Board 8 > transience asks questions about the bracket

(+) Yeah! (+)

transience posted...

I think using stats like this is a little disingenuous with the lay of the land as it is here in 2017 -- but, SOTC beat MGS4 by less than 500 votes. let's not pretend it was some kind of easy win!

I don't think GameFAQs has changed much if at all since then. Losing voters means we just keep the old stuck-in-their-way fogies. 2015 stats barely budged from 2010 stats when you looked at them, honestly.
---

stuck in their way fogies is definitely what we are -- and Goldeneye's pretty much in the sweet spot. it turns 20 this year!
---

transience posted...

I think using stats like this is a little disingenuous with the lay of the land as it is here in 2017 -- but, SOTC beat MGS4 by less than 500 votes. let's not pretend it was some kind of easy win!

It was "easy" in the sense that MGS4 never really made a serious run at a comeback. SOTC basically held it at bay the entire match. I'm not trying to be disingenuous here. I'm just trying to argue that being on the same level as MGS2 or MGS4 means you're pretty good, but you're not great. I think GoldenEye has dropped off since that 2009 performance. I'd rather look at the most recent showing than what it did in 2005 or 2009, and it looked pretty average a couple years ago.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Oh man, is it time to bust out the Adjusted 2015 X-stats (tm) again?

Super Mario RPG - 32.8256
Goldeneye - 28.81953144

SMRPG performed extremely well even if you entirely remove that RE4 match from the equation (which I had to because it was an outlier that destroyed all the rest of the stats). It ranked 18th in the entire field. Goldeneye didn't look nearly as strong as it used to...their positions basically reversed.

lol x-stats

(sorry I had to)
---

transience posted...

stuck in their way fogies is definitely what we are -- and Goldeneye's pretty much in the sweet spot. it turns 20 this year!

Yeah, here's what I think is the fallacy: GoldenEye will stay strong because it's old and we're old

We've seen old games lose strength over the years. MGS1 got overtaken by MGS3, for instance.
---

Fun fact: the whole 'MGS is off' sentiment from the 2015 contest only really applied to MGS1. MGS2/3 stayed exactly the same, 4 dropped a bit - 1 is what seemed to actually take a hit.
---

I don't think MGS lost strength personally. I think 3 rose up.

I'm willing to give 007 a fall - it would make some sense - but I don't think we have the evidence for that.
---

Tempted to change my pick from 1996 to 2000.

SM64 is supposed to be a top 5 monster, right?

But Zelda... it has more respect nowadays than Mario. And Majora is a cult classic that only grows in popularity in places populated by 23+ yo people. And Pokemon + Final Fantasy is a scary combo.

It's single game vs depth all over again.
---

They both get smoked by the might of game.com, though.
---

transcience posted...

I don't think MGS lost strength personally. I think 3 rose up.

I'm willing to give 007 a fall - it would make some sense - but I don't think we have the evidence for that.

Eh, I think there's enough there to suggest it.

I don't know that MGS3 gained too much. It's been close to RE4 in strength in every contest they've shared together, and that's still the case. It might be a little bit ahead now, but that's about it.
---

3 didn't look any stronger. Remember when it almost got upended up Bioshock? That result looked a LOT better once I took a closer look at thing but it still doesn't seem to indiciate that MGS3 improved. You could actually predict MGS3>MGS1 using 2010 stats after Round 3!
---

you guys make good arguments.

I'm not sold though.
---

You know, for a second I was like "hmmm, I should really reconsider whether or not 1996 can beat 2000", but then I looked at my bracket and 2000 > 1996 is what I had all along, and I'm not gonna change it

Paratroopa1 posted...

1999 is really kind of a shit year

Its not, its just for console gamers it is

Planescape Torment
Alpha Centauri
Age Of Empires 2
System Shock 2
Everquest
Unreal Tournament
Quake 3 Arena
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun
And a top 5 game ever made, Heroes of Might and Magic 3

A lot of people like Homeworld too. Amazing year for PC gaming
---

2001

top 5 games: Super Smash Bros. Melee, Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Paper Mario, Halo
notable consoles/technology: Xbox, Gamecube
GameFAQs strength: high
historical importance: high
rally potential: high
overall: high

2001's got everything. it's got huge games, it's got Nintendo and Square, it's got historical significace, it has two big console launches, it's even got a proven rally in Melee, which beat Chrono Trigger by complete BS a couple of years ago. I'm still salty about that one. that might be the most offended I've gotten over a contest match. this was CT's year, man. it spent a month proving to everyone it was a monster and then gahhh.

anyway, I kind of feel like 2001 is the upper limit of our sweet spot. the GameFAQs sweet spot is 1994-2001. everyone has a different top 10 but 7 or 8 of the top 10 come from that time period and maybe 13 or 14 of our top 20. (not coincidentally, our main age demographic is 24-32; in 2003, 80% of us were 13-25). what I'm trying to say is that 2001 starts to push the limits of our nostalgia. Majora's Mask hits that sweet spot; by the time we get to Metroid Prime it's a little muddier.

2001's big two are Nintendo's big multiplayer game and Square's last great Final Fantasy. sometimes it pays to be the last of an era because nothing will ever displace you. FFX has that. the quality drops after the final two but there are still a lot of big games there. MGS2, Paper Mario, GTA3 and Halo are all huge. Devil May Cry, Sonic Adventure and Golden Sun are all well-known and liked games.

I think if you're hunting for something to upset 1998, 2001 is about as logical of a pick as you can go for. there are others that are higher risk/reward for sure, but if you want the entrants that has a little bit of everything, you can't go wrong with 2001.

- does Melee still get a rally? can you rally in this format?
- you can't talk about 2001 without talking about GTA3 and Halo; will it bump out more deserving, GameFAQsier kinds of games?
- can I copyright GameFAQsier?
- how to put this.. is 2001 maybe not 'core' enough? FFX is a big game but almost every huge year has a big FF and those games are more in GameFAQs's sweet spot. Melee is a great crossover title but it's never really had to stand up against a Nintendo powerhouse like LTTP or Ocarina. (we'll ignore that Ocarina match from the last contest completely.) there's not a Zelda or Mario here unless you dig into the Oracle games or Paper Mario. hmmm.
---

1997 is core enough. It has Cloud.

That's what I'm betting on.
---

It annoys me that people are almost certainly going to vote based on a few big releases rather than quantity of releases, because the latter has how I've always judged gaming years as someone who buys dozens of games a year. Like 97 is supposedly fantastic if you look at the heavy hitters but there's not much else that year, especially compared to like 99-01 wherein there were mid-tier PS1 RPGs out the ass and the DreamCast was in its prime. Then again my favorite years in gaming are like 2000, 2005, 2007, and 2008 so I clearly have a difference in opinion from a lot of people on this site, so eh what can you do.

I also think the years like, say, 2001 and 2002 or something are going to be devalued by the fact that they're 2001 and 2002. When people think of those years they don't just think of FF10/Melee and Metroid Prime/KH1, they think of 9/11 and the world being a shittier place than it was perceived to be in the 90s. Yeah it's a gaming contest but people have much more fondness for the 90s within pop culture in general, that will seep into a contest asking what the best years in gaming were.
---

9/11 factor going to doom 2001
---

I totally forgot about that. Windows 95 is gonna beat 9/11
---

i dont think it's gonna have an impact tbh. 2001 will still do well
---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

i dont think it's gonna have an impact tbh. 2001 will still do well

After I posted that I relooked at the bracket and realized that it has an easy one until it gets to 95, which it'll probably lose to for my aformentioned reason in addition to the fact that 95 is fairly strong itself (Chrono Trigger beats every 2001 game without outside tampering I think).
---

1997 vs. 2001 is a case where 1997's top game has lost enough strength over the past few years where it could lose to 5 different Top 10 games besides OoT (Mario 3, Mario World, Mario 64, Chrono Trigger, Pokemon RBY). After FFVII, none of the other 1997 games even come close to approaching the strength of FFVII.

2001 has 2 games that would defeat any 1997 game besides FFVII. Overall, I think 2001 has slightly better depth than 1997. Once the rally potential of 2001 is also factored in, I think 2001 would be a viable risk to take in your bracket.
---

some people will def vote with the mindset SSBM + FFX > CT

at least that's how i'm measuring a year's value to gaming, i can't be the only one
---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

some people will def vote with the mindset SSBM + FFX > CT

Problem with that is that according to the last contest, current GameFAQs really goddamn likes Chrono Trigger!
---

sure, but everyone will still vote using their own different method of measuring a year's worth IMO

im just playing the percentages personally.
---

Not saying you're wrong, I'm just skeptical in that scenario because CT was mega strong. I don't think I would take FFX+Melee over OoT. Not an entirely fair comparison as, regardless of inherent contest strength, OoT is a landmark influential game that deserves respect in this format but yeah.
---

yeah i know, you could be right too. i guess we'll see. this contest likely wont be as predictable as people keep saying
---

I think it'll either be immensely predictable, or things will go in a completed unexpected direction, with basically no in between. I'm leaning towards the former if only because I can't see people giving enough of a shit about year-based contests for rallies and that's the biggest thing that could cause the latter.
---

^what about the fact that people will just use different ideas of what makes one year better than another year?

whether consoles matter, whether the best game of the year is the only one that will matter or how important depth of good games is
---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

^what about the fact that people will just use different ideas of what makes one year better than another year?

whether consoles matter, whether the best game of the year is the only one that will matter or how important depth of good games is

I think whether systems matter or not could change some matchups but it wouldn't really be that big of a deal. The important systems years, 1991, 1995, 1996, and 2001 are all probably going to do really well regardless, and the less important ones (1985, 1989, 1999, 2006, anything else I missed that happens to have a system launch) probably have systems people have such little attachment to that even if they do matter I can't see it being a big deal. I still think 1998 has the biggest shot at winning even if systems do matter just because that year has both depth and some absolute monsters (and the most popular game on this site). If it gets overthrown by like 91 because of SNES or something then that would be a big upset, but I lean towards that not happening over it happening even if I'm erring on the side of upsets just because it doesn't seem likely to me.

Edit: Actually while I was writing this I forgot PS2 was 2000 and not 2001. That could actually throw a wrench in everything, since that could make it go from being a mid-tierish at best year to beating 96 and potentially going up against 98 in the finals if it REALLY matters. Eh, actually, we'll see I guess. I think that would fall into the "completely unexpected category," though.
---

I am like, 99% sure that it doesn't matter which year the PS2 debuted in. It just isn't a factor.

2002

top 5 games: Metroid Prime, Kingdom Hearts, GTA Vice City, Morrowind, Warcraft 3
notable consoles/technology: none
GameFAQs strength: medium
historical importance: low
rally potential: low-medium
overall: medium

2002 is weak compared to 2000 or 2001 but has some nice games. there aren't any killers here but Prime and KH are both solid games. there's some good diversity here with Nintendo, Square, Bethesda, Blizzard and Rockstar.

look too much beyond this top 5 and the year becomes pretty dreary. you start looking at GBA Metroids and Animal Crossing and Suikoden 3. fortunately these five are the same as the five listed on the site so it's likely this is what we'll get. 2002 drew 2010 and is probably a big favorite there if only because of the proximity to the 90s. then it gets 1991 in what should be a pretty clean win for Mario World and company but you never know. 1991 might be a little too old and if so, 2002 might be able to capitalize.

no questions for 2002 - it's a very straightforward year.
---

2003

top 5 games: Zelda: Wind Waker, KOTOR, Final Fantasy X-2, Fire Emblem, Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire
notable consoles/technology: none
GameFAQs strength: medium
historical importance: low
rally potential: low
overall: medium

there's really not much here besides Wind Waker and I guess KOTOR. 2003 has an interesting path though. it first gets 2013 which has some good games but nothing on the level of a Wind Waker. then it gets 2005 which is fun - on the surface it seems like RE4, SOTC, Phoenix Wright, etc would beat it clean. but we already saw RE4 go down to Mario RPG and Wind Waker is likely a step ahead of that. plus, it's two years closer to the glory days than 2005. I'd like to see some 2003-2005 discussion.

- can Wind Waker, a mid-tier Zelda, prop up a year all by itself?
- does FFX-2 help or hurt this year?
---

2003 gives me the feeling of being when series stated sucking.

X-2 was when FF started losing popularity, apparently. WW was when Zelda games started getting heavy criicism. Pokemon R/S was when the series lost the popularity of the 90s. It's like this is when the series gamefaqs love started dieing, and nothing ever replaced them.

While 2005 gives me a much more positive feeling.
---

Nintendo and Square started their decline in 2002/2003.
---

Majora's Mask got a lot of criticism when it was released too.

Pokemon RSE maybe could have been better but that series' decline mostly wasn't its fault. I think Pokemon as a fad was already in serious decline by the time Crystal came out, mostly just due to running its course. (And while Crystal's not to blame either, I don't think it did much of anything to justify its existence to casual fans. A lot of the Pikachu stuff in Yellow looks pretty silly today but it was a clear and instantly noticeable difference from Red and Blue.)

https://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/975-north-division-round-2-pikachu-vs-cloud-strife was a big blowout in 2002 for a reason. That wasn't on RSE.

Also if we're talking "franchise decline in the early 2000's?" Mario Sunshine in 2002.
---

yeah, I've always felt that the PS2 era was a little overvalued, certainly for GameFAQs. Nintendo and Square largely dropped the ball from 02-05, at least with their big franchises. there are exceptions of course.
---

I think 2003 is a clear favorite. WW and KotOR (to a much lesser extent) have stood the test of time. 2005 looks a bit better nowadays after the emergence of SotC, but it was an absolute joke back in the day. It has neither the anchor nor the firepower to take on a 3D Zelda.
---

- can Wind Waker, a mid-tier Zelda, prop up a year all by itself?

Where are we in the Zelda cycle?
---

2004

top 5 games: Metal Gear Solid 3, Half-Life 2, Tales of Symphonia, Paper Mario 2, Metroid Prime 2
notable consoles/technology: World of Warcraft
GameFAQs strength: medium
historical importance: high
rally potential: medium
overall: medium

2004 is probably the biggest gulf we have between the general consensus and the GameFAQs consensus. 2004 is a monster year that saw the biggest PS2 game (GTA San Andreas), biggest Xbox game (Halo 2), one of the most influential FPS's (Half-Life 2) and biggest MMO (World of Warcraft). and yet, outside of Half-Life 2, including those in a top 5 would probably hurt 2004's cause with our Japanese-heavy, narrative heavy environment here.

MGS3 is a good one, though it feels like a #2 on a team without a clear #1. it can hang with more modern games but I worry about its ability to do so with other GOTYs. Mario RPG is my cutoff - if you can't beat Mario RPG, you're going to struggle with the FF6's and Wind Wakers of the world.

everything else is fairly ho-hum but I do wonder if 04 can get a push for having so many hugely notable games. World of Warcraft is too old to get a rally but Half-Life 2 might have a shot.

- can MGS3 and HL2 carry a year?
- does Halo, GTA and WOW help or hurt with the gamefaqs general public?
- what games make the cut? second-tier Nintendo games like Prime 2 or TTYD aren't a guarantee. they're going to need some strength to push back on 94.
---

Oh yeah, 2004 was a beastly year at the time, but many of those releases have been forgotten. I want to say it was "wasted" by going up a Top 4 year in the first round, but I'm not sure if it's a year that even deserves such praise.
---

2004 was a solid year, honestly fall 2004 was the last era of gaming i was straight up excited for. Individual games of come out since then that ive loved, but gaming as an industry that was the last time.
---

2005

top 5 games: Resident Evil 4, Shadow of the Colossus, Phoenix Wright, God of War, Mario Kart DS
notable consoles/technology: Xbox 360
GameFAQs strength: medium
historical importance: medium
rally potential: medium
overall: medium

2005 is like a house of cards. on the surface it looks good with RE4, SOTC, God of War, etc. Phoenix Wright shores up the niche vote and will help with our vote totals being garbage.

but then it's like.. there's zero Square games and the best Nintendo game is a handheld Mario Kart. 2003 has gaps but at least it can protect the top of the card with Wind Waker. RE4 can't appeal to a wide audience quite like Zelda can here. it's going to need to be a team effort to take that - and I think it can accomplish it, but it's not the easiest bet.

- is SOTC legit?
- can Phoenix Wright bring in its enthusiastic fanbase on its own?
- does the Xbox 360 launch matter?
---

no
no
no
---

IMO 2005 is lucky it got a relatively clear win in R1. It might be the weakest year of its decade aside from 2009.
---

-Yes
-Yes
-No

However I also agree with the sentiment that this site will care a lot less about years without a big Nintendo/Square game, so that year will be lesser than the sum of its parts

Also remember when we were talking about MGS4 as the weakest MGS game?

Starcraft - 23.98831026
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 - 23.8625
Banjo-Kazooie - 23.78714832
Morrowind - 23.77853191
Portal - 23.713776
Read Dead Redemption - 23.60257712
Bioshock Infinite - 23.49790213
GTA: San Andreas - 23.28998379
Resident Evil 2 - 22.95773888
Final Fantasy XII - 22.9403196
Donkey Kong Country 2 - 22.92962736
Xenoblade Chronicles - 22.76453404
Phoenix Wright - 22.37199906
Portal 2 - 22.3496175
Fire Emblem: Awakening - 21.96199709
Silent Hill 2 - 21.95927204
World of Warcraft - 21.61978575
Metal Gear Solid V - 21.48747363

We forgot one!
---

yeah

Ac!d
---

Huh I wondered why Silent Hill 2 (fodder for a site like this), looks so legit there, then I saw it was boosted by that inexplicable Bioshock overperformance on MGS3. That's one of the more puzzling results in recent memory.

EDIT: Wait, was that match during the same day as the big Starcraft/ME2 showdown? I kinda remember that "a-ha!" moment at the time when we realized that two rallied western games would help Bioshock.
---

Silent Hill/Bioshock is one in a line of old > new results that I'm expecting to see here.i wish we had more matchups like 1999/2007 because while 07 is a much better year, I could see a glory year way overperforming because of our audience withdrawing from video games after a certain time.

also I mentioned mgs5! post #96 yo
---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Huh I wondered why Silent Hill 2 (fodder for a site like this), looks so legit there, then I saw it was boosted by that inexplicable Bioshock overperformance on MGS3. That's one of the more puzzling results in recent memory.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/4147-southeast-division-round-2-bioshock-vs-kingdom-hearts-ii

Bioshock is secretly strong. It just never had a chance to prove itself and get a big win that was within range.
---