Game of the decade vote off?

[The Head Crusher]

That's a strange rule. Some of the best games ever are console exclusives.

Besides you can play BoTW in 4K on PC if you really want to.

It is? I was not aware of that. Was an original release, Ported or some third party emulation?

That is silly. Exclusives remain video games that were released in a certain year, it makes absolutely no sense to exclude exclusives.

What a weird and random take.

The reason I say we should exclude them is because of the nature of exclusives and my interpretation of this purposed poll. I feel The average gamers will never play most exclusives as no one console controlled that large of the market and while it isn’t uncommon for there to be multiple consoles in some house hold, it is however rarer to find someone with all of the the major consoles. A game could be the most amazing game ever, but I personally have a hard time justifying it for the title of “game of the decade” for the sole reason that most people will not of played it or hard a chance to play it. People are free to agree or disagree with my interpretation all they like, but I feel it is a topic that is interesting to address.

I mean a bunch of exclusives got review bombed by neckbeards so while it certainly make no sense, it is unfortunately not entirely unexpected.

I'm unfamiliar with this whole thing. So you're saying that there are people who angrily crusade against the concept of "exclusive games" as a whole, and he's suggesting that we should not include exclusive games in best of lists in order to protest alongside them or something?

Weird.

I am interested in what @Do Make Say Think is implying as well. Well I don’t feel I fit either he above descriptions as I have no problem with exclusive games existing, but I do see how my initial comment could potentially be perceived as such. I am sure BotW is a great game, I have seen a lot of positive things, but it will likely be a game I will never play as I doubt I will ever buy a switch or a Wii U (unless I can track down the method Beau Knows was talking about for PC).

 

[Shareefruck]

It is? I was not aware of that. Was an original release, Ported or some third party emulation?





The reason I say we should exclude them is because of the nature of exclusives and my interpretation of this purposed poll. I feel The average gamers will never play most exclusives as no one console controlled that large of the market and while it isn’t uncommon for there to be multiple consoles in some house hold, it is however rarer to find someone with all of the the major consoles. A game could be the most amazing game ever, but I personally have a hard time justifying it for the title of “game of the decade” for the sole reason that most people will not of played it or hard a chance to play it. People are free to agree or disagree with my interpretation all they like, but I feel it is a topic that is interesting to address.





I am interested in what @Do Make Say Think is implying as well. Well I don’t feel I fit either he above descriptions as I have no problem with exclusive games existing, but I do see how my initial comment could potentially be perceived as such. I am sure BotW is a great game, I have seen a lot of positive things, but it will likely be a game I will never play as I doubt I will ever buy a switch or a Wii U (unless I can track down the method Beau Knows was talking about for PC).

How large of an audience a game can reach should have no bearing whatsoever on how great a game is considered, IMO.

I get what you mean, though-- You're looking at it from a cultural phenomenon perspective-- like Time Magazine's Person of the Year or something-- in which case, I guess give it up for Fortnite or some crap like that-- Personally, I hate those types of discussions.

To me, the Game of the Decade should ideally be something that you can play fifty years from now and with the benefit of hindsight go "Oh yeah, irrespective of what people thought at the time or how much it caught on, this one stands above the rest on its own merits."

 

[bambamcam4ever]

It is? I was not aware of that. Was an original release, Ported or some third party emulation?





The reason I say we should exclude them is because of the nature of exclusives and my interpretation of this purposed poll. I feel The average gamers will never play most exclusives as no one console controlled that large of the market and while it isn’t uncommon for there to be multiple consoles in some house hold, it is however rarer to find someone with all of the the major consoles. A game could be the most amazing game ever, but I personally have a hard time justifying it for the title of “game of the decade” for the sole reason that most people will not of played it or hard a chance to play it. People are free to agree or disagree with my interpretation all they like, but I feel it is a topic that is interesting to address.





I am interested in what @Do Make Say Think is implying as well. Well I don’t feel I fit either he above descriptions as I have no problem with exclusive games existing, but I do see how my initial comment could potentially be perceived as such. I am sure BotW is a great game, I have seen a lot of positive things, but it will likely be a game I will never play as I doubt I will ever buy a switch or a Wii U (unless I can track down the method Beau Knows was talking about for PC).

There is no game in any given year that "most" people will play.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Should PC exclusives not be considered either then?

 

[The Head Crusher]

How large of an audience a game can reach should have no bearing whatsoever on how great a game is considered, IMO.

I get what you mean, though-- You're looking at it from a cultural phenomenon perspective-- like Time Magazine's Person of the Year or something-- in which case, I guess give it up for Fortnite or some crap like that-- Personally, I hate those types of discussions.

To me, the Game of the Decade should ideally be something that you can play fifty years from now and with the benefit of hindsight go "Oh yeah, irrespective of what people thought at the time or how much it caught on, this one stands above the rest on its own merits."

Skyrim was my answer, it had the benefit of the whole decade of history and impact. Fortnite while the new phenomenon is just too new for me to consider (among other reasons). Though I do believe we need to consider your qualifications as well. If the game is not a good game but is a cultural phenomenon it should not be considered either (like Fortnite).

There is no game in any given year that "most" people will play.

True, but whether you as the gamer choose to not play that game vs unable to play that game is something to consider.

Should PC exclusives not be considered either then?

Now I admit I drawing a blank when it comes to PC exclusives at the moment outside of strategy games like Civ (which I love the series) and EU/CKII. Which is bad, considering I use my PC as my second console (ps4 is my main). The ones that instantly jumped to my mind were older then 2010.

 

[Saskatoon]

I agree with some of the others here but I am going to through Slay the Spire into the mix. Easy to learn, very-very difficult to master, it is actually the game I put the most hours in the last decade when I went and checked.

I want to give an honorable mention to PUBG. It kind of stagnated and was passed in some areas by games like Fortnite but it was really fresh when it came out.

 

[LarKing]

Mass Effect 3 was a masterpiece imo.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

A game is a game is a game. If it was a game that could be played by an audience it counts. If a movie is hard to find, does that make it uneligible to be considered for "best movie of said year"?

I'm not touching this debate anymore, I know where this path leads: been there, done that.

 

[RandV]

The reason I say we should exclude them is because of the nature of exclusives and my interpretation of this purposed poll. I feel The average gamers will never play most exclusives as no one console controlled that large of the market and while it isn’t uncommon for there to be multiple consoles in some house hold, it is however rarer to find someone with all of the the major consoles. A game could be the most amazing game ever, but I personally have a hard time justifying it for the title of “game of the decade” for the sole reason that most people will not of played it or hard a chance to play it. People are free to agree or disagree with my interpretation all they like, but I feel it is a topic that is interesting to address.

Everyone please exclude the following from your votes because I have not played them:

The Last of Us
God of War 3
Breath of the Wild
Any Mass Effect
All Rockstar games
Anything by EA/Ubisoft/Blizzard
Fortnite

Now not necessarily my pick but acceptable common selections are:
Dark Souls
Skyrim
The Witcher 3



Seriously though, it's dumb because exclusives tend to be the best games. They're made to sell consoles so tend to have much better production value and Microsoft aside typically have none of the detrimental monetization that goes into regular cross-platform game. What you're talking about with exclusives probably goes for every game, and going by sales figures I'd imagine there's not much difference in number of players between top exclusives vs cross-platform.

 

[Shareefruck]

Skyrim was my answer, it had the benefit of the whole decade of history and impact. Fortnite while the new phenomenon is just too new for me to consider (among other reasons). Though I do believe we need to consider your qualifications as well. If the game is not a good game but is a cultural phenomenon it should not be considered either (like Fortnite).



True, but whether you as the gamer choose to not play that game vs unable to play that game is something to consider.



Now I admit I drawing a blank when it comes to PC exclusives at the moment outside of strategy games like Civ (which I love the series) and EU/CKII. Which is bad, considering I use my PC as my second console (ps4 is my main). The ones that instantly jumped to my mind were older then 2010.

Personally, I hate the checklist approach that a lot of people have to evaluation. The greatest games aren't the ones that do a bit of everything and that satisfy the most and widest variety of criteria. The more you try to accomplish absolutely everything, the more you tend to accomplish nothing truly special.

Exclusivity can be a strength. Impenetrable inaccessibility can be a strength. Minimalism can be a strength. Whether or not a game manages to avoid these things is not something worth considering at all, in my opinion.

 

[The Head Crusher]

Everyone please exclude the following from your votes because I have not played them:

The Last of Us
God of War 3
Breath of the Wild
Any Mass Effect
All Rockstar games
Anything by EA/Ubisoft/Blizzard
Fortnite

Now not necessarily my pick but acceptable common selections are:
Dark Souls
Skyrim
The Witcher 3



Seriously though, it's dumb because exclusives tend to be the best games. They're made to sell consoles so tend to have much better production value and Microsoft aside typically have none of the detrimental monetization that goes into regular cross-platform game. What you're talking about with exclusives probably goes for every game, and going by sales figures I'd imagine there's not much difference in number of players between top exclusives vs cross-platform.

Personally, I hate the checklist approach that a lot of people have to evaluation. The greatest games aren't the ones that do a bit of everything and that satisfy the most and widest variety of criteria. The more you try to accomplish absolutely everything, the more you tend to accomplish nothing truly special.

Exclusivity can be a strength. Impenetrable inaccessibility can be a strength. Minimalism can be a strength. Whether or not a game manages to avoid these things is not something worth considering at all, in my opinion.

Well I am clearly in the minority in this discussion and I'll just have to accept that, but I'll just leave it with this. Everyone is going to have their own qualifications for this, and feel free to disagree with me. However for myself I doubt I would vote for a exclusive game for this poll, even one that I absolutely loved (like the PS4 Spiderman). If it was a poll for Best PS4 game of the last decade, I would consider it, but not best Video Game of the last decade.

 

[Commander Clueless]

The sad part is console exclusives tend to be the best games (outside of indies) these days thanks to the knowledge that good games move hardware. Most cross-platform "AAA" games go the "make as much money as possible through controversial means" route.....not that I can exactly blame them for the dough they pull in.

 

[Morbo]

Witcher 3, I think.

 

[NyQuil]

The sad part is console exclusives tend to be the best games (outside of indies) these days thanks to the knowledge that good games move hardware. Most cross-platform "AAA" games go the "make as much money as possible through controversial means" route.....not that I can exactly blame them for the dough they pull in.

There are also differences between platforms including strengths and weaknesses which can make some cross-platform games less than ideal for each platform individually.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Mass Effect 3 was a masterpiece imo.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

[NyQuil]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I also greatly enjoyed ME3.

It's the best one of the series.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Persona 5, screw rules and audience size. Persona 5.

 

[LarKing]

I also greatly enjoyed ME3.

It's the best one of the series.

I’d agree with this. I didn’t agree my first play through but after going back and ensuring every character lives in ME2, my second play through was probably my favorite gaming experience ever. So many cool moments with Thane, Garrus, Legion, etc. Also really enjoyed the genophage stuff. Then add in the addicting fun gameplay and you have a masterpiece imo.

 

[LarKing]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I loved 2 as well. It really set the stage for 3 perfectly without feeling like filler.

 

[NyQuil]

I’d agree with this. I didn’t agree my first play through but after going back and ensuring every character lives in ME2, my second play through was probably my favorite gaming experience ever. So many cool moments with Thane, Garrus, Legion, etc. Also really enjoyed the genophage stuff. Then add in the addicting fun gameplay and you have a masterpiece imo.

The stakes were so much higher in ME3.

Homeworlds were being devastated. The Reapers were real and seemingly unstoppable. There was suffering everywhere, even some setbacks in your own storyline.

Finally, the combat and gameplay was smoother and better as they learned from ME and ME2.

ME2 looked great and provided a great travelogue of the ME universe, but the Collectors were more of a distant mystery, and less of the immediate threat posed by the Reaper legions.

I felt like I was on the edge of my seat throughout all of ME3. Yes, the ending was not perfect in its original format, but I think the amended ending made up for it.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I’d agree with this. I didn’t agree my first play through but after going back and ensuring every character lives in ME2, my second play through was probably my favorite gaming experience ever. So many cool moments with Thane, Garrus, Legion, etc. Also really enjoyed the genophage stuff. Then add in the addicting fun gameplay and you have a masterpiece imo.

The stakes were so much higher in ME3.

Homeworlds were being devastated. The Reapers were real and seemingly unstoppable. There was suffering everywhere, even some setbacks in your own storyline.

Finally, the combat and gameplay was smoother and better as they learned from ME and ME2.

ME2 looked great and provided a great travelogue of the ME universe, but the Collectors were more of a distant mystery, and less of the immediate threat posed by the Reaper legions.

I felt like I was on the edge of my seat throughout all of ME3. Yes, the ending was not perfect in its original format, but I think the amended ending made up for it.

Congratulations. You are now my two favourite posters.

 

[NyQuil]

Also, the Citadel DLC was amazing.

Yes, it was fan-service, and a bit out of character with the storyline, but a boatload of fun.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I loved 2 as well. It really set the stage for 3 perfectly without feeling like filler.

Whoever the bugs were were pretty weak as main antagonists since you knew they weren't the real threat.

The game was great but the story was as filler as they come in my mind. It wasn't pointless but nothing that actually happens matters to the overarching plot of the reaper invasion unless I'm forgetting something. It was all about setting up new characters which was fun but not really critical to the plot.

Mostly nitpicks though because as much as I find Bioware "meh", I really loved ME2.

 

[NyQuil]

The game was great but the story was as filler as they come in my mind. It wasn't pointless but nothing that actually happens matters to the overarching plot of the reaper invasion unless I'm forgetting something. It was all about setting up new characters which was fun but not really critical to the plot.

This is all true.

Even the baby reaper amounts to nothing at all.

The real focus of ME2 was on Cerberus.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Whoever the bugs were were pretty weak as main antagonists since you knew they weren't the real threat.

The game was great but the story was as filler as they come in my mind. It wasn't pointless but nothing that actually happens matters to the overarching plot of the reaper invasion unless I'm forgetting something. It was all about setting up new characters which was fun but not really critical to the plot.

Mostly nitpicks though because as much as I find Bioware "meh", I really loved ME2.

To be fair, Reaper reproduction is a component of the invasions/cycles, etc. but yeah....it was a filler plot to set up Cerberus as more than a nuisance in the first one.

Fortunately, the characters really carried that narrative.