The NMA Top 100 RPG's Discussion

[TorontoReign]

Will we really be able to fill the entire 100 positions? RPG's are great and all, but I think we'll be missing a lot by making genre a restriction. Why not change it to: "The 100 best story based games."? Because otherwise I fear we'll have to cut the number down by the end, or not be able to include games like Spec Ops: The Line, portal, Half Life 2(!). You know, games with the same impact and writing as at least a decent rpg but wouldn't get a spot.

So who is going to do the Fallout, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, and Wasteland entries huh?

Yeah, let's not try to be cliche here (even if they are going to get added to the list sooner or later)...

And who, and how, will we determine which game gets what spot? Planescape: Torment, Arcanum or Fallout for #1? And #2?

I don't think we will have a huge problem finding 100 great RPG's tbh. The biggest problem will be getting enough people to participate. As mentioned before, I don't think we will be numbering this list, and everything will be subject to votes, makign it entirely up to the NMA community. Genre specifications are loose, but it must be a RPG of some kind. That was kinda the point to begin with.

 

[PlanHex]

Will we really be able to fill the entire 100 positions? RPG's are great and all, but I think we'll be missing a lot by making genre a restriction. Why not change it to: "The 100 best story based games."?

In that case there would be no place on the list for RPGs like ToEE, Wizardry and Diablo 2.

 

[SimpleMinded]

Since I mentioned it earlier, if any of you want to try Anachronox, it's in GOG's weekend sale this week. Anachronox for under 3 dollars

 

[Tagaziel]

Will we really be able to fill the entire 100 positions? RPG's are great and all, but I think we'll be missing a lot by making genre a restriction. Why not change it to: "The 100 best story based games."?

In that case there would be no place on the list for RPGs like ToEE, Wizardry and Diablo 2.

To clarify:

- No, we are not numbering the list.
- Since no agreement can be reached on dividing the genres (and trying to pick hybrids will have the side effect of eg. throwing Wasteland into hybrid tactical RPGs) we'll simply divide them up by decades/years/leap year/Rayne's mother's periods.
- We are picking the best of the best, Crème de la Crème of roleplaying games, not the "Golden Oldies", best "Story Centric" games, but games that due to extraordinary quality, revolutionary approach to C&C, multi layered gameplay, characters and their reactions etc. are remarkable titles that should be mandatory playing for any gamer aspiring to be a connoisseur of electronic entertainment. Which is why I expect to see Morrowind, Alpha Protocol, New Vegas, KOTOR2, Diablo, Bloodlines and Deus Ex to stand side by side with Ultima, Arcanum, Wasteland, Fallout, TOEE, Might & Magic VI, Betrayal at Krondor and other old games.

We want this to be the definitive list that will be linked to for the next decade.

Fire up the keyboards, guys. This is a shot at making history.

 

[Akratus]

Will we really be able to fill the entire 100 positions? RPG's are great and all, but I think we'll be missing a lot by making genre a restriction. Why not change it to: "The 100 best story based games."?

In that case there would be no place on the list for RPGs like ToEE, Wizardry and Diablo 2.

To clarify:

- No, we are not numbering the list.
- Since no agreement can be reached on dividing the genres (and trying to pick hybrids will have the side effect of eg. throwing Wasteland into hybrid tactical RPGs) we'll simply divide them up by decades/years/leap year/Rayne's mother's periods.
- We are picking the best of the best, Crème de la Crème of roleplaying games, not the "Golden Oldies", best "Story Centric" games, but games that due to extraordinary quality, revolutionary approach to C&C, multi layered gameplay, characters and their reactions etc. are remarkable titles that should be mandatory playing for any gamer aspiring to be a connoisseur of electronic entertainment. Which is why I expect to see Morrowind, Alpha Protocol, New Vegas, KOTOR2, Diablo, Bloodlines and Deus Ex to stand side by side with Ultima, Arcanum, Wasteland, Fallout, TOEE, Might & Magic VI, Betrayal at Krondor and other old games.

We want this to be the definitive list that will be linked to for the next decade.

Fire up the keyboards, guys. This is a shot at making history.

How could I forget that there won't be any numbers?

Will we really be able to fill the entire 100 positions? RPG's are great and all, but I think we'll be missing a lot by making genre a restriction. Why not change it to: "The 100 best story based games."?

In that case there would be no place on the list for RPGs like ToEE, Wizardry and Diablo 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t05EqeGqq-0

Diablo 2 is based on a story. Obviously this isn't the best story or the best way to represent a story in a game. But I will always hold that Diablo 2's story is underrated and that I'll remember it for a long time.

 

[Surf Solar]

I'd so like to make an entry for Jagged Alliance 2 but alas I am not sure it even qualifies there. :/

 

[TorontoReign]

I'd so like to make an entry for Jagged Alliance 2 but alas I am not sure it even qualifies there. :/

Why don't you do it? Let the people vote on it. If it resembles a RPG it's up for grabs. A tactical RPG is still a RPG.

 

[SnapSlav]

Diablo 2 is based on a story. Obviously this isn't the best story or the best way to represent a story in a game. But I will always hold that Diablo 2's story is underrated and that I'll remember it for a long time.

The ONLY problem with Diablo II's story.... isn't even with Diablo II's story, but with Blizzard. It's the same with their other IPs. Blizzard makes great and wonderful games, with rich and detailed stories depicting believable worlds and characters....... And then they decide to retcon those stories out of existence when the sequel comes around. Much of Starcraft's story was eliminated by Starcraft II, and much of Diablo II's story was "rendered obsolete" by Diablo III. Of course, Blizzard goes out of its way to make it SEEM consistent, but to fans who played the shit out of the game back when it didn't have a sequel, and memorized the plot details and every intricate nook and cranny of the story, it's easy to see when history is altered to suit a newer rendition of the same story.

Still, by itself, Diablo II's story is phenomenal. I'd agree with may criticisms about the game, but suggesting it "isn't an RPG" or "has no story" wouldn't be one of them.

 

[Akratus]

Diablo 2 is based on a story. Obviously this isn't the best story or the best way to represent a story in a game. But I will always hold that Diablo 2's story is underrated and that I'll remember it for a long time.

The ONLY problem with Diablo II's story.... isn't even with Diablo II's story, but with Blizzard. It's the same with their other IPs. Blizzard makes great and wonderful games, with rich and detailed stories depicting believable worlds and characters....... And then they decide to retcon those stories out of existence when the sequel comes around. Much of Starcraft's story was eliminated by Starcraft II, and much of Diablo II's story was "rendered obsolete" by Diablo III. Of course, Blizzard goes out of its way to make it SEEM consistent, but to fans who played the shit out of the game back when it didn't have a sequel, and memorized the plot details and every intricate nook and cranny of the story, it's easy to see when history is altered to suit a newer rendition of the same story.

Still, by itself, Diablo II's story is phenomenal. I'd agree with may criticisms about the game, but suggesting it "isn't an RPG" or "has no story" wouldn't be one of them.

I don't personally count Diablo III as part of the diablo series in my head canon. I liked Blizzard once, but I've gradually started to loathe them more and more. I really can not stand anything they make nowadays. Their gameplay is intentionally addictive, simple, easy with a lot of easy rewards, their art style is straight out of a bad comic book and did you hear D3's dialogue? Oh god it makes me want to rip my ears off.

And by the way, If we continue at our current pace we will have the list complete in 2 years, maybe?

 

[TorontoReign]

Diablo 2 is based on a story. Obviously this isn't the best story or the best way to represent a story in a game. But I will always hold that Diablo 2's story is underrated and that I'll remember it for a long time.

The ONLY problem with Diablo II's story.... isn't even with Diablo II's story, but with Blizzard. It's the same with their other IPs. Blizzard makes great and wonderful games, with rich and detailed stories depicting believable worlds and characters....... And then they decide to retcon those stories out of existence when the sequel comes around. Much of Starcraft's story was eliminated by Starcraft II, and much of Diablo II's story was "rendered obsolete" by Diablo III. Of course, Blizzard goes out of its way to make it SEEM consistent, but to fans who played the shit out of the game back when it didn't have a sequel, and memorized the plot details and every intricate nook and cranny of the story, it's easy to see when history is altered to suit a newer rendition of the same story.

Still, by itself, Diablo II's story is phenomenal. I'd agree with may criticisms about the game, but suggesting it "isn't an RPG" or "has no story" wouldn't be one of them.

I don't personally count Diablo III as part of the diablo series in my head canon. I liked Blizzard once, but I've gradually started to loathe them more and more. I really can not stand anything they make nowadays. Their gameplay is intentionally addictive, simple, easy with a lot of easy rewards, their art style is straight out of a bad comic book and did you hear D3's dialogue? Oh god it makes me want to rip my ears off.

And by the way, If we continue at our current pace we will have the list complete in 2 years, maybe?

Optimally I would like it to proceed along a lot quicker, but due to lack of participation and interest, I'm not seeing it. I'll keep it alive no matter what(way too much free time), but it would be nice to see some of the regulars submit a game. Many don't seem to care about it, some of it might be the "list stigma", but I just thought it would be nice to do something around here for a change. We always talk about how much games suck, I figured people would have more to say about their favorite RPG's. Usually people love to talk about the games they really liked, so it should be getting more posts, but I'm not sure why it isn't. Truth be told, we don't have the largest member base, so that may be a large part of it. I'm not sure if the requirements are turning people off or what? I know of a few people who are working on their reviews atm, so hopefully it picks up soon. Maybe we should have did a Top 100 RPG's that you hate...that may have gotten a better response.

 

[.Pixote.]

I care, I do, but I don't have the time to write a decent review (Also I haven't played all that many games over my life). Still keep it up, many of us are enjoying the reviews.

 

[TorontoReign]

I care, I do, but I don't have the time to write a decent review (Also I haven't played all that many games over my life). Still keep it up, many of us are enjoying the reviews.

Very much appreciated Pixote. Will do.

 

[Akratus]

I care, I do, but I don't have the time to write a decent review (Also I haven't played all that many games over my life). Still keep it up, many of us are enjoying the reviews.

Very much appreciated Pixote. Will do.

I would make more reviews, but I don't feel that I have the right knowledge of the games I would like to submit. My Diablo 2 submission was quite detailed, but my witcher ones were less so. I've only played Fallout 1 once so that would be an even less informed submission.

No that I mention this I'll see if I can't edit my submissions, and think of a new one. . .

 

[SnapSlav]

We always talk about how much games suck, I figured people would have more to say about their favorite RPG's.

I'd say that's just part of the same line of thought I pointed out in the "Favorite Protagonist" topic regarding the Lone Wanderer. There's ample, meaningful reason for a sentiment, and yet, the vast majority feel none of that; they just hold empty hate and resentment. I consider myself a gamer who has GOOD reasons to criticize a game for "sucking", but there are many who just bitch for the sake of bitching. I haven't played MW3, but I really, REALLY want to, yet JUST because it's COD, there's endless, blind rage towards the title. I loved the story from the first 2 installments of the trilogy, and until the rampant glitching and exploitation reached a degree that broke the online, the multiplayer was THE BEST I'd ever experienced in an FPS. But, because it's popular, it gravitated pointless hate.

What I'm saying, in short, is that lots of users here may indeed complain about "games sucking", and any logical response to that would be, just as you said, they "would have more to say about their [favorites]". But, by and large, I'd suspect they're far less logical about what they hate and why they hate it, than we'd anticipate them to be.

Well anyway, I share your hope that the topic grows. I personally noticed that the site IN GENERAL seemed to have rather suddenly dropped in activity- practically overnight -so I'm wary of the possibility that that's more of a contributing factor. I don't know WHY it happened, but I suspect the start up of a new semester might be behind it.

 

[TorontoReign]

I care, I do, but I don't have the time to write a decent review (Also I haven't played all that many games over my life). Still keep it up, many of us are enjoying the reviews.

Very much appreciated Pixote. Will do.

I would make more reviews, but I don't feel that I have the right knowledge of the games I would like to submit. My Diablo 2 submission was quite detailed, but my witcher ones were less so. I've only played Fallout 1 once so that would be an even less informed submission.

No that I mention this I'll see if I can't edit my submissions, and think of a new one. . .

Sounds good. I read up quite a bit before I even started, even on the games I know a ton about, so you can inform yourself about a game without being an expert on it. It just takes a little research. I would expect anyone that does a review to have least played the game, although I would like if you beat it. Thats the only thing keeping me back from reviewing Anachronox atm because I haven't beat it yet . Your submissions were fine as far as I'm concerned.

Well anyway, I share your hope that the topic grows. I personally noticed that the site IN GENERAL seemed to have rather suddenly dropped in activity- practically overnight -so I'm wary of the possibility that that's more of a contributing factor. I don't know WHY it happened, but I suspect the start up of a new semester might be behind it.

Yeah you're right on that one for sure.

 

[mobucks]

No one played Age Of Pirates: City of Abandoned Ships

Its a Pirate 4x RPG with SPECIAL (PIRATES) but since it is so obscure I'm afraid to do a writeup about it.

Have you considered allowing "professional" reviews (or summaries) quoted rather than forum-user created reviews/ summaries? I wouldn't want to submit an actual popular game because I'm no game journalist.

 

[TorontoReign]

No one played Age Of Pirates: City of Abandoned Ships

Its a Pirate 4x RPG with SPECIAL (PIRATES) but since it is so obscure I'm afraid to do a writeup about it.

Have you considered allowing "professional" reviews (or summaries) quoted rather than forum-user created reviews/ summaries? I wouldn't want to submit an actual popular game because I'm no game journalist.

That just feels kinda pointless to me if it isn't from the community. It's supposed to be NMA's opinion, not a bunch of random dudes from different game sites. Anyway, you can always use other's reviews as a reference to go off of, to maybe get a general feel for what should be addressed. I would go further and say a few quotes from others would be fine, but try to explain things in your own words, instead of trying to sound like a professional game "journalist". Don't be dissuaded from contributing because you aren't a game journalist. The vast majority of those guys suck anyway. Just contribute what you can dude.

 

[SnapSlav]

I think there needs to be a bit of a distinction between what the submissions are asking for and reviews. The submission isn't supposed to be a review, but some of our submissions come off in a review-ish fashion. That being said, even if you feel like you "can't" write a "professional" review, that's not what's being asked of you! The submission format post is pretty vague, and all you "have" to do is follow that simple criteria. Basic information about the game, why was it great, what might people dislike.

If anything, obscurity is a BETTER reason to submit the game, because those enigmatic titles don't get much press. If we never heard about it, your take on why you loved it and felt it's deserving of a Top 100 RPG list is all the more vital!

Of course, that's more or less the very material that comprises a review, so it couldn't hurt to brush up on simple "How To's" about reviewing. This recent panel was a really nice one on the subject:
Escapist Expo "How To Review Games" Panel

 

[TorontoReign]

I think there needs to be a bit of a distinction between what the submissions are asking for and reviews. The submission isn't supposed to be a review, but some of our submissions come off in a review-ish fashion. That being said, even if you feel like you "can't" write a "professional" review, that's not what's being asked of you! The submission format post is pretty vague, and all you "have" to do is follow that simple criteria. Basic information about the game, why was it great, what might people dislike.

If anything obscurity is a BETTER reason to submit the game, because those enigmatic titles don't get much press. If we never heard about it, your take on why you loved it and felt it's deserving of a Top 100 RPG list is all the more vital!

To me, reviews go hand and hand with what we are doing. Really it's a article of pros and cons about a game that you think people should play, and why you think they should play it. Not too much of a difference really is it?

 

[Akratus]

We always talk about how much games suck, I figured people would have more to say about their favorite RPG's.

I'd say that's just part of the same line of thought I pointed out in the "Favorite Protagonist" topic regarding the Lone Wanderer. There's ample, meaningful reason for a sentiment, and yet, the vast majority feel none of that; they just hold empty hate and resentment. I consider myself a gamer who has GOOD reasons to criticize a game for "sucking", but there are many who just bitch for the sake of bitching. I haven't played MW3, but I really, REALLY want to, yet JUST because it's COD, there's endless, blind rage towards the title. I loved the story from the first 2 installments of the trilogy, and until the rampant glitching and exploitation reached a degree that broke the online, the multiplayer was THE BEST I'd ever experienced in an FPS. But, because it's popular, it gravitated pointless hate.

I think Black Ops is a great game and I don't care what anyone says.