Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

Like how Super Mario 64 DS worked against SM64?

Except SM64 DS is crap.


It IS an interesting question, though. Whenever people think of classic games, they almost always think of the original versions. I really don't think that Metroid Fusion or SMB: All Stars provided further popularity and staying power for the original Metroid and the NES Mario games.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

All-Stars are absolutely superior to NES versions due to the huge graphical increase. For me, at least.

 

[Magicpaint]

Except SM64 DS is crap.


It IS an interesting question, though. Whenever people think of classic games, they almost always think of the original versions. I really don't think that Metroid Fusion or SMB: All Stars provided further popularity and staying power for the original Metroid and the NES Mario games.

What I mean is that it hasn't really affected people's original opinions on Super Mario 64.

We'll see. I'd be absolutely shocked if it maintained its reign for more than another ten years. I don't see how future hardcore gamers would have any inherent nostalgia or interest in the game. It's common nowadays to hear from people who grew up in the Sony era that they've never played it, and don't think they could because the graphics are so horrible by modern standards. This sort of commentary is only going to increase over time.

I think, in the end, OoT's continued position at the top of such lists is a sign of how narrowly new gamers were being created - a factor that I doubt will be true for that much longer.

The 3DS remake could fix that for a lot of people. And after that, who knows, maybe another remake? Anyway, my point is somehow, these kind of games just never completely stay out of print (look @ the original Super Mario Bros!), and I don't think it will change anytime soon for OoT. I think people who love games will continually try it because it will likely remain a shining example of good game design to hardcores.

My overall position is that another game on the scale of OOT's achievement would be needed to create the kind of effect you believe will happen, and who knows? That could happen. Something that truly redefines the gaming landscape.

 

[Oblivion]

All-Stars are absolutely superior to NES versions due to the huge graphical increase. For me, at least.

Me too. I was just referring to most people in general.

 

[Stumpokapow]

So actually looking at the full list, I think the worst thing that can be said here is that there's nothing at this list that reflects the deeper or wider tastes GAF ought to have but that any other place wouldn't. In other words, if you told me these results were from any web outlet, I'd believe you. If you told me they were from the IGN forums or the GameFAQs forums, I'd believe you. I'm not sure if this is an indictment of who voted, who didn't vote, or the state of gaming as a whole.

From what I can tell, the only games in the top 50 that haven't sold in the millions of units:
ICO
Silent Hill 2 (probably just shy of a million)
Demon's Souls (probably just shy of a million)
Planescape: Torment

All four are definitely well into the hundreds of thousands of units, with PS:T being the only one that I feel confident saying didn't break 500k.

The question I'd ask given these results is this--does gaming really not have even a single hidden gem? If every game listed sold hundreds of thousands of copies, that suggests to me that there's no need to actually dive into gaming in a deep way. Niche games take more effort and investment to get into, and given the results none of them provide a reward. Even in this thread, all of the people bitching about "oh wahhh wahh <game x> didn't make #1 gaf sucks" are basically arguing for other multi-million selling games.

I kinda refuse to believe that based solely on my own experience. Most of the best gaming experiences of my life have come from diving a little deeper. Only a few of my votes even made the top fifty, let alone the top ten. Looking at the top 50 list, I've "completed" 35 of the games, and played some of 13. The only game on the list (which is on the list twice for some reason) that I haven't played is World of Warcraft. There's only one other title on the top 50 #1 votes that I haven't played. So I like to believe I've got a pretty good background on the games chosen. I think almost all of the games listed are pretty great games, but I don't think they represent the depth or breadth of what gaming has to offer.

drohne's commentary on the list is actually pretty accurate. Even if you're a big lover of Nintendo games, it makes no sense to say "Everything that's the best about gaming is Nintendo". That might be true on a personal level, there's no accounting for taste, but on an aggregate level it reflects either an immature medium or an immature voting audience. If a top 10 movies list was nothing but Pacino-starring movies or nothing but Scorcese-directed movies or nothing but horror movies, we'd say that this either makes film a lot more limited than we thought, or the voting audience a lot more limited than they should be.

So what can we do? The logical conclusion is that only who have played ALL the games released until now can vote, but it's pure utopia.Absurd.

I don't think it's absurd to say that for there to be a good voted "greatest of all time" list, the voters need to be relatively familiar with the canon of the media in question. This is why critic-voted greatest of all time lists in terms of films, albums, tv shows, or anything else tend to be more informative and better received than fan votes. The more of a medium you've experienced, the more qualified you are to suss out nuances of each work and create a list that really says something about the medium.

I'd rather read ten personal lists written by people who have played 2000 games each than one hundred personal lists written by people who have played 200 games each. I'd rather read a film historian's perspective on film than any number of "i go to the cinema a lot" Joe Randoms.

 

[OmegaDragon]

There is a small error in the overal list. Nothing shocking though. Xenegears is mentioned twice in the top 50. This is because the raw spreadsheet has some duplicates. It doesnt stop at the last nominated game with Z, but repeats some previous entries. After Zork I: The Great Underground Empire, the entries from Wing Commander 2 to I]Zork I: The Great Underground Empire[/I] are listed again. After I removed the duplicate entries I got the following list. The extra Xenogears entry is removed and DOOM is at position 50.

Name	Weighted Score
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time	1011
Chrono Trigger	573
Resident Evil 4	537
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past	531
Super Mario World	517
Half-Life 2	506
Super Mario Bros. 3	498
Metal Gear Solid	493
Shadow of the Collossus	490
Super Metroid	451
Final Fantasy VI	448
Super Mario Galaxy	388
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater	381
Final Fantasy VII	376
Super Mario 64	360
Metroid Prime	354
Deus Ex	314
ICO	308
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	306
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves	267
Halo: Combat Evolved	257
Super Mario Galaxy 2	251
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty	228
StarCraft	217
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island	204
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction	202
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night	196
World Of Warcraft	190
Half-Life	189
Street Fighter II	187
Tetris	187
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn	173
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker	168
Final Fantasy X	155
Silent Hill 2	145
Planescape: Torment	143
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening	135
Pokémon Generation 1	133
Mass Effect	130
Final Fantasy IX	128
Super Smash Bros. Melee	126
Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4	125
Xenogears	125
Pokémon Generation 2	123
BioShock	122
Demon's Souls	120
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind	119
Portal	118
Final Fantasy Tactics	117
DOOM	116

list in OP

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time						1011
Chrono Trigger									573
Resident Evil 4									537
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past						531
Super Mario World								517
Half-Life 2									506
Super Mario Bros. 3								498
Metal Gear Solid								493
Shadow of the Collossus								490
Super Metroid									451
Final Fantasy VI								448
Super Mario Galaxy								388
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater							381
Final Fantasy VII								376
Super Mario 64									360
Metroid Prime									354
Deus Ex										314
ICO										308
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask						306
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves							267
Halo: Combat Evolved								257
Super Mario Galaxy 2								251
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty						228
StarCraft									217
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island						204
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction							202
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night						196
World Of Warcraft								190
Half-Life									189
Tetris										187
Street Fighter II								187
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn						173
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker						168
Final Fantasy X									155
Silent Hill 2									145
Planescape: Torment								143
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening						135
Pokémon Generation 1								133
Mass Effect									130
Final Fantasy IX								128
Super Smash Bros. Melee								126
Xenogears									125
Xenogears									125
Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4							125
Pokémon Generation 2								123
BioShock									122
Demon's Souls									120
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind						119
Portal										118
Final Fantasy Tactics								117

Edit: nvm, Ocarina of Time was listed under different names

-

Nice list, all my picks were in the top 50. So I guess I'm part of the hivemind/problem

 

[The Super Bob]

Ocarina of Time is a deserving winner, it tops pretty much any best of all time list. I wonder if anything will ever be able to top it...

List is generally pretty nice, good to see so many quality games making top appearances. Oh and Super Mario World is superior to SMB3.

 

[EviLore]

It is a bit disappointing to see how boring and safe the aggregate looks, if entirely expected. I think the real value in this exercise is in each individual list, which is why I would've liked to see everyone justify their choices rather than only ~10% of the respondents doing so.

 

[Magicpaint]

I think it's just a very subjective list. People voted for their favourite games and included multiple titles from their favourite franchises (I was guilty of the same). But I think next time we could have more objective criteria attached to the voting conditions, conditions that make people examine their choices more carefully. Genre and franchise restrictions, developer/publisher restrictions, a bigger sample of games per voters, explanation of choices; those could help. At the very least, my own list would be very different if conditions like those were imposed.

 

[amar212]

GAF hates driving games.

 

[EviLore]

...And personally, what my list looked like in the finished post was not what it was when I initially came up with for games 1-10. As I went through the process of coming up with the why, some of my choices didn't really live up to my own requirements. Simply a great and memorable experience wasn't enough; a game really had to connect with my fundamental desires for the medium, which go beyond the basic sense of fun or entertainment. So I would be sort of disgusted with myself if i had listed, say, AAA Game XYZ just because it was an extremely effective funhouse ride.

You can cross-reference my old GAF post about what my ideal video game would be with my top 10 games of all time list for this thread and get a good sense of where I'm coming from and what I love about video games the most.

 

[Stumpokapow]

GAF hates driving games.

It's hard to pin down a definitive driving game even if you isolate for just sim games or just arcade games. Many things that are valued in modern driving games--for example, licensed cars and circuits, number of car types, support for online racing and leaderboards and ghost data, versatility from tuner cars to F1 cars and so forth--having only been possible or feasible over the last few years. So like annualized sports titles, it's fairly difficult to go back in time and say "this was the best installment".

I think if you look at games that break the mold, for example Stunts 4D, you'd fine that many on GAF would put these types of games in their top 100, but not their top 10.

I'm not much of a driving game fan and I've never played a driving game with a wheel, although I played a lot of earlier PC racing games. I don't watch competitive racing outside of the odd F1 match and I'm from a country where NASCAR doesn't exist at all, and all the cars I've owned in my life have been... economy cars, so it's even difficult for me to get a cultural context from which to really love a racing game. I liked the mid-90s Al Unser PC games a lot.

Is there any game in particular you think got overlooked? If it's part of a series, why would you say that this installment was better than the other ones? Content? Objectives? Tracks? Licenses? Physics model? I'm really interested in hearing the point of view of someone who thinks differently than I do on the subject.

 

[ASIS]

Holy crap SOTC is one overrated game. The rest of the list is good though.

 

[Faddy]

So actually looking at the full list, I think the worst thing that can be said here is that there's nothing at this list that reflects the deeper or wider tastes GAF ought to have but that any other place wouldn't. In other words, if you told me these results were from any web outlet, I'd believe you. If you told me they were from the IGN forums or the GameFAQs forums, I'd believe you. I'm not sure if this is an indictment of who voted, who didn't vote, or the state of gaming as a whole.

From what I can tell, the only games in the top 50 that haven't sold in the millions of units:
ICO
Silent Hill 2 (probably just shy of a million)
Demon's Souls (probably just shy of a million)
Planescape: Torment

All four are definitely well into the hundreds of thousands of units, with PS:T being the only one that I feel confident saying didn't break 500k.

The question I'd ask given these results is this--does gaming really not have even a single hidden gem? If every game listed sold hundreds of thousands of copies, that suggests to me that there's no need to actually dive into gaming in a deep way. Niche games take more effort and investment to get into, and given the results none of them provide a reward. Even in this thread, all of the people bitching about "oh wahhh wahh <game x> didn't make #1 gaf sucks" are basically arguing for other multi-million selling games.

I kinda refuse to believe that based solely on my own experience. Most of the best gaming experiences of my life have come from diving a little deeper. Only a few of my votes even made the top fifty, let alone the top ten. Looking at the top 50 list, I've "completed" 35 of the games, and played some of 13. The only game on the list (which is on the list twice for some reason) that I haven't played is World of Warcraft. There's only one other title on the top 50 #1 votes that I haven't played. So I like to believe I've got a pretty good background on the games chosen. I think almost all of the games listed are pretty great games, but I don't think they represent the depth or breadth of what gaming has to offer.

drohne's commentary on the list is actually pretty accurate. Even if you're a big lover of Nintendo games, it makes no sense to say "Everything that's the best about gaming is Nintendo". That might be true on a personal level, there's no accounting for taste, but on an aggregate level it reflects either an immature medium or an immature voting audience. If a top 10 movies list was nothing but Pacino-starring movies or nothing but Scorcese-directed movies or nothing but horror movies, we'd say that this either makes film a lot more limited than we thought, or the voting audience a lot more limited than they should be.



I don't think it's absurd to say that for there to be a good voted "greatest of all time" list, the voters need to be relatively familiar with the canon of the media in question. This is why critic-voted greatest of all time lists in terms of films, albums, tv shows, or anything else tend to be more informative and better received than fan votes. The more of a medium you've experienced, the more qualified you are to suss out nuances of each work and create a list that really says something about the medium.

I'd rather read ten personal lists written by people who have played 2000 games each than one hundred personal lists written by people who have played 200 games each. I'd rather read a film historian's perspective on film than any number of "i go to the cinema a lot" Joe Randoms.

A few points

It would be a great shame if one of the best games of all time was played by so few people so it isn't surprising that good games sell well.

The aggregate is always going send the popular and well known games to the top since they have a wider audience, more people can vote for them.

If you want to find a hidden gem from the data maybe there needs to be weighting vs sales and hidden gems don't automatically jump to the top of lists but you need to look a bit deeper and see what is near the bottom of the standings. We could only name 10 games for counting purposes and I know that some people either couldn't fit in their hidden gem or placed it near the bottom.

I don't think this list is really about hidden gems but look around GAF, read game threads, things that are good rise to the top. A recent example is Dev Story for iOS. Hopefully great unknown games become known, sell millions and will be on this list next year.

 

[EviLore]

I think it's just a very subjective list. People voted for their favourite games and included multiple titles from their favourite franchises (I was guilty of the same). But I think next time we could have more objective criteria attached to the voting conditions, conditions that make people examine their choices more carefully. Genre and franchise restrictions, developer/publisher restrictions, a bigger sample of games per voters, explanation of choices; those could help. At the very least, my own list would be very different if conditions like those were imposed.

What a completely pointless concept. Rather than trying to homogenize our opinions into an illusion of objectivity, how about we just link to metacritic and sales charts and call it a day.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I think it's just a very subjective list. People voted for their favourite games and included multiple titles from their favourite franchises (I was guilty of the same). But I think next time we could have more objective criteria attached to the voting conditions, conditions that make people examine their choices more carefully. Genre and franchise restrictions, developer/publisher restrictions, a bigger sample of games per voters, explanation of choices; those could help. At the very least, my own list would be very different if conditions like those were imposed.

But what does it say when for many people, multiple games from the same franchise make the top ten? Imagine a film fan's top ten that went like this:

1. The Godfather
2. Star Wars
3. The Godfather Part II
4. LOTR Fellowship
5. Empire Strikes Back
6. Return of the Jedi
7. LOTR Two Towers
8. LOTR ROTK
9. The Godfather Part III
10. Osmosis Jones

I mean, not that there's anything wrong with those movies, but I'd sure question the depth and breadth of someone's experience with film if they were that myopic. I certainly wouldn't be interested in their opinions on anything, since the ranking in and of itself suggests an inability to properly contextualize other films. There are people in this vote who literally listed ten games from the same franchise.

Imagine a person whose top ten favourite albums were:

1. OK Computer
2. Kid A
3. Amnesiac
4. The Bends
5. Hail to the Thief
6. In Rainbows
7. Pre-emptive The King of Limbs
8. Pearl Jam's Ten
9. Blood on the Tracks
10. Pablo Honey

This is not a person who has any business talking about music. I mean, great for them if they get so much joy out of Radiohead. I like all nine of the released albums I just included, some of them a lot. A few of them would probably make my top 50 albums of all time. But the fact that the person really thought those albums in that order were the ten best of all time reveals a huge flaw in their ability to critically listen to and enjoy music.

So what does it say that many gamers, perhaps even a majority, have narrow enough taste that a single franchise, a single team, a single producer, a single director, a single developer, a single publisher, a single genre will dominate their list?

It would be a great shame if one of the best games of all time was played by so few people so it isn't surprising that good games sell well.

While I do believe that the good stuff generally rises to the top, it'd be insane to look at any other medium; film, literature, albums, songs, classical pieces, plays, operas, visual art, statues, architecture, inventions, restaurants--literally anything you can rank--and say that all the best stuff got to be the most famous stuff and there's no point embarking in a deeper exploration of the medium because it'll all pale in comparison to the famous stuff.

The aggregate is always going send the popular and well known games to the top since they have a wider audience, more people can vote for them.

That's certainly true, but my angle was more the idea that GAF is sufficiently niche as a forum that I would expect participants to send-up more deep cuts than just ICO and Planescape. I know that a vote of all gamers ever would end up with the best-selling stuff at the top, just like IMDB votes disproportionately favour recent fan favourite commercial stuff rather than lost gems, but I think of GAF as closer in terms of dedication to a poll of film critics/historians, which would definitely produce more interesting results than film watchers.

I don't think this list is really about hidden gems but look around GAF, read game threads, things that are good rise to the top. A recent example is Dev Story for iOS. Hopefully great unknown games become known, sell millions and will be on this list next year.

Well this is one of the main reasons why I even voiced my concern. GAF is really well known for giving attention to hidden gems. Amnesia got great word of mouth all across the web, but GAF supporters of the game were probably much more enthusiastic than most. Machinarium is another one I'm reminded of. One of the reasons I signed up for GAF *sighs* half a decade ago is because some of the big JRPG posters back then, duckroll in particular, were awesome historians of the genre. I was reading in depth stuff about Dragon Quest as a franchise posted by Aeana, tons of explanations of how the Shin Megami Tensei series works, import reviews of games that barely cracked five digits in Japan let alone America. Mother 3 got an enormous thread when the translation patch was released.

I don't think this vote necessarily reflects the diversity, depth, and intelligence GAF posters as a whole have shown when championing deep cuts elsewhere. So my question was--is it the case that these people didn't show up to vote, is it the case that the collective audience of GAF isn't as a whole as deep into games as I thought they were to begin with, or is it indicative of gaming's immaturity as a medium that choices are so homogeneous?

 

[Deleted member 30609]

This thread and the ensuing commentary has actually made me a little depressed as I lie here in bed. So thanks for that.

 

[Kujo]

GAF hates driving games.

I voted for Burnout 3, but I think the vote splits between sim fans and arcade fans and in the end neither gets enough votes.

Holy crap SOTC is one overrated game. The rest of the list is good though.

Nintendo-4Life

 

[BowieZ]

I don't think this vote necessarily reflects the diversity, depth, and intelligence GAF posters as a whole have shown when championing deep cuts elsewhere.

The problem is votes tend not to reflect these things.

Otherwise you're going to need to assemble some sort of Academy of NeoGAF Elite (invite only!) and have weeks of discussion and rounds and rounds of voting when compiling a list, and have designated members explain each pick in detail.

 

[GhaleonQ]

This thread and the ensuing commentary has actually made me a little depressed as I lie here in bed. So thanks for that.

Rez: OMG overrated. *looks smug* I'm awesome.

Stumpokapow and EviLore:

1. I think you exaggerate how interested most NeoGAF people are in digging up game history, trying new things, or appreciating/are capable of appreciating more artistic/diverse stuff. That's not to say they don't value it, just that they value it less than enjoyment. That's not even necessarily a bad thing. Lots of people being enthusiasts is still a pretty good norm. It just is.

2. We shouldn't pretend that video games are that diverse. We're at about worldwide comics level. There are lots of neat things going on, but when the breadth of games isn't as wide as art music or fiction or painting or poetry or theater or pop music, fewer people are going to be drawn to the margins. If there were 20 or so Love-De-Lic-like games, I might devote 5 or 6 spots to them.

3. Everyone has a different emphasis on depth charts. If we did a top 20, there might be more diversity. There might be less, since people might just really like Ocarina Of Time. 10 is still pretty restrictive, though.

4. Localization is awful and horribly incomplete.

5. 30 years of mainstream video games isn't a lot.

6. Lists that aren't curated are pretty rough, anyway. Even great lists like this are horribly restrictive. http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics-long.html I'd be very dissatisfied if that was my only movie library. If I could choose the same number from this: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films.htm http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_allfilms.htm
I could bring in Larisa Shepitko, Peter Weir, and others not covered by "Bresson, Tarkovskii, and Welles."

 

[BowieZ]

Meanwhile, I still think we should do an Academy Awards style annual voting thing for the hell of it.

Have maybe 10 categories, form little subgroups (designers, writers, artists, musicians, etc) to come up with/vote on a list of nominees for their respective branch/category, though everyone gets to vote for nominees for game of the year, then announce the nominees, and let final voting begin where everyone can vote for a winner in every category.

Have the same kind of ballot format as the Oscars, have a separate site where people can vote, and keep voting secret/private until announcement day.

There can be a campaigning thread for nominations and/or for winners, maybe one for each award subcategory, and of course a special announcement thread where each category's winner is gradually unveiled.

 

[BluWacky]

So what does it say that many gamers, perhaps even a majority, have narrow enough taste that a single franchise, a single team, a single producer, a single director, a single developer, a single publisher, a single genre will dominate their list?

It would suggest that people didn't put much thought into their list, perhaps. I didn't submit a list because it would have taken me a good hour or so of thinking about it and wouldn't have made any difference to the overall rankings (only one of the top 10 titles would have been on it!).

Out of curiosity, what did you vote for if you've got the link to hand?

While I do believe that the good stuff generally rises to the top, it'd be insane to look at any other medium; film, literature, albums, songs, classical pieces, plays, operas, visual art, statues, architecture, inventions, restaurants--literally anything you can rank--and say that all the best stuff got to be the most famous stuff and there's no point embarking in a deeper exploration of the medium because it'll all pale in comparison to the famous stuff.

The overall results don't show individual entries that get maybe ten votes or so - it might be more interesting for you in particular to see the titles that didn't get landslide votes but are still obviously great games.

And I don't think anyone's saying you shouldn't explore the whole cornucopia of gaming experiences. I consider myself fairly deeply versed in a few genres - maybe not to the extent of others on this forum - but maybe even because of this I'd still feel confident in saying that, for instance, I believe Day Of The Tentacle to be the best graphic adventure ever created, and not picking out some more obscure gem like Machinarium (although to be frank I think most Lucasarts and Sierra titles outshine the competition).

So my question was--is it the case that these people didn't show up to vote, is it the case that the collective audience of GAF isn't as a whole as deep into games as I thought they were to begin with, or is it indicative of gaming's immaturity as a medium that choices are so homogeneous?

In three parts:

i) Yes. Almost undoubtedly. And even if they did it wouldn't have made much of a difference to the overall ranking. But GAF is a gaming forum, not a specifically niche gaming forum, so what would you expect - not every poster is GhaleonQ, for instance (and I wrote this before seeing your post above GhaleonQ! Of COURSE you'd devote 5 or 6 spots to Lovedelic titles...)

ii) See above. A depth of gaming knowledge does not imply that at the very depths of that knowledge lies unclaimed pearls, as I think you've acknowledged anyway.

iii) I don't think so. Perhaps it's indicative of the "immaturity" of the kinds of people who vote in "best game ever" polls - I don't mean this in quite as derogatory a manner as it sounds! - but certainly in this day and age the sheer variety of different types of games out there means that if a game truly shines then it'll get attention. But it doesn't "help" when people vote for one franchise - of course if they genuinely believe they're the 10 best games ever then fine, but it does indicate a lack of perspective in part.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I considered voting and I actually had a post all typed out but I decided not to post it because I am aware of some huge gaps in my gaming knowledge. The genre that I consider my favorite today, I didn't discover until semi-recently and from what I gather from these best of voting threads, I missed out on the best the genre has to offer. So if I were to vote in a greatest of all time, my selections would be biased towards recent games of that genre only because I never had the opportunity to play the classics.

 

[esquire]

Eh, I hate to be "that guy," but Resident Evil 4 as one of the best games of all time? No. I'm not sure if I am more offended by how high it is ranked on the list or the fact that it is on such a list at all.

 

[Kilrogg]

Gee, now that I see the actual list and took a look at people's list in the preceding thread, I wish I would have taken the time to participate :/.

My list probably wouldn't have been all that original (I grew up mostly with Nintendo systems and we didn't have that many games), but I would have made an effort. Nominating several games in the same series and/or the first game that comes to mind isn't exactly a good idea, and this is what this top list looks like (I say this as a fan of Nintendo games).

Then again I don't have much money (and do not spend much when I do have some) and am content with only a few games. Pretty sure Mario Kart Wii, Link's Awakening and either Mega Man 3 or X would end up somewhere in the list. This is what growing up in the early 90s does to you: Capcom/Nintendo/Konami fanboy, with a bit of old computer gaming (Amiga...), obscure PS1 games and a dash of Epic/Blizzard/Valve/indie PC games. Not that original I'm afraid, most of my enjoyment of gaming actually comes from business discussions these days.

Oh well, maybe next year.

EviLore made me want to give Morrowind another chance, which is quite a feat considering I hated it last time I played. I don't mind a fair amount of stats and I like it when there's no handholding in a game, but on ther other hand throwing tens of stats in an empty world is the best way to scare and bore me away at the same time. Only Fallout 2 and Mount & Blade don't scare me away with their stats for some reason.

 

[ASIS]

I voted for Burnout 3, but I think the vote splits between sim fans and arcade fans and in the end neither gets enough votes.


Nintendo-4Life

Yes, that is EXACTLY why I chose that game. :/

 

[HamPster PamPster]

Stumpokapow's opinion of gaf is way too high. The only reason gaf is "better" than a place like gamefaqs is because we have one gaming board, which is also why he thinks gaf is good at championing hidden gems, because any thread can be on the front page where as gamefaqs might have a very active board for Machinarium or whatever but good luck noticing it

Also, poor Sonic and poor genesis

 

[John]

It was on my list too, but it's aging horribly. It will be interesting to revisit this again in a few years and see if people still hold it in such high regard. Galaxy seems to have replaced Mario 64 for most people (not me!) and that seems accepted, so it's possible a 3D Zelda could come along and do so well it replaces OoT for a lot of people too, unless that's a bad analogy.

aside from no right-stick camera control, i think the n64 zeldas have aged really well actually. z-targeting keeps the game playable, and the textures i've always felt have worked out just the right amount of vagueness.

 

[Drkirby]

There is a small error in the overal list. Nothing shocking though. Xenegears is mentioned twice in the top 50. This is because the raw spreadsheet has some duplicates. It doesnt stop at the last nominated game with Z, but repeats some previous entries. After Zork I: The Great Underground Empire, the entries from Wing Commander 2 to I]Zork I: The Great Underground Empire[/I] are listed again. After I removed the duplicate entries I got the following list. The extra Xenogears entry is removed and DOOM is at position 50.




Edit: nvm, Ocarina of Time was listed under different names

-

Nice list, all my picks were in the top 50. So I guess I'm part of the hivemind/problem

Good catch. Yeah, that likely happened when I decided to consolidate the list on the same page as the list its self one last time.

So, I take it no one wants me to try doing a second vote and just bar the top 50/100 games. Maybe even put in a part where you have to actually talk about the game.

 

[charlequin]

given the sheer number and diversity of games out there, an individual top ten list that's half nintendo can only be the product of inexperience or fanaticism -- it's just not a meaningful representation of gaming history.

I want to say inexperience. You can read the demographics off that list from a mile away. There are exactly three games older than 1995 in the top twenty: the singular top representatives of Nintendo's "big three" franchises. You don't hit another until Tetris at 24.

Meanwhile, similarly seminal PC titles (from back in the day when computer and console gaming were seen as basically different hobbies) are lower or absent: Deus Ex is the highest and that's driven almost entirely by recent rediscovery, while the highest computer gaming title that people are probably voting for based on having actually played it when it came out is Starcraft at 26.

Also, even with as far behind as they've started to fall recently, there's something to be said here for Nintendo's efforts in the past to keep their previous titles available. Part of the reason there's such a demographic who can vote for Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time or Super Mario Bros 3 is that all of these games have been continuously available for sale at every point in the last decade.

I know it would be impossible, but I'd love for there to be a real, curated NeoGAF list. Take the top 30% of posters (either by voting in people, counting posts, counting time spent/joined, something), have them do a top 50, make people play some amount of listed games they haven't, and then either have people get debating/voting or allow people to spend votes on vetoes to get divisive fanboy stuff off of it.

The biggest challenge to this sort of thing is really time. There are lots of specific posters on GAF whose opinions I find implicitly valuable, but it's often a great deal of real-time before I can act on their recommendations, or they mine, simply due to the scale of some of the games in question. It's not quite like film where you can put aside a weekend and catch up on all the seminal works of Kurosawa.*

However, much like film, you're almost always going to be better-served by the "X recommends" shelves at the video store (or their critical equivalent, the individual year-end lists from various unique and thoughtful critics) than any conglomerated results.


*Okay, maybe a three-day weekend.

 

[Drkirby]

Stumpokapow's opinion of gaf is way too high. The only reason gaf is "better" than a place like gamefaqs is because we have one gaming board, which is also why he thinks gaf is good at championing hidden gems, because any thread can be on the front page where as gamefaqs might have a very active board for Machinarium or whatever but good luck noticing it

Also, poor Sonic and poor genesis

I blame a lot of that on the poor color pallet of the system, causing the Genesis graphics to age a lot worse. The Genesis only had 512 colors, 9 Bit RGB pallet, using some shading tricks it could get up to 1536 colors, and it could only show 61 at a time (4 x 16, where one of the 16 had to be transparent).

The Super Nintendo on the other hand could produce 32,768 colors with its 15 bit RGB pallet, and was able to have 256 colors on screen at once, making much more vibrant games.

 

[AniHawk]

Yeah the absence of any Sonic game is pretty shocking. I still play Sonic the Hedgehog 2 at least a couple times a year until I fail a few acts in. The same can't be said for Super Mario Bros. 3 or Super Mario World (although the first Super Mario Bros. is similarly replayable just because it's so damn short). I still think it's pretty damn great (which is why it was on my list).

On the plus side, no DKC game made it. And that comes from someone who enjoyed DKC2.

 

[NavNucST3]

Before the thread closed and while I was putting together my list I was actually hoping we would have "AGE:" so we could at least get age based stats for the games that made the list. I don't think any of my games made the Top 50 and it certainly wasn't my intention to appear to be some Art House subtitled French film snob. But being 35 and having had a computer in the home since 1979/1980 with TRS-80 and then later a Commodore 64 as well my list is certainly going to be different than someone born even just ten years after me. I saw at least one person suggest that we shouldn't be picking our favorite games but simply THE greatest games of all-time and for me that is simply insane for what would possess me to play every game...ever? Wouldn't the GAF hype of certain games steer you towards a game that many have already determined to be great which may or may not skew results. Personally, I think when I look at this list I see a number of games that, while I can't prove it, some people simply listed them because they "should". My list was RTS heavy which is interesting because I am a card carrying member of the console gaming > PC(Mac) gaming but those games are ones I could still play to this day compared with many/most of todays games that I say I "love" and yet wouldn't replay them.

I don't think my list is going to change anytime soon as those games "defined" me to a large degree so much so that I think I have bought every console RTS hoping to recapture the feeling I had when my choices came out. I want to say that I chose each of my RTS because they each brought something new to the genre that is still here today, queueing, waypoints, fog of war, etc.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

Stuff

I too thought the list seemed a bit too familiar with other "fan" lists, but the problem with gaming is that a lot of things blind people's votes. You have nostalgia, which skews a lot of people's perception on games. I personally don't think the majority of people who played Pokemon RBY could go back today and still play it. The game mechanics are broken, the gameplay is incredibly slow, and the enemy AI is predictable and idiotic. But hell, the mass majority of us grew up with it and remember 200+ hours on it when we were 10 years old. I'll admit I voted for Pokemon GSC, but still prefer those titles (but can only tolerate them through sped up emulators or thankfully HeartGold).

I also believe that game franchises that have some sort of emotional impact tend to skew people's views too. I'm no Metal Gear Solid expert, but what's the reasoning behind having three on the list? I mean obviously one provides the most fine tuned gameplay, but all three drive a heavy story line that people have invested in and feel the need to acknowledge each one. I'm guilty of this in the sense that I've only beaten The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask once, yet I put it as my favorite game of all time, due to how I felt when I played it back then. But at the same time I compensate for this by not voting for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (because what's the point of voting for 2 3D Zelda games from the same generation?)

Is it weird that it bugs me that multiple games from franchises make the list, and are also very close to each other? I just feel that personally, pick the best one from the series and forget the rest. What's the point in voting for Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Yoshi's Island? They all represent 2D platforming, so determine the best one and stick to that.

 

[cartman414]

...he says without the slightest bit of self-awareness.

Dear god, cartman. Dear GOD.

I admit to snarking a bit every now and then, but I never resort to any acts of "Suck on it, _____ fans/revisionists/etc." like some other posters do. I only respond.

As I said, more people like Super Mario World over SMB3, including Miyamoto. That doesn't invalidate your opinion but you should accept that your truth don't go beyond yourself.

Whoever said anything about not accepting anyone else's opinion? And telling someone to accept that one's own truth doesn't go beyond themselves comes across as a little patronizing, at least in the way it's worded.

Besides, I'm responding to posts that are all "SMW > SMB3. Deal with it." They're the guilty party, not I.

 

[Vinci]

I think that many people's tastes really are very narrow; in fact, I'd say that is representative of many posters on this forum. However... there's also the very innate possibility that people simply don't take this sort of thing as seriously as, say, Stump, Ghaleon, Evilore, et al do.

Recommendations for next time:

1) Require not only game names, but some analysis about why each one is being nominated. What did it bring to the table, how did it impact the gamer and gaming, etc.

2) Make sure the first three posters are Stump, Ghaleon, and Evilore - each with his well thought out take on the Greatest Games of All Time. This would indicate the methodology by which choices should be made, and provide examples others can find inspiration in.

As it stands, people took this thread about as seriously as asking, "Which female game characters are the hottest?"

 

[shintoki]

I want to say inexperience. You can read the demographics off that list from a mile away. There are exactly three games older than 1995 in the top twenty: the singular top representatives of Nintendo's "big three" franchises. You don't hit another until Tetris at 24.

Meanwhile, similarly seminal PC titles (from back in the day when computer and console gaming were seen as basically different hobbies) are lower or absent: Deus Ex is the highest and that's driven almost entirely by recent rediscovery, while the highest computer gaming title that people are probably voting for based on having actually played it when it came out is Starcraft at 26.

Also, even with as far behind as they've started to fall recently, there's something to be said here for Nintendo's efforts in the past to keep their previous titles available. Part of the reason there's such a demographic who can vote for Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time or Super Mario Bros 3 is that all of these games have been continuously available for sale at every point in the last decade.

As already said, no different than the vast majority of other outlet top 10's. We are never going to break away from that since that is where the majority of posters come from(Me included). It's exactly as you said though, it's about finding individual posters and not a collective since the collective is skewered to the safe bets.

 

[Opiate]

A few responses to Stump, whom I am not quoting because there are a variety of very large posts:

First, I don't think you're thinking like a statistician here. Let's imagine, as a totally arbitrary figure, that 10% of GAF would qualify as the "deep" gamers that you imagine GAF to be. I would say that figure is considerably better than a place like IGN, but nevertheless would not produce apparent results in a best-games-of-all-time list. If you have 10% of the population voting for hidden gems + popular titles (because even conisseurs would agree that at least some of the big, well known titles geniunely are great), while you have 90% of the population voting exclusively for popular titles (Because, by our definition, they've never even played or heard of these hidden gems), the resulting selection will produce well known titles winning in a landslide.

Even if you bump up that percentage of "deep gamer" to 20% or even 30%, you're not going to see significant changes in the aggregate list. In fact, you won't see statistically significant changes until that subgroup represents a distinct majority, I suspect, because the subgroup is voting for both types of games (hidden gem + blockbuster) and has to overcompensate for the other group voting exclusively for the blockbusters.

Second, I again object to the comparisons between film/music/other criticism and game criticism. Film criticism, as an example, is largely done on the basis of intellectual or emotional coherence and complexity. Those are the values that most critics (not all!) espouse. By contrast, most film goers judge film value based on its escapist/entertainment value. This is why so many movies with terrible reviews do so well: film watchers have a different value system than film critics. The same would be true of music critics, who seem to value lyrical and musical complexity over simple hooks and catchy beats.

By contrast, game critics seem to genuinely assess game worth by its entertainment value. I don't think any critic -- either professional ones on IGN or amateur ones on GAF -- judge games by their intellectual worth. If they did, I don't think Uncharted would rate nearly as highly as it does today.

This means that in games, critical response and average joe response are far more in tune: both sets of people want their games to be entertaining. This should mean that the cream of the crop rises to the top in gaming far better than it does in other mediums, because virtually everybody agrees what the "cream" consists of: fun games.

 

[_Alkaline_]

The way people throw around the term nostalgia irks me.

Yes there is such a thing. Absolutely. But how often do you see people say "you only prefer that old game because of nostalgia" or "nostalgia goggles lol"? It's this strange condescending view where new stuff is always better and those who prefer older stuff are blinded by time.

Maybe some of those older games are just better. People who constantly blame things on nostalgia are probably the same people who have "haters gonna hate" in every second post. Pisses me off.

Fuck, I didn't play Ocarina of Time until after Wind Waker and I still thought it was the better game. Hell, I didn't even play Yoshi's Island until a couple of years ago and it's now my favourite 2D platformer. I've got plenty of other examples too.

I don't doubt nostalgia, but it's the automatic assumption that preference for anything old is blinded by it that frustrates me.

Moving on.

 

[Vinci]

Maybe some of those older games are just better. People who constantly blame things on nostalgia are probably the same people who have "haters gonna hate" in every second post. Pisses me off.

Fuck, I didn't play Ocarina of Time until after Wind Waker and I still thought it was the better game. Hell, I didn't even play Yoshi's Island until a couple of years ago and it's now my favourite 2D platformer.

In another classic example, I think LttP and Link's Awakening beat the holy crap out of OoT.

 

[54-46!]

Would've been a bit more interesting if it had a "one game per franchise" rule or something.. but it's hard to deny that there are alot of good games in the Mario and Zelda franchises.

 

[ViperVisor]

GoldenEye 007

smh gaf SMH!

He did 2 different in the chart by mistake GoldenEye 007 and Golden Eye 007

The vote he misses is mine which is 9 points to give it 121 total.

 

[Starwolf_UK]

Is it weird that it bugs me that multiple games from franchises make the list, and are also very close to each other? I just feel that personally, pick the best one from the series and forget the rest. What's the point in voting for Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Yoshi's Island? They all represent 2D platforming, so determine the best one and stick to that.

I don't think the issue isn't so much people voting for all the Mario games (there were probably some poeple who did just this) but the fact opinion is divided on which of the 4 you mentioned is best. Say everyone put OOT as #1 and *one of 4 Mairo game* as #2. It stands to reason that the 4 mario games will be high in the overall ranking as a result, say 2,3,4 and 5...

As for me, my views are too narrow. Anything before 16-bit is basically complete gap as is most PC and Playstation gaming. Heck, even if it was greatest N64 games of all time I still wouldn't feel confident I was making the right choices...

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

The way people throw around the term nostalgia irks me.

Yes there is such a thing. Absolutely. But how often do you see people say "you only prefer that old game because of nostalgia" or "nostalgia goggles lol"? It's this strange condescending view where new stuff is always better and those who prefer older stuff are blinded by time.

Maybe some of those older games are just better. People who constantly blame things on nostalgia are probably the same people who have "haters gonna hate" in every second post. Pisses me off.

Fuck, I didn't play Ocarina of Time until after Wind Waker and I still thought it was the better game. Hell, I didn't even play Yoshi's Island until a couple of years ago and it's now my favourite 2D platformer. I've got plenty of other examples too.

I don't doubt nostalgia, but it's the automatic assumption that preference for anything old is blinded by it that frustrates me.

Moving on.

I'm sure this was directed at what I said, and I was using more directly to relate to the Pokemon franchise. There's absolutely no other reason for games like old Pokemon titles to be on the list other than the fact that most people got a hell of a lot of play time back when they were kids, I'd like to see them do the same now with the old generation titles.

But regardless of that, to say nostalgia doesn't come into play to some people's lists is just ignoring the obvious. Regardless of whether you hate the term or not. Hell I get "nostalgic" about games from the GameCube/Xbox/PlayStation 2 era, it's not restricted to the NES days, so there's no point in saying that.

 

[beelzebozo]

I too thought the list seemed a bit too familiar with other "fan" lists, but the problem with gaming is that a lot of things blind people's votes. You have nostalgia, which skews a lot of people's perception on games. I personally don't think the majority of people who played Pokemon RBY could go back today and still play it. The game mechanics are broken, the gameplay is incredibly slow, and the enemy AI is predictable and idiotic. But hell, the mass majority of us grew up with it and remember 200+ hours on it when we were 10 years old. I'll admit I voted for Pokemon GSC, but still prefer those titles (but can only tolerate them through sped up emulators or thankfully HeartGold).

I also believe that game franchises that have some sort of emotional impact tend to skew people's views too. I'm no Metal Gear Solid expert, but what's the reasoning behind having three on the list? I mean obviously one provides the most fine tuned gameplay, but all three drive a heavy story line that people have invested in and feel the need to acknowledge each one. I'm guilty of this in the sense that I've only beaten The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask once, yet I put it as my favorite game of all time, due to how I felt when I played it back then. But at the same time I compensate for this by not voting for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (because what's the point of voting for 2 3D Zelda games from the same generation?)

Is it weird that it bugs me that multiple games from franchises make the list, and are also very close to each other? I just feel that personally, pick the best one from the series and forget the rest. What's the point in voting for Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Yoshi's Island? They all represent 2D platforming, so determine the best one and stick to that.

in my mind, that's not skewing. inevitably when you start asking people to name the best games of all time, you're implicitly asking for the ones that have had the most impact on them. separating the context in which you play the game from the game itself in order to extract some kind of more clear perspective on it is impossible and tilting at windmills.

these things are not mitigating factors to be compensated for. they're an inherent part of the information which is being requested.

 

[Stumpokapow]

First, I don't think you're thinking like a statistician here. Let's imagine, as a totally arbitrary figure, that 10% of GAF would qualify as the "deep" gamers that you imagine GAF to be. I would say that figure is considerably better than a place like IGN, but nevertheless would not produce apparent results in a best-games-of-all-time list. If you have 10% of the population voting for hidden gems + popular titles (because even conisseurs would agree that at least some of the big, well known titles geniunely are great), while you have 90% of the population voting exclusively for popular titles (Because, by our definition, they've never even played or heard of these hidden gems), the resulting selection will produce well known titles winning in a landslide.

Even if you bump up that percentage of "deep gamer" to 20% or even 30%, you're not going to see significant changes in the aggregate list. In fact, you won't see statistically significant changes until that subgroup represents a distinct majority, I suspect, because the subgroup is voting for both types of games (hidden gem + blockbuster) and has to overcompensate for the other group voting exclusively for the blockbusters.

This is true but my assumption was that the deep gamer proportion was near the higher end and that the self-selection bias inherent in voting would lead to that proportion being over-expressed here. I was also hoping more people would provide descriptions for their votes because I think that well-explained votes make others reflect on their choices as well as remind people of games they'd like to choose but that don't necessarily come to mind.

Second, I again object to the comparisons between film/music/other criticism and game criticism. Film criticism, as an example, is largely done on the basis of intellectual or emotional coherence and complexity. Those are the values that most critics (not all!) espouse. By contrast, most film goers judge film value based on its escapist/entertainment value. This is why so many movies with terrible reviews do so well: film watchers have a different value system than film critics. The same would be true of music critics, who seem to value lyrical and musical complexity over simple hooks and catchy beats.

By contrast, game critics seem to genuinely assess game worth by its entertainment value. I don't think any critic -- either professional ones on IGN or amateur ones on GAF -- judge games by their intellectual worth. If they did, I don't think Uncharted would rate nearly as highly as it does today.

It's not so much intellectual worth that I feel is lacking. SimTower and Theme Hospital (two games I voted for) are certainly more intellectual than Doom or Uncharted, but they're relatively uncomplicated and undeep as far as simulation games go. None of the games I voted for would be considered particularly intellectual, and one of the reasons I voted for FF6 is specifically because despite being simple and not very deep it manages to trick you into thinking that it is--I also voted for Heavy Rain along the same lines in the GOTY thread. So I guess what I'm saying is that my votes reveal that the kind of stuff I'd like to see from this list isn't really intellectual stuff, so much as it's interesting stuff.

I'd maybe draw a comparison to hobbyist board games here; I'm not asking people to vote for Chess, Go, and Hex--all three of which have infinitely more depth than most board games. Voting for Carcassonne and Ticket to Ride is fine. I'm simply asking them to not vote exclusively for Monopoly and Risk. BoardGameGeek's list of top board games has a recent bias, but I think it otherwise does a great job of encompassing both deep games and thematic games, games with all varieties of mechanics, a good variety of themes within the thematic games, etc. I mention this because I know you're most comfortable relating video games to games rather than to other mediums. I feel like someone would know a lot more about board games and be a lot happier with their purchases by buying ten random games off the BGG top 50 than they would by buying ten random games off this video game top 50.

Second, you're missing out on a lot of quality games writing if that's your perception of stuff. I'd recommend GameSpite, Hardcore Gaming 101, and from an authorial point of view someone like Kieron Gillion--all three of these directions would point you towards people who are interested in the evolution of mechanics, the use of theme, revisiting established games with a critical eye, etc.

 

[bj00rn_]

Plenty of good games on that list - It's still a tiny bit embarrassing considering this place is supposed to be core of gaming somehow, and thus should know its history so to speak.. I guess a lot of younger gamers voted for their favorite contemporary games - Which of course there's not anything wrong with per se..

 

[Vinci]

This is true but my assumption was that the deep gamer proportion was near the higher end and that the self-selection bias inherent in voting would lead to that proportion being over-expressed here. I was also hoping more people would provide descriptions for their votes because I think that well-explained votes make others reflect on their choices as well as remind people of games they'd like to choose but that don't necessarily come to mind.

Which is why I'm recommending that Ghaleon, Evilore, and yourself go first next time to provide examples for others to follow. You know how this works: It's hard to reverse a trend in a thread once the first few posts have hit. Having early examples by people with some authority in this raggedy population could cut out much of the knee-jerk responses and make people actually think, "Hey, this is serious - what do I really think here?"

 

[Guevara]

I think one factor we're missing is the generally availability of titles and whether or not they've been able to keep their high profile since release. Some of the PC games I would love to play are difficult to obtain legally and the only buzz about them is on relatively hardcore message boards.

Nintendo, Capcom and Square Enix get some flack for their constant re-releases, but in a way they are curating their best properties. Constant ports and remakes ensure that a wide generational range get a change to play a game, and on a wide range of hardware. Just look at the availability of the top 5 games:

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
- First on 64, available on GC Zelda bonus disc, GC Master Quest disc, current available on Wiiware, coming soon to 3DS as a flagship title.

Resident Evil 4
- First on GC, shortly thereafter on PS2, PC, excellent Wii port, a terrible version on cellphones and now available on iOS.

Super Mario World
- First on SNES, then as part of Allstars on SNES, then on GBA, currently available on Wiiware, recently released on a Wii port of Allstars

Chrono Trigger
- First on SNES, available on a collection for the PS, enhanced DS port, coming soon to cellphones

Half-Life 2
- Permanently available on Steam, practically given away with other purchases, part of Orange Box, part of an active series with 2 episodes and a third coming soon (lol).

All of these games are easily purchased and played today. All these games have had a high profile release within the past 2-3 years, or will sometime in 2011. That matters.

 

[iconoclast]

someone else put ketsui in number one, that's cool

I ctrl+f'd Ketsui in the voting thread, and you and I were the only ones to list it, but neither of us had it as #1. Did I miss something?

I kinda wish I put DOJ Black Label into my list now. Game's a masterpiece.