The IGN Top Ten lists...

[Romier S]

I'm a sucker for a "Top Ten" list of just about anything. Since I rarely agree with them in general, it usually sparks some good discussion. IGN has been running some Top Ten lists of thier own including the Top Ten "Best Looking Games" on both the PS2 and the Gamecube.

 

Here is the Gamecube article:

 

http://cube.ign.com/articles/608/608634p1.html

 

Here is thier list of best looking games:

 

1. Metroid Prime

2. Resident Evil 4

3. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker

4. Beyond Good and Evil

5. F-Zero GX

6. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

7. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

8. Star Wars Rogue Squadron: Rogue Leader II

9. Star Fox Adventures

10. Viewtiful Joe

 

(Suprised Resident Evil 4 didn't take first place.)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Playstation 2 article:

 

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/606/606189p1.html

 

Thier list:

 

1. God of War

2. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

3. Jak 3

4. Zone of the Enders: Second Runner

5. Gran Turismo 4

6. Final Fantasy X

7. Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal

8. Onimusha 3: Demon Siege

9. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty

10. Ico

 

(No Tekken 5, Dark Cloud 2, or Silent Hill 3? They are more impressive graphically IMHO than Metal Gear Solid 2 or Final Fantasy.)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Finally they have the "Top Ten Most Challengine Games" on the Playstation 2. Here is the article:

 

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/608/608086p1.html

 

1. Contra: Shattered Soldier

2. Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening

3. Shinobi

4. Viewtiful Joe

5. Alien Hominid

6. Maximo: Ghosts to Glory

7. Grandia Xtreme

8. Jak 2

9. Stuntman

10. Manhunt

 

(Graduis V should have been on this list. Devil May Cry 3 is far easier than Shinobi and a few other games on that list.)

[kelley]

IMHO I think Ico needs to be in the top 5 of the best looking PS2 games. Personally I would have ordered the GCN's top two like 1) RE4 2) F-Zero.

[Josh]

IMHO I think Ico needs to be in the top 5 of the best looking PS2 games. Personally I would have ordered the GCN's top two like 1) RE4 2) F-Zero.

 

Agreed, although ICO doesn't look so hot on progressive displays due to the 240-line low-res engine.

[Romier S]

I'm utterly shocked that Silent Hill 3 didn't make it on the list. Aside from my undying love of the series, the lighting in the game is some of the most impressive you will see on the PS2. Not too mentioned the character models, and environments all running smoothly and without a hitch.

[Graeme]

Where's Fantavision?

[Josh]

I'm utterly shocked that Silent Hill 3 didn't make it on the list. Aside from my undying love of the series, the lighting in the game is some of the most impressive you will see on the PS2. Not too mentioned the character models, and environments all running smoothly and without a hitch.

 

Right - problem is this is a wholly aesthetic opinion. "Best looking" - does that mean art direction, graphic power, impressive lighting, level design? Or all of it? To me, it's all about art direction, and that would mean ICO, Primal, Sly Cooper, and Mark of Kri would have to be included on the PS2 list.

[Romier S]

To me, it's all about art direction

Sure, but to make a more balanced list of this type you need to take the technical aspects into account as well. I suppose that's my issue with these lists. I'm looking for a good balance. I'm all for art direction as far as aethetics are concerned, but technical achievement is an important component to me. Games like Dark Cloud 2 and Silent Hill 3 provide both excellent art direction and technical proficiency and I feel both were snubbed.

[Tom]

4. Viewtiful Joe

Really? I found it to be a bit challenging, but not likely worthy of top 4 on a top 10 list, or even part of the top 10.

 

9. Stuntman

10. Manhunt

 

Move these two up. Damn did they frustrate me to the point of giving the controller the old heave-ho into a wall.

 

The best looking list troubles me, as it just keeps reaffirming that the trend is towards judging a game by it's looks first, and then by how it plays. Kinda how most of the talk I hear between Forza and GT4 surrounds which one looks better, not which one is more fun to play with better racing simulation options.

[Chris]

My take on the lists:

 

Ten most challenging PS2 games ? OK, I haven't played most of these because I suck and I know it, so I avoid incredibly difficult games, but I have finished Jak 2, in a rental period no less, so there's no way it should be on the list. wooo! commas!

 

Ten best-looking PS2 games ? I can't argue much with this list, except that I would've definitely liked to see Dark Cloud 2 on it. I have to agree with them on God of War. Damn that game looks good.

 

Ten best-looking Gamecube games ? First-off, does Metroid Prime really look better than Metroid Prime 2: Echoes? I have both, but haven't really played 2 yet other than putting it in to make sure it worked. When it came out I remember hearing that it looked marginally better than it's predecessor. I guess I haven't seen the Dark Aether bit they're complaining about.

Resident Evil could easily be number 1 in my opinion. It just looks fantastic. Zelda is another great choice, just a superbly-designed graphical package. The cel-shaded look of it was done perfectly IMO. The music, too, but that's another top ten list.

OK, why Viewtiful Joe and not Viewtiful Joe 2? They both look great on my 'cube. I guess they picked the originator.

 

All in all, pretty good lists, especially considering the source (couldn't resist a dig at IGN ). Top whatever lists are always entertaining.

[foogledricks]

The best looking list troubles me, as it just keeps reaffirming that the trend is towards judging a game by it's looks first, and then by how it plays.

I think your quote above ignores the very lists that spawned the statement. The vast majority of the games on these lists are very well-received games (Manhunt might be an exception). As is the case with most best-of lists, the candidates are usually in a pool of good overall games to begin with. Then they pluck out the "Scariest, best looking, best sounding, best story, etc."

 

Otherwise we might have a "Hardest Game" list of incredibly difficult, but terribly unfun games that no one has ever heard of or would want to play. So I think most of the games on these lists already passed the "Worthy to play" test, and the calling out of their difficulty or prettiness is a secondary, but fun thing to analyze. That's why these lists come way after all these games were actually released.

 

I will agree that a lot of emphasis is placed on game visuals in features/previews and at shows like E3. But in the end, just because your hot sister arouses me, to a point where I take photos of her when she isn't looking, that doesn't mean that I'd ever marry the dumb skank.

[JFo]

Agreed, although ICO doesn't look so hot on progressive displays due to the 240-line low-res engine.

 

I can't say I agree with you there. One of the first things that struck me about Ico was how good the graphics were on my TV, which happens to be such a display.

 

First-off, does Metroid Prime really look better than Metroid Prime 2: Echoes? I have both, but haven't really played 2 yet other than putting it in to make sure it worked.

 

It's difficult to say, honestly. The second game does indeed look very much like the first, but I do think that some of the environments in Echoes is more detailed. I'm even tempted to say that the last area in that game is striking enough visually to push it over the first Metroid Prime purely on it's design alone. I remember walking into that area for the first time thinking, "Wow!"

[Tom]

I think your quote above ignores the very lists that spawned the statement.

 

I said that the best looking list bothers me, not the most challenging list. So I would argue I did not ignore the very lists that spawned my statement, I chose to make a comment on one of the lists. I also was fairly clear that I was not picking on any of the games on the list directly with that comment.

 

Sure, it turned out that most of the games on those lists, including the best looking, were also really fun games. I will not argue that. I just made a generic comment on top ten lists labelled as "best looking" bothering me. To reaffirm that I used the GT4/Forza situation where most conversations about the two boils down to a graphics discussion.

 

I'm not saying this is always the case, look at Doom3 vs. HalfLife 2. I would argue that Doom3 had far better tehnical graphics capabilities, but HalfLife 2 was for the most part a better game and most would put it ahead of Doom3 on any top-whatever list, possibly even a best-looking because it was so much fun, and well executed.

 

I don't know, maybe it could be its own thread, discussion on what matters most to people when they're buying games. Graphics or gameplay. Most will say gameplay because it sounds like the right thing to say, but often the first question I hear about a new game I bought and started to play is, "How are the graphics?", not "How is the gameplay?".

[foogledricks]

"How are the graphics?", not "How is the gameplay?".

I don't think we disagree at all. I'm quick to jump on a debate where someone states that there is too much emphasis on graphics in games. As if it is some epidemic that needs to be solved. I hate that, so I always hop on, at the very least, as the Devil's Advocate.

 

What I hate even more is when during a hardware debate (e.g. PS2 versus Xbox), where people are debating the controllers, the online service, the sound, or the graphics...and someone pops in to dismiss the entire debate by saying the obvious highhorse snobby "It's all about the games for me" argument. If you say that, the gauntlet will be thrown down.

[dogbert]

What I hate even more is when during a hardware debate (e.g. PS2 versus Xbox), where people are debating the controllers, the online service, the sound, or the graphics...and someone pops in to dismiss the entire debate by saying the obvious highhorse snobby "It's all about the games for me" argument. If you say that, the gauntlet will be thrown down.

 

How dare they be right. Being the better piece of hardware means nothing if there's no games to play on it.

 

[added]

And I'm sure you knew I'd pipe up with that.

[PoisonJam]

Well the readers have spoken, and apparently they have very short memories. The list of "top 10 games ever" with the dates released:

 

10. Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (SNES 1992)

9. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2 2004)

8. Soul Calibur (DC 1999)

7. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (PS2 2004)

6. God of War (PS2 2005)

5. Half-Life 2 (PC 2004)

4. Chrono Trigger (SNES 1995)

3. Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (PC/Xbox 2005)

2. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64 1998)

1. Resident Evil 4 (GC 2005)

 

How fortunate for us to be living in a time where six of the top ten game of all time have been released in the last year and a half! :

 

Link here.

[Cyberwoo]

I agree with 1 game on that Top ten list (Half-Life 2) but ther other 9...whatever. Good games but top 10 of ALLTIME? Maybe we should create a topic on lcvg where everyone posts there own top 10 list.

[foogledricks]

It's only natural to have recent games on your mind. And one could argue that games, far more than movies or music, have advanced exponentially every couple of years, thus making the "newer is better" more valid. Madden 2005 is way better than Madden 99. Grand Theft Auto 5 is really way better than GTA 1. Although Metroid was a spectacular game at the time, Metroid Prime is so much more, they can't even be compared.

 

Sure there are games that actually do stand the test of time, like Tetris and Free Cell, but most games simply do not. Doesn't mean I agree with the list. Only that the fact that the games on it being recent doesn't invalidate it.

[JFo]

Yeah, that reader-selected top 10 list seemed a little fishy to me as well. The one exception I make for it is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Since it's the best game I have ever played, I think it deserves to be high up on that list, if not in the number one position. And maybe A Link to the Past deserves placement in the top 10 as well.

[EnemaEms]

I agree with two of those games...Resident Evil 4 and Half Life 2. Mario 64 would be in my Top 5 as well.

 

-Dean-

[Tom]

What I hate even more is when during a hardware debate (e.g. PS2 versus Xbox), where people are debating the controllers, the online service, the sound, or the graphics...and someone pops in to dismiss the entire debate by saying the obvious highhorse snobby "It's all about the games for me" argument. If you say that, the gauntlet will be thrown down.

 

I respect that. I throw my guantlet down in the exact opposite situation. I despise game discussions deteriorating to debates about the hardware it will be played on. I also dislike hardware capabilities being compared amongst the consoles of this generation. At least performance measures. It's a personal pet peeve, and I know I'm swimming upstream in this pond as I'm surrounded by a very loyal XBox crowd.

 

Just ignore me standing here on my sinking PS2/GameCube ship. I'll be off PC gaming. :tu

[iainl]

Grand Theft Auto 5 is really way better than GTA 1.

 

Just as you knew Brian would be in there with a comment on how hardware is merely a way to enable games to be played, you probably could have guessed that I'd pop up as usual to say how I not only prefer GTA 1 to San Andreas, but I've played it a hell of a lot more even in just the last few months since I actually got SA. The fun is just far, far more instant in the old GTA games, rather than travelling back and forth across town for 20 minutes kitting yourself out for yet another mission which goes horribly wrong when the camera means you get shot in the back.

[foogledricks]

I not only prefer GTA 1 to San Andreas

Damn it! I thought using GTA as an example was SAFE! As usual I didn't count on the iainl factor. Thank god I didn't use the EA NHL series as an example, or I'd get rocked with 25 posts about how NHL 94 still is the best version of the game. I can't win.

[PoisonJam]

To me, this just speaks to how bogus any "top 10" list is. What do you reward, innovation or refinement? Do you reward sales, a game's influence on its genre, or it's impact on popular culture? I mean, personally I can't stand the Madden football series but it is likely the most popular videogame franchise in history. Surely any "top 10" list has to include at least one iteration of Madden, then, no? I also love the Tony Hawk games, but how to choose which one? Each one built on the previous title, adding little refinements here and there. So the latest iteration (which for me would be THPS4 as I never played THUG) has the most features, and it also looks and sounds the best, but I had the most fun playing THPS2.

 

I would argue the same for GTA. Again, I'm not a fan personally but it's a monster franchise with a huge influence on pop culture. But which iteration do you put on the list? The one that started it all? The one that moved it into the mainstream (GTA3)? The latest one because it looks the prettiest?

 

The sensible answer to this is simply to list the 10 games you personally had the most fun playing. But then you can hardly call the list "Top Ten Games of All Time", because one's personal top ten list has no relevance to anyone else. My point? Well if I have one, it's that this list is a joke on many levels. But we knew that already.

[foogledricks]

it's that this list is a joke

I like listing based on franchise, rather than specific iterations, for the very reasons you describe. I think I enjoyed Metroid Prime more than Echos simply because it was a fresh gaming experience, not because it was pound for pound better. If I had played Echos first, I'd probably feel the opposite. So cut that variable out by just listing franchises.

 

The other criteria that should be imposed on all these types of rankings, is whether the voter should rank the game based on how they feel about the game today, or how they felt about the game at the time. I'd give Ninja Gaiden on the NES five stars for its time. And I'd give Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) five stars for its time. But if you asked me to rank these based on the available games today, Ninja Gaiden (NES) would probably be one to two stars and Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) would still be five stars.

 

So I don't think this list, or any other list is a joke. Just that the criteria for ranking these should be specific, so that the results make sense. Otherwise you have people complaining the PONG should be at the top of that list, simply because they don't understand the criteria.

[iainl]

Of course, there's nothing unique about games in all of this. I'm sure we can all rip Titanic to shreds if we want to, and I know several people who consider Lord Of The Rings to be boring as hell. Sales are only ever a component of 'best' lists not the be-all, end-all.

 

Top Ten lists are always subjective in any medium, but as a basis for a debate they serve their purpose. I could probably fill your browser screen with a rant on how much I detest Bohemian Rhapsody (I'll spare you that, don't worry), but I know it's bound to end up in any 'Top Ten' pop music list that the public as a whole get to vote on.