Printable View
True, but this is different because these games still hold their own in the marketplace, design wise, today. Whereas something like a SF2 may be super influential, but not necessarily a Top 100? Maybe it does count, but then how do you measure influential games?Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Exactly. Making a list based on what's still good today will still have a ton of old games, at least if it's a good list it will. Archon is one of the games I want to see on the top 100 list because it still plays great despite being 20 years old.Quote:
Being old doesn't mean the game has to be good only nostalgically,
I do think that games should be respected on how good they were upon release(Phantasy Star 1 isn't as good as it was back then because the RPG genre tends to age poorly but it still deserves major respect for what it was) but a top 100 list should consist of what's still excellent.
OTOGI: Myth of Demons - X-BOX
System Shock 2 - PC
EDIT:
Nevermind, I guess Theif Gold counts..Though, I wish we could just say the entire series.
I know it doesn't have to only be good nostalgically, and I realize that many times older games excel more than their newer counterparts, but a game like SF2, which is almost synonomous with 2D fighting, should be put on a list of the best games, even though better games in the genre have come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
I guess I'm just saying that being influential and maybe not totally standing the test of time is just as important as still being playable today. It'd be weird to have a list of the best games without having something like The Legend of Zelda or Street Fighter 2.
You would pick half life over any other fps because you probably don't play them competitively, the main strength of a FPS is multi- player. CS is way better but you're not lumping it in with half life because it's a half life mod are you? That would make it the best game ever bar none.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Some people play RPG's for the story and that's it so a good story will never really age unless the english is like completely broken. As for star craft, well because there is no competition and star craft 2 was never released. Trust me, if Star Craft 2 was out the orignally would be obsolete just like SF2 because of the updates. Just like VF2 because of VF3 and VF4.
The top 100 should be the games with the best gameplay, which means the games you had or have the most fun with. Taking away SF2 or any other classic because it sucks today would be retarded. Just because you wouldn't play it today doesn't mean you didn't have more fun with or played it more than a game you would still play today. For example, I would have to finish Metal Slug, a game I would still play today, atleast a thousand times to match the fun and hours I put into VF2, a game I wouldn't play again today but have played for the entire 32/64 bit generation and had a blast with. How SF2 or VF2 doesn't belong in the top 100 is beyond me.
Plenty of games get surpassed and plenty don't. So why should a top 100 only consist of great games that havent been surpassed yet? It's not like the game hasn't been surpassed yet because of great design. More like the game hasn't been surpassed yet in your head because of nostaglia. Or it hasn't been surpassed yet because the competition in that genre are chumps. Or it hasn't been surpassed yet because most other developers couldn't care less about making that type of game and trying to surpass it.
Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past would probably be on the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
Yeah, you said that way better than I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Canuck
Let's just say I was strapped for time.
Actually you guys have a point. All games will eventually go out of style, so I guess the list if forever changing.... maybe? I don't know.
I see what you are saying, and I thought about this before. This is why I thought 2D fighters would be the hardest, because once a new one comes out, it usually becomes the best of that particular series. Same with most other games like you mentioned though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Canuck
To fix this, we could put the current date of when our top 100 was made. Then maybe update it annually or something.
We should judge how big an achievement a game is. That is, take into account its originality and fun factor. To continue with Street Fighter II, the first installment scores big points in both categories. Hyper Fighting improved on the fun factor immensely, improved on the gameplay immensely, and also scored a modest number of originality points. It was a clear evolution over its predecessor. Super Street Fighter II was a bigger leap on the originality scale, but the leap in fun was not so great as the one that came before. Hyper Fighting represented a refinement of what felt almost perfect to those of use playing in the arcades. (Of course, it didn't feel all that perfect when the cheap Guile player demolished all your best characters, but that never stopped you from pumping in more money.) SSFII and SSFII: Turbo brought improvement, but in my opinion, the progression was not impressive enough to merit picking them over Hyper Fighting.
Originality and influence must be respected, but if a sequel is more fun and better balanced, you have to score accordingly. For me, Hyper Fighting was an "Ohmygod" that was not matched by a game until Alpha 2 and rarely matched after that.