Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Classic Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Attempting To Create A Gaming Canon 160

Posted by simoniker from the who's-first-to-be-canonized? dept.
David Thomas writes "There's a newly posted list of games every developer should know over at Costik.com, and a similar recent attempt at The Ludologist - both articles concern the idea of a 'canon' of games. Like a literary canon, the idea is there is a list of classic games anyone serious about games should have played, in the same way any serious lit person will have read through the canon of literary works." Gentlemen, look over the lists, and please start your heckling now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Attempting To Create A Gaming Canon More

Attempting To Create A Gaming Canon

Comments Filter:

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Personally, I was more impressed by the comments to the Costik list on their website - particularly that they corrected the *ahem* UScentric nature of the original list.

      The world of games is a worldwide thing, and to miss out important games from Europe is to miss a lot.

      Or maybe I'm just sulking because the list didn't include Elite...

      • Can you give a link to the comments on the Costik list? They've got them hidden behind a damn Javascript link that I can't get Mozilla *or* IE to recognize.

        An ordinary HTML link would've done fine. Why do people *do* that?

        Chris Mattern
    • However the ludologist's list was far better on the old school systems such as Amigas and Spectrums. What is the purpose of such lists? To give game designers ideas? The best way would not to divide them into genres but to label them in a way that gives some indication of what should be looked for. Take starcraft. A fine RTS, but why. I would argue for its game balance, but mainly for the pure personality and individualness of the units. The zerg, protoss and terrans each had different and strong charact

  • Will we ever learn... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @09:44AM (#7327949)
    Having just come out of a liberal arts program, I know all too well that there is a great deal of contemporary scholarship bemoaning the fact that there is a canon. Say what you will about it, but post-modern scholarship is quite right when it says that the very existence of a canon restrains us. While it might make indoctrination more efficient, all a canon really is is a set of volumes (of whatever media) that some self-proclaimed experts say are required to appreciate said media. That creates a power structure in at least an abstract sense between the canon-makers and the canon-supplicants. And what do these people really know?

    There is only one purpose of a canon. There is an established structure of experts, and they're worried that the "common people" don't appreciate games the way they do, thus trivilizing them. So in order to indoctrinate them with similar value systems (even about video games) they manufacture a canon defining what they claim is "good" in a video game.

    Fuck that! Like most social structures, groups of critics judge games with 90% finger-in-the-wind and 10% what they actually let themselves think for themselves. Suuure, Black and White is a reallly great game. Thanks, IGN/GameSpot/your favorite gaming rag. Are these the people who should decide what is "important" or "critical" to play before you can "properly appreciate" games?

    What is wrong with exploring for yourself?

    I don't want to sound to matrixy, but in the end, it's all about control. Organisations like EA will eat this shit up.

    S[0o0]2

    • Re:Will we ever learn... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kurosawdust ( 654754 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @10:04AM (#7328125)
      What is wrong with exploring for yourself?

      a) in most fields, this is not an option. Would you care to explore for yourself the world of literature? Not totally unguided you wouldn't - there are way too many books and way too many bad books out there to go through without a torch of some sort (teacher, friend with similar interests, website that recommended good books before, etc.).

      b) this may not apply to you, but many people actually like being told what to do. They won't come right out and say it, of course, but it seems to stem from a psychological impasse, a bit of being gunshy if you will - people are unsure of the direction they are taking and want some kind of confirmation, a word from "on high" (which manifests itself as imperatives or advice from bosses, teachers, parents, etc) so they have an affirmation that what they are doing is Right and Good and Will Not Fail. Sartre touched on this with his famous quote "man is condemned to be free" - we all want the beauty and liberation of freedom, but we are scared as hell of being solely responsible for our own decisions.

      I agree with you that having a literary canon along the lines of "if it's on this list, it's good; if it's not, it's worthless crap" is ridiculous - however, the reason that we are inclined towards establishing a list of works of literature that earned the good housekeeping seal of approval is to save us the time of wading through the bad ones. For what its worth, I find just establishing trusted sources and taking recommendations from them (letting yourself be the final judge, of course) works wonderfully.

      • I'd say that both of you have a point. On one hand, I'd say that we should value the value of peer review. If a lot of people say that a book is particularly good, then we should likely give it a shot. I still have yet to read (or watch, FWIW) The Count of Monte Cristo, despite a number of recommendations, but I recognize that it's a good idea to do so, and intend to read it.

        However, I *also* find it annoying when I see people criticizing literature because it doesn't follow what they consider to be sol
      • It's not just "many people" and it *does* apply to you. Humans are pack animals. Read about Milgram's authority experiments.
        • I did - from what I have read, about 60% of the people in the first experiment administered (what they believed to be) shocks beyond the learner's threshold of pain. As far as I know, this percentage was never again reached in the subsequent experiments as variables were separated (eg learner and teacher in the same room, teacher having to physically put learners hand on shock plate, etc) - I never said that it didn't apply to me personally, but since 60% 100%, it obviously does not apply to everyone.
          • 60% of the subjects went to the maximum setting. I can't find a reference for this, but I believe 100% went beyond the point where the learner began to indicate he was in pain.
            • You are correct - I misunderstood the 60% figure, and upon second inspection it does apply to the maximum setting, not the pain-threshold setting (on some sites I read 65%, I dont know which is the correct figure) - the only figure I could find regarding anything close to the "threshold of pain" was the statement that "no subject stopped before reaching 300 volts" on this [new-life.net] site. If I recall correctly, the threshold of pain in the experiment was about 120/150 volts, and at 300 the actor playing the student wo
    • What is wrong with exploring for yourself?

      I'll have to agree. I think that getting out there and playing a variety of games is better than being told what games to play.

      As a professional, independent game developer, I find the lists useless. I consider myself a pretty serious gamer and a student of game history, but I barely know half the games there.

      One of the biggest issues is that a lot of the older games are mostly lost to time. I played arcade games obsessively as a kid, but I only really got to
  • How can you even have a section called FPS without including Duke Nukem 3d? I know the succesor has been a long time in comming and will most likely remain vaporware forever, but why do you think that there is such longing for this game, because the origional was so much fun to play.
  • Zork
    Duke Nukem/Duke 3D
    Scroched Earth
    Soul Calebure (SP?)
    UT
    Warcraft II
    Bubble Bobble? (Not sure if thats the right name, the game that Snood is based on)
    Area 51 and the other game its bundled with often.

  • I don't mean to be particularly critical, but how can anyone miss so many underrated classics?

    Sid Meier's Covert Action comes first and foremost to mind, with it's witty "double-oh-seven" style action and puzzle-solving as one of the best but critically missed classics. Perhaps its only flaw is that it has circa-1988 graphics, but I still play it every few weeks just to see if I'm still 'on my game'.

    There are also mid-range 'kinda unknown near classics', which would've been big blockbusters with just a

    • Covert action was too much fun. I used to fire it up every time I went home, til the HD died. I lost the original disks long ago. I liked the graphics, never has anyone been in so much fear of a yellow square.
    • The problem with "kinda unkonwn near classics" is that it should't be a part of a Canon. A Canon is supposed to be the minimal body of work from which a common vocabulary can be defined. A Canon definitely should not involve 3 "sim" games.... but neither should it involve Magic Carpet.

      I mean, sure, there are plenty of amazing games left off the list, and plenty crappy ones that made the cut... but the Canon isn't about quality. It's about gathering a body of work everyone in the field should be famili

  • Sermon from the Arcade (Score:4, Funny)

    by kurosawdust ( 654754 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @09:51AM (#7327994)
    "And lo, the Snickering Dog appeared from behind the Mount, and it was found that the people could not shoot him, and that the only way to appease him was ye to successfully shoot both Ducks..."
  • A gaming canon, much more so than a literary canon, should be segregated by relevance to a particular genre. There is very little to be learned about good RTS development by playing, say, Dragon's Lair. Yes, there should be a category for games that highlight something beyond their genre, like UI and such, but it should be as small as the rest. 300 games is a few too many to seriously suggest every developer familiarize themselves with. Give me 20 categories of 10 games each (give or take), with any par

    • Re:Genre? (Score:2, Informative)

      by shweazel ( 583363 )
      RTFA!

      the games ARE subdivided into categories by genre.
      • RTFA!

        the games ARE subdivided into categories by genre.

        Maybe you should RTFA again and see that they are subdivided by PLATFORM, not GENRE. "Genre" does not mean "PS2, PC, SNES" or "CONSOLE GAMES--64bit, CONSOLE GAMES--modern". A portion of the Costik list is subdivided by genre, but not all of it. For the most part, it is divided by platform.

  • There's a word for this ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 1in10 ( 250285 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @09:55AM (#7328037)
    ... and that's "elitism".

    This is just another dick measuring contest. "Oh you haven't played X? You're not a real gamer". Give me a break.

    People who go on about literary canons all have one thing in common: they're a bunch of concieted academics all trying to prove they're more important than the next concieted academic because they're a bigger expert than the next guy.

    Does anyone really think gaming would benefit from going down the same path?

    Play the games you enjoy, and if you're a developer, let your influence flow from your personal favourites, with a healthy dose of inovation.

    It's like in music: some artists have been influenced by Dylon, some by the Sex Pistols, some by Nirvana, etc. Different people are going to draw from different sources. Nobody criticises an artist if they can't name the Beatles albums in chronological order, so long as they make good music.
    • Im not a writer or an academic and the notion of a "canon" is a new one to me.. but speakingin plain terms.. I have often borrowed the reading lists of my friends studying literature degrees as i'm always looking for god books to read. And, reading as much as i do find comparing the more contemporary fiction i have read previously with older stuff and seeing the influences, and roots of storytelling going back hundreds of years.

      I have also been playing computer games for over 20 years and as such really en

    • Re:There's a word for this ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @10:23AM (#7328305) Homepage
      Well, you've got a point, but examine where this list stems from. By wanting to call yourself a 'serious gamer', there's a certain amount of self-imposed elitism present. I think this guy (or organization, whatever) is just trying to establish a list of games that, were you to want to call yourself a serious gamer, you probably should have played prior to assigning yourself the title. In the same sense that I would question anyone saying they were well read without knowledge of Shakespeare, I would question someone calling themselves a serious gamer without being able to name 3 Sim games, telling me the password to get up the beanstalk in KQ1, or telling me the Mad God's name in Bard's Tale.

      Personally, I just wouldn't assign myself the title of serious gamer, I think that's kinda pretentious.

      But you're always going to have people assuming they're something, so why not attempt to establish a list by which to measure it by. Someone had to create the purity test by which half my freakin high school measured their purity, and I thought that was a load of bull too. Same holds true for movies, books, tv, really anything one can obsess over.

      --trb
      • The real question is why you'd bother playing all those games listed when, really, there's about five seperate games going through evolutions. Sure, you could play Herzog Zwei through Warcraft 3, but I think a decent game designer can get by without noticing that the Tiberian Sun is just a shitty rip off of Dune, which they lost the liscence to. In a similar vein, you can probably get by without having played "Mojib Ribbon" or "Rez."

        What really irks me is the attempt to cannonize the games, even though its
    • It's the "healthy dose of innovation" that gets you. From a modern standpoint, suppose you said "we're going to write a space-combat game where you can be a pirate or trader or anything you like". You might reckon it's revolutionary, cos there's not much around today that does it. Then someone says "Didn't Elite do that 20 years ago?" and you end up looking like a dick, bcos your game doesn't measure up playability-wise against something god-knows-how-many years old. The guys in charge of Galaxies could
    • Its not that they arent a gamer. Its more along the lines of my personal belief, that people who havent played a representative sample of games arent qualified to make valid conclusions about them. Hearing "WC3 is the best game ever!" (or even just the best RTS ever) from someone who never played a video game before 2000 and has still never played 99.9% of the RTS games out there. Their opinions arent valid, period.
  • Ok, while this is a great list, I question a few things. First off the list is very subjective, as what one person considers to be a canon-worth game might make another's stomach turn. Second, why does someone have to have an appreciation for any game on that list to call themselves a serious gamer?

    I don't need to have played and loved Street Fighter 2 to play Soul Calibur 2 and enjoy it. In fact I might consider it more enjoyable maybe than the guy who's been playing fighting games for years and only

    • I don't need to have played and loved Street Fighter 2 to play Soul Calibur 2 and enjoy it.

      I don't think anyone is saying that. These lists are an attempt to define a list of excellent games that you'd be better off having played. Just like a literay canon isn't saying that you need to have read and loved All Quiet on the Western Front in order to fully enjoy For Whom The Bell Tolls.

      And as a list of games you should play at some point, it's bound to be subjective. FPS in general make me motion sick, I

      • These lists are an attempt to define a list of excellent games that you'd be better off having played

        Based on what? What someone else says or suggests? That might be right a percentage of the time, but not all the time. You yourself say FPS games make you motion sick, yet you enjoyed Halo without necessitating the play of Dule or Quake. And that's exactly the point I was trying to make. :)

        The thing about your final paragraph is that there are those who enjoy those gaames like TSO and YDKJ, a LOT o

    • I'm just not entirely confident you can equate a gaming canon to a literary one, since there's more to great games than good storytelling/writing, and that greater complexity makes this concept more subjective.

      I think it's entirely fair to equate the two. They are both quite subjective and you won't find everything in either to be to your own tastes. The only real difference I see is that the literary canon has had a lot more time to develop and a lot more sources of input and debate, so it's bound to

  • The Costik list is definitely the better of the two, IMVHO. And while it's nice to see favourites like Mega Man, Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog listed on there, this whole idea seems a bit redundant to me - there cannot be a gaming canon like there are literary ones, because gaming isn't like reading: It's a whole different ball game (pardon the pun :P). Not to mention, there are some games in both lists that I found to be absolutely awful, and it's 100% likely that others will also see games list
  • Where is Jumpman? Ghostbusters, Raid Over Moscow, Space Taxi? For re-playability these are some of the all time classics.

    The problem with list like this is that they'll only include the games that that the person who made the list played. If he'd never heard of Ghostbusters then he'd never know it was an essential game in any gamer's cannon. More to the point, serious people know artistry in games and if they missed an "all time great" they still know games.

    I'm all for game developers (or hardcore gam
  • Add an entire category: handheld
    Game-n-Watch
    Gameboy
    Sega's Handheld (can't remember name)

    Also, add the following games:
    Might and Magic: see what NOT to do with a great game. It was cool the first 5 times, after M&M V, though, it got repetitive.

    Starcraft II: maybe he meant to say that when he included SC, dunno

    Duck Hunt: under arcade, I suppose, but certainly a classic everyone should play

    Galaga: just because

    Minesweeper: not sure how this got left off the list, since everyone and their brother has p

    • Starcraft II: maybe he meant to say that when he included SC, dunno

      Dude, you gotta send me a copy of Starcraft II... seriously... I feel like I've missed out completely!

    • Starcraft II: maybe he meant to say that when he included SC, dunno

      What is this Starcraft II you speak of? Last I heard Blizzard wasn't making it, unless you mean Starcraft: Ghost, but that's most definitely not SC2.

    • I'm a moron...s/Starcraft II/Star Control II/...thank you, I'm here all week.

      --trb
  • I'm unfamiliar with the source of the blog. He/she/they may be very influential, but it's still an independent's opinion. The comments to the post are revealing enough that other people felt things were left out.

    The canon should have a reason for each item, like "first game to introduce lopsided play mechanics with draw potential," or the like.

    This is the sort of thing that should be tackle by a consortium, like Gamasutra [gamasutra.com] and altered as little as possible with the exception of adding new games that achi
  • ARCADE GAMES

    The fact that Mortal Kombat isn't included here is a joke. MK introduced more to fighting games than SF2 did. MK was the first game to have juggle combos, and combos that actually were ment to be in the game. The early SF2 "interrupt" combos were actually a glitch. Both games should be in there. While there are a lot of entries from the "classic era" of arcade gaming, there aren't a lot from the recent "fighting game" era of 92-98 when arcades became very popular again.

    COMPUTER GAMES-
    • Actually, Super Mario World was the first (and maybe only... not sure) on Super Nintendo. So I guess we're considering 2 generations behind old school now. *sigh* indeed.

      I was playing that game probably less than 10 years ago. I wouldn't quite consider that old school just because the technology made such a large leap.
      • Actually, Super Mario World was the first (and maybe only... not sure) on Super Nintendo. So I guess we're considering 2 generations behind old school now. *sigh* indeed. I was playing that game probably less than 10 years ago. I wouldn't quite consider that old school just because the technology made such a large leap.

        Akk, you are right, I had Super Mario World confused with the poorly named Super Mario 64. Both were good games. I wouldn't call SMW old school either, to me old school is the classic c

        • because the games were so much more advaced then what you found on atari, activision or colecovision.

          Activision is a company that makes games, not a console. Maybe you're thinking of Intellivision?

          • Activision is a company that makes games, not a console. Maybe you're thinking of Intellivision?

            I really need to stop posting before I have my morning coffee, yes I ment Intellivision.
  • That first list is extremely PC-centric. Adding a handful of "old-school games" is just not good enough; there were entire genres on 8-bit and 16-bit systems that never appeared on PC and many games on those categories were classics that helped shape the field.

    In addition, the breaking down into categories seems rather limiting. Why not have a database, allowing various break down methods depending on what you are looking for (eg. by platform, by age, by category, by number of players, by goal, etc.).

  • I couldn't find Trade Wars 2002. That defined what online gaming was for me... I remember dialing in to the BBS once a day (on my 2400 baud modem) after school to spend my turns, build up my empire, and fight other players.

    Those were the days... then I'd fire up my copy of "Star Flight" and look for the crystal planet. I wonder why neither of those games are in either canon?

    Yeah, yeah... I'm too old-school for the old-school section... I know, I know. Video Games are too young an art form to get a can
    • *wistful rememberance of the good old days ensues*

      I loved TW2002. It was immensely enjoyable. But the game that clinched widespread multiplayer online gaming for me was Barren Realms Elite. The whole concept of inter-BBS combat was a blast. I remember belonging to a league that was Canada vs. Australia, with each side enchanging massive blows to the other with thousands of units each day. It was massively fun. :)

    • True enough. Legend of the Red Dragon should probably be listed as well. Maybe MajorMUD? It was Everquest before Everquest existed. There's a couple others that I'm thinking of too, but can't come up with the names. Anyone know what I'm talkin about here?

      One was an old one that I played when I first started BBSing. You were in a post-apocalyptic world and had to fight all sorts of creatures and people. It had a power meter thing that you had to use by hitting the spacebar at a certain point to get a

  • Computer Games -- FPS
    Deus Ex - wasn't this a first-person RPG, not a shooter? Never played it, but I was under that impression.

    Online Games
    The Sims Online - the only reason I would play this is if I wanted to know what a bad online model is. Talk about a glorified chat room.

    Uncategorized Gripes
    Where's GTA2? The best (in my opinion) in the GTA series. Merged decent graphics with the open gameplay, without getting so repetitive as GTA3.
    FF7 and FF10 are on the list, but where is FF6? That is, hands down

    • Deus Ex - wasn't this a first-person RPG, not a shooter? Never played it, but I was under that impression.

      It was really a shooter that had a lot of RPG elements in it, mostly in the character development and plot areas. You should really pick it up somewhere and give it a try. Great game.

  • Sports? (Score:3, Informative)

    by aliens ( 90441 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @10:47AM (#7328579) Homepage Journal
    I guess I shouldn't expect much under the sports category since if you're a serious gamer you can't play sports games. Only stupid jocks play them. But comeon:

    COMPUTER GAMES--Sports
    John Madden Football

    That's it? Tecmo bowl anyone? RBI Baseball? NHL on Genesis?

  • Bad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crazyphilman ( 609923 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @11:02AM (#7328743) Journal
    Listen, the whole "literary canon" thing was created by a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority. They claim that in order to be a "real" writer of literature, you have to have read a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same. If you have ever suffered through a conversation with one of these people, you know that they basically sit around memorizing their professor's pet literary criticism instead of actually reading and enjoying the books themselves. And, most INTERESTING books are written by people who IGNORE the "canon". Outsiders, in other words, people who aren't involved with literary academia. I find the situation funny: the literary canon crowd write long, boring, self-congradulatory books that only other tweedy types read, while outsiders publish books that are interesting and relevant to the rest of us.

    A real gamer doesn't sit around worrying about whether he's played the correct set of games to properly introduce himself to the genre. He's been in the genre since he was a kid. If he's into, say, first person shooters and strategy games, he probably has at least thirty of them in a CD holder somewhere. He understands first person shooters completely. He knows the genre like the back of his hand. He doesn't need some "canon" to help him. Fish already KNOW about water; they don't need swimming lessons.

    Having said that, the people who might be interested in this ridiculous "canon" are people who want to be game developers but who DO NOT PLAY GAMES THEMSELVES. They're just like the posers and wannabes that flooded the dot-com boom back in the nineties, people who don't care about the art and who just want to cash in. "Hey, videogames are big now -- let's make some money, how hard could it be?" they say. They think, in some weird freshman lit major way, that "anyone can write about anything as long as they do a little research". So they try for something like this silly canon, thinking that all they have to do to create a great game is study all the games that have made lots of money, and make a new game JUST LIKE THOSE. And, their game tanks in the market because it's just another derivative piece of shit with no new ideas, and every real gamer sees it as such instantly.

    I fucking HATE these people. They ruin everything they touch.

    If you're not a gamer, don't bother trying to write a game for me. You'll fuck it up, it'll suck, and I'll hate you for it. Look at the wide range of games that suck, and I guarantee that behind every game that sucks is some noob who thought he could just waltz into a cushy game developer position after a weekend of playing DOOM.

    I want to play games written by people who genuinely love games themselves, and who have been playing games since they were kids. I don't want to play games written by some corporate stiff who took a bunch of games listed in a "canon" home for the weekend and struggled through a level or two.

    You're either a gamer or you're not. And that's all there is to it. It's not something you can fake.

    • "I fucking HATE these people. They ruin everything they touch."

      Including new developers. Take a step back from the elitist angle (was 'elite' mentioned?) and consider for a moment that some of these games may have taken your breath away for scope, graphics or plot, when plots were fashionable.

      I'm constantly pissed of with the quality of backstory, or technology or environment of games because they always appear to be tacked on, and it's one of the things I'm fairly sensitive to when playing a game.

      I'd
      • Okay, let's forget about the inherent elitism involved in any sort of "canon" or "salon" or similar concept. Let's forget about the fact that the canon doesn't even make sense (why the hell should "any gamer or game developer" know these particular 300 games? particularly the board games, I mean, really, WTF do they have to do with anything?). Let's cut to the chase, and talk about game quality.

        Do you really think reading a canon is going to prevent a person from writing a shitty back story for his game?

        W
        • "The reason why so many games suck, and maybe you'll agree with me, is that so many companies think this sort of thing can be built assembly-line style. They think that if they just mix and match elements from whatever games are selling the most copies, they'll have a hit. It's game development, hollywood style."

          Bang on.

          I have a sneaking suspicion that the disease affecting Hollywood (The people there making assumptions about the consumer market and forcing script re-writes because a given consumer sect
    • Ok, I might agree that to make games you need to be a gamer. But do you have any basis for your criticism of a literary canon?

      a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority.

      Have you ever met any of these people? Can you give me an example of a "tweedy snob"?

      a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same.

      From this I'm going to infer that you haven't read the books because they were too "boring". Again is ther
      • Hmm... Examples of tweedy snobs. Well, I've been lucky in that since university, I haven't had to associate with any, so most of my face-to-face experience with them was in school, several years ago. I'd be hard-pressed to name names, if that's what you're looking for. But I can tell you what kind of crap I had to put up with. Every time you'd say something witty, one of these people would demand that you cite the source of the witty comment. It was like an attack; you would say something, and instantly, th
        • Ok, well... I appreciate such an intelligent response. I can respect that you met some idiots who didn't realize they were idiots while you were at school. I tend to write idiots off, no matter how smart they think they are.

          Here's my problem with your counter argument, or perhaps I should say the fundimental misunderstanding of our respective positions; Your definition of "canon" seems to presuppose the book being boring. I majored in classics and I've never heard of "From Dawn to Decadence" I think of
          • Well... I don't mean that ALL of the books in a canon would by definition be boring. That would be a little silly, wouldn't it? You take things really literally. Ok, I take back the loathing of tweedy types. I take back the comment that all your books are boring. However, I still think that if a canon is used as a measure of someone's literacy, then it's simply a bludgeon of snobbery and is of no practical use. Furthermore, even if a canon is NOT used as a bludgeon of snobbery (even though you KNOW it WILL
            • I might get behind a categorized list of all books, with quality ratings, but then, Amazon beat me to it, right? And Borders, and Barnes and Noble...

              Right, because retailers are very reliable at providing quality ratings, and the general opinion of the public (ie. people that have bought the product) is always to be trusted.

              I like the non-canon way things are built now. Someone has a great idea, they say "fuck everyone, I'm going to do this my way" and as a result, you get a new and interesting game

              • About retailer's quality listings, no one pays attention to those. However, let's take anime for example. If you find an anime for sale at, say, Amazon, you'll be able to read what other people who like anime had to say about the show you're considering. Some will like it, some will hate it, but you'll be hearing the opinions of people who've seen the show. And, because they knew of it and bought it, chances are they're anime nuts just like you, so the reviews are probably pretty solid.

                I find the user revi
                • Agreed. My method for finding good movies, books, and music is to simply get recommendations from people I think have interesting/good taste in general. Sometimes this does include the odd reviewer online, especially if there is a record of what they've reviewed. My main motivation is to avoid reviews and recommendations from fanboys -- as in someone who no matter what will like a certain product.
    • "Listen, the whole "literary canon" thing was created by a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority. They claim that in order to be a "real" writer of literature, you have to have read a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same. If you have ever suffered through a conversation with one of these people, you know that they basically sit around memorizing their professor's pet literary criticism instead of actuall
      • Ok, ok... First of all, I'm not anti-intellectual. And, although I have enjoyed some of Stephen King's earlier books, I wasn't thinking about him when I mentioned outsiders. I was thinking about any of a few dozen younger people who've come up with a novel that's different and interesting, as opposed to the really long-winded boring stuff I'm noticing from the more academic set. And, I was arguing against crystallized, inflexible academia more than anything else. I think our college system has grown stale o
        • I completely agree with you. I'm really sorry that you've had the negative experience with academia that would lead you to believe that most of us are "snotty-nosed twead-wearers" :) People who are pretentious enough to believe that the "canon" is an absolute must for anybody who wants to merely think are just idiots.

          The profs I had in university were absolutely fantastic. Sure, some of them had their own set of beliefs in regards to literature ("Henry James is God" comes to mind), but none of them wou

          • It's a pleasure to meet you; you seem pretty ok. If your friends are like you (I assume they are) you must be a pretty cool bunch to hang with. I take back my comment about tweedy snobs; thanks for the counterexample. ;)

            To be fair, when I was in high school I did have two really wonderful literature teachers who were open minded and interesting. They were my English Lit and American lit teachers, and they were really cool. One of them also studied theology; he was a rabbi who was intimately familiar with c

    • Two basic points: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kwil ( 53679 )
      1. Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it.
      2. There is nothing new under the sun.

      A canon is useful because you can use it as a basis for comparison. "This is Adventure. This is ET. Try to make a game more like the former and less like the latter"

      A canon is also useful because it can bring to light old concepts that worked well that have been forgotten due to the corporate crap you rail on about. A good portion of the upcoming generation of gamers has never even heard of M.U.L.E, for example.
      • While I agree with point number 1, I don't agree that a canon will help. What I think the gaming industry needs is GAMERS. I suggest this because gamers will know the games you want to put in your canon (as a side effect of being a gamer) but more importantly, they'll love the games themselves. THIS is what is going to let them see what will be cool and what will not. Someone who doesn't love games isn't going to be able to see what's cool about, say, Alien Vs. Predator 2. He's not going to know the differe
  • Being a well versed gamer is one thing; but since gaming is entertainment, we each have our own tastes and such, and since everyone has their own taste, we are not going to come to a real consensus on this issue since of the extremely wide variety of games and the reasons people play them. (Though I will definitely say that this list is pretty decent.)

    Which leads to my next point: what is important however is for game developers to play the 'canons' of gameplay and well made games in general. Such an examp
  • As was mentioned before this is just another "if you haven't played X, you're not a gamer". Just look at the selection of games. I'm not going to go over them one by one, but I'll use one examples that stands out to everyone as a game that must be included, half-life.

    There was nothing new or innovative about Half-life, nothing. It was so successful for one reason, multiplayer. When it was released the internet was really starting too boom, and people were looking for a game to play with friends online

  • They Missed A Category (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vjmurphy ( 190266 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @11:23AM (#7328971) Homepage
    What about those fun playground games, like:

    * Red Rover
    * Dodge Ball
    * Hide and Seek
    * Cowboys and Indians
    * Jump rope (great single and multi-player action!)

    Not to mention things like Football (both American and the rest of the World), Baseball, Cricket, etc.
    • Oh, and card games:

      * Poker
      * Gin
      * Bridge

      as well as other card games:

      * Uno
      * Magic
      * Lunch Money

      Sure there's a lot more there, too.
    • Mod the parent up, please. These yabbos skipped the games that involve getting out of your chair. Game designers must take note of Real Life restrictions like gravity, endurance, timing, strength, and physical dexterity. Not to mention capturing the feeling of fear when you're about to be pummeled with a heavy dodge ball thrown by a strong person who really doesn't like you...

      In addition to the parent's list, I'd like to add:

      * Jacks
      * Marbles
      * Skeet shooting (moving targets, non-trivial weapons, IRL)
      * B
  • Seriously, how on earth is anyone supposed to play this game now? We are talking about the original Pong game that was designed on an oscilloscope and played while on tour at a nuclear reactor... Correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't exactly emulators for that kind of stuff, and there is probably only one copy of the hardware (which may or may not still work).

    And calling it a "computer game" is probably quite inaccurate...

    Aside from that, the list looks pretty decent to me. Although I'd actually quest
  • Unless "The King's Game" or "Kriegspieler" are alternate names for Chess...where's chess?

    That leaves aside the issue of whether a gaming canon is a good idea or not; I don't think it's necessarily important that a game designer have played all of these games, but that he or she have played games, period. Any reasonably intelligent person can derive from the game-playing experience the things they need to know to evaluate whether their own games are fun or not--but you need to have that experience.
    • > where's chess?

      Um, right between "Rock-Paper-Scissors" and "Go" in the "Folk Games" catagory.

      Don't rightly know what he means by "The King's Game" or "Kriegspieler" myself.

      chris Mattern
  • I've actually been thinking about things like this, given that I am currently a senior in college, closing in on my Computer Science BS (and maybe a master's after that), and looking strongly towards game development.

    But this list (the Costik one) just isn't a good one. A lot of the games are just "popular games in the genre", and not necessarily anything of particular merit. Seeing games like Fallout and Total Annihilation not on the list makes me question things, and these are just ones that I look to a

  • I've not seen may posts on board games so I'm going to add my 2$

    I would basically agree with some of the choices

    Settlers, Diplomacy, Titan.

    But no Advanced Civilization surely a key game.

    Also Dune is missing not so sure if this is a must have like Advanced Civilization. But needs to be considered.

    Axis & Allies is flawed but that doesn't stop it been a key game an I guess I would leave it on the list

  • I have seen mention of Scorched Earth as one of the games that should have been included, and I agree wholeheartedly.

    But if you add Scorch, you've got to add in two of the games that borrow from it: Worms: Armageddon and Moonbase Commander.

    Also: Power Stone 2 is woefully missing from the list.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg

Close