PDA

View Full Version : IGN's Top 100 Modern Games



Rii
02-07-2011, 12:25 PM
I thought about appending this to my 'best years in gaming' thread for reasons that will soon become clear, but ultimately decided against it.

So IGN has put together a list (ign.com/top/modern-games) of what it deems to be the Top 100 Modern Video Games. It's a fun read as such things always are, with opportunities for gamers of all stripes to cheer (save perhaps Wizardry) and roll their eyes. To save you the hassle, here's the Top 10:

10. Super Smash Bros. Brawl
9. Batman: Arkham Asylum
8. Assassin's Creed II
7. Uncharted II: Among Thieves
6. Fallout 3
5. Portal 2
4. Super Mario Galaxy 2
3. Red Dead Redemption
2. Bioshock
1. Mass Effect 2

Their (unstated) criteria for what qualifies as a modern game is kinda interesting. It includes DS/PSP/PC titles from 2005 and beyond, but not titles from the same period that debuted on PS2 or GCN such as Shadows of the Colossus, Resident Evil 4 and Okami.

Of course such lists are not to be taken too seriously in any case... and yet I did, collating data by platform and year hoping to discern some kind of pattern applicable to discussions in my aforementioned earlier thread concerning more recent years in gaming. Alas, that turned out to be a dead end, in part because a list of 100 games covering only 6 years is enough that second-rate titles are getting through and mushing the data. There's a general trend of more titles the closer one is to the present - a full quarter of the list comes from 2010 - but the utility of that is marginal as one of IGN's practices for the list is to include only a single title from any given franchise, which means sequels (which are of course more recent than the games they're derived from) often - but not always - have the edge.

So: Blech. But the platform side of things is marginally more interesting. In this age of multiplatform releases, it was surprising to find that fully half of the list was compromised of titles exclusive to various systems, and that's ignoring the fact that a number of titles I marked down as 'multiplatform' - such as Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker - only became so years after the initial release. In any case, here's the breakdown by platform: number of titles from the top 100 available to the system first, number and list of exclusives second.

XBOX 360 - 56
Exclusives - 8 (Halo Reach, Forza 3, Shadow Complex, Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2, Dead Rising, Alan Wake, Fable II, Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise, 'Splosion Man)

PS3 - 54
Exclusives - 9 (Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, LittleBigPlanet 2, Infamous 2, God of War 3, Flower, Killzone 2, Resistance 2, Demon's Souls)

PC - 46
Exclusives - 8 (Starcraft II, Civilization IV, World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War II, Shogun 2, Crysis, League of Legends)

DS - 19
Exclusives - 12 (New Super Mario Bros., Mario Kart DS, Tetris DS, Professor Layton, Pokemon: Black & White, Advance Wars: Dual Strike, Picross DS, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, The World Ends with You, Brain Age, Elite Beat Agents, Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow)

Wii - 17
Exclusives - 8 (Mario Galaxy 2, Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario, Wii Sports Resort, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Kirby's Epic Yarn)

PSP - 9
Exclusives - 1 (Valkyria Chronicles II)

3DS - 2
Exclusives: None.

There were three titles on the list exclusive to other platforms (i.e. iOS, etc.): Cut the Rope, Tiny Wings, Superbrothers: Sword and Sorcery EP.

Make of all that what you will. There are various other points of interest and caveats I could raise at this juncture, but I think I've already spent far too much time on all this.

ezekiel2517
02-07-2011, 01:36 PM
IGN is such a hit and miss site. I will say this one is a hit, considering no Halo is among the top.

Rii
02-07-2011, 01:46 PM
IGN is such a hit and miss site. I will say this one is a hit, considering no Halo is among the top.

Yeah, I was surprised that they placed CoD, Halo and GTA all outside the ten.

I've been visiting IGN of late for Nintendo-related news. They're pretty good on that score whereas most sites aren't. But yeah, 'hit and miss' is right.

Kablooie
02-07-2011, 02:02 PM
An ordered list like that is going to raise a lot of ire (especially leaving out CoD and Halo, whew). I'd rather someone came up with a list that just lumped together all the games into categories, like:

Must Buy
Good Purchase
Fun But Flawed
Garbage With a Few Gems In It
For Fanboi Only
Do Not Buy, Rent
Avoid It Like The Plague

Gentleman Jim Stacey
02-07-2011, 02:04 PM
This only served to remind me how lame the top 100 PC gamer US list was that excluded The Witcher and World in Conflict, and put throwaway indie games above classics.

Heliocentric
02-07-2011, 02:05 PM
Dual strike? where's the love for the days of ruin/other emo titles regionally.

Sure the campaign and roster was epic, but the games mechanics were so polluted and overwrought you were defeating overpowered with overpowered rending strategy a sum of milking powers like multiplying your money by 1.5 4 times, buying them at 55% of their price and them changing to the commander which gives them 150% firepower and toughness. or the laughably broken Sami Hawke tag teams where the player gets 3 turns in a row without the the enemy getting any actions and can instantly capture the enemy base in one turn on the third...

sorry, but advance wars is serious bussiness.

8-bit
02-07-2011, 02:08 PM
so I risked clicking the link to IGN thinking a short visit wouldn't infect my brain with stupid and saw demons souls at no 100, never before has a list failed so quickly. I would roll out the "I respectfully disagree" line but again this is IGN so its perfectly acceptable to throw as much hate at the site as you can. these lists aren't there for promoting discussion anyway but more for page hits. it must be successful for them because they come out with a new best/worst list every other week, they probably only spend half an hour picking what goes in them.

Rii, if you want nintendo news I recommend nintendo life, they are horribly biased ninty fanboys but they get a lot of news that other sites don't bother with, and they cover all the wiiware/VC games each week.

Wizardry
02-07-2011, 02:57 PM
That's a terrible lists that sums up the state of the games industry and gaming media. No turn-based CRPGs at all? Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2, The Witcher 2, Fallout 3, Oblivion and Fable II on the list? Where's Knights of the Chalice? It's better than them all.

Absolutely worthless list. IGN are an embarrassment.

8-bit
02-07-2011, 03:07 PM
I don't even know if you are being serious anymore or if wizardry isn't a person but just some kind of forum meme that I don't get. you should start a sort of love-in thread for crpgs, get it all out of your system, then post about something else.

hamster
02-07-2011, 03:47 PM
Wizardry is like The Beast in Act 1 of the Witcher, except instead of being the essence of sin, he is constituted by err... the ire of dead turn-based CRPGs aficionados.

edit:
just took a gander @ knights of the chalice. What's with the graphics? This game better be free.

squirrel
02-07-2011, 03:50 PM
STALKER: SOC is the greatest game I've even played. Based on the already very established FPS gameplay, it is the first serious attempt to merge RPG gameplay into a shooter game. There is even an implicit experience point system too. Come to think of it. You have access it more powerful weapons and armor as you progress. More you loot by killing more enemies and earn direct reward from missions, more cash (experience point) you can spend. It's also a good demo of what a sand-box shooter should be. It may be too buggy to begin with that it lost its status as a great game, but I believe most of the bugs should have been patched out. Anyway, it's multiplayer is such a shame.

I am also sad that Mirror's Edge is on that list. Dont get me wrong, Mirror's Edge is such a great action game. I believe that people can also "learn" from this game to add some new moves into FPS. The fact it has little chance to receive a sequel / prequel, however, saddens me. I am so convinced that the evil DRM destroyed the future of this game by scaring away many PC gamers.

BTW, Crysis may not be PC exclusive for long. Teamxbox.com reported speculation (http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/24218/Ratings-Websites-Suggest-Crysis-Headed-to-Xbox-360/) that it may come to Xbox. May not be on the hardware power hungry CryEngine 2 though.

Gentleman Jim Stacey
02-07-2011, 04:31 PM
That's a terrible lists that sums up the state of the games industry and gaming media. No turn-based CRPGs at all? Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2, The Witcher 2, Fallout 3, Oblivion and Fable II on the list? Where's Knights of the Chalice? It's better than them all.

Absolutely worthless list. IGN are an embarrassment.

What is this i dont even...

Drake Sigar
02-07-2011, 04:39 PM
No Magicka? And that horror one? The one everyone’s too scared to play? I forget what it’s called. I’m actually surprised there were that many PC exclusives on their list. Of course that doesn’t stop me from pointing out how rubbish it is. Their top ten spots are almost as laughably predictable as the ones on the GameFAQs forum.

Rii
02-07-2011, 04:53 PM
That's a terrible lists that sums up the state of the games industry and gaming media. No turn-based CRPGs at all? Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2, The Witcher 2, Fallout 3, Oblivion and Fable II on the list? Where's Knights of the Chalice? It's better than them all.

Absolutely worthless list. IGN are an embarrassment.

So far as I'm aware IGN is still the single largest organ in videogame journalism. And like populist heavyweights everywhere, it didn't get there by embracing the niche but rather the mainstream. Turn-based CRPGs aren't the only genre missing from the list, there's also a dearth of JRPGs (to the detriment of the PSP in particular) and the complete absence of simulations. Given their position, IGN is commendably attentive to the more niche products of the industry. Certainly they could do a whole lot worse than they do.

pakoito
02-07-2011, 05:02 PM
League of Legends.

Kadayi
02-07-2011, 05:31 PM
I don't even know if you are being serious anymore or if wizardry isn't a person but just some kind of forum meme that I don't get. you should start a sort of love-in thread for crpgs, get it all out of your system, then post about something else.

If only. I'm afraid you'll find the record is broken. I set phasers to ignore some time back, and I have to say it's a delight.

vinraith
02-07-2011, 05:37 PM
That top 10 neatly summarizes why I don't generally bother with top [number] [type of something] lists anymore. I'm well aware of what's massively popular and critically acclaimed, I'm not sure why I need lists to tell me that. People's personal top [whatever] lists are invariably more interesting, because they're bound to include niche things I've never heard of and might wish to investigate.

Basilicus
02-07-2011, 05:41 PM
I think the IGN list is as good a list of that sort as I've seen done. It's certainly better than most. I personally think Bioshock and Fallout 3 are ranked a bit high, and I wouldn't mind seeing a strategy game crack the top 10 (not that there've been many good ones lately), but overall - they've compiled a fairly thorough and reasonable list.

cjlr
02-07-2011, 10:21 PM
Let's be fair to them: those are all good games. I doubt they'd be the tops for anyone here - knowingly more sophisticated crowd that we are, natch - but I went through every one without finding a stinker. It's like complaining about ANY pop ranking; why would you? We all know what's coming.

My tops would have Medieval 2, Men of War, Demon's Souls [#100 my ASS], and Guardian of Light featuring more prominently. But don't ask me to make a real list, 'cause I don't know if I could do it.

And I am of course always interested in what fellow RPS gaming dilettantes would shove to the top of such lists.

8-bit
03-07-2011, 12:46 AM
they are good games sure, but most games are nowadays, and they would have to be because a lot of them are following the same sort of basic template for their gameplay just with different gimmicks. mass effect is gears of war with talking, infamous is GTA with superpowers etc. its just that given the money and man power behind these titles it would seem that developers would really have to make an effort to create a bad game.

dead space is the perfect example of what is wrong with this particular list. Its a good game and I played it more than once but it never achieves greatness, at the same time it never puts a step wrong, its good but not inspiring and its no. 20 on the list.

Wizardry
03-07-2011, 01:13 AM
So most games nowadays are good? Shouldn't you revise your standards then? Why would you find most games good when good is a relative term? This makes little sense to me.

Anyway, I disagree. Games have gotten worse. Oblivion is one of the worst games I've ever played yet it somehow got on the list. I'm not sure how anyone can explain that one.

soldant
03-07-2011, 01:15 AM
I think the IGN list is as good a list of that sort as I've seen done. It's certainly better than most.Exactly. It's just an opinion piece from a mainstream gaming site, and apparently mainstream is out when it comes to many RPS readers. Kidding. That said...


dead space is the perfect example of what is wrong with this particular list.That pretty much sums up the whole thing. Most of those games are good, above what I'd call "competent" but not all of them are really oustanding by most people's standards. But I suppose when you're looking at 100 games from modern times you're going to hit a few "good, not excellent" games. Also lots of people would demand that niche titles be inserted into these lists but being in a niche is not an instant qualifier for greatness. Universal Combat, or indeed almost anything by (Dr) Derek Smart would fit that definition but I doubt you'd find too many people ranting that the Battlecruiser series should appear in a Top 100 list.


Oblivion is one of the worst games I've ever played yet it somehow got on the list. I'm not sure how anyone can explain that one.
I can explain it: It's not your list, and not everybody agrees with you?

cjlr
03-07-2011, 01:17 AM
That pretty much sums up the whole thing. Most of those games are good, above what I'd call "competent" but not all of them are really oustanding by most people's standards. But I suppose when you're looking at 100 games from modern times you're going to hit a few "good, not excellent" games.

That exactly sums up the whole thing. It's not a list of what a given person thought brilliant, it's a list of what a group of people agreed to call the least unlikeable.

Spacewalk
03-07-2011, 01:19 AM
A list without OutRun 2006: Coast 2 Coast is not a list for me.

vinraith
03-07-2011, 01:32 AM
Great games are contentious, and will never reach the top of a list built by consensus. A consensus list, by definition, is going to give top spots to those games everyone involved can agree were "pretty good." The purpose of a consensus list, then, is mostly to get individuals to disagree with it strongly, thus driving site hits. In short, they're useless, individual opinion is fundamentally more interesting than group consensus on matters of taste.

Wizardry
03-07-2011, 01:37 AM
In short, they're useless, individual opinion is fundamentally more interesting than group consensus on matters of taste.
Yes. I agree. Especially mine!

NightSky
03-07-2011, 02:12 AM
Seems like a good list to recommend to NEW gamers. As good as we find stuff like Amnesia or Stalker or The Witcher (2) around here, those games do really cater to more experienced gamers imo. Can't really blame a mainstream site for putting accessible games on top.

Rii
03-07-2011, 03:14 AM
Great games are contentious, and will never reach the top of a list built by consensus. A consensus list, by definition, is going to give top spots to those games everyone involved can agree were "pretty good."

I disagree with your premise. Some great works are contentious, some are not. A contentious work will never reach the upper tiers of a consensus-based list, however that doesn't suggest that those works that do are any less worthy. Broad appeal is not intrinsically a flaw.


The purpose of a consensus list, then, is mostly to get individuals to disagree with it strongly, thus driving site hits. In short, they're useless

Not at all. They're 'useful' in the sense that they provide entertainment and stimulate discussion. They generate site hits because people enjoy them. More significantly, they're an excellent guide for the relatively uninitiated. Given a choice between a work recommended by a single nondescript individual, and one that a broad consensus recommends, it's more likely that the consensus choice will provide the more enjoyable experience. It's not a guarantee, and it's likely that there are a number of works falling outside the consensus that a given individual would also enjoy, but it provides an excellent starting point.

Empire magazine's Top 500 films of all time (http://www.empireonline.com/500/) must've introduced me to dozens of excellent films over the years. A list of my own favourite films would include some that are held in high consensus regard (e.g. Apocalypse Now), would exclude others (e.g. The Godfather) and would include some films that were received poorly by critics and audiences alike (e.g. Antichrist). To wit: I am an individual such as you describe. Yet was Empire's consensus-based list useful to me? Did it make for interesting and productive reading encouraging exploration in various directions? Absolutely.

8-bit
03-07-2011, 03:22 AM
Anyway, I disagree. Games have gotten worse. Oblivion is one of the worst games I've ever played yet it somehow got on the list. I'm not sure how anyone can explain that one.

it was marketed as a crpg and it failed to meet your rigid definition of what an rpg is. if it had been called a sandbox adventure game would you have felt differently/less offended, or do you just think its a bad game regardless of what genre it is placed in?

vinraith
03-07-2011, 03:34 AM
I disagree with your premise. Some great works are contentious, some are not. A contentious work will never reach the upper tiers of a consensus-based list, however that doesn't suggest that those works that do are any less worthy. Broad appeal is not intrinsically a flaw.

I suppose it's simply a matter of taste. Niche games are far more able to match my personal tastes than broadly appealing games, virtually every game I consider great is either highly contentious or very niche. Broadly appealing games have to be designed by consensus to match the tastes of as many people as possible, that means they'll never match the tastes of individuals so well as a game designed specifically for "their" niche.


Not at all. They're 'useful' in the sense that they provide entertainment and stimulate discussion.My fault, read that as "useless to me and those like me." As stated, these kinds of lists are invariably an index of games I've heard about, and long since decided whether or not to play. There's nothing new or interesting here, and the discussion they generate usually amounts to little more than "those suck, what's wrong with these editors?" when in fact they're actually just a consequence of statistical phenomena. When a group ranks a set of objects, those objects disliked by no one rise to the top, well above those elements passionately liked by some but disliked by others. It's the same reason most people are usually upset by the results of, say, Dancing With the Stars.

Wizardry
03-07-2011, 04:40 AM
it was marketed as a crpg and it failed to meet your rigid definition of what an rpg is. if it had been called a sandbox adventure game would you have felt differently/less offended, or do you just think its a bad game regardless of what genre it is placed in?
It would make for an even worse adventure game. It's nothing to do with the genre, really. It's just a bad game. A bad story, a bland setting (Cyrodiil), terrible writing, highly linear questing, abysmal combat, watered down character creation and level scaling.

Skalpadda
03-07-2011, 07:37 AM
Why would you find most games good when good is a relative term?

Not it isn't. The only thing it stands in relation to is different people's definition of what is good and it's entirely possible to consider most of something to be so.

Kadayi
03-07-2011, 08:12 AM
That top 10 neatly summarizes why I don't generally bother with top [number] [type of something] lists anymore. I'm well aware of what's massively popular and critically acclaimed, I'm not sure why I need lists to tell me that. People's personal top [whatever] lists are invariably more interesting, because they're bound to include niche things I've never heard of and might wish to investigate.

True enough. However I think it's fair to say that Top 100s cater towards a different audience than you or I. As guidelines for players new to the medium that can be quite useful in providing them with suggestions as to what's hot and what's not. Generally as you say, the more interesting titles tend to be outside the top 10 (or 20) though.


I think the IGN list is as good a list of that sort as I've seen done. It's certainly better than most. I personally think Bioshock and Fallout 3 are ranked a bit high, and I wouldn't mind seeing a strategy game crack the top 10 (not that there've been many good ones lately), but overall - they've compiled a fairly thorough and reasonable list.

The fundamental problem is that any form of general polling (Vs Genre specific) is always going to favour the best selling titles, and on the whole and those are always going to be actioners of one sort or another Vs the other genres. Even a sales behemoth like Starcraft 2 doesn't have enough numerical muscle behind it to push it's way into the top 10, because albeit it sold a lot of copies it's probably not the first choice of game for everyone.



I can explain it: It's not your list, and not everybody agrees with you

*chortles* You've made my Sunday morning ;)

deano2099
04-07-2011, 05:23 PM
As a "Hi, I've never played videogames before, where do I start" list it seems perfectly valid...

Rii
04-07-2011, 11:06 PM
It occurs to me that of the Games of This Generation Wot I Think Will Be Remembered And Written About A Decade Or More Hence, all of them (or at least their respective franchises) make the list:

Portal
Bioshock
Super Mario Galaxy
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
World of Warcraft
Mass Effect / 2
Mirror's Edge
Braid

Drilling down further to the Maybes there are some candidates missing (perhaps most notably STALKER and Minecraft) but also others that are present. All things considered it's not a bad list really, its problems (as already identified by others) being predictability on the one-hand and signal:noise ratio on the other.

Lukasz
05-07-2011, 10:02 AM
I am also sad that Mirror's Edge is on that list. Dont get me wrong, Mirror's Edge is such a great action game. I believe that people can also "learn" from this game to add some new moves into FPS. The fact it has little chance to receive a sequel / prequel, however, saddens me. I am so convinced that the evil DRM destroyed the future of this game by scaring away many PC gamers.

ME deserves to be on any best moderns games. heck. in 100 best games of all time there should be a place for it. sure. it was flawed. expensive and short, with a bit crappy shooting mechanic. the storyline was a bit lacking too...
but it was such an innovative game. extremely beautiful, and what it aimed to do, the free running part... it worked perfectly.
and most important. ME will be remembered. I believe in 10-15 years we will be replaying it while many of games on that list will be forgotten.

you are right though that there is little chance for sequel.