Besides, dig out 100 people who never ever played a video game, let them play Tetris, OoT, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario World and Halo and see which game they rank highest.
It's not as much "which game they rank" as it is "let them beat every game once and see which one they play the most after that". Because that basically consustutes the fun factor of any game, ever: as soon as the plot twists, secret endings, and unlockable characters are behind, the only thing left that matters is, that's right, the gameplay process. And it's not as easily influenced as verbal representation of the said rank, because people pathologically like to convince themselves of things that should be, but aren't there.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Never heard of it... how could that many people vote on a game I haven't heard of?
I hope you were being sarcastic, Shenmue II is probably one of the most enjoyable games I've ever played, since the game has so much stuff which distracts you from the main objectives.
Johannes wrote:
I do, however, want to hear why you consider OoT a blatant disregard for game quality.
It's not as much "which game they rank" as it is "let them beat every game once and see which one they play the most after that". Because that basically consustutes the fun factor of any game, ever: as soon as the plot twists, secret endings, and unlockable characters are behind, the only thing left that matters is, that's right, the gameplay process. And it's not as easily influenced as verbal representation of the said rank, because people pathologically like to convince themselves of things that should be, but aren't there.
Planescape: Torment is extremely story- and character-heavy, it's not a game you can replay over and over. You have to let quite some time pass between each playthrough to really enjoy it. Does that make it a bad game?
Fighting games HAVE to be replayed instantly and over and over to get any real satisfaction out of them. Does that mean every fighting game is a top 10 candidate?
Games like Professor Layton and Phoenix Wright are essentially room-by-room puzzle games, with nearly no satisfaction from the gameplay after the initial playthrough. The only reason to replay any of them would be the humor (Perhaps not Layton so much...). Does that mean that these are terrible games?
To add to the other currently discussed subject: Ocarina of Time ranks quite a bit up on the ladder if we're taking "historical significance" into the equation, but if compared to current-day adventures (even ignoring the graphical aspect), it's not a masterpiece in any area, really. The controls aren't very good (aided by the fact that you play it with the N64 controller), there's a lot of filler and fetch-questing and there's very little challenge. Majora's Mask, on the other hand... Now that's quality.
Planescape: Torment is extremely story- and character-heavy, it's not a game you can replay over and over. You have to let quite some time pass between each playthrough to really enjoy it. Does that make it a bad game?
No, it rather makes it more disposable; a game that you would play through, probably have fun in process, but then inevitably leave and won't touch until you get chewed up by nostalgia or something. (Don't get me started on the particular qualities of Torment, as it's a game I have very mixed feelings about.)
Being or not being RPG has nothing to do with it in general, the fun of the process still is the thing that truly matters. RPGs just dont usually happen to be pick-up-and-play type of games, which basically means you have less fun restarting, less fun having to do repetitive tasks, and so on. I don't give two shits about plot twists if the game forces me to grind or do a zillion of fetch quest to reach them. I don't mind challenge, but I don't particularly like subjecting myself to tedium to experience short moments which may or may not actually be fun. Which is also why I don't play many RPGs. Torment was actually the most recent one that I bothered to finish (in early 2004 or so). For jRPGs it was Last Scenario, and it was actually fun throughout. Between them there were Icewind Dale 2 and Baldur's Gate, and I stopped halfway through in either, because it started to get tedious. They were supposedly good, but I don't think I'll ever get around to finishing them. Too bad.
Neophos wrote:
Fighting games HAVE to be replayed instantly and over and over to get any real satisfaction out of them. Does that mean every fighting game is a top 10 candidate?
Actually, arcade games are very much built around the idea of per-process fun. There are no clear goals announced, there is little to no "extra content" or other such incentives to replay the game. These games that are meant to be replayed, and that's why they are fun in the first place.
I'm pretty sure it also is the real reason behind the longevity of SMB/SMW/SM64 series, Metroid games, Sonic games and so on: they put the focus on the gameplay process. Historical reasons were a far lesser factor of their longevity.
Neophos wrote:
Games like Professor Layton and Phoenix Wright are essentially room-by-room puzzle games, with nearly no satisfaction from the gameplay after the initial playthrough. The only reason to replay any of them would be the humor (Perhaps not Layton so much...). Does that mean that these are terrible games?
In my book, yes. Obviously you can think otherwise, but I wouldn't think of buying a game I could only enjoy once.
Neophos wrote:
To add to the other currently discussed subject: Ocarina of Time ranks quite a bit up on the ladder if we're taking "historical significance" into the equation, but if compared to current-day adventures (even ignoring the graphical aspect), it's not a masterpiece in any area, really. The controls aren't very good (aided by the fact that you play it with the N64 controller), there's a lot of filler and fetch-questing and there's very little challenge. Majora's Mask, on the other hand... Now that's quality.
Basically, that. You can compare any games as soon as you strip them off their technological form (and respective advances/breakthroughs), because content doesn't age. If a game isn't fun to play ten years after release, it means its true value wasn't high in the first place, and no amount of vocal fan support would change that.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 6/11/2006
Posts: 818
Location: Arboga, Sweden
moozooh wrote:
Cardboard wrote:
Besides, dig out 100 people who never ever played a video game, let them play Tetris, OoT, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario World and Halo and see which game they rank highest.
It's not as much "which game they rank" as it is "let them beat every game once and see which one they play the most after that". Because that basically consustutes the fun factor of any game, ever: as soon as the plot twists, secret endings, and unlockable characters are behind, the only thing left that matters is, that's right, the gameplay process. And it's not as easily influenced as verbal representation of the said rank, because people pathologically like to convince themselves of things that should be, but aren't there.
Yeah well. I didn't mean "Get to the credits, then decide which game pwns the others", I meant more like "Play the games and then find out which one gives the most cravings". Sorry for the confusion.
Warp wrote:
omg lol this is so fake!!!1 the nes cant produce music like this!
Nostalgia is a great thing, until we go back and play it.
I went back and played OoT more than a dozen times, and each time I'm impressed with how solid that game is and how well it stands the test of time. It's one of the very few games I consistently replay every now and then. Then there's Majora's Mask. The world needs more Majora's Mask, period.
Being or not being RPG has nothing to do with it in general, the fun of the process still is the thing that truly matters. RPGs just dont usually happen to be pick-up-and-play type of games, which basically means you have less fun restarting, less fun having to do repetitive tasks, and so on. I don't give two shits about plot twists if the game forces me to grind or do a zillion of fetch quest to reach them. I don't mind challenge, but I don't particularly like subjecting myself to tedium to experience short moments which may or may not actually be fun. Which is also why I don't play many RPGs. Torment was actually the most recent one that I bothered to finish (in early 2004 or so). For jRPGs it was Last Scenario, and it was actually fun throughout. Between them there were Icewind Dale 2 and Baldur's Gate, and I stopped halfway through in either, because it started to get tedious. They were supposedly good, but I don't think I'll ever get around to finishing them. Too bad.
This is part of the reason I choose Torment as the example. It has very little grinding (unless you want to), very little fetchquesting (unless you want to) and in general, very little outside of the main story you're forced to do. It got loads of stuff to do, but very little it actually forces you to do to further the plot.
Actually, arcade games are very much built around the idea of per-process fun. There are no clear goals announced, there is little to no "extra content" or other such incentives to replay the game. These games that are meant to be replayed, and that's why they are fun in the first place.
So the arcade as a platform is generally superior to consoles because the games HAVE to be designed with replayability in mind?
I'm pretty sure it also is the real reason behind the longevity of SMB/SMW/SM64 series, Metroid games, Sonic games and so on: they put the focus on the gameplay process. Historical reasons were a far lesser factor of their longevity.
Personally, monetary concerns were also part of the reason. When you couldn't afford more then one game every second month or so, that one game damn better well be played until every single option has been exhausted.
In my book, yes. Obviously you can think otherwise, but I wouldn't think of buying a game I could only enjoy once.
I used Phoenix Wright as an example since it's touted by many as one of the DS' finest games. But yeah, I guess that visual novels falls into a quite different genre (or perhaps even medium, depending on how far you want to stretch the definition) from regular games, even though PW is slightly more interactive than your usual visual novel.
Basically, that. You can compare any games as soon as you strip them off their technological form (and respective advances/breakthroughs), because content doesn't age. If a game isn't fun to play ten years after release, it means its true value wasn't high in the first place, and no amount of vocal fan support would change that.
So games doesn't get bonus points for novelty? Many games have had interesting gimmicks or features that made it entertaining, but other games afterwards copied, and the gimmick became standard and not something special in subsequent games.
Cardboard - Because it's freaky as hell.
I basically agree with everything Kartong said re: OoT.
Also adding in that it has almost as much 'walking time' as some recent MMOs, which makes it all the more dull. Also, the plot is blah, and you're forced to read and watch cutscenes of it.
It seems to me like the whole game is set up to be easy, and dull, because it's a kid's game. That's just what companies do when they make games specifically for (early)teenagers. Minus the nostalgia it's just ditchwater.
Joined: 8/26/2006
Posts: 1139
Location: United Kingdom
Reader's lists are useless. Because people are useless. Democracy doesn't work ;-) least of all towards a subjective goal.
Knowing this soothes me when I read through much of these placements. Not to rant too much, but: MGS3 in the top 100, let alone above MGS1 is laughable (that's kids for you), Resident Evil 4 really wasn't that good, Civilisation 2 in the top 10? Dream on. CBFD above SMB3...blah blah blah I could go on. Of course, the biggest crime of all is no Majora's Mask, as time goes on it becomes more and more obvious just how much better it was than OoT.
A good objective list, if such a thing existed, would put S3&K at the top on the grounds of; ahead of it's time, long but not too long, hard but not too hard, great music , ahead of its time visuals and still better than 99.9999999999999% of games released since. But, meh...
45. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
WHAT!? How dare they not make this number 1. I mean, everyone knows this is the best game ever created. What? It's just me? Oh. Well, nevermind then.
44. Fire Emblem
Which one? And IMO, Radiant Dawn>Blazing Sword; Radiant Dawn>Ankoku no Ryo, too, but despite my previous sentence that's probably not what they're referring to.
Which brings up a more serious point. Mother 3 easily deserves a high spot on that list.
I think this list is heavily confusing popularity with quality.
There's one, and only one reason why SMB was so popular: Because it came bundled with the NES, which was an immensely popular console.
However, popularity doesn't make a game good, and certainly not the best game ever. What exactly is it that would make SMB the "best game" of all?
Suppose that SMB would have never been published, and that today someone would publish it for a platform where it would be feasible as a game, such as eg. the GBA or the iPhone. Would it be considered the best game in history? Not in a million years. It would probably be considered a mediocre, below-average platformer. This is so even if it was upgraded in graphics, sounds and special effects to comply more to current standards of 2D casual gaming.
So what exactly is it that makes it the best game in history? Number of units bundled with a game console is an absolutely stupid measure of this.
Captain Forehead wrote:
76. Final Fantasy VII
I played this game recently, and I was disappointed. There are some people who claim that this game is extremely overrated, and I tend to agree with them. Not only are the graphics and FMVs completely sub-par for the Playstation (especially compared to later games, such as Chrono Cross and Final Fantasy IX), but the storytelling and gameplay isn't all that great, IMO.
Again, they are confusing popularity with greatness. FF7 got very popular, for some reason, but that still doesn't make it a great game.
This is part of the reason I choose Torment as the example. It has very little grinding (unless you want to), very little fetchquesting (unless you want to) and in general, very little outside of the main story you're forced to do. It got loads of stuff to do, but very little it actually forces you to do to further the plot.
That aspect of it I indeed liked, as well as the writing (which drags the game out of a huge "shit, we missed the deadline" pit quite magnificently), but pretty much all the rest was either unfinished, unbalanced, or plain bad.
Neophos wrote:
So the arcade as a platform is generally superior to consoles because the games HAVE to be designed with replayability in mind?
Indeed, this is very often the case. But it rather goes the other way around: the problem with consoles is that quality control is way more lenient, and their users are considerably more lazy. It's a topic for a different discussion, but I'll point out that arcade games had to adhere to a lot of rules that would spell their doom lest a single one is ignored:
1) make the game look interesting, or the customer goes away;
2) make the difficulty balanced, or the customer will become too frustrated;
3) make the game play interesting, or the customer will play something else;
4) make the game challenging, or the player will beat it too soon;
5) remove all the padding from a game, or the player will spend more time on each credit.
It's all pretty hard when a game forces you to pay for each playing session, and every session has to be as short as possible for maximum revenue. Suddenly you have to make every minute of the gameplay worth the investment, something that console developers are not forced to do. In this respect the arcades are infinitely superior to every console, ever. And they're basically killed by laziness nowadays, because the current generation of gamers are afraid of games that take 100+ retries before they are beaten (even though most of us grew on such games).
Neophos wrote:
Personally, monetary concerns were also part of the reason. When you couldn't afford more then one game every second month or so, that one game damn better well be played until every single option has been exhausted.
It might have had something to do with lower standards as well, or the love for challenge (I know I was among the few who opted to beat pretty much every game they received, but nearly none of my friends could say the same). Then again, monetary reasons don't stand the test of time: I certainly didn't play the hell out of some of the last decade's games because I couldn't afford more.
Neophos wrote:
So games doesn't get bonus points for novelty? Many games have had interesting gimmicks or features that made it entertaining, but other games afterwards copied, and the gimmick became standard and not something special in subsequent games.
Well, Treasure's Silhouette Mirage (a PS1 game, iirc) had the novelty of changing the player character's "polarity", but it was barely heard of. Ikaruga (where Treasure applied the same mechanic to a shmup), on the other hand, is known by most of the active gamers. Which of them give bonus points to? To the one that plays better, I guess. Poorly implemented novelty isn't worth much.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Cardboard wrote:
Yeah well. I didn't mean "Get to the credits, then decide which game pwns the others", I meant more like "Play the games and then find out which one gives the most cravings". Sorry for the confusion.
If this is the basis for rating it, of all the games I've played, OoT takes the #1 prize in my book for 'most hours invested/enjoyed'. It's a fun game.
Warp wrote
[quote="Warp"]Again, they are confusing popularity with greatness. FF7 got very popular, for some reason, but that still doesn't make it a great game.[/quote]
IGN doesn't use popularity as to the reason why they chose FFVII on their top 100, they were playing video games long before we did, so whatever games comes up in their childhood lives, they had a lot of fun with it. As they grew older, more games came and depending on when that game was made, it must have been very revolutionary.
In short, they put these games on their list for how fun they are.
So what exactly is it that makes it (SMB1) the best game in history? Number of units bundled with a game console is an absolutely stupid measure of this.
It's because it was historically significant. SMB1 basically redefined the 2D platformer genre. It set the standard for every other 2D platformer game at the time. And then some. Before SMB1, most (if not all) video games were fixed, non-scrolling screen affairs (Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., Pitfall, Space Invaders, etc.). SMB1 changed that forever.
That aspect of it I indeed liked, as well as the writing (which drags the game out of a huge "shit, we missed the deadline" pit quite magnificently), but pretty much all the rest was either unfinished, unbalanced, or plain bad.
Well, yeah, the writing (and everything that comes with it, story, characters etc) is the games main saving grace, but damn if it isn't one fantastic saving grace.
Indeed, this is very often the case. But it rather goes the other way around: the problem with consoles is that quality control is way more lenient, and their users are considerably more lazy. It's a topic for a different discussion, but I'll point out that arcade games had to adhere to a lot of rules that would spell their doom lest a single one is ignored:
1) make the game look interesting, or the customer goes away;
2) make the difficulty balanced, or the customer will become too frustrated;
3) make the game play interesting, or the customer will play something else;
4) make the game challenging, or the player will beat it too soon;
5) remove all the padding from a game, or the player will spend more time on each credit.
It's all pretty hard when a game forces you to pay for each playing session, and every session has to be as short as possible for maximum revenue. Suddenly you have to make every minute of the gameplay worth the investment, something that console developers are not forced to do. In this respect the arcades are infinitely superior to every console, ever. And they're basically killed by laziness nowadays, because the current generation of gamers are afraid of games that take 100+ retries before they are beaten (even though most of us grew on such games).
I see your point, and I'm quite willing to agree with most of it. However, arcades have a tendency of stalling progress, as well. It takes one bold motherfucker to change something big in an arcande game, especially in a huge project. If users buy a game, the company gets all their money and the amount of time spent playing doesn't matter, but if they screw up an arcade game, it could end up only earning one credit per player. Creativity has a tendency of alienating people unless done with either a great amount of skill or an even greater amount of luck.
There need to be platforms that allows people to screw around with the medium and at the same time not possibly blowing all chances of profit.
It might have had something to do with lower standards as well, or the love for challenge (I know I was among the few who opted to beat pretty much every game they received, but nearly none of my friends could say the same). Then again, monetary reasons don't stand the test of time: I certainly didn't play the hell out of some of the last decade's games because I couldn't afford more.
Oh yeah, children doesn't have any standards at all. No doubt that I gobbled up pretty much anything when I was a kid. If you take a look at anything aimed at kids that's popular, it's really, really crap, but they like it anyway since they have no standards.
Well, Treasure's Silhouette Mirage (a PS1 game, iirc) had the novelty of changing the player character's "polarity", but it was barely heard of. Ikaruga (where Treasure applied the same mechanic to a shmup), on the other hand, is known by most of the active gamers. Which of them give bonus points to? To the one that plays better, I guess. Poorly implemented novelty isn't worth much.
Yeah, there's again that alienating aspect. Some creative games simply doesn't get the amount of recognition they oughta. The single best exampe of this would be Narbacular Drop, the predecessor to Portal. Portal was widely claimed to be game of the year, the most creative game in a long time etc, but it's based on a small indiegame that, to be honest, didn't implement portals nearly as well.
they were playing video games long before we did
childhood
FFVII
I believe you are wrong in your idea of the age of the average user here.
It's because it was historically significant. SMB1 basically redefined the 2D platformer genre. It set the standard for every other 2D platformer game at the time. And then some. Before SMB1, most (if not all) video games were fixed, non-scrolling screen affairs (Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., Pitfall, Space Invaders, etc.). SMB1 changed that forever.
But this isn't a "top 100 most important games to gaming", this is a "top 100 best games". Being the first very, very seldomly means you're the best. And even if the list was heavily based upon historical significance, why are there only (according to statement earlier in thread) 9 games made before 1995 in it? The vast majority of genres today were created during '85-'95. Pretty much the entire list should consist of the games who created and redefined various genres.
So either a) they truly believe SMB to be the utterly best game ever or b) they ignore the historical significance of all other games. And in both of those cases, it's a) silly, b) stupid and most likely, c) hypocritical.
This has to be said:
As new and better games come out, old games don't get "worse". They stay the same. It's the players' expectations that change.
SMB1 is not a "bad game". It was successful because it found its way into the lives of many people who had lots of fun with it, and a lot of people still enjoy playing the game to this day. It should start getting harder to find people who are willing to find that game fun anymore. (Or maybe not, seeing as it's the top-selling VC game at the moment)
If you're going to rate the "goodness" of a game on some objective scale, it would have to be some kind of ratio of critical acclaim to commercial success.
I once had this conversation with someone:
Them: Halo 2 sucks because it left out the ending!
Me: How much would you have paid for them to keep the game in development long enough to add an ending?
Them: Nothing! It should have came with the ending already! I would have paid $10 LESS for how it turned out!
Me: Well, it's kinda late for that, you already bought the game. Do you plan on selling it?
Them: No.
Me: Well, I guess you don't have an argument, then.
I once had this conversation with someone:
Them: Halo 2 sucks because it left out the ending!
Me: How much would you have paid for them to keep the game in development long enough to add an ending?
Them: Nothing! It should have came with the ending already! I would have paid $10 LESS for how it turned out!
Me: Well, it's kinda late for that, you already bought the game. Do you plan on selling it?
Them: No.
Me: Well, I guess you don't have an argument, then.
I hear mindless crap from people like this all the time. In fact, these types of people finally decided to get to the point where now, when I dislike a game someone likes, it's turned into being told what to play like I'm some heathen who needs to be converted. It also turns into being converted when I like a game that they don't. I literally had someone, when I told them I liked Final Fantasy VII (Whether or not it's a "good game" was not the topic of the discussion), they literally went "Ew!" and then started telling me to play Final Fantasy VI.
I told them I liked Final Fantasy VII (Whether or not it's a "good game" is not up for debate here), they literally went "Ew!" and then started telling me to play Final Fantasy VI.
I don't understand why they can't both be good.
