Topic: Gamespy's top 25 list (Read 14362 times)

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #100 on:** September 19, 2003, 12:11:00 pm »

Well, for whatever it's worth, this is what I posted at GS. My opinion on the whole concept of a "Top 25 worst list" is that IT sucks

Quote:

Exactly what is the point and purpose of an article, such as this? Seems to me that an entity like GS would want to promote games, not run them into the ground and drag them through the dirt. I'm sorry, but whomever came up with the whole concept needs to have their keys to the executive washroom taken off of them and forced to use the outhouse until they can come up with an idea for something that's GOOD for the gaming community.

Do me, and yourselves, a favor and take some time to come up with articles/columns to promote "your business". That's right, you seem to have slipped up badly and forgotten what your product is that you peddle here. IT'S GAMES!!! At one point or another you were using these games to promote your business. Now you're running them down.

This is just plain awful journalism. Hopefully, there is someone in authority here who can see this and stop it.

Parislord · « **Reply #101 on:** September 19, 2003, 04:00:28 pm »

Well, that's odd... I seem recall hundreds, if not thousands, of outraged posts on these boards about how their EAW and OP were sold to them broken or that the claims of the Dynaverse were at least wildly overrated. That this was another case of shame on the developer or the publisher for making claims on the box or in the ads that weren't in the code (what you might call hype).

While I find the review unfair in regard to its complexity (that's a gameplay featuer, you dope!), I can see why it might have earned a place on the list if the reviewers were half as upset about the release-state of the game as I was.

SFC is complex, but largely intuitive. If you want severely complicated (not unplayable, just REALLY detailed), check-out Falcon4.0/SP3 or Flanker 2.5.

The whole underlying point of the article seems to be that if consumers allow their purchasing decisions to be based on pre-release impressions, then that is where the money will concentrate its efforts. Rather than being bad for the game commuinity (despite my irritation at seeing one of my fav games on it), Gamespy is doing the community a service by pointing-out the very apparent cause-and-effect relationship between the people who listen to the hype and the way games are rushed through production, today.

James Formo · « **Reply #102 on:** September 19, 2003, 05:58:47 pm »

I think there is some truth in that GS article. SFBers I notice say there is alot of strategy in the game. Perhaps. But after 25 years I would have thought it would get mundane. I mean the choices are not complex really. Close and hose or saber duals.
Add ecm or eccm. Too tractor or not to. If you ask me, many who play this game just do the same thing ad naseum. Then there ego is involved big time and they think there smart for figuring out how to play it. There slow to accept any new change to the game at all. Slow to accept any ship designs that stray from there holy SFB or TMP, claiming that TMP reached the pinnacle of ship design. So 100 years later it would then be futile to create a new design? And 99.999% of TMP ships have a round saucer. Um theres little variety in that. Again holding on to the same ship, version, strategy et al..

Point in case is how everyone bashed OP for 2 years and now after 2 years its everyones favorite version. Thats how long it takes SFB players to accept anything to be done to the version of the game they are used to.

Parislord · « **Reply #104 on:** September 19, 2003, 07:44:54 pm »

To a certain extent, he is correct, however so it is in actual military strategy. You have to act in accordance with your weapons, since weapons, sensors, and maneuvering capabilties are fairly standardized within the fleets, so are the tactics. Doctrine calls for a commander to maneuver his assets within weapon constraints while attempting to obviate those of your OPFOR to the maximum extent possible and fire. Any individual combat in SFB or any wargame are largely similar to every other combat. Lamentably, there is no overal strategic facet to SFC to put the game in the perspective of actual warfare.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #105 on:** September 19, 2003, 08:11:41 pm »

It's just that there's a lot more to SFB tactically than there is to SFC. The tactical options are why it's stayed viable and popular for 25yrs. If your only experience with SFB is through SFC then you've only been exposed to a very small portion of the tactical complexity, and I do mean, very small. SFC just scratches the surface of the SFB ruleset.
I'm not saying this to put down SFC either. Just that judging SFB from SFC is truely like judging a book by it's cover.

Stategically, you're right. Put yourself in a position where you can deliver your weapons with maximum effectiveness while limiting those of your opponent. It really is that simple from a strategic point. How you accomplish that with all the possibilities in SFB is where all the tactics come into play.

James Formo · « **Reply #106 on:** September 19, 2003, 09:24:20 pm »

OK cool Rod. I just had a brain cramp. As it so happens I am frustrated with the lack of interest in SFC3. Like I posted about my mod over at SFC3 files about 2 weeks ago and it has 0 hits and 18 views. This forum is more active but SFC/OP is the game that people are mostly playing.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #107 on:** September 19, 2003, 11:19:11 pm »

NP James. Like I said, I wasn't trying to bash you. Sometimes it just seems like all the problems with SFC want to be blamed on SFB and the people who play it. I hope I didn't offend you. We're still buds, I hope.

I know it gets frustrating when you do a lot of work on something and nobody seems to notice. I think it's Activisions fault though about SFC 3 (TNG). They really blew it when they refused to work with Taldren. If they would have let Taldren have their way with SFC 3 then they could have nurtured it like they do with OP. I hope that it's not too late for the game. We'll see when the "Official" patch is approved.

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #110 on:** September 22, 2003, 11:11:15 pm »

Yeah, I saw that GameSpy article, too.

In ONE respect, I actually might consider it a compliment. Of the PC games listed in their list, as I recall, only SFC fell into what I would consider the 'niche' category. I mean, just being MENTIONED in this list is, to some degree, an acknowledgement that gamers should be aware of its existence. In Quake2's case, this is a given, but that's NOT the case with the SFC series. Note further that the article itself, while generally WRONG, at least points out that SFC HAS an energized following. With the exception of NeverwinterNights, which of the games listed can say that they still have an active presence on a large hardcore user base's hard drives?

Finally, my take on it was that the reviewers were pi$$ed off because SFC was a game they couldn't master in the first 15 minutes while still playing/reviewing countless other PC/console games. Hence it was too "nerdy." And if one is a sci-fi Trek-fan, not being able to play SFC well, once one is familiar with it, is a DEFINITE blow to one's ego. I can smell the sour grapes from here. So sour, in fact, that they had to put SFC on their 'list.' Uh-oh.

Meanwhile, we'll keep playing SFC long after Gamespy "Games-Of-The-Year" come and go.

-TF

David Ferrell · « **Reply #112 on:** September 23, 2003, 04:20:21 pm »

By my count, only 5 or 6 of the top 25 did NOT come out in the
last 3.5 years.

In addition, they added at least one more I will proudly stand
with:

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index17.shtml

Thanks,

Dave

SFC Bennie · « **Reply #114 on:** September 23, 2003, 06:31:31 pm »

The interesting commonality between the SFC article and the Halo article was the putdown of "fanboys".

Scott Bennie

Mainwaring · « **Reply #115 on:** September 23, 2003, 06:55:40 pm »

Frankly, all that top 25 proved to me was that GameSpy's reviewers have something of an overinflated opinion of themselves. It was all over how they talked about many of the games, whether the titles deserved the list or not.

On the good side for them, they went to the effort to point out that 'overrated' doesn't mean 'bad'. Of course, they forgot to mention that their concepts of being overrated is related solely to their personal preferences in games, presenting it all more as objective fact. They also kinda failed in many cases to point out that some of the titles were hyped more by sites like their own and the fans than the companies who produced them. So whatever.

I read it, I smirked, I trashed the email it came in. It's just another gimmick to hold readership.

WDLL · « **Reply #117 on:** September 24, 2003, 07:42:42 am »

Are they crazy? Stupid? what?

about HALO, how can you say that the game is overrated because it uses as a controller a gamepad? are they freaking nuts?
It doesnt even make sense!

About SFC I won't say anything, others have said enough, I heard that BC3000 is on the list. IS THIS A FREAKING JOKE? How can a game that has been blasted by most (all?) reviewers across the globe as a could be but just not there game, with problems and not worth your time (BTW I do not agree but that is irrelevant) be overyhyped and overrated? OVERRATED??? reviews in magazines in the 40s is overrated? I have a suggestion for the people that wrote the list, get another job or go to a clinic.

I don't know what the other games in the list are, I do not want to check because I know I will propably have a stroke or something.

DarkElf · « **Reply #118 on:** October 04, 2003, 05:10:02 am »

WARNING:
Post below contains a rant. Please tell have your kids to leave the room now.

I cannot believe they did this. They must want to lose alot of their subscribers, and players. I have lost *all* respect for them.

Half the games they put on there do not deserve to be on that list. Period.

They earn a personal place in my toliet bowl with...

Final Fantasy 7
I'm not sure how many of you even heard of a PlayStation, or know what it is. I cannot accept that they put this game on their list. If its not, it is one of the greatest PlayStation games of all time. I cried during parts of it. I could name hundreds of people I have met at high school who have played this game. It made the local news. It set the standard by which all Role Playing Games are compared on.

It sold 2 million copies in THREE days, counting the USA only. It *still* sells today. I'm guessing its sold about 6 million copies worldwide to date. Final Fantasy 7 overrated? Pllease.

Trust me, Gamespy is going to get *a lot* less vistors now for this mistake ALONE. Gamers around the world are going to tear Gamespy a new one. Sacreligious.

Now they get: (I had to dig for this one)

Click the link below (beware, contains some harsh language, but I think most will find it funny)
http://www.sfcfed.net/darkelf/stfu-gsa.txt

They have the nerve to assult us, the very reason why they are here? I think they need to eat a nice big, steaming, bowl of their own $#!^. It's one thing to attack a game, but to attack the very people who play it is another. I like Star Trek, and I like StarFleet Command. Don't like that? Too bad. STFU GSA.

Gamester · « **Reply #119 on:** October 04, 2003, 10:55:42 am »

I found the list to be an interesting read. While I do not agree with all of their reasoning and choices, many of their selections had some pretty reasonable choices. As for SFC on the list - They were right in that (IMHO, of course) the single-player campaign kinda sucks.

I have played all the SFC games single player and haven't enjoyed any of them really (If they had a F&E like meta campaign, though. . . I can say that my biggest disappointment with SFC2 was that the single player campaign initially looked to me like F&E - but it was not to be). Where SFC came alive for me was LAN multiplayer. I can't really comment on any of the D2 stuff because I cannot play D2 through my router. Hell, I can only play SFC1 over gamespy (for whatever reason). I have configred my Microsoft Router every which way shy of Sunday, but no SFC2, OP or 3 love on Gamespy. And that's OK by me too. As I said I play the SFC series via LAN exclusively. AND IT'S FREAKING GREAT. BTW - OP has always been my favorite siince it came out. Maulers are wicked cool.

As for the community, this is probably the MOST polite and respectful online community I have ever seen. I like many different kind of games. For example, HomeWorld 2 (I beat it in four or five days) and C&C Generals (now with Zero Hour) forums are really bad. I wouldn't post there if my life depended on it because those ppl are MEAN. I have always found this community to be one of the highlights of what an on-line community should be like.

As far as the game being complex? It wasn't that bad really. I found SFC to be a game that was fairly easy to learn, but very hard to master. Hell, even my uncle can play it, and he is the Anti-Hotkey. In reality, at it's most basic level, just use 1, 2 and 3 to select your wesapons groups, rt-click tp select your target, lt-click to steer, weapons names turn RED - make 'em dead, press Z to fire. You don't really have to mess with the other systems too much, but your game will go much better if you at least learn them in a basic fashion. The ppl who master these systems though - they are truly formidable.

Just my opinion. . .
Gamester

News:

Topic: Gamespy's top 25 list (Read 14362 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Rod O'neal

Parislord

James Formo

Rod O'neal

Parislord

Rod O'neal

James Formo

Rod O'neal

Tremok

Tremok

Tumulorum Fossor

Scipio_66

David Ferrell

Mog

SFC Bennie

Mainwaring

Tremok

WDLL

DarkElf

Gamester

Topic: Gamespy's top 25 list (Read 14362 times)