1998:
- PC: StarCraft (and Brood War), Half-Life, Grim Fandango, Baldur’s Gate, Thief, Diablo, Rainbow Six
- N64: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
- PS: Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo
2004: Whatcha got?
1998:
- PC: StarCraft (and Brood War), Half-Life, Grim Fandango, Baldur’s Gate, Thief, Diablo, Rainbow Six
- N64: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
- PS: Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo
2004: Whatcha got?[/quote]
Bear in mind that I don’t give a crap about most of the following games (just I don’t give a crap about most of the games you listed):
The Sims 2, Doom 3, Half Life 2, Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Metal Gear Solid 3, Gran Turismo 4, Metroid Prime 2, Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green, World of Warcraft, Ratchet and Clank 3, and so on. This is ignoring a few big games released earlier on in the year and is concentrating on the US market.
And if we’re just talking good games or fan-favourites that weren’t really big hits (like Grim Fandango and Thief) … haha, don’t get me started.
Those games released in 1998 are still considered by many to be the best in their genres, original titles that spawned massive franchises, and are still talked about in reverential tones 6 years after their release. You’re listing sequels and games that aren’t even out yet?
Congratulations. You’ve just won the Weakest Argument of the Week award. :)
I don’t see how, since he’s entirely correct. 2004 is by far the largest concentration of AAA games in one holiday season in the industry’s history.
I listed big titles, and made it clear that I’m not even sure they’re going to be great. Not being psychic, I can’t tell what’s going to be big six years down the line, and if that’s your gold standard then it’s impossible to have a discussion like this, and you know it - or should.
If you were a gentleman, you would have just accepted that I could not be meaning ‘games that are destined to be future classics and original entries in classic sagas’ when I’m talking about what constitutes a bumper year for games, because that requires hindsight. A gentleman, savvy in the rules and courtesies of debate, would have acknowledged this and either declared the argument fruitless until we are granted the benefit of hindsight, or alternately would have accepted the implied terms of debate laid out in my response and worked with them. Even more irritating, you carelessly ignored my attempt at accomodating different understandings of what constitutes a good year for games, where I suggested that I could list a whole bunch of games released in 2004 that are of surpassing quality and not necessarily just blockbuster hits. I accomodate, you clumsily embarrass yourself and drag your opponent through the mud.
Sadly, you seem intent on peevishly insisting that the terms be limited to your pet ideas of what constitutes a good year for games, and use these arcane terms to disingenuously undermine my argument which was obviously based on another set of terms and conditions entirely.
Finally: Metal Gear and Zelda were sequels too, and Baldur’s Gate and Rainbow Six were licensed properties. In addition to being shit. And Metal Gear was shit too. Zelda was good.
You have nothing! The weakest argument of the week roasted yours alive! I win, and am great!
Now that I think about it, all of those names are odd. Shouldn’t that be Metroid Second and Full-Decay? The Halo 2 name wouldn’t be so bad, except that there’s no actual ringworld this time.
- Alan[/quote]
How do you know there’s no ringworld this time? :)
–Dave[/quote]
I’m quite positive there is a new ringworld. That’s no spoiler. It was actually posted on EBgames preorder page for Halo 2 as recently as this summer, but it’s gone now.
Two games per pay period. I’m guessing that’s a game a week, unless you get paid montly. Still. Man. Where do you get the time?
-Amanpour
Sluggo should run for some kind of office.
We were talking about the “embarassment of riches” that was 1998, and the comment was made that “2004 destroys 1998.” That seems like it’s jumping the gun a bit, since most of the games suggested haven’t been released yet. “Embarassment of riches”? Right now, it’s more like a wealth of hype.
But if we’re just talking about sheer volume of AAA titles? And that 2004 bigger is than 1998? Well, duh. :)
God help you all. :)
Why are you listing them if you don’t care about them?
The Sims 2, Doom 3, Half Life 2, Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Metal Gear Solid 3, Gran Turismo 4, Metroid Prime 2, Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green, World of Warcraft, Ratchet and Clank 3, and so on. This is ignoring a few big games released earlier on in the year and is concentrating on the US market.
Those are all sequels. Original games are more interesting (assuming they’re good).
And if we’re just talking good games or fan-favourites that weren’t really big hits (like Grim Fandango and Thief) … haha, don’t get me started.
I’ll start. Thief 3. Oh wait, that’s another sequel.
Thank god for that. They know how to read where I come from.
– Xaroc
Actually, in direct response to the comment “Nothing will ever beat 1998” I responded in kind with the “2004 destroys 1998” comment. That is the context of this discussion.
Oh shit, that’s what I thought
“Embarassment of riches”? Right now, it’s more like a wealth of hype.
This is the only thing you and I will ever agree on. Ever. Having said that, some fucking great games have been released this year and many have gone almost totally unnoticed. It’s sad.
But if we’re just talking about sheer volume of AAA titles? And that 2004 bigger is than 1998? Well, duh.
Don’t duh me. I’m duh-ing you. You have no grounds for duh.
Why are you listing them if you don’t care about them?
The Sims 2, Doom 3, Half Life 2, Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Metal Gear Solid 3, Gran Turismo 4, Metroid Prime 2, Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green, World of Warcraft, Ratchet and Clank 3, and so on. This is ignoring a few big games released earlier on in the year and is concentrating on the US market.
Those are all sequels. Original games are more interesting (assuming they’re good).
And if we’re just talking good games or fan-favourites that weren’t really big hits (like Grim Fandango and Thief) … haha, don’t get me started.
I’ll start. Thief 3. Oh wait, that’s another sequel.[/quote]
Please don’t talk to me any more.
It’s simple. 2004 is 1998 Part ][
Actually, in direct response to the comment “Nothing will ever beat 1998” I responded in kind with the “2004 destroys 1998” comment. That is the context of this discussion. [/quote]
So when Scharmers said "“Nothing will ever beat 1998,” you didn’t think he was referring to the quality and staying power of titles from that year? Instead, you thought he was making a statement about the sheer volume of AAA titles in 2004 compared to 1998?
That strikes me as odd, because that would be a fairly dumb and foundless statement for anyone to make – we all know the number of AAA releases has been steadily going up for years. Assuming that of Scharmers doesn’t seem like a very gentlemanly thing of you to do. (After your ridiculous lecture on being gentlemanly, it only seemed proper to point out.)
I assumed Scharmers was making an insightful comment about what a amazing year 1998 turned out to be, and I offered background evidence of that with a list of games. You, on the other hand… now you’re trying to out-“duh” me like a 14-year-old, and you’re still making vague comments about what a great year 2004 has been without bothering to list any actual games. Congratuations. You win.
And you’ve out-sarcasmed him like a 16 year old…
The point is IT’S GOING TO BE A GREAT YEAR FOR GAMES.
And… there’s more games that I want to play then I can actually buy/rent/beg/borrow/steal.
Yay!
Guys, guys… you’re both right. 2004 has been a great year for games, and there’s not that much coming out this fall that I care about.
No.
The point I was hoping to discuss is whether there really have been any games released in 2004 whose impact will still be felt years from now, just like Starcraft, Half-Life and the other games I mentioned. Were there any games released in 2004 that will inspire an entire subgenre of clones like Diablo did? Were there any games that will kick off huge, massive franchises like Baldur’s Gate, Gran Turismo, and Rainbow Six did?
There’s no doubt 2004 is loaded with lots of great-looking games. I’m looking forward to playing a lot of them. But a lot of them are me-too sequels. Have any games been released this year that we’ll still be talking about 4, 5, 6 years from now? I think there might be a few in the coming weeks, but I wonder how many great, original games there have really been so far this year.
Who the fuck cares? Either way it was obviously just intended to be a flip response to a flip remark, so I responded in kind with my ‘2004 destroys 1998’. Then you chimed in with a list of games and stepped it up a level, so again I responded - in kind. Then you proudly declared that your games, released six years ago have staying power and took a shot at my list of just-released-or-just-about-to-be-released games for not having that advantage, and I’m like ‘No shit, Sherlock!’.
I freely admit that it is a ridiculous discussion. But it was a perfectly fine ridiculous discussion and you came in and changed the rules of the game partway through. So when I tried to play your game, the list game, you switched again - now we have to list games that have left a lasting impression? Whaaaaaa?
Second: I was not assuming he was talking about the sheer volume of quality titles released in 1998. That was one approach I tried in response to your list. I made it very clear that I didn’t know exactly what it was we were talking about, but that I was prepared to try other approaches - specifically rattling off a list of games that you may or may not think are ‘good’. And I begged and pleaded not to get me started.
Turns out the only approach you wanted was one you knew I couldn’t provide - the longetivity approach. Surely you can see how this might be seen as ungentlemanly. It’s like bringing a gun with live ammunition to a mock battle. I mean, you would never have hit me anyway - but it’s the principle, if you understand me.
that strikes me as odd, because that would be a fairly dumb and foundless statement for anyone to make – we all know the number of AAA releases has been steadily going up for years. Assuming that of Scharmers doesn’t seem like a very gentlemanly thing of you to do. (After your ridiculous lecture on being gentlemanly, it only seemed proper to point out.)
That lecture was meant to be ridiculous, obviously. I mean, I believe every word, but I wanted to give you an ‘out’ just in case you couldn’t handle the bitter truth. If I used emoticons other than the sad face, there would be a smiley one here. So relax! Though I still mean what I’m saying!
I assumed Scharmers was making an insightful comment about what a amazing year 1998 turned out to be, and I offered background evidence of that with a list of games. You, on the other hand… now you’re trying to out-“duh” me like a 14-year-old, and you’re still making vague comments about what a great year 2004 has been without bothering to list any actual games. Congratuations. You win.
Hey, hey - you started the duh-ing. And I was obviously joking in response to what I assume was a joke (but now I’m not so sure). I think you’ve been taking all my comments in this thread too seriously.
I haven’t listed any more games for the very excellent reason that you’ve made it clear that your standard here is games that are important and have longetivity. What the fuck would be the point of more lists? If that’s your game, I will be happy to come back in six years to do this properly. Pistols at dawn!
Err… How are we supposed to know that?