(no subject)
May. 3rd, 2005 10:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingIGN readers choose the top 99 video games ever.
Result? Proof that IGN readers are all twelve years old and have zero attention span.
We are displeased.
Result? Proof that IGN readers are all twelve years old and have zero attention span.
We are displeased.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 02:50 pm (UTC)Or are you complaining that there are no games from the 80s in the top ten? I could also take beef with the fact that there's a game there that was released in 2005 and two in 2004---it's way, way too early to put that game near the top of any list---but that's probably because the folks at IGN weren't as careful with their ranking page statistics as the folks at IMDB are (IMDB rankings also show the "recent releases get a bias" effect, but to a lesser degree, and they compensate for that somewhat.)
Note that I'm not defending the choices. I can't, as I have played none there except OoT and Soul Calibur, and there are at least a few games I can think of that should be ranked pretty up there. I just don't understand what you're complaining about.
But your displeased graphic is pretty.
This note is now officially too long.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 03:10 pm (UTC)Hell, Splinter Cell 3 is a *month* old. Res Evil 4? God Of War? MGS3? GTA: San Andreas?
Where the fuck is The Ancient Art Of War At Sea? Where is Star Control 2 (a completely different game from 1 and 3, not just a retread with pretty graphics)? And SHODAN and I are REALLY wondering where System Shock got to.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 03:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 03:39 pm (UTC)But yeah. All of these new games in the top 10 - hell, even the top 50! - are woefully out of place. (I don't consider Chrono Trigger new, I think we can exempt it.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 03:42 pm (UTC)But explain Splinter Cell 3, Resident Evil 4, and the crying lack of System Shock?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 03:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 03:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 04:23 pm (UTC)And where is Call Of Duty? And Pacific Strike? Wing Commander? Fucking King's Quest, come on, those *made* the adventure game! Ultima! Grrrrr.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-03 08:55 pm (UTC)Glad I didn't waste my time even bothering to look, then. -_-
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-04 04:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-04 04:46 am (UTC)My own top 10 would be approximately:
10. Star Control 2
9. Super Mario Brothers 3
8. Phantasy Star IV
7. Silent Hill
6. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
5. Chrono Trigger
4. Link to the Past
3. Master of Orion II
2. Suikoden II
1. Starcraft
(I haven't played System Shock, so don't yell at me about that)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-04 12:16 pm (UTC)If by "Awesome" you mean "Hey, look, another level with just about one good position and a stupid AI with gargantuan resources to try to make it a challenge", then yes, "awesome".
> Awesome multiplayer
Whee. The speedier rush wins. The misclick loses. Booooooring.
> remarkably good balance,
"Better than Warcraft" is not "remarkably good" when Dune 2 and Total Annihilation, which combined are the definitive model of how to do game balance, had been out for years.
> incredibly deep strategy and gameplay,
Each side had one, sometimes two tactics that would work against each other side. Wheee.
> good controls,
BULL. SHIT. Keyboard shortcuts that have to be relearned for every unit for every side, multiple menus to get to the commands you're looking for, inconsistent behaviour in response to commands, a maximum limit of twelve units controlled at a time, a maximum of 10 groups controllable, units can only be in one group at a time. Queueing limits everywhere that constantly requires your attention for repetitive tasks, and any place you're not paying attention to the AI takes over and continues doing what it is doing, in usually the dumbest way possible.
This is great *compared to Warcraft*, but Warcraft was fucking terrible. This is total shit compared to what Total Annihilation and Command And Conquer were doing.... before.
> Fifty million Koreans can't be wrong.
#1: Fifty million Koreans have never seen better.
#2: There are millions of furries, trekkies, otaku, and funadmentalists worldwide. This doesn't make them right.
#3: 80% of the browser market still uses IE.
Starcraft was an okay game with a good story, that was crippled by its objectively bad interface compared to other, similar games that came out *BEFORE* it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-04 12:19 pm (UTC)5. Red Baron
4. Silent Service 2
3. The Ancient Art Of War At Sea
2. System Shock
1. Star Control 2
I have a lot of other games I really like, but those take top marks most often. I really, really want an updated version of 5, 4, and 3 with prettier graphics, some interface tweaks, and the ability to run on a modern machine. People keep telling me that "Pirates!" is something I should check out, I just haven't had the chance to.
(And I'll see if I can't dig up my disk for System Shock and send you a copy. The love needs to be SHARED, yo.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-04 05:10 pm (UTC)No - first I mean that it has a great story. And second, I mean that it had a wide variety of levels. Many levels give you a small force to work with, or have different objectives. And most of the ones that do generally follow your formula have more than one good location and other differences.
> Awesome multiplayer
Whee. The speedier rush wins. The misclick loses. Booooooring.
If a bad player is playing a decent player, then yes, he'll get rolled over in 5 minutes. That's not how games go between people of similar skill, however.
"Better than Warcraft" is not "remarkably good" when Dune 2 and Total Annihilation, which combined are the definitive model of how to do game balance, had been out for years.
I'm not sure how you can hold up Dune 2 as a model of balance when Dune 2 doesn't have multiplayer. And if we imagine it had multiplayer, the balance would be that every side can build the same units (with one special unit each), and most of the cheaper units become obsolete as soon as you can build the more expensive ones. That's not my idea of good balance. I haven't played Total Annihilation, but isn't that the game where the makers released new units every few weeks? If so, I've heard serious complaints about its balance for exactly that reason.
In Starcraft, all three races are viable, and every single unit in the game can be useful in the right situation (and they're all used in professional play, at least some of the time). That's good balance.
Each side had one, sometimes two tactics that would work against each other side. Wheee.
This statement is factually untrue. The early game is fairly well defined (although even there there are more than one or two approaches you can use), but in the middle and late game things really open up. Even after seven years, professional players still occassionally come up with things that completely shock people.
> good controls,
BULL. SHIT. Keyboard shortcuts that have to be relearned for every unit for every side,
Every command which exists across races is consistent. What are you suggesting, that they use the same key for different units and commands? Or that they give each side exactly the same units? This isn't a control flaw, it's an inconvenience that can't be avoided when the sides have distinct units and actions.
multiple menus to get to the commands you're looking for,
No command is more than one level deep, and every menu and command has a hotkey.
inconsistent behaviour in response to commands, a maximum limit of twelve units controlled at a time, a maximum of 10 groups controllable, units can only be in one group at a time.
This is a somewhat legitimate complaint, but there's also a very good reason for it. Blizzard limited the group size so that they could put the unit icons at the bottom of the screen. This allows you to easily choose units from a group, which is extremely useful for fine control of individual units. As a trade off it's harder to send huge waves of units at your enemy (but still possible). Since fine control is far more important when you have a few units than when you have a wave, I'd rather they focus on that aspect of the game.
Queueing limits everywhere that constantly requires your attention for repetitive tasks,
Queuing limits are a drawback, but a minor one.
and any place you're not paying attention to the AI takes over and continues doing what it is doing, in usually the dumbest way possible.
I'm not sure what you mean here - the only thing the AI does is continue harvesting resources (which it's fine at, as long as there are resources available), or shoot at enemies that come near you.
This is great *compared to Warcraft*, but Warcraft was fucking terrible. This is total shit compared to what Total Annihilation and Command And Conquer were doing.... before.
Again, I've never played Total Annihilation, but I prefer the controls of Starcraft over C&C, and in every other respect Starcraft completely dominates C&C. And I liked C&C.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-04 05:57 pm (UTC)> the makers released new units every few weeks? If so, I've heard
> serious complaints about its balance for exactly that reason.
Not the developers, although they did release new unit packs twice. It was customisable, and as long as all players had the custom unit installed and the game host enabled building that unit, it was available.
So yes, there were balance issues if you used people's custom units.
> Every command which exists across races is consistent. What are
> you suggesting, that they use the same key for different units and
> commands?
"B" is build. From there, units with the exact same function have different codes for different races. As well, a number of commands work differently when applied to different units.
> Or that they give each side exactly the same units? This isn't a
> control flaw, it's an inconvenience that can't be avoided when the
> sides have distinct units and actions.
When I have to relearn "Build a thing what gives me the ability to build more units" every time I change sides, that's a problem.
> No command is more than one level deep, and every menu and command
> has a hotkey.
Yes. Two levels deep for simple commands? Not queueable? And you've got to memorise which submenu they're under?
> Blizzard limited the group size so that they could put the unit
> icons at the bottom of the screen. This allows you to easily
> choose units from a group, which is extremely useful for fine
> control of individual units
Total Annihilation allows the same thing with unlimited size, at the touch of a button. Dawn Of War even does it with miniature pictures at the bottom, for groups of infinite size.
> Queuing limits are a drawback, but a minor one.
If I'm not Zerg, I spend probably 25% of my time just telling things to keep doing what they're doing - and paying in advance. If I'm Zerg, it's usually closer to 40%. Even worse, allowing only a single command to a unit at a time? Way to guarantee slow building for stupid reasons, man.
> the only thing the AI does is continue harvesting resources (which
> it's fine at, as long as there are resources available), or shoot
> at enemies that come near you.
Yes. This would be why it's stupid. If the player doesn't catch it, an aggravated unit will abandon it's position and run headlong off into the wildnerness, stopping when it loses the enemy or following the enemy all the way back to his force (and dying), or it will be stuck never moving at all.
Compare to Total Annihilation, which has *the* definitive strat game interface: Infinite queuing of anything, by anything. Yes, you can give move orders to your factories - which means that any unit leaving the factory will follow those orders. Those orders can be as simple as the maximum Starcraft allows (move to point x without fighting anything on the way), or as complicated as any infinite sequence of orders you can imagine. When encountering an impossible order, the unit skips it. When it's required to make a decision, it does. You can order any unit to any combination of "never-fire unless explicitly told, return fire, fire at all enemies" and "never move, move but stay around your assigned position/patrol, roam freely". Construction units are smart - if they're assigned to an area, they roam the area aiding in other construction, repairing units, or collecting resources, based on what they see and what your faction needs. It's posible *and easy* to tell 5 construction units to build an artillery cannon, then split up and build five separate anti-air defenses, have two of them build a turret, one build a factory, and two travel the line repairing units, and then all five recongregate for another artillery gun.
It turns the game into a STRATEGY game, not a micromanagement game. It's pretty nice.
And the only really broken units are nukes, if you allow nukes in the game AND if you let your opponent take the *huge* expenditure to build them AND you don't build the counternukes - and, really, if counternukes could be set to "fire at will", that problem would be solved, too.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-05 03:33 am (UTC)