IGN's Top 100 videogames of all time

virtua fighter 4 is crap. all you have to do is crouch and kick and you win. it's a proven theory. im a n00b and i've been plenty friends who are better than me. there needs to be tekken and soul calibur up there not to mention some street fighter or some last blade. hibiki has to be on that list.
 
Gemini said:
If Starcraft is in the top-ten i'll eat my hat with thousand ilsand dressing
Click to expand...

I'd buy a new hat then. Because StarCraft is STARCRAFT! It's still played to this day, and not just in Korea. I got back online back when StarCraft 2 was announced around May this year. B.net is still full of StarCraft players slightly 10 years after it came out.

And man...after years of not playing...those cats will school you amazingly fast.
 
Foolsfolly said:
I'd buy a new hat then. Because StarCraft is STARCRAFT! It's still played to this day, and not just in Korea. I got back online back when StarCraft 2 was announced around May this year. B.net is still full of StarCraft players slightly 10 years after it came out.

And man...after years of not playing...those cats will school you amazingly fast.
Click to expand...

if WoW is in the 80's, i wouldn't bet money on SC being in the top ten

top 20 or 30 definitley but not the top ten
 
Gemini said:
if WoW is in the 80's, i wouldn't bet money on SC being in the top ten

top 20 or 30 definitley but not the top ten
Click to expand...

You're talking about the most influential RTS of all time. One that's still played to this day. MMORPGs are a sub category of RPGs. And, even then, the analogy is still bad because, even though WoW is a great game, it's not perfect.

Starcraft is pretty close to perfect when it comes to an RTS. That's why Starcraft 2 isn't taking many risks.
 
And StarCraft 1 took risks.

Blizzard did WarCraft 1 and 2 before taking on StarCraft, and Orcs and Humans had units that were basically the same with different looks and select spells.

StarCraft has three races. The first fighting unit you get is either a ranged weak health anti-air human, two melee low low health zerg for the price of one human, or a rather strong melee character that was more expensive.

And somehow that was balanced with all the other factors in.

"StarCraft clone" was used for years after it. (Same with Diablo clone, Half-Life clone, Halo clone, etc)

It really changed RTS's.

And Blizzard's got a tough job on StarCraft 2. You don't want to scrape all those units. And you wouldn't want to really, since sequels should take the best of what came before it and add.

So the Goliath's gone, Vulture's gone, Wrath's gone, Valkyrie's gone, Scout's gone, Reaver's gone, Dragoon's gone.

They're cutting units left and right, the thing is they're mainly cutting units you never used because if you played Zerg online you did Zergling, Hydra, Muta and all other units were either ignored or used as support units (Defiler might be the most terrifying unit in the game due to it's plague power.)

Protoss. You Dragoon'd and then Corsair and Carrier'd the enemy with High Templer support.

Terran was all Marines and Medics followed by tanks and battlecruisers.

So they're doing new things and we still haven't seen all the new units and haven't even seen the Zerg outside of some Zergling and Mutas. I do think they're trying new things, but the fanbase is stopping them at some of it.

Like they were toying with a veterancy system. Not WarCraft 3's hero experience system, but that if a group of Marines survived a few rushes they would do more damage or have more health, since they're now vets.

The fanboys damn near tore each other apart. The most vocal fanbase for StarCraft seem to be e-sporters and they said it would un-balance the game. They made such a noise that Blizzard backed down.

Would it have un-balanced the game? I don't know. Bungie did that with Myth 1 and 2 back in the 90s. It was a small change that only made the difference in 1 of five matches.

But I do think it's unfair to say Blizzard isn't taking risks. They're getting trying some things that are rather different and risky.

I love the new Thor unit and can't wait till I'm able to wave them at my enemies. I love the transformers inspired Viking. I love the Mothership. I LOVE how the Ghost will FINALLY be worth using!

I think Blizzard's doing a good job of taking the old and mixing it with the new.

My only problem is I don't dig the cartoony graphics. It's not WarCraft.
 
Foolsfolly said:
And StarCraft 1 took risks.

Blizzard did WarCraft 1 and 2 before taking on StarCraft, and Orcs and Humans had units that were basically the same with different looks and select spells.

StarCraft has three races. The first fighting unit you get is either a ranged weak health anti-air human, two melee low low health zerg for the price of one human, or a rather strong melee character that was more expensive.

And somehow that was balanced with all the other factors in.

It really changed RTS's.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

ALSO, Warcraft III: The Reign of Chaos I think is just as good as Starcraft.

The fundamental thing that puts Starcraft heads and shoulders above Warcraft III: The Reign of Chaos is that it does most everything Warcraft did FIRST. (I also like Starcraft more, but that's not the point.)

(To Warcraft's credit it does introduce some minor interface solutions such as a hotkey to switch unit types in a group.)

Foolsfolly said:
And Blizzard's got a tough job on StarCraft 2. You don't want to scrape all those units. And you wouldn't want to really, since sequels should take the best of what came before it and add.

So the Goliath's gone, Vulture's gone, Wrath's gone, Valkyrie's gone, Scout's gone, Reaver's gone, Dragoon's gone.

They're cutting units left and right, the thing is they're mainly cutting units you never used because if you played Zerg online you did Zergling, Hydra, Muta and all other units were either ignored or used as support units.
Click to expand...
I never played much multiplayer Starcraft nor am I watching Starcraft II very closely, but I agree with this and I think it's an intelligent decision.

While all three sides were already balanced, the tactics that players chose to use distilled the race-groups that Blizzard created down to their best essence.

With Starcraft 2, they are now taking the decisions of the players to remove units and put units in that complement how players have interpreted each side.

They are basically co-designing the game based on the accumulated user preferences of the previous game.
 
They're also giving old units new abilities which change how you play them. Some of the things they've shown that they're doing looks real fun.

If you want to waste about 21 minutes on YouTube, Blizzard released a video of a demo of Protoss vs Terran two months ago. Some of the units you'll see are now gone (like the Protoss Photon cannons) and some powers are now gone or completely changed, but it gives you a good idea of what to expect.

I dig. I can't wait until it comes out.

Video 1, Video 2, and Video 3.

Besides the Protoss Carrier, the whole Protoss air force is brand new units. They don't even have the Shuttle anymore.
 
Foolsfolly said:
They're also giving old units new abilities which change how you play them. Some of the things they've shown that they're doing looks real fun.

Besides the Protoss Carrier, the whole Protoss air force is brand new units. They don't even have the Shuttle anymore.
Click to expand...
I'm agreeable with that.

By putting the emphasis on less units, more abilities, you could hypothetically shift the focus away from agonizing over the decision of which units to produce. I've never been a big fan of managing my production queue across a broad range of overly specialized units.

I'd rather produce infantry and vehicles and press a little button to enable an on-site upgrade or spend resources or unit-specific points (i.e. mana, energy) to initiate an ability,

I think Company of Heroes is a good example of this. Regardless of which infantry you're using (engineers, riflemen) they can all man a machine gun or an anti-tank cannon, and vehicles can be further specialized (i.e., a halftrack becomes an anti-infantry mobile platform, and a Sherman tank can be equipped with a flamethrower)
 
Then you'll love the Battlecruiser. You now upgrade each individual BC to have either the old Yamato Cannon (which is supposed to be useful now) or you can have a laser array which is used on massings of ground forces. It literally bombards the ground with laser beams killing whole groups of Marines, Hydras, or what have you.

If you mix up the two enough, you could have a force of cruisers which could cause serious damage in a short time.

And the Ghost's new abilities...wow.

There will still be a need to mass a large army, BUT if you watch your army and micromanage them you'll dominate larger forces that the player or computer just threw at you and then went to producing units.

So it should be a happy mix of StarCraft's massing and WarCraft 3's spells and powers. Which I'm all for. Now that Mass Effect is out, StarCraft 2 is the only game that I can't wait to get my hands on.
 
Lynx said:
No, but you don't seem to think Starcraft, the epitome of its genre, should be in the top ten. Reasons were given why and you ignored it.
Click to expand...

I conceded that it should be in the top 20 at the very least, but there are many other mainstays that need to be concidered before Starcraft, i assure you that 2 mario games will be in there, Ocarina of Time, Super Metroid, etc.

as much as i despise Starcraft (and pretty much all things Blizzard) i do understand the importance of the game, i just personally don't believe it will be in the top 10, that's it, and since i don't have any interest in reading about how awesome a game that bored me to tears is, I am not going to argue all these points with you.
 
Gemini said:
as much as i despise Starcraft (and pretty much all things Blizzard) i do understand the importance of the game, i just personally don't believe it will be in the top 10, that's it, and since i don't have any interest in reading about how awesome a game that bored me to tears is, I am not going to argue all these points with you.
Click to expand...
None of what might be construed as Starcraft fanboy wanking (although to be honest I havent fanboy'ed over the game since 2001) between Foolsfolly and I was even arguing in favor of Starcraft being in the top 10 or saying that you were selling it short by putting it 'only' in the top 20... so as much as it was blathering about how good it was

If that absolutely totally does not interest you, then just change the subject.

Honestly, I find a top 100 list ludicrous because such a long list makes the ranking seem arbitrary, especially when you're not basing it on quantified values. If Day of the Tentacle is a 9.0 and World of Warcraft is 9.0 why is one below the other?

I'm sure there are very good reasons to justify that ranking, but it's just so highly subjective and spread across a vast number that to disagree with it is simply projecting your own highly subjective 100 over another. To me, it makes greater sense to disagree with a list of Top 10 or Top 20.
 
You know a game I hope makes it in the top 50?

Morrowind. I'm not a huge fan of RPGs and the ones I do like tend to be more like X-Men Legends or Diablo where it's just a hack 'n slash. But Morrowind was a game that I got, played....and then discarded for about a year.

I played for few hours and quit. Then one day, I reinstall it to give it a new go...and I fell into a world that kept me playing for years.

I love Oblivion, but I don't think it's as strong as Morrowind was.

Of course, Knights of the Old Republic was great and is the only time I've ever played a game and got to that one point and I was actually dumbstruck. It was a gaming moment I will always have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top