Kotaku makes a list of the "Top Ten Best Games in History."

[JoshF]

Super Mario 64 has like...1 enemy per square mile? Masterpiece. The Bowser stages were good though IIRC.

[Skykid]

Super Mario 64 has like...1 enemy per square mile? Masterpiece. The Bowser stages were good though IIRC.

I actually thought Mario 64 was pretty frustrating at the time - no matter how many attempts I made, I could never finish it without getting bored and wandering onto something else.
That's not to say it's no good, far from it, it's great - just perhaps not the greatest.

Super Mario World > Mario Galaxy 2 > MW2: Yoshi's Island > Mario Galaxy > Mario 64 imo.

[Jockel]

Super Mario World > Mario Galaxy 2 > MW2: Yoshi's Island > Mario Galaxy > Mario 64 imo.

Is that your TOP 5 MARIO GAMES IN HISTORY list?
Personally, i'd put Yoshis Island in spot 5, but other than that, i agree ^_~

[Skykid]

Super Mario World > Mario Galaxy 2 > MW2: Yoshi's Island > Mario Galaxy > Mario 64 imo.

Is that your TOP 5 MARIO GAMES IN HISTORY list?
Personally, i'd put Yoshis Island in spot 5, but other than that, i agree ^_~

The official!

My opinion may be skewed as I'm playing through Yoshi for the first time evah with my spiffy XRGB thang and it looks pixel pretty (and it's a lot of fun.)

Maybe it's on par with Galaxy 1, but it's definitely held my attention longer than 64 did.

[Ed Oscuro]

Maybe it looks that nice on the GameCube. But yeah that looks like an emulator shot to me.

[Ed Oscuro]

No Mario versus DK?

[Rob]

Who cares if it's the games or us that age, but these days i prefer 60fps and clear textures, thank you.
The gaming industry has evolved and a lot of old games have trouble keeping up, it's simple as that.
I feel stupid for pointing that out.

Hell yeah, gimme some Darksiderz.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Who cares if it's the games or us that age, but these days i prefer 60fps and clear textures, thank you.
The gaming industry has evolved and a lot of old games have trouble keeping up, it's simple as that.
I feel stupid for pointing that out.

Recently the console gaming has not been evolving exactly towards 60 fps (and, with this 3D thing around the corner, meagre framerates aren't going to become a thing of the past any time soon).
First time I played OoT I didn't even notice how few frames per second it makes, and even today it just bothers me aesthetically rather than spoils the gameplay. If this game has AGED badly, then Shadow of the Colossus and Herdy Gerdy (to name a few) must have been born old. Have some SotC, then some OoT and you'll see which one is the bigger elephant in the room.
That being said, some emulation dudes working on Project64 claim their emulator to be capable of rendering N64 games at "true" 60 fps AND the correct speed (although at the cost of higher system requirements). I wonder why this version has yet to be released...

Hell yeah, gimme some Darksiderz.

Does it run at 60 fps on consoles, while we're at it? Or rather, does it run at more than 30 fps at ANY point on consoles?

It's also slow-paced enough that the 20fps isn't as big a deal as it might seem - that's only a few frames per second slower than film, and well outside the range where many people actually get ill.

Films are okay running at 24 fps thanks to the motion blur (pretty obvious when you look at particular frames depicting things in motion). Games can't quite emulate it yet (which is probably a good thing; I like high framerates for more reasons than just the aesthetics). Not that they don't keep trying, but it still doesn't look as convincing as in films (where you don't really notice it).

[Drum]

And GTA IV / Uncharted 2 seem to be "hey I just played this / remember it, so cool" picks.

While that is a correct observation that could be said for any game on this pathetic list, you still failed to mention the main problem with a list like this--as did everyone else.

They are taking games which belong to completely different genres, and ranking them with no criteria whatsoever to base their decisions on, which genre is better than the other. Just because Ocarina Of Time holds sentimental value for Brian Crecente--or the ocean of fans who voted for it on Metacritic--, does not justify it's place in the number one spot. By ranking it as such, he is implying that the Action game genre is the best genre ever; which is absurd unless he does his homework and explains how it fares to the other genres belonging to the rest of the games on that list. (As well as doing the same for all of the other genres in their relation to each other.)

What WOULD make sense, for those who lack those credentials, would be to make a "Best Of" list of games belonging to the same genre. Surely then they would stop and think, "Hey, I'm starting to have my doubts about OOT being ranked above a great game like, say, Ninja Gaiden Sigma?"; and re-adjust the list, accordingly.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/leave_ran ... e_experts/

To the honour of the expert. -- As soon as anyone who is not an expert starts to play the judge we should at once protest: whether the person concerned is a little man or a little woman. Enthusiasm for and delight in a thing or a person are no arguments: nor are repugnance and hatred for them, either.

-Friedrich Nietzsche

As for this:

And Kotaku didn't have as much to do with the list as you're making out, it seems to be a collaborative effort to "evolve" a list using prominent developers in the gaming industry.

It makes no difference who took responsibility for making this list, the point is it's misinforming people.
Any schmuck can put together a top ten list like this. I'm sure that Topdrunkee guy at Killer7Sindicate has half-assed his way through one with his artfag games in the front seat. Only difference here is that the ton of people who have read this one, trust the author's opinion as if it were their own. And they churn more of these things out every day, all over internet gaming sites! Do you see how dangerous this is? It's like a captor convincing his hostage that the LSD he gives him every morning is just Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Then one fine day he wakes up and says, "Oh wait...that was...fuck." and dies.

What he should do before this happens, is bite his captor's face off, break his chains, and get used to detoxing. In other words, don't believe anything Kotaku, Select Button, or any of those shitty sites publish. It's all below rubbish.

This is complete nonsense. 'Genre' is about as arbitrary as designations get. The mere fact that you're calling Zelda an 'action' game (what?) and are lumping it in with Ninja Gaiden (what? what?) proves this.

Obiwanshinobi:

Films have motion blur, Zelda is just one big mess of N64 blur. It works!

[KindGrind]

While I do agree with some games being on the list (Super Metroid), that list is pathetic.

My grandma could have come up with that...

[Rob]

'Genre' is about as arbitrary as designations get.

Said on a forum dedicated to a genre.

[Drum]

'Genre' is about as arbitrary as designations get.

Said on a forum dedicated to a genre.

Exactly.

[Rob]

Uh, ok.

[louisg]

As long as we're complaining about framerates, I should point out that even the Odyssey 2 ran at 60 FPS.. we haven't been evolving towards anything, only getting back to some minimal amount of professionalism in presentation

[CMoon]

What is the maximum frames per second the human eye can see? Is there an advantage to having over 60 fps?

[Obiwanshinobi]

As long as we're complaining about framerates, I should point out that even the Odyssey 2 ran at 60 FPS.. we haven't been evolving towards anything, only getting back to some minimal amount of professionalism in presentation

More like devolving. Capcom, Naughty Dog and Insomniac having given up on 60 fps this gen just scream "high framerates are fucked" to me. Which is not to say that all their last gen games actually ran at immaculate 60 fps all the time, but that clearly was their goal. With this 3D thing, it'd be nice to at least have a choice whether you have your games running at 30 fps in 3D, or at 60 fps in 2D, but this isn't likely to happen. If anything, in 3D the resolutions will be lower and the framerates will be hitting sub-30 territories more frequently.
It began on the last gen consoles to be fair: FFX - ~60 fps, FFXII - 30 fps at best, MGS2 - ~60 fps, MGS3 - 30 fps at best, SSX 3 - ~60 fps, SSX on Tour - 30 fps at best... That's not my idea of professionalism.

What is the maximum frames per second the human eye can see? Is there an advantage to having over 60 fps?

It's not about just the visual smoothness, but about how responsive the controls can be. Some people play PC first person shooters at framerates exceeding their monitors refresh rates. Aesthetically it's pretty pointless, but reportedly more accurate controls are worth it (this might be plain snobbery or placebo effect, mind you, but then I'm not an expert FPS player).

[louisg]

As long as we're complaining about framerates, I should point out that even the Odyssey 2 ran at 60 FPS.. we haven't been evolving towards anything, only getting back to some minimal amount of professionalism in presentation

More like devolving. Capcom, Naughty Dog and Insomniac having given up on 60 fps this gen just scream "high framerates are fucked" to me. Which is not to say that all their last gen games actually ran at immaculate 60 fps all the time, but that clearly was their goal. With this 3D thing, it'd be nice to at least have a choice whether you have your games running at 30 fps in 3D, or at 60 fps in 2D, but this isn't likely to happen. If anything, in 3D the resolutions will be lower and the framerates will be hitting sub-30 territories more frequently.
It began on the last gen consoles to be fair: FFX - ~60 fps, FFXII - 30 fps at best, MGS2 - ~60 fps, MGS3 - 30 fps at best, SSX 3 - ~60 fps, SSX on Tour - 30 fps at best... That's not my idea of professionalism.

Even 30 is perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't fluctuate. It doesn't matter if the "average" framerate of a game is, say, 45fps when it's more jittery than a 30fps game whose rate isn't all over the map. I think that's a subtle point that a lot of developers miss (performance vs. perceived performance)

[Obiwanshinobi]

Even 30 is perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't fluctuate. It doesn't matter if the "average" framerate of a game is, say, 45fps when it's more jittery than a 30fps game whose rate isn't all over the map. I think that's a subtle point that a lot of developers miss (performance vs. perceived performance)

Tell Capcom to make another Street Fighter a 30 fps game, will you?
I'd take Ōkami with all its framerate issues running at would-be 60 fps over, say, Yakuza with its more steady 30 fps any day, and I'm talking just about the aesthetics now. In terms of the controls responsiveness, God Hand utterly destroys Yakuza and shows why exactly 30 fps doesn't cut it for some genres.

[BryanM]

What is the maximum frames per second the human eye can see? Is there an advantage to having over 60 fps?

A bunch? I know 85 fps on guildwars looks hella nicer than ~40.

For games, having a high fps is also a buffer to threshing when a bunch of stuff is going on. ~30 getting cut in half is worse than ~100 getting gimped, etc.

[Elixir]

God Hand utterly destroys Yakuza and shows why exactly 30 fps doesn't cut it for some genres.

Which is probably why God Hand and Yakuza are in different genres.

[Obiwanshinobi]

God Hand utterly destroys Yakuza and shows why exactly 30 fps doesn't cut it for some genres.

Which is probably why God Hand and Yakuza are in different genres.

Nah, I don't think so. Quite the opposite, I think they belong to the very same genre alright.

[Elixir]

You can "think" whatever your little heart desires. They're not in the same genre.

[Obiwanshinobi]

You can "think" whatever your little heart desires. They're not in the same genre.

They consist of walking around in 3D environment and beating people up in real time. That easily allows me to file both under "3D brawler".

[Elixir]

Yakuza focuses heavily on story and has a whole variety of things you can do, not just exclusively restricted to "beat up guys and bosses". It's an action adventure game, like Uncharted or Assassin's Creed. Oh, and all of those non-boss battles are random encounters.

God Hand has nothing apart from enemies. It's a beat 'em up.

I'm also pretty sure that FPS is largely irrelevant in both of them. Yakuza isn't worse off because of a lower framerate, and the combat is also much slower and strategic. Unless sweep kicking downed enemies, dashing, and repeating is strategic for God Hand.

[drunken starsailor]

What is the maximum frames per second the human eye can see? Is there an advantage to having over 60 fps?

A bunch? I know 85 fps on guildwars looks hella nicer than ~40.

For games, having a high fps is also a buffer to threshing when a bunch of stuff is going on. ~30 getting cut in half is worse than ~100 getting gimped, etc.

Wait, why are we talking about frame rates? This thread is meant to demonstrate how mixed genre "Best Of" lists are misused. I hope to educate at least five more people, so if you're going to derail my thread, please stop and make your own instead.

As for this:

This is complete nonsense. 'Genre' is about as arbitrary as designations get. The mere fact that you're calling Zelda an 'action' game (what?) and are lumping it in with Ninja Gaiden (what? what?) proves this.

Yeah, thanks for making up shit to help yourself weasel out of Icy's criticism; not to mention confuse some people even further. (Yourself included.)

'Genre' is about as arbitrary as designations get.

Said on a forum dedicated to a genre.

Exactly.

"Exactly." lol. Such a response is proof that you have no fucking clue what you just wrote.

And look at your stupid list for the "Best 360 Exclusives":

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=31607

Mass Effect 2
Gears of War
Halo 3
Gears of War 2
Forza Motorsport 3
Mass Effect
Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2
Blah blah
Blah blah, etc.

I just don't have the energy to point it out again. Fuck.

[Jockel]

Man, i sure wish we were all as smart and handsome as drunken starsailor.
What a stud. I'm jealous.

[BryanM]

We all have to be 13 sometime...

I'm just amazed there's anything on the 360 worth playing that isn't a DOOM clone. Crazy times we live in.

Remember all the 3d games back in the old days that made a big deal about running at ~60fps, like the Tobal games and F-Zero? Even though they were flat shaded, they really didn't look so bad. Textures were so crummy in that era, that if the game didn't feature actual things covered in poop (like Silent Hill), simplistic texture design was the better route.

The previous era was the "not hideous" era, the current one the "exploitable" one, so really what's next? The "photorealistic" one? Where do you go from there, a stable undying platform which never changes?

[Skykid]

Why are there Nietzsche quotes in a thread about videogames?

[BryanM]

Skykid, when you're walking along the street, and you see some dog shit on the street, do you often wonder to yourself, "Why is there dog shit on the street? Where is it going? And where has it been?" If you do, you have the mettle it takes to be a modern day philosopher.

But I settle for "because a puppy had to take a poop." And that, I believe, is the answer to your question.

And remember, power of five keeps the neighborhood alive.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Yakuza focuses heavily on story and has a whole variety of things you can do, not just exclusively restricted to "beat up guys and bosses". It's an action adventure game, like Uncharted or Assassin's Creed. Oh, and all of those non-boss battles are random encounters.

God Hand has nothing apart from enemies. It's a beat 'em up.

God Hand doesn't have freeroaming in the sense Yakuza has it and that's the only prominent difference of structure between them. Both boil down to beating people up (and doing optional quests which, oddly enough, usually are all about beating people up). Both sport about equally cheesy storylines (just carved in different sorts of cheese) told with cutscenes. Both allow you to earn extra abilities with experience points.
God Hand is an action adventure game in the vein of Devil May Cry and Resident Evil 4 rather than The Legend of Zelda, but action adventure nonetheless.

I'm also pretty sure that FPS is largely irrelevant in both of them. Yakuza isn't worse off because of a lower framerate, and the combat is also much slower and strategic. Unless sweep kicking downed enemies, dashing, and repeating is strategic for God Hand.

Dude, tell me more about God Hand. I wonder why does it even have high framerate if it's not for the sake of the combat not sucking as badly as the combat in Yakuza. You have played both, haven't you? Or why arcade games (including beat 'em ups) usually have framerates ~60 fps for that matter. The combat in Yakuza is quite prominently inspired by arcade brawlers, just like the combat in God Hand. The thing is, low framerate of the former makes for a sub-arcade experience due to the playable bloke responding to the input with pretty bad delay (loose, imprecise controls). In a game consisting MOSTLY of beat 'em up action (if you don't spend even more time on minigames, which I believe technically is doable in God Hand as well; I for one certainly spent 90-80% of my Yakuza playthrough fighting), it's a nasty flaw.