What makes your favorite games, your favorite?

[AstralSoul | 502]

My friend and I were having a discussion a while back about our top X amount of games and we ended up in a more philosophical discussion of what factors we go by when we name our favorite games.

Is it purely based on nostalgia? Is it based on how deeply the game connected with you? Is it how good you are at it? Is it how often you can replay it over and over? Or more likely a combination of all of those?

It's all arbitrary of course because what does it really matter if a game is #1 or #10 or #100 on your favorite games list? It's not to say I can't enjoy a game at any level of favoritism, because the vast majority of the games I play fall way below even my top 100 games list. But, like many of you, I enjoy making lists, ranking the things I like, and when I'm asked about my favorite things of any category I like to have an answer at the ready.

But as an example, how would you determine whether you like Super Mario World or Breath of the Wild more? A game you've played dozens of times, have a ton of nostalgia for and know very well, versus a game you've played once, albeit put nearly 200 hours into in one playthrough, and had a deeply enjoyable impact on you, but lacks that replayability and nostalgia factor?

Really just one big shower thought but I'm curious as to what you guys think? When you list your favorite games, what are the determining factors that go into it or do you usually just go based on a gut instinct when making lists?

[Sumez | 2,994]

I don't think I'll ever understand why people weigh nostalgia so hard. I mean yeah, I can see why it can some times be hard to willfully ignore the effect nostalgia has on your impression of a video game - but to straight up weigh one game higher because "you grew up with it" or "you have a lot of nostalgia for it" (which is an argument I hear surprisingly often in certain circles, collector-centric ones especially) is a little strange to me. It comes across like you're weighing your memories or childhood, or just the idea of video games itself higher than the actual experience of playing the game itself.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, not everyone needs to be big fans of video games, but it still surprises me when I hear it in the context of video game discussions.

To me, I think the best way to sum up what matters is probably how "memorable" a game is. That is to say, how much does the experience of playing the game stand out.
The less a game does to actively engage the player, the more likely I am to forget everything about it soon after I have played it, and the more the game does to set it apart from other games of its type, the more likely it is to stick with me. Of course nostalgia can indeed play in there - if I have memories of playing the game at a special time in my life, that will likely stick with me, but the game also needs to hold up just as well when I replay it, or it doesn't matter.  
Likewise, if the game isn't challenging in a fun way, it can at least have fun mechanics to play around with, or even just an engaging plot, world building, or visual presentation. But I do think it's harder for a game to stand out entirely by having a good story - there are definitely a few that do, but most of the time, if a game is designed for you to play through it just once and consume the story, that story really needs to be damn impressive to stay with me.
Meanwhile, if a game is so tough that I need to keep playing it through again and again in order to learn to win, or even just individual segments of a longer game, but it still remains super enjoyable to play while doing that, that's clearly a winner.

As such I think "replayability" is a very important aspect to look at for action games at least. And I'm not talking games arbitrarily rewarding the player for playing through multiple times by providing multiple different experiences - I'm talking the joy of playing through the exact same thing over and over. That's probably the most solid stamp of approval I could possibly give a game.

[AstralSoul | 502]

43 minutes ago, Sumez said:

To me, I think the best way to sum up what matters is probably how "memorable" a game is. That is to say, how much does the experience of playing the game stand out.

The less a game does to actively engage the player, the more likely I am to forget everything about it soon after I have played it, and the more the game does to set it apart from other games of its type, the more likely it is to stick with me. Of course nostalgia can indeed play in there - if I have memories of playing the game at a special time in my life, that will likely stick with me, but the game also needs to hold up just as well when I replay it, or it doesn't matter.  

That's actually a good way to put it. I've always said to myself the worst thing a game can be is forgettable. I'd rather play a memorably bad game than a so-so one I instantly forget after playing. And yea basing a game purely on nostalgia is a little silly but many games I consider to be my favorites are deeply rooted in nostalgia but I've played them many times over and over and still hold up simply because they're incredibly fun. It's hard to imagine but I try to think of games like that as if I was playing them for the first time today. Like, Donkey Kong Country is very nostalgic but would I love it just as much if I played it for the first time today? I probably wouldn't love quite AS much but I'd definitely enjoy it a lot.

[RH | 4,967]

I think for many (and I'll put myself in this category) video games have been a form of escapism, but this is an important aspect to consider when gauging the appreciation of a game from ones childhood.

I'll use myself as an example.  Final Fantasy Adventure was the first adventure style game I ever owned.  Not only that, it had an integrated story that was easily understood.  As a first experience, I was amazed because all other games I'd played in the past were simply some form of game you interacted with, but had very little emotional connection and little to no dialog.

The realm of Final Fantasy Adventure, even though experienced on a pee-green Game Boy screen gripped me and pulled me.  On the outside, I was about 12 years old when I purchased my copy and my life was rough.  My parents loved me, but we were poor.  I was a quite kid, I was picked on at school and I was at the bottom of the social totem pole.  Video games were a fun experience that gripped me and pulled me in and for a moment they helped me forget the difficulties of life.

Fast forward to today, 30 years later and Final Fantasy Adventure still ranks as one of my favorite games.  Why?  I will certainly argue that it is a good game and is still enjoyable.  If you like Zelda-style games, I highly recommend it.  You might have to wear some "historical value" glasses at some moments, but I'd argue it does hold up well but why is it a favorite for me?

From a philosophical perspective I think when we experience sweet things in life when it seems most bitter, those things carry a sweetness about them that persists for the rest of our lives.  In other words, that game was a very bright spot in my life at a rather dark time.  I can't play that game without pulling out many of those early positive warm-feels from the very moment I boot the game and see the title card.

The emotions of nostalgia can tug at ones heart for various reasons but I think a lot of deeply rooted nostalgia is what it is because whatever it is we remember, we're remembering it with fondness because it was surrounded by some form of trauma it helped us recover from.  It's an emotional factor that can't be ignored or turned-off when we experience these things from our past.  These positive feelings that washed over the bad times are going to affect your preferences in video games, comics, food, furniture, you name it--if it strikes a positive feeling from your childhood that touches something deep, there's possibly something there about those moments that might have been healing a hurt. 

With time we forget the hurt but appreciate the good.  For me, all of my favorite games from my childhood have done that.  Final Fantasy Adventure, Super Mario Bros, SMB3, Final Fantasy VII and Xenogears just to name a few.

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

It's mostly fun and replay value for me. That's why I'm partial to older arcade style games that I can just pick up, enjoy and go back to again and again.

[G-type | 2,523]

My most important factor is how much mental real estate does it take up in my brain. How much have I thought about a game (even when I'm not playing it.) 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,584]

8 minutes ago, G-type said:

My most important factor is how much mental real estate does it take up in my brain. How much have I thought about a game (even when I'm not playing it.) 

That's a good point and probably right on the money.

As far as nostalgia goes, most of my favorite games are from the 90s.  Is that because that's an inherently better era of gaming?  Or were those my formulative years where a game could make a bigger impression on my brain? 

And when I play through Eldin Ring and Breath of the Wild 2 next year, and neither one cracks my top 10 (probably), is it because my top ten is better, or because I have so much history and memories and attachment to those games?

[G-type | 2,523]

5 minutes ago, G-type said:

My most important factor is how much mental real estate does it take up in my brain. How much have I thought about a game (even when I'm not playing it.) 

A couple NES examples:

For StarTropics, I spent many nights studying the Nintendo Power I had with a strategy guide/level maps. I didn't own the game or even a Nintendo at the time, so I just imagined it. I built it up so much in my mind, but when I got the game many years later, it still lived up to my expectations.

For Legacy of the Wizard, the time I spent time watching the GCCX episode, reading articles, making maps on graph paper, I even made a video and my own faux Nintendo Power magazine about it. It was infamously one of the most dreaded games to get calls for on the Nintendo Game Counselor hotline. I had always considered myself to be a average to below average skilled gamer, so I took pride that I had been able to do all this with "one of the hardest games" (same with Battletoads)

[Reed Rothchild | 9,584]

4 hours ago, Sumez said:

To me, I think the best way to sum up what matters is probably how "memorable" a game is

Another very good point.  Deadly Premonition is a game that resides in my top 100 (if not top 50), mostly because of how memorable the story, characters, and entire experience are.  How many games have a main character as idiosyncratic as York, talking to themselves for hours on end?

Is DP a better "game" than, say, Batman Arkham City?  Not by any conventional measures.  But it's certainly more memorable.

[Ankos | 463]

Any game that I would consider a contender for my favorite is one where I feel I developed as a player and was rewarded for it. This can be skill or strategy wise. I feel like there are a lot of games that are popular, but kinda grindy, and don't reward the player enough for getting good. A game can have a lot of replayability if it is broad in scope, but something like Super Mario Bros will have infinite replayability. If a player can go to a game and play through challenges not intended by the developer and still have a lot of fun, then that game definitely fits that bill very well. Any game like that will also wind up being viewed more favorably the longer it has been played. If SMB was just some indy title that came out last year, then I don't think people would recognize how great it is. Nostalgia can be a bias to just like something more because you have played it before, but some games are just better when you play them more. My favorite game is Spelunky

[Link | 2,727]

5 hours ago, Sumez said:

I don't think I'll ever understand why people weigh nostalgia so hard. I mean yeah, I can see why it can some times be hard to willfully ignore the effect nostalgia has on your impression of a video game - but to straight up weigh one game higher because "you grew up with it" or "you have a lot of nostalgia for it" (which is an argument I hear surprisingly often in certain circles, collector-centric ones especially) is a little strange to me. It comes across like you're weighing your memories or childhood, or just the idea of video games itself higher than the actual experience of playing the game itself.

@Reed Rothchildtouched on this, my thought is maybe it's just poorly stated; what is really meant by those statements is, "This game appeals to me because it had a strong presence in my formative years or good times of the past." Does that make the game objectively better? Of course not. But if one is just talking about their personal favorites, that doesn't matter. 

[Andy_Bogomil | 815]

Control/mechanics and rewarding challenge are what make a game for me. A game that handles well, lets you put your own style into playing, and allows you to grow and improve as a player are the biggest characteristics of some of my favourite games. Graphics, storyline, and all that really makes no difference to me within reason. 

 

[final fight cd | 187]

I don't know if I can specify a specific favorite game, but I love games I can see personal incremental improvements in with time.  As an example, I love shmups, especially 16 bit shmups.  While my first attempt is guaranteed to be piss poor, I will eventually 1cc it.  At least that is the plan .  

With that said, I absolutely HATE shumps that increase the difficulty during play if you are playing well.  Why should I be punished because I am learning the enemy patterns?

I bought Salamander Deluxe for the Saturn when I felt it was time to graduate from 16 bit shmups. It incorporated the play mechanic  I describe above and it completely turned me off and now I won't touch a shmup above 16 bits.  

[tigerwolf | 79]

For me it's less about nostalgia and more about familiarity. I go back to the same games because they're comforting and I know exactly what to do without reading rules and learning. It's the same reason I'm less and less inclined to play new board games: learning a new game can be a taxing chore.

I appreciate replayability. For the games I go back to most, there's a great deal of randomization so each game session is surprising. Romance of the Three Kingdoms II is my favorite game for this reason. There's a lot going on, but it's a very simple game to learn and high variability to gameplay sessions. Every time I play there's a surprise and I like that. 

Final Fantasy IV, V, VI are definitely nostalgia plays all about music and living in those worlds for a while. But it gets harder and harder to replay FFIV because I've completed it over 100 times. Music is everything so these days I just play the OST.

Final Fantasy VI: Worlds Apart was a huge revelation to me. It forces the game to be fresh again. Randomizers do lack some of the original story soul, but when you've beat a linear game too many times you kinda need that refresh. 

Inindo is a super flawed game with tons of really bad design, ugly art, and irritating caves. But I love the randomness of the recruitable NPCs that wander around Japan autonomously. It's only slightly randomized, but it still feels fresh each time and for some reason makes me want to replay it. Even though it's one of the most grindy RPGs of all time. 

I also love games where victory is inevitable. Where I just have to grind enough and I know I can get there. That's just my personal preference, though.

So TLDR - music, replayability, and not skill-based 

[AstralSoul | 502]

Lots of good points here. Great discussion so far. It makes me reflect on why my favorites are my favorites as well.

A few examples of my own, EarthBound is my favorite game of all time because I played it at the exact right moment in my life at 13 years old, it felt like my coming of age tale, and I connected with it on a deeper level than any other game even to this day. But it's also super comforting and replayable, not to mention memorable and with an amazing soundtrack. So because it checks off every single box, it's my favorite game of all time.

Then I have games like Super Mario 64, Donkey Kong Country 2, and Yoshi's Island that are heavily rooted in nostalgia for me, because I did grow up with them but also because they're very replayable and I know them so well I could probably visualize the entire of each game in my head.

Then there's Dark Souls, a game I only first played through 3 years ago. I tried it back in 2011 when it came out but I hated it and couldn't get past the first boss. Why I returned to it 8 years later I don't know but I'm glad I did. It was a struggle the first time through and throughout the course of the game I went from being lukewarm on the game to really enjoying it. Then I replayed it the following year and got a platinum trophy for it on PS4 and by the end of that I loved it. And replayed it again after that. The more I played it the better I became at it and the more I loved it. I think in this case I love the progression of being so bad at the game and hating it then actually learning it and getting to the point where I actually know it well enough to be a comfort game. 

[DefaultGen | 5,433]

Nostalgia is the most overrated thing in video games and yet most of my favorite games are childhood favorites. I mean all my favorite games are basic bitch picks like OOT, Doom, SMB3, and Metroid Prime, but the fact that I played them so much as a kid is probably why my brain puts them on top.

In general I think it's hard for new games to beat out "originals" (nostalgic or not) because games that tweak the formula of a landmark game always feel like they're standing on the shoulders of a giant. I think New Super Mario Bros. U is probably a better 2D platformer than Super Mario World, but it mostly hits all the same beats two decades after SMW already did it perfectly, so SMW deserves a lot more credit.

I dismissed virtually every ARPG as inferior to Diablo II for years, because even if they had "ticks" forward improving the gameplay, Diablo II was such a "tock" forward for the genre that nothing was going to ever going to seem as big. Now I think Path of Exile is the best in the genre, but it took a game with an absolutely galactic scope for me to finally see it as better then the old standard. Now, an ARPG would probably have to be an immersive real life VR MMO and cure cancer before I can admit it's better than POE.

[Link | 2,727]

7 hours ago, DefaultGen said:

I think New Super Mario Bros. U is probably a better 2D platformer than Super Mario World, but it mostly hits all the same beats two decades after SMW already did it perfectly, so SMW deserves a lot more credit.

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree that it's better. There's something to be said for breaking new ground. And the NSMB series doesn't do that, imo. Maybe this is context dependent - somebody who never played either game might like the more modern ones today simply on that merit... but I doubt it. The latter feels very formulaic to me. Especially in the world structures. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,584]

...and a kid might say "wait, Super Mario World doesn't have 4-player simultaneous play?  What the hell?"

It's an interesting discussion though.  I've played through NSMBU with my oldest, and I've tried to do Super Mario 3D World with all three of my boys (we're not quite there yet), but we've only casually messed around with SMB1 and SMB3.  In a few years it will be real interesting to see if they prefer the newer stuff, or the stuff from my era.

[Sumez | 2,994]

14 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

And when I play through Eldin Ring and Breath of the Wild 2 next year, and neither one cracks my top 10 (probably), is it because my top ten is better, or because I have so much history and memories and attachment to those games?

Eldon Ring shouldn't be able to breach anyone's top 10 as long as Dark Souls 1 still exists!

[Sumez | 2,994]

9 hours ago, final fight cd said:

With that said, I absolutely HATE shumps that increase the difficulty during play if you are playing well.  Why should I be punished because I am learning the enemy patterns?

I can understand why this seems like a turn-off on paper, but almost every single shmup does this, since at least Gradius but most likely earlier.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,584]

5 minutes ago, Sumez said:

Eldon Ring shouldn't be able to breach anyone's top 10 as long as Dark Souls 1 still exists!

Well, I do have Dark Souls in my top 10, so that's proof I'm not a dried out stubborn old fogey just yet!

But it is interesting to think that my favorite game of all time could be something I haven't played, or, better yet, could theoretically be something that does not even exist yet.  That would be an exceptionally difficult feat to pull off, but it's technically possible.

[Sumez | 2,994]

2 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

That would be an exceptionally difficult feat to pull off, but it's technically possible.

It's an interesting thought, but once in a while a gem just comes around that'll win you over in a special way. To me, that happened with both Mario Galaxy and Dark Souls. But I've also discovered older games that I have previously underestimated, which made it right to the top 10.

[AstralSoul | 502]

5 hours ago, Sumez said:

It's an interesting thought, but once in a while a gem just comes around that'll win you over in a special way. To me, that happened with both Mario Galaxy and Dark Souls. But I've also discovered older games that I have previously underestimated, which made it right to the top 10.

I've been thinking about that for years, that maybe a new game would come along and be my new favorite but so far the only game that broke my top 10 that's newer than 2001 is also Dark Souls. Breath of Wild is top 20 for me too so that's something as well. Though what else is kind of interesting to me is I've played old games for the first time in the last 5-7 years that jumped up high for me as well like all the Crash Bandicoots and Terranigma. So it made me wonder if I love Crash Bandicoot almost as much as I do now, how much would I love it if I played it back in the day and had that connection and nostalgia to it? Would it have been my #1 then?

[DefaultGen | 5,433]

8 hours ago, Link said:

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree that it's better. There's something to be said for breaking new ground. And the NSMB series doesn't do that, imo. Maybe this is context dependent - somebody who never played either game might like the more modern ones today simply on that merit... but I doubt it. The latter feels very formulaic to me. Especially in the world structures. 

Don't you lump NSMBU in with those freaking DS games!

I think regardless of which game came first, the second game will get derided as derivative. But if NSMBU came out in 1991 and SMW came out in 2012, I think people would additionally harp on SMW level design for allowing you to fly over most of the outdoor levels and for dumbing down the difficulty. I know I'm never going to win an argument against SMW in anything though.

I think what I'm trying to say is SMW is not great if you compare it to SMB3.

Edited August 31, 2022 by DefaultGen

[final fight cd | 187]

9 hours ago, Sumez said:

I can understand why this seems like a turn-off on paper, but almost every single shmup does this, since at least Gradius but most likely earlier.

I don’t think too many 8/16 but shmups to do this.  Only ones I can think of, which may not even do it, is the sfc parodius series.  Unless others do it to a degree that I wasn’t able to pick up on.