Poll: Game Informer's 'Top 200 Games' List, BS?

Recommended Videos

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
How can an opinion be wrong?

This list is pretty OK, but it is pointless to rank things and even more pointless to argue about whether one editor's opinion is right or not.

Who cares if "game X is ranked above Game Y", it is FAR more important that genuinely good games are included at all rather than where they appear on rankings.

I think the smart thing to have done would have been to just select the top 200 games and then merely sort by year, and then by alphabetical order within a year.

I have made my own "top 200 list" though it is more a "12 games worth buying each year" (from 1995 to 2011, based on speculative release dates). The idea being if I were to buy and play on average one game per month what would I get, even though I usually don't buy them on release but often a year or two post release (once cheap) it should all add up in the long run.

I mean come on, who cares out of Ocarina of Time and Half Life which is better? Why do the impossible task of trying to rank two completely different games against each other when the logical thing to say is "They're both great, I suggest you play BOTH"! It's not like we all have only 8 hours to live and can only play a single game, you can play both... in any order.

This ranking bullshit is pointless.
 

Crimson_Dragoon

Biologist Supreme
Jul 29, 2009
795
0
0
wrightofway said:
Beatrix said:
*checks what Final Fantasies are on there*

3, 7, 10, Tactics, 2, 12.
This list sucks.
I think they might be using the American numbering system for the Final Fantasy games, because there is no way in hell anyone would put in 2 and 3 and leave out 4 and 6.
They did. Look at the year and system after the game. FF 3 is listed as 1994 on the SNES, so it's actually FF 6.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Markness said:
Every Criteria is completely subjective. The most impartial way I can think of is average review scores and take away a certain number out of 100 every few years. Ie newer games would have an advantage. Also top 200 most important games has no reason to be made. Top 200 funnest would help people decide what games are worth playing.
It is crap like this why everyone should mostly ignore review scores and more closely follow the WORDING of reviews.

Take Red Dead Revolver, it only scored in the 70% area yet it is such a great game and dare I say it, I personally enjoyed it more than Halo 2 and must have played through RDR 3 or 4 times to end up enjoying and playing it as much as Resident Evil 4.

I'm not saying everyone will enjoy it but dammit I know loads of other people did and the sooner people learn to ignore metacritic and start trusting their own instincts then the happier their gameplay experiences will be.

Obviously if a game has a meta-score of 40-50% you should be wary, but some of my favourite games have gotten meta-scores as low as the 60's. Such as Blood Omen 2.

No critic, no number of critics are substitutes for your own personal opinion.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Markness said:
Ok, disregrading what you said about Dragon Age, even though I think its a great game It's a bit off topic.
bagodix said:
Doom was groundbreaking when it was released. Of course it was one of the best games of its time. It's also still more fun than many modern FPS games.
More fun? I'm telling you again, shed your nostalgia and look at it through a clear filter. Imagine if Doom was released today. I can tell you a few things everyone would have to say about it. Terrible graphics, completely unrealistic, terrible story, gameplay simple and shallow. 0/10. Nothing Doom has hasn't been improved hundreds of times over.
bagodix said:
The only way of trying to compile a list like this is to determine what games have been the most important. Whether a game is good or not is far too subjective.
Every Criteria is completely subjective. The most impartial way I can think of is average review scores and take away a certain number out of 100 every few years. Ie newer games would have an advantage. Also top 200 most important games has no reason to be made. Top 200 funnest would help people decide what games are worth playing.
Interestingly Doom has been released recently for XBLA and the iPhone where it has been extremely well received, even by newcomers. Hell I discovered Doom relatively recently (about 2006) after being raised on 3D games and I loved Doom as well.

The way I see it, criticising a classic game for poor graphics is equivalent to criticising a classic movie like Citizen Kane for not being in colour.

I think you just personally don't like Doom. Nothing the matter with that, I don't like Citizen Kane... but not because it's only in black and white.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
WHAT DA FUCK, NO HELLO KITTY ADVENTURE ISLAND 52 ??!!! THAT WAS A CLASSIC!

:p

Interesting list, WoW was too high (rank wise) it should've been around 25 or so, no offense to WoW players :)
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
MetallicaRulez0 said:
I think Halo 2 was the best online shooter ever. CoD4 is close, but Halo 2 revolutionized multiplayer on consoles.
I was about to call utter and COMPLETE bullshit, up until I read the Bolded.

Lol.
 

BaldursBananaSoap

New member
May 20, 2009
1,573
0
0
I facepalmed when I seen COD4 at number 13. Looks like they put their favourite games from 1-15, then added a bunch of random hyped games in any order they felt like.
 

Aunel

New member
May 9, 2008
1,927
0
0
Pulse Reality said:
Portal, 100?

Seriously?

Seriously?!

The Sims did better than Portal?!

(Also, has any one noticed "The Elder Scrols IV, Oblivious" in there?)
yes I did notice it.

OT: this list is bullshit, end of story.
 

Jonci

New member
Sep 15, 2009
539
0
0
How the hell did Ms. Pac-Man beat Chrono Trigger?! I understand the need to respect the classics, but Ms Pac-Man was an exact clone of Pac-Man, which wasn't a great game anyway!
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Markness said:
More fun? I'm telling you again, shed your nostalgia and look at it through a clear filter. Imagine if Doom was released today. I can tell you a few things everyone would have to say about it. Terrible graphics, completely unrealistic, terrible story, gameplay simple and shallow. 0/10. Nothing Doom has hasn't been improved hundreds of times over.
Count me as not one of the everyones. I'd rather be playing Doom than most of the '09 releases.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Well, it did put Fallout 3 and gta San Andreas in the 60s (lower than gta4?!) so it's pretty frikkin far from perfect but I don't see No More Heroes anywhere on the list so it can't be all that bad either.
 

SpcyhknBC

New member
Aug 24, 2009
271
0
0
The only thing that confuses me is why FF II is on the list. That has to be the worst FF in the old style games. I haven't played past 9, never owned a PS2. If they mean FF II in terms of the American numbering, I could understand that, but if it's FF II from Japan, I am severely disappointed.
 

MetallicaRulez0

New member
Aug 27, 2008
2,503
0
0
dududf said:
MetallicaRulez0 said:
I think Halo 2 was the best online shooter ever. CoD4 is close, but Halo 2 revolutionized multiplayer on consoles.
I was about to call utter and COMPLETE bullshit, up until I read the Bolded.

Lol.
Oh silly PC elitists. When will you stop being so naive?
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
MetallicaRulez0 said:
dududf said:
MetallicaRulez0 said:
I think Halo 2 was the best online shooter ever. CoD4 is close, but Halo 2 revolutionized multiplayer on consoles.
I was about to call utter and COMPLETE bullshit, up until I read the Bolded.

Lol.
Oh silly PC elitists. When will you stop being so true?
I thought you were saying that Halo 2 multiplayer had such an impact that it forever changed multiplayer from which it didn't.

So in this particular case PC elitists are not Naive, nor am I a PC elitist, I just happen to own a PC and find that some of the Console gamers are rather annoying, the consoles them selves are fine.

If that makes me an elitist, then I sincerely do not care. :)
 

RanD00M

New member
Oct 26, 2008
6,947
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Maxwell -EOD- said:
10 -- Ms. Pac-Man (coin-op, 1981)

52 -- Pac-Man (coin-op, 1980)
This alone renders it BS.

Exactly.It's the same person in different clothes.

And also 83--Okami.The hell is this shit.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
MetallicaRulez0 said:
dududf said:
MetallicaRulez0 said:
I think Halo 2 was the best online shooter ever. CoD4 is close, but Halo 2 revolutionized multiplayer on consoles.
I was about to call utter and COMPLETE bullshit, up until I read the Bolded.

Lol.
Oh silly PC elitists. When will you stop being so naive?
Actually on second read, I don't see how that is a PC elitist statement at all, care to share how you reached your "conclusion"
 

irishdelinquent

New member
Jan 29, 2008
1,088
0
0
RAND00M said:
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Maxwell -EOD- said:
10 -- Ms. Pac-Man (coin-op, 1981)

52 -- Pac-Man (coin-op, 1980)
This alone renders it BS.

Exactly.It's the same person in different clothes.

And also 83--Okami.The hell is this shit.
^ As clearly stated by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Ms. Pacman really introduced some new things to the arcade scene. Obviously, it was one of the first female protagonists, but it also presented a new, pastel colour scheme that kicked up the graphics capabilities of the arcade a notch.