-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
G4's Top 100 Games of All Time
- Thread starter Byrne
- Start date
aesthetics are of varying importance depending on the gamer. the cutesy pig/bird motif could easily be enough to elevate the game above others like it to a lot of people, especially moms and other 'non-gamers'.
i'm kind of playing devil's advocate here which i normally dont like doing, but i just dont see how this is different from arguing about objectively good bands or movies. i don't think the beatles are a good band (they are objectively influential and important, though). in terms of literature, the western canon is, in my opinion, full of absolute shit, yet it's lauded endlessly. i guarantee there are people who have seen a thousand times the movies you have (not hyperbole) and don't have the godfather in their top 100.
to say that this matter is subjective 'in some ways' is disingenuous. really there are two possibilities:
1. video games should be judged based on artistic merit. art is probably the most subjective thing imaginable. i'll heap scorn on people who like stuff that i hate, but i have no qualms admitting that it's nothing more than personal preference and ego. when someone tells me they think nickelback is one of the best bands ever, i will probably recommend that they listen to more music and reevaluate their tastes afterwards, but someone who listens to much more music than i do could easily do the same to me were i to mention my proclivity towards a band like archers of loaf or something.
2. video games should be judged based on fun. fun is just as subjective as artistic merit. how can you possibly tell someone that they shouldn't be having as much fun as they are with a certain game? this isn't even a 'best' vs 'favourite' thing, as they mean the same thing; they have to, otherwise nobody could say 'best' without having experienced the full spectrum of the medium.
That's why I talked about using the opinions of the general populace. While there will undoubtedly always be people that dislike the Beatles as a band, the facts are that an enormous number of people find them great, moreso than basically any other band. Due to this, it's reasonable to say they are one of the best band's of all time. Meanwhile, you won't find many people that list Archers of Loaf as suc, even though I personally find them a great band. If I were trying to make a list as objectively as I could, Archers of Loaf would be nowhere in my top 100.
That's why G4's list makes no sense to me. I understand the effect that subjectivity will have, but who in the hell on this earth that has any knowledge of video games puts Angry Birds in the top 50 all time? If they used any general opinions to influence their choices rather than whatever bizarre criteria they were using, it surely would not be anywhere on this list.
That's why G4's list makes no sense to me. I understand the effect that subjectivity will have, but who in the hell on this earth that has any knowledge of video games puts Angry Birds in the top 50 all time? If they used any general opinions to influence their choices rather than whatever bizarre criteria they were using, it surely would not be anywhere on this list.
VKCA
(Virtual Circus Kareoky Act)
1.N64, Playstation, and snes are from the 90's, with snes being the only one released before '95 iirc. As I said, eighties and early nineties can't hold up. As we get farther and farther forward so will that date. Past 15 years? Well, no, 20 let's say.
2.Hence my comment on pink glasses. If that thread was made ten years from now, and the majority of now 12-15 year olds were to comment (then being 22-25) you'd have nothing but games from the ps2 and 360
Guaranteed. It's all nostalgia, nothing to do with quality. Games aren't getting worse, only better.
Not that I'm at all separated from this. All the games I've had the most fun with were released from 2004-2007. Battle front, thug, cod 4, skate, jak 2&3, metal arms: glitch in the system, etc. If I had of been born in 2001 instead of 1993, I'm sure the years, and games, would be different.
I really strongly believe that if you took a twelve year old boy who had had no experience with any games ever created, he'd prefer newer ones. Nobody is going to choose some simplistic 2d side-scroller over a 3-d epic adventure game like... idk, drakes fortune or something (never played it personally, but I'm assuming it's good)
Seriously, anybody who thinks this:
is better than this:
is fucking delusional. Never played prototype either, trying to use games I'm not personally attached to.
If they used general opinion, wouldn't Angry Birds be even higher than 49? Or do you mean general opinion as "everyone this casual or more casual doesn't count"?
EDIT: VKCA, graphics don't mean everything you doofus, Pac-Man (and its derivities like Ms. Pac-Man, etc.) is probably my favorite video game ever, and I'd gladly be called delusional if it let me play Pac-Man over whatever piece of 3D-rendered garbage is in the bottom picture.
EDIT: VKCA, graphics don't mean everything you doofus, Pac-Man (and its derivities like Ms. Pac-Man, etc.) is probably my favorite video game ever, and I'd gladly be called delusional if it let me play Pac-Man over whatever piece of 3D-rendered garbage is in the bottom picture.
Nostalgia has nothing to do with the fact that a lot of old games were just better made and more fun than new games. Yes, new games have the advantage of learning from mistakes made by older games as well as newer technologies but they don't always take advantage of it. If I made a top 50 list I probably wouldn't have more than 5-8 games newer than the N64.
metroid prime, earthbound, and paper mario: ttyd are all not on this list
this list is completely worthless i didn't even bother looking at it after i couldn't ctrl+f at least 1 of those 3 titles
this list is completely worthless i didn't even bother looking at it after i couldn't ctrl+f at least 1 of those 3 titles
Couldn't find Earthbound or Kirby :c I am in shock
VKCA
(Virtual Circus Kareoky Act)
For the record, I'm not talking about graphics. At all.
A lot of modern games are actually pretty boring. I agree asteroids and space invaders were always boring, but tetris is a fucking masterpiece and I dont understand anyone who thinks it isnt worth its place.
Ok you put it next to skyrim and it seems kinda underwhelming, but, on the other hand there is no way I could play skyrim on my cellphone, and if the choice is between tetris and angry birds I know which wins hands down.
In terms of game play, modern games arent adding much compared with classics. At least, classics from the 90s onwards. There are improvements to be found, but they arent exactly completely ruling out the earlier games.
Though, I do think that this list is probably a little generous to early games, in particular the 80s ones..
Ok you put it next to skyrim and it seems kinda underwhelming, but, on the other hand there is no way I could play skyrim on my cellphone, and if the choice is between tetris and angry birds I know which wins hands down.
In terms of game play, modern games arent adding much compared with classics. At least, classics from the 90s onwards. There are improvements to be found, but they arent exactly completely ruling out the earlier games.
Though, I do think that this list is probably a little generous to early games, in particular the 80s ones..
Seconding Lee saying that God of War III is the weakest. Played all 3 and 2 was the best title. Most fun, best challenges. Coolest Boss Battles. Good replay. Should be Higher.
Don't get why GTA: San Andreas isn't on there. I find that game more fun than GTA: IV any day.
However those above statements are rather stupid and valueless. This list is based on opinion and on enjoyment. Plus a large flaw in this list, as was pointed out by hipmonlee is that the cross of platforms and decades does limit the subjectivity.
The limits of what is valuable can't apply. You can't compare games across such a broad spectrum. The only way to rate games is their fun factor and that is a stupid system as somebody who finds only FPSs fun is not going to vote for Tetris or classic SNES games.
Meh. List is a list
Don't get why GTA: San Andreas isn't on there. I find that game more fun than GTA: IV any day.
However those above statements are rather stupid and valueless. This list is based on opinion and on enjoyment. Plus a large flaw in this list, as was pointed out by hipmonlee is that the cross of platforms and decades does limit the subjectivity.
The limits of what is valuable can't apply. You can't compare games across such a broad spectrum. The only way to rate games is their fun factor and that is a stupid system as somebody who finds only FPSs fun is not going to vote for Tetris or classic SNES games.
Meh. List is a list
How am I supposed to infer this when all you do is show a single screenshot of two games and imply to us which one is better?
That list is utter shit in my opinion. But honestly, it's am impossible task to make a list like this. Not only is it idiotic to compare such drastically different games to each other, but trying to put games released across 40 years on the same scale is dumb enough. Really though, no 1 person will agree completely with this list so it doesn't really matter
I wouldn't put Pac-Man on a top 100 list.
But I'd put it on a top 100 list before I put Prototype on one.
It isn't Nostalgia coming from these gaming journalist types VCKA. It's the idea that something's age is tied directly to its influence.
Ultima Underworld
Sonic 2
Mario Kart
King's Quest 6
All better than Super Mario Brothers.
But I'd put it on a top 100 list before I put Prototype on one.
It isn't Nostalgia coming from these gaming journalist types VCKA. It's the idea that something's age is tied directly to its influence.
Games exactly 20 years old;
Ultima Underworld
Sonic 2
Mario Kart
King's Quest 6
All better than Super Mario Brothers.
Video games are really opinionated. For example, I don't like Skyrim because I find it TOO expansive and I just don't have enough time to get every single bit of armour and stuff like that. Meanwhile, others would call me delusional for not putting it on the top 100 list that I have. It's all opinionated.
And yes, while graphics do make a game much more fun, it all depends on storyline and how the game works. Take super smash brothers for example. Some may say that melee is better while others say brawl is infinitely better because of how good the graphics are. But that's not always the case.
Now, a game like legend of zelda and pokemon, those games have normally the same mechanics, so better graphics means profit. Like if they remade pokemon red with 3D graphics for the 3DS? People would be flocking towards the aisles to get a hold of the game. Of course, there might be a nostalgia factor in there, but would you rather play the remade version with 3D graphics, or the pixelated older version?
And yes, while graphics do make a game much more fun, it all depends on storyline and how the game works. Take super smash brothers for example. Some may say that melee is better while others say brawl is infinitely better because of how good the graphics are. But that's not always the case.
Now, a game like legend of zelda and pokemon, those games have normally the same mechanics, so better graphics means profit. Like if they remade pokemon red with 3D graphics for the 3DS? People would be flocking towards the aisles to get a hold of the game. Of course, there might be a nostalgia factor in there, but would you rather play the remade version with 3D graphics, or the pixelated older version?
No. This is a list of video games, by gamers, for gamers. Go find me someone that calls themself a gamer that puts Angry Birds at top 50 all time. Good luck.
And frankly I barely even consider Angry Birds a video game...more like a physics engine test bed >_>
If they based their picks more on what intelligent people actually think, this list would have been a lot better.
Paper Mario sucks. Almost as bad as Mario Hoops or the Party Marios.
Resident Evil 4 should be higher(at least one spot after Call of Booty 4) and the other Resident Evil games don't deserve to be on the list at all. I know what they did but they just plain suck by todays standards. Their needlesly frustrating, annoying, cheezy and just plain boring. I started with RE4 and went back from there and i almost blew my brains out how bad they were. RE4 is in my opinion the best game ever.
VKCA
(Virtual Circus Kareoky Act)
That's why I confirmed that I wasn't talking about graphics, because looking back at my post I saw how one might think I was talking about graphics. The only thing I was trying to convey was that a game like prototype is just sooo much more retardedly in-depth than ms packman could ever be, for a large variety of reasons.
(Prototype is good right? I've only ever watched it being played and it looked super cool, it's not like awful or anything is it?)
Sorry, I just have a really, really hard time imagining that someone will have more fun, or get more replay value or whatever playing pacman than they will playing prototype, or just cause 2 or something.
Infamous is considered much better and it uses basically the exact same concept lol
REMake is the single most atmospheric and well thought out horror game ever made. The level design is impeccable, constantly mixing things up to prevent the player from settling into a routine path through the mansion. Crimson Heads offer a stifling new resource management system with a ticking clock. RE3 Nemesis offers something unique as a video game, a truly harrowing opponent. It's brilliant that while Nemesis is never invincible, it is still never advisable to take him on when you can run. These two Survival Horror games got under your skin waaaaaaay more than RE4 did, and that's the whole point of the genre. Don't be such a pussy.
Though RE4 is the best game ever made though.
Prototype sucks though. I would rather play Pac-Man again, and I own Prototype.