I'm just saying on the spectrum of what games most people would say are very great and important entries in series had released in a greater abundance in 1998 than most years to include 2017.  Especially if we look at it as in people living in the year 1998 and experiencing 3D console gaming for the first time ever. If I lived in 1998 and had all these games new, versus living now and having all these games new. The same feeling that BOTW is the greatest game ever, pretty much everyone had in 1998 with OOT.

But see, THAT'S the problem I have with the list. Like I already said, best year is a paradox because that will always change. But the mindset of just "creating a list" diminishes the fact that your perception of a game after playing it is so different from just looking at a list.  Games like Yoshi's Story, Tomb Raider 3, Mario Party, Pokemon Yellow ... these are all games that are either highly durivative, completely outclassed by later titles to the point of hardly being standout, or just not that big in the grand scheme of things. 

I think "best year" should be seperated as much as possible from how innovative something was at the time and instead be about the best games. Because i'm sure 1998 will be "the best of all time" in terms of innovation for a long time to come, but why does that matter in the context of modern scrutiny?

Of course none of this really matters since I too am just making lists and I haven't played most of those games. But I guess it's one of those things where you know a lot more about video games then you've played of them. Just think that the gap between that year and this one was very exhausterbated, not that it was necessarily the worse year.

Because looking at them all in the mindset of 2017 doesn't really follow the topic "best year in gaming". If it were "what year had the best games", then you can look at it as all games in the year 2017. 

Since when did best year in gaming have that connatation? 1985 would be the best year in gaming then.

That being said, I give up. The point wasnt that 1998 isnt the best year but that the highlighted titles were misleading. So ill just say this : 1998 is objectively the best year in gaming.Are you happy noe? ; (

To be fair like I saif I havent played most of those games. So take my opinion with a grain of salt. That said it was bad on my part to word all those games as filler. SC definitely isnt, but i think most prefer 2. 

In a few years people will probably say that that year is best because that zelda was better than botw lol

If only Majoras Mask was in 98 instead of stupid Ocarina ; )

I'm not sure how you can look at it any other way really. 

Even with prefered games coming out at later times, great games of the series came out at that time. If you get Tomb Raider 3 which you like, and Suikoden 2, even though another year may have had you favorite Tomb Raider, 1998 can still be a greater year.

For instance Xenoblade and X are my favorite games, but I'd still put 1998 as the greatest year in gaming because of the sheer amount of other enjoyable games that came out. It's strange to say 2012 was the greatest year in gaming because Xenoblade Chronicles came out, and a bit short sighted. 

Let's look at what's considered the greatest games of there kind that came out then and still hold up. Xenogears (not my personal favorite, but I recognise it as a fan favorite), Suikoden 2, Half Life, LoZ OOT (even if people here disagree, at least recognise it for the prostege it holds to this day), Panzer Dragoon Saga, Resident Evil 2, Sonic Adventure (I still think most of the world holds this as best), and and Fallout 2.

Then add the games Mega Man Legends, Parasite Eve, Half Life, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider 3, and Star Craft that may not be considered the best of there series are looked very, very fondly of.

It's really kind of unbeatable.

The problem with his viewpoint for this conversation is that he is not taking into account timing which is the key part of this covnversation. Let me give a brief example of how his argument falls short:

Half life 2 and Starcraft 2, in his opinion, are preferred to Half Life and Starcraft respectively, correct? Rainbow 6 3 is considered more beloved than Rainbox Six, right? Grand Theft Auto III is considered more beloved than Body Harvest, right? Well, true. So lets look at the year each of these more beloved titles released, shall we? 

Half Life 2 - 2004.

Starcraft 2 - 2010.

Rainbow 6 III - 2003.

Grand Theft Auto III - 2001

You see, the conversation is not about if those games are the best games ever. The question is about the amount of quality in each game during the calander year TIME FRAME THEY WERE RELEASED. Different argument entirely. Now, if he was saying Half Life 2, Starcraft 2, Rainbow 6 III, and Grand Theft Auto III are all considered more favorable to the games of 1998 and they all released in 2004 (just an example year), then he would have an argument. As it stands, he does not because his argument is not in line with the conversation at hand.