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

[frago roc]

Only 4 current-gen games in the top 50, including the practically unplayable Oblivion? Disgraceful.

Oblivion was godlike and surprise surprise, gaming didn't just start when you were old enough to play them.

Nuff said.

 

[tmujir955]

No Psychonauts.

BGAE: 200.

Portal: 100.

No. Just no.

The list loses credibility for Beyond Good & Evil even being on it... art assets be damned, the gameplay of it is throwing switches to open doors and pressing A rapidly to defeat enemies.

Portal, 100?

Seriously?

Seriously?!

The Sims did better than Portal?!

(Also, has any one noticed "The Elder Scrols IV, Oblivious" in there?)

Uhhh... that's kind of an obvious one, given what The Sims did to expand the demographic interested in games.

49-Guitar Hero
73-Rock Band 2

Bullshit.

Both games were made by Harmonix and RB2 improved on GH in every way possible.

Uhhh... except it wasn't as original? Final Fantasy IX has better graphics, music, etc. than the first Final Fantasy; it's still a worse game.

No I don't agree, what's so good about "Bully" to put it on the top 200?
I also don't think that sports sims (gold football etc) should be in the list, neither should MMO's as people before have said

Why should whole genres be discluded at random? The Sensible World of Soccer is a vastly better game than Call of Duty 4, and Everquest is far more influential than, say, Metroid Prime.

10 -- Ms. Pac-Man (coin-op, 1981)

52 -- Pac-Man (coin-op, 1980)

This alone renders it BS.

Agreed. Plus the absence of so many early, important titles (Pit Fall, Pac-Land, Alpha Waves, etc).

umm, GTA III should NOT be that high up, it deserves like a mid 100-200 rating.

I think you're trying way too hard to be cool, and need to try harder.

I hate it when people say that classics are best. A game is not good just because it did something first ppl!

Actually it is, sorry.

Critics need to go crawl in a ditch and die so the new generation can take over. These old games simply do not stand up to modern games in any way 85% of the time.

Name one person you know that enjoys Tetris more than they do Modern Warfare 2. Now note that their opinion is invalid because they're in the minority. New games are simply better.

If criticism were just a popularity contest, there'd be no need for it, as it'd just be performing the same job sales do. As it stands, game critics are tasked with preserving the history of the medium in spite of relative consumer disinterest (when compared to the present) and scrutinizing the playability and innovativeness of new releases.

...Obviously something can only be assessed in relation to its time. So to call a game "great", for journalistic purposes, is to rationally do just that: evaluate it in context and compare it to games that both preceded and succeeded it.

(Replying to my part)

I don't think so. Like Yahtzee said, nostalgia is the only reason we come back to the oldies. And Rock Band 2 was original. It had a really nice character creator, and you could play drums and vocals as well as bass and guitar.

 

[Dys]

Critics need to go crawl in a ditch and die so the new generation can take over. These old games simply do not stand up to modern games in any way 85% of the time.

Name one person you know that enjoys Tetris more than they do Modern Warfare 2. Now note that their opinion is invalid because they're in the minority. New games are simply better.

Name one person who enjoys tetris more than MW2....I don't know if that's sarcasm or not, but I'll reply seriously. All of the hundreds of thousands of people who play it in free browser games, on various handheld platforms (including DS, mobile phone and every generation of gameboy) and more likely than not Xbox live and PSN 'arcades'. Without even needing to try and find statistics, I can tell you that a great deal more people play tetris than do modern warfare simply because it's so acessable and it's everywhere. If it was done on a majority vote, of everyone who plays evergame everywhere, rest assured that the most popular games would be notably different from your interpritations of the 'best' games, We'd be seeing a whole lot more FIFA, space invaders and bubble trouble (or whatever that baloon popping game on my phone is called).

Bioshock above system shock 2? Oblivion above morrowind? Modern warfware above CoD and CoD2, LoZ:OoT and MGS below WoW? I can certainly say this is far removed from my ideal list and I've not even read it through all yet..

Here's what I don't understand: I didn't play those old ass games at the top of the list when I was a kid, and I don't play them now. I went on my 360 and played MW2: amazing graphics, furious gameplay, and ultimatly an example of how far gaming has come. Then I went and played a game of Tetris online. Didn't compare. Are these critics just a nostalgic bunch or what?

Come back in 20 years time and if MW2 is still one of the most played games in the world, you'll be more than welcome to compare it to the likes of tetris. However, I can already tell you it won't.

Because a sequel can never be better than original. Ever. Ever ever ever ever ever. It's the rules. I don't care how good your game is, it's not possible. Ever.

Here's how to tell if an old game really deserves a top spot or not: give it to a really hardcore gamer who's never played it. And guess what? 98% of the time they'll hate it. For example, a few years ago I tried the original Legend of Zelda for the first time. It did not strike me as being "teh best game evar!1"

Also, I don't see any KOTOR.

Good point with KOTOR, it's absense is silly. Also, fallout 3...really? Ok, I guess people liked it however terrible it wa- wait a second, none of the original fallouts? Is that a joke?

With tetris, I'm under the impression that a whole lot of casual gamers play it as it's really easy to pick up and play. It is such a simple, easy and fun mechanic and for that reason a lot of people love it, playing it (or variants of it) in web based flash games, so that's why I don't disagree with that being up the top.

As for your comment about sequals, I didn't like cod4. I know, that makes me weird and definately part of a minority, but I just didn't. I always bought call of duty games for tbe multiplayer and the pub games in 4 were abysmal compared to the earlier games (probably has every bit as much to do with the playerbase as it does with the game). Of course the sequal can exceed the original, I've never played the original LoZ (so I can't comment as to whether your right about it being hard to get into or not), but I have played a link to the past (recently, actually, for the first time). I didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as I did OoT (even though I did rather enjoy the game), and I then enjoyed majoras mask more than I did ocarina of time, though I didn't at the time, it wasn't until I went back and played them years later that I decided OoT was slightly lagging behind it's sequal.

 

[The Bandit]

Critics need to go crawl in a ditch and die so the new generation can take over. These old games simply do not stand up to modern games in any way 85% of the time.

Name one person you know that enjoys Tetris more than they do Modern Warfare 2. Now note that their opinion is invalid because they're in the minority. New games are simply better.

Name one person who enjoys tetris more than MW2....I don't know if that's sarcasm or not, but I'll reply seriously. All of the hundreds of thousands of people who play it in free browser games, on various handheld platforms (including DS, mobile phone and every generation of gameboy) and more likely than not Xbox live and PSN 'arcades'. Without even needing to try and find statistics, I can tell you that a great deal more people play tetris than do modern warfare simply because it's so acessable and it's everywhere. If it was done on a majority vote, of everyone who plays evergame everywhere, rest assured that the most popular games would be notably different from your interpritations of the 'best' games, We'd be seeing a whole lot more FIFA, space invaders and bubble trouble (or whatever that baloon popping game on my phone is called).

Bioshock above system shock 2? Oblivion above morrowind? Modern warfware above CoD and CoD2, LoZ:OoT and MGS below WoW? I can certainly say this is far removed from my ideal list and I've not even read it through all yet..

Here's what I don't understand: I didn't play those old ass games at the top of the list when I was a kid, and I don't play them now. I went on my 360 and played MW2: amazing graphics, furious gameplay, and ultimatly an example of how far gaming has come. Then I went and played a game of Tetris online. Didn't compare. Are these critics just a nostalgic bunch or what?

Come back in 20 years time and if MW2 is still one of the most played games in the world, you'll be more than welcome to compare it to the likes of tetris. However, I can already tell you it won't.

Because a sequel can never be better than original. Ever. Ever ever ever ever ever. It's the rules. I don't care how good your game is, it's not possible. Ever.

Here's how to tell if an old game really deserves a top spot or not: give it to a really hardcore gamer who's never played it. And guess what? 98% of the time they'll hate it. For example, a few years ago I tried the original Legend of Zelda for the first time. It did not strike me as being "teh best game evar!1"

Also, I don't see any KOTOR.

Good point with KOTOR, it's absense is silly. Also, fallout 3...really? Ok, I guess people liked it however terrible it wa- wait a second, none of the original fallouts? Is that a joke?

With tetris, I'm under the impression that a whole lot of casual gamers play it as it's really easy to pick up and play. It is such a simple, easy and fun mechanic and for that reason a lot of people love it, playing it (or variants of it) in web based flash games, so that's why I don't disagree with that being up the top.

As for your comment about sequals, I didn't like cod4. I know, that makes me weird and definately part of a minority, but I just didn't. I always bought call of duty games for tbe multiplayer and the pub games in 4 were abysmal compared to the earlier games (probably has every bit as much to do with the playerbase as it does with the game). Of course the sequal can exceed the original, I've never played the original LoZ (so I can't comment as to whether your right about it being hard to get into or not), but I have played a link to the past (recently, actually, for the first time). I didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as I did OoT (even though I did rather enjoy the game), and I then enjoyed majoras mask more than I did ocarina of time, though I didn't at the time, it wasn't until I went back and played them years later that I decided OoT was slightly lagging behind it's sequal.

I was being sarcastic about sequels. That kind of attitude annoys me, really.

 

[Numb1lp]

Man, I loved Bully. Oh, and no Dig Dug? (or did I just miss it)

 

[G1eet]

Nice list, but... Mass Effect beat Prince of Persia and Thief? I'm a Bioware fan to the death, but even I know when to concede defeat.

 

[Warmoon]

Mediocre list

No Psychonauts.

BGAE: 200.

Portal: 100.

No. Just no.

Agreed where is pyschonauts OR portal, i sense the wrath of gabe newell and Timmy himself brewing

overall its there opinion and we can have own , so please stop all the bickering, just list YOUR favorites

 

[NOT WILL]

No you can`t put sports games ona top __ list because the next year a new one comes out. Even though I love sports games the one that came out this year is better. (197) the top 200 games should be full of older games but they have a game that came out less than a week ago

 

[lukemdizzle]

this list seems to follow resent gaming trends, wow and cod4 are WAY to highly ranked. back when halo 2 came out it was ranked similarly in comparable lists to what cod 4 is in this list but now its down at 110. not saying ether of these games are bad they just are the trendy games of there time. well have to see what type of staying power they will have over the corse of the next decade to grasp how truly influential they are. also MGS3 at 191...?

 

[Dys]

I was being sarcastic about sequels. That kind of attitude annoys me, really.

Yeah, I got that. I was pointing out I don't dislike it for not being the original (as people have a tendancy to do), I just genuinly didn't like the game. I still think that it's silly to rate it above Cod 1 & 2, they (at least in my eyes) reinvented the ww2 FPS genre, before I'd played them I hated ww2 games, and IMO all multiplayer works better without 'out of game' leveling (this especially means in LoL, free blink for more experienced players equates to consistant winning against players without it).

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Good point with KOTOR, it's absense is silly.

KOTOR is there. Fallout is there too. I'm not sure what cool points you think you're earning for complaining about a list you haven't looked at.

I'm not suprised at this bitchfest but I'm still a little ashamed. I'm sorry that people think a game being considered slightly less of a best game ever than a game they don't like, is an insult.

 

[Dys]

Good point with KOTOR, it's absense is silly.

KOTOR is there. Fallout is there too. I'm not sure what cool points you think you're earning for complaining about a list you haven't looked at.

I'm not suprised at this bitchfest but I'm still a little ashamed. I'm sorry that people think a game being considered slightly less of a best game ever than a game they don't like, is an insult.

Fallout 3 is a full 50 places above fallout and fallout 2 doesn't have a mention (yet other sequal, lesser sequals have been mentioned. When I say fallout or KOTOR, I mean being represented adequately as a series). With KOTOR, the first one is there (for some reason only on xbox, despite there being a PC version), the second one doesn't get a mention. Morrowing is there (I mentioned it in an earlier post), but it is far behind it's (disapointing) sequal.

I don't really understand how this list was comprised, as it seems to contradict popular opinion at times (going with whatever is more talked about at the moment) and rely heavily on it at other times. I think it's a silly, inconsistant list. I also don't understand why ms pac man is so much better than pac man.

 

[Mr_Vorhias]

Off the bat I can immediately see something terribly terribly wrong with it, even after a brief SKIM of the list.

No Adventure Games!

No Monkey Island, Sam & Max, I Have No Mouth & I Must Scream, or Grim Fandango...None!

And yet all four of the 3D Grand Theft Autos made it onto the list. What the hell.

And honestly...Is Infamous REALLY that good that it deserves a spot on the list AT ALL, much less one ahead of Planescape: Torment, Eternal Darkness, and Beyond Good & Evil?

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

I don't agree with the specific positions, but all the games that I think should be on it /are/ on it.
So that's something.

EDIT: Wait, no Psychonauts? *Rage*

 

[Markness]

More fun? I'm telling you again, shed your nostalgia and look at it through a clear filter.

I am looking at it clearly. It's still a fun game.

Every Criteria is completely subjective.

It's impossible to argue against the fact that games like Mario, Zelda and Doom are very important. Some games are just important. Justifying the importance of a game can be done in more objective terms than trying to justify why some game is good.

I'm sorry but I think that game development and game quality is improving constantly and has definately improved over the last 15 years. I don't know why you find Doom funner then newer games and I suppose I never will. Whats to like about minimal sound effects and other limitations imposed by grahpical problems? Whats to like about the most simplistic story possible? It might be entertaining for a while but only in the way a flash game keeps your attention by shamelessly showering you with powerups. I still think the key to your liking of the game is from nostalgia.

Sure you could argue Mario, Zelda and Doom are important, but in what order? It's still subjective.

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.

I think thats a good analagy. Ok, I haven't seen Citizen Kane but I'm assuming it was made black and white because that was the technology available. Just like it could be improved with colour, games with better graphics have the advantage on old games.

You could be right and I just don't like Doom. Maybe it is was more than 15 years ahead of its time and games still haven't caught up. I do think some aspect of realism, story and characterisation is important so perhaps that is skewing my judgement.

 

[The Bandit]

Here's how to tell if an old game really deserves a top spot or not: give it to a really hardcore gamer who's never played it. And guess what? 98% of the time they'll hate it. For example, a few years ago I tried the original Legend of Zelda for the first time. It did not strike me as being "teh best game evar!1"

Having some snot-nosed "HARDCORE GAMER!111" teenager evaluate Legend of Zelda is like having him evaluate Citizen Kane. He doesn't have the expertise or maturity to draw any valid conclusions.

Did you not realize how pathetically hilarious that sentence was before writing it? Expertise? Maturity? In any video gamer anywhere? Please tell me it was sarcasm.

 

[The Bandit]

Good point with KOTOR, it's absense is silly.

KOTOR is there. Fallout is there too. I'm not sure what cool points you think you're earning for complaining about a list you haven't looked at.

I'm not suprised at this bitchfest but I'm still a little ashamed. I'm sorry that people think a game being considered slightly less of a best game ever than a game they don't like, is an insult.

I deeply apologize for not having the time or patience to sit down and closely read all 200 titles.

Actually, I don't, because I'm pretty sure you're the only one who didn't skim through the list. Quick, without looking! What was number 134?! Prick.

I don't really know how to respond to the second part of your post. I was complaining about something I thought was an issue. Not because I care what some faceless asshole on the Internet regards me as.