Dave’s frag finger only goes up to five. :)
Aw…sniff, sniff
Now that brings back memories.
Holy cow! They’re all there? That’s new since…well, last time I went looking for the archives.
Thanks Tom!
(Ever gonna see a new one?)
FYI, every game mentioned in this thread can be found in that list.
My suggestion is, look it over. Pick the genres you like best. You won’t be disappointed despite whatever IGN-bashing you’ll hear on Qt3. Stick to recent games to make the most of your current rig.
We never claimed that good games didn’t make the list. Just that the bar is exceptionally low at IGN. If you’re wanting to play just the good games from the last few years, find a source a little more…discriminatory.
Like us, for example. :-)
Are you claiming, that if he chose a game, from that list, in a genre he liked from the last few years, he will not have a good time?
As far as I’m concerned, the presence of Master of Orion 3 on that list completely invalidates it.
You can also look at it as 15 games in 4 months.[/quote]
I stand corrected. March was an exceptionally good spring month for gaming.
Did you feel that way about Caesar III in 1998? 7 years ago?
As the next quote makes clear, no.
It came out in 1998. Perhaps he should stick to games released in 2003-2005?! I still stand by IGN PC having a good list of solid PC games to play.[/quote]
Yes, it came out in 1998 which is kind of my point. Games aren’t like most movies or books. To some extent they are dependent on the technology available. I’m not going to say that people shouldn’t play old games; in fact I think that you can’t call yourself a gamer until you have played all the classics - including the Caesar series.
But if someone says that they want tips on good games to play on their new computer, I’m sure as hell not going say “Try Colonization!” or “I’ve heard great things about King’s Quest.”
And I stand by IGN as having a fair list of mostly solid PC games though I refuse to endorse any list that includes Master of Orion 3 and Black and White on it. Most of those games are stuff that I would say, “Yeah, that’s good” but I certainly wouldn’t insist that Praetorians should be a game on anyone’s list - no matter how much IGN and I both enjoyed it.
Troy
That’s entirely too subjective a question to answer. Not to mention loaded. For all I know, he could go to gogamer.com and pick any game from a genre that he likes and have a good time. Some people could. Some people – especially around here – don’t even like the game they like, if you catch my meaning.
But, assuming you’re right, which is possible, it’s still not fair. He’s looking to catch up. He wants the real highlights. Since, presumably, he’s gonna want to play the new games that come out in the next few months/years, he’s not gonna be able to go through that entire list.
The point is, in the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of games on that list that are decidedly not as good as other games on that list, and with their screwy rating system, it’s not always easy to tell whether this game of 9.0 is really that much better than this game of 8.8 or not. WTF does that mean?
He says “what’s worth playing” and we give him a succinct list of the most stellar games.
I can’t believe I’m even arguing this.
It doesn’t matter is it’s “that much better.” It should be “better.” If you have to pick one, pick the “better” one.
You’re arguing because you love!
This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. There are simply far too many games on that list that aren’t “better.”
IGN’s bar for a “good” game is just incredibly low. Remember – there are a bunch of really picky bastards here.
This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. There are simply far too many games on that list that aren’t “better.”
IGN’s bar for a “good” game is just incredibly low. Remember – there are a bunch of really picky bastards here.[/quote]
To be fair to IGN, Jose’s bar is even lower.
Swat 4
This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. There are simply far too many games on that list that aren’t “better.”
IGN’s bar for a “good” game is just incredibly low. Remember – there are a bunch of really picky bastards here.[/quote]
To be fair to IGN, Jose’s bar is even lower.[/quote]
Out of the last 20 common reviews, on average, our score was 0.1 higher. So, I guess your statement is correct. :)
Though IGN isn’t my first source for an unbiased and fair review, that list seems pretty good. Sure, they may be handing out those awards like candy, however if I were looking for a new PC game that seems like an excellent place to start. Sometimes just thinking of games worth buying is a lot more hassle than narrowing down to what specific game(s) you want to buy.
Way to stick it to the man, Matt!
The first thing I played was Half-Life 2. If you’ve been out of the PC gaming circuit for a couple of years, seeing HL2 is a dream. Even if it is a little short, you’ll love the visuals and the gameplay is fun.
BTW I built a similar rig to yours, but with a 9600 Pro and only 512gb of RAM. Runs all the new stuff like a dream (although for some reason, Painkiller came up short in performance).
As far as I’m concerned, the presence of Master of Orion 3 on that list completely invalidates it.[/quote]
Seconded. In my opinion, Master of Orion 3 was not only an unfathomable turn-based spreadsheet, but also contained many serious bugs. I cannot comprehend how MOO3 could have ended up on that list.
Personally, I’f I had to pick one game from the last year to play, it would be either Soldiers: Heroes of World War 2 or Silent Storm. Amazing physics and graphics, addictive gameply, unlimited replayability, all the things you can ask for in games.
Out of the last 20 common reviews, on average, our score was 0.1 higher. So, I guess your statement is correct. :)[/quote]
Oh, I’m not harping about average scores. I could, but at this point it is getting a little old. I mean, we can go on and on about how your reviews suck just a little bit more than the reviews at IGN but right now I want to specifically highlight some of your most memorable reviews. A Jose Liz hall of fame, so to speak.
First, Singles: Flirt up your life. 8.2 Hey, it’s a Sims clone with improved graphics, less options, even more tedious relationship building and semi-nudity! In short a great game. I figure you scroed it a point every time you saw a cg boob being groped. Now, for reference Jose thought Painkiller was worthy of a score of 8.3. Painkiller might not have boob-groping, but it does actually have enjoyable gameplay which puts it a 0.1 points ahead. It’s good to see Jose has his priorities straight
And then we have a truly priceless gem. Emergency Fire Response. Never heard of it? Neither have I. But Jose gives it 9.5 so it must be great! I mean, you get to control firefighters and shit. And put out fires!. And look at the graphics, 9.5 there too! Wow, I’ve never seen such realistic fires, and the water effects, ooh wow!
Jose gave Singles an 8.2? Could you import a Freddie Prinze Jr. skin? To be fair, he was pretty harsh in the Fun Factor department, slamming it with a 7.5 on the 7-9 scale.
-Tom
I’m glad I have better stuff to do than complain about others’ review scores. I guess they don’t teach in Sweden that reviews are subjective. Get a new occupation. You suck as a student. Also, bonus points for bringing up a review from 20 months ago!
Tom, Freddie Prinze Jr. references were funny the first 100 times. 101 and up are just dull.
You bitch when a game is overrated, but you bitch when a game is rated fairly (8.3 happens to be the Gamerankings score also). Go back to being a mediocre student. At least you’re better there than in reasoning.