l0rddavid

Apr 11 2011, 06:02 PM

I think it hardly appropriate for there to be a list of 1001 video games to play before you die... I mean, it took about a century of film to round out the 1001 films list, and games have had less than half that time. Plus, creatively and technically (from a design standpoint, not hardware) I think games have a good way to go before they're really ready for this treatment (I'd like to provide an analogy, but its difficult to come up with a proper one for this situation since other mediums developed radically differently than games have). Honestly, there are probably nowhere near 1001 games that really are necessary works for the aspiring 21st century Renaissance man. Probably upwards of a 100, maybe more if he wanted to specialize in the medium. And besides, games simply take much longer than films; one could get through the essential films of a decade in the time it takes to complete Fallout 3. So being told 1001 are essential is a bit of a load.

That said, I'm probably taking this far too seriously and plan to look at the book anyway because I love me some lists.

kuroi

Apr 11 2011, 09:58 PM

l0rddavid

Apr 11 2011, 06:02 PM

I think it hardly appropriate for there to be a list of 1001 video games to play before you die... I mean, it took about a century of film to round out the 1001 films list, and games have had less than half that time. Plus, creatively and technically (from a design standpoint, not hardware) I think games have a good way to go before they're really ready for this treatment (I'd like to provide an analogy, but its difficult to come up with a proper one for this situation since other mediums developed radically differently than games have). Honestly, there are probably nowhere near 1001 games that really are necessary works for the aspiring 21st century Renaissance man. Probably upwards of a 100, maybe more if he wanted to specialize in the medium. And besides, games simply take much longer than films; one could get through the essential films of a decade in the time it takes to complete Fallout 3. So being told 1001 are essential is a bit of a load.

That said, I'm probably taking this far too seriously and plan to look at the book anyway because I love me some lists.

Do you hold this opinion because game technology evolved faster than movie technology, or is it just because you honestly don't think that enough games are worthy of this type of list?

I honestly think you underestimate the sheer amount of really, really good games. The difference between movies and games is that good movies have a purpose other than raw entertainment. Good movies make you think, evoke an emotion, or even just confuse you. Yes, it is possible for games to get those same reactions from consumers, but a good game doesn't require that it does.

The pure presence of progression from early arcade games, to home consoles, to PC's and High Definition consoles is nearly unmatched in any other category of entertainment. I think it's highly unrealistic to apply the standards of movie rankings to videogames, because they're completely different beasts.

I do, in fact, own this book, though I've only read up to page 67. I have thumbed through the pages, and I have yet to see a title that I feel doesn't belong there. Not only is there a write up of each game, but the history and importance behind it. I'd give this book a chance if I were you.