HF Retro Game of the Year - 1998 - Ocarina of Time

[ViktorBaeArvidsson]

The same thing for me.

PlayStation ftw lol

 

[Suxnet]

Starcraft for me.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Five all-time greats in Starcraft, Half-Life, Metal Gear Solid, Fallout 2 and Ocarina of Time.

What a year it was. So glad I was around for it.

Half-Life gets my vote: I still play Half-Life to this day and still find it engaging.

 

[Bocephus86]

Voted Half-Life but I was torn between that and Ocarina; if I could split my vote in half, I would have.

 

[PK Cronin]

Starcraft 1's campaign editor allowed the birth of the most popular game genre now, and possibly ever (mobas).

Starcraft 1 was the first game to have paid progamers with salaries (thus giving birth to professional esports). Games like Quake already had paid tournaments and such, but the players didn't have official salaries yet.

Starcraft 1 is probably the only game ever that played a MAJOR part in the culture of a whole country. I went to korea, I lived in korea, my wife is korean, and EVERYONE knows about starcraft, about the famous players, its history... Every korean male knows how to play the game at an above average level (at least those who are 20+ years old). It was as popular as a sport like hockey in Canada, and possibly more. It's a cultural phenomenon that is difficult to explain and is unlikely to ever be repeated.

Starcraft 1 is still played professionally even today in Korea, and recently had a remastered edition that gave Blizzard an incentive to organize multiple leagues/tournaments and the game is miraculously growing in popularity in the country. The sequel isn't nearly as popular.

In conclusion, I fail to see how ANY game in history even come close to the impact this game had. Even if you hated it, it would be foolish to call any other game as being more impactful than starcraft 1.

I would like to hear your reasoning behind calling OOT one of the most influential game ever. I'm genuinely curious because I personally haven't really seen the impact, but maybe you can explain it to me because I am ready to admit that I could be wrong in calling SC1 the most influential game ever

You hit the nail on the head.

This is an argument for SC1s popularity, not influence. The vast majority of people do not play games professionally, and the RTS genre is unfortunately pretty much dead.

Not it isn't. You can make a direct line between Starcraft e-sports and pretty much all other e-sports set ups today. As mentioned, mobas spawned because of Starcraft as well. So while RTS games themselves have become less popular, mobas only exist because of Starcraft.

I was attending Quake tournaments and hearing about fighting game tournaments before StarCraft existed, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Esports didn't hit a Korean-level of popularity elsewhere in the world for yeaaaars after SC was dead and gone, too, so I dunno how much credit we want to give it there. Even then, I generally view modern corporate esports as a detriment to gaming, so if anything it would just make me dislike SC even more.

Know what revolutionized esports in the west? Justin.tv.

Tournaments aren't necessarily the same thing as e-sports. E-Sports didn't happen overnight, but Starcraft laid out the model for every other game to follow. It's also still not dead, after twenty years. It's still a great game too.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Starcraft is still relevant but Ocarina of Time is more of a landmark in game design than SC.

Tournament/Popularity and design philosophie are not the same thing. Saying that SC is more of a big deal than OoT because it changed Korea is a bit silly since OoT changed 3D gaming (although not as much as Mario 64 did).

 

[syz]

Yea I don't really buy it. What "model" did SC lay out that any other popular competitive thing hadn't already done?

It was the first video game to get that popular (in a single region), but I think people are reaching to the heavens if they want to attribute that with laying any sort of foundation for the growth of esports globally.

Modern esports are a result of a change in the stigma surrounding games globally, the rise of modern, high quality, easily accessible streaming platforms, and the ever-present threat of a bunch of capitalist assholes looking to monetize anything popular. I'm not sure why we should credit StarCraft with any of those things.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Suikoden II.


Frankly there's a ton of games on this poll I find overrated to all hell, but oh well. Grim Fandango is my favorite on the poll by a good margin, but I only played it for the first time a couple years ago...not like I played Suikoden II when it came out, either.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Damn tough year. Ocarina of Time, Starcraft, and Resident Evil 2 were all fantastic games for me that I have very fond memories of. Think I have to give the slight edge to the game that has aged the best for me and is still the most enjoyable though, Starcraft.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

You hit the nail on the head.



Not it isn't. You can make a direct line between Starcraft e-sports and pretty much all other e-sports set ups today. As mentioned, mobas spawned because of Starcraft as well. So while RTS games themselves have become less popular, mobas only exist because of Starcraft.



Tournaments aren't necessarily the same thing as e-sports. E-Sports didn't happen overnight, but Starcraft laid out the model for every other game to follow. It's also still not dead, after twenty years. It's still a great game too.

First off, being the launching point for MOBAs is a negative in my eyes. And all this discussion about what SC did or didn't influence is just obfuscating the poll question of what was the best game of 1998. When all you have to say for SC is "its still a great too" its not the best endorsement.

I've played plenty of Starcraft and would consider voting for it in 97 or 99, but it just doesn't measure up to Zelda, which is still one of the very best games ever.

 

[RandV]

Suikoden II.


Frankly there's a ton of games on this poll I find overrated to all hell, but oh well. Grim Fandango is my favorite on the poll by a good margin, but I only played it for the first time a couple years ago...not like I played Suikoden II when it came out, either.

My votes as well, so I'll have to abstain from an actual vote out of protest!... Though if I had to pick one from the list it would be Balders Gate. It's a shame though because for JRPG's the Final Fantasy series gets all the love but in my opinion there are (or now it's there were) better games out there, Suikoden II being a prime example that I'd probably consider my #1 all time favourite JRPG.

Oh and if you're a fan of Suikoden II and haven't heard of or played the Trails series, I'd recommend looking up Trails in the Sky (first chapter) on Steam. Was originally a PSP game that got ported there, not quite the same but closest JRPG I've seen to the Suikoden series.

 

[RandV]

Starcraft was always kind of an odd spot for me, should be a game I loved but I just couldn't get there. Warcraft II was my first RTS, holds the nostalgia for me and gets all the love, didn't have Battle.net at the time but just playing friends over LAN I was a pro at it and never lost. But Starcraft? The campaign was okay but I could never quite get the hang of it at multiplayer. Eventually a battle.net version of WC2 was released and just playing random games it always amazed me just how bad people are at it, yet I get into a good amount of Star Craft 2 and have trouble getting out of the bronze category. I never played much multiplayer Brood War but I know I'd be even worse at that.

 

[Realgud]

Yea I don't really buy it. What "model" did SC lay out that any other popular competitive thing hadn't already done?

It was the first video game to get that popular (in a single region), but I think people are reaching to the heavens if they want to attribute that with laying any sort of foundation for the growth of esports globally.

Modern esports are a result of a change in the stigma surrounding games globally, the rise of modern, high quality, easily accessible streaming platforms, and the ever-present threat of a bunch of capitalist *******s looking to monetize anything popular. I'm not sure why we should credit StarCraft with any of those things.

SC was the first game to have real sponsored teams paying salaries to their players, all because of the result of their passion and the ever growing popularity of the game because of how well designed the 3 distinct races were, leading to a fantastic game to watch and/or play.

Yeah, like I pointed out too, other games like Quake already had tournaments but it was the equivalent of signing up to a hockey tournament with a group of friends rather than being drafted and playing in the NHL. If you hate what SC brought, then you must hate the NHL and other big leagues?

And also, I would agree that gaming is "worse" now but this isn't SC's fault. Anything that becomes popular is bound to be corrupted by some greedy hands at one point, it would be naive to think otherwise. Should have Blizzard made the game worse on purpose? If anything this just proves how great the game is/was.

 

[Realgud]

First off, being the launching point for MOBAs is a negative in my eyes. And all this discussion about what SC did or didn't influence is just obfuscating the poll question of what was the best game of 1998. When all you have to say for SC is "its still a great too" its not the best endorsement.

I've played plenty of Starcraft and would consider voting for it in 97 or 99, but it just doesn't measure up to Zelda, which is still one of the very best games ever.

If it's a negative, then fine. I do not like League of Legends or DOTA but I really like Heroes of the Storm. But beyond mobas, the campaign editor allowed for many "proof of concept" kind of maps to come out and some of them became more popular and influential as a result. I personally was a big fan of "bound" maps, which were kind of like pattern puzzles with explosion where you had to reach the end of each stage without dying. Have you ever heard of a game having a similar concept, or an entire genre based around it? Nope, and that's just one of the many examples. Putting the blame of a entire genre (because it happened to become popular) that you personally don't like on a game that allowed the players to be as creative as they could with their editor is not a good reason, but you are allowed to adhere by it.

To me it's the other way around, I wish zelda would have been 1999 and I would have voted for it, but the correct answer here is starcraft, preferences aside. And I stand by this since no one has showed me the influences the game had, and I did say I was ready to change my mind because to me OoT was just a one time experience that was really great and memorable but not as timeless as people make it out to be. I'd argue that Majora's mask was better gameplay wise but OoT had a better story.

 

[syz]

SC was the first game to have real sponsored teams paying salaries to their players, all because of the result of their passion and the ever growing popularity of the game because of how well designed the 3 distinct races were, leading to a fantastic game to watch and/or play.

Yeah, like I pointed out too, other games like Quake already had tournaments but it was the equivalent of signing up to a hockey tournament with a group of friends rather than being drafted and playing in the NHL. If you hate what SC brought, then you must hate the NHL and other big leagues?

And also, I would agree that gaming is "worse" now but this isn't SC's fault. Anything that becomes popular is bound to be corrupted by some greedy hands at one point, it would be naive to think otherwise. Should have Blizzard made the game worse on purpose? If anything this just proves how great the game is/was.

If StarCraft were as fantastic to watch and/or play as its fans seem to think, its professional success would've happened in more than one region. And again, even if it had managed to do that globally, comparing the esports side of things to the NHL simply proves my point: SC didn't "bring" that idea, it simply got popular enough in a region to see the natural progression of capitalism for any competitive platform. Poker had a higher peak in the US and I'm not gonna call that revolutionary if 20 years later another card game happens to end up on ESPN.

And in terms of the overall quality of the game I'd consider SC to be a bit of a special case. On one hand (by virtue of being the first example), it avoided the now standard procedure of dumbing down competitive games in hopes of making an impact with as large of an audience as possible; on the other hand, execs probably looked at its difficulty/intricacy as a focal point of why the game only saw isolated success competitively, so it served as proof to developers that they had to start making games easier so that Americans would feel like they'd be able to compete if they ever wanted to cash in on anything like that.

So, if anything, while SC's Korean success was isolated and wasn't especially innovative, said success has probably nonetheless contributed towards making every shooter and fighting game (among others) since then worse, and towards the RTS genre being replaced by the MOBA genre, all because some dudes in suits somewhere realized that they had to be able to hit with the lowest common denominator if they wanted to replicate that sort of success outside of Asia.

 

[NyQuil]

I recall being impressed with Starcraft's ability to create three very different factions requiring different playing styles but were ultimately all feasible under the control of the right player.

Unlike Dune II and Dune 2000 where you would just mass spam the Ordos trikes to victory.

 

[dr robbie]

I'm fairly torn between Starcraft, Gran Turismo, MGS, and OoT. All have their spot in gaming history. GT basically rewrote how a racing game could be immersive. The graphics were just so amazing at the time and you had hours and days of gameplay if you wanted (remember the freaking endurance races?). It's also the best selling franchise in Play Station history which is pretty impressive. Similarly, MGS basically became the benchmark for stealth games and rebranded the MG line of games. We probably don't even know who Solid Snake is currently if they didn't continue this line on the PS from back in the NES days and with such a success. Starcraft just became a cult classic. Probably the best RTS game ever and is still hugely popular in places (like Korea) two decades later. Two decades later and it is still popular - for a video game. Something that usually goes out of style within months. That's crazy. My only knock against it is that it was basically Warcraft II... but in space. Either way, the game was stellar. OoT... man. I'm a Nintendo guy and OoT brought the second most popular Nintendo character to the 3d realm. And they did it to perfection. They kept the puzzle solving, action, and RPG elements of the Zelda franchise and made it more powerful in a 3d universe. At the time, it was considered the perfect game and received virtually unanimously flawless reviews. Oh, and it popularized the lock targeting system that is still used in most games today.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but what an awesome year for video games.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I have to go with Metal Gear Solid. That game was pretty huuuge. One of the early defining video game moments for me.

 

[RandV]

So, if anything, while SC's Korean success was isolated and wasn't especially innovative, said success has probably nonetheless contributed towards making every shooter and fighting game (among others) since then worse, and towards the RTS genre being replaced by the MOBA genre, all because some dudes in suits somewhere realized that they had to be able to hit with the lowest common denominator if they wanted to replicate that sort of success outside of Asia.

Rather than putting Starcraft up for blame here I've always had the opinion that it was Blizzard themselves largely responsible through first Diablo and then WoW. That's a whole other discussion, but either way RTS' had been on the backburner for a good while before MOBA's blew up, so I don't think you can really say it "replaced" them. While the MOBA concept evolved from an RTS it more or less became it's own separate genre.

Although I guess from the competitive angle you had Starcraft 2 make a resurgence just before MOBA's really started taking off and buried it, but that's more coincidental.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

My only knock against it is that it was basically Warcraft II... but in space.

it originally was going to be exactly that

 

[Pilky01]

I have to go with Metal Gear Solid. That game was pretty huuuge. One of the early defining video game moments for me.

I am not about to change my vote from OOT but MGS is getting criminally few votes here.

There is a clear split here between console and PC gamers, and unfortunately for MGS, it isn't the torch bearer for the console side.

I wonder as well if the subsequent shitshow that has become of the Metal Gear franchise hasn't tarnished the legacy of the original MGS.

 

[PK Cronin]

Yea I don't really buy it. What "model" did SC lay out that any other popular competitive thing hadn't already done?

It was the first video game to get that popular (in a single region), but I think people are reaching to the heavens if they want to attribute that with laying any sort of foundation for the growth of esports globally.

Modern esports are a result of a change in the stigma surrounding games globally, the rise of modern, high quality, easily accessible streaming platforms, and the ever-present threat of a bunch of capitalist *******s looking to monetize anything popular. I'm not sure why we should credit StarCraft with any of those things.

As mentioned, Starcraft was the first game that had professional teams playing a game who were paid regardless of winning tournaments. I'd also argue that things like GOMtv and SC2 streaming helped make Twitch as popular was it is today.

You're saying that what developed for SC is a natural progression, but it didn't happen for any other game that didn't intent to be an e-sport I don't think. Now companies are trying to make their games e-sports because they saw how much of a success it was with Starcraft.

The balance in the game was a huge factor in making it so popular too, and it's really being discounted here.

First off, being the launching point for MOBAs is a negative in my eyes. And all this discussion about what SC did or didn't influence is just obfuscating the poll question of what was the best game of 1998. When all you have to say for SC is "its still a great too" its not the best endorsement.

I've played plenty of Starcraft and would consider voting for it in 97 or 99, but it just doesn't measure up to Zelda, which is still one of the very best games ever.

So it spawned one of the most popular genre's in gaming but because you don't like that genre, then it's a negative? I don't even like MOBAs, but I recognize how popular they are.

A game holding up over 20 years and still being good is definitely a good endorsement, how is it not? It's an incredibly balanced game that stood the test of time.

Zelda is one of the very best games ever, because it's still good to play after 20 years is a good endorsement but saying the same for Starcraft isn't? Jeez. I happen to really enjoy Zelda and think it's also a great game that still holds up well, but I don't remember being blown away by anything other than the storytelling.

If StarCraft were as fantastic to watch and/or play as its fans seem to think, its professional success would've happened in more than one region. And again, even if it had managed to do that globally, comparing the esports side of things to the NHL simply proves my point: SC didn't "bring" that idea, it simply got popular enough in a region to see the natural progression of capitalism for any competitive platform. Poker had a higher peak in the US and I'm not gonna call that revolutionary if 20 years later another card game happens to end up on ESPN.

And in terms of the overall quality of the game I'd consider SC to be a bit of a special case. On one hand (by virtue of being the first example), it avoided the now standard procedure of dumbing down competitive games in hopes of making an impact with as large of an audience as possible; on the other hand, execs probably looked at its difficulty/intricacy as a focal point of why the game only saw isolated success competitively, so it served as proof to developers that they had to start making games easier so that Americans would feel like they'd be able to compete if they ever wanted to cash in on anything like that.

So, if anything, while SC's Korean success was isolated and wasn't especially innovative, said success has probably nonetheless contributed towards making every shooter and fighting game (among others) since then worse, and towards the RTS genre being replaced by the MOBA genre, all because some dudes in suits somewhere realized that they had to be able to hit with the lowest common denominator if they wanted to replicate that sort of success outside of Asia.

Starcraft did have success in more than one region, and I'm not sure why you seem to think it didn't. Was it as popular in the U.S.? No, but that doesn't mean it wasn't played at all. Idra was fantastic on the international level, and he was an American.

And again, it wasn't intended to be an e-sport. That is much more impressive than games that are forced into the role.




I don't mind that people think OoT is a better game, it has great elements, but the downplaying of Starcraft's significance is just lunacy. It's one of the most influential games in history, much more so than OoT in my opinion.

 

[syz]

Reminder that the best game of last year was directly influenced by OoT.

Starting to feel like StarCraft falls into the "baby's first X" category like Halo or FF7, where people think a good thing was revolutionary because they just didn't know any better at the time. It was a great game and it's cool that people enjoyed it, but to believe that it had any positive long-term influence is crazy.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

As mentioned, Starcraft was the first game that had professional teams playing a game who were paid regardless of winning tournaments. I'd also argue that things like GOMtv and SC2 streaming helped make Twitch as popular was it is today.

You're saying that what developed for SC is a natural progression, but it didn't happen for any other game that didn't intent to be an e-sport I don't think. Now companies are trying to make their games e-sports because they saw how much of a success it was with Starcraft.

The balance in the game was a huge factor in making it so popular too, and it's really being discounted here.



So it spawned one of the most popular genre's in gaming but because you don't like that genre, then it's a negative? I don't even like MOBAs, but I recognize how popular they are.

A game holding up over 20 years and still being good is definitely a good endorsement, how is it not? It's an incredibly balanced game that stood the test of time.

Zelda is one of the very best games ever, because it's still good to play after 20 years is a good endorsement but saying the same for Starcraft isn't? Jeez. I happen to really enjoy Zelda and think it's also a great game that still holds up well, but I don't remember being blown away by anything other than the storytelling.



Starcraft did have success in more than one region, and I'm not sure why you seem to think it didn't. Was it as popular in the U.S.? No, but that doesn't mean it wasn't played at all. Idra was fantastic on the international level, and he was an American.

And again, it wasn't intended to be an e-sport. That is much more impressive than games that are forced into the role.




I don't mind that people think OoT is a better game, it has great elements, but the downplaying of Starcraft's significance is just lunacy. It's one of the most influential games in history, much more so than OoT in my opinion.

I mean, the combat in most non-FPS games nowadays is derivative of OOT, but OK.

And my opinion in these polls has never taken future influence into account, only how good the game is on its own merits. For example, I'm not going to vote for Goldeneye because it popularized local multiplayer shooters, it's a flawed game.

 

[PK Cronin]

Reminder that the best game of last year was directly influenced by OoT.

Starting to feel like StarCraft falls into the "baby's first X" category like Halo or FF7, where people think a good thing was revolutionary because they just didn't know any better at the time. It was a great game and it's cool that people enjoyed it, but to believe that it had any positive long-term influence is crazy.

I've played tons of RTS games and console games, many before I ever touched Starcraft. It's hands down the best RTS game. Age of Empires II is my other personal favorite, but it doesn't hold up as well and wasn't as balanced. It's not just a case of

I mean, the combat in most non-FPS games nowadays is derivative of OOT, but OK.

And my opinion in these polls has never taken future influence into account, only how good the game is on its own merits. For example, I'm not going to vote for Goldeneye because it popularized local multiplayer shooters, it's a flawed game.

What combat was is derivative of OoT?

If that's the way you're judging the games, I totally get it and could see why you wouldn't rank it as high.