Best Games of the Decade (2011 - 2020)

[BruinDust]

I find GameFAQs Top 100 a good indicator of what people are playing. And Skyrim (all platforms) has been at or near the top of the list for the most part since it's release nearly a decade ago.

While it obviously isn't a high-water mark from a tech standpoint (for example, RDR2 is a much better looking game), when a game is that popular here almost a decade later how is it not the best game from that decade?

 

[syz]

I find GameFAQs Top 100 a good indicator of what people are playing. And Skyrim (all platforms) has been at or near the top of the list for the most part since it's release nearly a decade ago.

While it obviously isn't a high-water mark from a tech standpoint (for example, RDR2 is a much better looking game), when a game is that popular here almost a decade later how is it not the best game from that decade?

Because being popular and being good aren't always related. Especially for media.

 

[Shareefruck]

Because being popular and being good aren't always related. Especially for media.

I'd argue there's barely even a correlation on the high end (which is what this thread is about), and if anything, there can be as much of a negative correlation as there is a positive correlation.

For example, when something's truly bold, interesting and an outright masterpiece, it's more than likely going to alienate some more casual audiences who just want something thoughtlessly comforting (putting a bit of a ceiling/barrier on its popularity), and when something's truly massive, it likely got there at least partially by taking some fan-service-y shortcuts/compromises and making some "safe" creative decisions that would likely make it less perfect/purely beautiful/interesting/deep (putting a bit of a ceiling/barrier on its quality). There are tons of exceptions of course, but it's closer to an outlier than the rule, IMO.

At best, it might guarantee a certain baseline standard of quality and playability, but that's about it.

 

[NyQuil]

Or it's just really good and you're shortchanging a masterpiece because a lot of people think that is what it is.

I see a lot of assumptions around what people like.

Apparently they are brain-dead idiots who are afraid of anything original and turn their brains off when they game.

I'm not really surprised to hear that you are inclined to actually dislike something on the basis that it's popular even before playing the game.

The fact that you like platformers is pretty hilarious to me because twitch reflex games require the least amount of intellectual capacity necessary in gaming.

You can wrap it up in a shiny story but ultimately the gameplay is something a trained ape could accomplish.

 

[Shareefruck]

Or it's just really good and you're shortchanging a masterpiece because a lot of people think that is what it is.

I see a lot of assumptions around what people like.

Apparently they are brain-dead idiots who are afraid of anything original and turn their brains off when they game.

I'm not really surprised to hear that you are inclined to actually dislike something on the basis that it's popular even before playing the game.

The fact that you like platformers is pretty hilarious to me because twitch reflex games require the least amount of intellectual capacity necessary in gaming.

You can wrap it up in a shiny story but ultimately the gameplay is something a trained ape could accomplish.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions as well.

I didn't say that I would dislike something on the basis that it's popular, I'm saying that I think that tends to be the pattern. There are lots of exceptions, but they tend to be outliers rather than the expectation, IMO.

And I'm not generalizing about everyone that likes something popular, but you do typically need the people you're referring to on your side as well in order for a thing to become MASSIVE, IMO. You need to appeal to comfort zones to some degree, and the heights of depth/value is often challenging rather than comforting. Hard to accomplish both at once because what's needed to accomplish them are almost/sometimes at odds with each other.

I also don't think the value of a game has anything to do with the intellectual capacity of the player. Not sure where you got that from.

 

[NyQuil]

I also don't think the value of a game has anything to do with the intellectual capacity of the player. Not sure where you got that from.

You can try turning your brain off playing a game like Civilization but it's not going to work.

As fun as Street Fighter is, eventually you can play it on autopilot.

 

[Shareefruck]

You can try turning your brain off playing a game like Civilization but it's not going to work.

As fun as Streetfighter is, eventually you can play it on autopilot.

I agree, and neither of these statements contradict what I said.

 

[NyQuil]

I agree, and neither of these statements contradict what I said.

Meh, how popular a game is doesn't factor in at all when it comes to whether it's a masterpiece or not.

It's intellectually lazy to make inferences otherwise, either positively or negatively.

Most of the games that launched entire genres of subgaming were bold and novel because they'd never been done before, and yet were wildly popular leading to all kinds of copycat games in the future.

 

[Shareefruck]

Meh, how popular a game is doesn't factor in at all when it comes to whether it's a masterpiece or not.

It's intellectually lazy to make inferences otherwise, either positively or negatively.

My point from the beginning, in contention with the idea that there is a 1:1 positive correlation, was essentially that the positive correlations and negative correlations would somewhat cancel each other out. I'm just describing what the negative correlations would be and how you could just as easily argue it both ways.

But I do think these forces exist in both directions. It's more of a tug of war between the two (with the positive having a greater influence on the baseline and the negative having a greater influence on the peak-- I guess you disagree with this point, and that's fine, but I think there's reasonable logic there) rather than just completely random, IMO. Of course, having an influence is not the same thing as dooming something to be one thing or another, which is why I find your counter-examples irrelevant.

Also, regarding your example, we disagree on the value of novelty. I agree that novelty positively correlates with popularity the way you described, but I do not agree that it contributes very much to how masterful, rich, or valuable something is. But honestly, I'm not sure why you're treating that as an authoritative claim of superiority anyways. Opinions about what you think are best and why are inevitably going to be based on subjective value judgements, because there is no universally agreed upon fact of how different aspects should be weighted, yet obviously they aren't all just equal by default. I'm just expressing my thought process for why one way of thinking makes more sense to me than another.

 

[NyQuil]

My point from the beginning, in contention with the idea that there is a 1:1 positive correlation, was essentially that the positive correlations and negative correlations somewhat cancel each other out. I'm just describing what the negative correlations would be and how you could just as easily argue it both ways. But I do think they exist in both directions. It's more of a tug of war between the two rather than just completely random, IMO.

Ok, that's fair.

 

[JaegerDice]

Calling Skyrim a masterpiece based on sales is like calling Avatar a masterpiece based on gross revenue.

Nobody is going to argue that either piece of media isn't well crafted, ambitious, and enjoyable. But generally speaking, to be a masterpiece you have to bring a bit more to the table than 'doing that thing we've done before, but bigger and prettier'.

Skyrim is another WRPG from Bethesda, a bit bigger and prettier.

Avatar is another military sci-fi movie by James Cameron, a bit bigger and prettier.

I wouldn't consider either the creator's best work, let alone masterpieces.

I personally think that Skyrim was one of the best games of the last 10 years, but I absolutely understand anybody saying the same of Celeste. It's a fantastic game.

You can try turning your brain off playing a game like Civilization but it's not going to work.

As fun as Street Fighter is, eventually you can play it on autopilot.

Uh... against the AI, maybe.

I'd love to watch you play against people that have put time into Street Fighter, ANY Street Fighter, and claim the game can be played on autopilot at a high level. The skill gap in fighting games (outside Smash Brothers, of course), is insane.

 

[Shareefruck]

Appreciating how good or bad you think the merits and nuances of a game's design is has nothing to do with how difficult it is to master anyways, really. It's just a weird tangent to go off on altogether.

When I mention challenge vs. comfort, I'm not referring to difficulty, skill, or intelligence, I'm referring to deeper, more intricate, and more valuable nuances in any work (videogames or not) generally being more challenging/requiring more active effort and participation to fully notice and appreciate (whether you suck at a game or not), in a way that more casual audiences (which are a huge huge factor in high-end popularity) can often find unimportant when what they're usually more interested in is comfort and novelty. I don't think it's uncalled for to think that this difference would create a natural conflict between what becomes good and what becomes popular. One that easily counter-acts the degree that popularity might positively correlate with quality in other ways (which exists as well-- you wouldn't expect a massively popular game to be completely unplayable or be completely without merit, for example).

When you're a casual participant in anything, even though you might like something that's legitimately really great, you'll probably not notice alot of what makes it great (even if you appreciate a good chunk of it), and some of those decisions might even put you off because they're serving some other purpose that you naturally wouldn't care about. That can be avoided, but I don't think that sentiment is unreasonable or insulting.

 

[NyQuil]

Uh... against the AI, maybe.

I'd love to watch you play against people that have put time into Street Fighter, ANY Street Fighter, and claim the game can be played on autopilot at a high level. The skill gap in fighting games (outside Smash Brothers, of course), is insane.

Yeah, but that applies to virtually any kind of game with a human opponent. It still doesn't mean that checkers is at the same level as chess.

For the record, I put my hours and hours and hours in at the arcade when Street Fighter II was the coin-op staple and you put your quarter on the ledge to challenge the current champion.

I still wouldn't call it intellectually taxing.

Something like StarCraft I think demands a lot more from the player in terms of micro and macro strategy along with twitch reflexes.

Skyrim is another WRPG from Bethesda, a bit bigger and prettier.

What set Skyrim apart to a great extent was the mod community that supported it.

Obviously it wasn't a new phenomenon (see Morrowind even to this day), but you had a confluence of ease of modding, a greater prevalence of high-speed internet, hard drive sizes and higher download speeds, and easy access to and curation of mods through Nexus and other sources with a massive international modding community that allowed the player to essentially customize the game as they saw fit.

Out of the box, I would call Skyrim a decent game but with a little time and patience it can be made into something that can be transcendent to the individual player.

I'll acknowledge that it's a bit of a disservice or a poor comparator to other un-moddable games that have a finite development cycle and development team, but it's also a credit to the Bethesda model that it can continually be enhanced and/or modified in a variety of fundamental ways.

It may not be the singular vision of an original creator, but it can be the product of millions of collaborative and passionate hours of development.

 

[NyQuil]

When I mention challenge vs. comfort, I'm not referring to difficulty, skill, or intelligence, I'm referring to deeper, more intricate, and more valuable nuances in any work (videogames or not) generally being more challenging/requiring more active effort and participation to appreciate (whether you suck at a game or not), in a way that more casual audiences (which are a huge huge factor in high-end popularity) can often but not always find unimportant or offputting when what they're more interested in is comfort.

I'm afraid I still think you're doing a pretty poor job of describing it.

I mean, I get that there's a new EA Sports game every year and a new Call of Duty every other year and they are played by millions, but I don't think that's what we are talking about.

Virtually every game by Shigeru Miyamoto is extremely accessible to casual players and highly popular and yet many are still regarded by others as masterpieces of game design and execution.

I still believe that you view popularity of anything as an inherently negative quality and that in turn biases your objective judgment of the art itself accordingly.

If it's unpopular, it must therefore be nuanced because it's not liked by the casual.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm afraid I still think you're doing a pretty poor job of describing it.

I mean, I get that there's a new EA Sports game every year and a new Call of Duty every other year and they are played by millions, but I don't think that's what we are talking about.

Virtually every game by Shigeru Miyamoto is extremely accessible to casual players and highly popular and yet many are still regarded by others as masterpieces of game design and execution.

I still believe that you view popularity of anything as an inherently negative quality and that in turn biases your objective judgment of the art itself accordingly.

If it's unpopular, it must therefore be nuanced because it's not liked by the casual.

This assumption isn't really based on anything fair though. I'm arguing that there is a logical correlation/influence (however small), but that doesn't automatically imply that I judge things a certain way BECAUSE something's popular. You can disagree with me about the correlation/pattern, but that doesn't justify the dismissive assumption (especially such a black and white one) and resentful passive aggressiveness.

And again, specific counter-examples don't contradict that. I'm not making the black and white statement that you're trying to pin on me. I agree that Shigeru Miyamoto and plenty of other big gamemakers run the other way. I just think it's a less likely outcome/incidental thing. EA and Call of Duty are the extreme, but varying degrees of similar influences affect a lot of things.

 

[syz]

Yeah, but that applies to virtually any kind of game with a human opponent. It still doesn't mean that checkers is at the same level as chess.

For the record, I put my hours and hours and hours in at the arcade when Street Fighter II was the coin-op staple and you put your quarter on the ledge to challenge the current champion.

I still wouldn't call it intellectually taxing.

Something like StarCraft I think demands a lot more from the player in terms of micro and macro strategy along with twitch reflexes.

Fighting games are a bit different than SFII these days. If you want twitch reflexes/raw reaction speed there's probably nothing more demanding on the market.

SC is definitely demanding in other ways though--to the point that its entire genre was deemed too inaccessible by the layman and was thus replaced in the market by the much more accessible MOBA.

Honestly both of these genres are further proof that popular does not necessarily equal good and vice versa.

 

[HanSolo]

Just read the last page's discussion on Fortnite and I'm not gonna reply to anyone individually. But I'll say there's no denying Fortnite had and still has a hell of a cultural impact. But I don't think increasing the prevalence of crossplay and the F2P model really is a good argument for it being one of the best games of the decade.

I sunk more hours into the game than I care to admit but I wouldn't even have it in my top 30. Much less top 10. I'd argue strongly that it's not even the best BR out there.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Just read the last page's discussion on Fortnite and I'm not gonna reply to anyone individually. But I'll say there's no denying Fortnite had and still has a hell of a cultural impact. But I don't think increasing the prevalence of crossplay and the F2P model really is a good argument for it being one of the best games of the decade.

I sunk more hours into the game than I care to admit but I wouldn't even have it in my top 30. Much less top 10. I'd argue strongly that it's not even the best BR out there.

It's a game that lives off of content creators rather an actual gameplay.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Bioshock Infinite needs way more love in this thread.

 

[Soldier13Fox]

Bioshock Infinite needs way more love in this thread.

Definitely a great game, but for me personally not top ten of the decade worthy.

 

[HanSolo]

Definitely a great game, but for me personally not top ten of the decade worthy.

Same. High marks for aesthetic but everything else is a bit above average to average for me.

 

[Mikeaveli]

Having recently played the first 2 Bioshocks for the first time after having played Infinite many years ago, I think Infinite has my favourite story of the trilogy while being a clear step down gameplay-wise from Bioshock 2. I'd give the game an 8/10. Solid but not in my top games of the decade.

 

[Shareefruck]

Definitely find Infinite on the overrated side. Gameplay-wise for sure, but even the storytelling feels off to me.

 

[JaegerDice]

Bioshock Infinite needs way more love in this thread.

It was good. Didn't hit me like the first one did though. Too much repetitive combat, not enough slowing down to let the atmosphere and setting really seep in. The ending was cool though.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It was good. Didn't hit me like the first one did though. Too much repetitive combat, not enough slowing down to let the atmosphere and setting really seep in. The ending was cool though.

That's fair, the 2nd playthrough was much better knowing everything. Also I took way more time to go explore the areas and try to see it all and that helped get way more drawn into the atmosphere.

I think 1 aspect that gets overlooked is Elizabeth's mechanics. I cant think of an AI companion that was that combination of helpful while not getting in the way or dragging the game into a tedious escort mission.

I admittedly have gamed much less post 2015 than pre, so that probably influences things. I'm not abdicating it for #1 or even Top 3, just I have a hard time picturing 10 games better than it from 2010-2020