[Phoenix1010]

lol no offense taken of course. I disagree, however. Every one of us has this kind of bias in favor of the new and groundbreaking, and we should. It's a lot easier to make a clone of a clone of an innovative game than it is to come up with something original and influential. The copycats have all the time in the world (not to mention newer technology) to polish other people's ideas until they shine their brightest, while the originators have the challenge of creating something great from nothing, and setting a standard that will last a while. That's why Mario 64 is remembered and Banjo Kazooie is forgotten (at the time, a lot of people were saying Banjo was a better game), that's why Citizen Kane still makes top ten lists, that's why some crap like Sum 41 can't be a better band than the Clash. Originality gets extra points over polished rehashes. Also, in my mind, influence is a part of quality. Part of being the best is being important. Milestones stand out, sometimes more than masterpieces, and I think that's just giving credit where credit is due.