I need to state it up front here: this book was not what I thought it was going to be, and it took me a while to like, accept that about it. When I first saw Jordan talking about it on social media my understanding was that it was a collection of essays from multiple different authors about what THEY thought the game of the year was, going in depth with a multi-page critical analysis. So you'd get like multiple pages on, say, Austin Walker talking about Umurangi Generation and how it was a perfectly timely game for the political climate it was released in, and also discussing, say, the anime influences in it or the development team's Maori background. Maybe Tamoor Hussein getting a chance to go in-depth on Sekiro or Bloodborne. Instead, this book is actually just the author Jordan Minor talking about 44 games he's deemed important, and everyone else and every other game gets like one or two paragraphs to talk about them and make their case, either for another game that came out that year, or a game that's thematically related in some way.
It's not to say this is inherently bad as a concept - this is akin to, say, a 1001 Movies To See Before You Die type book that's also trying to do the work of like, putting a game into the context of the time for why it might be important to have come out then. This is an unenviable task. How do you not talk about Pokemon a single time in the book and then put Pokemon Go as the game for 2016 without having to talk about 20 years of history that got us to that point? But because of the limits in page count (only one game goes longer than 3 pages, and even then there are usually illustrations and page breaks to feel like it's padded out) it can feel like we're not paying any attention to the actual games that are important for that year because the past and future have to be brought in as well.
In a way it feels like this book's format is set up to highlight its own failings. Entries like Metal Gear Solid are really good examples of what I was saying above. In two pages it attempts to discuss the legacy of the Metal Gear series, the history of the game's director Hideo Kojima, an attempt to discuss auteur theory in video games, and also talk about what made Metal Gear Solid itself as an object interesting in comparison to the previous games in the series, from its 4th wall breaks to its cinematic qualities. It will, by necessity, skip over a lot of important information, even if it had 3x the room. So it's not only possible but understandable to come away from this not really understanding what made Metal Gear Solid so important in 1998, especially when the same year as a game like Starcraft came out that did a lot to expand games out into high-paying tournaments as a competitive sport. It feels like it doesn't quite, make a case for why 1998 was the year of Solid Snake, and feels a little more like the author was sitting there and looking at the book and going "huh I don't have a Kojima game? Better find a year to talk about it..." and this is the one he landed on. This is, notably, the year of Ocarina of Time, Marvel vs. Capcom, the original Half-Life, Crash Bandicoot AND Spyro the Dragon, Grim Fandango, and of course, Glover. If you're going to make one of these the game of the year, and then not talk about most of the others? You're missing out on a lot of what made up video games as a medium that year.
Which some of this makes me wonder who this book's intended audience is. It's definitely not for someone like me, who can look at every game on the back and go "yeah that makes sense" because I'm already just that familiar with them. I think I landed on like, people my age or younger who like games and want to get a crash course in the history? People like me, genetic freaks who aren't normal, can only find this book disappointing because the past 40+ years of game history is incredibly broad and varied and beyond just a kind of surface level "well that's no the game I would have chosen," it's a book that has to buy into a specific USA, console-centric history of video games to tell its story, and when it touches into anything else it has to stop and backtrack and give a lot more extra background. It's a big problem the book has all over. "Half-Life: Counter Strike is the game of the year! But to tell you that I have to tell you what Half-Life is, briefly gesture at what online games on the PC were like before this, explain Counter Strike's unique mechanics, and then tell you why it's important. I can do this in less than 3 pages, augmented by drawings and large blank spaces." Did I even learn what Counter Strike is during this?
The history of the games can be really flattening as a result of this. It can make it difficult to tell which game actually was important and introduced important updates. Discussing Dragon Quest leads to discussions of Square Enix as a company without really explaining how they were different before; both are mentioned in relation to Final Fantasy VII despite them not merging until years later. Final Fantasy 1 is discussed while mentioning active time battles, which didn't come around until 4. I can tell you the difference but can the intended audience? Can my nephew, who got a copy of this for Christmas this year, know that FF1 didn't have this mechanic the language suggests it does? With a number of other factual errors in the book, I do kind of hate suggesting this as an intro for people who want to learn more about games.
Also: our first glimpse of J Allard was NOT a trendy man with a hoody! It was a schlubby dude with a bad hairline! Never forget!!!!
The book also goes into some of its stuff in very corny, cliched ways, such as bothering to give any space to the idea of a "Citizen Kane of Video Games", or the foreword's "bleeps and bloops" kind of tone. I half expected to come across an "are video games art...?" discussion and if that IS in here, I glazed over it because in the year of our lord 2025 I have evolved past this kind of thing. But at times this is a book that still feels like it's trying to celebrate games, while also trying to go "it's as good as other mediums! See? SEE?" and the best example is probably the Witcher 3 chapter which keeps trying to make this kind of bizarre comparison to books. I know it's BASED on a series of books but the Witcher game franchise takes a lot of liberties and it isn't like, some kind of direct adaptation, but this book seems to be giving it some extra credence on the fact that it was based on a book and so is like, more literary? Has more lore? The Witcher in the book only has one sword, man, where's the book's influence coming in on influencing the world with this? And are we still at a point with this medium where we keep wanting to point to other mediums and go "see we can do it too!!!!"? Are we still mad at Roger Ebert?
I also don't like the general "this is what gamers think" feeling it gives some thoughts. Like I'm really bothered by Jordan's suggestion that NES games don't look good and that Punch-Out is one of the very few that hold up visually. He just seems to take it as granted that we all agree there isn't an aesthetic appeal to anything before, like, 1998 or something, when it's really clear that people love this aesthetic enough that it became a part of indie game look and feel. There were a lot of games that had an ambition that stretched past what the limits of the console provided, having to compromise background elements to create interesting and detailed enemies to fight. Beyond that I just bristle at the suggestion that these games "looked bad" because it invites a kind of dismissal from people encountering them for the first time; it's like suggesting that a black and white movie is worse because it "looks worse" or something. It creates a distance so that people who are reading this for suggestions of games to go back to don't need to engage with them and can instead go "oh this game is just old it looks bad and controls bad." When I guarantee you I could take someone younger than me and put on Combat and we'd have a great time with it. My dad was 16 when that came out and I still can go back to it and enjoy it and it looks just fine to me. Also: how are you going to say that NES games "look bad" when you also point out how iconic the imagery in Dragon Quest looks? How can the graphics be bad when they are able to render Slime??
The other thing about "this is how gamers think" that I bristle against is the way it discusses hardware upgrades. Minor suggests that gamers don't balk at and just accept the need to upgrade to a next generation of consoles, but is that really true? This went to press after the PS5/Xbox Series came out and those consoles at this point suggest there IS a reticence to it; both those consoles have sold poorer than their previous generation, and it's hard to say that their $500+ pricetag isn't a big part of that. A PS5 Pro will cost me $700 right now. It still has no games. I'm not gonna say that the "shorter games worse graphics" thing is particularly widespread but I think people are looking at a $2000 video card, a console that costs nearly a grand, games that cost $70, and are starting to go "hey what the fuck." There's an elitist nature to games that feels like it's both exploiting us while also maybe holding the medium hostage. I've bristled over the years at suggestions of like "well gamers will gladly upgrade to 4k TVs to get the best out of their consoles" because it introduces a level of affordability that this medium will only suffer from if it's to continue. The Speed Freak chapter introduces this concept of gamers as wallet-emptying spec chasers but that was in 1977, when the home market was completely different. Arcades kept flying forward with technological achievements we could experience a quarter or two at a time; the idea someone would go from $10 at an arcade to $500 for home is absolutely wild and yet it's something we take for granted. Weird how many missed sales milestones and overly expensive games there are these dates.
On top of these issues there's some questionable quotes in here, most specifically by Terence Wiggins, The Black Nerd, who was outed as being a sex pest some time ago. Maybe it happened when the book was already at press but maybe on a reprint it could be erased...!
Another problem I have is the game getting into what I feel like are outdated concept for video games, stuff that even BEFORE this book came out there was some debate over. A good example is the way it just takes "flow" as a thing that's like, for granted as a sort of best state that a game can induce in someone. But "flow" is a concept that has come under greater scrutiny recently, as something that is a weirdly assumptive thing about how the brains of players work. Also the suggestion of games as "empathy machines," something that's been more or less discredited in how we talk about these games. Does a game like Papers Please (which: the blurb on this may be the best in the book) put you in the shoes of someone in a different position? Sure. Does it tend to change you as a person to play it to become more empathetic overall? Man, like, no. Not at all.
The book's great strength is that it's just, very readable. And some amount of me really enjoys reading and being reminded of things I like, but even still I kept running into them and wondering why they didn't go into greater detail or talk about x y z thing. I guess the thing it really proves is that there's a lot more to the history of video games than even someone who DOES acknowledge that games are more than just the bleeps and bloops of Pac-Man can get to in an average of 3.5 pages per game. Its specific lens also really limits the games that get talked about in depth as important. Did you know that Barbie Fashion Designer outsold both Doom AND Quake? That Myst sold 2 million copies during the so-called "video game crash"? There's too much of a story to tell here for a book like this to cover it all. And so it just also makes me wonder why the book is even here. It spends so long talking about the history of all the games that it often feels like it's barely even touching on the game itself and why it would be important. There's gaps, there's exclusions, there's a ton of shit missing. But it's a fun reminder of some good games and what makes them so good. And I think there's some fun to be had in there still.