PixlBit

I think a good 11th addition to this list would be Skylanders. 

Change: Buying new toys to add content to your game.

Actually, I've never played it and we have not seen a whole lot of its influence yet (though I think Disney just started something)  I predict the concept will be tossed about in many a board meeting in the future as toy companies start calling video game developers.

I just saw Pokemon doing this with tiny figures that you can get that will appear in the game at Gamestop the other day. I was wondering when they would catch up to what Skylanders was doing. 

Skylanders could be a game changer, but we need to see. Could be the next Guitar Hero/Rockband, an even shorter fad, or something huge.

I've only played 4/10 of these but yeah, they really did bring some new things to the table and those that didn't redefined their respective genre's and play styles.

You'd like Gears. It's a ton of fun.

 Damn fine list sir. I actually agree with all of them, although I wish gears hadn't have made the cover mechanic so integral to this generation...

Same here. I love Gears and think cover based shooting has its place, but every now and then I want to sprint at super fast speeds and leap 100 feet in the air while in a firefight as well.

I sadly can't agree with much of this. The one's I can agree on are Uncharted 2, the Grand Theft Auto dlc (possibly since I haven't played it), and Arkham Asylum. Maybe Modern Warfare, but it hasn't stood the test of time, sadly. It was the start of the yearly rotation, and making things all about money rather than experience.

It's hard to really say that Western RPGs dominate the genre. Look at how broken so many of them are, with countless glitches, bugs, etc occuring. Then look at how smoothly almost every single JRPG plays. WRPGs may dominate in sales, but JRPGs dominate in quality, and as gamers, we should care about the quality over the quantity.

With Mario, if you mean 2D games as in 2D side-scrollers, I got some sorry news for ya, man... There's not that many still. There's Mario, Rayman, Dragon's Crown... I think that's pretty much all the main ones that have come after New Super Mario Bros Wii came out.

On the topic of Braid, I don't know what promotions you had seen for it, cause I sure never saw a commercial for it on tv like I do other AAA titles such as Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, and Splinter Cell.

I doubt many people spent $250 just to get a little sports simulator. More of what made Wii Sports special was that it bridged the gap between gamers and non-gamers in a household, giving them something they could do together. Sure, the Wii sold a lot, but not just because of Wii Sports.

Finally, Gears... Well, considering how the Xbox 360 came out so much earlier than the PS3 and the fact that Gears of War came out before the PS3 launched, you can't really say it gave it a "lead" over PS3... Calling Gears important is like calling Michael Vick important. It's glorifying something with one positive trait (it's cover system) and ignoring all the bad things (the unnaturally muscled behemoths of men, the curbstomping, the chainsaw rifle kills, etc) that are not needed at all.

I'm sorry, but it's really hard for me to see how these are all the most important games. The fact that you left off The Last of Us, one of the most cinematic games which is easily widely recognized as the best game this console generation, kinda throws it off. You may not have liked The Last of Us if you even played it, but it is undeniably a huge aspect of pushing what games are seen as by others: a beautiful experience that can pull at the heartstrings in the most powerful ways possible.

Braid was the first downloadable game to break records in sales opening up the door for others like Super Meat boy and Minecraft as it showed that you didn't have to be one of the BIG 3 to be profitable.

Yea, Castle Crashers too. Indie games are really pushing to the front now because of successes like Braid and Journey etc... .

You missed the point of this article, which I even stated in the introduction. Quality is irrelevant, what matters is did these games change something. That you acknowledge WRPGs are more dominant in sales helps prove my point as that was the point. Also the quality is subjective because I've reviewed a lot of shitty JRPGs this year with less bugs than Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3 but that doesn't change that the others are littered with terrible combat and design choices while ME2 and F3 are much better thought out and designed games.

Maybe I did overstate the dominance of retail ones a little, but you are ignoring quite a few and NSMBW still did cause a shift for the genre where they're much more common than they used to be.Not to mention there's more lisenced games opting for it instead of 2D and Nintendo releases at least one full priced 2D platformer a year on a console after it.

Braid, well, I'm betting you didn't see the hype the games media was giving that before it came out. That was the first XBLA game to get really hyped by MS TV commercials are not the only way to generate that you know.

People absolutely bought a Wii just for Wii Sports. The thing has an attachment rate of like 2.3 games including the bundled one, you expect me to believe that many people don't have just that game with those numbers?

Gears, once again read my intro. I knew someone would have a say like this, but from the sound of it, you just don't like Gears. And I don't get how those are "bad" things either, they're part of what I love about Gears. 

Last of Us is my second favorite game this gen after Mass Effect, but influential? Not in the slightest. It hasn't even had time to influence anything, so how could it be influential? Quality doesn't matter, what changed because of it does for this and TLOU hasn't changed a thing (at least yet).

You just didn't get the point of this man.

I think Last of Us goes under the list of all the Naughty Dog games this generation as ones that have pushed the envelope of cinematic feel in games. All started with Uncharted 1 and they continue to impress with that style.

Yeah, but that's not my point at all from this. An evolution in how a developer makes games is hardly influential, but something that causes every single developer to rethink their design philosophy is.

I think Naughty Dog had everyone looking at their games from the first Uncharted, but your choice of Uncharted 2 is a good one since that's probably the best representation of their style.

Yeah, but the difference is Uncharted 1 didn't have the setpieces 2 had. Look at how Dead Space 2, Mass Effect 3, and Tomb Raider imitated those when their predecessors didn't and you'll see Uncharted 2's influence the original didn't have.

I guess so, but their both pretty influential. Uncharted 2 much more dramatically. Still, I remember 1 also being a big deal when it came out. U2 just did it even more. That's why I agree with you that U2 is a good choice.

Yeah, but I took it more as a big exclusive for the PS3 when the system didn't have many exclusives. It was kind of cool seeing a game that cinematic, but I thought Mass Effect pulled off the cinematics much better, it just felt like another shooter with much better voice acting and graphics than we were used to. I never really felt anything was trying to imitate Uncharted 1 like they did with Uncharted 2.

I guess it's because I played U1 and felt like, wow, games are doing the movie thing too now. I still haven't played U2 but I remember the even more action-movie style demos for it. Ultimately it doesn't really matter because everyone has been watching Naughty Dog this generation. They're the king of cinematic style gaming in my opinion whichever game you choose.

The thing I think irked me the most about some of the choices, is the way the title of the article is "most important". The way it comes off to me is saying these games are the only ones that could have done this. If Gears hadn't come along, there would have eventually be a game with the same cover mechanics and all that Gears "introduced". It's that type of thing. When the word "important" is used, it brings to mind something that MUST be done or experienced. Many of these games aren't. Here's an example from last gen of what could be some "important" titles: Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Halo (as much as I despise that bland series), possibly Kingdom Hearts 1, possibly Super Smash Bros Melee. These are games that have melded cultures, been moving art masterpieces, completely changed the way gaming works, etc. Halo was the start of the common FPS and the online multiplayer boom. Kingdom Hearts melded two iconic franchises of two different cultures, opening up people's eyes to new things. Ico and SotC... Nothing even needs to be said for those. Smash Bros is probably the most iffy on that list. 

Honestly, there really hasn't been many "important" games this generation that have completely changed gaming or affected people's lives in the way other games did last gen. There have been many influential titles, but honestly, any big title or special title this gen could have been skipped and it wouldn't overall affect the industry. Sorry if I sounded too harsh, just the wording completely made me think of something different than what you meant.

Sorry, but that argument against Gears doesn't hold up well. Say that Gears didn't exist and something else introduced it. Okay, but what if it was on PS3 only and everyone needed a PS3 to play it? Or if it came out a year later and Mass Effect/Uncharted didn't have cover? Or if it wasn't as popular and cover didn't catch on? You see how different gaming would be? Important means how it changed everything. You want a game more important than everything you listed? ET for the Atari 2600. It's important for all the wrong reasons, but you can't deny how it changed everything.

Shadow/Ico and Halo are the only ones of your choices I'd actually consider important and Shadow would be for very different reasons. Kingdom Hearts was just a Square/Disney mash up, it didn't change how developers make games or influence any games really. If I were to pick the important games of last gen, it would be Halo, Grand Theft Auto 3, Resident Evil 4, Knights of the Old Republic, and Devil May Cry. 

Games that made developers rethink how to make games or cause an industry wide shift are arguably more important than what we consider masterpieces. If a masterpiece does come out, but only a few people play it and it doesn't change anything in the industry, it's not important. It's that simple.

I even just looked it up. The first game to implement a cover system like Gears has in a 3D third person shooter was a game called Winback for the Nintendo 64. Players could not move and shoot though, they had to take cover before they could shoot. It was later refined in Metal Gear Solid 2 by having cover as an optional means, but also having enemy AI use cover. In the end, the only thing Gears really did for the cover system in 3rd person shooters was make environments developed specifically for that and having one button used for going into cover. With the core of the cover system already developed, it was only a matter of time before someone implemented it. Using this line of thinking, Uncharted 2 (which I do agree with being on the list) should be given just as much credit for have a vertical cover element with being able to hang from the environment. I've played Gears. I didn't have much of an opinion of it one way or the other, as it was a good game with promise, but any promise it had was dragged down by the ridiculousness in the characters and gore. The two things balanced each other out for me. I enjoyed the gameplay. But I'm not going to give it credit other games deserves.

It seems you keep on mixing up influential and important. Influential is affecting how other games and made and other aspects put into them. I'd agree every game on this list is influential. But important? That means it is something that needs to be done or experienced by people or was a major shift in history. Not in how games were developed, but in the history of gaming. 

Grand Theft Auto 3 is important I agree, because it shifted the public's view on games, largely in a negative direction. Wal-Marts finally started checking IDs for age when selling M games, and it was an overall controversial game. It's an important point in gaming history, even if someone plays it and thinks it sucks. 

Resident Evil 4 is important, because it was the the catalyst for the near-death of the horror genre that Resident Evil 1 brought to the world of gaming. It wasn't until Dead Space came out that the genre was breathed new life.

Knights of the Old Republic, it made a big name for Western RPGs, and combined the concept that tabletop RPGs had of a d20 with the existing RPG format. Sure, Neverwinter Nights and some other games had been Western RPGs before KotOR, but KotOR was what put them on the map.

Devil May Cry, I will admit I can't really say anything on as I never played it or payed much attention to it. It's something I want to fix sometime when money and time allows.

The reason I did put down Kingdom Hearts, was because it was, in essence, the first large cross-culture, cross-media, gaming experience. It combined the American-based Disney properties with the Japan-based Final Fantasy property, giving something that could appeal to Japanese and American gamers and non-gamers alike. It was also the first time putting together game worlds with movie worlds in a video game. Sure, there had been movie-based games before, but not a game with both things from games and movies together, if that makes sense. 

So see, there's things that are influential, and then things that are important. They should not be mixed up though. I'm not wanting to be a jerk, I just am a stickler for that sort of difference, especially in gaming, because as someone who wants to get into the industry, I want to make something important eventually, not something influential. And I wouldn't want something I made that just had some influences on other thing being called important over something truly important, same as how I wouldn't want something important I made being overlooked for something influential being called important.

How is something that influences so many future games not important? I'm honestly baffled by that. I think you're being kind of a hypocrite for acknowledging Kotor's importance even though there were WRPGs before it but saying Gears doesn't matter because a game introduced cover before. It put cover on the map, which like it or hate it makes it important.

You really come off as just trying to discredit Gears for aesthetic reasons, you say Uncharted added verticality, but did any game take it up on this? No. They were like Mass Effect adding RPG elements and squad mechanics, Deus Ex HR adding stealth and RPG elements, Vanquish turning the whole genre on it's head, but they all did so because Gears started the cover fad. Any game that affects so many future games is important regardless of quality or artistic merit which you're so hung up on. The idea that Gears of War is not an important game is just plain ridiculous no matter how much you act like the characters, world, and style suck. It still changed everything and shaped this entire console generation.

What you said on KH isn't even true either as Marvel vs Capcom/X-Men vs Street Fighter did that same thing years before and was popular enough to be a hit. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Square got the idea from Capcom. The industry would be a little different but not that different if KH never existed. PS2 might have a slightly smaller fanbase or Square might have gone in a slightly different direction. But like I said before if a game is fresh but doesn't affect gaming in the slightest, it hasn't made any impact. And if everything's the same whether or not a game exists, how can that game be important?

What you're thinking of is not important, it is essential. You are thinking of games which developers need perspective on to play in order to fully understand the industry. Those games are the ones people should play, but important is not the right word to categorize them. You're the one confused on the words here.

I'd have to add Burnout Paradise as it was one of the first to introduce asynchronous multiplayer in a clever way. Also Mirror's Edge since it showed that platforming in first person could be done well. Mass Effect 3 mainly its ending, and the trio of Wii games that got ported over because it showed that if we bugged enough companies would change there policies for us. 

Mass Effect 3's and Operation Rainfall seem more like business as usual more than something that triggered a change. X-Com did the same thing with Enemy Unknown. Same goes for Mirror's Edge and Burnout, haven't really seen them used in other games. They're innovative for sure and I love them, but not really influential.

Funny, when I booted up Oblivion again after a while and the camera in the opening cinematics sweeps over The Imperial City, I couldn't help thinking of JRPG's and epic architecture like in Final Fantasy XII. WRPG's and JRPG's are actually not so far apart really.

Funny thing is FFXII actually has heavy WRPG influence. The two genres have some similarities and crossovers, but I'd never expect Atlus to develop Deus Ex or Bethesda to develop Persona 4.

I guess I should compare Oblivion to Enchanted Arms since they both came out in '06. Those games are very different.

Multiplayer innovation started with Halo 2 last gen and continued with the other Bungie games, but yea, CODMW really ran with it and got even more massive participation from gamers. It's THE multiplayer game of this generation with Halo a close but fading second.

Halo 2 was definitely the inspiration, but MW turned it from being what gamers like to play to what people like to play which was huge.

    Yea, there's a bunch of people who only play COD like those people who only play sports games (a friend of mine was in a pro CODMW league). I stopped playing COD when it went modern, but I think I'll give it a shot again when I get to it in my achievement hunting list. I was impressed by the trailers for Black Ops a little while ago.

     Funny how the public has really taken to the MW games. Does everyone want to be in the military or something or is it just that lots of people like present day realism? That's not my thing at all.

Before Wii Sports, my favorite sports video game was Super Dodge Ball.  Now it's Wii Sports.  That's how significant it is.

Haha. My favorite would probably be MLB Power Pros.

Pretty good list, man!  I forgot about Lost and Damned. That did kind of take DLC to a new level. 

I can't remember, but I recall you didn't like Braid.  I have mixed feelings about it, but there's no denying that it started the whole indie scene on the consoles. IT's funny how things changed. 

I think Dead Space was pretty influential too.  A lot of the ways you interacted with stuff, like the safe spots and your inventories, could be seen in Batman Arkham City with the way Batman pulled up his radio, etc.  Maybe not as influential as say Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, but still influential I think. 

Mass Effect is still my "saga of the generation", but I don't think we're going to see it's influence yet until the next gen.  But I do believe in the long run, it's going to influence a lot of stuff.

Yeah, I hated Braid. Dead Space is a little influential, but I don't think that much. Though what it did with the user interface was cool, not too many games are trying that now. Mass Effect could be, but for now, it's just a really, really awesome sci-fy epic.

Interesting list.  This was a fun read.  I would have replaced Oblivion with Mass Effect, but that's just me.  I didn't like Oblivion at all, so I'm biased.  

I didn't really like Oblivion either. Fallout 3 was great though.

Can't argue with your examples much, though I find several of them have been detrimental and/or having no value at all. I like that you point out the positive and negative of each game's influence.

Personal bias for them aside, I think the Souls games have been quite important to re-establishing semi-mainstream appreciation of challenging and cryptic games. I like to think it did its part in creating a welcoming environment for other hard game, like some of the indies, and for the various hardcore or old-school game Kickstarters.

Yeah, the Souls games are probably very important to you, but for now they're just helping a few indie games get made. Even though I'm not a fan of the series, I do like this too. Just finished my review of Spelunky (which you were right, it is great) which was surprisingly unforgiving the way DS was and worked well for it.

Well, even some AAA developers are talking about adding or have added hardcore and purist modes in their games. That could be in reaction to fan criticism of current gen iterations of those particular franchises though. 

I think things will come to a head with Dark Souls 2, then we'll really see if there is any lasting impact from the series.

That's true, forgot about stuff like Fallout New Vegas' hardcore mode. It's a little much for me, but I'm glad it exists all the same.

Great list and analysis. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks

I LOVED this list man!

Great list, well thought out.
I shall leave a cookie for you outside your doorstep

Can you leave the dough, a spoon and a lighter instead?.....I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM

Though I don't think Gears 2 qualifies as an entry here, since it just refined what had come before, I think Horde Mode deserves being mentioned anyway. It was extremely fun, and a lot of games did get on that wagon. 

Anyhow, excellent list. I can't think of any games of the top of my head to add here, but these 10 sure left a mark in the industry, for better or for worse.

Thanks. That is a good point about Gears 2 also, a lot of games love their horde modes.

I did very preliminary work on a list similar to this a couple of weeks ago.  I do not think that I could have done much better than this...  the only game that I think might be missing is either Demon or Dark Souls but I cannot back that up right now.

Well written and well balanced piece, Casey. Thanks for your perspective. Although I may not have liked some of the games on your list, I see what point your making, and they're all good points. And I know some of those games are ones you, yourself didn't particularly care for.

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of GTA IV, but can't help but admire what its DLC did for gaming. Braid, I can't stand it as a whole and am not a fan of these pretentious art games that came after it. Yet I do like how it gave XBLA more importance which helped downloadable games I actually do like get made. Modern Warfare I actually thought was great, but I haven't played a single good FPS imitating it and that includes later CoD's. 

Very fine list. Though i'm way behind some of the game mentioned here, I really see the influence it had on modern gaming. I would have included Super Mario Galaxy for making 3D Plataformers important again, but i'm not sure if it is that big, as many 3D Plataformers are still more frequent with Nintendo than any other company.

I wouldn't say it even made 3D platformers important again. Last gen gave us three installments from Jak and Sly and four from Ratchet. This gen, Jak is gone, Ratchet's turned into more of a shooter (though that started last gen), and Sly got just one. Meanwhile Nintendo's making 2D platformers, with the rare 3D one from Mario. Then Banjo was doing something different and no one really offered another 3D platformer. Platformers were doing just fine in 2004 and it felt more like a brief lull in 2005-6 (though there was Psychonauts and Sly 3), then 2007 hit with Mario followed by nothing but okay to terrible Sonic games.

As far as influential games this gen, it honestly seems like you nailed it. I might shuffle the order a bit. Nice to see Lost and Damned on here. Regardless of thoughts on the game the massive scope of its DLC shames most games' attempts. Definitely infulential though I wish it was more infulential I guess.

I wish it was too. Though in the industry's defense, it's a lot less noticeable to you since Bethesda and Bioware are the ones really pumping out great DLC. Oblivion actually had strong DLC before L&D, but they promoted that as an expansion while Rockstar promoted it as DLC. You see how Fallout and Skyrim differed on it after and GTA IV's influence is clear. Bioware can get a little pricey with theirs, but Shadow Broker is probably ME2's best mission and the Citadel DLC is so good it's a GOTY contender with me, something no DLC can claim.

Have to agree with this fine list of gamechangers. Be it for the good or the bad they have influenced gaming in one form or another. Each game could even be used for individual write ups on the pos/negs of how they've influenced things in the industry.

I own all those games.  Some of them I hadn't played yet.