Which videogame will become 2008's greatest?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Nemesis X
2008's almost over. Which videogame do you think will be game of the year?



For the record, you can talk about which game will be 2008's greatest even if it isn't in the poll.

Zack Fair
Metal Gear Solid 4.

NonSensi-Klown
Probably MGS4 yeah.

BackFire
According to publications probably GTA 4 or MGS.

For me, Gears 2 or Fallout 3.

NonSensi-Klown
Oh yeah, Fallout 3 is a good contender as well.

Zack Fair
I have no problem will Fallout beating MGS4, but IMO GoW2 Fable 2 and Resistant are not in MGS's league.

NonSensi-Klown
I think that though Gears 2 is a great game it borrows too many element from gears 1 (Which won GotY last year or the year before I believe) to win this year. It's story isn't good enough to separate it either.

MIŠT
Fallout 3

Forgot GTA 4 came out too, probably that. This is based on the game being multiplatform, MGS4 might be a sweet as game, but in comparison there probably isnt as many people playing it as GTA 4 etc.

Peach
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
I think that though Gears 2 is a great game it borrows too many element from gears 1 (Which won GotY last year or the year before I believe) to win this year. It's story isn't good enough to separate it either.

I think that can really be said about every game on this list - they're all just too similar to their predecessors (or other games) to really stand out.

NonSensi-Klown
Can it? MGS 4's root gameplay is similarity but the story telling and graphics are on a whole new level of epic'ness compared to the first three.

Zack Fair
MGS4 isn't even in the poll. MGS4's gameplay is as good if not better than the story graphics and music.

ragesRemorse
I haven't played MG4, so, i would say Gears 2, easily.


Fallout 3 actually lived up to my expectations and has yet to get old. Saints Row 2 was fun but the appeal dried out very quickly. Every other game on this list was very very disappointing.

I have yet to play Resistance 2 or Tomb Raider, though.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by Zack Fair
MGS4 isn't even in the poll

I just said that you can talk about games that aren't in the poll. I for one think that Gears 2 will win.

occultdestroyer
GTA IV most probably, even if it lacked most elements of GTA: SA.

But for me, MGS4 for now.

Menetnashté
I'm gonna go MGS4, or Fallout 3. Gears 2 probably should've been up there but its campaign was only good because they focused on the multiplayer which suffered from multiple bugs, I just don't see it winning, though I definitely think it'll be nominated since it is still a fun game. I've yet to play a lot of the games up there though. From what I have seen Fable 2 is definitely not winning and I don't see GTA4 winning much of anything since it falls short of its predecessors.

Smasandian
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Can it? MGS 4's root gameplay is similarity but the story telling and graphics are on a whole new level of epic'ness compared to the first three.

Well, obviously the graphics are going to better than its predecessors considering its the first game on the new system.

NonSensi-Klown
Of course.

Smasandian
So graphics shouldn't be taken into equation when comparing Gears 2 and MGS4 on what game is better when comparing it to earlier games.

Doesnt matter.

Fallout 3 right now is my favourite game of the year. But I havnt really played Left 4 Dead, or Gears 2 yet.

Kosta
Fallout 3 or GTA4. Haven't had the privilege of playing MGS4, but I'm sure it kicks a$$ by the truckload.

Morridini
I doubt GTA or MGS will get the honors actualy, everyone were pretty much hyped up when they were first released. I think many reviewers might wan't to change their score if they were to do a new review today.

Kosta
Originally posted by Morridini
I doubt GTA or MGS will get the honors actualy, everyone were pretty much hyped up when they were first released. I think many reviewers might wan't to change their score if they were to do a new review today.

Same with Far Cry 2 IMO.

Morridini
Well FC2 didn't really get that good reviews to begin with.

Utrigita
How About the wow expansion?

@stroFan
1. Fallout 3
2. MGS4 (great rush for the little amount of time it took to beat, and I havent gone back since).
3. GTA IV (great for the long amount of time it to beat, and I havent gone back since). stick out tongue

Zack Fair
What strikes me about MGS4 is how everything turned out great. The graphics are second to none. The soundtrack and sound effects are top notch. The First Person mode and finally using next-gen controls that felt intuitive. The octocamo alone is amazing. Then you have the story that though it is somewhat convulated it is conclusive and answers every single question from every game which isn't a small feat. Not to mention the nice multiplayer and the fact the game feels so polished.

Neo Darkhalen
Fallout 3
MGS4
Left 4 Dead
LBP

Burning thought
Fallout 3 imo should win...but popularity may choose some lesser game like GTA 4

ragesRemorse
I'm with Neo, Left 4 Dead might surprise everyone. That demo is insane fun

Kosta
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I'm with Neo, Left 4 Dead might surprise everyone. That demo is insane fun

True. Half Life 2 engine never fails IMO. It would be hard to mess this one up.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Can it? MGS 4's root gameplay is similarity but the story telling and graphics are on a whole new level of epic'ness compared to the first three.

The story telling is exactly the same and exactly like the prior games. Massive cut scenes do all the work.

-AC

Kosta
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The story telling is exactly the same and exactly like the prior games. Massive cut scenes do all the work.

-AC

That used to bug me about MSG. I still loved the game, but it definitely got irritating after a while. I haven't played number 4, but I hear there's like a 90 minute cut scene in it somewhere? Or maybe it was 90 minutes worth of cut scenes all up.

Alpha Centauri
The first one was the only one in the series that had any epic feeling to it.

Two was decent, but by then it had Wachowski-syndrome. The syndrome in which, by the second installment of anything, the creators are driven so mad by the praise of the first installment, that they retreat up their own asses and evolve into pretentious idiots.

-AC

Smasandian
I heard third was really good?

I dont deny the MGS is very good. It's just the first game bugged the shit out of me with its cutscenes.

Let's just say I like Valve way too much.

MadMel
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The first one was the only one in the series that had any epic feeling to it.

Two was decent, but by then it had Wachowski-syndrome. The syndrome in which, by the second installment of anything, the creators are driven so mad by the praise of the first installment, that they retreat up their own asses and evolve into pretentious idiots.

-AC
QFT yes

WrathfulDwarf
MGS4 will most likely will get it since there hasn't been a PS3 killer app since the console was released. Plus both IGN and Gamestop gave it the perfect score...which really makes you think...is it really THAT good?

I personally go with GTA IV and Fallout 3.

You know it's funny...months ago I could have sworn that Spore look like it was going rock the industry. Maybe the hype was too much.

Smasandian
I think its too complicated to really emulate the sales the Sims had and too simple for the hardcore audience.

I didn't want to get strictly on the fact there isnt alot of options at each stage.

Impediment
Gears 2
Dead Space
GTA 4

Zack Fair
IMO MGS4 is really that good. It has the all around package. Amazing campaign with great graphics, sounds, music, story, gameplay and as an added extra MGOnline.

Vinny Valentine
If Fallout 3 doesn't win game of the year, I'm going to be very surprised.

Nemesis X
I'd be surprised if Gears 2 doesn't win.

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by Nemesis X
I'd be surprised if Gears 2 doesn't win.

What has GoW2 brought that was new? Nothing. It's a sequel. It wont win game of the year, just the same as wrath wont.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
What has GoW2 brought that was new? Nothing. It's a sequel. It wont win game of the year, just the same as wrath wont.

Fallout 3's also a sequel and don't be goin around givin Gears crap like that. I hope a Brumak steps on you.

WrathfulDwarf
This has been another year of sequels.

Last year Bioshock took the cake and this year Spore should have done the same. But I think the reviews are the ones that damage the reputation of the game.

On one hand the most anticipated game of the year (Spore) doesn't get the perfect score...but a game like MGS4 gets all perfect reviews? It makes you wonder....are sequels really that BETTER?

Neo Darkhalen
I don't think spore deserves the spot just for how much of a letdown it ended up being, what with the fact most of the creative modes are lacking...and the DRM.

I believe LBP and L4D should be high priority on the list for GOTY, both being original games.

As for are sequels better, that really does depend. mmm

Raoul
gears was good, but imo it was too much like its predecessors...

pes09 was great, so was gta (if purely for the work done with the mechanics, which were top notch imo)

Zack Fair
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This has been another year of sequels.

Last year Bioshock took the cake and this year Spore should have done the same. But I think the reviews are the ones that damage the reputation of the game.

On one hand the most anticipated game of the year (Spore) doesn't get the perfect score...but a game like MGS4 gets all perfect reviews? It makes you wonder....are sequels really that BETTER?

In MGS4's case? Yes.

Mairuzu
MGS4 without a doubt

jaden101
i'd love to see them give it to something unusual such as braid

but they wont

Stoic
If sales have anything to do with what game will be proclaimed Beast of 08, I'm almost betting that Gears of War 2 will take it.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by jaden101
i'd love to see them give it to something unusual such as braid

but they wont

Do you really think Braid was the best game of the year, though? The Art design is aces but is the trial and error gameplay more impressive than the scope and smooth control of a Fallout 3, MGS4 or Gears 2?

Wil7
I will probably have to say Resistance 2, or Farcry 2.

jaden101
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Do you really think Braid was the best game of the year, though? The Art design is aces but is the trial and error gameplay more impressive than the scope and smooth control of a Fallout 3, MGS4 or Gears 2?

the problem i have with the games you mention is the numbers on the end...there is no real innovation between those games and the games that came before them

for me...i never liked gears 1...and so i never liked gears 2

i went off metal gear after the stupidity of the plot of sons of liberty and the fact that you have to sit and watch hours upon hours of cut scenes just doesn't do it for me...if i wanted to watch a cheesy 3rd rate plot with shit acting then i'd watch daytime tv movies...when i want to play games...i prefer the playing part

fallout 3 i haven't played yet but 1st person futuristic shooters are becoming as common as ww2 shooters...gears, resistance, killzone and fallout..they're all effectively the same...and not really my thing

i thought GTA4 was disappointing...looked great but lacked the humour and depth that previous GTA games had

force unleashed i enjoyed alot although it was far too short and didn't have a lot of variety

the only other games i've played alot this year have been the guitar hero and rockband games

and call of duty 4...which i would give game of the year to for the 2nd year in a row stick out tongue

Zack Fair
You know that if you don't give a **** about the plot you can just skip the cutscenes and play the game? Over and over again which is quite entertaining given all the numerous options for you to get past enemies/areas. Or you can just hop online and play MGO which has 0 plot whatsoever.

Neo Darkhalen
I can't really see why people say Braid is innovative and i really can't say it's great game, especially when some of the later levels are copy and paste and well trial and error, two doors one key does not equal good gameplay mechanics, as for time manipulation being it's "innovation" *cough* Prince of Persia *cough* which in my view is a much more interesting game to play then Braid, it's been done before and if not in PoP then another game like Timeshift etc has already jumped on that wagon...if we were to give downloadable games a shot at GOTY then I'd give it to either Portal: still alive or Megaman 9.

Zack Fair
You have been playing Megaman non-stop.

Neo Darkhalen
laughing out loud True...I've kinda toned it down recently though.

jaden101
Originally posted by Zack Fair
You know that if you don't give a **** about the plot you can just skip the cutscenes and play the game? Over and over again which is quite entertaining given all the numerous options for you to get past enemies/areas.

which would make it analogous to watching a film with the sound down...bit silly really...although i did just that after playing all the metal gears after the 1st playthrough

it's just the MGS4 took the cut scenes to a ridiculous length compared with 1,2 and 3



i never said it was innovative...but relative to the masses of shooters that get all the praise it is.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by jaden101
the problem i have with the games you mention is the numbers on the end...there is no real innovation between those games and the games that came before them

for me...i never liked gears 1...and so i never liked gears 2

i went off metal gear after the stupidity of the plot of sons of liberty and the fact that you have to sit and watch hours upon hours of cut scenes just doesn't do it for me...if i wanted to watch a cheesy 3rd rate plot with shit acting then i'd watch daytime tv movies...when i want to play games...i prefer the playing part

fallout 3 i haven't played yet but 1st person futuristic shooters are becoming as common as ww2 shooters...gears, resistance, killzone and fallout..they're all effectively the same...and not really my thing

i thought GTA4 was disappointing...looked great but lacked the humour and depth that previous GTA games had

force unleashed i enjoyed alot although it was far too short and didn't have a lot of variety

the only other games i've played alot this year have been the guitar hero and rockband games

and call of duty 4...which i would give game of the year to for the 2nd year in a row stick out tongue

Yeah, i know where you're coming from and i think most people are sick of the redundancy in games, as well. Although, i do like to see a franchise continue to make games when It is a company that legitimately tries to push the gameplay and story into new area's. This, however is a rare occurance. Many times we get big budget sequels and big budget hype for popular games being made just because they are popular titles. I'm not complaining because someone is buying and enjoying these games, so, more power to them.

Many times, these franchises start out as fresh and innovative, though. Prince of Persia was a new gaming experience. The gameplay may not have been entirely original but all of the ingredients were structured into a smooth playing and enjoyable game that, indeed, felt original. Metal Gear Solid had much innovation and uniqueness to where no other game has been able to duplicate it's tone or gameplay. There are many other games like Prince of Persia and Metal Gear Solid, where a great game carried over into a strew of unnecessary sequels. Most of these franchises, however, have aspects that have been borrowed from to give us other great titles, titles of which that have, themselves grown into juggernaut franchises. So, although i do get sick of the redundancy, i know it is necessary. I think we really need to see some more independent developers to help break the gamming monotony. I think outlets like the Xbox, PS3 and Wii arcade are great for this and with success, i think, will give smaller developers the resources to make full blown console games.

I wasn't to happy with this years gaming line-up but i have been pleasantly surprised. Even though the Story was balls, the gameplay in Mirrors Edge was a joy to play. Fallout 3, well, i was expecting, like you said, another futuristic FPS. I was not expecting Oblivion in a post-apocalyptic world. Dead Space also surprised me. This game came out of nowhere for me. There is nothing special about this game other than atmosphere and it's ease to play. Other than GTA4 and Fable 2 i haven't been to disappointed. I can't even complain about GTA4 too much because i think that over the years i have merely become desensitized to that gameplay. I still believe that Rockstar is one of the best and most original Developers out there. I am greatly anticipating Noir.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Fallout 3's also a sequel and don't be goin around givin Gears crap like that. I hope a Brumak steps on you.
...Ya because Fallout 3 kept the same combat system, storyline, and engine. Wait. That was Gears.

Nemesis X
So what if Gears 2 has the same combat system as Gears 1? Halo has been pretty much been keeping the same combat system and Halo 3 became 2007's game of the year. If you think a sequel sucks just because it has the same system, then don't talk about it.

Dragon Bard
Originally posted by jaden101
the problem i have with the games you mention is the numbers on the end...there is no real innovation between those games and the games that came before them

for me...i never liked gears 1...and so i never liked gears 2

i went off metal gear after the stupidity of the plot of sons of liberty and the fact that you have to sit and watch hours upon hours of cut scenes just doesn't do it for me...if i wanted to watch a cheesy 3rd rate plot with shit acting then i'd watch daytime tv movies...when i want to play games...i prefer the playing part

fallout 3 i haven't played yet but 1st person futuristic shooters are becoming as common as ww2 shooters...gears, resistance, killzone and fallout..they're all effectively the same...and not really my thing

i thought GTA4 was disappointing...looked great but lacked the humour and depth that previous GTA games had

force unleashed i enjoyed alot although it was far too short and didn't have a lot of variety

the only other games i've played alot this year have been the guitar hero and rockband games

and call of duty 4...which i would give game of the year to for the 2nd year in a row stick out tongue


It really doesn't matter to me. The longer the good cut-scene, the better. Gameplay is gameplay, and I wish more games had more cutscenes, especially MMO's. The storyline, that is why I play. I could care less about the gameplay if the story was great, I mean, look at Mace Griffin: Bounty Hunter... Gameplay on that game was awful and nearly impossible at some points, but the storyline was very sound.

But I digress to my next point.

I believe that Resistance 1 and 2 take place shortly after WWII, correct? Which would prove your futuristic theory wrong in that case, since it would need to take the tone of "future" to be correct. Though, I'm sure you played the game and knew that beforehand that 1953 happens to be in the past. I believe you are looking for the term "Sci-Fi".

As for CoD 4... Well, I agree that it was a good game, but beyond the campaign, I was unimpressed. The multiplayer was all fine and good, but it really got old with all the "noob tubing" and "Juggernaut" bullcrap spouting that was going on, nor was I happy with every time I won a battle, it would get disputed because the other team couldn't take getting spawn camped because they were too stupid to move to another spot.

jaden101
yeah sci-fi...but my point stands...they look similar...play similar...are similar

can't see how anyone could be unimpressed by the multiplayer in CoD4 though...it was about as perfect as it could get...looked amazing...the size of the levels for the number of players was exactly right on almost all the maps...yes noob-tubers were annoying especially on search and destroy but anyone will skill could easily deal with that

we're gonna have to agree to disagree about cut scenes though...the more the better?...nah...doesn't work for me...not even if they make them mildly interactive like on metal gear and CoD4...i even got annoyed at the one of CoD4 when the president is being driven to his execution in the car...far too long for my liking

the only game i've seen where i thought the cut scenes were a perfect length were Resi 4



bit of a silly thing to say is it not?...don't talk about a game if you don't like it?...

as for Halo...didn't like it...never have...for the same reasons i've already given

Raoul
Originally posted by Nemesis X
So what if Gears 2 has the same combat system as Gears 1? Halo has been pretty much been keeping the same combat system and Halo 3 became 2007's game of the year. If you think a sequel sucks just because it has the same system, then don't talk about it.

halo is severely overrated, and has been for years.

2007's best was COD4 by a large margin imo...

Neo Darkhalen
Originally posted by Raoul
halo is severely overrated, and has been for years.

2007's best was COD4 by a large margin imo...

Bioshock for me, but COD4 was great.

I agree though Halo 3 is so overrated it's sad, you can clearly tell it's not in anyway a good game...let alone a great game, for those who start going on at me about that, no i don't play the multiplayer i only play the single player of the game, because 1) i was brought up around single player so i always gravitate towards that. 2) the modes just didn't seem interesting enough on multiplayer 3) 13 year old fanboys spam the servers spouting the same annoying phrases and insults over and over again.

And based of the single player it was awful, fair enough have multiplayer, but i still expect a good single player experiance and a game to appeal to both multiplayer and single player modes, however that said i never found the multiplayer to be that good, hardly up to the standards of say Timesplitters.

ragesRemorse
i was never much of a fan of Halo. I've always thought that Halo was nothing more than a smooth playing FPS. To the games credit, the single player campaign in all three games has been known to offer a few sequences of memorable moments and the music is also, at times, stunning. I think Bungie are good developers but their focus was obviously geared towards the multiplayer aspect in Halo which may be why all three games feel the same. I'm still surprised that people are, not yet, sick of deathmatches. I hate online gaming because most of it caters to, who can kill most people in this time limit. I'm glad to see that more games are headlining online co-op.

Zack Fair
Ok...I have no problem with people thinking Halo is over rated and the like...but saying it is not in anyway a good game is being exagerated. As for the 13 year old fanboys you can easily mute them and it takes only a second.

Alpha Centauri
I don't think Halo is "good" in any way.

I think it's mediocre in all ways. It's not shit, but it's not good.

-AC

Man of Violence
Well the year aint over yet but the best in 07 was...Uh oh, here it comes (got my shield ready)

HALO 3!!! It's kind of a fact, it won like 4 Game of the year awards

Although I have yet to see a game match GTAIV that came out this year, not even MGSIV (which I think is more overrated then Halo, at least around here anway)



(runs out quickly)

Zack Fair
I thank god for giving everyone different tastes and opinions. I really do.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Man of Violence
Well the year aint over yet but the best in 07 was...Uh oh, here it comes (got my shield ready)

HALO 3!!! It's kind of a fact, it won like 4 Game of the year awards

Although I have yet to see a game match GTAIV that came out this year, not even MGSIV (which I think is more overrated then Halo, at least around here anway)



(runs out quickly)

GTAIV is the most overrated game that i have ever played in my 22 years of gaming.

!0's across the board and quotes like, "single handedly changes how we look at and play video games" is just absurd and leads me to believe that some of the people reviewing GTAIV didn't play it for longer than ten minutes. I love Rockstar and think GTAIV is a decent installment in the franchise but it doesn't deserve half of the praise it received.

Burning thought
Agreed, I think there is a lot of overhyping of Halo and especially GTA, me? i get bored of GTA after a few hours of doing the same grotty "ime a tough guy, I wanna make me some money" missions etc etc

Just a boring place, especially now theyve taken out the military vehichles like tanks.

jaden101
i think GTA4, being the 1st installment in a new generation of consoles, and being the 1st to experiment with online gaming, is obviously going to be highly flawed...although i can see the next installemt being as big an improvement as san andreas was over GTA3 on the PS2

given that it still up there with the best games available on the current generation of consoles then i'd say it bodes well for things to come

although personally i'd like to see them do 2 seperate games...one fully online and the other fully single player story based

Dark-Jaxx
Out of all of those Fable 2 was my favorite.

But I bet [email protected] overrated COD will win.

jaden101
which one?...world at war?...not likely as it's not that great....and obviously not 4 because that's from last year

but the fact that it's probably still the most played xbox live game shows how good it is...everyone disappeared for a while to play GTA4...but went back to CoD4...same with assassins creed, bioshock, halo 3 and every other game since CoD4

Dark-Jaxx
Yeah I meant World of War.

Not great? YES! HAHA! FVCK COD!

jaden101
Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
FVCK COD!

that's sexual abuse of fish...i'm reporting you to the authorities laughing

Peach
Originally posted by jaden101
which one?...world at war?...not likely as it's not that great....and obviously not 4 because that's from last year

but the fact that it's probably still the most played xbox live game shows how good it is...everyone disappeared for a while to play GTA4...but went back to CoD4...same with assassins creed, bioshock, halo 3 and every other game since CoD4

You know those games you just listed either came out before COD4, or at the same time as it, right? So people couldn't have stopped playing COD for a while to play those games and then gone back to it, not unless they had time machines.

Dark-Jaxx
Originally posted by Peach
So people couldn't have stopped playing COD for a while to play those games and then gone back to it, not unless they had time machines. Or, they could have bought the other games he listed after COD4 for whatever reason. 131

jaden101
call of duty 4....nov 6th 2007
assassins creed...a week later
halo 3 and GTA...2008

and yes in relation to bioshock...i did play it alot later...just a couple of months ago....didn't like it...went back to CoD4

but that's the general pattern i've seen on xbox live...people go and play a new game when it comes out...then went back and played CoD4...and are still playing it now...not bad for a game that's over a year old

i'd even wager that people playing CoD5 will go back and play CoD4

Peach
Originally posted by jaden101
call of duty 4....nov 6th 2007
assassins creed...a week later
halo 3 and GTA...2008

and yes in relation to bioshock...i did play it alot later...just a couple of months ago....didn't like it...went back to CoD4

but that's the general pattern i've seen on xbox live...people go and play a new game when it comes out...then went back and played CoD4...and are still playing it now...not bad for a game that's over a year old

i'd even wager that people playing CoD5 will go back and play CoD4

Call of Duty came out the 6th, yeah. Assassin's Creed came out the 14th. So they came out at basically the same time.

Bioshock came out August 20th, and Halo 3 came out September 25th (2007, not 2008). Both quite a bit before COD4 stick out tongue

jaden101
did it?...so why are people claiming it should be the game out 2008?...tards...laughing

says alot for 2008 if all the games we're saying are the best are from last year though laughing

Impediment
Fallout 3 looks damn good.

jaden101
i'm hearing good things about it...but just because of its nature i dont know if i'd like it

although my original point about innovation...it stands when you look at the list posted and every single game is a sequel

Peach
Originally posted by jaden101
did it?...so why are people claiming it should be the game out 2008?...tards...laughing

says alot for 2008 if all the games we're saying are the best are from last year though laughing

Remembering and knowing stuff like that is part of my job, mind wink

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm hearing good things about it...but just because of its nature i dont know if i'd like it

although my original point about innovation...it stands when you look at the list posted and every single game is a sequel

Yeah, this year really has been the year of sequels. There's not been much actually new.

Frankly, I think LittleBigPlanet or Mirror's Edge should get it. They're actually new games that bring something fresh to the table, as opposed to being the same old thing with a new coat of paint. Our conclusion at work is that one of those two should get game of the year, but it'll likely be Gears or GTA, despite GoW2 not improving over its predecessor any and GTA being probably the most over-hyped game of the year.

NonSensi-Klown
I don't think games should get points toward GotY for being innovative.

Peach
Why not?

Raoul
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
I don't think games should get points toward GotY for being innovative.

i agree. innovation for the sake of innovation isn't necessarily make a game more worthy than a sequel thats highly enjoyable, imo...

Peach
Originally posted by Raoul
i agree. innovation for the sake of innovation isn't necessarily make a game more worthy than a sequel thats highly enjoyable, imo...

And I have to disagree to an extent. Better to try something new and run the risk of failing than to stick to the same tired out formula over and over again, which is only going to be enjoyable for so long before it gets boring.

Raoul
Originally posted by Peach
And I have to disagree to an extent. Better to try something new and run the risk of failing than to stick to the same tired out formula over and over again, which is only going to be enjoyable for so long before it gets boring.

but if you enjoy the game that much, does it really matter if the formula is old or new?

Peach
Originally posted by Raoul
but if you enjoy the game that much, does it really matter if the formula is old or new?

You missed the last part of my post stick out tongue There's only so long that you can do the same thing over and over before it gets boring. If you're basically playing the same game with a different look a ton of times, it's going to get very repetitive and I don't think I have to point out how often people complain about repetition being boring.

NonSensi-Klown
Originally posted by Peach
Why not?

Because being different doesn't make a game good, or even semi-satisfying. I've played supposed "innovative games", and when they suck I never think "Well this game sucks... but hey at least it's different!"

If a game is well made, has an alright story and flows well and the gameplay is good, it's perfect (imo I guess).

I, personally, have never had a problem with games sharing unoriginal concepts. I'd vote CoD5 and Gears of War 2 over Spore or Mirrors Edge for GotY any day.

Raoul
Originally posted by Peach
You missed the last part of my post stick out tongue There's only so long that you can do the same thing over and over before it gets boring. If you're basically playing the same game with a different look a ton of times, it's going to get very repetitive and I don't think I have to point out how often people complain about repetition being boring.

my bad, and yeah, i do understand your point, but there is a flipside to that.

one example is pes 2009. a football (soccer to you) game that is one its what, 13th edition? its a football game, with the same basic formula. yet most years, they do improve the game.

this years one is a prime example. its a much tighter game, and they've really, really worked hard on making scoring alot harder... and as a game, it feels a hell of alot more rewarding than it did in previous years.

some people might call that a tired formula, yet for long term fans of the series (a fair few of them at least), its enough of a change to warrant buying it. and i'd agree with them, as it took me ages to get used to it, but the reward just feels that much better...

compare that to a game like mirrors edge, which to me, in all honesty, doesn't seem that overly revolutionary. some people might say its a first person assassins creed...

Peach
ME is actually extraordinarily different from Assassin's Creed stick out tongue More a first person Prince of Persia with a Matrix feel to it.

Raoul
Originally posted by Peach
ME is actually extraordinarily different from Assassin's Creed stick out tongue More a first person Prince of Persia with a Matrix feel to it.

sorry. a futuristic first person assassins creed.

stick out tongue

Peach
Originally posted by Raoul
sorry. a futuristic first person assassins creed.

stick out tongue

Didn't I just say it's not AC? I have played both you know stick out tongue

Raoul
Originally posted by Peach
Didn't I just say it's not AC? I have played both you know stick out tongue

i'll take your word for it...

i just think that the game you enjoy the most should be your game of the year, regardless of how new or old the system might seem...

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Man of Violence
Well the year aint over yet but the best in 07 was...Uh oh, here it comes (got my shield ready)

HALO 3!!! It's kind of a fact, it won like 4 Game of the year awards

Although I have yet to see a game match GTAIV that came out this year, not even MGSIV (which I think is more overrated then Halo, at least around here anway)



(runs out quickly)

How is it a fact? It's not a fact at all.

It won lots of awards because people were caught in the hype and scared to say anything bad, just like they were with GTA.

Although it was worse with GTA. There were people on here hyping Halo 3 who were openly disappointed with it.

-AC

NonSensi-Klown
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


It won lots of awards because people were caught in the hype and scared to say anything bad, just like they were with GTA.


I disagree with this.

Bardock42
I thought GTA 4 was very good actually. Sure, it is not really anything new, but I think it did quite well what I like about the GTA series.

Either way it's my game of the year so far, though, the only other 2008 game I played is Metal Gear Solid 4, so my view might be a bit...limited.


I agree with Jaden though, GTA 4 is the first installment on the new platform as such I think it is actually very, very good...as it relates to GTA 3. Of course that shouldn't be taken into consideration to evaluate how good the game itself was, just saying, if they make a GTA 4: Vice City or San Andreas...I'm looking forward to it.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Raoul
sorry. a futuristic first person assassins creed.

stick out tongue

Well, you might be able to make that comparison but prince of persia is probably a better comparison. The environment and acrobatics in AC and POP, are both, important aspects but POP implemented environmental puzzles as part of the gameplay, much like Mirrors Edge. I know you were probably just taking a piss but i thought i would chime in because Mirrors Edge does a very good job at creating it's own unique gameplay that doesn't really feel like anything you have played in other games.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
I disagree with this.

If Halo 3 came out under a different name without any of the hype, but was the same game, it would never be in the running.

You know this and I know this.

-AC

Raoul
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Well, you might be able to make that comparison but prince of persia is probably a better comparison. The environment and acrobatics in AC and POP, are both, important aspects but POP implemented environmental puzzles as part of the gameplay, much like Mirrors Edge. I know you were probably just taking a piss but i thought i would chime in because Mirrors Edge does a very good job at creating it's own unique gameplay that doesn't really feel like anything you have played in other games.

lol, yeah, i was...

Zack Fair
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If Halo 3 came out under a different name without any of the hype, but was the same game, it would never be in the running.

You know this and I know this.

-AC

O RLY?

Dark-Jaxx
Originally posted by Peach
There's only so long that you can do the same thing over and over before it gets boring. Not neccessarily true.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Zack Fair
O RLY?

You beg to differ?

You think it would have been given the same amount of praise and ratings if it wasn't as hyped?

Let's not be ridiculous.

Let's also not forget that people judge Halo on multiplayer. As a single player game, it's pathetically overrated.

-AC

Zack Fair
I beg to differ but I do not wish to engage in a never ending war with you.

Like I said before I am happy with disagreeing with you and I do not wish to enter an argument because you will not change my stance on the subject and neither will you. So all in all its just a waste of time.

Zack Fair
Say AC did you play GoW2? If you did what do you think of it?

ragesRemorse
I've been reading the user reviews on Gears of War 2 on Gamefly. People are giving the game poor scores, like, 5 or 6 out of ten because of bad multiplayer. That annoys the shit out me

NonSensi-Klown
Well... the multiplayer is pretty bad. At least compared to the first one.

Raoul
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You beg to differ?

You think it would have been given the same amount of praise and ratings if it wasn't as hyped?

Let's not be ridiculous.

Let's also not forget that people judge Halo on multiplayer. As a single player game, it's pathetically overrated.

-AC

the halo multiplayer (the first game) was pretty shite too. not the lag, which was actually decent at times. the maps were good too. it was the fact that so many maps were full of downright idiots. i swear, whoever lets 12 year old kids play games online is a complete and utter douche.

Alpha Centauri
I'm not trying to change your stance, Zack.

I'm curious as to how you feel Halo games would get the amount of praise they do without the hype.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Well... the multiplayer is pretty bad. At least compared to the first one.

So then rate the multiplayer as bad, not the game itself.

Unless the makers specifically say that a game is created for the purposes of multiplayer, multiplayer will always be an optional mode, and one that is not to be considered equal to the main game.

If Bungie swallowed their pride and admitted that the Halo trilogy sucks as a single player game, I'd have more respect.

There's a reason Halo is only rated amazingly on the strength of; "Well, when you play it with EVERYONE ELSE...". Exactly, people forget that.

-AC

Burning thought
Starcraft 2 is not going to be innovative, I mean sure its mission style and some of its units may be diffrent or blurred formulas that are similiar to earlier versions but I would guarantee it will be a massive seller.

jaden101
so that's what constitutes a great game now?...selling alot of copies?

some of the games that got the higher accolades in the last few years were highly innovative and i'm glad they haven't been squeezed for every penny by yearly cash cow sequels...things such as shadow of the colossus, Ico and Rez

genuinely brilliant and innovative games...did they sell a ton of copies?...not relatively speaking, no...but they were still far better than the massive amounts of cash cow yearly crap that many franchises have become

Slay
So far I think GoW2 and GTA4 are really great. I like Little Big Planet as well, but I doubt anybody besides me and maybe a select few would nominate it as being (one of) the best games of 2008.

I'm planning on playing Fable 2 and Fallout 3 this year though, so I won't vote yet.

Also, why MK vs. DC and Tomb Raider are on this list is beyond me...

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Mario Kart Wii wins the world for me. On-line play is, like, super fun, ye know?

Neo Darkhalen
Originally posted by Slay
So far I think GoW2 and GTA4 are really great. I like Little Big Planet as well, but I doubt anybody besides me and maybe a select few would nominate it as being (one of) the best games of 2008.

I'm planning on playing Fable 2 and Fallout 3 this year though, so I won't vote yet.

Also, why MK vs. DC and Tomb Raider are on this list is beyond me...

I do think LBP should get it.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by Slay
Also, why MK vs. DC and Tomb Raider are on this list is beyond me...

You dare mock Tomb Raider and MKvsDC? They're good games and that's why they're in the list. Deal with it.

Alpha Centauri
No fighting game should ever be on a list like this.

Essentially there isn't much to them, they have no right being held up against the likes of games that have a story and such.

-AC

Raoul
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No fighting game should ever be on a list like this.

Essentially there isn't much to them, they have no right being held up against the likes of games that have a story and such.

-AC

DC vs MK actually has a deeper story mode than the average fighter... Compared to Gears, it has it in spades...

I know its a general rule of thumb that fighters have feck all story, but this is more of an exception, imo...

Not saying DC vs Mk is the best game of the year, but imo it has as much right to be up there as Gears or Saints Row when talking about plot...

Bardock42
I think it really depends on what you are looking for. If the people that give out awards just want to crown the game that was the most fun (to them) that year I think a fighter may very well be included. Also if you go by graphics, or gameplay...actually, I think I just flat out disagree with AC. A fighting game may very well be the best game of a year in many categories.


What Game of the Year award are we talking about here, anyways?

Raoul
Originally posted by Bardock42
What Game of the Year award are we talking about here, anyways?

i don't think it is a particular award, just more of a consensus on what was the best game...

Bardock42
Originally posted by Raoul
i don't think it is a particular award, just more of a consensus on what was the best game...

Makes more sense.

Raoul
Originally posted by Bardock42
Makes more sense.

Yeah...

well out of the ones listed:

I've played:
Gears of War 2
Saints Row 2
Fable II
Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe
Fallout 3
Grand Theft Auto IV

I haven't played:
Tomb Raider: Underworld
Call of Duty: World at War
Resistance 2
Far Cry 2

out of the ones i've played, each one has its own qualities and faults, and i'd be hard pressed to totally narrow down the list...

Gears felt like an expansion more than an actual new game...

GTA had a wonderful physics engine and some great missions, but little else...

Fable was far to fleeting imo, but fun while it lasted...

DC vs MK... punching darkseid in the face and then launching him off a cliff never gets old. Fatalities are a **** though, so far at least.

Saints Row was fun, but was the opposite of GTA in that it shunned realism a bit too much for my tastes...

Fallout is a very nice game, and it never gets old making heads explode... but its just so f*cking bleak at times...

and special mentions, imo, have to go to Lego Batman, and PES009.

Lego Batman, yes, it was a Lego game, but it brought plenty of fresh ideas gameplay wise by adding new dimensions to the puzzles. And it used the four 90s movies as inspiration without ripping them off.

It was funny, it was well put together, and it was just that much f*cking fun to play...

PES009. Pro Evo, yet again, changes just enough to make you feel like its a brand new game while not making you feel completely lost... and its balanced so that when you score a goal, you really feel like you've earned it...

Either of those two could make that list, imo... and im probably forgetting a few more...

Alpha Centauri
Pro Evo has been an expansion since Pro Evo 2, really.

I'm not sure how you can say that Gears is if Pro Evo isn't.

-AC

Raoul
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Pro Evo has been an expansion since Pro Evo 2, really.

I'm not sure how you can say that Gears is if Pro Evo isn't.

-AC

i'm not saying that. stick out tongue

i'm saying that pro evo had enough variety, enough alterations to make it worth buying, imo.

compare pes08 to 09, and gears 1 to 2. for me pro evo was more of a departure than gears was, however little people might see it as...

Alpha Centauri
They're not departures but they don't actually need to be.

Some things don't need to be left, just improved upon. Resident Evil's regular style could not have been any better, so they left it. Gears could be better, so they made it better.

In Dead Rising, Capcom have a game that could just be re-released tomorow with a different mall and it'd be worth buying.

That's all I'm saying. Gears didn't need to be a departure.

-AC

Raoul
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're not departures but they don't actually need to be.

Some things don't need to be left, just improved upon. Resident Evil's regular style could not have been any better, so they left it. Gears could be better, so they made it better.

In Dead Rising, Capcom have a game that could just be re-released tomorow with a different mall and it'd be worth buying.

That's all I'm saying. Gears didn't need to be a departure.

-AC

i would have liked some improvements, tbh, but maybe its just me...

dead rising was frickin awesome.

Nemesis X
I'm a little pissed that Gears 2 is gettin bad scores. The **** is up with that? Sure the multiplayer sucks donkey but at least the campaign's good.

SnakeEyes
Originally posted by Raoul
dead rising was frickin awesome.

Dead Rising was terrible for one reason only: saving your game. I had to restart the campaign every single time I played because it wouldn't save my mission/story progress, just my character. When I found that out, I figured it must've been a fluke so I did a little research and sure enough that's just how the game is. Why anyone thought that was a good idea I do not know.

Alpha Centauri
Well, I happened to be good enough to not save at inopportune times.

It was made so that saving your game wasn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, and it worked, because people who need to cheaply play their games that way, hated it.

-AC

Raoul
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Dead Rising was terrible for one reason only: saving your game. I had to restart the campaign every single time I played because it wouldn't save my mission/story progress, just my character. When I found that out, I figured it must've been a fluke so I did a little research and sure enough that's just how the game is. Why anyone thought that was a good idea I do not know.

i'm in the same boat as AC:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well, I happened to be good enough to not save at inopportune times.

It was made so that saving your game wasn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, and it worked, because people who need to cheaply play their games that way, hated it.

-AC

though i didn't play it as much as AC did, i'd say... i never even got around to finishing it...

Bardock42
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well, I happened to be good enough to not save at inopportune times.

It was made so that saving your game wasn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, and it worked, because people who need to cheaply play their games that way, hated it.

-AC And isn't that what games are really all about...

Neo Darkhalen
I never found the save feature in Dead rising to be a problem, it made the game more tactical and restricting, the only problem I had with it was the idiotic survivor AI.

jaden101
Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I never found the save feature in Dead rising to be a problem, it made the game more tactical and restricting, the only problem I had with it was the idiotic survivor AI.

yeah...although it was highly amusing to lead them into a horde of zombies and watch them get their genitals eaten off

sometimes i think an arcade option would've been good in dead rising...so you could simply drop into an area with a load of zombies and kill them with a load of different and easily available weapons

had to love the big hole bore machine...sticking through a zombie belly and watch them spin around hitting other zombies while their limbs snapped off...genius

Alpha Centauri
The game wasn't without flaw.

The communicaton with Otis was frustrating beyond belief, sometimes the controls were a little unresponsive, and the survivor A.I. is a pain.

Besides that, it was a masterclass in simple-but-effective gaming.

-AC

Bardock42
I was hardly able to read the writing, but it was extremly fun to play.

Though I think an omnipotent save function should be a basic in every game.

Neo Darkhalen
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The game wasn't without flaw.

The communicaton with Otis was frustrating beyond belief, sometimes the controls were a little unresponsive, and the survivor A.I. is a pain.

Besides that, it was a masterclass in simple-but-effective gaming.

-AC

Ahh Otis, how i hated him...the text was a problem as well, but i could just about make it out most of the time, if not then i used the arrows as a guide.

Nemesis X
Kinda makes you wish Capcom should've delayed Dead Rising so that that they can improve the survivor A.I. but that won't happen since the game was released two years ago. Anyways, Dead Rising wasn't made in 2008 so you guys are talking about a game that's from 2006. So technically, this is off topic.

Neo Darkhalen
Dead rising Chop till you drop is an 08, early 09 release i believe.

So...

Nemesis X
The Wii version of Dead Rising sucks bollocks and will never deserve to be one of the choices to be game of the year!

Bardock42
Originally posted by Nemesis X
The Wii version of Dead Rising sucks bollocks and will never deserve to be one of the choices to be game of the year! How do you know?

Nemesis X
Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you know?

It's true that I don't have a Nintendo Wii. But I do have what you call Youtube smart guy.

Raoul
Originally posted by Nemesis X
It's true that I don't have a Nintendo Wii. But I do have what you call Youtube smart guy.

does this 'youtube' device allow you to play wii games?

Bardock42
But...it's not out on the Wii yet What the f**k?

There's hardly any videos on it, and certainly not nearly enough to judge the game. The hell, dude.

Nemesis X
There haven't been any vids for DR on the Wii? Huh. Guess it was just a one time show thing I guess. Let's just forget I said anything about this because now I'm thinking this conversation is gonna go down somewhere I'm not gonna like.

Bardock42
Fair enough. Since I just looked at it for the first time, I must actually say that it looks quite good, imo. I am not a fan of the Wii, all the games I played have been extremely unfun at worst, at best alright, but this looks actually like it could be fun on the Wii just as much as it is on the X-Box.

Nemesis X
I only think DR on the Wii is bad because the graphics look less awesome than the 360's.

Neo Darkhalen
Originally posted by Nemesis X
I only think DR on the Wii is bad because the graphics look less awesome than the 360's.

Graphics don't make a game, gameplay does.

Nemesis X
Well graphics kinda do make the game but I do see your point. Gameplay does matter (added with good graphics stick out tongue )

Neo Darkhalen
Yes I understand things have to look nice, but the emphasis should be on the gameplay more then the graphics...however i agree with your point, the game has to look good as well.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>