PDA

View Full Version : IGN's Top 100 Games--once again.



m1s1n
30-07-2005, 17:29
Another year, another Top 100 list.
IGN seems to put these things out quarterly.
The last Top 100 list was decided upon by email votes, and resulted in 'Resident Evil 4' being named the #1 game on the list. Naturally there were a large amount of complaints involving how much of a popularity contest the entire debacle.
Now, as in years past IGN has created another Top 100 list, picked by editors. (http://top100.ign.com/2005/index.html) This list shows more 'traditional' games at the top-end of the list, such as 'Super Mario Bros' and 'Chrono Trigger'. A lot of the top-end games seem to be based on impact to the industry than anything else.

In my eyes, Top 100 lists are an excellent chance to bring up an interesting topic to a recurring theme that is rarely ever touched upon--is there really ever a #1?

As I see it, the best way to operate these lists is in a non-linear fashion. Make a grouping of 100 great "things" in no particular order. Ultimately this helps to eliminate 'favorites', and helps people avoid connecting 'impact to the industry' to 'quality'. However, there is a problem with working the list in a non-linear fashion in that a game like 'Metroid' is clearly a better game, than say 'Simpson's Skateboarding'.

So what are your thoughts?
Do you generally agree with the lists? Disagree?
Should they be linear or non-linear? Or do you have a better method completely?
Finally, are there simply too many of these lists to qualify any of the 'best' games?

Snoozer
30-07-2005, 17:47
I think that was a pretty good list, there were not many games that I didn't like in that list, mostly classics that can be played again and again, and games that brought something new to the gaming industry...

I liked it.

:D

Kjell
31-07-2005, 01:25
I still say that Majora's Mask was miles better than Ocarina of Time. It's Nintendo's forgotten masterpiece and truly the greatest game ever made. :o

:p

Ravening Wh0re
31-07-2005, 01:49
I still say that Majora's Mask was miles better than Ocarina of Time. It's Nintendo's forgotten masterpiece and truly the greatest game ever made. :o

:p


I agree, but I suppose MM never had the same impact that OOT did.

I also preferred MArio Sunshine over Mario 64, but have to acknowledge that it wasn't revelutionary anymore :)

Also, I preferred "a link to the past" over "ocarina of time"

The Dragon Reborn
31-07-2005, 05:58
OOT is the best game, this is a fact and it is not up for discussion.(the period is ment to be read out loud)

TenTailedCat
31-07-2005, 06:21
I'm less than impressed that Shenmue - while a commercial failure - was left out. As a game it's one of the greatest and most groundbreaking ever made, and gets ignored.
Can't spell ignorance without IGN...

Kjell
31-07-2005, 11:55
OOT is the best game, this is a fact and it is not up for discussion.(the period is ment to be read out loud)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. ;) :D Yes, OoT was a pretty blooming good game. There is no way you can deny that. When it was released it was so damned good, in fact. The best game ever, even. But then MM was released.

And it was better. It's hard to put in words exactly why it was superior to OoT, but the best I can say is that it had soul, or something. If I am to express it in as cheesy a way as I can, well... OoT was great, MM was Nintendo.

:cheese:


Don't get me wrong, I in no way dislike OoT. But MM was simply so much better. The only reason OoT is remembered more is because nothing like it had ever been made before. It's like with Metroid Prime and Prime 2. Echoes is the better game, no denying that, but it is not as new anymore. Or maybe it's like with Halo and Halo 2? The latter being better, but simply not as shockingly new.

Now now, you may like one game more than the other, but that doesn't mean it's of an all-out higher quality.


Anyway, that was my ramble. YMMW. ;)

Cheesejoff
31-07-2005, 12:00
It's just based on the impact they had for their time. BF 2 is generally regarded as being better than 1942, but even so 1942 is higher up the list. Same with Half-Life 2. People complain when sequels are just the same game only slightly improved, yet the "slightly improved" versions are rated lower!

IMo that's something hoding sequels back, some people didn't like Halo 2 because it was too different, some people thought it was too similiar.

Delicious Soy
01-08-2005, 11:05
Welll that one is a little more decent then the player decided one, probably because it was made by people who had been playing games before the X-box. I don't think you can really rank some games due to their radical difference in genre but I think anything I saw as an important game is in there, aside from no Commander Keen :(

Shining_Spear
01-08-2005, 19:46
Can't spell ignorance without IGN...
So true...

I would like a nonlinear top 100 thing too. Some Games are good in different, not easily comparable ways, like Metroid and Half-Life 2. Now how do you really decide which one is better?

Makaber
02-08-2005, 00:55
Overall I'm pretty happy, especially pleased with X-Com and TIE Fighter getting high placings. There are a few I miss though:

Descent. I've never played anything quite like it, it was amazingly good, with the weapon upgrades, smart enemies, incredible graphics, and huge levels.

Flashback. In an era of carbon copy platformers, they combined a Prince of Persia-like control scheme, a convincing story that went beyond "getting through the level", awesome graphics (some of the best on the Mega Drive, I think), and awesome level design. It's my personal favorite platformer ever.

Quake. While the single player campaign was kinda bland, it did look amazing (even though I think Descent was more impressive), and more importantly, it spawned online gaming, with organised clans and matches.

Ravening Wh0re
02-08-2005, 05:53
I actually agree with just about all the games in the list. ALthough they seem to have omitted games like....Vagrant Story :mad: (

I'm not sure I would have ranked them the same though.....

strange
03-08-2005, 02:43
I feel most of these lists do GROUNDBREAKING instead of quality.

Like RW said, Sunshine is superior to 64, but it wasnt "original" anymore. Mario 3 is ages better than super mario, which wasnt really THAT good (Yeah, groundbreaking), but Mario 3 came by and kicked its ass. I agree, the non-linear fashion is way better. And personally I prefer WW way past OoT, which just looks horrid, old and broken these days, and it even feels static and dead.

Its hard, since visuals are so important in games (yes, they are, we´re not playing joust any more (for a reason)), and games constantly improving and stagnating it´s a tough nut. I think they should also rank them among generations, since for me Mario Bros is not entertainment anymore, Yes it was when I was eight, but today? I wouldn´t touch it. I think "hardcore gamers" and journalists are often too stuck in the past, I mean, I see 11 NES games in there.

Thats over 10% of the list. I think journalists need to get out of the past, and to the present. Grantet SOME games are ageless (Like many RPGs and Adventure games), but even if some oldie on the NES inspired something genuinly brilling today, it doesn´t mean that the NES oldie is better than the new game that "stole" the idea and turned out something brilliant.

Either way, bad list, SMB best game EVER? I think not, even Mega Man 3 kicks its ass. And FFX over FFVII? Well, tells you how much game journalists know about litterature and storyteling, did ANYONE enjoy FFX´s moaning characters?

Ravening Wh0re
03-08-2005, 04:09
I feel most of these lists do GROUNDBREAKING instead of quality.

Like RW said, Sunshine is superior to 64, but it wasnt "original" anymore. Mario 3 is ages better than super mario, which wasnt really THAT good (Yeah, groundbreaking), but Mario 3 came by and kicked its ass. I agree, the non-linear fashion is way better. And personally I prefer WW way past OoT, which just looks horrid, old and broken these days, and it even feels static and dead.

Its hard, since visuals are so important in games (yes, they are, we´re not playing joust any more (for a reason)), and games constantly improving and stagnating it´s a tough nut. I think they should also rank them among generations, since for me Mario Bros is not entertainment anymore, Yes it was when I was eight, but today? I wouldn´t touch it. I think "hardcore gamers" and journalists are often too stuck in the past, I mean, I see 11 NES games in there.

Thats over 10% of the list. I think journalists need to get out of the past, and to the present. Grantet SOME games are ageless (Like many RPGs and Adventure games), but even if some oldie on the NES inspired something genuinly brilling today, it doesn´t mean that the NES oldie is better than the new game that "stole" the idea and turned out something brilliant.

Either way, bad list, SMB best game EVER? I think not, even Mega Man 3 kicks its ass. And FFX over FFVII? Well, tells you how much game journalists know about litterature and storyteling, did ANYONE enjoy FFX´s moaning characters?


I very much agree.
When I first saw screenshots of WW, my jaw dropped. I mean, this was the Zelda of my dreams! It was exactly how I pictured a 3D Zelda in my own mind. I was ecstatic.
OOT on the other hand, although I enjoyed it, it was mainly because of the mechanics and the feel of the game. The game in my eyes looked very muddy, and I never had a rapport with this Link.

What I found strange was how low FF7 came in the list. This I would have almost bet as at least low 20s if not in the top 10.

I think the list was compiled to appease the hardcore fanboys, and to give IGN themselves some kudos.