IGN Top 100 games

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

I agree. It should have been Civ IV, not II.

I think BOTH should have made it. You can't deny Civ2. Maybe its my age, but I remember losing DAYS to it in college and during summer vacation. Its still a popular download to this day.

Strategy games like Red Alert 2 and Shogun: Total War should have made the list as well.

[manasecret]

Herein lies (part of) the lameness of top 100 lists that DH brought up. How do you compare strategy games to FPS games, to platformers, to rhythm games, to fighting games, to sports games etc. etc. etc.

I agree, I think more strategy games should be on the list, as they are easily my favorite genre of game considering how much time I have sunk into them. I also agree that both Civ II and Civ IV should be on the list. But that begs the question, which one comes before the other? How do you rank innovation (II) vs. perfection (IV)? If innovation, then why not Civ I?

So not only are there problems comparing games between genres, and games within the same genre, but even games within the same series. Multiply popular game series of, oh, let's say 500, by the sequels within each series of let's say an average of 2, and you get 1000 games that could easily make a top 100 list that are nearly impossible to compare to each other.

Not ranting on you Mr. S, but just on the absurdity I'm realizing of these lists.

[Professor S]

I take no offense.

I take the absurdity for granted whenever I see lists about Top Anything. There is no definite way to measure greatness, so it ends up being a giant argument over subjective value judgements.

But isn't that the fun part?

[manasecret]

Hahaha, yes, you make a good point. Might as well take it with a light-heart.

SO I am curious, I want to figure out this microcosmic argument over subjective value judgements -- would you place Civ II or Civ IV higher on the list? And why? Have you played IV? And what about I and III?

Btw, by higher I of course mean 1 being the highest and 100 being the lowest.

[Angrist]

I played Civ4, I liked it, but it didn't do as much for me as a lot of other games did. But I have a friend who absolutely loves it, he spent weeks on it.

Big games in my life:
Warcraft 2, 3, WoW
Starcraft
Super Mario Bros 3, World, 64
Zelda: ALttP, OoT, TP
Conquest of the New World
Golden Eye, Perfect Dark
Super Smash Bros, Melee
Pokémon Blue/Red
Spider Solitaire

To name a few.

[GameMaster]

WarCraft 3!!!

Must be on the list!

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Hahaha, yes, you make a good point. Might as well take it with a light-heart.

SO I am curious, I want to figure out this microcosmic argument over subjective value judgements -- would you place Civ II or Civ IV higher on the list? And why? Have you played IV? And what about I and III?

Btw, by higher I of course mean 1 being the highest and 100 being the lowest.

Civilization Ranking List:

1) CivII
2) Civ I
3) Civ IV
4) Civ 3

Reasoning: Civ II wins because of the perfect execution of depth, balance, design and playability for the time. Civ 1 gets 2nd due to its innovation but lacks the execution of 2. Civ 4 gets 3rd for sheer excellence and polish, but it lacks the innovation, IMO. Also, I think it drops some just due to the serie's age. I've become used to it, and moreover, by this time the Total War series has surpassed it by including real time battles. That shouldn't hurt it, but in reality it does in my subjective opinion. Civ 3 is last, but that is not a disparagement.

[manasecret]

For me,

1) Civ IV
2) Civ I
3) Civ II
4) Civ III

For all the same reasons as yours, except that I think of Civ IV what you think of Civ II and vice versa.