Top 100 games of all time (Rllmuk 2015 edition) - Results now showing: No. 1

[toythatkills]

The waist high cover argument applies to 99% of other 3rd person shooters - Mass Effect , Uncharted, even forum favourite Vanquish is full of them.

That's exactly my point. The Last of Us suffers simply by the fact that it's a game. It finds it difficult to be its own thing because it has to do "game stuff." That's why it has to constantly have you shooting stuff, because games do that. The story it tells is great but imagine what they could have done if they hadn't tied themselves into this game shit, or had the confidence to put the story first. But no, it includes all these tropes and so I found myself constantly reminded that I was playing a game. Seriously, the first time I went into that little square in The Last of Us where the combat tutorial was and there was low walls everywhere so you know it was going to happen, I burst out laughing. That wasn't exactly the tone the game was going for.

As for your comment on difficulty, it's bollocks really. A shit player playing on easy will have the same experience as a good player playing on survivor or grounded or whatever the hardest one is. Claiming otherwise is rubbish and if it were in fact true, then the fault lies with the game's design.

[Down by Law]

"If only you could talk to the hunters or clickers, perhaps you could make friends with them and form allegiances or some other stupid shit"

[toythatkills]

"If only you could talk to the hunters or clickers, perhaps you could make friends with them and form allegiances or some other stupid shit"

If that's the point you think I'm trying to make then maybe read my posts again with your brain engaged.

[Down by Law]

Well when you spout such drivel it was hard to reply with anything more eloquent.

'This game should've been different because the story was so good'

'I laughed out loud at the first combat section, even though it has cover because it's trying to teach you the controls and you are even instructed to flank the enemy'

'a shit player on easy will have the same experience as a good player on grounded'

Utter nonsense

[Stanley]

Your point is ridiculous and based around the game being 'game-ified' because it has waist high walls. That's it, that's your whole argument.

For a start there's lots of different types of cover be it walls, cars, tables, doorways. And yeah it resembles a war zone much of the time. But then there's a zombie apocalypse going on so there's quarantine zones, militarised areas, fortresses and so on.

Perhaps you mean what if there wasn't a zombie apocalypse. Well maybe they would have come up with Gone With The Wind. Who knows, if they hadn't intended to make the game that they did make.

[joffocakes]

The game-ified parts that annoyed me most were doors you couldn't pass through, even if you reached them when they were open, until you'd killed every enemy in the section. I've never been bothered by "Ludonarrative dissonance"; I just don't like when my strategy is cheaply quashed. Tommy's Dam was the example where this annoyed me most; I ran to the very end where enemies spawn from a door and threw a smoke bomb in their path only to find the open door unusable.

I feel like Normal is probably the best difficulty to experience the game on as it still has enough challenge while providing enough resources to allow for changes in player strategy. Stealth is more often the more effective approach and the game's nice, simplistic stealth mechanics make it very enjoyable to sneak around. Having brutal, cathartic combat to fall back on rather than a definite "Fail" state makes the whole thing less stressful too.

[Stanley]

Yeah there were a few areas like that, or when the game took away control and forced you to play it a certain way, but on the whole it was fairly consistent.

[toythatkills]

Well when you spout such drivel it was hard to reply with anything more eloquent.

'This game should've been different because the story was so good'

'I laughed out loud at the first combat section, even though it has cover because it's trying to teach you the controls and you are even instructed to flank the enemy'

'a shit player on easy will have the same experience as a good player on grounded'

Utter nonsense

So your counterpoint is "no, you're wrong, but I won't tell you why." That makes a response pretty difficult.

If you ever find yourself in a position to discuss this, I'll periodically check this thread.

Your point is ridiculous and based around the game being 'game-ified' because it has waist high walls. That's it, that's your whole argument.

That's an example of my argument, yes, though I don't remember claiming it to be my whole argument. There's loads of game shit in The Last of Us. Block-pushing puzzles. Stupid circular pools of blood. Locked rooms full of treasure. Forced combat situations. I'm sure there's more too but it's been a while since I played it and I can't remember it all.

The whole game feels like a game, and on one hand that's fine because fuck it, it's a game. My issue comes from the way it so badly wants to be more than just a game, and the way people always hail it as the "best game ever," which is bollocks, because as gameplay goes it's not any better or worse than many other examples of the genre. It excels in other areas, and if they'd have been braver with the gameplay then it could genuinely have been the best game ever, but I'd seen it all before and I don't even play that many third-person shooters, that's how standard the gameplay was.

I like The Last of Us a lot, it's just I like it for different reasons than you, is all.

[Stanley]

Your issue with the game is that other people like it more than you. Seriously? Get over yourself.

The only other game to feature stealth and survival horror, and combine them well, was Manhunt. I'd say LoU is actually better in terms of gunplay, controls generally, AI, dynamic environments and so on.

So there's like two blocks pushing sections. Big deal.

It's a great stealth action title with horror overtones. I don't really see how it could have been better overall.

[toythatkills]

Your issue with the game is that other people like it more than you. Seriously? Get over yourself.

If you're going to keep trying to reduce my argument to shit like this, I don't see what the point is in discussing it.

All I expect from the best game ever is for it to do something I've never seen before, or do something better than any game has ever done it before. The Last of Us is very good but I don't think it hits either of those criteria, certainly not through its gameplay, but I can't see either of us changing our opinion of it. Which is fine really since we both think it's good, it's a weird argument to be having.

[Down by Law]

My issue comes from the way it so badly wants to be more than just a game.

So because it has a good story, and well directed and acted cutscenes, it wants to be something more than it is, rather than enriching what's already there?

Are you basically saying it's ok for something like Gears of War to have a shit story because it's just an action game and that's all that it deserves?

You are picking faults in a videogame for having a handful of puzzles and pools of blood and rooms with pick ups in them...if that isn't nit picking, I don't know what is.

What exactly would you change, I'm really keen to hear on what you'd have liked to have seen instead.

[Stanley]

If you're going to keep trying to reduce my argument to shit like this, I don't see what the point is in discussing it.

All I expect from the best game ever is for it to do something I've never seen before, or do something better than any game has ever done it before. The Last of Us is very good but I don't think it hits either of those criteria, certainly not through its gameplay, but I can't see either of us changing our opinion of it. Which is fine really since we both think it's good, it's a weird argument to be having.

Well then we're arguing at cross purposes. Your post came across as though you thought it was a failure as a game, or somwthing. Certainly not that you liked it.

[toythatkills]

What exactly would you change, I'm really keen to hear on what you'd have liked to have seen instead.

I already said, less game shit. Like if you're going to have a shoot-out, do it somewhere unexpected. If you're going to hide treasure, hide it somewhere unexpected. Maybe have some periods where you're not just moving from one gunfight to the next, like, maybe see where that takes the story. Increase the tension in the game by having corners that don't have enemies around them. When you know there's an enemy coming, it doesn't scare you. It's not knowing whether there's an enemy that builds tension - in The Last of Us there are always enemies (because it's a game so they figured there has to be), and if there aren't enemies you know exactly where there are going to be some (you've just entered an area with low walls) so there's no tension at all.

It's like if a horror movie just had the scary thing on screen at all times so you always knew where it was - it ceases to be scary. It's the not knowing that scares you.

Well then we're arguing at cross purposes. Your post came across as though you thought it was a failure as a game, or somwthing. Certainly not that you liked it.

It's totally good as a game, but I just don't think it's special as a game is all, or at least it's not special because of its gameplay. I definitely enjoyed playing it (though as I say, I liked Left Behind so so much more).

[Down by Law]

See, that's fair enough - but there's loads of downtime in the Last of Us. If you take the Autumn segment for example - and I'm going to be deliberately vague as to not include spoilers - from the start until you're in the heart of the main building - there's nearly an hour of gameplay there where you only kill 5 enemies in a pack (I'm being precise here too, as i've just finished it)

If you take the beach to the sewers part, again, there's a good 20 minutes of world building before you encounter the first enemy. The first part of summer too up until the tunnel. No enemies.

I guess if you just power forward from one battle to the next then yeah, there's a lot of combat. I took time to fully explore the world at my own pace (my first playthrough was something like 19.5 hours) and would say it's one of the best paced games I've ever played. There's so much more to the combat than just duck behind a wall and trade shots - and on Survivor and above, you've no choice but to abandon that type of gameplay completely. You are forced to engage in melee, make supplies, and stealth encounters as much as possible - or you'll get absolutely battered. It was the diversity of each encounter that really escalated it from the typical 3rd person action game.

[Majora]

I see no Hitman Blood Money in the top 100. I doubt it's in the top 10 so it looks like hardly anyone voted for it? Seems a bit strange when it's constantly praised by quite a few people on this forum, myself included. I didn't vote though so I have no right to be mad really.

Also, seeing that 7 of the top 10 are going to be exactly the same as nearly TEN years ago really highlights just how nostalgia driven these things are. I'm not saying those 7 games aren't great, or weren't great at the time, but I feel like their seemingly never-ending inclusion in these top 10s is more telling of the age of the people on this forum and the time of their lives in which they played them than their overall quality in 2015. I mean, there is no way Goldeneye can any longer be considered one of the top 10 games of all time from an objective standpoint. It's been superseded by so many games in so many ways. It's important as a historical piece but people are voting for it because it was great when they were teenagers, not because it's still anazing now.

[Naysonymous]

I see no Hitman Blood Money in the top 100. I doubt it's in the top 10 so it looks like hardly anyone voted for it? Seems a bit strange when it's constantly praised by quite a few people on this forum, myself included. I didn't vote though so I have no right to be mad really.

Also, seeing that 7 of the top 10 are going to be exactly the same as TEN years ago really highlights just how nostalgia driven these things are. I'm not saying those 7 games aren't great, or weren't great at the time, but I feel like their seemingly never-ending inclusion in these top 10s is more telling of the age of the people on this forum and the time of their lives in which they played them than their overall quality in 2015. I mean, there is no way Goldeneye can any longer be considered one of the top 10 games of all time from an objective standpoint. It's been superseded by so many games in so many ways. It's important as a historical piece but people are voting for it because it was great when they were teenagers, not because it's still anazing now.

Of course. It's like how everybody's' favourite music is the stuff which was released between them being the ages of 15 and 27.

[Majora]

So at this point it seems pretty obvious to me that the three new entries in the 10 are going to be Fallout 3, Dark Souls and The Last Of Us. Waiting for Wiper's inevitable meltdown.

[Wiper]

I'm resigned to my fate I doubt my meltdown would be quite as entertaining as the TLOU 'debate' that just graced this thread, anyway.

[emjay2kay]

I see no Hitman Blood Money in the top 100. I doubt it's in the top 10 so it looks like hardly anyone voted for it? Seems a bit strange when it's constantly praised by quite a few people on this forum, myself included. I didn't vote though so I have no right to be mad really.

Also, seeing that 7 of the top 10 are going to be exactly the same as nearly TEN years ago really highlights just how nostalgia driven these things are. I'm not saying those 7 games aren't great, or weren't great at the time, but I feel like their seemingly never-ending inclusion in these top 10s is more telling of the age of the people on this forum and the time of their lives in which they played them than their overall quality in 2015. I mean, there is no way Goldeneye can any longer be considered one of the top 10 games of all time from an objective standpoint. It's been superseded by so many games in so many ways. It's important as a historical piece but people are voting for it because it was great when they were teenagers, not because it's still anazing now.

The thing is, how do you objectively decide what is a better game? Can that be done without it resorting to measuring frames per second or numbers of polygons on screen at any one time?

I mean, I do actually agree with you about Goldeneye in particular - it is a product of its time and I wouldn't list it as one of my top 20 greatest games you could play in the world right now. But as a list of greatest games of all time I think you have to take into account the context surrounding each game, and for me Goldeneye's context was playing a magnificent game (and no one would doubt it was magnificent in 1997) on your own and with 3 friends in the same room at a time when consoles had never enjoyed an FPS game like it.

In an era where console based FPS games are plentiful and often executed brilliantly, with online multiplayer allowing you to play with 31 or 63 or however many other people, playing a graphically ropey game with 3 friends on a quarter of a 28" screen doesn't hold a great amount of appeal and I probably wouldn't steer a videogame newbie towards it other than as a history lesson.

But dear God, wasn't it some of the most fun you've ever had playing games? It was for me. What else should a list of the greatest games of all time be about?

[Vemsie]

RE: The Last of Us.
Certainly not an all-time top ten game for me, but a very good game regardless. Some of these criticisms are a bit weird. I mean, a brown game? It has lush forests, overgrown cities and an entire chapter set in the snow. It's many things, but certainly not brown.
I think the gameplay fits the setting and narrative quite well and the more open encounter design is a huge step up from most action games. It's open enough to allow for flanking, sneaking and playing cat and mouse games with the AI. The melee, shooting, crafting and stealth mechanics work well in tandem and allow for on the fly improvisation and the AI, while certainly not perfect, puts up a good fight. That and the game actually does have lenghty stretches where you're not fighting. It's paced pretty well. Forced kill rooms, AI flaws and the overused (though not as much as some say) ladder and pallet 'puzzles' are knocks against it.

For a really balanced review of it (perhaps the most balanced review of all), look no further than Matthewmatosis' review. Interestingly enough, Left Behind, not out by then, fixes some of his issues and is arguably stronger than the main game.

And then check out his other video's as well. One of the best reviewers out there.

[womblingfree]

I have a couple of issues with TLOU, but the combat certainly isnt one of them. I find the way its handled rather wonderful in how it represents the unwieldy nature of shooting a lot of the time. Reminds me of the line in Unforgiven about how most people actually cant handle a gun. The obvious cover is an issue, but its way more advanced than how it was done in Gears or the original Uncharted. Naughty Dog pretty much nailed it with UC2.

Despite imperfections TLOU is revolutionary in many ways, and life consuming if you go for the harder levels, Left Behind nd mutiplayer. Definitely deserves a very high ranking, although be interesting to see where it places a decade from now.

[Qazimod]

I couldn't vote for TLoU because I've never played it. Apparently it's from the people who did the Uncharted games, but I've never played those. Not sure if I've got the hang of this gaming thing yet.

[Wiper]

Don't worry, you're not missing much

[CovisGod]

I've never played 10 of the games between 30-11

I really need to put some hours in to some of the classics of past generations instead of spending hour upon hour on Football Manager or watching shite on Netflix. So many games people consider classics that I've never had a chance to play, terrible.

[Guest]

The top two have to be Halo and Dark Souls (unless it's already been and gone and I missed it). Anybody else's opinion to the contrary is quite obviously wrong.

[joffocakes]

Halo is rubbish.

[Wiper]

You're rubbish.

[joffocakes]

You're rubbish.

Och; I'm alright. Pretty unremarkable aesthetically (I've not aged well either) and bloated around the middle but otherwise solid, if lacking in original ideas of my own.

[Fry Crayola]

The problem with joffocakes is that you go round to visit, only to find he's flipped the dining room table and you're going to be spending the next three hours in a predictable cover shootout instead of watching the movie he promised.

[Nick R]

Re-reading comments at the end of TAR's Top 100 thread of 2007 is entertaining...

Oops!

2007 top 10:

10. SotC (#14 this year)

9. Ico (#26 this year)

8. Super Mario Kart (#23 this year)

7. TLoZ: LttP (no show yet, or one of the also-rans outside of the 100)

6. Super Mario World (no show yet...)

5. Goldeneye (no show yet...)

4. TLoZ: OoT (no show yet...)

3. SM64 (no show yet...)

2. Halo (no show yet...)

1. RE4 (no show yet...)

Just judging by my perception of forum feeling over the last few years, I'm going to speculate and guess that the order will be:

1. Resident Evil 4

2. Dark Souls

3. Super Mario World

4. Halo CE

5. Zelda: Ocarina of Time

6. Zelda: A Link to the Past

7. Super Mario 64

8. Half-Life

9. ???

10. GoldenEye

Is it just me, or does SMW seem to have become the connoisseur's choice of Mario game in recent years? (At least in this European-centric forum; in the States, as far as I can tell SMB3 still rules the roost.) I think it'll be the one that gets the big boost in this poll, whereas Mario 64, GoldenEye and OOT will drop down from their previous positions, mainly because of the relative aging of the N64 graphics. (Then again, OOT nostalgia could get a boost thanks to the 3DS version. Who knows?)

Resi 4 which I HAVE STILL NEVER PLAYED despite having had it installed on my 360 for the best part of two years doesn't seem to have suffered any loss in its reputation. Halo I think will drop down a little; my perception is that Anniversary/MCC didn't give it the same boost that OOT and Majora's Mask received from their 3DS versions.

I think if this poll had been done three years ago Dark Souls wouldn't have been anywhere near this high, but since then it seems to have wormed its way into the hearts of just about everyone on this forum. I really should go back to that progress blog I started posting in the game's thread around spring last year... I haven't touched the game since last summer, when I killed the Moonlight Butterfly and soon afterwards DIED at the hands of the Gaping Dragon.

What could go in that "???" slot, I wonder? Trying to think of games that haven't appeared yet... surely not Grim Fandango, or Sega Rally, or Frequency!

Also:

Halo