Retro Game Challenge is a damn good game(s). I popped it in played it for an hour yesterday just to remind myself, and there's just nothing else like it. Other than the sequel, of course. But I don't like to reopen that wound.
I get the warm and fuzzies just thinking about RGC. Oddly, I'm nostalgic for a game that is itself supposed to inspire nostalgia for other games. I might start another runthrough today just for fun. It was a January release, wasn't it? I'm not surprised if a lot of other people forgot about it, especially since it was a pretty low-profile release.
I was also really surprised that Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes ended up being one of my favorite DS games (and overall games) this year, especially since it just came out mid-December and snuck out of nowhere. I like it better than Puzzle Quest, honestly.
I still haven't bought it.
I'm a bad person.
Retro Game Challenge or Clash of Heroes? In either case, I'd rectify the situation. :P Those and DQV were my favorite DS games of '09.
I wanted to like Henry Hatsworth, and the game was beautiful up until the last world but then the balancing just fell apart and it became a frustrating mess. Pity, as it was delectable up until then.
* The best-selling album of 2000 was No Strings Attached, by *NSYNC.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2001 was Hybrid Theory, by Linkin Park.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2002 was The Eminem Show, by Eminem.[42]
* The best-selling album of 2003 was Get Rich or Die Tryin', by 50 Cent.[43]
* The best-selling album of 2004 was Confessions, by Usher.[44]
* The best-selling album of 2005 was The Emancipation of Mimi, by Mariah Carey.[39]
* The best-selling album of 2006 was High School Musical Soundtrack.[38]
* The best-selling album of 2007 was Noel, by Josh Groban.[45]
* The best-selling album of 2008 was Tha Carter III, by Lil Wayne.[46]
* The best-selling album of 2009 was Fearless, by Taylor Swift.[47]
So, I take it you believe this is a good list of the best musical artists of the 2000s then?
If by "Best" you mean these albums made the most money, sold the most copies, entertained the greatest number of people...then yes that is a very good list of the best musical artists from those years. If you are trying to decide what "best" is by such vague subjective metrics such as personal tastes and preferences then who the hell knows if they are the "best" or not.
WoW could reasonably be considered the "best" game of the decade for the simple reason that even after 5+ years, 11.5 million people still pay $15 a month to play. Regardless of your opinion of the game and what you think about the people who play it, it's hard to argue with any game that rakes in $2 billion dollars a year. Even if you don't like MMO's or WoW in particular, Blizzard has found a magic formula for causing people to open their wallets for the same game month after month, year after year.
* The best-selling album of 2000 was No Strings Attached, by *NSYNC.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2001 was Hybrid Theory, by Linkin Park.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2002 was The Eminem Show, by Eminem.[42]
* The best-selling album of 2003 was Get Rich or Die Tryin', by 50 Cent.[43]
* The best-selling album of 2004 was Confessions, by Usher.[44]
* The best-selling album of 2005 was The Emancipation of Mimi, by Mariah Carey.[39]
* The best-selling album of 2006 was High School Musical Soundtrack.[38]
* The best-selling album of 2007 was Noel, by Josh Groban.[45]
* The best-selling album of 2008 was Tha Carter III, by Lil Wayne.[46]
* The best-selling album of 2009 was Fearless, by Taylor Swift.[47]
So, I take it you believe this is a good list of the best musical artists of the 2000s then?
No, you kinda missed my point. WoW has been raking in the cash over the last 5+ years, not just one year. I'm just saying that people do vote with their dollars, but there is a difference between voting once with a single purchase, and voting monthly for years at a stretch to keep playing the same game.
I'm not defending the game, I played for 2 years + beta and got out because I simply got tired of the grind. I don't think it's even remotely "new" or "innovative" but it continues to pull in a giant revenue stream because lots of people still love playing it.
If you want to make musical comparisons, a better one would be The Beatles. Their last album was in the early 70's yet they continue to sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Will the albums you mentioned keep selling like that in 40 years? They'd be lucky to be selling that many next year.
I think he's trying to say that popularity is not the only criteria by which one should measure "best".
But it can also be argued that popularity (in this case being concluded due to "Best Selling Album of XXXX) is the only reliable way to measure the "Best"ness of anything. We simply cannot arrive at objective conclusions with subjective data. Who here can honestly say that their tastes are so refined and perfect, that the games they prefer for quality and gameplay reasons, are better than someone else's pick. Some might say that Ocarina of Time is the "Best" game of all time, others might say it was FFVII or Goldeneye, or Super Mario 64.....you see my point?
I think he's trying to say that popularity is not the only criteria by which one should measure "best".
In that case, it is equally puzzling as to why we should take our own favorite game into account. Sure, it's popular with me, but popularity shouldn't be the only criteria.
WoW could reasonably be considered the "best" game of the decade for the simple reason that even after 5+ years, 11.5 million people still pay $15 a month to play. Regardless of your opinion of the game and what you think about the people who play it, it's hard to argue with any game that rakes in $2 billion dollars a year. Even if you don't like MMO's or WoW in particular, Blizzard has found a magic formula for causing people to open their wallets for the same game month after month, year after year.
* The best-selling album of 2000 was No Strings Attached, by *NSYNC.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2001 was Hybrid Theory, by Linkin Park.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2002 was The Eminem Show, by Eminem.[42]
* The best-selling album of 2003 was Get Rich or Die Tryin', by 50 Cent.[43]
* The best-selling album of 2004 was Confessions, by Usher.[44]
* The best-selling album of 2005 was The Emancipation of Mimi, by Mariah Carey.[39]
* The best-selling album of 2006 was High School Musical Soundtrack.[38]
* The best-selling album of 2007 was Noel, by Josh Groban.[45]
* The best-selling album of 2008 was Tha Carter III, by Lil Wayne.[46]
* The best-selling album of 2009 was Fearless, by Taylor Swift.[47]
So, I take it you believe this is a good list of the best musical artists of the 2000s then?
No, you kinda missed my point. WoW has been raking in the cash over the last 5+ years, not just one year. I'm just saying that people do vote with their dollars, but there is a difference between voting once with a single purchase, and voting monthly for years at a stretch to keep playing the same game.
I'm not defending the game, I played for 2 years + beta and got out because I simply got tired of the grind. I don't think it's even remotely "new" or "innovative" but it continues to pull in a giant revenue stream because lots of people still love playing it.
If you want to make musical comparisons, a better one would be The Beatles. Their last album was in the early 70's yet they continue to sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Will the albums you mentioned keep selling like that in 40 years? They'd be lucky to be selling that many next year.
I think he's trying to say that popularity is not the only criteria by which one should measure "best".
But it can also be argued that popularity (in this case being concluded due to "Best Selling Album of XXXX) is the only reliable way to measure the "Best"ness of anything. We simply cannot arrive at objective conclusions with subjective data. Who here can honestly say that their tastes are so refined and perfect, that the games they prefer for quality and gameplay reasons, are better than someone else's pick. Some might say that Ocarina of Time is the "Best" game of all time, others might say it was FFVII or Goldeneye, or Super Mario 64.....you see my point?
That assumes that there's a direct correlation between quality and personal preference. For example, I voted Uncharted 2 as the best game I played this year. It wasn't my favorite game from '09, but it was certainly the best. My favorite game was probably Dissidia. But if you look at my list, Dissidia placed 7th. It wasn't the highest-quality game I played in '09, and I acknowledge that.
Renzo on
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
* The best-selling album of 2000 was No Strings Attached, by *NSYNC.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2001 was Hybrid Theory, by Linkin Park.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2002 was The Eminem Show, by Eminem.[42]
* The best-selling album of 2003 was Get Rich or Die Tryin', by 50 Cent.[43]
* The best-selling album of 2004 was Confessions, by Usher.[44]
* The best-selling album of 2005 was The Emancipation of Mimi, by Mariah Carey.[39]
* The best-selling album of 2006 was High School Musical Soundtrack.[38]
* The best-selling album of 2007 was Noel, by Josh Groban.[45]
* The best-selling album of 2008 was Tha Carter III, by Lil Wayne.[46]
* The best-selling album of 2009 was Fearless, by Taylor Swift.[47]
So, I take it you believe this is a good list of the best musical artists of the 2000s then?
If by "Best" you mean these albums made the most money, sold the most copies, entertained the greatest number of people...then yes that is a very good list of the best musical artists from those years. If you are trying to decide what "best" is by such vague subjective metrics such as personal tastes and preferences then who the hell knows if they are the "best" or not.
That would be a great argument in a discussion of "best" in the video game sales thread.
But here we are, in a thread to determine the game of the year for 2009, where we are voting in a poll based on our own personal criteria. And looking at the top 10-20 lists people keep posting here, it's pretty obvious that nobody at all who has posted their choices thus far has voted based on games that made the most money, sold the most copies, or entertained the greatest number of people. In short, we've all used our own vague subjective metrics to make our votes for "best" game of 2009.
So why the frell would we suddenly want to shift to money made, total sales, influence and popularity for game of the decade? Is that somehow such an epic title that we need to move beyond the subjective metrics used to vote for game of the year every year? Why are our personal tastes and preferences no longer sufficient once we move from year to decade?
That's my issue with this discussion - not a single person that I can see the choices of thus far made their 2009 votes based on objective, quantitative measurements. Uncharted 2 clearly won't be the best selling game of this year, but it sure looks to be in the running for game of the year based on posted votes thus far. People picked it because it was their favorite game of the year, for subjective, personal reasons. Why would we use an entirely different rationale for game of the decade?
If there are some people who honestly choose their favorites, or what they think is best, based on sales metrics, more power to you I guess. But a number of those people are posting as if that is the only way to determine a "game of the decade" when it obviously isn't. If we didn't care about aggregating personal opinion and subjective judgments, we wouldn't be posting in this thread or voting in this poll in the first place.
I think the ideal definition of "game of the decade" would be the game that, in a perfect world where you can interview everyone, the greatest number of people would call it the game of the decade.
That's what we're already doing here. We each give our individual opinion on GotY or GotD or whatever. Now we want to find out which one really is the best, so we compile all our data together and come up with the forum favorite. Then we want to see which one really really is the best, so we put our forum data together with other forums and game review sites. etc. etc.
In the end, you have the game with the broadest appeal, which could very well be the one with the highest sales.
That's my issue with this discussion - not a single person that I can see the choices of thus far made their 2009 votes based on objective, quantitative measurements. Uncharted 2 clearly won't be the best selling game of this year, but it sure looks to be in the running for game of the year based on posted votes thus far. People picked it because it was their favorite game of the year, for subjective, personal reasons. Why would we use an entirely different rationale for game of the decade?
Do you consider Uncharted 2 game of the year? If not, then why are you willing to accept that it would win? Is it just because this forum votes it as such? Doesn't the end result become that much more reliable if you include more people, more forums? That's why the game with the broadest appeal wins.
This isn't the sales thread, but we sure are tallying up numbers to see which one's the highest. If you disapprove then perhaps you shouldn't have voted?
I think he's trying to say that popularity is not the only criteria by which one should measure "best".
But it can also be argued that popularity (in this case being concluded due to "Best Selling Album of XXXX) is the only reliable way to measure the "Best"ness of anything. We simply cannot arrive at objective conclusions with subjective data. Who here can honestly say that their tastes are so refined and perfect, that the games they prefer for quality and gameplay reasons, are better than someone else's pick. Some might say that Ocarina of Time is the "Best" game of all time, others might say it was FFVII or Goldeneye, or Super Mario 64.....you see my point?
That assumes that there's a direct correlation between quality and personal preference. For example, I voted Uncharted 2 as the best game I played this year. It wasn't my favorite game from '09, but it was certainly the best. My favorite game was probably Dissidia. But if you look at my list, Dissidia placed 7th. It wasn't the highest-quality game I played in '09, and I acknowledge that.
Right, so it becomes even harder to say what is "Best" or not when there are people who vote purely on gut-feeling or the amount of satisfaction they got out of a game. You admit to voting for a game that is of a lower quality than other games. Measuring "Best"ness by sales numbers is a hell of a lot better than using people's stomachs.
Connor on
XBL/PSN/ORIGIN/STEAM: LowKeyedUp
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
I think he's trying to say that popularity is not the only criteria by which one should measure "best".
In that case, it is equally puzzling as to why we should take our own favorite game into account. Sure, it's popular with me, but popularity isn't everything.
True enough
Certain objective criteria are more important than whether or not you really really like it
Like, I really like playing Samurai Warriors 2: Empires. Does that make it a good game in pretty much any way? Hell no son, that game is ass and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as any of the best games this year, let alone of the decade
Conversely, I hated playing Stalker: Clear Skies, because it is a broken piece of buggy garbage. But the game underneath that is pretty damn good and I can respect that, despite it's enormous difficulty curve and the general lack of being able to run on a computer
Would you vote for another presidential candidate just because you think he has the better qualities, even though you personally favor his opponent (if this even makes any sense)?
I think he's trying to say that popularity is not the only criteria by which one should measure "best".
But it can also be argued that popularity (in this case being concluded due to "Best Selling Album of XXXX) is the only reliable way to measure the "Best"ness of anything. We simply cannot arrive at objective conclusions with subjective data. Who here can honestly say that their tastes are so refined and perfect, that the games they prefer for quality and gameplay reasons, are better than someone else's pick. Some might say that Ocarina of Time is the "Best" game of all time, others might say it was FFVII or Goldeneye, or Super Mario 64.....you see my point?
That assumes that there's a direct correlation between quality and personal preference. For example, I voted Uncharted 2 as the best game I played this year. It wasn't my favorite game from '09, but it was certainly the best. My favorite game was probably Dissidia. But if you look at my list, Dissidia placed 7th. It wasn't the highest-quality game I played in '09, and I acknowledge that.
Right, so it becomes even harder to say what is "Best" or not when there are people who vote purely on gut-feeling or the amount of satisfaction they got out of a game. You admit to voting for a game that is of a lower quality than other games. Measuring "Best"ness by sales numbers is a hell of a lot better than using people's stomachs.
Using sales numbers to influence the decision is fine, as long as it's not the only metric.
Would you vote for another presidential candidate just because you think he has the better qualities, even though you personally favor his opponent (if this even makes any sense)?
Yes, because it should be a vote for the best candidate, not a popularity contest.
Renzo on
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
I think all you guys are missing the point. That being that this is just a chance to give our opinions and see how many people share those opinions on a pretty chart.
Either way, I don't know about a best decade thing. I mean we could have it but I'm not even sure If I can remember all the games I played that far or at least how much I liked them when I played.
Right, so it becomes even harder to say what is "Best" or not when there are people who vote purely on gut-feeling or the amount of satisfaction they got out of a game. You admit to voting for a game that is of a lower quality than other games. Measuring "Best"ness by sales numbers is a hell of a lot better than using people's stomachs.
"Best" is, and should be, a purely subjective standard. Using sales numbers to determine that is laughable.
"Most popular" is purely a reflection of sales numbers.
"Most influential" or "Most important" is where we get into a gray area, and where sales numbers are one factor.
Would you vote for another presidential candidate just because you think he has the better qualities, even though you personally favor his opponent (if this even makes any sense)?
Whichever one you vote for is ultimately the one that you favored, though.
WoW could reasonably be considered the "best" game of the decade for the simple reason that even after 5+ years, 11.5 million people still pay $15 a month to play. Regardless of your opinion of the game and what you think about the people who play it, it's hard to argue with any game that rakes in $2 billion dollars a year. Even if you don't like MMO's or WoW in particular, Blizzard has found a magic formula for causing people to open their wallets for the same game month after month, year after year.
* The best-selling album of 2000 was No Strings Attached, by *NSYNC.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2001 was Hybrid Theory, by Linkin Park.[41]
* The best-selling album of 2002 was The Eminem Show, by Eminem.[42]
* The best-selling album of 2003 was Get Rich or Die Tryin', by 50 Cent.[43]
* The best-selling album of 2004 was Confessions, by Usher.[44]
* The best-selling album of 2005 was The Emancipation of Mimi, by Mariah Carey.[39]
* The best-selling album of 2006 was High School Musical Soundtrack.[38]
* The best-selling album of 2007 was Noel, by Josh Groban.[45]
* The best-selling album of 2008 was Tha Carter III, by Lil Wayne.[46]
* The best-selling album of 2009 was Fearless, by Taylor Swift.[47]
So, I take it you believe this is a good list of the best musical artists of the 2000s then?
No, you kinda missed my point. WoW has been raking in the cash over the last 5+ years, not just one year. I'm just saying that people do vote with their dollars, but there is a difference between voting once with a single purchase, and voting monthly for years at a stretch to keep playing the same game.
I'm not defending the game, I played for 2 years + beta and got out because I simply got tired of the grind. I don't think it's even remotely "new" or "innovative" but it continues to pull in a giant revenue stream because lots of people still love playing it.
If you want to make musical comparisons, a better one would be The Beatles. Their last album was in the early 70's yet they continue to sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Will the albums you mentioned keep selling like that in 40 years? They'd be lucky to be selling that many next year.
I didn't miss your point, I just got lazy on pulling sales numbers. Longevity of sales/repeated sales doesn't do anything more to prove that something is the "best" than single-year sales do. It just shows that something has not just initial popularity, but enduring popularity. That something stays popular for a longer than normal period of time is not an indication of quality in and of itself. Only popularity. It does no more to show that something is the "best" than any more typical shorter burst of sales.
Different comparison this time: Domino's pizza is probably the most successful seller of pizza in the USA every year. Does that popularity actually make it the best pizza in the USA? McDonald's probably sells more hamburgers in the USA, and throughout the entire world, than anyone else each year. Does this make a Big Mac the best hamburger in the world? Both have massive, enduring popularity at this point, not just a single year of most sales. Does that somehow make either one better than it was previously?
I'm not just saying popularity isn't everything, I'm saying popularity is, and always has been, a shitty metric for determining whether something is the best.
While I enjoy these GotY polls, and I think a GotDecade poll would be fun, I wouldn't want to try and get scientific with it if we really did one. Let mcc work his voting system magic, and we can all ooh and ahh when he posts the results.
Renzo on
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
Would you vote for another presidential candidate just because you think he has the better qualities, even though you personally favor his opponent (if this even makes any sense)?
Whichever one you vote for is ultimately the one that you favored, though.
I fail at analogies. Someone come up with a better one please.
I'm not just saying popularity isn't everything, I'm saying popularity is, and always has been, a shitty metric for determining whether something is the best.
Perhaps we should all vote on what the best method is for determining what is best. I think you would lose, since people generally have more confidence in decisions arrived at by majority than by the individual.
Right, so it becomes even harder to say what is "Best" or not when there are people who vote purely on gut-feeling or the amount of satisfaction they got out of a game. You admit to voting for a game that is of a lower quality than other games. Measuring "Best"ness by sales numbers is a hell of a lot better than using people's stomachs.
"Best" is, and should be, a purely subjective standard. Using sales numbers to determine that is laughable.
"Most popular" is purely a reflection of sales numbers.
"Most influential" or "Most important" is where we get into a gray area, and where sales numbers are one factor.
You say its "laughable" as if using sales numbers to bestow "Best"ness is a shocking idea. Where is it written that "Best" is purely subjective?
Connor on
XBL/PSN/ORIGIN/STEAM: LowKeyedUp
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
So why the frell would we suddenly want to shift to money made, total sales, influence and popularity for game of the decade? Is that somehow such an epic title that we need to move beyond the subjective metrics used to vote for game of the year every year? Why are our personal tastes and preferences no longer sufficient once we move from year to decade?
That's my issue with this discussion - not a single person that I can see the choices of thus far made their 2009 votes based on objective, quantitative measurements. Uncharted 2 clearly won't be the best selling game of this year, but it sure looks to be in the running for game of the year based on posted votes thus far. People picked it because it was their favorite game of the year, for subjective, personal reasons. Why would we use an entirely different rationale for game of the decade?
It's not just subjective, though
There are certain objective, quantitative measurements we can use to separate the wheat from the chaff
Let's use Uncharted 2 as an example: it's hard to communicate how a game "feels," per se, but Uncharted 2 feels slick and responsive, quick and easy to handle. The game rarely feels like you are out of control. This is objective. Sure, you might find someone who doesn't like the controls, but then you'll find someone who doesn't Reese's peanut butter cups or Casablanca or free money or something
What I'm saying here is that there are certain elements of games, like there are certain elements of movies, that are objectively better than others, and there's really no way around that. Hence, some people are placing games they don't necessarily like or enjoy more than others higher on their lists
Pretending that everything is subjective and nothing is certain is the refuge of the terrible artist
I'm not just saying popularity isn't everything, I'm saying popularity is, and always has been, a shitty metric for determining whether something is the best.
Darwin would disagree.
Connor on
XBL/PSN/ORIGIN/STEAM: LowKeyedUp
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
Not to say I like them, but do the Oscars use sale numbers to determine what is "best"?
Dragkonias on
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
So why the frell would we suddenly want to shift to money made, total sales, influence and popularity for game of the decade? Is that somehow such an epic title that we need to move beyond the subjective metrics used to vote for game of the year every year? Why are our personal tastes and preferences no longer sufficient once we move from year to decade?
That's my issue with this discussion - not a single person that I can see the choices of thus far made their 2009 votes based on objective, quantitative measurements. Uncharted 2 clearly won't be the best selling game of this year, but it sure looks to be in the running for game of the year based on posted votes thus far. People picked it because it was their favorite game of the year, for subjective, personal reasons. Why would we use an entirely different rationale for game of the decade?
It's not just subjective, though
There are certain objective, quantitative measurements we can use to separate the wheat from the chaff
Let's use Uncharted 2 as an example: it's hard to communicate how a game "feels," per se, but Uncharted 2 feels slick and responsive, quick and easy to handle. The game rarely feels like you are out of control. This is objective. Sure, you might find someone who doesn't like the controls, but then you'll find someone who doesn't Reese's peanut butter cups or Casablanca or free money or something
What I'm saying here is that there are certain elements of games, like there are certain elements of movies, that are objectively better than others, and there's really no way around that. Hence, some people are placing games they don't necessarily like or enjoy more than others higher on their lists
Pretending that everything is subjective and nothing is certain is the refuge of the terrible artist
Also, "why the frell?" Stop that, don't do that
I've never said it should be entirely subjective. What I do take issue with is the notion that it should be an entirely objective determination, in particular based pretty much exclusively on sales.
Some objective considerations are obviously a good thing. But choosing to label something the best based on sales is absurd, as I'd like to think my Domino's and McDonald's examples point out.
I had constructed my Top 10 games that I played for the first time in 2009 before I voted:
1. Uncharted 2
2. Bioshock
3. Half Life 2
4. Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time
5. Portal
6. Demon's Souls
7. Peggle
8. Valkyria Chronicles
9. Batman: Arkham Asylum
10. Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
(Yes, I was 2 years LTTP with Bioshock & Portal and 5 years LTTP with HL2.)
Once I went to vote, though, I realized that most of the games I played didn't come out in 2009, so:
1. Uncharted 2
2. Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time
3. Demon's Souls
4. Batman: Arkham Asylum
5. Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
Five. I played five 2009 games in 2009. And the only ones I've beaten of those are UC2 and R&C. I suck. I'll definitely look forward to a GotD poll if there is one, as I'll be able to contribute to that one more.
I've never said it should be entirely subjective. What I do take issue with is the notion that it should be an entirely objective determination, in particular based pretty much exclusively on sales.
Some objective considerations are obviously a good thing. But choosing to label something the best based on sales is absurd, as I'd like to think my Domino's and McDonald's examples point out.
It should be determined entirely on the basis of popularity, and I think most people understand that the games with the highest sales are generally most popular.
Sure, on this particular forum you might see Uncharted 2 ranking high, but a truly fair poll would extend off this forum and include all the middle schoolers who would vote Pokemon and each of the people who bought Modern Warfare 2.
Heck, less people own a PS3 than the other systems. If we polled every console owner, Uncharted 2 would not win.
I've never said it should be entirely subjective. What I do take issue with is the notion that it should be an entirely objective determination, in particular based pretty much exclusively on sales.
Some objective considerations are obviously a good thing. But choosing to label something the best based on sales is absurd, as I'd like to think my Domino's and McDonald's examples point out.
It should be determined entirely on the basis of popularity, and I think most people understand that the games with the highest sales are generally most popular.
Sure, on this particular forum you might see Uncharted 2 ranking high, but a truly fair poll would extend off this forum and include all the middle schoolers who would vote Pokemon and each of the people who bought Modern Warfare 2.
Heck, less people own a PS3 than the other systems. If we polled every console owner, Uncharted 2 would not win.
It shouldn't extend to other forums/gamers at all. The only thing that makes this poll interesting is that it polls only this community, one that can be somewhat insular at times, sure, but by and large has better taste than the public at large. In my opinion, anyway, but the tastes of posters here is a big part of why I like these forums. Literacy goes a long way too though :P
For me, though, the poll is only of interest as a barometer of these forums. I'd wager the same is true for a lot of people here. Extending it to include IGN users, Gamefaqs posters, Neogaf, Kotaku, and whatever else you think needs to be included to be "fair" defeats the poll's original purpose. We're not attempting to determine what is objectively the top game of 2009 - this would obviously be a supremely shitty way of doing so - we are going to find out what G&T posters on the Penny Arcade forums liked most this year.
We're going to find out what was most popular, here. Not most popular with the public at large - we can just look at the year's total NPD numbers to do that. So why would we want to base it on those numbers? Aren't we just trying to determine what was most liked by our fellow posters, not what sold best?
Ketar on
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Posts
Retro Game Challenge or Clash of Heroes? In either case, I'd rectify the situation. :P Those and DQV were my favorite DS games of '09.
I wanted to like Henry Hatsworth, and the game was beautiful up until the last world but then the balancing just fell apart and it became a frustrating mess. Pity, as it was delectable up until then.
If by "Best" you mean these albums made the most money, sold the most copies, entertained the greatest number of people...then yes that is a very good list of the best musical artists from those years. If you are trying to decide what "best" is by such vague subjective metrics such as personal tastes and preferences then who the hell knows if they are the "best" or not.
No, you kinda missed my point. WoW has been raking in the cash over the last 5+ years, not just one year. I'm just saying that people do vote with their dollars, but there is a difference between voting once with a single purchase, and voting monthly for years at a stretch to keep playing the same game.
I'm not defending the game, I played for 2 years + beta and got out because I simply got tired of the grind. I don't think it's even remotely "new" or "innovative" but it continues to pull in a giant revenue stream because lots of people still love playing it.
If you want to make musical comparisons, a better one would be The Beatles. Their last album was in the early 70's yet they continue to sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Will the albums you mentioned keep selling like that in 40 years? They'd be lucky to be selling that many next year.
But it can also be argued that popularity (in this case being concluded due to "Best Selling Album of XXXX) is the only reliable way to measure the "Best"ness of anything. We simply cannot arrive at objective conclusions with subjective data. Who here can honestly say that their tastes are so refined and perfect, that the games they prefer for quality and gameplay reasons, are better than someone else's pick. Some might say that Ocarina of Time is the "Best" game of all time, others might say it was FFVII or Goldeneye, or Super Mario 64.....you see my point?
You make a damn good point, El Guaco
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
That assumes that there's a direct correlation between quality and personal preference. For example, I voted Uncharted 2 as the best game I played this year. It wasn't my favorite game from '09, but it was certainly the best. My favorite game was probably Dissidia. But if you look at my list, Dissidia placed 7th. It wasn't the highest-quality game I played in '09, and I acknowledge that.
That would be a great argument in a discussion of "best" in the video game sales thread.
But here we are, in a thread to determine the game of the year for 2009, where we are voting in a poll based on our own personal criteria. And looking at the top 10-20 lists people keep posting here, it's pretty obvious that nobody at all who has posted their choices thus far has voted based on games that made the most money, sold the most copies, or entertained the greatest number of people. In short, we've all used our own vague subjective metrics to make our votes for "best" game of 2009.
So why the frell would we suddenly want to shift to money made, total sales, influence and popularity for game of the decade? Is that somehow such an epic title that we need to move beyond the subjective metrics used to vote for game of the year every year? Why are our personal tastes and preferences no longer sufficient once we move from year to decade?
That's my issue with this discussion - not a single person that I can see the choices of thus far made their 2009 votes based on objective, quantitative measurements. Uncharted 2 clearly won't be the best selling game of this year, but it sure looks to be in the running for game of the year based on posted votes thus far. People picked it because it was their favorite game of the year, for subjective, personal reasons. Why would we use an entirely different rationale for game of the decade?
If there are some people who honestly choose their favorites, or what they think is best, based on sales metrics, more power to you I guess. But a number of those people are posting as if that is the only way to determine a "game of the decade" when it obviously isn't. If we didn't care about aggregating personal opinion and subjective judgments, we wouldn't be posting in this thread or voting in this poll in the first place.
That's what we're already doing here. We each give our individual opinion on GotY or GotD or whatever. Now we want to find out which one really is the best, so we compile all our data together and come up with the forum favorite. Then we want to see which one really really is the best, so we put our forum data together with other forums and game review sites. etc. etc.
In the end, you have the game with the broadest appeal, which could very well be the one with the highest sales.
Do you consider Uncharted 2 game of the year? If not, then why are you willing to accept that it would win? Is it just because this forum votes it as such? Doesn't the end result become that much more reliable if you include more people, more forums? That's why the game with the broadest appeal wins.
This isn't the sales thread, but we sure are tallying up numbers to see which one's the highest. If you disapprove then perhaps you shouldn't have voted?
Right, so it becomes even harder to say what is "Best" or not when there are people who vote purely on gut-feeling or the amount of satisfaction they got out of a game. You admit to voting for a game that is of a lower quality than other games. Measuring "Best"ness by sales numbers is a hell of a lot better than using people's stomachs.
True enough
Certain objective criteria are more important than whether or not you really really like it
Like, I really like playing Samurai Warriors 2: Empires. Does that make it a good game in pretty much any way? Hell no son, that game is ass and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as any of the best games this year, let alone of the decade
Conversely, I hated playing Stalker: Clear Skies, because it is a broken piece of buggy garbage. But the game underneath that is pretty damn good and I can respect that, despite it's enormous difficulty curve and the general lack of being able to run on a computer
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Would you vote for another presidential candidate just because you think he has the better qualities, even though you personally favor his opponent (if this even makes any sense)?
Using sales numbers to influence the decision is fine, as long as it's not the only metric.
Yes, because it should be a vote for the best candidate, not a popularity contest.
Either way, I don't know about a best decade thing. I mean we could have it but I'm not even sure If I can remember all the games I played that far or at least how much I liked them when I played.
"Best" is, and should be, a purely subjective standard. Using sales numbers to determine that is laughable.
"Most popular" is purely a reflection of sales numbers.
"Most influential" or "Most important" is where we get into a gray area, and where sales numbers are one factor.
Whichever one you vote for is ultimately the one that you favored, though.
I didn't miss your point, I just got lazy on pulling sales numbers. Longevity of sales/repeated sales doesn't do anything more to prove that something is the "best" than single-year sales do. It just shows that something has not just initial popularity, but enduring popularity. That something stays popular for a longer than normal period of time is not an indication of quality in and of itself. Only popularity. It does no more to show that something is the "best" than any more typical shorter burst of sales.
Different comparison this time: Domino's pizza is probably the most successful seller of pizza in the USA every year. Does that popularity actually make it the best pizza in the USA? McDonald's probably sells more hamburgers in the USA, and throughout the entire world, than anyone else each year. Does this make a Big Mac the best hamburger in the world? Both have massive, enduring popularity at this point, not just a single year of most sales. Does that somehow make either one better than it was previously?
I'm not just saying popularity isn't everything, I'm saying popularity is, and always has been, a shitty metric for determining whether something is the best.
I fail at analogies. Someone come up with a better one please.
Perhaps we should all vote on what the best method is for determining what is best. I think you would lose, since people generally have more confidence in decisions arrived at by majority than by the individual.
You say its "laughable" as if using sales numbers to bestow "Best"ness is a shocking idea. Where is it written that "Best" is purely subjective?
It's not just subjective, though
There are certain objective, quantitative measurements we can use to separate the wheat from the chaff
Let's use Uncharted 2 as an example: it's hard to communicate how a game "feels," per se, but Uncharted 2 feels slick and responsive, quick and easy to handle. The game rarely feels like you are out of control. This is objective. Sure, you might find someone who doesn't like the controls, but then you'll find someone who doesn't Reese's peanut butter cups or Casablanca or free money or something
What I'm saying here is that there are certain elements of games, like there are certain elements of movies, that are objectively better than others, and there's really no way around that. Hence, some people are placing games they don't necessarily like or enjoy more than others higher on their lists
Pretending that everything is subjective and nothing is certain is the refuge of the terrible artist
Also, "why the frell?" Stop that, don't do that
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Darwin would disagree.
I've never said it should be entirely subjective. What I do take issue with is the notion that it should be an entirely objective determination, in particular based pretty much exclusively on sales.
Some objective considerations are obviously a good thing. But choosing to label something the best based on sales is absurd, as I'd like to think my Domino's and McDonald's examples point out.
It certainly isn't the only thing they look at.
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
The problem is that everyone uses a different set of metrics.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
And I mean...isn't this just a popularity contest too?
Not in gaming as a whole but within the circle of the people who are taking the poll.
DING DING DING
1. Uncharted 2
2. Bioshock
3. Half Life 2
4. Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time
5. Portal
6. Demon's Souls
7. Peggle
8. Valkyria Chronicles
9. Batman: Arkham Asylum
10. Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
(Yes, I was 2 years LTTP with Bioshock & Portal and 5 years LTTP with HL2.)
Once I went to vote, though, I realized that most of the games I played didn't come out in 2009, so:
1. Uncharted 2
2. Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time
3. Demon's Souls
4. Batman: Arkham Asylum
5. Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
Five. I played five 2009 games in 2009. And the only ones I've beaten of those are UC2 and R&C. I suck. I'll definitely look forward to a GotD poll if there is one, as I'll be able to contribute to that one more.
It should be determined entirely on the basis of popularity, and I think most people understand that the games with the highest sales are generally most popular.
Sure, on this particular forum you might see Uncharted 2 ranking high, but a truly fair poll would extend off this forum and include all the middle schoolers who would vote Pokemon and each of the people who bought Modern Warfare 2.
Heck, less people own a PS3 than the other systems. If we polled every console owner, Uncharted 2 would not win.
It shouldn't extend to other forums/gamers at all. The only thing that makes this poll interesting is that it polls only this community, one that can be somewhat insular at times, sure, but by and large has better taste than the public at large. In my opinion, anyway, but the tastes of posters here is a big part of why I like these forums. Literacy goes a long way too though :P
For me, though, the poll is only of interest as a barometer of these forums. I'd wager the same is true for a lot of people here. Extending it to include IGN users, Gamefaqs posters, Neogaf, Kotaku, and whatever else you think needs to be included to be "fair" defeats the poll's original purpose. We're not attempting to determine what is objectively the top game of 2009 - this would obviously be a supremely shitty way of doing so - we are going to find out what G&T posters on the Penny Arcade forums liked most this year.
We're going to find out what was most popular, here. Not most popular with the public at large - we can just look at the year's total NPD numbers to do that. So why would we want to base it on those numbers? Aren't we just trying to determine what was most liked by our fellow posters, not what sold best?
Yeah sure whatever
I'm tired of talking about this
Let's talk about how Uncharted 2 was the best game of the year
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
In this, you speak the truth. Good call.