This Post Has 4 Comments

1. Superficial list
   I saw this book in the gift shop at “The Broad” in LA. I should have looked closer before ordering it on Amazon. This book just seems like a random list dreamed up to make a book.Listing “Snake” as 1997!?!?!? The text next to the page lists it’s heritage but come on! If someone doesn’t read the details, the headline says “1997”. That game has existed since the 70s. What makes the Nokia phone version special? My guess. The author played it a bunch. So guess if I wrote the book I’d have listed “Surround” on the Atari 2600.Another example, ICO, one of the most beloved games of all time, doesn’t have a screenshot. Instead it has an image of the notoriously atrocious USA box cover art. If that’s not a big middle finger to the team that made ICO I don’t know what is.Then there’s a bunch of games that didn’t change anything. They’re just the author’s favorites. “80 Days”? Like no one has played this game so how can it be a “game changer”?The page on “Activision Blizzard” shows screenshots of Spyro and Crash Bandicoot. Activision Blizzard might own that license now but geez! They are not known for or really even associated with those games. Their history. Activision = Pitfall, Blizzard = World of Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft. Activision Blizzard = maybe Call of Duty (since even though it came out before the formation of “Activision Blizzard” they’ve shipped 20 or so sequels under that banner. They also shipped Overwatch. Ok, so maybe some of those games have their own pages. Still, no historian nor fan would have chosen Crash Bandicoot or Spyro to represent “Activision Blizzard”And it goes on and on. Every few pages is another random non “Game Changer”. I tried Googling “A Series of Gunshots” and had to dig to find a result. Why is this in a book of “300 of the most influential and pioneering video games?”Avoid

   Reply

2. It’s basically a decent list of great games but the content is too shallow to offer any new insights for gaming fans and it’s not structured in a way that would give non-gamers enough context to appreciate why these games are “revolutionary”. The design of the book is also confusing—I appreciate the designer(s) not using the stereotypical pixel art but the weird glowing boxes are unappealing and make the whole package feel lazy.

   Reply

3. I have a large collection of retro gaming books. I took a punt on this one, despite the pretty poor reviews.Couldn’t have been more surprised! A really enjoyable romp down memory lane covering loads of different games, systems and software houses.Lots of clear photos and a box each time explaining more about the item.Only thing missing for me, is it would have been nice to have listed next to each game, which systems they were released on. A minor point and something that I could easily google.I would 100% recommend it

   Reply

4. I like this book. Design wise it’s extremely rudimentary – big blocks of text, a few screen shots or photographs to illustrate each subject. But their choices are good – all the consoles and games get a decent potted history and a brief case for their inclusion. There’s a few missing links – Bloodborne but no Elden Ring? – but space is limited and overall their choices seem fair.The editors make a half-hearted case for video games as valuable cultural products, but having read through the book more or less cover to cover, what is most salient is how impersonal games are. It’s what makes them fit for mass consumption – and what makes them, unfortunately, so disposable.Overall this is a good catalogue of the last fifty years of gaming and a nice trip down memory lane. I recommend it.

   Reply