Game of the Year

[Rub'Rum]

1998 might not get 25+ nominations like '97 did (I think we went a bit overboard. Not insulting anyone's preferences but I seriously doubt more than 1 or 2 people in this thread even played outlaws or blade runner), but the nominations it does get could've won every year from the 90s easily. I'll bet that the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th titles this year would beat out every other winning in this thread so far except maybe civ2 just cus this is a civ forum.

@The_J - I just don't think enough people have played anno 1602 for it to matter, nor krondor. I have a friend who absolutely raves about betrayal at krondor and return, but they aren't that well known.

I've played every single game you mention there. I didn't mention any of them in the thread though. Outlaws is still one of my favorite shooters. I don't really like Betrayal at Kronder, at least, I don't anymore, that one hasn't aged very well in my opinion. Anyway, just saying you should probably leave your preconceived notions of which games were popular at the door back there

 

[Akka]

Given how many votes there have been for different titles, besides the obvious, legendary ones, I'd say 1998 was an excellent year. It was viewed as such at that time too, iirc.

but the nominations it does get could've won every year from the 90s easily. I'll bet that the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th titles this year would beat out every other winning in this thread so far except maybe civ2 just cus this is a civ forum.

I think it's more due to demographics and age of people voting than the year being THAT good, honestly.
I found several previous years (like 1993 or 1996) to have just as much, if not more, of a lineup than 1998.

Maybe it's just finally showing I'm starting to become somehow old

 

[civvver]

I think it's more to do with commercial success probably than age. Starcraft, baulder's gate, ocarina of time were all huge smash hits, you had to live under a rock to not have heard of them and you probably played them a little. By contrast I haven't heard of half the games from our 97 nominees and it's only 1 year difference.

 

[CivCube]

Did we ever finish with 1997? We must have because I nominated Riven and ended all speculation.

 

[sophie]

Half life
One of the most definitive shooters of all time. It transformed first person gaming in many senses, which before were more like games rather than interactive and immersive action movies.

Is that a good thing?

 

[Sonereal]

Is that a good thing?

Quick Time Events: The Game: The Movie

 

[sherbz]

Is that a good thing?

Let me see…….”Hell to the yes”!

If we look at it in a little more detail. Before half life, FPS’s followed a level style of gameplay. Lets take doom and quake as examples: the two archetypal shooters of the previous decade. In both you had levels (think of barrel o fun and tricks and traps from doom 2). There was no seamless story that existed. And if it did (like in unreal), it was rather disjointed. Half life changed all of that. For the first time it introduced a seamless storyline that played like an interactive movie. It also introduced dramatic set piece scenarios, which before had merely been uber boss fights you would get about once or twice in the game if you were lucky. Half life blended these set piece events into the game frequently and seamlessly. It basically meant that it transformed FPS’s into something that was both real and believable. Its singleplayer alone makes it worthy of its multitude of awards, but this in itself is not the whole story (just as is the case with doom).

Ultimately, half life redefined the single player genre. It is certainly as influential as doom, perhaps more so with half life 2 (even more critically acclaimed) what with the source engine that has spawned a whole plethora of games that we are still playing today. Half life also helped to establish Valve, a highly important and pivotal games publisher. Everything, from steam, to source, to portal, to team fortress, to counterstrike, all of them were built upon half life.

This brings me on the next point – multiplayer. 2 of the most played multiplayer games in the FPS genre (on PC) are team fortress and counterstrike. If Doom is father of deathmatch, then half life is certainly the father of co operative FPS. You could argue that quake 2 started it all with the original team fortress (you could even go back further and say that doom with its co operative play was the granddaddy, but I think this distorts reality somewhat). But that to me is like saying Wolfenstein made the FPS genre. Whilst it is no doubt important, doom is what cemented its position at the head of the tree, and half life did exactly the same with co operative play. Everything that has since followed owes something to half life. COD, Battlezone, medal of honour, all of them, I think you can trace their roots back to the original team fortress, and the explosion of interest in co operative play after the release of half life.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

... Everything that has since followed owes something to half life. COD, Battlezone, medal of honour, all of them, I think you can trace their roots back to the original team fortress, and the explosion of interest in co operative play after the release of half life.

*cough herrshlhasrrrsshl cough*
Battlezone; Release date(s): February 28, 1998
Half-Life; Release date(s): November 19, 1998

 

[Rub'Rum]

Is that a good thing?

In hindsight, this is a good question...

In my opinion, Half-Life was great mostly because of how important the setting was, and how it didn't feel separated in obvious "levels", and really nailed that concept. In the end, it didn't use THAT much exposition, except for the opening scenes and a few during the game. They were great moments... But some games kind of went overboard on that side of things... To this day I still prefer open games where most of the story is through random characters you can talk to, and books, text, and whatnot. Not the movie moments where you lose control.

 

[Akka]

Is that a good thing?

Well... not really, but as "someone" said :

Half-Life : The biggest turning point in FPS since Doom, which revolutionized the genre just as much (too bad it ended up driving FPS into "linear and predictable corridor", but that's the fault of the plagiarist, not the leader).

Yes, FPS have been on the whole s...y, boring, ultra-linear clones since HL, but you can't blame the guy with the new idea for everyone else copy-pasting and making stale his at-the-time original thought.

 

[KMRblue1027]

*cough herrshlhasrrrsshl cough*
Battlezone; Release date(s): February 28, 1998
Half-Life; Release date(s): November 19, 1998

I'm pretty sure he meant to write Battlefield.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'm pretty sure he meant to write Battlefield.

Could be. Too important mistake to let it slide and I felt like making a fuss over it...

Myth 2 needs more support... Anyone played it? Great use of journal entries to keep the story going.

Link to video.

 

[coanda]

In hindsight, this is a good question...

In my opinion, Half-Life was great mostly because of how important the setting was, and how it didn't feel separated in obvious "levels", and really nailed that concept. In the end, it didn't use THAT much exposition, except for the opening scenes and a few during the game. They were great moments... But some games kind of went overboard on that side of things... To this day I still prefer open games where most of the story is through random characters you can talk to, and books, text, and whatnot. Not the movie moments where you lose control.

That's exactly what Half-Life brought to FPS games - scripted events run in-game while you retain control of your character, rather than breaking off for pre-rendered cutscenes. Even when it essentially was a cutscene (such as the opening train ride), they still left you in control of your character, free to move and jump about. And when you weren't in control of your character, it was because it wouldn't make sense for you to be in control of your character - e.g., when you

Spoiler :

got ambushed and knocked out at the end of Chapter 9: Apprehension, then dumped in a garbage compactor

(that's right, I just used a spoiler tag for Half-Life. Because someone, somewhere out there, has not yet played it.)

It was a big development, because it let Valve dribble little bits of exposition and plot here and there. Before that, most games were no story, no story, no story, boom big cutscene chunk, no story, no story, no story...

And that made sense, if you weren't going to make much use of scripted events in your game. If every time you want to progress the story you have to yank control away from the player, break up the flow, load a video, and play it, it's going to piss the player off if you do that every minute or two of the game (incidentally, the exact same objection people have with quick-time events).

 

[sherbz]

I'm pretty sure he meant to write Battlefield.

 

[Rub'Rum]

That's exactly what Half-Life brought to FPS games - scripted events run in-game while you retain control of your character, rather than breaking off for pre-rendered cutscenes.

The way I see it... Before Half-Life there wasn't much story or exposition at all in most FPS games, and when there was, it was mostly between levels, and with some sort of slideshow. Then there was half-life, which managed to put the story in the game without diverting from gameplay or breaking immersion you with "levels". And then came a trolley of games which didn't understand that "without diverting from gameplay" was the good part of the innovation, and not "putting the story in the game" part.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

How about making a separate poll of the games that have been voted for goty 1998, either in this forum or in OT? Just to get more people to vote.

Myth 2 is only two votes away from victory, btw...

 

[KMRblue1027]

I think it's almost better if no winner is called for 1998. This is really the first year where you have 3 or more choices that are all fitting for GOTY in different ways.

 

[civvver]

You can if you want. 1997 votes are tallied, I hope I didn't miss any because we didn't get that many votes leading to a 3-way tie of the titles that got 2 votes.

Anyway I'm going Zelda Ocarina of Time for 98 vote. It's tough to do this over starcraft but it's the last really excellent zelda title to me while there have been great rts games after starcraft I've enjoyed a lot.

 

[sherbz]

I think it's almost better if no winner is called for 1998. This is really the first year where you have 3 or more choices that are all fitting for GOTY in different ways.

Although i see the logic, I think at the end of the 90s we should have a vote on year of the 90s. Im fairly certain that 1998 will win, but that at least gives some coverage to the games that are arguably the best of the rest. We could also do vote where you can only pick from the winners of each year. Although i wouldnt want to complicate it too much.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Another option would be to let us vote for three games each. 3 points, 2, 1.