Top 10 Consoles According to G4 Fans

[Special K 0]

Blaming FFVII since it indirectly led to games like Xenosaga is baffling. No one blames Final Fight for PSX Fantastic Four. No one says Mario Kart sucks because it led to Crash Racing or other clones. Final Fantasy VII had good graphics, and a handful of long cutscenes. (and some long summons) FFVI had about the same amount of story, at least until the second world. To compare that to some of the lumbering behemoths today is silly. Impact or no, FFVII was an excellent game with a ton of gameplay.

Final Fantasy VIII was ass. But I'll judge it on its own merits instead of looking at a good game to blame.

Finally, I think RPG companies are going to start waking up, though. Nippon Ichi's doing very well with games with goofy-ass stories and ridiculous amounts of gameplay. Xenosaga's going to be cut short. The one series I'm really dissapointed in is Suikoden. You'd think they'd know to keep it simple.

 

Uniracers was, indeed awesome. There was also a game similar in perspective to that super off-road game, except it was futuristic. But you could pimp out your car like in Super Offroad, and it had nitro boost and everything. What was it called? It was awesome.

[The Man in Blak 0]

As I mentioned before, I didn't want to turn this into a huge discussion over Final Fantasy VII, so I'll just link you to the thread we had on this two years ago:

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...pic=46533&st=30

 

It's got my view points on the game and they're virtually exactly what I'm going to type here, so there you go. Yes, I'm lazy.

 

And you had mentioned more than a couple of times how the fact that GameFAQs has the game on the top ten makes it have some impact, but I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on GameFAQs as a barometer of gaming quality (or intelligence).

[Special K 0]

Their boards are retarded, however, it's the preeminent FAQ site, and its inclusion in the top 10 FAQs viewed daily is totally significant. You argue that people still play Goldeneye. I argued that people still play FFVII. I played it a year ago.

 

Here's my argument

You said you didn't like Goldeneye, but it had to be a good game because it sold a shit-ton and people still play it.

Then you ragged on FFVII. Why doesn't it get the same break as Goldeneye? It sold an assload of copies. People still play it.

[The Man in Blak 0]

You said you didn't like Goldeneye, but it had to be a good game because it sold a shit-ton and people still play it.

Then you ragged on FFVII. Why doesn't it get the same break as Goldeneye? It sold an assload of copies. People still play it.

 

I think you've misunderstood my argument for Goldeneye or I haven't explained it very well (could be true).

 

I personally don't like Goldeneye because I don't have a lot of tolerance for FPSs on my PC, let alone ones on a console with controls that I wasn't particularly fond of. That's my own personal biases against FPSs, though, and I can separate that from an objective review of the game. Goldeneye has a lot more going for it, other than the fact that it sold well.

 

It is the first good (perhaps, first period) multiplayer-capable console FPS, and it legitimized the N64 as a multiplayer's console for adults, as well as kids. For two, it just might be the best game based after a licensed property in the history of the industry. Even if you discount the multiplayer, it stood head and shoulders above the rest of the field at the time as a single player FPS as well. Many people, critics and fans alike, never thought that a real quality FPS experience could transfer over to a controller setting, but Goldeneye and the analog stick was the first big step towards proving that wrong. I don't really like it and I do think a certain sect of fans overrates it simply because it's an FPS and/or it's a home run for Nintendo, but I do appreciate its place in gaming history.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

To kkk:

 

To The Man in Blak:

 

I'm goofing around in this thread. Yes, I know Pac-Man for the Atari sucked, but damnit, that was my childhood you are dissing. I don't know how old you are, but when your only options as a kid for home console fun is choosing from a game in which you are a dot on a screen trying to avoid four moving flashing bocks, or a game in which you are a dot on a screen trying to capture four moving flashing blocks, you take whatever entertainment you can...

[Anya 0]

It is the first good (perhaps, first period) multiplayer-capable console FPS

 

 

Doom for PSX!

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The one series I'm really dissapointed in is Suikoden. You'd think they'd know to keep it simple.

 

For IV they went too far in the other direction. Just when it starts getting good, the game is over. It goes by way too quickly. That's another problem with some recent RPGs. They aren't long enough. I expect more than 20 hours of play in an RPG. I can forgive it in Suikoden I since it was the first, but they should know better these days.

[Rendclaw 0]

The one series I'm really dissapointed in is Suikoden. You'd think they'd know to keep it simple.

 

For IV they went too far in the other direction. Just when it starts getting good, the game is over. It goes by way too quickly. That's another problem with some recent RPGs. They aren't long enough. I expect more than 20 hours of play in an RPG. I can forgive it in Suikoden I since it was the first, but they should know better these days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most of the new RPGS are trying to re-invent the wheel, which is where they all trip themselves up. Take the new Shining Force as an example. They should have kep it as the tactical RPG it was instead of making it an action/strategy RPG.

 

They focus too much on the bells and whistles instead of the meat and potatoes: good gameplay, good storyline, and make it at LEAST 40 hours to complete with decent replayability.

[Anya 0]

According to me...

 

1.PS2

2.PSX

3.SNES

4.Genesis

5.N64

6.Xbox

7.Dreamcast

8.Saturn

9.NES

10.Gamecube

[Special K 0]

Saturn would have been so great if Sega of America hadn't been run by a bunch of retards.

 

I still badly want to play Guardian heroes and Panzer Dragoon Saga, but they're too goddamn expensive.

[LJSexay 0]

man. I am the biggest fucking Sega lover. The Saturn and Dreamcast are two of my most favorite systems, ever.

 

EVER

[chaosrage 0]

I added the emphasis in bold.  For one, let's set aside your first sentence, which is downright hysterical.

 

Now, I might be wrong, but I'm thinking that part of the idea behind the Filter poll, as well as what we're talking about, relates to the historical impacts behind the consoles.

 

I don't know what you're talking about but I'm not talking about that. Probably could be why I didn't mention it. Obviously Nintendo 64 was more revolutionary than Gamecube, no one is going to argue that, but it wasn't the better system. And to make it clear, by that, I mean Gamecube has the better games. Sure, historical impact counts but it is definitely not all that matters. If both games were exactly the same, you might have a point there. However Sunshine and Wind Waker have made so many improvements that it easily makes up for them not being as innovative.

 

If you're just going by whatever system has the best games, then the older systems don't have a chance in the world

 

Um, I disagree with that and I think almost everyone would. SNES RPGs (Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 4, Final Fantasy 6, Secret of Mana, Lufia 2, Earthbound) are widely regarded as the best RPGs ever made. Most people consider Zelda: LTTP to be the best Zelda game and Super Mario Bros 3 to be the best Mario. Most people prefer Super Metroid over Metroid Prime. Were you here for the top 30 we had a few months ago? At least half of the games on it had to be from NES and SNES.

 

You personally didn't like the multiplayer on Goldeneye. So what? Neither did I, but I don't think either of us cancel out millions of people who played their GoldenEye cartridges to death back then, or the thousands of people that still break it out and play it now.

 

So far, it seems like the crux of your arguments all lie on the fact that, dammit, you just don't dig the N64 games and that's all there is to it.

 

Nah, I'm not just saying I didn't like them. I've listed crucial flaws in some games and explained why they don't hold up compared to Gamecube's. Rather than just sitting back like someone here and saying "More people liked it, so it must be better." What good does turning this into a popularity contest do to the argument? I wanted to know why you all felt N64 was better than Cube. So please don't bring up Goldeneye's multiplayer if you didn't even like it.

 

"From what you've heard"? Are these really the points you want to bring to this argument?

 

Now, see this is really funny. Isn't that what your entire argument consists of? While we would all like to be able to judge every single game by playing it ourselves, it simply isn't possible to play every game out there, so sometimes when a game that we haven't played comes up in an argument, we're forced to use other people's opinions. If the general consensus says that Thousand Year Door is better, then chances are it probably was better. This is backing up my argument that all of the best games on N64 have a match just as good or superior to it on GC, except for Conker, while a whole bunch of must have games on GC have no answer on N64. If you take the the N64, make it better, and then add about 20 more A+ titles to it, you basically have the GC.

 

The Thousand Year Door is a fine game but, once again, it's just one more round of something that we've already seen on the N64.

 

Tales of Syphonia and other RPGs on GC aren't.

 

You're going to lecture me about rehashes after your opening paragraph? Good gawd.

 

For starters, Sunshine and Wind Waker aren't rehashes. The water gun and jetpack totally changes the gameplay mechanics. Also there's a better camera, a different setting, larger stages, and platforming missions. Calling Sunshine a rehash would be like calling Super Mario World a rehash of Super Mario 3.

 

Majora's Mask might be a rehash of Ocarina (even that's debatable really) but the fact that Wind Waker has a different look and you spend the majority of the game sailing around searching for things gives it a completely different feel from the N64 Zeldas and disqualifies it from being a rehash.

 

No Mercy offered the exact same gameplay as before running on the exact same engine as before and even has the same flaws as before such as the AI and slowdown with more than two people. Not only was it a rehash, it was actually a rehash of a rehash. How can you even try to pretend that you care about historical impact when you're putting No Mercy above Eternal Darkness?

 

Let's be realistic - though Eternal Darkness was more critically acclaimed, it didn't have the sales or the rabid fanbase that No Mercy has.

 

And? Stop confusing popularity with quality or else soon you'll be saying Crusin USA was a good game.

 

There's a very large and vocal percentage of the wrestling community that still considers No Mercy the peak of the wrestling gaming genre

 

That's sad. These people need to be introduced to wrestling game called Fire Pro. Much more exciting, better controls, better AI, doesn't run in slow motion, and also has about 5 times as many wrestlers and moves.

 

I love and own both games, but I'm not going to delude myself that Eternal Darkness was some genre-altering release when I was able to pick it up used from Blockbuster for $13 two months after its release. It's a great, great action/horror game, but it's not the only game in town when it comes to that genre.

 

I didn't say it was a genre altering. I just said it was unique, something that No Mercy wasn't. The sanity effects, the Lovecraftish atmosphere, the music, the story being told in chapters allowing you to play as different characters in different time periods. It's unlike Resident Evil or Silent Hill or any other action/horror game I've ever played.

 

Once again, this goes back to historical impact. There's no argument that the Gamecube doesn't have more fighters - due to the surge of multi-platform development in this generation, everybody's got them. You take away the multi-platform fighting releases, however, and you're left with Smash Bros. Melee, which - once again - happens to be another iteration of a Nintendo 64 game.

 

I was generous before in that I didn't even mention how, out of all three consoles, the GC has the worst third-party support and the least amount of multi-platform games.

 

If we were comparing the GC to the PS2 and XBox, that last sentence might mean something. But since we're comparing it to the N64, it doesn't amount to much. Are you saying the N64 wouldn't be a better system than it was if it had a Tekken or a Square RPG ported over to it? Would a playstation owner have said "Nuh-uh, we already have Tekken, so it doesn't count!" Of course not. Who gives a damn? I'm not arguing historical impact. I don't buy systems because they have historical impact, I buy them because they have fun games.

 

"The best systems have great games and pushes forward new ideas for gaming, through innovative games and hardware ideas. The Gamecube has a great assortment of games, but it lags behind in every other step of the way."

 

AKLDJFAJLKF why won't this quote right? Every time I use brackets here, it screws up the whole post.

 

I'd consider ED, RE4, Monkey Ball, Metroid, and Viewtiful Joe to be innovative. Mario's water gun, and Zelda's world made up of water and islands and celshading graphics were innovative. WW's story and setting was a hell of a lot better than Ocarina rehashing LTTP's story by any means. WW's world was far more interesting to me because it was something I had never seen in a Zelda game, while Ocarina felt just like LTTP put into 3D. In fact, if WW isn't innovative, I have to wonder what they could have done for it not to be a rehash to you. I mean, they were already put into 3D, what did you want them to do with the Zelda on GC? Put it in 4D? Look, both systems offered new experiences people haven't seen before. Perhaps N64 did it more so but using that as your whole argument is really grasping at straws, especially when ignoring that the GC has a lot more great games.

[chaosrage 0]

Here's my problem with Eternal Darkness.  Everybody hangs their hat on the insanity effects, but they aren't altogether that original - that brand of "meta-gameplay" was popularized with the Psycho Mantis battle in MGS and, arguably, was introduced in the Mojo level on the Sega Genesis version of X-Men, where you had to "reset the Danger Room" by resetting the cartridge in the middle of the game. 

 

By this logic, there were 3D games before Mario 64, so there wasn't anything special about making Mario in 3D.

[Der Kommissar 0]

That's another problem with some recent RPGs. They aren't long enough. I expect more than 20 hours of play in an RPG.

 

I remember when I stopped playing RPG's two or three years ago the trend was going more towards making the game as long as possible. I wasn't a fan of such a trend of making games like 100 hours long, but 20 hours seems like it is way too short a time to properly flesh out the story. What happened to suddenly cause RPG's to become so drastically shorter? Just curious...

[Special K 0]

Some recent RPG's like Star Ocean and any Nippon Ichi game are long as fuck. The Nippon Ichi games pack that time pretty full of gameplay too.

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

Some recent RPG's like Star Ocean and any Nippon Ichi game are long as fuck. The Nippon Ichi games pack that time pretty full of gameplay too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, people spend upwards of 200 hours on each of those Nippon Ichi PS2 strat-RPGs, of which there are 4. You can blow through the story in probably 30-40 hours, the rest of it is all gameplay.

 

And there are plenty of traditional PS2 RPGs that are very long, and very challenging, such as Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne, Digital Devil Saga 1 and 2, Star Ocean 3, Growlanser Generations, Ys, and to a lesser extent, Xenosaga and FFX (not hard but I spent upwards of 100 hours on it before my game was deleted).

 

Also, on an unrelated note, I saw some people ragging on Crash Team Racing for the PSX as being an inferior Mario Kart clone: I thought it was ten times better than Mario Kart and one of the best cart racers I've ever played. that's just me, though.

[4hartthreat 0]

Also, on an unrelated note, I saw some people ragging on Crash Team Racing for the PSX as being an inferior Mario Kart clone:  I thought it was ten times better than Mario Kart and one of the best cart racers I've ever played.  that's just me, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're right, it IS just you....

[Youth N Asia 0]

I loved Mario Kart with 4 players, otherwise I could do without ever playing it

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

Having N64 ANYWYWHERE on this list, let alone at #1 is completely rediculous. Time has not been kind to the Nintendo 64, and there is really no good reason to play it these days. Mario 64 deserves some credit for basically creating the generic Fetch Quest 3-D Platformer Genre which still exists today, and it wasn't a bad game either. Nearly everything else on the console are uninspired platformers completely derivitive of Mario 64, or Kart Racers all derivitive of Mario Kart 64.

 

The only original games worth playing on N64

 

1. Blast Corps

2. Mischief Makers

3. Star Fox 64

4. Paper Mario

5. Super Smash Brothers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shut up.

 

I have a PS2, Gamecube, N64, SNES emulator, and a whole fucking ton of Game Boys in their various incarnations. The N64 is the only console I play every day without fail - mainly because of the AKI wrestling games, but Perfect Dark, OOT, Mario 64, and the other classics still give me plenty of enjoyment. The level of artistry in these games was incredible, especially compared to the forced "coolness" and pitiful media tie-ins of so much of gaming today. You know why every platformer since has ripped off Mario 64? Because it was brilliant and revolutionary. Nobody knocks Pulp Fiction for the legions of cynical, abysmal pseudo-comic crime movies it inspired - it's considered a great film because people with brains in their skulls judge it by its own merits.

 

What does "original" mean, anyway? At least three of the five games you listed are sequels or franchise titles.

 

Mischief Makers was the game where you beat up kittens and shake them, right? Yeah, it sucked.

[EricMM 0]

Here's my problem with Eternal Darkness.  Everybody hangs their hat on the insanity effects, but they aren't altogether that original - that brand of "meta-gameplay" was popularized with the Psycho Mantis battle in MGS and, arguably, was introduced in the Mojo level on the Sega Genesis version of X-Men, where you had to "reset the Danger Room" by resetting the cartridge in the middle of the game.

 

I gotta say that the whole "insanity effects" of Eternal Darkness were MUCH MORE than just having to switch controllers in MGS1.

 

Eternal Darkness was not a perfect game, but it's insanity effects were revolutionary and had everyone I knew who played the game entranced, myself included.

 

What does "original" mean, anyway? At least three of the five games you listed are sequels or franchise titles.

 

Absolutely nothing. Just because N64 did it first doesn't mean it did it best. Wind waker is BETTER THAN OoT. Don't get me started on saying Perfect Dark compares to games out today. The slowdown in that game ALONE makes it awful. Let alone shooting through walls.

 

Mischief Makers was the game where you beat up kittens and shake them, right? Yeah, it sucked.

 

I can't personally speak for the game, but most of the people I know who've played Mischief Makers say it was one of the best games on N64...

[Guest ABOBO]

Wind waker is BETTER THAN OoT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not even a really big fan of OOT and thought MM blew it away. That being said, this is a bit silly and I'll address it later.

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

Don't get me started on saying Perfect Dark compares to games out today.  The slowdown in that game ALONE makes it awful.  Let alone shooting through walls.

 

PD compared to games today? Psh, PD wasn't even better than it's spiritual precursor: Goldeneye.

 

I tried playing Mario 64 a few months back and the camera was so bad I had to put it down. Revolutionary at the time, but now it's just dated.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

Don't get me started on saying Perfect Dark compares to games out today.  The slowdown in that game ALONE makes it awful.  Let alone shooting through walls.

 

PD compared to games today? Psh, PD wasn't even better than it's spiritual precursor: Goldeneye.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, okay - but Goldeneye itself is certainly better than today's shooters.

 

I honestly don't remember Mischief Makers very well, and I was exaggerating when I said it sucked... but one of the best games on the N64? I highly doubt that.

 

I'll look for it in the bargain section next time I'm at the mall. Perhaps I overlooked it the first time.

[Red Baron 0]

Having N64 ANYWYWHERE on this list, let alone at #1 is completely rediculous. Time has not been kind to the Nintendo 64, and there is really no good reason to play it these days. Mario 64 deserves some credit for basically creating the generic Fetch Quest 3-D Platformer Genre which still exists today, and it wasn't a bad game either. Nearly everything else on the console are uninspired platformers completely derivitive of Mario 64, or Kart Racers all derivitive of Mario Kart 64.

 

The only original games worth playing on N64

 

1. Blast Corps

2. Mischief Makers

3. Star Fox 64

4. Paper Mario

5. Super Smash Brothers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shut up.

 

I have a PS2, Gamecube, N64, SNES emulator, and a whole fucking ton of Game Boys in their various incarnations. The N64 is the only console I play every day without fail - mainly because of the AKI wrestling games, but Perfect Dark, OOT, Mario 64, and the other classics still give me plenty of enjoyment. The level of artistry in these games was incredible, especially compared to the forced "coolness" and pitiful media tie-ins of so much of gaming today. You know why every platformer since has ripped off Mario 64? Because it was brilliant and revolutionary. Nobody knocks Pulp Fiction for the legions of cynical, abysmal pseudo-comic crime movies it inspired - it's considered a great film because people with brains in their skulls judge it by its own merits.

 

What does "original" mean, anyway? At least three of the five games you listed are sequels or franchise titles.

 

Mischief Makers was the game where you beat up kittens and shake them, right? Yeah, it sucked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed, with the exceptions of the selections of games. A buddy of mine and myself recently bought an N64, four controllers and a shit load of games for nostalgic sakes. All the AKI wrestling games, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Diddy Kong Racing, GoldenEye and even some of the worst games, like Nagano Winter Olympics, and Cruisin USA and personal games like Mission Impossible and F1 World Grand Prix. Sure they aren't the best games period, but its for nostalgic

sakes instead of ratings.

 

You guys are all rating on how there are great games for a system, but thats the whole problem you have with most systems, and especially Sony's. You have great games and shit games, no middle ground.

 

My top eight systems that I like are:

 

1.) SNES

2.) NES

3.) X-Box

4.) N64

5.) PS2

6.) PS1

7.) Gamecube

8.) Genesis

 

There are a few problems with Sony that is a huge drawback.

 

1.) The Memory Card. Nothing is more worse than spending 60-150 dollars for memory cards, especially if you have lots of games. Sure the concept of saving your data and bringing it to your friends house is good, but when you need it for every single game, its horrible. Bad idea for the PS2.

 

2.) The Controller: Maybe if it was a bit bigger, it would be better, but the main problem is the Anolog sticks are too close to the D-Pad and the X and Square Button. Also the Anolog sticks are supersentive to the response, and the D-Pad just blows, sorry Playstation fans, its clunkiness towards most of the action games really degrades how great this system could be.

 

3.) The selection of games: Unless you like repeating games that don't really improve (Socom, Jax) or RPG, this system is completly useless to you. There maybe five to ten games on here that you want if you aren't an RPG fan, and thats stretching it.

 

The problem with the PS2 game selection is either:

 

a) That games are on the PS2 are going to be on the X-Box, and basically better for the X-Box.

 

b) The selection from good to crap is a really high ratio, like 3:1...7:1 if you like RPG's.

 

I've heard the online play for PS2 is really bad in comparison to the X-Box but I've never tried it out.

[AndrewTS 0]

I left it out because I was trying to avoid consecutive sequels in the list (notice how I left Final Fantasy IV out of other lists?), but it's definitely worthy of mention.

 

Eh, the "sequel" thing is really kind of a misnomer, since the gameplay is vastly different, but I see what you mean.

 

F-Zero is an obvious one, but there are a few middle-tier games that aren't bad.  The Top Gear games were pretty good, and Rock 'n Roll Racing is a cult classic.  This is the Playstation's biggest advantage over the SNES, though, as the first wave of PS1 titles was flooded with racing games and the library is stuffed to death with them.

 

I'd say fighters, too. Yeah, you had the SF games, but almost no fighting games from that era had endured. Meanwhile, PS1 has ones that run the gamut from hilariously bad to superb. SNES' upper echelon of fighting games is quite thin.

 

Plus, you have the 2D fighters like Guilty Gear (okay, maybe GG1 hasn't aged too well), all three Alphas, 2 Darkstalkers (slowdown aside), and the SF Collections (and remember that SNES lacks ST). Of course, Saturn smokes them both in that category. However, the 3d fighting on PS1 is still pretty good.

 

 

In terms of shooters, I think it becomes much closer when you isolate it down to the PS1, as the SNES has it's own fleet of R-Types (Super R-Type, R-Type III) to stand alongside UN Squadron, Axelay, Gradius III, and others.

 

Since I never owned the SNES Axelay, and never played UN Squadron, I forgot those. But yeah, fair to mention those.

 

Super Mario Kart basically invented the Car Combat genre with its Battle Mode, but I'll grant you that Twisted Metal popularized it.  Just out of curiosity, is there another "car combat" game on the PS1, other than Vigilante 8 and the Twisted Metal series?  It's a very small genre.

 

That depends on how strictly you define it. Rogue Trip definitely deserves credit since it's the spiritual successor to TM2 and is from many of the same fine folks. Destruction Derby hasn't been popular in a long time, but I know several of the games went GH and I LOVED them back in the day. Don't forget about Carmageddon, either.

 

As far as RPGs go, I disagree with you - I feel the SNES aces the PS1 fairly handily.  The PS1 is strong with FFVII, Final Fantasy Tactics, Suikoden II, and Xenogears, but is it really a match for Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy IV & VI, and Earthbound?  The SNES has three of the most critically acclaimed games of all time in here, let alone being best in the genre, and even you yourself have held up Earthbound as an underappreciated classic.  Even if you drag out the "second-tier" games like Persona, FFIX and Suikoden I, those have an uphill climb against the Lufia games, Super Mario RPG, Ogre Battle, etc.  The SNES is loaded for bear in this category.

 

I had forgotten about the rarer games, I admit. I won't question the inclusion of Xenogears, but I'll say that Illusion of Gaia cancels it out, and SoulBlazer trumps it. If you include the Super Famicom games that later got decent fan-trans like Seiken Densetsu 3, Tales of Phantasia, the Langrisser games, Treasure Hunter G and Fire Emblem, I suppose the gap closes even more. So I'll conceed that maybe the case isn't so strong for the RPG genre.

 

As for the rest, it's difficult to really compare fairly, due to the technical limitations of the time.  The SNES can't possibly compete with the PS1 on 3D fighters or 3D platformers, so it's hard to judge - the PS1 didn't have a lot of 2D platformers, but it didn't have to.  So you're correct in the fact that there were new genres created with the Playstation, due to the upgrade to 3D, but I can't really hold that against the SNES.  In fact, with so much of the SNES library holding on strong today, I hold that as a plus for the SNES, that it had so many classic games that it transcended the 2D/3D divide.

 

Well, PS1 had great 2D platformers like Metal Slug X, Castlevania SotN, Strider 2 (and a decent port of 1), Mega Man X4 and X5; it had 2.5D goodness like Klonoa, Pandemonium (hey, I liked it), and was stuffed to the brim with good 3D platformers (Ape Escape, Spyro, Jumping Flash, Tomb Raider when it didn't seem so long in the tooth. Although the sheer quality of the SNES lineup ain't bad either, since you had your Marios, CVs, Metroids, Konami IN THEIR F'N PRIME platformers, and more.

 

Er, not sure I agree with you about the Controller S (that's not the original one with the Xbox launch).  It's got virtually identical placement of the analogs and d-pad and the shape is closer to the Gamecube's as well.  I see what you're talking about with the DC controller, with the four main buttons being multi-colored, but I still feel it's close to the GC than the DC. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even the newer one has got more size to it than the GC controller, it's got the pressure-sensitive triggers, and the memory card ports in the controller itself. Plus, the analog stick is higher and to the left as opposed to the lower, and placed to the right digital pad.

 

 

 

Microsoft added another analog and realized that American gamers probably would have less interest in the VMU features. Those are pretty much the main differences.

[Red Baron 0]

Andrew: Why did you post two pictures of the X-Box Controllers?

[AndrewTS 0]

Andrew: Why did you post two pictures of the X-Box Controllers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cuz I screwed finding images on google. Doh.

 

EDIT: Fixed now.

 

I kind of wish the DC one had stuck a little closer to this:

 

 

Cuz the DC d-pad wasn't very good.

[Red Baron 0]

What system was that controller of Andrew? Saturn?

[Guest ABOBO]

The limited edition NIGHTS analog Saturn controller.

[AndrewTS 0]

Ours was black, but I couldn't find a decent picture of the US black one.

 

Ironically, the original Saturn controller was a piss-poor made monstrosity just like the original X-Box one.