f13.net

Lets all mock/laud/dissect PC Gamer's '100 Best Games of All Time' (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/16/the-100-best-pc-games-of-all-time/)

Personally I favour the 'they rated X above Y' approach, rather than just picking on absolute positions.

Flight Simulater 2004 better than Grim Fandango or Starcraft? Oblivion better than Half Life 2, Doom, Civ IV or Day of the Tentacle?

Pah!

I can live with Deus Ex at number one though.

You linked page 6...I was wondering why the list started at 50 not 100 O.o

Hahaha Supreme Commander 2 in the top 30 while Starcraft is in the 80s and no original C&C or even one of the Warcraft RTS games on the list?

It is like the list was made with some ulterior motive to push games to the top that either came out recently or have a sequel coming out soon.

Original Quake didn't even make the list even though it effectively launched the entire "competitive gaming" thing back in the late 90s.

I don't get to play many PC games (or games for that matter) but man, they left out some really good ones that are not on there. Shit, Oregon Trail was probably better than 80% of their list :p

I got to Dungeon Siege being on the list at all and just closed the tab.

Usual shit, but at least with Ultima VII and Deus Ex (actually toppling the list, whoa) finally included in a top 10. They're getting better :P

Feck, fixed that, thanks.


The list really didn't seem to have a lot of logic to it, although I think Red Alert made it in somewhere in the 70s.

I don't know what criteria they used, but 'impact' was almost certainly not one of them, with as you say, the omission of Quake, and the low ranks for games like Doom and Starcraft. Yet they tease us by putting Deus Ex at number one.

I haven't heard of half of the MMOs they included either (I'm not even certain they should be included), although it's pretty hard to dismiss WoW from this sort of list in most contexts. Whether or not you like the game, you cannot deny the extent of it's influence.

Oblivion shouldnt have been in the top 10. It was a decent game, but it was only a great game after you modded the fuck out of it to fix all the broken design decisions.

How the hell could they put Supreme commander 2 above the first?

Disregarding the actual positions of the games...No Vampire: Bloodlines in a top 100 is immense fail.


Dungeon Siege is truly a piece of shit.  I remember LAN partying it up with 4 friends...our party got about 1/3 of the way through the game before becoming incredibly bored.  The last 1/3 of the game was spent with us simply dying and resurrecting further on to get past the tedious and horrible content.  Forever after, any one of us could simply say 'Dungeon Siege' and the rest of us would all facepalm.

No mention of Quest for Glory makes me sadface. Fuck King's Quest, it was all about Quest for Glory for me.

Or hero's quest as I initially knew it as. :heart:

Yeah, I didn't play it that early, my first exposure was after they revamped the first one to use that fancy mouse thing. Then the second one still needed you to type in shit, but it was that totally cutting edge sort where it would PAUSE THE GAME while you typed, instead of you having to frantically figure out the right syntax while a fucking alien was bearing down on you and you were trying to get into a goddamn escape pod ARGHGHGHGHGHGH

Phew, sorry, Space Quest (2?) flashback.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/85916/farnsworth_angry.gif)

I remember grinding climbing on that one tree outside the village. :grin:

My problem with most of these lists is that they seem slaves to the moment.  As good as SC2 is, for instance, are we really comfortable calling it better than SC1 after less than a year?  I guess that gets at one of the most important  considerations for me when I think of best games though, replayability and longevity.  I think there are some really exceptional games that should be near the top of the list regardless, (Half Life 2, Deux Ex, etc). 

Then again, I'm not sure there are 100 good enough games that I'd want to put on an all time good list.  Maybe they need to cut the list down to 20 and really think about the criteria.

Haha, I totally did that too.  :heart:

Oblivion was okay but I am not sure how it can beat out Diablo I and I also think that at the moment SC 1 > SC 2 but might be willing to reform that opinion once we see the full impact the SC2 editor will have.

I can't even read through that. The choices and order makes my head hurt, even after removing my personal biases.

But the commentary...I guess there's something about being an official game writer type person that turns you into a knobgoblin.

I agree with your sentiment, to an extent.  Still, I thought this was a very well thought out list for the most part. 

I like that they recognized Rome:TW for what it is. The high point of Total War games that will never be beaten.

Unless they do Rome:TW 2, which they totally should. Just take those "features" they added to Empire out back and shoot them.

I dunno, even cynical me is quietly hoping shogun 2 is going to be good.

Wurm, 56th  :awesome_for_real:

 8-)

I'm hoping, but it wouldn't be a release purchase for me. Rome would.

The good: that list reminded me that I haven't played Mount and Blade since one of the early beta versions. Gotta get that updated.

The cynically amusing: Civ IV made the top 20, but Civ V was nowhere to be found. I can only hope that Civ VI pretends that Civ V never happened.

The forever: Was Diablo II really released in 2000? Eleven years ago? Come on, Blizzard, get your act together.

Go Bloodworth!    :awesome_for_real:

Those lists remind me that I have very different tastes in games compared to many mainstream gamers.  That and I'm old.

Other than that, I just look to these lists for entertainment and/or suggestions for new games to try. 

Well, it didn't dissapoint in its ability to make me laugh. Bioshock? Dungeon Keeper?! They list a shit load of sequals, and then only pick Civ 4?!?!? (Civ 2 being the greatest game of it's decade)

No M.U.L.E.  :mob:

Agreed on Civ 2. And SMAC should really outrank any Civ game. And Civ 4 was bland shit until Kael fixed it, but I guess mods don't make the cut?

I'm starting to wonder if you get a royalty check for every time you mention Kael.

I'm starting to put together that Sky is prone to hero worship.

Regarding the list, a best-of list is always going to be meaningless and potentially clueless. They could have a running list of most important games, which could actually have some kind of objective founding. Many great games would qualify also for that list, but atleast it would be possible to point to something concrete that the game did that made it important. Did it invent a genre? Was it a technical break-through? Did it change the way games were viewed? Would also give it a historical slant instead of this absurd release proximity bias.