PC Gamer UK Top 100 Games dealie!

Red · Post by **Red** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:54 pm

I don't really see how Max Payne could beat Half Life next year if it didn't beat it this year (and has been out long enough to make an impression).

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 9:32 pm

Rat Keeng wrote: I'd just like to say one thing. Championship Manager is a great game, and it does deserve a place in the top100, especially considering it's a UK mag. But why they included the 00/01 at the end beats me. As if a game's greatness is measured by how new it is. Championship Manager is a great series, whether it's from 1992 or 2002.

In the sports game genere the date of production is very important.

Sports game mainly relay on graphics, movment and the idea that the game should look as real as possible.

Every year they improve those qualties a bit so I think in this case, the year is important.

Rat Keeng · Post by **Rat Keeng** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 1:03 am

Why should you look any differently on sports games than you do on other games? Civilization was a great game, Civ 2 was just as great a game. Now that Civ 3 is out, do we just forget about the two past ones? The two that made it possible for the makers to improve the third one, and implement new features in it? Civ 1 was great fpr it's time, just like CM1 was. I think it's very wrong to just forget about them and honor the new ones, cause the new ones would never have existed without the older ones.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 1:28 am

Rat Keeng wrote:Why should you look any differently on sports games than you do on other games? Civilization was a great game, Civ 2 was just as great a game. Now that Civ 3 is out, do we just forget about the two past ones? The two that made it possible for the makers to improve the third one, and implement new features in it? Civ 1 was great fpr it's time, just like CM1 was. I think it's very wrong to just forget about them and honor the new ones, cause the new ones would never have existed without the older ones.

The example you gave of Civ is true, but irelevent.

Why should we look at sports game differnet? because they are.

In Civ there are many many factors that have changed during the version and because of those one of them can be considered better by some people.

In sports game, however, there aren't so many factors.
The important factors are improved every game and because of that a newer sports game is better then it's preduccesur. (I mean NBA live 2001, for example, is better then NBA live 2000 but not necesserialy better then NBA something else 2000).

This is my opinion, If you don't accept it you can simply think that they choose CM 00/01 because they think it's better.

You asked why should we look at sports game differnetly, but you yourself said theyre differnet. I can say why did they choose FO2 and not FO1? but that would be silly because theyre different games. So why did they choose 2001 and not 1992 should be the excact same question, but because it's sports then it's differnet.

Rat Keeng · Post by **Rat Keeng** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 9:36 pm

The important factors are improved every game and because of that a newer sports game is better then it's preduccesur.

Agreed, i do think the newest Champ Manager is better than the older ones, but that has nothing to do with the top-100 games of all times.. And in such a toplist, the newest certainly shouldn't be placed higher than the old ones, because the original game was original, and a new innovating game for it's time. Then in the next ten games they twitch this and that and keep it up to date with the current player transfers and rules. So for that exact reason should the newest game not be on the top-100.

I (mostly) accept and respect everyone's opinion, but that's not the same as agreeing with that opinion

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:13 pm

Rat Keeng wrote:Why should you look any differently on sports games than you do on other games? Civilization was a great game, Civ 2 was just as great a game. Now that Civ 3 is out, do we just forget about the two past ones? The two that made it possible for the makers to improve the third one, and implement new features in it? Civ 1 was great fpr it's time, just like CM1 was. I think it's very wrong to just forget about them and honor the new ones, cause the new ones would never have existed without the older ones.

Actually, Civ 3 isn't nearly as good as the previous civs. Civ 1 and 2 should have definitely been on the list, but not Civ 3 which is 'newer'. But other than that, you make a good point.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 7:44 pm

Actually I think Civ3 is a must on the list, as would civ1 or 2 too.
Civ1 was the greatest at its time, but Civ3 really improves every aspects of the first 2 games and add a lot of new stuff. Civ3 is incredible.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 8:16 pm

s4ur0n27 wrote:Actually I think Civ3 is a must on the list, as would civ1 or 2 too.
Civ1 was the greatest at its time, but Civ3 really improves every aspects of the first 2 games and add a lot of new stuff. Civ3 is incredible.

Uh, perhaps you didn't get it the first time.

With the number of games out on the marker (literally THOUSANDS), the "Top 100 of all time" should be reserved for really groundbreaking, innovative games as there's really only enough space for them. Therefore, it would be really silly to put on sequels that were not likewise innovative.

Thief, yes. Thief 2, no. Civ 1, yes. Civ 3, no. While they may be good games, they could not be put on by merit of "they are good" or "we like them".

Red · Post by **Red** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 9:58 pm

AT least Civ 2 (well, Div2 Net and gold or whatever they were called, i didnt' keep up) Introduced proper multiplay to the game... Dunno if it was the first of the genre to feature it though.

Either way, it's not even in Civ3 yet.

Crow of Ill Omen · Post by **Crow of Ill Omen** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 10:52 pm

The whole article is a travesty How the hell did they compile this list?

Okay, it is not a "best RPG of all time" list, so we can expect our favourites to be bumped by top notch games from other genres. But, there are 5 FPS (or hybrids) in the top 10, with 3 of them being in the top 5. What did they do, cobble the list together one night after an office game of Counterstrike?

Even allowing for varying tastes, these people have an unusually high aversion to games not providing a constant stream of gratuitous stimuli.

I think we should all boycott them. We mostly seem pretty much agreed that they don't know what they're talking about and don't have a clue about gaming, so let's stop going to their site and avoid linking to it or mentioning it. Next time they post a ridiculous article like this, hopefully it will quietly pass us by without anyone hearing about it.

Also, everyone should post the addresses of any of their competitors that you'd consider better quality. That way, we can vote with our fingers and surf to them next time we want to read a bit of gaming news.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 10:54 pm

Well, Crow...PC Gamer is already regarded as the AOL Net-Trash of the gaming world, much like GameSpy.

All are top-selling, but that doesn't make them the best.

Or, for that matter, any good.

Red · Post by **Red** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 10:56 pm

I've not read one of their areticles in... well...

Oh yeah! Back when Crusader: No remorse (or was it no regret? the first one anyway) came out... My friend was subscribed to it and I red it... But we mostly played the demo of aformentioned game and then I went and bought the damned thing... When was that? 95?

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 10:58 pm

Like GameSpy and AOL, at one point PC Gamer wasn't a wad of shit.

Once they went the way of the consumer whore, their quality went down the crapper.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 11:35 pm

I hate GameSpy so damn much. The whole Planet[Everything] network is pure evil.

By the way, I'm curious, what forced DAC to leave GameSpy, and what made DAC join GameSpy in the first place?

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 11:40 pm

Spazmo wrote: By the way, I'm curious, what forced DAC to leave GameSpy, and what made DAC join GameSpy in the first place?

Joining: Free host, since Iplaygames was closing, and Gamestats was changing admins. Worse admins, that is. The tech support was abyssmal.

Leaving: Sliverprick decided to live up to his namesake and the epitome of a true ass-sucker for BIS and over-reacted, went behind the site owner's back to screw over Killian. This isn't the first time GameShit has done this, either.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 11:49 pm

I think the reason I never visited DAC (untill the demise of Vault 13) was that it was a part of the gamespy network.

I remember a time long ago when you could have download files from fileplanet without registering, logging in or waiting in line.

Then again it was once like that at gamespot as well.

I wonder who will be the next to close it's gates for non-members.

Google?

It would be really stupid if you need to sign to search the web.

Red · Post by **Red** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 11:55 pm

Yup... Every file you wanted to download was on that fucking annoying fileplanet queue, and if you wanted to post anything you needed to register on gheyspy too, unless you wanted to remain a Guest #324324234

Bulldog · Post by **Bulldog** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 2:51 am

The sad thing is that Gamespy and the whole network (esp. PlanetQuake) used to really cool. Oh well

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 4:03 am

PlanetQuake was awesome when it first started. Then they just got corporate and started sucking up domains and other things all because one of them wrote a nice game browser.

[Anti-Hero] · Post by **[Anti-Hero]** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:20 am

PC Gamer [UK] is to games what MTV is to music.

EDIT: WOW! I still have that commie star as my avatar. What a retard I am.