What videogames are you playing in 2025?

[Ruin Explorer]

You can find the full list of 49 here: Inducted Games - The Strong National Museum of Play

Given the criteria here, which, quote: "The Strong’s World Video Game Hall of Fame recognizes individual electronic games of all types—arcade, console, computer, handheld, and mobile—that have enjoyed popularity over a sustained period and have exerted influence on the video game industry or on popular culture and society in general," I'm hard pressed to find any that really raise the eyebrow. John Madden Football, as I mentioned above, is standing in for its franchise so it's hard to blame it, and even the ludicrous-at-first-glance inclusion of Barbie Fashion Designer makes more sense when you learn that it, a PC game marketed to directly to young girls, sold over 500,000 copies in its first two months on the shelves and outsold both Doom and Quake, in 1996.

Within just the FPS genre, Quake and Goldeneye are joining Doom, Halo, and nothing else (also, Call of Duty 4: Black Ops made the shortlist this year). I'm fine with them adding Doom before Quake; I guess you could argue that Halo wouldn't have been Halo without Goldeneye really popularizing the multiplayer deathmatch concept, but you could also argue that Halo had a bigger impact on the genre overall.

I feel like their choices of inductees have been a bit weird and inconsistent, not to mention deeply US-centric (which is somewhat to be expected). What I do think is genuinely odd is a lot of their entries are kind of what is essentially the same game repeatedly.

For example, they inducted Space War, Computer Space and Asteroids, and I'm sorry, but no. Come on. Not all three of those are even remotely on the same order of importance (and I say that loving that genre and Asteroids specifically), and they're basically the same game at different stages of development. Further, Asteroids wasn't even particularly influential after the 1980s - and the games it did influence (I would stress that it is important to look at actual influence, not superficial similarities and assumptions here) were themselves not very influential! Vastly more important games are not included, but Asteroids is? I feel like this is just one guy who really likes those kind of games.

Other ones questionable ones would be Golden Eye, which people loved, but was on one, moderately popular console, and has influenced almost nothing, and will absolutely be forgotten by Gen Z and onwards (and rightly so). And Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man? Come on. Just including Ms. Pac Man would actually make a lot more sense - it was much more successful and a much better game, and indeed, an awful lot of people who remember playing Pac Man back in the day were actually playing Ms. Pac Man. They include all the Ultima games under one entry, but separate ones here? Pfffft. StarCraft is a relatively good choice but the article explaining why they chose it is riddled with pretty bad misrepresentations, and fails to focus on its real claim to fame, which is that it essentially created e-sports as a viable concept - it is mentioned but after a bunch of inaccurate/misleading claims about the gameplay and multiplayer (again, part of the US-centric bias here). The lack of any FPS from after 2000 is pretty bizarre, given how huge they've been and how they do have things like 2021's Animal Crossing. They need to include CounterStrike, Modern Warfare 2 and so on, even I loathe those games, because they're incredible important/influential.

I think the real problem though is just complete inconsistency re: criteria. For some games, merely being the first, even if questionable, gets them in. For others, they ignore the games which created/defined the genre, and instead pick a popular later exponent. Like, why WoW not EQ when you're including both Doom and Quake? In terms of real importance, both EQ and WoW wildly outrank those. Why Starcraft but not Dune 2 by the same logic? Especially if you're including Computer Space, Space War and Asteroids! How does the Centipede article not mention mobile phones (particularly pre-smartphone)? It's a great choice, but like, they don't even seem to know why it's a good choice!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It was definitely the smartest FPS to wind up on consoles at the time, low of a bar as that was, and we were still living in the age when PC Gaming and Console Gaming were pretending the other was much worse.

"wind up on consoles" is an incredibly creaky load-bearing pillar that looks to be in danger of collapse at any moment there imho lol! But I do agree that's why it had any cultural influence at all. All these people who didn't really play games much growing up but did get an Xbox when they were like 20 or w/e played it and there were some minds blown in the same way people seeing a pale imitiation of an actually-good-but-obscure/difficult movie often have their minds blown. Christopher Nolan fan-type stuff.

I mean, yes technically correct, the best kind of correct, but the moment PC gets in the action, there are so many smarter games it's just silly.

And they have a much better game that is essentially the real important "games as art" game, and one that, rather than making a small splash, and failing to convince people games were art, made a big splash, and did convince cultural critics etc. - The Last of Us. I would also argue Myst was much more important for the "games as art" discussion that Bioshock was, by like, an order of magnitude too.

that have enjoyed popularity over a sustained period and have exerted influence on the video game industry or on popular culture and society in general

I think several of the games they list completely fail this test (particularly Goldeneye, zero influence on the industry/other games, zero influence on society, pop culture influence is completely limited to Millennials going "Omg remember that game you played as a kid?"), and they apply it inconsistently, and further, as I noted, with a couple of games, they're right to include them on that basis, but the associated articles absolutely and totally fail to properly explain the actual influence.

 

[payn]

I feel like their choices of inductees have been a bit weird and inconsistent, not to mention deeply US-centric (which is somewhat to be expected). What I do think is genuinely odd is a lot of their entries are kind of what is essentially the same game repeatedly.

For example, they inducted Space War, Computer Space and Asteroids, and I'm sorry, but no. Come on. Not all three of those are even remotely on the same order of importance (and I say that loving that genre and Asteroids specifically), and they're basically the same game at different stages of development. Further, Asteroids wasn't even particularly influential after the 1980s - and the games it did influence (I would stress that it is important to look at actual influence, not superficial similarities and assumptions here) were themselves not very influential! Vastly more important games are not included, but Asteroids is? I feel like this is just one guy who really likes those kind of games.

Other ones questionable ones would be Golden Eye, which people loved, but was on one, moderately popular console, and has influenced almost nothing, and will absolutely be forgotten by Gen Z and onwards (and rightly so). And Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man? Come on. Just including Ms. Pac Man would actually make a lot more sense - it was much more successful and a much better game, and indeed, an awful lot of people who remember playing Pac Man back in the day were actually playing Ms. Pac Man. They include all the Ultima games under one entry, but separate ones here? Pfffft. StarCraft is a relatively good choice but the article explaining why they chose it is riddled with pretty bad misrepresentations, and fails to focus on its real claim to fame, which is that it essentially created e-sports as a viable concept - it is mentioned but after a bunch of inaccurate/misleading claims about the gameplay and multiplayer (again, part of the US-centric bias here). The lack of any FPS from after 2000 is pretty bizarre, given how huge they've been and how they do have things like 2021's Animal Crossing. They need to include CounterStrike, Modern Warfare 2 and so on, even I loathe those games, because they're incredible important/influential.

I think the real problem though is just complete inconsistency re: criteria. For some games, merely being the first, even if questionable, gets them in. For others, they ignore the games which created/defined the genre, and instead pick a popular later exponent. Like, why WoW not EQ when you're including both Doom and Quake? In terms of real importance, both EQ and WoW wildly outrank those. Why Starcraft but not Dune 2 by the same logic? Especially if you're including Computer Space, Space War and Asteroids! How does the Centipede article not mention mobile phones (particularly pre-smartphone)? It's a great choice, but like, they don't even seem to know why it's a good choice!

Had to stop reading at Golden Eye not being deserving of being on the list. That was not just the first successful FPS for console it was wildly successful. Sure perhaps in u.s. only maybe but every single household had a copy. It was the super Mario of FPS for consoles at the time. Totally deserves a spot. Also like gen Z will know any of these anyways.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It was the super Mario of FPS for consoles

It absolutely was not, and you basically admit that in your post!

It's a US Millennial blip.

but every single household had a copy

Is this some kind of typo, like you meant to say most households DID NOT have a copy? Because otherwise it's just factually wrong, and a deeply weird false claim to make. The vast majority of "households", even if we only look at those where younger people were present, didn't even have an N64, let alone Goldeneye! - Only 32m N64s sold worldwide, 20m of those in the US. Compare that to the Playstation 1, which was the direct competitor - it sold 102m units, with 40m of those in the US.

If you were claiming every N64 owner had a copy that's also untrue - a lot did, like 25% if the sales claims are accurate, but that's still not many people.

The "Super Mario of FPS for consoles" was Halo. Halo absolutely is deserving because:

A) It was influential and continues to be massively influential in videogame design and pop culture. The entire way modern FPSes work is basically still the way Halo works. I say this as a certified Halo Hater (TM) even.

B) It became ubiquitous culturally in the same way Super Mario did.

Goldeneye was neither of these things. It had near-zero influence on future FPS design, because every idea it had was a complete dead end, and the control approach was awful. It wasn't culturally ubiquitous because very few people, and basically only Millennials played it at all. It's nostalgia-bait for 30-somethings.

 

[payn]

It absolutely was not, and you basically admit that in your post!

It's a US Millennial blip.


Is this some kind of typo, like you meant to say most households DID NOT have a copy? Because otherwise it's just factually wrong, and a deeply weird false claim to make. The vast majority of "households", even if we only look at those where younger people were present, didn't even have an N64, let alone Goldeneye! - Only 32m N64s sold worldwide, 20m of those in the US. Compare that to the Playstation 1, which was the direct competitor - it sold 102m units, with 40m of those in the US.

If you were claiming every N64 owner had a copy that's also untrue - a lot did, like 25% if the sales claims are accurate, but that's still not many people.

The "Super Mario of FPS for consoles" was Halo. Halo absolutely is deserving because:

A) It was influential and continues to be massively influential in videogame design and pop culture. The entire way modern FPSes work is basically still the way Halo works. I say this as a certified Halo Hater (TM) even.

B) It became ubiquitous culturally in the same way Super Mario did.

Goldeneye was neither of these things. It had near-zero influence on future FPS design, because every idea it had was a complete dead end, and the control approach was awful. It wasn't culturally ubiquitous because very few people, and basically only Millennials played it at all. It's nostalgia-bait for 30-somethings.

There would be no Halo without Golden eye. Yeah, thats right. The very concept that you could stake an original IP FPS ona console owes it to the success of Golden Eye. It was the first FPS on console to not simply suck, but actually be pretty great. Also, it was wonderful in how it adapted the film to a video game. Something that royally sucked before it on consoles too. I simply gotta just diagree with you here.

Also, this isnt about games people played then, now, and will play everyday in the future. Its about games that impacted their time. Goldeneye absolutely did that.

 

[TiQuinn]

I’m playing Red Dead Redemption 2 for the first time because that’s how far behind I am in my gaming.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There would be no Halo without Golden eye. Yeah, thats right. The very concept that you could stake an original IP FPS ona console owes it to the success of Golden Eye.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, you seem like a cool guy, but this is just wrong and shows you don't actually know gaming history re: Halo, and instead are just making claims that "feel right" to you, but aren't supported by the facts.

Halo wasn't even originally designed as a console FPS! It started out as a Mac/PC RTS, then turned into a Mac/PC third-person shooter (not first-person), and then, after Microsoft acquired Bungie, it turned into an Xbox launch game, at some point changing from third-person to first-person, because that played better.

So the idea that it exists because of Goldeneye is obviously and flatly wrong if you know that (I presume you didn't). There's nothing more to it. That's like saying The Matrix only exists because of Dark City or something. It might "feel" very right to make that claim, but its definitely wrong if you look at the facts!

It was the first FPS on console to not simply suck, but actually be pretty great.

Not only is that not true, it's not even true for the N64! Let alone other consoles!

Both Doom 64 and Turok came out before Goldeneye (both earlier in 1997), and were excellent - in fact the shooting and controls are actually better than Goldeneye in both cases. Turok also sold extremely well. The idea that, without Goldeneye, console FPSes would have failed or been delayed is just wrong. Again nothing more to it - it's an idea that ignores actual gaming history. Quake was also on the N64 but I never played it there, so can't comment on whether it "simply sucked". But Turok and Doom 64 were absolutely "pretty great". Again, I'd argue that, as a shooter, Turok is better than Goldeneye, but it lacks the four-player split-screen multiplayer which made Goldeneye such a big hit (for an N64 game). Hell, even if you specify "original" - Turok is original in the same way Goldeneye is (i.e. derived of a non-games IP).

Look, I'm not trying to say Goldeneye isn't a cool game that people absolutely loved, but if that's the bar, there are literally hundreds of games which a few million people played and loved and are nostalgic about, but which otherwise had no real impact or legacy/lasting influence.

The big N64 difference was that the N64 had an analogue stick - this meant shooters worked a lot better on it than they did with a d-pad. This is why we have multiple good FPSes on the N64. But that control method was a dead end, because two sticks was better than one, as the PSX's Dualshock showed. I'm trying to remember the first FPS to get two-stick controls right - it wasn't Halo, it was something on the PSX, but it wasn't like, a big game.

(Goldeneye wasn't even the first FPS to have four-way splitscreen multiplayer on N64 - not that you said it was, just noting - that seems to have been Hexen, which also came out earlier in 1997.)

 

[trappedslider]

I'm still waiting for any other documentary

 

[payn]

Look, I don't mean to be rude, you seem like a cool guy, but this is just wrong and shows you don't actually know gaming history re: Halo, and instead are just making claims that "feel right" to you, but aren't supported by the facts.

Halo wasn't even originally designed as a console FPS! It started out as a Mac/PC RTS, then turned into a Mac/PC third-person shooter (not first-person), and then, after Microsoft acquired Bungie, it turned into an Xbox launch game, at some point changing from third-person to first-person, because that played better.

So the idea that it exists because of Goldeneye is obviously and flatly wrong if you know that (I presume you didn't). There's nothing more to it. That's like saying The Matrix only exists because of Dark City or something. It might "feel" very right to make that claim, but its definitely wrong if you look at the facts!


Not only is that not true, it's not even true for the N64! Let alone other consoles!

Both Doom 64 and Turok came out before Goldeneye (both earlier in 1997), and were excellent - in fact the shooting and controls are actually better than Goldeneye in both cases. Turok also sold extremely well. The idea that, without Goldeneye, console FPSes would have failed or been delayed is just wrong. Again nothing more to it - it's an idea that ignores actual gaming history. Quake was also on the N64 but I never played it there, so can't comment on whether it "simply sucked". But Turok and Doom 64 were absolutely "pretty great". Again, I'd argue that, as a shooter, Turok is better than Goldeneye, but it lacks the four-player split-screen multiplayer which made Goldeneye such a big hit (for an N64 game). Hell, even if you specify "original" - Turok is original in the same way Goldeneye is (i.e. derived of a non-games IP).

Look, I'm not trying to say Goldeneye isn't a cool game that people absolutely loved, but if that's the bar, there are literally hundreds of games which a few million people played and loved and are nostalgic about, but which otherwise had no real impact or legacy/lasting influence.

The big N64 difference was that the N64 had an analogue stick - this meant shooters worked a lot better on it than they did with a d-pad. This is why we have multiple good FPSes on the N64. But that control method was a dead end, because two sticks was better than one, as the PSX's Dualshock showed. I'm trying to remember the first FPS to get two-stick controls right - it wasn't Halo, it was something on the PSX, but it wasn't like, a big game.

(Goldeneye wasn't even the first FPS to have four-way splitscreen multiplayer on N64 - not that you said it was, just noting - that seems to have been Hexen, which also came out earlier in 1997.)

you don’t mean to be rude but are going to anyways it seems. Condescending comments are still condescending when you sugar coat them.

Bottom line Goldeneye was #3 selling all time N64 after Mario. Even perfect dark a repackaged golden eye did much better than turok. If you want to argue Turok deserves note too I’m fine with that. The list is about cultural impact and turok didn’t have it in the way Betamax couldn’t impact VHS. That doesn’t make Betamax worse or less significant.

What the cultural significance here is that Goldeneye showed for the first time a FPS can be wildly successful to the point of being worth doing instead of leaving to PC. So when MS ported Halo it was an easy decision.

It’s an argument about inception and possibilities and you can try and fact tsunami to win it, but it’s an odd choice in the face of a simple disagreement in opinion. Many of which I share with you.

 

[Gradine]

The legacy of Goldeneye is twofold: (a) proving FPS could be wildly successful on home consoles, and (b) the enduring popularity of the FPS deathmatch. Multiplayer deathmatches and the like were feasible in older PC games like Doom and Quake II but they were largely afterthoughts. Two years after Goldeneye, Quake III Arena came out without even having a single-player campaign at all, same with Unreal Tournament. Two years later we get Halo.

Like, it's important to note that while Turok could be called successful, it was not Goldeneye successful, being outsold by the latter by a factor of over 5. Turok had solid reviews but it was nothing, at the time, compared to Goldeneye. Doom 64 is a game we can look back on fondly but it was not particularly well-received at the time, and did not crack a million sales (to Turok's 1.5 and Goldeneye's 8 million, respectively).

To speak to a few other points; most contemporary reviews rated the shooting gameplay in Goldeneye to be the best on the console by far, even accounting for those earlier releases, but personal preference is a thing. Also, for a fun fact, Turok was also an adaptation, from a comic series that's only about a year-and-a-half younger than James Bond.

Edit: I did not own nor particularly wanted to own a N64, I hated the weird three-handed controller, so I don't really have a horse in this race, beyond stating the historical record. I think Goldeneye is obviously a fine entry to the Hall of Fame; its lasting legacy is fairly self-evident. The Space War/Computer Space/Asteroids trifecta is honestly the most glaring oddity to the list; like eventually you're going to get Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World too but there's a lot of gaps out there to cover first.

Apropos of absolutely nothing, my favorite Doom 64 mention came via Tim Rogers in his review three-and-a-half-hour video essay on Final Fantasy VII Remake, where he referred to the Chapter 6 dungeon as having "all the grace and symmetry of two Doom 64 levels stapled together (I say that as a compliment!)"