Why are you disputing that PoE 2 is a new classic when it already scored very highly in our 101 RPGs list?
Because the actualist bias, many mediocre/kinda ok games that are very trendy 4-5 years, sunk after that in collective consideration. For example in mid 2000s KotOR I and Neverwinter Nights I were very popular on the codex despite some butthurt, to the point that they achieved 12th and 13th positions in codex 2007 general poll.
Also, in regard 2019 and 2014 general polls, their methodology don't favour the overview but the competition among a very limited set of games. Simply check the huge gap between first games and all the rest. General polls have been a popularity contest between 10-15 games since fist years. To have a poll minimally accurate over "a codex consensus " we would need other methodology more focused on long lists of must play with no points to distribute.
I agree that the period of extreme productivity since indie boom brought a new incline for crpgs and PC in general, but I think his scope is more limited than what you and other codexers claim. Probably only 8-10 games of this period will become cult classics on the codex (and on my personal list only around 5).
And why are you asking this to someone who already did a book with the past 40 years of RPGs and listed more than 350 games? Not saying they are all must-play classics,
Because just that is what I'm discussing, the fact that PoE I and II will probably suit better in a general list of the evolution of crpg genre that as supossed "new classic" (Some semantic difference with "must-play classics?).
How many cult classics, must-play crpgs are in the never accurately polled codex consensus? I think less than 100 games.
but I hate this trend of thinking of the genre as a monolyth. You can love RPGs but never touch a single Wizardry-clone, yet that doesn't mean the Elminage series aren't among the best RPGs of the decade too
Well I agree, my vision of crpgs is not monolythic, but that doesn't mean that everything must be allowed. I think a genre must have some boundaries to make sense. And as other codexer already said (I can't find, maybe Zed) seems as if some codexers were pushing the idea that "the genre is very flexible" or even "can't be defined" intentionally so it's possible to include in the genre every game that they like. Most strategy games, classic graphic adventures, pure action games aren't crpgs.
There are few exceptions and hybrids, but they there are clear genre borders. I would say that vast majority of games included in the Crpg book share the same basic traits, while a little minority, a 10% or less sharing only some of those features to diverse degrees. Therea bunch very doubtful games however, in the books, in top 101 and now in 2019 Goty poll. But I insist, that's not monolithic, that's reasonable, if some particular don't match the features of the some specific group, then is because is not part of that group.
