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

[Commander Clueless]

I feel the complete opposite, personally. The thing I dislike and feel most put off by in videogames is the escapist male fantasy aspect of it (that whole "let me do what I want to do and reshape everything as I see fit!" thing), where people want to feel like they're actually the character in the game. Blank slate, silent-protagonist characters in story-driven games tend to feed into that mentality, and it creeps the hell out of me and feels kind of gross, personally. I don't even like how you're usually given the option to rename well defined characters with your own name.

...I'm not sure I completely understand your point, to be honest. That's the first time I've ever considered the possibility that character creation could be disturbing.


a) I like the freedom to create my own character, be it modeled after anything from much more badass version of myself to a gay cat person named Mittens (Skyrim, for the record). Worlds that change dynamically based on your choices are special IMO.

2) All games are at least a little escapist fantasy, aren't they? Why else would you play them? For the realism?

iii) Honest question: What does "male" have to do with it? Granted, my social network is not large, but for example many of my wife's favourite games are the "create-your-own" type. She spends hours on that stuff.


I mean, don't play anything that makes you uncomfortable, obviously. Play what's fun.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Yes. FFX was an amazing game. Strange that people have different opinions than your own huh?

At this point, anyone who has any opinion at all on the Final Fantasy franchise has a different opinion than mine, considering I've never played it.


(Outside of a couple hours of XV that is....)

 

[Commander Clueless]

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m voting based on what the game was at the time, and not what it is now. At the time, it was pretty much the greatest game ever made. It’s easily my pick. However, if I was voting based on what the game is in 2018, I’d vote FF or AoE

I always vote based on what I enjoyed the most. What other reason would you vote for?

I by no means meant I think people SHOULD vote for FFVII, just that I thought they would.

Hey now. I’m one of those.

My wife agrees with you wholeheartedly.

 

[syz]

FFX was the beginning of the franchise turning into a linear straight line that everybody would spend the 5 games bitching about, but people didn't know any better at the time, I guess.

 

[RandV]

...I'm not sure I completely understand your point, to be honest. That's the first time I've ever considered the possibility that character creation could be disturbing.


a) I like the freedom to create my own character, be it modeled after anything from much more badass version of myself to a gay cat person named Mittens (Skyrim, for the record). Worlds that change dynamically based on your choices show off the true potential of gaming as an entertainment medium IMO.

2) All games are at least a little escapist fantasy, aren't they? Why else would you play them? For the realism?

iii) What does "male" have to do with anything? Granted, my social network is not large, but for example many of my wife's favourite games are the "create-your-own" type. She spends hours on that stuff.


I mean, don't play anything that makes you uncomfortable, obviously. Play what's fun.

Yes this is a topic that doesn't have a right or wrong, but rather is just a matter of personal preference. Not pointing at anyone here but often you see people get confused by thinking one is superior to the other.

 

[SniperHF]

Arcade games are fine with me, though I think most of the best ones in the 90's anyway were on consoles at some point too.
Though I think there's only a couple three arcade games that would get significant votes in the 90's.

I wouldn't begin to understand how to figure out what to do with the 8000 Street Fighter II variations. My instinct would be to ball them all up into one and treat them like expansion packs but maybe they are more different than that. I only ever remember seeing Super cabinets for whatever reason.

 

[Shareefruck]

The Street Fighter II iterations and the Super Street Fighter II iterations are completely different animals, IMO. I'd hate to see them lumped together. I think Street Fighter II Turbo and Super Street Fighter II Turbo are pretty representative, though.

...I'm not sure I completely understand your point, to be honest. That's the first time I've ever considered the possibility that character creation could be disturbing.


a) I like the freedom to create my own character, be it modeled after anything from much more badass version of myself to a gay cat person named Mittens (Skyrim, for the record). Worlds that change dynamically based on your choices are special IMO.

2) All games are at least a little escapist fantasy, aren't they? Why else would you play them? For the realism?

iii) Honest question: What does "male" have to do with it? Granted, my social network is not large, but for example many of my wife's favourite games are the "create-your-own" type. She spends hours on that stuff.


I mean, don't play anything that makes you uncomfortable, obviously. Play what's fun.

It's not a matter of realism or things being possible or impossible.

I appreciate when a world and narrative is created that communicates certain moods, charms, emotions, mechanics, and ideas, as if the creator is showing me something that they want to express creatively and is allowing me to interact with it, master it, and explore the potential of the mechanics in my own way.

However, when a creator is trying to appeal to our dorky and childish inner desire to be something else and try to patronize that, using the game as a sandbox/opportunity to let us live out a simulation of that fantasy, I have nothing but repulsion and resentment to that type of thing, and I don't find it rewarding or valuable for the most part.

It's kind of like how in Animes, you often have a main character shamelessly designed as a pathetic introverted loser (not that there's anything wrong with that) to patronize their target audience, and the events in the show exist to feed that fantasy, like "Hey! You can be the bad-*ss, be swarmed with women who are madly in love with you and bring you out of your shell, and you can become good at everything and be a winner!" That kind of thing really puts me off and feels disturbing. With certain types of video games that treat you like you really are the character, and give you full control of who that character ultimately is (or even what they look like), instead of the game creating well defined characters that are a certain way to serve an actual purpose, it's kind of the same idea.

I get that many games may ultimately be going for the escapist fantasy thing, but when I play the games I like, I don't play it feeling like I'm actually the character I'm controlling. I'm interacting with the mechanics, but I prefer my storytelling more removed and creator-controlled, personally. The less of the other stuff, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

It doesn't have to be a male thing, but it often seems to be.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

Arcade games are fine with me, though I think most of the best ones in the 90's anyway were on consoles at some point too.
Though I think there's only a couple three arcade games that would get significant votes in the 90's.

I wouldn't begin to understand how to figure out what to do with the 8000 Street Fighter II variations. My instinct would be to ball them all up into one and treat them like expansion packs but maybe they are more different than that. I only ever remember seeing Super cabinets for whatever reason.

I totally forgot about arcade games, and 1997 had House of the Dead and Lost World, which are by far my two favorite of all time

 

[Commander Clueless]

It's not a matter of realism or things being possible or impossible.

I appreciate when a world and narrative is created that communicates certain moods, charms, emotions, mechanics, and ideas, as if the creator is showing me something that they want to express creatively and is allowing me to interact with it, master it, and explore the potential of the mechanics in my own way.

However, when a creator is trying to appeal to our dorky and childish inner desire to be something else and try to patronize that, using the game as a sandbox/opportunity to let us live out a simulation of that fantasy, I have nothing but repulsion and resentment to that type of thing, and I don't find it rewarding or valuable for the most part.

It's kind of like how in Animes, you often have a main character shamelessly designed as a pathetic introverted loser (not that there's anything wrong with that) to patronize their target audience, and the events in the show exist to feed that fantasy, like "Hey! You can be the bad-*ss, be swarmed with women who are madly in love with you and bring you out of your shell, and you can become good at everything and be a winner!" That kind of thing really puts me off and feels disturbing. With certain types of video games that treat you like you really are the character, and give you full control of who that character ultimately is (or even what they look like), instead of the game creating well defined characters that are a certain way to serve an actual purpose, it's kind of the same idea.

I get that many games may ultimately be going for the escapist fantasy thing, but when I play the games I like, I don't play it feeling like I'm actually the character I'm controlling. I'm interacting with the mechanics, but I prefer my storytelling more removed and creator-controlled, personally. The less of the other stuff, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

It doesn't have to be a male thing, but it often seems to be.

I don't watch anime so that example went over my head, but I think I see what you are saying. However, I don't think a game giving you the ability to create your own character and interact with the world how you choose, whether it be based on you personally or on something else, automatically translates into what you're describing any more or less than a set character would.

I could just as easily live the fantasy you describe as Geralt of Rivia as Commander Clueless the Sometimes Great.

Again, though, that's just my take.

 

[NyQuil]

I feel the complete opposite, personally. The thing I dislike and feel most put off by in videogames is the escapist male fantasy aspect of it (that whole "let me do what I want to do and reshape everything as I see fit!" thing), where people want to feel like they're actually the character in the game. Blank slate, silent-protagonist characters in story-driven games tend to feed into that mentality, and it creeps the hell out of me and feels kind of gross, personally. I don't even like how you're usually given the option to rename well defined characters with your own name.

I think it says a lot more about how -you- approach a blank slate game.

It’s actually pretty disturbing.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't watch anime so that example went over my head, but I think I see what you are saying. However, I don't think a game giving you the ability to create your own character and interact with the world how you choose, whether it be based on you personally or on something else, automatically translates into what you're describing any more or less than a set character would.

I could just as easily live the fantasy you describe as Geralt of Rivia as Commander Clueless the Sometimes Great.

Again, though, that's just my take.

Unfortunately, your example goes over my head too.

I disagree in that I think the act of it being done more or less comes from that type of motivation in principle (a motivation that I generally find cheesy, patronizing, and superficial), but I agree that depending on how it's done, it can either seem trivial or overbearing. It's not always a huge deal-breaker, nor is it a problem that's exclusive to blank-slate games. But I think you see it happen more often with them (it's more compatible with it), I rarely see a benefit to it that I appreciate, and it always niggles at me at least a little bit.

A more obvious example I can think of is Chrono Trigger vs. Final Fantasy VI. I think they're both masterpieces, and Chrono Trigger is probably a tighter game overall. However, if there's one nitpick for me, it would be that. In FFVI, it's "these are the characters and their motivations, you can play as them, but here's how I'm presenting how they contribute to the story, every one of them are important and share the spotlight, it's not here to cater to your whims, it just stands on its own, enjoy the ride," whereas in Chrono Trigger, it's more "Hey! You're a person in this universe taking part in this grand adventure and story! Look how many friends you have and how awesome everyone thinks you are!" As a result, it's an equally great story that has a pretty uninteresting main character by design and that occasionally feels slightly patronizing to me.

The other side of it that I didn't mention is that I also think that taking control away from the creator and giving it to the player usually hurts storytelling and presentation in general, because a carefully directed experience by someone who knows what he's doing ideally should be a lot more effective and interesting than the random childish whims of a player.

I think it says a lot more about how -you- approach a blank slate game.

It’s actually pretty disturbing.

I feel like every time we disagree about something, you immediately go into disparaging narrative mode.

 

[NyQuil]

I feel like every time we disagree about something, you immediately go into disparaging narrative mode.

It must be one of my random childish whims at work.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Unfortunately, your example goes over my head too.

Just to be clear in case it wasn't, that was a goofball attempt to pit the Witcher series' main character against a character that I made up using my own username.

The other side of it that I didn't mention is that I also think that taking control away from the creator and giving it to the player usually hurts storytelling and presentation in general, because a carefully directed experience by someone who knows what he's doing ideally should be a lot more effective and interesting than the random childish whims of a player.

To the general eye, sure, but perhaps not in the eyes of said player....which, if you think about it, is kind of what matters.

I like both styles, mind, but I definitely prefer being given the ability to insert whatever character I choose into the scenario. Other characters and general plot are still up to the writers, and there's plenty room for good writing left like you mentioned in your Chrono Trigger vs FFVI example (another example that I'm afraid went over my head, as I haven't played either of those games ).

 

[NyQuil]

Either way, I like both styles, although I do appreciate when a game gives you the flexibility to make choices about what kind of character you'd like to play.

What some people fail to realize is that a lot of folks are not playing themselves in these games.

It's the difference between being a spectator and more of an actor and author. Sure, you can play a character that is a white male Messiah in every game but you certainly don't have to, nor why would you want to? There are a lot of assumptions being made and it's actually quite offensive.

For my part, I don't need to have my hand held like a toddler within a story on rails. Interactive stories don't really tap into a lot of creativity or imagination on the part of the player. In which case, I'd rather just watch a film or read something worthwhile.

Not to mention, when it comes to Final Fantasy, I'm not exactly seeing a rainbow of scintillating diversity.

 

[Commander Clueless]

What some people fail to realize is that a lot of people are not playing themselves in these games.

True.

I see nothing inherently wrong with playing as an avatar similar to yourself making the choices you yourself would make in those scenarios to see how they would play out in a fantasy world. Why the heck not? I do it, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I also enjoy the ability to play as a whatever the heck I feel like at that moment.

It's the difference between being a spectator and more of an actor and author. Sure, you can play a character that is a white male Messiah in every game but you certainly don't have to, nor why would you want to? There are a lot of assumptions being made and it's actually quite offensive.

I agree. I do think there's something to be said about character creation as an effective way to make all groups feel more included.

For my part, I don't need to have my hand held like a toddler on a story on rails. Interactive stories don't really tap into a lot of creativity or imagination on the part of the player. In which case, I'd rather just watch a film or read something worthwhile.

I mean, you're still playing a video game, even if you are going through a narrative rather than participating in it. I still prefer the interactive side, personally.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I wish Star Fox 64 got more love in this poll. That game is still fantastic even today.

 

[Shareefruck]

To the general eye, sure, but perhaps not in the eyes of said player....which, if you think about it, is kind of what matters.

I like both styles, mind, but I definitely prefer being given the ability to insert whatever character I choose into the scenario. Other characters and general plot are still up to the writers, and there's plenty room for good writing left like you mentioned in your Chrono Trigger vs FFVI example (another example that I'm afraid went over my head, as I haven't played either of those games ).

For the record, I'm not trying to convince you not to like it or feel bad about it or anything. I'm just explaining what I dislike about it and why I prefer the opposite. Any toes I'm stepping on by doing so is just an incidental difference of opinion.

Again, I agree that it's not necessarily a deal-breaker that prevents good storytelling from being possible, but I do think that it's an element that usually comes at the expense of storytelling/writing, however much or little as the amount of attention that's drawn to it/the degree that the story is designed around it. And it seems to be in favor of something that I don't see as much value in, and that I view as more of a guilty pleasure thing. I'm not a fan of the appeal of escapism in general.

What some people fail to realize is that a lot of folks are not playing themselves in these games.

It's the difference between being a spectator and more of an actor and author. Sure, you can play a character that is a white male Messiah in every game but you certainly don't have to, nor why would you want to? There are a lot of assumptions being made and it's actually quite offensive.
For my part, I don't need to have my hand held like a toddler within a story on rails. Interactive stories don't really tap into a lot of creativity or imagination on the part of the player. In which case, I'd rather just watch a film or read something worthwhile.

Not to mention, when it comes to Final Fantasy, I'm not exactly seeing a rainbow of scintillating diversity.

It seems like the same difference for me. The desire to be an actor and author of a character in a videogame is still akin to a desire to want to play make-believe and live vicariously through something, and usually but not always the novelty of feeling good about being in that role, which isn't a feeling that I care much for.

I agree that it may be useful for games that have bad writing and that don't tap into a lot of creativity and imagination, as it allows you to improve it the way you see fit, but to me, that's like finding a way to superficially elevate something that doesn't matter in the first place. And yeah, I'd rather read a book or watch a movie in that scenario rather than feed that desire.

I guess ultimately, I prefer storytelling to be a spectator thing (or better yet, in a videogame, something that is non-intrusively revealed through mechanics and setting). I feel that player choice-driven storytelling, design, and character development has pretty limited reward in a videogame that is itself trying to build a worthwhile experience. It just gets in the way more than anything, IMO.

That said, now that I think about it, I do appreciate the feeling of being creative and making something myself, so I guess, in theory, games can tap into that feeling by giving me control and acting as a collaborative effort, but in practice, it never seems to feel that way unless a game goes all the way with that idea and is just a deeply involved platform for creation. More often than not, it feels like a more limited and patronizing thing to me, otherwise.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

I wish Star Fox 64 got more love in this poll. That game is still fantastic even today.

 

[Commander Clueless]

For the record, I'm not trying to convince you not to like it or feel bad about it or anything. I'm just explaining what I dislike about it and why I prefer the opposite.

I guess ultimately, I prefer storytelling to be a spectator thing (or better yet, something that is non-intrusively revealed through mechanics and setting), and only see value in interacting with mechanics. I feel that player choice-driven storytelling, design, and character development has pretty limited reward in a videogame that is trying to build a worthwhile experience.

Fair enough, and I was never trying to convince you to change your preferences either, only understand your reasoning.


I fully understand the "only a mechanics kind of guy" approach, as it's actually pretty common. I struggle with the concept of main character style being any more or less "escapist" than the other, or it being distasteful either way for that matter, but that's obviously a personal thing.

 

[SniperHF]

I wish Star Fox 64 got more love in this poll. That game is still fantastic even today.

I always liked playing tanks in Vs. mode.
And hey you got a free rumble pack.

 

[RandV]

A more obvious example I can think of is Chrono Trigger vs. Final Fantasy VI. I think they're both masterpieces, and Chrono Trigger is probably a tighter game overall. However, if there's one nitpick for me, it would be that. In FFVI, it's "these are the characters and their motivations, you can play as them, but here's how I'm presenting how they contribute to the story, every one of them are important and share the spotlight, it's not here to cater to your whims, it just stands on its own, enjoy the ride," whereas in Chrono Trigger, it's more "Hey! You're a person in this universe taking part in this grand adventure and story! Look how many friends you have and how awesome everyone thinks you are!" As a result, it's an equally great story that has a pretty uninteresting main character by design and that occasionally feels slightly patronizing to me.

I know it can seem like it but with the direction these things usually take I don't think Chrono falls into the category. When people talk about blank slate characters, they're usually talking about blank slate adventures - the Bethesda type thing where you choose who you want to be and what you want to do. In the JRPG sphere there's the old standard of the silent protagonist, seen with Chrono or series like Dragon Quest or Suikoden, where the lead character doesn't ever actually say anything outside of you getting a dialogue option.

These games though the gameplay and the story is still 'on rails', same as pretty much any other JRPG. I think the more accurate way to describe the approach here is that it's trying to do the story from a 1st person perspective, where as Final Fantasy and the like use the 3rd person perspective.

Otherwise though I do understand what you're saying. My own way of putting it from a completely different angle that requires no anime reference, and which really first stuck out to me while playing Oblivion, is that these games can basically turn into the Harry Truman Show. The 90's Jim Carey movie where he starts to get the sense that everything revolves around him... which is actually entirely true because he's unknowingly the star of the worlds most elaborate reality TV show and everyone he's ever known has just been an actor playing a part. While they can create these highly detailed worlds, ultimately the only thing that really matters in it is your character. Wherever you go or whoever you join, you're the one and only hero/villain in the world everyone is waiting for to come save/ruin the day.

Now it sounds like I'm being critical here when I early when I said earlier this was a matter of preference, but really these things type of things are just pro's & con's that while they may be more likely to originate in one can effect either linear or non-linear to various degrees. My personal preference is towards linear games simply because I favour lengthy fiction novels and I will favour that over gameplay. There's no such thing as a great choose your own adventure novel.

 

[Shareefruck]

I know it can seem like it but with the direction these things usually take I don't think Chrono falls into the category. When people talk about blank slate characters, they're usually talking about blank slate adventures - the Bethesda type thing where you choose who you want to be and what you want to do. In the JRPG sphere there's the old standard of the silent protagonist, seen with Chrono or series like Dragon Quest or Suikoden, where the lead character doesn't ever actually say anything outside of you getting a dialogue option.

These games though the gameplay and the story is still 'on rails', same as pretty much any other JRPG. I think the more accurate way to describe the approach here is that it's trying to do the story from a 1st person perspective, where as Final Fantasy and the like use the 3rd person perspective.

Otherwise though I do understand what you're saying. My own way of putting it from a completely different angle that requires no anime reference, and which really first stuck out to me while playing Oblivion, is that these games can basically turn into the Harry Truman Show. The 90's Jim Carey movie where he starts to get the sense that everything revolves around him... which is actually entirely true because he's unknowingly the star of the worlds most elaborate reality TV show and everyone he's ever known has just been an actor playing a part. While they can create these highly detailed worlds, ultimately the only thing that really matters in it is your character. Wherever you go or whoever you join, you're the one and only hero/villain in the world everyone is waiting for to come save/ruin the day.

Now it sounds like I'm being critical here when I early when I said earlier this was a matter of preference, but really these things type of things are just pro's & con's that while they may be more likely to originate in one can effect either linear or non-linear to various degrees. My personal preference is towards linear games simply because I favour lengthy fiction novels and I will favour that over gameplay. There's no such thing as a great choose your own adventure novel.

Yep. Totally. And for the record, my Chrono Trigger example was more of an "Even in this masterpiece where it's only done a little tiny bit, it still somewhat negatively affects the experience for me" type comment rather than it being an example of a huge offender.

Fair enough, and I was never trying to convince you to change your preferences either, only understand your reasoning.

Right. Just confirming, since Nyquil seemed to take it as a personal affront.

 

[Oogie Boogie]

I honestly spent the most amount of time with Quake II out of any of these games, but went with FF7.
A LOT of time was spent on Zone.com and GameSpy Arcade with Quake II and other games (Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear and Age of Empires II for instance)

 

[Commander Clueless]

Otherwise though I do understand what you're saying. My own way of putting it from a completely different angle that requires no anime reference, and which really first stuck out to me while playing Oblivion, is that these games can basically turn into the Harry Truman Show. The 90's Jim Carey movie where he starts to get the sense that everything revolves around him... which is actually entirely true because he's unknowingly the star of the worlds most elaborate reality TV show and everyone he's ever known has just been an actor playing a part. While they can create these highly detailed worlds, ultimately the only thing that really matters in it is your character. Wherever you go or whoever you join, you're the one and only hero/villain in the world everyone is waiting for to come save/ruin the day.

Interesting.

What do you see as the difference between that and a narrative driven game in which you play as a set character?

The unique thing about The Truman Show was for one of the characters, he didn't know he was in a show. I don't really see anything particularly unique about a TV show in which the fictional world revolves around the main character or group of characters....in fact, that's kind of the point, no?

There's no such thing as a great choose your own adventure novel.

Really? Damn. Loved those things as a kid.

 

[RandV]

Interesting.

What do you see as the difference between that and a narrative driven game in which you play as a set character?

The unique thing about The Truman Show was for one of the characters, he didn't know he was in a show. I don't really see anything particularly unique about a TV show in which the fictional world revolves around the main character or group of characters....in fact, that's kind of the point, no?




Really? Damn. Loved those things as a kid.

Don't get me wrong I liked the choose your own adventure novels as a kid too, and there's no reason they can't be well written. Rather it's just an unsolveable technical problem: giving the audience choice to drive the narrative requires an exponentially more writing. Perhaps the best example of this in gaming is comparing where both are exceptionally well written is Portal vs The Stanley Parable. Portal is a straight line that takes about 2 hours to play in 1 playthrough. You'll spend about 2 hours seeing all of TSP as well, except it's done in multiple 5-10 minute playthroughs.

The Witcher 2 is another good example. The player is given many choices, but that just means a given play through lasts 20 hours and you'll only see maybe 1/3rd of the game. While you can make that 20 hour story well written, you could tell a lot more story if you just made the game a linear 60 hour experience. Other RPG's with player choice, like Bethesda, don't really do that either, rather they just give you an open sandbox full of small unconnected stories that you can move through at your leisure until you get back to the main quest line, which tends to be mediocre. That can be fun in it's own right but you will always be able to build a bigger & stronger narrative (and I'm a fan of big epic fantasy book series) if you put the story on rails.