Decline IGN Goes Beyond Retarded

[Lemming42]

God I hate videogames. I mean when you look over a list like that you really realise what a disaster the whole medium is.

 

[Mise]

People still don't get lists like this. They are not meant to be insightful or anything like that they are meant for people on places like this to bash them so they get their sweet ads dollars. Also Codex Top 100 RPGs was worse than this anyways.

 

[BrotherFrank]

Goldeneye but no timesplitters?
This to me is the biggest tell whoever did the list mostly or only plays nintendo stuff.

Otherwise lol at mortal kombat 11 being the sole representative of the fighting genre.

 

[baud]

I've dug a good quote on lists

A list with detailed reasons has real value to it, not as a list, but simply because seeing someone's comprehensive reactions to a large body of work is fascinating -- a mere ranking may not be, because of its opacity, but having someone justify each one is interesting.

Beyond that, this thread itself answers the "why a list?" -- because a list exerts an irresistible pull that compels people to read it. If Luther had ranked his theses in order, the whole world would be Protestant today. A successful list (as US News figured out long ago) has to conform to accepted wisdom sufficiently to be credible, while including enough wacky deviations from accepted wisdom to be controversial. A good list affirms the readership's prejudices. A great list looks credible, but includes wildly provocative claims (US News putting Caltech at #1 in 2000, whatever) and thus not only compels people to read it, but also compels them to discuss it. This list succeeds at that. The top rankings are mostly plausible, though I don't think they're what I would put. But then there's the deliberate provocation of Torin's Passage, KQ7, Laura Bow, etc. People will talk! Old schoolers will lash back! PC Gamer will stand by its ranking! A thousand Reddit threads will spring up. Mission accomplished.

though I don't think the list here is credible

 

[octavius]

We know the score, IGN pump out bollocks by the bucket load and ultimately it means fuck all. But they've outdone themselves this time.......

The Top 100 Video Games of All Time - IGN

That link is obvious butthurt bait. Won't click.

 

[Great Deceiver]

It is not about philosophies, it's about technical advancement. For example, someone who tried modern beat-em-up with 6 frames animations wouldn't want to go back to 3 frames animations, cos it's pretty critical to gameplay.

This is just completely wrong on every level. Do you honestly believe that "modern beat-em-ups with 6 frames animations" even come close to sniffing the balls of something like Shadows over Mystara? Denjin Makai 2? Those games came out 25 years ago and are infinitely superior, both in mechanics and features (in the case of D&D, I would also argue art, graphics and everything else), to anything released on the genre since. There are some cool indie games (like Fight n Rage), but they also don't come close and it's not fair to compare. Just where exactly is this "technical advancement" you speak of? Streets of Rage 4 is the only example I can think of, but even then the graphics are a mixed bag (subjective assessment, I personally don't like the art style), the gameplay is competent but you'd be hard pressed to find a fan of the series who prefers 4 over 2, which came out 30 years ago.

The Megadrive/Genesis was the console of choice for people who liked shmups and fast action games in general. The SNES simply couldn't do them on a technical level - Gaiares, Eliminate Down, Thunder Force IV, etc. They're too fast. There's a version of TF3 for the SNES and you can see how much it struggles to keep up. Although there were some decent shmups for the system, they were mostly very slow (Gradius 3 for example, which had excruciating slowdown at all points).

Again, it's a personal preference. I'd much rather play 60 30-minute sessions of shmups than jrpg #45 for 30 hours. I don't agree with your notion that things have progressed for these kinds of action games, even on a technical level, at all. In fact, this is true for every single genre of videogames. There hasn't been any significant progress for the last 20 years at the very least - and a lot of decline, with entire genres that were quite fun being almost completely wiped out, and certainly wiped out from big productions - shmups, adventure games, space sims.

 

[Gastrick]

Old PC games should make up a much larger portion of the list than they do, especially the top 30.

games designed for young children tend to score high on these lists as they're the games that reviewers can actually play

Not always.

That guy on the right is legitimately retarded. You'd think if someone talked about games for a living, they'd put some effort into getting good at them, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Zarniwoop]

I don't understand zelda fags and hope I never will.

:millennials:

Zelda, the Sims and Sterderp Valley are all apparently masterpieces now.

 

[BLOBERT]

It is not about philosophies, it's about technical advancement. For example, someone who tried modern beat-em-up with 6 frames animations wouldn't want to go back to 3 frames animations, cos it's pretty critical to gameplay.

This is just completely wrong on every level. Do you honestly believe that "modern beat-em-ups with 6 frames animations" even come close to sniffing the balls of something like Shadows over Mystara? Denjin Makai 2? Those games came out 25 years ago and are infinitely superior, both in mechanics and features (in the case of D&D, I would also argue art, graphics and everything else), to anything released on the genre since. There are some cool indie games (like Fight n Rage), but they also don't come close and it's not fair to compare. Just where exactly is this "technical advancement" you speak of? Streets of Rage 4 is the only example I can think of, but even then the graphics are a mixed bag (subjective assessment, I personally don't like the art style), the gameplay is competent but you'd be hard pressed to find a fan of the series who prefers 4 over 2, which came out 30 years ago.

The Megadrive/Genesis was the console of choice for people who liked shmups and fast action games in general. The SNES simply couldn't do them on a technical level - Gaiares, Eliminate Down, Thunder Force IV, etc. They're too fast. There's a version of TF3 for the SNES and you can see how much it struggles to keep up. Although there were some decent shmups for the system, they were mostly very slow (Gradius 3 for example, which had excruciating slowdown at all points).

Again, it's a personal preference. I'd much rather play 60 30-minute sessions of shmups than jrpg #45 for 30 hours. I don't agree with your notion that things have progressed for these kinds of action games, even on a technical level, at all. In fact, this is true for every single genre of videogames. There hasn't been any significant progress for the last 20 years at the very least - and a lot of decline, with entire genres that were quite fun being almost completely wiped out, and certainly wiped out from big productions - shmups, adventure games, space sims.

BRO YOU GET BRO FIST FOR EXCELLENT BEATUM UP TASTES

 

[BLOBERT]

I don't understand zelda fags and hope I never will.

:millennials:

Zelda, the Sims and Sterderp Valley are all apparently masterpieces now.

BRO SOME OF IT MUST BE NOSTALGIA

WHEN YOUR AN 80S KID YOU OFTEB DIDNT HAVE A TON OF GAMES SO YOU PLAYED WHAT YOU HAD TO DEATH

MANY OF THE OLDER CORE NINTENDO GAMES ARE LEGUT MASTERPEACES THOUGH

 

[dacencora]

Hating on Zelda is pretty lowbrow, tbh. Buncha edgy hipsters.

 

[luj1]

Not at all hugely ironic

 

[Zarniwoop]

Hating on Zelda is pretty lowbrow, tbh. Buncha edgy hipsters.

No one is hating Zelda, it just isn't the GREATEST OF ALL TIEM by any means.

 

[Zarniwoop]

BRO SOME OF IT MUST BE NOSTALGIA

WHEN YOUR AN 80S KID YOU OFTEB DIDNT HAVE A TON OF GAMES SO YOU PLAYED WHAT YOU HAD TO DEATH

MANY OF THE OLDER CORE NINTENDO GAMES ARE LEGUT MASTERPEACES THOUGH

I think we had better choices back then. Sure there weren't 50 000 indie games and platforms like Steam but that meant that whatever came out was usually pretty good because only people who were seriously dedicated could make games.

And yes the older Zelda games were great. But they put Breath of the Wild at number 1, not the 80s ones.

 

[dacencora]

And yes the older Zelda games were great. But they put Breath of the Wild at number 1, not the 80s ones.

In complete agreement with you there. A Link to the Past and A Link Between Worlds are by far the best Zeldas. Both are much better than BOTW, even if ALBW has some issues (item renting is beyond retarded).

 

[wishbonetail]

This is just completely wrong on every level. Do you honestly believe that "modern beat-em-ups with 6 frames animations" even come close to sniffing the balls of something like Shadows over Mystara? Denjin Makai 2? Those games came out 25 years ago and are infinitely superior...

People here on codex, of all places, are rootin for arcades. That's the real reason why IGN list is looked down upon.

 

[deuxhero]

Goes beyond retarded? Where was it before?

53. Ms. Pac-Man

These lists often seem almost chosen at random. Why Ms. Pac Man specifically over Pac Man? Surely not because female protagonist? Gameplay is identical IIRC.

LOL NO. Ms. Pac Man is the better game.

Yeah, Ms. Pac-Man is unquestionably the better game and not just a sprite swap. Chief among its improvements was each level having a different wall layout, which alone is huge for longevity. Wouldn't put any version of Pac-Man on a general top 100 list though, especially one that's full of shallow flavor of the month shit and cinematic shit and thus can't appeal to its exceptionally broad enjoyment. If you had to find a game that the greatest percentage of the general population, even those that don't play games, would enjoy, I'd totally expect some variant of Pac-Man and Tetris would be relatively high.

 

[JDR13]

"Best 100 of XXX" click-bait articles are the worst of them all. It's probably even worse than those click-bait youtube videos since I'd wager at least some of those are funny.

I strongly disagree. You've obviously never clicked on a link with XXX in it.

 

[†††]

Hating on Zelda is pretty lowbrow, tbh. Buncha edgy hipsters.

They're (usually) competent games with satisfying mechanics and gameplay loops that appeals to a wide variety of people. They're well made, that's all, but not extraordinarily mindblowing. They're like the LotR movies or the OG Star Wars trilogy, they provide a good sense of adventure and fun. But no one who really knows a bit would place these works at the top of a "Best movies ever" list. The problem with video games is that the supposed "experts" have total disregard and contempt for the actual history of the medium, and such they gravitate towards the popular and accessible. Unless the list is made by a single person, chances are that Zelda (and Nintendo games overall) are going to hoard all the best positions because of simply shared, collective experience. Person #1 might gravitate towards RPGs, person #2 towards FPS, but all of them played Zelda, and given their easily impressionable senses, a game with no serious weaknesses that appeals to the many like most of Nintendo's catalogue will seem to them like the bees knees. It's the reason why people to this day mythologize the Nogames64, because they all played the same 5 classics, talked about them, grew up with them, and it all creates a powerful snowball effect.

The only Nintendo game I consider to be truly exceptional above the rest is Super Metroid.

 

[Falksi]

It is not about philosophies, it's about technical advancement. For example, someone who tried modern beat-em-up with 6 frames animations wouldn't want to go back to 3 frames animations, cos it's pretty critical to gameplay.

This is just completely wrong on every level. Do you honestly believe that "modern beat-em-ups with 6 frames animations" even come close to sniffing the balls of something like Shadows over Mystara? Denjin Makai 2? Those games came out 25 years ago and are infinitely superior, both in mechanics and features (in the case of D&D, I would also argue art, graphics and everything else), to anything released on the genre since. There are some cool indie games (like Fight n Rage), but they also don't come close and it's not fair to compare. Just where exactly is this "technical advancement" you speak of? Streets of Rage 4 is the only example I can think of, but even then the graphics are a mixed bag (subjective assessment, I personally don't like the art style), the gameplay is competent but you'd be hard pressed to find a fan of the series who prefers 4 over 2, which came out 30 years ago.

The Megadrive/Genesis was the console of choice for people who liked shmups and fast action games in general. The SNES simply couldn't do them on a technical level - Gaiares, Eliminate Down, Thunder Force IV, etc. They're too fast. There's a version of TF3 for the SNES and you can see how much it struggles to keep up. Although there were some decent shmups for the system, they were mostly very slow (Gradius 3 for example, which had excruciating slowdown at all points).

Again, it's a personal preference. I'd much rather play 60 30-minute sessions of shmups than jrpg #45 for 30 hours. I don't agree with your notion that things have progressed for these kinds of action games, even on a technical level, at all. In fact, this is true for every single genre of videogames. There hasn't been any significant progress for the last 20 years at the very least - and a lot of decline, with entire genres that were quite fun being almost completely wiped out, and certainly wiped out from big productions - shmups, adventure games, space sims.

The key thing with Golden Era gaming for me was that you got what you asked for. CRPGs were deep, complex and true to their roots. Action games were fast, intense and gave you a buzz. etc. The equilibrium was almost perfect and it's no wonder it came in an era when men worked, fought and took charge, and bitches cooked, cleaned and mothered. Everything had a rightful place. Consoles weren't trying to be PC's, they were like a slutty mistress which you banged for 30-60 min before heading home for some quality time with the PC.

Everything's just now trying to be this horrible mesh of slow-action blended with a few numbers to create an illusion of an "RPG". Not intense enough to be fun, not deep enough to be an RPG. There are of course exceptions, but shit like Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn't satisfy me on any front. And sadly that's what "action" games have morphed into.

 

[Great Deceiver]

This is just completely wrong on every level. Do you honestly believe that "modern beat-em-ups with 6 frames animations" even come close to sniffing the balls of something like Shadows over Mystara? Denjin Makai 2? Those games came out 25 years ago and are infinitely superior...

People here on codex, of all places, are rootin for arcades. That's the real reason why IGN list is looked down upon.

What does that mean, exactly? "rooting for arcades"? I'm glad some people here (again, why "of all places"?) recognize that arcade games (due to many factors, including limitations in technology and player time) are concentrated, razor-focused fun, often expertly designed (by engineers) and the best ones are made to be beatable while still being very challenging because they had to make money for the operator.

I'll "root" for good games forever. What we have now are mostly bloated, vapid pieces of unoptimized garbage that are completely void of any challenge, which is the only reason I'd ever play a videogame. The dangerhair brigade has taken over from the engineers, and they're dutifully doing their job of demolishing everything without knowing how to build anything to replace it.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

Zelda (1986) > Zelda 2 >>> Breath of the Wild >>>>>>>>>>>> A Link to the Past.

Seriously, I don't mind Zelda games, but A Link to the Past fanboys can suck my dick. That game was massive decline.

 

[wishbonetail]

It is not about philosophies, it's about technical advancement. For example, someone who tried modern beat-em-up with 6 frames animations wouldn't want to go back to 3 frames animations, cos it's pretty critical to gameplay.

This is just completely wrong on every level. Do you honestly believe that "modern beat-em-ups with 6 frames animations" even come close to sniffing the balls of something like Shadows over Mystara? Denjin Makai 2? Those games came out 25 years ago and are infinitely superior, both in mechanics and features (in the case of D&D, I would also argue art, graphics and everything else), to anything released on the genre since. There are some cool indie games (like Fight n Rage), but they also don't come close and it's not fair to compare. Just where exactly is this "technical advancement" you speak of? Streets of Rage 4 is the only example I can think of, but even then the graphics are a mixed bag (subjective assessment, I personally don't like the art style), the gameplay is competent but you'd be hard pressed to find a fan of the series who prefers 4 over 2, which came out 30 years ago.

The Megadrive/Genesis was the console of choice for people who liked shmups and fast action games in general. The SNES simply couldn't do them on a technical level - Gaiares, Eliminate Down, Thunder Force IV, etc. They're too fast. There's a version of TF3 for the SNES and you can see how much it struggles to keep up. Although there were some decent shmups for the system, they were mostly very slow (Gradius 3 for example, which had excruciating slowdown at all points).

Again, it's a personal preference. I'd much rather play 60 30-minute sessions of shmups than jrpg #45 for 30 hours. I don't agree with your notion that things have progressed for these kinds of action games, even on a technical level, at all. In fact, this is true for every single genre of videogames. There hasn't been any significant progress for the last 20 years at the very least - and a lot of decline, with entire genres that were quite fun being almost completely wiped out, and certainly wiped out from big productions - shmups, adventure games, space sims.

The key thing with Golden Era gaming for me was that you got what you asked for. CRPGs were deep, complex and true to their roots. Action games were fast, intense and gave you a buzz. etc. The equilibrium was almost perfect and it's no wonder it came in an era when men worked, fought and took charge, and bitches cooked, cleaned and mothered. Everything had a rightful place. Consoles weren't trying to be PC's, they were like a slutty mistress which you banged for 30-60 min before heading home for some quality time with the PC.

Everything's just now trying to be this horrible mesh of slow-action blended with a few numbers to create an illusion of an "RPG". Not intense enough to be fun, not deep enough to be an RPG. There are of course exceptions, but shit like Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn't satisfy me on any front. And sadly that's what "action" games have morphed into.

Whatever you say, chums. Just be careful with the edges when you brofisting each other.

 

[dacencora]

Hating on Zelda is pretty lowbrow, tbh. Buncha edgy hipsters.

They're (usually) competent games with satisfying mechanics and gameplay loops that appeals to a wide variety of people. They're well made, that's all, but not extraordinarily mindblowing. They're like the LotR movies or the OG Star Wars trilogy, they provide a good sense of adventure and fun. But no one who really knows a bit would place these works at the top of a "Best movies ever" list. The problem with video games is that the supposed "experts" have total disregard and contempt for the actual history of the medium, and such they gravitate towards the popular and accessible. Unless the list is made by a single person, chances are that Zelda (and Nintendo games overall) are going to hoard all the best positions because of simply shared, collective experience. Person #1 might gravitate towards RPGs, person #2 towards FPS, but all of them played Zelda, and given their easily impressionable senses, a game with no serious weaknesses that appeals to the many like most of Nintendo's catalogue will seem to them like the bees knees. It's the reason why people to this day mythologize the Nogames64, because they all played the same 5 classics, talked about them, grew up with them, and it all creates a powerful snowball effect.

The only Nintendo game I consider to be truly exceptional above the rest is Super Metroid.

You make a good argument, and I can see what you mean about its similarity to the LOTR films. Competently made with not many major weaknesses.

The Metroid series is also excellently designed, so I agree with you there.

 

[Whimper]

I'm surprised that Disco Elysium is in their top ten, did that succeed in the mainstream market? I thought it'd be pretty niche. I liked the game but certainly wouldn't put it that high, was it popular or is IGN writer trying to be eclectic?