EDGE: List of games awarded a 10 in their history.

Falthyron

Royal Irish wrote: »

No Skyrim or RDR ?

While I would rate RDR very highly, Skyrim is the greatest commercial success of the Elder Scrolls series. However, it is not the greatest Elder Scrolls game. I recommend this critique on the state of the series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweTAhyR4o0

In terms of RDR, I would consider it to be superior to GTA4, but I don't think it is worthy of a 10. Games that follow a formula that can be traced through predecessors or contemporaries shouldn't be on a list supposing to suggest games of the greatest impact. RDR is very similar to GTA4 in terms of gameplay, same can be said of the Assassin's Creed games. While each iteration adds new stuff to do, the same old stuff or mechanic prevails. It becomes formulaic and it is a concern I have for WatchDogs, especially after seeing the similarities between Far Cry 3 and Assassin's Creed (liberating a territory or going to high points to scout out an area).

Personally, games that deserve a 10 are games that stand out from others for features or concepts either not yet seen or used, or done in a new and refreshing way. As well as the other important things like story, etc..

Azza

Watch that and video and my thoughts on the Elder Scr......Wait a minute holy cow, my ignorant ass didn't know you could get Keyboard and Mouse adapters for console. Got to get me one of those.

Retr0gamer

They work terribly unfortunately.

Pixelbastardo

moc moc a moc wrote: »

I've had more fun from that one game over the past 3 or so years than almost any other game I've ever owned. Must be literally over two thousand hours at this point. I think it's the only game other than Quake that I've continued playing at least every couple of weeks this long after the original purchase.

imagine if you had invested over 2000 hours into learning to play a real guitar ?
youd be at hendrix's level by now

why isnt MGS1 on that list ??

ShadowHearth

Falthyron wrote: »

While I would rate RDR very highly, Skyrim is the greatest commercial success of the Elder Scrolls series. However, it is not the greatest Elder Scrolls game. I recommend this critique on the state of the series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweTAhyR4o0

In terms of RDR, I would consider it to be superior to GTA4, but I don't think it is worthy of a 10. Games that follow a formula that can be traced through predecessors or contemporaries shouldn't be on a list supposing to suggest games of the greatest impact. RDR is very similar to GTA4 in terms of gameplay, same can be said of the Assassin's Creed games. While each iteration adds new stuff to do, the same old stuff or mechanic prevails. It becomes formulaic and it is a concern I have for WatchDogs, especially after seeing the similarities between Far Cry 3 and Assassin's Creed (liberating a territory or going to high points to scout out an area).

Personally, games that deserve a 10 are games that stand out from others for features or concepts either not yet seen or used, or done in a new and refreshing way. As well as the other important things like story, etc..

That is a great video. He just explained perfectly why I hate Skyrim. It just so bland and shallow ( or plastic as said in video ), that I just could not continue.

pm1977x

Amazed to see Bayonetta on the list, didn't think it had been so well reviewed - not sure I'd give it a 10 but it's the only game I've ever finished and then started a fresh play through straight away, gutted the sequel is Nintendo only :mad:

Lu Tze

ShadowHearth wrote: »

That is a great video. He just explained perfectly why I hate Skyrim. It just so bland and shallow ( or plastic as said in video ), that I just could not continue.

Cant wait to delve back into morrowind when they have the skyrim engine mod up and running!

Riesen_Meal

Falthyron wrote: »

Halo is an incredibly overrated series. I reckon most PC gamers would agree. While I can appreciate what the original Halo brought to the Xbox (first real FPS with good controls, multiplayer, graphics and physics), it pales in comparison to FPS games that were coming out on the PC at the time and the years preceding it's release.

It brought nothing new to the genre. When you consider the original Unreal Tournament came out in 1999 and then compare that to Halo in 2001, there is very little change.

I'm not undermining the story or lore or what has since come from Halo, but in terms of input or influence to the FPS genre, Halo did very little, if any at all. Bungie's success should be recognised as being the first developer to accurately emulate FPS success with the PC platform on a console. Making it accessible, enjoyable and as simple as possible to play without a mouse and keyboard. But that's it.

I was referring to console FPS shooters, not the PC -Halo 3 was for Xbl (back then) is pretty much what Steam is doing full fold nowadays multiplayerwise for PC...

The thing that Halo 3 had in spades over most of the other fps games on a console was it's longevity - it was one of the few titles that had a level editor mode (on a console, at the time - it was unheard of) and thus kept things fresh for ages....

I never meant to come across that the game reinvented the wheel, of course it didnt, I played Unreal Tourny on PC myself prior to Halo....

I meant it did for a console game - it gave console gamers a proper taste of things that the PC had been doing for years....flawlessly, unlike a lot of the competition that was around at that time....

Retr0gamer

Fieldog wrote: »

The thing that Halo 3 had in spades over most of the other fps games on a console was it's longevity - it was one of the few titles that had a level editor mode (on a console, at the time - it was unheard of) and thus kept things fresh for ages....

It got so much praise for that but it was a really awful level editor especially compared to level editors in other console FPS games like Timesplitters and Farcry Instincts which also let you share them online.

Falthyron

Fieldog wrote: »

I was referring to console FPS shooters, not the PC -Halo 3 was for Xbl (back then) is pretty much what Steam is doing full fold nowadays multiplayerwise for PC...

The thing that Halo 3 had in spades over most of the other fps games on a console was it's longevity - it was one of the few titles that had a level editor mode (on a console, at the time - it was unheard of) and thus kept things fresh for ages....

I never meant to come across that the game reinvented the wheel, of course it didnt, I played Unreal Tourny on PC myself prior to Halo....

I meant it did for a console game - it gave console gamers a proper taste of things that the PC had been doing for years....flawlessly, unlike a lot of the competition that was around at that time....

You are quite right about Halo's impact on consoles. My problem is with console gamers who seem to imagine that Halo was the first FPS... Completely flawless, a trailblazer for the genre and something any gamer had never seen before. When you strip back the console paint, it really is quite a standard FPS when compared to others in the grand scale of things.

TerrorFirmer

Falthyron wrote: »

You are quite right about Halo's impact on consoles. My problem is with console gamers who seem to imagine that Halo was the first FPS... Completely flawless, a trailblazer for the genre and something any gamer had never seen before. When you strip back the console paint, it really is quite a standard FPS when compared to others in the grand scale of things.

I'm a massive PC Gamer and it's a rare day I play the 360 these days but I consider Halo as up there as of the Best FPS games of all time - speaking of the longevity of multiplayer, that is, I enjoy the single player campaigns but realistically they're enjoyable but par for the course comparatively with other big budget first person shooters. Co-Op mode though is fantastic and worth mentioning as well.

I don't like how there's generally an air of 'Console Gamers didn't know any better' when referencing the impact of Halo - anyone who's a big Halo fan, regardless of whether or not they're also a PC Gamer - knows it's about a lot more than that. I grew up playing all the staples - Quake and Quake II, Unreal Tournament, Quake III, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Battlefield, and so on, but Halo is it's own game which, in my opinion, doesn't really have any sort of equal on the PC (aside from the now antiquated Halo 2), which is the sole reason why I still own a 360 - exclusively for Halo 3, Reach, and Halo 4 multiplayer. I think it's a shame that Halo 2 was the last PC release, as being such a PC gamer, it's disappointing to see the last release, Halo 4, struggling a little on the 360's outdated hardware.

Halo's multiplayer isn't just a triumph for consoles, it's a triumph for FPS multiplayer gaming in general in my opinion. I have my own biases; Battlefield 3 on the consoles I feel is an abomination when compared with the 'true' PC version, but Halo is genuinely something special that people, especially PC Gamers, should not write off as an inferior product. Map sizes and design blend perfectly with player numbers to create what I considered the perfect 'pitched battle' involving vehicles achievable on current gen consoles, whereas a lot of other vehicle based titles tend to find themselves swimming a little in the sheer size of maps designed for more players than the consoles limitations can support. The game itself is massively customizable within game, and the sky is really the limit when it comes to creating your own game modes, maps and gameplay mechanics. The implementation of vehicles is one of the best ever seen in a game period. The game is just ridiculously fun - not quite a ridiculous game, but yet never takes itself too seriously either, and no game is ever quite the same as the one pre or pro ceeding it.

I'm not sure I'd say Halo is my favorite multiplayer title of all time, but the fact that it's a strong contender and I've been playing PC games since about 1994 speaks volumes enough.

Falthyron

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Halo's multiplayer isn't just a triumph for consoles, it's a triumph for FPS multiplayer gaming in general in my opinion. I have my own biases; Battlefield 3 on the consoles I feel is an abomination when compared with the 'true' PC version, but Halo is genuinely something special that people, especially PC Gamers, should not write off as an inferior product. Map sizes and design blend perfectly with player numbers to create what I considered the perfect 'pitched battle' involving vehicles achievable on current gen consoles, whereas a lot of other vehicle based titles tend to find themselves swimming a little in the sheer size of maps designed for more players than the consoles limitations can support. The game itself is massively customizable within game, and the sky is really the limit when it comes to creating your own game modes, maps and gameplay mechanics. The implementation of vehicles is one of the best ever seen in a game period. The game is just ridiculously fun - not quite a ridiculous game, but yet never takes itself too seriously either, and no game is ever quite the same as the one pre or pro ceeding it.

I'm not sure I'd say Halo is my favorite multiplayer title of all time, but the fact that it's a strong contender and I've been playing PC games since about 1994 speaks volumes enough.

I must admit, you make a good argument. But, the elements you have listed as merits for Halo are factors and mechanics that have existed on PC and in PC FPS titles for years. One such example is Half-Life which was released in 1998. Half-life was modded and changed to add new and fun elements. Even games! (CS, TF and DoD). Quake II, Unreal Tournament, Duke Nukem 3D (you could play the entire campaign in Co-Op); all of these games were released before Halo and held their own when it came to multiplayer.

As I said before I really feel Halo's place in FPS history is disjointed. Instead of the importance it had to pushing the genre forward or being a pillar, it should be acknowledged for the efforts of Bungie/Gearbox to bring PC FPS gaming to a console. That is where the true credit lies. They simplified the control system for a controller, introduced a community through Xbox Live, and gave modding tools to the players; all of which had been in practice by PC developers years before.

I may be biased in this, but in many ways Bungie are responsible for the greatest achievement, and simultaneously, the greatest disaster for FPS gaming. By showing how to properly transfer the best assets of PC gaming on to a console, it also created a precedent for derivative shooters due to the limited nature of console systems. Where as on PC, you could enjoy tools, community, graphics, gameplay, mods, fixes, that would be limited only by the power of your PC, on console, you simply couldn't have all of that without a price. It is that price which, I feel, led to many changes to the FPS genre, and depending on your point of view, for good or for bad.

cloud493

Must not have been the PS3 version of the orange box :pac:

Angron

Of the stuff on that list I've played Super Mario 64, The Orange Box, GTA IV, and the Halo games. I'll freely admit that I don't like the Halo games, and I don't think they are good enough for a 10/10. Rock Band being there baffles me a bit too, I never thought any of those sort of games were fantastic (unless you compare them to DJ Hero).

Retr0gamer

Falthyron wrote: »

They simplified the control system for a controller

I see this getting pushed out a lot as well. I was using the same control scheme on Medal of Honour, Forsaken and Quake 2 on the PS1.

Magill

Guess it just depends on the reviewer. I personally don't think Halo 3 was even close to HL2 in terms of quality, both in single player and mp. Same with Halo CE, there are quite a few shooters that came out before it which were much more deserving of a 10 imo.

Radiosonde

I think its a pretty good list, bar Rock Band, though i've not played LBP, wouldnt have given more than 8 to any gta, and i certainly dont give a s*** about Gran Turismo but its probably great if you like that sort of thing.

Resident Evil 4 seems a big omission, that deserved 10 imo.

abbir

I've played all the games on the list. I can agree with the Mario games, Orange Box and Ocarina of Time. Also to a degree with Rock Band 3 since it was perfect for that type of game. Gran Turismo could be well deserved as for its time it was very impressive but for me I was never a big racing fan and when I played Gran Turismo it had been out a while. Bayonetta is another one that is brilliant for the type of game but it's not really my thing.

The others on the list I can't agree with. Halo, as some people have already said, is really overrated. I remember playing it and thinking what's the big deal, there was far better FPS games on PC. I enjoyed GTAIV and bought it on release but it's really flawed and at times very boring. I finally finished it this year, not 10/10. Skyward Sword was good but flawed. The constant battles with the Imprisoned are enough to make it lose at least 1 mark! Last of Us is good too but at times I find problems with the gameplay mechanics. LittleBigPlanet, no. The editing and things people have made can be interesting but the mechanics of the actual game and the platforming were so frustrating.

Games I think are missing: Starcraft, Deus Ex and Resident Evil 4.

Also to the person who said Sonic Adventure over Super Mario 64. Are you serious? I have both it and Sonic Adventure 2 on Dreamcast, finished both of them but they're not great games. All the characters control poorly and Big the Cat, come on!

K.O.Kiki

pm1977x wrote: »

Amazed to see Bayonetta on the list, didn't think it had been so well reviewed - not sure I'd give it a 10 but it's the only game I've ever finished and then started a fresh play through straight away, gutted the sequel is Nintendo only :mad:

Well if it wasn't for Nintendo, there wouldn't BE a sequel...

pm1977x

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Well if it wasn't for Nintendo, there wouldn't BE a sequel...

True, but there may as well not be a sequel as far as I'm concerned, I'll not be buying a Wii U just for Bayonetta 2 (not for a few years at least)

ScumLord

It's a pretty safe list and reads like popular console games that we know everyone will go nuts for. Every one of the developers that made those games could have bought and paid for that 10.

GreenWolfe

Thief II isn't on the list either. The graphics weren't great, but everything else - the fantastic cut scenes, the complicated missions, the excellent plot, the gameplay and the way you simply have no choice but to be as stealthy as possible, make it a truly great game.

Personally, there hasn't been a game like it since. Deadly Shadows just didn't have the same impact.

Polar101

None of these games would make my Top 50 games list, but that would probably be because I don't like platformers, FPSs or racing games (and don't own any Nintendo or Xbox consoles).

I wouldn't really understand why Bayonetta or LittleBigPlanet scored so high.

penev10

They retrospectively awarded a couple of tens in some of their revisited reviews and awards issues. RE4 was definitely one of them, Super Mario World also. Wasn't anything super official just a mention in the text.

C14N

Josey Wales wrote: »

EDGE have an article up here discussing the 15 games they have awarded a 10 to over the lifetime. Here is the list:

- Super Mario 64
- Gran Turismo
- The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time
- Halo: Combat Evolved
- Half-Life 2
- Halo 3
- The Orange Box
- Super Mario Galaxy
- Super Mario Galaxy 2
- GTA IV
- LittleBigPlanet
- Bayonetta
- Rock Band 3
- The Legend Of Zelda: Skyward Sword
- The Last Of Us

I don't mind the list for the most part. Only ones I haven't played at all are Gran Turismo, Halo 3 and Bayonetta and the only ones on top of that that I haven't finished are Halo 1 and Half Life 2.

What I did play of Halo 1 I found very disappointing. I played it retroactively on PC around 2008ish and wasn't into the gameplay at all or the presentation which made the world feel quite empty. I only spent about 2-3 hours at it though.

I really, firmly think GTA 4 does not deserve that 10. It wasn't very much fun, the graphics were subpar, the story felt very disjointed, the combat was regular chest-high-walls shooting and the writing and humour seemed incredibly juvenile. The entire tone of the game was far too serious for what the game was too imo. I was the first time I had played a GTA from start to finish but I knew that with any of the previous ones, the thing people liked doing the most was messing the world up with ridiculous antics and that seemed to take a back seat to what was sort of trying to be a serious story with serious characters.

Zelda: Skyward Sword, while a perfectly acceptable game also didn't deserve a 10 imo. It was a real step down for the series compared to the previous two entries with less interesting characters and very little exploration.

Mario Galaxy 2, while a totally polished and fun game, also doesn't deserve the 10 because it was little more than an expansion of Mario Galaxy 1. No complaints about the first one getting a 10 though.

I guess for Rock Band that 3 was the most cleaned up and efficient but I still like 2 the best. 3 didn't have as good a setlist or the "World Tour" thing. I'd be inclined to lump the whole series into one big "10" game though.

ScumLord wrote: »

It's a pretty safe list and reads like popular console games that we know everyone will go nuts for. Every one of the developers that made those games could have bought and paid for that 10.

Is that an accusation?

K.O.Kiki

The list is missing Gunstar Heroes.

Retr0gamer

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

The list is missing Gunstar Heroes.

They gave it 6/10. That alone says a lot about this list.

Grimebox

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They gave it 6/10. That alone says a lot about this list.

I believe that game made the list of reviews they got very wrong. Doom was on that list too.

Yep: http://www.edge-online.com/features/ten-controversial-edge-reviews/3/

Notorious

Azza wrote: »

Bayonetta, just didn't do anything too me. Was too over the top and the screen tearing on the Xbox version reduces me to tears literally.

I'm glad to see that someone agrees with me about Bayonetta. It had been built up so much for me, and seemed like the kind of game which would suit me to the ground - an outrageously fast paced, DMC-style action game.

I'd say I played it for about five hours and I just couldn't get into it. That was over a year ago now and I've always meant to get back to give it another shot.

chopperbyrne

They retroactively gave Goldeneye a 10 too.

They also changed their grading system a few years back which is why so many 10's were given out this gen.

10 used to be only given to games they felt were revolutionary. Games that changed the genre. Now they are awarded to games that are simply "best in class".