VGCollect Forum
General and Gaming => Classic Video Games => Topic started by: dreama1 on February 14, 2020, 11:42:05 am
-
What games would you consider objectively some of the greatest ever made? or a top 100.
To clarify I don't mean nostalgic to you, but either if it has objectively excelled in Music and artistic Merit, storyline, or gameplay compared to the rest. If it was to be looked at from a scholarly point of view.
With movies we have Shawshank Redemption, citizen kane, and the Godfather etc.. And most recently the Joker. Etc.. Just to name a few.
And with books with have the odyssey, the divine comedy, east of eden, 1984 etc..
With video games it encompasses much more than either of these formats. So we can't really make one solid list.
So it should it be split into the below.
1. Storyline - A separate list with the greatest stories ever told in the video game medium.
2. Music and Artistic Merit/ Graphical presentation
3. Gameplay - I think the list would range from old to modern saying it's something that is consistent with video games.
I could suggest some candidates for a hypothetical list.
Storyline
- Halo
- Starcraft
- Silent hill 2 (perhaps)
- I have no mouth and I must scream
Music and Artistic Merit/ Graphical presentation
- Skyrim
- Oblivion
- Sekiro
- Street Fighter 2
- Chrono Trigger
- Silent Hill
- Ico
- DOOM
- Final Fantasy X
Gameplay
-DOOM
-Pac man
Hmm.. There's a lot.
-
Gameplay:
Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mega Man X
Portal 2
Resident Evil 4
Super Mario 64
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Mario World
Super Metroid
Story:
999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors
BioShock
BioShock 2
BioShock Infinite
Final Fantasy VII
Final Fantasy IX
Final Fantasy X
The Walking Dead: A Telltale Series
Music/Graphics:
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Resident Evil 2 (2019 Remake)
-
Gameplay:
Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mega Man X
Portal 2
Resident Evil 4
Super Mario 64
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Mario World
Super Metroid
Story:
999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors
BioShock
BioShock 2
BioShock Infinite
Final Fantasy VII
Final Fantasy IX
Final Fantasy X
The Walking Dead: A Telltale Series
Music/Graphics:
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Resident Evil 2 (2019 Remake)"
I agree with all of them except Bioshock 2. It's story was alright but not as good as the rest of the series.
-
Gameplay:
Super Mario Bros 3
Sim City
Tetris
Story:
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
EarthBound
Music:
Final Fantasy VI
-
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy X
Super Mario 64
Gran Turismo 4
Mario Kart 8
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Doom (1993 and 2016)
-
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy X
Super Mario 64
Gran Turismo 4
Mario Kart 8
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Doom (1993 and 2016)
Artistic?
-
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy X
Super Mario 64
Gran Turismo 4
Mario Kart 8
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Doom (1993 and 2016)
Artistic?
Overall in every way.
-
I can't really think of the greatest games ever made but I'll just name some I can think of that I loved in my Lifetime
Music
1: Halo series Xbox Consoles
2: Call Of Duty: Finest Hour PS2 and GameCube
3: Original Doom Series PC and Super Nintendo
4: Duke Nukem 3D PC version
5: Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003 PS2
6: Mech Warrior 2 Series PC
7: Heavy Gear For The PC
Gameplay
1: Halo Series for Xbox Consoles
2: Doom Series PC and Super Nintendo
3: Most Of The Tiger Woods Game Ever Made for the PlayStation Consoles
4: Call Of Duty 2: Big Red One both GameCube and PS2
5: Microsoft Links 2004 for Xbox Original
6: Super Mario Kart Super Nintendo Classic
7: Heavy Gear PC
8: Mech Warrior 2 31st Century Combat PS1
Story
1: Star Craft PC
2: Halo Xbox's
3: Heavy Gear PC
4: Original Duke Nukem Trilogy 1&2 and 3D PC
-
Story
Ace Combat 4
Halo
Allen Wake
Oblivion
Final Fantasy X
Bio Shock
Gears of War
Music
Streets of Rage
Legend of Zelda Ocarina of time
Super Mario World
Gameplay
Super Mario 64
Resident Evil
Punch-out
Fallout 3,4,Vegas
Forza 2
SSX Tricky
-
In no particular order.
Borderlands 2
Final Fantasy Tactics
Super Mario RPG
Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past
Super Mario World
Final Fantasy IV / Final Fantasy II US
Oblivion
Skyrim
Red Dead Redemption
Grand Theft Auto III
StarCraft
Unreal Tournament
Doom
Diablo
Tetris
Street Fighter II
Final Fantasy XII
Horizon Zero Dawn
Age of Empires
Dungeon Siege
Wing Commander II
Privateer
Sonic the Hedgehog
Pac-man
Off of the top of my head I’d consider those. There is more I’m sure so I may edit my post later.
-
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy X
Super Mario 64
Gran Turismo 4
Mario Kart 8
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Doom (1993 and 2016)
Artistic?
Overall in every way.
Did you read the description even?
-
Story
Red Dead Redemption 2
Gameplay
Red Dead Redemption 2
Music
Red Dead Redemption 2
-
I'm just gonna list em, no categories.
Wind Waker
Super Mario Galaxy
Breath of the Wild
Red Dead Redemption
The Last Guardian
God of War(PS4)
Dragon Quest XI
Sonic Mania
Skyrim
The Binding of Isaac
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
Super Mario Odyssey
FEZ
Nintendo Land (criminally underrated)
-
I don't think anything can be considered "objectively" the greatest. Everyone's greatest or favorite game is based on one's personal opinion or experience.
Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts".
-
I don't think anything can be considered "objectively" the greatest. Everyone's greatest or favorite game is based on one's personal opinion or experience.
Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts".
We have the greatest movies list of 100 or 250 or so spread out. Either chosen by professionals in the field or the public. Most of them come across as mostly consistent with minor overlap. Maybe you couldn't define something different among truly the best games. But it wouldn't be hard to see a clear difference among the bottom of the barrel to mediocre. Just like theres a measurable difference between someone with an IQ of 80 vs 120 or so but not much difference between 110 and 120 or so? Good and evil? Beauty? Truth and injustice? We have a loose idea of this no? Some vagueness sure but I think most could agree.
https://letterboxd.com/momsaysitsok/list/r-truefilm-canon-complete-list/by/release-earliest/
https://letterboxd.com/top10ner/list/top10ners-1001-greatest-movies-of-all-time/page/2/
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls026336113/?st_dt=&mode=grid&page=3&ref_=ttls_vw_grd&sort=user_rating,desc
https://letterboxd.com/mlofferosky/list/sight-and-sound-top-250-critics-list-2012/page/3/
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3hbiio/update_1001_greatest_movies_of_all_time_plus/
This one for books which is consistent and taught in schools, if it didn't have some objective quality they wouldn't bother teaching it as a classic?
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/18796.The_ACTUAL_100_Best_Novels_of_the_20th_Century
It's pretty consistent. I believe there should be a list for video games in the coming decades that's more serious or with more consideration to a standard rather than a nostalgic kick. More scholarly. Something someone would study or want to be cultured with video games. We might be able to consider it a art form or more meaningful culture than disposable entertainment or degenerate forgettable activity one day.
I'm getting older and prefer to find more meaning or beauty in games than something I'm just killing time with personally. But it's not invalid to do so or wrong to do so, and games are many things compared to books or movies as I said. So I really think artistic merit and design should be split with something purely gameplay based (i.e fun). Not that they cant be both or overlap. But if you just put them together you're going to be stuck in a situation where you have a game purely based on gameplay with either a trash storyline or none to speak vs something with serious narrative and dialogue exploring the human condition and soul vs a plumber chasing some princess eating mushrooms? It would be absurd to put them together on the same list.
As you saw above he listed Red Dead Redemption in all 3 categorises. I wouldn't disagree it sounds accurate to me.
-
I don't think anything can be considered "objectively" the greatest. Everyone's greatest or favorite game is based on one's personal opinion or experience.
Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts".
We have the greatest movies list of 100 or 250 or so spread out. Either chosen by professionals in the field or the public. Most of them come across as mostly consistent with minor overlap. Maybe you couldn't define something different among truly the best games. But it wouldn't be hard to see a clear difference among the bottom of the barrel to mediocre. Just like theres a measurable difference between someone with an IQ of 80 vs 120 or so but not much difference between 110 and 120 or so? Good and evil? Beauty? Truth and injustice? We have a loose idea of this no? Some vagueness sure but I think most could agree.
That list was made from average ratings (Critic's & User's) from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Letterboxd. So it still comes from people's opinions. It is NOT an objective fact. It's a aggregate of OPINIONS. The most you could say is those lists represent a general consensus, but that does not in any way imply they are the greatest objectively, or that I'm compelled to agree with it.
Looking through the lists some people have posted here, there are some I agree with and some I disagree with. And if I made my own list, there are people who would agree and disagree with me too. That's fine, but it means we're making these lists based on our opinions, which is NOT objective. I would highly disagree that we have objective measurements of what is good or evil, what is beautiful or ugly, what is intelligent or stupid, and what is good or bad. It's all based on opinions, loose consensus is not gonna cut it. I have my own scale of what games are good, mediocre or bad. We all have different tastes.
How do you know you've played all the best games out there? How do you know you'll still consider them the greatest 5, 10, 15 years from now? I'm not saying that a person can't create their own personal top list, but saying that any one person's list is the objective hard truth is just wrong. I'm just taking issue with the language being used here.
-
I don't think anything can be considered "objectively" the greatest. Everyone's greatest or favorite game is based on one's personal opinion or experience.
Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts".
We have the greatest movies list of 100 or 250 or so spread out. Either chosen by professionals in the field or the public. Most of them come across as mostly consistent with minor overlap. Maybe you couldn't define something different among truly the best games. But it wouldn't be hard to see a clear difference among the bottom of the barrel to mediocre. Just like theres a measurable difference between someone with an IQ of 80 vs 120 or so but not much difference between 110 and 120 or so? Good and evil? Beauty? Truth and injustice? We have a loose idea of this no? Some vagueness sure but I think most could agree.
That list was made from average ratings (Critic's & User's) from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Letterboxd. So it still comes from people's opinions. It is NOT an objective fact. It's a aggregate of OPINIONS. The most you could say is those lists represent a general consensus, but that does not in any way imply they are the greatest objectively, or that I'm compelled to agree with it.
Looking through the lists some people have posted here, there are some I agree with and some I disagree with. And if I made my own list, there are people who would agree and disagree with me too. That's fine, but it means we're making these lists based on our opinions, which is NOT objective. I would highly disagree that we have objective measurements of what is good or evil, what is beautiful or ugly, what is intelligent or stupid, and what is good or bad. It's all based on opinions, loose consensus is not gonna cut it. I have my own scale of what games are good, mediocre or bad. We all have different tastes.
How do you know you've played all the best games out there? How do you know you'll still consider them the greatest 5, 10, 15 years from now? I'm not saying that a person can't create their own personal top list, but saying that any one person's list is the objective hard truth is just wrong. I'm just taking issue with the language being used here.
But you're saying there's no objective beauty or quality standard/metric with games, but you make an objective statement saying one doesn't exist?
You're right as in much as you can't throw a dart and hit it with a bulls-eye stagnantly. But you can feel and sense its outline instinctively or on a emotional level with some level or shades of objectively to it. You can't feel or touch it like air or catch the wind or describe love, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist? There's still a standard, and someone who is informed or has expertise in the area with others could make a list and get closer to the ideal and preserve it for anyone who wants to study games or get cultured in the best the medium has to offer.
Just as we praise the great sportsman, warrior or the writer, or fine works of art and music. If I threw shit on a canvas would you objectively say it's a masterpiece and better compared to Van gogh painting or da vinci? If your comparing Van gogh and da vinci or which ice cream you like the most I'd say its more subjective.
I will say then perhaps there's many truths and beauty but some truths truer than others, and more shades of objectivity to it if you wish to correct.
So what do you suggest then instead? We forget a metric for quality standard and let the fortnighters and SJW journalists lead modern trends? Walking forward in straight lines only, and let retro games die with us as archaic disposable entertainment with no shades of an objective standard or merit to them played only be delusional nostalgists, it's all void to be replaced by the next fad?
I think some serious discussion should be made to preserve and try to define something closer to the ideal instead of relying on ill informed opinions or SJW journalists and pretending they have merit. The museum someone was wanting to build was good start at least.
That was the premise I wanted to be discussed.
-
Yeah I was gonna say, there are no greatest games of all time objectively speaking. If you want a list of which games scored the highest, or sold the most, then you can easily research that information. Why would you seek to ask someone to make a person list of objective greatness? Seems like a contradictory request. Apparently it's just a cold hard fact that Wii Sports is one of the greatest games ever made (and I'm not knocking the game, it's quite good), but I mean it's common knowledge if you look at the sales. The closest thing we have to objective reality when measuring greatness is the sales figure. My personal opinion, which is subjective, doesn't matter.
you can feel and sense its outline instinctively or on a emotional level with some level or shades of objectively to it.
Intuition and logic are not the same thing. You can't use intuition to formulate something as if it were objective fact. This is why opinions are said to be like... those things which we all have and never realize that our own stinks.
but some truths truer than others
I don't think so. There's only true, or false, as far as I know.
So what do you suggest then instead? We forget a metric for quality standard and let the fortnighters and SJW journalists lead modern trends? Walking forward in straight lines only, and let retro games die with us as archaic disposable entertainment with no shades of an objective standard or merit to them played only be delusional nostalgists, it's all void to be replaced by the next fad?
Whether you like it or not, Fortnight is an immensely popular game because many people actually enjoy playing it. That much can actually be used as a significant measurement of something. So, which matters more when it comes to measuring video game greatness? Games which are/were played and enjoyed on a massive scale, or the whims of a handful of armchair art critics spread among various game collecting circles online? What exactly makes them more credible than the masses?
This is the same debate that always transpires. Art is subjective, it's not objective. You might not enjoy Led Zepplin, but it doesn't mean they are any worse for it. Just because myself, and many other people enjoy their music, also doesn't make them better art. People have different sensibilities, different quirks, different temperaments. We don't all feel the same about all forms of art, and that's fine. We don't all have the same level of exposure to all forms of art, and that's also fine. I think if you want to try to measure video game greatness objectively, look at sales figures and look at historical game reviews/scores. That's the most objective approach, however flawed.
-
Intuition and logic are not the same thing. You can't use intuition to formulate something as if it were objective fact. This is why opinions are said to be like... those things which we all have and never realize that our own stinks."
You can you're doing it right now.
I don't think so. There's only true, or false, as far as I know."
Then you don't know much.
Whether you like it or not, Fortnight is an immensely popular game because many people actually enjoy playing it. That much can actually be used as a significant measurement of something. So, which matters more when it comes to measuring video game greatness? Games which are/were played and enjoyed on a massive scale, or the whims of a handful of armchair art critics spread among various game collecting circles online? What exactly makes them more credible than the masses?"
Yes, the dunning kruger effect doesn't exist. Your grandma's opinion (presuming she hasn't touched a video game) is just as valued and informed a someone on here or an enthusiast who's studied and researched it heavily in his free time.
Some might not enjoy Led Zepplin but most are smart enough to realise on a instinctual level why others would like it or notice the intelligence yet not fully embrace it themselves. Just like Mozart, Beethoven, bach etc.. It's not the same as comparing Led Zepplin to some drunk homeless guy in the street singing poorly. It's objectively shit in comparison. Just like I can't get up on a stage and be better than freddie mercury himself. He's objectively better at being freddie mercury.
-
But you're saying there's no objective beauty or quality standard/metric with games, but you make an objective statement saying one doesn't exist?
You're right as in much as you can't throw a dart and hit it with a bulls-eye stagnantly. But you can feel and sense its outline instinctively or on a emotional level with some level or shades of objectively to it. You can't feel or touch it like air or catch the wind or describe love, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist? There's still a standard, and someone who is informed or has expertise in the area with others could make a list and get closer to the ideal and preserve it for anyone who wants to study games or get cultured in the best the medium has to offer.
It's simply you're not using the word correctly. People use the word objective all the time without really knowing what it means. Put in the definition that I just pulled straight out of the dictionary.
Opinions can be [objective]
Opinions can be [not influenced by personal feelings or opinions]
Doesn't make any sense. It's like saying there's such a thing as a married bachelor. Your claim is axiomatically false statement by definition, which IS objective.
You can do, as Warmsignal did, pick something that is objective, like sales of a video game. Because the sales of video games are not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions.
But we're not talking about sales. We're talking about beauty and greatness. These things are intangible. Can you identify what is empirically beautiful for every human being? Can you produce a well-validated reliable measurement of beauty or greatness or love? One that will lead everyone to the same conclusion if they used it? It's total rubbish.
These emotions "exist" as biochemical processes by humans. That's not to say they aren't important. They absolutely do have a neurocognitive foundation, but they are a product of the mechanisms going on in your own body. They don't "exist" in some cosmic ether nether-plane or whatever you think is going on.
I have no idea what you're on about the SJW journalists defining what's a good game and what's not, but I'm not even going to attempt to entertain a response there.
-
LOL Dunning Kruger doesn't apply to whether people can have opinions of something or not you know xD
-
Intuition and logic are not the same thing. You can't use intuition to formulate something as if it were objective fact. This is why opinions are said to be like... those things which we all have and never realize that our own stinks."
You can you're doing it right now.
I don't think so. There's only true, or false, as far as I know."
Then you don't know much.
Whether you like it or not, Fortnight is an immensely popular game because many people actually enjoy playing it. That much can actually be used as a significant measurement of something. So, which matters more when it comes to measuring video game greatness? Games which are/were played and enjoyed on a massive scale, or the whims of a handful of armchair art critics spread among various game collecting circles online? What exactly makes them more credible than the masses?"
Yes, the dunning kruger effect doesn't exist. Your grandma's opinion (presuming she hasn't touched a video game) is just as valued and informed a someone on here or an enthusiast who's studied and researched it heavily in his free time.
Some might not enjoy Led Zepplin but most are smart enough to realise on a instinctual level why others would like it or notice the intelligence yet not fully embrace it themselves. It's not the same as comparing Led Zepplin to some drunk homeless guy in the street singing poorly. It's objectively shit.
Isaac Brock sounds like a homeless drunk on the streets when he sings most of his songs, but it sounds damn good to my ears and to the ears of many others as well. Who's a better singer, Robert Plant or Isaac Brock? It's all opinion and it actually doesn't matter.
Even if my grandma has never played a game, if she enjoys Fortnite then why shouldn't her opinion lend the game any further credit to it's accessibility and fun factor? Games which are more accessible to a greater number of people do not equate to the game's overall greatness and superiority? Says who, and why? It's all opinion. But one thing that is not opinion, is the the fact that Fortnite is a very popular game relative to the popularity of other games.
-
Of course Freddie Mercury is the best at... being himself. ??? Do you mean to say who is the better singer? Of course people can have varying opinions on that.
-
But you're saying there's no objective beauty or quality standard/metric with games, but you make an objective statement saying one doesn't exist?
You're right as in much as you can't throw a dart and hit it with a bulls-eye stagnantly. But you can feel and sense its outline instinctively or on a emotional level with some level or shades of objectively to it. You can't feel or touch it like air or catch the wind or describe love, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist? There's still a standard, and someone who is informed or has expertise in the area with others could make a list and get closer to the ideal and preserve it for anyone who wants to study games or get cultured in the best the medium has to offer.
It's simply you're not using the word correctly. People use the word objective all the time without really knowing what it means. Put in the definition that I just pulled straight out of the dictionary.
Opinions can be [objective]
Opinions can be [not influenced by personal feelings or opinions]
Doesn't make any sense. It's like saying there's such a thing as a married bachelor. Your claim is axiomatically false statement by definition, which IS objective.
You can do, as Warmsignal did, pick something that is objective, like sales of a video game. Because the sales of video games are not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions.
But we're not talking about sales. We're talking about beauty and greatness. These things are intangible. Can you identify what is empirically beautiful for every human being? Can you produce a well-validated reliable measurement of beauty or greatness or love? One that will lead everyone to the same conclusion if they used it? It's total rubbish.
These emotions "exist" as biochemical processes by humans. That's not to say they aren't important. They absolutely do have a neurocognitive foundation, but they are a product of the mechanisms going on in your own body. They don't "exist" in some cosmic ether nether-plane or whatever you think is going on.
I have no idea what you're on about the SJW journalists defining what's a good game and what's not, but I'm not even going to attempt to entertain a response there.
But we're not talking about sales. We're talking about beauty and greatness. These things are intangible. Can you identify what is empirically beautiful for every human being? Can you produce a well-validated reliable measurement of beauty or greatness or love? One that will lead everyone to the same conclusion if they used it? It's total rubbish."
Are you just going to strawman? Because you're making arguments I never made. I clearly said you can't hit it like a "bulls-eye" target and relay it empirically pinpointed and nailed, as much as looking through a keyhole at a room and not seeing the whole thing but only pixelated/not in focus (but still the objective shape of truth/beauty) It can be formulated closer to what the ideal is and more in focus the more experience someone has, but it's exact nature can't be understood at least not with language but through the abstracts you get something closer to objective truth or what it embodies. But If you wish to be relativistic and subjective about everything as is popular please do.
These emotions "exist" as biochemical processes by humans. That's not to say they aren't important. They absolutely do have a neurocognitive foundation, but they are a product of the mechanisms going on in your own body. They don't "exist" in some cosmic ether nether-plane or whatever you think is going on."
I think many would disagree with you anyway, including Plato and the whole branch of metaphysics. But you can continue to be a relativist or whatever "you think" is going on. Yep whatever.
I have no idea what you're on about the SJW journalists defining what's a good game and what's not"
Of course you don't, nothing is going on, all is well. Good, spare us the npc response.
-
LOL Dunning Kruger doesn't apply to whether people can have opinions of something or not you know xD
Yes. You're a prime example.
-
telly and Warmsignal are on point here. There’s no such thing as objective beauty. You can get an extremely large consensus, but never truly objective. Even something with a 100% on Metacritic or RT has got someone out there saying ‘Nah, it’s not that good,’ because it is all subject to someone’s personal tastes / opinions.
-
telly and Warmsignal are on point here. There’s no such thing as objective beauty. You can get an extremely large consensus, but never truly objective. Even something with a 100% on Metacritic or RT has got someone out there saying ‘Nah, it’s not that good,’ because it is all subject to someone’s personal tastes / opinions.
Well there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. There's universal markers so you're getting shades of it thats objective, but specific beauty is subjective and relative. I agreed that much, unless it's going to be a circle jerk here with no one dissenting as usual.
If it's relative or not to the subject. Even scientists have mapped out the ideal symmetries of a beautiful face. We are the same species who are attracted to similar qualities like any other animal. I would make the assumption it applies to other things as well.
-
I don’t understand why you don’t just ask us, “What are your greatest games of all time?”. That’s a valid question. You’d be asking everyone for their personal opinions. Instead you are framing it as though there is a definitive list of greatest games which is based purely in fact, and you want us to tell you which games those are.
I completely disagree with any notion that there is an ideal video game, or a most correct way to make one, and that only a well trained eye could observe that game and recognize it for what it actually is - a game superior to all others, objectively.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective
-
Are you just going to strawman? Because you're making arguments I never made. I clearly said you can't hit it like a "bulls-eye" target and relay it empirically pinpointed and nailed, as much as looking through a keyhole at a room and not seeing the whole thing but only pixelated/not in focus (but still the objective shape of truth/beauty) It can be formulated closer to what the ideal is and more in focus the more experience someone has, but it's exact nature can't be understood at least not with language but through the abstracts you get something closer to objective truth or what it embodies. But If you wish to be relativistic and subjective about everything as is popular please do.
This whole metaphorical jargon sounds nice in theory but is total bullshit. The objective "best list of games ever" is not locked behind some hidden door or obscured away by language and we just need to look hard enough, that's ridiculous. The interrater reliability between all of us is completely wonked. We all have our own starting basis for what makes a good game that any attempt to determine this "bulls-eye" target is dead right from the starting gate.
As far as I'm concerned, you've undermined your whole argument. You've stretched out your position so far none of what you're saying can be remotely applied to any game that has ever been made. You're talking about a game that doesn't even exist anymore. If none of us can measure it (as you've admitted), and none of us can fully define or describe it (as you've admitted), and we don't even know what it would LOOK like:
a. How do you know such a thing exists?
b. What's the point or the use of trying to identify it in a thread like this?
These emotions "exist" as biochemical processes by humans. That's not to say they aren't important. They absolutely do have a neurocognitive foundation, but they are a product of the mechanisms going on in your own body. They don't "exist" in some cosmic ether nether-plane or whatever you think is going on."
I think many would disagree with you anyway, including Plato and the whole branch of metaphysics. But you can continue to be a relativist or whatever "you think" is going on. Yep whatever.
I know people would disagree with me, I'm talking to one right now (you). This isn't an argument.
LOL Dunning Kruger doesn't apply to whether people can have opinions of something or not you know xD
Yes. You're a prime example.
Nice jab dude. I mean I just stated that your example of Dunning Kruger was nonsense, and it sounds like you agree with me, so I dunno what to tell ya. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾
-
This whole metaphorical jargon sounds nice in theory but is total bullshit. The objective "best list of games ever" is not locked behind some hidden door or obscured away by language and we just need to look hard enough, that's ridiculous. The interrater reliability between all of us is completely wonked. We all have our own starting basis for what makes a good game that any attempt to determine this "bulls-eye" target is dead right from the starting gate."
You say that with such conviction that you have objective certainty that is isn't the case? And everything is subjective (which is objective) Ironic. And no you're incorrect. There is universal objective markers of good game design. Just as we remember great people or things that stood above the rest in either quality or beauty throughout time. We remember Mozart, and Beethoven 100 years later for a reason, and it will apply to some video games hopefully as well in a similar manner. If you can't accept or comprehend poor or mediocre game design vs quality design what else is there to say? If you seriously can't tell the difference between why Action 51 is objectively bad compared to say Contra, ninja gaiden, castlevania, or zelda or in a different league. Everyone is aware why it's poor in comparison even if they can't verbalise it exactly, the superior quality is understood objectively. If it's intuition or logic. It can be instinctively understood that it was crafted with love/passion and dedication and felt. Not metaphorical jargonise bullshit as you put it. Only humorists would say otherwise.
a. How do you know such a thing exists?
b. What's the point or the use of trying to identify it in a thread like this?"
Sorry for trying to make an engaging discussion about video games? This site is for cooking recipes only or brain dead topics? or worse at the mercy of marvelvscapcom2?
I know people would disagree with me, I'm talking to one right now (you). This isn't an argument."
Yes, and this isn't an argument either? Talking as if you figured out what people have been debating for millenniums in about 5 minutes? What am I suppose to tell you?
Oh I've heard about Anita Sarkeesian and all that, but I mostly don't give a shit about it. There are far worse things in this world to get all "offended" over."
Yes I'm well aware of that, but this is a video game based site. It might come a shock to you but we discuss things related to video games here, that includes video game journalism off handily if this comes as news?
-
There is universal objective markers of good game design.
I mean, name one "objective marker" for me. Fluid controls? Responsive controls? Well crafted story? Who decides those things are fluid or responsive or well crafted? What game has an aspect of it that is universally loved by everyone? There is no such thing. What is fluid for one is clunky for another. What is well crafted for one is boring for another. That is the definition of subjective.
I can concede that we can reach a broad consensus about what a good game consists of theoretically, that might be "objective". But we have different ideas about how to get there when actually looking at individual games, which makes it not a very useful claim in my opinion.
Yes, and this isn't an argument either? Talking as if you figured out what people have been debating for millenniums in about 5 minutes? What am I suppose to tell you?
Just because people don't agree with me dosen't mean that I'm right, or they're wrong. It has no bearing. That's why it's not an argument. But pointing out flaws in logic is an argument. And I ever said I had the answers to everything btw
-
Back on topic I forgot to mention (in my own opinion) I think that The Sims Series 1-3 on PC has the best music, gameplay but not the greatest story.
What makes this question so complicated is the fact that there is so many video games out there to choose from. and we all love multiple video games otherwise we would not be blogging about them.
2nd is already mentioned it is a matter of opinion and I already know for a fact their are people who both love and there are others who currently can't stand The Sims Series 1-3 on PC, Metal Jesus Rocks/Jason on YouTube Being one, who cannot stand the sims series. I know because I actually talked to this YouTuber in a private forum before. but that was years ago.
3rd is that opinions also change over time, art is in the eye of the beholder (not my own quote)
-
Action 52 is a well documented case of exceptionally poor game programming and marketing by a small company that was in over it's head with grandiose ideas. Still, there are people who love punishing themselves with jank. Maybe Action 52 is the greatest game of all time then?
If the greatest game of all time is defined as one that is the opposite of janky, then we first must agree on what that entails. It's kind of difficult, because games don't all require the same control schemes. How do we decide which controls are ideal for an 8-bit racing game? What about a stealth/action game? What's the ideal jump button? A, B, or up on the directional pad? How do we really know which one is the best for all players? Does length of the player's finger play a role in ease of control? Should they use the NES Max instead? Etc, etc.
-
That's what I got caught up with. I couldn't even determine what genre an objectively good game might look like. Not everyone likes platformers or FPSs or RPGs, etc.
-
Storyline:
Grandia
Xenogears
Valkyrie Profile
Music:
Ys Book I and II
Ys III: Wanderers from Ys
Tengai Makyō II: Manji Maru
Artistic Merit:
Panzer Dragoon
Nights into Dreams...
Kirby's Dream Land 3
Gameplay:
Gradius
Puyo Puyo
Bomberman
-
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
Pokemon Heart Gold and Soul Silver
Skyrim
GTA V
Super Mario 64
Bioshock
Resident Evil 4
Super Mario Bros 3
-
Just in general some that came to mind are FF7, Chrono Trigger, Pokemon at least for how far the franchise has come (up until gen 6 i guess), Devil May Cry, Halo, Legend of Zelda
DOOM literally rocked the fucking FPS genre so much that games that came out after DOOM (1993) were called Doom Clones. That and Doom II are literally like the most modded games ever made. The soundtrack, gameplay, and legacy rock. That and the original game has been ported to pretty much every device known to man with a compiler in it. check this out: https://www.reddit.com/r/itrunsdoom/
I've heard the Last of Us is really really good.
Tetris is like DOOM in being made for literally everything and I think it's the most sold game of all time, or second most sold. The Tetris Type A theme is iconic and everybody and their mother's dog knows about Tetris.
Minecraft as it's either up there or right behind tetris in sales. So many mods (Maybe more than Doom IDK). Probably the best sandbox game made ever IMO.
Not really a popular choice but IMO Devil May Cry 1's difficulty is probably one of the best designed in terms of how normal prepares you for hard and how hard mode prepares you for Dante Must Die. You can win every battle without ever taking a hit even on DMD because it's designed that way and also the soundtrack rocks.
Mortal Kombat is probably one of the best fighting games ever made (that or the Street Fighter series). Super Smash Bros. Melee is probably the best fighting game conceived in terms of the mastery and movement of that game. Some top players get near Starcraft II levels of APM (actions per minute). The way that game has been analyzed and optimized is incredible.
Sonic and Mario have it pretty tied for platforming (retro formula sonic eg. 1,2,3 & knuckles, Mania.)
For the horror genre I'd have to say Resident Evil. Very immersive.
The Metal Gear series seems to be highly received and is a pretty quality game series overall.
Consistently for speedruns Mario 64 is at the top most of the time on speedrun.com Arguably one of the most popular mario games and early 3d platformers.
According to wikipedia stuff like Symphony of the Night and Breath of the Wild are up there. I'll link the page so you can view it yourself.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best
-
Gameplay
Final Fantasy V
Super Metroid
Super Mario Bros. 3
Sonic 3 & Knuckles
Story
Final Fantasy VI
Terranigma
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
Music
Final Fantasy VI
Chrono Trigger
Trials of Mana
-
Story
Chrono Trigger
Gameplay
Vagrant Story
Music
Castlevania SOTN