1995-2000ish video games

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Can I request that we separate console and PC games? They cater to such different market niches, and it's harder to find people who've actually played both if a console and a PC game get paired up. FWIW, I'm taking Half-Life all the way in a PC only or a combined poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on the separation. Many people have played exclusively or almost exclusively one or the other, and even if they've done a fair amount of dabbling back and forth, won't even know half the games they're putting against each other. And since consoles outsell PC/mac games by a mile, even mediocre console games stand an excellent chance of trouncing the very best PC/mac games.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can I request that we separate console and PC games? They cater to such different market niches, and it's harder to find people who've actually played both if a console and a PC game get paired up. FWIW, I'm taking Half-Life all the way in a PC only or a combined poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on the separation. Many people have played exclusively or almost exclusively one or the other, and even if they've done a fair amount of dabbling back and forth, won't even know half the games they're putting against each other. And since consoles outsell PC/mac games by a mile, even mediocre console games stand an excellent chance of trouncing the very best PC/mac games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another vote for separating the two. PC games would have little chance against the much more popular console games, which would be a pity, as 1995-2000 was sort of a golden age for PC gaming.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Diablo2 >>> Diablo ('cause I think Diablo itself is kinda lame).

(edit- unless D2 is post 2000, which wouldn't shock me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree and I think most people do. Even though hackers destroyed Diablo for truly vast numbers of people, it was the best selling game of its time and an enormous amount of fun. Many people found Diablo 2 more of the same, dated looking, and not nearly as replayable as the original. I was among that very considerable number.

An okay sequel does not beat an original.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
i never got StarCraft and it's success. It was just another RTS game. Give me one of the C&C games anyday (preferably Red Alert)

[/ QUOTE ]

It was RTS-lite. And the most advertised game in history several times over.

I agree that I liked C&C better. As well as other games, like Warcraft 2 and Total Annihilation.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Heroes of Might and Magic should be there somewhere.
And Mechwarrior 2

[/ QUOTE ]

Heartily agree. These were GREAT games.

I was a bigger fan of Heroes of Might and Magic(the turn-based strategy game) than the original HOMM though.

Very colorful and fun, endless maps, and a random map generator for pretty much infinite replayability. That was a rare thing in those days and still not all that common today.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
goldeneye is great if you like [censored] graphics, [censored] controls, and no internet play. why anybody played that boggles my mind. it's like playing quake with mittens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for bringing some needed perspective.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Diablo2 >>> Diablo ('cause I think Diablo itself is kinda lame).

(edit- unless D2 is post 2000, which wouldn't shock me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree and I think most people do. Even though hackers destroyed Diablo for truly vast numbers of people, it was the best selling game of its time and an enormous amount of fun. Many people found Diablo 2 more of the same, dated looking, and not nearly as replayable as the original. I was among that very considerable number.

An okay sequel does not beat an original.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wise, Blarg.

Something like THPS vs. THPS2 is much closer. THPS pioneered the formula and basically created a whole new control scheme & gameplay mechanic...but THPS2 vastly increased the depth of the combo system & offered much larger environments. Buut even so I would give the nod to THPS1...successful originality should be weighed more heavily than almost any other factor IMO.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can I request that we separate console and PC games? They cater to such different market niches, and it's harder to find people who've actually played both if a console and a PC game get paired up. FWIW, I'm taking Half-Life all the way in a PC only or a combined poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on the separation. Many people have played exclusively or almost exclusively one or the other, and even if they've done a fair amount of dabbling back and forth, won't even know half the games they're putting against each other. And since consoles outsell PC/mac games by a mile, even mediocre console games stand an excellent chance of trouncing the very best PC/mac games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another vote for separating the two. PC games would have little chance against the much more popular console games, which would be a pity, as 1995-2000 was sort of a golden age for PC gaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

And because PC games have more depth than console games.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goldeneye is easily the best game made during this time period

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ.

<----------- (i hope that points to my avatar, but I have a feeling it's gonna be a bit low.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying CGIFVII was better?