What is your least favorite and most favorite console?

[pepharytheworm]

I don't think there's anything wrong with not liking a system, some people just don't like certain things based on whatever. I'm just interested in exploring the line between bias
and proper reason, something we gamers have a sketchy record with.

Ya to me this is how I rank my consoles in order of importance:

1. Game library - as it lines up with my personal preferences (consoles loaded with rpgs? yes please)
2. controller
3. intangibles - save functionality, extras, functionality
4. nostalgic charm
5. reliability
6. Graphical power relative to its era
7. online capability

:Looks at list:
Seems another vote for CD-i. Numder 3 is the CD-i's only saving grace.

[the7k]

So CD-i takes the cake for least favorite system then, huh?

Apparently it is the Wii on this site. I guess having 2d platforming and being a console with lots of games satisfying retro gamers isn't good enough

If I had a CD-i, I'm sure the CD-i would be my least favorite system. The Wii is just my least favorite system of all the ones I do own.

And yeah, of the games I had on the Wii, the ones I played were Tatsunoko vs Capcom, Smash Bros Brawl, and Ultimate Shooting Collection. Almost everything else felt too style over substance (No More Heroes, MadWorld) or been-there, done-that (Super Mario All-Stars, SNK Collection, KOF Collection, SamSho Collection, Data East Collection, Blah-Blah Collection, This-and-that Collection, Yet-Another Collection), or been-there, done-that better on other consoles (GGXX, RE4, Mario Kart Wii).

I don't think the Wii satisfies retro gamers. It satisfies lapsed or new gamers who didn't get to experience retro games. It's like having a subscription to Marvel's service that allows you to read back issues online - why would you want to spend money on that when you already have issues you can physically read? Why would I want to download Zelda 3 when I can just pop it into my SNES?

The Wii doesn't have Castle Crashers, Scott Pilgrim, 3D Dot Game Heroes, Demon's Souls, Bastion, MK9, MvC3, SF4, Braid, Shatter, Audiosurf, Stacking, 'Splosion Man, Magicka, The Dishwasher series, or dozens of other new experiences for retro gamers. It does have some, of course, but the volume is nowhere near what you can get on the Xbox 360, PS3 or PC.

[Crabmaster2000]

Favorite - Probably NES. Dont feel the need to defend that choice

Least - Xbox. Some of the features that appeal to people (xbox live, system link, hard drive) were/are irrelevant to my gaming habits so I never saw them all bonuses just stuff I had to pay for and wouldnt use. The controller is easily one of my least favorite of any system I've played, even after they reduced the size of it. I'm a collector as well as a gamer and the size of the system takes up a lot of shelf space. And most important the games. For having 700+ titles I find it quite interesting that I struggle to find appealing games on the system. It was extremely popluar in my area and the games are still plentiful around here in the second hand market yet its one of the smallest collections I've got because it just doenst have many interesting games. In all honesty I've found more games locally that I'll play on my 3DO and TG16 than the Xbox. I dust both of those systems off for play much more often.

really? You didn't see any benefit in not needing a memory card anymore?

I still prefer saving right on the cart, but memory cards were fine too. Especially when the Xbox was new it was a MASSIVE pain to toss that thing in a back pack and lug it to your friends house so you could play a game even though he also owned the system. Currently it pained me to pay for a PS3 with 120gb HDD when I know I'm never going to use more than 2-3gb tops. The 360 wasnt so bad with the 4gb model. The only thing I need the space for is game saves so I end up paying for a feature that is worthless to me.

[RCBH928]

I guess my favorite would be 1 of snes, psx, or 64
and its very hard to choose which each was and still is fantastic
i might choose the 64, but maybe because i never had it as a kid.

my least favorite is more likely to be unknwon failed console like virtualboy, jaguar, or something weird from the 80s

but out of the popular ones, i might go with sega saturn.
i know ill get flamed, but its the only console the more i look at its games
the mor i am discouraged getting it as i amnot afan of rpgs, sport, or shmups
as for fighters i believe other consoles got them too,
its still better than sega master system i guess

[ChooChooBot]

I still prefer saving right on the cart, but memory cards were fine too. Especially when the Xbox was new it was a MASSIVE pain to toss that thing in a back pack and lug it to your friends house so you could play a game even though he also owned the system. Currently it pained me to pay for a PS3 with 120gb HDD when I know I'm never going to use more than 2-3gb tops. The 360 wasnt so bad with the 4gb model. The only thing I need the space for is game saves so I end up paying for a feature that is worthless to me.

I got the a PS3 when the 40gb fat was the top of the line. I will never run out of room on it because I do not use my console as a media hub. The PS3 also also does not need games installed to play like the 360. My 360 on the other hand is 250gb. I don't even need that much space. I would have been happy if it was just a 150gb hard drive. The only thing that I have on it are my Installed games so the disc does not have to spin as much in my console.

I preferred when everything was stored in these so called "Blocks". So much easier...

[RyaNtheSlayA]

I did manage at one point to fill up my 60gb PS3 while I had it (damn mandatory installs). I've never managed to fill up a 360 Pro though (yeah, the launch one with the 13.8gb HDD).

[alienjesus]

Favorite - Probably NES. Dont feel the need to defend that choice

Least - Xbox. Some of the features that appeal to people (xbox live, system link, hard drive) were/are irrelevant to my gaming habits so I never saw them all bonuses just stuff I had to pay for and wouldnt use. The controller is easily one of my least favorite of any system I've played, even after they reduced the size of it. I'm a collector as well as a gamer and the size of the system takes up a lot of shelf space. And most important the games. For having 700+ titles I find it quite interesting that I struggle to find appealing games on the system. It was extremely popluar in my area and the games are still plentiful around here in the second hand market yet its one of the smallest collections I've got because it just doenst have many interesting games. In all honesty I've found more games locally that I'll play on my 3DO and TG16 than the Xbox. I dust both of those systems off for play much more often.

really? You didn't see any benefit in not needing a memory card anymore?

I still prefer saving right on the cart, but memory cards were fine too. Especially when the Xbox was new it was a MASSIVE pain to toss that thing in a back pack and lug it to your friends house so you could play a game even though he also owned the system. Currently it pained me to pay for a PS3 with 120gb HDD when I know I'm never going to use more than 2-3gb tops. The 360 wasnt so bad with the 4gb model. The only thing I need the space for is game saves so I end up paying for a feature that is worthless to me.

I see benefits to it, but I wish we still used memory cards. It sucks how I an only have one save space for each game on my wii. Its fine when they have multiple save files in agme anyway, but I'd quite like to play smash bros brawl again and unlock stuff for fun without losing ym near-complete file. I did that with melee all the time, thanks to different memory cards. With brawl, I can't even move it to SD card to clear the space - it's non copyable. It sucks even more how if my friends want to bring around their multiplayer wii games, we have to use their wii aswell if we want to use any unlocked content. I remember trying to play raving rabbids when the wii had just come out - no multiplayer unlocked without playing the single player campaign. What a fantastic idea that was.

[AppleQueso]

really? You didn't see any benefit in not needing a memory card anymore?

I still prefer saving right on the cart, but memory cards were fine too. Especially when the Xbox was new it was a MASSIVE pain to toss that thing in a back pack and lug it to your friends house so you could play a game even though he also owned the system. Currently it pained me to pay for a PS3 with 120gb HDD when I know I'm never going to use more than 2-3gb tops. The 360 wasnt so bad with the 4gb model. The only thing I need the space for is game saves so I end up paying for a feature that is worthless to me.

Game installs. They add up. They're mandatory for some games, and I don't mind losing a few GBs for faster load times on others.

Memory cards were expensive and never seemed to hold enough space. I was glad to be rid of them.

I got the a PS3 when the 40gb fat was the top of the line. I will never run out of room on it because I do not use my console as a media hub. The PS3 also also does not need games installed to play like the 360. My 360 on the other hand is 250gb. I don't even need that much space. I would have been happy if it was just a 150gb hard drive. The only thing that I have on it are my Installed games so the disc does not have to spin as much in my console.

I preferred when everything was stored in these so called "Blocks". So much easier...

Even if you did use it as a hub, you could just stream everything through it and not use any space.

Most of the issues you guys have with HDDs could be solved by simply allowing saves to be stored on external devices (flash drives, SD cards, whatever). Best of both worlds. Too bad a lot of games now tie your save to your account or console so you can't move it, but that's more of an issue with implementation than the feature itself. HDDs aren't at all a bad thing.

[ChooChooBot]

Even if you did use it as a hub, you could just stream everything through it and not use any space.

Most of the issues you guys have with HDDs could be solved by simply allowing saves to be stored on external devices (flash drives, SD cards, whatever). Best of both worlds. Too bad a lot of games now tie your save to your account or console so you can't move it, but that's more of an issue with implementation than the feature itself. HDDs aren't at all a bad thing.

A buddy of mine just brings over a pile of his 360 favorite games and his portable hard drive. All his saves are on there and we can just hook it up by USB on the console. I prefer HDDs because then you can not physically lose your game saves. Plus you don't have to go and buy a memory card. (Thanks Sony... PS2/PSP did not have one.)

[Breetai]

I got the a PS3 when the 40gb fat was the top of the line.

The 40GB PS3 was NEVER top of the line. When it came out, it was the low-end PS3. It was also the first model that was without PS2 backward capability.

Just thought I'd let ya know!

but out of the popular ones, i might go with sega saturn.
i know ill get flamed, but its the only console the more i look at its games
the mor i am discouraged getting it as i amnot afan of rpgs, sport, or shmups
as for fighters i believe other consoles got them too,

Except the fighters on the Saturn perform better than the same fighters on every other systems, except for the Neo Geo fighters (which are not as good as the Neo Geo, but better than the PS1 versions).

The Saturn 2D fighters are generally as close you can get to the arcade versions without buying an arcade PCB. Even Street Fighter Zero 3 is closer to the arcade than the Dreamcast version!. If you aren't a joystick guy, the Saturn pad beats every single pad out there for fighters.

The Saturn is primarily known for its shoot 'em ups and fighters. Since you like fighters, then you DO need a Saturn. Even better, fighters are pretty cheap on it! The only expensive one is Street Fighter Zero 3. All the rest you should be able to find for $30 or less. Many are under $10.