That list is pretty hilarious.
100. Journey | The 100 Greatest Video Games Of All Time | Empire Online
TLOU #1. I think people on this forum will like that world of warcraft is #3 and everquest isn't on the list at all.
I think i've probably played about 60 of these games, which is a pretty good ratio. I hate to admit I've never played Goldeneye, Shenmue, RDR, and the Uncharteds but thats the only ones I'm missing in the top 25 and I do already own RDR/Uncharted 1-3, just haven't had a chance to play yet. Dunno if I'd agree with TLOU as #1, playing PS4 version now and it is very good but is it the best game ever... dunno
That list is pretty hilarious.
Lol Starcraft right next to fucking Uncharted 3. Shit list is terrible.
Tie Fighter, Final Fantasy Tactics not even on the list. Fail. Was this made by an 11 year old?
BG2 and Planescape only about 20 spots ahead of DA:O (which shouldn't be on any competent list) is hilarious and Counter Strike at 78 is an absolute joke. It is like the listmaker only included older games he knew he was forced to then fleshed out everything else with modern crap.
And I just noticed Borderlands is no where to be found
Last edited by Tenks; 08-15-2014 at 06:05 PM.
Super Metroid way down at #94.
Castlevania: SotN or any other entry in the series not even on the list.
I'm surprised to see Final Fantasy III not even on the list despite many people considering it the best Final Fantasy. And then X being ahead of IX and VIII.
the website is primarily a movie enthusiast site and i think the list was compiled from reader votes, so it probably makes more sense when you consider that. i mean, stuff like heavy rain and no minecraft...
Oh a movie site? Must be why MGS4 is on the list.
No chance in hell there's 75 games better than Chrono Trigger
Where's Star Control 2? Rerolled should retaliate with a better top 100.
This thread deserves a shaw, not because of anything the OP did necessarily, but these top 100 list threads always deserve a shaw.
Lists like this are indeed stupid.
If there was a serious ranking it would need to be broke down in to genre, top 10 in each. Top 3 in each can be voted on for best overall game.
You cant stack The Last of Us up against Deus Ex. Deus Ex was far more progressive for its era then The Last of Us was for it's own etc etc
Madden 05' perhaps missing? or whatever year you prefer.
Awful list no doubt.
Sorry but any list basically no matter what influences it that doesn't have FFT in the top 5 and FF3 in the top 10 is completely dead to me and should not be used for anything outside virtual toilet paper. There are opinions and then there are facts....FFT/FF3 in your top 10 let alone your top fucking 100 is what scientists call a god damn fucking fact my friend.
The topic is no longer about how shitty the list is, but about how many games you played on it and how many you finished.
Finished: 31 (much to my surprise, I thought it would be a lot less)
I counted 'finished' for things like WoW, Counter Strike or Tetris if you basically played it a lot. (technically some versions of Tetris have an ending too).
Played: 50. Finished all of them. Why is Homeworld on there? Why are the Zeldas in the wrong order? Grim Fandango was a really entertaining game, but top 100?
Do not understand lists like this.
Homeworld was fucking amazing. I've never played a game before or since that gave me chills like that one did. It definitely deserves a place in the top 100 games of all time.
To me theres a lot of reasons to consider games best. Sometimes games are amazing just because they create or define genres, sometimes they're good because the story is amazing, and sometimes they are good just because they are mechanically engaging. It's really hard to compare games that are good for one reason against those which are good for others, and some are so objective, such as rating games by story. I thought homeworld's story and world were utterly enthralling, but I can understand that there are people out there who likely hate it.
FF tactics for example is a game that mechanically is passable, but god I got into that story so hard. Easily my favorite world of all the final fantasy games by a mile. I don't think any of their top 30 games would make my top 10 list, tbh.
List: Shit, but what the fuck did you expect
Last edited by Elerion; 08-16-2014 at 10:39 AM.
finished 28 out of 40 games played. Never been a big console player, I dont even recognize 20 titles on that list
and no Wing Commander on that list is a disgrace. Even a fucking 15 year old should know of this now with Roberts doing Star Citizen....
and the #1 is a fucking joke. TLOU is not even a real game, it's a movie with some gameplay from the 90s (Shitty stealth) thrown in, and you play a real shitbag in it.
Last edited by Quineloe; 08-16-2014 at 10:48 AM.
FF7, Oblivion, FO3, AC2, BSI, KH, MGS2, Heavy rain, just from a glance makes me laugh at this list....and sadden that TLOU is #1
Last edited by Derpa; 08-16-2014 at 11:34 AM.
Super metroid 94.
Dragon agerigins above it.. hahahahahah
That FF7. hahaha holy shit.
This list is hilarious.
Homeworld:Cataclysm is a great game that solved most of these issues. Though the multiplayer was still ridiculously unbalanced.
EDIT: To address the overall a point a great game that makes a list like this should be tops in at least one category and not fail any of them. Gameplay, story, controls, content, art, interface, aesthetic, etc. Homeworld probably has the best controls for a fully navigable 3D RTS environment so it is tops in a category, but that it failed others hurts it. It did it first so you have to question if it gets points for that, but Cataclysm had the same controls and did not have the same design failures in the campaign. It makes sense that Cataclysm is actually a better game, they had a chance to learn from their mistakes.
Last edited by The Master; 08-17-2014 at 01:42 AM.
I can only assume that the person who made that list has only played the 100 games on it in their life and mostly breaths through their mouth.
That said, played 52, and 'beat' most of those if you assume you can beat something that was mostly played for multiplayer.
Played 85, finished 51.
Call of Juarez above Planescape: Torment...I have no words.
That said, you're right that the multiplayer was lacking in both. I think Cataclysm did multiplayer much better, with the asymmetrical combat that was more balanced (Though certainly still lacking). There are games which were awful int he single player, but are defined by their multiplayer as a contrast. Nox was an absolutely brilliant game. It's single player campaign was total balls, but man was the multiplayer incredible.
I honestly barely glanced at the list before I commented on how stupid it was, they always are. However since we are still talking about it I think it's funny that no one has brought up Shenmue at #7. This is a statement beyond bad taste or incorrect ordering the fact that someone would put that there blows my mind.
Why are people acting as if this is some attempt at a definitive list of the 100 greatest games of all time? It's the 100 greatest games according to the readers of Empire Magazine who voted on this poll. Just like every such list is the x amount of games that are considered the greatest of all time according to the opinion of some person or some group of people. There is not such thing as a "best game of all time" to begin with, everything is up to subjectivity. So the only thing you can really argue against lists like these are that they shouldn't be ordered lists to begin with, but even then, the order of the list is clearly simply the amount of votes each item received.
Also, it takes a special type of idiot to attempt to argue someone's opinion is wrong instead of simply different from his/her own. TLOU for me, personally, is definitely in the pantheon of "best games of all time" along with things like FF7, WoW, RDR, HL2... (I wouldn't be able to rank them in relation to each other, seeing as I loved them all for different reasons) so I don't have difficulty believing that this recent masterpiece was on a lot of the mainstreams mind to the point where it received the most votes which resulted in it getting first place. That doesn't mean that you now have to share that opinion as well.
People love arguing over lists, always have.
never even heard of The Last of Us
is it really that good?
The secret scaling also wasn't that big a deal, fighting the basic enemy with almost no ships was still harder than fighting the doubleplus buffed enemy with a maxed fleet of destroyers and battlecruisers.
Again, except for the still questionable multiplayer, all these issues were fixed in Cataclysm while retaining everything good about Homeworld's controls and mechanics.
How do you put FF8 on that list but omit 4 and 6?
i'm mostly sad no one went on an epic rant on how everquest or ultima online missing from the list is a crime against humanity and maybe a vow to hunt down the readers of empire and PVP them irl
metacritic rankings are also an odd duck, not sure how to sort by user rating this is just critics rating. like what da fuq is out of the park baseball
Last edited by spronk; 08-17-2014 at 10:18 PM.
Do you think Wing Commander fails as a game because you can get put into the Loser's campaign?
Last edited by Quineloe; 08-17-2014 at 10:42 PM.
"Oh please, TLOU is horribly outdated stealth mechanics"
The stealth mechanics aren't the only part of the gameplay. It is that, mixed with the great transitions into gumplay/melee; and a crafting system that actually adds something to the game, which is backed up by a great scavenging system. Plus, you have to take into account that it's attempting to tell a grounded story. Perhaps not strictly realistic, but at the very least somewhat believable compared to what else is out there. That same sensibility is mirrored by the gameplay. They went as far with it as is allowed by the world they are trying to create. I'd even argue they went a bit too far (nail bombs and flame thrower), but you have to draw a line somewhere. Calling it outdated in that sense seems a bit arbitrary to me, seeing as I doubt you'd be able to point me to many games that offer the same kind of gameplay.
"coupled with a morally very questionable main character"
That's kind of the entire point.
" and it only thrives because of the massive bonding with a cute girl."
Again, kind of the point. It's the fact that they managed to convey the bond that develops over the course of the game between the two protagonists so well to the player that makes the game's narrative as good as it is.
As for "cute girl", I won't question your interest in fictional pre-teen girls here today, but you're kind of sweeping away the great characterization by implying that that is her only redeemable quality.
And "only thrives"? The multiplayer was very well received, and is regarded as one of the best and most original multiplayer experiences by the people who play it, so there must be SOMETHING to the gameplay that you're missing.
"the combat isn't anywhere near that level"
Again, I'm comparing it with the fact that it does a lot with a very limited scope in terms of amount of mechanics.
"nor is it as punishing as you just reload the checkpoint right before the action scene."
I guess you haven't played grounded yet. You can easily lose half an hour of progress in some instances, die in maximum two hits, and have VERY few supplies. It is an extremely punishing difficulty mode.
Last edited by Heckler; 08-17-2014 at 11:36 PM.
I'd also think it'd be pretty annoying too - imagine you are 10 minutes through a game of starcraft 2 and then the computer decides it's in an undefeatable position and you suddenly get a 'game over' popup.
In Homeworld you take the ships you have from a level forward each time. You don't build from scratch each level. So it is more like you make a minor mistake first level of Stacraft and 30 levels later through the entire Terran/Zerg/Protoss campaign you suddenly can't finish. And they limit resources on each level so you can't just harvest a bunch and build more ships.
They already scale the levels to be harder if you have MORE ships, they could have scaled them to be easier if you had LESS ships. It is a simple design patch. There is, in fact, a fan patch that does this. Simple fix. Not doing it is poor design. Homeworld is a great game despite the flaws, the controls and mechanics are stellar. But it has real design flaws.
I don't understand this. Aren't by definition the games easier if you have less ships when they are harder when you have more ships?They already scale the levels to be harder if you have MORE ships, they could have scaled them to be easier if you had LESS ships. It is a simple design patch. There is, in fact, a fan patch that does this. Simple fix. Not doing it is poor design. Homeworld is a great game despite the flaws, the controls and mechanics are stellar. But it has real design flaws.
I'm at a complete loss what you are describing here, because I absolutely don't remember Homeworld as a particularly hard game.
Last edited by Quineloe; 08-18-2014 at 03:20 AM.
I'd love a new RTS based on the Homeworld contols though. Hopefully the remastering isn't just a money grab and they actually improve the game.
It would have been as easy as deciding a baseline fleet size for each level, and if you are well below that then giving you a pop-up at the start of the mission informing you that winning will be hard, and giving you an option to A) Restart from a previous level, B) Have your fleet reinforced to the baseline and C) Proceed anyway.
Sure, it would break immersion, but so does trying 10 times to beat the level and then having to reload a previous level.
Fun fact: In Homeworld 2 they actually did scale the difficulty down if you jumped in without enough ships because of how many people complained about getting stuck in Homeworld. But in Homeworld 2 you could retire your ships for near full value and take the resources forward with you, so at the end of every mission you could retire your whole fleet and just rebuild it next mission and the level would e as difficult as if you'd jumped in with nothing but your Mothership. Too far in the other direction.
I think, from what you are saying, that what you mean is that it's bad design to compound failure, so each time you do badly it makes it harder in future, which makes it more likely you'll do badly, etc.
I'd agree with that in general, making the game harder if you suck is poor design.
an understated ensemble that puts the "b" in subtle
I couldn't even get through all of ME2 and I really enjoyed ME1. ME2 just seemed so repetitive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)