Be Excellent To Each Other

I hinted about this a couple of weeks ago but I think it’s time we put together a brand new, all time top 50 games of all time.

It’ll be interesting to see how much this list differs from the first as we’ve lost a few regular posters since the last one and there’s been quite a few blockbusters released. We’ve also had a number of new consoles released and who knows, maybe you’ve rediscovered something that passed you by the first time around? I know I have.

So how do you vote? That’s the million dollar question, I’m open to suggestions on this.

Last time we asked forum members to compile a top 10. We then fed the results through our super computer (Chinny) which gave each number 1 game, 10 points. Number 2 games got 9 points and so on. Then the top 50 is compiled from the highest scoring games but what if we have a tie? I suppose we then look at which game received the highest number of high scores.

I think this system works? What does everyone think? If you don’t like it, can you suggest an alternative?
Also, do we include all games in a series in one entry or do we look at that on a case by case basis? The Monkey Island games could all fit in the same entry but I don’t think the Resident Evil games would.

Let’s debate these bits and anything else that comes up before I create a separate thread for the list but in the mean time, have a think about what game you’d like to see in the top 50. It can’t hurt to put some thought into it early.

Feel free to write about them too when voting! There might be some way of incorporating mini reviews within the thread.

Is this an OF ALL TIME type of thing? All formats?

No. Just the Virtual Boy and Atari Jaguar CD add on....

Of course it is silly. What else would it be?

I agree, but it's hard to say why.
So in the end i kind of disagree.

I wouldnt rule on it and rely on people being interesting enough to not submit 5 CoDs and 5 Fifas

1) quantum ninja
2) Try not to fart.
3)avatour
4)avatar hi five
mmm, after that it gets tricky.

I can see Try Not to Fart making the top 50 you know....

I think everyone's number 1 choice should be worth proportionally more to give it extra weight. You could do it like F1 if you like (as an example):

1. 25
2. 18
3. 15
4. 12
5. 10
6. 8
7. 6
8. 4
9. 2
10. 1

I think it should be a specific game only rather than a game series. Pick your favourite, if it's good enough it'll place! Seems unfair to arbitrarily count some but not others.

-edit- for example, if half of us think Final Fantasy VII is best and half think VIII is the best, but don't rate the other, I'm not sure Final Fantasy should take the top spot if everyone else thinks GTA V is their second best game of all time.

You're right. The more I think about it, the more we should have each individual game listed.

if we don't, where do we draw the line? Like you say, Final Fantasy is a series but all quite different? Burnout is a series with some games clearly better than others.

Yep. Let's keep them separate.

Also, nice idea on the scoring. We could use that.

No, definitely not. I honestly can't understand how that could be considered a good idea?

FIFA.

It was done with some game series last time and turned out to be demonstrably shit and unfair.

In cases like doom/doom 2, where the second is essentially an addon (or more modernly, dlc) to the first.

Doom 2 is worse than doom anyway.

So vote for Doom. If Doom 2 is worse, why would you choose it and why would it benefit from being bundled with the first game? Surely it'd drag the first game down.

As much as we mock it there are game mechanic differences between the FIFA games so if you're an aficionado of the series you should still be able to pick a favorite.

Championship Manager, Madden.

Hell, to a large extent, Civilisation.

Also, last time UFO and XCOM were counted as separate, though, and they're the actual same game!

But they were released separately? I think we should strip it down to releases. If they're separate releases, we count them separately.

I'm assuming we are going format independent. i.e. If I say Gauntlet, then I don't need to say whether I mean the arcade version, or the Spectrum version, or any in between those polar opposites.

What would really help is a list of all games, as i'm fucking awful at remembering shit

wind waker HD > wind waker.

Yeah, but since you're the only person to have played it, it won't matter that much.

Seems a bit unfair to count Madden as a series considering there have been 25 entries - surely some of them have been pretty duff? Same with Fifa. Fifa 97 is shocking, but Fifa 09 was deemed by many as the pinnacle of the series.

If a Fifa game is good enough, enough people will pick the best one. If it splits votes, then it doesn't deserve to. Just because they pump one out year after year it doesn't deserve to be up there just because of release saturation.

SOTC HD > SOTC

If anyone puts any FIFA or Madden in their top 10 of all time they don't deserve a vote.

1) SOTC HD
2) SOTC
3) etc

I like madden, although it wouldn't even get a sniff at my top 50.

Games that slightly tweak the graphics and nothing else... why would you pick the old blur-o-vision version?

Because it's the only one you have?

If you'd only played the original and not bought the HD version. Not that it matters, they're the same game and should be counted as one.

I don't think there would be a need to mention which version of SOTC has been voted for. We can always break it down in the game description if people really wanted to though.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I haven't a clue which one is best or even remember which one I prefer, but I would say it's a classic game. Though the best example of this is Championship Manager / Football Manager. Just having to pick one year is retarded. You could have it come in positions 51-65, yet the series could finish #1 if tallied together. If not then people could end up (less so in this forum, but in theory) voting for 10 iteration of CM, as it is their favourite game, and all ten versions are better than their #2 game.

So you're wrong.

But sometimes they're not. (see: wind waker)

Syndicate > Syndicate

In cases like this, I would hope that the nominator would indicate which game they mean.

They're fundamentally the same game, if you're genuinely so anal you believe they need to be nominated separately before the spirit of this idea can be served then there's probably something deeply wrong with you.

We're also in very serious danger of spending more time arguing about FIFA than actually just doing this. I would suggest we stick initially to the common sense ideas of original/HD re-makes count as one as while franchise entries are separate and wait to see if anyone actually votes in a way that makes this a problem before we spend ages teasing out the sodding details, because there's a very high chance it won't even matter in the final accounting.

Can we have a list of proposed rules for this top 50, and everyone vote on them with a weighted score from 1st to 10th choice?

Does everyone agree with British Nervoso/F1 scoring structure?

my point is more that choosing a particular line to separate games is somewhat difficult, and more reliant on common sense than anything.

No. I want Motogp style scoring. No double points!

Well, d'uh. This is the Internet.

Indeed, if we did F1 style, the 19th person to vote would count double.

I have been convinced by the HD remaster argument. Curio's about Madden/Fifa is just retarded and he's just proven that he knows nothing about games.

You're an idiot.

I want to give a Civ game votes, but would prefer to give it to whichever is highest ranked, lest the vote be 'wasted' and we end up with a Top 50 where #31-50 are all iterations of other games in the Top 50.

Hint: Not Civ III

You could argue for the ability to vote for things such as "the call of duty serirs" or "the halo series except 4, as it was pap" and have them go in the most popular matching bucket.

Totally disagree. I would want to vote for CIV IV but would be disgusted if that vote went to III or V.

Iterations of games are still different games! They have different graphics, sound, mechanics etc. If more people vote for Civ III than Civ IV that just means Civ IV is considered a better game and Civ III can suck it. The fact that you want to lump all games in a series together regardless of any differences just means you're trying to answer a different question from everyone else i.e. 'what is the best game series' vs 'what is the best individual game'.

I'd say that if someone votes for 'Civ 2', the points go to 'Civ 2'. If someone goes for 'Civilisation' without specifying a version, the points get shared equally between all versions on the list.

I'd say that if someone votes for 'Civ 2', the points go to 'Civ 2'. If someone goes for 'Civilisation' without specifying a version, the points get split equally between all versions on the list.

But there's not THAT much difference between them.

So, if my three favourites games were FIFA and Civ, my top ten should look like this:

FIFA 12
FIFA 11
FIFA 09
FIFA 04
Civ 4
Civ 2
Civ 3
Civ 1
Civ 5
FIFA 10

Which is just so obviously ridiculous, and most people saying that they like one iteration of those series and loathe all the others are just talking bullshit.

I'm pretty sure every one of these lists I have ever seen anywhere does this the same way as me.

I assume that since 'Same game engine, slightly different content' is a different game, then all DLC warrants separate entries.

I will vote for Civ V. That's certain.

What about SWOS? Every iteration is more or less the same.

this sounds fair and incredibly difficult for grim... To implement so I approve mightily. The diminished returns for franchises that are longer than others can double as a handy penalty for franchises that have gone on for too bloody long.

but it should go

[civilization:misc]