What? The PSX was the biggest seller of that generation, in many peoples minds, and objectively looking at what Sony achieved with the console and how the PSX was the gateway for gaming to be more culturally accepted as a pastime for adults and not a kiddies toy. The problem with the fifth generation was that each console had strengths and weaknesses. The PS1 struggled with 2D and the 3D was severely hindered by a lack of floating point processor and z-buffer. It simply did not have a 3D gpu. It used geometry transformations to approximate 3D space with a fairly clunky amount of accuracy. The N64 fixed that as it had a true 3D processor and could do floating point calculations at the drop of a hat. It's draw back was a forced anti-aliasing mode. In Nintendo's infinite wisdom they thought... wait we're making a real 3D console for the first time that does real 3D graphics and is designed for that specific use, what happens when lines aren't perpendicular to the edges of the screen? They get jaggy! We better fix that. And forced an anti-aliasing step in the renderer, for ALL MODES. So you get 2D games that look like utter shit. Take a look at Yoshi's Story, it looks like arse because it has that layer of vaseline smeared all over it's 2D sprites. So N64 Great for 3D, utter shite for 2D, hindered by a cartridge system that was too outdated to keep up with Sony's console despite being arguably better on paper. The Saturn was an amazing 2D machine and arguably more powerful. The problem Sega had was getting third party devs to maximise the performance on the machine. Also the Saturn couldn't do alpha transparencies except on layers something which the PSX and N64 could do without blinking an eye. So in order to do hardware accelerated alpha on textures you had to borrow tricks from the SNES in order to achieve the same effect. It flat out could not render alpha textures on polygons. At all. It would have to be achieved in software. Games like Burning Rangers AFAIK achieved this but I don't have any examples to hand.RCBH928 wrote: Usually the best consoles(overall) wins the generation, even if its weaker hardware wise. Just compare PS1 to Saturn and N64.
You go and contradict yourself here. The console that was objectively the winner in terms of console sales was the Wii, it sold millions of units more than the competition and it was the weakest hardware wise. The PS3 was arguably the more powerful system on paper, however in terms of producing games the 360 was technically better suited to the task due to having a more versatile GPU but a less versatile CPU with conventional architecture.RCBH928 wrote: Also PS2 against oXbox and NGC. And I "feel" like the PS3 was the better console overall last gen and not the WIi even if the WIi won. I think this is the first time this happened.
I kinda understand where you're coming from but not sure what argument you are trying to make here. The PS3 certainly had an almost golden era in the last 2-3 years where it focused on pleasing gamers by being overly generous, releasing stellar paradigm shifting games like The Last Of Us and a welcoming approach to indies. They kinda made up for all the bullshit that occurred during their dark years (2009-10 where they suffered the major hack and complete failing of the security in not just the PS3 but their PSN network as well). They realised they had fucked up and worked over time to restore good faith. I still bear a grudge for them removing my OtherOS support but forgot about it as soon as the Fail0verflow exploit came around and I could play around with my PS3 again with untethered access. As far as unique experiences I didn't have before the Wii was waaaay out in front of pushing the envelope and I thank Nintendo for that. It was a well deserved win for Nintendo and pushed the value of experience and art direction over graphical fidelity. Something which the Wii U is continuing with much to the chagrin of bro-gamers who want "maor polygons!11!!!".
