cAPSLOCK said:
Legend11 said:
I don't think you can just look at the total score of the game and say it's the best game ever, or the second best, or third best, etc... Do you think if you put Metroid Prime 3 in front of someone who hates shooters and is into MMORPG that they would say MP3 is "better" than WoW? What about someone who only likes sports game and hates rpgs, action/adventure, etc, do you think they would feel Zelda:OOT is better than the games they play? How many people not into fighters would rank Soul Calibur as the 4th best game of all time?
Anyways I guess it's good if those are the games in genres or a particular kind of game that you like then it's meaningful, but if not the rankings don't mean much. For someone not into Nintendo games at all the rankings of their games are likely meaningless. |
Well, the joy of collective review sites is it's the average of the opinions of people who play different games day in and day out. Ideally, they don't go into games with an attitude "LOL NINTENDO SUCKS BABBY FAGGORTS LOLOLOLOLOLOL" WoW basically took EQ's formula, removed some of the grind and a lot of the difficulty, and slapped a Warcraft skin on it. If you ask an MMO nut, like a guy who has played every single one that came along, the chances of them calling WoW the best are pretty slim. It's usually a toss up between EQ1 (grind and level) and UO (PvP). There's lots and lots of greatest games of all time lists out there, even genre specific ones. As far as making a top 10 list, make one for yourself. My top 10 games of all time doesn't look anything like the metacritic ones, but no one would really use our lists as definitive since we're just a couple people talking about how much we love X or Y game. Even a collective list made by 1000 beer drinking frat boys or comic book geeks or anime freaks or D&D nerds isn't going to carry much weight. This is about the closest thing we have to an objective top 100 of all time list. As far as Soul Calibur deserving its title as #4, I don't know. I haven't played it so I can't speak on it, and if you haven't then neither can you. Whether you personally like Nintendo or not is irrelevant to a list like this, or any definitive all time greats list. They've been succeeding at it since the 80s for a reason. Nostalgia only carries a game so far (see Quake 4, DOOM 3, Sonic to see how far notagia carries a bad game) and after that it's time to say respect where respect is due. Most would argue as Yahtzee does, that Bioshock is basically System Shock 2 "dumbed down for the console tards" and shouldn't be higher than a 90 or 92. Or that Halo is just Quake 3 without the speed or skill required. Or that FF7 should be up there, or that it shouldn't because the Ultima series is better. Where's Grim Fandago? Where's Half Life 1? King's Quest? Gran Turismo? TIE Fighter? The video game industry wasn't born in the era of PS1/Xbox/360/PS2 and suddenly die because that era is gone. Console gamers calling themselves hardcore is a laughable joke to the Quake3/Counter Strike/Starcraft generation of yore (1996-2001), who complained that the upcoming consoles (PS1/2 Xbox/360) basically made everything stupid and easy and simple to appeal to a broader audience (heard this argument before?). If anything, seeing how few games of that generation are sitting on the top 10 list should tell you just how weak of an era it was. I'm in the same position you were back in 2001/2002. My era was ending and here comes Halo "Quake 3 for n00bs LOLOLOLOL" "Baby's first FPS ROFL" to usher in a changing of the guard. I honestly didn't get back into Nintendo until 2 months before the Wii came out. The simple fact that they've endured change after change and era after era in an industry where 3 years old is considered "ancient" is nothing short of fucking astounding. Whether you like them or not they excel in game design and polish. They may fall apart, but not this year. Respect where repsect is due. | 
All because they have a blind fanbase that cannot tell when a gameseriesis getting old. Mario Party 8????
