i'm not seeing pokemon on that list. :(

among others, yeah...

I agree. This list does seem pretty much caught in last century.
I am in accord with Tetris, Super Mario Bros 3, Civilization, Doom, and Warcraft.

I'm surprised Unreal Tournament or like you said Half Life 2 isn't in there or yeah-- can't think of anything else right now.

why SMB 3 and not the first one?
why Doom and not wolfenstein?
why warcraft and not everquest?

why tetris and not pong?!

WHY!?!

also, there are no MUDs (the OG MMORPGS) and no nethack. off the top of my head, those are the main issues i have with this list.

Tetris > Pong :O

(Atari has turned me off Pong in general. The right player has a glitchy side)

yeah pong is crap but it IS like the OG of OG games.

Yeah :\ but because it's crap it's not on the list.

lol. ok that's valid.

The point is lost here, I think.

Regardless of what you say, Pong is STILL important. In fact, if it weren't for Pong's initial popularity as an arcade in 1972, videogames wouldn't have lived long enough to see the Arcade's golden age in 1979, and shape gaming as it is today.

Granted, Space War started the whole trend in the first place, but as Computer game ported to the arcade, it wasn't very popular. Still, if Nolan Bushnell didn't take the revenue from that attempt and capitalized on Ralph Baer's creation, the community wouldn't be here right now.

But yes, I don't understand Star Raiders' significance on this list, and the only thing Super Mario 3 has going for it was record-breaking sales. Not exactly 'important' when you consider Super Mario Brothers single-handedly saved videogames from the '84 crash.

And maybe it's a good thing Half Life 2 isn't on that list, because FOR LAST FREAKIN' TIME, GRAPHICS DO NOT MAKE THE GAMEPLAY! Dammit....Last Century? Are you twelve or something?

last century = 20th (eg 199X) vs this century = 21st (eg 200X). Do you see any games from 200X on that list?

and it's not *JUST* about the graphics for hl2. it's about the physics engine (physics actually being incorporated into a game is pretty amazing) and their facial expression software. the fact that games now have to rise to new levels and that companies spend years crafting environments -- that's pretty impressive and worthwhile to note.

the point of this list is obviously videogame classics (as per the article). however, that shouldn't obviate the need to discuss what's going on currently in the industry.

They did mention that it was the whole Warcraft series and not World of Warcraft - there is a difference.

But I do agree with the doom/wolfenstien and the SMB3/SMB. =/

Tetris was a phenominom. It came bundled with the original Gameboy and was a reason why some units sold. =/

yeah i just realized warcraft != WoW. i'm silly.

but pong is still the OG game. yes tetris is still quite popular on everyone's phones and whatnot, but if they are truly talking about games that sparked genre creation, well, pong is maybe the original two-player videogame, right?

True, but tetris helped out the Gameboy create the hand held market. I would say that they both have their place.

I would say Everquest gave a lot to the gaming world, as did Halflife/Counter Strike. Stuff like Singstar/Guitar Hero too because they were so different from the mashing keys games.

even more than GH, i would say DDR. and yeah, everquest before WoW, most def. everquest has been around much longer and was really one of the first big MMORPGs. however, i would say that if they can include text based games (like zork) then they should include the OG MUDs, like new moon.

Warcraft, people, not WoW. They're not comparing MMORPGs here. The Warcraft games were RTSes!!!! See where it says "Warcraft series (beginning 1994)" and NOT "World of Warcraft (beginning 2004)"?

Reading comprehension ftw!

::rolls eyes::

Thank you!

I'm glad I'm not the only one that is getting a little peeved that people are seeing Warcraft and thinking WoW!

*headdesk*

yeah i figured that out but then i was like "wha? no multiplayer online games listed?" i just don't buy that spacewar! is a serious multiplayer online game akin to what we have nowadays.

Where's the original Legend of Zelda? Wasn't it revolutionary for save files and layout design or something?

I'd definitely say Zelda should be on there. So many games have tried to copy it. Or Grand Theft Auto...

As far as "trapped in the last century"... remember that new games haven't had much time to make an impact yet. These are supposed to be the grandmothers of the games we see today. Though I agree the list is definitely off.

true, but i think it's interesting that they make some distinction in the gaming world -- games can be around for ten years and become classics. but movies take at least 50? what? will it be different when videogames have been around for a century? i wonder...

Well, considering the gaming industry is about 25 or so years old... I think 10 years is plenty. :P

It might change when the industry ages some more, who knows. *shrugs*

Where the hell is Pac-Man?!

Alucard: Where the hell is Symphony of the Night?!

I agree with a lot of it. I'm confused as to why Civ1&2 get to live together but not SMB1&3, though.

I also think Warcraft is grossly overrated and most of what it supposedly accomplished was actually accomplished earlier with Dune 2 and C&C games.

Half-Life 2 was actually kind of a failure considering its hype. The story was bland and uninteresting. I guess these guys just don't care much about graphics, and neither do I so I don't blame them.

graphics are super important in games now, and half-life two is a sign of that importance becoming culturally relevant. the fact that valve spent soooo much time developing that game...it's pretty insane when you think about it. i can understand not caring about graphics, but obviously the times are changing and the people want more and more realistic games. and now the technology is possible...yeah. it's a feedback loop.

But graphics alone will never make a game great.

It seems a lot of people fail to realize this. =(

People seem to always forget how awesome C&C games were.

I say 'were' because EA fucked everything up ok :(

Oh I know. That whole "building clearing" mechanic in C&C Generals and 3 makes me sick. It's become the ultimate rock-paper-scissors match; there's a lot of strategy involved but no tactics anymore.

Um WTFLOLLERSKATES?

No Pac-man or Legend of Zelda? What the hell is Sensible World of Soccer? If we're talking sports games I'd throw Madden up there. What about Metal Gear Solid? Street Fighter?

I just finished reading the article and I still don't understand why they chose the games they did. Some "video game researchers" pfft.

i have to say i agree with street fighter. truly, that was the start of a whole new era (mortal kombat? videogames = deadly teenagers?).

Other than the fact that I have no idea what Sensible World of Soccer is (I'm assuming one of the first decent sports game, from context) the list makes perfect sense to me.

Sensible Soccer seems to be a highly influential game in Europe. Many of my Euro friends mention it when they remember "classic" or "pivotal" games in history.

I am confused. If we've got the Sensible World of Soccer on this list, what about something that was fun? How about Final Fantasy? Pick one.

Or Resident Evil?

....And now I have a terrible mental image of Zombies playing Soccer, GREAT. Oh god, and Leon's the goalie.

yes! soccer zombies! zomg!

This list is just off...

The original SMB?
The original LoZ?
Street Fighter?
Final Fantasy?

Blargh, and am I the only one that realizes when they say "Warcraft" they don't mean WoW?

=/

Sensible World of Soccer...? Bwa?

Hmm some of these I agree with and some of them I can't say I've even heard of. Sensible World of Soccer? WTF? I wonder how far WOW would have gotten if it had been called Sensible World of Warcraft. Heh.

On an entirely different note, Zork ROCKED. That game is how I learned to type. I was so obsessed with all of those Infocom games when I was a kid. Makes me feel like telling some people, "When I was your age, we didn't have these fancy graphics! We had to TYPE everything, and we LIKED it!"

word @ zork. that game was crazy awesome. and in a way, more interactive than a lot of games nowadays.

Dude, MARIO 64! The true advent of 3-D gaming, hello?! This list is nicht gut.

they stop at 1994. no luv for the 21st century, man.

Super Mario Brothers was way more important than the 3rd one. Sure the 3rd is one of the most kickass sequels ever, but the 1st pretty much single-handedly brought gaming out of the handhe... um, console ghetto.

I'd also say the lack of Super Mario 64 is ridiculous. That game pretty much defined the 3D standards that were used in 95% of 3D games since.

And of course the Legend of Zelda. Can't even imagine where games would be without that one.

i guess they picked smb3 because you could go forward AND backward. whoa.

This was actually a talk given at GDC and basically each person brought their own opinion which was clearly swayed by their backgrounds (like the soccer guy who thought that soccer was wonderful and thus the sensible world of soccer should be on the list even tho no one has even heard of it).

I wanna know where pac-man is or hell OXO?
Also I'd say while Zork might be a first it's not the catalyst for that genre or any motion...
I wanted to hear about games that changed tides that made new genres, etc. Not "here are my favorite games and now I'll tell you why". bleh.

yes i feel that a lot of these lists are "here are my favorite games." i want to know how they came up with these. like it really doesn't seem that they did much research. maybe they did, but i get the feeling they didn't.

Not to sound like obnoxious (I lurk on this community, and have for a year now), but I was at GDC, and the reason they picked those games wasn't for their importance to gamers, but to the way that developers make games. I have to say that if the director of Deus Ex (who was on the panel) says that a game is really good, I'll trust his judgment.

I don't think that it's about games that are being made that influence gaming today as much as setting a standard for what should be added to the canon of classic/great games. It's like being mad that the Lord of the Rings movies haven't been added to a list that includes Citizen Kane, The Bicycle Thief, and Nanook of the North.

For example: the reason that Super Mario 3 made the list, and not the original game is because of the way that it broke down the conventions of side scrolling games. The player could choose a path that wasn't necessarily linear, and that was part of why it was a departure from typical platformers. I'm sure that the canon will expand next year; this panel was pretty controversial, and it's certainly inspired a lot of conversation.

Rather than being mad about the opinion of researchers and developers who've been making games as long as most of us have been playing them, please consider that GDC is like the polar opposite of E3. It's the only time of the year that developers can talk about the process of making games instead of a hype train overshadowing the work of many prominent individuals.

I'm going back to lurking now. :P