30 Greatest Games of 2005

Next Generation continues its end-of-year celebration with a treatise on the 30 finest games of the year. From the article: "Some may remember 2005 as a year of financial shortfalls, rising game production costs, depleted Xbox 360 stock, political soap-boxing, or over-exertion in Korean Internet cafes. Forget all that stuff for now. 2005 wasn't a year to be remembered for one great gaming breakthrough or innovation, but it did produce some remarkable products. It was a year marked with some of the best games of the fading generation. "

Comments

Easier to read single page URL ...

[xmas2003]

Submission links to the 10 page article - here's the one page printable version "sorted by their genre and release dates (there is no order of merit)."

Christmas Lights for Celiac Disease

Re:Easier to read single page URL ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many slashdotters do you get controlling your christmas lights and inflatables? That would drive me nuts!
  Must.... resist.... urge to inflate and deflate santa constantly....

Re:Easier to read single page URL ...

[Yehooti]

Since I can't get into next-gen.biz, I'll wing it.

I think the biggest thing to happen to PC gaming this year was the inclusion of dual processors (and dual threading) to Quake 4. The next best thing was the support for 64 bit processors given by Far Cry.

Re:Easier to read single page URL ...

[Yehooti]

OK, finally RTFA. Far Cry was last year, so no biggie, but Quake 4 was recent and it's failure to be mentioned is significant. Nothing that I like was included and the few I do like were excluded. Oh well. I still vote with my wallet.

Re:Easier to read single page URL ...

[DrEldarion]

It's good to see Psychonauts on that list. I thought it was easily the best game of the year, but it seems like it got no love from the public.

layouts

[Gunark]

And I thought pay-per-impression advertising was dead. Worst article layout ever.

Re:layouts

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree with you -- if I can actually see the article.

Slashdotting in 3, 2, 1....

[Asakusa]

And the mirrordot host links back to the next-gen page.

Re:Slashdotting in 3, 2, 1....

[Anonymous Coward]

That lasted for all of 10 seconds. Seriously. Wow....

Gun?

[Asakusa]

And I'm sorry, the fact that Gun didn't even make it into the top 30, when Nintendogs did, is a pretty pathetic summary. Thanks Next-Biz for confirming that I should never read your video game reviews again.

Re:Gun?

[tulak_horde]

I'll second that.

Re:Gun?

[iapetus]

Checking on gamerankings.com, Gun received an average of 80% or so in reviews across all platforms (the shoddy XBox 360 port being about 5 percentage points below that). Nintendogs received an average of 85%.

Just because you don't like a game (and I personally have no intention of buying Nintendogs) doesn't mean it's not good.

Re:Gun?

[raventh1]

Except isn't that the point of a review? You read opinions from other people to see what they thought of the game.

Re:Gun?

[iapetus]

And, in the case of a good review, why they thought it. And that's why numerical scores will always be the bane of good videogame journalism.

But there's no such thing as a 'definitive' review - you see games getting a wide range of scores because of the personal preference of the reviewer. As always, the best thing you can do is find a reviewer whose personal tastes match yours.

That's moving away from the point I was making, though. There are games that get a lot of acclaim (critically and popularly) that you may not rate as highly. I know there are for me - Halo and Panzer Dragoon Saga probably being the biggest names among them. That doesn't mean that those games don't belong in a list of good games. Nor does it mean that games I prefer to them should be ranked more highly. I'll bow to popular opinion and accept that these are good games that I did not like personally.

In this case, a game which had better reviews than one that the original poster enjoyed made it into the top-30 list. That doesn't invalidate the list in any way. Even if the 'worse' game according to the average review score had made it in it wouldn't invalidate it - it's all a matter of personal preference anyway.

And like it or not, Nintendogs was almost certainly a more important game than Gun this year. It spurred huge hardware sales because it appealed to a different demographic than more traditional games.

Re:Gun?

[Burpmaster]

Um, take a closer look and then don't overreact. They broke thier list down into genres and came up with three games for each genre. If you think Gun belongs on the list, then it would have to be better than one of the three games in the FPS category. Is it better than Brothers in Arms, Battlefield 2, or F.E.A.R.? Alternatively, if you categorize it as Action/Adventure, it has to be better than Resident Evil 4, God of War, or Shadow of the Colossus.

For the "other" category, they listed six titles. If Nintendogs doesn't belong on that list, then name six games better than it that aren't Action/Adventure, RPG, FPS, Driving, Fighting, Platforming, Strategy, or Sports.

Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[lorelorn]

None of my favourite games of this year were actually released in this year, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

2005 was not an especially good year for PC games, with most of the attention on sequels that you can play in your sleep they are so similar to what is already out there. Consoles and portables got some innovative titles, while PC gamers get left with sequels that play the same, but have a hard time running on modern hardware (I'm looking at you, Civ 4).

Rome: Total War, Diablo 2, UT2k4, and Ranarama (old game) took most of my attention this year, plus multiplayer Call of Duty. Nothing came out this year to take my attention away from games I was already playing.

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[Andy Gardner]

Ranarama! haha brilliant! Haven't played that since my old Amstrad 6128 packed in. emu/rom site here i come!

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[mj_1903]

Civ 4 patch 1.52 was released yesterday. It fixes many of the hardware problems associated with the original release and has much improved performance.

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, great to find that someone else (still) plays the wonderful Rana Rama except me! I did not play it actually when I was young, I once saw my brother playing it... in the age of emulators, I've activated it, and saw that it was still great. (Although I play it once per year or so; it does not take much of my attention)

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[lorelorn]

The problem I've had is that my emulated version has a bug and freezes if I travel to level 5, which sucks. I still have a working C=64 in the house though...

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[Fei_Id]

Civ 4 ran JUST fine for me and most of the people out there. I've got a A64 3200 and a 9800XT that I got about 1.5 years ago and it runs perfect on it. Not exactly modern hardware IMO either.

You'd better pay attention more to FEAR or Quake4; both of which IMO are good games but required brand new systems nearly to run full settings.

I could run Doom3 will AF and AA at setting down from full and get a beautiful framerate. But FEAR and Quake4 bogged down like hell.

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[KDR_11k]

Personally I prefer ripping C64 games to my PC and putting a savestate after the minutes of loading are done.

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[boarsai]

mmm RTW. I find it odd that WoW fails to get a mention... I mean what only 5 million subscribers now and _Still_ growing? I mean surely it's worthy of at least a minor mention? Seems absurd to me not to... maybe they just want to be "different". ;P

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[Darby]

while PC gamers get left with sequels that play the same, but have a hard time running on modern hardware (I'm looking at you, Civ 4).

Or, more specifically, run like a quad amputee through frozen molasses on double the reccommended system requirements.

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

WoW is just like almost any other MMORPG out there. Oh wait, it's made by Blizzard who can't do any wrong. Nevermind it's the greatest fucking thing out there.

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[Ptraci]

It would be a best game of 2004. Pay attaention to the year.

Re:Best Games of 2005 but not released in 2005

[fimbulvetr]

Civ4 runs great on my latitude D800 (Pentium M 1.6, 1GB Ram, 7200RPM drive, Geforce 4go 32MB). This isn't even modern, it's old now:) Well, old from a Can't upgrade RAM or Video card without some uber-bucks.

Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[Pavan_Gupta]

So, here I am, a user of Civilization IV (the highly acclaimed game from Firaxis), and I can tell you that you do NOT want to buy this game right now. The game was clearly released before the holiday season to take advantage of gullible users (hmph, me.. =\) who needed to spend their hard earned cash on a game that was only half developed.

Civfanatics.com is an extremely good resource for people crazy about Civilization IV, and you can immediately see there are some serious problems with the game. There have already been two patches (25 megs and 45 megs a pop) in the first couple months of the release, and things are still terrible with the game. Basically, the memory usages generally runs in the territory of unbelievable (600-800 megs), with the game basically unplayable after a certain point. You don't actually experience some of the most interesting parts of the game because things are just that amazingly slow.

But don't take my word for it, read the posts on civfanatics.com.

This is just another reason why corporations bastardize the faith that users have in them. Firaxis, shame on you.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[Gunark]

i've been playing since even before the first patch, and have never had any problems--even in the late game. Things get slightly slower, but it's barely noticable. ANd this is on a 3 year old 2 GHz computer with 1 gig of RAM. My brother plays on an ever older/shittier computer, and his gameplay is fine as long as he keeps the graphics toned down.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[st0rmshad0w]

Massive bonuses for meeting release date (something like doubling your salary I hear) certainly can't be to blame.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[chris_eineke]

Looks like the EA model of development (release early, release often, around Christmas) is finally catching on to the developer world.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[guaigean]

Blame it on the PHB's. Since they don't really care or understand the process fully, it's the money that matters. Since people are inherently more likely to purchase ANYTHING at Christmas as they feel pressured, guilted, and duped into doing so, it is also the best time to release sub-par games. Unfortunately this is very unlikely to change until Christmas loses its recently obtained consumerist nature. Stores don't really care what you buy, so long as you buy, buy, buy, and it's been the mentality for a while now.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[Karhgath]

Just remember that this is not everyone. In fact, most problems lies with older computers, laptops and some(most?) ATI cards. Me and my friends had absolutely no problems with the game. In fact, I haven't patched the game yet with either patches.

After following tons of game releases in the last 2-3 years, there is AWALYS a backlash about compatibilities and other problems outside of the game itself. There are tons of people posting that games doesn't work, but you have to take that with a grain of salt, since people that are playing fine don't post about it. Vocal minority. Hardware + games = a lot of problems.

This is not to say that there isn't any problems for some people, and some systems, because that's the case. It's just that the problems doesn't affect everyone and that most people are playing the game without any problems.

The game is incredible too. Best of the serie. Try the demo, if you don't have any problem running it, go buy it. At least the demo serves a purpose!

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[mslinux]

Amazon.com user ratings are very poor too. Civ4 is total crap. Don't buy it! I sold my 'Collector's Edition' copy on eBay because the store wouldn't take it back... it's that bad. I've been playing Civ since it came out. This was a huge rip-off.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[LABob]

If you're able to get the game to run (that's a big if), and then keep it running, you'll find that it's not that big of an improvement over previous civs when it comes to game play. I have a brand new computer with a top-notch ATI card that runs _every_ game I throw at it... except civ4.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[Moofie]

If the game's not compatible with older computers, laptops, and some ATI cards, it needs to have that specified on the box.

Since it's not, it's a legitimate gripe if the game doesn't work on a system that meets the system requirements.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[judabuddhist]

It runs fine on my year and a half old laptop quite well, although any map size above standard makes the game does run at a crawl. For whatever reason I haven't been having the stability issues a lot of people have been having, so I can't really comment. But as far as gameplay itself goes, I consider it to be almost as good as my favorite game of all time, Alpha Centuri, and I considered CivIII to be a travesty. The interface has be streamlined incredibly, with all sorts of game information at your fingertips in new and innovative ways. Things have been simplified, such as the resource system and zones of control, but they've managed it in a way that doesn't ruin the game for old Civ hacks like myself and opens the game up to beginning players more than before. And the graphics and animations are so good that it really adds to the immersion of the game. There are options to turn the excessive fighting animations off, but I enjoy them so much that I haven't even done so yet. It's a shame the game doesn't work well for you, because I've been having a great time with it.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[east coast]

the memory usages generally runs in the territory of unbelievable (600-800 megs)

I haven't put together a PC since 2001 with less than a gig of ram. I find more and more "off the shelf" companies using 512 as a standard for their home user machines. Gamers know to expect a bit of a rougher ride. This isn't really unreasonable. I normally run this on my HP ZD7260 with a gig of ram on a regular basis with no real problems.

Should they have held off longer? The patches do make it look bad, I sympathise, but it's not that bad of a game. I think Civ has become too legendary for it's own good; there is only so much they can do without making the game too cumbersome to play and I think we're starting to see that.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[rts008]

I still have not even patched with any patches yet, and I have ran it for as long as 12 hrs. in one stretch with no problems/slowdowns. Using athlon 1800 ( I think @1.4GhZ), 512 MB PC2100 RAM, nVidia 5200 SE 128 MB @ 8X AGP, 80 GB PATA 100 HDD, Win XP Pro SP2, with Avast Anti-virus and Spybot SD "teatimer" running in background. I would suggest maybe checking msconfig to see what all services and start-up app's you have going- some of the default services can really bog a default install down quite a bit. I used to play UT 2004 and Painkiller on my P3 800 MhZ, 512 MB PC133 RAM, ATI 9200 128 MB @ 4X AGP, 120 GB PATA 133 HDD, same OS and difference was had to turn graphics to med (or custom to medium-low sort-of)and turn off AV and teatimer in background: played smooth.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[glitch23]

The game was clearly released before the holiday season to take advantage of gullible users (hmph, me.. =\) who needed to spend their hard earned cash on a game that was only half developed.

Given that there are probably hundreds of holidays(at least 10 of which are federally observed by the US gov't) in a year the phrase "holiday season" is too ambiguous to be useful.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[Devistater]

The ram usage and performance problems are the least of its issues. Its very unpolished. The interface sucks, you have to spend extra time doing stuff you shouldn't have too. For instance, when you choose the next thing to build in your city it tells you a bunch of info about it. But if you choose to move on to something else and pick it later, it doesn't give you nearly as much info about WTF you are building. You have to go into the encyclopedia and scrounge around. And even that doesn't always answer the questions. It basically feels unfinished, a beta.

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[Sri Lumpa]

"Given that there are probably hundreds of holidays(at least 10 of which are federally observed by the US gov't) in a year the phrase "holiday season" is too ambiguous to be useful."

But how many of them have as much gift giving and general money spending associated with them?

Re:Civilization IV - Released Way Too Eearly!!

[glitch23]

Only one but it seems you have the same affliction that corporations have in that you aren't willing to call that holiday by its name despite the billions of dollars it generates. There is only one holiday that uses fireworks, only one with a turkey, only one for the new year, and yet we still call those by their proper names. What's wrong with Christmas? Oh I know, it has "Christ" in its name and it's based on the Christian religion.

Duke Nukem Forever

[DiGG3r]

Best Game of The Year 2050.

Civ 4 doesn't run on modern hardware?

[Sycraft-fu]

News to me, seems to run very well on my system and it's fairly modern, but only last couple of years. P4 2.4ghz and a Radeon 9800 Pro and it seems to run quite well with all details maxed. Nothing stellar compared to what you can get these days, in fact I'm looking at upgrading it soon.

Speaking of good sequals, Pirates is wonderful. Same basic game as the first two, but hell, I would still play Pirates Gold in DOSBox sometimes and this is a wonderful update.

Re:Civ 4 doesn't run on modern hardware?

[Ruff_ilb]

Seconded. AMD64 3000+ and a 6600GT, runs fine. Both sites are slasdotted, so it's hard to say, but I know of a LOT of people that liked nintendogs. Perhaps they weren't all hardcore gamers (I bet *I* for one, would HATE nintendogs), but that doesn't make them not great. On the other hand, one of the only reasons that it was so popular was because it pretty much came stock with any DS purchase. Then again, perhaps that's why the DS was so popular... It's hard to say.

Re:Civ 4 doesn't run on modern hardware?

[KDR_11k]

Considering that the Nintendogs+DS bundles were constantly sold out while there were huge piles of DSes without games or with Mariokart still available I'd say people didn't just buy Nintendogs because it happened to come with their DS, they bought the DS for Nintendogs.

Re:Civ 4 doesn't run on modern hardware?

[emilng]

I bought the DS for Animal Crossing.

Mario Kart was just an added bonus.

30 good games?

[guaigean]

I imagine this would have been a difficult task to list, as I can't even imagine 10 games in the last year that even impressed me. Plenty of clones, but very little real innovation. Overall it seems like the game industry is closely mimicking the movie industry; make sequels and avoid risk.

Re:30 good games?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to consider that some sequels on that list are true gems - I note Advance Wars Dual Strike. If by "sequel", you mean "updated graphics, vaguly updated plot" then yes - far too many sequels. But if you mean "sequel" as in "same game title/brand", then your argument is flawed. Gameplay is the lifeblood of gaming, and as long as successful titles continue to innovate with new gameplay twists that aren't simple gimmicks, then sequels are no problem.
Just look at Mario.

Is more than a feeling.....

[amcuri]

I guess the top games list goes from person to person. They have some interesting games listed, but in my opinion they are not the best games of 2005. BTW, the site hosting this content sucks.

Either way, a list this big has to included Call of Duty 2 and Ages of Empires 3. There's no doubt about it.....they are the best games of the year.

COD 2 supass any expectatioon that one can have in the video game world. Is a breath taking game, and with sales compared to 78% of the xbox 360 sales, you better include that in your list.

AOE 3 is an awesome strategy game. I know people dont like MS etc,but this game is fun if you are the civilization type of guy. BTW, civilization 4 is in the list, even though is a good game, AOE 3 surpass it by far. I just don't like the slow motion that civilization is build in. I like to create quickly, and fight for a long time, not the other way around.

But, that's my opinion, you might have yours :) if you want to check a more interesting article (available after the E3), with more info than this one with reviews, info, etc go to

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3140792 happy holidays!!!!!

What's so unbelivable about the RAM usage?

[Sycraft-fu]

Why not? RAM is cheap these days. Last I checked, it was like $80 for 1GB of quality, Corsair, lifetime warantee DDR2 RAM. It's not an expensive component. Also Civ 4 is hardly unique in needing lots of RAM. Most MMORPGs really need a gig to work well. World of Warcraft will technicly function with 256MB, but is near unplayable, with 512MB it works ok but lags, with 1GB it's nice and smooth. Starwars Galaxies is about the same.

I've played all the way through a few games on my system and it works great. It gets slow in the end but still easily playable and no slower than the other Civs. Hell, I remember waiting 5-10 minutes for my computer to finish calculating all the AI turns on Civ 2 per turn late in the game.

Re:What's so unbelivable about the RAM usage?

[drsquare]

$80 of RAM just to move squares around a grid? What a piss-take.

Re:What's so unbelivable about the RAM usage?

[John Muir]

Hear hear!

Plays like a hog on my 1gb xp2500+
And I remember Civ 2 being fine on a p133 laptop!

Re:What's so unbelivable about the RAM usage?

[dolphinlover]

Lucky you. I happen to have made the extreme mistake of purchasing a Dell three years ago which uses the expensive RDRAM variety because they chose the wrong side in the RDRAM versus DDR2 battle at the time. Cost me $200 for two 256 MB sticks when I wanted to upgrade recently. I was lucky to find anyone that still sold it.

So I suppose my point is that not everyone has the luxury of being able to upgrade their RAM so inexpensively.

Re:What's so unbelivable about the RAM usage?

[KDR_11k]

If it was just moving squares on a grid it should play fine on my 386 with an EGA and four shades of red LED display.

RAM

[snuf23]

Yeah I just said the hell with it and dropped 2 more gigs in my system for a total of 3. Overkill? Well I play World of Warcraft a lot AND I like to multitask, so I typically have web browsers and a newsreader loaded at the same time. This would work on a 1GB system but alt-tabbing to the desktop took a couple minutes to swap everything around. Now it takes a second.
I've found Battlefield 2 to be a crazy RAM hog as well, and it performs much better with over a gig of RAM.

Re:RAM

[Sycraft-fu]

I have 2GB in mine since I do work with modern samplers and, damn, talk about RAM hogs. But when you have single instruments that are 3GB in total (yes, really) what do you expect? At any rate I've found that many performance complaints I hear just don't apply on my system, and I have a sneaking suspicion having lots of RAM is a big part of it.

In fact I've ALWAYS liked to go overkill on the RAM on my computers. I generally seem to have about double what you'd find in a "high end" box, despite the rest of my components being older. Perhaps because of that, I find that I don't need to upgrade my CPU all that often.

I think the problem is that computer makers tend to skimp on RAM since it's not a stat most people think about. They are worried about CPU speed and maybe HD space, but to hell with RAM. Well, since modern OSes can deal with low RAM fine (though slowly) peoiple don't realise it could be better.

For comptuers these days I'd say 512MB minimum for office type work, 1GB minimum for games, and 2GB if you want to be nice n' safe. Given that 2GB is only like $180, less than most new graphics cards, I think it's hard to justify having a blazing dual core CPU, a new video card, and then starving your system RAM-wise.

Re:RAM

[WuphonsReach]

Our minimum for office machines is 1GB when we order new units. The cost difference between 512MB (that would have to be upgraded within a year) and a full 1GB is negligible. My almost 4-year-old laptop has 1GB (which tells you how long we've standardized on 1GB minimum).

My game machine has 2GB and runs Civ4 just fine (even on large/huge maps). Civ4 is eating up 800MB on those maps, so if you're trying to play huge maps with less then 1GB, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Re:RAM

[neomunk]

I've been preaching this same message for about 10 years now. RAM is where it's at if you want a high powered machine.

Back in late 2001 was the last time I did a full machine upgrade.
Athlon XP 2400+, 2 40 gig twin HDs (raid-striped, and fast as hell), and a gig of RAM. The machine has had another HD added, and both the proc and mobo have been replaced (due to 2 separate accidents) but the RAM has stayed constant and has kept the machine running nice and smooth ever since. Still, to this day, this machine serves me rightly. My vid card is old too, radeon9600Pro/256MB, but it works just fine, all the way up to and including Doom3 (the newest cycle/eating game I've run on it).

I think it's time for an upgrade, as my wife has developed a greater interest in PCs and takes up too much of my chair time in front of the monitor, leaving me with my ancient laptop (thank you linux), and this time it's gonna be 4 gigs or bust...

I'm Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not seeing Nethack on that list! Next generation my ass!

Yet Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether it's Game Informer or some other jackass rag, always there some "journalists" or "tech writers" who want to tell us what's good and what's not. These people need real jobs where nobody has to listen to their opinions.

Already Slashdotted...

[NickNiel]

Here's text only version - very slow site:

30 Greatest Games of 2005

By Kris Graft
Let's end the year on a positive note. Next-Gen.Biz has picked through the year's best games, by genre, and come up with the 30 stand-outs. You know, these past 12 months really did host some very fine games.---
Make sure you start your working day with Next-Gen.Biz - the essential read for game industry professionals.
---

ImageSome may remember 2005 as a year of financial shortfalls, rising game production costs, depleted Xbox 360 stock, political soap-boxing, or over-exertion in Korean Internet cafes.

Forget all that stuff for now. 2005 wasn't a year to be remembered for one great gaming breakthrough or innovation, but it did produce some remarkable products. It was a year marked with some of the best games of the fading generation.

Here are 30 of the year's best games, sorted by their genre and release dates (there is no order of merit). Let the hatemail flow like the black blood of a colossus.

Note: This list is for mainstream console platforms, handhelds and commercial PC. We'll be looking at the best in mobile and 'casual' entertainment in a separate feature.

Action/Adventure

2005 was a banner year for the action adventure genre. It started out with a huge bloody bang, the spring season ushered in a tormented Greek soul, and fall introduced some truly colossal characters.

Resident Evil 4
Publisher: Capcom
Developer: Capcom
GC: Jan 11, 05; PS2: Oct 25, 05

Resident Evil 4 revitalized the stagnant franchise with quicker enemies, more responsive controls and an improved over-the-shoulder camera. It took what we love about the franchise and improved on it, doing away with what we hate in the process.

God of War
Publisher: SCEA
Developer: Sony Santa Monica
PS2: Mar 22, 05

Incog's God of War sets the standard for action games, period. With an excellent story, fluid and brutal fighting system, lovely enemies and great visuals, God of War will be remembered many years after '05.

Image Shadow of the Colossus
Publisher: SCEA
Developer: SCEI
PS2: Oct 18, 05

Superb boss battles defined Shadow of the Colossus. Forget Bowser and Mother Brain, SotC's bosses are the most insanely huge and powerful enemies you'll encounter. Just stop with the comparisons to Ico. SotC is a stellar game on its own merit.

Other notable entries in action adventure this year are Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Ninja Gaiden Black and The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap.

Role-Playing Games

The year in RPGs was respectable. Bioware tried its hand at the martial arts with excellent results, a new quality MMORPG arrived with no subscription costs, and American gamers are reminded why traditional Japanese RPGs can still show the way.

Jade Empire
Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios
Developer: Bioware
Xbox: Apr 12, 05

From a galaxy far, far away to mystical ancient China, Bioware has proven that its got major RPG chops. Jade Empire combines action and RPG elements and manages to give both aspects due respect. Bioware knows kung fu, and delivered the best RPG on Xbox this year.

Guild Wars
Publisher: NCsoft
Developer: ArenaNet
PC: Apr 26, 05

Guild Wars gives you much more than what you pay for, which is nothing. Outside of the initial retail cost of the game, there are no monthly fees for the MMORPG. Guild Wars boasts combat that's actually fun, great graphics and entertaining online play.

Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King
Publisher: Square Enix
Developer: Level-5
PS2: Nov 15, 05

Dragon Quest VIII is the latest title from the developers of the Dark Cloud series. The latest game got the full Level-5 treatment with an enamoring presentation, accessible and fun combat, a good story, and dozens of hours of gameplay.

Other notable entries in RPGs this year are X-Men Legends II, Freedom Force vs. The Third Reich and Digital Devil Saga II.

First-Pers

Re:Already Slashdotted...

[Clockwurk]

I haven't played all the games on the list (only console I own is an N64), but I can comment on a decent amount of them.

Freedom Force vs. The Third Reich
A fairly good sequel using the original engine (graphics aren't much better than FF). I liked this game and played it to completion, but its not as good as the first one. It didn't add very many new characters to the freedom force, and none of them were introduced using the storyline (they would just show up as available for hire). If you haven't played Freedom Force or FFv3R, I would recommend just getting the original. Its cheaper ($10 at wal-mart), has a better story, and is a great game.

Brothers in Arms:Road to Hill 30
I played a little bit of this game and found it to be a pretty refreshing take on squad combat. I liked the command system, but it got a little hectic when you had multiple groups to control. The unreal engine lends itself to some pretty damn good graphics. The game is a console port, and has a lot of unlockable stuff like video clips, cheats, and medals. As a sidenote, it would be nice if every WWII game wasn't always about the 101st airborne.

Battlefield 2
A great game that should have been published by someone other than the cockgobblers at EA. The persistant statistics are nice, as are lots of medals and unlocks (of course EA charges $$ if you want a ranked server). DiCE definitely deserves extra kudos for the great squad system and microphone/headset support that add a lot to the already solid battlefield gameplay. Finding a server where squad mates work together and communicate is friggin awesome (and happens pretty often). The non-fuctioning server filters and generally shitty server browser (no surprise it's powered by Gamespy) are really frustrating (especially since the game already has a $30 expansion pack) and are quite indicative of EAs approach to publishing a game (release early, patch rarely, make lots of expensive expansion packs). Gripes about EA aside, the core game is really solid and I highly recommend it.

F.E.A.R.
FEAR was one game I thought was less than the sum of its parts. It has great graphics, some decent scary parts (more startling than scary really), and does slow-mo better than any Max Payne game. I didn't care for the levels (office buildings are almost as boring in a game as in real life), and I really didn't like the lack of enemy variety. You face soldiers that all look a like (except different weapons), a demon or two, and some large Police robots. The graphics engine allowed for some really cool effects and lots of polygons; it would have been nice to see it put to work with some interesting foes. I didn't think the game was that scary either (hmm... its a long hallway, I wonder if I'll see yet another dissolving girl). The slow-mo effects (bodies light up when hit, bullets leave a trail like in the matrix) were pretty slick and I hope another developer rips them off and uses them in a more fun game. Speaking of scary games, are there any more Aliens vs. Predator games in the pipeline?

Call of Duty 2
I just got this game and haven't spent enough time to accurately evaluate it. The graphics have definitely been improved, and a good gamer friend says the missions in the game are really fun. The Multiplayer includes some new modes that weren't in the first game (I think CTF is new), and brings back the best CoD1 maps (Carentan, Brecourt, etc) and adds some new ones.

Psychonauts
I have this game, but no gamepad, so I haven't played it yet. I will say, however, that its really great to see a game that has good, creative art and level design. Other than World of Warcraft and maybe Darwinia, there haven't been many titles with creative art. Its good to see a game that is an escape from reality rather than a crude attempt at duplicating it.

Mario Kart DS
I played this game for about 5 minutes at Wal-Mart and I was instantly hooked. I wasn't sure I would like going from analog controls (ala Double Dash) t

NetBSD v3.0

[PopeOptimusPrime]

Why does this story get the Christmas tree?
NetBSD v3.0 is my early Christmas present.

nex year do the top 50 games of 2006

[bxbaser]

then in 2007 top 100
then 2008 top 250 games

Is it just me or does the top 30 games just seem a bit much.
Pick the top 5 or 10 even but 30 ?
What is is do they get paid by the game ?

Re:nex year do the top 50 games of 2006

[miyako]

They only picked a few games in each genre, which works out because the one article can work for people who only play a few genres. A lot of people (myself included) will probably have time and a bit of extra cash this time of year to play a few new games. It's pretty annoying when you look at list thinking of getting some pointers on games to pick up and 8 of the 10 games are from genres you don't care about (for example, most lists tend to be heavy on FPS, Racing and Sports games. Since I do not play any of these genres of games as a rule, finding out what the best games in these genres are doesn't really help me much).

Re:nex year do the top 50 games of 2006

[whoop]

No, these are the thirty GREATEST games of all year!! I mean, that's gotta mean they are damn good. I know I plan on spending $49.99 * 30 this Christmas!

Re:nex year do the top 50 games of 2006

[lorelorn]

To me it screams "we're too terrified to make a decision, so here's some of the top sellers for you to discuss. At least we'll get a /. hit out of it"

Re:nex year do the top 50 games of 2006

[Anonymous Coward]

to be fair, it should be the top 5 - 10 from each console.. they probably thought 30 was a good middleground.

Guild Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought Guild Wars but could never really get in to it. I guess I'm not much for playing nicely with others. Is the game still enjoyable if you solo?

Re:Guild Wars?

[beast6228]

Guild Wars is a wonderful game, yes it's still enjoyable playing solo. I also feel the need to mention that it doesn't cost a monthly fee to play. So basically, it's like World of Warcraft for the poor. Great game indeed.

Nothing will ever take my time like Diablo 2 has been doing for the last 5 years though ....nothing!

Re:Guild Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of us in the Mac Gaming Community (yes, there really is one), WoW will be without equal as Guild Wars is Windows only and EverQuest segregated us to our own servers... Blizzard has always been a friend to us, releasing their games on both platforms simultaneously(sp?). Diablo 2 was my first dose of muliplayer crack from Blizzard and WoW is the new, more addictive crack. Long Live WoW!

Re:Guild Wars?

[DarkJC]

I disagree, Guild Wars plays completely differently from a traditional MMORPG. It's nice that it doesn't have a monthly fee, but it's definately not WoW for the poor, as it's hard to compare the two.

Re:Guild Wars?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Guild Wars is a wonderful game, yes it's still enjoyable playing solo. I also feel the need to mention that it doesn't cost a monthly fee to play. So basically, it's like World of Warcraft for the poor. Great game indeed.

Guild Wars is more like Diablo II not World of Warcraft. It's massive only in 'chat', not in gameplay. When you play you are with a small party like Diablo II not in a world with thousands of other playes like World of Warcraft.

Great game: agreed. I only argue that it is not a MMORG.

Re:Guild Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a while, yes it is. Then you start noticing the annoyances in the game, most of which stem from the choice the devs made to keep the exact same set of rules for PvP and PvE.

All of the weapon upgrades are just plain weak. Rather than figure out how to keep them in balance, they just made upgrades almost unnoticable. Idiots still pay huge amounts of in-game money for them though.. The armor system is kind of lame too.

All the quests are pretty much the same. It's the standard "go here, kill this, come back" recipe. The major missions that advance the storyline are quite good, however. A little cliche, but still interesting and actually keep you busy doing different things.

Computer controlled monsters cheat. Nothing new here.

It seems they've deliberately crippled the henchmen AI and merchant usefulness in order to force you to deal with other players a little more. I didn't care for this decision. In the beginning, I found most players to be friendly, helpful, and a general benefit to the game. Near the end, you get the hardcore players who are usually complete assholes who insist on playing the game formula-style, fun be damned. If you play any sort of character that isn't cookie cutter, forget getting into groups. The elitists will have none of that. Although all of the major story missions ARE completable with a group of all henchmen, they make it VERY difficult in some of them since you have very little control over your little computer people.

On the plus side, the game has no monthly fee, seems to be programmed very well (I've only had it crash maybe twice in about 300 hours of playing), can be played in a window, loads quickly, and has nice graphics and reasonable system requirements.

A little slow but..

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.next-gen.biz.nyud.net:8090/index2.php?o ption=com_content&task=view&id=1938&Itemid=2&pop=1 &page=0 Coral Cache, Print Page

Alpha Centauri is still better

[vitalyb]

I played Civ4 for a bit and found it quite enjoyable, BUT merely because it got another step closer to the perfection of SMAC (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri) .

With each new Civilization game they add "new" features that were in 1999 in SMAC: Borders, technology quotes, complex diplomacy, UN.

Everything was done before and better and it is really a sad year when Civ4 gets picked by IGn as game of the year.

I just wish Brian Reynolds would do another SMAC2 :(.

Re:Alpha Centauri is still better

[Anonymous Coward]

SMAC is the better game by far. Sid Meier has been trying for 6 years now to achieve the same feel that Civ2 had (which had Brian Reynolds as the lead designer), when SMAC (which was also designed by Brian Reynolds) is the only game to have done so.

Incidentally, Rise of Nations is a Brian Reynolds game... which explains why it rocks.

Re:Alpha Centauri is still better

[vitalyb]

Nice! @ Civ2. Had no idea Brian designed that one too.

So it seems that I did like all the games Brian did so far. Can't wait for the Rise Of Legends.

from the that's-a-little-bit-of-overkill dept

[schabot]

Next Generation continues its end-of-year celebration with a treatise on the 30 finest games of the year.

Come on now. Treatise?

That is not a treatise, that is an article. These are treatises.

treatise a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached

I wouldn't call a list of video games a systematic exposition.

I agree, but...

[mister_llah]

I agree, the RAM usage is insane, and if you play with a Huge map, you can forget about ever reaching the end of the game without a few gigs of RAM to play with....

However, it wouldn't be so upsetting if this game wasn't so well done in every other aspect.

Simply amazing. If they had put the extra months into it, this wouldn't be a 9.0, the game would be as close to 10 as I think we're capable of reaching as imperfect beings...

Flaws aside, I still play it.

Re:I agree, but...

[grumpygrodyguy]

However, it wouldn't be so upsetting if this game wasn't so well done in every other aspect.

Simply amazing. If they had put the extra months into it, this wouldn't be a 9.0, the game would be as close to 10 as I think we're capable of reaching as imperfect beings...


The interface still needs work.

- You can't esc -> quit until end of turn, a major pain.
- You can't *easily* set your custom game settings as a preference.
- I haven't figured out how to disable the 'clouds' layer when zooming far above the world.

There's a dozen other interface gripes I have with this game that I can't recall at the moment...it's disappointing too because Sid claimed they put special attention towards improving the interface. They failed imo. Civ4 uses the same archaic menu system from Civ3.

Civ4 and Windows Vista? Perfect Match?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, the memory usages generally runs in the territory of unbelievable (600-800 megs), with the game basically unplayable after a certain point.

Just think of it this way, once you get that high-end PC just so you can run Windows Vista you'll find your box of Civ4 and then you'll just WANT to install it and then you'll start telling people how good Windows Vista is...perhaps both Firaxis and Microsoft are making bloatly software? In terms of the bugs, I'm waiting until they call it Civ4 SP3 ;). From another prospective, once you get that high-end PC to run Civ4 you'd might conclude that you should upgrade to Windows Vista since your hardware is now compatible compatible with both.

Guild Wars...

[mister_llah]

Guild Wars was alright but as a MMORPG, I have to say, it was lacking in replayability in the extreme. Diablo 2 at least had random levels and such (and I classify the game as a 'MMORPG' insofar as Diablo 2 was... since it was essentially Diablo 2 without random levels, a much less impressive magic item system, and completely BEAUTIFUL graphics...) ... but once you get through once, it's just not fun.

To be honest, what makes it not fun is the MMORPG aspect... there is no single player, and a lot of the players are the sort you'd expect to find in this sort of game... idiotic kids who are just out for themselves... the game accounts for it by making treasure specific to random players in the party (no one else can pick it up) ... but you can lure agg mobs (to use MUD terminology), exit once you are in the mission (especially annoying in the middle of a mission) ... and the other people who have to restart the mission. This is EXCEPTIONALLY annoying when people decide to grief play on missions that take 30 minutes to do. ... I played it for a couple of months... and I had a griefer every other day, sometimes more, sometimes less... it really made the game undesirable, to me, on top of the fact the replayability was null...

Re:Guild Wars...

[evilneko]

Diablo 2 had random levels? Really?

Re:Guild Wars...

[SydShamino]

Guild Wars is not an MMORPG. Even the developers of Guild Wars don't call it an MMORPG.

The article is simply wrong to call it one. If anything, it is more like a fantasy/medieval MMOFPS.

Re:Guild Wars...

[Prophet of Nixon]

Not completely random. It and Diablo 1 had 'tiles' for areas that were randomly combined to form levels. Some (parts of) levels only had 1 tile and only formed in one way. There weren't many of these in Diablo: the Butcher's Lair, the underground river, and the early-game quest for a set of armor that always appeared in the same hallway (can't think of what it was). Diablo 2 had a lot more fixed levels, particularly near the ends of its acts, and a lot of its more random areas were huge outdoor areas, which lost a lot of the impact of the random generation. They were both fun Gauntlet knockoffs though, especially 2.

Re:Greatest Game - Dating!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I will let you the dating part and I will tackle the mating part.
The GUI is not very intuitive but the replay factor is good. And when you are tired with single-player or duel-mode you can even try multiplayer !

Also, Phantom Dust

[mister_llah]

"Immersive environments", it's a BLOODY CARD GAME for crying out loud... Guild Wars, that's immersive... playing with cards, not immersive.

Re:Also, Phantom Dust

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

I'd mention the fact that they classified Phantom Dust as Strategy and Guild Wars as Role Playing so you can't really make a comparison between them, but then I'd come off as a troll.

Did you even play Phantom Dust, because it really did have an immersive universe.

Re:Also, Phantom Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even PLAY PD? It's the most creative combination of RPG and action elements (the whole battling is very twitch based) with some cards thrown in for good measure. There is no throwing down of cards and stat crunching; it's very frantic/action oriented gameplay with a lot of deep strategy involved.

Also, the universe is probably one of the more interesting ones out there.

Guild Wars? Decent, but riddled with all sorts of problems, a bad population, and the same, boring environment that most other RPGs use.

Re:Also, Phantom Dust

[Prophet of Nixon]

It did have an immersive universe, and it seemed sort of cool at first, but it totally failed to hold my interest for more than about 4 hours. I've still got it though, maybe I'll finish it some day. I've been playing Skygunner a lot lately, which has to be just about the best PS2 game I've ever played. As for 2005 games, I think Stubbs the Zombie should be on that lame list somewhere. It was awesome.

Even Easier to read single page coral cache link

[solarium_rider]

This One actually loads. Since the page is obviously slashdotted.

out of step

[spoonyfork]

I've been playing games since the old 8bit Nintendos. I was that college kid in the early 90's pulling all-nighters on a MUD. However today I don't consider myself a "gamer" but I do spend multiple hours a week playing some sort of game on the Windows compy or PS2. I find it interesting that of all the games I've played this year and have enjoyed very much.. none of them are on that list. That isn't to say I didn't play any of those or that they aren't any good to begin with. I just find it interesting when I'm that far out of sync with a popular culture market. It warms my heart in a certain south of market way. :)

Happy War on Christmas everyone!

And in the UK we're still waiting......

[MrBandersnatch]

Shadow of Colossus and We Love Katamari would possily have gained my vote except THEY ARNT OUT IN THE UK YET!!

I SERIOUSLY hope that the PS3 and Rev arnt region coded since having to wait forever for releases from other territories really IS rediculous. Whats worse is quite a few really good titles never make it over here; and for the bad titles, it would increase their sales. My 8 year old seriously wanted the Neopets game but Santa has had to tell him no becase daddy was a good little consumer and never chipped his PS2...come to think about it though daddy hasnt got a PSP because he was ***** off at Sony trying to ban the import so they could rise the price a few quid (*****).

Its been a terrible year for games though with very little managing to grab my attention (Guild Wars and Day of Defeat has been about it) and I in fact have spent more time retrogaming on my X-arcade (Magic Drop 3 rocks!!!).

Cant wait for next year where the best game is going to be watching Sony and Microsoft go WTF as the Rev outsells them both ;)

Re:Greatest Game - Dating!!!

[Gwyn_232]

Shame there isn't a 'dickhead' moderation

Rather simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

None.

I haven't ever been let down this badly. Call of Duty II was good, but not great. The graphics were beautiful, the missions were alright, but it was missing that feeling of total desperation one got from the previous games. "German tank, coming in from da north! " "I need a bazooka!" "German tank, coming in from the east!" "German tank to the west!"

God, who the hell needs to watch Saving Private Ryan, with a game like that?

Xenosaga II Xenosaga I.

As for everything else, other games were released? Har.

Re:Even Easier to read single page coral cache lin

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, what a disappointment. I only see one game in the "list", and I've never even heard "Server 500 error".

Civ 4 got returned by me

[DogDude]

I bought Civ 4 for about $55. I have a generic 128 MB video card in my game machine, which should be enough for any modern development... especially a not-real time, turn-based game. Civ 4 told me that I needed to buy a card that was Brand X or Brand Y. Those cards run about $150. What a load of shit. Apparently, kids who program commercial software these days know *nothing* about optimization. It's all bloat. Suffice to say, only an idiot will pay $150 for a video card to play one $55 game. The game was returned, and I'm going to be happy with Civ 3.

Re:Civ 4 got returned by me

[orkysoft]

Apparently, kids who post on Slashdot these days know *nothing* about looking around and purchasing a $50 FX5200 card with 128MB, which runs it just fine.

Re:Civ 4 got returned by me

[Dun Malg]

I have a generic 128 MB video card in my game machine, which should be enough for any modern development.

128MB should be enough? Who says? I upgraded from 128 to 256 two years ago, for less than $100, and my Asus GeForce FX 5700 runs Civ4 just fine. The thing about progress is that it depends upon things progressing. Among other things this means that at some point your video card is going to need to be replaced with something newer. Civ4 is just the first of many games that you won't be able to play. You just gotta accept that your video card is Old News. An FX5700 is like fifty bucks on ebay. Suck it up and upgrade like a man.

Re:Civ 4 got returned by me

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect the amount of video RAM your card had had far less of an impact that the _features_ it didn't have.

If a game wants to do something that you _couldn't do_ on an older card, I don't think you can claim it's lack of optimisation.

Also, video memory doesn't get used up by bloat - it gets used up by textures and the framebuffer. Running a game at a high resolution with high quality textures is not bloat.

Re:Civ 4 got returned by me

[Anonymous Coward]

First, a 128mb card isn't that much. The primary reason, however, that games like Civ IV (which I love) have the "requires ATI radeon 7500 or NVIDiA Geforce 2 or better" is because those card series support the necessary features, through inclusion of DirectX and/or OpenGL versions required at the card level. Also note, whenever a game requires "ATI radeon whatever or NVIDIA GeForce whatever or better" it doesn't mean the actual card itself was assembled and designed in final form by that company. For instance a BFG or PNY GeForce 6600 is, for all functional purposes, an NVIDIA 6600, because the NVIDIA manufactured core chipset is all that matters. Same thing for ATI. The requirement for a card compatible with those two lines of graphics cards is pretty much the same as a PC game requiring "Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 3000 or better". In any case, whether to buy or not buy a game is your choice. Do as thou wilt.

Re:Civ 4 got returned by me

[Devistater]

I like nvidia, but their entire FX geforce 5 series sucked. Go for a cheap radeon in that generation, or get a cheap geforce 6.

Re:Civ 4 got returned by me

[avasol]

It suddenly occured to me that people that refuse to upgrade their hardware and then blame the companies for writing software to an evolving platform must be quite similar memeplex-wise as Creationists. My computer was made by HP - and I have absolute faith it should remain the same for all time, because HP created it that way.
Just a random thought. You know, the cure for mindviruses is of course - thinking.

Re:Civ 4 got returned by me

[KDR_11k]

It's probably not even the first, those embedded videocards can barely handle Unreal Tournament '99.

Re:Civ 4 got returned by me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but just look at this game... It doesn't look that great to begin with. It's an overhead strategy game, not some 60fps first person shooter. In fact, UT2k4 looked WAY better, and performed way better to boot, and all on far lesser hardware.

I agree with the grandparent. There's some seriously sloppy code somewhere.

No Meteos?

[MilenCent]

Where's Meteos, aka The DS Lumines? Harsh.

Ah well, at least Advance Wars DS did get mentioned. The time we've put in on that is just surreal. Once upon a time it took me 55 hours to finish FFIII/VI with all subquests completed. The game clock on the history screen on my copy of AWDS currently reads 180 hours. That's split between two people, true, but we easily put in five times as long on AW2. That's some good gameplay!

Re:No Meteos?

[tepples]

Where's Meteos

Meteos got an "honorable mention".

aka The DS Lumines?

If you want Lumines for GBA or DS, try this.

There were 30 great games in 2005?

[gweihir]

I honestly did not notice. And I observe what gets published. If there were 30 great games in 2005 I am sure I would have noticed more than 4 or 5 of them....

We need more games like...

[Anonymous Coward]

this: http://www.monkkonen.net/notrium.php

Small, free, interesting and original.

Fading Generation?

[kafka47]

...ome of the best games of the fading generation.

What does that mean? Is this yet another "PC is dead" barbs?

/K

Re:Fading Generation?

[ergo98]

What does that mean? Is this yet another "PC is dead" barbs?

Amazing, isn't it? We've been hearing the "PCs are dead" line for about a decade now - each new overhyped generation of consoles will eviscerate the PC, we're told, rendering the PC irrelevant. This still hasn't happened (the xbox360 being no exception, with the general PC gamer being underwhelmed).

Of course both PCs, and consoles, will merge at some point into full power media centers, but the reality is thta the console is becoming a PC, not the other way around.

Re:Fading Generation?

[ArmyOfFun]

Is this a serious question? Video game generations are marked by what consoles are out at a particular time. We're currently coming to the close of the PS2-GC-XBOX generation (because their successors are all supposed to come out within the next year). The generations used to be defined by the dominate console architecture at the time (8bit, 16bit, 32bit, etc...) but this is no longer useful. This generation distinction is less useful when it comes to PCs, but is still sometimes used.

To sum up, the comment ...one of the best games of the fading generation. had nothing to do with the state of PC gaming.

Take pity, it's the holidays...

[RemovableBait]

Two Slashdottings in one day? C'mon guys:

http://www.next-gen.biz.nyud.net:8090/index2.php?o ption=com_content&task=view&id=1938&Itemid=2&pop=1 &page=0

is it a secret?

[lowid (24) _________]

How about letting us in on some of those games that nobody mentioned?

Other thing it fails to mention.

[Lumpy]

Nintendo DS's are flying off the shelves. It's damn hard to find any right now. but everyone has a Pile of PSP's and are not moving.

Why? Granted The screen and overall look of the PSP is damn sexy. But when I can buy 2 DS's for the price of 1 PSP and the games seem to be going at the same rate.... (I can buy 2 DS games for the price of 1 PSP game) Guess which one the parents are grabbing for the kiddies. And yes, the chat function is highly desireable to kids... something that the PSP should have had in some fashon.

MarioKart DS is flat out super fun. (yes I am playing my kids toy before christmas... so shoot me!) and the fact that someone else can play me on the same game cart without them having it is absolutely killer and makes the PSP look like crap right there. (Sony would have NEVER allowed such abilities in the PSP.)

I do believe that nintendogs will make people dumber, but it's cute for kids and that is what sells usually. I personally cant wait for Super Monkeyball DS.

To heck with the top games, let's talk top gaming platforms.

Re:Other thing it fails to mention.

[DarkJC]

and the fact that someone else can play me on the same game cart without them having it is absolutely killer and makes the PSP look like crap right there. (Sony would have NEVER allowed such abilities in the PSP.)

Erm..they did. It's called "Game Sharing", and as a game example, Burnout: Legends uses it. I understand the DS is really nice, and that we hate Sony for the rootkit, but at least give them the small things they DO include that are nice.

Re:Other thing it fails to mention.

[FireballX301]

PSP Homebrew, while illegal in a sense, allows me to play the entire GoodSNES collection of 6000+ SNES games, along with NES, Genesis, Gameboy, and Gameboy Color games, on the go.

That feature alone was worth the $250 out of my pocket and made the PSP inestimably more valuable than the DS.

Re:Other thing it fails to mention.

[Anonymous Coward]

PSP Homebrew, while illegal in a sense, allows me to play the entire GoodSNES collection of 6000+ SNES games, along with NES, Genesis, Gameboy, and Gameboy Color games, on the go. That feature alone was worth the $250 out of my pocket and made the PSP inestimably more valuable than the DS.

So, rather than buy a Nintendo to play Nintendo games, you bought a PSP to play... Nintendo games. Heh!

Re:Other thing it fails to mention.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that game sucks in that regard. It allows them to download a light app and one car and one track. Making them all restart when a track change is needed.

also it has NO online play. I play people all the time on MariokartDS it certianly is a tons better game than the ONE game for the DS that allows limited sharing.

ALL my DS games have sharing. That can not be said for the PSP games.

PSP loses. game over man. game over.

GTA San Andreas

[Anonymous Coward]

I played gta3 to death. And then played it again, and again, and again.

I bought Vice City, the first game I've ever bought (I'm 26, and have been playing games and programming computers since I was 6 - yes I know and loved Ranarama!), and played it again and again and again.

I went to buy San Andreas, but for some stupid reason I couldn't buy it in Australia when I wanted to (hot coffee anyone?). I've played it through, and I'm playing it again right now.. taking a bit longer than the other two did, because it's such a f'in excellent game!

Yet it's not on the list. Ergo, the list sucks. But you already knew that if you RTFA.

Re:GTA San Andreas

[Anonymous Coward]

Might have something to do with the fact that San Andreas came out for the PS2 in 2004?

In the list for the FPS genre, Half-Life 2 for the Xbox is mentioned as an honourable mention. Half-Life 2 certainly deserves a spot on that list, but because it was released on the PC in 2004, it's not really a "game of 2005". Same with San Andreas, I guess.

I know Linux is a leper with this crowd...

[Hosiah]

But something happened for the first time this year: A Linux game impressed me. Because I downloaded the http://wolvix.org/ Wolvix Gaming Edition CD, and then later installed the http://www.pygame.org/news.html pygame library on Mandriva so I could run some of the games I'd been introduced to. While Linux gaming *still* isn't where it should be, these two elements this year show a strong sprint to bring up the rear, at least. I am especially impressed with how smooth the pygame apps run, and how incredibly easy it is to program in given the alternative of running up your own in C++. Be interresting to see where it is in five years.

Re:I know Linux is a leper with this crowd...

[ArmyOfFun]

I follow pygame projects as well, but what really looks promising is Panda 3D.

Where is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this guy hiding in the woods? There's no mention of GT-Legends!!!!!!!!!

By far that's the ultimate driving game that no non-stellar-non-realistic GT4 or xbox game can touch in terms of realism or competition fun-factor once you take your skills to the net races.

Im seriously disapointed to see that a stupeed Mario Kart game is mentioned when the real stuff is completely ignored. Unless this guys just cant drive - that must be it!

Nothing in my gaming experience beats GT-Legends...

GT4, anyone?

[rbinns]

So Gran Turismo 4 (released March 05) does not make this list? I think this game was extremely well done and should be considered at least on par if not better than Forza. Maybe this game was on the 04 or 03 list and I missed it (release delays).

Re:GT4, anyone?

[Joel from Sydney]

Nope, it was definitely an 05 release. Everyone seems to have forgotten about it, shame really. Forza Motorsport felt like a lame imitation by comparison (though admittedly it wasn't hugely better than GT3). Gamespot entirely missed it in their Best of 05 as well.

Re:GT4, anyone?

[bleaknik]

GT4 seemed like just another rehash of the series to me. Don't get me wrong, graphics were excellent for the PS2, and the controls were tight, but I didn't see much in terms of improvement over the previous incarnations...

But then again...I can't say Forza was that great of a game either...

What I do know... is that Mario Kart DS rocks, and next gen got one title right anyway!

Re:GT4, anyone?

[Mitaphane]

*ahem* read the article again. It WAS considered...

Other notable entries in the driving genre this year include Gran Turismo 4, Project Gotham Racing 3 and Wipeout Pure.

I too found it strange that GT4 didn't make the list. But I have yet to play it or its contemporaries so I can't say whether or not the other games deserve the title more or not.

Mod Parent Up (On Point)

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't agree more. The game is rugged in a million other ways, and even though it has a generally good model of gameplay (civ1, civ2, civ3), it's a major dissapointment given what was promised. This is a BETA.

Pro Evo 5

[SilentSheep]

It's pretty much a unanimous agreement that the Winning Eleven Soccer series is the premiere soccer franchise

Well... thats not entirely true. In the UK anyway, the hands down winner is Pro Evolution Soccer 5, with FIFA '06 a distant second. In my experience anyone who plays multiplayer PS2 will definitely have a copy of Pro Evo 5. The 4-player action is brilliant fun.

Re:Pro Evo 5

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: Pro Evo IS Winning Eleven :)

Re:Pro Evo 5

[Fred Or Alive]

Actually, Pro Evolution Soccer is Winning Eleven, they just use a different name (and numbering system) in Europe. (Dancing Stage is another renamed Konami franchise, it's called Dance Dance Revolution outside of Europe). I guess it's the same game, just a different name and perhaps some changes to the teams included, window dressing etc.

I'd guess the 2005 release of Winning Eleven would be equivelant to the 2005 release of Pro Evo, but I'm not some expert on the various versions of football games.

wayoftherodent.com top 25

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as entertaining as theirs! http://www.wayoftherodent.com/features/game%20of%2 0the%20year%202005.htm

Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[LKM]

And I'm sorry, the fact that Gun didn't even make it into the top 30, when Nintendogs did, is a pretty pathetic summary.

Aw, come on. Gun is a neat game, but it's not groundbreaking in any way. It wouldn't be wrong to put it into a Top-X-List, but it isn't wrong to leave it out, either.

Nintendogs, on the other hand, single-handedly proved that the DS is more than just a gimmick, sold hundreds of thousands of consoles, showed that games can be successfull outside the hardcore gaming market and pretty much brought Nintendo back from its Gamecube failure image to the front of gaming innovation.

You may not like Nintendogs, but that doesn't change the fact that it's clearly one of the most importang games of this years. Way more important than Gun.

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[geminidomino]

Nintendogs, on the other hand, single-handedly proved that the DS is more than just a gimmick

I disagree. At best, all it did was prove that a gimmick is enough to sell DSes. It's unfortunate, because I really rather enjoy my DS, but an overhyped Tomagatchi has nothing to do with that.

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[LKM]

"an overhyped Tomagatchi"

If I had to guess, I'd say you don't own the game. And based on your spelling, I'd say you've never owned a Tamagotchi, either.

Either way, if you think Nintendogs is nothing but an overhyped Tamagotchi, surely you can see that Gun is nothing more than a cheap westernized copy of GTA, right?

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[geminidomino]

If I had to guess, I'd say you don't own the game.

Correct. I have a real dog and cat to play with (Imagine my shock that a full grown cat would actually like playing with its owner!).

2 minutes with Nintendogs on the display unit was enough to make me wonder about people all over again.

And based on your spelling, I'd say you've never owned a Tamagotchi, either.

Not the "official" ones, no. I had one of the Digimons, that you could connect with the other ones and fight it out. :)

Either way, if you think Nintendogs is nothing but an overhyped Tamagotchi, surely you can see that Gun is nothing more than a cheap westernized copy of GTA, right?

I wouldn't call it "cheap." At least the version I played on my brother's 360 seemed it probably cost a fortune to make. Of course, the big difference was Gun was actually fun (funny how people forget that particular quality when judging games)

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[LKM]

2 minutes with Nintendogs on the display unit was enough to make me wonder about people all over again.

Wouldn't you agree that dismissing a game after playing it for 2 minutes - especially a game which got an average rating of 85% (per gamerankings) - could be just a tad premature?

Look, you can't possibly have seen more than a few % of the game after playing it for 2 minutes, and that's not even taking into account that the whole idea of Nintendogs is that you buy, name, train and play with your own dog in the game, not with a dog somebody else set up on a display unit.

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[geminidomino]

Wouldn't you agree that dismissing a game after playing it for 2 minutes

Nope. If the game bored me after two minutes, then I'd say buying it would be a bit foolish.

especially a game which got an average rating of 85% (per gamerankings) - could be just a tad premature?

Hardly. Gamerankings is an aggregation of game rags' reviews, which have about nothing to do with my buying decisions. I'm sure as hell not going to value gamerankings over the fact that the game bored me. Hell, The Sims got 89% on GR, and that "game" was utterly pointless too.

So no, I don't think I was premature. I think N-dogs was a stupid idea, a gimmick, and would have been a waste of money. If you like it, more power to you. Enjoy it. That doesn't make it "important."

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron, "important" in this case means that it sold a ton of copies and had people talking about it. Important means that someone other than fat, pimply Xbox fanboys played it. How many stories in all the Xbox360 hype have been about Gun - yeah, that's right, pretty much zero. We're all very happy that you enjoy it, but keep in mind that there seems to be a near consensus opinion that your game sucked ass.

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[LKM]

Wouldn't you agree that dismissing a game after playing it for 2 minutes

Nope. If the game bored me after two minutes, then I'd say buying it would be a bit foolish.

Well. I don't know how to put this without insulting you, but really... dismissing a game - any game - after two minutes of playtime is just stupid.

Especially if it's a game like Nintendogs. When playing Nintendogs for two minutes, you either didn't get to the real game (as buying a dog takes quite a bit more than two minutes) or you played with a dog somebody else "set up", which makes the whole thing pretty pointless to begin with as the dog couldn't possibly have been able to recognize your voice.

The first two minutes of almost any game are boring. I recently started playing Final Fantasy, which most people agree is a pretty good game. Guess what, doring the first half hour of gaming, nothing actually happens. Broken Sword, which is an utterly awesome game, only starts to become interesting after about an hour of playtime. If you're really dismissing a game after only two minutes, you're not a gamer.

especially a game which got an average rating of 85% (per gamerankings) - could be just a tad premature?

Hardly. Gamerankings is an aggregation of game rags' reviews, which have about nothing to do with my buying decisions.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that all magazines seem to agree that this game is better than most other games. Frankly, I value the opinion of these people - people who get to play all new games, play them for quite some time and then rate them based on their experience - somewhat more than the opinion of somebody who played the game for two frickin' minutes.

I'm sure as hell not going to value gamerankings over the fact that the game bored me. Hell, The Sims got 89% on GR, and that "game" was utterly pointless too.

Uh-huh. You probably decided that the Sims sucked after two minutes, too. And as for The Sims being pointless... Look, all games are pointless. They're games. Gun is just as pointless as The Sims. If you want something which isn't pointless, read a physics book. Or go kiss your girlfriend. Or go buy flowers for your mum. But don't whine about games being pointless. All of them are. That's why we play them. To get away from all the real stuff.

So no, I don't think I was premature. I think N-dogs was a stupid idea, a gimmick, and would have been a waste of money. If you like it, more power to you. Enjoy it. That doesn't make it "important."

No, me liking it doesn't make it important, just as you disliking it doesn't make it unimportant. Nintendogs isn't important because I like it. It's important because most people like it, and because it's different, and because it changed a lot of people's perception of games and of Nintendo.

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[geminidomino]

Especially if it's a game like Nintendogs. When playing Nintendogs for two minutes, you either didn't get to the real game (as buying a dog takes quite a bit more than two minutes) or you played with a dog somebody else "set up", which makes the whole thing pretty pointless to begin with as the dog couldn't possibly have been able to recognize your voice.

Or I just realized that the concept was boring and a waste of my time. A lot of times it doesn't take that long. Had the same experience with the abortion that was "Unlimited Saga."

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that all magazines seem to agree that this game is better than most other games. Frankly, I value the opinion of these people - people who get to play all new games, play them for quite some time and then rate them based on their experience - somewhat more than the opinion of somebody who played the game for two frickin' minutes.

Good for you. I'm not going to trust the reviews of anyone who's primary source of revenue is selling advertising for the same product they're reviewing. Prime Example from recent memory: "Lunar: Dragon Song" reviewed in "Game Informer." They had NOTHING good to say about the game. They were just shy of saying whoever conceived it should be taken out back and shot in the head, after he sobers up from whatever drugs he was on that made him form such a bane on humanity.

Yet, numerically, the game got a 5/10.

And as for The Sims being pointless... Look, all games are pointless.

No, not all games are pointless. It's called a "win condition." A goal to strive for. Diddling virtual people around in circles, putting them in pools then removing the ladders, or stocking the fridges with beer and then removing the toilet are only fun for about 2 minutes. The Sims isn't a "game", it's a "toy."

. It's important because most people like it, and because it's different, and because it changed a lot of people's perception of games and of Nintendo.


FSVO "most people." The only person I know who doesn't think it's the most repugnantly stupid idea since the Virtual Boy is my girlfriend, because she thinks it's "cute." I doubt it's changing many perceptions of Nintendo, other than to put more cement on the view that the DS is just a gimmick and Nintendo is a kiddie company.

Yeah, Bravo Nintendogs.

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[geminidomino]

Moron, it's not "my game." I've got about a half hour invested in it. I said it was fun, not that it was important. All I said was that the idiotic dog toy was NOT important in any positive fashion.

Stop sucking that Nintendo-dick, fanboy, and post with your login next time.

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[LKM]

Or I just realized that the concept was boring and a waste of my time.

Oh well, I think it's pointless to discuss this particular idea any further. If you think that you can judge a universally acclaimed game like Nintendogs after playing it for two minutes on a system somebody else set up, more power to you. The rest of the world pretty much disagrees, but whatever floats your boat.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that all magazines seem to agree that this game is better than most other games. Frankly, I value the opinion of these people - people who get to play all new games, play them for quite some time and then rate them based on their experience - somewhat more than the opinion of somebody who played the game for two frickin' minutes.

Good for you. I'm not going to trust the reviews of anyone who's primary source of revenue is selling advertising for the same product they're reviewing.

User reviews and blog reviews for the game were just as positive, not to mention that any serious magazine has different divisions handling ads and content. The people writing the reviews usually don't even know if the studies involved with the games they're reviewing have bought ads in the mag, until the actually read the mag after it goes to print.

Prime Example from recent memory: "Lunar: Dragon Song" reviewed in "Game Informer." They had NOTHING good to say about the game. They were just shy of saying whoever conceived it should be taken out back and shot in the head, after he sobers up from whatever drugs he was on that made him form such a bane on humanity.
Yet, numerically, the game got a 5/10.

But you're just proving what I said. Lunar is a bad game. They wrote a bad review and gave it a rating which is below most of their ratings. So the reviewing process works.

No, not all games are pointless. It's called a "win condition." A goal to strive for. Diddling virtual people around in circles, putting them in pools then removing the ladders, or stocking the fridges with beer and then removing the toilet are only fun for about 2 minutes. The Sims isn't a "game", it's a "toy."

Obviously, you didn't play The Sims for too long either, because The Sims, while not having a winning condition, has a Goal. Nintendogs is even better: Not only does it have goals, it even has winning conditions! Of course, you only played it for two minutes and never found out about that, but still thought you should post to /. about what a crappy game Nintendogs is compared to Gun.
That you didn't even understand the basic game mechanics of Nintendogs doesn't really speak in favor of your opinion.

And for the record, I don't like The Sims, either. But that doesn't mean I'm going to claim it's not and important game, or not a good game, because it's both important and good. It's just not something that interests me personally.

The only person I know who doesn't think it's the most repugnantly stupid idea since the Virtual Boy is my girlfriend

I'm surprised you even have one, considering the people you seem to hang out with.

Okay, sorry, cheap shot :-)

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[geminidomino]

The people writing the reviews usually don't even know if the studies involved with the games they're reviewing have bought ads in the mag, until the actually read the mag after it goes to print.

No, but they're sure to know whether, say, Bioware is buying ads. Rip on NWN enough, and the result is predictable.

But you're just proving what I said. Lunar is a bad game. They wrote a bad review and gave it a rating which is below most of their ratings. So the reviewing process works.

No, they gave it a review that said essentially that it was something to be scraped off your shoe with a stick, but gave it a score that said "Meh, it's ok."

But that doesn't mean I'm going to claim it's not and important game, or not a good game, because it's both important and good. It's just not something that interests me personally.

Whether it's a good game is an opinion. Whether it's an "important" game needs some evidence, and that doesn't mean Sales numbers. Other than having thirty-two sequels, expansion packs, etc (par for the course, since it's an EA game now), what was so special about it? It wasn't the first software toy. I was playing SimCity a almost decade before it was released. It wasn't the first to use the Isolinear view. So what was so "important" about it?

I'm surprised you even have one, considering the people you seem to hang out with.

Those would be called "grown ups with better things to do than play with Virtual Pets."

Re:Nintendogs is way more important than Gun

[LKM]

No, but they're sure to know whether, say, Bioware is buying ads. Rip on NWN enough, and the result is predictable.

Look, if you're claiming that ads influence game ratings at major sites or magazines, you need a bit more than "the results are predictable". Do you have any evidence at all?

But you're just proving what I said. Lunar is a bad game. They wrote a bad review and gave it a rating which is below most of their ratings. So the reviewing process works.

No, they gave it a review that said essentially that it was something to be scraped off your shoe with a stick, but gave it a score that said "Meh, it's ok."

First of all, the review was bad, so your whole "ads influence reviews" idea doesn't work. Second, you don't read a lot of gaming mags, do you? 50% means "crap". 70% means "meh, okay", 80% means "good", 90% means "great". Scores below 50% are usually reserved for games which not only play crappy, but also have bugs or technical problems or crappy graphics. Lunar has none of that.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to claim it's not and important game, or not a good game, because it's both important and good. It's just not something that interests me personally.

Whether it's a good game is an opinion. Whether it's an "important" game needs some evidence, and that doesn't mean Sales numbers. Other than having thirty-two sequels, expansion packs, etc (par for the course, since it's an EA game now), what was so special about it?

Are you seriously asking me what's special about The Sims? First you claim that Gun was more important than Nintendogs, now you don't understand what's special about The Sims?

Anyway, let me ask you this: Why the heck do you think Gun is special? What exactly is special about GTA in the wild west?

I'm surprised you even have one, considering the people you seem to hang out with.

Those would be called "grown ups with better things to do than play with Virtual Pets."

Haha, now you're just funny. Or sad. Seriously, if your idea of a grown up is "sombody with better things to do than play with virtual pets", then, well, grow up. Either your friends are so busy that they don't play games at all, or they're just juvenile. Only juveniles care about looking like adults. Adults play what they like, even if it involves virtual pets.

How about this?

[Matarick]

This may be late but just get yourself a PS2 fliptop cover and Magic Swap 3.6 (it converts the NTSC to PAL signals).
They also load data from memory cards as well so you can get yourself an HD Advance built in without using any other discs.
I don't see the British courts outlawing them yet. ;)

Actually...The WEBSERVER isn't /.ed...its ADSERVER

[the roAm]

It isn't the webserver thats slow....its the adserver ;) Block the adserver(s) and it'l load all the pages instantly.

Not really the greatest games...

[tatersalad]

I would have to disagree with a few of their decsions. BF2? I have it, it's nothing special, especially since it was the first game that I know of to have its first patch recalled. -1 point for EA. Call Of Duty 2 (not Big Red One) should have had its spot. Excellent gameplay, a great new engine, and a great online community really makes CoD2 stand out. In sports, what about Madden 06? Lets give EA a little credit. They smashed the comptetion for NFL games to oblivion, and then made a good continuance of the series. I was expecting an updated rehash of Madden 05. And drving... Where's PGR3? It is by far better than any Mario Cart game. And in a return to shooter land, BiA:Earned in Blood was much better than Road to Hill 30.