And I totally respect that! 2017 is looking amazing, and I'd be happy if it turns out to be the greatest. If it's your favorite, I am more than cool with that.

I just took umbrage at the idea that StarCraft, in my opinion the single best RTS game made, is somehow filler. Plus the notion that 1998ers like me are elevating 1998 games because of prestige and not because we genuinely love them.

And, yes, I'll eat my hat if Super Mario Odyssey is anything less than a masterpiece :)

By the way, I would like to add Body Harvest to the 1998 list. That game is the father of GTA III and even though it was too ambitious for its time, it is a testament to how progressive 1998 was.

Yes! Such a fun, overlooked game.

Nintendo really missed the boat by not publishing more DMA games, or even buying out the studio. 

I never played so many remakes/ports basically older games like this year. one of the few first day release games I bought was Crash N Sane trilogy XD.

I kind of hope for next year being the year of blowing us away. RDR2 is a must but I really hope to see a new Elder Scrolls..

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 usually not a fan of RTS games. It always seems like the real time aspect takes away from the strategy, since once your army grows large enough you are struggling to click fast enough to even give orders in a timely manner. ButI think I'm obligated at this point to at least give Starcraft a try. 

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.

Well this is kind of pointless, because I agree with what you say on principle, but it's all on a spectrum. Obviously I wouldn't say that every time a series is outclassed it makes that year inferior, in fact that's why I literally said the same could be said about possible Zeldas. 

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.