There were recently five new games added to the website and they have been added to the OP as well. Those games are:
Chrono Trigger, Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty, Sim City, Pirates, and The Legend of Zelda
Quite a few PC games have made it into their Hall of Fame so far I've noticed and going in that really wasn't something I was expecting for some reason. That is pretty cool to see that they are looking for games outside of consoles though. Personally I was happy to see Sim City and The Legend of Zelda getting added this time around and the other games I simply haven't played so I don't have an opinion on them. I was expecting that the first Square game would have been Final Fantasy however, but its almost guaranteed that there will be an iteration of that game making it in here at some point in time (hopefully FFIII at least). For me there are some games that really seem like they should be there right now but overall I still think they are actually doing a good job with selecting games for this and they have a rather diverse showing too which is nice. Also, I'll have a few things written up for the second post in just a bit here.
Cool, I think I may have it so more people are involved in each round too (perhaps 10) and then make it a bit more lenient for games to enter the final voting (something like 5 out of 10).
This is possibly the worst idea ever. Games don't need a hall of fame as decided by committee, and a set of rules to classify them as eligible. If they belong, we generally know it, as a community, through discussion.
We don't need an official process etc. to determine it.
I mean, fuck the rules. GTA3 (2001) and RE4 (2004) belong there, period, and we know it, as does Starcraft (1998), Half-Life (1998), etc. We don't need such an archaic concept as an institution to determine it.
I think Symphony of the Night is a strange addition to this list. While I really liked the game, after the first few hours, it is basically broken. You get powerful enough that you are basically unbeatable. Most of the moves are useless, and even most of the abilities are rarely used past their initial use to get past some barrier. While it is a very fun game, and definitely something everyone should play, adding it to a list like this sort of ruins a little of its credibility right off the bat.
Also, I think the 10 year rule is to test the lasting appeal of a game. This is to prevent knee-jerk adding of games like Gears of War, or Halo, or Katamari or something before they have been time-tested.
Also, I think the 10 year rule is to test the lasting appeal of a game. This is to prevent knee-jerk adding of games like Gears of War, or Halo, or Katamari or something before they have been time-tested.
Which is fine, but 10 years? Way too long. Three, or even two years would be more than sufficient.
Also, I think the 10 year rule is to test the lasting appeal of a game. This is to prevent knee-jerk adding of games like Gears of War, or Halo, or Katamari or something before they have been time-tested.
Which is fine, but 10 years? Way too long. Three, or even two years would be more than sufficient.
I actually think 10 years is a good amount of time for something like this myself. We know that the games you mentioned in your first post are all pretty much acclaimed as being modern classics, it would be hard to argue otherwise. But going 10 years back we get the titles that were the inspiration for those "modern classics" and the games themselves have enough hindsight built-up to truly become bonafide classics. In a few years we can see games like Starcraft and Half-Life get added, but I like that we have to look back even further right now.
Plus 10 years still allows for a metric fuckton of games. Most retro consoles are included and anything from the 16 bit days to certain early PS2 games are valid entries. Along with that you have PC titles and handhelds and it already becomes difficult to narrow down what you would pick. I think that is the real reason for the 10 year limit more than anything. It makes it a bit harder to narrow down but you are not overwhelmed with titles where you wouldn't have nearly as much overlap in voting. I do understand where you are coming from though.
The whole concept of creating a Fall of Fame for video games is silly.
For sports players, you have stats and records to go on when judging how well a player plays. When it comes to video games, the matter is too subjective to be relevent.
Prime example:
Ask anyone 30 or older (like me) what they think the best video games ever are. They'd tell you they'd be games like Pac-Man, Pong, Galaga, Robotron 2084, Space Invaders, and Joust.
Like any kid nowadays with their new-fangled doohickies, these people spent years of their life playing these games, games which tested your skill and your very soul.
Like those film awards ceremonies judged by 80 year old people's opinions who are out of touch with everything past Gone With the Wind, you're going to get a group of people who refuse to believe any game is more epic, more frantic, or more enjoyable than Tempest and Pole Position. On the other extreme, you're going to get people who believe these games are silly, short, boring, and too repetative when compared to GTA3 or whatever they grew up on, despite the older games forming the basis of all video games today.
Everyone's opinions will be different, and objectivity goes completely out the window when trying to measure Halo's worth vs. Super Mario Bros.
Posts
Chrono Trigger, Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty, Sim City, Pirates, and The Legend of Zelda
Quite a few PC games have made it into their Hall of Fame so far I've noticed and going in that really wasn't something I was expecting for some reason. That is pretty cool to see that they are looking for games outside of consoles though. Personally I was happy to see Sim City and The Legend of Zelda getting added this time around and the other games I simply haven't played so I don't have an opinion on them. I was expecting that the first Square game would have been Final Fantasy however, but its almost guaranteed that there will be an iteration of that game making it in here at some point in time (hopefully FFIII at least). For me there are some games that really seem like they should be there right now but overall I still think they are actually doing a good job with selecting games for this and they have a rather diverse showing too which is nice. Also, I'll have a few things written up for the second post in just a bit here.
y/n?
We don't need an official process etc. to determine it.
I mean, fuck the rules. GTA3 (2001) and RE4 (2004) belong there, period, and we know it, as does Starcraft (1998), Half-Life (1998), etc. We don't need such an archaic concept as an institution to determine it.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
Lighten the hell up.
Also, I think the 10 year rule is to test the lasting appeal of a game. This is to prevent knee-jerk adding of games like Gears of War, or Halo, or Katamari or something before they have been time-tested.
Which is fine, but 10 years? Way too long. Three, or even two years would be more than sufficient.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
I actually think 10 years is a good amount of time for something like this myself. We know that the games you mentioned in your first post are all pretty much acclaimed as being modern classics, it would be hard to argue otherwise. But going 10 years back we get the titles that were the inspiration for those "modern classics" and the games themselves have enough hindsight built-up to truly become bonafide classics. In a few years we can see games like Starcraft and Half-Life get added, but I like that we have to look back even further right now.
Plus 10 years still allows for a metric fuckton of games. Most retro consoles are included and anything from the 16 bit days to certain early PS2 games are valid entries. Along with that you have PC titles and handhelds and it already becomes difficult to narrow down what you would pick. I think that is the real reason for the 10 year limit more than anything. It makes it a bit harder to narrow down but you are not overwhelmed with titles where you wouldn't have nearly as much overlap in voting. I do understand where you are coming from though.
For sports players, you have stats and records to go on when judging how well a player plays. When it comes to video games, the matter is too subjective to be relevent.
Prime example:
Ask anyone 30 or older (like me) what they think the best video games ever are. They'd tell you they'd be games like Pac-Man, Pong, Galaga, Robotron 2084, Space Invaders, and Joust.
Like any kid nowadays with their new-fangled doohickies, these people spent years of their life playing these games, games which tested your skill and your very soul.
Like those film awards ceremonies judged by 80 year old people's opinions who are out of touch with everything past Gone With the Wind, you're going to get a group of people who refuse to believe any game is more epic, more frantic, or more enjoyable than Tempest and Pole Position. On the other extreme, you're going to get people who believe these games are silly, short, boring, and too repetative when compared to GTA3 or whatever they grew up on, despite the older games forming the basis of all video games today.
Everyone's opinions will be different, and objectivity goes completely out the window when trying to measure Halo's worth vs. Super Mario Bros.
1) Why are they allowing 20 games a year to enter this garbage hall of fame? Do they think the world will end in 5 years?
2) If we do this, my voting strategy will be to vote for games which give me the biggest boner.
3) Why are we copying IGN? I thought it was well known they were trashy garbageous trash.
Every fights a food fight when you're a cannibal.