What do you think?
Rate this book
Video Game of the Year: A Year-by-Year Guide to the Best, Boldest, and Most Bizarre Games from Every Year Since 1977
Breaking down the 40-year history of the world’s most popular art form, one video game at a time
Pong. The Legend of Zelda. Final Fantasy VII. Rock Band. Fortnite. Animal Crossing: New Horizons. For each of the 40 years of video game history, there is a defining game, a game that captured the zeitgeist and left a legacy for all games that followed. Through a series of entertaining, informative, and opinionated critical essays, author and tech journalist Jordan Minor investigates, in chronological order, the innovative, genre-bending, and earth-shattering games from 1977 through 2022. Minor explores development stories, critical reception, and legacy, and also looks at how gaming intersects with and eventually influences society at large while reveling in how uniquely and delightfully bizarre even the most famous games tend to be.
From portly plumbers to armor-clad space marines and the speedy rodents in between, Video Game of the Year paints individual portraits that, as a whole, give readers a stronger appreciation for the vibrant variety and long-lasting impact of this fresh, exciting, and massively popular art form. Illustrated throughout with retro-inspired imagery and featuring contributions from dozens of leading industry voices, including New York Times bestselling author Jason Schreier (Blood, Sweat, and Pixels; Kotaku), Max Scoville (IGN), Rebekah Valentine (IGN), Blessing Adeoye Jr. (Kinda Funny), and Devindra Hardawar (Engadget), this year-by-year anthology is a loving reflection on the world’s most popular art form.
Featured Games: 1977 - Pong; 1978 - Space Invaders; 1979 - Speed Freak; 1980 - Pac-Man; 1981 - Donkey Kong; 1982 - Pitfall!; 1983 - Dragon’s Lair; 1984 - Tetris; 1985 - Super Mario Bros.; 1986 - Dragon Quest; 1987 - The Legend of Zelda; 1988 - Mega Man 2; 1989 - SimCity; 1990 - The Secret of Monkey Island; 1991 - Sonic the Hedgehog; 1992 - Wolfenstein 3D; 1993 - NBA Jam; 1994 - Super Street Fighter II Turbo; 1995 - Donkey Kong Country 2; 1996 - Super Mario 64; 1997 - Final Fantasy VII; 1998 - Metal Gear Solid; 1999 - System Shock 2; 2000 Counter-Strike; 2001 - Halo: Combat Evolved; 2002 - Grand Theft Auto: Vice City; 2003 - The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker; 2004 - World of Warcraft; 2005 - Resident Evil 4; 2006 - Wii Sports; 2007 - Rock Band; 2008 - Spore; 2009 - Uncharted 2; 2010 - Super Meat Boy; 2011 - Minecraft; 2012 - Telltale’s The Walking Dead; 2013 - Depression Quest; 2014 - Destiny; 2015 - The Witcher 3; 2016 - Pokémon Go; 2017 - Fortnite; 2018 - Super Smash Bros. Ultimate; 2019 - Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice; 2020 - Animal Crossing: New Horizons; 2022 - The Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe
Pong. The Legend of Zelda. Final Fantasy VII. Rock Band. Fortnite. Animal Crossing: New Horizons. For each of the 40 years of video game history, there is a defining game, a game that captured the zeitgeist and left a legacy for all games that followed. Through a series of entertaining, informative, and opinionated critical essays, author and tech journalist Jordan Minor investigates, in chronological order, the innovative, genre-bending, and earth-shattering games from 1977 through 2022. Minor explores development stories, critical reception, and legacy, and also looks at how gaming intersects with and eventually influences society at large while reveling in how uniquely and delightfully bizarre even the most famous games tend to be.
From portly plumbers to armor-clad space marines and the speedy rodents in between, Video Game of the Year paints individual portraits that, as a whole, give readers a stronger appreciation for the vibrant variety and long-lasting impact of this fresh, exciting, and massively popular art form. Illustrated throughout with retro-inspired imagery and featuring contributions from dozens of leading industry voices, including New York Times bestselling author Jason Schreier (Blood, Sweat, and Pixels; Kotaku), Max Scoville (IGN), Rebekah Valentine (IGN), Blessing Adeoye Jr. (Kinda Funny), and Devindra Hardawar (Engadget), this year-by-year anthology is a loving reflection on the world’s most popular art form.
Featured Games: 1977 - Pong; 1978 - Space Invaders; 1979 - Speed Freak; 1980 - Pac-Man; 1981 - Donkey Kong; 1982 - Pitfall!; 1983 - Dragon’s Lair; 1984 - Tetris; 1985 - Super Mario Bros.; 1986 - Dragon Quest; 1987 - The Legend of Zelda; 1988 - Mega Man 2; 1989 - SimCity; 1990 - The Secret of Monkey Island; 1991 - Sonic the Hedgehog; 1992 - Wolfenstein 3D; 1993 - NBA Jam; 1994 - Super Street Fighter II Turbo; 1995 - Donkey Kong Country 2; 1996 - Super Mario 64; 1997 - Final Fantasy VII; 1998 - Metal Gear Solid; 1999 - System Shock 2; 2000 Counter-Strike; 2001 - Halo: Combat Evolved; 2002 - Grand Theft Auto: Vice City; 2003 - The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker; 2004 - World of Warcraft; 2005 - Resident Evil 4; 2006 - Wii Sports; 2007 - Rock Band; 2008 - Spore; 2009 - Uncharted 2; 2010 - Super Meat Boy; 2011 - Minecraft; 2012 - Telltale’s The Walking Dead; 2013 - Depression Quest; 2014 - Destiny; 2015 - The Witcher 3; 2016 - Pokémon Go; 2017 - Fortnite; 2018 - Super Smash Bros. Ultimate; 2019 - Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice; 2020 - Animal Crossing: New Horizons; 2022 - The Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe
296 pages, Paperback
First published July 11, 2023
102 people are currently reading
585 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
December 19, 2023
3.5 Stars // Let’s-a-go
Books about the ever growing gaming market are still - weirdly - a rarity.
Maybe it’s because the medium lends it self much better to be discussed in a video essay format, like on YouTube, due to the very visual nature of it. Still, because (presumably) so many authors nowadays must have grown up with video games now, you would think that the print market would therefore be much more saturated with books about that topic. I’m therefore ever more grateful, when we get one of these rare gems and in this case I liked the elevator pitch from the get-go:
Author Jordan Minor picks one ‘game of the year’ from 1977 to 2022 and discusses its innovations, importance within the gaming industry and wider cultural impact in an essay-like format. He is very good in articulating his respective thoughts and picks for each year, especially given that in some years it is really, really hard to pick one release over the other (see for example 2017 where he chose Fortnite over the - arguably - much more innovativ The Legend of Zelda - Breath of the Wild).
I really enjoyed my time with the book for the most part, but can’t help but feeling a little bit let-down by the overall addendums to each game. For example, each year comes with one to three ‘extra lives’ in which guest authors write a few words about some games of their choosing. At first I thought that this would be a great way to discuss the ‘runner-ups’ that didn’t quite make it to Game of the Year, but weirdly, these picks don't fit neither the year, nor the game they are attached to? They also feel a bit unnecessary overall as the compromised space these guest authors were given can never give the games they chose any justice. These segments felt more like name-dropping, just to have these franchises in the book as well and milk the nostalgia a little bit.
Each Game of the Year is also accompanied by a little graphic or drawing relating to said game. I assume that it was down to licensing issues, but I would have of course much more preferred getting some actual screenshots of the games discussed, rather than a rather generic illustration with the ever same art style.
Maybe I am a little bit biased due to being a life-long gamer myself, but still: I enjoyed my time with the book and hope it encourages other authors to follow into Jordans footsteps.
Books about the ever growing gaming market are still - weirdly - a rarity.
Maybe it’s because the medium lends it self much better to be discussed in a video essay format, like on YouTube, due to the very visual nature of it. Still, because (presumably) so many authors nowadays must have grown up with video games now, you would think that the print market would therefore be much more saturated with books about that topic. I’m therefore ever more grateful, when we get one of these rare gems and in this case I liked the elevator pitch from the get-go:
Author Jordan Minor picks one ‘game of the year’ from 1977 to 2022 and discusses its innovations, importance within the gaming industry and wider cultural impact in an essay-like format. He is very good in articulating his respective thoughts and picks for each year, especially given that in some years it is really, really hard to pick one release over the other (see for example 2017 where he chose Fortnite over the - arguably - much more innovativ The Legend of Zelda - Breath of the Wild).
I really enjoyed my time with the book for the most part, but can’t help but feeling a little bit let-down by the overall addendums to each game. For example, each year comes with one to three ‘extra lives’ in which guest authors write a few words about some games of their choosing. At first I thought that this would be a great way to discuss the ‘runner-ups’ that didn’t quite make it to Game of the Year, but weirdly, these picks don't fit neither the year, nor the game they are attached to? They also feel a bit unnecessary overall as the compromised space these guest authors were given can never give the games they chose any justice. These segments felt more like name-dropping, just to have these franchises in the book as well and milk the nostalgia a little bit.
Each Game of the Year is also accompanied by a little graphic or drawing relating to said game. I assume that it was down to licensing issues, but I would have of course much more preferred getting some actual screenshots of the games discussed, rather than a rather generic illustration with the ever same art style.
Maybe I am a little bit biased due to being a life-long gamer myself, but still: I enjoyed my time with the book and hope it encourages other authors to follow into Jordans footsteps.
November 21, 2024
Nobody messes with Mahatma Gandhi.
I probably should have checked the reviews on this one as they are very much on the mark.
The Vibes are good
But don’t feel bad or surprised if you bounced off of Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice as hard as I did. Video games can make you feel a lot of things, but never let shame be one of them.
Freed from picking based on sales numbers or critic awards Video Game of the Year goes with vibes. How did the named games affect the public consciousness. Sometimes its transitory. Sometimes it’s a dead end or not what to do. Some do sneak in under the “Extra Life” portion, which does save a few that had good arguments (Civilization for the 4X games particularly).
Minor does have his finger on the pulse in terms of vibes. He identify trends and feelings around the games that match my own experiences and opinions around those games at the time. The chapters do get more nuanced when matched with his own life experiences but even the earlier ones are pretty good in explaining the attraction of those games. The closest I could find to a blind spot were the high-level strategy/map painting games (think anything by Paradox Interactive), which do have a niche but disproportionate impact on certain social media groups. Even then, I would be inclined to conclude that their impact is limited on the wider audience.
I get that Video Game of the Year is sloppy with the connective tissue between the guest contributions for each year and the respective “game of the year.” I would only say one or two of the musings even rise to greatness, but they’re okay enough. The guest contributions do mostly broaden the vibe that Minor is going with for that specific year so I am pretty neutral on them overall.
The Vibes are bad
Video games don’t exist without people playing them. We pour our lives into games, and they become living organisms in response. The path that brought us to Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and the fighting game community that uplifts it, shows us that to keep on fighting is to prove you’re still alive.
Despite my interest in the subject matter, I found Video Game of the Year an incredibly boring read. The problem is that its strength:
Minor is good with vibes,
is also its weakness:
Minor makes vibes his crutch.
For example, Depression Quest makes it in as a way of confronting Gamergate. On the one hand, Minor is correct, Gamergate is a fake scandal made up by misogynists, a hate movement. There is nothing in the section I disagree with, including the echoes of hatred it left. My issue is that Minor primarily deals with it on a vibes basis, mixing personal experiences (which are valid) with vague statements on its impact with the mention of the hurt caused to marginalized groups being the strongest point. What I would have preferred was a solid narrative explaining how it arose and what forces gathered to inflame it. It’s convenient to me that I agree Minor is right but his essay is not overly convincing in explaining why he is right – just trust his vibe.
This is the most obvious example, but it bleeds through to virtually every game. Games are good because the feel good in certain ways. The break down of design choices or innovations are present but mainly from how a consumer experiences them. There are exceptions (he’s not going to miss the mark over a minimum of 50+ game explanations) but it gets dull.
Video Game of the Year is a feelings journal, and the feelings alter every few pages to reflect that it is a new year and a new set of games. There’s no central thread so you have to go through the emotional rollercoaster over and over again. You’d be amazed how exhausting that becomes – there’s only so many times I can feel wonder at a development such as ray-tracing or battle royale style.
The lack of screenshots also adds to the emotional expenditure – you have to stop, look up the subject matter and then try to find something that captures what is being described (in today’s Google, a surprisingly hard task). I know it is ironic to use emotions to complain about emotions in a book but the constant jumps do wear you out – imagine a book where the main character has three joyful marriages to three separate partners in successive chapters.
All I wanted to do when the screen cut to black in Soma was sit in the dark and scream. So that’s what I did.
Could you write a more emotionally consistent book covering multiple unrelated games? I do not know. However, this is not it, and I cannot recommend it.
I probably should have checked the reviews on this one as they are very much on the mark.
The Vibes are good
But don’t feel bad or surprised if you bounced off of Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice as hard as I did. Video games can make you feel a lot of things, but never let shame be one of them.
Freed from picking based on sales numbers or critic awards Video Game of the Year goes with vibes. How did the named games affect the public consciousness. Sometimes its transitory. Sometimes it’s a dead end or not what to do. Some do sneak in under the “Extra Life” portion, which does save a few that had good arguments (Civilization for the 4X games particularly).
Minor does have his finger on the pulse in terms of vibes. He identify trends and feelings around the games that match my own experiences and opinions around those games at the time. The chapters do get more nuanced when matched with his own life experiences but even the earlier ones are pretty good in explaining the attraction of those games. The closest I could find to a blind spot were the high-level strategy/map painting games (think anything by Paradox Interactive), which do have a niche but disproportionate impact on certain social media groups. Even then, I would be inclined to conclude that their impact is limited on the wider audience.
I get that Video Game of the Year is sloppy with the connective tissue between the guest contributions for each year and the respective “game of the year.” I would only say one or two of the musings even rise to greatness, but they’re okay enough. The guest contributions do mostly broaden the vibe that Minor is going with for that specific year so I am pretty neutral on them overall.
The Vibes are bad
Video games don’t exist without people playing them. We pour our lives into games, and they become living organisms in response. The path that brought us to Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and the fighting game community that uplifts it, shows us that to keep on fighting is to prove you’re still alive.
Despite my interest in the subject matter, I found Video Game of the Year an incredibly boring read. The problem is that its strength:
Minor is good with vibes,
is also its weakness:
Minor makes vibes his crutch.
For example, Depression Quest makes it in as a way of confronting Gamergate. On the one hand, Minor is correct, Gamergate is a fake scandal made up by misogynists, a hate movement. There is nothing in the section I disagree with, including the echoes of hatred it left. My issue is that Minor primarily deals with it on a vibes basis, mixing personal experiences (which are valid) with vague statements on its impact with the mention of the hurt caused to marginalized groups being the strongest point. What I would have preferred was a solid narrative explaining how it arose and what forces gathered to inflame it. It’s convenient to me that I agree Minor is right but his essay is not overly convincing in explaining why he is right – just trust his vibe.
This is the most obvious example, but it bleeds through to virtually every game. Games are good because the feel good in certain ways. The break down of design choices or innovations are present but mainly from how a consumer experiences them. There are exceptions (he’s not going to miss the mark over a minimum of 50+ game explanations) but it gets dull.
Video Game of the Year is a feelings journal, and the feelings alter every few pages to reflect that it is a new year and a new set of games. There’s no central thread so you have to go through the emotional rollercoaster over and over again. You’d be amazed how exhausting that becomes – there’s only so many times I can feel wonder at a development such as ray-tracing or battle royale style.
The lack of screenshots also adds to the emotional expenditure – you have to stop, look up the subject matter and then try to find something that captures what is being described (in today’s Google, a surprisingly hard task). I know it is ironic to use emotions to complain about emotions in a book but the constant jumps do wear you out – imagine a book where the main character has three joyful marriages to three separate partners in successive chapters.
All I wanted to do when the screen cut to black in Soma was sit in the dark and scream. So that’s what I did.
Could you write a more emotionally consistent book covering multiple unrelated games? I do not know. However, this is not it, and I cannot recommend it.
March 20, 2024
At its core, video games are nothing but interactive programmes that require imputs from the people who play them. This books focuses on the latter group; the people who made videeo games into what they are. Not just genuis programmes, directors and developers but also the people who loved them.
The love that this book oozes for video games and its audience is nothing short of heartwarming. You can tell the author and everyone involved adores the games they were allowed to speak about.
Yes, it's a book full opinions [ the book even begins with that! ] but that too, is part of gaming. Maybe Super Mario 64 was never your game of the year, but the books dedicates about two to four pages on why [ even if it's not yours ! ] a strong contender to be a game of the year. Either it was a first of something, a new direction, something shiny and new that paved the way for others. Cult classics and games that went into the millions of sales are all featured and it'a delight to read about them by people who know what they're talking about and even more important; love what they are talking about.
At times funny and brutally honest Video Game of The Year is a wonderful little book with games [and gamers] from all over the world and backgrounds. Never shying away from the more dark parts of gaming culture, it's honest, warm and all around plain fun.
The love that this book oozes for video games and its audience is nothing short of heartwarming. You can tell the author and everyone involved adores the games they were allowed to speak about.
Yes, it's a book full opinions [ the book even begins with that! ] but that too, is part of gaming. Maybe Super Mario 64 was never your game of the year, but the books dedicates about two to four pages on why [ even if it's not yours ! ] a strong contender to be a game of the year. Either it was a first of something, a new direction, something shiny and new that paved the way for others. Cult classics and games that went into the millions of sales are all featured and it'a delight to read about them by people who know what they're talking about and even more important; love what they are talking about.
At times funny and brutally honest Video Game of The Year is a wonderful little book with games [and gamers] from all over the world and backgrounds. Never shying away from the more dark parts of gaming culture, it's honest, warm and all around plain fun.
March 16, 2024
I think I was expecting this book to be something other than it was. I wanted information and facts about each of the games that won Game of the Year — not opinions. It was very obvious which games that the author liked and which he didn’t. I also didn’t like the “Level Up” section at the end of each chapter that talked about other random games. They felt thrown in or tacked on because most of the time they didn’t have anything to do with the main game mentioned in the chapter and were also written by random people.
December 19, 2023
A tour of notable video games throughout the decades, with contributions from a number of different games industry writers. Writing quality and impact varied some, as might be expected from a collection like this, and it felt disjointed at times, with the “extra life” picks (essentially honorable mentions) from other writers at the end of each chapter too often seeming to be placed in random years, but overall this was an enjoyable enough experience.
January 26, 2025
Not really for those already invested in the hobby, this book reads more as a guide for the casually interested new players. Whilst the structure of the book feels disorganised (and there are some bizarre font decisions rendering some pages close to unreadable) the core of the book is good enough to make this a pleasant read.
November 11, 2024
Well-paced, brief review of Gaming History
A nice dive into games of the year, according to the author, over time. Scant on detail but engaging all the more for it, this is a book for video game enthusiasts of all kinds.
A nice dive into games of the year, according to the author, over time. Scant on detail but engaging all the more for it, this is a book for video game enthusiasts of all kinds.
February 8, 2024
Good read about the video games we grew up playing, brings back lots of fun memories and this book gives perspective to how each game affected the gaming culture.
February 6, 2025
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.
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.
March 7, 2024
Funny enough, despite considering myself a gamer, I've probably only played about half the games in this book. I've never touched Zelda, didn't quite get into Destiny.A lot of the Mario Games elude me. And yet, as someone who games frequently, I could feel those games' presence permeating through a culture with which I identify strongly.
Video Game of the Year is a Video Game history book masquarading as an anthology. On his quest to discuss the most important, if not best, game from each year, Jordan touches on not only how the games we love came to be, but why we love them and essentially, why we play games.
One of my most enjoyable parts of the book were the little asides by guest writers speaking to the games that formed and shaped them. These are smaller sections of the book, but they're a fun window as to how such a simple hobby can unite so many people for so many different reasons.
Video Game of the Year is a Video Game history book masquarading as an anthology. On his quest to discuss the most important, if not best, game from each year, Jordan touches on not only how the games we love came to be, but why we love them and essentially, why we play games.
One of my most enjoyable parts of the book were the little asides by guest writers speaking to the games that formed and shaped them. These are smaller sections of the book, but they're a fun window as to how such a simple hobby can unite so many people for so many different reasons.
January 9, 2025
Video Game of the Year by Jordan Minor is a charmingly presented, engaging enough work that doesn’t quite deliver as a pick-up-and-put-down coffee table book and cannot stand up to the scrutiny of being read through like a ‘regular’ book either.
Each year from 1977 (Pong) to 2022 (The Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe) comprises: a cover page describing the book; a custom graphic depicting the game (I quite like these, but I have to assume this was to avoid getting licences to show artwork from 45 games); three to four pages of discussion of why the game is iconic / interesting / controversial followed by an Extra Lives page where the author and other journalists opine on a handful of other games.
It's classic coffee table stuff: pick book up, enjoy reading about something you know in year X, like Dragon Quest or System Shock 2; or learn about a game from year Y you’ve never heard of, like Depression Quest or Speed Freak. The writing is good enough though the author’s voice is not distinctive enough that I will seek them out in future. Contrast this, say, to Jason Schreier's superb weekly newsletter that I relish dropping in my inbox each week – something I’m now devastated is going behind a paywall in 2025.
The book’s principal issue is its lack of coherence and shape. Each chapter/year discusses one main game and a series of Extra Lives games, but these are, bizarrely, not necessarily published in the year in question. The year 1988, for example, which covers Mega Man II, contains an Extra Life on Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood from 2010. Why not mention the other, rather important title, of that year – Super Mario Bros 3 – or genre defining games like Ninja Gaiden? This would have allowed Minor to step the reader through video game history across the book rather than randomly flit between new and old titles that seemingly have little relevance to each other. Hats off if you can come up with a good reason to have Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask, Evil Within 2 and Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons in the Fortnite chapter.
This perhaps points to the book’s core issue: it doesn’t have a clear structuring device around which to choose or discuss its games. An author with a developer’s eye might have chosen specific titles that, say, illustrated how video game technologies and practices developed in a given year. Or a business-minded games journalist might have framed their discussion around the companies behind the games as some of the most famous books on the industry have done (like Console Wars). This would have solved the challenges of the book’s lack of voice – by consistently focussing on particularly aspects of video games – as well as made it much clearer why a set of games is considered together in the same year.
As it is, readers like me who work straight through the book are not rewarded for their linear approach; while coffee-table flitterers are left confused as to why they’ve opened a video game book at the year 1980 (Pac Man), to find themselves reading about 2004’s Katamari Damacy.
Each year from 1977 (Pong) to 2022 (The Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe) comprises: a cover page describing the book; a custom graphic depicting the game (I quite like these, but I have to assume this was to avoid getting licences to show artwork from 45 games); three to four pages of discussion of why the game is iconic / interesting / controversial followed by an Extra Lives page where the author and other journalists opine on a handful of other games.
It's classic coffee table stuff: pick book up, enjoy reading about something you know in year X, like Dragon Quest or System Shock 2; or learn about a game from year Y you’ve never heard of, like Depression Quest or Speed Freak. The writing is good enough though the author’s voice is not distinctive enough that I will seek them out in future. Contrast this, say, to Jason Schreier's superb weekly newsletter that I relish dropping in my inbox each week – something I’m now devastated is going behind a paywall in 2025.
The book’s principal issue is its lack of coherence and shape. Each chapter/year discusses one main game and a series of Extra Lives games, but these are, bizarrely, not necessarily published in the year in question. The year 1988, for example, which covers Mega Man II, contains an Extra Life on Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood from 2010. Why not mention the other, rather important title, of that year – Super Mario Bros 3 – or genre defining games like Ninja Gaiden? This would have allowed Minor to step the reader through video game history across the book rather than randomly flit between new and old titles that seemingly have little relevance to each other. Hats off if you can come up with a good reason to have Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask, Evil Within 2 and Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons in the Fortnite chapter.
This perhaps points to the book’s core issue: it doesn’t have a clear structuring device around which to choose or discuss its games. An author with a developer’s eye might have chosen specific titles that, say, illustrated how video game technologies and practices developed in a given year. Or a business-minded games journalist might have framed their discussion around the companies behind the games as some of the most famous books on the industry have done (like Console Wars). This would have solved the challenges of the book’s lack of voice – by consistently focussing on particularly aspects of video games – as well as made it much clearer why a set of games is considered together in the same year.
As it is, readers like me who work straight through the book are not rewarded for their linear approach; while coffee-table flitterers are left confused as to why they’ve opened a video game book at the year 1980 (Pac Man), to find themselves reading about 2004’s Katamari Damacy.
January 8, 2024
45 years of video game history, its evolution, and the wonderful memories that have developed across nearly half a century…
Video Game of the Year: A Year-by-Year Guide to the Best, Boldest, and Most Bizarre Games from Every Year Since 1977 by Jordan Minor is a historical breakdown of significant video games…covering one game for each year.
Obviously, any writing about this subject can be highly subjective, but the author picked his list based on historical importance and how it influenced the video game industry. Also, while a majority of the list are console video games, there is coverage of arcade, computer, and phone games when such entries would be relevent for “video game of the year” consideration.
Each chapter is also accompanied by an “extra life” section which covers either innovations that came out that year, notable blunders in the industry, or other games that released that year but managed to not make the number one spot due to the significance of its competition.
I am sure there are those that will disagree with some of these. I myself disagreed with one of the early entries on this list, but I understood what the author was going for as each “video game of the year” includes a few pages of the historic importance and ongoing influence of the chosen game (either in sequels, spinoffs, imitators, or gameplay firsts).
This book is worth checking out even if you disagree as it creates a chance to debate what you feel should be in a certain year.
Video Game of the Year: A Year-by-Year Guide to the Best, Boldest, and Most Bizarre Games from Every Year Since 1977 by Jordan Minor is a historical breakdown of significant video games…covering one game for each year.
Obviously, any writing about this subject can be highly subjective, but the author picked his list based on historical importance and how it influenced the video game industry. Also, while a majority of the list are console video games, there is coverage of arcade, computer, and phone games when such entries would be relevent for “video game of the year” consideration.
Each chapter is also accompanied by an “extra life” section which covers either innovations that came out that year, notable blunders in the industry, or other games that released that year but managed to not make the number one spot due to the significance of its competition.
I am sure there are those that will disagree with some of these. I myself disagreed with one of the early entries on this list, but I understood what the author was going for as each “video game of the year” includes a few pages of the historic importance and ongoing influence of the chosen game (either in sequels, spinoffs, imitators, or gameplay firsts).
This book is worth checking out even if you disagree as it creates a chance to debate what you feel should be in a certain year.
February 24, 2023
A fun, quick read that you don't necessarily need to be a hardcore gamer to understand. Its written in a funny, conversational tone that makes it you want to keep reading.
I imagine the book, when it's released, will work really well as a coffee table book. My fear was that the format was going to make for a very strange read on my Kindle, and while it mostly works, the short blurbs and graphics are probably better suited for an oversized hardcover.
The book needs at least one more pass-through from a proofreader. The small typos become unavoidable, particularly in the second half of the book where they appear on almost every page. The chapter on Resident Evil cuts off mid-sentence. "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" remains the title in the footer long after that chapter ends. 1977-2022 is a forty-five year span, not forty. Most alarmingly, entire chapters advertised earlier in the book (2009-2011, 2014, 2015, 2017-2022) are missing from my copy entirely. You can't charge people money for the book in its current state, honestly.
The book is a fun concept with strong bones that isn't quite ready to be released yet.
I want to thank NetGalley and ABRAMS for my advanced copy.
I imagine the book, when it's released, will work really well as a coffee table book. My fear was that the format was going to make for a very strange read on my Kindle, and while it mostly works, the short blurbs and graphics are probably better suited for an oversized hardcover.
The book needs at least one more pass-through from a proofreader. The small typos become unavoidable, particularly in the second half of the book where they appear on almost every page. The chapter on Resident Evil cuts off mid-sentence. "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" remains the title in the footer long after that chapter ends. 1977-2022 is a forty-five year span, not forty. Most alarmingly, entire chapters advertised earlier in the book (2009-2011, 2014, 2015, 2017-2022) are missing from my copy entirely. You can't charge people money for the book in its current state, honestly.
The book is a fun concept with strong bones that isn't quite ready to be released yet.
I want to thank NetGalley and ABRAMS for my advanced copy.
August 23, 2023
A bit of a mixed bag - lovely art (which is how I found out about the book), good writing (if a somewhat wavering mix between video game history and personal opinion, though at least this was made clear up front), and questionable design choices (multiple pages of text where the text color itself was a left-to-right gradient forcing your eyes to repeatedly adjust on every single line, multiple different "section formats" with different typographic styles that rotated every few pages). Issues with this particular publication aside, I'd happily read something more in-depth by the same author, as many subjects touched on here deserve histories of their own.
January 15, 2024
Sweet Nostalgia!! As a 45 year old woman, this book covering 45 years of the best, boldest and most bizarre games was a wonderful trip down memory lane and a snapshot of core memories of my youth. This book was clever and fun to look at and DID NOT MISS. Every game that I thought would be respresenting in this book was. The commentary and look back at video games that help so many captive at different points in time in history was thoughtful and poignant. Enteratining read for sure and so easy to devour on my day off.
Read
January 10, 2024It wouldn't feel fair to give this a star rating, because Goodreads has you rate your experience with a book rather than the book itself, and I would probably give it two stars. But that's mostly due to the gap between the book I expected and the book I actually got.
The book I expected:
A collection of eloquent and thought-provoking essays about video games by dozens of people in the industry, offering a fresh take on games you're already familiar with and an exploration of some deep cuts and forgotten gems.
The book I got:
A series of chapters by one guy explaining the history and basic concepts of dozens of famous video games, as well as why they're famous and occasionally ways in which they're bad or the author doesn't like them. After each of these are a paragraph or two each about three or four other games, each written by a different person in the games industry.
I'll own up to having come in with assumptions due to hearing Scott Benson of Night in the Woods fame(?) had a section where he called Demon's Souls "a mouthful of corpses game for a mouthful of corpses year". (This did end up being the highlight of the book, despite being a rework of a Twitter thread from 2019.) But the quality of the writing, in terms of prose and composition, ranges from serviceable to the headache-inducing
Thankfully the writing is never as annoying as it is in the first few chapters, or maybe I just got used to it. But I think the book's bigger problem is that it can't decide whether it wants to be something you give your mom to get her to understand what this "video games" thing is about, or a critical work for people who already love video games. Minor takes the time to explain really basic stuff, like what a JRPG is or what Minecraft is like, but then he'll throw out references or terminology that would be incomprehensible to a newcomer. Despite devoting three gorgeous pages to each game's introduction, the book doesn't contain a single actual screenshot, and even the small guest sections will often sing a game's praises without even mentioning what kind of game it is.
This book is explicitly an attempt to memorialize gaming history, and I guess it succeeds insofar as you'd be able to read this a century from now and come away with a basic understanding of trends and innovations in video games over a 45-year period. I even learned a couple new things, and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about this subject. I'm just left wanting to read the book I thought this was.
The book I expected:
A collection of eloquent and thought-provoking essays about video games by dozens of people in the industry, offering a fresh take on games you're already familiar with and an exploration of some deep cuts and forgotten gems.
The book I got:
A series of chapters by one guy explaining the history and basic concepts of dozens of famous video games, as well as why they're famous and occasionally ways in which they're bad or the author doesn't like them. After each of these are a paragraph or two each about three or four other games, each written by a different person in the games industry.
I'll own up to having come in with assumptions due to hearing Scott Benson of Night in the Woods fame(?) had a section where he called Demon's Souls "a mouthful of corpses game for a mouthful of corpses year". (This did end up being the highlight of the book, despite being a rework of a Twitter thread from 2019.) But the quality of the writing, in terms of prose and composition, ranges from serviceable to the headache-inducing
The pressure of Activision's dramatic creation led to quite the diamond with Pitfall!, a game where you collected diamonds along with gold, silver, and cash.
Thankfully the writing is never as annoying as it is in the first few chapters, or maybe I just got used to it. But I think the book's bigger problem is that it can't decide whether it wants to be something you give your mom to get her to understand what this "video games" thing is about, or a critical work for people who already love video games. Minor takes the time to explain really basic stuff, like what a JRPG is or what Minecraft is like, but then he'll throw out references or terminology that would be incomprehensible to a newcomer. Despite devoting three gorgeous pages to each game's introduction, the book doesn't contain a single actual screenshot, and even the small guest sections will often sing a game's praises without even mentioning what kind of game it is.
This book is explicitly an attempt to memorialize gaming history, and I guess it succeeds insofar as you'd be able to read this a century from now and come away with a basic understanding of trends and innovations in video games over a 45-year period. I even learned a couple new things, and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about this subject. I'm just left wanting to read the book I thought this was.
March 8, 2024
I came of age with video games, arriving in the world around the same time as Mario, and have enjoyed their maturation into a genuine art form, with sophisticated storytelling that makes most Hollywood offerings look like a middle school play by comparison. Video Game of the Year takes us through their development, beginning with Pong and continuing to 2022. The format is simple: there’s a brief write-up on each game, which varies in quality, followed by a section called “Extra Life” which has a briefer blurb on a game that followed in the highlighted game’s footsteps, followed by blurbs from other authors on other games that appear utterly random.How do you connect Mega Man and Madden? Or Sid Meier’s Civilization and Sonic the Hedgehog? (For that matter, the only mention of Civ is a blurb? This aggression will not stand, man.) The book is enjoyable enough if you’re a fan of videogames — well, tolerable — but it’s not impressive — not for its preachy writing or its selection. I was absolutely astonished that games like Civilization, Starcraft (STARCRAFT!), and Half-Life weren’t given their own chapters, but instead treated with little blurbs at the end of other chapters, or shoehorned in elsewhere. Another odd oversight is that games’ sound design and music is never referenced, which is frankly bizarre. It’s not “Hey, I’m going to write a book about video games and never mention Everquest or Ultima Online” bizarre, but still — pretty frickin’ weird. Beyond the games that are forgotten or dealt with shallowly despite their importance, Minor also has some games that are inexplicable. Spore, game of the year? Even as a Maxis-that-was fanboy I have to shake my head. Another game is included that no one has heard of beyond its role in a controversy that only reddit trolls care about, but it gives Minor the opportunity to fully mount his soapbox and dispensing the same shallow, boring takes as everywhere else on the internet. Given the repeated slights to PC games, I imagine a console gamer would enjoy this collection more.
Related:
Replay: The History of Video Games
The Nostalgia Nerd’s Retro Tech, which highlights games that dominated particular systems.
Masters of Doom, Prepare to Meet thy Doom, and Jacked, David Kushner. Histories of id software, Rockstar, etc.
Sid Meier’s Memoir, Sid Meier
Related:
Replay: The History of Video Games
The Nostalgia Nerd’s Retro Tech, which highlights games that dominated particular systems.
Masters of Doom, Prepare to Meet thy Doom, and Jacked, David Kushner. Histories of id software, Rockstar, etc.
Sid Meier’s Memoir, Sid Meier
May 20, 2024
3.5 stars. The layout of the book is great with blurbs from all kinds of people in the gaming industry. The art is fantastic as well.
I have a problem with some of the "facts" that the author presents. He claims that the Sega Mark III was a "failed 8-bit Master System" even though it sold more than 10M units. Some sources say that number might even be 20M due to the strong sales in Europe and Brazil. This was a time in gaming history when every electronics company was releasing a console and many of them dropped out quickly after less than 100K units sold. The author also states "no one had fun playing the first Street Fighter." The arcade machine in Japan spent many months during the late 80s in the top 5 (even peaking at #1) hence why we received a sequel in 1991. Pushing opinions as fact is something journalists do often unfortunately.
The latter half of the book is filled with the author's views on race and politics. Which is fine, he can write about whatever he wants and the reader can decide if they want to indulge or not. However, what I find problematic, is that he devotes an entire page to criticizing the founder of Minecraft for views on issues such as privilege and race. I don't support the views of that founder, but when the author uses phrases like "boring straight white men" it leaves a sour taste in the mouth of negative and hateful speech that is unwarranted. We know the industry is dominated by white / asian men and that the tech world in general has had issues with bro culture. Many of us in the industry are still fighting to help change that. But using inflammatory language doesn't help anybody change their views on anything. It just continues a toxic cycle of "us vs them" culture. Building bridges of understanding is going to change a lot more minds than engaging in that cycle.
I have a problem with some of the "facts" that the author presents. He claims that the Sega Mark III was a "failed 8-bit Master System" even though it sold more than 10M units. Some sources say that number might even be 20M due to the strong sales in Europe and Brazil. This was a time in gaming history when every electronics company was releasing a console and many of them dropped out quickly after less than 100K units sold. The author also states "no one had fun playing the first Street Fighter." The arcade machine in Japan spent many months during the late 80s in the top 5 (even peaking at #1) hence why we received a sequel in 1991. Pushing opinions as fact is something journalists do often unfortunately.
The latter half of the book is filled with the author's views on race and politics. Which is fine, he can write about whatever he wants and the reader can decide if they want to indulge or not. However, what I find problematic, is that he devotes an entire page to criticizing the founder of Minecraft for views on issues such as privilege and race. I don't support the views of that founder, but when the author uses phrases like "boring straight white men" it leaves a sour taste in the mouth of negative and hateful speech that is unwarranted. We know the industry is dominated by white / asian men and that the tech world in general has had issues with bro culture. Many of us in the industry are still fighting to help change that. But using inflammatory language doesn't help anybody change their views on anything. It just continues a toxic cycle of "us vs them" culture. Building bridges of understanding is going to change a lot more minds than engaging in that cycle.
January 26, 2023
This review is for an ARC copy received from the publisher through NetGalley.
This is a very interesting take on the history of video games. Rather than just list the most popular or award-winning game of a given year, the book lists what is deemed the most important, influential, revolutionary or otherwise transformative game that came out year. The nostalgia for the early games of the 70s and 80s made for some of the best chapters, and those of the 90s on provided many details I would never have known otherwise. Each chapter is pretty short, so you could easily choose to sit down and just read about one or two years in a few minutes. In addition to the main games listed, most chapters include secondary entries intended on being further informative about that game and others not included as a game of the year. However, while some of those subsidiary entries relate directly to that chapter's title, or at least its theme, many of the secondary columns seem randomly placed. The one big drawback of this book is, it was obviously imagined as being a hardbound coffee table-like volume. For the copy I read on Kindle the text was ridiculously small, and it wasn't really text, it was an image, so you can't adjust the size of the text. The secondary entries are even worse, with smaller print and on a puke-green background making them even harder to read. My biggest disappointment came when I discovered that the chapter I most wanted to read, Resident Evil 4, abruptly ended mid-paragraph - there was definitely a page or more missing, as there appeared to be in the chapter on The Walking Dead game. Hopefully those missing pages will be corrected before publication. Because of these issues, I would rate this 3.5* rounded up to 4.
This is a very interesting take on the history of video games. Rather than just list the most popular or award-winning game of a given year, the book lists what is deemed the most important, influential, revolutionary or otherwise transformative game that came out year. The nostalgia for the early games of the 70s and 80s made for some of the best chapters, and those of the 90s on provided many details I would never have known otherwise. Each chapter is pretty short, so you could easily choose to sit down and just read about one or two years in a few minutes. In addition to the main games listed, most chapters include secondary entries intended on being further informative about that game and others not included as a game of the year. However, while some of those subsidiary entries relate directly to that chapter's title, or at least its theme, many of the secondary columns seem randomly placed. The one big drawback of this book is, it was obviously imagined as being a hardbound coffee table-like volume. For the copy I read on Kindle the text was ridiculously small, and it wasn't really text, it was an image, so you can't adjust the size of the text. The secondary entries are even worse, with smaller print and on a puke-green background making them even harder to read. My biggest disappointment came when I discovered that the chapter I most wanted to read, Resident Evil 4, abruptly ended mid-paragraph - there was definitely a page or more missing, as there appeared to be in the chapter on The Walking Dead game. Hopefully those missing pages will be corrected before publication. Because of these issues, I would rate this 3.5* rounded up to 4.
August 20, 2023
I like to play video games but, I don't keep up with the new games as much as I would like to and I am not that knowledgeable about video game history so most of the games on the list of video game of the year from 1977 to 2022 were new to me.
I had heard of pong, space invaders, super Mario Bros, pac-man, and other games on the list. Also I have not played vary many games on the list.
My favorite part of the book was the extra life page after the game of the year where different people wrote about their favorite video games. I was not familiar with any of the people who wrote about their favorite games but, I am sure they are well know to someone.
One of the reasons I picked of the book was because of its colorful color cover. It sure stands out. When I first started reading the book I did not realize that the object on the front cover was a video game controller. And I also liked the illustrations for each game.
So after reading Video game of the year I know about a lot of new to me video games. And now I want to play them all.
I suppose I do wish that the book had a page listing all the games talked about in the book so I would not have to flip through it to see all the games mentioned in the book. There is the the table of contents at the front when I can look to see the game of there year but, there is no page listing the games mentioned in the extra life sections.
I had heard of pong, space invaders, super Mario Bros, pac-man, and other games on the list. Also I have not played vary many games on the list.
My favorite part of the book was the extra life page after the game of the year where different people wrote about their favorite video games. I was not familiar with any of the people who wrote about their favorite games but, I am sure they are well know to someone.
One of the reasons I picked of the book was because of its colorful color cover. It sure stands out. When I first started reading the book I did not realize that the object on the front cover was a video game controller. And I also liked the illustrations for each game.
So after reading Video game of the year I know about a lot of new to me video games. And now I want to play them all.
I suppose I do wish that the book had a page listing all the games talked about in the book so I would not have to flip through it to see all the games mentioned in the book. There is the the table of contents at the front when I can look to see the game of there year but, there is no page listing the games mentioned in the extra life sections.
February 23, 2025
Would have been a 4, maybe even a 5 star rating if I felt like my opinions aligned more with the author's. The chapter on Sonic the Hedgehog made me slightly angry, and I actually laughed out loud when they claimed that Uncharted 2 was "one of the greatest games of all time".
I get that each pick is supposed to illustrate the most important game of the year, rather than necessarily the best (Fortnite over Breath of the Wild for example), and obviously there'll be some years where amazing games will inevitably lose out to others, but there were some choices and omissions that really perplexed me. Rock Band over Assassin's Creed?? Seriously?? No chapter on Tomb Raider despite how recognisable the franchise is even among non gamers?
Beyond that, the book felt very repetitive. The author is undoubtedly a great writer, but they describe each game in almost exactly the same way, and rarely touch upon anything beyond the gameplay itself. I enjoyed the chapter on Metal Gear Solid (one of my favourite games of all time), although I was disappointed that the author didn't once touch on the game's stellar sound design and sense of atmosphere, which is a big part of why that game lingers in my mind.
I'd recommend it if you're into video games, but I wouldn't say it's a must read.
I get that each pick is supposed to illustrate the most important game of the year, rather than necessarily the best (Fortnite over Breath of the Wild for example), and obviously there'll be some years where amazing games will inevitably lose out to others, but there were some choices and omissions that really perplexed me. Rock Band over Assassin's Creed?? Seriously?? No chapter on Tomb Raider despite how recognisable the franchise is even among non gamers?
Beyond that, the book felt very repetitive. The author is undoubtedly a great writer, but they describe each game in almost exactly the same way, and rarely touch upon anything beyond the gameplay itself. I enjoyed the chapter on Metal Gear Solid (one of my favourite games of all time), although I was disappointed that the author didn't once touch on the game's stellar sound design and sense of atmosphere, which is a big part of why that game lingers in my mind.
I'd recommend it if you're into video games, but I wouldn't say it's a must read.
November 5, 2024
I love video games, and I very much enjoy reading about them. I struggled with this book for a few reasons. 1. It was kind of boring. The way the facts were presented felt so dry, and I overall did not enjoy the author’s voice. 2. I have no idea how these games were chosen. He says they’re chosen for a lot of different reasons, but that’s a bit arbitrary. And maybe it’s okay to be arbitrary. 3. The Extra Life segments (written by guest authors) were some of my favorites, and I generally enjoyed them more than the actual yearly choices. The problem with the Extra Life is that they felt like an afterthought; unless I missed something, I didn’t see how they correlated with the yearly choices at all. I’m not sure how difficult it really would have been to have those segments hit on other games of the same year, or from the same developers, or same franchise, or literally anything to make it cohesive.
I don’t know. Something was off on this one. I mean, there were times when Minor couldn’t even fill up a page for the games he chose! Overall, it’s probably worth having on your shelf if you love books and video games.
I don’t know. Something was off on this one. I mean, there were times when Minor couldn’t even fill up a page for the games he chose! Overall, it’s probably worth having on your shelf if you love books and video games.
September 9, 2023
It's a lovely collection of essays and art - and the art (one big illustration per year/game, with the occasional smaller separate one) is really fun. The essays are fine, but mostly too surface-level, IMO.
Maybe I wasn't quite the target audience for this book? But then, for who else would it be, if not nerds who have been deep into video games for years? I feel like the more "casual" readers would be not interested enough to dig in, while folks like me are disappointed that it doesn't dig deeper.
Still, it's an enjoyable read, perfect for picking up for the five minutes or so it takes to go through one year/game and then putting it back down again... or going for another one.
I'd definitely recommend going for the physical version over an e-book as the illustrations are such a highlight.
If I could, I'd be generous and give it 3.5 stars, but I'll be harsh at the moment and round down.
Maybe I wasn't quite the target audience for this book? But then, for who else would it be, if not nerds who have been deep into video games for years? I feel like the more "casual" readers would be not interested enough to dig in, while folks like me are disappointed that it doesn't dig deeper.
Still, it's an enjoyable read, perfect for picking up for the five minutes or so it takes to go through one year/game and then putting it back down again... or going for another one.
I'd definitely recommend going for the physical version over an e-book as the illustrations are such a highlight.
If I could, I'd be generous and give it 3.5 stars, but I'll be harsh at the moment and round down.
April 15, 2024
A neat time capsule, I particularly enjoyed the early history of the 70s and 80s. One of my favorite things about reading books dedicated to games is I'll learn about a few I've never even heard of. It's exciting and surprising!
I think Minor is a good writer, and I appreciated how he interjected historical perspective and key players with each game's writeup, rather than simply "this game was good." The original art dedicated to each game was a nice touch and some of the font colors/text choices added a brilliant flair, making it a quick read.
But some of the ordering choices were really strange. Some games I disagreed with, sure, but then the green pages featuring random quotes from gaming personalities didn't seem to fit all that much. It felt like Minor was trying to have his cake and eat it too. Plus, he bashed Geno from Super Mario RPG. Hell no!
I think Minor is a good writer, and I appreciated how he interjected historical perspective and key players with each game's writeup, rather than simply "this game was good." The original art dedicated to each game was a nice touch and some of the font colors/text choices added a brilliant flair, making it a quick read.
But some of the ordering choices were really strange. Some games I disagreed with, sure, but then the green pages featuring random quotes from gaming personalities didn't seem to fit all that much. It felt like Minor was trying to have his cake and eat it too. Plus, he bashed Geno from Super Mario RPG. Hell no!
Read
February 27, 2024Exploring the Anime News Network forums provided a fascinating glimpse into the vibrant anime community! The discussion on "Studio Ghibli's Future" was particularly engaging, showcasing diverse perspectives and passionate opinions. It's heartening to see fans come together to speculate and share insights about such an iconic studio. This enriching exchange of ideas fuels the collective excitement for upcoming projects. As an anime enthusiast, stumbling upon this thread was a delightful discovery, perfectly complementing my recent explorations on yes. Here's to Anime News Network for fostering a platform where fans can connect, discuss, and celebrate their shared love for anime!
October 15, 2024
This book is bafflingly designed and written. It has full page color animations of people playing the games, but no actual pictures of the games to reference what the author is discussing. There's just a wall of text for the discussion, which isn't helpful for a visual medium. A couple of pics here and there would go a long way towards illustrating what he's saying. The "extra lives" section is just useless info by people no one has heard of that adds nothing at all. The author can't help but self-insert his talking points all over the place, and he frequently gets a lot of details very incorrect. The game selection is very bizarre...there's no Doom, Mass Effect, Starcraft, Goldeneye, BioShock, the Last of Us, God of War, any Pokemon games before Pokemon Go, and the list goes on and on.
September 18, 2023
I love that this book exists, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't also let me down.
Naturally, there were quite a few games chosen that I didn't agree with, but that didn't affect my enjoyment. My biggest complaints are that there are no screenshots from any of the games, and a lot of the "history" was just not that interesting. I was also confused why the end of each chapter had other people chiming in about games. At first I thought this was a place for, say, the 2nd and 3rd runner up games to be mentioned, but the years never matched at all, and some of the reviews were actually about the very game that was already highlighted in the chapter! It just seemed edited very oddly.
Naturally, there were quite a few games chosen that I didn't agree with, but that didn't affect my enjoyment. My biggest complaints are that there are no screenshots from any of the games, and a lot of the "history" was just not that interesting. I was also confused why the end of each chapter had other people chiming in about games. At first I thought this was a place for, say, the 2nd and 3rd runner up games to be mentioned, but the years never matched at all, and some of the reviews were actually about the very game that was already highlighted in the chapter! It just seemed edited very oddly.
April 11, 2024
3.5/ 5.0 Stars rounded up to 4.
Jordan Minor takes us on a nostalgic journey through video game history. We loved the artwork throughout each chapter that lovingly painted a portrait of each game for each year that was chosen. We also loved how detailed and thorough the author was with his selections and the reasonings behind them. If you are a fan of videogames you owe it to yourself to pick this book up!
For more on our thoughts check out The Nerdy Reads Podcast Episode 51: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2153743/14...
Join our discord and talk books and all things nerd culture: https://discord.gg/PWRcd72SNf
Jordan Minor takes us on a nostalgic journey through video game history. We loved the artwork throughout each chapter that lovingly painted a portrait of each game for each year that was chosen. We also loved how detailed and thorough the author was with his selections and the reasonings behind them. If you are a fan of videogames you owe it to yourself to pick this book up!
For more on our thoughts check out The Nerdy Reads Podcast Episode 51: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2153743/14...
Join our discord and talk books and all things nerd culture: https://discord.gg/PWRcd72SNf
September 23, 2023
With as popular as video games are, it’s mind boggling that there aren’t more great books that dive into their history. This is why I always pick up any video game book that looks interesting when it comes out.
This is a very entertaining book that goes into the author’s game of the year choice from 1977-2022. It also has input from a lot of other video game reporters/creators/other people you may have heard of. You may disagree with some of his choices, but they are still fun to read and the artwork that accompanies each entry is great.
This is a very entertaining book that goes into the author’s game of the year choice from 1977-2022. It also has input from a lot of other video game reporters/creators/other people you may have heard of. You may disagree with some of his choices, but they are still fun to read and the artwork that accompanies each entry is great.
October 18, 2023
Video Game of the Year is the best video game history book.
More than just a list of notable titles from gaming's relatively-young history, Author Jordan Minor takes a holistic approach in analyzing how games are constantly in conversation with each other and with the cultural zeitgeist of any given year. Complete with an impressive suite of guest excerpts and lovely illustrations, Video Game of the Year is an easy purchase for any gamer's book shelf and a fun read for anyone trying to better understand the medium.
More than just a list of notable titles from gaming's relatively-young history, Author Jordan Minor takes a holistic approach in analyzing how games are constantly in conversation with each other and with the cultural zeitgeist of any given year. Complete with an impressive suite of guest excerpts and lovely illustrations, Video Game of the Year is an easy purchase for any gamer's book shelf and a fun read for anyone trying to better understand the medium.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews