Why was this modded insightful? Did you even follow the votes in the 90s or are you just making assumptions based on purported party ideology (which I must add is entirely false: Republicans have done a terrible job balancing the budget since Reagan)? The Republicans were firmly against Clinton balancing the budget (it was done by tax increases): it was very similar to the passing of Obama's stimulus plan. This was Clinton's primary goal, to the chagrin of Republicans.
The 90s were a combination of very wise coordination of both fiscal and monetary policy, not at all "let's sit back and let the good times roll." That attitude would've at once contracted our economy while raising our debt. The dot-com bubble was no more helpful than the housing bubble was for our economy, and I hardly see those years anywhere near as prosperous as Clinton's years, the first time in decades that the income gap decreased with a booming economy and rising income across the board.
Clinton and Greenspan took innovative economic initiatives against the will Republican party and it paid off greatly for the entire nation. This is simply indisputable.
Why would you decide a console is better because of it's potential? I don't care what games "could" be on the Xbox 360: I care what games are on it, and the games that exist are simply not as entertaining to me as games from the SNES era. The "all other things equal" argument doesn't work: things aren't equal; video games today are made with a vastly different style than games from the SNES. Almost all games have shifted, especially on the 360 and PS3, to a more cinematic presentation. Some think that adds to the gameplay, I think it takes away. I'd rather those resources be put to use on improving the gameplay. Not even the genres are the same: the platformer ruled back then, and the FPS rules today. It's not the same market, even if Halo 3 were 16-bit.
I'm obviously not alone believing in the superiority of prior games, since many others have defended consoles such as the Commodore 64 and the NES. You can argue for a definitive best console based on what could be, I suppose, but if that's the case, I wonder how many people would declare the PS3 the best video game console ever made. All I'm saying is it should be clear why anyone could prefer any console: the games are different.
Video game console discussions always end up with more modern gamers attacking the past, citing technological advancements as proof of superiority. To those people, is navigating a Pixar DVD menu more enjoyable than a game of Pong? I do not see the positive correlation between graphical enhancements and gameplay. In fact, one could say that back then video game developers had to focus on gameplay because graphics alone could not attract gamers. Either way, I don't know why some people can't admit the style of video games made on the SNES is more appealing to some gamers.
Anyway, if I had to rate consoles objectively based on industry impact, the main contenders would be the NES and PSX. I love the SNES, and it's my personal favorite console, but I feel those two progressed the industry the furthest. The previous generation of consoles did nothing for gaming (and I almost quit video games due to that lack of innovation), and the modern one has potential with the DS and Wii.
But in the end, any video game console can be the best, from the Intellivision to the Jaguar to the Xbox. I'm just baffled why some people would get into heated debates about this.
Slashdot Mirror
Why was this modded insightful? Did you even follow the votes in the 90s or are you just making assumptions based on purported party ideology (which I must add is entirely false: Republicans have done a terrible job balancing the budget since Reagan)? The Republicans were firmly against Clinton balancing the budget (it was done by tax increases): it was very similar to the passing of Obama's stimulus plan. This was Clinton's primary goal, to the chagrin of Republicans. The 90s were a combination of very wise coordination of both fiscal and monetary policy, not at all "let's sit back and let the good times roll." That attitude would've at once contracted our economy while raising our debt. The dot-com bubble was no more helpful than the housing bubble was for our economy, and I hardly see those years anywhere near as prosperous as Clinton's years, the first time in decades that the income gap decreased with a booming economy and rising income across the board. Clinton and Greenspan took innovative economic initiatives against the will Republican party and it paid off greatly for the entire nation. This is simply indisputable.
Why would you decide a console is better because of it's potential? I don't care what games "could" be on the Xbox 360: I care what games are on it, and the games that exist are simply not as entertaining to me as games from the SNES era. The "all other things equal" argument doesn't work: things aren't equal; video games today are made with a vastly different style than games from the SNES. Almost all games have shifted, especially on the 360 and PS3, to a more cinematic presentation. Some think that adds to the gameplay, I think it takes away. I'd rather those resources be put to use on improving the gameplay. Not even the genres are the same: the platformer ruled back then, and the FPS rules today. It's not the same market, even if Halo 3 were 16-bit. I'm obviously not alone believing in the superiority of prior games, since many others have defended consoles such as the Commodore 64 and the NES. You can argue for a definitive best console based on what could be, I suppose, but if that's the case, I wonder how many people would declare the PS3 the best video game console ever made. All I'm saying is it should be clear why anyone could prefer any console: the games are different.
Video game console discussions always end up with more modern gamers attacking the past, citing technological advancements as proof of superiority. To those people, is navigating a Pixar DVD menu more enjoyable than a game of Pong? I do not see the positive correlation between graphical enhancements and gameplay. In fact, one could say that back then video game developers had to focus on gameplay because graphics alone could not attract gamers. Either way, I don't know why some people can't admit the style of video games made on the SNES is more appealing to some gamers. Anyway, if I had to rate consoles objectively based on industry impact, the main contenders would be the NES and PSX. I love the SNES, and it's my personal favorite console, but I feel those two progressed the industry the furthest. The previous generation of consoles did nothing for gaming (and I almost quit video games due to that lack of innovation), and the modern one has potential with the DS and Wii. But in the end, any video game console can be the best, from the Intellivision to the Jaguar to the Xbox. I'm just baffled why some people would get into heated debates about this.