Let me take a step back, the fundamental problem is that it really is a numbered list. Not that numbered lists are inherently bad, but that you must, as the maker of the list, justify more of your choices with insightful connections to the criteria because the game in question is applied to a specific number relative to other games applied to their numbers. For example, the momentous game Quake, made in 1996, is considered one of the pinnacle shooters of the 90s, created a sensation big enough for a convention that still runs, and offers visceral and intense gameplay not seen today. It is ranked at #40. Though, personally, I would place this game higher, that really isn't the problem. Here is there explanation about why the game is great (and...I guess why they placed it at 50):
Quake wasn't just a game. Quake was an event. In fact, it still IS an
event. Every year, thousands of series stalwarts descend upon Dallas,
Texas like a swarm of shooter-crazed locusts with their custom gaming
rigs, ready to frag with friends.That's because Quake was a triumph at
every level. Technically speaking, it easily bested anything PC gamers
had seen at the time. Single and multiplayer level designs were
impeccable, and the mix of medieval aesthetics with futuristic firepower
gave Quake a true one-of-a-kind look. Finaly, Id's famously perfect
shooting mechanics mixed with the moody, Trent Reznor-composed
soundtrack cemented Quake's place in history, influencing FPS design for
the better part of a decade.
Well, alright. Fair enough. As a standalone description it is not bad, and it does a good job at sticking with the criteria. Though, it is still a very malnourished illustration of why this game was a sensation, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. And of course, this isn't a standalone description of this game, it is within a list of 99 other games and its description somehow relates to the descriptions of the other games and their ranking. With this in mind, the malnourishment of such an explanation is disappointing. They go on to put not only Left 4 Dead but also its identical sequel. Here is the description of L4D2 at number 45:
Left 4 Dead 2 delivered everything you want from a good sequel to a
great game. It gave players some sweet melee weapons to carve zombies up
with, new utility items to use in a pinch, weapon augmentations, and
even some fresh special zombies to take pot shots at. Scenarios became
more elaborate too, with multi-part objectives that demanded even more
forethought and teamwork than ever before. None of it sounds so
game-changing individually, but each addition was so well thought out,
it felt like it should have always been there, making an already
infectious coop shooter nearly impossible to put down.
Great, that sounds comparatively better based off the criterion you gave at the beginning of the list. New weapons, new enemies, and an acknowledgement that there was nothing, "game-changing," about this iteration. So what, exactly, qualifies this game as being comparatively better than a game that defined a genre for many year? That's over my head, and it makes me wonder, really, what they had in mind with such a list that seems to treat a firm basis as nothing more than a front.
I'm thinking some of you suggest that I am overreacting to such a list. I mean, all it is really trying to do is show a list of great shooters and why they are great, right? I am going to whole-heartedly disagree with that. Why? Because if they really wanted to do that than should have ignored any ranking system altogether. Why make the motivation of discussing great games be a ranking and not the qualities that make it stand out among thousands of other games? I mean, looking at these descriptions, I see no real reason for this list other than numbers. Superficial descriptions lead to superficial discussion and it is a shame because there is much to be discussed when you bring in games like Quake, Halo, and Half-Life. Why not, again looking at Roger Ebert's Great Movie List, establish a growing list of games, in no particular order, and take time to really delve deep into why these games are timeless and continuously engaging. Or better yet, make a criterion that you can actually follow. Heck, if there is a time where you need to diverge from the criterion (L4D2) then explain this and justify it. I think these lists are pointless if, at the very least, they don't give anything insightful. But the worse thing is that the number becomes more important than the game.
I know there is this mysterious allure for numbered lists, and just because it is numbered doesn't mean that it will ultimately be bad (even I did say it was the worse thing about IGN's list). It is just this list in question never makes an attempt to justify these games in a consistent, thoughtful manner, and because the number means so damn much in this situation, the reasons for placing this game on the list means far less, and if we want to start to have constructive and compelling discussions on video games, we need to think of them as pieces that can be construed and dissected. Let us leave all the superficial emotional arguments behind and celebrate games for why we enjoy them so much. Please?
No comments:
Post a Comment