Why does importance matter? I ever understood that when people made lists of "greatest games of all time, greatest consoles of all time" etc. Isn't the "greatest of all time" the "greatest" of all time? Not the most influential or what changed the most, but the actual greatest? The best quality? The actual best designed, highest quality, greatest game/console? The SNES is pathetically designed in terms of hardware by today's standards, as is the PS1. The disc space is laughable, as is the audio and graphical quality. Most of the games on these consoles are also extremely outdated, the gameplay usually frustrating and annoying more than enjoyable. At the time of release, of course, they were great. But now? They have been outclassed in every single area, multiple times over, except in perhaps how the story is told.
The "greatest of all time" should be left to the actual greatest of all time, not what was once, 25 years ago, the best at the time of release. That should be saved for "most influential" or "most revolutionary" lists. People putting Balloon Fight in the top 50 games of all time are out of their damn mind, or pong? Or anything like that. Just because at the time they were amazing, doesn't mean they are even remotely acceptable now. Now? Balloon fight is a shitty little app game that nobody would play, same with Pong. Times change, and the "greatest of all time" changes as well.
I can't vote for something like the SNES to be the greatest of all time, I've been playing tons of SNES roms this year and I'd say 70% of the games I try are complete garbage by today's standards. Some of the "best SNES games ever" lists, I go through them, download the ROMS, then give up quickly. At the time of release they were great, in 2017 many of the classics are really, really bad. Influential? Sure. Revolutionary at the time? Okay, why not. But the GREATEST of all time? How?