Or should they stay off for a few years or so until they develop more of a lasting “legacy?”
Game Informer has a 200 of all time list in their new Issue, and they alreeady have Borderlands and COD:MW2 on there. Do you think it’s too soon? I’ve never played them, but I still think it’s too soon. Maybe people are just initially blown away by aesthetics, and it clouds their perception.
Borderlands? Wow, did they actually play that buggy pile of broken promises, impossible multiplayer and zero replay value?
My gf and I rather enjoyed borderlands. . Back on topic, greatest lists are wastes of time.
They’re fun bathroom reads.
Yeah, those lists are near-useless. Especially if they have any current games on them. Just nothing more than an interesting read.
Greatest lists aren’t useless. They can help point you in the right direction if you want to try something you haven’t tried yet. It’s good for someone who doesn’t keep up with game news and doesn’t know what the “flavour of the month” is, which can be good to try at least once.
I really think that a good gaming list should be split into two categories: popular Vote, and Critical analysis. One shows what everyone thinks is the best game, the other takes a more detailed analysis into what makes a game good. But I’m overly analytical as it is.
Is age really a factor in a game’s quality?
No, not at all. A good game is a good game, whether it’s a day old or a decade old. It’s just that I question the decision to put a new game on a greatest game list (I’m repeating myself here).
Look at FFVIII-That game was a critical and fan sucess when it came out. If there was a best of list back then it would’ve been towards the top, no doubt. Now that’s been out, opinions are largely mixed. When new games appear on lists like that, they haven’t had time to really settle in.
If it’s clear that a new game is going to be revolutionary from the start, and define how future games in its genre, or even games overall will be played, then of course it will deserve a spot (GTA III, God Of War, RE4, and so on), but a lot of cases it just seems too soon to tell.
I like that idea too. They have those some times; the reader best of lists, and the staff lists. I find the reader lists to usually end the same though.
God of war and RE4? I don’t know if I would call those revolutionary. GTA:3 on the other hand is still one of my favorites. I would say that Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Silent Hill 1 are probably better, but I haven’t played RE4. (dad wouldn’t let me buy it because he thought that vidya games were fucking with my head)
Well, RE4 completely overhauled every single aspect of, well… RE. And it’s aiming and shooting component found its way in a plethora of other games after, (perfected, I think by Gears of War).
There will never be a definitive ‘best of’ list. Ever. The whole thing is far too subjective for there to be even the remotest amount of consensus.
For example, the Game Informer list in question doesn’t contain Elite, and is therefore less than bollocks in my eyes.
I hate wishy washy replies like “it’s a matter of opinion” or "there’s no such thing as a “best game of all time list.” Just answer the damn question.
To answer the question: yes. If a game is the best game of all time, it doesn’t matter when it came out. (all time)
I always find myself completely disagreeing with lists most of the time, and getting upset about it. I know it’s silly, but I can’t help myself. I mean… Legend of Zelda #1? Really? When Link to the Past is so much a better game? I understand that my favorite game of all time (FFIII/VI) is not going to be number one (it was still respectably high up). But I believe that LttP has sufficient elements to be considered the best game of all time. Super Mario Bros was also rated higher than SMB3, which is a travesty.
And WoW shouldn’t have been on the list at all. That… THING is an abomination. FFT is a horrible game, and doesn’t belong on the list. God of War 2 is an okay game, but doesn’t belong on anybody’s top anything. Assassin’s Creed doesn’t belong (way too short, looks like a beta rather than a full game, and has a horrible framing story [especially that fucking ending… CHRIST]). What I’m saying in a quite ranting and incoherent manner is this: their opinions are totally wrong! (
- apply this to the entire post)
EDIT: Oh, yeah. I love Oblivion, but it also doesn’t belong on this list. And what’s with Fallout being lower ranked than Fallout 3!? Bullshit. Okay, maybe I am a weeeee bit annoyed, really. <_<;;;;
The best top list I saw was Peter Moore’s (or was it Peter Molyneux?). He approached it as a most influential list of all time, as in games that didn’t necessarily bring entirely new concepts but did them in a way that altered the landscape of gaming forever, like Mario 64 and WoW. I find that is a much more meaningful and less masturbatory.
And Din, Farore and Nayru shall return and take their followers to a land where treasures will be hidden in caves and items will be useful, except for funny ones that turn the enemies of the faithful into jumping potatoes.
Sin, I think it was Molyneux.
Sure because games are getting better everyday.
Lists are usually used for brainwashing people into thinking they’re buying something for their buck only because something else is in the list that they do like. So it’s only natural that new games that aren’t even the least bit quality valuable but highly monetarily valuable are on the list. They need to get as much money as they can before the table turns.
Also, if you were a company writing these lists, you’d want to eat up all the fresh meat out there and spit it out before the other guys get to it, kind of like a news channel, otherwise you’ll be looked at as second-rate when it comes to the area of interest.
A list that changes on a weekly basis is nothing but a damn shopping list and should not be titled, “the best of all time.” So, no, they shouldn’t unless the new additions to the list are staying there well beyond the season.