View Full Version : Top 25 PC games of all time.
Lorenzo_H
03-19-2007, 12:45
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/772/772285p3.html
The link is to the the page with 1-10.
I find it nice that about 5 of them were designed by Microprose or Firaxis (ie Sid Meier's lot) because I am a real fan of his. I am not surprised that a Civ is #2, but quite surprised that it happens to be Civ IV, the most recent one. I agree though...
Nice to see RTW at #4...
a_ver_est
03-19-2007, 13:15
I agree with X-com being the first. RTW the 4th ??? is it a joke ???
I miss doom2, Duke Dukem in the list and some other old games.
Not a bad list overall. My all time favorite only came in at number 3 though. :grin:
professorspatula
03-19-2007, 14:21
No Ultima 7. Boo! Hiss! etc.
I like the way they still lie about RTW's fantastic AI. They can stop doing that now everyone knows it's not all that.
Yeah, it's not bad but there's some "glaring omissions." :grin: U7 is missing, and of all things they put HL2 on the list instead of HL1. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...
Gawain of Orkeny
03-19-2007, 14:31
Nice to see RTW at #4...
Are you kiddding me? The game that ruined the TW community and the worst game in the TW series is #4?
The_Mark
03-19-2007, 14:40
Where the hell is Operation Flashpoint?
Or BattleZone?
professorspatula
03-19-2007, 14:46
I was going to mention that HL1 versus HL2 thing, but weren't sure whether I was in the minority or not on that issue. Up until the Xen part of 1, it's about 10 times better in my opinion. The Xen part is about as much fun as most of HL2's sections, especially that awful end part. Did anyone really find spending... hang on, where's those spoiler tags..... ah here... the last hour with just a silly gravity gun and throwing people around endlessly was fun?
Hmm, seems there's some intermittent probs with the spoiler tag. Oh well, at least I tried.
Doom was also a strange omission, seeing as it was a damn fine game and really got the multiplayer and first person shooter market going. No Monkey Island I/II either. Meanwhile, Sid Meier's Pirates and Fallout in there? Good games but top 25 of all time? Anyway, Fallout 2 trumps Fallout, even if it was the sequel.
No Top 25 list is going to be perfect though. It's just another chance for them to get some publicity as they know people like us will post elsewhere and bitterly complain like a bunch of old age pensioners moaning about how things are worse now than back in the war when we were still on rationing...
x-dANGEr
03-19-2007, 15:10
Ut.. ? (24!!)
Ofp.. ?
C&c.. ?
EDIT: To put capitals..
EDIT2: Eh.. I knew there was something wrong. Why can't I write UT in capital letters (same goes for OFP and C&C) up there?!!
Doom was also a strange omission, seeing as it was a damn fine game and really got the multiplayer and first person shooter market going.
Agree copmletely.
Sid Meier's Pirates and Fallout in there? Good games but top 25 of all time? Anyway, Fallout 2 trumps Fallout, even if it was the sequel.
OK, here I gotta disagree. :grin: Fallout was the original and had all the magical bits that made it so awesome. Fallout 2 when I played it, even with the official and a "fan patch", was so bug riddled that I couldn't keep doing it. Thankfully, there's a very complete fan-patch made by this "Bear Dude" guy over on nma-fallout.com, when I came back and played that about 6 mo. ago, it fixed almost all of my major complaints. Still though, it can't top FO1. :grin:
Disclaimer: I never played FO1 and FO2 until about 2 years ago.
No Top 25 list is going to be perfect though. It's just another chance for them to get some publicity as they know people like us will post elsewhere and bitterly complain like a bunch of old age pensioners moaning about how things are worse now than back in the war when we were still on rationing...
Modded +5 insightful. Any attempts at lists like these are just going to fall short, as it's all subjective anyway. The only areas that are arguably consistent are certain classics that people feel really did innovate in some shape or form. As several others have pointed out, there are many games that I agree should have made a list like this but didn't.
:bow:
Edit - OK this is killing me. EVERY time I see your nick, I always think of that "SPATULA CITY!" advertisement from that UHF movie with Wierd Al. SPATULA CITY!! SPATULA CITY!!!
professorspatula
03-19-2007, 15:59
Heh, I'd never heard of that before. But I typed it into Google and found a Youtube link. Very funny. Although it's cheapened the appeal of my name now. How dare they make fun of a superstore dedicated to Spatulas. It's just a pity that place isn't real. I could do with a new spatula. The last one is I lodged up the bum of the neighbour's dog after it wouldn't stop barking for hours on end. It still barks, although it walks rather uncomfortably.
Are you kiddding me? The game that ruined the TW community and the worst game in the TW series is #4?
Your mistaken there. RTW is the best game in the TW series. Maybe not number 4 on a best of all time (which I disagree with in principle as they are always making more games) list, I'd rank it at 9 or 10.
Where the hell is Operation Flashpoint?
Why would a best of list have one of the worst games ever made included. It's bad enough they included that turd Deus Ex.
I like the way they still lie about RTW's fantastic AI. They can stop doing that now everyone knows it's not all that.
:laugh4: Not a lie at all.
Why would a best of list have one of the worst games ever made included. It's bad enough they included that turd Deus Ex.
*insert "BURNED AT THE STAKE!!!" speech clip from Ghostbusters 2 here* :grin:
They both sucked big time.
Junk.
No Shogun - Total War, no Medieval - Total War, no Half-Life only the second one, not a single Quake game, the original UT?, no Doom I/II. Baldur's Gate II instead of Baldur's Gate I, no Ultima 7. RTW at no. 4, which, though RTW is better than many of the games in that list (because it's a TW game after all), it's not the best in the TW series by a long shot. No sign of the Thief series, which though System Shock 2 was a brilliant game Thief was the original game to use the Dark engine. The only ones I agree with are TIE Fighter, which is arguably the best space combat sim of all time, and Mechwarrior 2.
Lorenzo_H
03-19-2007, 16:59
Are you kiddding me? The game that ruined the TW community and the worst game in the TW series is #4?
It did not ruin the Total War community. Maybe it ruined YOUR Total War community, but overall it was double, triple times more popular than STW and MTW.
doc_bean
03-19-2007, 17:02
No Doom ? That game redefined PC gaming and gaming as a whole !
Also, no Worms ? :furious3:
I was just reading the criteria doc. The three guys involved each brough a list of about 30 games each and then they all winowed it down to 25 they all agreed on. They also state with series that they put the one they though was better into the list.
x-dANGEr
03-19-2007, 17:18
Did someone say OFP sucked "big time"!!!!
doc_bean
03-19-2007, 17:18
Everyone should've had Doom in their top 3 ...
I was just reading the criteria doc. The three guys involved each brough a list of about 30 games each and then they all winowed it down to 25 they all agreed on. They also state with series that they put the one they though was better into the list.
And thus that is simply all it is. A list made by 3 guys.
doc_bean
03-19-2007, 17:20
And thus that is simply all it is. A list made by 3 guys.
True, but they got payed for it, so I feel I'm entitled to complain :afro:
True, but they got payed for it, so I feel I'm entitled to complain :afro:
Hey you're entitled to your opinion on anything my friend... Though I do agree, my main beef with stuff like this is that these folks present this in some form to make it seem 'authoratative'.
Did someone say OFP sucked "big time"!!!!
I did, and I stand by that 100%. One of the worst games I've ever played. Right down there with Deus Ex.
It did not ruin the Total War community. Maybe it ruined YOUR Total War community, but overall it was double, triple times more popular than STW and MTW.
Relative popularity. One would hope that the newer titles would be more popular than previous ones. For example, STW had an initial consumer base that, for the most part, migrated on to MTW. MTW then picked up a new consumer base of it's own. The combined STW/MTW consumer base then migrated on to RTW - then deserted it in droves. This was the point when TW basically factionalised into two major camps. STW/MTW and RTW. Many of the STW/MTW consumer base migrated on to RTW and RTW gained it's own new consumer base from this.
Basically it breaks down like this in the slightly unhinged speak, using the worst analogy possible:
Movements of the TW peoples:
STWARI: The "original ones", made up of an elite of Othergamari. They abandoned their peoples the AOEARI, FPSARI and RTSARI and made the westward journey. They became almost completely merged into the MTWARI and do not come into this tale again. Many of their number joined the MPARI.
MTWARI: Many of the STWARI and Othergamari, make up these "proud ones". Many of their number also joined the MPARI.
RTWARI: The "determined ones". Many Othergamari and some of the MTWARI, though not all. Many at this stage forsook the journey and remained among their own kind. The era of the RTWARI also saw the MPARI drastically decline.
M2TWARI: Not really a separate people as yet as the journey has only begun. Made up of the MTWARI, RTWARI and Othergamari, though many of both have forsaken the journey already the plan to return to it in better times.
:beam:
//grabs coat
Crazed Rabbit
03-19-2007, 18:57
I did, and I stand by that 100%. One of the worst games I've ever played. Right down there with Deus Ex.
I'm going to start playing your 'worst' games and avoid those you think are the best like the plague.
Caravel, your post reads like the entrance to an Orson Scott Card novel...
Crazed Rabbit
EDIT: Of course, having RTW in there at all and no other TW is complete and utter crap.
Not a bad list: X-Com1 is an amazing game, still holds up today. What is doublyamazing is that no one has improved on it or at least successfully cloned it.
CivIV is the best version of a series oozing historical flavour and compelling gameplay.
BG2 and FO still set the standard for CRPGs. I agree with the comment about FO2 being better - it seems twice as big (and therefore twice as good).
RTW - well, it's certainly got potential - as RTR, EB and M2TW show. If ten or 15 years ago someone had told me a game like RTW was possible, I would not have believed them. There is a "wow!" factor about fighting a big battle with such amazing graphics; let alone the whole strategic layer added on top.
The other ones on the list I have not played; but to agree with 5/10 of the picks is quite surprising.
frogbeastegg
03-19-2007, 20:07
:hippie: :loveg: :daisy:
(Peace, love, happiness)
These lists always cause disagreement. One man's literature is another's toilet paper. In the interests of preserving the arena's decor, please try to phrase your various cries of "What!? Game X is on the list!? Rubbish!" to a format which won't be taken as insults to those who do like them. Cleaning up blood is murder on my kimono, and you don't want me sending you a bill for a new portcullis. :yes:
That list is total schlock in my view, as Gamespy/IGN lists always are.
Most of the top PC games of all time are not even on it, whilst some very horrible games are.
Bob the Insane
03-19-2007, 20:19
I did, and I stand by that 100%. One of the worst games I've ever played. Right down there with Deus Ex.
In the spirit of Frogbeast's post above, i would love to what about Deus Ex turned you off so much?
I can understand OFP as it was an acquired taste and being ex-military the infantry experience authenticity really got me into it...
Not a bad list: X-Com1 is an amazing game, still holds up today. What is doublyamazing is that no one has improved on it or at least successfully cloned it.
I think it's mainly because they ran the franchise into the ground. Apocalypse was ... less than favorably received. The flight-sim-ish one was utterly horrid. There's been some offshoots like UFO Aftermath (which is 'protected' by Starforce, ugh), and a newer one, I forget the name, but for the most part I think those are the main reasons behind it.
BG1 and FO still set the standard for CRPGs. I agree with the comment about FO2 being better - it seems twice as big (and therefore twice as good).
Fixed the first bit for ya. :grin: In terms of FO2, if you're simply refering to the size in terms of plot, then yeah I'm with you. In terms of being better, unfortunately I just ran into every single script bug that was possible, and it ended up leaving a real bad taste in my mouth. With the fan patch, it finally made it playable and enjoyable for me, and now it's right up there with FO1 on my personal list of favorites.
As an aside, if anyone wants, I made my own "mod" for it based on that fan patch that I'd be happy to share. The only thing it does on top of the fan patch (which fixes bugs only) is your NPCs will change appearance based on the armor they wear, and you can now loot armor from many encounters. Always hated it when I blew away an Enclave patrol and I couldn't peel that shiny Adv. Pwr. Armor off of their crispy corpses. :grin: PM me if interested, be happy to share.
:balloon2:
Ser Clegane
03-19-2007, 20:42
BG1 and FO still set the standard for CRPGs
I do not quite share the view that BG1 would deserve the top-spot over BG2.
While BG1 was a game that certainly revitalized CRPGs and was heaps of fun - BG2 took the necessary steps that turned it into a classic that I still would love to replay with various main characters/parties (if I only had the time to do so).
While actualy gameplay changes in BG2 were only incremental they made the game much smoother and (at least IMHO) more fun to play. Add to that the story of epic scale and even better NPCs than in BG1 and the result was a game that benefited from all the experience the developer gained from BG1 and turned the concept into perfection.
In the end these top lists are of course all purely subjective and nobody can claim to be the holder of truth - nevertheless it is just plain fun to discuss such lists and remeber the fun you had with some of the old games ~:)
I do not quite share the view that BG1 would deserve the top-spot over BG2.
While BG1 was a game that certainly revitalized CRPGs and was heaps of fun - BG2 took the necessary steps that turned it into a classic that I still would love to replay with various main characters/parties (if I only had the time to do so).
While actualy gameplay changes in BG2 were only incremental they made the game much smoother and (at least IMHO) more fun to play. Add to that the story of epic scale and even better NPCs than in BG1 and the result was a game that benefited from all the experience the developer gained from BG1 and turned the concept into perfection.
In the end these top lists are of course all purely subjective and nobody can claim to be the holder of truth - nevertheless it is just plain fun to discuss such lists and remeber the fun you had with some of the old games ~:)
Indeed it is fun to discuss these. The reason I hold BG1 in a bit "higher" regard was, as you stated, it was the "first of it's kind" so to speak that really put the D20 rules to work, and in a manner that was readily accessible to the non-hardcore fantasy types as well as the hardcore pen-and-paper guys. BG2 definitely made great strides forward, as did NWN too. In fact that's one thing that I give Bioware credit for, is that they've consistently done a good job improving their game engines and products. I've heard a lot of bad press about NWN2, but I haven't played it yet so I reserve my opinion on that until I do so.
:balloon2:
Caravel, your post reads like the entrance to an Orson Scott Card novel...
I had to google that, his works look sufficiently cheesy, I'll take that as a compliment!
:2thumbsup:
I disagree as regards BG1 and BG2. I do think that the best Bioware games were Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment and BG1. BG2 was far too scripted and inflexible, it also utilised far too many very badly acted voice overs and was very, very cheesy in places. I hated the whole Irenicus plot as well. I had expected something very complex but it was quite shallow to find that the arch enemy was simply an exiled elf wizard trying to harness the power of the Bhaal spawn. The slayer change thing irritated me immensely also. BG1 had a lot more class, Baldur's Gate City was better layed out and much more interesting than any of the areas in BG2. BG1s drawback was that it was a little slow to get started. The real gems among them, and this is a personal thing for me, were Torment and IWD, I've replayed though many more times than the others. IWD I preferred because you could create your own party and did not have the annoyance of others joining and "chatting" when they felt like it. It had some superb areas to esplore excellent enemy types and was far more immersive than BG1 and 2.
BG2 marked the beginning of Bioware's trend to make CRPGs "cinematic", with impressive cut scenes and sparkling dialogue. That reaches it apotheosis with Kotr, although Jade Empire is also in that mold. BG1 is more "old school" - potter around, read a lot of text and chop things up. With BG1, you have to work hard to empathise with Imoen ("You're a queer fellow, aren't you?" or whatever else she keeps wittering at me); in BG2, I had to work hard not to fall for my sister. I loved all the dream sequences and Irenicus with his experiments; for me, the game starts to run out steam when you rescue Imoen. The Underdark is excellent, but my party feels rather emotionless by that stage; plus Minsc's ravings have turned from endearing to aggravating.
BG2 also has better balanced combat. In BG1 (and 2ed DnD generally) composite bows gun down almost all opposition. In BG2, melee is better balanced and I really admired the "mage duels" with protections and their counters.
I do, however, like the openness of BG1. It handles the balance between non-linearity and a central story arc much better. Essentially its in the Fallout vein - create a vast world that you can move quite freely in, but which the plot naturally leads you along into harder areas. In BG2, the "hub" structure with many sidequests is annoying. You are placed in the invidious position of wasting time on sidequests when you should be rescuing your sister or waiting, then wasting time on sidequests when you should be saving the world.
I guess the essential difference for me is that wandering round the BG1 world is rather relaxing; wandering through the BG2 one is intense.
In the interest of fairness, one thing I will offer to BG1's detriment is that it does contain quite possibly one of the most annoying NPCs ever.
Noober.
I couldn't stop myself from killing him, even when trying to play as a hardcore lawful good. :no:
In the spirit of Frogbeast's post above, i would love to what about Deus Ex turned you off so much?
I can understand OFP as it was an acquired taste and being ex-military the infantry experience authenticity really got me into it...
The characters were flat and off putting. And the story was a Matrix rip-off.
TevashSzat
03-19-2007, 23:49
I have to say.... Civ II is so much better than Civ IV. I understand that from a modern perspective, Civ IV is more attractive, but come on Civ II was much more innovative and brought alot more to the gaming world than Civ IV which seemed to lack any major innovation since Civ III. RTW, is a joke too, I can't see how it is better than Half Life, either one, or Starcraft which is just awesome. A few more things missing from whole list: Doom, Diablo I or II, and the old C&C
The characters were flat and off putting. And the story was a Matrix rip-off.
Ok, I'm dying to know. How is DX a Matrix rip-off?
As for the list, eh. Good rule of thumb is that any top 10 list, let alone top 25, will be updated at a whim and all you ever get is a flash-photo. Meaningless.
BG2 marked the beginning of Bioware's trend to make CRPGs "cinematic", with impressive cut scenes and sparkling dialogue. That reaches it apotheosis with Kotr, although Jade Empire is also in that mold. BG1 is more "old school" - potter around, read a lot of text and chop things up. With BG1, you have to work hard to empathise with Imoen ("You're a queer fellow, aren't you?" or whatever else she keeps wittering at me); in BG2, I had to work hard not to fall for my sister. I loved all the dream sequences and Irenicus with his experiments; for me, the game starts to run out steam when you rescue Imoen. The Underdark is excellent, but my party feels rather emotionless by that stage; plus Minsc's ravings have turned from endearing to aggravating.
Well I found her even more irritating than in the first one, and I had thought that impossible. For me also it began to feel stale after the Underdark. The area I hated the most in fact was the wood that led to the entrance to the Elven city. Walking along logs was bad enough, but the city itself was horrible and platformy. The two times I replayed BG2 I got to this point and gave up. I haven't played it again since.
BG2 also has better balanced combat. In BG1 (and 2ed DnD generally) composite bows gun down almost all opposition. In BG2, melee is better balanced and I really admired the "mage duels" with protections and their counters.
That is very true, the game engine is vastly superior in fact, without a doubt. The spells are better, though that has a lot to do with the level.
I do, however, like the openness of BG1. It handles the balance between non-linearity and a central story arc much better. Essentially its in the Fallout vein - create a vast world that you can move quite freely in, but which the plot naturally leads you along into harder areas. In BG2, the "hub" structure with many sidequests is annoying. You are placed in the invidious position of wasting time on sidequests when you should be rescuing your sister or waiting, then wasting time on sidequests when you should be saving the world.
I also hated the side quests and hub structure, as well as the fact that you couldn't just do everything. I must admit that I hated the npcs with a vengance, and just couldn't get on with them at all. If BG2 had been structured more similarly to BG1 it would have easily have been the better game.
I guess the essential difference for me is that wandering round the BG1 world is rather relaxing; wandering through the BG2 one is intense.
True also. The first stages of BG1 can be very dull. It's kind of: explore woods, get killed by wolf/ogre/bear, reload, try again, get killed try again etc etc. Getting constantly harassed by wild animals on your travels got annoying. The cities also had so few people in them. I was also disturbed by the amount of burglary involved, and tedious exploration of featureless open spaces. This is why of all the games, IWD did it for me. Plenty to explore, many large and interesting areas, enemies and treasure galore. :2thumbsup:
Have you tried running BG1 under the BG2 game engine?
:bow:
-Edit: wasn't Noober the one that followed you around asking questions like "what's that for?", "do you think I'm annoying?", "are you going to throw stones at me?" etc etc etc.
TevashSzat
03-20-2007, 00:56
Phatose is quite right seeing as how The Matrix was released in 1999 and the Deus Ex was released in 2000. Should Deus Ex had been copied from the Matrix, the game would have to be created in just a year which is quite impossible for a game of that quality
wasn't Noober the one that followed you around asking questions like "what's that for?", "do you think I'm annoying?", "are you going to throw stones at me?" etc etc etc.
Yep, that's the one. The fact that you can't clearly remember is evidence that your mind is trying to cleanse itself of the horrid memories of that part of the game. My apologies for dragging it back up. :shame:
Gawain of Orkeny
03-20-2007, 01:16
It did not ruin the Total War community. Maybe it ruined YOUR Total War community, but overall it was double, triple times more popular than STW and MTW.
Yes from those of us who liked a realistic historicly accurate game to eye candy and who cares about realism or mp game play. I suppose the sp game maybe fine but when it comes to mp RTW sux.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-20-2007, 01:39
Thief? Civ4 instead of EU3? Oh well.
Fairly nice list though. It depends what genres you like best though, so top 25 doesn't really work.
Crazed Rabbit
03-20-2007, 01:39
I had to google that, his works look sufficiently cheesy, I'll take that as a compliment!
:2thumbsup:
His Ender's Game series was good, but that's the best of his work...not much else worth searching for of his, though I recommend reading that series.
In particular, I'm thinking of his book Earthborn ( :no: ), which includes a chapter on the naming conventions; naifari, elemenki, etc.
I'm going to have to get BG2 someday - I remember going to the store long ago and trying to decide between Dungeon Siege and BG2 - I made the wrong choice. But I was young and impressionable! Forgive me! When I get a new comp I'm going to get Vampires Bloodlines and BG2.
Yep, that's the one. The fact that you can't clearly remember is evidence that your mind is trying to cleanse itself of the horrid memories of that part of the game. My apologies for dragging it back up.
Killing him was one of my fondest memories - especially since no one in the town seemed to mind.
I am glad they put Age of Empries 2 on the list - that game rocked, and rocked hard.
CR
Big King Sanctaphrax
03-20-2007, 02:20
There should surely be at least some of the classic Lucasarts adventure games in the list? Day of the Tenctacle and Return to Monkey Island spring to mind. Grim Fandango was brilliant, but those former games are two of the best written and cleverest ever made, and I still have some extremely fond memories of them.
professorspatula
03-20-2007, 02:59
Regarding BG1 versus BG2, I think they both had their merits, but BG2 tops it. I think BG1 starts very poorly. It is fairly linear and the opening plot and sequences seems a bit contrived, and although you can wander around elsewhere, the fact that you start with about as many hitpoints as the average chicken, means you die almost instantly. It's not until chapter 3 or after the mines that the game opens up and you finally have earned your 'freedom' to explore and go off and seek your own challenges. That's because you have a few extra levels of experience to play with and those ridiculously overpowered archers won't instantly kill you (unless they score a critical). By the time you reach chapter 4, the story becomes immense and it is so very well written that you want to keep on playing, uncovering all there is to see. I find it a game of two halves - the opening one a little lackluster, the other brilliant.
With BG2, you already have the story line and the history from the beginning. Unless you didn't start with BG1, you already have some idea of what the game is about. I actually played Fallout 2 before the BG games and initially found the fantasy setting a bit, well silly in comparison to the bleak post-apocalyptic setting of FO. But by the time BG2 came around, I was settled into the world and ready for the adventure. And what an adventure. Alright it's still tightly scripted and full of set pieces, but it was still a large and rewarding game. You could go off and solve numerous quests in the many locations and the combat seemed a bit more fun now you were fairly powerful to begin with. I did, however, dislike the horribly linear part of the game that makes up about a third of the entire experience where you were but a passenger to the events before you. That's when you go off to Spellhold or whatever that place is called. Once back, you have your freedom again. The spiced up graphics and spell effects etc were an improvement also, but the romances and extra conversations between NPCs added a bit more to the experience too.
Then factor in the add-on, and the final piece of the BG saga, and BG2 soon feels very epic. You become more and more powerful and caught up in the experience. I think the fact you know you're coming to the end of the story adds another layer to the adventure. Maybe it's because I delayed completing the game over a period of a few years, but by the time I finally finished the saga, I felt like I'd been on a massive journey, when all along I'd been stuck in my seat.
I can see how people can prefer one over the other, as they both are great games. BG1 has an incredible unfolding story that gradually gets better, whereas BG2 seems to throw you in the deep end from the beginning and the pace never really lets up. BG2 is much bigger, but at times far more linear. I just feel with the expansion, the sequel is the better package.
I'm just glad to see Fallout is still getting props all of these years later. That's the game that sucked me into PC gaming. Shogun: Total War was discovered in the bargain bin only after I had realized there were no more Fallout games to be had ...
And of course we're going to disagree with large swaths of the list. It's three guys putting titles on paper over coffee, fer goodness' sake.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-20-2007, 07:36
WORST LIST EVER! CAPS LOCKS FIRE!
RTW was probably the one thing that made me go ~:rolleyes:. Props for Tie Fighter at #3 though, at least there was one space sim there.
Lorenzo_H
03-20-2007, 09:47
I have to say.... Civ II is so much better than Civ IV. I understand that from a modern perspective, Civ IV is more attractive, but come on Civ II was much more innovative and brought alot more to the gaming world than Civ IV which seemed to lack any major innovation since Civ III. RTW, is a joke too, I can't see how it is better than Half Life, either one, or Starcraft which is just awesome. A few more things missing from whole list: Doom, Diablo I or II, and the old C&C
Civ IV is essentially the same game, except prettier.
There is a "Top 100" games of all time, and I think C&C and Diablo are there.
Another of these stupid lists, I really hate these as all they do is incite anger and disgust, mainly from myself. :laugh4:
The Sims - I suppose maybe at 25, but many games are better than it.
Deus Ex - Definitely, began emergent gameplay
Warcraft 2, CoD, BF 1942 and AoE II - :yes:
World of Warcraft - I HATE THIS GAME.
Company of Heroes - No way, almost choked when I saw this. DoW is so much better and it's the same engine.
Half-Life 2 - Rubbish compared to the original (Civ II is better than IV also, but meh really).
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn - Ohhh yeah.
I'm really disappointed that C&C and Total Annihilation aren't on there.
Now we get to Rome: Total War, so I will quote some of the article:
[I have STW, MTW, VI, EB, BI, Alex, just for reference.]
deepest, most polished, and addictive strategic gameplay out there.
They must be joking, I never finished this game without adding EB. And I in all seriousness said I would ignore what people said about it and give it a fair go but the patronising nature of the gameplay, the rubbish AI, the ahistorical nature and the fact it obviously was targeted to attracted children all made me quite bored and sick.
Fusing a 4X style overworld map with riveting real-time battles
Sure, I agree to some extent, but the "Risk" style map without the tedium of movement points for agents really was much more enjoyable and meant I actually used agents, not to mention how the AI refuses to accept any proposals (and yes I've read the guides, and none of aforementioned things work for me). Now when I play EB (I no longer call it RTW as EB is a game, RTW was an attempt) I always send my agents on a one way boat trip to remove their disgusting presence from my gaming experience.
there was a near overwhelming amount of expertly designed content to chew through. The A.I. always put up a challenging fight, making aggressive overworld map moves and employing effective tactics on the battlefield.
Ok, I praise CA on their new ideas, some I really like (such as ancillaries and seasons not years). What I don't like is how they turned their backs on the older players and aimed for the money of ignorant people (mostly children), a phenomenon I blame on Activision. I think the reviewers are rather, how should I say this politely, ineffective in their strategic and tactical approaches. Before I installed EB I barely ever lost a battle, even in the most stupid of circumstances. Maybe my Shogun and Medieval days made me experienced in warfare, but mostly it was the bugs (most of which are now fixed, not entirely but mostly :2thumbsup:) and lack of innovation in the AI's battleplans. VH/VH tactics: attack, start a flanking move, enemy routs before they even move a couple paces to actually flank. And one of the major issues with the strategic map was that the AI was far too aggressive, and failed to apply effective diplomacy.
Rome offered even more complex siege battles, cities whose appearance reflected the structures placed therein,
Definitely, siege battles were much better than MTW, but then again the AI wasn't very effective at fighting them anyway so it sort of defeats the purpose in my eyes. Why make it more complex if the AI won't be able to handle it anyway?
a wide range of highly detailed units,
True, not really historical units but yes a wide range.
and unprecedented sound design.
I found the music in particular rather tedious.
However, what I really like is the huge possibilities when it comes to modding and the huge community we have here to complete such mods as EB, RTR, Hegmonia City States [sp?] and Ran No Jidi [sp?].
Ok I'll be quiet now.
Lorenzo_H
03-20-2007, 11:19
That is a thorough critism Rythmic, and I respect your ideas.
However, the Hardcore Gamer is not who RTW was trying to appeal to. I personally never touched a single mod, and enjoyed RTW more than any other game, with maybe one exception. I am not a hardcore gamer. And I am kind of surprised at how pedantic (for want of a less mordant word) your critism was, for it would seem to me that nothing could satisfy your thirst for things such as realism, difficulty and AI. None of these were outright Rubbish so that someone like me could notice it, and I think the statement
deepest, most polished, and addictive strategic gameplay out there. describes it very accurately. It was very fun if you took it at face value, not comparing it with STW or MTW (I never played either) and none of the inaccuracies could not be lived with.
Utmost respect to you diablodelmar. I think that my overall reception to RTW was slighted because I had experienced STW and MTW-VI first so I expected more and similar. Whereas you had not so there was no expectations due to the previous games.
the Hardcore Gamer is not who RTW was trying to appeal to.
Yes, I mentioned that, but I don't like the fact that it there was no mix between more serious and the more casual. If they had made an effective compromise I would kneel at their feet.
nothing could satisfy your thirst for things such as realism, difficulty and AI.
MTW and STW are both not entirely accurate, but what I love about them is STW had great balance and atmosphere. And MTW had an effective compromise between realism and gameplay.
Sorry to derail the thread.
C&C should be on that list!
Ok, I'm dying to know. How is DX a Matrix rip-off?
So I take it you've never 1. Seen the Matrix, or 2.Played Deus Ex. In short every Cyber-punk motif (and thye both use about 4 of the exact same ones) that Deus Ex did the Matrix did bigger and better.
At leat some of the games are good....
The thing to remember here is that RTW is no less realistic than MTW or STW. RTW has it's flaming pigs, druids and screeching women, Shogun had it's Kensai, Geishas and Battlefield Ninja, MTW had it's Hashishin, Lancers and others, which are all obvious fantasy units to most. What a lot of people miss though are the other fantasy units that populated these games, those that are less noticeable, ahoristorical city locations, incorrect naming of units, the list is endless and this is across the board for all TW games.
The main issues with vanilla RTW that I have are as follows:
Battles:
1) Movements Speeds, cavalry too fast, infantry too fast. This leads to using pause more often. You simply do not have the time to click everything in real time as you did with MTW. Ruins the feel of the game, and reduces the use of good tactics.
2) Units tire much more slowly than they did in MTW. I've seen men that have run across the map and back again (at their ridiculously high speed) still stated as "fresh".
3) Missiles are quite simply unrealistic
4) Battlefield AI is generally worse than it was in STW/MTW.
5) Routing of units is far too exaggerated and unrecoverable. Whichever side routs first is the loser. There is no rallying, and coming back for another go as there was in MTW, this only seems to occur occasionally with very high valour units, in my experience.
6) Overpowered cavalry: Charge, pull back, charge pull back - rinse and repeat. Routing galore.
7) Poor unit response. Sometimes I find myself clicking like a loon, and still units don't go where I want them to go or attack the unit I want them to attack.
8) Great sieges, poor AI and pathfinding in cities. I also find it difficult to order my units to attack a unit in the plaza. They will walk up to it and past it, stop in fron of it, cavalry will charge past it. The small plaza in a barbarian settlement is worse for this problem. I've had to order my units to march through them several times in oder to kill the last few defenders. Siege towers that don't open their ramps are another problem, as well as men getting stuck on the walls still as statues and mousing over them reveals that they're "fighting to the death". The AI also assaults in a completely ridiculous fashion if it also brings ballistas as well as rams, siege towers and ladders to the assault. It will use the ballistas to shoot at the gatehouse, not the gate itself, then advance right up to your walls and then begin firing the ballistas again at a tower. It will only begin to assault properly once there are no more towers shooting at it's units.
Campaign:
1) Movement points system. It works, but it doesn't work as well as it should. The problem again is the AI not coordinating it's stacks and merging them together correctly. The AI often sends individual units in a continuous stream against a settlement. It is also fairly easy to challenge these units, force them to retreat apart from each other and pick them off one at a time. It also is completely wrong for ships and agents. Naval battles are massive tedium of fight, win, port - retrain, fight, win etc etc. The ships lack any kind of useful range and it's a case of micromanaging a fleet turn by turn out to a certain point to see it sunk by an enemy. The AI fleets are also rather predictable in that they will always retreat along a certain route when defeated, this allows you to pingball them to their dooms with your own fleets. Unlike in MTW fleets don't control an area of sea, so in this respect they're quite impotent. Agents are another problem. In earlier TW games agents could simply hop from one port to another. Nowadays they go travelling along the same routes as your armies which is just silly. Large armies would travel alot slower than a lone agent, they would have to stick to certain tracks, an agent wouldn't have this restriction. It would be far better if agents could simply port or province hop as they could in earlier games.
2) Unit roster. I find this rather limited, and generic. I do like the tech tree itself and I won't criticise that here as I don't see it as any worse than the STW tech tree and I would say that it is almost on par with the MTW one. The biggest issue for me is the lack of any specialised units and predominance of militias and very generic units that are recruitable by a certain culture. The Gauls for example have the Warbands, Swordsmen, Chosen Swordsmen. All of these are pretty much the same unit with progressively better stats. The first appear to be spearmen but are not. Dependancies for unit training are very simplified with units only depending on a single building. This is good in some ways. MTW had some ridiculously overpriced and underpowered units that took a lot of teching up and required three dependancy buildings. That is simply too much, though multiple dependancies could have been retained. The reason it isn't, IMHO, is because there isn't enough unit variety to justify it. Mercenaries are better handled in RTW than they are in MTW, though the costs should be adjusted with mercenaries costing much more, giving the player an incentive to disband them.
3) Farming, population growth, squalor... in short loads of CivII stuff added to a TW game. This is one of my major gripes micromanaging settlements. Yes you can automanage, but I don't trust the AI to do it, nor do I feel as if I'm playing the game, or in control if I do this. The squalor factor is way over the top as is the population explosion, and that is without building any of the famring upgrades, which can have even more disastrous results. Training peasants and moving them from city to city to transfer the populace can be a big chore. What happened to good old fashioned farms that give a steady income and don't have the side effect of a baby boom?
Sjakihata
03-20-2007, 15:05
Not a single paradox instalment? I would have assumed that EU2 was on it.
So I take it you've never 1. Seen the Matrix, or 2.Played Deus Ex. In short every Cyber-punk motif (and thye both use about 4 of the exact same ones) that Deus Ex did the Matrix did bigger and better.
I've played Deus Ex, and seen the matrix. I just don't see the similarities, any more then I would between say Half Life 2 and Doom.
Artificial world? Matrix: Check. Deus Ex: No check
Illuminati/MJ12: Deus Ex: Check Matrix: No check
Nano augmentation: DX: Check Matrix: No Check
Sorry, I ain't seeing it.
TevashSzat
03-21-2007, 03:39
lars, I repeat, Deus Ex came out one year after the Matrix did which would make it pretty hard for the developers to completely change parts of their story line to copy the Matrix. In the last year, most of the game is already done with only some final things to finish up and maybe game testing
Matrix or no Matrix (I don't see it as a knockoff either), it's still one of my favorite PC games of all time.
If you decide to replay it again soon, use the opengl renderer here (the D3D one sucks): http://cwdohnal.home.mindspring.com/utglr/
This will hopefully make it even more fun to replay down the road: http://www.offtopicproductions.com/hdtp/
I've played Deus Ex, and seen the matrix. I just don't see the similarities, any more then I would between say Half Life 2 and Doom.
Artificial world? Matrix: Check. Deus Ex: No check
Illuminati/MJ12: Deus Ex: Check Matrix: No check
Nano augmentation: DX: Check Matrix: No Check
Sorry, I ain't seeing it.
Evil AI? Matrix: Check. Deus Ex: Check
Group of humans fighting it? Deus Ex: Check Matrix: Check
Cybernetics? DX: Check Matrix: Check
The rest of the human race oblivious of the above going on? DX: Check Matrix: Check
lars, I repeat, Deus Ex came out one year after the Matrix did which would make it pretty hard for the developers to completely change parts of their story line to copy the Matrix. In the last year, most of the game is already done with only some final things to finish up and maybe game testing
There ain't much to cyber punk as a genre. But the Matrix and DX cover the same ground. Just that DX does a crappy job of it, while the Matrix does a good job of it.
Great post Caravel
Mercenaries are better handled in RTW than they are in MTW
And the AI actually recruits mercenaries too.
Neither Icarus nor Daedalus nor Solaris are evil. The villians of the story are MJ12 and Bob Page. The group of resistance fighters are just as similiarly fighting against the very human Page and his cronies. And cybernetics? Come on, those are much, much older then the matrix. Star trek has them.
Beh! That list is... well... not to my taste :)
HL2, CoD, CoH, SimCity 2000, RTW are the only ones I even played from that list, pfff. I would've expected a bunch of other games instead, like the in-the-thread-mentioned Doom, Quake, and such. Something from the C&C series too.
TevashSzat
03-22-2007, 02:10
lars, so according to you just because some things have simmilarities, someone must have blatantly copied. The terminator series started in 1984. It has an evil ai (skynet) in which people are fighting against too so through your logic, the matrix must be a blatant copy of the terminator series
lars, so according to you just because some things have simmilarities, someone must have blatantly copied. The terminator series started in 1984. It has an evil ai (skynet) in which people are fighting against too so through your logic, the matrix must be a blatant copy of the terminator series
There's similarities and there's several nearly identical plot points and characters and very similar art direction. Which is what Deus Ex and the Matrix have.
Neither Icarus nor Daedalus nor Solaris are evil. The villians of the story are MJ12 and Bob Page. The group of resistance fighters are just as similiarly fighting against the very human Page and his cronies. And cybernetics? Come on, those are much, much older then the matrix. Star trek has them.
Your Solaris is evil. The Illuminaty are the good guys.
screwtype
03-22-2007, 07:24
There's similarities and there's several nearly identical plot points and characters and very similar art direction. Which is what Deus Ex and the Matrix have.
Your Solaris is evil. The Illuminaty are the good guys.
Well, I don't think there are too many similarities. The heroes in the Matrix and in DX both wear sort of long black trench coats, it's possible the art team added that in after seeing the Matrix. The sort-of gloomy, dank world in both Matrix and DX and a host of other rip-offs in gaming and film owe their inspiration to an earlier generation of movies like Blade Runner and Alien, so I don't see why DX should be singled out for unoriginality on that score.
The only other similarity I can think of is that both the heroes of the Matrix and of DX are guided by communication with a remote partner. But this is hardly original either.
Seems to me that the fundamental premises between Matrix and DX are actually highly dissimilar. In Matrix, what you have essentially is a reworking of the idea from the Hindu/Buddhist religions that the world is an illusion, and that if you break through the illusion you can do anything. I mean, it's a blatant rip-off of these religious themes, but very cleverly reworked into an SF storyline.
DX, on the other hand, is more a rehashing of rightwing paranoia about the "evil" United Nations, which the right sees as both corrupt and as a threat to American power (and thereby "freedom").
So the underlying themes of each could scarcely be more different in my opinion.
OK, simple challenge.
Name 3 evil acts any of the AI in DX perpetuate.
OK, simple challenge.
Name 3 evil acts any of the AI in DX perpetuate.
Define evil? The pre-merged Icarus AI under Bob Page's control is arguably the tool of the Majestic 12, the game's protagonists. Daedalus is also arguably self-serving, as the construct that Morgan Everett created then lost control of. I don't recall Icarus doing anything directly against you, but it is used to keep an eye on you. Post-merged Icarus/Daedalus becomes self aware and develops a God complex, hence the 3rd ending option to merge with the AI and rule mankind as a "benevolent dictator". Arguably not evil given it's intent and self-justified logic, but I viewed it as such as it's the basic subversion of mankind's right to self-rule. This last bit is the only thing that I think is remotely close to the whole Matrix plot that involves rule of mankind by an AI. Both are certianly dystopian futures, but again that's about all the similarity that I see.
As Xdeathfire pointed out, the release date of DX and the Matrix were close enough to essentially prove that one was not based on the other. Further, I will offer that the idea of Warren Specter and team adding the whole trenchcoat bit after seeing the Matrix is almost guaranteed to be false, as game would have been nearing completion and testing, so adding something like this would have been a fair amount of work. Also, there were several references throughout the game to JC and Paul wearing trenchcoats as spoken by NPCs, so that smacks to me of more evidence that it wasn't copied. The whole concept of the dystopian future and plot would have long long since been storyboarded and implemented, at the very late development stages you're going to have pretty much nothing but bug squashing, playtesting, and the possible addition/removal of very small features/content/artwork.
Whatever the case, I very much enjoyed both the movie and the game.
Edit - Helios dammit, that's what the merged AI was called. Can't believe I forgot that.
But the actor who did the voicework for JC Denton was clearly inspired by the emotional depth and range of Keanu Reeves. :laugh4:
But the actor who did the voicework for JC Denton was clearly inspired by the emotional depth and range of Keanu Reeves. :laugh4:
I can't picture JC Denton saying "PARTY ON DUDES!!!" wearing a WYLD STALLYONS shirt. :no:
LuckyDog Trojan
03-28-2007, 20:29
Just chiming in to say that lists like these do serve as great sources of controversy and debate - not that controversial debate is bad. From my perspective (opinion), the list isn't bad as it does include some darn good games. Still, for the 25 that are listed, there's easily another 50 that could probably take their place - and the opinionated debate would still continue. That's the way it is...
Good to see that some of the now very outdated games are still recognized for what they were in their hey-day. (Geeeez! Did the graphics in Pirates really look that bad when we were playing it 10 years ago?).
Where is Thief: The Dark Project, as we all know the closest humanity ever came to perfection???? List is flawed :thumbsdown:
Dear god... why does everyone think the Cyberpunk genre began with The Matrix. Sorry folks, it was around a lot longer than that.
Because most who saw the Matrix weren't (or were just) born when Escape from NY, or Blade Runner came out.
I would think of Metropolis being the first (as a movie), a german movie from 1920, which still holds up today. You wouldn't believe the special effects when you compare it to other movies of it's era.
here's a pic;
http://www.talkingpix.co.uk/Metropolis%20robot2.jpg
Bob the Insane
03-30-2007, 13:31
IMHO...
Any top 25 PC games of All Time that does not include the Wing Commander Series is simply not trying hard enough...
Anyone remember Strike Commander? FlightSim with RPG elements, that was fun...
http://www.answers.com/topic/strike-commander
I used to be an expert in Deus Ex in year 2000. It's just a great game. But you guys are reading way too much into the story of it. Deus Ex never had much of a story, especially after you get to Paris when the whole thing falls apart completely for the rest of the game up to and including the ending (all 3 of them, which all suck, and one of which makes no sense whatsoever).
Originally the game presents Icarus as a big bad evil scary cyborg who is stalking you. Then he turns out to be nothing of significance and really had little to no relevance to the game at all. I was extremely disappointed by that.
That said, Deus Ex does live up to the quote on the back of the box that says it's the closest thing a game has come to imitating reality. Deus Ex does have the most person-like NPCs I've ever seen in a game. That is, they successfully give off the illusion of having lives and reacting to what you say/do or what other NPCs do in the world. It seems much newer games like Oblivion were also going for this, but I would say Deus Ex pulled this aspect off a lot better than Oblivion did. KOTOR is the only other game I can think of that pulled off this concept on a level that is even on par with Deus Ex.
Deus Ex is one of the only great games on that list and certainly probably the only game on that list truly worthy to be called one of the best 25 PC games of all time. But, that is not because it has a great story. It doesn't.
But the actor who did the voicework for JC Denton was clearly inspired by the emotional depth and range of Keanu Reeves. :laugh4:
I read Warren Spector saying that he deliberately had the JC Denton voice actor not inject any emotion into JC Denton's voice because he "wanted the player to fill in the emotion". So it's not the actor's fault. The JC Denton actor also did the voice for Paul Denton too, which for those who didn't play it, is a quite different voice entirely.
I thought JC Denton's voice sounded great as is. He's a cyborg, not a poet. His voice fits what he is.
Everyone is complaining about this list.
Then, why you dont create the org list of better games?
Everyone is complaining about this list.
Then, why you dont create the org list of better games?
Because we don't want a full-scale nuclear-release forum war.
:bow:
No Freespace 2, and no Alpha Centauri. I believe that alone calls for a mob to descend on IGN and commence the inquisition.
As to the Baldurs Gate debate (heh, it rhymes), BG1 was excellent, though slow to start with. BG2 and its expansion literally blew me out of my seat, so much so that for about a month I played it solidly until I had completed it. Of course I suppose one of the major reasons why I prefer BG2 over BG1 was the fact that I count a games storyline as a deciding factor in whether I like it, hence why I do not mind a game that is a little linear if I can empathise with the characters, and if the actual plot is good enough to grip my interest to the point where I feel a real need to finish the game to find out what happens. Plus the talking sword amused me...
Deus Ex is one of the only great games on that list and certainly probably the only game on that list truly worthy to be called one of the best 25 PC games of all time.
You dare the wrath of Fallout fans world over. And Civilization fans. And ... oh, nevermind.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.