The Strong Reveals First Video Game Hall of Fame Inductees

[Politrukk]

I gotta say.

Enrolling world of warcraft in a best games of all time list is akin to enrolling heroin in a list of best foodstuffs available of all time.

Addictive doesnt necessarily mean good. It CAN be both addictive and good...but doesnt have to.

They were the first ones to smash all the subscriber barriers.

Same reason why Fifa was nominated I suppose.

And you may look at the last 3 expansions as total tripe but WoW was considered one of the most solid gameplay and story experiences all the way up to Wrath of The Lich King and if you're judging the game without all the expansions and put it back in that timeframe it smashed all expecations.


Or to go by your analogy : if Heroin was akin to simply eating shit, people'd be eating shit and not be shooting heroin, despite the devastating effects heroin apparently has a merit to the user.

 

[K12]

Thank fuck they didn't put "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" in there! What moron nominated those games?

 

[tzimize]

I gotta say.

Enrolling world of warcraft in a best games of all time list is akin to enrolling heroin in a list of best foodstuffs available of all time.

Addictive doesnt necessarily mean good. It CAN be both addictive and good...but doesnt have to.

In fairness, the list hasn't got much to do with being good, it's about what's important for gaming. WOW has been massively influential in how we understand games and gaming and how gaming is understood in popular culture. It's the one on the list that is most up for debate, and it's got 7 million paying subscribers today (which is, if I remember correctly, lower than its peak). If that game isn't culturally relevant, then I'm not sure what game is.

It was a list about BEST games was it not?

It was not. From the article:

The games span multiple decades, countries of origin, and gaming platforms, but all have significantly affected the video game industry, popular culture, and society in general," according to a statement by The Strong.

You can't deny it affected the industry and popular culture.

I stand corrected on the best bit, but I still stand by my previous statement.

I really dont think Wow has been culturally important. It was not groundbreaking in any way, and it has not lead to anything that we didnt already have in the gaming genre.

It is the one that became most famous and popular, but it didnt really create anything we didnt already have, and nothing has had even slightly the same success afterwards so I wouldnt say the market was changed in any significant way either. Sure, a lot of companies WANTED to have the same success, but they didnt.

Wow is a cultural phenomenon, no doubt about that. But in spite of that, I really dont think it has been important in any way besides earning Blizzard a mountain of gold.

 

[K12]

Thank fuck they didn't put "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" in there! What moron nominated those games?

People who realise that mobile and sports sim are both facets of gaming and those games were significant within those genres? I would agree that if Madden would arguably be the better choice to represent that genre due to it being (as far as I know) the longest running, but cultural impact is also a factor and soccer is much wider reaching than american football.

Seeing a lot of hate for particular genres floating around (not just here). Whether or not you like a particular genre or platform does not mean it has no significance within gaming culture or the industry. Brace yourselves because CoD4 will eventually make it in there.

There's no Roguelike or fighting game or driving game or console game or RTS or MOBA or survival horror or multiplayer shooter or point & click adventure game that even got nominated.

I'm totally OK with sports and mobile games getting in the hall of fame at some point but definitely not in the first batch. Are "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" really more important to gaming than the entirety of these other genres just because they sell/sold really well.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

...with requirements for consideration being: icon status, longevity, geographical reach, and influence.

Then Pokémon has to be merely waiting in the wings. There is no overstating the weight the franchise holds in all those categories. Hell, when I was in military service, it was common practice to count the days we had left by each day's corresponding pokémon number.

 

[K12]

Thank fuck they didn't put "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" in there! What moron nominated those games?

People who realise that mobile and sports sim are both facets of gaming and those games were significant within those genres? I would agree that if Madden would arguably be the better choice to represent that genre due to it being (as far as I know) the longest running, but cultural impact is also a factor and soccer is much wider reaching than american football.

Seeing a lot of hate for particular genres floating around (not just here). Whether or not you like a particular genre or platform does not mean it has no significance within gaming culture or the industry. Brace yourselves because CoD4 will eventually make it in there.

There's no Roguelike or fighting game or driving game or console game or RTS or MOBA or survival horror or multiplayer shooter or point & click adventure game that even got nominated.

I'm totally OK with sports and mobile games getting in the hall of fame at some point but definitely not in the first batch. Are "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" really more important to gaming than the entirety of these other genres just because they sell/sold really well.

Well they did contribute in a major way toward making gaming more than just a niche hobby. So you could say they represent a huge turning point in gaming. They've included games that were the building blocks in creating gaming so why not games that were integral to shaping gaming into the massive industry it is now. It's not like they're going to do inductions in chronological batches. Each time there will probably be games representing a wide range of eras of gaming history, rather than just start with the early and eventually build up to the new. Plus having a wide array of inductees in the first batch would give people a sense of what to expect and what the nature and intention of the hall of fame is. Inducting only classics that were the early foundations of gaming might make people think that's what this is meant to be. Meaning there'd likely be even more outrage if they were inducted at a later date, with gamers complaining that it ruins the sanctity of the hall of fame or some such. This isn't just in honour of the gaming we grew up with and what made us fall in love with it, it's about gaming that relates to the entire industry and everyone who engages with it. I do understand your point though and think this is probably just going to be about opinions. Neither of which are wrong. I'm not saying they SHOULD have been nominated, just saying there is definitely a strong argument in favour of it.

Agree to disagree here I think. I think I get some of the arguments you put forward but to me entrance (or nomination anyway) into a "Hall of Fame" requires better gaming reasons rather than marketing/ business reasons.

Maybe I'm being a bit too starry-eyed and naive about the whole thing but opening up a new audience seems like a shit reason to put something in a hall of fame compared to things like "Doom" and "Super Mario Bros" and even "the Sims" which codified an entire genre of games.