At the endangerment of dragging this topic further into left field, I went and read the Minecraft review that Vert1 had previously posted. I have not played the game and have only heard things about it from forumers and other friends and acquaintances.

I will admit that the review made a few good points. A comparison between Minecraft and SimCity was made in which SimCity was praised for having interactivity and expansiveness whereas Minecraft may be somewhat lacking. For example, a city in Minecraft does not have technical data that makes it continually expand or progress the game on its own; there are limitations. The writer then critques the game as, on the basis of being a fun creation engine, inferior to other tools. These were the main points that I got out of the article.

However, even knowing this, I do not find the writer to be very credible or enjoyable. I have no problem if his opinion differs from what I have previously learned from the game - indeed, some will enjoy Minecraft and others simply will not. Unfortunately, the writer's style strikes me as extremely egotistical and overly dramatic.

The introduction to this article may be a "distraction" that carries no real weight to the critique of the game itself, yet is not something most readers would simply ignore because it effectively marks the tone of the article. I certainly could not imagine asking someone face-to-face about the game and receiving a response such as this:

Alex Kierkegaard wrote:

It's so easy to see what the problem is with Minecraft, that I almost feel embarrassed to have to come out and say it. But what we have here once more, as with Seiklus, or Flow, or Flower, or Braid, or Spelunky, or any of the other so-called "indie" abortions, is the same old story, and if there's no one left reviewing games today who actually knows anything about them, and such blatant failings can pass by everyone else unnoticed, I guess I am just going to have to take a few moments out of my day to sit down, write a few words, and point them out.

This does not strike me as an article with my best interests at heart, but rather an opinion of a narcissistic author with infallible opinions.

The writer continues in this fashion by lightly mocking those who enjoy the game - later calling them fuckfaces - and ultimately calls Markus Persson a "fat Swedish fuck." Again, these may not have much to do with the actual game critique, but as Cameron likely implies, I feel that with their inclusion, the author's mindset is unfortunately warped which makes me distrust the entire article.

It's okay to dislike a game, and I understand that some of these remarks can and have been used for sarcasm, but after reading the article - even having noticed and reflecting on critical points - I do not place much respect in this article and would not read any others from the same website.

---

Anyways, getting back to the topic at hand, I believe Syd makes a lot of sense in that several highly-anticipated (from marketing and public standpoints) games were released in 2011, as always, only a few will be fondly remembered as the years pass.

I barely purchased any games this year, so I can't really do any list-building like others have, but I would say that most sequels do not typically age well. Nintendo is typically free of this criticism - Syd mentioned Skyward Sword and Super Mario 3D Land - because such games often stand for themselves better than, using my current go-to game, Gears of War 3.