Console Quality. Game Quality. What's More Important?

[ElectroYoshi]

Some gamers think the games are more important. (Graphics, gameplay, music, development, etc.)

Some gamers think the consoles are more important. (Media, capabilities, controllers, add-ons, etc.)

What say you?

[Miniike]

Game quality.

I mean, look at the quality of the Nintendo 64. It had bad graphical capabilities by today's standards and a funky 3-pronged controller. But it is beloved by so many for the countless great games it has to offer.

[EyceKubes]

Well it depends on what you mean by game quality/console quality. Consoles can only pump out the visuals and the audio that comes on a game whereas the game quality could mean either the graphics and music or how the story is developed and how well executed the game was published.

[ElectroYoshi]

Well it depends on what you mean by game quality/console quality. Consoles can only pump out the visuals and the audio that comes on a game whereas the game quality could mean either the graphics and music or how the story is developed and how well executed the game was published.

*Updates first post*

[tta]

I personally think that games should be reviewed based on what they WERE, not what they ARE. Like for example, you shouldn't bash a PS1 game for having "bad graphics", because at the time the graphics were what people had come to expect. I mean, if the game didn't make full use of the system's graphical capabilities, then that's different.

I don't know if that answers your question, but yeah.

[thelegendary]

Games definitely. People can argue that xbox is a better console because of it's online service (although I think the ps3 controller is better) however, I chose the ps3 because of it's games.

[Miniike]

I personally think that games should be reviewed based on what they WERE, not what they ARE. Like for example, you shouldn't bash a PS1 game for having "bad graphics", because at the time the graphics were what people had come to expect. I mean, if the game didn't make full use of the system's graphical capabilities, then that's different.

I don't know if that answers your question, but yeah.

Agreed.

[Phantomboy]

Hm, I'm kind of leaning towards they are both equal. Mainly because, if the console is poorly made (ie; overheating, unresponsive controls, touchy start-ups) then no matter how go the games made for them are you will have to cater to the issues with your console. For instance, don't make games that show the unresponsive controls by making more turn-based games. On the other hand, if the gameplay of the titles of console aren't good then very little people are going to buy the console. They play off each other.

[Lysander789]

It depends on the system and it's game. On one hand, the system could fantastic multimedia capabilities, but it can also suffer from a slew of awful games that ruin the reputation of that particular system. But if I had to choose, games are what make the system stand out; for example, when Halo came out on the old Xbox, it made Xbox the one of the powerhouses of consoles we know today.

So I'd say it's the games that either make, or brake the system.

[Colinnn]

You can more or less sell me on any console if it has a solid base. For example, I love Steam because it has so many possibilities, and is a really outstanding social platform. While I don't always like how Microsoft handles Live, I'm a huge fan of Xbox Live itself, and the console itself is solid and sleek and wonderful. You can make the most amazing game in the world, but if the console itself doesn't raise the bar high enough, then the game can't live up to its potential.

Bottom line, develop your games on solid ground.

[Miniike]

electro asking the provocative questions here