the only issue of edge i ever bought was the one with the review of ocarina of time. good to see they are sticking by their guns. also nice to see resi evil coming 2nd too.
I agree with quite a few of them, but I haven't played a lot of the games, and to be honest like most of these type of things it seems a little kissy kissy in places.
I've got to say that I thought the list was terrible. There were far too many sequels that had little to show over the originals and games that were blatant ripoffs of older ideas, just with snazzier graphics. It also seems very heavily biased towards more recent hits.
I can honestly say that Bomberman, Monkey Island, Sensible Soccer, Lemmings and Tetris are the only ones in there that I'd have in my top 100. I'd probably find room for a Zelda, a Doom, a Civ, a Sim City and a Prince of Persia too; just not the ones they picked.
It also seems very heavily biased towards more recent hits.
i noticed that with pokemon, they picked a later version rather than the first one, which was odd as the sequels where more of add ons to the originals rather than stand alone games.
but with a list like that they can't please everyone tho. there'll always be games that'd a reader would like to see.
No surprises whatsoever there, in fact the top ten is virtually the same as when they did it back in 2000.
I pretty much agree with the top 4, except I'd replace Oblivion with RE4. Why-O-Why-O-Why do they always rate Mario World, Link to the Past, Yoshi's Island and Metroid so highly? Don't get me wrong, I think they're all very good-to-brilliant games, but none of them stand up to the majesty that is the original Mario Kart, and to say that Super Metroid is better than Metriod Prime is just plain wrong.
PES should have been in the top ten too.
Where the hell is Sonic 1?
I'd have had Manic Miner and KnightLore in there.
Actually, what a load of crap. There's some really obscure shit really high up. Rez!!!! Whoopie-fucking-do, it's Space Harrier with some trippy gfx.
Halo the best FPS? You have got to be sh!tt!ng me!
Nice to see Deus Ex in there tho.
Perhaps more importantly on the FPS front, what happened to Wolfenstein 3D, Doom and Quake? The genre as we know it simply wouldn't exist without those games!
Wasn't Edge mag ripped a while ago for accepting shall we say "Golden Handshakes" from 1st party developers?
I add the "Q" mark cos' I'm not sure if it was edge!
Anyway forget what I said earlier having another look when I'm awake properly the list is actually a load of bollocks. There are some very good games in there, but they're totally in the wrong places, and yes as mentioned there are many missing that should be there.
I bet nobody even voted, it was probably made up in about 15 mins just to fill a couple of pages in the mag. I've never bought edge magazine, I looked at 1 or 2 copies one of my pals back home had, and I wasn't particularly impressed. I don't think he was either because those 1 or 2 copies were the only ones he bought.
Yeah! Everyone with even half a brain knows that NOLF2 is the best FPS available.
Necros.
That's true. Whereas anyone with a full brain, in working order, knows that Perfect Dark is the best. :-)
Come on, the NOLF games were great, but they didn't compare to Rare's masterpiece. Still very good, though.
Of course, all lists like this are based on opinion, but having said that, it doesn't seem like a bad list at all.
Personally, though, I'd put Goldeneye and Perfect Dark far higher. And where's Unreal Tournament (the original 1999 PC game, the best Unreal Tournament game, I think) and Half-Life? And Carmageddon. And The Sentinel? And Manic Miner? And Elite? And Skooldaze? And Mr Do!. And Dynamite Dan 2 (best 2D game ever!). Etc.
And Resident Evil 4 is a great game (half of the reason I bought my Gamecube, along with Metroid Prime), but I wouldn't have put it in the top ten, maybe not the top fifty. It's very good, but I don't think it shines in the replayability stakes. Just my opinion.
It does seem to me, though, that they should have defined what they meant by the "best" games. Did they mean the most fun at the time of their release, the most played over the years, the most original and impressively designed games, the most influential upon gamers and the industry, or what? All they said was that it still had to be fun, but that's hardly explicit.
And ?10 for a magazine... They could have at least put a couple of DVDs on the cover, with video footage of all the games being played. And I don't like the way (for most games) they had two pages per game, with only one page for text and one page for an artists impression of the main character or similar. Why not use the second page for multiple screenshots, the way Retrogamer does for it's featured machine? Or use the second page for quotes from various reviews?
Still, any "top 100 games" list that doesn't include Half-Life or The Sentinel isn't expected to be perfect, I suppose.
And they put in Quake 3 but not Unreal Tournament, which is superior in every way (except loading times, UT takes ages). Why do magazines love the Quake games?
And they put in Quake 3 but not Unreal Tournament, which is superior in every way (except loading times, UT takes ages). Why do magazines love the Quake games?
cos they work in an office, so are all playing them when the boss is out. :)
I guess it's because they feel they've got to put a Quake game in there somewhere, as the original was quite innovative and very influential for its time. Quake III was marginally better than Quake II which was a major improvement on the first game, so I guess it's the best one if you don't take the time of release into account. However, as the rest of the pack had already caught up by that stage, in choosing it they're no longer picking a game that was outstanding for its time. The whole thing just looks like a hopeless mess.
its not a bad game, not as good as golden eye, but really good for a console fps at the time.
...and it was going to let you map your own face onto deathmatch characters via the gameboy camera. im not sure why they never did this, they reckoned that they could't get it to work for the finished cartridge, it did work in testing, and some jorno's were allowed to see it work, even printing screen shots in a magazine of their own faces on characters. the other theory is nintendo pressured them to remove the feature as it may have caused a stir in the media. at that time nintendo were still after a mainly younger audience. so running around shooting your kid brother in the face might have caused a fuss. its a shame really, even though PC's could do it, it's nice to see those features on a home console.
It's like all console FPS games: utterly awful control system that makes the game feel like a joke compared to PC FPS games.
I would normally agree with you, but Halo on the Xbox did get it pretty much spot on, and vehicle control has never been bettered from a 3rd person perspective since (This excludes Half Life 2, since control of that was excellent, but from a 1st person view, it would put it in the same camp as Colin Mcrae rally etc...).
Yeah, it's a good game, but I personally think it falls way behind compared to Half Life 1 and 2 for sheer... well, everything FPS related!
.... OK
If you don't count:
Weapons,
Re-playability,
Multiplayer,
Level design,
Unlockables,
Differences in different skill levels,
Various touches (view modes, weather, etc),
Co-op and Counter-op modes,
Music.
HL 1 and 2 are great, but they lack replayability, as so much of them are scripted set pieces, which you remember before you come to them, so you know what's going to happen, where the enemies will come from, and how they will react. No other FPS games I know of suffer from this anywhere as much as HL 1 or 2, and it's a consequence of their movie like feel. The first time through either game is amazing, as each unfolding event really grabs you, but when you go through again you remember exactly what will happen, and you're just going through the motions.
Weapons,
Re-playability,
Multiplayer,
Level design,
Unlockables,
Differences in different skill levels,
Various touches (view modes, weather, etc),
Co-op and Counter-op modes,
Music.
HL 1 and 2 are great, but they lack replayability, as so much of them are scripted set pieces, which you remember before you come to them, so you know what's going to happen, where the enemies will come from, and how they will react. No other FPS games I know of suffer from this anywhere as much as HL 1 or 2, and it's a consequence of their movie like feel. The first time through either game is amazing, as each unfolding event really grabs you, but when you go through again you remember exactly what will happen, and you're just going through the motions.
I think you're missing the point. You don't have to have all those in your list for a game to be *better*. If perfect Dark is better, how come it hasn't won as many game of the year awards as Half Life from magazines and awards shows?
It's like all console FPS games: utterly awful control system that makes the game feel like a joke compared to PC FPS games.
Here we go,
PC's >>> consoles sux to B U
as it's commonly posted by twelve year old fans of the PC.
If you actually try using a joypad to play Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Chronicles of Riddick, etc, you'll realise that joypads can be excellent FPS controllers*. Or how about you look at some of the speed videos (run-throughs) of FPS console games, where the player tries to complete the game in the fastest possible times - often with around 100% shot accuracy (you need all headshots to get through the levels as quickly as possible). This wouldn't be possible at all if the control system were "awful". I myself am hardly an expert player, but I can regularly get headshots against oponents, using only a "utterly awful" joypad.
A skilled gamesplayer can play awesomely with a joypad, and even an amateur, after a period of getting used to an unfamiliar control scheme, can play well with a joypad. Yes, a joypad isn't as precise as a mouse, but it's good enough - how else can even I have completed so many console FPSs. Complete Perfect Dark, Halo, Unreal Championship 2 or Goldeneye on their hardest levels, and then tell me that joypads are awful controllers. It takes a lot of skill to complete these games, and would be impossible with a bad control system. Yet all of these games are completable (I haven't yet done UC2, but I've done the others).
And yes, I've played many FPSs on the PC, from Doom (was too late for Wolfenstein, so when I played it I wasn't impressed) to Prey, including most of the greats, such as Half-Life 1-2, NOLF 1-2, Unreal Tournament 1999 and 2004 (didn't like 2003), but I don't agree that the mouse/keyboard combination is better than the joypad control system. The mouse is more precise, but the keyboard isn't a good control system for FPSs, the second analogue stick on a modern controller is a better method of movement control. Plus a joypad is more convenient and comfortable than sitting at a desk using a keyboard and mouse.
But all that aside, your comment that console FPSs have an utterly awful control system is just wrong. If it were true, FPSs wouldn't be played on consoles, as they'd be unplayable. They woudn't sell, and no company would make them. Yet companies make them, they sell millions, and lots of people play them. And utterly enjoy them.
*Depending on the controller; the N64, the XBox (the "S" controller for me, I don't like the hamburger controller) and the XBox 360 have excellent FPS controllers. I'm not a fan of the Gamecube controller, or the Dreamcast, and I haven't played on a PS1 or PS2 recently enough to comment. I've never played on a PS3 or a Wii, so I can't comment on their controllers]
Comments
Still interesting to see it though.
Well that simply doesn't make sense.
I can honestly say that Bomberman, Monkey Island, Sensible Soccer, Lemmings and Tetris are the only ones in there that I'd have in my top 100. I'd probably find room for a Zelda, a Doom, a Civ, a Sim City and a Prince of Persia too; just not the ones they picked.
i noticed that with pokemon, they picked a later version rather than the first one, which was odd as the sequels where more of add ons to the originals rather than stand alone games.
but with a list like that they can't please everyone tho. there'll always be games that'd a reader would like to see.
My point is that the although this is supposed to be an all-time list most of the games are quite modern, i.e no Spectrum games
a few first appeared on a speccy? they dont give a format for bomberman. (apols if they do in the mag or elsewhere)
I pretty much agree with the top 4, except I'd replace Oblivion with RE4. Why-O-Why-O-Why do they always rate Mario World, Link to the Past, Yoshi's Island and Metroid so highly? Don't get me wrong, I think they're all very good-to-brilliant games, but none of them stand up to the majesty that is the original Mario Kart, and to say that Super Metroid is better than Metriod Prime is just plain wrong.
PES should have been in the top ten too.
Where the hell is Sonic 1?
I'd have had Manic Miner and KnightLore in there.
Actually, what a load of crap. There's some really obscure shit really high up. Rez!!!! Whoopie-fucking-do, it's Space Harrier with some trippy gfx.
Nice to see Deus Ex in there tho.
Perhaps more importantly on the FPS front, what happened to Wolfenstein 3D, Doom and Quake? The genre as we know it simply wouldn't exist without those games!
Did you miss something there?
Say at position 4?
A certain Half Life 2?
Should've been at number 1, but this magazine is biased ;)
:) oh yeah, cheers! HL2 is a bit more like it. Let me rephrase...
Halo the 2nd best FPS? etc.....
Necros.
I add the "Q" mark cos' I'm not sure if it was edge!
Anyway forget what I said earlier having another look when I'm awake properly the list is actually a load of bollocks. There are some very good games in there, but they're totally in the wrong places, and yes as mentioned there are many missing that should be there.
I bet nobody even voted, it was probably made up in about 15 mins just to fill a couple of pages in the mag. I've never bought edge magazine, I looked at 1 or 2 copies one of my pals back home had, and I wasn't particularly impressed. I don't think he was either because those 1 or 2 copies were the only ones he bought.
That's true. Whereas anyone with a full brain, in working order, knows that Perfect Dark is the best. :-)
Come on, the NOLF games were great, but they didn't compare to Rare's masterpiece. Still very good, though.
Of course, all lists like this are based on opinion, but having said that, it doesn't seem like a bad list at all.
Personally, though, I'd put Goldeneye and Perfect Dark far higher. And where's Unreal Tournament (the original 1999 PC game, the best Unreal Tournament game, I think) and Half-Life? And Carmageddon. And The Sentinel? And Manic Miner? And Elite? And Skooldaze? And Mr Do!. And Dynamite Dan 2 (best 2D game ever!). Etc.
And Resident Evil 4 is a great game (half of the reason I bought my Gamecube, along with Metroid Prime), but I wouldn't have put it in the top ten, maybe not the top fifty. It's very good, but I don't think it shines in the replayability stakes. Just my opinion.
It does seem to me, though, that they should have defined what they meant by the "best" games. Did they mean the most fun at the time of their release, the most played over the years, the most original and impressively designed games, the most influential upon gamers and the industry, or what? All they said was that it still had to be fun, but that's hardly explicit.
And ?10 for a magazine... They could have at least put a couple of DVDs on the cover, with video footage of all the games being played. And I don't like the way (for most games) they had two pages per game, with only one page for text and one page for an artists impression of the main character or similar. Why not use the second page for multiple screenshots, the way Retrogamer does for it's featured machine? Or use the second page for quotes from various reviews?
Still, any "top 100 games" list that doesn't include Half-Life or The Sentinel isn't expected to be perfect, I suppose.
And they put in Quake 3 but not Unreal Tournament, which is superior in every way (except loading times, UT takes ages). Why do magazines love the Quake games?
cos they work in an office, so are all playing them when the boss is out. :)
its not a bad game, not as good as golden eye, but really good for a console fps at the time.
...and it was going to let you map your own face onto deathmatch characters via the gameboy camera. im not sure why they never did this, they reckoned that they could't get it to work for the finished cartridge, it did work in testing, and some jorno's were allowed to see it work, even printing screen shots in a magazine of their own faces on characters. the other theory is nintendo pressured them to remove the feature as it may have caused a stir in the media. at that time nintendo were still after a mainly younger audience. so running around shooting your kid brother in the face might have caused a fuss. its a shame really, even though PC's could do it, it's nice to see those features on a home console.
Yeah, it's a good game, but I personally think it falls way behind compared to Half Life 1 and 2 for sheer... well, everything FPS related!
It's like all console FPS games: utterly awful control system that makes the game feel like a joke compared to PC FPS games.
I would normally agree with you, but Halo on the Xbox did get it pretty much spot on, and vehicle control has never been bettered from a 3rd person perspective since (This excludes Half Life 2, since control of that was excellent, but from a 1st person view, it would put it in the same camp as Colin Mcrae rally etc...).
.... OK
If you don't count:
Weapons,
Re-playability,
Multiplayer,
Level design,
Unlockables,
Differences in different skill levels,
Various touches (view modes, weather, etc),
Co-op and Counter-op modes,
Music.
HL 1 and 2 are great, but they lack replayability, as so much of them are scripted set pieces, which you remember before you come to them, so you know what's going to happen, where the enemies will come from, and how they will react. No other FPS games I know of suffer from this anywhere as much as HL 1 or 2, and it's a consequence of their movie like feel. The first time through either game is amazing, as each unfolding event really grabs you, but when you go through again you remember exactly what will happen, and you're just going through the motions.
Best FPS ever! See:
http://game-brains.com/archive/aug29_2005/perfectdark.htm
I think you're missing the point. You don't have to have all those in your list for a game to be *better*. If perfect Dark is better, how come it hasn't won as many game of the year awards as Half Life from magazines and awards shows?
I can keep on going too!
here's your ONE win for the first game:
http://www.uk.imdb.com/title/tt0271111/awards
Here is Half Life's:
http://www.uk.imdb.com/title/tt0239023/awards
Perfect Dark Zero didn't win anything official.
Half Life 2? Check out those awards! Especially the BAFTAS!:
http://www.uk.imdb.com/title/tt0374692/awards
Here we go,
PC's >>> consoles sux to B U
as it's commonly posted by twelve year old fans of the PC.
If you actually try using a joypad to play Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Chronicles of Riddick, etc, you'll realise that joypads can be excellent FPS controllers*. Or how about you look at some of the speed videos (run-throughs) of FPS console games, where the player tries to complete the game in the fastest possible times - often with around 100% shot accuracy (you need all headshots to get through the levels as quickly as possible). This wouldn't be possible at all if the control system were "awful". I myself am hardly an expert player, but I can regularly get headshots against oponents, using only a "utterly awful" joypad.
A skilled gamesplayer can play awesomely with a joypad, and even an amateur, after a period of getting used to an unfamiliar control scheme, can play well with a joypad. Yes, a joypad isn't as precise as a mouse, but it's good enough - how else can even I have completed so many console FPSs. Complete Perfect Dark, Halo, Unreal Championship 2 or Goldeneye on their hardest levels, and then tell me that joypads are awful controllers. It takes a lot of skill to complete these games, and would be impossible with a bad control system. Yet all of these games are completable (I haven't yet done UC2, but I've done the others).
And yes, I've played many FPSs on the PC, from Doom (was too late for Wolfenstein, so when I played it I wasn't impressed) to Prey, including most of the greats, such as Half-Life 1-2, NOLF 1-2, Unreal Tournament 1999 and 2004 (didn't like 2003), but I don't agree that the mouse/keyboard combination is better than the joypad control system. The mouse is more precise, but the keyboard isn't a good control system for FPSs, the second analogue stick on a modern controller is a better method of movement control. Plus a joypad is more convenient and comfortable than sitting at a desk using a keyboard and mouse.
But all that aside, your comment that console FPSs have an utterly awful control system is just wrong. If it were true, FPSs wouldn't be played on consoles, as they'd be unplayable. They woudn't sell, and no company would make them. Yet companies make them, they sell millions, and lots of people play them. And utterly enjoy them.
*Depending on the controller; the N64, the XBox (the "S" controller for me, I don't like the hamburger controller) and the XBox 360 have excellent FPS controllers. I'm not a fan of the Gamecube controller, or the Dreamcast, and I haven't played on a PS1 or PS2 recently enough to comment. I've never played on a PS3 or a Wii, so I can't comment on their controllers]