Worst Video Game System of All Time

Post Reply New Topic

S.G.Sen series up to S.F.Shichisen. Sadly, I don't recall Sega having a solid initial console.

I've played a game on the Philips CD-i a long time ago, and it was by far the worst gaming experience I've ever had. I looked on ebay and the games are a fortune these days too.

Yea, bad stuff always has cult followings years down the line =P. And obviously not nearly as many systems/games were ever made and sold for systems that bombed so that makes them rare and more sought after.

The popular stuff from the 2600 to the ps1 all top out at maybe $40 tops for working consoles. You might be able to get a good price for some of the older stuff like an NES if it were complete and in a great condition box, upwards of $100.

A complete Genesis in box might fetch ya $60-80 while a complete Turbo Grafx, same generation of systems, can fetch several hundred. Pretty similar with games, though there are a very small handful of titles on the original NES that are worth small fortunes.

I'd replace 'Sega Saturn' with 'Dreamcast' personally ;P

I have to say quite a few people commenting were born when the N64 was popular or later, trust me kids, you missed some horrific years of gaming hidden in the back behind the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo ; )

Also I'd have to say that the three major current gen titles should be excluded from this topic I'm sure most people around my age or older can agree if you can't remember any earlier than the original Playstation, trust me, you've no idea what the meaning of an awful console is ; ) plus by no means are any of the current gen consoles the worst of all time, - so I definitely think they should be excluded from this unless they can give a very justified reason, just saying that one current gen console isn't as good as another due to some silly reason (eg. one console doesn't have games that another does) doesn't count as a reasonable argument for your view lol. I'm just sayin'. A good reason would be such as the Virtual Boys and the 3DS ability to ruin eyes by playing due to its 'gimmick'. Health is definitely a factor towards the worst console ever.

If you want an example of some really poorly designed consoles, watch the Angry Video Game Nerds episode on pong consoles.

I wonder how much better some of the SEGA systems would have done if Sega didn't think backwards compatibility was evil.

I'm not quite sure what the beef is with the 3DS. The graphics are technically better and if you don't like the 3d, turn it off. Honestly, I play the thing only a half hour at a time and I don't get any headaches. I did have weird vision issues after playing at first, but I don't have that issue now. The technology for glassesless 3d, still needs work and it's easy to get out of the sweet spot, but I still enjoy it. The Virtual boy was a big fail on all counts, but the 3DS is actually good. It's the lack of a solid library that's making it bad right now. At least it plays DS games like Chrono Trigger and all those old ones.

I'm the same, my eyes go funny after a while (my eyes keep the focus they have whilst looking at 3d for a while so everything looks a bit weird) but I have no issue with it, although there were major reports of illness when it first came out. However you're right, and people can turn it off. I mean I'm definitely not considering it my worst console (okay, okay, it's a handheld not a console so I guess technically it doesn't count) but its functionality making people nautious is definitely a good example of what might make a console the worst ever








As much as I hate to use this phrase as it'll really make me feel my age but in those days backwards comparability didn't exist. The first console to offer it was the Playstation 2 as far as I'm aware, or if I'm wrong, it wasn't really big enough to be an issue. Regardless, too many people were awaiting the Playstation 2 for people to even care. Although if I'm not mistaken the Saturn worked on a completely different tech setup to the Dreamcast, which would make sense of why they couldn't offer it even if they wanted to. (Please don't shoot me if I'm wrong on that one )

The Atari 7800 had backwards compatibility with the 2600, this was actually one of the systems strongest selling points in my mind. The Sega Genesis had backwards compatibility with the Sega Master System with the Power Base Converter add-on. And yeah, Dreamcast was running a trimmed down version of Windows CE, it was like an Xbox beta.

The Sega Genesis-CD, Saturn, and Dreamcast all used the exact same media though. The Genesis didn't play Master System cartridges even though they were very close in size. And the Sega Nomad handheld didn't play games from their other handheld the Game Gear.

Yep - then I was WAY off the mark lol

I'm a little disheartened that the Dreamcast died so quickly. The graphics were damn good and in my personal opinion rendered better than the PS2 visually - now keep in mind it died in it's early days, in which most designers for 3d consoles haven't really had a chance to spread their wings and show what the console can do. Even the PS2 had a couple years of poor graphics for it's games compared to what the console could manage (I'd consider it the transition from the previous gen to the current)

But I'd love to have seen what developers could've eventually produced on the Dreamcast given the time to test and push it : )

I think the PS2 was PS1 backwards compatible cause it had the PS1 hardware inside. I'm sure the same could have been done with the SegaCD/Saturn/Dreamcast.

A shared win for PS/3 and XBox 360.

Reasons:
1) They are both over 5 years old
2) They cannot be upgraded
3) point 1 and 2 also means that THEY HOLD BACK THE GAMES INDUSTRY.

Now this is just silly how many consoles do you know that have been upgradable? I know the answer ISN'T zero, but it wasn't many. It doesn't hold the games industry back at all. It's the way the cycle goes: New games console > better games > push console to limit that games can manage > new games console (naturally there's more minor things in between such as peripherals)

But then again take a look at how 'console upgrades' have succeeded in the past- there was one for a Sega Console that looked like more and more consoles to attach to it, and then there's the N64 DD - and we all know how well that went

What about the move motion and kinect add-ons? Do they note count as upgrades for some reason?

Nope, they're peripherals, which are an additional tool for use with the console. An upgrade would be something that would improve the performance of the console, like the memory expansion for the N64. It was required to play some games such as Donkey Kong 64 and The Legend of Zelda: Majoras Mask.

To keep upgrading a console would just be silly. It seems better to just get a full upgrade and put out a new console with the way technology improves. Put it this way, 10 years ago we were looking at the Playstation 2, now could you imagine how much work it'd take to upgrade a Playstation 2 to a Playstation 3? You'd have to upgrade EVERY - SINGLE - PIECE of hardware... so why not just create a new console? ;P

As a more exaggurated example, 15 years ago we were looking at the PlayStation, and 20 years ago we were looking at the Super Nintendo, I'm just sayin' ; )

I vote for the N-Gage.

3DS as contender, some people can't see 3D, other people get headaches, also bad for developing children's eyes (though my eyes survived the CRT monitor era lol). Nintendo acknowledges this and suggest to turn off the 3D effect, then I say, it is fair game to compare to the PSP; relatively, makes it not so astonishing anymore. I would like to compare it to the Vita too, but that's not even out yet...