discuss...

Obviously. But it's something of a genre choice, and then only if you include the massive success of the multiplayer side of the game.

Nah, I don't think so. Great game, but not the best ever. You can't really lump Counter-Strike in with it. If you're going to do that, you might as well lump Half-Life in with Quake 2.

It wouldn't be my pick, but then shooters aren't my favorite genre. I'd rather play a strategy game or an RPG most of the time.

I think I'd probably go with X-COM as the best. Even with crappy 320x240 graphics it's still fun.

Don't think so. Haven't played it extensively, but...No, I don't think so. (Didn't Gamespy or Gamespot -- can't remember -- say it was Doom, not too long ago?) Personally, I'd probably say Civilization was the best game ever. Or Warcraft II, for me personally, but I know that's not a widespread opinion. (But, really, where would the genre be without it?)

>If you're going to do that, you might as well lump Half-Life in with Quake 2.

I don't think that's true, because it's not like you could download Half-Life for free if you owned Quake2. Nor could Half-Life have been possible without some rather significant changes to the Quake/Quake2 codebase.

Still, I don't agree with it as the #1 choice.

Articles that PC Gamer's are tricky. Are you saying the best games NOW? Because games have gotten better overall, and sequels are often "better" than the original (if stacked side by side), etc. Or do you view it as the best games during the time they came out?

Or, is it the most "important" games, the ones that changed gaming the most for the better?

Everything in one of those "best of" lists is arguable. My one real exception to the Gamer article is that they're not consistant with counting series vs. single games. Some single games are counted independant of the rest of the series, even though the rest are the same type of game (Tomb Raider). And others are counted as entire series (Quake series). I would have preffered some constency with regards to series that are very similar. ie, it's okay to pull Duke 3D out of that series, since the first Duke games were 2D sidescrollers.

Half-Life as the "BESTEST GAME EVAR" is pretty ludicrous. I even liked Duke 3d more than that game.

Then again, if you judge games strictly on the basis of some ill-defined Resident Evil-esque "immersiveness," I can see how it's number one.

Bah. These PC Gamer Top 50 lists are just a cheap way to sell more copies at the newsstands. They do it what, every 18-24 months?

I suppose it gives us something to talk about? I've seen worse lists though. I forget what the house organ for Babbages is called but they clearly don't get out much based on their Top 100 games of all time.

At least PC Gamer /got/ X-Com onto the list.

Neither got my other favorite titles which might say more about me than Top Game lists.

Nah. :)

"Half-Life as the "BESTEST GAME EVAR" is pretty ludicrous."

Boy, you don't have to look far to spot the other SA Goons, do ya?

"My one real exception to the Gamer article is that they're not consistent with counting series vs. single games."

In general, I'm going to stay out of this conversation and let you guys talk it out amongst yourselves, but in this case I think it's important that I clarify. Not all sequels are listed as part of a "series" because not every game in a series is necessarily that great.

When you talk about "Diablo," you probably talk about both games. What about MechWarior, though? Does anyone remember the first game? Did anyone even PLAY the third and fourth installments? Well, that's the reason that some games are singled out and others are listed as a series.

-Vederman

I don't know how anyone can complain too seriously about Half-life being number one. It may not be your personal choice (probably would be mine), but it is, at least, a worthwhile contender.

On the other hand, I think there's a lot of goofy selections:

- Beavis and Butt-head and Worms over Combat Mission? Duke Nukem 3d and Deus Ex ahead of all the DOOM and Quake games? Lords of the Realm makes the list, but Command & Conquer (or Dune 2) don't? The only sim to make the list is 1942: Pacific Air War (no European Air War, Longbow series, Falcon 3.0 or 4, FreeSpace 2, Mig Alley)?

>When you talk about "Diablo," you probably talk about both games. What about MechWarior, though? Does anyone remember the first game?

There's still weird exceptions, like Master of Orion being handled individually and yet the Gabriel Knight series is not (even though the quality of the GK games varies more significantly than MOO and MOO2). WarCraft 1 is good enough to be grouped with WarCraft 2, but Age of Empires isn't good enough to be grouped with AOE2? Civilization 1 doesn't even make the top 50, when it would likely be number one on a lot of gamers' lists.

>These PC Gamer Top 50 lists are just a cheap way to sell more copies at the newsstands. They do it what, every 18-24 months?

What's wrong with that, Steve? They're interesting, people obviously like them if they sell magazines. I just wish the evaluations were more consistent - the magazine's game of the year a couple of years ago is only number 46 (and 12 other games released during the same year are ranked higher, just over a year later)? As it is, the lists seem to be released whenever there's a changing of the guard at the magazine, and the new crew just wants to substitute their choices.


Stefan

>>What's wrong with that, Steve?

Um, that wasn't me . I don't post at 4:08AM... I sleep.

And to anonymous duh, of course these are designed to sell copies at the newsstand and generate discussion, which I believe is the point of producing a magazine. I may have a beef with individual selections or the criteria, but not with the article.

>Um, that wasn't me . I don't post at 4:08AM... I sleep.

Oops. Sorry about that.

Stefan

Greg - I don't have it right here, but I don't buy the criteria for series vs. single games. If I recall, Tomb Raider was nominated as a single game, when certainly people think of the Series there and a metric buttload of people played several of them. The quality didn't hold up is all.

It seems to me like a series was counted if the PCG guys liked all the games, but only one game was counted if they liked only one of them. To ME, and this is just my opinion, that seems an unfair means of including games in an entire series that would otherwise not have made the top 50. It *IS* after all, the "top 50 games of all time," not the "top 50 games and some game series that span a decade of all time." =)

Desslock pointed out some of the weird exceptions, and I agree. It seems like, in the interest of fairness, all games should have been treated evenly - counted as individuals only, or as a series if the games were of similar type, but not mixed.