Greatest PC game of all time is TES V: Skyrim

[DraQ]

Why?

Because of perspective, duh.

Any insight about newer game is going to be swamped by fresh butthurt or, more frequently, fresh hype.

 

[dnf]

Why?

Because of perspective, duh.

Any insight about newer game is going to be swamped by fresh butthurt or, more frequently, fresh hype.

This doesn't apply to all genres tough. Timespan is the last thing to worry when you have XCOM alongside Half life for example. How does that even work? It's just pulling things out of your ass all the way down...

 

[DraQ]

Why?

Because of perspective, duh.

Any insight about newer game is going to be swamped by fresh butthurt or, more frequently, fresh hype.

This doesn't apply to all genres tough. Timespan is the last thing to worry when you have XCOM alongside Half life for example. How does that even work? It's just pulling things out of your ass all the way down...

Well, if you're going for cross-genre list then you're not going to avoid this problem, but even inside genres there are problems with that - do you like your RPGs FPP or iso? TB party based or solo, do you prefer storyfaggotry, dungon crawling, or having a wide open world to fuck around in? Do you like your FPS low brow and action packed, more atmospheric, semi realistic, or maybe hybridized with a bit of an RPG?

Really, deciding whether PS:T is better or worse than Fallout, later Wizardries or one of pre-2006 TES isn't going to be any less arbitrary than choosing between XCOM and HL.

OTOH not including the latest AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA game of the millennium 999/10 best game ever is easily achieved.

 

[dnf]

Why?

Because of perspective, duh.

Any insight about newer game is going to be swamped by fresh butthurt or, more frequently, fresh hype.

This doesn't apply to all genres tough. Timespan is the last thing to worry when you have XCOM alongside Half life for example. How does that even work? It's just pulling things out of your ass all the way down...

Well, if you're going for cross-genre list then you're not going to avoid this problem, but even inside genres there are problems with that - do you like your RPGs FPP or iso? TB party based or solo, do you prefer storyfaggotry, dungon crawling, or having a wide open world to fuck around in? Do you like your FPS low brow and action packed, more atmospheric, semi realistic, or maybe hybridized with a bit of an RPG?

Really, deciding whether PS:T is better or worse than Fallout, later Wizardries or one of pre-2006 TES isn't going to be any less arbitrary than choosing between XCOM and HL.

OTOH not including the latest AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA game of the millennium 999/10 best game ever is easily achieved.

Making the list genre based (or even better, sub-genre based) at least is a more decent compromise than going full retarded genre free. Regarding your 10 year older games rules, well if someone will be hyped or butthurt about recent games, then he is not worthy of making a list in the first place. There is also the problem that your rule is biased in itself(against modern games).

 

[argan]

I liked Swedish PC Gamer's list some years back. They listed Grim Fandango as #1.
Although it's not my personal #1, I wouldn't argue too much about it.

Indeed. They are actually somewhat reliable most of the time, although some articles that are just translated can be pretty bad.

 

[Zed]

I liked Swedish PC Gamer's list some years back. They listed Grim Fandango as #1.
Although it's not my personal #1, I wouldn't argue too much about it.

Indeed. They are actually somewhat reliable most of the time, although some articles that are just translated can be pretty bad.

I only know they were somewhat reliable. I don't know about them know. I read them in the late 90s/early 00s when they used adjectives like Skäggigt in their RPG reviews, and they were really passionate about adventure games, strategy games and RPGs. They had funny picture captions too.

 

[argan]

Haha yeah, I still have issues from that time. They are not quite as reliable (though they "only" gave Fallout 3 around 80, prompting angry emails from the publisher), but probably generally better than a lot of others. Mainly because they're not afraid to give low scores.

 

[Ebonsword]

I read them in the late 90s/early 00s when they used adjectives like Skäggigt in their RPG reviews...

Yep, that's always a sign of quality.



What the hell is "Skäggigt"?

 

[Zed]

I read them in the late 90s/early 00s when they used adjectives like Skäggigt in their RPG reviews...

Yep, that's always a sign of quality.



What the hell is "Skäggigt"?

Beardy.

 

[Carrion]

I only know they were somewhat reliable. I don't know about them know. I read them in the late 90s/early 00s when they used adjectives like Skäggigt in their RPG reviews, and they were really passionate about adventure games, strategy games and RPGs. They had funny picture captions too.

Was it entirely Swedish or did they use material from the UK version? I liked the Finnish PC Gamer from that era too, and I'd say they were mostly pretty reliable in retrospect. In general, the games that got 90+ scores almost always became classics of some sort (Grim Fandango got 95%, as far as I remember), and everything above 80 was usually good. They tended to be quite biased towards adventure games, but I'm not sure if that counts as a flaw in a time when the supposed "death" of adventure games was already some kind of a thing. Most importantly, the reviews were fun to read and informative enough, even if you disagreed with the score. Great demo CDs too. There was a big drop in quality (both in the humour and the reliability department) once they started making the magazine with an entirely Finnish staff, and it died pretty soon afterwards.

 

[Luzur]

Also

Drunk as of this posting be warned. I thouhht I woukld have fun at the PS# boards. a user by the nAME of bussinrounds found this. reAD and laugh at their ignorance!
http://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=218

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/615803-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/60327421?page=0

they cant even spell right, i wonder who the morons are here.

 

[Luzur]

I read them in the late 90s/early 00s when they used adjectives like Skäggigt in their RPG reviews...

Yep, that's always a sign of quality.



What the hell is "Skäggigt"?

Beardy.

after they change out a few of their old workers (Björlin, Sköld, Bennet, Kaufeldt, that guy who wrote that gaming blog in during the 90's and Hamster's responses to fanletters) it didnt feel the same for me.

 

[argan]

Was it entirely Swedish or did they use material from the UK version? I liked the Finnish PC Gamer from that era too, and I'd say they were mostly pretty reliable in retrospect. In general, the games that got 90+ scores almost always became classics of some sort (Grim Fandango got 95%, as far as I remember), and everything above 80 was usually good. They tended to be quite biased towards adventure games, but I'm not sure if that counts as a flaw in a time when the supposed "death" of adventure games was already some kind of a thing. Most importantly, the reviews were fun to read and informative enough, even if you disagreed with the score. Great demo CDs too. There was a big drop in quality (both in the humour and the reliability department) once they started making the magazine with an entirely Finnish staff, and it died pretty soon afterwards.

They used some material from the UK version. With the swedish version I think the first years were so good (around 96-01) because the first employees were really just 18-year old gamers (most were around this age) who wanted to play games, write about it and have fun. When they grew up I guess the enthusiasm turned a bit more businesslike.

after they change out a few of their old workers (Björlin, Sköld, Bennet, Kaufeldt, that guy who wrote that gaming blog in during the 90's and Hamster's responses to fanletters) it didnt feel the same for me.

Yes, it definitely changed. I was still subscribing to it fairly recently, but I still have the old issues. It can be fun sometimes to re-read them and compare.

 

[buzz]

I'm not really sure why do you people expect something else from these lists. What do you want them to say, "hey kids, all the best PC games ever made were fun and popular before you were even born or had a computer. Enjoy living in a shitty generation!"
Also, many people honestly find some certain modern iteration of games to be superior of older ones, even as initial fans of older stuff. It's a conflict of "interests" really. One might love a driving game because it simulates driving realistically, one might hate it for the exact same reason.

 

[ColCol]

Finally, now I know which games to play.

 

[Night Goat]

What do you want them to say, "hey kids, all the best PC games ever made were fun and popular before you were even born or had a computer. Enjoy living in a shitty generation!"

If it's the truth, why shouldn't they say it? Most of those games that were made in the Golden Age of late 80s - early 2000s are playable on modern computers, if you're willing to put some effort into it. The more literate youngsters should be encouraged to seek out the classics and play them. If they did, they might demand more from the games that are released today.

I can enjoy watching Star Trek, though it was made two decades before I was born. I can enjoy reading the works of Shakespeare, though they were written four centuries ago. Why shouldn't kids these days enjoy games from the 90s?

Also, many people honestly find some certain modern iteration of games to be superior of older ones, even as initial fans of older stuff. It's a conflict of "interests" really. One might love a driving game because it simulates driving realistically, one might hate it for the exact same reason.

Sometimes modern games are better than the older ones, but this is rare. Modern games have a tendency to eschew quality and complexity in favor of flashy graphics and the popping of moles. They are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[buzz]

Well, people have different opinions on what counts as good quality. Again, arcade racing versus simulator.

Besides, PC Gamer is not a prestigious magazine, it's not supposed to say the truth and do serious criticism. Their list of Top 100 PC games is as significantly relevant as FHM's top 100 women is. Or imdb's top 200 movies, even though that's a public-oriented list.

I mean honestly, this website in itself that's supposed to be a bastion of great RPG design and quality and recognition of what truly was influential and meaningful in the genre, and even our list was sketchy. Baldur's Gate 1, Icewind Dale, buggy games like the Troika ones or New Vegas, no Wizardry/Ultima/Goldbox/BoK/Darklands in the top 10 and so on. If the users of this board voted that way, what more can you expect from modern gaming journalists?

 

[Night Goat]

Well, people have different opinions on what counts as good quality. Again, arcade racing versus simulator.

I don't think old versus new is the same thing as arcade versus simulator. The difference is intent. Arcade racing games and simulators may not appeal to the same people, but if the developers and publishers really wanted to make a good game, then it is just a matter of preference. Those games that are acclaimed by the Codex were made by people who were passionate about their work; they had visions to bring to life, stories they wanted to tell. The games had their flaws, but they could be overlooked because the games had that something that made them more than just a way to kill time.

Most of the games that are made now don't have that something. They're not made to express a vision, or tell a story, or do anything besides pleasing the shareholders.

Besides, PC Gamer is not a prestigious magazine, it's not supposed to say the truth and do serious criticism.

Perhaps this is a symptom of the same disease. It's not about truth and serious criticism, it's about filling space in a magazine or getting pageviews. It's all about the shareholders.

 

[DalekFlay]

I'm not really sure why do you people expect something else from these lists. What do you want them to say, "hey kids, all the best PC games ever made were fun and popular before you were even born or had a computer. Enjoy living in a shitty generation!"
Also, many people honestly find some certain modern iteration of games to be superior of older ones, even as initial fans of older stuff. It's a conflict of "interests" really. One might love a driving game because it simulates driving realistically, one might hate it for the exact same reason.

I don't think the editors even consider Skyrim the best game, they just know how to appeal to their audience. The last ever PC Gamer I read was the GOTY awards for Skyrim's year and though they gave Skyrim GOTY all the editors had a completely different GOTY as their "personal pick," and it was all more obscure shit. NONE of them picked Skyrim personally, it was for the audience.

 

[RK47]

I think it is GOTY material. Though the graphic is kinda dated.

 

[LundB]

 

[Zeriel]

By the seven divines! What miracle have you wrought?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

What do you want them to say, "hey kids, all the best PC games ever made were fun and popular before you were even born or had a computer. Enjoy living in a shitty generation!"

If it's the truth, why shouldn't they say it? Most of those games that were made in the Golden Age of late 80s - early 2000s are playable on modern computers, if you're willing to put some effort into it. The more literate youngsters should be encouraged to seek out the classics and play them. If they did, they might demand more from the games that are released today.

I can enjoy watching Star Trek, though it was made two decades before I was born. I can enjoy reading the works of Shakespeare, though they were written four centuries ago. Why shouldn't kids these days enjoy games from the 90s?

Because it is professional suicide. If people wanted to hear how much the stuff they like sucks, they'd just talk to their dads.

 

[Nael]

What do you want them to say, "hey kids, all the best PC games ever made were fun and popular before you were even born or had a computer. Enjoy living in a shitty generation!"

If it's the truth, why shouldn't they say it? Most of those games that were made in the Golden Age of late 80s - early 2000s are playable on modern computers, if you're willing to put some effort into it. The more literate youngsters should be encouraged to seek out the classics and play them. If they did, they might demand more from the games that are released today.

I can enjoy watching Star Trek, though it was made two decades before I was born. I can enjoy reading the works of Shakespeare, though they were written four centuries ago. Why shouldn't kids these days enjoy games from the 90s?

Because it is professional suicide. If people wanted to hear how much the stuff they like sucks, they'd just talk to their dads.

Dad?

 

[RK47]

A horrific break-in occured at Riverwood last night. The local smithy's resident was broken into by a complete stranger who claimed to have survived a dragon attack in Helgen.

Dorthe, the daughter of the smith greeted the stranger warmly. When queried of her father's whereabouts, she said 'In the basement, tidying up for the night.'

Like a madman, the stranger immediately dashed downstairs and struck a few blows on the hapless blacksmith, who was unarmed.

He reached for the nearby longbow, but could not muster any resistance as the stranger put him on a chokehold. By then, the commotion was heard and his faithful wife rushed downstairs. But it was too late.

Alas, she should've called for the guards instead of relying on an iron dagger, the stranger quickly tied up Alvor and brought a pathetic end to his wife's puny resistance, she knelt in surrender.

And then, the horror begins.