Media Videogame thread

Oh cool people are talking about engage. Let me just-



Oh god, oh god, I’m so sorry. I can’t believe I just spilled best girl everywhere all over the dinner table. Sorry I should have properly secured her after second sealing her into wyvern knight as early as chapter 9. I didn’t mean to get sword power 5 killing edge and levin sword all over the napkins. Oh god there’s 8 hit late game emblem marth brave sword attacks staining the carpet; I’m such a klutz. Next time I will make sure to keep my adorable pink haired bumpkin bear fighting engineer swordswoman in a sturdier container.
 
Oh cool people are talking about engage. Let me just-



Oh god, oh god, I’m so sorry. I can’t believe I just spilled best girl everywhere all over the dinner table. Sorry I should have properly secured her after second sealing her into wyvern knight as early as chapter 9. I didn’t mean to get sword power 5 killing edge and levin sword all over the napkins. Oh god there’s 8 hit late game emblem marth brave sword attacks staining the carpet; I’m such a klutz. Next time I will make sure to keep my adorable pink haired bumpkin bear fighting engineer swordswoman in a sturdier container.
I'll admit Wyvern Knight stuck me as a little odd. I usually try for builds that work with a character's personal skill, and I generally don't have flying units in a tight formation. Doubly so now that my main formation is often making heavy use of Fog, which flying units can't benefit from. I actually switched Chloe off of flier for this reason.
 
Wyvern Knight is pretty solid with Lapis IMO because of the high strength growth. I feel you want to be building that up as much as possible given she has very bland attacking power otherwise.

Having played through Maddening on fixed growth three times now and used Lapis every time, I think it’s the sauce to get her online and contributing. Run 1 had her on swordmaster -> griffin knight and she never got hit ever, but she was tinging everything after an admittedly very good early and mid game. Run 2 had her as a Hero and she was a warm body doing brave chain attacks and little more. Hooking her up with Wyvern ASAP (and only switching to Griffen for some more swords after Lv20; not needed I just wanted to do this for fun) for Run 3 made a difference in my eyes. That passive attack boost augmented with sword power finally got her to be the speedy one round machine I felt like I deserved given my level of investment. Her with late game Marth felt so great to use.

I will admit that all three runs had DLC augmenting them, though I think just doing the normal paralouges I mostly ignored until they contributed zilch exp compensates for a lot of that exp difference. That feels especially true that last run where Lapis was really good. Lapis missed the Tiki map, and didn’t touch a DLC map until after Chapter 20; I purposely saved all but Tiki and Veronica as end game challenge maps for after Ch25 with that run. Didn’t give her any of the consumables either, actually was terrible spending those on anyone.

I will say also that fliers are super nice in tight formations thanks to Lucina’s Bonded Shield! Bonded Shield legitimately feels like the strongest skill in the game after abusing it hard that last playthrough. Lapis is nice in those to be an edge to your center formation with Alear or some other levitating body. The avoid boost is great there so you can help ensure your evasion is high enough enemies funnel into one particular unit, so the general funnels directly into Ivy to get one rounded by Bolganone.

Now, does Kagetsu do almost all of this with less effort and higher stats? Almost certainly, though I haven’t used him at all. Go use him instead if you are some variety of heartless monster who doesn't think Lapis is cute. He doesn’t 1v1 bears and make contraption so he can’t compete in my heart.
 
Don’t know if I should pick up Engage before Tears of the Kingdom. It’s not too far off but I really need something to set my mind straight.
I think the two games require different mindsets when taking them as part of a series. Engage has a structure similar to the GBA or 3DS Fire Emblems, and carries only a small amount over from its more divergent previous Switch game. Engage is designed for longtime fans in a deeper way than the nostalgia bait character inclusions.

Tears instead appears to be set up as a continuation of BotW exclusively. Aspects of previous games that weren't in the previous entry still aren't here (while inconsequential compared to differences in overall structure, I will die on the hill that Link should always be left-handed) and new content doesn't appear to try recreating the feel of the older games. It's a game for new fans.

That makes it hard for me to issue a recommendation, as much as I understand needing something to set your mind straight. While I absolutely enjoyed Engage, I was also convinced to get it with the sterling endorsement of "it's not 3 Houses, the hub map is minor and ignorable." I didn't find BotW to be that much to my liking either, so I'm not currently intending to play Tears. This means there seems to be at least one significant mismatch between our preferences, so I'm not convinced me having enjoyed Engage is actually meaningful to you.
 

bdt2002

Pokémon Ranger: Guardian Signs superfan
is a Pre-Contributor
Well, everyone, you knew this was coming.

The Legend of Zelda: Tears of The Kingdom has been out for a full week now, and this might be one of the most unanimously loved Nintendo games I’ve ever seen so far. I can count on one had the amount of bad things I’ve heard people say about this game, and while the franchise still seems a little bit… complicated for my liking (my neurodivergent brain can barely handle open-world games as is), I for one am extraordinarily happy for all of the hardcore Legend of Zelda fans that have been waiting patiently for a game this significant.

All of this being said… I still question if the so-called “perfect” video game will ever exist. This makes enough sense on its own, as there’s no one set definition for what classifies a person, place, or thing as perfect. The next best goal is to get to as close as perfection as possible, but how can you get close to something that already doesn’t have a definite meaning? I feel like the video game industry will continue to evolve, and while Tears of The Kingdom has set a new standard for Nintendo just like many of their games before it, I’m still not sure what to think of the game, and can’t yet give it a 10/10 of my own as a result.

I think my biggest gripe is that this game feels like a little too much all in one package. This is unquestionably the biggest, most complex first-party game on the Nintendo Switch, feeling more like consumers’ first glance into the next generation of hardware as evident by that controversial $70 USD price tag. How large of an open world is too large? How much content is too much content for the respective hardware to handle? At what point do you look at a sequel and start to miss some of the content that didn’t return from the previous game? I really want to hear your opinions and answers to some of these questions, as someone who didn’t really start paying attention to this franchise until a couple years ago.
 
I've been playing as much as I can and still think it's way too early to productively talk about it. I will say I've been one of the few naysayers. I like BotW, and so I can't NOT like BotW 2, but I'm unconvinced this was worth the wait. People are fawning over "scope" and "stuff to do" without going into specifics on what makes them actually fun. The building mechanics are great for going viral on social media, but putting something together is so time- and resource-inefficient that navigating the ground is only the same as before for me. The quests and shrines aren't really any different in big-picture execution, and the sky and depths are inconvenient and uninteresting to the point where I've spent maybe 15% of my time between the two. At this point I'm just touring the whole map ahead of schedule just to make sure I'm not missing some crucial elements that will make my life in the new content a lot easier.

I'm pretty sure we're just in the honeymoon phase. BotW also got universal acclaim on release, as the cracks didn't show until many, many hours in. I wouldn't be surprised for the tone to get much more critical in a year or two once people digest all that's ACTUALLY there instead of pogging over the mere idea of what awaits them.
 

Karxrida

Death to the Undying Savage
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
I really wish I could care about Tears of the Kingdom but I just can't. It sounds super cool but at the same time it's not what I want out of a Zelda game. Breath of the Wild, while not a bad game in the slightest, didn't really impress me and had too many small annoyances that compounded enough to make me not bother finishing it. Also, this isn't me saying either game is bad; I'm just apathetic.

But I have been playing Elden Ring. I'm mostly enjoying it, but really wish FromSoft would understand that it's okay to have a pause button. Especially since I'm on PS5 without online.
 
Last edited:
I have opinions about Tears, and it kind of directly leads into reviewing other games I've played recently. So here's both. Note that this is stuff I'm picking up from watching other playthroughs as I haven't bought the game myself.

Before answering how big a world is too big, I'd like to ask a different question: how open a world is too open? I don't really like having all locations available immediately. Going back to an area because I picked up a new ability is much more fun than just because I missed something the first time around. It doesn't necessarily need to be a hard barrier, as I also enjoy showing off my skills by getting somewhere I'm not supposed to be yet. But that isn't really an option when there isn't anywhere I'm not supposed to be. A majority of upgrades in BotW and Tears are consumable, and that feels like it removes a sense of progression. Nothing can assume you have a non-basic ability because it has to expect you either used all of it up or haven't been to the place where you get it. This is at odds with what I remember was a main reason I got into Zelda, which is how much the Hookshot/Clawshot was a game-changer.

I'll give the game credit, it actually tried to make a fantasy world to explore instead of being mostly pretty mundane environments like BotW, but I still feel that there could be more variety in the sky islands and underground.

Moving on to the lore. I usually don't care that much and prefer to focus on the gameplay. But I'm not actually playing the game so the lore is the bit that I can actually fiddle around with and try to solve. So here we are. I guess I would describe it as an Uncanny Valley thing? Names and events I recognize are here, but everything seems to be just incongruent enough. It feels like they got everything from a non-BotW game from ChatGPT. It's hard to give more concrete examples without spoilers, except for them squandering the perfect opportunity to fix BotW's mistake with Link's handedness. I normally hate the trope of a character being made less human with their prosthetics, but the mental image of it just kind of appeared when looking at Tears. This world isn't something that is touched by the Link I knew, only by whatever else is running his non-dominant hand.

I guess where my thoughts come back to the question of a game being to big is how it relates to dev time. Tears may have an opposite release schedule from pokemon's constant churn, but it's hard to argue that there was time left unused given the state of the end product. The schedule doesn't have time for fully new content fitting the previous formula. But it doesn't feel like that's a concern of the wider community. This is what people think of for Zelda now, and likely will be in six years when the sequel is announced again. Unfortunately, it's a future I can't see myself in, and so I've been looking increasingly towards the past instead.

I got into gaming in the earlier DS days, and so there's an aspect of seeing what I just missed when it comes to games of the era immediately beforehand. Between the remakes and NSO, I got easy access to several GBA games for effectively the first time. I expect to return later with thoughts on more games/remakes.

I found myself thinking "man, I've missed this" while playing through the first dungeon. This is what my brain will accept as a Zelda game. What feels most notable is that this was still relatively soon after playing the Skyward Sword remake, when I didn't get a similar reaction. If I had to guess I's blame Skward Sword's overfocus on the swordplay instead of the gadgets, leading to ideas left on the table and/or a lack of a sense of progression.

Having the game flow involve returning to the town between most dungeons is something I'm mixed about. While it felt interesting when I was doing stuff, I also often found myself confused as to which thread I should be following at any given iteration. Though I suppose that's something that would fade on a repeat playthrough when I'm familiar with the sequence.

It does feel that the game is front-heavy with its cool mechanics. The two most interesting items are in the first two dungeons, while the late-game has an increasing focus on similar sword-copy puzzles, which felt overly finicky to execute. The new sword moves felt too situational to really change up basic combat, which showed particularly against Darknuts since they are unaffected by most items.

Overall, I'd definitely class it as a good game, though I'm not sure it unseats Ages as my preferred handheld Zelda.

It kinda pales in comparison to Dread. From the conversations I had seen, the SA-X being able to appear from anywhere caused them to be scarier than Dread's EMMIs, but I felt that the pretty rudimentary AI they had meant that chases required a specific room structure that I quickly picked up on.

Where the game really came into its own was during the item cleanup at the end of the game. In addition to showing off all the upgrades, I felt that here the gameplay ended up complementing the current story beat pretty well. It almost felt like a missed opportunity that this aspect is miss-able.
Samus going rogue is matched by breaking through the barriers to other areas instead of going through the hub under mission control's supervision.

I feel it might have been interesting to play up this idea. Between the Plasma Beam and the hidden lab the gameplay is characterized by return paths being blocked off to force Samus forward, so it might have been cool to have the SA-X trying to trap her during this section. For the final breakout, I could see the entrance door from the level being destroyed earlier so the best Adam can do is lock Samus out of the hub while waiting for reinforcements. This would then allow the main sequence to include using the hidden paths to other areas in order for Samus to enter the top area through the same chamber she left it from before getting Plasma Beam.

If I had a nickel for every time Advance Wars had a release issue due to major real-world events I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.

I have actually played the first two AW games before (the gba ones, not Famicom Wars), though in ~2017 instead of closer to release. I got the remake because I have a soft spot for forgotten series and want to see a new game happen. A lot of these thoughts are thus going to be relative to the originals.

There are noticeable quality-of-life improvements, such as being able to reset turns in single-player and replay campaign maps (though AW1 requires beating the full campaign to access paths not taken the first time). The AI has been changed as well, most notably cheating much less in Fog of War. There isn't much new content, though all War Room maps are playable in both game's setups regardless of which one they started in. You can finally Missile Hill without any missiles.

Having the two side-by-side really shows how clunky the first game's campaign levels are compared to the second. There's a part of me that thinks that story spoilers aren't the only reason why the game discourages playing them out of order.

I don't mind the artstyle for the units. Because the game uses the same models for the overhead map and battle animations, that model has to be easily distinguishable when zoomed out. Unlike in Fire Emblem you can't rely on a different silhouette from a horse or mage's cloak: two different tracked vehicles with turrets have completely different matchups. Speaking of the unit appearances, the different factions now have different-looking boats, with the Black Hole battleship looking particularly nice.

Where the game really stands out from its predecessor is the music. Each character now has a more intense remix of their normal theme when using their Power, while the old Power themes are still present and used for some of the bigger story battles. This also extends to a one-off character that previously copied an existing theme, who now has their own unique pair of tracks. The main villain gets a third version for the final fight in the AW2 campaign as well. There's only one of the entire group that I feel I strongly prefer the GBA version (Jess' regular theme, I just don't like heavy use of record scratches).

Online is invite-only within your friend list, so I wasn't able to do anything with it. I can't really count that in comparison though, because I'm not getting many link battles on the original either. You do still have the option of passing the console around between turns for single-cart play if you manage to get another player in the same room.
 

bdt2002

Pokémon Ranger: Guardian Signs superfan
is a Pre-Contributor
I'm sorry I keep changing the subject with each new post I make on this thread; I guess I just can't help it, apparently. That being said, the rest of my summer break is still ahead of me, with my birthday coming up during it. I've told my family and friends for a couple years now that there's really nothing I want whenever they ask "Hey, what do you want for your birthday?". I'm at a point now where I can start trying to make money and can buy things on my own. The problem, of course, is that these guys are all incredibly stubborn and insist on buying me stuff for my birthday anyways.

I figured if they're going to start asking this question again in however many weeks, I might as well give them a better answer than "I dunno, you figure it out", right? So I said to myself, why not ask for ideas of stuff I might be interested in over on the Forums so that way I can give those ideas to whoever inevitably asks? And better yet, why not start with one of the mediums that got me into Smogon in the first place?

The funny thing is, I know fully well I'll lack the time and effort to do so because haha funny procrastinating, but I still can't help but wonder if there's any good games and/or game series that I've missing out on for a long time now. I've especially been looking for more reasons to start playing on my PS4 again, and am open to at least considering anything that could catch me and/or my roommates' interest come the new school year. For the purpose of not keeping this post longer than it needs to be, I'll wrap things up here by saying that any and all of your suggestions are appreciated, and that I'll be happy to answer your questions as far as what kinds of games I'm looking for. (I would rather do it this way than extend the post further.)
 
BIG SHOT is not only the best song in video game history, but one of the best songs ever made.
It shouldn't be as good as it is. It should be a cacophony of discord. It should be a dumpster fire of a song. But despite everything, it managed to not only be decent, not only be good, not only be great, but a work of art that is genuinely fantastic to listen to. It forsakes music theory, uses no recognisable instruments, and has random words being shouted in the middle of the song, and yet it manages to not just be good in spite of it, but use them in a way that feels natural. BIG SHOT is already so fun to listen to, but when you consider everything it has going against it, it somehow gets even better.
0:00 to 0:13
The song opens with a spectacular lead that instantly hooks the listener, and builds upon itself before transitioning into the next part.
0:13 to 0:20
It then starts playing spamtons motif in a way that keeps you engaged, all the while small vocals are inserted, before ending with a telephone. Neither the telephone nor the vocals feel out of place, and the telephone feels natural.
0:20 to 0:27
It then builds upon the previous segment, but now includes more noticable vocals, including spamtons catchphrase to keep you hooked until...
0:27 to 0:40
The lead returns, this time more epic than before. including small bits of vocals and a background track. It lasts just as long as the last time it was used, and leaves before it gets old, leaving you wanting more.
0:40 to 0:54
the song starts with the opening of spamton, but starts trailing off, making you think its transitioning into filler, but then the second part kicks in to snap you back into it. After two times, it starts to get bland, but then it segways into the most fascinating part of the song.
0:54 to 1:08
It then starts playing two different leitmotifs at once, that being the world revolving and power of neo. These songs have nothing in common besides their connection to spamton, but they don't clash. Rather, these songs are played in just the right key that they fuse and create something spectacular. This could continue, and the song wouldn't suffer, but it then pulls a brilliant move.
1:08 to 1:22
The songs play again, but this time joined by vocals that to this day have yet to be deciphered entirely. While we all have the general understanding of what is being said, everyone interprets them differently. Here's my interpretation
¨I think hes coming for me, answer the phone. I can't explain until your all alone. He pulls the strings and makes them ring until your heart-I'm breaking up. I think he's coming for me, answer the phone. I can't explain until you're all alone. He pulls the strings and-pulls the strings and-TELL YOU WHAT YOU BIG SHOT.¨
These cryptic and dire lyrics engage the listener, and add another layer to this already excellent song.
1:22 to 1:35
The song returns to spamton, making you think its going to repeat, before it abruptly goes on a rather engaging tangent.
1:35 to 1:47
It then leaves the spamton leitmotif entirely to go on a tangent with a hint of jazz that just like everything else in the song, surprisingly works.
1:47 to 1:49
A leitmotif abruptly enters, cutting off the tangent. This motif came out of nowhere, and is the perfect thing to catch someone off guard. And somehow, it perfectly segways into...
1:49 to 2:03
The lead is back, and as hype as ever. But now, during the second round, it is joined by the lyrics to make a fantastic start to the songs sendoff.
2:03 to 2:16
The lead then changes key, being reminiscent of power of neo. This feels desperate, and drawn out. Then, like a dying star, the song escalates suddenly and rapidly before...
2:16 to 2:22
The dummy motif returns, abruptly and in an anticlimactic fashion, ending the song.

This song is perfect from start to finish. Its lowest points are still great, and its highest points are never overused. It leaves you wanting more, all while having no continuity at all. It is truly fantastic.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Uncompetitive

What makes us human?
is a Contributor Alumnus
What do you guys think are the Most Important Games Ever Made?
__________________________________________________________________________________


(EDIT: I have been informed by User GatoDelFuego that there were many suggestions I forgot to add, will fix in due time...)

I need to post more in this thread...so on that note, a fun little thought experiment / idea me and GatoDelFuego have been cooking up; how can we make a reasonable list of the "greatest games ever"?.

For a while we've been pretty frustrated at lists of "The greatest video games ever", but honestly making such a list is extraordinarily difficult

1. Tastes are subjective and games with rabid fandoms can skew results. If you want an example of what I mean by this, look no further than the highest rated games on Backloggd (note that a game must have been rated at least about 1k times to be included); yes the users on that site might have "good taste" in a vacuum, but I don't think any sane person can say this is a reasonable list of the greatest games ever

15. Mother 3
14. Devil May Cry 5
13. Xenoblade 3
12. Umineko No Naku Koro Ni
11. Fallout: New Vegas
10. Half-Life Alyx
9. Outer Wilds
8. The Great Ace Attorney 2
7. Sekiro
6. Resident Evil 4 Remake
5. The Witcher III
4. Final Fantasy XIV
3. Metal Gear Solid 3
2. Bloodborne
1. Disco Elysium

2. Not everyone has played every video game lol. Video games are long and not nearly as easy to get through as movies and music. Lists by major outlets unfortunately need to be curated by many many many people, which obviously opens the door to a lot of homogenization

3. The main point we wanna focus on: "Importance and Significance" is not the same thing as "Quality".

A few weeks ago while we were in call, Gato brought up GQ's list of the 100 best video games. It's uh...very questionable! For a lot of reasons. But what Gato really pointed out was the fact that there were a lot of games on here that really just here for their importance. Tetris for example was at #3. Look, Tetris is an extremely important game, and is also a brilliantly designed video game for being so simple while still being a ton of fun to play. But like, who would put Tetris as their third favorite game ever? Gato brought up a great point in that when you're making a list like this, every game on there needs to be something where there are some number of hardcore gamers who will have that game in their Top 5.

Let's also take a look at Wikipedia's list of the best games of all-time. The games included need to be cited by multiple publications. Obviously, we have a lot of super old games on here. Yes, Pong is an extremely important video game, but I don't think anyone in this day and age is going to call it a favorite of theirs. But we also run into issues when it comes to games in bigger franchises. For an outsider they might not seem like a big deal, but if you're a fan of these franchises the games representing them will seem really suspect. Some examples I can speak for:
  • The only Pokemon games on the list are Gens 1 and 2. Yes, Gen 1 is a watershed moment in video games, and yes, Gen 2 is a massive step forward, but I seriously doubt that those two generations rank highly amongst most fans these days
  • The only Sonic games represented here are Sonic 1 and 2, but the general consensus amongst most Sonic fans is that Sonic 3 and Knuckles is the best game (or Mania, or Generations, or maybe SA2, but probably not the first two)
  • Mega Man 2 is the only Mega Man game besides X1; it's generally not considered the best game in the Mega Man franchise as iconic as it is (I think even out of the Classic games 9 seems to be the favorite, or at least one of the later ones)
  • Fire Emblem Awakening is the only Fire Emblem game on here; it's a game that really shifted the tides for the 3DS and brought Fire Emblem to the mainstream, but it was a VERY controversial game when it came out and even now that the community has calmed down on it, it's generally seen as a mid-tier Fire Emblem game
  • The only visual novel on this list is Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. Great game, really important for putting visual novels on the map outside Japan, but it's not even considered the best in its franchise (most people go with Trials and Tribulations, Investigations 2, or one of the Great AA games) let alone the best visual novel ever.
  • Even as far as "important games" go there are some HUGE omissions. Some retro examples: Dragon Quest 1, Final Fantasy 1, Snatcher, Sweet Home, Space Harrier, Fire Emblem Mystery of the Emblem, Super Mario RPG
Therefore, me and Gato came up with a fun idea: Let's make a list of the most important and influential games ever made

Let's face it, it's really difficult to come up with the greatest games ever. However, it's much easier to identify to separate the bias of importance and just focus on the games that are important. The criteria:

1. Game needs to be highly influential. Often, it would be inventing an entire genre or game mechanic, or at least pushing it to such a significant degree that it can't be ignored. However, this could also extend to games with some landmark artistic achievements (Earthbound, MGS2, Okami, Nier Automata). It can also be influential in terms of how it was developed (see: Pitfall and Gradius being two of the first BIG 3rd-party games, and Cave Story being the first BIG indie game)

2. This is the tricky one: The game needs to be iconic and relevant. This does create a lot of problems when we're trying to figure out if we should cite a game for being the first of its kind.
  • Do we cite Jumping Flash and its predecessors for being the first 3D Platformers?
  • Do we cite Scramble for evolving the Shmup genre when Gradius is more well-known? What about Recca when it comes to bullet hells?
  • Do we cite Alien Resurrection for basically inventing the twin-stick FPS before Halo?
  • Do we cite Panzer Dragoon Saga for being the first big 3D fully-voiced J-RPG, even if Final Fantasy X was the first to be mainstream relevant?
  • Fortnite is super iconic, but should we give the nod to PUBG for putting Battle Royales on the map?
We did our best here, trying to consider how good these games were on their own and how much further their successors pushed their respective gameplay ideas. Please keep in mind that we haven't obviously played every video game lol; despite the two of us having a lot of combined coverage across the history of video games, we're doing a lot of educated guessing lol. To make things easier for us, we didn't put a limit on how many games we could include in total (though maybe if we were to edit this list a bit we would), and we also (roughly) split games up by genre.

1686022613041.png

1686022635564.png

1686022653051.png

1686022682312.png

1686022706487.png

1686024731523.png

1686022737502.png

1686022773521.png

1686022796714.png

1686025269712.png

1686024776624.png

1686022850417.png

1686022865046.png

1686023452333.png

1686023216668.png

1686024747174.png

1686024708669.png

1686022907065.png


Please let us know your thoughts!!! This was really fun for us to do, there is a lot of room for improvement and discussion amongst these games I'm sure
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Bejeweled is on the list bitches and if you don't like it that's too bad!

But FR, I think that a lot of these lists just leave out "greatest" games that show they are creating the list through a lens of the likely reader (30-something person who remembers that NES games are cool [tetris] but also played fallout and portal). Personally I think that any list that fails to include for example...pitfall, and virtua fighter, and daytona, and call of duty, has faulty methodology. each of these games are momentously important for very different reasons. If you think that "the cake is a lie" is an order of magnitude more impactful on video game culture than no russian, for example--you're being overly blinded by what "real" art is.


It's really tough to make these kinds of lists. We definitely had our own biases towards certain games that are on grey areas or which "notable" game to include over the other. So what do you think we missed? And why?
 
did you forget fnaf for the horror part?
i think kirby super star deserves a mention for winning a grammy. i know it sounds like a meme, but this could be a huge step twords people taking video game music seriously.
pong
 
Last edited:
One game I feel like deserves to be on the list is Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne. While the original Megami Tensei could be mentioned due to being the first game with monster catching elements (eat your heart out, Pokemon), I feel like Nocturne is equally as important. For starters, it is the first SMT game to have the press turn system, rewarding you for hitting weaknesses and blocking certain elements (imagine this in pokemon). This element inspired the One More system used in Persona 3 and still used today. Speaking of Persona 3, that can thank it's success and release in the West to Nocturne, because the success of Nocturne led to Atlus releasing more Megami Tensei games in the West. When someone thinks of mainline Shin Megami Tensei games, Nocturne is usually the first to come to mind.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
did you forget fnaf for the horror part?
No. For a lot of reasons.

Non zoomer take alert.

Realistically, the game isn't very notable at all. The franchise itself might be. If you look at historical player counts of these games, they actually are....Really terrible! They are in line with similar "popular indie games" like shovel knight. Not to say that popularity is the only thing that matters. So you look at innovation. These jumpscare horror games have existed for a really, really long time beforw fnaf. They were always just shareware type games (I think you can look at slender as one of the very early examples). These games were super popular on YouTube for letsplays, fnaf really was just next in line. So then you look at influence or what came next. And I guess you can say they create a genre of "mascot horror"? But I...Really struggle to abscribe this as some big shift. Really stuff that has come out of this is the same general level of content, just that these horror games have shifted to include scary mascots instead of pyramid head. I guess.



Really I just don't think these games are very popular. Let me explain. The games themselves, as games, are not being played as games. Fnaf exists primarily as a YOUTUBE phenomenon, the game is just the vector for it. What did fnaf actually do for gaming? What makes it important? Maybe I'm not just respecting the social aspect of the game?

It's sort of like among us, really, like is it an important moment in gaming history? But it dwarfs every game on here in terms of cultural recognition except for like. Mario. Like uhh what abt qwop? Without qwop you don't have critikal but does that mean something for gaming?
 

Mr. Uncompetitive

What makes us human?
is a Contributor Alumnus
did you forget fnaf for the horror part?
I'm not sure if I fully agree with Gato? I do think "Cheap Jump Scare Horror" was a really big trend in not just games but also movies in the 2010s, and while Slender was the first popular one, I do think Five Nights at Freddy's was a big touchstone in terms of making something that seems ridiculous into something "scary". I do think a lot of games tried to ape its style (Baldi's, Hello Neighbor, a looooooooot of Steam Greenlight shovelware) and I feel like it had a lot more staying power than Slender ever did. However, both movies and games gradually going for psychological or at least nuanced takes on the genre by the end of the decade. If Slender was the game that started the trend, I'd like to think RE2 Remake was the game that killed it.

So I dunno. I see where Gato is coming from, but I do think putting either Slender or FNAF on here would make some sense

i think kirby super star deserves a mention for winning a grammy. i know it sounds like a meme, but this could be a huge step twords people taking video game music seriously.
Eh I disagree. There were already tons of live concerts by the time this happened, plus I don't think this is the first time video game music has won a music award (I'm p sure Baba Yetu from Civ IV won a Grammy category many years ago). Also lol @ Grammys being relevant

Fair lol; I do think we should also include Tennis for Two and Spacewar when it comes to "Very first video games"

I'd consider adding Slay the Spire to the Roguelike section, since it feels like a lot of games have built off it in various ways.
Yeah that's absolutely true lol, One Step From Eden is a game that immediately comes to mind as does Inscryption. Really, Slay the Spire is the game that really popularized single-player deckbuilding games

One game I feel like deserves to be on the list is Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne. While the original Megami Tensei could be mentioned due to being the first game with monster catching elements (eat your heart out, Pokemon), I feel like Nocturne is equally as important. For starters, it is the first SMT game to have the press turn system, rewarding you for hitting weaknesses and blocking certain elements (imagine this in pokemon). This element inspired the One More system used in Persona 3 and still used today. Speaking of Persona 3, that can thank it's success and release in the West to Nocturne, because the success of Nocturne led to Atlus releasing more Megami Tensei games in the West. When someone thinks of mainline Shin Megami Tensei games, Nocturne is usually the first to come to mind.
I think I'm in a similar boat with Shin Megami Tensei as I am with Fire Emblem. While Nocturne and Blazing Sword are both popular within the hardcore western community, neither game really did much to advance their genres as a whole. Instead, I think we should look at the older titles that were the big landmarks for those respective series. It's hard to figure this out since both series were Japan-only for a very long time lol, but as far as I can tell, Fire Emblem's (and by extension the S-RPG genre's) big break in Japan was Mystery of the Emblem. And from what I can tell, Shin Megami Tensei 1 was a similarly iconic game in Japan (and like FE3 it also is effectively a new take on the original first game). I think I briefly considered SMT1 but decided against it, but if any non-Persona MegaTen game is making the list, it would be SMT1 (...okay, I guess Megami Tensei 1 and 2 are worth considering as well).

I think the importance of Mainline SMT for gaming actually has nothing to do with its combat; difficult JRPGs and JRPGs with heavy strategy have existed for a very long time. Instead, I think SMT's importance is partially from its surprisingly dark and moody atmosphere (especially for '92 standards) and laying the groundwork for Monster Collecting (altho Megaten 1 did that too). But above all else, its importance comes from its alignment system. This stuff existed in pen-and-paper RPGs of course and has been seen in other Western RPGs, but I can't think of any that predate SMT1. In fact, SMT1 is a J-RPG with major route splits and multiple endings years before Chrono Trigger came out (not to take away from CT's significance, as it still fully deserves to be here). I'm not sure if this is quite enough to include it, but I can see it.
 
i've recently backlogged myself hard (i mentioned a week or 2 back i'm playing the 1st Atelier Ryza - still got to beat that, really want to and enjoy it just work and life blah blah blah) but got the new Zelda, new Star Wars, new Street Fighter, and the new Diablo (especially), [on top of prior backlog] I wanna play.
Not to mention AEW Fight Forever drops later this month and as a wrestling fan (especially one who grew up on WWF No Mercy and they site that as a main influence) I'ma need that too.

yeah i'm screwed for awhile - well least i'll save money in the coming months - i'm sure there will be more games coming I'll wanna get to but only one I know for sure i'll have to get in the upcoming months after this is Mortal Kombat, least i'm free till then lol. (least the fighters/wrestling game I can use as "when i don't got the time/energy for the deeper stories/demanding of at least some time invested per play games)
 

Voltage

OTTN5
is a Pre-Contributor
What do you guys think are the Most Important Games Ever Made?
__________________________________________________________________________________


(EDIT: I have been informed by User GatoDelFuego that there were many suggestions I forgot to add, will fix in due time...)

I need to post more in this thread...so on that note, a fun little thought experiment / idea me and GatoDelFuego have been cooking up; how can we make a reasonable list of the "greatest games ever"?.

For a while we've been pretty frustrated at lists of "The greatest video games ever", but honestly making such a list is extraordinarily difficult

1. Tastes are subjective and games with rabid fandoms can skew results. If you want an example of what I mean by this, look no further than the highest rated games on Backloggd (note that a game must have been rated at least about 1k times to be included); yes the users on that site might have "good taste" in a vacuum, but I don't think any sane person can say this is a reasonable list of the greatest games ever

15. Mother 3
14. Devil May Cry 5
13. Xenoblade 3
12. Umineko No Naku Koro Ni
11. Fallout: New Vegas
10. Half-Life Alyx
9. Outer Wilds
8. The Great Ace Attorney 2
7. Sekiro
6. Resident Evil 4 Remake
5. The Witcher III
4. Final Fantasy XIV
3. Metal Gear Solid 3
2. Bloodborne
1. Disco Elysium

2. Not everyone has played every video game lol. Video games are long and not nearly as easy to get through as movies and music. Lists by major outlets unfortunately need to be curated by many many many people, which obviously opens the door to a lot of homogenization

3. The main point we wanna focus on: "Importance and Significance" is not the same thing as "Quality".

A few weeks ago while we were in call, Gato brought up GQ's list of the 100 best video games. It's uh...very questionable! For a lot of reasons. But what Gato really pointed out was the fact that there were a lot of games on here that really just here for their importance. Tetris for example was at #3. Look, Tetris is an extremely important game, and is also a brilliantly designed video game for being so simple while still being a ton of fun to play. But like, who would put Tetris as their third favorite game ever? Gato brought up a great point in that when you're making a list like this, every game on there needs to be something where there are some number of hardcore gamers who will have that game in their Top 5.

Let's also take a look at Wikipedia's list of the best games of all-time. The games included need to be cited by multiple publications. Obviously, we have a lot of super old games on here. Yes, Pong is an extremely important video game, but I don't think anyone in this day and age is going to call it a favorite of theirs. But we also run into issues when it comes to games in bigger franchises. For an outsider they might not seem like a big deal, but if you're a fan of these franchises the games representing them will seem really suspect. Some examples I can speak for:
  • The only Pokemon games on the list are Gens 1 and 2. Yes, Gen 1 is a watershed moment in video games, and yes, Gen 2 is a massive step forward, but I seriously doubt that those two generations rank highly amongst most fans these days
  • The only Sonic games represented here are Sonic 1 and 2, but the general consensus amongst most Sonic fans is that Sonic 3 and Knuckles is the best game (or Mania, or Generations, or maybe SA2, but probably not the first two)
  • Mega Man 2 is the only Mega Man game besides X1; it's generally not considered the best game in the Mega Man franchise as iconic as it is (I think even out of the Classic games 9 seems to be the favorite, or at least one of the later ones)
  • Fire Emblem Awakening is the only Fire Emblem game on here; it's a game that really shifted the tides for the 3DS and brought Fire Emblem to the mainstream, but it was a VERY controversial game when it came out and even now that the community has calmed down on it, it's generally seen as a mid-tier Fire Emblem game
  • The only visual novel on this list is Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. Great game, really important for putting visual novels on the map outside Japan, but it's not even considered the best in its franchise (most people go with Trials and Tribulations, Investigations 2, or one of the Great AA games) let alone the best visual novel ever.
  • Even as far as "important games" go there are some HUGE omissions. Some retro examples: Dragon Quest 1, Final Fantasy 1, Snatcher, Sweet Home, Space Harrier, Fire Emblem Mystery of the Emblem, Super Mario RPG
Therefore, me and Gato came up with a fun idea: Let's make a list of the most important and influential games ever made

Let's face it, it's really difficult to come up with the greatest games ever. However, it's much easier to identify to separate the bias of importance and just focus on the games that are important. The criteria:

1. Game needs to be highly influential. Often, it would be inventing an entire genre or game mechanic, or at least pushing it to such a significant degree that it can't be ignored. However, this could also extend to games with some landmark artistic achievements (Earthbound, MGS2, Okami, Nier Automata). It can also be influential in terms of how it was developed (see: Pitfall and Gradius being two of the first BIG 3rd-party games, and Cave Story being the first BIG indie game)

2. This is the tricky one: The game needs to be iconic and relevant. This does create a lot of problems when we're trying to figure out if we should cite a game for being the first of its kind.
  • Do we cite Jumping Flash and its predecessors for being the first 3D Platformers?
  • Do we cite Scramble for evolving the Shmup genre when Gradius is more well-known? What about Recca when it comes to bullet hells?
  • Do we cite Alien Resurrection for basically inventing the twin-stick FPS before Halo?
  • Do we cite Panzer Dragoon Saga for being the first big 3D fully-voiced J-RPG, even if Final Fantasy X was the first to be mainstream relevant?
  • Fortnite is super iconic, but should we give the nod to PUBG for putting Battle Royales on the map?
We did our best here, trying to consider how good these games were on their own and how much further their successors pushed their respective gameplay ideas. Please keep in mind that we haven't obviously played every video game lol; despite the two of us having a lot of combined coverage across the history of video games, we're doing a lot of educated guessing lol. To make things easier for us, we didn't put a limit on how many games we could include in total (though maybe if we were to edit this list a bit we would), and we also (roughly) split games up by genre.




















Please let us know your thoughts!!! This was really fun for us to do, there is a lot of room for improvement and discussion amongst these games I'm sure
This is going to sound really stupid but hear me out. I genuinely believe that Five Nights at Freddy's (and only the original, first game) should be included on the list of Horror games. Not only does Five Nights at Freddy's have an incredibly strong lasting power, but it's one of the most approachable and easy to understand horror games made in the last decade. Five Nights at Freddy's (FNAF) has maybe the most easily understood premise for a video game: survive. You don't run and jump, you only look at cameras and try to spot differences while the anticipation of the game's mechanics are what scare you. It's through this simplistic shift from horror -> resource management, and its general accessibility is what makes it a modern classic horror game.

The best part about FNAF is too that as you get better at the game, the horror aspect decreases and the game quickly becomes a game of skill instead. When the horror fades and shockingly competent game remains: you can use carefully placed audio cues and deterministic behaviors of the animatronics to successfully clear harder and harder difficulties. The game knows that eventually the player will understand that Foxy only runs out of Pirate's Cove at very specific points in the night, and as such, allows them to instead listen for proper audio cues to save their battery for the less consistent behaviors or Bonnie and Chica. The point I hope to make here is that whereas with other horror games, once one gets good at the game and knows the spooks and scares they can navigate through the game with somewhat relative ease; once you know what's around the corner in P.T. you're less likely to be afraid, and thus have less of a challenge. Many common criticisms of FNAF stem from the fact that FNAF is little more than this inherent resource-management gameplay loop, but that's the magic of the game itself. The game is as long as it takes for players to get good at it. I would much rather have a horror game that is only as scary for as long as I play it, rather than have a horror game drag on hours on end where I'm not afraid just bored. Five Nights at Freddy's accomplishes its task of being a horror game that turns into a game of skill without overstaying its welcome. and guess what, you don't have to only play one video game for the rest of your life. The way that Five Nights at Freddy's is inherently a game of resource management masquerading as a horror game is a really fascinating concept to me and I think that's a lot of the reason why it had as much lasting power when it was first launched.

I'm sure most people on these forums have at least heard of FNAF, but I really do believe that FNAF is one of the most accessible horror games as well even to non-gamers. Nights take no more than 9 minutes to finish if accomplished correctly (8 min and 55s to be precise) meaning that if you have maybe 20 minutes to kill, you could in theory play two nights of the game with little to no trouble. And obviously the game gets harder and harder as you go along, but what makes the game so accessible is that, gain, the verb is "survive". You as the player don't actually move from your space, and the idea of opening and closing doors is inherently simple. You know what a door does: it keeps things "out" and you "in". You know what a security camera is used for: "to watch". You know what a flashlight is for: "to see". It's these three actions that comprise the idea of "surviving": keeping yourself safe and seeing what threats are lurking. Not only is this a natural human behavior, but the way that it is implemented in FNAF is not unlike how a player would use these devices in real life as well: it's essentially a skeuomorphic design right there in the game that immerses the player in a really intense way. In immersing the player with this design, all whlie keeping the controls inherently simple, FNAF stands as a horror game that anyone can pick up and try with little to no effort. Try getting your non-gamer family or friends to play something like Resident Evil 7 on PC (just an example) and they might wince at the idea of a long-form game with someone complicated first person controls (they might seem simple to us gamers, but to the non-gamer, the translation from "push button" to the action "use weapon" is not trivial, especially to those who are not as able-bodied). Compare this to Five nights at Freddy's where the controls are essentially just clicking on buttons that do exactly what you'd expect. Your non-gamer grandpa can definitely understand what to do when all that he can do is press buttons and pray that time moves faster. I don't mean to say FNAF is "bEtTeR" than RE7 or any other modern Triple A horror game, but I really believe that the accessibility to play FNAF is one of the reasons why the game itself is one of the best and most influential Horror Games of all time.

It's also not hard to see FNAF's lasting impact on media as a whole. The game has not only spawned numerous of outlandish game theory episodes, but also sequel games with their own pros and cons, derivative fan-games, games that draw heavily on the aesthetics of an abandoned childlike play place (Baldi's Basics, Poppy's Playtime, etc.), merchandise, a book series, a movie based on the game AND a movie that draws heavily from the game (Willy's Wonderland, 2021), and other forms of media not mentioned here. At some point in the next 3 months (as of June 2023), the Five Nights at Freddy's movie (the official one previously mentioned) will likely enter the mainstream talking points when the FNAF movie hits movie theaters October 27, 2023. If the Super Mario Bros. Movie this year is of any indication, there is a nonzero chance that this video game will move into some form of mainstream media, even if the Super Mario franchise is still exponentially larger than FNAF. The point is, I am willing to guarantee you that you will see commercials for a movie about a NINE YEAR OLD shitty little indie game that was made because the dev's previous games's characters were criticized as being too uncanny, and you might have to explain to your parents where this movie's premise comes from. Or you might have to listen to that annoying 8-year-old cousin talk about how his parents let him see a scary movie in theaters and when you ask which one he'll say "Five Nights at Freddy's" a movie about a game that is older than him. It will remain in the mainstream cultural peripheral vision almost a decade after its initial release, which can only be said about so many media franchises, let alone independent horror games.

Maybe FNAF isn't one of the most *important games ever made* in the sense that it doesn't advance society (though honestly, that's not the role of art in society and I refuse to ever mandate that art have to advance society on grounds said better by others) but it's absolutely a modern horror game classic that I believe should be added to this list on the basis of its design, accessibility and influence. I realize this was a lot for a post in CONG of all places, and hell, I'm not even a fan of the game,s I haven't even beaten Night 4 of the first game, but I can acknowledge that this game has transcended the label of "another indie horror game".

---

Also gotta get Rollercoaster Tycoon on there at some point out of the sheer cool factor that it runs in ASSEMBLY.
 
Last edited:
decided to start up Diablo IV as a "when I don't feel like playing Atelier or SF6" - it's quickly become "When I don't got the time to put into Diablo i'll play those" now. LOL.
This is my first true Diablo experience ---- played the OG YEARS AGO when I was a tiny soul and the family shared a computer so ofc never had the time to really learn how it works.... started Necromancer and still pretty much fresh out the tutorial (only started 2 days ago) but been loving it. all classes i wanna try and it really feels like a "This is gunna backlog me more game cus i'm not gonna care about much else game wise" similarly to how Hogwarts was earlier this year but ofc this offers ENDLESSLY more "play again and see" (esp with upcoming seasons) than Hogwarts (and I *LOVED THAT EXPERIENCE*) did.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 3)

Top