GR turns 5


  • geneticallyalteredsupergiraffeejaculatinggrenades - April 10, 2011 3:55 a.m.

    Portal is not the bet game ever, the best is Gyromite. It is awesome because without R.O.B there would be no industry.
  • ZigzMagoo - April 10, 2011 3:11 a.m.

    Your opinion might be enough to exclude it from the top 10, but from the whole list? It sold 8 million copies and was probably the best game on the N64. It defenitely deserves to be on the list, and thats coming from someone who fucking hates Nintendo. The game basically created the zoomable scope in video games.
  • BladedFalcon - April 10, 2011 3:03 a.m.

    ...Untrue. the description states: "Some games are truly timeless and will entertain no matter how old the graphics or how outdated the interface. The ones that aren’t… aren’t here." With this, they are not saying graphics have nothing to do with it. Simply what they mean is that some games are so good, that they hold even if the graphics aren't that great. But they do take it into account, and this insight is made clearer if you listen to the pod-cast in when they comment about it. Some games ARE brought down because of their graphics, and methinks that they thought GoldenEye fell into that category. And frankly, I agree.
  • ZigzMagoo - April 10, 2011 2:44 a.m.

    In the description it says that graphics have nothing to do with it. GoldenEye is still hella fun
  • BladedFalcon - April 10, 2011 2:26 a.m.

    @ZigzMagoo If you're talking about any age that had sprite graphics... Eh. I think that area is pretty debatable,as sprites could be considered to be a visual art form of it's own. I for example, do like the way even NES games as megaman look, even by today's standards. And the fact that Megaman 9 and 10 were mada proves that even 8-bit sprites are relevant still today. *coughs* anyway. I don't deny the importance of GoldenEye, but that's NOT the focus of this article! They were not talking about games that made history or were relevant. Simple as that. As for Halo... Well, if you read my comment above, you'll notice I'm not a multiplayer fan, at all. Maybe that's why the games have never really appealed to me. But well, I won't argue if you claim it's the best multiplayer experience out there, which is why Halo 3 is in the list, after all, right? And Oblivion. Again I get why you would love this game so much, I also played for 100+ hours, and can't wait for skyrim either. But well... You didn't really expect the editors to agree entirely with you? I mean, at least the game made it, and fairly high as well. @gilgamesh310 That would be more your difference in opinion, than the fault of the character itself. It's silly, but I find that quote endearing, as well as the gibberish he spouts in the Mario & Luigi games. Counterwise, I actually find sonic annoying, too focused on his "Attitude!" to develop anything else. But as you can see, this really boils down more to a matter of personal taste, rather than an actual judgment of quality.
  • gilgamesh310 - April 10, 2011 2:15 a.m.

    What is charismatic about Mario though? I don't get what the appeal is. Sonic has some charisma but for me Mario has none. 'It's a me mario', so fucking what. Noone asked you, fuck off. That's my opinion on Mario.
  • BladedFalcon - April 10, 2011 2:06 a.m.

    Well... Again, I don't like multiplayer, but it IS a part of the game, and for a lot of people other than is, a core part of it. I mean, just because we enjoy the single player more, doesn't mean the multiplayer aspects are worthless. For other people, the MP is all that matter, and they could care less about single player. I think what's important to judge, is the whole package, what the game offers, and what it does well. Also, I think it's important for a developer to know it's limitations, and what it's property can do well. Visceral games made a mistake by trying to cater to multiplayer fans in the first place,when the genre and franchise isn't simply made for that kind of gameplay. So yes, I actually think they SHOULD be punished even if not entirely, for spending time with a tacked on feature just made to obviously attract the casual online gamer. And not focus all of their resources to have made, say a more ambitious single player campaign, or add more perks into the single player mode itself. Like a different character or something of the sort. Don't get me wrong, Dead's Space 2 Campaign is great. Enough to suck me back into the franchise and lot when the first one lost me in the middle. But nevertheless, Visceral chose to develop a multiplayer mode and integrate it into their game, so it should be judged as a part of the game, fair is fair. Instead, they should follow the example of developers like 2K Boston or Bethesda, who dedicate entirely on the single player mode, knowing that the IP is MADE for that type of experience. In conclusion, if a game IS focused in multiplayer, then it's multiplayer component should be taken into account and praised if it contains new or quality content that makes online gaming more fun in general. At least, that's how I see it. lastly, Mario... That's a whole different ballgame, you''re talking about an icon and a charismatic character that managed to endear people even back when it was mostly a voiceless, ambiguously shaped sprite. He certainly lacks the depth of a lot of modern VG characters, but what he has, is a distinctive way of being that has become so popular for a reason. I would never put him in my list of best VG characters that have existed. But I don't write him off as lame because I can recognize the simple appeal he represents.
  • ZigzMagoo - April 10, 2011 1:51 a.m.

    @BladedFalcon There are plenty of games up on that list with shit graphics. The truth is that Goldeneye is basically the reason why we have console shooters today, and revolutionized the first person shooter genre. And Halo 1 was the only with a storyline that wasnt completely fucked up, but since then the multiplayer has always been the best. The absolute best out of any FPS. Sure there are better storylines (Deus Ex) but I, and obviously millions of other people would say that Halo has a more fun experience. As for Oblivion, I actually never had any glitch issues with it on my 360, and considering the pure size of it, theres gotta be glitches in it. At least its not like they didnt beta test it at all, like Black Ops or Fallout new Vegas. Plus the pure amount of things to do in Oblivion gives it such a high replay value. On one Character, I had over 100 hours before even starting Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine. In total I have had 5 characters since I bought the game in 2007. Graphically its not too pretty anymore, but it still stands up to most RPGs. It has probably one the most accessible gameplay interfaces ever, as well as great combat, story, and the replayability factor. That is why it should deserve #1. Portal is cool, but I sure as hell wont put hundreds of hours into it. Ahh, sorry about the rant, but as you can tell I fucking love the Elder Scrolls. I cant wait for Skyrim
  • gilgamesh310 - April 10, 2011 1:19 a.m.

    I don't think multiplayer should matter when grading games. The single player should come first. In Dead Space 2 the multiplayer was shit bt the single player was brilliant. Is it fair that the game should be degraded as a result? I think not. The horde mode was good but i don't think that is enough to cut it. I also hate the way they think mario is a great game character when all he is is a comical plumer who can't plumb for shit.
  • BladedFalcon - April 10, 2011 12:44 a.m.

    Ehh... Well, just because you disagree with them doesn't mean their integrity is compromised. For example, I find their reasoning behind putting Uncharted above Arkham Asylum, for example, even though at the time they gave GotY to AA. And what I mean to say is, I've yet to find such glaring discrepancies, so I'll save my hate for now XD And also, something just occurred to me... There IS something GoW2 has that Vanquish absolutely does not. And they actually STATE it was the reason they put GoW2 and NOT Gow! as the best. Which is Horde mode, and in general, vanquish lacks the multiplayer component. Which, objectively speaking, IS kind of a big thing. For most other people, at least. I still maintain that Vanquish has the better gameplay. But I also acknowledge that I'm not a multiplayer guy, at all. I mean, I don't even try most games's multiplayer modes, it's just not my thing. But just because I don't like Multiplayer, doesn't mean it's not an important, and arguably decisive argument was to why GoW2 is there, and vanquish does not.
  • gilgamesh310 - April 10, 2011 12:31 a.m.

    BladedFalcon, you're a reasonable intelligent person, unlike most peolpe on the internet. I agree with everything you said about Vanquish, but why did they still put in Gears of War 2 instead of it. Ive been a member of gamesradar for over a year now so Inknow all the good and all the bad and I just find ther is more bad than good. The thing that pisses me off the most is that there is so many contradictions. They could give a game a 10/10 and then later regard a game that they gave 8/10 as being better just because society dictates it. They should show more integrity like EDGE magazine.
  • BladedFalcon - April 10, 2011 12:21 a.m.

    @gilgamesh310 Y'know... I actually agree about Vanquish, now that you mention it. The gameplay is a masterful evolution over the Gears of War gameplay, and it honestly puts any game with that combat system to shame. And even if you attack vanquish's obvious weak points, such as retarded story and short duration.... Weeell. Neither GoW has a good story, really, it's decent at best, but honestly most people played it and liked it for the gameplay, not the story. As for the duration... I think anyone can agree that it's better to have six hours of pure, distilled action goodness, than 12 hours of solid, but not as great or action packed gameplay. Or maybe that's just me XD. So yeah, I would have preferred it if vanquish had been there instead of Gow. But well, eh. Can't have everything. I still enjoy read on most of the articles in this site. (so far, at least.)And you don't have to like or agree on everything they say. I just prefer to take the good stuff and ignore the bad XD.
  • BladedFalcon - April 10, 2011 12:14 a.m.

    @gilgamesh310 Well, I guess I'm just not one of those people. To me, that was one of RE5's lesser problems, if they had tried different and new things and made sure they worked, and had created a story and setting that didn't become so ludicrous and over the top at the end, I would have loved the game much, much more, even if it still had the not walk with aiming thing.
  • gilgamesh310 - April 10, 2011 12:11 a.m.

    Serpinetinezero, about that console list thing, you're right, I didn't read the 'small print' in that case. Nevertheless they still put in a lot of stupid choices. Halo is shit and Gears of War isn't a masterpiece, Vanquish is better. I still mistakenly interpretated the list though, so I take back some of the stuff I said. My apologies. Regardless of that though, my respect in GR is still dwindling. Most of whatever else they said in that article was just stupid and they contradict theirselves way too oftne. I do still respect david Houghtin a lot though, he knows what he is talking about most of the time.
  • gilgamesh310 - April 10, 2011 12:04 a.m.

    Serpintinezero, I know that RE 4 is better than RE 5. That comment wasn't directed towards Gamesradar's inconsisteny and apparent stupiduty. There are other reviewers that believe RE is shit though and RE 4 is a masterpiece. BladedFalcon,yeah I agree with everything you said,no arguments there. It's just that a lot of people complain about the not being able to move and shoot thing in the wake of Dead Space but seem to neglect that the same thing couldn't be done in RE 4 either.
  • BladedFalcon - April 9, 2011 11:52 p.m.

    @ChrisCultista Um... I don't see how shooting portals to solve puzzles that also utilize things such as physics and gravity, has anything barely resembling what a first person shooter is. Which is to attack and defend against enemies that are actively moving and also attacking you back. That's the core gameplay of any FPS in a nutshell, and portal isn't just that. The way you're putting it, any game, of any genre could pretty well fit into that category. Most game present you with a kind of challenge one way or another, the "enemy" be it active or not, and your mission is to overcome said challenge. This is true for any action, adventure, RPG, fighting, strategy or Puzzle game, not just FPS. @gilgamesh310 Well, my take on RE5 is precisely that: It felt content to sit exactly in the same kind of formula RE4 used, but the story was worse, the character were less interesting. And the few new additions they did make, actually hampered more the experience than enhance it. Sure, unlike ashley, Sheva could fight back, but she also got in the way, stole your ammo, and because she tried to have an active role in the combat, ended up getting in the way far more than Ashley ever did. So in my eyes, RE5 is not the same as RE4, it's actually worse. Even if it has the better graphics. @ZigzMagoo People playing a game today =/= holds up. A lot of them could be going purely out of nostalgia, or simply because they liked that game so much that they rather stick to it than try something new and arguably better. But the fact that GoldenEye, as revolutionary as it was when it came out, it looks like absolute ASS by today's standards. Note how there are not too many polygon based games in the N64-PS1 era in this list. And the ones that they do appear, is because they used a graphic style that still manages to look defined enough or appealing to stand the test of time, such as Mario 64.Goldeneye, on the other hand, looked great back then, but now, with our eyes being used at much better graphics, Goldeneye's sprites and textures are just too painful to stare for too long without wanting to play something else. At the very least, that's how "I" feel about it. If there's people out there still playing the game, that's great! means they really can enjoy a game regardless of any kind of aesthetic appeal it might had or lost. I just don't consider myself of that crown, and something tell most of the GR staff fell into that side as well. As for halo. i never said it sucks. I don;t think any of the Halo games suck or are terrible. I acknowledge that each and every single of them are very solid FPS, and can be pretty fun on multiplayer. But that being said, i can list pretty much any other kind of FPS franchise out there that I enjoy more than Halo, to me, none of it aesthetics, story, characters or gameplay feel appealing enough to bring me back. And most of the claims about Halo being overrated are because they think the game does not deserve the kind of holy grail praise it gets, and not necessarily because they think the games actually suck. And lastly, oblivion... Well, that's a polarizing game. I personally loved it and played it for hours. But I also acknowledge it's filled with flaws and glitches, and I know several people that think the game's genuine shit. XD Again, it all boils down to opinions of course, but what I'm trying to say is that the game has enough issues to irritate a fair amount of people, and hence probably why it's not that high up. (God am I having too much free time today... and these posts are ungodly long, apologies in advance for that ^^;)
  • erbclub - April 9, 2011 11:35 p.m.

    Some additions for pre-1990: (if i missed them in the article im sorry) 1. RC pro-am 2. Blades of steel 3. Icari Warriors 4. Micro-Machines
  • KolbitosFruitJuice - April 9, 2011 11:04 p.m.

    Yes! Nintendo takes the cake. I understand leaving out Ocarina of Time by your definition of "best", but not Metroid Prime. Its still insanely playable. I play it every year. Love every second of it.
  • SerpentineZERO - April 9, 2011 11:04 p.m.

    Oh yeah, and @gilgamesh, the systems list wasn't about which was best, it was about which one had the most (exclusive?) games on the Top 100 list.
  • SerpentineZERO - April 9, 2011 11:02 p.m.

    This list made me lose respect for GamesRadar because they have a differing opinion. But in all seriousness though, the list is pretty much opinion based, so quit complaining. And @gilgamesh, RE5 could be considered inferior in some aspects due to being less scary. I've played very little of it, but it seems to be lacking of RE4's atmosphere, part of what made it so great. A lot of people also thought the companion AI wasn't good, making co-op the best way to play the game. And this could be just me, but i didn't like the controls. But i guess i haven't played much to really say for certain. As for Halo 3, i don't think i've ever had as much fun playing an FPS with friends. Customizable gametypes + Forge made for some pretty fun and creative gametypes (keep in mind i'm a console gamer only). The campaign is also very replayable, what with co-op, scoring, and skulls. I also love the graphics, audio, and AI.

Showing 41-60 of 162 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.