Radman said:
Well as I've said name me 10 modern classics.
By which you mean "personal classics", of course. Since there's no real definition on what makes a classic a, well, classic, it's all down to the individual. But from the top, in no particular order (2001-2012).
> S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl - an unique setting, gameplay that's a mix of arcade and realistic gunplay, well defined original history drawing on eastern European classic sci-fi novels and an unique realisticish (realistic with a twist) art style.
> Witcher 1 & 2 - reasons should be obvious; choices and consequences implemented extremely well to the point that the game practically showcases how it should be done.
> The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (w/ expansions) - at first ridiculed, it is now considered by some to be a flawed gem. While the gameplay is clunky (though full of potential; next games simply castrated it), the unique twist it puts on typical fantasy settings, awesome alien art style, complex sociopolitical landscape of Vvardenfell and neighbouring environs, intriguing multilayered story etc. make it a classic.
> Assassin's Creed series - even if you don't like the games, you can't really say that it has a simplistic story, superficial setting or primitive gameplay. If anything, it's an example of how sequels ought to be done: each game in the series brings something new to the table in terms of mechanics and pushes the story forward with new content and subplots.
> Beyond Good & Evil - self-explanatory; if you don't know why it's a modern classic, catch up real quick.
> Arma series (from Cold War Assault to Arma II: PMC) - the Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear of war games, Arma brings together deep military gameplay with authentic weapons, large islands and interesting stories (even if it's a bit American-centric). And OFP: Resistance is a masterpiece in itself.
> Call of Duty 2 and Modern Warfare 1 - as much as we hate the Call of Duty series here, I believe CoD2 and CoD4 are the only titles that can be considered classics. CoD2 is, for me, the definitive World War II shooter, while CoD4 took the succesful formula and developed into something new, marrying an interesting story with varied, atmospheric gameplay (really, All Ghillied Up, Death From Above and Charlie Don't Surf are chapters that pretty much warrant buying the game just for them). And it ties the story up pretty well, leaving few loose ends behind. The sequels all go downhill, though.
> Half-Life 2 and Episodes - BN will disagree with me, but I believe that after HL1 and its expansions, HL2 is a must-play title. It's a brilliant example of world design, environmental storytelling, character animation and development etc. I'm biased, sure, but I love Valve and Half-Life.
> Fallout: New Vegas and DLCs - apart from the game being the real Fallout 3, not just technically, but also in terms of story, choices and consequences and characters, it also pushes the envelope in terms of gameplay, providing a world that reacts to your actions and gives the player the ability to make an impact on history and choosing one of four non-color-coded fates for the Mojave. The DLCs are a separate matter and are, to me, shining examples of what DLCs ought to be. Oh yes, and Dead Money. <3> Red Faction: Guerilla - this might be a headscratcher for some, but I think RF:G is a great title that reinvigorates the stale shooter formula with fresh elements, such as fully destructible environments, inventive weapons, great open world gameplay, challenges etc. It's a great game that sucks in and provides a good amount of challenge (anyone who invaded EDF bases in Eos or the Free Fire Zone can tell that it can be mind-numbingly hard at times).
> Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines - Troika title. 'nuff said.
> Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura - see above.
> Aliens vs. Predator 2 - while the expansion pack was nothing special, the core game was brilliant, combining an interesting, multi-layered story with varied, unique gameplay for all three races.
I can go on and on; I haven't even touched strategy games and there are plenty of examples of good games there (Paradox games anyone?). Then there are titles that represent failed attempts at the sky, such as Far Cry 2 or Gothic 3, which are nonetheless very playable and worth at least a single playthrough.
You'll find it difficult, the point I'm making is that for a long time now publishers will simply 'play it safe.'
Err, no, it isn't difficult.
Even sequels bases on old classics aren't safe from meddling (Fallout 3 aside anyone here played Sim City societies? Terrible game that was dumbed down for the masses because Sim City gameplay was deemed 'too hard' by EA)
Societies is a title separate from the main Sim City series. It wasn't meant to replace them, just provide a different experience than usual. There's nothing wrong with expanding the franchise in new directions.
Or how about the new Sydnicate game just released? Heavily dumbed down shooter, again for the masses.
The implication that the original Syndicate was something more than a dumb shooter is interesting. While Syndicate Wars was indeed something more, the original was a very basic title with a somewhat varied array of weapons (most of which were useless; the minigun, long range rifle and maybe the Gauss gun were enough for the entire game).
To say that gaming has improved now is a joke - modern games for the most part dont compare to the games I'm referring to.
You're joking, right?
