Having been a videogamer for most of my life, I have had the chance to try out many different game consoles. I have noticed that some systems, however, have better hardware than others. Some systems are just made to play games, while others, other systems make you weep. I'm noticed that many game systems, even popular ones, typically ran on less-than-ideal CPU processors.
So, to give you an idea of how well game systems run, I shall evaluate every game console I have ever played; hardware-wise. Note: I will only cover tv consoles, not portable consoles. We'll separate by company.
Nintendo. Nintendoin' what Sega can't no more.
Nintendo Entertainment System. Overall: CRAP. For one thing, the hardware is weaker than the Atari 7800. Also, you ever noticed how in most NES games, if you see a baddie on the screen, but just go back until the sprite disappears, and then walk back and the baddie is gone? That's sloppy programming if ever I saw it. Also, two words: NES Blowjob. Need I say more?
Super Nintendo Entertainment System: Overall: EXCELLENT. (say it like Mr. Burns.) What can I say? Superb graphics, sound, stable hardware, this is my favorite Nintendo system of all time. Oh sure, it has a slow CPU, oh sure its relatively few 3D games look horrible, but that's all redeemed by three words: Tales of Phantasia. Or Chrono Trigger. Or Yoshi's Island. Okay, that's more than three words.
Nintendo 64. Overall: MEDIOCRE. Yes, cartridges never break, and load so much faster than CD games, but, ever noticed how hacked-up games ported from a CD system were for the N64? Exactly. And ever noticed how no N64 game ever looked as good as the best-looking PS1 games ever made? (Seriously, Goldeneye 007 cannot compare to Final Fantasy IX, both graphically, and gameplay-wise.) And the controller, oh my god, I have nightmares about that controller. If it wasn't for Mischief Makers, Ocarina of Time, and Banjo-Tooie, the N64 would've totally sucked.
Nintendo Gamecube. Overall: slightly better than the Sega Dreamcast. (See DC down below.) Uh, I don't own a Gamecube. All I know is its version of Sonic Adventure 2 runs better than the DC version. That's a plus.
Sega. At least we'll always remember you for Shenmue.
Genesis. Overall: OKAY. Sure, the graphics don't compare to SNES games, but those Genny games sure process a lot faster. It's too bad the system didn't have a 12-button controller like the SNES, otherwise, the console might've had a better chance after the release of Sonic & Knuckles.
Saturn. Overall: CRAP. Bear with me, I don't own a Saturn, but I've played a few games nonetheless. Picture this; a Saturn-exclusive is like a PS1-exclusive, except that it has slightly better graphics, and much, much, much slower gameplay. You're lucky to get 15 FPS on a Saturn game. The 2D games run great, though.
Dreamcast. Overall: GOOD. Sega's best console, so short-lived. It was the first game console that could actually do good 3D graphics. Its games were larger, more powerful, and yet, could not compete with the PS2. How unfortunate. It deserves better.
Sony. Honestly, our disc readers NEVER FAIL!
Original Playstation. (AKA PS1) Overall: CRAP. Insufferably long load times: check. 3D games that, with rare exception, look like shit, check. Extremely limited memory card space: check. (Okay, the DC was also guilty of this, but that's off the record.) My only guess as to why the PS1 reigned supreme was the controller. A lot of gamers must really like the Dualshock gamepad, but hey, I don't blame them. At least the 2D games look great.
Playstation 2. Overall: EXCELLENT. It's like Sony finally got everything right: great graphics, great sound, same great controller, and now games on DVD, which runs a hell-of-a-lot better than CD games! If it were not for one tragic shortcoming, (See Xbox down below.) This would be my favorite system of all time. Minus the SNES and PC, of course.
And now the others.
Mattel Intellivision. Overall: MEGACRAP. What was my dad thinking when he bought this!? Horrible controller, puketastic graphics, glitchy sound, countless bugs, how did this get to market!? Now you know why Mattel doesn't make game hardware anymore; their first attempt, albeit nearly 30 years ago, was a bad one, to say the least.
Magnavox Odyssey 2. Overall: TERRIBLE-LIKE-DID-THEY-EVEN-TEST-THIS-SHIT-BEFORE-IT-WAS-
SOLD-TERRIBLE. Ya know, videogames are a lot like movies. When the motion picture first came out, nobody regarded it as a serious artform. Everyone only thought of 'pictures' as novelties for Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton to indulge in. Funny how Hollywood nowadays commands more money and respect than most countries' GNP. Videogames also had a similar start. There was a time when 'television games' were nothing more than Pong machines in smoke-filled bars and game systems like the Odyssey and Odyssey 2. Still, Magnavox did start the trend of numbering its systems that later proved useful for Sony. But never forget our ancestors, gamers. Never forget that gaming at home took off not on the NES, but rather, on a hackjob port of Pac-Man for the Atari VCS. Or 2600. Depending on your region.
Microsoft Xbox. (NOT 360.) Overall: SUPERB. It's like the PS2, but with Xbox Live and, a built-in hard drive. Imagine if you will, a game console that can save large save files like a PC. "So. Why don't they just make a computer, then?" Because you have to install games on a PC to run them! But not so on a console, and if the 'box had the library of games the PS2 has, and the PS2's controller, the Xbox would be, the greatest game system evar. Alas, that is not the case. At the very least, the Xbox version of Psychonauts saves and loads faster than the PS2 version.
Still haven't played any of the new systems. I hear one of them uses wireless motion sensor controllers. What are they trying to do, turn your living room into an arcade?
LATE EDIT: Just a little note. PS3? Amazing.
