All-TIME 100 Video Games

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

The dichotomy isn't between a couple of hours and a 100 hour grind quest. Question is how a game that is lauded for a mechanic that you admit would feel bloated and repetitive if pushed beyond a couple hours is consided one of the best ever.

It's a good pack in with orange box and that's all.

Ben K. said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except Portal and Zelda are in different genres because, even though they both are platformers and have puzzles, Zelda has combat and Portal does not.

Therefore, Portal is more of a puzzle game and is in the same genre as games such as Shadowgate 64 and Shadow of Memories, which do not have combat mechanics either.

Y'know....in thinking back there was a game on the Sega Genesis some years ago called Shadowrun that was awesome. It had a really good story and a great balance between combat styles.

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's one of the things that make games such as Portal difficult to market. Many gamers want to enjoy a video game for a good number of hours - they want replayability in order to get the most bang out of their buck. So for game studios to produce games they need to sell them to a large number of people. But there aren't enough people who are willing to buy such games. Which means in order for game studios to produce those games they have to increase the per unit price. Which prices the game out of the market for many gamers.

So the reason why clones of Portal haven't bee produce isn't because Portal is a bad game - it's because game studios can make more money producing clones of other types of games that have much longer playability that the majority of game purchasers will pay for, and so will bring in more revenue.

WHAT!? No Adam's Family Festers Quest?

In all seriousness....with the scary game genre.....Friday the 13th was pretty awesome.

Ben K. said:

The dichotomy isn't between a couple of hours and a 100 hour grind quest. Question is how a game that is lauded for a mechanic that you admit would feel bloated and repetitive if pushed beyond a couple hours is consided one of the best ever.

It's a good pack in with orange box and that's all.

Click to expand...

It'd be a good game packaged on it's own, and would've easily had my money just as much as many random games out there today. Yes, the mechanic could easily become bloated and repetitive....yet they did a great job of being innovative with it AND keeping the game flowing at a pace that fit that it caused it not to be. I can't say the same for other big name games, take for example Assassin's Creed, which absolutely could BENEFIT from having a tighter, shorter, more coherent length of game play imho.

I don't judge a game by how many hours it has...I judge a game by the enjoyment of the experience, it's ability to grip me, and whether or not I thought it was a rewarding use of my time. Portal, short or not, passed that test with flying colors where a number of games that are longer and perhaps less "gimmicky" failed in one or more of those things.

samsmart said:

That's one of the things that make games such as Portal difficult to market. Many gamers want to enjoy a video game for a good number of hours - they want replayability in order to get the most bang out of their buck. So for game studios to produce games they need to sell them to a large number of people. But there aren't enough people who are willing to buy such games. Which means in order for game studios to produce those games they have to increase the per unit price. Which prices the game out of the market for many gamers.

So the reason why clones of Portal haven't bee produce isn't because Portal is a bad game - it's because game studios can make more money producing clones of other types of games that have much longer playability that the majority of game purchasers will pay for, and so will bring in more revenue.

Click to expand...

Penny Arcade has a video comic series that operates off their site, I think called Extra Credits or something like that, which actually addressed this issue.

Video Game Development shops have all pretty much been bought up by a few different major studios. The Studios want to make money, first and foremost, and because of that are far more apt to greenlight, finance, and advertise games that follow a tride and true model that's shown to be popular and sell a **** ton over stuff that is trying to be inovative or thinking outside the box. Thus you get the same basic stuff over and over again either in sequels or things that basically just follow the gameplan of another franchise. A few of the studios have "independent-type" branches that put out some innovative games, but those are largely seen as non-serious side projects that never get the money needed for advertisement or exposure and thus rarely gaining success and thus reaffirming the studio's belief to not bother innovating.

A "Slight Twist on the Military-Combat" Genre FPS is far more bankable and safe, and thus likely to be created, than something that's actually outside the norm.

spud_meister said:

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

Click to expand...

Two words: Cliff - Racer.

I can still hear their squawks. :shock:

Saykine said:

Two words: Cliff - Racer.

I can still hear their squawks. :shock:

Click to expand...

Yeah, but they were a great way to level up. Head into the Ashlands and you could up whatever weapon skill you wanted. :lol:

WTF??? Where's Baldurs Gate/Baldurs Gate 2? Where's Planescape Torment? Where's Icewind Dale? Where's Fallout? Where's Alpha Centauri? Where's the Mass Effect trilogy? Where's Deus Ex? Where's Dragon Age?

Their list sucks.

No Xenogears or Suikoden?

an outrage!

What no Star Trek Armada, no Sins of a Solar Empire, no Age of empires? BF3?

What kind of list is this?


Tim-

Have we all come to the conclusion then, that this list is horse****? Because I sure do.

At least they got Shadow of the Colossus. If they didn't have that, I was ready to kill someone.

Juiposa said:

Have we all come to the conclusion then, that this list is horse****? Because I sure do.

At least they got Shadow of the Colossus. If they didn't have that, I was ready to kill someone.

Click to expand...

Yes...

I think it's safe to say that, by popular consensus, that the list is a bunch of crap.

On the other hand, does anyone expect anything BUT crap from Time?

I can live without any game made after 1992. I think I have played maybe 3 or 4 games that came out after that. I'm surprised Dragon's Lair or Space Ace weren't included.

For me, I just break out my MAME disc and load up some old classics. All these new games are not interesting to me.

Green Balls said:

I can live without any game made after 1992. I think I have played maybe 3 or 4 games that came out after that. I'm surprised Dragon's Lair or Space Ace weren't included.

For me, I just break out my MAME disc and load up some old classics. All these new games are not interesting to me.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it suck to be playing with prehistoric graphics? I don't think I could stand that...no matter how good the game or the gameplay.

Mycroft said:

Doesn't it suck to be playing with prehistoric graphics? I don't think I could stand that...no matter how good the game or the gameplay.

Click to expand...

Not to me. I was tossing quarters in games since the late 70's. I have an affinity for retro games. I find no challenge in new games since so many have cheats and ways to make the games easier. Plus, I hate the graphics in newer games. If I wanted to see something done to look like a movie, I'll watch a movie.

Green Balls said:

Not to me. I was tossing quarters in games since the late 70's. I have an affinity for retro games. I find no challenge in new games since so many have cheats and ways to make the games easier. Plus, I hate the graphics in newer games. If I wanted to see something done to look like a movie, I'll watch a movie.

Click to expand...

Oh...I played games in the 70's as well...and was happy to do so, but I stayed away from the arcades whenever I could.

The thing I like about modern games with their great graphics is that it's like being IN the movie.