Printable View
It is on the list. It's the highest FF game in the ranks. It called FF III though, because that's what it was called in the US release version of the game waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in '94.Quote:
Posted by Alpha
Personally, I'd like to see FFVI on that list somewhere.
Quote:
8. Final Fantasy III (SNES, 1994)
Ahh true! Thanks Dodie!
Okay, why the bloody hell are sonic the hedgehog 1 and 2 on there, but not 3 and knuckles? that's hands down the best sonic game of all time! Sonic CD was a close second.
To be honest, this list seems to be made on a basis of influence and ancient school fanboyism. The earliest games will tend to rank highest because they were first; they maybe simple and play well, at the time of their release, but newer or later games are better. I think many fans of the Zelda and Mario series think that other games besides the originals were the best ( Ocarina of Time, A Link to the Past, Super Mario Land 2, Super Mario World, Super Mario Galaxy to name some options), but somehow the originals are the best and I saw something very similiar in another Top "X" games of all time in another U.S magazine. Idiocy.Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrallx
Now I'm not saying that older games should not be on the list, but they should be realistic and thorough when they want to do something as "big" as this. To give the reader reasons and insight into why game "j" was ranked where it was.
I remember reading, at least I think I do, in this thread about how Xenogears was absent - exactly.
Tetris wasn't a fun/enjoyable game? Hundreds of thousands would disagree with that.
Key word: "Wasn't".
Sure, it may have been, when there wasn't much else to compare it to. Nowadays, would you rather play MW2, or Tetris? And if you say Tetris, fine, but hundreds of thousands would disagree with that.
You don't choose between MW2 and Tetris. If you're in the mood to shoot stuff, you'll play MW2, if you're in the mood for a puzzle game, you'll play Tetris. They're completely different genres that satisfy completely different needs. Tetris is still the king of puzzle games and for those who like puzzle games, its still enjoyed a great deal today, even with all these other things to play.
Once you figure out a way to put Modern Warfare 2 on my phone or calculator, then you can maybe compare the two. Tetris is a simple puzzle game that you can play forever and never get tired of it. MW2 is, as Derrick of Mega64 so elegantly put, "another ****ing war game."Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Also I'm offended. I don't see Ninja Gaiden Black anywhere on that list.
Alright then, point conceded I suppose. Why Doom then? I enjoyed this game when it was around in it's heyday, but if I am in the mood to shoot stuff, why would I not play something with more features (etc.)?
Nostalgia is a valid argument, but if one tries to make a list of the best games ever, nostalgia makes the list so subjective as to be a complete waste of effort.
Doom put FPSs on the map. It had "revolutionary" 3D graphics with it's unique engine (unique at the time), it had multiplayer networking, it was easy to mod and customize, and was quite controversial. Controversy sells games. (Just ask the Rockstar company for instance. ;))Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Not only that, it had all kinds of spinoff games, including a Noah's Ark FPS where you have to "subdue animals" with your slingshot to get to exit in time. If you get some kind of copycat game that takes that kind of spinoff, there's no reason why you shouldn't be the best game of all time.
All lists of best games are subjective, aren't they? You can use some relatively objective inputs such as industry impact and sales figures to help assemble the lists, but when it comes down to it, what separates number 1 from number 2 is the author's opinion. Whether that's a waste of time or not is up to you. I always viewed these things as nothing more than entertainment. I don't think they're trying to be objective. But perhaps I'm wrong in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
That was actually Wolfenstein 3D. And it actually wasn't so much a copy as it was id being pissed at Nintendo for censoring the SNES version of Wolfenstein 3D so harshly that they deliberately gave Wisdom Tree the Wolfenstein source code and allowed them to make Super Noah's Ark, which was not authorized by Nintendo to be on the SNES.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
The Chinese were the first to have gunpowder then it traveled across the world to different cultures and parts of the world. Its use revolutionized warfare and changed the structure of power in regions. When gunpowder got to the West they perfected with creating better weapons that used gunpowder than the any weapons created beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
The Chinese may have made a great discovery, but the West made something better. You can take the chinese use of gunpowder, I'll take what the West manufactured and we shall see who comes out on top.
A game that changes the genre or makes the genre should be lauded for its contribution, however that doens't make it the best of that genre without question; many games that come after expand upon its ideas/style with better game mechanics, story, or whatever that "special game" did.
I don't think that one could debate there was a better game made on the Doom Engine, except the other doom games that id software made. Can you think of a few games that not only refined the doom engine, but had similar success stories of Doom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
When were we talking about the Doom Engine? The discussion was about genres of games (i.e., FPS, RPG, Fighting), not game series. Get on board, wouldn't want to leave ya behind.
Then I'm a little confused why you decided to quote what I had to say about Doom while you added your spiel about how the West was won. My apologies, can you clarify and/or give examples about how you think that newer games were not ranked according on how they have progressed to their predecessors (if that was your arguement, you made where you stand so vague that I'm unsure)? Or were you just making a generalization just for the sake to generalize?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zargabaath
If I'm still at the ship docks then does that mean you're still wandering in the desert? Poor Moses. :P :D
Actually, I've been arguing a similar, yet still different point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jin
This is a TOP 200 list.
Not a best 200 list.
Not a best-selling 200 list.
Not a most-influential list.
They may never reveal what criteria they needed to come up with this "top" 200 list, but lets all be honest with ourselves - most of the top 10 couldn't be called the "best" of their kind, nor could they be called the "best-selling" of their kind, nor could they all be called the "most influential" of their kind. The list, to me, seems to be some random combination of all of the above.
I happen to think the list is quite fine, with the glaring exclusion of Xenogears, as already mentioned.
I was running under the assumption that "top" meant best, but I suppose you could be right on that.
Nah, Game Informer's done "best" lists before, and the top 10/25/100 have always looked VASTLY different from the list they've displayed here in their "top" 200. I mean, come on, they put on Modern Warfare 2, and the magazine went to print before the game even released. That had to be on merit and projected sales alone.
Regarding MW2, keep in mind that gaming sites/magazines get review copies of games before their release. Though I've no idea when this particular issue came out, so that may be a straw man argument if the gap's larger than can reasonably be accounted for.
Pretty much this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che
And wtf? no FFIX? I didn't see Grandia II.
You said, "Doom put FPS on the map", "Not only that, it had all kinds of spinoff games, including a Noah's Ark FPS where you have to "subdue animals" with your slingshot to get to exit in time. If you get some kind of copycat game that takes that kind of spinoff, there's no reason why you shouldn't be the best game of all time".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
Your logic is because Doom had some copycat games on the Doom engine and that it put FPS on the map that it is the best game of all time (at least regarding FPS) which is faulty logic. Games have come out that took a page from Doom and expanded on it making a better game. With your logic would Dune II be the best RTS? It is a great RTS but it wouldn't be the best as there are many that surpassed it. This isn't like X-Men where the strongest mutant was the first (Apocalypse), games got better with "evolution".
I'm on the Alexander - in jagd - because my airship is just that awesome. How is your junk fairing these days?
I'm going to say once more, as it's pointless to argue about something that isn't true, that Super Noah's Ark was not a clone of Doom. It was a clone of Wolfenstien 3D. It's purpose in an argument about Doom is more or less moot.
To clarify my position, I was not saying that Super Noah's Ark was a clone of Doom; that specific information was not important to the point I was trying to make. What I put in bold was what I was critiquing; I put the whole quote there because there was something in the first part that I needed. Now, I could have just put what I needed in my post but I did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jin
They have some nerve puttin Samurai Showdown and Earthbound so low on the list...
And how can they have Xenosaga on that list at all? And unless I missed it, they didn't even include Xenogears! The former wouldn't even exist without the latter. How utterly ridiculous! Pfft!.... Game Informer. I never liked that publication. That is whack.
And No Metal Slug!? Really?