Using the Relative standard, a case can be made, as joshx0rfz pointed out, that because there weren’t that many ‘real’ games before Pong that it would have to be considered the best ever. I think that argument is a double-edged sword, though. On the one hand, Pong was extremely successful relative to other games of its day. On the other hand, there weren’t really that many other games to compete with. Think of it this way…finishing 1st in a Magic the Gathering tournament that only has 8 people is good, but finishing 3rd in a Magic the Gathering tournament that has 300 people is really much better.

Pong was a really good game in its day, but the level of competition in the gaming industry just wasn’t as great back then as it is now. A game that stands out above and beyond the highly competitive market of today’s gaming industry is remarkable, even if it isn’t so much more successful than every other game (like Pong was).

Like I said, the Relative standard can work both ways

“1947 is believed to be the first year when a game was designed for playing on a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT). This very simple game was designed by Thomas T. Goldsmith Jr. and Estle Ray Mann.”

“The system used eight vacuum tubes (four 6Q5 triodes and four 6V6 tetrodes) and simulated a missile being fired at a target, probably inspired by radar displays used during World War II. Several knobs allowed adjusting the curve and speed of the moving point representing the missile.”

Then there’s Tennis-for-Two from 1958. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two

Then in the 1960’s there were games like Spacewar!

Pong, as you know it, was released in 1972 with the Atari. Then Space Invaders came out in 1978. So yes, by that standard, they could be considered teh best games (not ever, but of their time) because they were really the only wide-spread games available. Consider them the “Game of the year” of the years that they came out, like Half Life and Deus Ex, they will always be acknowledged as good games.

(all of this can be referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_and_video_games )

BUT, Even though I can recognize that there are 2 standards for viewing games, my personal preference is to use the relative standard in most instances. As others have said on the previous thread when we first got into this topic, viewing everything from an absolute, present day standard, can really devalue the past.

I don’t believe that older games have an ‘untouchable greatness’, quite the contrary! Any newer game that comes out has just as much chance to be revolutionary and really change the way games are played just like the older ‘classics’. I mean, using the relative standard, Final Fantasy 1 was a good game (some would say great), but Final Fantasy 6 and Final Fantasy 7 were really good! FF1 was one of many fun and time consuming RPGs for the Nintendo. It was good. FF6 and FF7 were basically the best RPGs money could buy in their respective days.

Let’s look at Doom once more. Doom was the first hugely successful FPS. It defined the genre more than any other game. But it’s not untouchable, even with the Relative standard. Now I’m no FPS expert, so I can’t venture forth here with absolute certainty, but I would say that Halo is really close if not better than Doom using the Relative standard. Halo was (and still is) one of the most popular FPS games especially in the console world (second only to Halo 2 in # of copies sold). It was made by Bungie (same folks who did Marathon) and therefore had an outstanding plot and fairly good character development (for a FPS, anyway). Its graphics were good and its gameplay was great - in fact it is one of the only console FPS to have really great controls. But it also had innovations, like having lots of vehicles and a carrying limit of 2 weapons. Plus it was filled with fun stuff like sticky grenades and those adorable Grunts.

Quoted directly from wikipedia: “Widely considered to be one of the best, and most influential, first-person shooters of all time, Halo’s acclaim rivals that of GoldenEye 007 and Half-Life. For example, Edge gave Halo a full score of ten out of ten, only the fourth such designation in the magazine’s 12-year history.” Even though Doom was one of the best, that doesn’t make it untouchable.

What we really have here are 2 separate and distinct ways/standards of viewing/evaluating a game (or anything else, really). While certain people like to use one more often than the other (including me), I think we can agree that there is a time and a place for both of them.

The first method I shall dub the “Absolute” standard. This view takes a certain set of standards - graphics, character development, gameplay, etc - and compares each and every game Regardless of When the Game Came Out to this ‘absolute’ standard. Obviously, older games are at a disadvantage when using this standard.

The second method I shall dub the “Relative” standard. This view compares games to each other by looking at how Each Game Compared to Other Games From the Time Period in which it was Produced. This view ‘adjusts’ for future developments in games and allows older games a fair chance.

Now there’s advantages and disadvantages to each view. The absolute standard is easier to use and is well suited to showcasing the developments and progress in games over the years. The relative standard gives older games a better shot, but requires more effort to use and can make some newer games appear worse than older games even though the newer games might be better in every measurable category.

My personal belief is that there is a time and a place for both views and that one view is not more or less ‘realistic’ than another. I think they are both realistic and as long as both parties agree on the standard that is being used then much confusion can be avoided.

Looks like Marathon (by Bungie) was one of the first to fully incorporate what we today consider “mouselook”, though the first PC game was apparently done by the guys down at Bethesda (some 11 years ago).

As far as games in a historic sense, Doom was the first first-person game which I played that would elicit a “wow cool” from friends upon first sight, that wolfenstein and other predecessors wouldn’t. It wasn’t the first fun FPS, and It didn’t have any amazing leaps in tech, It just seemed to come out at the right time, with just the right mix of art and tech. I honestly would attirbute Doom’s popularity to it’s shareware distribution during the height of the computer show culture, as much as to it’s art and tech. I remember the days when it seemed like half the vendors at a show were showing off doom, if not on a monitor at least in piles of shareware for sale.

Love the new comment system, I never remembered my password before.

Half-Life 2 really took the cake as far as I’m concerned, blowing everything out of the water on almost every level. If you haven’t played it and have a fairly up-to-date computer, go buy it!

I tend to refrain from removing story as a necessary element of any FPS, as the story in HL2 is essential to the fun of it, but then there are games like Serious Sam whos only purpose is to shoot things and the sheer hilarity of the game creates the fun. More recently, vehicles have become an integral part of any FPS that wants to be popular, especially in the multiplayer market.