Be Excellent To Each Other

Has it though? All I've seen are posts on various forums with the list and people arguing.

I've only bought Edge when they did that whole 200 different covers thing, and I was tricked into it just to see what cover i got. I hated the magazine. Completely sterile, no soul whatsoever. They don't even bother to sign the articles, as if they're written by some sort of AI.

It's got people talking about it in any case. If it was to encourage magazine sales then this list can't have done any harm at all.

I have played 19 and "finished" 3.

Forgive my ignorance but isn't Tetris Blitz the mobile phone game? The one with in-app purchases? And touchscreen controls? It's therefore worse than Tetris on Gameboy.

Yup, but it's a lot of fun.

Edge still exists?

Plaued 58 of them.

I do, naturally, agree with #1.

This person thinks there are 69 games that are better than L4D2. That makes them fools at best, dangerously insane at worst.

Wat.

Yes.

good. I thought i was the only one.



Never played Tetris Blitz, but there's no reason for the original Tetris to be there instead of Tetris DS.

I disagree with the notion that classics should be replaced in lists like these with later games that basically do the same thing but with better graphics.

Anyone who doesn't like hitting zombies with fire axes is fundamentally broken.

It didn't add enough to be a genuine sequel, and it split the userbase by being released a mere 12 months after the first game.

And six years later we still don't have L4D3 - Evolve looks pants.

If they release a new L3D I will probably buy a new console. Maybe, I will not state for certainty I will, but I would certainly consider it.

For some reason I've thought of this part of the thread a few times throughout the day and it has amused me, so thanks for that.

If they basically do the same thing why would better graphics not make them better? Should people stick with worse presentation when better is available through some kind of weird loyalty to an older game? I don't think that really makes much sense.

You could argue they're better or worse games. Better because they've been refined and polished, or worse because they lack innnovation and are just a retread.

Lacking innovation doesn't somehow actually make a game worst to play though so I think that argument would be very hard to make.

It all depends what your criteria are for 'best game'.

Of course, but the implication here is that a game should only be judged 'best' if it's also the first to do something and that's not a meaning of the word best I've ever heard.

What about Call of Duty, or Fifa as examples? The most recent games might be the most polished and therefore provide the best graphics and gameplay, but franchise fatigue may ensure that no one would consider them 'best' in the series.

Fifa 15 > Fifa 16 (and 13 > 14. It's like the Star Trek films).

09 is the last one I played, so I'm enjoying 16 well enough.

It split the userbase into losers and winners, yes. Even if it wasn't a genuine sequel and was effectively just a map pack, that still has the same effect on the userbase.

not in the same way as then everyone has at least the core maps that you can fall back to. Rather than some people having both games, but the vast majority having just one or the other.

If something has the best graphics and gameplay then it's the best. It's completely fair for someone to say they're not interested in actually playing something because they're bored of that kind of game, but it still doesn't make any sense to deny that a particular entry in the series is the best example just because you personally aren't interested.

Actually it's completely subjective. My criteria for best game is obviously different from yours. This is where 'best of' lists fall down.

I am not sure I would replay CoD4 if it were released with updated graphics though.

The maps are worse, though. And the new mechanics (special undead, melee weapons, chainsaws with fuel, refuelling the car) are all OK in isolation but in totality they do more to clutter up the clean design of the original than they do to keep it fresh.

More isn't always better.

A list that doesn't have Doom in it because more polished FPSs have come out is just not a list I am interested in reading, that's all I am saying. I want to know about the classics, not the remakes.

But that's a totally different matter. Doom is still one of the best and most fun FPS, the same as Fallout being one of the best RPG's, even with lots of modern and prettier games around. If the next Doom is as good as the first but with better graphics and controls, then yes, in that case it should replace the 1st and 2nd.