Widescreen Gaming Forum

Lists. Who doesn't like a thread with a list?

http://ingame.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/16/6066845-who-are-the-top-50-video-game-characters-of-all-time

1. Mario (Donkey Kong, Nintendo, 1981)
2. Link (The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo, 1986)
3. Master Chief (Halo: Combat Evolved, Microsoft, 2001)
4. Solid Snake (Metal Gear, Konami, 1987)
5. Cloud Strife (Final Fantasy VII, Square, 1997)
6. PAC-Man (PAC-Man, Namco, 1980)
7. Lara Croft (Tomb Raider, Eidos 1996)
8. Gordon Freeman (Half-Life, Valve, 1998)
9. Kratos (God of War, Sony, 2005)
10. Sonic (Sonic the Hedgehog, Sega, 1990)
11. Crash (Crash Bandicoot, Sony, 1996)
12. "Soap" MacTavish (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Activision, 2007)
13. Nico Bellic (Grand Theft Auto IV, Rockstar, 2008)
14. Samus Aran (Metroid, Nintendo 1986)
15. Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank, Sony, 2002)
16. Nathan Drake (Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, Sony, 2007)
17. Captain Price (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Activision, 2007)
18. Kirby (Kirby’s Dream Land, Nintendo, 1992)
19. Marcus Fenix (Gears of War, Microsoft, 2006)
20. Pikachu (Pokemon Red/Green, Nintendo 1996)
21. Yoshi (Super Mario World, Nintendo, 1990)
22. "CJ" Johnson (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Rockstar, 2004)
23. Mega Man (Mega Man, Capcom, 1987)
24. Sam Fisher (Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell, Ubisoft, 2002)
25. Shadow (Sonic Adventure 2, Sega, 2001)
26. Jak (Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy, Sony, 2001)
27. Duke Nukem (Duke Nukem, Apogee, 1991)
28. Dante (Devil May Cry, Bandai, 2003)
29. Naruto (Naruto: Konoha Ninpoch, Bandai, 2003)
30. Altair (Assassin’s Creed, Ubisoft, 2007)
31. Zelda (The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo, 1986)
32. Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII, Square, 1997)
33. Donkey Kong (Donkey Kong, Nintendo, 1981)
34. The Prince (Prince of Persia, Broderbund, 1989)
35. Ezio (Assassin’s Creed II, Ubisoft, 2009)
36. Leon S (Biohazard/ Resident Evil, Capcom, 1996)
37. Ash Ketchum (Pokemon Red/Green, Nintendo, 1996)
38. Guybrush Threepwood (The Secret of Monkey Island, LucasArts, 1990)
39. Spyro (Spyro the Dragon, Universal, 1998)
40. "Ghost" Riley (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II, Activision, 2009)
41. Goku (Dragon Daihikyoe, Epoch, 1987)
42. Max Payne (Max Payne, Rockstar, 2001)
43. Jill Valentine (Biohazard/ Resident Evil, Capcom, 1996)
44. Princess Peach (Super Mario Bros., Nintendo, 1985)
45. Larry Laffer (Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, Sierra, 1987)
46. Augustus Cole (Gears of War, Microsoft, 2006)
47. Bowser (Super Mario Bros., Nintendo, 1985)
48. Eddie Riggs (Brutal Legend, EA, 2009)
49. Ryu (Street Fighter, Capcom, 1987)
50. Sackboy (LIttleBigPlanet, Sony, 2008)

Terrible. Just terrible.

Hmm, so it was voted on.

I just did a quick scan for Dante. He made the list, I'm happy.

EDIT: Just saw Naruto. I puked a little bit.

It's a "Top X" list, they are not made to contain useful information, they are made to publicize those who make it.

After all, what kind of criteria are they following? Why is a blank mute character like Link above another blank mute characters? It wouldn't really matter because it's simply impossible to have any objective criteria to determine the "best".

It's like when people claim than Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made. It's meaningless because you can't even compare say, Metropolis with Gone with the Wind. It's liek asking, hey, what is better, drinking or eating? It makes no sense because they aren't comparable.

TL;DR: Top lists are fallacious and little more thana marketing stunt

It's like when people claim than Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made. It's meaningless because you can't even compare say, Metropolis with Gone with the Wind.

You can if you set certain criteria ahead of time and make it known what they are. AFI did this for instance, so them calling Citizen Kane the best movie ever is more meaningful. Sight and Sound is a bit more nebulous, being basically a closed popularity contest, but when Citizen Kane is the most popular movie among both critics and directors, and is in fact most popular among directors with a 70% lead over their #2 pick, that should tell you something concrete.

Even open popularity contests like IMDB's top 250 can be meaningful if you can figure out how to distinguish between the movies with legitimate lasting appeal, the flavor-of-the-month movies that rode the initial hype wave to a high enough spot on the list to stick, and the vote-stuffed movies (a category that sadly starts with The Shawshank Redemption).

Anyway, this list is a popularity contest. Nothing more. People voted Mario and Link because they are figureheads of Nintendo. People voted Master Chief likewise, though by now he's not quite as relevant to XBox 360 as he used to be, and hence not as unanimous. Gordon Freeman is PC gaming's Mario, hence a top 10 spot to represent a niche interest. And people voted Ash Ketchum because they are twelve.

You can if you set certain criteria ahead of time and make it known what they are. AFI did this for instance,

That you can set a certain criteria and that such criteria is valid to determine which work is better are two different things.

"Popularity over time" is a criteria used by the AFI but it's undeniably fallacious.

How popular a work is doesn't make it any better or worse. Citizen Kane would still be a great film even if only the Martians saw it.

We also must not forget that the very own board chairman of AFI addmited that much of the reason to create their lists was to get some money in.

Now, you can consider such lists meaningful. I just think they do not fulfill their intended function.

"Popularity over time" is a criteria used by the AFI but it's undeniably fallacious.

How? It's not fallacious to say that Citizen Kane has a great deal of "popularity over time." And I see nothing wrong with assuming a correlation between being "best" and being "most popular over time" either. Something would have to be very wrong with the universe for a movie like Citizen Kane to only be seen by martians in the 70 years of its existence. It's not a matter of this being a cause of greatness, but a barometer of it.

Now, you can consider such lists meaningful.

That's what I was arguing in the first place.

I just think they do not fulfill their intended function.

Well, you did say the intended function was to make money. I'm pretty sure that worked. AFI says that the intended purpose was to get people talking about movies, and I'd say that worked too.

Meh.

One entry per game series would be more than enough. That and several of the characters are supremely forgettable and even the ones that aren't would half the time be met with a 'what?' or a 'I care why?' from about half the people you asked, if they even knew who they were...

I mean that's, what, three entries from Mario games, three from Call of Duty games, two muscle-for-brains thugs from Gears of War, multiple entries from GTA games, the protagonist and the final boss from FFVII...

A couple of entries that I wouldn't even call game characters, as they were elsewhere first...

Overall, it's badly biased toward a few games, quite biased toward recent games, and the older game characters seem like they got tossed in because the author thought, "I'll get bitched at if I don't throw in... x, y, z."

Wow...

Before people spaz out about the list:

1) It was voted on. So no, the author didn't make anything biased or throw anything in for whatever reason.
2) Just because it doesn't reflect your own personal top 50 list doesn't make it 'false' or anything. It's just a top 50 list by vote. Don't overanalyze it.

Maybe someday Isaac Clarke will be on the list...

Eh. I was kinda okay, but a lot of those characters seem out of place. But I am glad for some other characters up there. Makes me think the human race isn't soo bad...

_________________
System Core: | Intel Core i5-2500K + ASUS P8Z68-V + 16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333 MHz | Win7 x64 | MSI R7970 Lightning 3GB [1105/1400] |
Display: | 3 x Dell Ultrasharp 3007WFP-HC @ 7680x1600 | Dell u3011 |