have Atari in the choice box right above it, letting its Atari-ness drip down onto the NES. actually, there really shouldn't be any system other than the NES in the poll, but that's just my opinion. if Tecmo Super Bowl wasn't on your system, you can't hang (and I am not talking about whatever Tecmo Super Bowl version appreared on the SNES). i did like the end of Atari commercials, though. The Atari 2600 from A-Tar-I.
So you're saying that you can judge a 25+ year old system by playing its games today? It doesn't stack up - surprise surprise! Computing power wasn't enough back then to make graphics that are eye-appealing today. Given the chance, who wouldn't play GTA3 over Pitfall? But we got a huge amount of hours of entertainment out of pitfall, and pac man, and asteroids, and space invaders, etc. For their era (which is the only way to evaluate) they were fantastic. Anyway, what criteria are you using to evaluate? Because by your own statement here are some good guidelines: Atari 2600 dominated market share, I mean it really dominated intellivision etc. and basically created and then dominated the home console market. It had great power relevant to its time period, it was revolutionary. And as for software library, I saw once where there were like 900 titles. I know we had 50 or 60 ourselves when I was a kid, before switching to Nintendo. The Atari 2600 was contemporary with Moses Malone... you have a bunch of people telling you how good the Atari was. But go ahead and revel in your own opinion. By the categories you specifically mentioned, Atari outshines just about anyone.
Also Intellivision did something that revolutionized the industry. It came with a paddle instead of a joystick. Nintendo took intellivisions paddle and turned it on it's side. It took intellivision's "disc wheel" and turned it into a cross. The NES controller, and everything after it is from intellivision's concept. That's why nobody has a "joystick" anymore. My breadth of knowledge on this is really ridiculous.
I am devestated that Colecovision is not one of the choices. Anti - you better realize the greatness that is Colecovision, baby!
Fraid not. How could I forget the commodore? We couldn't get one but I remember playing with them at friends' houses. First PCs I remember seeing. We used to play Zaxxon on that all the time. Was that the 2nd version atari that came out years later, like a slimmed down version without the switches on top?
I think there are only two revolutionary consoles: Atari and Playstation. The Atari paved the way for all 2D games. The Playstation was the beginning for true 3D gaming.
Sorry, Antisonic. I, too, must pontificate on this topic: You think the 2600 (and other classics) shouldn't be included? Alright, boy. Lemme tell you something... The next generation of video game is ALWAYS better (in quality) than the previous generation. Xbox and PS2 are better than N64 and Playstation (which were better than SNES and SEGA). So, you can't just label greatness as being which one is a better machine - you have to consider the era in which it was popular. Therefore, you must include ALL video games from ALL generations. Rokkit was close, but not correct. The Atari 2600 didn't pave the way. I appreciate that you kids are trying to pay some respect to history here, but you've got some learning to do. The machine that paved the way for the home video game market was the Magnovox Odyssey. My family owned (and still owns) one of these. At the time, a revolutionary new game called pong (the first "video game") was growing in arcade popularty and the Odyssey was the first home console unit. It was the first. The mother. The grandmother. It, and it alone, paved the way for the home video game market. Now, since I can speak from experience in seeing every single generation of video game (home and arcade), I can say that without any doubt whatsoever, the Atari 2600 was the greatest video game. Not because of its technical abilities (at the time, Colecovision and Intellivision were technically better). Not because it was the first ('cause it wasn't). But because it did everything right. It had game variety. It had game play. It was priced just right. And it single-handedly exploded the industry which was begun by the previous video game generations. You seem to want to exclude it because it didn't survive a recession in the industry. But that's just wrong. People wanted a bigger and better from the video-game market (consoles included) and the video game companies still didn't have quite enough captial to keep up with the demand. Then, one day, a coin-op game called "Dragon's Lair" (using new 'laser disc' technology) broke the recession trend and put the Video Game market back on the map. Of course, since DL wasn't a home game at the time, it is not appropriate to be included in your poll. So, to reiterate, not only should the Atart 2600 have been included in your list, it should also be the the leader as far as "greatest" is concerned. -- droxford
PS2, because it supports PS1 games as well. Nintendo sucked. The cartridges wouldn't last long. As long as you don't scratch up the CD systems, they last forever.
I'm old (a past owner of the original Atari) but I'd have to vote Playstation based on the vastness of its library. And with a mod chip (thankyouverymuch) I could play all the Japanese games as well as any "backups" I may have made from my video game rentals.
My heart says the NES probably should get it, but I voted for the Playstation just because it truly brought video gaming into the mainstream and gave us the begining of epic gaming experiences like Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid.
Some random thoughts: 1. Dragon's Lair sucked 2. You people who voted for the XBox should be shot 3. Atari should have been included with this poll 4. Even if Atari was included, the NES should still win 5. I want to have sex with Tiffany Amber-Thiessen
