Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Attempting To Create A Gaming Canon

Posted by simoniker on from the who's-first-to-be-canonized? dept.

David Thomas writes "There's a newly posted list of games every developer should know over at Costik.com, and a similar recent attempt at The Ludologist - both articles concern the idea of a 'canon' of games. Like a literary canon, the idea is there is a list of classic games anyone serious about games should have played, in the same way any serious lit person will have read through the canon of literary works." Gentlemen, look over the lists, and please start your heckling now.

160 comments

  1. Comparing the lists... by ShayUK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm definitely more impressed by the costik list than the Ludologist list. While you're obviously going to open yourself to a great deal of attack, the level to which they've broken games down by type and genre gives more room for exploration of truly 'canonical' titles that don't have to be compared in direct terms when it comes to their inclusion/exclusion.

    The look at non-video games is important here too. Who could possibly call themselves a true gamer if they haven't gamed off-screen? Particularly relevant for game designers when it comes to understanding what makes video gaming different to other forms of gaming.

    All in all the more people argue about such lists the better! Surely it will all take us closer to a true canon that can be held up in future as a respected list?

    1. Re:Comparing the lists... by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      Personally, I was more impressed by the comments to the Costik list on their website - particularly that they corrected the *ahem* UScentric nature of the original list.

      The world of games is a worldwide thing, and to miss out important games from Europe is to miss a lot.

      Or maybe I'm just sulking because the list didn't include Elite...

    2. Re:Comparing the lists... by loadquo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However the ludologist's list was far better on the old school systems such as Amigas and Spectrums. What is the purpose of such lists? To give game designers ideas? The best way would not to divide them into genres but to label them in a way that gives some indication of what should be looked for. Take starcraft. A fine RTS, but why. I would argue for its game balance, but mainly for the pure personality and individualness of the units. The zerg, protoss and terrans each had different and strong characters, that I haven't seen rivaled in a game yet. Another example of good game design would be Rainbow Islands and Magic Pockets(Bitmap brothers), that had complex power up schemes. I played through them to try and get the strange and interesting power ups. Something you don't see in modern games so much. So organisation by distinguishing feature would be far more useful than Genre or platform.

    3. Re:Comparing the lists... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      The best way would not to divide them into genres but to label them in a way that gives some indication of what should be looked for. Take starcraft. A fine RTS, but why. I would argue for its game balance, but mainly for the pure personality and individualness of the units. The zerg, protoss and terrans each had different and strong characters, that I haven't seen rivaled in a game yet.

      An addition to this would be that Starcraft was arguably one of the first RTS games to really have an involving story (and again this comes back to the characters, as they were developed in the cut-scenes but still had actual character to them even in the game itself). Technically, Starcraft wasn't much of an achievment, but it did very well in balancing the 3 sides and bringing together a solid story element (and while C&C and Warcraft tried, I don't think they did nearly as well).

      One of the lists also skipped either of the first 2 WarCraft titles, which added more character to the units than was available in previous RTS titles, even if most of it was in jest (Stop poking me!).

      Personally, although I think a canon would have some value to developers, as well as gamers that have an interest in how we got to where we are, I also think that it should be used as an important step towards preservation of these games, as many of the titles take a great deal of work to get running on current hardware (if it can be done at all, and often involving emulation). Additionally, both of the lists made a handful of mistakes attributing games incorrectly, though mostly minor (such as Tekken 3 for PS2 on one list, while Tekken 3 would've been possibly a more accurate port on the PS2, it was released on the PS1 before the PS2 was even available in the US).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:Comparing the lists... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Can you give a link to the comments on the Costik list? They've got them hidden behind a damn Javascript link that I can't get Mozilla *or* IE to recognize.

      An ordinary HTML link would've done fine. Why do people *do* that?

      Chris Mattern

    5. Re:Comparing the lists... by BadmanX · · Score: 1

      An addition to this would be that Starcraft was arguably one of the first RTS games to really have an involving story (and again this comes back to the characters, as they were developed in the cut-scenes but still had actual character to them even in the game itself).

      Hello? Command & Conquer had this long before Starcraft. Even Warcraft II: Through the Dark Portal had good in-game story elements (even though that game didn't support between-mission cutscenes).

      So what was it that Starcraft did that made it a great game? The only really new thing it did was to have three very different factions - everything else had been done before. But its story was engaging, the game was easy to play and had personality. It didn't do a lot new, but it did everything it did very well. Starcraft is proof that a game doesn't have to break ground to be superb and become a classic.

    6. Re:Comparing the lists... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Hello? Command & Conquer had this long before Starcraft. Even Warcraft II: Through the Dark Portal had good in-game story elements (even though that game didn't support between-mission cutscenes).

      Command & Conquer never gave me that feeling. Sure, there were cut-scenes with actors playing various roles, but very few of them were involved in the actual gameplay, and even those that were had very basic characters. WarCraft 2 had slightly more story elements in the game itself, and did have between mission cutscenes (though only a few), but still didn't seem to push it very far. Only a few of the characters from the cut-scenes had any real personality, and even fewer actually were in the game itself. Starcraft just seemed to push beyond that in a way that's almost hard to put into words.

      So what was it that Starcraft did that made it a great game? The only really new thing it did was to have three very different factions - everything else had been done before. But its story was engaging, the game was easy to play and had personality. It didn't do a lot new, but it did everything it did very well. Starcraft is proof that a game doesn't have to break ground to be superb and become a classic.

      I agree on those points, but I still believe StarCraft broke ground in story telling that transcended just having cut-scenes that told the story to you. I think there are also a handful of ways in which it failed to make it's characters truly useful (ie one of your goals in many missions is to keep character X alive, which means that the easiest way to complete the mission is to put that character in the middle of your base and never use them), but it did try to tell the story both in the game as well as through cut-scenes, which RTS games rarely did before, let alone doing it well. On the other hand, I was a bit obsessed with Dark Reign and Total Annihilation when StarCraft came out, so it took quite a bit on this end to get me to play, as the technological side of the game was obviously quite out-paced by either of these other games. The fact that Dark Reign plays at insanely high speeds on modern processors makes it nearly impossible to pick up any more, unfortunately.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  2. Will we ever learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Having just come out of a liberal arts program, I know all too well that there is a great deal of contemporary scholarship bemoaning the fact that there is a canon. Say what you will about it, but post-modern scholarship is quite right when it says that the very existence of a canon restrains us. While it might make indoctrination more efficient, all a canon really is is a set of volumes (of whatever media) that some self-proclaimed experts say are required to appreciate said media. That creates a power structure in at least an abstract sense between the canon-makers and the canon-supplicants. And what do these people really know?

    There is only one purpose of a canon. There is an established structure of experts, and they're worried that the "common people" don't appreciate games the way they do, thus trivilizing them. So in order to indoctrinate them with similar value systems (even about video games) they manufacture a canon defining what they claim is "good" in a video game.

    Fuck that! Like most social structures, groups of critics judge games with 90% finger-in-the-wind and 10% what they actually let themselves think for themselves. Suuure, Black and White is a reallly great game. Thanks, IGN/GameSpot/your favorite gaming rag. Are these the people who should decide what is "important" or "critical" to play before you can "properly appreciate" games?

    What is wrong with exploring for yourself?

    I don't want to sound to matrixy, but in the end, it's all about control. Organisations like EA will eat this shit up.

    S[0o0]2

    1. Re:Will we ever learn... by kurosawdust · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What is wrong with exploring for yourself?

      a) in most fields, this is not an option. Would you care to explore for yourself the world of literature? Not totally unguided you wouldn't - there are way too many books and way too many bad books out there to go through without a torch of some sort (teacher, friend with similar interests, website that recommended good books before, etc.).

      b) this may not apply to you, but many people actually like being told what to do. They won't come right out and say it, of course, but it seems to stem from a psychological impasse, a bit of being gunshy if you will - people are unsure of the direction they are taking and want some kind of confirmation, a word from "on high" (which manifests itself as imperatives or advice from bosses, teachers, parents, etc) so they have an affirmation that what they are doing is Right and Good and Will Not Fail. Sartre touched on this with his famous quote "man is condemned to be free" - we all want the beauty and liberation of freedom, but we are scared as hell of being solely responsible for our own decisions.

      I agree with you that having a literary canon along the lines of "if it's on this list, it's good; if it's not, it's worthless crap" is ridiculous - however, the reason that we are inclined towards establishing a list of works of literature that earned the good housekeeping seal of approval is to save us the time of wading through the bad ones. For what its worth, I find just establishing trusted sources and taking recommendations from them (letting yourself be the final judge, of course) works wonderfully.

    2. Re:Will we ever learn... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say that both of you have a point. On one hand, I'd say that we should value the value of peer review. If a lot of people say that a book is particularly good, then we should likely give it a shot. I still have yet to read (or watch, FWIW) The Count of Monte Cristo, despite a number of recommendations, but I recognize that it's a good idea to do so, and intend to read it.

      However, I *also* find it annoying when I see people criticizing literature because it doesn't follow what they consider to be solid writing style. I read an AP article by an English professor about the Harry Potter books (which I also haven't read) about how the books were basically poorly written crap that didn't compare with classical literature, and on how depressing it is that our society now considers *this* good literature. He particularly panned the use of cliches. To me, that seems ridiculous. If most people enjoy a book, then it's doing a good job of being entertaining, at least for a certain target audience. Because of realities of marketing (Stephen King nvels get pushed more these days than Andre Dumas novels), there may be *some* distortion from "the way things would ideally be". However, ultimately, if people are enjoying a work of literature, criticizing that writing is a lost cause. Very few people I know enjoy reading Moby Dick. Perhaps it makes wonderful use of metaphor, and perhaps it has many layers of meaning. Perhaps it even tries to contain a certain degree of insight. However, if it's not enjoyable to read, ultimately the author has failed to do something that I consider an important element of writing. Melville, begone!

      Look at the Matrix (yes, film instead of words, but it illustrates my point). My initial reaction to public opinion of the Matrix was to be a bit irritable -- dammit, how *dare* people laud the Matrix for containing the brain-in-a-vat concept? They shouldn't say "wow, it's like we're in the Matrix" -- they should be saying "wow, it's like we're in Descartes' brain-in-a-vat!" But, on a second look, I realized where I'd gone wrong. The Matrix, an infinitely more lowbrow piece of work, had had far more success spreading an important philosophical idea to a large chunk of the population.

      --
      May we never see th
    3. Re:Will we ever learn... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      It's not just "many people" and it *does* apply to you. Humans are pack animals. Read about Milgram's authority experiments.

    4. Re:Will we ever learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good points all.

      I argue against a canon but without one, are we really free to explore? Above one of you mentioned that the selection is too vast to just plunge in head first. I'd like to say that's silly, just start at an arbitrary point, but the fact is, even before we officially proclaim a canon, there already is one.

      We can all name the must-have games currently out for the X-Box or a few undeniable classics of the Super Nintendo. Whether through word of mouth or through the media, someone probably recommended a game to us or led us to play the game. Even if it is just placement on a store shelf, then it's the publisher who paid for that prominent shelf space that captured your first interest!

      Therefore instead of letting the media and commercial interests control an unspoken canon, some people propose a more purposefully constructed one. That's not such a bad thing, right?

      Well, I think it sort of is. The problem isn't that we have a bad canon or no canon, it's that we have one or will have one. I'd much rather have a more active discussion of game criticism than an establishment of a higher (than the current unspoken) canon.

      We need more inquiry into what people like in games and why, and which games do it the best, and how. People like the eye candy, or escapism, or intellectual stimulation, or reflex testing, or educational value of games. And within these categories there is a huge diversity in the ways games shine.

      What a post modern ideal... an academy without a canon. A canon is a short cut. Some people do like to be told what to do... and that sells them short. Some people like to be told what to think, but that doesn't mean we should hand them over to the Bush administration or Fox News (or NPR...) Similarly we should struggle against a canon, in all things, not just videogames.

      Videogames have a concreteness and a abstractness that no media has and therefore begs for a new kind of criticism. Yet it is so rare that someone discusses a videogame in terms of their own experience with it instead of in comparison to the already existing canon... just cue up IGN/GameSpot and you'll see that.

      What do you think?

      S[0o0]2

    5. Re:Will we ever learn... by kurosawdust · · Score: 1

      I did - from what I have read, about 60% of the people in the first experiment administered (what they believed to be) shocks beyond the learner's threshold of pain. As far as I know, this percentage was never again reached in the subsequent experiments as variables were separated (eg learner and teacher in the same room, teacher having to physically put learners hand on shock plate, etc) - I never said that it didn't apply to me personally, but since 60% 100%, it obviously does not apply to everyone.

    6. Re:Will we ever learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, "60% < 100%"

    7. Re:Will we ever learn... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      I'd say that both of you have a point. On one hand, I'd say that we should value the value of peer review. If a lot of people say that a book is particularly good, then we should likely give it a shot. I still have yet to read (or watch, FWIW) The Count of Monte Cristo, despite a number of recommendations, but I recognize that it's a good idea to do so, and intend to read it.

      I'll start by mentioning that I have not read The Count of Monte Cristo, either, though I have seen the movie (only because someone else was going to watch it anyways and I was at their house). In my opinion, a canon should be more about listing particularly good examples of different types of work in an artform, in the case of games the various genres and possibly platforms (which generally lead to particular genres being more or less explored). The problem with literary canon tends to be that it is used as a basis for course-work in many levels of school (there was certainly a canon from which titles were chosen in high school), and often is used as a basis for teaching people to read into literature in a particular way (looking for symbolism for instance), rather than getting students interested in literature and teaching at the same time. As someone past my high school years, if The Grapes of Wrath comes up as necessary reading for my grade ever again, I'll withdraw from the course (but since I'm not an English or Literature major, this isn't a major set-back for me). With games, you're looking at giving developers good examples of what advanced the art, or advanced a particular genre, or even a staple of work for a particular platform that might give some insight into what was popular on that platform, and eventually what about that platform (or the time period) lead to those genres evolving there. For gamers, it's more a matter of involving players in the history of the games they play. Some may be interested, others may not. The more recent games also offer chances for gamers to look at games they may have overlooked (such as Frequency which was on one of the lists) and may enjoy, at a time when they cost relatively little. Another point may be for critics and reviewers, who sometimes seem to bring no historical reference to their work. While it's nice that games are generally reviewed on their own merits, I'd like to see statements on original elements being qualified with their origins rather than just accepted at face value.

      However, I *also* find it annoying when I see people criticizing literature because it doesn't follow what they consider to be solid writing style. I read an AP article by an English professor about the Harry Potter books (which I also haven't read) about how the books were basically poorly written crap that didn't compare with classical literature, and on how depressing it is that our society now considers *this* good literature. He particularly panned the use of cliches. To me, that seems ridiculous. If most people enjoy a book, then it's doing a good job of being entertaining, at least for a certain target audience. Because of realities of marketing (Stephen King nvels get pushed more these days than Andre Dumas novels), there may be *some* distortion from "the way things would ideally be". However, ultimately, if people are enjoying a work of literature, criticizing that writing is a lost cause. Very few people I know enjoy reading Moby Dick. Perhaps it makes wonderful use of metaphor, and perhaps it has many layers of meaning. Perhaps it even tries to contain a certain degree of insight. However, if it's not enjoyable to read, ultimately the author has failed to do something that I consider an important element of writing. Melville, begone!

      In this case, you simply have to remember that there's a difference between popular literature (Harry Potter, Stephen King books), and scholarly literature. I'm not saying this is definitely a good thing, but it's definitely there. Similarly, there are many people that can rely on certain well-known movie reviewers to let them know what

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    8. Re:Will we ever learn... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      60% of the subjects went to the maximum setting. I can't find a reference for this, but I believe 100% went beyond the point where the learner began to indicate he was in pain.

    9. Re:Will we ever learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, Ok...

      In this case, you simply have to remember that there's a difference between popular literature (Harry Potter, Stephen King books), and scholarly literature. I'm not saying this is definitely a good thing, but it's definitely there.

      It's only there because the people at the top of our academic totem pole say it's there. There's not necessarily a substantial textual difference.

      However, if you want an idea of where everything came from, if you want to be able to put some evidence behind claims of originality or derivation in current games, then you at least need some foundation in the history of that particular genre or platform.

      "Everything." "Need some foundation." Fair enough, but realize that you're only talking about where the current popular canon came from. And just because A precedes A', doesn't mean that A' derived from A, even if they have similar form. Damn Aristotle for inflicting causality and categorization on us. Canonization flattens a multidimensional field and thus diminishes it. Unfortunately, you're right, since if we return to the issue at hand, we're looking at this from a developer's point of view, and we want to avoid copying a pre-existing concept too closely even if its inadvertently. But who knows what rigidity of thinking the designer's mind will suffer after the inevitable homogenization of submitting to a canon...

      I don't have an alternative but I fret over this.

      S[0o0]2

    10. Re:Will we ever learn... by kurosawdust · · Score: 1

      You are correct - I misunderstood the 60% figure, and upon second inspection it does apply to the maximum setting, not the pain-threshold setting (on some sites I read 65%, I dont know which is the correct figure) - the only figure I could find regarding anything close to the "threshold of pain" was the statement that "no subject stopped before reaching 300 volts" on this site. If I recall correctly, the threshold of pain in the experiment was about 120/150 volts, and at 300 the actor playing the student would pound on the wall and scream. So a) you're right, and b) I guess the only thing I can console myself with is the fact that at least not everybody killed the guy (same link as before, reference that a german experiment showed that only 15% of volunteers refused to administer a lethal shock)

    11. Re:Will we ever learn... by Spleener12 · · Score: 1
      While the idea that anyone who ever wants to make games or consider themselves a serious gamer should play these games is kinda dumb, I think that someone should compile a list of games that are historically significant in some way or another- games that somehow affected games that came after it, and they should know WHY these games were important.

      Pong, Mario Bros., Zelda, Dragon Warrior, Mortal Kombat, Warcraft, DOOM, Counter-Strike, Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto 3, anything else that you can think of. Just like anyone who wants to get into film making should watch classic/influential movies, people who want to get into games should do the same.

    12. Re:Will we ever learn... by nathanh · · Score: 0
      I read an AP article by an English professor about the Harry Potter books (which I also haven't read) about how the books were basically poorly written crap that didn't compare with classical literature, and on how depressing it is that our society now considers *this* good literature. He particularly panned the use of cliches. To me, that seems ridiculous. If most people enjoy a book, then it's doing a good job of being entertaining, at least for a certain target audience.

      The HP books are poorly written crap. They aren't literature. But they are entertaining. I don't see why you got your knickers in a knot over the professor's comments. He's commenting on the low quality of writing. You're commenting on the entertainment value. It's not even the same conversation. Both viewpoints are valid and can coexist.

      I agree with the professor: it's depressing that people prefer low-brow crap like HP instead of decent literature. But people also prefer Macdonalds and Monster Truck Rallys. It is depressing that most people are not intellectual giants. Most people prefer whizzy lights and boom boom noises rather than thoughtful contemplation. It's not snobbery to point this out. It's simply an observation of reality.

      PS: I'm not an exception to the rule. I like Monster Truck Rallys too. I can't stand opera. Poetry bores me to death. I like classical music but I also like death metal. Go figure. There's no accounting for taste.

    13. Re:Will we ever learn... by Psychochild · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is wrong with exploring for yourself?

      I'll have to agree. I think that getting out there and playing a variety of games is better than being told what games to play.

      As a professional, independent game developer, I find the lists useless. I consider myself a pretty serious gamer and a student of game history, but I barely know half the games there.

      One of the biggest issues is that a lot of the older games are mostly lost to time. I played arcade games obsessively as a kid, but I only really got to play some of the classics due to the involvement some of my friends have with emulation. I didn't appreciate a game like Robotron when I was 10, and paying $1k+ (plus shipping!) to get a live machine seems a bit insane. People looking for a legal way to play these classic games are mostly out of luck.

      You can say the same thing about older consoles and computers, too. Strict copyright enforcement and the ravages of time have made some classic games very hard to find and play. Finding legal copies of these games is damn near impossible.

      Further, the lists focus on big-name games. Ultima is mentioned, but what about the critically acclaimed games produced by Spiderweb Software? Is the Exile series less worthy of attention just because it is "shareware" instead of being published by a large company? Why does Anarchy Online get a mention on the lists when it is widely considered to have the worst launch in history? Why doesn't Meridian 59 get a mention when it is widely considered to be a pioneer in the retail graphical online game market. Especially considering that former developers of M59 went on to work on a lot of other online games, such as UO, UO2, The Sims Online, Shadowbane, etc.

      Finally, there's a lot of repeats. Do you really need to play Parappa the Rapper and Dance Dance Revolution in order to appreciate both games? Both games have to deal with music and rhythm with some differences. Yes, those differences result in different games, but even those differences can be found in other games.

      I think what would be more interesting would be to pick different vital gaming elements and then provide games that provide a good example of that.

      For example, using a computer game-centric list:

      Game types
      Music and Rhythm games (DDR, Parappa, Samba De Amigo)
      First-person shooter (DOOM, Quake)
      RPG (Ultima, Might & Magic, Final Fantasy, Exile)
      Online RPG (Ultima Online, EverQuest, Meridian 59)

      Game art styles
      Tile engines (Ultima 1-5, Exile)
      Cell-shaded (Parappa, Jet Set/Grind Radio)
      2.5D (DOOM, Meridian 59)
      3D (Quake, Half-Life)

      Notable games
      Ultima 4 - introduced morality and consequences for actions in a fantasy RPG.
      DOOM - introduced multiplayer games to a wider audience.

      I think this would be a much more useful list for distilling what people probably should be noticing about these games. Of course, there are flaws with this as well. The business side of things has obviously influenced things, for example, but which game really introduced which business model?

      My opinion,

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
    14. Re:Will we ever learn... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      The problem with literary canon tends to be that it is used as a basis for course-work in many levels of school (there was certainly a canon from which titles were chosen in high school), and often is used as a basis for teaching people to read into literature in a particular way (looking for symbolism for instance), rather than getting students interested in literature and teaching at the same time. As someone past my high school years, if The Grapes of Wrath comes up as necessary reading for my grade ever again, I'll withdraw from the course (but since I'm not an English or Literature major, this isn't a major set-back for me).

      Ah, you've found a point that we very, very much agree upon. My father lent me a number of Steinbeck's books, which I dearly loved reading. The only Steinbeck I've ever been required to read for a class was Grapes of Wrath, which was also the only work of his that I ended up despising. I read Catch-22 for enjoyment well before I was required to read it for a class, and loved it the first time through -- it's one of my favorite classics. Later, I was required to read it for a class, and hated going through it.

      --
      May we never see th
    15. Re:Will we ever learn... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      What I'm complaining about is that he's making claims based on the value of the writing in the book based upon rules that are set up to achieve something else. He's treating the rules as something to be followed for the sake of following them.

      For example, if I had to come up with a quick classification scheme, I'd say that writing is generally produced to inform (such as a reference work), to convince (as a political work), or to entertain.

      The HP books were probably written with entertainment in mind. That being said, the rules of "no cliches" is valid, as it helps keep stories novel and unpredictable. However, if the vast majority of readers have no complaints with it, the books must not fall into this trap particularly badly. This simply means that the "no cliches" rule is useless, as it is not improving the effectiveness of the writing. Thus, judging the quality of the work based upon a rule that is useless in the given situation seems a bit like the professor is sticking to form for the sake of form.

      Oh, and in closing -- I normally dislike poetry as well, but Robert Frost is an exception, and, I think, worth glancing at.

      --
      May we never see th
    16. Re:Will we ever learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiight...you really did buy into post-modernism 101, didn't you?

      Post-modernism itself is under serious attack in contempary criticism given that it judges work of art not on aesthetic value but, depending on the particular flavor, according to a set of largely inacessable rules and tools or according to one particular polemic (imagine a world where we don't play Zelda for enjoyment but rather to explore the power constructs involved in and arbritrary nature of the values associated with the "good" in Link and the "evil" Ganondorf - this kind of stuff could be fascinating but sure ain't gaming)

      Post modernism was a reaction against an exclusive canon of literature. But that's not to say the canon was orignially a bad thing. Originally developed by Leavis and the like, it was an attempt to codify what was particularly outstanding and mould-breaking.

      To put it in simpler terms, yes - I am happy for people who have more time to explore games to make reccomendations and for a canon of games through time to be explored. Because something's not on the canon doesn't mean it stays off (in fact arguably the outcome of post-modernism has been largely an exapnsion of the canon). Rather it's a chance for people who have the time to play and research games extensively to establish those that I, as an amateur, can explore withing - before finding my own discoveries. A road map, as it were. And what's wrong in acknoledging that some people have more time and resource - even, contraversially, critical faculty - to be able to assist with that? I enjoy dabbilng with computers but don't pretend to be an expert on the best way for the Linux kernel to move forward.

      Is it about power? Is it about control? Hell, if you count yourself as a post modernist then presumably you'd claim everything is...

    17. Re:Will we ever learn... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      What I'm complaining about is that he's making claims based on the value of the writing in the book based upon rules that are set up to achieve something else. He's treating the rules as something to be followed for the sake of following them.

      But what's wrong with that? Commenting on the literary quality - the adherence to "rules" - is perfectly valid.

      Think of it this way. There's no denying that Britney Spears is entertaining. I'm not a fan and I turn the TV off when she's on, but I'm clearly in the minority. But I don't think any reasonable person would claim she's a good singer. Her voice is grating and her notes are off-key. The objective measure of her singing ability is devastating, no matter what the subjective or popular opinion might be.

      On the other hand, Bette Midler (another singer who doesn't entertain me in the slightest) is quite a good singer. She has brilliant vocal control over volume and pitch. She can maintain a note for incredible duration. Objectively she's a brilliant singer, once again no matter what the subjective or popular opinion might be.

      Where am I leading? There is an objective measure of a singer's skill. For singing it is the pitch and volume control, the tonal qualities, the ability to maintain rhythm, etc. You can comment on the objective qualities of singing. These are the "rules" of singing, if you like.

      There are similar objective measures of writing. If an author chooses to ignore the rules then that is fine, as long as the author has the skill to pull it off. Stories that break the rules are exciting because they do something different. However JK Rowling didn't do anything different with her writing. Her writing style is dull and unimaginative. She breaks the rules and lacks the skill to pull it off. Her stories show incredible imagination and her writing style is popular - no denying that! - but she is no literary genius.

      And as I said before, it's not snobbery to point this out. I'm certain JK Rowling isn't losing any sleep over the snide comments from the literary crowd... the millions of dollars she's making must compensate any grief she might feel.

      As an aside, singing off-key isn't necessarily a bad quality - some artists use off-key notes to spectacular effect - but in Spear's case she simply lacks the talent to sing in tune.

      Oh, and in closing -- I normally dislike poetry as well, but Robert Frost is an exception, and, I think, worth glancing at.

      Oh, god no. I detest his poetry. But I don't deny that he's brilliant (and very popular).

    18. Re:Will we ever learn... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      In this case, you simply have to remember that
      there's a difference between popular literature
      (Harry Potter, Stephen King books), and scholarly
      literature. I'm not saying this is definitely a
      good thing, but it's definitely there.

      It's only there because the people at the top of our academic totem pole say it's there. There's not necessarily a substantial textual difference.

      I can't really discuss Harry Potter books, since I've never read them, but having read most of Stephen King's books (and enjoyed them quite a bit), I can say there's a very substantial difference in the methods of writing. I can't say that one is really better than the other, simply that King's writing is in a much more common English, and rarely means anything more than what it says. He also tends to be quite predictable, especially after you've read a handful of his books. None of this takes away from the entertainment value, but it keeps him quite firmly out of many literary circles (and yes, this could be quite heavily based on elitism in that particular circle).

      However, if you want an idea of where
      everything came from, if you want to be able to
      put some evidence behind claims of originality or
      derivation in current games, then you at least
      need some foundation in the history of that
      particular genre or platform.

      "Everything." "Need some foundation." Fair enough, but realize that you're only talking about where the current popular canon came from. And just because A precedes A', doesn't mean that A' derived from A, even if they have similar form.

      Yes, I agree that just because A precedes B doesn't mean that B derived from A, however they both may have a common ancestor (even if it's Pong, which derived from Ping Pong). I find the study of derivation particularly interesting, although I'm aware that many others do not, and I firmly believe that developers specifically should be aware of the other work in their field before diving in, at the very least to learn from the mistakes of others rather than repeating them for themselves.

      Damn Aristotle for inflicting causality and categorization on us. Canonization flattens a multidimensional field and thus diminishes it.

      Canonization only flattens a field for those that allow it to do so ;) Just because Stephen King and others aren't part of literary canon doesn't mean I don't read them, but at the same time I may look at literary canon from time to time to see if I can find something of interest for me, which also may allow me to branch out into new authors and subject matter. Similarly, when I look at these attempts at game canon, I see a handful of games I haven't played in areas that do interest me, and hope that I might be able to try some of them, as well as many games I have played and enjoyed. It also gives me a good place to start if I decide that I'm interested in looking at, for instance, adventure games, which I haven't played much since I was fairly young (on an Apple II no less).

      Unfortunately, you're right, since if we return to the issue at hand, we're looking at this from a developer's point of view, and we want to avoid copying a pre-existing concept too closely even if its inadvertently. But who knows what rigidity of thinking the designer's mind will suffer after the inevitable homogenization of submitting to a canon...

      As opposed to the homogenization that's occured in the field every few years when a particularly successful game comes along? The difference with a canon is that when that homogenization occurs there may be an existing reference for developers to look at the past works and maybe produce better games, even if they are just processed cookie-cutter crap. There was a time when I felt like there was a new FPS coming out every week, and slightly later a new RTS every week. The truly bright minds in any industry become well known (at least within their industry) for new thoughts and evolution of their field, regardless of

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    19. Re:Will we ever learn... by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      While I absolutely hate the idea of a canon, I think it might be interesting to have a sort of "history of gaming" document tracing how games have improved over the years. Which games introduced which features, etc, with comparisons and screen captures.

      It could be done as a historical record, sort of a history paper dealing with the game industry. It would only have to be done once, really; collecting the info and putting it online, then letting gamers offer corrections and suggestions.

      This wouldn't be a canon, or a "must read" list, but rather a living historical document charting the game industry. Could be kinda cool.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  3. Where's Duke? by xsecrets · · Score: 1

    How can you even have a section called FPS without including Duke Nukem 3d? I know the succesor has been a long time in comming and will most likely remain vaporware forever, but why do you think that there is such longing for this game, because the origional was so much fun to play.

  4. Why set your sites so low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cannons as so low tech.
    Create a BFG2000.

  5. Games that I think should be added. by IVI4573R · · Score: 2, Informative

    Zork
    Duke Nukem/Duke 3D
    Scroched Earth
    Soul Calebure (SP?)
    UT
    Warcraft II
    Bubble Bobble? (Not sure if thats the right name, the game that Snood is based on)
    Area 51 and the other game its bundled with often.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:Games that I think should be added. by IVI4573R · · Score: 1

      Also forgot to mention. Metal Slug X

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    2. Re:Games that I think should be added. by Random832 · · Score: 1

      Snood is based on Puzzle Bobble, which was released in the US as "Bust a move"... however, bubble bobble was a classic in its own right.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    3. Re:Games that I think should be added. by silicon1 · · Score: 1

      you also missed Half-Life, Doom series and Quake series, Rise of the Triad.

      --
      Natural-Selection Be
    4. Re:Games that I think should be added. by Danse · · Score: 1

      I think Planescape: Torment should have made the RPG list, and Syndicate should definitely have appeared in there somewhere as well. They did include Zork already, under Computer Games - Adventure.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    5. Re:Games that I think should be added. by Danse · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and X-Wing and/or Tie Fighter should have appeared as well. Probably Mechwarrior 2 also. They should probably have a sim category.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    6. Re:Games that I think should be added. by Grab · · Score: 1

      For games that got missed, oh boy, how many do we want?!

      Arcade:-
      Pinball (especially tables with odd features like Addams Family)
      Star Wars
      Space Harrier (my all-time fave arcade game)
      Afterburner (and the R360 version thereof)
      Pitfighter
      Operation Thunderbolt

      Multiple platforms:-
      Soccer manager games
      Repton
      Elite

      Commodore 64:-
      Last Ninja
      Uridium
      Paradroid

      Amiga:-
      Starglider 2

      I'm sure there's more, but they're not coming to mind right now.

      Grab.

    7. Re:Games that I think should be added. by Bahumat · · Score: 1

      Most of those genres of games are covered, but Scorched Earth and Bubble Bobble are two definitive games of their genre and time, and even in this modern day and age, remain as playable as ever. (Scorched Earth is still a popular LAN-party title, hotseating. And Bubble Bobble sucks in /everyone/ I've ever seen, playing at console parties.)

      --
      "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
  6. Classic Games, Overlooked? by Peorth · · Score: 1

    I don't mean to be particularly critical, but how can anyone miss so many underrated classics?

    Sid Meier's Covert Action comes first and foremost to mind, with it's witty "double-oh-seven" style action and puzzle-solving as one of the best but critically missed classics. Perhaps its only flaw is that it has circa-1988 graphics, but I still play it every few weeks just to see if I'm still 'on my game'.

    There are also mid-range 'kinda unknown near classics', which would've been big blockbusters with just a little more marketting, or a little more polish. Games such as Syndicate, Magic Carpet, (I'm not a Bullfrog saleswoman) and Daggerfall.

    Though, it seems to've missed some of the other fine more mainstream classics out there, such as Neuromancer. What about Descent? Or Descent: Freespace?

    None of these were really Genre-setting benchmarks, but they all pushed the envelope for their time, and truly made you think about what games could be capable of one day. Games like these are the reason I got into game programming in the first place. They were innovative, smart, and often overlooked, as this list seems to've done.

    Perhaps instead of listing three Maxis "sim" games, perhaps it should've made room for a few of these underdogs.

    1. Re:Classic Games, Overlooked? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Covert action was too much fun. I used to fire it up every time I went home, til the HD died. I lost the original disks long ago. I liked the graphics, never has anyone been in so much fear of a yellow square.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:Classic Games, Overlooked? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      You don't mean This game do you? It is still possible to get some of these great old titles, if you know where to look. And, considering that you had paid for a copy of it once, I wouldn't think that downloading it now should be that bad.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    3. Re:Classic Games, Overlooked? by mausmalone · · Score: 1

      The problem with "kinda unkonwn near classics" is that it should't be a part of a Canon. A Canon is supposed to be the minimal body of work from which a common vocabulary can be defined. A Canon definitely should not involve 3 "sim" games.... but neither should it involve Magic Carpet.

      I mean, sure, there are plenty of amazing games left off the list, and plenty crappy ones that made the cut... but the Canon isn't about quality. It's about gathering a body of work everyone in the field should be familiar with. Sadly, both Messiah and Battlecruiser 3000 AD should be on the Canon as examples of failures and reasons for failure. (also Daikatana) Wolfenstein and Doom need to be studied as examples of using a more limited technology as a tradeoff for speed. There are countless others.... and they show why I'm disliking this list.

      If you're gonna write a list of titles that should have significance to all gamers /designers /programmers, then you need to justify their placement. Why are Final Fantasy VII and X on there? (not saying they shouldn't be, but I'd like to know what makes specifically those two interesting that they should be studied? How are they different from the other FF games?) So, if you're gonna write a Canon, do us all a favor and explain your choices. And don't say "because it's good," 'cause then it's just a favorites list. :P

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  7. Sermon from the Arcade by kurosawdust · · Score: 3, Funny

    "And lo, the Snickering Dog appeared from behind the Mount, and it was found that the people could not shoot him, and that the only way to appease him was ye to successfully shoot both Ducks..."

    1. Re:Sermon from the Arcade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude you are a god, that was the funniest thing ive read in years. welcome unto my friends list, and know ye shall receive great karma whenever i get mod points. =)

  8. Genre? by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

    A gaming canon, much more so than a literary canon, should be segregated by relevance to a particular genre. There is very little to be learned about good RTS development by playing, say, Dragon's Lair. Yes, there should be a category for games that highlight something beyond their genre, like UI and such, but it should be as small as the rest. 300 games is a few too many to seriously suggest every developer familiarize themselves with. Give me 20 categories of 10 games each (give or take), with any particular developer (and their game) being related to perhaps 3-5 categories, and the list is not only more managable but more realistically usable.

    RTS being my own personal pet genre, if I could force every RTS developer out there to spend time playing Total Annihilation, The Moon Project, Warlords Battlecry (2), Metal Fatigue, and Tzar, the world would be a better place. If I expect them to play a hundred games I have no chance.

    1. Re:Genre? by shweazel · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA!

      the games ARE subdivided into categories by genre.

    2. Re:Genre? by PauliePants · · Score: 1

      I agree, TA was my favorite RTS. With an Updated and some AI improvements, I'm sure I would do great in todays market.

    3. Re:Genre? by PauliePants · · Score: 1

      wow I screwed that post up. I meant to say with an updated engine and graphics the game would be great even today. sorry about that.

    4. Re:Genre? by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      RTFA!

      the games ARE subdivided into categories by genre.

      Maybe you should RTFA again and see that they are subdivided by PLATFORM, not GENRE. "Genre" does not mean "PS2, PC, SNES" or "CONSOLE GAMES--64bit, CONSOLE GAMES--modern". A portion of the Costik list is subdivided by genre, but not all of it. For the most part, it is divided by platform.

  9. There's a word for this ... by 1in10 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... and that's "elitism".

    This is just another dick measuring contest. "Oh you haven't played X? You're not a real gamer". Give me a break.

    People who go on about literary canons all have one thing in common: they're a bunch of concieted academics all trying to prove they're more important than the next concieted academic because they're a bigger expert than the next guy.

    Does anyone really think gaming would benefit from going down the same path?

    Play the games you enjoy, and if you're a developer, let your influence flow from your personal favourites, with a healthy dose of inovation.

    It's like in music: some artists have been influenced by Dylon, some by the Sex Pistols, some by Nirvana, etc. Different people are going to draw from different sources. Nobody criticises an artist if they can't name the Beatles albums in chronological order, so long as they make good music.

    1. Re:There's a word for this ... by mo^ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Im not a writer or an academic and the notion of a "canon" is a new one to me.. but speakingin plain terms.. I have often borrowed the reading lists of my friends studying literature degrees as i'm always looking for god books to read. And, reading as much as i do find comparing the more contemporary fiction i have read previously with older stuff and seeing the influences, and roots of storytelling going back hundreds of years.

      I have also been playing computer games for over 20 years and as such really enjoy diggin up an old classic again, or booting up my ZX Spectrum to play an old cassette based game i have found in a jumble sale.

      Don't think so much of these so much as "must read/play" lists.. rather try and conceive it as broad guidelines compiled by longterm gamers/readers with an aim to passing the joy they have garnered from an age of gaming.

      Most of us will have been lucky enough to be around when these games were released but as time progresses the nexus of videgames will disappear in a way that books don't.

      If i wasnt around my 7 year old nephew would NEVER have discovered the joys of sonic, let alone jet pac or bubble bobble...

      --
      bah!*@%!
    2. Re:There's a word for this ... by (trb001) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you've got a point, but examine where this list stems from. By wanting to call yourself a 'serious gamer', there's a certain amount of self-imposed elitism present. I think this guy (or organization, whatever) is just trying to establish a list of games that, were you to want to call yourself a serious gamer, you probably should have played prior to assigning yourself the title. In the same sense that I would question anyone saying they were well read without knowledge of Shakespeare, I would question someone calling themselves a serious gamer without being able to name 3 Sim games, telling me the password to get up the beanstalk in KQ1, or telling me the Mad God's name in Bard's Tale.

      Personally, I just wouldn't assign myself the title of serious gamer, I think that's kinda pretentious.

      But you're always going to have people assuming they're something, so why not attempt to establish a list by which to measure it by. Someone had to create the purity test by which half my freakin high school measured their purity, and I thought that was a load of bull too. Same holds true for movies, books, tv, really anything one can obsess over.

      --trb

    3. Re:There's a word for this ... by Watts+Martin · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is a word for this, and the word is well-rounded. (And I don't mean the kind of roundness you get by sitting on your duff in front of the GameCube.)

      I think people are missing the basic point here, but I think people miss the point of most attempts at "canons." They're not tally sheets that give you elitism points, but an attempt to define fairly well-agreed-upon classics across a wide spectrum of a given field. Anyone who's a serious student of literature should know at least a few canonical works, and that's doubly important if you're a writer with any professional aspirations greater than writing a book or two under an assumed name as a TV show tie-in. "I want to write science fiction, why should I know anything about Faulkner" is a stupid question, and it deserves a stupid answer: you should know something about Faulkner because he was a great effing writer,, and you might get some much better understanding on how to tell stories in your chosen genre if you make an attempt at understanding why people consider Faulkner such a good writer. (You don't even have to like his work, but you need to understand it.)

      Likewise, if you're going to be a game developer, yes, you really should have a broader understanding of games and their history than just a couple recent games close to what you think you want to develop. Why should a computer gamer know things like old SPI and Avalon Hill board games? Because if you're doing a military simulation, these people may well have thought of how to express things in game terms that you haven't. It doesn't matter that you have no interest in making a pen-and-paper game like Axis and Allies. Likewise, someone making a modern computer FRPG might want to look at 1979's Temple of Apshai, which had percentage ratings for health and fatigue instead of hit points, and hid a surprising amount of mechanics in its melee system--not to mention a "dungeon" that, even in its dirt-simple overhead view, allowed much more complex room shapes than modern dungeon crawls, and had traps, monsters and room descriptions that all fit the scenario's theme instead of just throwing random creatures from the Monster Manual at players. (Actually, someone making a modern FRPG might just look at any system other than Dungeons & Dragons for once.)

    4. Re:There's a word for this ... by Grab · · Score: 1

      It's the "healthy dose of innovation" that gets you. From a modern standpoint, suppose you said "we're going to write a space-combat game where you can be a pirate or trader or anything you like". You might reckon it's revolutionary, cos there's not much around today that does it. Then someone says "Didn't Elite do that 20 years ago?" and you end up looking like a dick, bcos your game doesn't measure up playability-wise against something god-knows-how-many years old. The guys in charge of Galaxies could have learnt a thing or two from that.

      And if you're going to innovate, you have to know what's out there already and what's bad about them all (ie. what you can improve on). Level design on a FPS, for instance, is something that's progressed *so* much since Wolfenstein 3D and Doom 1. If you don't recognise that, your game won't cut it.

      Grab.

    5. Re:There's a word for this ... by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      The real question is why you'd bother playing all those games listed when, really, there's about five seperate games going through evolutions. Sure, you could play Herzog Zwei through Warcraft 3, but I think a decent game designer can get by without noticing that the Tiberian Sun is just a shitty rip off of Dune, which they lost the liscence to. In a similar vein, you can probably get by without having played "Mojib Ribbon" or "Rez."

      What really irks me is the attempt to cannonize the games, even though its barely possible to classify a game. Example: System Shock and thief are RPGs, but Deus Ex is an FPS.

      Really, games shouldn't be about making "Zelda, only in cyberspace," but about something else. Everyone is following the same single player, level based model, when its becoming clear that with every generation of hardware, designing levels by hand will be harder, and require more attention to detail. Often times designers don't even recognize the tricks that make such a game interesting to players! 20 levels of how Marius Stomp runs, jumps and fireballs his way to the finish won't be interesting. Instead, quality games focus on a steady growth of options, to keep the game interesting with every step. Labelling your game with a genre has the double edged effect of giving you a set of predefined game play elements, while also limiting your gameplay elements. When someone gets the ingenius idea to combine two genres, it's like a freaking ephiphany to everyone. Mario Golf for handheld, uniting the two least likely to meet players: sports fans and RPG enthusiasts. I must admit though, that I did like the game, but the multiplayer suffers from more experienced players 0wning newer ones.

      Anyways, I think I'm done ranting, better eat while the eating's good.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    6. Re:There's a word for this ... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Its not that they arent a gamer. Its more along the lines of my personal belief, that people who havent played a representative sample of games arent qualified to make valid conclusions about them. Hearing "WC3 is the best game ever!" (or even just the best RTS ever) from someone who never played a video game before 2000 and has still never played 99.9% of the RTS games out there. Their opinions arent valid, period.

  10. Entirely subjective and I question the concept by Winterblink · · Score: 1

    Ok, while this is a great list, I question a few things. First off the list is very subjective, as what one person considers to be a canon-worth game might make another's stomach turn. Second, why does someone have to have an appreciation for any game on that list to call themselves a serious gamer?

    I don't need to have played and loved Street Fighter 2 to play Soul Calibur 2 and enjoy it. In fact I might consider it more enjoyable maybe than the guy who's been playing fighting games for years and only compares his SC2 experience to the games that have come before.

    Then again I could be entirely off my rocker on this, so feel free to respond in kind. :) I'm just not entirely confident you can equate a gaming canon to a literary one, since there's more to great games than good storytelling/writing, and that greater complexity makes this concept more subjective. Just my 2c!

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:Entirely subjective and I question the concept by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 1
      I don't need to have played and loved Street Fighter 2 to play Soul Calibur 2 and enjoy it.
      I don't think anyone is saying that. These lists are an attempt to define a list of excellent games that you'd be better off having played. Just like a literay canon isn't saying that you need to have read and loved All Quiet on the Western Front in order to fully enjoy For Whom The Bell Tolls.

      And as a list of games you should play at some point, it's bound to be subjective. FPS in general make me motion sick, I may gut my way through Halo or Half-Life because it's just so damn good, but I see no need to suffer through Doom, Quake, and Unreal. But as a RPG player, I'm disappointed that neither list mentions Planescape Torment or SNES's Shadowrun.

      Really, one person can't decide canon like this. Instead, it's a 'group' decision. If everyone writes a list like these, you could look at many and see common strains. Virtually everyone will mention Doom, Warcraft, and Final Fantasy. Those are probably locks for canonization. But You Don't Know Jack, The Sims Online, Barbie's Fashion Designer will only get mentioned on a scarce few lists. They're probably games you could skip.

    2. Re:Entirely subjective and I question the concept by Winterblink · · Score: 1
      These lists are an attempt to define a list of excellent games that you'd be better off having played

      Based on what? What someone else says or suggests? That might be right a percentage of the time, but not all the time. You yourself say FPS games make you motion sick, yet you enjoyed Halo without necessitating the play of Dule or Quake. And that's exactly the point I was trying to make. :)

      The thing about your final paragraph is that there are those who enjoy those gaames like TSO and YDKJ, a LOT of people. What will those people get out of a gaming canon? :)

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    3. Re:Entirely subjective and I question the concept by Danse · · Score: 1

      I'm just not entirely confident you can equate a gaming canon to a literary one, since there's more to great games than good storytelling/writing, and that greater complexity makes this concept more subjective.

      I think it's entirely fair to equate the two. They are both quite subjective and you won't find everything in either to be to your own tastes. The only real difference I see is that the literary canon has had a lot more time to develop and a lot more sources of input and debate, so it's bound to be leaner and more in line with general tastes and opinion than any gaming canon would be at this point.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    4. Re:Entirely subjective and I question the concept by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 1
      Based on what? What someone else says or suggests?
      Exactly, which is why I said, "...as a list of games you should play at some point, it's bound to be subjective." I think that everyone should try SNES's Shadowrun, but Bob down the street thinks everyone should be playing Deer Hunter. But just because it's subjective doesn't mean such a list doesn't have value.

      Just because a game is canon, doesn't mean you have to play it. But if you enjoy gaming as a hobby or profession, you'd be wise to at least know about the canon. I'll never play Doom extensively, but I concede that it should be part of game canon because of its tremendous impact on games, gamers, and developers. Barbie's Fashion Designer probably doesn't have that same impact.

      A game canon, like a literary canon, isn't a list of game people like, it's a list of games that have significant value for some reason or another. There are libraries full of books that people like, but would never be considered canon. Dragonlance isn't part of the literary canon, but fans of that series could get value from it, if only to get their pimply heads out of their goth costumes enough to realize that there is other, possibly better, literature out there.

    5. Re:Entirely subjective and I question the concept by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      The only real difference I see is that the literary canon has had a lot more time to develop and a lot more sources of input and debate, so it's bound to be leaner and more in line with general tastes and opinion than any gaming canon would be at this point.

      I think you'll also find that there are far fewer people in the world that could enjoy even a handful of books considered literary canon, whereas there's a good chance that anyone that can get past the technological differences (ie wow these graphics suck) can probably find a good subset of games in a canon like this that they'll enjoy. I think that a games canon needs to be categorized, and maybe even include justifications for entries, but overall could benefit people that want to know more about how games got to where they are today, as well as possibly finding a handful of classic games that they might enjoy. Since the majority of games to this point have been made to entertain, there's little chance that a games canon won't include a great deal of entertainment (though, again, only for those that can get past the surface with things like poor graphics and sound, even in games that may have been ahead of their time in those areas).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  11. Seems a little pointless... by FortissimoWily · · Score: 1

    The Costik list is definitely the better of the two, IMVHO. And while it's nice to see favourites like Mega Man, Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog listed on there, this whole idea seems a bit redundant to me - there cannot be a gaming canon like there are literary ones, because gaming isn't like reading: It's a whole different ball game (pardon the pun :P). Not to mention, there are some games in both lists that I found to be absolutely awful, and it's 100% likely that others will also see games listed that they don't feel are 'canon-worthy'.

  12. Commodore Games? by Inexile2002 · · Score: 1

    Where is Jumpman? Ghostbusters, Raid Over Moscow, Space Taxi? For re-playability these are some of the all time classics.

    The problem with list like this is that they'll only include the games that that the person who made the list played. If he'd never heard of Ghostbusters then he'd never know it was an essential game in any gamer's cannon. More to the point, serious people know artistry in games and if they missed an "all time great" they still know games.

    I'm all for game developers (or hardcore gamers) going out and trying to play as many games including classic games as possible - but any pretence to a game list being more than a "personal favourites" list is pure wankery. I've played probably more than half the games on either list, and would consider another 20 "essential" games but would I ever accept their list (or mine) as official? Hell no. (Official list of a self-aggrandizing wannabe, maybe.)

    Literary cannons are based on hundreds of years of scholarship, debate from hundreds (probably thousands) of scholars, symposiums and more. If people want to seriously start studying games as literature in school then they can start aspiring to the pretences of literature. What makes games great is that they're ours, they're a product of our times and they're a form of pop culture (literally popular culture). If you want to start categorizing, canonizing and otherwise "scholar-izing" them - well go right ahead actually I don't care what people do. Just don't expect anyone to care.

  13. Games to add by (trb001) · · Score: 1

    Add an entire category: handheld
    Game-n-Watch
    Gameboy
    Sega's Handheld (can't remember name)

    Also, add the following games:
    Might and Magic: see what NOT to do with a great game. It was cool the first 5 times, after M&M V, though, it got repetitive.

    Starcraft II: maybe he meant to say that when he included SC, dunno

    Duck Hunt: under arcade, I suppose, but certainly a classic everyone should play

    Galaga: just because

    Minesweeper: not sure how this got left off the list, since everyone and their brother has played it sometime. Not a great game, but definitely a gaming fundamental.

    The Dungeon: Not sure if anyone remembers these two, but they were awesome on the Atari my buddy had. First timed combat based RPG I ever played, had a huge explorable area, guilds, etc. Never been duplicated, to my knowledge.

    Just my $.02

    --trb

    1. Re:Games to add by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, there's no Starcraft II yet. There's the Brood War expansion, though.

      Perhaps you were thinking of Warcraft II.

    2. Re:Games to add by Danse · · Score: 1

      Starcraft II: maybe he meant to say that when he included SC, dunno

      Dude, you gotta send me a copy of Starcraft II... seriously... I feel like I've missed out completely!

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:Games to add by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1
      Starcraft II: maybe he meant to say that when he included SC, dunno

      What is this Starcraft II you speak of? Last I heard Blizzard wasn't making it, unless you mean Starcraft: Ghost, but that's most definitely not SC2.

    4. Re:Games to add by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      I'm a moron...s/Starcraft II/Star Control II/...thank you, I'm here all week.

      --trb

  14. Interesting, but not Authoritative by robbway · · Score: 1

    I'm unfamiliar with the source of the blog. He/she/they may be very influential, but it's still an independent's opinion. The comments to the post are revealing enough that other people felt things were left out.

    The canon should have a reason for each item, like "first game to introduce lopsided play mechanics with draw potential," or the like.

    This is the sort of thing that should be tackle by a consortium, like Gamasutra and altered as little as possible with the exception of adding new games that achieve some innovation.

    I think the list is an excellent attempt, though. Hopefully, it will get the ball rolling for an authoritative list of innovations in chronological order as a reference for game developers.

    1. Re:Interesting, but not Authoritative by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Costikyan has been around in the gaming world for a long time. From the original Paranoia RPG and some of the first online games for Prodigy, he's been involved in games and game design.

      So much as the game design industry *has* authorities, he's one of them. Check out his regular home page to see his credentials at http://www.costik.com/.

      That being said, I do agree that some reasonings tacked on to his list would certainly add to it a lot.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  15. *sigh* by JavaLord · · Score: 1

    ARCADE GAMES

    The fact that Mortal Kombat isn't included here is a joke. MK introduced more to fighting games than SF2 did. MK was the first game to have juggle combos, and combos that actually were ment to be in the game. The early SF2 "interrupt" combos were actually a glitch. Both games should be in there. While there are a lot of entries from the "classic era" of arcade gaming, there aren't a lot from the recent "fighting game" era of 92-98 when arcades became very popular again.

    COMPUTER GAMES--FPS

    Unreal Tournament should be here, not (maybe unreal).

    COMPUTER GAMES--Other

    Tetris should be under handheld, console, or arcade. Not here. The orginal Grand Theft Auto should be here.

    CONSOLE GAMES--Old School

    How is Atari's Adventure not here? And no pitfall? The writer of this article must be a bit young. If you are going to include a football game, it should be techmo bowl. Super Mario World is 64 bit IIRC and is included in "old school" for some reason. Metroid should be here, and probably quite a few others.

    1. Re:*sigh* by chrismcdirty · · Score: 1

      Actually, Super Mario World was the first (and maybe only... not sure) on Super Nintendo. So I guess we're considering 2 generations behind old school now. *sigh* indeed.

      I was playing that game probably less than 10 years ago. I wouldn't quite consider that old school just because the technology made such a large leap.

      --
      It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    2. Re:*sigh* by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      Actually, Super Mario World was the first (and maybe only... not sure) on Super Nintendo. So I guess we're considering 2 generations behind old school now. *sigh* indeed. I was playing that game probably less than 10 years ago. I wouldn't quite consider that old school just because the technology made such a large leap.

      Akk, you are right, I had Super Mario World confused with the poorly named Super Mario 64. Both were good games. I wouldn't call SMW old school either, to me old school is the classic consoles, and the stuff from the late 70's to the mid 80's. Really, you can't even throw the 8 bit consoles in there, because the games were so much more advaced then what you found on atari, activision or colecovision.

      I think the list would have been more effective by dividing the consoles up into their bit-catagories/generations, or dividing time periods (ie up to 1984, 1984- 1994, 1994 - now) and platforms.

    3. Re:*sigh* by Danse · · Score: 1

      because the games were so much more advaced then what you found on atari, activision or colecovision.

      Activision is a company that makes games, not a console. Maybe you're thinking of Intellivision?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    4. Re:*sigh* by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      Activision is a company that makes games, not a console. Maybe you're thinking of Intellivision?

      I really need to stop posting before I have my morning coffee, yes I ment Intellivision.

  16. Some other thoughts... by JMZero · · Score: 1

    Jumpman
    Combat
    Star Control II
    The Incredible Machine
    Life and Death

    I think he should also add some famously bad games, and some otherwise important games:

    E.T. (Atari 2600)
    Black & White
    (many more)

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    1. Re:Some other thoughts... by the_riaa · · Score: 1
      I think he should also add some famously bad games, and some otherwise important games:

      Enter the Matrix.

      --
      The Kingdom of Retarsia
    2. Re:Some other thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's a bit hard for people to play ET, since most copies of it were buried in a landfill...

  17. PC-centric... by johannesg · · Score: 1
    That first list is extremely PC-centric. Adding a handful of "old-school games" is just not good enough; there were entire genres on 8-bit and 16-bit systems that never appeared on PC and many games on those categories were classics that helped shape the field.

    In addition, the breaking down into categories seems rather limiting. Why not have a database, allowing various break down methods depending on what you are looking for (eg. by platform, by age, by category, by number of players, by goal, etc.).

  18. No matter how hard I looked... by Zarf · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find Trade Wars 2002. That defined what online gaming was for me... I remember dialing in to the BBS once a day (on my 2400 baud modem) after school to spend my turns, build up my empire, and fight other players.

    Those were the days... then I'd fire up my copy of "Star Flight" and look for the crystal planet. I wonder why neither of those games are in either canon?

    Yeah, yeah... I'm too old-school for the old-school section... I know, I know. Video Games are too young an art form to get a canon just yet. Wait for a few more Video Game authors to die first before you start rubbing your hands over their funeral pires... yeesh.

    --
    [signature]
    1. Re:No matter how hard I looked... by Winterblink · · Score: 1
      *wistful rememberance of the good old days ensues*

      I loved TW2002. It was immensely enjoyable. But the game that clinched widespread multiplayer online gaming for me was Barren Realms Elite. The whole concept of inter-BBS combat was a blast. I remember belonging to a league that was Canada vs. Australia, with each side enchanging massive blows to the other with thousands of units each day. It was massively fun. :)

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  19. Debate for the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is my problem with the list--unless whoever made it writes justifications for every game they nominate and each and every one of the justifications is debated, you have yet another "best of" list--pointless filler not worth anything.

  20. More Heckling.. by chrismcdirty · · Score: 1

    Computer Games -- FPS
    Deus Ex - wasn't this a first-person RPG, not a shooter? Never played it, but I was under that impression.

    Online Games
    The Sims Online - the only reason I would play this is if I wanted to know what a bad online model is. Talk about a glorified chat room.

    Uncategorized Gripes
    Where's GTA2? The best (in my opinion) in the GTA series. Merged decent graphics with the open gameplay, without getting so repetitive as GTA3.
    FF7 and FF10 are on the list, but where is FF6? That is, hands down, the BEST FF game ever. And I don't think many argue with that point. The best story, the best gameplay, and obviously not the best graphics. But still the best. Plus FF10 was waaaay too easy. All it had was pretty graphics and a decent, not great, story.
    Halo is not such a great game.
    So, Nintendo titles will teach you nothing of game appreciation? Pikmin, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, and more deserve to be in the Console Games -- Current list.

    --
    It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    1. Re:More Heckling.. by w-gray · · Score: 1

      The second list, the one at the Ludologist does have a few Gamecube games. As for the first list, which I like better despite not having any Gamecube (or handheld videogames), the subsequent entry reveals that the author of the list doesn't currently own any Nintendo systems, only that he has "access" to a GBA. So I can forgive the paucity of modern console titles on the list. I myself don't own either a PS2 or X-Box, though I have had "access" at various times to both machines. I left a comment on his board suggesting a few Gamecube titles. Forgot about Eternal Darkness! Curses!

    2. Re:More Heckling.. by Danse · · Score: 1

      Deus Ex - wasn't this a first-person RPG, not a shooter? Never played it, but I was under that impression.

      It was really a shooter that had a lot of RPG elements in it, mostly in the character development and plot areas. You should really pick it up somewhere and give it a try. Great game.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  21. Sports? by aliens · · Score: 2, Informative

    I guess I shouldn't expect much under the sports category since if you're a serious gamer you can't play sports games. Only stupid jocks play them. But comeon:

    COMPUTER GAMES--Sports
    John Madden Football

    That's it? Tecmo bowl anyone? RBI Baseball? NHL on Genesis?

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
    1. Re:Sports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only stupid jocks play them.

      How many way are you wrong? Too many to count.

      I do agree on your second point, Tecmo and RBI are must haves for a list of this type.

    2. Re:Sports? by aliens · · Score: 1

      Heh, I forgot the tags, there tends to be an undercurrent amoungst gamers to dislike thos who play sports titles.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    3. Re:Sports? by Seahawk · · Score: 1

      And maybe consider that there is a world outside the US?

      FIFA 200x, Sensible soccer - just to take a new and an old "classic"

      I believe there are quite alot more people that play football compared to american football(or soccer and football if you prefer that! ;o))

    4. Re:Sports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Who Football?

      Oh... you mean AMERICAN football? Sorry, where I come from we don't call that a sport.

    5. Re:Sports? by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      strange because its an infinitely more exciting sport to watch. I'll give you Soccer for actual playing value though...

    6. Re:Sports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that has played American football understands how complex and physically straining the sport is.

      In neither rugby or soccer do you have 280lbs+ of muscle running a 4.9s 100 dash into your body. If they didn't have pads these guys would be being killed and maimed left and right.

      I've played European football and American Football they are both sports. To chastise one without fully understanding the game is ignorant and lame.

  22. Bad idea. by crazyphilman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Listen, the whole "literary canon" thing was created by a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority. They claim that in order to be a "real" writer of literature, you have to have read a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same. If you have ever suffered through a conversation with one of these people, you know that they basically sit around memorizing their professor's pet literary criticism instead of actually reading and enjoying the books themselves. And, most INTERESTING books are written by people who IGNORE the "canon". Outsiders, in other words, people who aren't involved with literary academia. I find the situation funny: the literary canon crowd write long, boring, self-congradulatory books that only other tweedy types read, while outsiders publish books that are interesting and relevant to the rest of us.

    A real gamer doesn't sit around worrying about whether he's played the correct set of games to properly introduce himself to the genre. He's been in the genre since he was a kid. If he's into, say, first person shooters and strategy games, he probably has at least thirty of them in a CD holder somewhere. He understands first person shooters completely. He knows the genre like the back of his hand. He doesn't need some "canon" to help him. Fish already KNOW about water; they don't need swimming lessons.

    Having said that, the people who might be interested in this ridiculous "canon" are people who want to be game developers but who DO NOT PLAY GAMES THEMSELVES. They're just like the posers and wannabes that flooded the dot-com boom back in the nineties, people who don't care about the art and who just want to cash in. "Hey, videogames are big now -- let's make some money, how hard could it be?" they say. They think, in some weird freshman lit major way, that "anyone can write about anything as long as they do a little research". So they try for something like this silly canon, thinking that all they have to do to create a great game is study all the games that have made lots of money, and make a new game JUST LIKE THOSE. And, their game tanks in the market because it's just another derivative piece of shit with no new ideas, and every real gamer sees it as such instantly.

    I fucking HATE these people. They ruin everything they touch.

    If you're not a gamer, don't bother trying to write a game for me. You'll fuck it up, it'll suck, and I'll hate you for it. Look at the wide range of games that suck, and I guarantee that behind every game that sucks is some noob who thought he could just waltz into a cushy game developer position after a weekend of playing DOOM.

    I want to play games written by people who genuinely love games themselves, and who have been playing games since they were kids. I don't want to play games written by some corporate stiff who took a bunch of games listed in a "canon" home for the weekend and struggled through a level or two.

    You're either a gamer or you're not. And that's all there is to it. It's not something you can fake.

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    1. Re:Bad idea. by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "I fucking HATE these people. They ruin everything they touch."

      Including new developers. Take a step back from the elitist angle (was 'elite' mentioned?) and consider for a moment that some of these games may have taken your breath away for scope, graphics or plot, when plots were fashionable.

      I'm constantly pissed of with the quality of backstory, or technology or environment of games because they always appear to be tacked on, and it's one of the things I'm fairly sensitive to when playing a game.

      I'd like some of EAs developers to be slapped around the back of the head with Wing Commander:Prophecy.

      So yes, the idea of a 'Canon' could be elitist rubbish, but at the same time it could be a method of pointing out those true classics to people getting into the industry.

      I didn't see 'Uplink' get a mention, though. repetitive, but a very, very cool idea.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    2. Re:Bad idea. by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's forget about the inherent elitism involved in any sort of "canon" or "salon" or similar concept. Let's forget about the fact that the canon doesn't even make sense (why the hell should "any gamer or game developer" know these particular 300 games? particularly the board games, I mean, really, WTF do they have to do with anything?). Let's cut to the chase, and talk about game quality.

      Do you really think reading a canon is going to prevent a person from writing a shitty back story for his game?

      Writing is one of the things in life that is 100% talent-based, and completely egalitarian. Rich, poor, middle class, there's no telling where talent will appear. You can cultivate an existing talent, but you can't create talent where it doesn't exist. So I suggest that the quality of a videogame is based entirely on the talent of the person who wrote it. It's not based on any canon he read, it's not based on what school he went to, it's based on his raw talent and on who he is. I'm not saying people don't have influences, of course they do. But trying to look at this through a canon just misses the point. Fiddling around with these 300 games isn't going to do you any good.

      People who genuinely consider themselves gamers have been into sci-fi and videogames since they were teenagers. They eat, breathe and sleep it, ok? All their lives, they've been imagining different worlds, futures, lives... Their imaginations are finely honed and very active. Someone who's never been into any of that isn't going to be able to just walk into it. It would be like a fat couch potato deciding to compete in a kickboxing circuit. It's a whole lifestyle thing. You can't simulate it, you can't just decide one day to fake it because there's money in it. It just doesn't work.

      The reason why so many games suck, and maybe you'll agree with me, is that so many companies think this sort of thing can be built assembly-line style. They think that if they just mix and match elements from whatever games are selling the most copies, they'll have a hit. It's game development, hollywood style.

      As far as people getting into the industry go, well, there are gamers and there are posers. People who get into the industry because they love games and gaming will probably do just fine, canon or no canon. People who get into game development because they smell money are lemmings. Their games are going to suck. And, no canon will help them.

      Just my opinion.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    3. Re:Bad idea. by Descartes · · Score: 1

      Ok, I might agree that to make games you need to be a gamer. But do you have any basis for your criticism of a literary canon?

      a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority.

      Have you ever met any of these people? Can you give me an example of a "tweedy snob"?

      a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same.

      From this I'm going to infer that you haven't read the books because they were too "boring". Again is there any basis for your understanding of "snobby" interpretation? Every literature scholar I've met has been interested in alternate interpretation as long as it was well substantiated.

      If you have ever suffered through a conversation with one of these people, you know that they basically sit around memorizing their professor's pet literary criticism instead of actually reading and enjoying the books themselves.

      Have you? These must be undergrads, maybe taking their first literature class. I guess I have more intelligent friends than you do.

      And, most INTERESTING books are written by people who IGNORE the "canon". Outsiders, in other words, people who aren't involved with literary academia.

      Give me one example of this and I'll give you 20 counterexamples written by people don't ignore the canon.

      I find the situation funny: the literary canon crowd write long, boring, self-congradulatory books that only other tweedy types read,

      Like what?

      while outsiders publish books that are interesting and relevant to the rest of us.

      I assume your talking about fantasy novels or something.

      It seems to me that you're proving yourself wrong. People need to play lots of games before they can make good games, but god forbid we should make a list of games that are good because they'll just rip them off. C'mon, what if I were an RPGer but I wanted to write a game that incorporated aspects of a genre I knew nothing about you wouldn't tell me what games are good in that genre?

      Sorry for the invective, but the only anti-establishment types I respect are those that make good arguments and support them.

    4. Re:Bad idea. by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1
      "Listen, the whole "literary canon" thing was created by a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority. They claim that in order to be a "real" writer of literature, you have to have read a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same. If you have ever suffered through a conversation with one of these people, you know that they basically sit around memorizing their professor's pet literary criticism instead of actually reading and enjoying the books themselves. And, most INTERESTING books are written by people who IGNORE the "canon". Outsiders, in other words, people who aren't involved with literary academia. I find the situation funny: the literary canon crowd write long, boring, self-congradulatory books that only other tweedy types read, while outsiders publish books that are interesting and relevant to the rest of us."

      On the other hand, I can go through your speech and switch "tweedy types" to "intellectuals" and change "outsiders" to "Stephen King and his ilk."

      Yes, writers like T.S. Eliot believed that, in order to write literature, you have to *know* literature. You'd be amazed to discover that other literary critics and writers disagree with him.

      Also, the idea of a literary "canon" is just that, an idea. Everybody has their own concept of what should be included, but there's no complete list of books that every writer/professor needs to read in order to earn their tweed.

      Finally, I would challenge you to find a novel of one truly outstanding "outsider" that hasn't been adapted into the Platonic "canon." People want to read good books. If it's good, whether it's traditional or experimental, people will read it. I agree with you in that it's preposterous to believe that video games, a genre that has existed for maybe thirty years, would have a "canon" equitable to the literary tradition which has taken place over the past four or five thousand years.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    5. Re:Bad idea. by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Ok, ok... First of all, I'm not anti-intellectual. And, although I have enjoyed some of Stephen King's earlier books, I wasn't thinking about him when I mentioned outsiders. I was thinking about any of a few dozen younger people who've come up with a novel that's different and interesting, as opposed to the really long-winded boring stuff I'm noticing from the more academic set. And, I was arguing against crystallized, inflexible academia more than anything else. I think our college system has grown stale over the years, and talk about "canon" reminds me of some of the more stale of my college professors and the irritating people I used to meet who, every time I said something witty, would ask "who said that?". As if it would be impossible for anyone to have an independent thought...

      Also, I'm not against good books. I love good books; I have a large collection of them (and no, Stephen King isn't on my shelves, although Fight Club is, for example). If, when people spoke of "canon", they described "a list of must-read books for people who enjoy literature" I think I'd react a little more warmly to it. But usually people treat it as a set of books someone must read if he is to be thought of as literary. I bristle at that whole attitude. It's phony. It's a bunch of academic kids role-playing: "Ok, I've read the canon so I'm literate." Hogwash. It's no better than an MCSE who reads a bunch of test-prep books and aces a cert exam. A piece of paper, no more.

      I'll close with a thought: I don't see why anyone would attempt to apply a stale, crusty literary way of thinking to a fresh, interesting, young genre like videogames. The videogame industry doesn't need a "canon". It just needs gamers who care enough about the genre to write for it. They're the only people who have a chance at doing a good job.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    6. Re:Bad idea. by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Examples of tweedy snobs. Well, I've been lucky in that since university, I haven't had to associate with any, so most of my face-to-face experience with them was in school, several years ago. I'd be hard-pressed to name names, if that's what you're looking for. But I can tell you what kind of crap I had to put up with. Every time you'd say something witty, one of these people would demand that you cite the source of the witty comment. It was like an attack; you would say something, and instantly, the person would respond with "who said that?" while affecting a faux-thoughtful look. If you wrote a short story (yes, I've taken courses outside of the comp.sci curriculum) they would attack it, looking for similarities to other stories, books, etc. Everything, to these people, was based on something else. They couldn't envision a reality in which people could invent their own ideas, despite the fact that any literary tradition by its mere existence implies that someone, somewhere, had the FIRST idea, so new ideas are therefore possible. I found them immensely annoying.

      Or I could tell you about one or another of several professors I've had who would tell you what a story "meant" and expect you to memorize their interperetation of it. Or of people I've argued with online who attacked me for having a different interperetation of a story than their prof. Literally attacked me! One person characterized me as a redneck, sitting in my one-room schoolhouse, speaking in monosyllables to my equally dim teacher, while she told me what a good young'un I was. Irritating, elitist, snobbish bullshit. Annoying to listen to, annoying to respond to.

      Nice comment attacking the intelligence of my friends, skating around the obvious fact that the people I was describing were people I loathed, not friends at all. MY friends are all techies, pal. I'd bet they're at least as smart as yours. But I'm not getting into THIS pissing match, so let's move along.

      "Like What?" Like that huge book,"From Dawn to Decadence" in which the author basically looks down his nose at all of modern society, and tries to describe the past several hundred years of western civilization as a nasty decline into trailer park crassness. Ugh, what a boring fucking book. And, so full of shit, too! I was going to use it to hide backup disks, and I bored out the central compartment with no trouble, but then it sat on my bookshelf saying "Phil is boring, phil is boring, what a dull bastard" and I ended up chucking it. I keep my backup disks in a safe now.

      As to your next ad-hominem comment (fair's fair, I don't like you tweedy guys, so you can make fun of me too) NO, I don't read fantasy novels. All that sword and sorcery shit leaves me colder than a polar bear swim. Actually, I was thinking about "Fight Club". Have you read it? The book, predictably, is better than the movie.

      As for me proving myself wrong, you misunderstood my point entirely.

      My POINT was, it has NOTHING to do with how many games you play. It has to do with the fact that you actually LIKE to PLAY GAMES, and so you'll have internalized almost everything about games automatically. You'll have an innate respect for the form, and you'll write games that YOU would want to play rather than what you think will sell. Because you, as a gamer, are writing games YOU would want to play, other gamers will want to play them too. They're PRE-TESTED. Get it?

      By the way: if you were an RPG'er, and you wanted to incorporate an aspect of another game type, you wouldn't even know that aspect existed if you hadn't played that other game type. But you knew that.

      Don't worry about the invective. This is Slashdot. It is to be expected. Now, I've made good arguments, and I've supported them. Tag, you're it.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    7. Re:Bad idea. by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1
      I completely agree with you. I'm really sorry that you've had the negative experience with academia that would lead you to believe that most of us are "snotty-nosed twead-wearers" :) People who are pretentious enough to believe that the "canon" is an absolute must for anybody who wants to merely think are just idiots.

      The profs I had in university were absolutely fantastic. Sure, some of them had their own set of beliefs in regards to literature ("Henry James is God" comes to mind), but none of them would try to ram their beliefs down our throats.

      "the irritating people I used to meet who, every time I said something witty, would ask "who said that?". As if it would be impossible for anyone to have an independent thought..."

      Heh heh, I guess that's me :) For my sins and the sins of those who ask that question, I'm truly sorry :) I'm so used to reading great literature that I just assume that, when I hear an outstanding comment, it came from Rushdie or Joyce or whoever.

      ANYWAY. I totally, totally agree with you -- the idea of a canon shouldn't be applied to video gaming. In a thousand years, when the Facilty of Electronic Gaming at my local univ decides to hire me as their "Theory and History of Gaming," then yes, maybe I'll have to come up with a list of influential games. But then again, I'll be a thousand years old, and pretty grumpy.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    8. Re:Bad idea. by Descartes · · Score: 1

      Ok, well... I appreciate such an intelligent response. I can respect that you met some idiots who didn't realize they were idiots while you were at school. I tend to write idiots off, no matter how smart they think they are.

      Here's my problem with your counter argument, or perhaps I should say the fundimental misunderstanding of our respective positions; Your definition of "canon" seems to presuppose the book being boring. I majored in classics and I've never heard of "From Dawn to Decadence" I think of things in the "canon" as being "Moby Dick", "Nicomachaean Ethics", "Hard Times", that is classics. Just because some crackpot professor wanted you to read a book because it supported his personal worldview doesn't make that book part of the literary canon.

      "fight club", I haven't read it yet, but guess what lots of people haven't read it yet. That's why it's not widely accepted as a part of the literary canon. I'd say, if a book is good enough, it will be part of the canon, so "fight club" isn't much of a counterexample.

      On to topic. Imagine you have a friend who's new to video games. Your friend says to you "Wow, video games are so fun, I haven't played many, but I love [insert crappy game here]." I would tell my friend "Whoa, you should try [insert good game here] it's way better than [crappy game]." There are lot's of games I've never tried because I heard they weren't that great, hey maybe I missed some pearls, but I didn't have to blow all of my money on some stupid crap. That's the value of a canon, it's sort of an agreed upon set of good games. I for one wish more game designers would just sit down and play the games lots of people enjoy, so they don't keep reinventing the wheel.

      Bleh! I'm done typing.

    9. Re:Bad idea. by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      It's a pleasure to meet you; you seem pretty ok. If your friends are like you (I assume they are) you must be a pretty cool bunch to hang with. I take back my comment about tweedy snobs; thanks for the counterexample. ;)

      To be fair, when I was in high school I did have two really wonderful literature teachers who were open minded and interesting. They were my English Lit and American lit teachers, and they were really cool. One of them also studied theology; he was a rabbi who was intimately familiar with christian mythology as well as jewish. He used to say that once an interperetation exists, it has to be treated as valid and examined to see what it offers. He was one of the best teachers I ever had, which might be why I was so disappointed when I got to college and encountered the people I mentioned.

      Again, thanks for the counterexample.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    10. Re:Bad idea. by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Well... I don't mean that ALL of the books in a canon would by definition be boring. That would be a little silly, wouldn't it? You take things really literally. Ok, I take back the loathing of tweedy types. I take back the comment that all your books are boring. However, I still think that if a canon is used as a measure of someone's literacy, then it's simply a bludgeon of snobbery and is of no practical use. Furthermore, even if a canon is NOT used as a bludgeon of snobbery (even though you KNOW it WILL be used that way, just because some people will realize it CAN be) a canon is still a matter of opinion. Who decides what goes in the canon? How does one judge literary merit? Some of these questions were explored in the last article link in this story. No matter how diligent you are in adding things to a canon, you aren't going to get everything that deserves to be in it. At some point the entire effort becomes futile. SO, I think the whole idea is hogwash.

      I might get behind a categorized list of all books, with quality ratings, but then, Amazon beat me to it, right? And Borders, and Barnes and Noble...

      Anyway, I've got nothing against a "greatest of" list of videogames, but I am vehemently against the creation of a "canon". I think that when it comes to games, a canon will give non-gamers the false impression that they can write a great game just by studying what made money in the past. I think it'll lead to mountains of totally derivative, boring, corporate drivel. I like the non-canon way things are built now. Someone has a great idea, they say "fuck everyone, I'm going to do this my way" and as a result, you get a new and interesting game that's weird and different. Canons, and all other forms of orthodoxy, are unhealthy.

      PS: I do have friends who are new to video games. I suggest games to them all the time. It's still not a canon, though.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    11. Re:Bad idea. by Haeleth · · Score: 1
      ...people who IGNORE the "canon". Outsiders, in other words, people who aren't involved with literary academia.
      Er, you are aware that pretty much all the opposition to the idea of a literary canon ever has come from within literary academia?

      You ask the man on the street who the greatest author of the 19th century was, for example. I'll give you ten to one they say "Dickens". Try the greatest writer in the English language. What, you mean you think it's Shakespeare too?

      And yet if you look into literary academia, you'll find people who actually read works by Shakespeare's contemporaries.

      Inverse snobbery is no more becoming than the normal sort. I suggest you can it.
    12. Re:Bad idea. by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      So if I can it, will you eat it?

      Look, the reason the man on the street says "Dickens" is because he's thinking "19th century? Who the fuck knows? Wait, wasn't a Christmas Carol written back then? Who wrote that... Ah! Charles Dickens!". Then he tells you "Dickens", you get a warm fuzzy, and you go away without embarassing him. Some of them might say Melville, although I think he lived into this century (didn't he? I can't remember). Whatever. They're going to say whatever occurs to them, which they think won't make them look stupid. BECAUSE they know that assholes like you, who go walking up to strangers and ask stupid assed questions like "who's your favorite 19th century author" are really just trying to make a horses ass out of them. What you're REALLY going for is, "ha ha, look how funny the dumb people on the street are" and the man on the street totally understands this about you, having watched Jay Leno do it for years. They'll go with a safe choice, and you'll go away. GET IT? Because that's how the "man on the street" thing works.

      Ditto for "Shakespeare". That's what they think you're expecting, so they hand you that and you go away without giving them a hard time. They might not have read Shakespeare since high school, they might find him somewhat less than interesting, and they might think Hemingway beats Shakespeare hands down. Or Steven King, or Arthur C. Clarke. But they aren't going to stand around in the cold and discuss it with some weirdo, so they say the expected thing and they get on with their lives.

      Boy, you don't know much about the "man on the street", do you? Too busy being a literary snob, I'd guess.

      Inverse snobbery, my ass. You want me to can it? Tough. People in Hell want icewater.

      By the way: You know why the opposition to the canon comes from within academia? Because most people TOTALLY IGNORE THE WHOLE DAMN THING! Who the fuck cares what a bunch of stuffy old professor types think? Yeah, I'm going to read what THEY say I should -- suuuuure. Maybe if I'm having trouble sleeping!

      Now, go back to your books, literature-boy.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    13. Re:Bad idea. by sahala · · Score: 1
      I might get behind a categorized list of all books, with quality ratings, but then, Amazon beat me to it, right? And Borders, and Barnes and Noble...

      Right, because retailers are very reliable at providing quality ratings, and the general opinion of the public (ie. people that have bought the product) is always to be trusted.

      I like the non-canon way things are built now. Someone has a great idea, they say "fuck everyone, I'm going to do this my way" and as a result, you get a new and interesting game that's weird and different.

      How is one to know what is new and different without first knowing what is out there and what is "classic"? Sure they could have a natural feel for these things, or could just be so out there that nothing they think of is conventional or has been done before. But outside of this case, I don't think it's particularly bad to have some sort of established list.

      Now after going through the article in question I do agree with you in some respects about canons being potentially unhealthy. A canon would require some extreme peer review and each entry in the list would need some solid justification, otherwise it would be too subjecive and in effect be useless.

    14. Re:Bad idea. by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      About retailer's quality listings, no one pays attention to those. However, let's take anime for example. If you find an anime for sale at, say, Amazon, you'll be able to read what other people who like anime had to say about the show you're considering. Some will like it, some will hate it, but you'll be hearing the opinions of people who've seen the show. And, because they knew of it and bought it, chances are they're anime nuts just like you, so the reviews are probably pretty solid.

      I find the user reviews pretty targeted. Maybe I tend to lean towards niche items, and thus the reviews are from people in the same niche, but so far I've found the reviews useful. I haven't seen TOO much peanut gallery stuff. YMMV, though. I'm not exactly looking for the Oprah list or anything (my tastes are pretty weird) so most of my stuff is niche.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    15. Re:Bad idea. by sahala · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My method for finding good movies, books, and music is to simply get recommendations from people I think have interesting/good taste in general. Sometimes this does include the odd reviewer online, especially if there is a record of what they've reviewed. My main motivation is to avoid reviews and recommendations from fanboys -- as in someone who no matter what will like a certain product.

    16. Re:Bad idea. by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "The reason why so many games suck, and maybe you'll agree with me, is that so many companies think this sort of thing can be built assembly-line style. They think that if they just mix and match elements from whatever games are selling the most copies, they'll have a hit. It's game development, hollywood style."

      Bang on.

      I have a sneaking suspicion that the disease affecting Hollywood (The people there making assumptions about the consumer market and forcing script re-writes because a given consumer sector won't 'get it') is beginning to go cross-species into the gaming market. Some games have plots that are excellent, some are a loosely connected series of scenarios that tend to be thrown together in a slipshod fashion.

      Personally I can remember being thrown totally for a loop by the plot for 'Warhead' on the Amiga 500; you started off in an experimental warcraft fending off the attentions of insectoids, did a little side-exploration and nearly got swallowed by a black hole, then ran into something so awesomely powerful that it was going to destroy earth if you failed the mission.

      Starlancer and Freelancer got close to this, but do we really need gruff russians to play the baddies? Didn't that all die after 'Red Dawn'?

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  23. This is not well defined... by quantax · · Score: 1

    Being a well versed gamer is one thing; but since gaming is entertainment, we each have our own tastes and such, and since everyone has their own taste, we are not going to come to a real consensus on this issue since of the extremely wide variety of games and the reasons people play them. (Though I will definitely say that this list is pretty decent.)

    Which leads to my next point: what is important however is for game developers to play the 'canons' of gameplay and well made games in general. Such an example I would make is Morrowind; now regardless of whether or not you like Morrowind, no one can deny that it is epic in scope and succeeds in doing what RPGs have failed to do in general: a true non-linear questing system, as well as open-ended magic and open-ended character development, where the character develops naturally based on what you do, and the skills you use. Those above mentioned attributes make the gameplay in Morrowind something that should be both examined and re-implimented else where. In this example, I chose morrowind to prove my point, but you can apply this to many genre-breaking/creating games. There SHOULD be a list of games that every developer should play so that they can not only know what the 'masters' have done, but so they can improve upon it as well.

    --
    "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
  24. Another idiot trying to do what everyone else does by Ceyan · · Score: 1

    As was mentioned before this is just another "if you haven't played X, you're not a gamer". Just look at the selection of games. I'm not going to go over them one by one, but I'll use one examples that stands out to everyone as a game that must be included, half-life.

    There was nothing new or innovative about Half-life, nothing. It was so successful for one reason, multiplayer. When it was released the internet was really starting too boom, and people were looking for a game to play with friends online now that everyone else was getting a connection. What's the best solution at the time? Half-life.

    That same reason spreads to a majority of the other games. Blizzard is a good example, they released Warcraft at the right time, which made it succesful instead of it being innovative. Starcraft as well, there is nothing new in Starcraft, but people loved it because of the setting, it was the first mass-market Sci-fi RTS after the boom of computing.

    Also, I can't believe he said Elder Scrolls III (Morrowind) instead of Elder Scrolls II (Daggerfall). All Morrowind was is an extension of Daggerfall with better graphics.

    That's another thing that is common throughout the list, some of the games are future versions of other games.

  25. Dumb list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has too many shitty MMOs on it. You only need to play one of them to learn what's wrong with all of them. Not enough classic NES titles. Classis NES is the only place to really learn about good game design.

  26. They Missed A Category by vjmurphy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about those fun playground games, like:

    * Red Rover
    * Dodge Ball
    * Hide and Seek
    * Cowboys and Indians
    * Jump rope (great single and multi-player action!)

    Not to mention things like Football (both American and the rest of the World), Baseball, Cricket, etc.

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
    1. Re:They Missed A Category by vjmurphy · · Score: 1

      Oh, and card games:

      * Poker
      * Gin
      * Bridge

      as well as other card games:

      * Uno
      * Magic
      * Lunch Money

      Sure there's a lot more there, too.

      --
      Vincent J. Murphy
      Spandex Justice
    2. Re:They Missed A Category by syrinx · · Score: 1

      poker, gin, bridge, magic are in there. RTFA.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    3. Re:They Missed A Category by clintp · · Score: 1

      Mod the parent up, please. These yabbos skipped the games that involve getting out of your chair. Game designers must take note of Real Life restrictions like gravity, endurance, timing, strength, and physical dexterity. Not to mention capturing the feeling of fear when you're about to be pummeled with a heavy dodge ball thrown by a strong person who really doesn't like you...

      In addition to the parent's list, I'd like to add:

      * Jacks
      * Marbles
      * Skeet shooting (moving targets, non-trivial weapons, IRL)
      * Billiards/Pool

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    4. Re:They Missed A Category by vjmurphy · · Score: 1

      Oops, my bad: they tossed some under less than ideal headings (Folk games? Huh? Hobby Games). Would be better as their own category, I'd argue, since I missed them my first time through. :)

      --
      Vincent J. Murphy
      Spandex Justice
  27. What a _PATHETIC_ list. by MikShapi · · Score: 1

    The list is inconsistent, jumps chronologically across 10 computer eras, skips between genres and simply misses out on some major trendmakers.

    Furthermore, when talking of an era (by mentioning a game from it) it does the entire era a lot of disrespect by pointing at the games that neither helped shape the genre, were not successesful by any major standards, nor had any innovative ideas. I suspect the only reason they got written down was because the author had a limited game education and at that particular era had those (and only those) games around.

    Here's a few examples:
    A familiarity with more than Sierra's first 1986 (or so) quest title is recommended. While they did spawn off a lot of clones, they also generated a huge amount of ideas, refined interface and spawned a lot of imagination. I wouldn't add the entire list of 30 or so games to the list, but another, interim KQ4-era game would add nicely.
    Someone explain to me what exactly did Myst and the 7th guest add to the collective genre knowhow? Riddle-quests is probbably the most insignificant of all genres, and fit under "adventures" as much as FIFA does.

    Lucas wasn't given due credit either.
    Maniac Mansion, the daddy of all Lucas quests. Full Throttle, probbably the brutally funniest game ever. Indiana Jones, and so forth.

    I'd add a few "Legend" text based quests to such a list, I believe they contributed some nice ideas.

    Then we come to RPG's.
    SSI and it's older Pools/Curse/Secrets/PoD and Krynn and later Eye of the Beholder series aren't even mentioned. They had nothing to do with putting together the genre now, did they. Nobody played those games, and TSR/WOC/AD&D have absolutely nothing to do with the genre.

    Neither is Lands of Lore credited, the smash game that saved EOBIII disapointees.

    Thief is a ROLE PLAYING GAME? If you guys wanted to take something modern & 3D into a dev's RPG repertoir, add Deus Ex.

    Ultima 4? why not 3 or 5? what's so special about 4? I'd say 6 or 7, as they were the last of the Ultima Great Map unlinear games, and should probbably be tought at gamemking school today.

    Another early Origin HUGE-WORLD-MAP genre-shaper called Times of Lore (graphically superior to U4 and chronologically completely out of its time).

    I won't even ask why the only _real_ ROLE-PLAYING (and not xp-acquring-character-buildup) game ever out there - Planescape: Torment - never made this chart.

    Or the RAW, PURE Hack&Slash fun of (not "Heroes-of")Might&Magic, both in their groundbraking 3-4-5 era and in the later 6-7-8 outdated-3d-engine-era (where hacking and slashing was no less fun). I refuse to acknowledge there were any more games in this series.

    One last gem (that whoever omitted should be _shot_) is Star Control 2. Not really an RPG, but... If you haven't played it, you're not worthy of being called a game developer.

    And now the most painful part.
    Real Time Strategy (RTS) games.
    Instead of combining genre-makers with innovative ideas, they made a list of drones/clones.
    Age of Empires? Command & Conquer? Starcraft?

    This list should have consisted of Warcraft/WC2, Dune II, Civilization, Master of Orion and simcity. PERIOD. Roots & ideas, not clonelists.

    Then they simply _forgot_ the whole 'lancer'/'Mercenary' Genre. Strike Commander, PrivateerI&II, Freelancer, etc.
    In fact, the whole "Simulator" genre got ignored (X-Wing? MechWarrior? )or stuffed into "Miscelaneous" categories like Wing Commander did.

    To sum up (in nice words) an "extremely lacking" list, made by someone who seriously lacks the exact knowledge he is attempting to put forth, and obviously didn't himself play some of the biggest groundshakers ever to see light. Quite a few veteran gamers I know (myself included) could make a much better list.

    --
    -
  28. actually... by Luveno · · Score: 1

    I'd recommend aspiring developers play BAD games as well. A few minutes with N64 Superman will teach 'em what not to do.

  29. *Yawn* by dan14807 · · Score: 1

    *yawn*

    Is anyone else thinking that games.slashdot.org was a bad idea? They seem to be awfully low on interesting or useful content.

    1. Re:*Yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is anyone else thinking that games.slashdot.org was a bad idea? They seem to be awfully low on interesting or useful content.

      Nobody's forcing you to read it, ya'know...

    2. Re:*Yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO. In fact right now I am feeling that exact sentiment about YOUR POST

  30. Willy Higginbotham's Tennis? Oh come on... by Man+In+Black · · Score: 1

    Seriously, how on earth is anyone supposed to play this game now? We are talking about the original Pong game that was designed on an oscilloscope and played while on tour at a nuclear reactor... Correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't exactly emulators for that kind of stuff, and there is probably only one copy of the hardware (which may or may not still work).

    And calling it a "computer game" is probably quite inaccurate...

    Aside from that, the list looks pretty decent to me. Although I'd actually question the wisdom of giving people preconceptions about what video games should be. If someone has never played a video game before, they'll probably come up with something a lot more creative, while a person who has played all of these may just inadvertently copy ideas without really innovating much at all. But then, considering the success of video game sequels, maybe companies don't care to be innovative.

    --
    -"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
  31. Ideally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...If you're a game designer you should be trying and playing ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you get your hands on (new and old).

    But it does help on a deeper level to have some sort of guide and break-down of certain historically significant games. It's a little too easy for the knowledgeable to exclaim "I don't need someone else to TELL ME what's good!" Yet knowledge begins with ignorance. Where does one start? They have schools for a reason. Let's not bemoan the necessity to teach something like games, game history and game design to generations to come.

    30-somthings have seen the evolution of gaming, but today's kids view it as something that always existed.

  32. I dont hate cannons... by Metex · · Score: 1

    I think a list like this would be nice to have however next to each game put on the list there should be a reason for it. Some are easy to see if you played the game, such as Deux Ex for amazing storyline... when I say Amazing I mean better then most novels out there. However if I never played them I wouldnt know why it was on the list. Even after you played them some are really hard to see what is innovative in the game.

    --
    Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
  33. Glaring Omission! by xTown · · Score: 1

    Unless "The King's Game" or "Kriegspieler" are alternate names for Chess...where's chess?

    That leaves aside the issue of whether a gaming canon is a good idea or not; I don't think it's necessarily important that a game designer have played all of these games, but that he or she have played games, period. Any reasonably intelligent person can derive from the game-playing experience the things they need to know to evaluate whether their own games are fun or not--but you need to have that experience.

    1. Re:Glaring Omission! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      > where's chess?

      Um, right between "Rock-Paper-Scissors" and "Go" in the "Folk Games" catagory.

      Don't rightly know what he means by "The King's Game" or "Kriegspieler" myself.

      chris Mattern

  34. Help me out here... by Danse · · Score: 1

    True enough. Legend of the Red Dragon should probably be listed as well. Maybe MajorMUD? It was Everquest before Everquest existed. There's a couple others that I'm thinking of too, but can't come up with the names. Anyone know what I'm talkin about here?

    One was an old one that I played when I first started BBSing. You were in a post-apocalyptic world and had to fight all sorts of creatures and people. It had a power meter thing that you had to use by hitting the spacebar at a certain point to get a powerful hit, so it factored in skill and reflexes. Tons of fun.

    Then there was another game where you were commanding a spacecraft and had to take over planets and defend them. You had a grid for a radar screen and had to do things like matching velocities and firing missiles at other ships. Everything was done based on instruments, rather than visuals, which seemed like a fairly realistic representation of space combat. Wish I could remember more about this one. It was a tough game.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Help me out here... by Tisephone · · Score: 1

      You were in a post-apocalyptic world and had to fight all sorts of creatures and people. It had a power meter thing that you had to use by hitting the spacebar at a certain point to get a powerful hit, so it factored in skill and reflexes. Tons of fun.

      I'm pretty sure that was Mutants. Great game. I've never been able to find it on a free telnet BBS... :/

      --
      "Neque enim lex est aequior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua."
    2. Re:Help me out here... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Heh... no it wasn't Mutants... although I remember that one too, and it was fun as well. This one was earlier than that.... WOOHOO!!! Found it :) It was called Operation Overkill II :) Thanks Google! Damn that was a fun game...

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  35. Why Ultima IV by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Ultima 4? why not 3 or 5? what's so special about 4? I'd say 6 or 7, as they were the last of the Ultima Great Map unlinear games, and should probbably be tought at gamemking school today.

    You go with 4 because it was a turning point. The first three were ad-hoc, do what you will games. Ultima 4 introduced the concept of the Avatar, and actually had you do something other than dungeon-crawl and kill everything in sight. It required you to actually role-play the virtuous avatar of Lord British if you wanted to finish the game - cheating the shopkeepers for magic ingredients is a nice way to get ahead early on, but you will need to make up for it later on.

    Just because 6 or 7 were towards the end of the list, doesn't mean they were specifically innovative in one way or another - I can't comment on these directly because I haven't played them.

    What I would've liked to see was Ultima Underworld, which was a good early take on 3d environments in an RPG.

    1. Re:Why Ultima IV by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      Yes, that may have been a turning point in game-making. And still, I think that if you want to define something as we wish everyone could have experienced, It's not this or that idea that appeared in a certain Ultima sequel, but rather the point where it became an immersive experience to be remembered for decades.

      I think it became a classic when Origin managed to score on 4 counts simultaneously - a VERY difficult feat, and managed to hold that position for two straight games. And that happened in 6 (argueably 5), not in 4, and vanished after 7. 7 part II was a linear adventure and lost its touch due to that. 8 doesn't deserve to bear the Ultima title, and 9 almost made it, but the small game map compared with the vastness of 6 and 7 kept it from receiving the glory of its ancestors.

      The four counts are:
      1. As you said, this was not eye of the beholder, and wasn't just one big dungeon crawl. A lot of your tasks had to do with people, talking to them, helping them, and generally setting things right (or figuring out which one of the town folk had the damn mantra for the shrine). Yet others had to do with discovering stuff. Unlike so many other RPGs then and now, the people and places in Ultima always had character. And your companions were more than just your fighter - cleric - mage drones.

      2. Illinear game play where you could access practically all of the game (except maybe 1-2% that were plot-dependant and that were near-impossible to find at the beginning anyway). Of course, if you decided to make your first trip out of town directly to the dragon cave north of Trinsic, you'd get roasted on the spot, but the fact was that you _could_.

      3. A _HUMONGOUS_ game world. You could play that darn thing forever. And then play it again and discover locations you haven't discovered the first time by the dozen.
      Furthermore, the game world was not a million connected screens. It was one huge continuos map.

      4. Well-developed and extremely-well balanced money system. In fact, game balance was perfect in just about everything. So many corporate management-driven companies strip the months needed for proper game balancing from their schedule, and end up throwing an unbalanced game to the market. Arcanum and Morrowind come to mind. That's a major Maker or Breaker.

      You won't find a single game since U7 that managed to score on all of these four points.

      U9 scored on counts 1 and 4 and partially on 3.
      Morrowind III scored on the huge game world, which was nice at the beginning, but the game soon became super-repetitive and you found out that the whole world was a lot of copy-pasting of exactly the same things. And then a completely unbalanced system utterly killed the game.

      Ultima 9 attempted at unlinearity, but screwed up on the large game world account.
      Morrowind attempted at the huge world (count 3) but failed miserably in balance (4) and character (1).
      Planescape tried for (1), but never made it to either 3 or 2.

      The _ONLY_ other two [sets-of] CRPGs that I played that managed to score almost all of these , each in its own style but definitely score, are Fallout II and Gothic (and to a lesser extent Fallout I and Gothic II).

      My 2 cents :-)

      --
      -
  36. OMG!! by Danse · · Score: 1

    Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick!! I just notice that Elite didn't even make the list. I call shenannigans on this whole thing!!

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:OMG!! by dsyu · · Score: 1

      Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick!! I just notice that Elite didn't even make the list. I call shenannigans on this whole thing!!

      I agree -- now the whole list is suspect.

  37. My Life With Master? by KnightNavro · · Score: 1
    I was going through the list. I've heard of most of these games and played more than a few of them. Then I got to this:

    HOBBY GAMES--RPGs

    My Life with Master

    As An RPG fan, let me say one thing: What the fuck? I hadn't even heard of this game until today. I've gone and looked at a couple sources and I can't find much of a following. The mechanics look a little different, but they're hardly as groundbreaking as something like Amber, which uses no dice at all. It may be a good take on a specific genre, but My Life With Master shouldn't be on the list.

  38. BBS Games? by Zardoz44 · · Score: 1
    Maybe not as popular, but certainly a genre of their own. A comprehensive canon should probably include a few. I'd like to see this included:

    Legend of the Red Dragon

    I'm sure others can suggest more.

    1. Re:BBS Games? by Mawen · · Score: 1

      The one I played most was Barren Realms Elite. Fear the Gooie Kablooie!

  39. Can't be taken seriously by mustangsal66 · · Score: 1

    Ok.. I'm the first to admit. I don't usually play games to the finish, unless the story line is great.

    I have a beef with the list. Yeah there are a lot of "systems" listed, but what about the first widely known... Pong Ok so if you got tired of playing Pong, you could flip a switch and play new version of pong...

    What about the Atari 2600... Who didn't love Adventure... and Yars Revenge?

    What about the first (That I can remember) kill everyone and escape game... Castle Wolfenstein... It was a big game... 2 5 1/4" disks worth of fun...

    I must have played hours of "Silent Service" on my Tandy 1000 sx

    Ok at least the childhood memories of the arcade are there... Asteroids, Space invaders, etc...

    But what happened to other "classics"... Like the greatest text adventure Zork or pixels shooting each other in Scoorched Earth. What about games like Space Ace and Dragon's Lair?

    Hell Duke Nukem isn't even on the list...

    This has been a public service announcement. We now return to your regularly scheduled mundane exsistance...

    --
    Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
    Sig changed for readability by G.W.
  40. GURPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to be too nitpicky (okay, maybe a little) but how can GURPS be included as a game? It's a system of generic rules for creating a role playing game! If the authors of the canons don't know what it is this list can't be taken seriously.

  41. STAR CONTROL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STAR CONTROL!

  42. [OFFTOPIC] Total Annihilation by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 1

    If you like Total Annihilation, perhaps you would like to know Palito, a free RTS game being developed by fans of TotalA.

    It's still very imature, the graphics are kinda crappy (they're focusing more on the engine for now), but looks promising.
    They have a nice feature comparision table with TotalA and other RTS games.

  43. Amusing tangent on classic gaming by tigermonkey · · Score: 1

    This is funny: EGM got a group of kids together and introduced them to some of the more "classic" games. End result: they weren't impressed...

    On the positive side, they all agreed ET was pretty much crap; on the negative side, all the other games (with the exception of Electronic Football) were on the 'classic' list at costik.com.

    http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1338730,00 .asp

  44. One glaring omission by wezelboy · · Score: 1

    Marathon! Marathon should be on there just because while PC users were freaking out over Doom, Mac users were essentially playing Halo deathmatch. The first "toe shot/hotfoot" was done on a mac playing marathon. Sure, when Quake finally came along it had a far superior graphics engine, but most of the innovations that made Quake such a great game were in fact first invented and executed by Jason Jones and the folks at Bungie. -WB

    1. Re:One glaring omission by Quobobo · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree. Marathon Infinity is one of those games that was so far ahead of its time... I still love playing it multiplayer whenever I can.

  45. This will lead to endless discussions by GerritHoll · · Score: 1

    This will lead to endless discussions. For example, I think Commander Keen should absolutely be on the list, since it in one of the best games ever made, and handles resources extremely well. Others may have their own games which aren't on the list. Since this list will lead to endless discussions, it is not useful by any means.

  46. good list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but wheres Betrayal at Krondor. Best rpg ever imo

  47. NES Mike Tyson Punch-Out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Punch-Out! was one of the first sports games that I encountered (1987) in the electronic world and became a classic.

    http://www.vgmuseum.com/images/nes/01/miketyson. ht ml

  48. Why Ultima IV (another reason) by JavaLord · · Score: 1

    Ultima IV was the first game where you had to actually act ethical rather than kill everything in sight. It's storyline was much better than 1, 2 or 3. The idea of playing the messiah like Avatar was way out there for it's time.

  49. Not necessarily a bad idea, BUT.... by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    I've actually been thinking about things like this, given that I am currently a senior in college, closing in on my Computer Science BS (and maybe a master's after that), and looking strongly towards game development.

    But this list (the Costik one) just isn't a good one. A lot of the games are just "popular games in the genre", and not necessarily anything of particular merit. Seeing games like Fallout and Total Annihilation not on the list makes me question things, and these are just ones that I look to as examples of great game design. Given the very populist nature of the list, I'm certain there are plenty of other lesser-known game design gems that I personally don't know well.

    Of course, the whole page looks so amateurish, like it's some kid rattling off his favorite games. I don't know how seriously to take it. Actually, given entries like Deer Hunter and Barbie's Fashion Designer, it's more like a sales chart.

    I would like a list of games that embody great game design. Not an attempt at a complete list, but perhaps just games that flew under the general public's radar.

  50. Comments on HOBBY GAMES--Boardgames by 2sleep2type · · Score: 1
    I've not seen may posts on board games so I'm going to add my 2$

    I would basically agree with some of the choices

    Settlers, Diplomacy, Titan.

    But no Advanced Civilization surely a key game.

    Also Dune is missing not so sure if this is a must have like Advanced Civilization. But needs to be considered.

    Axis & Allies is flawed but that doesn't stop it been a key game an I guess I would leave it on the list

  51. Strategy Games by Momomoto · · Score: 1

    I have seen mention of Scorched Earth as one of the games that should have been included, and I agree wholeheartedly.

    But if you add Scorch, you've got to add in two of the games that borrow from it: Worms: Armageddon and Moonbase Commander.

    Also: Power Stone 2 is woefully missing from the list.

    --
    "Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
    1. Re:Strategy Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you add Scorch, you've got to add in two of the games that borrow from it: Worms: Armageddon and Moonbase Commander.

      No, you don't. I thought that the point is to find the games that *defined* the genres, not the ones that followed. Unless the new ones made huge leaps of their own, they don't need to be listed.

      Now, I'm not knocking those games; I've played W:A and I found it to be extremely fun, but you have to admit, everything it did, Scorch did a long time ago, short of having teammates. Was there anything else? Okay, maybe the Super Sheep.

  52. The only real way to know... by ReyTFox · · Score: 1

    ...is to play every game made until you've mastered them all, or at least played them enough to appreciate their gameplay.

    As a proto-game-designer, I embarked upon this semi-idiotic venture at some point when I was a kid of maybe four or five and every game was an enlightening experience. I'm in college now, and I have played nearly every game named here at some point, but I STILL haven't gotten them all. And as the era gets more recent, I know less about the games. I've only ever played a tiny fraction of all the games released in the last five years or so.

    Fortunately, all this study has given me a lot of experience in sorting out some things:

    Games are mostly evolutionary, in a tree-like fashion. Sometimes a game from eons ago went down a unique design path and nobody has returned to it yet, and other times it becomes wildly successful, in a third case it only becomes a success after another generation or two, and in the rarest cases the design will be REINVENTED years later by someone thinking they've come up with something new, and THEN it'll become successful. For some reason my mind fails me right now on examples of the last case, but the others you can probably find a few for yourself. There are small variations in design that go away or come back between generations, but for the most part you don't miss TOO much by not playing older games - until you find one you fall in love with.

    Since games are evolutionary, judging their value is actually a fairly objective matter of comparing relative gameplay/interface features for a maximum of good features and a minimum of bad ones and then making sure the technical aspects are of sufficient quality so as not to bother the player. (What they add is a more subjective matter)

    Games with storytelling and virtual worlds are to some extent prototype virtual realities - they give you an avatar to control, they give you a world to explore, but you are generally limited by the game aspects. However, since they also assist in structuring the world(giving the player goals, extending the exploration-value in a world that isn't actually very large...) they are fairly unique, being neither pure games nor pure VR. The game aspects are always a matter of giving patterns to solve or respond to ever more efficently(though they get considerably dressed up in video games), while the storytelling and exploration are without a doubt more artistic achievements.

    Finally, like many on this thread I've concluded that a canon in the literary sense is an invalid method of teaching what a good game is. A far better approach would be a historical one, because showing what improvements occured over multiple generations of a particular game design would immediately teach people of ways in which games can improve(besides "more and better-looking than last year"), and improve their abilities to criticize new ones by applying this knowledge. Presenting individual ones as "masterpieces" tells nothing, because you won't know why the game got made the way it did and not in the millions of other ways it might have been made.

  53. Two basic points: by Kwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it.
    2. There is nothing new under the sun.

    A canon is useful because you can use it as a basis for comparison. "This is Adventure. This is ET. Try to make a game more like the former and less like the latter"

    A canon is also useful because it can bring to light old concepts that worked well that have been forgotten due to the corporate crap you rail on about. A good portion of the upcoming generation of gamers has never even heard of M.U.L.E, for example. By having a list and being able to say "Check this out.." we make sure we don't just lose good ideas permanently.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Two basic points: by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      While I agree with point number 1, I don't agree that a canon will help. What I think the gaming industry needs is GAMERS. I suggest this because gamers will know the games you want to put in your canon (as a side effect of being a gamer) but more importantly, they'll love the games themselves. THIS is what is going to let them see what will be cool and what will not. Someone who doesn't love games isn't going to be able to see what's cool about, say, Alien Vs. Predator 2. He's not going to know the difference between that and, say, Serious Sam. All he's going to notice is that you run around shooting things, bah, humbug. Someone who loves gaming will delight in figuring out all the nuances of a game, and he'll know what's cool about it. A canon is useless to people who aren't gamers. You might as well cast pearls before swine.

      I'd like to address your second point, "There is nothing new under the sun". It's hogwash. It gets repeated a lot because people think it's deep. It isn't. It's simply incorrect. New things are invented and new ideas are generated every day of the year, continuously, eternally. People think new thoughts all the time. Perhaps you'll say "no, they just rehash and improve old ones". Ok, I'll tell you what: go out and find me some examples of pre-twentieth century space shuttles, and we'll talk. By the way: "Chariots of the Gods" doesn't count as a counterexample. ;)

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  54. Availability problems by evilhayama · · Score: 1

    These lists are a good overview of gaming greatness (maybe they should include the famous failures too?) but what do new gamers do? Getting hold of the older and more rare of these games would be a feat in itself. It's not like you can walk into an arcade and play the original Pong, or Space Invaders, and getting a working NES/C64 and the games mentioned is not easy. Getting these things illegally from ROMs and MAME however, is easy.

    I'd like to see librarys have a room where you can 'study' the canon of gaming... for the good of the industry, of course.

  55. Not elitism, perhaps, in this case by MilenCent · · Score: 1

    Costikiyan's list is presented as a way to expand the minds of up-and-coming designers. I've played probably 80% of the list, and heard of another 10%, and while I don't agree with some of it, and think that some awesome games were left out (R-A-M-P-A-R-T-! Oh, and Costikiyan's own Paranoia.), I think the idea is sound.

    Computer and video game development are way too insular. People get to be designers who've played little more than the lead shooters on the market. Everyone considers the "golden age" of gaming to be whatever they grew up with. (Thanx to whoever it was here on Slashdot I first heard that from -- I owe ya one.) He's saying that designers really need to take a much wider view of what's out there. With that, I agree completely.

    The person who said that you don't need to look outside your genre is, I'm sorry to say, completely wrong. If you never look outside your genre you can never transcend it. Gunstar Heroes, perhaps the best side-scrolling Contra-style shooter, has an entire level implemented as a board game! All genres relate to each other, just as all things relate to each other.

  56. Nice attempt... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

    ...however, I just believe that all you need is that you have played a broad selection of good games. Lists like this help, but I don't think they should be set in stone.

    Also, the only true test of How Good Gamer You Are is this: Have you beaten Nethack? If not, you're not a Really Respected Gamer. (But don't be disappointed if you haven't - been playing it for a really long time and I'm still not finished...)

  57. More Games by JC_England · · Score: 1

    Sad not to see... Modern Art Seastrike DBM Stars! Personally if a list like this introduces me to 1 or 2 previously unknown good games - then I for one will value it!