Halflife2.net's top 100 games

[VirusType2]

> New games
> test of time
> New games

Uh huh.

Also, why don't you guys take a look at the list again. Really look at it. Now tell me again that there aren't any good "new" games. If you can tell me that and honestly believe it, then go see a shrink.

Well, what do you consider new? I didn't say retro, but most of the games are from the late 1990s, and the rest are generally about 2001, with a couple of exceptions from about '05 - which I also consider old. In dog years I should think even more so.

I didn't feel like taking the extra time to say that not all new games aren't good.

I meant games that would make the list. Where are the 'must have' games from 2007-2011? I haven't seen any games worth buying, much less "greatest game list" status.

 

[ríomhaire]

Company of Heroes, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Mario Galaxy, Little Big Planet and Arkham Asylum spring to mind for me.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't like console games, they are silly. But I have been meaning to buy Stalker, and maybe I'll pick up Arkham Asylum too.

 

[Bad^Hat]

HALFLIFE2.net

?

But can you honestly say that you will look back years from now and feel the same way you do about Modern Warfare 2 as you do about (insert Krynn's favorite oldschool game)?

I think you're kind of missing the point of nostalgia. Not to say that games haven't changed over the years, but your earlier memories are bound to be more powerful. Ask one of those 13 year olds on Xbox Live what they think of MW2 in ten years.

 

[Krynn72]

I didn't feel like taking the extra time to say that not all new games aren't good.
But can you honestly say that you will look back years from now and feel the same way you do about Modern Warfare 2 as you do about (insert Krynn's favorite oldschool game)?

No, I can't honestly say that, because MW2 is a travesty. I do think I can look back and think about how great Civ 5 is. Or Mount & Blade. Or Portal. Or ARMA II. Or several other games I've enjoyed immensely in the past few years.

Well, what do you consider new? I didn't say retro, but most of the games are from the late 1990s, and the rest are generally about 2001, with a couple of exceptions from about '05 - which I also consider old. In dog years I should think even more so.

Are you serious? The majority of the games on the list are NOT from the late 90s. Thats a completely erroneous way of looking at it anyways though. If you take the number of games from each year I bet you'd find that in general theres a similar each year that made it into the list. Then, account for the nostalgic effect and I bet it'd be pretty damn even. Then account for the fact that good games don't necessarily come out in regular intervals and you'll realize that the entire basis for your presumption is inadequate.

 

[VirusType2]

No, I can't honestly say that, because MW2 is a travesty. I do think I can look back and think about how great Civ 5 is. Or Mount & Blade. Or Portal. Or ARMA II. Or several other games I've enjoyed immensely in the past few years.

Other than Civilization 5, these games do not even make my list of games I would play for free. I mean, just .. I'm glad you're having fun.

Are you serious? The majority of the games on the list are NOT from the late 90s. Thats a completely erroneous way of looking at it anyways though. If you take the number of games from each year I bet you'd find that in general theres a similar each year that made it into the list. Then, account for the nostalgic effect and I bet it'd be pretty damn even. Then account for the fact that good games don't necessarily come out in regular intervals and you'll realize that the entire basis for your presumption is inadequate.

I'm not going to put a date by every one of them, but the list is quite similar to the one from 2006 (which are dated): http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...p-100-games-THE-RESULTS!-(slight-56k-warning)

Average has got to be in the 90s.

I think we've just had a rough patch. Half Life 2 was the last of the good games. So, 6 years later, I'm ready for them to make fantastic amazing games again. I believe 2011 is going to be a great year for games. :cheers:

 

[Sheepo]

Other than Civilization 5, these games do not even make my list of games I would play for free.

As if that has anything to do with it.

 

[VirusType2]

As if that has anything to do with it.

What does that matter? I changed what it had to do with.

 

[Krynn72]

Other than Civilization 5, these games do not even make my list of games I would play for free.

I wouldn't expect you to, honestly. I know you have the worst taste in everything. Still, that doesn't prove your point at all, nor disprove mine, since this argument isn't about your opinion, but rather blanket statements saying the game industry is in poor shape compared to the 90s.

I'm not going to put a date by every one of them, but the list is quite similar to the one from 2006 (which are dated): http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...p-100-games-THE-RESULTS!-(slight-56k-warning)

Average has got to be in the 90s.

Wrong. I put a number by every one of them and, hey, turns out I'm right. Heres the number of games that made the list, by year.

1985 1
1986 1
1987
1988
1989
1990 1
1991 1
1992 1
1993 2
1994 2
1995 2
1996 7
1997 6
1998 9
1999 14
2000 9
2001 8
2002 8
2003 7
2004 12
2005 6
2006 6
2007 8
2008 3

47 games from before 2000, 67 from 2000 and on. Proves you wrong. The list also shows that in general, each year in this new decade has produced more favorites per year on average than the previous decade. Now go ahead and tell me that "its because we're making more games now than we did in the 90s, so obviously its more likely they will have more favorites" thus putting the final nail into your stupid argument.

 

[Quixoticism]

Why don't you look at the top 10, which are obviously the most liked games of the forum. Of the 2006 list there are 2 games after the year 2000. In this thread there are 4, but if you discount the valve games for obvious favoritism, you're left with only 1. (same with the last list too actually)

You're also dividing the groups wrong. You should be looking at it from the start of 'gaming' to 1997, 1998-2004/5, 2005-present day. That is where you'll see the biggest shifts in game design and development that we see now. And lots of people will agree that the midsection has the highest number of beloved games.

Once again I'm not saying that there are no good new games. There are quite a few that I enjoy/want to get still, like Mass Effect, Portal, SC2. But as a whole the quality of games being produced today is inferior to those over 5 years ago.

 

[Krynn72]

Why don't you look at the top 10, which are obviously the most liked games of the forum. Of the 2006 list there are 2 games after the year 2000. In this thread there are 4, but if you discount the valve games for obvious favoritism, you're left with only 1. (same with the last list too actually)

So ignore certain favorite games of people because they're obviously the favorite games of people and then magically it supports your argument.

You're also dividing the groups wrong. You should be looking at it from the start of 'gaming' to 1997, 1998-2004/5, 2005-present day. That is where you'll see the biggest shifts in game design and development that we see now. And lots of people will agree that the midsection has the highest number of beloved games.

Yeah, when you take the whole list from '97 and take the seven years in the middle leaving one year before it, and two and a quarter years after it, it miraculously has the biggest number of favorited games.

And of course, this is still ignoring the nostalgia goggles aspect.

But as a whole the quality of games being produced today is inferior to those over 5 years ago.

I disagree. Either way, a "top 100" list isn't proof of either argument. I'm quite certain that if you were to assess the design of games from the "good ol' days" and compare them to what they could have done with them, you'd find they're not as good as you remember them.

The exception being Zelda: OOT and Majora's Mask, obviously.

 

[StarBob]

PC Gamer's latest issue gave their Top 100 PC games of all time.

It's a fairly accurate in terms of the right content, but I have some disagreements with placement. Like having Oblivion at number three. Yeah it could probably go in the Top 100 just out of sheer scale... but some glaring issues would probably keep it no higher than 80 on my list. Fun to read though.

 

[Paulaner]

PC Gamer's latest issue gave their Top 100 PC games of all time.

It's a fairly accurate in terms of the right content, but I have some disagreements with placement. Like having Oblivion at number three. Yeah it could probably go in the Top 100 just out of sheer scale... but some glaring issues would probably keep it no higher than 80 on my list. Fun to read though.

I find that list surprisingly accurate, according to some kind of objective judgement. I don't like many of those games, but I have to admit that they left a mark in gaming history.

As for Oblivion, it set the new standard for modern free-roaming open-world role playing games. With all its flaws, it's one of the best games I've ever played and, in my opinion, it deserves to be at number three.

Deus Ex... well, it's Deus Ex, nothing else to say.

WoW: I don't like MMORPGs, but that's just me.

Also, nice to see Ultima 7 at the top ten.

 

[kupocake]

Their list isn't inaccurate by any means, but it's disconcerting how faddish their opinions evidently can be. Nice that they make the massive drops of games like Thief 2 by 40 places I suppose.

 

[ríomhaire]

I don't like console games, they are silly.

Judging games based on the hardware used to play them instead of their content: LOGIC!

Other than Civilization 5, these games do not even make my list of games I would play for free. I mean, just .. I'm glad you're having fun.

Me and everyone who doesn't have his head up his ass. Portal is a game you wouldn't play for free? Shows how out of touch you are with the rest of the gaming community. Portal has become kind of a big deal

2006 top twenty:

Spoiler

1: 2004*
2: 1998
3: 2000
4: 1998
5: 1997
6: 1998
7: 1996
8: 2002*
9: 1998
10: 1996
11: 1999
12: 1999
=13: 2003*
=13: 2006*
15: 1990
16: 1998
=17: 2003*
=17: 1997
19: 2002*
20: 2001*

Games within the previous 5 years (2001-2006): 7
35% of the games on the list were new.


Now the 2008 top twenty:

Spoiler

1: 2004*
2: 1998
3: 2007*
=3: 2007*
5: 2000
6: 1999
7: 2007*
8: 1998
9: 2000
10: 1997
=11: 2000
=11: 2001
=13: 2007*
=13: 2007*
=13: 2007*
=13: 2003*
=13: 1998
=18: 2005*
=18: 2002
=18: 2002

Games within the previous 5 years (2003-2008): 9
45% of the games on the list were new.

Seems like HL2.net thinks that there were more good new games in 2008 than there were in 2006.

 

[VirusType2]

Judging games based on the hardware used to play them instead of their content: LOGIC!

The games that come out on consoles, like the ones you listed, are mostly completely silly and designed for children under 16. That's a fact. I don't understand why you guys are offended that I'm too old to play Mario Kart, at 35 years old. I mean, I can play them and have a little bit of fun, but overall, I'm just not interested. That's all.

Also, I've seen it over and over, if it doesn't come out for PC, that means it's not worthy. It's not 100%, but like 99% accurate. So, one out of 100 games that doesn't come to PC is good. Games like SSFIV, RDR, Condemned 2. And even then, you could skip 'em.

Just sayin'

Me and everyone who doesn't have his head up his ass. Portal is a game you wouldn't play for free? Shows how out of touch you are with the rest of the gaming community. Portal has become kind of a big deal

So because everyone else likes it, that must mean it is good, right? LOGIC! I'm out of touch if it doesn't appeal to me? Who has their head up their ass, really?

 

[CyberPitz]

SC2 is #9. I'll give it that

 

[StarBob]

I find that list surprisingly accurate, according to some kind of objective judgement. I don't like many of those games, but I have to admit that they left a mark in gaming history.

As for Oblivion, it set the new standard for modern free-roaming open-world role playing games. With all its flaws, it's one of the best games I've ever played and, in my opinion, it deserves to be at number three.

Deus Ex... well, it's Deus Ex, nothing else to say.

WoW: I don't like MMORPGs, but that's just me.

Also, nice to see Ultima 7 at the top ten.

I guess if you take it down to what little can be objective in terms of "Top Games" then yeah that's probably accurate. Pretty much every game on the list was either an innovator or just a wildly popular execution of older ideas. I like that they have X-com at 12. I didn't play it until years after it came out, at a point where I actually had to have an application that slowed down my processor so it played properly... and it was still awesome. I can't imagine what I would have thought had I played it new.

 

[Krynn72]

Who has their head up their ass, really?

The games that come out on consoles, like the ones you listed, are mostly completely silly and designed for children under 16. That's a fact.

I don't understand why you guys are offended that I'm too old to play Mario Kart, at 35 years old.

Also, I've seen it over and over, if it doesn't come out for PC, that means it's not worthy. It's not 100%, but like 99% accurate.

Sorry, I'm afraid its still you with your head up your ass. I mean, damn. Three head-up-your-ass quotes just from that one post? Jesus Virus.

 

[VirusType2]

I'm being an ass, I'll admit.

I'm very particular about games. I think some of you are easily amused.

 

[Krynn72]

You aren't particular about games. You're just stupid about them. You've admitted to playing like 2 games in the past decade, so your opinion on anything in the industry is pretty much irrelevant and unfounded. You should really stop making judgments and arguments on things you don't know shit about. You do it all the time and it makes you look incredibly stupid.

 

[Bad^Hat]

The games that come out on consoles, like the ones you listed, are mostly completely silly and designed for children under 16. That's a fact.

Oh, okay.

 

[VirusType2]

You aren't particular about games. You're just stupid about them. You've admitted to playing like 2 games in the past decade, so your opinion on anything in the industry is pretty much irrelevant and unfounded. You should really stop making judgments and arguments on things you don't know shit about. You do it all the time and it makes you look incredibly stupid.

Where did you get that from? Actually, I've played hundreds, and almost all of them were made before 2002. I have rarely seen a really great game made in the past 5 years or more. And that's my point; that's disappointing for me. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. You are offended because you like certain new games. I must have bad taste because I don't like every game that comes out... right!

Oh, okay.

They are designed with children in mind. The ones that get the mature rating is almost always for tits and blood, which is only mature by law. You want a mature game, get a game like Braid or Civilization, or any one of the large quantity of strategy games for the PC. Braid would make a child's mind explode.

I like games intended for everyone, but they rarely make them anymore, it seems. It's mostly games featuring pseudo maturity.

 

[Krynn72]

Where did you get that from? Actually, I've played hundreds, and almost all of them were made before 2002.

Sorry, I meant "You've admitted to playing like 2 games from the past decade."

I have rarely seen a really great game made in the past 5 years or more. And that's my point; that's disappointing for me. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. You are offended because you like certain new games. I must have bad taste because I don't like every game that comes out... right!

No, I'm offended because you're talking like you have any measure of authority on the subject. You don't. You haven't played any of the games you're shitting on to know anything about them. You read shit (presumably, but I wouldn't find it surprising that you don't even do that) about them and just form an opinion that their shit using some arbitrary system in your head (which probably goes: "Is the game from pre-2002? > No? > It sucks"). Its not even like the journalism on games these days has anything to do with the game itself, so already your information is wholly inadequate. You haven't play these games to know their systems or mechanics, to know their stories, to know their immersiveness, to know their enjoyability. You won't know about any of that for 95% of the games because the media wont cover it in a way that will have any semblance of accuracy. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, and you are shitting on the industry for no reason, that is what offends me.

I'm not even going to go into the "designed for children" bullshit, because frankly, I'm just going to put you on my ignore list and pretend someone as dumb as you can't possibly exist.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't need someone (or a review) to tell me whether a game is interesting or not, I can formulate that easily by looking at the media available, for example gameplay videos. Again, I'm not saying there haven't been good games; take Portal, for example. I have seen gameplay videos and heard about it for years. The game is a great idea, but it just doesn't interest me at all. That doesn't look fun to me. And so there's no way I can say it's one of the best games ever made - top 100 - just because it's an original idea for a game and it is well polished. Now, I have seen some footage of Portal 2, and I thought it looked completely different, and completely awesome. And so as I said, I think 2011 is going to be a great year for games.

 

[Sheepo]

Braid would make a child's mind explode.

This sentence....

What?

 

[Wanted Bob]

I don't need someone (or a review) to tell me whether a game is interesting or not, I can formulate that easily by looking at the media available, for example gameplay videos. Again, I'm not saying there haven't been good games; take Portal, for example. I have seen gameplay videos and heard about it for years. The game is a great idea, but it just doesn't interest me at all. That doesn't look fun to me. And so there's no way I can say it's one of the best games ever made - top 100 - just because it's an original idea for a game and it is well polished. Now, I have seen some footage of Portal 2, and I thought it looked completely different, and completely awesome. And so as I said, I think 2011 is going to be a great year for games.

I disagree. If anything deeper games require more playtime to understand

 

[StarBob]

I don't need someone (or a review) to tell me whether a game is interesting or not, I can formulate that easily by looking at the media available, for example gameplay videos. Again, I'm not saying there haven't been good games; take Portal, for example. I have seen gameplay videos and heard about it for years. The game is a great idea, but it just doesn't interest me at all. That doesn't look fun to me. And so there's no way I can say it's one of the best games ever made - top 100 - just because it's an original idea for a game and it is well polished. Now, I have seen some footage of Portal 2, and I thought it looked completely different, and completely awesome. And so as I said, I think 2011 is going to be a great year for games.

That's so weird. I mean it's one thing to not blindly buy games based on reviews or because one or two people said it was a good game... but to ignore every third party recommendation and then move forward based solely on media? That's just... well I already said it... weird. I mean media rarely ever captures the essence of the game because you are not playing it. It's not like a movie trailer. The way a game is presented can have nothing to do with how it plays or how much anyone would enjoy it. It's like... deciding whether or not to buy a car based on a picture in a magazine instead of test driving it... or eating at a restaurant because you saw a video of someone driving by the outside of it. The best way to look at whether to purchase a game is to take in all information you can find and decide. You ask people who have similar taste in games, you read reviews, you look at media, you draw comparisons and conclusions. I couldn't imagine what I'd avoid and what I'd end up buying if I went solely on screenshots and video.

 

[Kadayi]

People really need to quit bandying around generic terms like 'great' as if that means anything or qualifies as a valid opinion in itself. The correct approach is 'I think this game is great because....(add a lengthy paragraph or 2 explaining exactly why said game is great)' . Also if you aren't playing them, then you have zero credibility when it comes to assessing their worth I'm afraid. Going by the trailers alone DA: O looked like it was going to be risible, but turned out to be pretty enjoyable game overall imho.

Plain truth of the matter is from a technological perspective, games are still a relatively new and ever evolving medium. Right now we are are still in the film equivalent of the B&W early talkies days. The technology behind games hasn't even hit a plateau where in the concentration of focus is less about working within the technological constraints of what is achievable and more about inventiveness in terms of interactive storytelling. So this suggestion that somehow the best of what can be achieved, is already behind us is nonsensical.

 

[Eejit]

Why don't you look at the top 10, which are obviously the most liked games of the forum. Of the 2006 list there are 2 games after the year 2000. In this thread there are 4, but if you discount the valve games for obvious favoritism, you're left with only 1.

lolwut?

"Hey these don't count as favourites because they're our favourites!"

 

[GreatEmperor]

I don't need someone (or a review) to tell me whether a game is interesting or not, I can formulate that easily by looking at the media available, for example gameplay videos. Again, I'm not saying there haven't been good games; take Portal, for example. I have seen gameplay videos and heard about it for years. The game is a great idea, but it just doesn't interest me at all. That doesn't look fun to me. And so there's no way I can say it's one of the best games ever made - top 100 - just because it's an original idea for a game and it is well polished. Now, I have seen some footage of Portal 2, and I thought it looked completely different, and completely awesome. And so as I said, I think 2011 is going to be a great year for games.

Regrettably i do much the same, I look at Mafia and I say "oooh GTA grease edition" and Red Dead was "****ing sick of sandboxes no thank you"

I might play L.A. Noire but only if I dont hear rave reviews on the story (those usually refer to insipid, forced twists instead of actual organic-to-the-story revelations of the case

 

[Kadayi]

^ I'm sorry but no amount of judging a book at a distance (let alone it's cover) qualifies as a valid opinion when it comes to a games worth, Vs that of those who have played it.

 

[Remus]

^ I'm sorry but no amount of judging a book at a distance (let alone it's cover) qualifies as a valid opinion when it comes to a games worth, Vs that of those who have played it.

Maybe not, however that method is more then enough when considering whether to buy a game or not.

 

[Sheepo]

Rock Paper Shotgun makes a list. As it was being released piece by piece it was supposed to be the most important games to PC gaming, but the final list says best games, so I dunno what that's about.

 

[Kadayi]

Maybe not, however that method is more then enough when considering whether to buy a game or not.

Which isn't the question under discussion.

 

[Cpt Tenacious]

Modern Warfare number 14

hahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahaha

 

[GreatEmperor]

^ I'm sorry but no amount of judging a book at a distance (let alone it's cover) qualifies as a valid opinion when it comes to a games worth, Vs that of those who have played it.

Its pretty good indicator as thats how games work. One game plants its flag and all others ape it, either that or it goes the summer blockbuster route of mindless, bombastic entertainment.

Ive seen enough followers of GTA to know one when I see it. The lack of consequence for mowing down endlessly respawning civilians, or worse the magical knowledge of law enforcement of that one guy I mowed down with no witnesses present. It is not a step forward and they are EVERYWHERE. LA Noire barely looks to be an improvement with what is hopefully a good caper with no other cliches like quick time events

 

[Rizzo]

Modern warfare 1 and 2 are cool games.

what.

 

[brad92]

I honestly can't believe Far Cry made that list.