kain_kusanagi on 24 April 2013
| Otakumegane said: I think we should all chill. National Geographic is an American company and they aren't gaming related in the 1st place. They got a lot of things wrong but it's not like Microsoft paid for this. This is the view of the "history of gaming" from an uninformed Western viewpoint (I mean come on, it's National Geographic) can't blame them. Though that being said, there are a TON of things wrong with this list, but there are better timelines out there from much more informed people. kain should just admit that this isn't the best of timelines and the rest of us should not get all worked up about this. Again, it's National Geographic, not really majorly influential or informed in the gaming world. |
Considering that in the OP I questioned why Halo was included and Doom was not and why Sonic was absent altogether, I think I made it clear that I don't think the timeline is a complete view of gaming. I do think that people are acting like it's the worst "list" of top gaming stuff just because they couldn't find their favorites on the list. It's a snapshot of where gaming started and its evolution to today. The entries aren't necessarily the most important stuff. The entries are the big ones that regular NatGeo readers will be familiar with. It's not a timeline for super nerd gamers to argue over, it's a brief overview for the average NatGeo reader.
