• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All-TIME 100 Video Games

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
101,196
Reaction score
45,144
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is from TIME Magazine: Full List | All-TIME 100 Video Games | TIME.com

Overall, I think it's a good list...but

Battlefield 1942 and Medal of Honor should be listed for the 90's. Without those games, Call of Duty wouldn't exist.

The "list" for the 2010's is dumbass. Where is Skyrim?

The list seems light on MMO's.

No Crysis
 
Awful list. How the hell can Ocarina of Time be missing and then pick Demon's Souls for the 2000s, which absolutely hinges on the former to exist? The metroid franchise having two entries when zelda and mario only have one apiece is even more bizarre.

And Portal was a good gimmick, not a great game. It lasted around 3 hours.
 
Good. They included Metroid Prime and Final Fantasy Tactics.

No Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together?

...they don't specifically mention Castlevania: Symphony of the Night or Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time?
 
They don't seem to like including multiple games from the same franchise which is silly considering the history of video games.
 
How the **** do they have Oblivion and not Morrowind?

I agree.

While Oblivion had better graphics, it was not a better game than Morrowind. And Skyrim is a better game than both...yet it is missing.

Go figure.
 
Star Fox, Mario Kart
 
I can't believe they put Pong on the list but no Combat. I used to have a disc of dozens of old games and that one was better than pong and I think it came with the old Atari systems. At least I think that was the name of it--where you could dogfight with bi-planes or shoot each other with tanks.
 
Solitaire was an interesting choice. Glad to see Myst and Shadow of the Colossus on there.

Where the heck is Command and Conquer?
 
Last edited:
That list has issues....

No, Banjo Kazooie? WTF?
 
What I liked seeing on the list: Wizardry, Dune 2, M.U.L.E., UO. Those are all games that are underapreciated today and yet defined their era's.
What was odd: Simcity 2000 but not the original? Starcraft but not Warcraft? Half-Life 2 but not 1?
What did not belong: Paperboy, Punch-Out, Batman
What is missing: Eve Online, Railroad Tycoon, Daggerfall, Star Trek

The list seems light on MMO's.

The only MMO that is not there that should be to my mind is Eve.

How the **** do they have Oblivion and not Morrowind?

Or more importantly Daggerfall. It is odd that each release since has been a little weaker. Morrowind was great, but after Daggerfall seemed small. Oblivion was good, but not even close to Morrowind. Skyrim is OK, but simply not up to Oblivion.

Fallout series?

Good call, Fallout 1 should be on the list.

Star Fox, Mario Kart

I went to buy my first washing machine/dryer, and spent hours in the store plying Starfox when it first came out.
 
Two more that I just remembered that should be on the list: X-COM and Pool of Radiance.
 
I don't know how much it really qualifies as a "video" game but what about Rogue? I'd play that damned ASCII game for hours at a time.
 
System shock 2 should be there too. Shodan > Glados.
 
And Portal was a good gimmick, not a great game. It lasted around 3 hours.

Portal was a pretty revolutionary gimmick, though. It was a quantum leap in puzzle gaming. Don't blow it off so easily. The length of a game is not indicative of it's quality.
 
This is from TIME Magazine: Full List | All-TIME 100 Video Games | TIME.com

Overall, I think it's a good list...but

Battlefield 1942 and Medal of Honor should be listed for the 90's. Without those games, Call of Duty wouldn't exist.

The "list" for the 2010's is dumbass. Where is Skyrim?

The list seems light on MMO's.

No Crysis

I think it's faulty for any video game list to include the 2010s when we're only 3 years into it.
 
Portal was a pretty revolutionary gimmick, though. It was a quantum leap in puzzle gaming. Don't blow it off so easily. The length of a game is not indicative of it's quality.

It was a good game. But it hasn't influenced anything (unlike the half life's and counter strikes) and on its own isn't anywhere near meaty enough to justify a top 100 berth.
 
I was so addicted to Goldeneye I got a little twitchy just seeing its name.....
 
I think it's faulty for any video game list to include the 2010s when we're only 3 years into it.

Yep. What they've picked are sequels to better games that didn't substantially change much from the originals.
 
It was a good game. But it hasn't influenced anything (unlike the half life's and counter strikes) and on its own isn't anywhere near meaty enough to justify a top 100 berth.

Portal is an evolutionary step in the platforming games, and is revolutionary so in it's aspect as a puzzle game, and it's explicit lack of combat mechanics.

And you may be right in that there haven't been follow-up games based on it. But that's less of the quality of "Portal" and more the difficulty in marketing it.

After all, how many first-person shooter clones are out there right now? The reason why isn't necessarily because they're good games. Rather, it's because people will buy them.

If people bought more puzzle type games, there would be a greater market for them and therefore a greater supply.

But the market for them isn't nearly as large as first-person shooters where people just move around and shoot stuff. Therefore, video game companies don't invest as much money to develop them.

So just because there isn't as big of a market for similar games, I don't think a great game in a certain genre should be under-appreciated because of financial concerns in developing games like it.
 
Portal is an evolutionary step in the platforming games, and is revolutionary so in it's aspect as a puzzle game, and it's explicit lack of combat mechanics.

And you may be right in that there haven't been follow-up games based on it. But that's less of the quality of "Portal" and more the difficulty in marketing it.

After all, how many first-person shooter clones are out there right now? The reason why isn't necessarily because they're good games. Rather, it's because people will buy them.

If people bought more puzzle type games, there would be a greater market for them and therefore a greater supply.

But the market for them isn't nearly as large as first-person shooters where people just move around and shoot stuff. Therefore, video game companies don't invest as much money to develop them.

So just because there isn't as big of a market for similar games, I don't think a great game in a certain genre should be under-appreciated because of financial concerns in developing games like it.

But platform games sell well. Portal is a puzzle game as much as Zelda, which also sells well. And portal sold well.

It's mechanics just haven't influenced the industry, nor did it have the mechanics to create or redefine a genre. It's a good game with an interesting gimmick, but it fails as any sort of watershed, landmark game or as a fully formed experience in ita own right that one would expect from a top 100 game.
 
I can only guess that they've deliberately come up with a controversial list to attract attention exactly like this thread. They've put little effort in to any text and focused on the divisive "poll" of their choices. I'm sure it'll get them lots of clicks and therefore lots of advertising revenue.
 
I don't know how much it really qualifies as a "video" game but what about Rogue? I'd play that damned ASCII game for hours at a time.

Rogue didn't make the list, but NetHack did.
 
Portal was a pretty revolutionary gimmick, though. It was a quantum leap in puzzle gaming. Don't blow it off so easily. The length of a game is not indicative of it's quality.

Plus I absolutely despise the "LONG = GOOD" notion.

Give me a tightly pulled together, engaging, interesting game over a lengthy, grandiose, but slowly repetitive one every day of the week. I love me my RPG's, but even I recognize that often times they've got to the point that they grow soooo long that I can find myeslf being bored and moving onto the new thing.

Portal had a really neat play style, a wonderful take on puzzle gaming merging into a quasi FPS feel, wonderful writing, and engaging mesh of game play and story. The length of it actually helped the game in my mind, allowing it not to get stale prior to completion while at the same time giving you a continual feeling of moving forward that made you compelled to continue to play.
 
Back
Top Bottom