Board 8 > The best year contest is nothing but nostalgia fest

(+) Yeah! (+)

no matter how good the games are in recent years, even if they are better by miles than those crappy old years, still wins by a freakin landslide, this is soo dumb
---

if only you had been here before the contest i would have known to take 1973 in my bracket, fuck.

Don't worry, it's opposite day!

It's dumb that the better year is beating the inferior year.

Damn, I have had this whole thing wrong the entire time!
---

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

Don't worry, it's opposite day!

So I guess it means the whinner seconds game is supposed to be funny today?
---

The average age of gamefaqs users is over 30, what do you expect.

Give it another decade and you'll understand us, kid.

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

Well... You see, here's the thing. There's this thingy called 'the test of time'. When a game comes out and it's good, and I mean REEEEEAAAAALLLLYYY good, you can pop it in years later, well after the standards have changed and gone way beyond what was normal at the time (hopefully) and still enjoy it. The Test of Time is part of the reason why you don't see people still popping in titles like Warcraft II or Medal of Honor but still have people uncovering secrets in Portal and Street Fighter II. In recent years, thanks heavily to the growing influence of mega-corporations focused heavily on profit/loss margins, a lot of titles have been released that might 'be good' but end up forgotten before the year is even over.

Of course this happened in the older days. Heck, the gaming crash basically happened BECAUSE this mentality was dominate (among other things). But between the release of the NES and the rise of the mega-corp (which I'd point the finger at EA) there was a period in which a lot of titles came out that really did stand the test of time. Course now it's a sizable chunk of titles that get good grades than near-instantly forgotten as people go to play Minecraft and realize that the thing they just bought was kinda bland, but that's the mega-corp for you.

For the record, I'm not against corporations at all or games having budget, trying to earn money, and so-forth. But there is an art to making a really good game and if you're just focused on the bottom fiscal line you're gonna miss it by a huge margin.
---

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

tabiicat42 posted...

Don't worry, it's opposite day!

Terastodon posted...

Don't worry, it's opposite day!

hi digi wives
---

Hate to break it to you, but newer games are objectively worse. 90s were the golden age of gaming.
---

heartindarkness posted...

no matter how good the games are in recent years, even if they are better by miles than those crappy old years, still wins by a freakin landslide, this is soo dumb

98 is beating 92, and the difference in age between 03 and 05 is negligible, so what are you even talking about?

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Well... You see, here's the thing. There's this thingy called 'the test of time'. When a game comes out and it's good, and I mean REEEEEAAAAALLLLYYY good, you can pop it in years later, well after the standards have changed and gone way beyond what was normal at the time (hopefully) and still enjoy it. The Test of Time is part of the reason why you don't see people still popping in titles like Warcraft II or Medal of Honor but still have people uncovering secrets in Portal and Street Fighter II. In recent years, thanks heavily to the growing influence of mega-corporations focused heavily on profit/loss margins, a lot of titles have been released that might 'be good' but end up forgotten before the year is even over.

Of course this happened in the older days. Heck, the gaming crash basically happened BECAUSE this mentality was dominate (among other things). But between the release of the NES and the rise of the mega-corp (which I'd point the finger at EA) there was a period in which a lot of titles came out that really did stand the test of time. Course now it's a sizable chunk of titles that get good grades than near-instantly forgotten as people go to play Minecraft and realize that the thing they just bought was kinda bland, but that's the mega-corp for you.

For the record, I'm not against corporations at all or games having budget, trying to earn money, and so-forth. But there is an art to making a really good game and if you're just focused on the bottom fiscal line you're gonna miss it by a huge margin.

Maybe that is true, but when 2003 beat 2013 it didnt even make sense when 2013 had much better games overall, the same applies for many other like 1994 ( only really notable games are metroid and mega man X) while 2004 had POP, HL2,MSG3, San andreas, also 2015 compared to 2005 2015 catalogue was way better with soo many memorable games while 2005 had shadow of colossus, that doesnt make any sense in terms of quality of games throught the year, it felt like people were only voting depending on their single fav game not the year as a whole
---

ZeldaTPLink posted...

The average age of gamefaqs users is over 30, what do you expect.

Give it another decade and you'll understand us, kid.

yeah so whats ur point, i have been gaming for quite some time as well, starting from atari and NES and i am in 20s, and the only thing you are doing is backing me up
---

Gaming has been shit overall since 2007, so ya....
---

Just because a game is more technically impressive, does not make it more fun/memorable.
---

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

Jeff Zero posted...

Don't worry, it's opposite day!

---

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

wg64Z posted...

Just because a game is more technically impressive, does not make it more fun/memorable.

Which is what I think is an issue with some games these days
---

It is a nostalgia fest... but not for my generation.

Just pick everything Pokemon and N64 and you have your winning bracket. Even though none of that shit would exist without the predecessors on SNES and NES. /oldfartrant
---

heartindarkness posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

Well... You see, here's the thing. There's this thingy called 'the test of time'. When a game comes out and it's good, and I mean REEEEEAAAAALLLLYYY good, you can pop it in years later, well after the standards have changed and gone way beyond what was normal at the time (hopefully) and still enjoy it. The Test of Time is part of the reason why you don't see people still popping in titles like Warcraft II or Medal of Honor but still have people uncovering secrets in Portal and Street Fighter II. In recent years, thanks heavily to the growing influence of mega-corporations focused heavily on profit/loss margins, a lot of titles have been released that might 'be good' but end up forgotten before the year is even over.

Of course this happened in the older days. Heck, the gaming crash basically happened BECAUSE this mentality was dominate (among other things). But between the release of the NES and the rise of the mega-corp (which I'd point the finger at EA) there was a period in which a lot of titles came out that really did stand the test of time. Course now it's a sizable chunk of titles that get good grades than near-instantly forgotten as people go to play Minecraft and realize that the thing they just bought was kinda bland, but that's the mega-corp for you.

For the record, I'm not against corporations at all or games having budget, trying to earn money, and so-forth. But there is an art to making a really good game and if you're just focused on the bottom fiscal line you're gonna miss it by a huge margin.

Maybe that is true, but when 2003 beat 2013 it didnt even make sense when 2013 had much better games overall, the same applies for many other like 1994 ( only really notable games are metroid and mega man X) while 2004 had POP, HL2,MSG3, San andreas, also 2015 compared to 2005 2015 catalogue was way better with soo many memorable games while 2005 had shadow of colossus, that doesnt make any sense in terms of quality of games throught the year, it felt like people were only voting depending on their single fav game not the year as a whole

Don't get me wrong, you're a joke anyway.... But for saying that 2005 only has SotC when it has RE4, which is one of the most universally acclaimed games ever, says alot about you.
---

fatbaldguy0 posted...

It is a nostalgia fest... but not for my generation.

Just pick everything Pokemon and N64 and you have your winning bracket. Even though none of that shit would exist without the predecessors on SNES and NES. /oldfartrant

SNES is the most popular console here.... And the NES really does't have that many games that actually stand the test of time, and unfortunately, the few that do, are all in series that has far better and more popular games later on.
---

heartindarkness posted...

like 1994 (only really notable games are metroid and mega man X) while 2004 had POP, HL2,MSG3, San andreas

Practically forgetting that Final Fantasy VI exists which is better than every game released in 2004 (and most games released period)
---

2004 is the last great year for gaming, but even it doesnt compare to 1994. 2004 is low in the top 10, 1994 is in the 4th to 6th range.
---

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

heartindarkness posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

Well... You see, here's the thing. There's this thingy called 'the test of time'. When a game comes out and it's good, and I mean REEEEEAAAAALLLLYYY good, you can pop it in years later, well after the standards have changed and gone way beyond what was normal at the time (hopefully) and still enjoy it. The Test of Time is part of the reason why you don't see people still popping in titles like Warcraft II or Medal of Honor but still have people uncovering secrets in Portal and Street Fighter II. In recent years, thanks heavily to the growing influence of mega-corporations focused heavily on profit/loss margins, a lot of titles have been released that might 'be good' but end up forgotten before the year is even over.

Of course this happened in the older days. Heck, the gaming crash basically happened BECAUSE this mentality was dominate (among other things). But between the release of the NES and the rise of the mega-corp (which I'd point the finger at EA) there was a period in which a lot of titles came out that really did stand the test of time. Course now it's a sizable chunk of titles that get good grades than near-instantly forgotten as people go to play Minecraft and realize that the thing they just bought was kinda bland, but that's the mega-corp for you.

For the record, I'm not against corporations at all or games having budget, trying to earn money, and so-forth. But there is an art to making a really good game and if you're just focused on the bottom fiscal line you're gonna miss it by a huge margin.

Maybe that is true, but when 2003 beat 2013 it didnt even make sense when 2013 had much better games overall, the same applies for many other like 1994 ( only really notable games are metroid and mega man X) while 2004 had POP, HL2,MSG3, San andreas, also 2015 compared to 2005 2015 catalogue was way better with soo many memorable games while 2005 had shadow of colossus, that doesnt make any sense in terms of quality of games throught the year, it felt like people were only voting depending on their single fav game not the year as a whole

Don't get me wrong, you're a joke anyway.... But for saying that 2005 only has SotC when it has RE4, which is one of the most universally acclaimed games ever, says alot about you.

I didnt mention as i dont care at all about resident evil whatsoever, calling a person a joke just cuz he didnt mention a game u worship says alot about how much fun you are to be around
---

heartindarkness posted...

calling a person a joke just cuz he didnt mention a game u worship says alot about how much fun you are to be around

How many popular games did you exclude because they're all "crappy old years" and the contest is "soo dumb" because your personal specific favorites aren't winning?
---

-hotdogturtle-- posted...

heartindarkness posted...

calling a person a joke just cuz he didnt mention a game u worship says alot about how much fun you are to be around

How many popular games did you exclude because they're all "crappy old years" and the contest is "soo dumb" because your personal specific favorites aren't winning?

I was mostly talking about how every year from 80s or 90s was winning over 00s in general when i genuinely think ps2 era was the best in gaming and some really powerful recent years especially 2013 and 2015 and by the looks of it 2017
---

heartindarkness posted...

i genuinely think ps2 era was the best in gaming

Ok, well there are 13,000 other people voting alongside you. What makes your singular opinion worth more than any of theirs?
---

The only 80s year to make the second round was 1987 and even then it only made it because it defeated another 80s year.

The 90s though are stacked, 6/10 are in the quarter-finals and 2001's victory over 1995 today only marks the second time they lost to a non-90s year (2000 > 1990 being the only other one).

A third may fall to 2001 next round.
---

yeah i mean this is "generally" true but this is a website whose popularity peaked in the early 2000s

so its no surprise that the formative years of most of this site's users are the ones that are doing the best
---

So goddamn close
---

Jeff Zero posted...

Don't worry, it's opposite day!

---

-hotdogturtle-- posted...

heartindarkness posted...

i genuinely think ps2 era was the best in gaming

Ok, well there are 13,000 other people voting alongside you. What makes your singular opinion worth more than any of theirs?

it doesnt, i only thought that was general consensus
---

Well, now you know, this is what the general population of the site collectively feels.

Also, strange that you posted this topic on the day when a 00s year is beating a 90s year and not any of the past days when old years were beating years a decade ahead of them.
---

94-98 was THE golden age of gaming. So many hits.
---

Bluntlicious posted...

94-98 was THE golden age of gaming. So many hits.

I would say go 94- early 2002.... Then you can add in GSC, FF IX, KH, DMC, MGS2, Paper Mario, SMS, Metroid Prime, THPS/2, Halo, Melee, FF X, among a ton of other games. Early 2002 after KH came out was the end of gaming's run though, and after that games of that caliber would go to a trickle. Never would we have a year even like 1991 ever again, let alone say like something stupid strong like 96.
---

The fact that you omitted Resident Evil 4 becauae you 'don't like Resident Evil' despite the fact that RE4 is literally one of the most acclaimed games of all time, has stood the test of time l and quite literally redefined all 3rd person action games is astounding.
---

OliviaTremor posted...

The fact that you omitted Resident Evil 4 becauae you 'don't like Resident Evil' despite the fact that RE4 is literally one of the most acclaimed games of all time, has stood the test of time l and quite literally redefined all 3rd person action games is astounding.

Not to mention invalidates the point. It's okay to not like something, but when trying to decide the best or how well games have stood the test of time or w/e you need to put that aside. I don't like Earthbound (overhyped as hell) but I still acknowledge that it's good, just not a title I like.
---

Don't worry, it's opposite day!
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

Bluntlicious posted...

94-98 was THE golden age of gaming. So many hits.

I would say go 94- early 2002.... Then you can add in GSC, FF IX, KH, DMC, MGS2, Paper Mario, SMS, Metroid Prime, THPS/2, Halo, Melee, FF X, among a ton of other games. Early 2002 after KH came out was the end of gaming's run though, and after that games of that caliber would go to a trickle. Never would we have a year even like 1991 ever again, let alone say like something stupid strong like 96.

Thats a bit of a long time, but yes I'd agree. Although not early 2002, more like through just 2001.
---