Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9658878" data-attributes="member: 18">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!</blockquote>

Verification