Best video game of all time.

JohnMarston

Grimebox wrote: »

Also the fact that FF6 never got a european release meant it was the first of the genre for a generation of gamers. That doesn't make it better/worse than the other, it just means those gamers are hugely attached to it and nostalgia prevents people being objective about it.

I've played many games since and plan on going through FF7 again sometime in the near future to see how well it has aged. It is hard to play old games that gave you many hours of fun with a clear, objective mind.

st3veebee

Where the hell is Bioshock, TF2, Half Life 1, Football Manager or any of the Pokemon games??


Come on now.

Best SP game = Bioshock

best MP game = TF2

Captain Chaos

st3veebee wrote: »

Where the hell is Bioshock, TF2, Half Life 1, Football Manager or any of the Pokemon games??


Come on now.

Best SP game = Bioshock

If you think Bioshock is good you should play System Shock 2. Way better and came out around the same time as Half Life 1.

Retr0gamer

JohnMarston wrote: »

I've played many games since and plan on going through FF7 again sometime in the near future to see how well it has aged. It is hard to play old games that gave you many hours of fun with a clear, objective mind.

You're better off putting that time to playing better RPGs than what the FF series has to offer. Stuff like Persona 3 and 4, Xenoblade, Grandia etc. totally trump anything in the series.

st3veebee

Captain Chaos wrote: »

If you think Bioshock is good you should play System Shock 2. Way better and came out around the same time as Half Life 1.

I've heard plenty of people say this and I completely disagree. Clearly Bioshock borrowed a lot from SS2 but that game world pales in comarpison to Rapture. SS is scarier but I far prefered Bioshock in almost every way and adore replaying it.

I do love older games, just to be clear.

Retr0gamer

It's nothing to do with the game world for me. It's the mechanics. Bioshock is a total cakewalk but you have no choice in you character devleopment. Even though you are told you have a choice between harvesting the little sisters or being underpowered but they wuss out of that and every power and weapon is always available to the player. SS2 on the other hand like all good RPGs forces you to make very big sacrifices that completely change how the game is played. You don't have enough experience/nanodes or whatever they call to fully level up a character, just enough to proceed down one path with some extra embellishments from the other paths to further customise your character. This means you can start another game of SS2 and play it in a completely different way to how you played it the last time.

Bioshock looks better but that's all it has going for it. However it's a testament to Irrational games that with such a weak game engine and creaking technology they managed to create a very believable environment in SS2, one that despite technical limitations I found a lot scarier and believable than the one in Bioshock. In terms of gameplay and player choice System Shock 2 totally trumps Bioshock on every level. Also this isn't nostalgia speaking, I played SS2 quite a bit after I has finished Bioshock.

JohnMarston

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're better off putting that time to playing better RPGs than what the FF series has to offer. Stuff like Persona 3 and 4, Xenoblade, Grandia etc. totally trump anything in the series.

Ah Retrogamer, we meet again. I've been curious about persona 3 and 4 actually, are they available for the ps3?

Dermighty

For me KOTOR, but Skyrim is definitely up there too!

Digitalism

The original Gears of War for me. The graphics were the best of any game at the time, console wise, and the online and gameplay was groundbreaking.

RoyalMarine

no Civilization games mentioned....

st3veebee

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the game world for me. It's the mechanics. Bioshock is a total cakewalk but you have no choice in you character devleopment. Even though you are told you have a choice between harvesting the little sisters or being underpowered but they wuss out of that and every power and weapon is always available to the player. SS2 on the other hand like all good RPGs forces you to make very big sacrifices that completely change how the game is played. You don't have enough experience/nanodes or whatever they call to fully level up a character, just enough to proceed down one path with some extra embellishments from the other paths to further customise your character. This means you can start another game of SS2 and play it in a completely different way to how you played it the last time.

Bioshock looks better but that's all it has going for it. However it's a testament to Irrational games that with such a weak game engine and creaking technology they managed to create a very believable environment in SS2, one that despite technical limitations I found a lot scarier and believable than the one in Bioshock. In terms of gameplay and player choice System Shock 2 totally trumps Bioshock on every level. Also this isn't nostalgia speaking, I played SS2 quite a bit after I has finished Bioshock.

Subjectiveness and all that, but looking good is hardly all Bioshock has.

The world is phenomonal, whereas SS2 is tedious and generic. Bioshock is a work of art.

The atmosphere in both games is stunning. Scarier in SS2 and more eery and unnerving in Bioshock.

I love the gameplay but can see where people would get annoyed by it. Bioshock 2 really perfected this.

The Story in Bioshock is second to none.

Retr0gamer

JohnMarston wrote: »

Ah Retrogamer, we meet again. I've been curious about persona 3 and 4 actually, are they available for the ps3?

Only if you have a backwards compatible model. P3 is on PSP and P4 is coming to Vita.

shadowcomplex

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Not even the best in the series

FF6 with FF7 being 2nd best

Retr0gamer

I'd say FFVII is one of the weaker games in the series.

Agricola

Mainstream or not, its MGS for me. The blockbuster film plot, the dialogue heavy cut scenes, all the 4th wall breaking stuff, and the fact that at its heart it had some great gameplay and boss fights. The fact that all this is was very new in 1998 probably cemented its appeal further.

suicide_circus

Streets of mothefückin rage !!!!!

nyarlothothep

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Never liked MGS either.

All JRPGs I have played suck.

Battlefield 3 is inferior to the Bad Company games.

Dragon Age: Origins sucked.

And will people stop throwing hissy fits that their favourite game isn't on the list? Its pretty comprehensive already.

As for me, Golden Axe was one of my faves- I used to roleplay the **** out of that when I was 4.

NO! It was quite a fun game with interesting characters plucked from the character archetype vine. It was a great return to rpgs like Baldur's Gate.

Why is Oblivion in the poll and not Morrowind which was vastly superior. Oblivion was well, very boring and samey. Also no Doom 1 or Quake or Sim City.

Mike Litoris

suicide_circus wrote: »

Streets of mothefückin rage !!!!!

Oh shít, forgot about that one. Part 2 for me.:D

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're better off putting that time to playing better RPGs than what the FF series has to offer. Stuff like Persona 3 and 4, Xenoblade, Grandia etc. totally trump anything in the series.

Well, P3 and P4 are good but they aren't patch on FF7, 9 or 10 in my book.

The scope is just so much smaller, so much more childish and some stuff gets lost in translation (not that that never happens in FF games).

The combat is decent and the boss fights are very intense but the grinding is a poor excuse for filler imo.

Grimebox

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the game world for me. It's the mechanics. Bioshock is a total cakewalk but you have no choice in you character devleopment. Even though you are told you have a choice between harvesting the little sisters or being underpowered but they wuss out of that and every power and weapon is always available to the player. SS2 on the other hand like all good RPGs forces you to make very big sacrifices that completely change how the game is played. You don't have enough experience/nanodes or whatever they call to fully level up a character, just enough to proceed down one path with some extra embellishments from the other paths to further customise your character. This means you can start another game of SS2 and play it in a completely different way to how you played it the last time.

Bioshock looks better but that's all it has going for it. However it's a testament to Irrational games that with such a weak game engine and creaking technology they managed to create a very believable environment in SS2, one that despite technical limitations I found a lot scarier and believable than the one in Bioshock. In terms of gameplay and player choice System Shock 2 totally trumps Bioshock on every level. Also this isn't nostalgia speaking, I played SS2 quite a bit after I has finished Bioshock.

I think this comes down to old style of developing vs new style.

Older games were utterly unforgiving. You had to ration any and all your resources throughout the game often putting yourself in almost impossible positions because of poor decisions you made. This usually degenerates into constant quick saving to avoid deadlocks like that. I can recall having to restart a game entirely when I was younger because of this. It gives a far more satisfying experience on a whole however and has far more replay value.

Newer style is the kind of game that has regenerative life and is far more forgiving. Doesn't leave parts of the game out for another play. Gives you an immediate challenge in more difficult AI.

I think you have to realise retrogamer, that some people simply don't like the unforgiving old approach to gaming.

Retr0gamer

noodler wrote: »

Well, P3 and P4 are good but they aren't patch on FF7, 9 or 10 in my book.

The scope is just so much smaller, so much more childish and some stuff gets lost in translation

Well I've got to completely disagree with everything you've said there there but I'll leave it at that.

Grimebox wrote: »

I think this comes down to old style of developing vs new style.

Older games were utterly unforgiving. You had to ration any and all your resources throughout the game often putting yourself in almost impossible positions because of poor decisions you made. This usually degenerates into constant quick saving to avoid deadlocks like that. I can recall having to restart a game entirely when I was younger because of this. It gives a far more satisfying experience on a whole however and has far more replay value.

Newer style is the kind of game that has regenerative life and is far more forgiving. Doesn't leave parts of the game out for another play. Gives you an immediate challenge in more difficult AI.

I think you have to realise retrogamer, that some people simply don't like the unforgiving old approach to gaming.

It's nothing to do with games being unforgiving. An unforgiving game like you described is just bad game design. System Shock 2 is nothing like that. You can make some bad decisions yes but it won't stop you beating the game unless you really try hard to screw yourself over and even at that I doubt you could paint yourself into a corner.

There's a balance between challenge and frustration and it's also the difference that separates a good game from a bad game. I think the media are to blame for this more so than anything where you get games with perfectly balanced difficulty, for example Contra which is really quite an easy game, getting described as next to impossible.

The difference that separates Bioshock from System Shock 2 isn't the difficulty of the game, I'm not sure where you are getting that from since I never said that, but the amount of choice you have to approach the game. Bioshock mechanically is a far more simplistic and less interesting game because it. I'm all for streamlining complex systems but if it's at the loss of depth then it's a bad thing and that's were Bioshock fell down for me, by striping out the deep engaging mechanics of System Shock 2.

nyarlothothep

I played Quake recently and died several times on the easy setting. Admittedly I was just speed playing through it but it is evident that older games were harder and I used to be quite good at Quake about 12 years ago. For example by contrast I was playing ridge racer on the ninetendo ds and got pole position on the first go, having never played it before. Some games were agonisingly difficult though like Gradius.

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well I've got to completely disagree with everything you've said there there but I'll leave it at that.

I think you have a bit of a thing for Japanese pop culture and the whole teenage thing though. Only some parts of that did I find interesting.

Alot of filler.

That said I enjoyed both just wouldn't prefer either to the aforementioned FFs.

Chloris

This is an absolutely ludicrous poll. There should at least be some sort of console criteria. I love playing Professor Layton on my DS but that's a totally different gameplay experience to, say Halo: Reach, which is on a different console, is a different type of story, has a different technique to it and is just a different type of gaming entirely (first person shooter vs logic puzzles?).

I absolutely couldn't answer that question; it's like asking somebody what their favourite food is and not specifying whether you mean savoury, sweet, spicy, whether it's a dinner, lunch, breakfast or snack and whether or not you're allowed have a number of different foods included or it has to just be one on its own.

It's like asking somebody who loves music what their favourite band is and not giving them guidelines as to what genres of music are to be included; whether you mean a group of musicians playing together or just one person making the music alone...

Basically what I'm saying that the lack of a frame of reference for the question makes me think that the O.P. plays a bit of a game once in a while and doesn't really invest much interest in them. It's nothing against them personally, it's just to say that a question that vague literally cannot be answered by somebody who plays computer games a lot. There are too many variables to take into account.

Retr0gamer

noodler wrote: »

I think you have a bit of a thing for Japanese pop culture and the whole teenage thing though. Only some parts of that did I find interesting.

Alot of filler.

That said I enjoyed both just wouldn't prefer either to the aforementioned FFs.

I just thought that the representation of how teenagers acted was realistic and believable which is what I liked about it and why I think it's well written. It's as far away from japanese pop culture as you can get, FF is pretty much japanese pop culture in videogame form. In japanese pop culture teenagers are represented as idealistic superheroes, just like in the FF games, whereas Persona was very much grounded in reality with it's setting and how the characters behaved, which is extremely rare in japanese popular culture. I didn't think there was much filler either, I really enjoyed the social links and dungeon crawling. FF games on the other hand I find to be childish anime cliches of cliches. And I should know, my GF is a total Weeaboo.

Procrastastudy

Sorry but a best game ever poll without Elite on it is just shameful!

wendell borton

Voted for MGS in the poll which is definetly one of the best of all time but I think Civilization was to be the best game ever the basic concept of the series was been the same for over 20 years and it's still the most addictive game out there.

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I just thought that the representation of how teenagers acted was realistic and believable which is what I liked about it and why I think it's well written. It's as far away from japanese pop culture as you can get,

I can't agree with that.

Don't get me wrong, it is in no way representative but it certainly tries to edge more that way compared to typical American teenage world stuff.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

FF is pretty much japanese pop culture in videogame form. In japanese pop culture teenagers are represented as idealistic superheroes, just like in the FF games, whereas Persona was very much grounded in reality with it's setting and how the characters behaved, which is extremely rare in japanese popular culture. I didn't think there was much filler either, I really enjoyed the social links and dungeon crawling. FF games on the other hand I find to be childish anime cliches of cliches. And I should know, my GF is a total Weeaboo.

Agreed.

If I had to sum up Persona (or at least one half of it) tries to introduce Westerners to Japanese culture at a more realistic level (I use the term loosely).

The school questions, the national holidays, the customs and traditions (shrines etc) and to an extent the interests of teens.

FF is obviously J-pop in a fantasy sense (although I have always thought they made plenty of sacrifices or changes for a Western audience).

johnny_ultimate

Persona 3 and 4 have much more interesting stories than any of the Final Fantasy games I've played. It's a solid mix of the fantastical, the everyday and (regrettably but inevitably) the occasional fan service, but it's the way you're involved with the story that makes it so remarkable. The way you interact with characters has very significant consequences on the gameplay - a far more convincing hybrid of game and story than most can offer (much more so than the likes of Bioware, anyway). Yes, the main plots and subplots are linear, but the player has a lot of freedom to make it their game, and almost every aspect of the game is enhanced by your interactions. It's much more than just Japanese teenagers having the lolz and fighting monsters in giant towers, although there's plenty of that. The combat system also has much, much more depth than most FF games. And I'm not hating on FF, I'm quite fond of the series at least up to its PS1 days (I'm less fond of FFX than others, but it's the last entry to capture the essence of the series). But Persona 3 & 4 are much, much smarter games than its setting suggests.

I also think Bioshock has much more to offer than 'just' a pretty setting. It's one of the most convincingly realised gameworlds: purposefully designed to critique unusual ideas and ideologies that most games wouldn't even bother with. Rapture has genuine depth, and I don't mean just literally. Yes, the gameplay isn't the most complex (although much improved in its sequel - the mechanics of 2 and the story of 1 would make a truly remarkable game) and the third act falls victim to the very things the designers are critiquing elsewhere. But while it may not be 'better' than System Shock 2, it probably still offers one of the most complex, imaginative settings gaming has ever had to offer, and is much more than just surface level pretty.

ancapailldorcha

Is there any chance of System Shock 2 coming to Steam. It's nearly £50 on Amazon.