1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die

[Ack]

Whilst I'm positive I could put together a list of 1001 must play games, I don't think it'd be very representative, considering that I estimate that I've beaten somewhere around 600-700 games in my lifetime. I don't think I've played quite enough games to put together a list like this and actually have enough firsthand experience of all the entries.

And whilst I think I do try to play different genres and suchlike, my list would be really weighted towards Japanese games for Sega and Nintendo systems, with not a lot of Sony, SNK, NEC etc representation and basically nothing from Microsofts consoles.

I don't think you'd have to have beaten all 1001 games on the list. I've never beaten a Contra, but they are widely respected games that I know of and believe people should try. I've also never beaten a Might & Magic game, but again, the same thing applies.

This was only kind of a partial component of what I was trying to get at. My point is less that I haven't beaten 1001 games, but more that I haven't played 1001 games to the point where I'd be happy to place them on the list.

Ah...

...this makes me wonder how many games I have played over the course of my life, and also realize that it is well over 1001.

[cha cha]

So are you guys gonna actually try this or not? I'm interested to see how you'd even start going about this.

I'd think first you'd have to develop some criteria or restrictions for the list. How do you really measure cultural, fandom and industry impacts made by the games? Sales, aggregate review scores and number of re-releases/sequels certainly are a factor and a guideline, but what else would you have be qualifications for the list? There are all kinds of extreme outliers to consider as well... Do we consider games games so bad that they are cult favorites or famous for being bad in some way? The list goes on and is quite daunting, so I don't want to post a wall of text for suggestions on criteria... until I know you guys are gonna try something.

[Ack]

So are you guys gonna actually try this or not? I'm interested to see how you'd even start going about this.

I'd think first you'd have to develop some criteria or restrictions for the list. How do you really measure cultural, fandom and industry impacts made by the games? Sales, aggregate review scores and number of re-releases/sequels certainly are a factor and a guideline, but what else would you have be qualifications for the list? There are all kinds of extreme outliers to consider as well... Do we consider games games so bad that they are cult favorites or famous for being bad in some way? The list goes on and is quite daunting, so I don't want to post a wall of text for suggestions on criteria... until I know you guys are gonna try something.

No, you're right. Rules have to be established, such as "one from a series" unless there is more than one that is significant in some way. For instance, only putting on one Super Mario Bros. game would be difficult, since Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64 are all significant in gaming. But as much as I love the game, Super Mario Bros. 2(either Doki Doki reskin or Lost Levels) just isn't as important.

[alienjesus]

So are you guys gonna actually try this or not? I'm interested to see how you'd even start going about this.

I'd think first you'd have to develop some criteria or restrictions for the list. How do you really measure cultural, fandom and industry impacts made by the games? Sales, aggregate review scores and number of re-releases/sequels certainly are a factor and a guideline, but what else would you have be qualifications for the list? There are all kinds of extreme outliers to consider as well... Do we consider games games so bad that they are cult favorites or famous for being bad in some way? The list goes on and is quite daunting, so I don't want to post a wall of text for suggestions on criteria... until I know you guys are gonna try something.

You'd have to specify the purpose of the list a bit more tbh. Is it 1001 games you musy play to understand the culture and history of video gaming, in which case I feel there will be a lot more subjectively 'bad' or 'dated' games, or is it 1001 games you must play just because they're great games, in which case some less innovative, but still really enjoyable games will be getting on the list.

Mixing the two just causes you to have a list without focus imo.

I'm sure I probably have played 1001 video games in my lifetime, but I'd imagine a fair number of those were either very short plays where I feel I'd need to spend more time with the game, or games that aren't actually that great, so I wouldn't want them on the list. I'm not sure I could identify 1001 games I've played enough of to feel like I've formed a fully fleshed opinion of them that dont suck.

[AppleQueso]

I have a feeling that the forum would lose interest compiling such a list after the first 2 or 300 games.

[alienjesus]

So are you guys gonna actually try this or not? I'm interested to see how you'd even start going about this.

I'd think first you'd have to develop some criteria or restrictions for the list. How do you really measure cultural, fandom and industry impacts made by the games? Sales, aggregate review scores and number of re-releases/sequels certainly are a factor and a guideline, but what else would you have be qualifications for the list? There are all kinds of extreme outliers to consider as well... Do we consider games games so bad that they are cult favorites or famous for being bad in some way? The list goes on and is quite daunting, so I don't want to post a wall of text for suggestions on criteria... until I know you guys are gonna try something.

No, you're right. Rules have to be established, such as "one from a series" unless there is more than one that is significant in some way. For instance, only putting on one Super Mario Bros. game would be difficult, since Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64 are all significant in gaming. But as much as I love the game, Super Mario Bros. 2(either Doki Doki reskin or Lost Levels) just isn't as important.

I say this with all the love in the world for the game and all, but I don't really see what Super Mario World did to earn it a spot on your list of significant mario games. It's just another 2D mario game, it didnt add much from Mario Bros 3. The only truly notable thing about it imo (other than it being a fantastic game of course) is that it was a SNES launch title. If anything, I'd say that Super Mario LAND for Game Boy is the more significant mario launch title, as it showed off what portable gaming could do.

But this is exactly the point - a list for important gaming milestones, a list for important games to gaming culture and a list for just damn fun games would end up quite different in my opinion.

[prfsnl_gmr]

No, you're right. Rules have to be established, such as "one from a series" unless there is more than one that is significant in some way. For instance, only putting on one Super Mario Bros. game would be difficult, since Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64 are all significant in gaming. But as much as I love the game, Super Mario Bros. 2(either Doki Doki reskin or Lost Levels) just isn't as important.

I disagree. If I draft any such list, there will be no rules. The only rule is whether I think it belongs on the list. If so, it's in.

[Ack]

I say this with all the love in the world for the game and all, but I don't really see what Super Mario World did to earn it a spot on your list of significant mario games. It's just another 2D mario game, it didnt add much from Mario Bros 3. The only truly notable thing about it imo (other than it being a fantastic game of course) is that it was a SNES launch title. If anything, I'd say that Super Mario LAND for Game Boy is the more significant mario launch title, as it showed off what portable gaming could do.

First, I think it has value as a launch title to show the capability of 16-bit consoles. And second, I think of Super Mario Land as a separate series.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I say this with all the love in the world for the game and all, but I don't really see what Super Mario World did to earn it a spot on your list of significant mario games. It's just another 2D mario game, it didnt add much from Mario Bros 3. The only truly notable thing about it imo (other than it being a fantastic game of course) is that it was a SNES launch title. If anything, I'd say that Super Mario LAND for Game Boy is the more significant mario launch title, as it showed off what portable gaming could do.

First, I think it has value as a launch title to show the capability of 16-bit consoles. And second, I think of Super Mario Land as a separate series.

Also - and for what its worth - I would definitely include it my personal list of the 1001 games you must play before you die. As a respected member of this forum, I think that counts for something.

[Damm64]

I have a feeling that the forum would lose interest compiling such a list after the first 2 or 300 games.

In that case we change the list from 1001 to the 200/300 games you should play.