Want a good laugh? PC Gamers Top 100 of all time list

[Craig234]

I'd have a hard time with this in light of the definitions I mentioned.

Take Command and Conquer: Red Alert. Do I rank it as a great classic, remembering how fun it was? Or do I rank it far lower as a lower res, primitive game by today's standards?

Does Heroes of Might and Magic 1 get credit for how groundbreaking it was - or downgraded as far worse than its sequels?

There's a certain 'oh ya that was a classic' reaction to a lot of games, that fades when you say 'would you like to play it for 24 hours now?'

People can't even agree on what's better - is a carebear move in MMO's good or bad?

 

[irishScott]

Why is FTL even on the list? Don't get me wrong it's a good game and is representative of the new breed of kick-starter games, but it's hardly the 18th best game at all time.

And Mass Effect 2 at number 2? Seriously? Above System Shock 2, above Half Life Two, above Deus Ex... once again I loved the game, but 2nd best game of all time? No way in hell.

 

[irishScott]

I'd have a hard time with this in light of the definitions I mentioned.

Take Command and Conquer: Red Alert. Do I rank it as a great classic, remembering how fun it was? Or do I rank it far lower as a lower res, primitive game by today's standards?

Does Heroes of Might and Magic 1 get credit for how groundbreaking it was - or downgraded as far worse than its sequels?

There's a certain 'oh ya that was a classic' reaction to a lot of games, that fades when you say 'would you like to play it for 24 hours now?'

People can't even agree on what's better - is a carebear move in MMO's good or bad?

In my mind it's about more than the game experience judged by modern standards.

Say we were making a list of the best fighter jets of all time. Sure the F-22 has the most raw capability, but what about the P-51 Mustang that ensured the success of allied bombers in WWII? What about the Spitfires that won the battle of Britain? Or to take the opposite side, what about the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the most produced fighter in history and the lynchpin of German air superiority at the start of the war? Hell we could look at other wars with similar logic.

But, if you are going to judge "best" purely based on modern performance, then you need genres and that criteria should be stated. The "top X of all time" implies something criteria consisting of more than raw performance by modern standards.

 

[JoetheLion]

The list is a very sad example of how people don't have long term memory. + It sheds light on how young the editors of pc gamer are. I think that they change their editors when they reach certain age (or was it game informer?). I bet people who made this list haven't played most of the games. Especially not those which were published more than 10 years ago.

Funny thing about the criteria is, that in genres like RPG or FPS, the newer games are basically downgrading the concept, shallowing it in the process and making it look more generic in the end. So in hindsight, the older games of these genres were not only more progressive in their time, but they are still more complex on many levels like level design, storytelling, depth of character development and player's options how to deal with problems.

 

[irishScott]

Is this list in descending order?

Maybe it's inside/out.


.

So World of Goo is the best game of all time?

 

[Craig234]

In my mind it's about more than the game experience judged by modern standards.

Say we were making a list of the best fighter jets of all time. Sure the F-22 has the most raw capability, but what about the P-51 Mustang that ensured the success of allied bombers in WWII? What about the Spitfires that won the battle of Britain? Or to take the opposite side, what about the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the most produced fighter in history and the lynchpin of German air superiority at the start of the war? Hell we could look at other wars with similar logic.

But, if you are going to judge "best" purely based on modern performance, then you need genres and that criteria should be stated. The "top X of all time" implies something criteria consisting of more than raw performance by modern standards.

Ya, but then it's subjective how to weigh the value then versus the value later.

When one game is groundbreaking, and a sequel improves it but gets less attention because it's just evolutionary but is clearly better, which do you rank higher?

Take Warcraft 1, 2 and 3. I enjoyed 2 more than 3 - some like 3 better. They're pretty different. How do you rank one over the other, each with its following?

How about Fallout 1, 2 and 3, if 2 was an 'improved' 1, and 3 was a much bigger budget modern game? Maybe 1 made a bigger splash but 3 can be argued to be 'better'.

Rollercoaster Tycoon 1, 2, 3, same thing.

I'm not saying to strictly rank by 'modern standards', but it's odd to rate inferior games high.

Nevermind trying to compare the puzzles of a Myst with the multi-player of TF2 with the RPG of Dragon Edge. Different people prefer each.

 

[Quantos]

Thing is, you hardly get a more subjective topic than "top x" lists. Not only are they certain to change wildly base on the person coming up with the list, they are also certain to be different depending on the factors used to determine the list as well.

It would probably be possible to come up with a list that only accounts for quantifiable data, like peak popularity, total copies sold, etc., but these are not enough to rate the "best" game overall.

In the end, yes, this list is pretty ridiculous, but it's also the opinion of whoever wrote it. We all probably have our own lists as well, which are just as valid as this one.

I must say, though... Diablo 3, but neither 2 or 1? I just made an argument on subjectivity, but the hard data confirming D3 sucks donkey balls is so overwhelming that I really get the feeling nobody should be allowed, ever, to rate D3 over D2/1

 

[irishScott]

Ya, but then it's subjective how to weigh the value then versus the value later.

When one game is groundbreaking, and a sequel improves it but gets less attention because it's just evolutionary but is clearly better, which do you rank higher?

Take Warcraft 1, 2 and 3. I enjoyed 2 more than 3 - some like 3 better. They're pretty different. How do you rank one over the other, each with its following?

How about Fallout 1, 2 and 3, if 2 was an 'improved' 1, and 3 was a much bigger budget modern game? Maybe 1 made a bigger splash but 3 can be argued to be 'better'.

Rollercoaster Tycoon 1, 2, 3, same thing.

I'm not saying to strictly rank by 'modern standards', but it's odd to rate inferior games high.

Nevermind trying to compare the puzzles of a Myst with the multi-player of TF2 with the RPG of Dragon Edge. Different people prefer each.

Well like I said, they should spell out their criteria. Just looking at that list I have no freaking idea how they're judging anything. It looks like some 17 year old nerd just put together his top 100 favorite games.

 

[Sulaco]

What a joke and a sham.

 

[xeledon20005]

how the hell did call of duty 2 not make it, it was the best cod released for pc.

 

[nanobreath]

The biggest problem here is that the list is copied and pasted without any of their reasoning and justifications. For starters, they don't regard this as the best games of all time, but the CURRENT top 100 games. I.E. the top 100 games they would like to play today, right now, in their current form. As a result most of the games are recent and have great longevity/replayability.

That said, there are still some fucked up choices on their list.

 

[Craig234]

No Legend of Grimrock? Give me a break on that.

 

[acheron]

The biggest problem here is that the list is copied and pasted without any of their reasoning and justifications. For starters, they don't regard this as the best games of all time, but the CURRENT top 100 games. I.E. the top 100 games they would like to play today, right now, in their current form. As a result most of the games are recent and have great longevity/replayability.

I guess that makes a little more sense.

 

[darkewaffle]

ME2, HL2 and Bioshock are all pretty solid entries at least as far as a top 10 goes imo.

 

[EDUSAN]

we all agree that is impossible to make a top x of something that has been around for 30+ years and that every 5 the technology changes so much that makes what was done before like a joke, right?

everyone is gonna vote the games that they remember more from their childhood and the games that they remember being great for them

for instance, i would have added street fighter 2 and mortal kombat (1 or 2, they were both great) somewhere in the top 100
tetris?
return to castle wolfstein? i would have voted the original wolfstein. RTCW was not THAT great, you cant vote ARMA II when people only got it because of a mod.
you cant have counter strike global offence but not having the original counter strike. GO is so new that there is no way it could be on a top 100 OF ALL TIME
l4d2? top 10? really? that game is great but its one that comes and goes
DOTA 2?

and im not even looking too much at the list...

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

Christ, have they just got monkeys on typewriters at PC Gamer? Immediately the following springs to mind:

• Far Cry 2 does not belong, even though I liked it
• Starcraft 2 above Starcraft: Brood War? Lol wut?
• No Unreal Tournament?
• No Total Annihilation?
• FTL does not belong on that list, even though I liked it
• Planetside 2 is good in theory, a royal mess in practice
• No mention of Battlefield 2 (superior to BF3)
• No mention of Battlefield 2142 (arguably better than BF2?)
• Counter Strike: Global Offensive doesn't belong on that list, but Counter Strike does
• As said by someone else, the hell is DayZ doing in this list?
• Bioshock Infinite #16? GTFO it's copy-pasta Bioshock but in the sky and not the sea

 

[Stringjam]

The whole point of top 100 lists is to generate debate and contention, resulting in clicks (hits), which increase ad revenue.

It's not like PC gamer actually cares about creating objective lists for the mere pleasure of the PC gaming community.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

The whole point of top 100 lists is to generate debate and contention, resulting in clicks (hits), which increase ad revenue.

It's not like PC gamer actually cares about creating objective lists for the mere pleasure of the PC gaming community.

No such thing

 

[Quantos]

Holycrap, DayZ is on there? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but it's nowhere near good enough in its current state (as a mod of Arma2) to be there

 

[shortylickens]

I'm not one to call someone's opinions wrong but that list is so ridiculously wrong they have to be trolling their readers. It's like they think PC gaming started in 2004.

No, baldurs gate is on there.

 

[Raduque]

No Homeworld. Wat.

 

[Triglet]

No BF 1942? Please.

 

[gorcorps]

I stopped reading when I saw Far Cry 2.

Especially given the original isn't on there...

Did anybody check to see if this list even agrees with their reviews of those games? I mean if they actually gave Skyrim a perfect 10 on their individual review and nothing else, at least it's consistent.

 

[JamesV]

I actually agree with Skyrim being #1.

With the state it is in today, with the huge amount of user-made content, including graphic upgrades, armor and weapons, animals and skins, there simply has never been another game this immersive and expansive.

While I love other games like the original Thief 2 better, none of these games are anywhere near as impressive technically, nor have anywhere near the content available.

I'd say that makes a #1 game.


How the hell Tribes 2 and Ascend are on there, but not the original is a crime though.

 

[gorcorps]

The biggest problem here is that the list is copied and pasted without any of their reasoning and justifications. For starters, they don't regard this as the best games of all time, but the CURRENT top 100 games. I.E. the top 100 games they would like to play today, right now, in their current form. As a result most of the games are recent and have great longevity/replayability.

That said, there are still some fucked up choices on their list.

So, are you saying the OP has a misleading title? It says "of all time" but if that's not what it was actually presented as then maybe that should be explained in the first place.