GameFAQs "Best. Game. Ever." contest.

the thing with cross is it's not exactly considered a bad game so much as it's a controversial game, similar to mgs2 i suppose.

it has also been up against games that are simply not going to be as popular with the Game Faqs audience, like World Of Warcraft and GTA. had it been up against say, a zelda game, it would most likely not have gotten this far. cross, being a jrpg that still has its fans, is going to be more to GF's tastes than something like gta, ditto for smrpg.

edited 27th Nov '15 1:59:17 PM by wehrmacht

I wouldn't say that. The demographic has a soft spot for the SNES and N64/PSX era. Many games from that era were complicated enough to require a FAQ but not so complicated as to require something more in-depth like the wikis that modern games have. That was a time when GameFAQs was king, so it stands to reason that the website would have a heavy bias for it.

The reason it seems like a Japanese bias is because that was also a time when Japan dominated the industry, having very little real competition from American developers. The only heavy-hitting Western developer I can think of whose company was making games back then is Bethesda, whose games were PC-exclusive and incredibly broken messes that crashed at the drop of a hat. My friends in high school and I used to have a competition to see who could get farther in Daggerfall before the game committed suicide.

In general, I think the site still prefers games where things like monster bestiaries and stuff are helpful, but that aren't so complex that you would need an encyclopedic database of fifty different mechanics instead of a quick reference chart.

It's just personal tastes. I'm very military-inclined which is why I'd rather play a cop than a mobster. It's easier for me to get into the character of a remorseless murderer when the game doesn't feel like it's presenting them in a positive light. I liked Mafia 2 for presenting a brutal look at the criminal lifestyle that felt like it took as much or more than it gave. I also liked Sleeping Dogs for letting me play an undercover cop instead of a mafioso.

Similarly, I enjoy the God of War series because even though Kratos is a brutal, monstrous bastard, the tone always feels like it's condemning him for it. Kratos himself is the villain of Kratos's story, the person responsible for constantly destroying Kratos's life and undermining any hope of progress. I can stomach Kratos being a monster because I feel that the game shares my disdain for him; like that disdain is the point of his character.

The impression I've always gotten from the GTA franchise is that they're celebrating crime rather than scorning it from within, and that's just never appealed to me.

my main problem with god of war is that the game appears to be condemning kratos' actions instead of celebrating them to a point (i feel like the graphic brutality of the qte's and such makes that a bit contentious, but storywise he's in the wrong), but i still don't find any of the characters in the story, including kratos himself, to be entertaining or interesting in any way. with that being what it is and me finding the gameplay merely serviceable, i'm left with not much to care about. It's one of the only examples of Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy i've ever gotten, something which very rarely happens to me.

edited 27th Nov '15 2:26:07 PM by wehrmacht

Which is entirely understandable. For me, I find the character of Kratos fascinating precisely because of that Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy. The only characters I can genuinely be concerned for in such a story are the muggles and that's where the tension comes from, watching Kratos embark on his latest cock-up and internally begging him not to cock up so hard. It's an emotional roller coaster that I enjoy, like watching a horror flick from the monster's perspective, waiting to see how low he can get.

I was frustrated with Kratos right up until the sequel introduced literally kicking puppies as a game mechanic. Then he became hilarious.

Kratos is a badass that manages to be hysterical in a visual way. It works.

God Of War 4 is being hinted at at the PSX, too.

If you know anything about Greek mythology, Kratos is most definitely not presented negatively, or as the villain of his own story. At least not until God of War III. He is very much in the same vein as classical Greek heroes.

Why yes, I wrote a paper about whether God of War was "good mythology" or not, once.

Kratos is not presented negatively by the standards of ancient Greece but he is presented negatively by the standards of modern storytelling. He's like the patron god of Deliberate Values Dissonance, functioning both as an over-the-top deconstruction of the "brutal antihero" archetype while still serving as an effective example of a classic Tragic Hero, bristling with hyper-masculinity but steadily tearing himself apart through his mortal failures - a very popular character type in Greek mythos.

He would fit right in next to the likes of Sisyphus, Odysseus, Heracles, or Orpheus with minimal difficulty but, at the same time, the games go out of their way at every opportunity to make players as discomforted by his actions as possible.

edited 27th Nov '15 2:40:44 PM by TobiasDrake

That's attributing way more psychology to Greek storytelling than actually exists, by the way.

Also, I'd argue that even by modern standards, it's not until God of War III that Kratos is definitely supposed to be a Villain Protagonist. He's certainly brutal in the first two, but I don't feel like the game ever really bothers to condemn him for it, especially when everyone else is just as bad.

honestly he wasn't so bad in the first game where you might have some shred of sympathy for him, but my main issue is moreso a general problem with how tragic backstories involving loss of loved ones are presented in a lot of media, especially action games.

i understand that it isn't the focus of the game, nor were they necessarily letting literary aspirations dictate the game, but the fact that we know very little of kratos' wife and daughter and their time together makes it much harder for me to care about the fact that kratos ended up killing them.

i'm not sure if there was an elegant solution to this problem, but too often action games want us to care about something but don't bother giving us proper context to care for it because they can't find a place to put it in with the constant flow of action. the Lords of Shadow reboot had this problem with the main character's wife, who is basically a dull Purity Sue as a ghost and we never see any of their time together as a couple, which makes me much less invested in his quest to revive her.

Fun fact: That's actually literally part of Heracles' backstory. It's just ripped straight out of the myth.

Even in the first game, Kratos murders civilians in Athens for health pickups. His journey ends in becoming the very thing he spent the entire game opposing. He blames Ares for dicking him around but the choice to sell his soul to Ares was Kratos's to make.

Also, there has never been a God of War game that did not require you to murder an innocent person in cold blood as they scream and plead for their life to progress; in the first one, it's one of the trials Kratos must undergo. A soldier is caged and mistakenly assumes you're there to help him but, instead, you have to push his cage into an incinerator and roast him alive while he, upon realizing his mistake, starts screaming for his life and begging you not to be so awful.

Kratos has always been the Villain Protagonist. His Establishing Character Moment has him slaying a hydra and then dumping the captain of the ship being attacked down its gullet for no reason. He murders a person in cold blood before the first level is even finished.

edited 27th Nov '15 3:11:45 PM by TobiasDrake

If that's your actual point of contention then the trope you're looking for is Eight Deadly Words, not Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy.

i actually did not know that was a trope, but you are right that it is much more accurate to what my issue is.

It's a very useful distinction I've found, since you only need to not have a reason to care about the characters for Eight Deadly Words. Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy requires being put-off by the bleakness and or hopelessness of a setting.

It's Funny that Asuras Wrath is one of the few that manages to make the loss of loved ones in an action game really mean something, especially as flashbacks throughout the story depict his life before being betrayed.

edited 28th Nov '15 5:32:46 AM by Demongodofchaos2

Today's bracket:

Metal Gear Solid vs Earthbound

I enjoy earthbound, but much prefer its sequel. Ultimately, although it's not a perfect game, MGS was still a really great one that pushed standards of storytelling and voice-acting for its time, and still has a lot of creative and interesting ideas that remain uncommon in most games today. I'm not surprised that it's winning the vote given that even with demographics taken into account, MGS is big enough on GF to supersede earthbound.

Shadow of the Colossus vs Red Read Redemption

Never played the latter. as for Sot C i don't know if it's the absolute masterpiece that a lot of people think it is, but it still a very interesting game with a distinct vision, great art direction, masterfully composed soundtrack, and a minimalist story that remains engaging despite your lack of knowledge.

honestly, high quality rockstar game or not, it didn't stand a chance against a Sacred Cow like that.

Metal Gear Solid 3 vs Bioshock

I've only played Bioshock for a bit. It seems like a good game, but I don't have much of an informed opinion on it.

MGS 3 is a weird game for me. I enjoyed it and overall found it quite fun, but I was never able to meaningfully connect with Big Boss' character, and in comparison to FOXHOUND, the cobra unit is very lacking in terms of being fleshed out characters. still a good game, but i personally prefer MGS 2 and MGS 1.

with that in mind I have to vote for the game I did play all the way through and enjoy.

It's not surprising that it's winning because, again, MGS is big with Game Faqs.

Starcraft vs Mass Effect 2

I wasn't sure how this vote was going to go; I'm actually surprised it's this close. I suppose ultimately, ME 2 might be closer to what GF typically likes, which might be what is swaying the vote, however slightly, in its direction.

I personally enjoy SC but am honestly pretty terrible at it. I've never played ME, so I guess SC gets my vote.

edited 28th Nov '15 6:26:05 AM by wehrmacht

Today is the last day of Round 2.

Metal Gear Solid vs. Earth Bound

Shadow of the Colossus vs. Red Dead Redemption

Metal Gear Solid 3 vs. Bio Shock

Starcraft vs. Mass Effect 2

I have been addicted to Fallout 4 all day and am having difficulty forming complex thoughts.

Metal Gear Solid v. EarthBound

Both are great, but I think if I could only have one on a desert island, I'd pick EB. Both are fun games with a stylish sense of charm and wit, but I just enjoy EB's goofy characters more.

Shadow of the Colossus v. Red Dead Redemption

Shadow of the Colossus was an innovative game design, but suffers tremendously from Seinfeld Is Unfunny; the mechanics it pioneered have become a staple of adventure platformers today, resulting in Shadow feeling more of a beta-test for the genre than a complete experience by modern standards.

As a result, I feel it just can't compare to Red Dead's deconstructive take on the Wild West Badass, stripping away the fantastic trappings to tell a harsh and brutal story about the soul-crushing hardship of living in a Cowboy Fantasy.

Shadow of the Colossus was legendary once, but not everything gets to stay groundbreaking forever.

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater v. Bioshock

Both games took a modern trapping of gaming and punished it harshly. Bioshock's plot emphasizes a player's overreliance on the game to tell it what to do, mindlessly pursuing quest arrows to reach the next goal and never wondering whether that goal is something that even should be reached at all. Meanwhile, Metal Gear Solid 3 focused on killing enemies, punishing players in the battle with The Sorrow by forcing them to face the phantoms of every enemy they killed in the game, if any.

However, between the two, Bioshock's approach feels more flawed to me. For one, the game is extremely linear. This is a problem because while it services the message effectively, it's not a message that has meaning for 100% of the player base. Many players accustomed to more freedom in their narrative have complained about the game forcing you to pursue a single path and then having the gall to turn around and chew you out for it, despite never offering an alternative option.

And then, once the message is delivered, nothing changes. The player must continue following their single quest directive until the end. Contrast Spec Ops: The Line which delivered a very similar narrative about the horrors of the video game mindset but also gave some small choices to the player along the way. Instead of being literally mind-controlled, the main character himself is steadily degenerating, allowing players to absolve or condemn themselves in those rare opportunities where they have some small sense of control.

And once the reveal was made, Spec Ops opened up and offered a variety of choices to players for how this story should end, allowing players a true sense of control in response to the discovery of how little they actually had. Players who'd been right there with the protagonist throughout got to experience revulsion at what they had been associated with and rebellion against the same madness that conflicted their hero, while players who had caught on and rebelled against the rails were allowed an opportunity to triumph over the tyrannical protagonist and choose for themselves what comes next. Bioshock's only choices are repeated instance of what Yahtzee once described as Mother Theresa or Baby-Eating.

In this same sense, Metal Gear Solid's message feels like it caters to both sets. Players who tried to murder their way through the game were effectively punished and got to experience a concept that is rare in gaming: consequences. While players who refrained from killing and chose the nonlethal route are acknowledged and rewarded for bucking the trend. Nobody's forced to commit the sin the game intends to call attention to.

For this reason, my point goes to Metal Gear Solid, which did a much better job of calling out player behavior by remembering that not every player is guilty.

Starcraft v. Mass Effect 2

Never got into Starcraft, loved ME 2, it wins by default.

edited 28th Nov '15 6:05:51 PM by TobiasDrake

What mechanics?

I would argue that Sot C still feels pretty unique given the fact that not that many games are boss games or have the kind of minimalist narrative Sot C is known for (in contrast with most videogame storylines which are too reliant on cutscenes to generate a player narrative). I would argue that while not everyone's cup of tea, especially in these times, it is still an interesting game, especially from an audiovisual standpoint.

with that said, i haven't played red dead redemption so i don't necessarily feel like i can make an adequate comparison between the two games. it's been on my radar for a few years but i'm generally not a fan of these types of games to begin with so i've not gotten around to it.

Round 3 just started, and now it's down to 2 battles per day.

Chrono Trigger vs Final Fantasy X

I think Chrono Trigger has a more timeless story, better and more charming character designs, and less reliant on melodrama and a heavy-handed take on religion. chrono gets my vote, and considering it's a Sacred Cow of GF, it's not surprising at all that it's winning.

Super Smash Bros Melee vs Kingdom Hearts 2

this is going to depend entirely on your personal preferences since the two genres and appeal of the games are completely different. for me personally it wasn't a very difficult choice.

melee was such a great improvement over the original game, has a fantastic musical score with good remixes and original compositions of its own, has hours of content even for single-player, and obviously becomes a transcendently delightful experience with friends.

meanwhile, i think i've already made my criticisms of kingdom hearts and especially kingdom hearts 2 very clear a number of times both here and elsewhere, so i won't bother repeating them here.

i'm kind of surprised that Melee is winning as hard it is but from what I recall, GF has a fairly strong Smash community as well as the whole rpg thing going on, plus KH 2 is a Contested Sequel, so that might explain what's going on here. either way i feel melee deserves to move up, so i'm pretty alright with this.

edited 28th Nov '15 9:30:03 PM by wehrmacht

Apologies for the double post but the new bracket is up.

Wind Waker vs FFVI

I've only played a few minutes of VI at most. I suffer a bit of Hype Aversion due to its status as a Sacred Cow, but not much.

Wind Waker is one of the best zeldas in my opinion and is tied with MM as my favorite zelda period. i feel it is the only game in the series where ganondorf is an interesting character, and probably has the best plot in the series overall.

unfortunately, VI being the most acclaimed FF among "hipsters" and older FF fans means that WW was going to have a tough fight and it's not surprising that it's losing, although it isn't by too much.

Super Smash Bros Wii U vs Final Fantasy VII

I've not played much of either game, so no vote.

it's pretty much a guarantee that vii will beat pretty much any game against it, so smash didn't really stand a chance despite also being a pretty big franchise on gamefaqs,

Weird, I was sure Wind Waker would beat VI so I put that result on my bracket.

Also I'm not sure where you get the idea that VI is a Sacred Cow from.

It's quite frequently considered the best FF of the SNES era, and frequently considered the height of the series in general, especially by older fans.

edited 30th Nov '15 7:35:25 AM by wehrmacht

I voted yesterday but was too absorbed in Fallout 4 to post so Imma do it here along with today's.

Chrono Trigger v. Final Fantasy X

Both games hit a lot of similar beats but, while FFX does have CT beat for combat system, I feel that Chrono Trigger does most of their parallels better.

• It almost seems unfair to compare protagonists due to the fact that Tidus is a well-established character and Crono is a Silent Protagonist. There's not much to compare. That said, be honest: weren't there plenty of times you wished Tidus was silent? Crono contributes very little to his story, but he rarely detracts from it either.
• Meanwhile, both games feature the standard holy girl Love Interest but Marle has a bit more personality than Yuna - in large part due to the fact that Yuna's a conformist and Marle's a rebel. Despite being a literal princess, Marle goes out of her way to avoid falling into the pitfall of being the princess character; something Yuna only begins doing about halfway through.
• Both feature an eldritch horror that kind of inverts the other. Lavos is mistaken for a weapon of mass destruction before it's discovered that he's a cosmic horror that has existed since before recorded history. Sin is mistaken for a cosmic horror that has existed since before recorded history before it's revealed that he's a weapon of mass destruction. But, between the two, I feel that Lavos was better portrayed, largely due to the fact that his game was about him; Sin spends much of FFX being a background element to drive the conflict between the protagonists and Yevon.
• And speaking of Yevon, they have a clear counterpart in the magical kingdom of Zeal. Yevon created Sin to win a war against Zanarkand and uses him as a system of control, Zeal discovered Lavos and sought to use him as a power source for their civilization. I feel that Zeal was better fleshed out and established; Yevon's history suffers from the fact that, unlike Zeal, the player doesn't get to actually live in it. It takes a massive infodump to understand Yevon's relationship with Sin and even then it's not entirely clear, whereas Zeal's relationship with Lavos is a clear-cut example of Evil Is Not a Toy. * On that note, the Fall of Zeal is to CT what the Zanarkand-Bevelle War is to FFX, but with a greater emotional impact and an easier understanding of its consequences by virtue of the player being allowed to experience it first-hand. Both events defined everything that chronologically came after them, but only one is clear-cut and easy to understand.
• The factions are heralded by Maester Seymour, a right proper asshole who is unambiguously evil from the moment you meet him and always has been, having murdered his father for power. Seymour is an uncomplicated and uninteresting character who far outstays his welcome, in contrast to Queen Zeal - an ambitious woman seduced by the power of Lavos, whose steadily decaying relationship with her children ended up defining a great deal more of the plot than may be immediately apparent.

All in all, Final Fantasy X was great, but for everything it did, Chrono Trigger did better. Point goes to the time travelers.

Super Smash Bros. Melee v. Kingdom Hearts II

For me, this is simply an issue of distinction. Kingdom Hearts II is a distinct member of its franchise. If you gave me a list of mechanics or characters, I could tell you which ones were in KHII. I can remember which bonus bosses belong to that game and which are in others. Which plot points developed there.

I could not for the life of me tell you exactly which Smash Bros. game is Melee. What sets it apart from the games before and after it. Which characters were added to the roster and which were left out when Brawl rolled around. What gameplay changes were in place at the time. What play modes existed for that specific entry.

All of the Smash Bros. titles blur together for me. I can't say this is a fighting game thing either, because I could easily tell you the difference between Mortal Kombat 2011 and Mortal Kombat X. It's just that Smash Bros. is a very samey franchise. Point goes to Kingdom Hearts, such that it's impossible to pick a single title from it to raise above the rest.

Final Fantasy VI v. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

I honestly didn't like The Wind Waker as much as some of the other games. The lore was fantastic, especially with the ways it ties into Ocarina of Time and pretty much everything concerning Ganon and the King of Red Lions. The rest of the characters, however, just never grabbed me the way characters from other Zelda entries do - especially Tetra, who never quite feels substantial; she's a cookie-cutter Action Girl until she gets derailed by the Zelda reveal and spends the rest of the game as the damsel.

Meanwhile, I didn't like the sailing mechanic at all. It got boring fast.

If this were Ocarina or Twilight Princess or Majora's Mask, it might be a harder call, but paired up against The Wind Waker, I have to give this point to FFVI, what I consider to be the apex of Final Fantasy's history.

Super Smash Bros. for Wii U v. Final Fantasy VII

Smash Bros. has the same problem that Melee has, but Final Fantasy VII is Final Fantasy VII. I can't in good conscience vote for either.