First Inductees in the Video Game Hall of Fame

The National Museum of Play, The Strong, has announced their first inductees to their World Video Game Hall of Fame

Inducted Games

The Strong® welcomed six games into the inaugural class of its World Video Game Hall of Fame™.

DOOM

Pac-Man

Pong

Super Mario Bros.

Tetris

World of Warcraft

http://www.worldvideogamehalloffame.org/

These were narrowed down from a selection of 15 finalists that were as follows.

• Angry Birds (2009)
• Doom (1993)
• FIFA (1993)
• The Legend of Zelda (1986)
• Minecraft (2009)
• The Oregon Trail (1971)
• Pac-Man (1980)
• Pokemon (1996)
• Pong (1972)
• The Sims (2000)
• Sonic the Hedgehog (1991)
• Space Invaders (1978)
• Super Mario Bros. (1990)
• Tetris (1984)
• World of Warcraft (2004)

Were these the best 6? What should have been included or didn't deserve to make the list?

Personally, I don't think Pong should be included since it was an illegal clone that Atari was sued for stealing.

I have literally no bad things to say about any of these choices. These would have been exactly what I would have chosen, even if I think a few extra games shoudl be added.

Sonic games should not be in any hall of fame.

Aw, crap, just made a duplicate thread on this.

Edit: This is at the Strong National Museum of Play in Rochester, NY, which was already a great place to visit (the museum, not the city).

I think these are good choices having all made some significant impact on the industry at large (even if I would prefer EQ on there over WoW- pop culture completely ignores it).

I could make a very strong argument for EQ over WoW (or even over UO) in it's impact on MMOs and massive online gaming, but I'm not going to. I've made it before and it's just tiring at this point that people keep doing this to MMOs. WoW being huge and lasting this long (btw, EQ 1 STILL EXISTS!) isn't an indicator that it's the most important.

Sorry, I'm already starting to create an argument for it, and I don't feel like going there.

This list is fine other than that.

No problem with any of those games as the first inductees. Nice to see a representative for each decade, too.

I might argue world of warcraft, as large a title as it is in popularity and resulting impact, it didn't really break a lot of new ground. I might have instead given it to EverQuest if they wanted an MMO in there, as without it wow and those that follow in the now traditional themepark MMO style wouldn't exist as they currently do.

But even then it isn't a bad list. Honestly not sure why they elected to limit the field down to 6, for an inaugural select I might have expanded it quite a bit. By limiting the field to 6, presumably yearly, you are going to see a lot of games get passed over year after year that are quite deserving. Also whoever nominated Angry Birds and FIFA should probably not be allowed to anymore.

Tetris is in. I'm happy.

Pretty strong inaugural class. I hope at some point they branch out to include other aspect of the industry (companies, individual developers and such) but certainly off to a solid start.

That list is invalid for the complete lack of Street Fighter 2.

Yeah, EverQuest really should be on this list. It's an absolute stone cold classic, and is literally the number one game that comes to mind when I think of a video game hall of fame.

Aside from that though, it's a pretty darn solid list to begin with.

@cornbredx: They mention Ultima Online in their description of Wow, their augment for Wow seems to be down to mass appeal and millions of players.

Decent choices. I think I voted Tetris or SMB when they did a poll for it.

You are crazy, WoW broke all kinds of new ground.

Appropriate.

Legend of Zelda shouldn't be ahead of Link to the Past or Ocarina.

@brodehouse: Do you think Super Mario World and 3 should be there before the original? Trying to figure out why you feel that way about Zelda.

@mrwakka: Other then completely redefining the genre, creating a world that became one of the most popular games in history, and forever changing the face of MMO's from that point on.

Man if Angry Birds had made the list I would've been Soooo bummed. Not that its a terrible game or anything, i just wouldn't put it in my top 100 let alone top 6.

Perfectly fine list of 6 great/ important games.

I'm just happy Pokemon got nominated.

Other nominees sucked (except Space Invaders and Minecraft) but the ones they picked are pretty good. Should go without saying but Super Metroid, Street Fighter 2, Super Mario World, A Link to the Past, Mario 64, GTA 3, Starcraft, Diablo II, and Final Fantasy should be in there. Sadly all time greats such as Vagrant Story, Resident Evil 4, and Metroid Prime will be a long time coming. On the periphery are Final Fantasy Tactics/Tactics Ogre, God of War, Shenmue, and Call of Duty 4. Games that you'd expect to be influential but haven't been like Morrowind are sort of non-entities. Dark/Demon's Souls we'll have to wait and see, seems somewhat likely. Ocarina can get fucked as always.

I have no arguments against any of those titles. I understand why some people would put EQ over WoW, but I feel like at the end of the day, WoW was more relevant and influential across the board than EQ will ever be. EQ definitely deserves a spot, don't get me wrong, but before WoW? Nah.

Random aside: CoD4 has to get inducted one day, right? I don't know why, but when I was trying to think of other potential, future nominees that was one of the first to come to mind. Say what you will about the series, but I feel like CoD4's impact in the gaming landscape is undeniable. I dunno, just a thought.

Shenmue should be on that list.

I don't think an active game like wow should be in there. maybe 25 years after the servers go off line it would be ok.

The list was great because Angry Birds didn't make it.

WoW closely kept to the EverQuest model, its interface was strongly influenced by Asheron's Call 2, the world was pre-existing. Little WoW has implemented over its long and popular history has been original so much as refinements of pre-existing concepts, Blizzard's strength with the title is taking what worked for others and polishing it and adding it to their game. Before wow became big, it and all others of its ilk were called 'everquest clones' for a reason.

Is it popular? Sure. Was it revolutionary? No, it was evolutionary. Did it redefine the genre? No, EverQuest did. Did it forever change the face of MMO's? Absolutely, as EverQuest did before it. To be clear I don't particularly like EverQuest, I tried it back in the day and quit and never looked back. (As opposed to WoW to where I just unsubbed a month ago after hitting the cap and getting bored with garrisons.) However, gamer's memories are short, and much that EverQuest pioneered gets attributed to WoW unjustly, a lot wrongly gets attributed to WoW simply because that is where its players first encountered it. It didn't invent raiding, mounts (flying or otherwise), class based action bar combat, the mmo holy trinity, guilds, questing, pvp, in-game voice chat, etc, etc. The only thing that strikes me as completely original to WoW off the top of my head would be garrisons, but even that can be boiled down to the same as housing + the bridge officer system from Star Trek Online. (Implemented as it was well before garrisons.)

If EverQuest never existed, WoW as it exists today would not exist. If WoW never existed, well, the EverQuest model it was based on would have continued on just as it has. Instead of calling things WoW clones we'd still be calling them EQ clones instead, and we'd still likely see the countless derivative works. (Though probably not massive budgets like those seen in SWTOR desperately trying to take a cut of that WoW market.)

Does WoW deserve a space on the Hall of Fame shelf? Absolutely, but not before EverQuest, without whom WoW could not exist.

Sounds good, let's do that.

Meh, they'll all go in at some point, not bothered which ones go in this year and which don't.

Was there for the start of everything but Pac-Man: All are worthy, especially WoW. As much as I detest it and the scary people who have played and continue playing it since launch, it is a freaking legend, and if there were official vanilla servers I'd play. (no I was not there for Pong, escaped my eyes, though I did enjoy a pong clone in like 1983)

I think people need to remember that this is basically an exhibit as part of a larger museum. They want to have things that would appeal to kids and adults. A lot of kids are not going to see this exhibit and be excited about the 6 games that actually got picked, but would have been excited about Minecraft or even Angry Birds. The fact that such a historically slanted view was taken on this first group of games is sort of a miracle.

These choices make a lot of sense. DOOM

@mrwakka: You're completely ignoring the technical, financial, and overall achievements WoW pulled off, and instead just saying someone else deserved it because they were their first. You're not wrong, but EQ didn't perform in 6 years what WoW did in 2012 alone.

Technical achievements? Like? Server infrastructure isn't really what comes to mind when I think of HoF worthy achievements. Likewise a financially based HoF nod seems like a bad idea, elsewise your going to have a ton of asian free to play MMO's with insane cash shops showing up well ahead of more deserving titles like Planescape: Torment, a widely celebrated game that didn't break any sales records. Outside of the gameplay covered above, financial and technical feats you speak of, what remains that are its 'general' accomplishments? Number of subscribers alone? There are facebook and iPhone games that get impressive numbers of users as well, are you saying something like Farmville or Candy Crush Saga are more deserving for their popularity than titles like the original Legend of Zelda and its relatively much smaller playerbase?

'First' I think is an important distinction. It is easy to follow, to play it safe. It is much harder to lead, to invent, to discover. Blizzard wasn't really risking much or pushing boundries by entering into the market following a proven system used by the one that was before WoW the largest western MMO in terms of subscribers by a large margin.

@mrwakka: Atleast you're proving you didnt even read part of the article about why it's in the HoF. You're just throwing shit out there and bashing on it because it's popular to say WoW is bad.

World of Warcraft absolutely deserves to be on this list, more than any other MMORPG made before, or after.

Galaga not even in the top 15?

So you can't back up any of your claims so now your resorting to ad hominem attacks? Cool.

I'm sorry but who? The National Museum of Play?

Alright. I mean this list is good enough. Reads like any forum top 10 really. I guess they decided to just pick the first of every major franchise?

I find all this a little dumb honestly. I don't care what games these people think are good and don't care for their selection criteria nor would I ever care to visit that museum. But I suppose I'm glad it exists. This isn't a bad place for kids and families to go visit and see both old games and newer games they've heard about.

@mrwakka: Im not claiming anything. I'm repeating what is written. This isn't about players saying they want something or someone is deserving of anything. This is a monument that is presented by electorates. People were hand-picked to converse these subjects and make decisions. There is a good article about this decision you should read. If this was "Hall of I Did It First presented by Elitist Hipsters" then maybe Ultima Online should win over Everquest because it was there first.

I have stopped talking to you about this, because you inserted points into my point, and you're now arguing about nothing when the point is, WoW is in the HoF for INCREDIBLY SPECIFIC REASONS THAT YOU DIDNT EVEN READ. You're arguing that EQ deserves its spot when WoW won for reasons EQ never even dreamed of.

Space Invaders is an unfortunate omission, but it seems like the inductees covered a pretty broad range of time, and I guess people felt that Pong and Pac-Man were higher priority representatives from that era.

I get that the winning games were often chosen because they had a big cultural impact that has stuck with people, but I still think it makes way more sense to include Everquest than WoW. Putting WoW in first would be like putting in Galaga before Space Invaders.

@sjqpersonal: Which is great, but doesn't make any more compelling an argument than they already made, which I have disagreed with and made points as to why. I don't know why my opinion is something you need to take so personally. Of course if you read my statements above you'll note I don't like EverQuest, and have been a WoW player. This isn't about being a fanboy, it is about who should be recognized, and while I agree WoW deserves a spot, I feel that ultimately its achievements were built on the work of EverQuest, which pioneered that particular brand of MMO.

Why not Ultima Online? Because Ultima's brand of MMO isn't what redefined the genre, it along with Asheron's Call, a now often forgotten title, stood beside EverQuest as three of the earliest MMORPG's to break into a more mainstream audience and surpass 100k subscribers, which was a feat for the time. It was EverQuest that captured the largest audience and set the entire genre down the themepark style of MMO design, to which many modern MMO's belong including World of Warcraft, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Lord of the Rings: Online, and more. Ultima wasn't even the first MMO anyway, just the first one to make it big.

Now I welcome discussion, I am willing to listen to your points about which specific feats WoW accomplished make it worthy of its spot, but lets keep it civil and tone down the personal attacks. This is a site about games after all. To address your repeated claims I didn't read it, I have. I just don't think their particular choices and reasons set it above EverQuest in this, as many of their arguments could be equally applied to both or I don't see as relevant criteria for a hall of fame personally.

Pokémon should've been in top 6, it was a phenomenon.

Makes sense, I guess...

@babychoochoo: @mrwakka:

Game play has little to do with WoW getting chosen. It was a cultural touchstone that outreached even games when it was at its peak.

Which I can respect, but then flappy bird, farmville, candy crush saga, all have made cultural impacts, i still wouldn't place them in a hall of fame before other titles. EverQuest at its peak also was not without cultural significance. The Strong can name whoever they want to their hall of fame for whatever reasons they choose, just as I am free to disagree with that choice and the criteria they base it on.

Que? I never said otherwise.

Huh, yeah, I don't know. I'd probably have gone with more of the revolutionary games rather than the successful iterations. Not quite sure where to draw the line as FPSes to some extent existed even back in the 70's, but never really took off, or if we should go as far back as to the MUD or text MMO days. But it's not like Wolfenstein 3-D, EverQuest and Ultima Online are obscure things only historians (or "hipsters" as someone mentioned above) would know about. EverQuest in particular had a massive pop culture impact and public awareness in it's day. It's not like I'd nominate Tibia for being a free to play MMO even before Ultima Online. Or, maybe I would.

Excellent choices. The only thing I feel like they're missing is an early 3d console game.

@fisk0: Maze War, it should just have Maze War.

@mrwakka: Yeah, though I think a reasonable argument could be made that it wasn't widely available enough to really have impacted the genre in any meaningful way, as it was mostly available to a comparably small group of people with mainframe computer access. The FPS genre would probably have appeared around the same time as it did regardless of if Maze War existed or not, something I'm not as sure about hadn't Id Software made Hovertank, Catacombs and Wolfenstein 3-D (where the latter, with it's many ports to other home computers and consoles was most likely the catalyst that really got the genre started, even though stuff like Corporation and Star Cruiser had already been available for a few years at that point too).

@fisk0: Oh, yeah, I mean its a notable piece of history but hardly a major influence on games, I was just naming it because of all the hipster talk above and its one of the most obscure games I could think of off the top of my head.