In what order did you get your consoles?

[Shonumi]

I see a lot of people adding handhelds to their list, so either the thread's title is a misnomer, or my definition of console is too strict. I tend to think of consoles as referring to larger hardware you can hook up to a display, but it isn't as if I never owned any portables myself. I know people use the term handheld consoles, so the term "console" itself can be pretty broad, but I'll just keep my list separated:

Gameboy Pocket (Gift from grandma)
Gameboy Color
Gameboy Advance (now has a cracked screen, but still good to go)
E-Reader (not really a different handheld per se, but I have one)
Gameboy Player (not really a handheld or a console, but I have one)
DS (the original "fat" one, which I find better than the Lite models)
Dingoo A320 (emu machine + homebrew games)
PSP
3DS
3DS XL (basically gave my 3DS to my sis, using this one for games + homebrew)

[TmEE]

Rambo A2600 clone
Ending Man S-500 Famiclone (and many more of various clones as time went by)
PlayStation (SCPH-7508 I think)
Master System 2
Mega Drive (a superclone rather than real deal)
Mega Drive II (VA1)
Dreamcast (VA1)
Gameboy
GP32 (Blu+)
DS lite (in two pieces, that I put back together)
Game Gear (VA0)
Lynx II (a later model)
Xbox (doesn't boot though)
Saturn (some early model, not sure exactly which but 2 PCBs)
Turbo Grafx 16
Mega Drive (VA4 this time)
SNES (that got frankensteined out of Euro and JP parts.)
Nomad
Xbox 360 (JTAG lol)
NES (Euro version)
PlayStation 2 (CD drive is fuxxed)
PSone
CD32
...
C64-G
Amstrad CPC 6128 (Spanish)
SC-3000 (looks to be of Finnish origin)

I possibly missed something... There's also whole lot of duplicates like 3x PS2s, several GGs etc.

[NovaSquirrel]

As far as I can remember:

Consoles/Computers:

• NES and SNES at the same time
• PS1
• PS2 (fat, replaced with a slim later)
• Genesis model 1 (from wherever tepples got his own Genesis)
• Wii
• Ouya
• Two Commodore 64s (was my dad's)
• N64 (bought at Disc Replay)
• TRS-80 CoCo model 2 (bought at Fort Wayne Hamfest)

Handhelds:

• Gameboy Color (new, Christmas?)
• Gameboy Advance (new, Christmas)
• Nintendo DS (new, Christmas)
• TI-84+ Silver Editon (new, with Christmas money)
• Nintendo DS Lite (bought from brother)
• Nintendo 3DS (refurbished)

[tokumaru]

I see a lot of people adding handhelds to their list, so either the thread's title is a misnomer, or my definition of console is too strict.

In portuguese we often use the term "video-game" when talking about gaming systems, and we hardly ever use the words "console" or "handheld" (which we don't really have a word for, so we use "portable"). Frankly, I think it's stupid to separate both types of gaming systems, because ultimately, it's all about the games. It doesn't matter if you're holding the entire system in your hands or if it's plugged to a TV, they're all machines that run games, and you can get the exact same kind of entertainment from both.

[Shonumi]

In portuguese we often use the term "video-game" when talking about gaming systems, and we hardly ever use the words "console" or "handheld" (which we don't really have a word for, so we use "portable"). Frankly, I think it's stupid to separate both types of gaming systems, because ultimately, it's all about the games. It doesn't matter if you're holding the entire system in your hands or if it's plugged to a TV, they're all machines that run games, and you can get the exact same kind of entertainment from both.

Different folks, different culture. Wikipedia makes no distinction either, but almost everyone I grew up with never referred to the Gameboy or ever more recently the PSP or 3DS as a console. We've always distinguished them as home video game consoles and handhelds. It would be nice if we could say they were one in the same (video games) but realistically, ignoring the format of in which the games were made is also ignoring a large part of the game's design, style, gameplay, and history. If you don't take into account how and why portable games were created differently from games you were meant to play at home, you're missing out on how and why the game impacted the industry (or didn't for that matter). Pokemon is a great example. I find it hard to imagine Nintendo could have emphasized trading and battling (and making it a wildly and socially popular game in the process) if it had originally been tethered to your TV screen in a time essentially before the internet.

Perhaps it's just because I grew up with portables around me all the time. I was very aware of their limitations in comparison to home video game consoles. The GB lagged behind the NES, and even when the GBC came out, the N64 was out. The GG lagged behind the Genesis. The GBA outpaces the SNES, but by that time the GC was out. It's only been fairly recently that I've seen the gap close in my mind (3DS feels like a portable Wii in many respects, and the Vita feels like a portable PS3) so that portables don't really feel like they're 2 generations behind in capability. But as a young gamer, the hardware differences were more than enough to make it seem like there were in fact two classes of gaming.

[tepples]

I think it's stupid to separate both types of gaming systems, because ultimately, it's all about the games. It doesn't matter if you're holding the entire system in your hands or if it's plugged to a TV, they're all machines that run games, and you can get the exact same kind of entertainment from both.

Then what's the difference between these and a computer? The Famicom has a disk drive and a keyboard. Is it the assumption that the console maker gets veto power over programs that run on a platform and developers that create them?

The handheld distinction largely relates to two things: multiplayer, and how long play sessions are expected to be (5-15 minutes vs. an hour).

[Sik]

Sometimes I wonder if the divide comes from people who only heard the term "handheld" without having heard the full expression ("handheld console").

Also I'd argue the definition of console is pretty much "meant for personal use and was designed mainly for games" (although this leaves the X68000 in a muddly situation - then again that was Sharp's intention in the first place, so I guess that makes sense). Computers and phones are designed for more general purpose uses, even if they have some hardware oriented towards games (and it shows not only in the hardware but also in the operating systems normally used with them).

EDIT: also I noticed I never included Brick Game in my list...

[Shonumi]

Sometimes I wonder if the divide comes from people who only heard the term "handheld" without having heard the full expression ("handheld console")..

I don't know, but I have heard the term plenty of times as a kid (I was an avid reader of many gaming magazines), but for me their differences are still enough to warrant a division. It probably boils down to how much time people actually spent with handhelds and consoles (separately) and the types of games they played during what era.

[tepples]

Also I'd argue the definition of console is pretty much "meant for personal use and was designed mainly for games"

I know what fits that definition: a desktop PC with a consumer discrete GPU by AMD or NVIDIA. Most non-game applications, as well as indie games and even AAA games from a few years ago, are usable on the IGPs in Intel's "Bridge" and "Well" series CPUs. Now what's the difference between "handheld" and "tablet", given JXD S5110 and Archos GamePad?

[Sik]

And those are still most likely booting a general purpose operating system which completely defeats the point.

How long before we start arguing what's the difference between a computer and a calculator?

[Drew Sebastino]

Now what's the difference between "handheld" and "tablet", given JXD S5110 and Archos GamePad?

One has shittier games.

[tokumaru]

Wikipedia makes no distinction either, but almost everyone I grew up with never referred to the Gameboy or ever more recently the PSP or 3DS as a console.

I'm not saying they should all be called consoles, I'm saying that separating them in any way (in this case by using the words "console" and "handheld") looks stupid to me, because you can play Chrono Trigger on your SNES or on your DS and you'll enjoy the game just the same.

Maybe (maybe!) this distinction has some meaning among systems that are commercially active during the same period, to make it clear that the handheld versions of the games are somewhat inferior to the console versions, but once we're talking about several generations of gaming hardware, there are handhelds insanely more powerful than consoles, and this distinction becomes completely irrelevant. They all play games of different levels of complexity.

ignoring the format of in which the games were made is also ignoring a large part of the game's design, style, gameplay, and history.

But there's much more to it than just these two extremes. The Xbox and the Wii are both consoles, but only Xbox games can use the Kinect. So even when systems belong to the same category, there are several other design decisions that affect how games work on them. Even in the old school days we had crap like the Power Glove, 3D glasses, the Sega Activator, which could have impacted the way games were designed regardless of whether you were playing in front of your TV or on the backseat of a car.

Then what's the difference between these and a computer?

"Video-games" are computers that are specifically designed to run games, and 99% of the software developed for them are in fact games. Personal computers are originally business machines, that happen to be able to run games. Video game systems and computers are definitely becoming more and more alike these days, so soon there might not be a significant difference.

The handheld distinction largely relates to two things: multiplayer, and how long play sessions are expected to be (5-15 minutes vs. an hour).

That's the thing, multiplayer was once only feasible with handhelds, but once everyone got high speed internet consoles have multiplayer too. I really don't think that the size/portability of a game system by itself determines what it can or can't do, there are several other factors (that are constantly changing) that contribute to this, so it's kinda silly to create a distinction based on the situation at a certain point in time, while games as whole can change drastically no matter the platform.

I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but I listed my handhelds because to me these systems are all the same. I play games on them. Sure some of them have gimmicky controls, multiplayer features, but when we're talking about old shit, gimmicky controls suck and there are not enough people into them to multiplayer anyway, so it all comes down to playing single player (or multiplayer on the same console when friends come over) games with a good old D-pad and buttons.

[tepples]

That's the thing, multiplayer was once only feasible with handhelds

I was referring to the difference between multiplayer on one machine (consoles since Pong and a few indie PC games) and networked multiplayer (handhelds since Game Boy, PCs, a few original PlayStation games using the SCPH-1040 link cable, and sixth-gen and later set-top consoles).

[Shonumi]

I'm not saying they should all be called consoles, I'm saying that separating them in any way (in this case by using the words "console" and "handheld") looks stupid to me, because you can play Chrono Trigger on your SNES or on your DS and you'll enjoy the game just the same.

The example you've chosen was a port, of course it's going to be as original as possible. But more often than not, the games on handhelds are going to be different from the consoles, due to nature of their hardware specifications. It may look stupid to you, but it's hardly uncommon. Saying "games are games" is a gross oversimplification that neglects to take into account of host of factors that were considered when that game was made (who would play it, how they would play it, when they would play it). Those things are all very important to consider, especially if you have a mind for studying video game history, like I do, or if you just like playing all kinds of games, like I do.

but once we're talking about several generations of gaming hardware, there are handhelds insanely more powerful than consoles, and this distinction becomes completely irrelevant. They all play games of different levels of complexity.

And that's along the lines of what I said earlier. Handhelds aren't as far behind as they used to be. Just look at the New 3DS playing Xenoblade Chronicles for a Nintendo-based example. But that's only because handheld technology has finally caught up in terms of hardware. You can probably thank ARM for pushing and various mobile GPU manufacturers for that. But leading up to current generations, the gap was obvious enough for a lot of people to merit that distinction.

But there's much more to it than just these two extremes. The Xbox and the Wii are both consoles, but only Xbox games can use the Kinect. So even when systems belong to the same category, there are several other design decisions that affect how games work on them. Even in the old school days we had crap like the Power Glove, 3D glasses, the Sega Activator, which could have impacted the way games were designed regardless of whether you were playing in front of your TV or on the backseat of a car.

No one ever said that "handheld" or "console" were binary choices though, or that only those two had to be considered (and in such limited scopes). Arcade games easily create another category in my mind. So it's not black and white, "handheld, console, or nothing". It is most certainly not a case of two "extremes".

There are still general design choices that are really only specific and applicable to console games such as enhanced screen size, greater storage capacity more often than not, constant power supply (goes in hand with the ability to drive better hardware for a given generation), same-screen local multiplayer, and centralized saved games (largely a console-only advantage when the PS1 showed and until the PSP showed up, the 3DS has yet to catch on with that idea though). It doesn't matter what kind of accessories or additional, innovative things home consoles (or handhelds for that) added to the mix; there are concepts inherent in home consoles themselves that dictate different design choices in games.

If you're still in doubt, I'd suggest a quick google of "handheld or console" and you'll see that (as I posted earlier) it's actually common to distinguish between home consoles (as just "consoles") and handhelds. Perhaps that will change in the future (thank you convergence) but for now and in the past, it's valid to see them as separate. I have no problem with people saying home consoles and handhelds are all just consoles, but it looks really weird to me not recognize that the games between the two have historically been developed differently. Personally, I just can't imagine a commercial developer jumping from the SMS to the GG ever saying something along the lines like "we never took the reduced screen resolution into consideration."

[tokumaru]

I do understand what you're saying, and I guess my opinion comes from my own experience and the kinds of games I like. I was never one to buy cutting edge consoles (the only one I got in this situation was the Genesis, all the others were already outdated when I got them), so generations never meant much to me. When I played Mega Man on my Game Boy, it felt the same as playing pirate Rockman on my Famiclone. It didn't feel any different.