Thread/Post Collection PluginSite rules change (mostly the result of the petition)
GTX0 AnnouncementsFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds



So the general consensus on this site seems to be that classic games that achieved near perfect marks have their greatness deteriorate over time just because newer games are built on top of their systems and ideas and done better thanks to new technology and hardware. Completely forgetting that the newer game would be nothing if it didn't have the ideas of it's predecessor.

We aren't holding Super Mario World (which still looks great by the way) to the same level of timeless praise, as we hold Beethoven or Mozart in music. In fact, if people remixed Beethoven today with dubstep or rock they would be considered either unoriginal, or making a mockery of classic music. There is a double standard it seems with video games.

Pioneering excellence and genre defining brilliance both receive an unceremonious "meh" even though they are the foundations of the modern pretty games we enjoy today. Not enough respect at all is shown to the process. We all want the shiny new puppy rather than the old loyal dog who has served us faithfully our whole lives. We're entitled.

Technology moves and advances so quickly that we don't even get to master it anymore. I can make powerpoint on windows 98 dance, literally, but it's a useless skill. It's almost pointless to try to get good at anything technological in a specific regard because in 3 or 4 years it will be completely obsolete.

By contrast I have been playing chess since I was 7 and I'm quite good at it. It's a skill that will be useful and amusing for me my entire life. Knowing how to work through windows XP, not so much.

It makes it difficult to even know what you should try to be good at.

settingsOptions
There are 87 Replies

What more did games need to do? Perfect Dark, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2, Grand Theft Auto 4, Ocarina of Time, Breath of the wild. All of these games are within less than 3 percent of that illusive perfect score.

So what would they have needed to do differently to be perfect?

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

So the general consensus on this site seems to be that classic games that achieved near perfect marks have their greatness deteriorate over time just because newer games are built on top of their systems and ideas and done better thanks to new technology and hardware.


They also have their greatness deteriorate over time because newer games are built on top of them thanks to better ideas.

Completely forgetting that the newer game would be nothing if it didn't have the ideas of it's predecessor.


And the predecessors still do not necessarily reach the greatness of their descendants, despite their necessity. The concrete foundation of a house is not the mansion itself.

Posted September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

Technology moves and advances so quickly that we don't even get to master it anymore.

That's true I guess. But you usually don't throw everything you learn from something out the window. You look at the newest tech, get rid of the redundant or useless info you have from the old tech, and keep the parts that got saved.

For games I don't really care how old or new they are. If they offer something fun I'm fine for it. I understand though rating something like Pac-man out of 10 and a modern game out of 10 and comparing the two scores would just be strange. I used to care about the ratings system of games but I found that 6 or 7/10 games I found quite fun. Now I just try to play anything.

Posted September 11th by Fox Forever

So what would they have needed to do differently to be perfect?

Are you using Metacritic as a source for "out of 100"?

Posted September 11th by Fox Forever

And a lot of modern games are copies of older games with worse ideas. See every Call of Duty Game since Advanced Warfare with loot crates, pay to win, and really, really fucking expensive season passes. And yet none of them are better games than Black Ops II or even the original Modern Warfare really.

It may be cringe inducing to go back and play Super Mario 64 after spending 4 hours playing Super Mario Odyssey. That's because Super Mario 64 hasn't aged well visually like some other N64 games have (See Conker's Bad Fur Day). Ocarina of Time 64 is pretty ugly now too. But the game is tight enough that it and it's sequel Majora's Mask sold millions on rerelease on 3ds and it actually looks pretty great and stylistic there.

I personally don't think I would cringe if I played Odyssey and then played Super Mario World though. It still looks great for what it is. It still has tight controls, a fantastic soundtrack, and lots to do and explore.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Are you using Metacritic as a source for "out of 100"?

And similar rating sites yes. It can be 9.9/10 if you really want to look at it that way.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

And a lot of modern games are copies of older games with worse ideas. See every Call of Duty Game since Advanced Warfare with loot crates, pay to win, and really, really fucking expensive season passes. And yet none of them are better games than Black Ops II or even the original Modern Warfare really.


I think that we need to make a distinction between worse design ideas and worse business practices that were shoehorned into the game by the publisher.

Posted September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

Super Mario 64 is a good enough game that if it was given the 3ds treatment Ocarina of Time was given it would sell well and still play great. The reason why I don't think the ds version of SM64 is a good game is because there is no visual upgrade and more importantly there is no analog stick. It's a crappy port. But that doesn't mean it was a crappy idea TO port it. I GUESS you can play the ds version ON 3DS and use analog that way but it sure would be cool if you could play SM64 and have Mario look as good as he does in Super Mario 3D Land.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I personally feel Oblivion is a superior game than Skyrim and ESO. And that Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 4. (No real opinion of new vegas because I never got very far but it seems like an alright game).

Do you want my in depth reasons or would you agree?

Bethesda and Nintendo together have the two companies with the highest ranked games on average.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I think that we need to make a distinction between worse design ideas and worse business practices that were shoehorned into the game by the publisher.


Unfortunately these aren't always a separate issue anymore. Several games (including but not exclusively: battlefront 2 and shadow of war) designed some or all of the game around the inclusion of lootboxes. The bad business practice becomes bad game design.

I also think anything that features pay to win mechanics has inherently bad game design as it's no longer designed around fairness or skill, it's designed around a person's wallet.

I get that he didn't explicitly say this (and probably didn't even think of it in his dig at modern business practices in video games) but there is definitely a link between the two things in many games.

Posted September 11th by Moonray
Moonray
 

I ask just because I notice you ask about "Perfect Dark, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2, Grand Theft Auto 4, Ocarina of Time, Breath of the wild. I've played most of those games" being "within less than 3 percent of that illusive perfect score". I was pretty sure that that's where you were pulling the info from.

Metacritic is a collaboration from many different critic mediums. I doubt any game ever would have 100. There will always be detractors who don't agree with a consensus or are judging based on other personal things. A game being a personal 100/100 is entirely possible. A game being a consensus-wide 100/100 would be nearly impossible. Many different things factor into experiences as well that aren't just the game. A game can make you feel great if you're going through a breakup for example, but it can also make you mad and dislike it as well.

I'm not sure it's fair to ask: "So what would they have needed to do differently to be perfect?" but instead ask each person who didn't give it 100 "What did you want to make it perfect for you?" For me, some of those games are perfect. I actually have only (I think) 14 perfect games that I've given 10/10 to.

Posted September 11th by Fox Forever

Do you want my in depth reasons or would you agree?


I agree that Oblivion is superior to Skyrim. I haven't played F4, but it doesn't look great to me based on what I've heard trustworthy people say about it. I preferred NV over F3 greatly, though part of that is because of the aesthetic and setting.

While I despise many things about living down here in Texas, it still warms my heart to play games like New Vegas.

Edited September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

Moon I was thinking it. And I think most of the triple a publishers are trying to take more money for slightly less quality over time.

I don't think it applies to Bethesda and Nintendo yet. But with Activision-Blizzard, EA, and Ubisoft it's a constant war to see which one of them can rip off their consumers worse. And EA is winning by a large margin. What a disaster they had last year with Andromeda AND SWBF II.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I'm not sure it's fair to ask: "So what would they have needed to do differently to be perfect?" but instead ask each person who didn't give it 100 "What did you want to make it perfect for you?" For me, some of those games are perfect. I actually have only (I think) 14 perfect games that I've given 10/10 to.

That's an interesting way to look at it. Which games would you give a perfect score to?

And more importantly, of those games on your list, which of them do you think will be great forever no matter how long games keep getting made?

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Because I do think there has to be some game that will be great or near-perfect forever, and I am leaning on Super Mario World. I don't think there is a game that will ever come out that can't learn something from SMW or Miyamoto.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I preferred NV over F3 greatly, though part of that is because of the aesthetic and setting.

The comparison for you then is probably NV and Fallout 4.

For me, F3 came with Fallout 4 on X1 and I ended up playing it more than 4. Then I sold 4. F4 Tries to use ideas from Mass Effect and does it poorly. And it doesn't even try to give you a tutorial or idea of what the hell you should do with your points and perks. It's a very confusing game unless you use the wiki.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

It’s not that hard to retain. Usually if you read material and can’t remeber what it said, your not interested in the subject

Posted September 11th by Brandy

Which games would you give a perfect score to?

Alright let's get into this. I've started/played 482 games and have "finished" (according to my own standards) 329 of them.

Of all the games I've played and actually critiqued, I've given perfect scores to the following (It was actually 16):

Chrono Trigger
Pokémon Silver
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Mario Galaxy 2
LoZ: Twilight Princess
LoZ: Majora's Mask
LoZ: The Wind Waker
Star Fox 64
Mario Party 3
Smash Bros WiiU
Shenmue II
Uncharted 2
Rock Band 3
Saints Row 2
Red Dead Redemption
Earthbound

of those games on your list, which of them do you think will be great forever no matter how long games keep getting made?

It depends on the standards of the individuals looking at it from another perspective. I noticed that you look at what's visually appealing and the detractors are things that look choppy now. 8 or 16 bit is easily appealing to me and it looks like to you (since you cited World's visuals as good) so games like Chrono Trigger and Earthbound can probably stand the test of time according to us. Visually they'll still look good. Once polygons were thrown into the mix things kind of had to go up from there and improve. Today, visually, games like Mario Party 3 or Ocarina of time may look kind of ugly. I kind of dropped off of caring about visuals.

Posted September 11th by Fox Forever

Usually if you read material and can’t remeber what it said, your not interested in the subject

But how much time has passed by in this scenario? Most people can remember a condensed version of a piece of media but it's not exactly easy to remember what was said verbatim. You could also be interested in the moment but just not retain the information.

Posted September 11th by Fox Forever

I don't think it applies to Bethesda and Nintendo yet.


Bethesda have definitely become a bit odd with their Skyrim & Fallout games. The introduce of "paid mods" which are "totally not mods" except they actually are and often of a lesser quality. The games are also becoming steadily less moddable. I'm not sure if that last part is intentional of just a necessity of the changes they made to their engine but it's concerning that it happened and then "paid mods" show up. I doubt they'll ever be on the same level as other big publishers though.

What a disaster they had last year with Andromeda AND SWBF II.


I don't think Andromeda was really EA's fault. They let development of it go on for a loooong time. I suspect they probably wanted it out within a few years of ME3 to keep the money coming in. It just had a terrible development cycle on an engine that wasn't very supportive of what Bioware wanted to make.

SWBII on the other hand was totally EA's fault. I have no doubt in my mind the directive to design the game progression around lootboxes came from them (or high up positions within DICE) as no developer would intentionally damage their game in such a way. Really sade given all the good will and hyped they'd managed to build at E3 that year, then they ruined it all very swiftly :P

Because I do think there has to be some game that will be great or near-perfect forever, and I am leaning on Super Mario World.


Honestly I would give Super Mario World a perfect score in the modern day. There's not really anything I personally would want changing about it as it just works so well. Not even really talking from nostalgia with that as I was very late to playing it. (Gameboy Advanced version was my first time on it and even then several years after it's GBA release).

That was really the pinnacle of the sidescrolling Mario games to me. More recent ones have done interesting stuff, but they've often removed things that made SMW work well. I guess co-op SMW would be fun, but it'd be fun in a secondary kind of way.

________________________________________________________________

But as I said in the previous 100/100 topic. I don't think it's possible for a game to truly reach that score on something like metactritic or from customer reviews because what works for some doesn't work for others. There's always going to be at least one review that doesn't quite agree with the perfect score and thus brings it down.

Posted September 11th by Moonray
Moonray
 

Chrono Trigger and Earthbound can probably stand the test of time according to us.

I would throw in Final Fantasy III (VI) as well for that. Interesting that Super Mario World doesn't get a perfect score from you. It's such a common game so I'm assuming you did critique it.

If you're interested these are the games I would give a perfect score to (at the time I played them the first time) and the absense of zelda is only because I'm not very good at Zelda so I have no right to critique it.:

Super Mario All-Stars
Super Mario World
Final Fantasy VIII
Gran Turismo 1
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2
Perfect Dark
Goldeneye
The Last of Us
Mass Effect 2
Halo 3
Doki Doki Literature Club

And of those, the games I feel will be great forever are:
Super Mario All Stars
Super Mario World
Mass Effect 2
The Last of Us

But only slight degredation to games like Gran Turismo and Tony Hawk 2 because their soundtracks and gameplay will be rock solid forever. Only their visuals really suffer.

Halo 3 takes a kick in the balls because once online for it ceases it stops being good. That isn't the game's fault though. FF8 gets worse and worse every time I play it but it has Nobuo's apex of his career so it remains musically perfect. I think the game looks like ass, has a terrible plot and a ridiculous combat system but it's still endearingly fun and addictive. It probably takes the biggest hit of my perfect games, down to a 7/10. It has not aged well whatsover.

Doki Doki hasn't been around long enough for me to know if it will stand the test of time. Perfect Dark Remale 360 shows me that the franchise still has gas in it and it's addictively fun. PD64 is almost unplayable thanks to frame rate issues and terrible lighting. Goldeneye actually beats it for longevity. It still looks like ass but you can see what you're doing at least. It also has a more authentic soundtrack and more memorable weapons. If you asked me in 2000 I would say PD is the better game, but now I would say Goldeneye. Both games still control amazingly for what they are but since I can see what I'm doing in goldeneye and the multiplayer level design is better, it gets the edge. PD Remake 360 is the best of the three though. It would get about a 9/10 from me for nostalgia. It shows some age but it will never be ugly now.



Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Numerical ratings are really bad and just a lazy way of distilling complex thoughts into a more easily digestible (and repeatable) form. They're just as clickbaity and pointless as anything Buzzfeed shits out. Art should be reviewed, discussed, and debated, but it shouldn't be graded. A simple, "yes, I recommend this thing" or "no, I do not recommend this thing" is more than sufficient for the purpose of any commercial review, but that doesn't get dummies arguing over which game deserves a 9 or a 10.

Posted September 11th by The Bandit

There are a couple games that I wouldn't have given perfect scores to when I first played them, which I think are perfect now though. They are as follows:

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

I would have given this game about a 7/10 until I realized the wiki made it amazing, and now it's probably my favorite game of all time. The only gripe i have with it is that there isn't more of it. Skyrim was okay and certainly good, but it's not Oblivion.

Pokemon Diamond/Pearl

I thought the campaign was meh and the story was just ok. Certainly solid enough to finish the game. I would have given it an 8/10. But it had a perfectly balanced OU metagame, was the first game to have online play, and it paved the way for the franchise to continue to be awesome. And technically you can still play Gen 4 OU on showdown so it's keep it's perfect score from me. Also Cynthia is a badass and the toughest champion by far.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Perfect:

The Last of Us.




Posted September 11th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Hell yeah

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Interesting that Super Mario World doesn't get a perfect score from you. It's such a common game so I'm assuming you did critique it.

Checking my docs I gave it a 9.75. My rationale for not being a perfect 10 was lack of powerups. Besides flower and cape (and maybe if people count it the P bag) he doesn't have any more (not counting the star). I think if there was 1 or 2 more then it would've been perfect for me. I've never played FFIII though. I've only ever played 7 and didn't beat it and I own 15.

Of the games you listed I didn't play about half of them. I do think ME2 can totally stand the test of time. It was a wonderful game. I don't consider TLOU a perfect game (yet) because I haven't fully beaten it (but I did beat the story). It may actually work for a 10/10.

Numerical ratings are really bad and just a lazy way of distilling complex thoughts into a more easily digestible (and repeatable) form.

I mean, you gotta say more than just "eh that game is a 7/10". Usually you say things to back it all up.

A simple, "yes, I recommend this thing" or "no, I do not recommend this thing" is more than sufficient

Ok wait did you just say that numerical ratings are lazy and that they're in an easily digestible manner but then take it one step further and say that "yes" or "no" is a better way to get your point across? How is "I do/don't recommend it" not even easier and lazier?

Also, do people just look at ratings and go "oh that game got 9/10 by the ratings. I better go and buy it" without researching it? If so then that's their own problem.

Posted September 11th by Fox Forever

Checking my docs I gave it a 9.75. My rationale for not being a perfect 10 was lack of powerups. Besides flower and cape (and maybe if people count it the P bag) he doesn't have any more (not counting the star).

You forget the biggest power up in the game. Yoshi. He gives you an extra hit and can make you jump extra high and eat enemies. And when different colored Yoshi's appear he can do different things with shells. When you go through star world and beyond there is a lot of strategy involved. Also there are a couple other power ups you missed like becoming a balloon. Spin Jump is pretty cool too.

Edited September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Doki Doki hasn't been around long enough for me to know if it will stand the test of time.


In my opinion, it will not. Extremely low replayability and it did not employ the meta horror aspect as well as I think other games like imscared and Eternal Darkness did. It also did not have the length and depth that a decent full-length VN does.

Edited September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

Also there are a couple other power ups you missed like becoming a balloon

I think I did say the P bag. I consider Yoshi an item not so much a power up but he was a good addition anyway. I will say that it probably has the most variety of any pre 64 Mario game.

Posted September 11th by Fox Forever

Extremely low replayability

Not quite so. There are mods and it's encouraging writers and devs to add more content. It's becoming the super mario maker of visual novels very quickly.

Even slight variations are worth going through again. They're really fun and I'm quite engaged in that community.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

If you like Doki Doki you should check out the Rainclouds mod and the New Eyes Mod. Rainclouds is from Sayori's point of view and New Eyes is from Yuri's and they're both absolutely heart breaking. The developer, CykaDev is working on a viewpoint for Natsuki and for Monika as well. And they made Doki Doki Do you Lift Club which is hilarious.

Edited September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king














Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Not quite so. There are mods and it's encouraging writers and devs to add more content


I did not know that. That makes it better, though one could say that we could apply the same logic to any other VN.

Posted September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

Do you know of many other really solid VNs I should check out?

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I'm not very experienced with VNs, but I have to say that Dies Irae is wonderful. Zanma Taisei Demonbane is also good, but nothing on the level of DI.

They're both chuunige as fuck, though, so take my enthusiasm with a grain of salt.

Posted September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

I'll check em out.

Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I think artists are required to make choices and sacrifices to make anything. You can only make "something," not "everything." Zelda games do not have great online multiplayer, for instance. And some games are so vast they do contain more than smaller games, but they may also have a lot of buggy elements, which can totally be avoided. There are so many different ways to define perfect and everyone holds something different, so any ranking has to be a personal one.

I think the best way to say a game is perfect is if it provides a spectacular experience (both unique and incredibly polished), leaves you feeling completely satisfied (nothing is missing from the experience), and minimizes points of contention (anything that can be considered a "problem" is minimal and non-invasive).

In my personal opinion, the games that came the closest to achieving this level of perfection are:

  • Yoshi's Island
  • Super Mario 64
  • Paper Mario
  • Super Smash Bros: Melee
  • The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (have not played BoTW or OoT yet)
  • Super Mario Galaxy
  • World of Goo
  • Little Big Planet
  • Rayman Legends
  • Mario Kart 8 - Racing is absolutely perfect! Battling is... not.

    Games I've played that come very close:

  • Roller Coaster Tycoon - I've played 2 and 3, and while I like them both and sunk so much time, I'm not sure if perfect is the right word to describe it)

  • Metroid Prime 3 - Haven't played original, but the third was amazing. Still, I wouldn't call it perfect. It has a lot of annoying parts, too.

  • Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time - Awesome game by Insomniac! According to many fans, still the last great release for the franchise. But again, not perfect. The disappointing final boss and level does not help, but there were a lot of brilliant mechanics.

  • Pokemon - As popular and as great as the franchise is, some things inherent to its design really stop it from being considered "perfect." Like most JRPGs, a lot of the game is just grinding. While it feels much, much better in here than others, that doesn't warrant a free pass.

    Games that were perfect... but technology marches on:

  • Ms. Pac Man - Way better than the original. Still one of the greatest classic arcade games of all time. Now, plenty of casual mobile games compete for attention.

  • Tetris - There have been so many variations, but the ability to hard drop and see where your pieces falls was not available on the NES.

  • Super Mario classic series - Super Mario Bros. was astounding at launch... then SMB3 supplanted it. SMW took interesting direction towards exploration, but over time controls in sidescrollers improved dramatically and the technical limitations of the old consoles just became too much to bear.

  • Goldeneye 007 - At the time, an easy 100. The first console FPS ever, a great granddaddy of the genre next to Doom and Quake, and it had multiplayer! But when framerates were fixed in games like Halo, and dual analog became the new standard, FPSs never looked back. The UI looks horrendously dated, the graphics a sloppy mess, the layout is very confusing, and nothing in the game feels complete. It's hard to believe this thing sold 7,000,000 copies and so much acclaim. It's a lot harder to appreciate nowadays. Even half-assed games nowadays have everything this one did and more. This is possibly the most egregious example of how technology just makes things obsolete.

  • Sonic Adventure 2. Another egregious example. When it launched on the Dreamcast it was a killer app and critical praise was plentiful. Sega went out with a bang, because it all went downhill from there. The Gamecube port, while perfect or better in every regard, was rated from 10s and 9s down to 7s. The flaws in the title became more obvious when compared to the fact that more polished games like Super Mario Sunshine were cited for being buggy. Without the rose-tinted glasses, Sonic Adventure 2 is actually a pretty mediocre game. But because of the great over-the-top soundtrack, exciting UI, engaging user experience, and a lot of other reasons that have all the makings of what you expect in a fantastic game, the execution leaves you wanting more.

  • Posted September 11th by mariomguy

    You can only make "something," not "everything."

    That's a good way of putting it. But I think perfection can be attained in a specific genre at least. Zelda doesn't need to have good multiplayer or any multiplayer to define the genre it leads. I am not even sure what genre that is. Puzzles? Adventure? Zelda.

    Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Goldeneye is still fun today though even though it looks like shit and has to be played on the terrible N64 controller. And that soundtrack will never die. Games today would kill to have Goldeneye's score.



    But yeah I have literally played on license to kill and my buddy has been unable to hit me with the RCP-90 so sometimes bugs do blemish the experience even for a goldeneye appreciationist like me. Or maybe he just had really bad aim. :P

    Edited September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Mariom do you have a list of games that you wouldn't have considered perfect at launch but they have grown on you and aged well and now you consider them immortal?

    Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    The first console FPS ever


    It's not. Doom 64 and Turok: Dinosaur Hunter were released a few months previous.

    Wolfenstein 3D and the first version of Doom were released on the SNES years previous.

    Edited September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

    You could say that it was the first competent console shooter though. Doom and Wolfenstein didn't allow proper freedom to aim or crouch. Never really played Turok. I am pretty sure Duke Nukem came out before Goldeneye as well. It was limited when it comes to aiming in a similar way to Doom.

    But Goldeneye is the evolutionary game that lead to modern shooters on consoles. Doom was a bad port. It was much better on PC. I have it on Xbox 1 now and it's not too too bad there. But I would much rather play perfect dark 360. Wolfenstein was a vanity game to say they could do it on snes.







    Edited September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    You could say that it was the first competent console shooter though.


    I haven't played all of them for a significant amount of time, so arguments of exact quality are not interesting to me.

    Posted September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

    That's fine. Have you played Goldeneye itself for a significant amount of time?

    Edited September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I played through the entire story once or twice. I don't know if you'd call that "significant". The game was kinda janky and I preferred some other games.

    Posted September 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

    It does take some time to develop a feel for it. It took me years to realize that tapping a and b together will detonate remote mines in the air without having to switch to the detonator. Or that you could cook grenades before throwing them.

    Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Halo really kicked Goldeneye's ass when it came out by letting you use grenades and weapons at the same time, and jump really high.

    Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    That's a good way of putting it. But I think perfection can be attained in a specific genre at least. Zelda doesn't need to have good multiplayer or any multiplayer to define the genre it leads. I am not even sure what genre that is. Puzzles? Adventure? Zelda.

    A lot of what makes Melee great is not just the fighting stuff, but the extra modes, the trophy gallery, the intro, the music, the effects - the entire experience is all part of the package. Genres are fairly poorly defined as well. Portal is a puzzle game that plays like a first person shooter. I think Zelda is "Action-Adventure." Think point-and-click adventures and puzzles, but with real time action.

    Goldeneye is still fun today though even though it looks like shit and has to be played on the terrible N64 controller. And that soundtrack will never die. Games today would kill to have Goldeneye's score.

    320x240 @ 15fps LDR, bro. It looks horrible, but it does sound great! Loved the soundtrack for the Serbia level! Still, as fun as it might be to pop it in and give it a whirl, it's not a perfect game. Far from it.

    Mariom do you have a list of games that you wouldn't have considered perfect at launch but they have grown on you and aged well and now you consider them immortal?

    Sometimes I gain appreciation for some of the things that may have frustrated me at the time. I think I gained a lot more appreciation for Super Mario Sunshine after games like that started becoming more and more scarce. I still wouldn't call it immortal, though. But I sure as heck would love to play it again! And of all the platform games released on the Gamecube, few rose up to Sunshine's level, so you know what? It was a very good game, despite all of its many, many, very many flaws. Not immortal, though.

    Posted September 11th by mariomguy

    Melee

    I actually think melee has to go on my perfect scores list.

    320x240 @ 15fps LDR, bro.

    Its not even that because SMW looks great still. Its just Goldeneye's terrible character models and blocky trees and caves that looked weird even when the game was new. I think the actual guns look good still. They've aged well at least. The levels/environments, not so much.

    Have you played Perfect Dark Remake on 360? It has the Facility and the Temple at the very least.

    --


    Do you really think Mario Kart 64 is one of the worst MK games?


    Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Melee was missing two and a half things. Online play, board the platforms and the bumper item which they replaced with a shitty flipped one.

    Posted September 11th by Weid man

    Brawl tried online play but it had connection issues. Smash 4 had retarded paid dlc.

    Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Its not even that because SMW looks great still. Its just Goldeneye's terrible character models and blocky trees and caves that looked weird even when the game was new.

    Oh, when the game was new it looked amazing. James bond jumping into the dam? Hell yeah! But there were horrific framerate drops (which did not happen at all in SMW) and yeah, the blocky everything.

    Do you really think Mario Kart 64 is one of the worst MK games?

    Yes, until I went back and played the SNES again. Controls got a million times better as the series progressed. Mario Kart DS mastered D-pad controls.

    Melee was missing two and a half things. Online play, board the platforms and the bumper item which they replaced with a shitty flipped one.

    Online play was a big draw for Brawl and the Wii U, but it never ran completely successfully. The Wii U version was the best for online. I think I prefer Melee's target practice to board the platforms. It was a challenge to get a good score with every character. And the bumper item in Melee was a bit weird, but seriously, look at all the stuff Melee has that no one else does: bonuses, crazy difficult character unlocks, and of course the slick, fast, and clean controls!

    Posted September 11th by mariomguy

    Smash switch better be worth it because it’s also going to be paid by every gamer who wants to use their o line service.

    Posted September 11th by Weid man

    I have really fond memories of Mario Kart 64 and I beat it on the hardest difficulty with ease, but at the time I thought Gran Turismo 1 and Need For Speed III Hot Pursuit were objectively better racing games. Mario Kart 64's lightning bolt is OP and I don't like a game that punishes you for being good and rubberbands.

    The most fun I had with it was definitely battle mode.

    I really don't like all the flying and bouncing and all that bullshit in MK8, I would prefer that tires stay on the road. MK7 is probably the best game, then MK DS and MK Wii IMO.

    Edited September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    MK8 is fucking beautiful aesthetically, don't get me wrong. But I think I'll stick to Forza 6 and Horizon 3 and GTAV for driving.

    Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Diddy Kong Racing tried to make a good racing game with different vehicles, but it didn't really work because the controls and flow just wasn't there. Mario Kart 8 nailed all that stuff. Not only is it beautiful, but it controls like a dream. And you can change your kart and character to change the controls and aesthetics to suit your tastes. The items are based off of distance, not place, and there is a lot more nuance to the racing with the coins and everything. The scale in Mario Kart 8 is also one of the most important things: for a Mario Kart game, the scale is HUGE. Tracks are wide and levels feel very big. It feels appropriate that a racing game where you go fast also has a bigger world. All of these details are tuned just right to make this experience that is so effortlessly smooth and slick it's impossible to find a flaw.

    The flying portions are kept to a minimum. But seriously, you can't go down Mount Wario, Toad's Harbor, and Royal Raceway and tell me this game isn't as close to perfection as MK-style kart-racing is ever going to get. Sure, battling sucks, but racing is pure bliss!

    Posted September 11th by mariomguy

    I guess I am just a racing sim kinda guy. I don't think any driving game will top the original GT for me. But Forza 6 tries it's best.

    Posted September 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Sissy Kong racing doesn’t have a socialist item reward system like mario kart does.

    Edited September 12th by Weid man



    Posted September 12th by mariomguy

    Also, Big Blue:



    And Mount Wario:



    And Royal Raceway:



    Mario Kart 8 is a masterclass of gamefeel. This game has it in spades!

    Posted September 12th by mariomguy

    It is pretty cool that there is a Captain Falcon themed level.

    Posted September 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Diddy Kong Racing tried to make a good racing game with different vehicles, but it didn't really work because the controls and flow just wasn't there. Mario Kart 8 nailed all that stuff.

    I mean it's not completely fair to judge a game that came out it...1997 to one that came out in 2014. If you did an "at-the-time" comparison I think that DKR was better than 64. And of the two I think DKR holds up better than 64. I never really had a problem with the controls but the controller was certainly an awkward thing to use with it. They nailed plane and hovercraft mechanics but the car mechanics were a little lacking.

    Edit: If we did have to look at Mario Kart games that hold up I think that 8 will hold up for a real long time. The only other one I think that holds up is Double Dash and that's for its mechanics.

    Edited September 12th by Fox Forever

    Double dash doesn't control well even though it has a lot of good ideas and some pretty fantastic music.

    Posted September 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Really? I personally never had a problem with the controls of the game, but admittedly it's not up to par control wise or customizable wise compared to MK8.

    Posted September 12th by Fox Forever

    When was the last time you played it? I find it controls even worse than Mario Kart 64 although it doesn't have the frame rate drops or glitches of that game.

    Edited September 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Mario kart 64 definitely has major glitches on the Wii virtual console. Some races it ran the speed of 200cclioe it has in mario kart 8.

    Posted September 12th by Weid man

    Probably about a month ago. It's a common multiplayer game amongst my friends. It's lasted longer than MKWii.

    Posted September 12th by Fox Forever

    I think maybe I have my racing sim goggles on because Forza 6,7, and Horizon 3, and even GTAV control really well and it's painful to go back and play double dash. There's so much sliding and the controls aren't very nimble.

    Posted September 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I'm probably just used to years of playing Mario Kart. Also GTA IV and V (haven't played Forza or Horizon) feel like the front of the car is being controlled whereas Mario Kart feels like the whole car is being controlled. You can't spin out really.

    Posted September 12th by Fox Forever

    It depends on the model of car. They simulate cars pretty well based on Four-wheel drive, Rear-wheel drive or front-wheel drive. Even the original Gran Turismo on PS1 does this. You just need to understand the dynamics of the car you're driving with some research.

    Edited September 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I usually just try to play and understand the mechanics of the car afterwards, lol.

    Posted September 12th by Fox Forever

    Fair enough.

    Posted September 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    For RPG's a strong story line and large open areas to explore.

    Games that come to mind:

    Baldur's Gate 90
    Baldur's Gate II 90
    Fallout 2 95
    Fallout 3 98
    The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind 100
    The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 98



    Edited September 12th by chiefsonny

    Of those games, Chief, would you give any or all of them a perfect score?

    I give Oblivion such a score.

    I never played Baldur's Gate games. Hmm. What are they like?

    Posted September 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I left out the best one of all and my favorite:

    Planescape: Torment 100

    Posted September 12th by chiefsonny

    I never played Baldur's Gate games. Hmm. What are they like?


    These are role playing games that take place in the Forgotten Realms using AD&D 2nd edition rules.

    You lead a party to complete quest to aid the Realms.

    The original games where released in the late 90's. And the Enhanced Editions were released in 2012 I think.

    The original series had 4 games.

    You can buy the Enhanced Editions for the first 2 at GOG.com

    Posted September 12th by chiefsonny

    Morrowind would get closer to a perfect score from me if it had two things. More voice acting (and hence less reading), and fast traveling. But I guess Oblivion spoiled me. I would reverse your scores and go 98 for Morrowind and 100 for Oblivion. Oblivion is a game where you can almost forget reality even exists for a couple hours.

    Edited September 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Scores are generally silly (although I don't hate critics using a numerical system to sum up things up at the end of their reviews), but I don't think 100 means the game is "perfect." Nothing is or can be perfect. 100 would, to me, just mean that the game is great and super cohesive and incredibly well designed.

    Like, I wouldn't blame anyone for giving Dark Souls a 100. It has issues, but it is one of the most strongly designed games I've played, personally. Or, like, I really, really love Thomas Was Alone and think that game is super well crafted. Portal 2 is another I would consider giving a score of 100 (or 10/10 or whatever). But I just operate with the understanding that everything fundamentally has flaws, and that if a game is good enough or well designed enough, something like a few glitches here and there or a few areas being cut off early on doesn't mean points should be deducted.

    Posted September 13th by Jet Presto

    Scores are generally silly (although I don't hate critics using a numerical system to sum up things up at the end of their reviews)

    Isn't that what "points" is? Just a way to sum up what you thought overall after some critical analysis?

    Or, like, I really, really love Thomas Was Alone and think that game is super well crafted.

    Yeah, I think it was nicely minimalist but the story was pretty great.

    something like a few glitches here and there or a few areas being cut off early on doesn't mean points should be deducted.

    I feel like glitches are just a given with games. Unless they absolutely break the game they probably won't end up subtracting "points" from the overall game.

    Posted September 13th by Fox Forever

    Isn't that what "points" is? Just a way to sum up what you thought overall after some critical analysis?

    I guess you take a number of different aspects, gameplay, story, music, graphics, etc and rank each of those out of 10 to figure out what you give the game as a whole out of 100. Some people may forgive a game more for having sub optimal graphics if it plays really tight though.

    Posted September 13th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I guess you take a number of different aspects, gameplay, story, music, graphics, etc and rank each of those out of 10 to figure out what you give the game as a whole out of 100.

    Some sites I've seen do this and in my opinion it's just weird to do it on an average thing. Even if the story is not a 10 but the gameplay and everything else is it just comes out to be like an 8.something. Average score for values within the game make it weird and makes it to where you can't overlook some slight "flaws" a game may have.

    Posted September 13th by Fox Forever

    Isn't that what "points" is? Just a way to sum up what you thought overall after some critical analysis?


    Average score for values within the game make it weird and makes it to where you can't overlook some slight "flaws" a game may have.


    I love your new avatar, by the way.

    Posted September 13th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Thanks. Were those two quotes supposed to conflict with each other?

    If so maybe I can explain better what I mean:

    Overall points are fine for me. 4/5 or 8/10 or 80/100 or whatever works for me in what someone thinks as an overall value for what they got out of the game. What's weird is when someone does it Gametrailer's style and says the gameplay is a 10, graphics are a 9, Replay value is a 6 and story is a 3 then says the game is a "7/10" because they took the average of all of it.

    Edited September 13th by Fox Forever

    Cruinn has a profound knowledge of the English language. When debating him you have to re-read what you write numerous times before posting. I learned this the hard way

    Posted September 13th by Brandy

    I was checking them over to see my flaws (if that's what's happening) and I don't see it easily. I'm not looking to debate him, he's (potentially) pointing out inconsistencies in my reasoning.

    Posted September 13th by Fox Forever

    Thanks. Were those two quotes supposed to conflict with each other?


    I just found those sentences humorous with the context of your avatar being the top merit list.

    Posted September 13th by Cruinn-Annuin

    What would a game need to do to get a 100/100?

    In my mind, it must have no identifiable objective flaws, and it must entirely satisfy my subjective impulses. There are a handful of games that accomplish this, and so unlike many (perhaps most) of the others here I am, in theory, prepared to award perfect scores.

    Let's look at Super Mario World, since you brought it up. Is there a single thing objectively wrong with it? There are a couple spots with sprite flicker and slowdown, but that's about all I can think of. I could consider what an achievement it was in 1990, but I don't think these comparative considerations matter all that much. I would much rather look at it in a vacuum. Even then, I would award Mario World something close to 100. It possesses a staggering breadth of content that somehow still feels lean and breezy on account that it contains no filler. It still looks great. It still inspires a sense of wonder (in me, anyway). It is still one of the best, and I enjoy it more than most.

    I've written a fair number of quasi-reviews and assorted essays for games over the years, and at no point have I ever thought it would be appropriate to conclude with a score. This is because it would be fruitless for me to try and find a numerical meeting point between objective observation and my subjective reactions. For instance, my favorite game is Dark Souls. But I can easily make a laundry list of flaws. It is loaded with textures that looked muddy even in 2011. Its original release saw serious performance issues in certain areas, like Blighttown. A few of the latter areas (Demon Ruins, Lost Izalith, the Crystal Caves, etc) are so poorly put together that the point when the team ran out of time becomes an almost tangible line of demarcation. You can practically see the sleep deprived designer haphazardly placing clusters of Taurus Demons because his deadline was yesterday. Honestly, some of these later areas feel like fan content made with a level editor.

    I can't in good conscience give it a perfect score, but in awarding an "objective" 80/100 I would be deliberately missing what was important. Dark Souls is incredibly enjoyable. It is, as games go, meaningful to a lot of us that have played it. How can something that's so flawed have this effect on us? In spite of the bad textures, I see the beauty of Anor Londo. The broken Bed of Chaos encounter barely registers in my mind, while the duel with Smough and Ornstein is unforgettable. Seeing the recognition in Sif's face after I've returned from the Abyss is my favorite moment in all of gaming. What's a bad Hydra fight or two going to matter to me in that context? The way you build your character, with the weapons, armor, spells, and items that you cobble together in order to take on this dying world (i.e. "git gud"); that's where the magic is.



    A reviewer should weigh practical concerns that I might be willing to ignore, though naturally different reviewers have different styles. There's a time and a place for talking about how games make us feel, but reviews are generally more interested in advising us how we should spend our money. Still, you have options. You go to Jeff Gerstmann for unapologetic sobriety and Tim Rogers for his life story which incidentally may or may not involve something to do with a video game. And of course you can go to Polygon if you want to know whether or not there are enough "people of color" in The Witcher.

    The games that would likely populate my top 20 are to varying degrees imperfect, and these imperfections exist almost independently of how I would ultimately rank them. An example of a "perfect" game in my mind is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. I cannot name a single thing wrong with it. Even the English voice acting manages to be flawless. It may have been unintentional, but the stilted, awkwardly delivered dialogue perfectly captures the B movie spirit that the series had been celebrating since its NES origins. SotN might make the cut for my top 20, but there are others I'd definitely rank above it. Tactics Ogre, Suikoden II, Baldur's Gate, Star Fox 64, Super Metroid (another perfect game!), and Rondo of Blood are among them. They may not all be 100/100, but they are 10/10, if that makes sense. By making the score less granular there's less of a pretense that I'm taking objective measurements when all I'm really doing is using a number to convey how much I happen to like a game.

    Edited September 13th by Famov
    Reply to: What would a game need to do to get a 100/100? 2.0

    Enter your message here


    Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
    GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on