I've seen plenty of lists compiling the "top" or the "best" list ever especially when it comes to video games. I was inspired to do a list myself but as i started formulating my list, i came to a roadblock; validity. Most lists have typical games such as a Mario game or Zelda game, but mine didn't have a Mario or a Zelda game in my top 5. As much as i would like to say i know a thing or two about games, i can honestly say that i'm not knowledgeable enough to compile such a list that would represent in objectivity and validity. I honestly haven't played enough games. But is any list valid or can be even called objective? What good are these lists if there is no integrity or credibility with its compilers?Why come up with a list anyway?
As far as objectivity and validity goes, it's a real matter of gray area. Many websites and publications have tried to put one out. Most gamers may have agreed, but just because they work or get paid for playing/reviewing games, does it mean that it's a valid list? I say no because of many things.
One reason is that different publications review differently, making it ambiguous when compiling a game list. Do games make it on the list based on fun factor? How about influence in the industry? Is it because of innovation to a genre? What place does a game have on a list if it's the best in the genre? Some lists have games that make it for different reasons, but it never really is standardized. How much of what factor equates to its place in a list.Some publications give letter grades, while others give numerical score, but do they equate the same thing? Does score affect a place on a list? It's confusing to know that a game is great, but given different values,making it harder to judge its place on any list. As an example, i will compare Gamespot with Gamepro because of their review ****differences.The two publications rate on different scales, Gamespot being a numerical score based on a scale of 10 with merits/demerits to enhance the depth of a review, while Gamepro reviews have 4-5 categories that are rated on a 5 point scale, with the fun factor being the most integral score to determine a review of a game. Now both reviewed the game Burnout Paradise. Gamespot gave it a 9, while Gamepro gave it a 5.0 on the fun factor scale. Does this mean that the game got a perfect score on Gamepro? Does it mean that that Gamespot didn't find it as fun since they don't have a fun factor score? More importantly, does this score warrant the game a place on a greatest games list? I think every answer is a straight up No, so where does a reader of this list get their validity from? We all know Mario and Zelda are going to be somewhere in the top 10, but why? How and under what standards? This presents a problem in Gamepro and Gamespot. On Gamepro, many games have received a fun factor of 4.5-5.0. So if that was the said case, where do they go if they were to compile a list? On Gamespot's list of greatest games of all time, they have Gran Turismo and Counter Strike. Now a lot of people may agree that it should be on here, but the scores given for these games weren't even 9.0, which is the score given to a great game. How did these games get on the list if they weren't even rated as a great game? So if these publications argue that their scores should only be a factor, it leads to a bigger problem; credibility.
Credibility has become a word thrown around generously with the internet and the video game industry. Anyone is credible just as long as the webpage looks credible, and many people have fallen for it. Are these publications credible? What can a reader base its credibility on when it comes to a review, and most importantly, the "top" list? I think most publications start building their credibility through their reviews, but if a publication starts compiling a list based on other factors, and some obscure game, that they may have assigned a mediocre score, makes it on the list, there is a confusion that arises. One publication that I must comment on was Gamepro. In 2003-04(I think it was those 2 years) Gamepro did a monthly feature about the 10 best franchises of all time.
http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domestic/games/features/71648.shtml
If you take a look at this list, you see a list where the bottom franchises had major flaws in between great games. When you look up some of the games, you see fun factor's from a couple of the games where it received 4.0-4.5. As a reader, questions of credibility arrive in the mind, more specifically "Wtf". Also, the number one franchise has a couple missing games that were produced, not under a Nintendo studio, on the CD-I that have been omitted from both Nintendo and the Gamepro list. How valid is this list, when I see a lot of discrepancies in their credibility.
Fanboyism in one form or another that hurts any list. The fanboyism can be towards a certain console, genre, or a certain era in gaming. If games are a media that constantly evolves, why are most games on a top list are made up largely on older generations? Most of the editors grew up on older generation games, but are these credible bases to put a game on a list. I'm pretty sure most of these editors can still pick up a game and enjoy the game, or may have revisited a game to review the game to validate its place on any list. But are these enough grounds? Isn't objectivity compromised if there is certain bias towards a game that may have been affected by nostalgia? Can a gamer have no bias? Are humans capable of having no bias? These questions dive into something deeper that would make this way too long so I leave it up to whoever ends up reading this. One last thing about fanboyism towards an era is the predicament that can arise in 20 years when the 8 year olds of the hi-definition era become the editors and game reviewers. Would those future editors still see the magic of pac-man? Would those editors have a place for a Super Mario Bro. game? Would the top ten list have Call Of Duty 4 or Bioshock? Would Halo 2 be the greatest game of all time? It could very well look that way based on the patterns I have seen.
Why do editors bother with a list? The list is important for gamers. It's a documentation of games they may have missed, or a validation for a gamer, or the game industry. It's a display of the accomplishments by pioneers and innovators. But I'm not sure that any list can ever live up to a standard. One can argue, and argue well, that no list is free from biasis or discrepancies. After writing this, I know in my heart I will write a list myself, but I know that this list will have an asterisk in my head, or a disclaimer somewhere in the article that these are only opinions of games that I played, and there may never be any real validity or credibility attached to this list.
Log in to comment