Any one see the film ones....seriously guys why did they put every harry potter film in? I'm no fan but if I step aside from any fanboyishness.....those movies were kinda lame...any one else?
IGN's Top 10
- Thread starter HollywoodH17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When the hell did alomost everyone start hating half life? Oh and please stop arguing over the exact placment of the games on this list I just have to say that its retarded.
thats what i was going for, its "faster", due to it being a spasm movement in your arm, and i dont see too many pc tourny's around, so i dont know where you are but all the competitive ones i see are usually by console, depending on what game it is at the timeSentox6 said:
I don't much like Counter-Strike anymore. I started playing it back in 2000, stopped when 1.6 came out.
It's not the best FPS ever, but it's noteworthy. CS pretty much pioneered the so-called-realistic shooter. Back then we had one overly tactical and clunky Rainbow Six, and super fastpaced bazookagavanzas, like Quake Arena.
It's without a doubt one of the most influental FPS titles ever. I'm not screaming "insolence" and demanding that you love it. Just saying that whether you like it or not, it was one of the top games of 2000(1999), and popularized a whole new subgenre of FPS games.
It's not the best FPS ever, but it's noteworthy. CS pretty much pioneered the so-called-realistic shooter. Back then we had one overly tactical and clunky Rainbow Six, and super fastpaced bazookagavanzas, like Quake Arena.
It's without a doubt one of the most influental FPS titles ever. I'm not screaming "insolence" and demanding that you love it. Just saying that whether you like it or not, it was one of the top games of 2000(1999), and popularized a whole new subgenre of FPS games.
I'm guessing it's because GTA III was a greater step forward from GTA II than Vice City and San Andreas were from GTA III. It made the 3D sandbox thingamajig. San Andreas added features and stuff, but the great big smack of a change came from GTA III going 3D. Just look at what 3D did to Worms. It was a risky business back then and GTA pulled it off.Onyx Oblivion said:
I guess it's difficult to please everyone.
The one thing I guess makes me feel Half-Life 2 deserves it most is that once someone's beaten the game, you can show them a screenshot of any single room, from any single level, and they'll say "Oh yeah! I remember that part! That's when _________"
(you fight the helicopter)
(you get to try out the airboat)
(you had to solve a wood-breaking puzzle)
(you were killing cops by destroying the dock supports)
etc
That's sort of why they kept the weapon selection basic, because the focus was often on individual level design aspects and ever-changing gameplay. The actual "balls-out gunslinging shootout" parts of the game that I can recall were kind of far apart.
Another thing that stood out was the level of exposition. In many games, especially FPS's, they don't really have the budget or consideration to put in a 20-minute gameplay segment letting you just integrate slowly with the world. There may be a somewhat long opening cutscene, but it usually opens with you pretty much in-the-action. Half-Life 2 had you come into a trainstation, get "processed" through Civil Protection customs, meet a friendly face who explains a little, explore the city plaza, examine an apartment block, get chased by CP, meet several new characters, then receive the game's first overall goal (get out of the city) before you EVEN GET YOUR FIRST WEAPON. And to keep a player interested through all that takes quite a lot of good writing, a visually strong art style, and some damn good facial animation and voice acting. Every time I play a game after HL2, I think "Wait, I'm being expected to shoot people already? I don't even know what this place is or where I am. Are these enemies even evil? I could just be shooting innocent police officers with wives and kids!" If you played the opening to 2008 Prince of Persia you may get what I'm saying...
I obviously can't just ask everyone here to suddenly like the game. I have to admit certain parts of it may not have aged quite as well, but hopefully at least comparing it to other games in certain regards you can see some major differences.
The one thing I guess makes me feel Half-Life 2 deserves it most is that once someone's beaten the game, you can show them a screenshot of any single room, from any single level, and they'll say "Oh yeah! I remember that part! That's when _________"
(you fight the helicopter)
(you get to try out the airboat)
(you had to solve a wood-breaking puzzle)
(you were killing cops by destroying the dock supports)
etc
That's sort of why they kept the weapon selection basic, because the focus was often on individual level design aspects and ever-changing gameplay. The actual "balls-out gunslinging shootout" parts of the game that I can recall were kind of far apart.
Another thing that stood out was the level of exposition. In many games, especially FPS's, they don't really have the budget or consideration to put in a 20-minute gameplay segment letting you just integrate slowly with the world. There may be a somewhat long opening cutscene, but it usually opens with you pretty much in-the-action. Half-Life 2 had you come into a trainstation, get "processed" through Civil Protection customs, meet a friendly face who explains a little, explore the city plaza, examine an apartment block, get chased by CP, meet several new characters, then receive the game's first overall goal (get out of the city) before you EVEN GET YOUR FIRST WEAPON. And to keep a player interested through all that takes quite a lot of good writing, a visually strong art style, and some damn good facial animation and voice acting. Every time I play a game after HL2, I think "Wait, I'm being expected to shoot people already? I don't even know what this place is or where I am. Are these enemies even evil? I could just be shooting innocent police officers with wives and kids!" If you played the opening to 2008 Prince of Persia you may get what I'm saying...
I obviously can't just ask everyone here to suddenly like the game. I have to admit certain parts of it may not have aged quite as well, but hopefully at least comparing it to other games in certain regards you can see some major differences.
You haven't read my other post explaining more about my feelings about this. I feel WoW deserves a place on the list because of its ubiquity, its staying power, and its propensity to grow indefinitely without alienating both its target audience AND its extraneous audience. The game is *still* popular after all these years. This speaks to both its replay value, and its universality. You are correct; just because it makes a lot of money [sic] doesn't make it good. But the fact that it's more recognized, and played, than basically anything that came out in 2004 (or really, in the last 5 years) definitely shows that it's doing something correctly.Zedzero said:
True True... I'm not saying that Call of duty, halo, or wow is should not be up on the list (beacuse they really should with how many people play them) I'm just saying that it was funny that the 3 games you picked were some of the most overrated games in hype vs quality those games were good but not THAT good. WOW advertising on every website I'm on, remember the launch for halo 3, (the first one was actually kind of underrated....hmm) and call of duty 4 vs halo 3.MetallicaRulez0 said:
