Wright said:
I don't mean to say the list is flawless. I mean to say that just because there lies flaws in it, people can express discomfort with the choices (or the order of the choices) made. It doesn't necessarily has to reflect nostalgia, it just points out that the list can be criticised for the choices made. Bloodborne is a game that came later than Dark Souls, but it's ranked lower; despite both being modern games, there's room to debate which one deserves to be over the other one. What you're suggesting is that just because Bloodborne uses a different (better?) combat formula, a more refined (more solid?) gameplay system and it all came later in development, it automatically deserves to be better than Dark Souls. Which is extremely debatable. |
I didn't mean to suggest that, sorry you took it that way. And I never said you couldn't express discomfort, in my personal experience I see 20-30 year old games that have been improved upon in numerous ways over years, being placed near the top of various "best game ever" lists. Usually the reason why they are placed there is because "they still hold up well" or "they were good for their time" or "they were very influencial". And I don't agree with those assessments.
Something...Something...Games...Something







