DELETED
- Thread starter deleted+75193
- Start date
FTL FTW.
EDIT: Manatee makes a valid point.
Why would that matter? Heck, the OP cited Undertale.the December King said:
EDIT: Manatee makes a valid point.
This always depend on what criteria you want to use. Like someone said you can make a very strong case for minecraft, I mean it was literally brought for 2.5 billions of dollars, not a lot of game can claim that.
Personally I'd go with dark soul (demon's soul started the ball rolling but dark soul perfected it).
As was said, skyrim is also a strong contender, but I find that it's not really revolutionary. It's really not that different from Oblivion before it and just has better hardware to help it make it more popular. I'm reticent to say a game that's really just an iteration should be considered game of the decades.
Personally I'd go with dark soul (demon's soul started the ball rolling but dark soul perfected it).
As was said, skyrim is also a strong contender, but I find that it's not really revolutionary. It's really not that different from Oblivion before it and just has better hardware to help it make it more popular. I'm reticent to say a game that's really just an iteration should be considered game of the decades.
Too true- it was his first sentence that mentioned AAA games that gave me initial pause, you see, but upon further reading I understood it was not mentioned as a rule.Pyrian said:
Are we going by 2008-now, or 2010-now.
Would probably have to break it down by genre or something anyways.
I'm always a little leery of getting hyperbolic with "Greatest" too. Bioshock (the first one, haven't played 2, and good god Ifninite just went straight up its own a** while still being duller then dishwater) was mostly great, but also had a terrible hacking minigame shoved in every orifice (and stupidly bullet spongey normal human enemies, which is always a big detractor).
At a quick go, probably Dishonored 2 (the first one has another one of those glaring flaws with half the mechanics being invalid to the stealth premise). An entry that brings new mechanics and gameplay to its own series and genre, when the standard for ages now has simply been the inflation of bigger and shinier without adding anything new to the table (GTA being the shining example there). And fairly engaging on the narrative aspects that have become more prevalent over the last 15 years or so.
Would probably have to break it down by genre or something anyways.
I'm always a little leery of getting hyperbolic with "Greatest" too. Bioshock (the first one, haven't played 2, and good god Ifninite just went straight up its own a** while still being duller then dishwater) was mostly great, but also had a terrible hacking minigame shoved in every orifice (and stupidly bullet spongey normal human enemies, which is always a big detractor).
At a quick go, probably Dishonored 2 (the first one has another one of those glaring flaws with half the mechanics being invalid to the stealth premise). An entry that brings new mechanics and gameplay to its own series and genre, when the standard for ages now has simply been the inflation of bigger and shinier without adding anything new to the table (GTA being the shining example there). And fairly engaging on the narrative aspects that have become more prevalent over the last 15 years or so.
With my super narrow definition of video games as an art only Spec Ops: The Line and Undertale qualify (of the ones that I've played). That doesn't have to be the only criterion to top the decade, however. Terraria is the game I've had most fun playing.
wOAhPresident Bagel said:
That did deliver one hell of a gut punch, and was completely unexpected. Shame it was marketed so poorly and had development time WASTED on the multiplayer.McElroy said:
At the same point, it was a one-hit-wonder, because I don't think another game could do what The Line did because it was the first to do it and people were not looking out for that sort of thing... but after The Line people will have that nagging suspicion that the game is fucking with them.
Oh its been done in other games. And oddly, almost every single time its done in the same way. The choice to do the bad thing is forced without option of avoidance. Which takes most of the impact out. Its actually odd that it never comes up in games with choice systems (which tend to simply branch off in binary fashion without any come around or regret).Abomination said:
Spec Ops only really stands out because of the over-saturation of MM-FPSes at the time that were all busily fellating the military as the big damn heroes and ignoring any questionable practices thereof.
In an interactive media, to try and call out the player themselves, you need a better option then "Well you should've not played the game, derp. Why'd you even buy our crap to begin with".
Marry Me.Baffle2 said:
My wife will understand. /joke
Yeah, I was seriously considering nominating this when I saw your post.
It doesn't help I saw First Man 2 weeks ago and now I keep thinking about spaceships and kerbal spaceships a lot.I've logged more time on that game then probably any other in my inventory and I haven't landed on anything past Duna.
Witcher 3 would be my other pick.
So far Witcher 3. Easily. It's gaming's one great fantasy epic. I've not finished Red Dead Redemption 2 yet, it might just end up beating it because a bit less than halfway through, it's absolutely brilliant, but it still has plenty of time left to screw up, which Witcher 3 never did.
I have also yet to play Bloodborne, which makes a lot of these lists. I'm not quite crazy enough for the Souls series to think it's gonna beat them but I'll give it a fair shake.
I have also yet to play Bloodborne, which makes a lot of these lists. I'm not quite crazy enough for the Souls series to think it's gonna beat them but I'll give it a fair shake.
Without comment on GotD, I'm currently well into my first playthru. It is very good. It is undeniably a Souls game at its core, but with some differences that actually have a profound effect on the game. The main points of difference are:PsychedelicDiamond said:
- Estus has been replaced by a consumable called Blood Vials. It's quite a major paradigm shift from a rechargeable resource to a consumable one because in the case of the latter, it CAN run out. When you die to a Souls enemy, you run back with full Estus every time. When you die in BB, the vials (like other consumables) don't come back.
- I just learned yesterday, there's no respec. As such, short of levelling well into the 300s, trying out other weapons will necessitate a whole new character. In Souls, it's easy to respect at the end of one cycle and begin NG+ f.ex with a difference build.
- No shields. Technically I believe there are 1 or 2, but really there aren't. They aren't the same. There's no 100% phys medium shield. It's entirely down to parrying, dodging and positioning.
- Transforming weapons...I'm not sure if this should get a mention, since Souls weapons do have different movesets when two-handed (and in 2, powerstanced). But it's a particularly noteworthy thing for some weapons which can change entirely. There's one f.ex that goes from an Estoc to a Whip, another from a Longsword to a Great Sword, Sword to Spear, Rapier to Gun and so on. It's a little more than just moveset, but the actual type of weapon changes.
Those are probably the four most salient points I'll mention. Of them, the one that bothers me is the Vials. I had one bossfight against an NPC that was essentially like the player (a Hunter), not unlike Invaders. Only this one was OTT hard. Huge health pool, massive damage, can parry, can heal himself, is fast and relentless. The damage was unforgiving, almost any mistake meant death. I died enough times that I eventually ran out of all the vials I'd stored until that point and had to go farm for souls to buy more. (Thankfully I beat him and the reward was my current weapon that I was building toward from the start!).
The lack of shield takes a bit of adjusting but TBH it's fine. I've played Souls without shields and it's fine. No respec is annoying but I can live with it. I'll probably do one NG+ and if I do ever play it again, a new character will be fine.
What I like is the setting. Where I'd describe Souls as a Dark fantasy, with undead, souls, fire, ash and curses being the main themes and motifs, Bloodborne feels a lot more Lovecraftian. It's more gothic horror, with motifs of blood, beasts, hunting, dreams and nightmares. It's like twisted humanity in a pre-industrial era. I don't really understand the lore fully but it's a great world, very atmospheric. I lament that it's a Sony IP so will never see a PC release.
Just going by the sheer numbers of hours I've put into it (apparently) ... Hearts of Iron IV. But this is mostly because of mods people had made for it.
I've been playing Dark Souls Remastered on the Switch a lot recently (partly because I've been away on a trip fairly recently) ... I will say the Soulsborne series, with the highlight being, naturally, Bloodborne.
I've been playing Dark Souls Remastered on the Switch a lot recently (partly because I've been away on a trip fairly recently) ... I will say the Soulsborne series, with the highlight being, naturally, Bloodborne.
