By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast on 30 August 2017
Edit Thread
pokoko said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

I half agree with you. I definitely think this whole cultural relativism line of thinking is silly. Of course we can applaud, criticize, or even rip to shreds a list such as this. The fact that all lists are subjective doesn't prevent us, as consumers, from applying our own subjective perspective to them.

But I disagree about a greatest games list requiring some degree of objectivity. You simply can't measure greatness in any objective, empirical way. You can measure sales, and scores, and influence, but not greatness. So I'm fine with EDGE embracing the subjective opinions of its writers. Those opinions just happen to be far removed from my own, which is why I'm down on the list.

We're just going to have to disagree.  If Time published a list of "The 100 Greatest People" and it was full of entries like "that old lady who used to give me snacks when I was a kid" I think consumers would have a legitimate complaint.  It might be true that the author thinks that old lady deserves a spot enough to kick George Washington off the list but a publication isn't just about the author.  I think there is some degree of obligation when using a word like "Greatest".

That's my opinion as a consumer and it's something I'm going to look for in situations like these.  It's also why I don't seek out EDGE, Jim Sterling, or the like.

Well, I guess it depends on how you define "greatness." If it's some mix of sales, cultural legacy, impact, and subjective quality, then, sure, I'll agree. In that case, you'd expect to see influential, ground-breaking games that are part of the common gaming language. However, it sounds like EDGE used a different set of criteria to arrive at video game "greatness," one divorced from the more verifiable things like units sold, sequels, influence on other game makers, etc.