Smogon's Top Video Games List - Stage 3 (Current Discussion: The vonRubric)

[WaterBomb]

The problem with that would be if a mostly good game is lacking in one thing, but that one thing really /does/ detract from the fun of the game. Rather than drop the lowest scores, I would suggest that you simply assign N/A to areas that aren't relevant.

this actually is a good point. If N/A is assigned to irrelevant categories for a game, it won't bring down the game's overall AVERAGE score (which is how the final rating would be applied anyway). This way we could have a longer list of more descriptive characteristics as we would not have to worry about every item applying to every game.

Now on the subject of graphics, I believe I mentioned it before but I will reiterate: if we are judging a game on Graphics, it MUST be in the context of the time period of its release. This is ESSENTIAL for accurately rating games, as it's retarded to judge Final Fantasy VI's graphics on the same standards as Diablo 3.

The reason "Legacy" and "Longevity" are two different categories is because one applies to the influence it had on other games after it, and the other deals with how long a game has managed to stay relevant, without necessarily contributing to the format of other games. For example, a game like StarCraft: Brood War would receive a top score in Longevity because it was able to stay very relevant for years after it was released. On the flip side, a game like Command & Conquer did not stay relevant for all that long, but it left a lasting Legacy that popularized and pioneered the RTS genre, so its score there would be high.

The other option would be to categorize the games and create a couple of different rubrics for each category to make the characteristics more relevant. Since games are being judged individually and not competing 1v1, this would be manageable. We would have to keep the number of "genre" limited so we wouldn't have to create 20 different rubrics. This is another topic we can continue to discuss and see how people feel about it.

 

[phoopes]

A good game is a good game regardless of the music. The reason we find pokemon and mario's music nostalgic is because we played it so much and thus remember the music, not the other way around. For example, the first Gamecube game I ever got was Madden '05. I love the soundtrack on that game, and I remember most of the songs from it. Same with MVP '04, or Pokemon Sapphire, or Super Mario 64. I can't tell you how the music is from a newer games I've played, like say, GTA Chinatown or GTA Chinatown. Nor can I remember the music from older games I've played and didn't like as much, like yugioh world championships 2004, or Megaman blue moon. I can't remember how the music was from most of the games I've played, and that's the difference between a 1 and a 7 on the scores. Music is not only hard to judge subjectively, but its also naturally based upon how much you've played it.

I guess you and I are just different then. The reason why I remember music from video games is based on how great the music was, not on how much I played the game. For example, I only played Skyrim for a few hours and hated it, but still remember the music from it because that was one of the only elements I liked about it. Meanwhile, I've played Dante's Inferno for over 100 hours because it's a great game, yet I can't remember any music from it because it didn't impress me. Either way, I think music should definitely be included on the rubric, whether it be by itself or in a different category, like atmosphere. It only enhances the enjoyment you get from a game when it's done well.

 

[Fishin]

This has already been touched on, but something like trying to come up with an overall grade based on an average of scores in all the areas is silly since no game is simply the sum of its parts. I don't mind the idea of a rubric, but irrelevant or unimpressive scores could simply be thrown out, so a finished list of ratings for a game would only include the areas that it excels in.

Presentation might be a worthwhile categorical addition. A game like Bioshock may not have technically amazing graphics or sound, it's the overall presentation that creates the atmosphere. This would presumably extend to other stylized things like Okami and Limbo as well as stuff like Shadow of the Colossus.

Rather than Legacy, I'd rather have something like Originality or Innovation. Legacy implies that having influenced other games directly increases a game's worth. I'd much rather reward a game that does something unique and different than a game that happened to influence other games. Also, Legacy is also only really applicable to games that have been around for a long time. Alternately Originality could simply be added as a separate category I guess.

also Replayability would make more sense as simply Playability since, well...if you're playing a competitive multiplayer game endlessly (which I assume would fall into this category), you're not really replaying it, you're just...playing it a lot. Same thing if you're playing a game that has a lot of optional content, you're getting a lot of time out of it but not really replaying anything.

Finally, does plot include things like characterization and humor? Some games (the Tales series is a good example) have forgettable plots but memorable characters and character interaction. Same with comedy, some games like Ratchet and Clank don't have a strong story, but manage to stay consistently entertaining due to witty writing. I'm not 100% sure that either of these deserve separate categories myself, this is more just food for possible discussion.

 

[WaterBomb]

I've updated the list in the intro a bit to reflect discussion, added an idea or two of my own.

 

[phoopes]

I'm all for assigning a N/A score for things. That way, instead of "Plot (in doubt)" like the OP says now, it could be "Plot (where applicable)" instead. That way games like Tetris wouldn't be penalized.

I'm also a bit skeptical on replayability, for the reasons stated before. Some games you could hypothetically never stop playing. However, the some games are only meant to be played once argument doesn't make sense to me. If a game is good, I will either keep playing it after I beat the main story, or I will go back and play it again. For me, if you're only going to play through it once, then it doesn't deserve the title of a great game.

 

[vonFiedler]

The reason we find pokemon and mario's music nostalgic is because we played it so much and thus remember the music, not the other way around.

[youtube]WrjwaqZfjIY[/youtube]

Music is supposed to have an emotional influence that amplifies a work of art. You are taking it for granted.


Alright, I'm going to make a rubric right now. First some things I am getting rid of;

Legacy or Originality - So now it is two very different things that are hard to judge and have different artistic merit. Yeah, fuck both of these. Why get so hung up on them anyway? We used them to get games here, their use is over.

Replayability - This is a common review factor because reviewers are trying to sell games. We want (or should want) to judge the artistic merit of each game.

Challenge - The sheer value of which is subjective. Rather when you refer to Content Design below, you may factor a variety of difficulty levels and challenges for different players.

Efficiency - This may seem less jock than Graphics Technology but it still ranges from fairly irrelevant to artistic merit to something that can be factored into Interface Design, but games that made it to this level should not be so bug ridden that they don't work anyway.

You keep talking about comparing games to others in their time period, but we are trying to gauge the best games of all time and not the relative best games of all time. Might as well put Pong up as #1 right now with what little competition it had. Ideally art evolves and improves (not always, but that is what we are judging), and great games stand on the shoulders of those before them. It should be a general goal of a game designer to improve upon what has come before, and that's why relativism and legacy are so fucking stupid.

Also it should be a general rule that if you don't approve of a whole genre then you should just get fucked or not participate with those games. Valuable criticism comes from wide palates not closed minds.


The vonFiedler Rubric
Each category except for the last is judged on a scale of 1-5.

• Less numbers makes each more divisive.
• The difference between a 7 and an 8 may vary per person, this is less likely with a smaller scale.
• Given that we are rating candidates for best game of all time and not comparing good games to garbage ones, the scale comes somewhat pre-curved.

1. Weakness
2. Detracting
3. Appealing
4. Strength
5. Mastery

One might note that there is no Average on this scale. A category should help or hinder a game's score. If it shouldn't factor, you should argue for a N/A. No game should have too many N/A categories, use with caution as it could tip the scale in a lackluster game's favor.

(World Design) N/A Categories
Storyline
This category is the plot, characters, and writing of a game. How it is judged may be subjective. This is the most common N/A category, but if the story in any way helps or hinders the artistic merit of the game then a score should be given.

Graphics Aesthetic
This category judges the artistic merit of the game's graphic design and not strictly its technology. Poor utilization of technology can hinder a game's score here, but that is because great art can be made even without great graphics power (see the most beautiful game ever made, Okami). It is what an artist does that determines the score here. This should not be as common an N/A category as has been thrown around, but may qualify sometimes.

Audio Aesthetic
This category judges the artistic merit of the game's music and sound design and not strictly its technology. Poor utilization of technology can hinder a game's score here, but that is because great art can be made even without great audio tech (see a ton of different games for the NES). It is what an artist does that determines the score here. This should not be as common an N/A category as has been thrown around, but may qualify sometimes.

(Game Design) Not N/A Categories
System Design
This category judges the fundamental game design. It is the movement physics in Super Mario Brothers. It is the stats and turn based combat in Pokemon. It is the sneaking in Metal Gear Solid. It is the shooting in Call of Duty. How you judge each game in this category may vary widely by genre or even within genre.

Content Design
This category judges how the above is applied through elements such as level design, enemies, bosses, set pieces, puzzles, etc. You can also factor just how much of merit the game has to offer, from different modes to game length. There are many different ways a game could achieve a 5 here, from tight level design (should be valued above all else) to replay value and game length wherein the game stays valuable and provides new content.

Interface Design
This seemingly technical category is artistically important because it connects the player to the game. Poor controls or bad interface break immersion. Great kinaesthetics are a boon for immersion. Poor controls are controls that do not allow you to naturally perform what the game asks of the you. They are not simply "different" controls or controls with learning curves (see King of Fighters or Resident Evil).

The scores for these 6 categories are averaged together for the game's tentative final score.

(Wagner Bonus)
When all the individual categories of a game work well together, a bonus may be argued for. This is a flat bonus of 1/2 to 1 to the tentative final score, signifying that a game is elevated above the sum of its parts. This can only be given to games with no N/A categories. Wagner himself never thought a work of art achieved this ideal goal, so these bonuses should be rare.


Examples
Comparing Metroid Prime, a game with a better tentative final score, to Metroid Fusion, a game with a Wagner Bonus

Metroid Prime
Storyline (N/A)
Graphics (4)
Music (3)
System (5)
Content (4)
Interface (5)
Final Score (4.2)

Metroid Fusion
Storyline (4)
Graphics (4)
Music (4)
System (4)
Content (3)
Interface (5)
Tent. Final (3.8)
Wagner Bonus +1
Final Score (4.8)

 

[Jebus McAzn]

1. Weakness
2. Detracting
3. Appealing
4. Strength
5. Mastery

the fact that some of these are nouns and some are adjectives pisses me the hell off

Otherwise, I like Fiedler's rubric. However, I don't necessarily know if everything should be averaged; to me, it doesn't make sense to have interface have the same significance on the final score as something as integral as storyline.

The "Wagner bonus" also seems a little unnecessarily and convoluted at best.

 

[smashlloyd20]

Just popping in to comment that von's proposed rubric is excellent

Besides the Wagner bonus which will have to be VERY VERY carefully done, if we implement it at all

 

[vonFiedler]

it doesn't make sense to have interface have the same significance on the final score as something as integral as storyline.

Then you are taking it for granted. The category combines both the UI with the controls in the name of seamlessly settling the player into the game's setting, which is HUGE and taken for granted often.

The Gesamkuntwerk stuff may be a hard sell if this is the first time you've heard of it, but it is absolutely what elevates rare games like Metroid Fusion over masterpieces of gameplay like Metroid Prime. It is a staple concept of any multimedia art form and we need it as a rare check.

For all that has been said about how a strict rubric wouldn't work, and I agree, I feel the bonus is significantly more important than the N/As. I gave an example of how it would work, but here is another one. I believe that one of the best gaming franchises is Dead Rising. It is an absolutely thrilling experience, having to rescue people in a sandbox environment under duress of time. You have to manage routes, time, the swarms of zombies, and the occasional psychopath. Not only does it feel like you are in the movie Dawn of the Dead (as was the point), but frankly it feels more real to me than any western rpg. And that's saying something for a game with a campy story, awful controls, and fucking retarded AI. Which leads me to the game's rubric score;

Dead Rising
Storyline (2)
Graphics (3)
Music (3)
System (3)
Content (4)
Interface (1)
Tent. Score (2.6)

A 2.6 if I had to be honest about each category, and that is a lot less convoluted than factoring composition into each category. Yet, I stand by saying Dead Rising was one of the best games ever made (until Dead Rising 2 drastically improved many of the game's faults). So how does that work out? Well if the story concept of rescuing people during a three day period fits naturally with the gameplay, if the graphics and music make me feel like I'm really in this mall, then I could give a flat bonus giving Dead Rising a much more respectable 3.6. Under the same rules I'd give Dead Rising 2 a 4.8.

Aww but you might say "you're crazy vonFiedler, Dead Rising is a game about punching zombies." Well, you are wrong but both Dead Rising games are on the list and I'll go into detail then. So how about something most of us can agree on? That while Ocarina of Time has more scope than Majora's Mask and is typically seen as the better game, MM has a depth and uniqueness to its time travel mechanics that makes it valuable in spite of less dungeons (and frankly worse ones). This is what the bonus is there for.

 

[smashlloyd20]

That sounds good to me. We just need to make sure that we don't go nuts with the bonus to prevent things such as MM getting a better total than Ocarina.

 

[ck49]

I still don't believe that music is anywhere as important as the storyline and shouldn't be given an equal importance in the rankings. If you weighted each individual aspect it would be better.

 

[Arch]

I still don't believe that music is anywhere as important as the storyline and shouldn't be given an equal importance in the rankings. If you weighted each individual aspect it would be better.

Well I guess games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band are weak games.


Honestly, most people genuinely don't understand the importance of music in a video game. It is a key factor in the emotional influence of a game that essentially dictates how you feel. It is absolutely a key factor in the development in a game, without it they would not be able to hold their atmosphere quite as easily.

Music isn't just an afterthought developers slap in at the last second. The emotional impact it has on a game is simply too powerful to just blatantly chop it. Play a game completely devoid of music and you'll find it simply is not the same. It has a direct influence on how the game is perceived.

 

[Trax]

I still don't believe that music is anywhere as important as the storyline and shouldn't be given an equal importance in the rankings. If you weighted each individual aspect it would be better.

Audio (music included) is just as important as the plot, especially if the game isn't just single player.

That sounds good to me. We just need to make sure that we don't go nuts with the bonus to prevent things such as MM getting a better total than Ocarina.

MM is better than Ocarina. Ocarina is one of those games that was cool because Link aged, but once that gimmick got worn down a bit it got old.

 

[smashlloyd20]

Audio (music included) is just as important as the plot, especially if the game isn't just single player.

Yes. See games such as FFVI, which actually use music in proactive ways.

MM is better than Ocarina. Ocarina is one of those games that was cool because Link aged, but once that gimmick got worn down a bit it got old.

I will save my Ocarina of Time rant for the judging stage.

 

[Trax]

Can I suggest the following as categories:

Audio (music and other sound: spoken dialogue, sound effects, etc).

Plot and Replayability (I suggest rolling these into one to cover off the problem that some games are at opposing ends of one of these ends). If you axe the plot option it will disproportionately knock down the scores of single player games, while ignoring a weakness of multi player only games.

 

[JimBob]

Pointing out that I often play games with the sound off. Not just handheld games, but console games too.

 

[phoopes]

Now's not the time for "This game is better than this game."

Also, I do enjoy the audio idea. Music isn't all the audio in a game. For example, as much as I loved the music in Super Mario Sunshine, the voice acting would have to bring the score down for me. Also, stuff like the opening a chest sound in LoZ is just as memorable as the music. So yeah, sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[WaterBomb]

Ok, I've updated the intro again and I think we're making excellent progress here. vonFiedler gave us a nice hunk of meat to chew on, so for now we should focus on discussing his proposed rubric. How can we improve it? What are its strengths that should stay intact? These are things we should be pondering.

Another thing to think about: Is there a better way for us to accomplish our overall goal (creating an accurate Top 100 list) than a Rubric? This question should be answered with suggestions and alternatives, not just "yes". If you have a brilliant idea that will work better than a rubric (based on the resources we have available to us), please share it. We're not cemented into using a rubric, I have just yet to hear a better option.

 

[Snkz]

I also agree Music shouldn't be weighted as much as the other categories.

There are tons of games you can play with no audio. I'm sure alot of you have played pokemon with sound off but you wouldn't knock it for having bad music. If music is used to enhance gameplay or another category, then place your extra points there.

 

[WaterBomb]

I think Music is more important to some games than others. Obviously a game like Call of Duty doesn't require much, but a game like Final Fantasy VII would be far less enjoyable without a complex background score. Music might be able to be lumped into an overall Sound Aesthetic category, but it still needs to be differentiated from the sound effects because a game could theoretically have a great score of motifs but lackluster sound effects (Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds) or vice versa (Worms: Armageddon).

 

[vonFiedler]

If you guys think a certain game is not helped or hindered by music, argue for an N/A. But it should be rarer than you guys are going on about. In a multimedia art form, audio is one media that is as vitally important as any other and if you are taking it for granted then you need to rethink it.

Anyway music is already in the sound aesthetic category. I lumped things that were artistically similar together in ways that I feel weight the rubric fairly. i.e. Interface being both controls, UI, and kinaesthetics. They all accomplish the same end artistically, and together weigh fairly against System or Content Design. If Nexus has good music and lackluster effects, maybe it is a 3?

 

[smashlloyd20]

If you guys think a certain game is not helped or hindered by music, argue for an N/A. But it should be rarer than you guys are going on about. In a multimedia art form, audio is one media that is as vitally important as any other and if you are taking it for granted then you need to rethink it.



Anyway music is already in the sound aesthetic category. I lumped things that were artistically similar together in ways that I feel weight the rubric fairly. i.e. Interface being both controls, UI, and kinaesthetics. They all accomplish the same end artistically, and together weigh fairly against System or Content Design. If Nexus has good music and lackluster effects, maybe it is a 3?

^This.

Honestly, I feel like the rubric we have proposed now is the closest we're going to get to what we're looking for, so to speak. I feel like we should make any last adjustments we need to this system and go.

pretty much a bump

 

[WaterBomb]

I don't know, I'd like to have a bit more discussion and fine tuning of the rubric before we proceed. Let's concentrate on the vonRubric for now and finalize it, then we can move on to the next step.

 

[Focus]

The rubric's criteria are excellent, but maybe dial back the bonus a bit. There is something to be said about a game being the whole package, but the equivalent of a full point bonus (on a five-point scale) to every category seems excessive to me, considering that in most of these games we will debate on, it looks as if we will assume that every category matters unless there are enough opinions otherwise. I don't know, to me a bonus of 0.5 or 0.6 just sounds more reasonable.

 

[Hipmonlee]

If you guys think a certain game is not helped or hindered by music, argue for an N/A. But it should be rarer than you guys are going on about. In a multimedia art form, audio is one media that is as vitally important as any other and if you are taking it for granted then you need to rethink it.

I'm not sure.. When you say "multimedia art form" I think you are kinda pushing a personal notion of what a game ought to be. First and foremost we need to view games as games.

I mean I love the tetris theme, it is miles better than the bubble bobble theme.. I dont think it really adds to or detracts from either game. Music probably only started to be worth consideration in the 90s, and even then.. It's probably really only relevant in games where atmosphere is a significant feature of the game as a game.

The correct audio accompaniment to space invaders is an all rush mixtape. And that's alright with me.

Also I will make a bigger post this weekend probably. Just been a bit busy lately. Please dont move on without me.