Revolutionary doesn't necessarily mean better.

Whenever I see a "Game A vs Game B" thread, and one of the games is revolutionary (say Game A for the purposes of this thread), 99 % of the time people will say Game A, and there reasoning will be because Game A is revolutionary. I just don't agree with this at all. The more revolutionary game doesn't necessarily mean better. Hell, if revolutionary is better, then by that logic, Pong (The Brown Box) is the best video game of all time. I think people who use the "Game A is better because it was revolutionary," argument simply can't argue why there choice is better on the merits of game design alone.

There are so many ways to look at it. Is a game revolutionary for the genre, for that era, game design in general? How big of an impact and influence did it have? What about it was revolutionary? How long was it superior to other games before it was surpassed? A game can be revolutionary without being exceptional. Whether a game is revolutionary or not is just one factor of how good a game is.

It usually depends on when the game was released and looking at common design trends of the time, while factoring in later games that applied the new tools from that one "revolutionary" game. It's a lot of studying to do.

No no no. You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't agree when people say Game A is better than Game B on the mere fact that Game A was revolutionary and Game B wasn't. Revolutionary doesn't always mean better, but a lot of people seem to think it does which annoys me because it's flawed logic.

This is not a discussion about what makes a game revolutionary. I don't know where you got that from.

No it doesn't, but doesn't mean it's less important

@The_Last_Ride: More important doesn't mean better either.

didn't say that, but a game that invented something is going to be more important than a game that mastered it

Right. The French Revolution being a good example.

We're getting off topic, but I agree.

Not getting off topic when we talk about the importance of the different things you're talking about

The topic is about people who use the argument "more revolutionary = better" to argue that Game A is better than Game B.

It is implied.

@BranKetra: What's implied?

Which is the same argument i am doing right here. For gaming as a whole it is more important when it invents something completely new

What is implied is that a revolution is a change for the better.

Something revolutionary is not always a good thing if it starts bad trends but if it's step in the right direction then I consider it superior. I don't mind if it's a bit rough around the edges as long as it's good and taking risks. But that doesn't mean I don't want perfection. A lot of devs that I like prefer perfection over innovation. But innovation is also necessary.

Could someone please, in their own words, tell me what my OP is about, and what I'm basically saying/asking?

@Cloud_imperium: What is my OP about?