Vinther1991 said:
If you had made those adjustments, Pong would certainly rank higher than Fortnite, Pong alone had a majority market share. A whole generation of game consoles were designed to play that game. Granted, Pong does fail on some of your other criteria. Based on your criteria though I would probably still take PUBG and Fortnite off and replace with Warcraft and Counter Strike (alternatively Street Fighter), then the list is pretty accurate (depending on the definition of a franchise though). My list is biased, not in the sense that these are my 10 favorite franchises (they are not), but in the sense that I look at games as an artistic medium, and competitive games are just something else that cannot be compared to other games. It would be like having a list of greatest TV shows and throwing the Fifa World Cup in there. It just doesn't make much sense to me. Apples and oranges I guess. And then as I mentioned, these online focused games will eventually fail completely on longetivity, as they eventually become unplayable. |
1. Pong did have majority of market share at the time, but the market was miniscule. I doubt there was even 10 million people that experienced the game out of estimated 3 billion people on earth at the time. Fortnite has more than that from this month alone. The circumstances are different, one is f2p and the other is p2p, online play and offline, etc. so the amount of player Pong had is not equal in value to the amount of player Fortnite has. However, even accounting for all of this, Fortnite accomplished much more. Like I said in my previous posts, Subway Surfers is the most downloaded game ever, but because I accounted for all of the things stated, it will never get a spot in the top 10. I took all the points into consideration mentioned in the op. We can't ignore the massive success from these newer IPs. Arcade to Consoles to PC to Mobile to VR, offline to online, old to new. They are all different, but they are all inside the category of video games.
2. Your TV shows to Fifa World Cup analogy isn't accurate because my list excludes IPs that didn't originate from video games. This was brought up at the beginning of the forum. Fifa has one of the most popular games out there, but I didn't include it for that reason. If there was a list of greatest TV shows, then it would be strictly to TV show not a sport event like Fifa World Cup.
You look at games artistic, maybe the disagreement comes from that. Historical art are rated significantly higher from art enthusiasts. I personally think there are better modern digital art out there, but those will never be rated highly from them. Before we bring up AI art, I want to make it clear, that's very different as of today because AI art is like stealing assets in video games. My perspective is "art is art", so it should be viewed equally digital or not. If a digital art expresses creativity on the same level, then it should be considered a masterpiece nonetheless. I know some things are easier to do digitally, but that's what evolution does. Things get better, quality and QOL improves as we go. I think you view them as different things, that it should never be compared. The problem with that is where should we draw the line. Artists had different tools and environment for physical paintings as well. Game developers having to work with different platforms, should we just not compare them at all?
3. It hurts me to say this because I love single player games more and I'm not a fan of this live service stuff, but these online focused games are staying relevant than most single player games. Mainly because they have the advantage of getting new content every month through updates. You do have a point that live service games can become unplayable when servers are shutdown, but similar things can be said with older games since they can break. Nothing is permanent.
