83 replies to this topic 4 votes

[Shadrack]

Yogurtmaster, on 15 October 2012 - 22:40, said:

Skyrim being #2 is downright wrong. I am not going to say it's the most innovative game, but it's not overrated. I really disagree with that.

I had a strong reaction to him placing Skyrim as #2 as well. The game was badass and for me I found Skyrim much more enjoyable than Oblivion and Morrowind (both I put considerable time into). For starters, it took me quite a bit of time to "get into" oblivion and morrowind. Skyrim sucked me into its world right from the beginning. Also, the dungeon design in Skyrim was so much better than oblivion...i wonder if the author had really played these games at all.

I can think of a TON of stuff to criticize Skyrim...in particular the immersion in the world starts to ware out once you have played long enough (mostly because of the repetitive things people say and the inability to ever really **** anyone or any faction off in a meaningful way). But those criticisms only come out after 10's if not 100's off hours of gameplay and in my book if you have made it that far then you got your money's worth.

[Reacon]

Shadrack, on 15 October 2012 - 23:33, said:

I had a strong reaction to him placing Skyrim as #2 as well. The game was badass and for me I found Skyrim much more enjoyable than Oblivion and Morrowind (both I put considerable time into). For starters, it took me quite a bit of time to "get into" oblivion and morrowind. Skyrim sucked me into its world right from the beginning. Also, the dungeon design in Skyrim was so much better than oblivion...i wonder if the author had really played these games at all.

I can think of a TON of stuff to criticize Skyrim...in particular the immersion in the world starts to ware out once you have played long enough (mostly because of the repetitive things people say and the inability to ever really **** anyone or any faction off in a meaningful way). But those criticisms only come out after 10's if not 100's off hours of gameplay and in my book if you have made it that far then you got your money's worth.

Whilst I totally 100% completely and utterly agree that Skyrim does not deserve a place on that list, I found the dungeons to be rather repetitive despite being lightyears ahead of Oblivion. They improved the design, rewards, and story system, but they certainly could have worked on the variation.

It's always either a cave with generic black mages/hagravens/necromancers, a tomb with skeletons/draugr/skeletons+draugr, or a dwarven ruin with falmer/golems. The problem is not in the themes provided, but rather the sheer number of them. They could have easily taken out all except those with stories, and diverted quests to within the world instead. It would have certainly become much more interesting, and more fast paced for all the kill-all-these-X-to-get-person's-X-back type stuff.

[red.]

I would disagree on Goldeneye and Sonic. And change GTA to GTA after Vice City. I still consider Vice City to have one of the most complete and immersive environments i've experienced in games.

[Big b0b]

Muhammad Farrukh, on 14 October 2012 - 17:38, said:

10. Assassin’s Creed
09. Any Guitar Hero Game
08. Any Grand Theft Auto Game
07. Gears of War
06. Final Fantasy
05. Any Sonic the Hedgehog Game
04. Call of Duty 4
03. GoldenEye 007
02. Skyrim
01. Halo

Article...

I agree with this list, but only if you take 'halo' to mean any halo made after halo2.

Muhammad Farrukh, on 14 October 2012 - 17:38, said:

10. Assassin’s Creed
09. Any Guitar Hero Game
08. Any Grand Theft Auto Game
07. Gears of War
06. Final Fantasy
05. Any Sonic the Hedgehog Game
04. Call of Duty 4
03. GoldenEye 007
02. Skyrim
01. Halo

Article...

I agree with this list, but only if you take 'halo' to mean any halo made after halo2.

[LaP]

I personally think the Elder Scrolls serie deserve a place.

Again as a said earlier overrated != bad.

I liked all Elderscolls games. I had a lot of fun messing around with mods back in Morrowind days as i was still a student and had plenty of free time to do so.

But the open nature of Elder Scrolls is definately overrated. Too much people say Elder Scrolls is better than this rpg or that rpg because it is open ended. The fact is yeah you can do what you want in Elder Scrolls games but there's a limit to that. The NPC AI is extremely bad. And since you can do what you want it shows off really quickly. Less open rpg can hide bad AI. Elder Scrolls can't. In Morrowind trying to attack a citizen would result in the citizen fighting back with his/her bare hands even if you were wearing an armor and attacking them with a big ******* axe. I mean come on .... was it that hard to make the citizen call the guards and run for his/her life ? This is just an example but i could find many others.

I like the open ended nature of Elder Scrolls games. But it doesn't make them better, In fact often it actually makes them worse. It really is a hit or miss. Sometime it hits and gives really awesome game time. Sometime it misses because of bad AI and gives you some WTF moments that break the game immersive nature.

[Zodiarck]

GreenMartian, on 15 October 2012 - 12:28, said:

Ask anyone who played I to VI. VII *is* overrated

True Story , VI Rules ... and VII, it's all about remakes and remakes , and makes and remakes ...

[Draken]

nik louch, on 14 October 2012 - 23:27, said:

Seriously though, do people actually say that?

Nope, Halo showed (after GE on N64) that FPS where viable on consoles. Nothing more. BTW, I love Halo

[Emn1ty]

nub, on 14 October 2012 - 22:41, said:

Halo by FAR. I want to punch people who claim Halo invented the FPS.

It certainly took competitive gaming to the consoles, and solidified the FPS's home on the console after Goldeneye and Perfect Dark 64. Those were the trinity of console FPS's

Reacon, on 15 October 2012 - 22:36, said:

Excuse me, but BF1942 was my first PC FPS ever. BF2 I played on both the Xbox and PC. Suffice it to say, I grew up with the Battlefields. Now, Battlefield 3's largest map on launch had its flags a full 300 metres apart, and had only five flag points in Conquest "large". It is by no means a true Battlefield game.

You ask me what game offers better infantry combat? I say CoD. BF2 bests BF3 in every other area, from vehicles, to maps, to tactics and teamplay. BF3 was a game made for the CoD generation of gamers and it shows in every step of the development other than the engine.

Bad Company 2, in comparison, had larger maps than BF3 (unless you count that open space around the points that only a sniper or tank ever bothers venturing into). The vehicles were tight and underwhelming, but otherwise the overall gameplay was far superior on select maps. DICE boasts an engine capable of streaming continents, and they compact all the maps into tiny locations, and colour grade everything to the point of it being eye wrenchingly bad.

The reason I think BF3 is largely overrated is precisely because I've played the former games so religiously. It was a bigger letdown than Brink or Homefront to me.

You are another me. I miss my days on El Alamein, Kursk, Battle for Brittain, etc.

[trag3dy]

nvm