I thought this was fairly interesting:
http://us.i1.yimg.com/videogames.yah...decade/1175626
Gran Turismo over Final Fantasy VII? I don't know about that...
I thought this was fairly interesting:
http://us.i1.yimg.com/videogames.yah...decade/1175626
Gran Turismo over Final Fantasy VII? I don't know about that...
What a great gaming year 2004 was...
and I've never even played WoW...
Bah....
No Half-Life or Half-Life 2??
The only game on that list I agree on is RE4.
I think it is quite obvious to everyone here that Yahoo is just living up to its namesake with that incredibly clueless list of games. That list just says "yes, I have been hanging out on the gamefaqs boards for the last ten years."
You are startled by a grim snarl. Before you, you see 1 Red dragon. Will your stalwart band choose to (F)ight or (R)un?
Not a great list but not a bad read either. I wouldn't have gone with Gran Turismo for 1997, but I wouldn't have went with the overrated FFVII either.
My pick would have been Goldeneye.
Why are so many upset that FFVII didn't end up on that list? I'm glad it's not there.
If they made a movie out of your top five worst sins, what would it be rated?
Check out my list of trades on GameTZ Link
"What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk... Have at you!"
My feedback thread: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93213
It's kind of fitting that they started at 1997, since that's about the time I stopped using or paying attention to Yahoo! for anything.
"Other games of the year: Everquest, System Shock 2, Half-Life: Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Soul Calibur"
------------------
Uhm, SC > THPS.
i liek gamez
Well if we're going on opinion System Shock 2 owns all of them, but that's beside the point. Why on at least two occasions do they try to use "it launched a successful series later" to qualify average-to-decent games as best of that year? And what's with this unnatural boner they seem to have for all online games?Originally Posted by Fuzzball24
I totally get that (I'm actually a musician as well ... or at least I like to pretend I am).
For whatever reason, MGS was the first game that ever really offered me a storyline that I felt was as immersing as any good movie or book. I never cared for the traditional "great game storylines". For instance, when Aeris died? I could not have cared less. I felt she was one-dimensional and boring, and that I never got to really know her, if there was even anything to know. But when Meryl was pinned down by the sniper - or when Snake was forced to endure torture to save her life? I felt more tense, like it was important that I keep her alive, because she and the Colonel were developed enough to feel more like real people for me. I even felt a little bit for Sniper Wolf when she died. That's why I like that one.
Half-Life, for me, was all about atmosphere. Again, it was an immersion thing. I felt like I was actually there, since the game felt so incredibly detailed to me at the time, and the AI was so advanced. Many times, the enemies would pull some crazy maneuver that I was sure had to be scripted. Then, I would die and play through the area again, and it would happen differently. I think they did a good job, with very minimal dialogue, of giving you an idea what was going on, and keeping you on your toes and freaked out. Also, the game is a triumph of player insertion. I can't think of a single game - maybe Bioshock - where its felt more like the character WAS the player, and not some third party simply being controlled by the player. The only complaint I have against the game lies with the last level, and anyone who's played through it knows exactly what I mean.
To be honest, I'm sure Ocarina got more play-time from me than either of them and, while it's not my favorite Zelda game, it's definitely up there.. I did EVERYTHING in that game, and getting that last bottle was a real bitch, too.
Last edited by WiseSalesman; 12-20-2007 at 11:45 PM.