Random Gaming Thoughts

[Ack]

Start with 100. If you do that and follow Ack's plan you'll get even more experiences, whereas if you start with 1 then the top 50 are just games shuffling around, and you won't play any of the games that fall off the list.

Also keep in mind that this way you are supposedly ascending in quality, with each new game meant to be better than the last in some way.

[noiseredux]

good points, both.

[Luke]

Hardball '95 is no Hardball '94.

[Jmustang1968]

So what you could do is start going from #100-#1,

I'm still not sure if I should do 100-1 or 1-100. Either way I'll be forced to play some stuff out of chronological order (shrug). If I start w/ 100 then I'm starting w/ more esoteric stuff, which can be fun/interesting. If I start w/ 1, then I'm starting w/ Half-Life 2 which I'm already pretty close to finishing anyway.

I was going to say yeah do it, great idea, and maybe I would try it too. Then I went and saw last year's list... and well their credibility and the worthiness of this task was quickly diminished.

Now, of course no one will ever agree on a top 10 or 100 or anything list, and I knew that going in, but the games on the list and some of the ones that aren't is baffling. Just with Blizzard games. They have hearthstone listed but no starcraft entry and no Diablo II.

[noiseredux]

if I recall correctly John, I believe they try to keep it their Top 100 games that are currently available. Is Diablo II still in print or on digital distribution? I really have no idea.

[MrPopo]

So what you could do is start going from #100-#1,

I'm still not sure if I should do 100-1 or 1-100. Either way I'll be forced to play some stuff out of chronological order (shrug). If I start w/ 100 then I'm starting w/ more esoteric stuff, which can be fun/interesting. If I start w/ 1, then I'm starting w/ Half-Life 2 which I'm already pretty close to finishing anyway.

I was going to say yeah do it, great idea, and maybe I would try it too. Then I went and saw last year's list... and well their credibility and the worthiness of this task wqs quickly diminished.

Now, of course no one will ever agree on a top 10 or 100 or anything list, and I knew that going in, but the games on the list and some of the ones that aren't is baffling. Just with Blizzard games. They have hearthstone listed but no starcraft entry and no Diablo II.

There were way too many classic games that made the list who's previous position was "New entry". These were all games that should never have fallen off a top 100 list.

[noiseredux]

as John said, nobody will ever agree on such a list. Which is why their list changes every year. I mentioned in my first post that which list I choose to go by is almost arbitrary. But I find that at least PCG does offer a good mix of old, new, AAA, indie, classic and cult-classic to keep things interesting. Plus I don't play on consoles really, so this is a good fit.

Another thought is Metacritic's Top 100 PC games:

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/ ... c/filtered

Though it feels like a lot of series entries are reiterated, and it's mostly AAA stuff with the oldest title being from 1996.

On second though the Metacritic list could be interesting too.... someone take a closer look at that list and let me know your thoughts on it?

#100 is C&C Red Alert, which is free.

[Ack]

On second though the Metacritic list could be interesting too.... someone take a closer look at that list and let me know your thoughts on it?

I think the Metacritic one offers a wide and more interesting set of genres. However, it has no limits on how many times one game can end up on the list, so World of Warcraft has four slots, 1 for the base game and 3 for expansions.

If you would prefer something different, I'm sure you could just go into the PC board and ask members for their Top #100 lists. Then start going through the lists to see what people came up with. I'm sure you'll get a lot of variety, some overlap, and a lot of really interesting responses.

[noiseredux]

I think the Metacritic one offers a wide and more interesting set of genres. However, it has no limits on how many times one game can end up on the list, so World of Warcraft has four slots, 1 for the base game and 3 for expansions.

Yeah, I noticed that too. :\

If you would prefer something different, I'm sure you could just go into the PC board and ask members for their Top #100 lists. Then start going through the lists to see what people came up with. I'm sure you'll get a lot of variety, some overlap, and a lot of really interesting responses.

Eh, I actually prefer the route of just picking pre-made list and attacking it. Meaning, asking anyone to help me compile such a list - they would already know why it was being made. Strange as it sounds I like the sort of randomness of some pre-made list.

So I guess I'm still between the PCG and Meta ones... but probably leaning towards PCG because too much WOW.


HMM... I clicked on "add excluded" on Meta and it added a bunch of games to that list. What the heck? Why were games excluded? The list got even more varied this way.

[Ack]

HMM... I clicked on "add excluded" on Meta and it added a bunch of games to that list. What the heck? Why were games excluded? The list got even more varied this way.

Fewer reviews. The games that were excluded from the list have considerably fewer reviews for Metacritic than the ones that were on it. For instance, Metro 2033: Redux and Out of the Park Baseball 2007 were added. Both have only 5 reviews that were aggregated for their scores. Most of the other games have 25+ reviews to determine their score.