J Marv

Member
  • Content Count

    538
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J Marv

  • Rank
    TANSTAAFL
  • Birthday 03/19/1985

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    marvdaddy16
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    marvdaddy16
  1. The Avengers film is almost certain to be 3D. Unless Whedon hates money. Which he might. Captain America? I hope not. Especially if its set in the 40s.
  2. The NES. Hell, for cultural impact alone. Did anyone make a feature film starring an Eye Toy and God of War 2? No. But there was a movie about the Power Glove and Super Mario Bros. 3. And the Power Glove sucked. I still think sales numbers are not comparable across hardware generations. If the relative costs of a TV+Console+Games+Accessories are compared from the mid-80s to the early-00s, the NES is the far more expensive proposition. Plus, by 2000, many young adults (well, let's face it, men) had grown up playing video games, giving the PS2 access to demographics (with high amounts of disposable income) that the NES couldn't even dream about.
  3. Err...in what way is the SNES controller not simply evolution of the NES controller? The NES. Saved the industry, birthed tons of great franchises and developers, and led its brand to becoming synonymous with video games.
  4. The PSX. I would argue it had better games, or, at least, more groundbreaking titles than its successor. For all the talk of DVDs in thread, the technology isn't fundamentally different from the CD-ROM, it can just hold more stuff (meaning, longer videos, higher fidelity audio). The use of CDs, and the PSX was the first home video game console to successfully use them Stateside, changed the industry a lot more. Like those high quality pre-rendered video sequences prevalent in JRPGs? Thank compact discs. The relative openness of the format helped ease development costs, too, relative to the competition at Nintendo with its proprietary cartridges. For me, revolution beats evolution.
  5. I'm going to buck my own seeding here (and I had promised myself not to do it). The 2600. It's just more important, and that to me is what makes a console great. Yes, the PS1 (or One, X, whatever) had better games, but by the mid-90's you had industry professionals with a decade plus experience making video games for home consoles and computers. The Atari, though not exactly the first, was on the bleeding edge of the home console market and the home PC market didn't even exist! Allowances have to be made on the games front for that reason alone (its also one of the reasons the NES is so astounding). There would be a PS without the Atari, though I doubt it moves 100 million units. Maybe my logic is unsound, but for some reason it just doesn't feel right for me to vote for the Playstation here.
  6. There would be no Genesis without the NES. Hell, the entire marketing scheme for the Genesis was the fact that it was more powerful than the NES. Sorry Sega, but that doesn't make it better than the NES.
  7. SNES. Mainly on the strength of its games. The fact that it sold better helps too.
  8. PS2. This answer may change in a few years, but not now. The PS2's resume is simply more complete at this point. I hate voting against the 360 simply because its still current, but there you go.
  9. Dreamcast. Easy. Proved consoles could do online gaming, and do it well. It had a ton of quality games come out in a very short lifespan, too. It could even play a number of Playstation games (through some disappointingly spotty emulation). I loved my Dreamcast though, so I'm admitting some bias here. The XBox was interesting in a lot of ways, and its impact is still rippling the waters, with things like XBMC, but it was also an obvious freshman effort, even backed by deep pockets. And forget about the console, the controller was big enough to kill a bear.
  10. I love SNK, but the Neo Geo as a home console was pretty much a failure, it was amazing they continued to support it really. Great arcade machine though, and I love that most Neo-Geo cabinets (at least in my experience) had multiple games. Anyway, the Super Nintendo. Dominant console of its generation (with at least some actual competition who had a shot), some of the best games ever, especially with regards to JRPG titles, and carried on the brand enough to keep it synonymous with video games.
  11. The Saturn does have its highlights: Nights was a lot of fun, and of course Virtua Fighter and Panzer Dragoon are classics. But seriously though, its up against the machine that saved dedicated console gaming. I mean good God, just look at the games DW DIDN'T list: Final Fantasy, Kid Icarus, Metal Gear, Tecmo Bowl, TMNT, Duck Hunt etc. it could go on for hours with great titles. Plus, the accessories. No console had better first party accessories.
  12. The Wii. It's all about impact for me. Think motion control is just a gimmick? Microsoft (with Project Natal, and to a lesser extent, Surface) and Sony (with it's Wii-mote clone) don't. The Wii is getting people who wouldn't have touched a video game console in the past to buy them now and play them, some nearly everyday. It's also going to change the way we play games. Gesture based interaction is going to be huge in the future, in all kinds of markets (see also: iPhone and iPad, Apple). The online thing I get. Totally in Microsoft's favor, but Microsoft does have the distinct advantage of a long history with PC gaming in that regard. Nothing is conceptually original, but their use in a console is, and well executed. I love my 360, but in what way is it "well put together"? Its hardware failure rates are damned near astonishing.
  13. The Playstation. Or, the little box that killed Sega (or at least morphed it into a software company). So many great titles, and something for just about everyone. Also, non-proprietary discs. Hugely important. Not the first in that area, but like the Atari, the first extremely successful.
  14. The PS3 certainly helped win the format war. It was part of the plan. Sony's library was a much larger component of that, but the install base didn't hurt. Especially considering the cost of BD players and the fact that the PS3 was subsidized, making it for a long time one of the cheapest (and most futureproof) you could buy. The PS2. It benefited greatly from good timing, as DW alluded to. The PS2, in its time was where you HAD to be for home console gaming. It didn't have a lot of impact with regards to the way people played their games or even looked at their systems (maybe the DVD player, but it was kind of annoying with that), but it was #1, so it was where the overwhelming majority of great games were. It also brought in the DVD as the dominant format for gaming.
  15. Sales is not really apples to apples across hardware generations, IMHO of course. Things get crazy with demographics and relative cost. $199 dollars in 1977 is a whole lot more than $199 today, and you could get a Wii or a 360 for that today. TVs are also worlds cheaper today. Anyway, the Atari 2600. The N64, while innovative in some ways (like the fact that you could "upgrade" it), was mired in the past in its format. The competition had moved to discs, and with good reason. Don't get me started on the controller. I hate that blasted thing. It had some fun games, but most of the great ones were first party or from Rare. Not a lot of others joined in because of the cost of developing for the cartridge. Any system so dominant that its brand becomes synonymous with the product is damned hard to vote against. You better have a hell of a party piece to overthrow it, and the N64 is lacking.