The Strong Reveals First Video Game Hall of Fame Inductees

The Strong Reveals First Video Game Hall of Fame Inductees

World Video Game Hall of Fame Inductees

Earlier this year the Strong National Museum of Play, located in Rochester, NY, established the World Video Game Hall of Fame to honor and celebrate individual games across a variety of platforms, including arcade, console, handheld, computer, and mobile. In a ceremony this morning, The Strong announced its inaugural class.

Nominations for induction were accepted through March 31, with requirements for consideration being: icon status, longevity, geographical reach, and influence.

"The Strong's World Video Game Hall of Fame announced its inaugural class this morning: Pong, Pac-Man, Tetris, Super Mario Bros., DOOM, and World of Warcraft. The games span multiple decades, countries of origin, and gaming platforms, but all have significantly affected the video game industry, popular culture, and society in general," according to a statement by The Strong.

The full list of finalists chosen for consideration for the Hall of Fame's freshman class included Angry Birds, DOOM, FIFA, The Legend of Zelda, Minecraft, The Oregon Trail, Pac-Man, Pokémon, Pong, The Sims, Sonic the Hedgehog, Space Invaders, Super Mario Bros., Tetris, and World of Warcraft.

Share your thoughts with us in the comments!

Permalink

Not a bad selection. I am sad to see Pokemon miss out on the list but otherwise I can understand why they chose these titles. Are unselected finalists disqualified from reaching Hall of Fame status in future?

And now for some thread appropriate music!

I can't argue with any of these choices. Each one pretty much is either the progenitor or the iconic example of an entire genre.

It's a good starter list. I'm hoping to see more adventure games in the future, because Sierra and LucasArts were a large part of my childhood - which is the common element of almost every game there, aside from Angry Birds, Minecraft and WoW.
Also, Zork.

That is a solid group of games based on their criteria.

I still remember when I heard the story about tetris being chosen to come with the game boy: "If we pack in mario, we'll sell it to every kid in the country. If we pack in tetris, we'll sell to everyone." or something like that (it's been a while).

While I don't personally like Minecraft, I'm a tad surprised it wasn't inducted in the inaugural class. The only omissions that disappoint me are the Legend of Zelda and The Oregon Trail.

All games up for consideration will undoubtedly be added at a later date, but Angry Birds is the only one that I would be fine to see omitted entirely.

I gotta say.

Enrolling world of warcraft in a best games of all time list is akin to enrolling heroin in a list of best foodstuffs available of all time.

Addictive doesnt necessarily mean good. It CAN be both addictive and good...but doesnt have to.

tzimize:
I gotta say.

Enrolling world of warcraft in a best games of all time list is akin to enrolling heroin in a list of best foodstuffs available of all time.

Addictive doesnt necessarily mean good. It CAN be both addictive and good...but doesnt have to.

In fairness, the list hasn't got much to do with being good, it's about what's important for gaming. WOW has been massively influential in how we understand games and gaming and how gaming is understood in popular culture. It's the one on the list that is most up for debate, and it's got 7 million paying subscribers today (which is, if I remember correctly, lower than its peak). If that game isn't culturally relevant, then I'm not sure what game is.

Good list. As much as I hate even the idea of playing WoW, I can't deny it took the Everquest formula and knocked it out of the park. At its peak, the subscriber base was all the proof you needed that a legendary game was being played.

I am slightly shocked that (a) Minecraft didn't make the first cut, and (b) Angry Birds made the shortlist. I mean, come on - mobile's first killer app gets a nod because, I assume, it was first? By that logic, Halo should get shortlisted, as should Sonic and Mario and ohhhhhhhh.

Still, Minecraft had better be in the second class.

I would have put Dragon Quest 1 in before WOW, but hey, that's just me. Overall, I approve of the selections.

let's see...
Pong - THE game that started things rolling. Not the first ever game, sure. But the first one widely seen by lots of people.
Pac Man - Iconic character, enemies with more personality than anything before, one of the classics that defined the early arcade era.
Super Mario bros - Still gets played today. Best defines what is arguably the single most recognisable character in gaming. (and arguably just in general). Sort of defined an entirely new game genre.
Doom - while not the first game in it's genre, it was a technological masterpiece that defined many of the elements of it's genre that persist to this day.
World of warcraft. - not the first mmo, but the most successful, and the model everyone seems to want to copy. (for better or worse). And it's influence on gaming culture is not to be underestimated.
Tetris - probably one of the most addictive games ever made, period. Also one of the most frequently blatantly copied. Most people know it, and the music and other elements of the original few versions are quite iconic in their own right...

All in all these games all do seem to deserve their status... XD

I'd have to say I'm fine with everything up there except WoW. Never understood how it got popular in the first place.

President Bagel:
I would have put Dragon Quest 1 in before WOW, but hey, that's just me. Overall, I approve of the selections.

I can see why Dragon Quest might not have made it in but I feel it certainly should have been on the consideration list.

Yakostovian:
While I don't personally like Minecraft, I'm a tad surprised it wasn't inducted in the inaugural class. The only omissions that disappoint me are the Legend of Zelda and The Oregon Trail.

All games up for consideration will undoubtedly be added at a later date, but Angry Birds is the only one that I would be fine to see omitted entirely.

I don't think they could really leave Angry Birds out entirely. One could argue that it is the game that made everyone's phone into a gaming machine. Even people who were not at all gamers before getting their smartphone became gamers because of Angry Birds. That's some pretty hefty cultural impact there!

OT: Not disappointed, even by the WoW pick. While I never got into WoW no one can argue that it isn't massively popular and influential in and out of gaming circles.

Can't argue with any of the inductees. I know people are down on WoW, but even if you don't like it, you can't deny the impact it has had on the industry.

That said...FIFA? What the hell did FIFA do to be a finalist?

marioandsonic:
Can't argue with any of the inductees. I know people are down on WoW, but even if you don't like it, you can't deny the impact it has had on the industry.

That said...FIFA? What the hell did FIFA do to be a finalist?

I'm guessing South African bribes.

Hero in a half shell:

marioandsonic:
Can't argue with any of the inductees. I know people are down on WoW, but even if you don't like it, you can't deny the impact it has had on the industry.

That said...FIFA? What the hell did FIFA do to be a finalist?

I'm guessing South African bribes.

"Half shell steps up... gooooooaaaaaaaaallllllll!" +1 to you sir.

marioandsonic:
Can't argue with any of the inductees. I know people are down on WoW

Imo they should have just said the entire Warcraft franchise
It's played a major role is 3 genres (RTS,MMO,MOBA)

WC2 contribution to online RTS play and WC3 ties to moba deserve there spot along side wow

doggy go 7:

tzimize:
I gotta say.

Enrolling world of warcraft in a best games of all time list is akin to enrolling heroin in a list of best foodstuffs available of all time.

Addictive doesnt necessarily mean good. It CAN be both addictive and good...but doesnt have to.

In fairness, the list hasn't got much to do with being good, it's about what's important for gaming. WOW has been massively influential in how we understand games and gaming and how gaming is understood in popular culture. It's the one on the list that is most up for debate, and it's got 7 million paying subscribers today (which is, if I remember correctly, lower than its peak). If that game isn't culturally relevant, then I'm not sure what game is.

It was a list about BEST games was it not? And while I understand, I'd also like to add that Britney Spears was culturally relevant at some point, but I wouldnt say that she was culturally IMPORTANT, and certainly not as culturally important as say Michael Jackson. And even if its culturally relevant...that is NOT the same as being good. Flappy-bird was culturally relevant for a while...

We had MMOs before wow, in fact we had extremely similar MMOs to wow before wow. Wow just happened to be popular. We've had mmos like wow afterwards too. But gaming has not been particularly changed by wow. Other mmos fail, or keep player bases more or less the size mmos used to have before wow.

Personally I dont think Wow has been important for gaming at all. Its ONE game, one KIND of game, catering to a specific type of gamer. I'd say that wow has contributed nothing of value to how anyone understand gaming or gamers. It might have contributed to understanding mmo-players...but they are as often as not, another breed of gamer.

direkiller:

marioandsonic:
Can't argue with any of the inductees. I know people are down on WoW

Imo they should have just said the entire Warcraft franchise
It's played a major role is 3 genres (RTS,MMO,MOBA)

WC2 contribution to online RTS play and WC3 ties to moba deserve there spot along side wow

I don't disagree, but it seems like they're only inducting individual games, not entire franchises.

If it was, I would have put the entire Mario franchise in there.

tzimize:

It was a list about BEST games was it not? And while I understand, I'd also like to add that Britney Spears was culturally relevant at some point, but I wouldnt say that she was culturally IMPORTANT, and certainly not as culturally important as say Michael Jackson. And even if its culturally relevant...that is NOT the same as being good. Flappy-bird was culturally relevant for a while...

We had MMOs before wow, in fact we had extremely similar MMOs to wow before wow. Wow just happened to be popular. We've had mmos like wow afterwards too. But gaming has not been particularly changed by wow. Other mmos fail, or keep player bases more or less the size mmos used to have before wow.

Personally I dont think Wow has been important for gaming at all. Its ONE game, one KIND of game, catering to a specific type of gamer. I'd say that wow has contributed nothing of value to how anyone understand gaming or gamers. It might have contributed to understanding mmo-players...but they are as often as not, another breed of gamer.

We had MMOs before WOW, but the boom of MMOs in the late 2000s and their establishment as one of the major genres of that era comes from WOW's popularity.

There were also platformers before Super Mario Bros, but the explosion of platformers in the late 80s to early 90s is attributable to the successes of the Mario games. Platformers aren't particularly common now, but during that period they were the major genre of that era; The same for MMOs in the wake of World of Warcraft.

You also can't deny the influence WOW's success in the MMO market has had on other genres, from influencing the gameplay of non-MMO titles (FFXII, DA:I), setting a new benchmark for the scope of gameworlds in offline RPGs, and forcing developers to consider long-term, continuous player engagement over singular, narrative focused playthroughs.

tzimize:
I gotta say.

Enrolling world of warcraft in a best games of all time list is akin to enrolling heroin in a list of best foodstuffs available of all time.

Addictive doesnt necessarily mean good. It CAN be both addictive and good...but doesnt have to.

They were the first ones to smash all the subscriber barriers.

Same reason why Fifa was nominated I suppose.

And you may look at the last 3 expansions as total tripe but WoW was considered one of the most solid gameplay and story experiences all the way up to Wrath of The Lich King and if you're judging the game without all the expansions and put it back in that timeframe it smashed all expecations.

Or to go by your analogy : if Heroin was akin to simply eating shit, people'd be eating shit and not be shooting heroin, despite the devastating effects heroin apparently has a merit to the user.

Thank fuck they didn't put "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" in there! What moron nominated those games?

tzimize:

doggy go 7:

tzimize:
I gotta say.

Enrolling world of warcraft in a best games of all time list is akin to enrolling heroin in a list of best foodstuffs available of all time.

Addictive doesnt necessarily mean good. It CAN be both addictive and good...but doesnt have to.

In fairness, the list hasn't got much to do with being good, it's about what's important for gaming. WOW has been massively influential in how we understand games and gaming and how gaming is understood in popular culture. It's the one on the list that is most up for debate, and it's got 7 million paying subscribers today (which is, if I remember correctly, lower than its peak). If that game isn't culturally relevant, then I'm not sure what game is.

It was a list about BEST games was it not?

It was not. From the article:

The games span multiple decades, countries of origin, and gaming platforms, but all have significantly affected the video game industry, popular culture, and society in general," according to a statement by The Strong.

You can't deny it affected the industry and popular culture.

Spot1990:

tzimize:

doggy go 7:

In fairness, the list hasn't got much to do with being good, it's about what's important for gaming. WOW has been massively influential in how we understand games and gaming and how gaming is understood in popular culture. It's the one on the list that is most up for debate, and it's got 7 million paying subscribers today (which is, if I remember correctly, lower than its peak). If that game isn't culturally relevant, then I'm not sure what game is.

It was a list about BEST games was it not?

It was not. From the article:

The games span multiple decades, countries of origin, and gaming platforms, but all have significantly affected the video game industry, popular culture, and society in general," according to a statement by The Strong.

You can't deny it affected the industry and popular culture.

I stand corrected on the best bit, but I still stand by my previous statement.

I really dont think Wow has been culturally important. It was not groundbreaking in any way, and it has not lead to anything that we didnt already have in the gaming genre.

It is the one that became most famous and popular, but it didnt really create anything we didnt already have, and nothing has had even slightly the same success afterwards so I wouldnt say the market was changed in any significant way either. Sure, a lot of companies WANTED to have the same success, but they didnt.

Wow is a cultural phenomenon, no doubt about that. But in spite of that, I really dont think it has been important in any way besides earning Blizzard a mountain of gold.

K12:
Thank fuck they didn't put "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" in there! What moron nominated those games?

People who realise that mobile and sports sim are both facets of gaming and those games were significant within those genres? I would agree that if Madden would arguably be the better choice to represent that genre due to it being (as far as I know) the longest running, but cultural impact is also a factor and soccer is much wider reaching than american football.

Seeing a lot of hate for particular genres floating around (not just here). Whether or not you like a particular genre or platform does not mean it has no significance within gaming culture or the industry. Brace yourselves because CoD4 will eventually make it in there.

tzimize:
I stand corrected on the best bit, but I still stand by my previous statement.

I really dont think Wow has been culturally important. It was not groundbreaking in any way, and it has not lead to anything that we didnt already have in the gaming genre.

Basically every major mmo that came out after wow was framed within the narrative of being "a wow killer". For over a decade wow was the one to beat and no one came close. Not once. That is cultural significance.

It is the one that became most famous and popular, but it didnt really create anything we didnt already have,

Which isn't the only prerequisite for significance.

and nothing has had even slightly the same success afterwards so I wouldnt say the market was changed in any significant way either.

No MMO was able to compete with one particular MMO. an MMO that at it's peak had over 10 million subscribers. That is significant.

Sure, a lot of companies WANTED to have the same success, but they didnt.

Which is how it impacted the industry. It affected how developers thought about the industry.

Wow is a cultural phenomenon, no doubt about that. But in spite of that, I really dont think it has been important in any way besides earning Blizzard a mountain of gold.

and effecting how developers and publishers view the market and MMOs. Controlling the MMO market for over a decade. Permeating throughout wider pop culture. How many tv shows have done a WoW episode now? Made reference to it? How many books have been written about it? These, and more, are all aspects of cultural impact.

Spot1990:

K12:
Thank fuck they didn't put "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" in there! What moron nominated those games?

People who realise that mobile and sports sim are both facets of gaming and those games were significant within those genres? I would agree that if Madden would arguably be the better choice to represent that genre due to it being (as far as I know) the longest running, but cultural impact is also a factor and soccer is much wider reaching than american football.

Seeing a lot of hate for particular genres floating around (not just here). Whether or not you like a particular genre or platform does not mean it has no significance within gaming culture or the industry. Brace yourselves because CoD4 will eventually make it in there.

There's no Roguelike or fighting game or driving game or console game or RTS or MOBA or survival horror or multiplayer shooter or point & click adventure game that even got nominated.

I'm totally OK with sports and mobile games getting in the hall of fame at some point but definitely not in the first batch. Are "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" really more important to gaming than the entirety of these other genres just because they sell/sold really well.

K12:

Spot1990:

K12:
Thank fuck they didn't put "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" in there! What moron nominated those games?

People who realise that mobile and sports sim are both facets of gaming and those games were significant within those genres? I would agree that if Madden would arguably be the better choice to represent that genre due to it being (as far as I know) the longest running, but cultural impact is also a factor and soccer is much wider reaching than american football.

Seeing a lot of hate for particular genres floating around (not just here). Whether or not you like a particular genre or platform does not mean it has no significance within gaming culture or the industry. Brace yourselves because CoD4 will eventually make it in there.

There's no Roguelike or fighting game or driving game or console game or RTS or MOBA or survival horror or multiplayer shooter or point & click adventure game that even got nominated.

I'm totally OK with sports and mobile games getting in the hall of fame at some point but definitely not in the first batch. Are "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" really more important to gaming than the entirety of these other genres just because they sell/sold really well.

Well they did contribute in a major way toward making gaming more than just a niche hobby. So you could say they represent a huge turning point in gaming. They've included games that were the building blocks in creating gaming so why not games that were integral to shaping gaming into the massive industry it is now. It's not like they're going to do inductions in chronological batches. Each time there will probably be games representing a wide range of eras of gaming history, rather than just start with the early and eventually build up to the new. Plus having a wide array of inductees in the first batch would give people a sense of what to expect and what the nature and intention of the hall of fame is. Inducting only classics that were the early foundations of gaming might make people think that's what this is meant to be. Meaning there'd likely be even more outrage if they were inducted at a later date, with gamers complaining that it ruins the sanctity of the hall of fame or some such. This isn't just in honour of the gaming we grew up with and what made us fall in love with it, it's about gaming that relates to the entire industry and everyone who engages with it. I do understand your point though and think this is probably just going to be about opinions. Neither of which are wrong. I'm not saying they SHOULD have been nominated, just saying there is definitely a strong argument in favour of it.

Lizzy Finnegan:

...with requirements for consideration being: icon status, longevity, geographical reach, and influence.

Then Pokémon has to be merely waiting in the wings. There is no overstating the weight the franchise holds in all those categories. Hell, when I was in military service, it was common practice to count the days we had left by each day's corresponding pokémon number.

Spot1990:

K12:

Spot1990:
People who realise that mobile and sports sim are both facets of gaming and those games were significant within those genres? I would agree that if Madden would arguably be the better choice to represent that genre due to it being (as far as I know) the longest running, but cultural impact is also a factor and soccer is much wider reaching than american football.

Seeing a lot of hate for particular genres floating around (not just here). Whether or not you like a particular genre or platform does not mean it has no significance within gaming culture or the industry. Brace yourselves because CoD4 will eventually make it in there.

There's no Roguelike or fighting game or driving game or console game or RTS or MOBA or survival horror or multiplayer shooter or point & click adventure game that even got nominated.

I'm totally OK with sports and mobile games getting in the hall of fame at some point but definitely not in the first batch. Are "Angry Birds" and "FIFA" really more important to gaming than the entirety of these other genres just because they sell/sold really well.

Well they did contribute in a major way toward making gaming more than just a niche hobby. So you could say they represent a huge turning point in gaming. They've included games that were the building blocks in creating gaming so why not games that were integral to shaping gaming into the massive industry it is now. It's not like they're going to do inductions in chronological batches. Each time there will probably be games representing a wide range of eras of gaming history, rather than just start with the early and eventually build up to the new. Plus having a wide array of inductees in the first batch would give people a sense of what to expect and what the nature and intention of the hall of fame is. Inducting only classics that were the early foundations of gaming might make people think that's what this is meant to be. Meaning there'd likely be even more outrage if they were inducted at a later date, with gamers complaining that it ruins the sanctity of the hall of fame or some such. This isn't just in honour of the gaming we grew up with and what made us fall in love with it, it's about gaming that relates to the entire industry and everyone who engages with it. I do understand your point though and think this is probably just going to be about opinions. Neither of which are wrong. I'm not saying they SHOULD have been nominated, just saying there is definitely a strong argument in favour of it.

Agree to disagree here I think. I think I get some of the arguments you put forward but to me entrance (or nomination anyway) into a "Hall of Fame" requires better gaming reasons rather than marketing/ business reasons.

Maybe I'm being a bit too starry-eyed and naive about the whole thing but opening up a new audience seems like a shit reason to put something in a hall of fame compared to things like "Doom" and "Super Mario Bros" and even "the Sims" which codified an entire genre of games.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here