Slashdot Mirror
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. "
And the mirrordot host links back to the next-gen page.
The prisoner of hope is sustained and encouraged by his hope, even as he is confined by it.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
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!
Speak truth to power.
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.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
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!
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.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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.