Even though I find them loathsome on a conceptual level, I can't get enough of lists. I even gave in and made my own list of my ten favourite games of 2010, though finding a reasonable, logical way to rank Vanquish higher than Professor Layton or whatever is always going to be an exercise in arbitrariness.
With that being said, I can't help but invest in video game top tens. In fact, it was reading the various top tens of last year that got me to make this very site, fed up as I was with how there were no gaming sites that represented my views on the state of gaming – a view not influenced by how badass something is, or how flashy, but how good a game is based on merits outside of its ability to accurately replicate mechanics, or to tackle "big themes" in the most amateurish, ham-fisted ways possible.
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that this year would be no different. The majority of video game critics are head-over-heels in love with games like Red Dead Redemption, and I personally couldn't really care about that game at all. But what has really interested me about a number of this year's lists, and specifically the list that Joystiq cooked up (which I was perhaps most irrationally angry at), is the failing to make a distinction between games that are products designed for sheer entertainment purposes, and games that are supposed to engender some sort of emotional connection. Now, I'd say that the games that Joystiq picked, for the most part, didn't really succeed in either area, but I think it's time that gaming critics realize that games that are nothing but pure spectacle and thrill, completely without narratives or themes or an emotional connection, are inherently different from other types of games. Besides both being something that the player plays, they might as well be completely different mediums, and don't belong on a list together.
In the Joystiq list specifically, the main culprits are Split/Second and Rock Band 3. I would contend that no matter how well either of these games do their jobs, they're not being evaluated on the same principles as any other video game would be. Split/Second is successful because it offers a fun take on racing games; Rock Band 3 is successful because it makes simulating the experience of being in a cover band ever more realistic. But in the end, what do either of these things mean? They exist primarily as mechanics-only gameplay. There's nothing behind it, except getting better at the mechanics of the particular game. Getting good at Rock Band 3 is akin to getting good at basketball – it might improve your dexterity or your mental toughness, but it doesn't explicitly offer an emotional catharsis, unless there are player-centric things at work that are definitely out of the control of the developers.
This is perhaps, then, an etymological problem. The term "video games" is still the overriding term, but the variety of experiences can have little to do with each other. Split/Second isn't even close to the same experience as Limbo, but they're both considered great video games. It's like making a "best books of 2010" list and putting Jonathan Franzen's Freedom right next to the new cookbook from Jamie Oliver.
Now, don't get me wrong – outside of a critical perspective, I have no problem with someone wanting to play Rock Band 3. If that's what turns your crank, that's terrific. Hell, even I own Beatles Rock Band, and have enjoyed it immensely, but I don't think it's a cultural artifact worth exploring in much detail, much like how a Beatles cover band isn't nearly as interesting as the Beatles themselves (outside of a passing interest in the phenomenon of cover bands, or Rock Band games in this case). I don't think it's anyone's place to chastise people's tastes, unless those tastes are actively deleterious to humanity (yes, I'm talking about Call of Duty right now).
But here's the thing (and I realize I'm about to step onto the slipperiest of slopes here) – we can take an open approach to what "art" is, and include every unit of cultural meaning, or we can figure out what actually makes for an emotional experience. I'm not here to say what "art" is or not, but I know that the genres of "racing game" and "music playback simulator" are not designed to make emotional connections, outside of periphery details such as either game's aesthetics or soundtrack or what have you. By their very nature, they should likely be excluded from discussions of the "best games of the year," unless there is a separate category for that type of experience. But throwing them all together seems to be making the distinction that all video games are of the same ilk, offering up meat for critical analysis, and it would seem to me that that's simply not the case.