1. No one posted the criteria they used, which is essential to any list. Having read the article, the criteria they used make decisions like Zelda and Pong more palatable, if still debatable.
2. These things are meant to spark discussion, not be "right." Take it all with a grain of salt before heaping on the verbal barbs at Game Informer.
That would be true however, there's only 1 reason GTA3 would be classed as 'greater ' than say, GTA San Andreas, and that would be because it came first. lets be honest, GTA 3 started it, but san andreas was the best one in that generation. Which leads me to believe that the list is actually supposed to be top most influential.
I'll bet if everyone is this forum made an HONEST top 20 games relevent to them, NO one NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, would include Mike Tyson in their top 20. Be Honest.
While I may not agree with 90%, that's not far off.
I must say games like Super Metroid, Mario 3, Contra, GoldenEye, Pong, Mario 64, Wolfenstein, etc. etc. etc. Those not only were abusrdly awesome games for their time, they are still fun to play every now and then. On top of that, they were really good during their time, as well.
Also, I don't find some modern game to be any fun...and be too boring such as some of the newer FPS titles. I have yet to play MW2...it just doesn't seem all that different from other FPS titles. Gears of War 1 and 2 were/are great...but...I didn't get the enjoyment out of those as I did from Perfect Dark and Goldeneye.
Obviously, I don't agree with the list, but I can understand their sentiments on some of the selections.
Agreed. But see my #1 at the top of this page, because their criteria included historical significance as part of the rankings. According to your criteria, yes, a lot of that list is bonkers. According to theirs, however, it becomes much more understandable.
Also, a lot of that stuff is legitimately still fun. Simplicity can be awesome, grainy graphics and all.
Yup, and MW (as well as most shooters) probably wouldn't have existed were it not for Doom's success. It's a shame some can't have respect for the classic shooters too.
Obviously though, the Game Informer list wasn't going by the 'improvements'. Mainly the titles that were the first of their kind. Otherwise, OoT would've been #1 on the list instead of the NES Zelda.
Gender: Male Location: Northumberland,
United Kingdom
I have respect for Doom, it's just an inferior game to modern shooters.
To add to Digis "Also, a lot of that stuff is legitimately still fun. Simplicity can be awesome, grainy graphics and all.":
I agree, hence the reason I didn't say 100%, there are fantastic classic games, a lot of them. Games have generally improved though. My top 10 would include a lot of old games.
(The 90% was plucked from the air btw, I didn't do the maths, I was just making a point.)
Eh, that's the problem with such lists. They include both historical significance AND modern playability. How much does one weigh each? I understand Pong being on any list that includes history, and agree with it, but I really think any list should just choose one or the other, and not try to mix both.
One thing I would have changed. I would put Half Life further ahead, and maybe that spot Half Life 2 was.
Much more important game in my opinion. Other than that, it's a list. The picking new games over old sickens me. If a best of list is needed to be done, you have to include the old games and compare them to the impact the new games have.
Did Doom have a bigger impact than Modern Warfare 1 and 2? Yes it did. Is it better comparatively, hell no but compared to games in thier respective years, then Doom wins because it was the best shooter out and one of the best games.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 7th, 2010 11:03 PM
