You seem to have a really boolean way to rate things.
it's 1 or 0.
it's good or bad.
This current market we are inserted in allows for lots of possibilities. There's the actual part made of actual advertising, then there's part that is made by word of mouth and viralization. What I said is but one of the possibility that can happen, and kinda like a "normal and expected" equation to the result of success. But the world isn't boolen as you think.
Those games you cited are exceptions that boom and spread absurdly fast (they happen constantly, especially now that communication is easy, quick and accessible) but remember, word of mouth /is/ another type of advertisement.
We are making advertisements all the time, when we share our tastes and try to compare brands. It's a natural thing. The only difference is that we're not making money off of it, like some reviewers or advertisers do.
As for Mother 3. I can assure you that no one wanted it because it was Mother 3. They wanted it because fans of Earthbound (a game released overseas) were interested to play its sequel. Of course they'll end up knowing about the game and play it eventually. They're huge fans of the series. (and let's not forget that for a majority of people, Earthbound was something unknown until Ness's inclusion in Smash Bros - a clever advertisement method).
And honestly, yeah. The place you are will affect this perception, because there are some games that weren't released in one place or another. There is a tint of 'double standardization' already when you compare game tastes, which in turn changes the list of "classic games".
tl;dr
That's obvious. But I clearly didn't say this is the ONLY method to be a "good for its time" game, either.
Some of the aspects that can elevate a game to such levels, with no set order, are:
1- Advertising. Making your game likable, well known and popular is the basis of success beforehand;
2- Usage of hardware. Using the hardware to the full extent (that is, colors, polygons, any visual innovation) will cause a big visual impact;
3- Gameplay. Of course there has to be something to tie everything up, and I guess I don't need to develop this point any further;
4- Innovation. Back in the day, there weren't as many game genres as we do now, and games like Zelda/Fire Emblem were the first of its kind. Nowadays, they have many other alternatives, but a "good for its time" game will usually be different from other titles released at its time.
Again, this list is just what we expect normally, and some games can be famous enough to be "good for its time" without fully meeting those points. There is no set rule to rate games like this - but it's generally accepted that such games have these points achieved.
it's 1 or 0.
it's good or bad.
This current market we are inserted in allows for lots of possibilities. There's the actual part made of actual advertising, then there's part that is made by word of mouth and viralization. What I said is but one of the possibility that can happen, and kinda like a "normal and expected" equation to the result of success. But the world isn't boolen as you think.
Those games you cited are exceptions that boom and spread absurdly fast (they happen constantly, especially now that communication is easy, quick and accessible) but remember, word of mouth /is/ another type of advertisement.
We are making advertisements all the time, when we share our tastes and try to compare brands. It's a natural thing. The only difference is that we're not making money off of it, like some reviewers or advertisers do.
As for Mother 3. I can assure you that no one wanted it because it was Mother 3. They wanted it because fans of Earthbound (a game released overseas) were interested to play its sequel. Of course they'll end up knowing about the game and play it eventually. They're huge fans of the series. (and let's not forget that for a majority of people, Earthbound was something unknown until Ness's inclusion in Smash Bros - a clever advertisement method).
And honestly, yeah. The place you are will affect this perception, because there are some games that weren't released in one place or another. There is a tint of 'double standardization' already when you compare game tastes, which in turn changes the list of "classic games".
tl;dr
Quote: But if we also say something was "good for its time" just because it happened to be popular, that's also a problem
That's obvious. But I clearly didn't say this is the ONLY method to be a "good for its time" game, either.
Some of the aspects that can elevate a game to such levels, with no set order, are:
1- Advertising. Making your game likable, well known and popular is the basis of success beforehand;
2- Usage of hardware. Using the hardware to the full extent (that is, colors, polygons, any visual innovation) will cause a big visual impact;
3- Gameplay. Of course there has to be something to tie everything up, and I guess I don't need to develop this point any further;
4- Innovation. Back in the day, there weren't as many game genres as we do now, and games like Zelda/Fire Emblem were the first of its kind. Nowadays, they have many other alternatives, but a "good for its time" game will usually be different from other titles released at its time.
Again, this list is just what we expect normally, and some games can be famous enough to be "good for its time" without fully meeting those points. There is no set rule to rate games like this - but it's generally accepted that such games have these points achieved.
![[Image: deT1vCJ.png]](http://i.imgur.com/deT1vCJ.png)