GameFAQs Game of the Decade Daily Polls...

[Rummy]

Ok I kinda gave up on the last few posts because they're so long, but I do in some respects agree/understand what Oxigen is saying; emotional decision making vs logical decision making. I won't get hung up on it though, I don't expect people to be impartial but would like if they were, sometimes it's such a close contest you can't manage to be. Tbh I think the voting numbers are so large that these problems will hopefully be either negligible, or rather a true representation of what the whole general population thinks.

 

 

I AM glad MM won, it was a better game than FFX imo. However, I was always thinking from the beginning it could win the whole thing for basically being a sort of OoT expansion pack. I'm finding today's decision very difficult, as whilst I DO love MM(probably more so than Brawl) and it's one of my favourite games ever, it's easy to look at it more fondly than Brawl because Brawl can feel a bit more casual, and there's also the two previous iterations in the Smash Bros series, so I think it's easy to overlook how unique their whole gamestyle is.

 

Brawl did do one thing I never even expected it to manage, and that was to improve siginifcantly on its predecessor for me.

[Tales]

I have to annoy Oxigen a little bit more. Never liked fighting games so MM get my vote today. I still wish FFX won.

 

Only 211 votes difference between MM and FFX!

Edited December 23, 2010 by Tales

[The Bard]

Final Fantasy X is poop from a butt.

[The Peeps]

There's way more depth to MM than Brawl. I didn't think Brawl was better than Melee and Majora's Mask is better than both.

 

It's not really fair to compare games of different genres but for gameplay, story, music... essence? I'm going to vote for Majora's Mask.

 

Either way it's 2 Nintendo exclusive games in the final.

[Cube]

Majora's Mask is simply magic. Clock Town is probably the best town in any game, I found the dungeons were imaginative (even though there were only four), the three-day thing was great and the masks were brilliant. I'm glad that it's winning.

[Kav]

I'd have personally gone for Metroid Prime for the whole thing but out of the two remaining MM gets my vote!

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

 

You presume that "quality" is an attribute independant of human interpretation. As if quality is some sort of Platonic abstraction to which worldly things conform to in varying extents. I think this is kind of ridiculous, since a work of art is made entirely to be interpreted. Therefore, any qualification of worth of a work of art that situates its "quality" outside the interpretation of an individual must necessarily be socially arbitrated; ie. a things worth is quantified by its overall value to society. Of course, my use of the word "arbitrated" was not coincidential, since social worth is entirely arbitrary, and subject to the discursive shifts in the zeitgeist through time; what is valuable to a society is contingent on the attributes of that society in any one moment in time, which is something that you can never ever holistically determine. And regardless of all this, society at large is not a sentient mass, its value is placed in the individual, who begins to differentiate from the moment he is born, and is thus evidently going to have a different nuance in perception from everyone else. To impose objectivity is to homogenise the individual, and take away the qualities that give them worth in the first place.

 

Quality, or worth, cannot be situated outside the individual. Of course what you can do is get an idea of that persons socio-ideological position by virtue of the things that he comes to associate himself with, including works of art. I can get an inkling of a persons attitude towards the idea of love (as well as a whole host of other things) from whether they prefer the film Lost In Translation or Twilight for example. Of course, this assumes that we shared correlating interpretations of the two films, and didn't come to entirely different conclusions. The whole system operates on assumptions and analogies. And we all analogise differently because we've all had different experiences. About now, I assume you can see the lack of surety and finality there is in any work of art.

 

Sorry dude, I really used to agree with you. Unfortunately, nothing that pertains to interpretation can ever be anything other than subjective. I think your ideas of quality are dependant on the verdicts of conoisseurs and critics of the specific mediums that you're talking about, which is fine and good, but a far cry from objectivity.

 

Why do you think Ulysses is often classed as the best book ever written by literature scholars? It because the vast array of research that can be done into it eclipses that of practically any other text, and this is really the only (although not entirely) quantifiable measure of its worth (and even then, only to a very specific group of people). Everything else is emotional interaction. I guess if you situate worth in the amount of people that have an emotional response to something, then you're taking a populist stance, which we both know the shortcomings of.

 

Inevitably, with art, there is no black and white, only infinitely expanding grey area, which is what makes it so great. Because the possibilities for exploration, interpretation and debate are almost endless. Hell, I just came up for an analogy between Call of Duty's multiplayer and the American middle class, but that doesn't tell me anything about some inherent quality the game has. Only that my brain is odd.

 

Sorry for the long post, and also for the retarded language. Was writing an essay and this comment is just sort of a mental overflow from that.

 

It's amazing. The day has come. I have never agreed this much with you before, and I never thought I would. You have expressed exactly my thoughts on the matter - except, you know, in a much more advanced way than I could've ever hoped to.

[Jonnas]

Wow...for once, I completely agree with The Bard. It had to happen someday, I suppose.

 

Oxi, I think I can understand your line of thought. You measure the "objective quality" of a work's worth by several parameters, like the amount of effort and passion conveyed, or its complexity or ingenuity, and how much of it is conveyed to the viewer/reader/etc.

But you can't possibly call it impartial and factual. Like The Bard said, quality just can't be measured like that.

 

 

On-Topic: Woot! Majora's Mask is winning I honestly don't believe either game is the game of the decade, but MM is just sublime, which SSBB isn't.

[Supergrunch]

Bard wins the thread, although not without a little espousing of obfuscation. :wink: It would be awesome (and consistent) if Oxigen really turned out to be a Platonist though.

 

Anyhoo, Majora's Mask is still winning. Which is better than many things that could have won, although it's sadly not a game I ever really had a chance to get into.

[darksnowman]

I voted for the first time ever in one of these G-FAQs polls. Majora's Mask ftw. Great game.

 

Whilst Brawl shouldn't be there, its amazing to see two Nintendo titles contest the final. : peace:

[Fierce_LiNk]

It doesn't matter which one is ultimately "the best", but I think it's important to establish which were the highlights, in general... for future generations.

 

As for the rest. I thought SoTC was better in everything. I just had more fun with RE4. I completed the game about 10 times now. 6 in GC and 4 in Wii at the very least. The only reason it's my favourite is that I had more fun with it. And personally number two would be a tie between SoTC, Silent Hill 2, Half Life 2, Shenmue 1+2, F-Zero GX, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes and Skies Of Arcadia... because personally, these were the ones I enjoyed the most. Even if I think Metroid Prime is better than most of them.

 

 

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with your point about the games being highlights for future generations. Actually, looking at that list, there is so much quality there. I personally don't think one game "defines" a decade or a generation, but a collection. Kinda like when you listed just then all the games that you enjoy. Each of those, and countless others would speak a great deal about the quality of gaming that we've seen this decade.

 

But if we're being honest, there really is no distinction between SoTC, RE4, Metroid Prime, Half Life 2, etc... They're all as near to perfection as gaming gets, and the differences between in quality between them sort of balance each other out. And that's pretty much a fact, almost. But personally, I believe SoTC stands out of the bunch as the best.

 

This is where I think we need more detail. When you say "stands out" in what respect do you mean? As you say, these games are all high quality, so how does SoTC stand out from the others?

 

Also, I believe that this is another problem when using the poll. You're just given the "name" of the game rather than the exact reasons why you prefer that game to the other. In a way, this is why I sometimes enjoy reading these lists done by numerous websites or publications. You're given a good breakdown about what the game does well, and you begin to see why it is rated so highly. I know lots of people will be baffled as to why Brawl is rated so highly in this list, so wouldn't it be great if we could put some reasoning to it?

 

You don't get my point. The game you like the most, the game you think is the best and the game which actually IS the best are 3 different things. And in my mind, this poll should be about which game you think is the best, not the one you like most. Not because of techincality or whatever... just perceive that difference in your own head between something you like and something you think is good. This way, I think it gives a false idea of what the overall people on the gamefaq boards thought the best game of the decade was.

 

But I'm just saying the same thing over and over and over.

 

I do get your point, but what I'm saying is that there isn't enough detail in this poll for me. "Best game" just seems incredibly vague, whereas I prefer detail. Another thing is that you specifically say "in my mind." So, in my opinon, I think people have perceived this poll is different ways. Like you say, liking a game and thinking its the best are different things. It would have been far more accurate had there been more clarity at the beginning from Gamesfaqs, into what has turned into a more glorified console/franchise wars.

 

Also, you say "this poll should be about which game you think is the best": I am aware of the difference between simply enjoying something and knowing that you prefer one thing to the other for a reason. For example, in my opinion, I prefer Alien to its sequels because I think the element of horror is a lot stronger in the first film. You get a better sense of the characters etc. In terms of action, the second film is better. One is a brilliant horror film and the other is a brilliant action film. When I think of the Alien series, I think of it predominantly as a sci-fi/terror/horror franchise, rather than an action one, which it has somewhat evolved into over time. So, for that reason, thats why I prefer the first film.

 

However, this poll is purely a list of grudge matches. One game pitted against another. How do you differentiate between games such as Mario Kart Wii and Majora's Mask, since they do completely different things? Again, a more detailed poll is my preference, so "the best online game" or "the best adventure" game of the decade.

 

Edit: I can't believe we expected "more" from GameFAQS. I feel dirty.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Fierce_LiNk

[Tales]

Loving the bonus battle!

 

Link all the way

[Jonnas]

LOL Nice sense of humour

[Diageo]

[...]

Not a 100% accurate scale we're proposing here. But there are most definitely palpable levels of quality.

But I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand it, you're one of those obnoxious persons who are so insecure that they insists on creating a parade to defend everything they like just to make themselves feel justified for liking it. It's like you need to feel perfectly adequate just to live with yourself. Is it that hard to admit you have bad taste in something?

 

[...]

Long post is looooooooooong!

Well wasn't that necessary.

 

I don't need justification for anything I like. I don't need anyone else to like it for me to like it. I'm not insecure.

 

The fact that you need to go down to that level, I don't need to bother answering your questions. And don't think I'm running away. People here know I'm very eager to argue with people.

 

___________________________________________________

 

For once I actually agree with the Bard too. The day has come.

 

[mcj metroid]

Well wasn't that necessary.

 

I don't need justification for anything I like. I don't need anyone else to like it for me to like it. I'm not insecure.

 

The fact that you need to go down to that level, I don't need to bother answering your questions. And don't think I'm running away. People here know I'm very eager to argue with people.

 

___________________________________________________

 

For once I actually agree with the Bard too. The day has come.

 

 

Ever heard of "guilty pleasures"

 

Everyone has a few. Those are the things you like that you KNOW are shit and there's nothing wrong with you liking them.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Ever heard of "guilty pleasures"

 

Everyone has a few. Those are the things you like that you KNOW are shit and there's nothing wrong with you liking them.

 

That's still not the same as agreeing with the idea that objective judgement of films/music/art/etc. exists.

 

Example: I love the Matrix sequels. Most people think they're shit, but I don't. I also love the Super Mario Bros. film, but I don't think that's a great film, ergo it's a guilty pleasure.

[Kav]

Ever heard of "guilty pleasures"

 

Everyone has a few. Those are the things you like that you KNOW are shit and there's nothing wrong with you liking them.

 

This thread is becoming my guilty pleasure! Haha

[MoogleViper]

Ever heard of "guilty pleasures"

 

Everyone has a few. Those are the things you like that you KNOW are shit and there's nothing wrong with you liking them.

 

When I first read this I thought you meant that agreeing with Bard is a guilty pleasure.

[Diageo]

To me, "good, bad, shit, great," are all dependant. They don't stand by themselves, they are too vague. They have to be good at something. That's why I disagree with calling any music "shit" by itself. It's all about application.

[Ellmeister]

To me, "good, bad, shit, great," are all dependant. They don't stand by themselves, they are too vague. They have to be good at something. That's why I disagree with calling any music "shit" by itself. It's all about application.

 

You like Justin Bieber, applying the standards of any music, he is still shit :p