HF Retro Game of the Year - 1997 - GoldenEye 007 Wins!

[The Crypto Guy]

Locks:

Civilization II

Command & Conquer: Red Alert

Diablo

Duke Nukem 3D

Quake

Resident Evil

Super Mario 64

The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall

Tomb Raider

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Maybe:

Crash Bandicoot

Master of Orion II

Metal Slug

Revelations: Persona

Super Mario RPG

Tetris Attack

Twisted Metal 2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Probably room for 2-3 of the above. I'd be inclined to go with Persona, Tetris Attack, and SM RPG. Master of Orion is great but pretty niche and I think at most it takes 2-3 votes from Civ.



Probably not:

Donkey Kong Land 2

Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire

Strife

Terranigma

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

One other question:
Tekken 2 and Virtual Fighter 3?

Both had 96 arcade releases. Unclear when VF came to NA as an arcade where as Tekken 2 did come in 96 and was on PS in 96. So I think Tekken 2 should probably be considered at least.

Out of the maybes, Super Mario RPG and Twisted Metal 2 for me.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Twisted Metal 2 was 5th grade distilled for me, so I gotta give that a definite in vote. Super Mario RPG is a slam-dunk, too. Panzer Dragoon II Zwei was phenomenal, too.

Really hope it winds up being an interesting vote and not just the ~7th best Mario game lapping the competition.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

This is really tough for me, coin toss between Tomb Raider and Civ 2.

I bought a Playstation just so I could play TR - it was Sony's killer app, before killer apps were a thing. There's a lot of hipster retro hate for TR, but it was truly a revolutionary game. I don't know if it was the first 3D action adventure game, but its the first one I remember, and it was certainly one of the few games in history that have gone "mainstream".

But Civ2 was my introduction to 4x games...

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I think MoO 2 should make it but I doubt many on here played it...

Also there is no way Heroes of Might & Magic 2 wasn't one of the best releases in 1996. That game changed my LIFE.

But if we are honest, there's no way Super Mario 64 doesn't win.

 

[Shareefruck]

Street Fighter Alpha 2 is a better game than Tekken 2 or Virtua Fighter 3, IMO, and it hasn't really aged a day in terms of visuals and sound.

 

[JaegerDice]

Yeah, Street Fighter Alpha 2 was the best fighting game of 1996. I enjoyed Tekken 2 for what it was, and it had kind of a crazy 'let's see how much we can pack into one fighting game' appeal with the huge cast, the CG endings, the extra modes, and a GREAT training mode (the best of the time by a long shot)... but Street Fighter Alpha 2 was just a better balanced, more nuanced, better looking and more fun fighting game.


It won't make the list but Guardian Heroes was f***ing awesome too.

 

[SniperHF]

Street Fighter Alpha 2 is a better game than Tekken 2 or Virtua Fighter 3, IMO, and it hasn't really aged a day in terms of visuals and sound.

I haven't really seen a good case for treating them (Alpha vs Alpha 2) as separate games when the content of the sequel is mostly made up by the content of the first part. They strike me more as rolling updates to the base game with a few fighters added and the combo systems changed up or improved. Alpha 2 seems like a bigger leap from Alpha 1 than the various 2 varieties but they still add less than your average Civilization expansion pack and we haven't included them. Or say the REmake. That it's a stand alone release doesn't really mean much to me given the arcade roots of the franchise and the only way to do a significant update was releasing a whole new cabinet.

 

[Shareefruck]

I haven't really seen a good case for treating them (Alpha vs Alpha 2) as separate games when the content of the sequel is mostly made up by the content of the first part. They strike me more as rolling updates to the base game with a few fighters added and the combo systems changed up or improved. Alpha 2 seems like a bigger leap from Alpha 1 than the various 2 varieties but they still add less than your average Civilization expansion pack and we haven't included them. Or say the REmake. That it's a stand alone release doesn't really mean much to me given the arcade roots of the franchise and the only way to do a significant update was releasing a whole new cabinet.

I completely disagree.

I feel like that would be playing into the whole "caring about historical impact/progression rather than the best overall product" thing that I mentioned earlier. On top of that, if we only wanted to count one version because they're too similar, I tend to lean towards going with the final iteration rather than the first iteration. Although I happen to prefer Alpha 2 over Alpha 3 in this case.

Street Fighter in general tends to start with an incomplete product and flesh it out after seeing how the base performs. I think it would be very unfair to the franchise as a whole to only judge it by what would end up being by far the crappiest version of each.

World Warriors, Alpha 1, and New Generation are not particularly great games-- they're all very flawed, and probably wouldn't be too rewarding to play today, but the final versions of each of them are pretty damn brilliant and are what allow them to hold up over time (and maintain a healthy tournament scene), IMO. I disagree that the newer versions are just added side-content. The balance/mechanics tweaks make a world of difference and fundamentally changes the games for the better (especially how they feel) in all three of these instances. If it stopped at World Warriors, Street Fighter II would be historically important but would rightfully be seen as severely dated and feel sluggish. Which couldn't be further from the case-- Super Street Fighter II Turbo is as strong as (in my opinion, superior to) any modern fighting game released today, for my money.

Despite re-used assets (and keep in mind, the amount of work and talent that goes into creating the assets in a 2D fighting game is kind of nuts compared to other genres), I would argue that the jump from Alpha 1 to Alpha 2/3 as well as the jump from World Warriors to Turbo/Super Turbo are closer in significance to the jump from Megaman 1 to Megaman 2 (which would be a travesty to rate the former over the latter).

If your suggestion was flipped around, that World Warriors/Alpha 1 should be excluded from these polls because Super Street Fighter II Turbo/Alpha 2 & 3 exists, I could get on board with that.

 

[SniperHF]

I think it would be very unfair to the franchise as a whole to only judge it by what would end up being by far the crappiest version of each.

I think this is where you are going wrong. People aren't doing that.
I very much doubt the people who voted for Diablo II only judged it on the game it was on release in 2000. I'm quite sure they didn't since most people didn't even play that version.

For consistency between the polls already completed I think I have to hold the line on this. It doesn't help that many sources outright list Alpha 2 as a combination of a remake and sequel.
And there's also the it's not gonna win any way factor.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think this is where you are going wrong. People aren't doing that.
I very much doubt the people who voted for Diablo II only judged it on the game it was on release in 2000. I'm quite sure they didn't since most people didn't even play that version.

For consistency between the polls already completed I think I have to hold the line on this. It doesn't help that many sources outright list Alpha 2 as a combination of a remake and sequel.
And there's also the it's not gonna win any way factor.

I don't totally follow.

Are you saying that Street Fighter Alpha 1 will be listed in the year that it was released, but we should be thinking about what we liked about Street Fighter Alpha 2 & 3 when voting for it?

That would definitely seem odd to me.

But for the record, I'm not trying to dictate how you run this-- if you're past the point of no return, then you're past the point of no return-- That would just be my argument for why I disagree with it in theory/principle.

 

[SniperHF]

but we should be thinking about what we liked about Street Fighter Alpha 2 & 3 when voting for it?

Or not. I'm not particularly concerned about that.

I don't think it's good for the polls to have essentially the same games on the list multiple years in a row. Civ IV would have been on it 3 times (and I'd have voted for each one probably). World of Warcraft basically every year in the 2000's. Street Fighter 2 could arguably be on it 4-6 times.

Alpha 3 seems more distinct from 1 & 2 from what I know, it doesn't retcon 1 like 2 does and it positions itself as a sequel to 2. It does reuse assets but that's not really an issue.

 

[Shareefruck]

Or not. I'm not particularly concerned about that.

I don't think it's good for the polls to have essentially the same games on the list multiple years in a row. Civ IV would have been on it 3 times (and I'd have voted for each one probably). World of Warcraft basically every year in the 2000's. Street Fighter 2 could arguably be on it 4-6 times.

Alpha 3 seems more distinct from 1 & 2 from what I know, it doesn't retcon 1 like 2 does and it positions itself as a sequel to 2. It does reuse assets but that's not really an issue.

That's understandable. I was not aware that it was being done that way. I was under the impression that you were saying that the base game is what matters and we can ignore the add-ons/expansions because they're basically the same thing.

In that case, my 1997 rankings would have been:

1. Street Fighter III Series (mostly Third Strike)
2. Vampire Savior
3. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
4. Saturn Bomberman
5. King of Fighters '97

I mean, Christ, look at this sprite work.