The BEST ever! & My FAVE ever! (read OP)

[BogusMeatFactory]

(Sorry but i'm not gonna give an answer for "best" because having that as a separate category implies that there's some sort of objective quality that makes a game "the best" even if it's not your favorite, but there really is no such objective way to judge games. I mean the fact that everyone in this thread so far has given different answers for their "best" kind of proves there is no objective measurement of quality, doesn't it? Or at least we've not found one yet.)

Well you're wrong because I don't like Pac-Man. It's not hard to dislike something but still recnogize it's merits. I don't like Opera but recognize the talent and effort behind it.

So you think Pac-Man is the best, but you are also just as wrong. All the, "Best ever" threads do is boil down to people getting pissy that others challenge their picks.

[Segata]

(Sorry but i'm not gonna give an answer for "best" because having that as a separate category implies that there's some sort of objective quality that makes a game "the best" even if it's not your favorite, but there really is no such objective way to judge games. I mean the fact that everyone in this thread so far has given different answers for their "best" kind of proves there is no objective measurement of quality, doesn't it? Or at least we've not found one yet.)

Well you're wrong because I don't like Pac-Man. It's not hard to dislike something but still recnogize it's merits. I don't like Opera but recognize the talent and effort behind it.

So you think Pac-Man is the best, but you are also just as wrong. All the, "Best ever" threads do is boil down to people getting pissy that others challenge their picks.

You can choose between best and favorite it all. It's not hard to do.

[Sarge]

I think it might be more of an acknowledgment that our favorite game might have objective flaws that might keep it from being the "best".

My two choices are:

Best: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. If there are flaws in the game, they are minute (mostly annoyance with level "flow" while traversing the second half). There aren't many games that inspire as many playthroughs as I've made through it, and I usually discover something new every time.

Favorite: Chrono Trigger. Still the best JRPG of all time. Extremely well paced, a great combat system, splendid sprite-based graphics, a phenomenal soundtrack, and one of the few games to handle time travel well. Only some of the prehistoric periods bring it down a little in my book, but even those are solid.

[Sano]

My answer to both is simply... Legend of Zelda: A Link To The Past. I just love this game.

[MrEco]

Well you're wrong because I don't like Pac-Man. It's not hard to dislike something but still recnogize it's merits. I don't like Opera but recognize the talent and effort behind it.

Or another way to look at it; Pacman is popular. It can easily be popular and still not be an objectively good game. You say it has merits you want to recognize, but why? You don't lose anything if you don't "recognize those merits" and neither does anyone who likes the game.

I think the reason that so many people are obsessed with the idea that some games are objectively good, and some are objectively bad, is because of peer pressure basically. Matching the status quo. "This game is popular, but I don't like, so I'll just say I recognize it's objectively good, but say I don't like it personally." Because if you were to just say you don't like it, and leave it at that, then the many people who do might claim you "have bad taste" or something worse.

Sorry I'm trying to not go on a tangent here, and I don't want to ruin anyone's fun. But more often then not I see the idea of objective quality in games used as a way for one person to bludgeon someone else with their opinions. Probably my biggest biggest pet peeve is the phrase "It's okay to like something that's bad." I mean, what an arrogant statement right? You might as well say "Me and my buds got together and decided that game you like is shit, and you have no say in it. But it's okay, you can still 'enjoy' it as long as you admit you're wrong."

I know this thread doesn't have that goal, but I still can't help find the whole idea a bit silly. There really is no tangible benefit to anyone (that I can think of at least) why some games need to be recognized as good, and others as bad.

[ElkinFencer10]

No, Segata, you're wrong. It's not about liking it. If there were an objective "best," it wouldn't be debated.

[Erik_Twice]

But more often then not I see the idea of objective quality in games used as a way for one person to bludgeon someone else with their opinions.

If anything, I think it's far more common for people to try to bludgeon people with "It's just your opinion, man" than the opposite.

Not that anyone should bludgeon anyone.

[marurun]

I think there's actually a middle ground, here. When it comes to artistic mediums, bests are determined through consensus over time. They're still somewhat opinion-based, but those opinions get tempered through multiple viewports and the passage of time. Look at films. It's very hard to pick a single best film of all time, but it's pretty easy to observe that some films are objectively better than others. There are some films that are just bad, and not in a cult bad-is-good way. It's the same with games. As time passes, some game designs still attract critical acclaim. And as different experts in the medium disseminate various top 10 or top 100 lists you'll see several titles that regularly exist on those lists and constantly bubble up to the top. So when we talk about best, we're talking about this sort of cultural/expert consensus as to which things we have collectively decided are now going to be considered "objectively" great.

[Sarge]

There are objective elements in games that can be judged, though. So I don't think it's wrong to note these elements. Of course there's a subjective part as well, but it doesn't do us any good to act like they're purely objective or subjective.

EDIT: Ninja'd by marurun!

[marurun]

As an example, I will share my favorite and my nomination for "best".

Favorite:
My favorite changes a lot, depending on what I'm playing at any given time and where I am in my personal life. Right now I think my favorite is probably Super Mario Brothers 3. I haven't played it in a while, but I know if I picked it up it would be hard not to just play all the way through.

Best:
Tetris. There's something about this game. The design is simple yet elegant. It appeals both to those looking for a more relaxed or casual gaming experience and to those who strive for mastery and perfection. The mechanics of the game are simple, but due to the ever increasing speed of play, hand-eye coordination is tested to the utmost. I am not at all surprised it is the creation of a computer engineer, mathematician, and games enthusiast. It has also survived well, continuing to be released in varied form on every conceivable platform.

I think it might be more of an acknowledgment that our favorite game might have objective flaws that might keep it from being the "best".

My two choices are:

Best: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. If there are flaws in the game, they are minute (mostly annoyance with level "flow" while traversing the second half). There aren't many games that inspire as many playthroughs as I've made through it, and I usually discover something new every time.

Favorite: Chrono Trigger. Still the best JRPG of all time. Extremely well paced, a great combat system, splendid sprite-based graphics, a phenomenal soundtrack, and one of the few games to handle time travel well. Only some of the prehistoric periods bring it down a little in my book, but even those are solid.

I would actually argue for flipping your selections. SotN was a really fun game, but it actually had quite a lot of flaws (IMO). I could definitely see it being a favorite, but I would have trouble arguing it as a best. Whereas I think Chrono Trigger has far fewer flaws in implementation and is a stronger candidate (again, IMO) for best.