On July 27 2013 13:34 GreenGringo wrote: Well, they didn't have any cities in Fallout 3, so it's hardly a comparison.
Yeah apart from like 40% of the map. I'm really not sure you have played FO3 enough to judge it properly if you can't see the difference in level design between the two games.
No point in posting further if you're going to stoop to this level of arguing in bad faith.
As goes without saying, I wasn't counting what they had in Fallout 3 as "cities". When I talk to fans of the RPG genre, they don't class the Friendly Arm Inn in Baldur's Gate, or the Outskirts of Vizma in Witcher, as cities.
In Fallout 3 you have small settlements at best. There was Megaton, Rivet "City" (an aircraft carrier with a few rooms), Underworld...and a few villages with a couple of people in them. Fallout New Vegas had New Vegas, Hoover Dam and Caesar's Camp as major locations in the game. Then it had a load of settlements like the Brotherhood of Steel safehouse, the Great Khan camp, as well as the ones for the Boomers, Powder Gangers and Followers of the Apocalypse, as well as all the outposts of the NCR and the Legion.
Settlements, Fallout: New Vegas has the advantage. Cities, there's only one, and it's New Vegas. That location is the granddaddy of Fallout settlements that have been developed so far, and leads to dozens of separate locations and contains dozens of different NPCs with their own complex dialogue trees.
And for the record, I have played Fallout 3 quite thoroughly and I even tried some of the add-ons. I was enticed with it for a while back in 2009. Like you I enjoyed exploring the Wasteland (for a while a blissful, tranquil experience, similar to listening to soothing music). And then guess what? Fallout New Vegas comes out and delivers everything I thought Fallout 3 had been lacking, and more.
They got some things absolutely right. UT2004 being the only Unreal game: yes.
Really? Because the original (not UT99) is one of the most immersive and atmospheric single player experiences I've ever had the pleasure to enjoy. You know, and that's beyond the fact that the combat was great, the aesthetic was great and the weapons were innovative.
Even if that list was from a more serious source, I always find hese to be pretty useless... like n what ground are they based on ? Popularity, critics score, innovation, history... feels like a headache to come out with a list.
Planescape Torment at 22. That game deserves top 5 easily. This list is such a wash. Skyrim was good, but not top 10 material. Sc2 above BW is pretty lol worthy.
On July 27 2013 16:29 GreenGringo wrote: As goes without saying, I wasn't counting what they had in Fallout 3 as "cities". When I talk to fans of the RPG genre, they don't class the Friendly Arm Inn in Baldur's Gate, or the Outskirts of Vizma in Witcher, as cities.
Can you at least attempt to look at this a matter of level design and not in terms of RPG "towns". The simple fact is that there is nothing that interesting about the NV map design on a large or small scale. While FO3 features the capital, a large expanse with high structure density (a city if you will), NV only has Freeside and Vegas and you will never see anything interesting there. This means that combat capability in NV comes down to being able to A) engage humans and super mutants under any conditions B) being able to engage other enemies in open, long range conditions with the ability to spot and prepare for them. In FO3 no matter where you are you have to be prepared for anything. Aside from that NV just doesn't have an interesting map. It's so small and there's hardly anything interesting apart from the places that you have to go. I guess I enjoyed finding Jacobstown and Hoover Dam on my own however I couldn't simply wander aimlessly like in FO3 because there are no landmarks that catch your eye (apart from the places you couldn't miss on the way to Vegas if you were blind). This lead to me wandering the map in a forced manner by setting waypoints and searching for locations on the way. I would also agree with you about Vegas itself being far superior to any settlement in FO3 however the strength of FO3 lies in the fact that there are many interesting settlements scattered across the map. All of the settlements on the way to Vegas are just boring because you have to go through them and they're set up so that, with some exceptions, all you want to do is get what you need and leave. FO3 never forces you to go through Girdershade or Paradise Falls and that makes those towns that much more interesting.
On July 27 2013 17:48 rezoacken wrote: Even if that list was from a more serious source, I always find hese to be pretty useless... like n what ground are they based on ? Popularity, critics score, innovation, history... feels like a headache to come out with a list.
Think of it more as a source for newer gamers to check out classics they've never heard of or played. As awful as the list is, at least it manages to cover a lot of the true classics of gaming, though the ordering is hilarious.
On July 27 2013 15:12 Maasked wrote: Also Skyrim is understandable at #1 considering how good the game can get from a few simple mods. I feel that must have been the reason the game was ranked the top spot. because you can change so much about it.
Are you being serious right now? If the game "can get good" with a couple of mods it means that it's the mods that should be on the list, not the game. I always thought that such lists are made based on the game "as is", preferably only single-player experience being factored in.
Also, when speaking of mods and comparing Skyrim to Morrowind (which happens all the time in this thread) since Morrowind is better than Skyrim from the get go, how much better can it get with mods? People complain about dated graphics in it, etc.
Let's take a peek at how does Morrowind look this days, shall we?
Not too shabby for a game that's 11 years old now, eh? And that's just graphics/sound mods. Imagine what else is out there...
I don't understand why XCom is so high up there, have not played it though, is it really really worth playing? I payed some attention to it and read some reviews on it when it came out and it seemed like it was a decent enough game, but not something top10all time. I realize that no top 10 list will ever get approval from most people, but all the other games on the list has some claim to fame it seems, either in terms of having a large following\a big impact on gaming or having had tons of great reviews or whatever.
[^ If you like tactical turn-based (with almost rogue-like qualities with how you'll lose your teammates and how you can make decisions) with lots of repetitive movements (taking cover very slowly), you might like XCOM:enemy unknown.]
I believe that GoaT (Greatest of all Time) lists should always be taken with a grain of salt, then there is always a difference between popularity and objective criticisms for any given game. Maybe think of it as a "Best of ___" collection for recording artists.
If i were to rate a game on its experiences, it would be without the community aspect of the game. It would be without outside influences aside from whatever was necessary to get the game into your hands. In other words, it would just be based on your own experiences with the game from start to however long it would take you to finish. What you're left with is a list of what your opinion is on which games gave you the most at the time, and overall.
but if you're going to really compare games you have to go cross-genre and take into consideration things like.. atmosphere, themes, and game-feel for many of the game's mechanics/systems.
If i had to build a list considering what i mentioned, there probably wouldn't be any multiplayer games included. Singleplayer gameplay is experienced differently by everyone as is with multiplayer games but i still feel that singleplayer games are more prone to be discussed and analyzed by people much like they would with novels or movies.
If i didn't take myself so seriously though, counterstrike is way up there because no matter how repetitive everything looked like from a glance, it was so addictive, competitive, and compelling. Games like descent, doom, and duke nukem would be up there for me because they were so difficult and interesting. The truth is, it really depends on whether gaming was a luxury for you and your family, or gaming was affordable and really easy to get into.
When you were a kid and you pestered your mom (or whoever was more likely to cave and buy it for you) to get you a game, imagine how bad you'd feel or how much flak you'd get if you ended up hating the game or stop playing it after a week. Being a fan of a lot of things out there is not a cheap sort of hobby, and in this day and age of gaming where re-makes and franchise reboots are flying out left and right it really starts to kill some of the magic and excitement. What you enjoyed might not be what you remember, its been nearly a decade after all.
It's always amusing when an entity that professes itself to be about "pc games" doesn't even have 10yr old memory. LOL, that was a good laugh, thanks. XD
EPT
