GameTrailers gives MW2 PC game of the year.
- Thread starter Isengard
- Start date
Azimuth
New member
Heh, I like that you discard sales as a measure of quality, then immediately cite game length as a measure of quality. There's a lot of trudging around and playing what is essentially exactly the same encounter over and over in Dragon Age: Origins, for example. How many of those 60+ hours constitute entirely new scenarios or gameplay experiences?
I'd take the 7 or so hours of epic action in MW2 over 60+ hours of... actually, almost anything*. I do think it's possible (all too possible) for games to go on after they've stopped being interesting. Gears of War, Dead Space, and Batman: Arkham Asylum (and lots of others) were all games that crammed high intensity gaming into 6-10 hours, and succeeded enormously well indeed.
Anyway, I'd say neither sales nor game length is a particularly good indicator of quality at all - in fact, all this GOTY stuff is just a load of rubbish. Nobody can really claim to declare the best game of the year with any authority, since it's so subjective. Raging over some website's GOTY (or reviews, for that matter) is a complete waste of anyone's time.
Personally, I got quite bored with Dragon Age: Origins. It certainly wasn't bad, but it was a massive quivering heap of tedious clichés, and extremely repetitive. Point is, I'd imagine my GOTY list would look quite different to yours. And that's okay. They're our own lists.
* With one or two notable exceptions, of course. I clocked almost 90 hours in my first playthrough of Fallout 3, and loved every minute of it. I've also played loads and loads of Borderlands.
Necuno
The Piper
can't disagree there. i've only done about 58 hours and it was all loved and enjoyed.
Necuno
The Piper
Heh, I'm a huge Fallout fan, though. Fallout 2 is probably still my all-time favourite game.
well it is fallout3's fault i've gotten myself 1,2 and tactics. going to have fun playing them
. first it is deus X 1 for my classic flasback
GReeN_ORB
Persistent illusion
Heh, I like that you discard sales as a measure of quality, then immediately cite game length as a measure of quality. There's a lot of trudging around and playing what is essentially exactly the same encounter over and over in Dragon Age: Origins, for example. How many of those 60+ hours constitute entirely new scenarios or gameplay experiences?
I'd take the 7 or so hours of epic action in MW2 over 60+ hours of... actually, almost anything*. I do think it's possible (all too possible) for games to go on after they've stopped being interesting. Gears of War, Dead Space, and Batman: Arkham Asylum (and lots of others) were all games that crammed high intensity gaming into 6-10 hours, and succeeded enormously well indeed.
Anyway, I'd say neither sales nor game length is a particularly good indicator of quality at all - in fact, all this GOTY stuff is just a load of rubbish. Nobody can really claim to declare the best game of the year with any authority, since it's so subjective. Raging over some website's GOTY (or reviews, for that matter) is a complete waste of anyone's time.
Personally, I got quite bored with Dragon Age: Origins. It certainly wasn't bad, but it was a massive quivering heap of tedious clichés, and extremely repetitive. Point is, I'd imagine my GOTY list would look quite different to yours. And that's okay. They're our own lists.
* With one or two notable exceptions, of course. I clocked almost 90 hours in my first playthrough of Fallout 3, and loved every minute of it. I've also played loads and loads of Borderlands.
And in this instance, I feel it was fair to provide that as a relevant example If I really have to connect the dots, then here it is: the longer campaign in DAO allowed a greater depth to both the storyline and the story telling, and the story is important when deciding on a game of the year.
Interestingly, you cite fallout 3 as one of your most enjoyable games. F3 happened to win a number of GOTY awards, yet sold fewer units in it's first two months than MW2 sold in a week. Now was it awarded the GOTY because it sold a lot, or because it provided an engrossing storyline along with innovative gameplay?
Oh the irony
Anyway, over arguing about it. Going off to play Batman: AA.
*edit*
Forgot that quotes are automatically italicised :/
Last edited:
Isengard
No Hobbits Allowed
Heh, I like that you discard sales as a measure of quality, then immediately cite game length as a measure of quality. There's a lot of trudging around and playing what is essentially exactly the same encounter over and over in Dragon Age: Origins, for example. How many of those 60+ hours constitute entirely new scenarios or gameplay experiences?
I'd take the 7 or so hours of epic action in MW2 over 60+ hours of... actually, almost anything*. I do think it's possible (all too possible) for games to go on after they've stopped being interesting. Gears of War, Dead Space, and Batman: Arkham Asylum (and lots of others) were all games that crammed high intensity gaming into 6-10 hours, and succeeded enormously well indeed.
Anyway, I'd say neither sales nor game length is a particularly good indicator of quality at all - in fact, all this GOTY stuff is just a load of rubbish. Nobody can really claim to declare the best game of the year with any authority, since it's so subjective. Raging over some website's GOTY (or reviews, for that matter) is a complete waste of anyone's time.
Personally, I got quite bored with Dragon Age: Origins. It certainly wasn't bad, but it was a massive quivering heap of tedious clichés, and extremely repetitive. Point is, I'd imagine my GOTY list would look quite different to yours. And that's okay. They're our own lists.
* With one or two notable exceptions, of course. I clocked almost 90 hours in my first playthrough of Fallout 3, and loved every minute of it. I've also played loads and loads of Borderlands.
Fallout was great and all, for about the first 30 hours at least, but the tedium really set in at that point and you realised that you were just going through the same motions over and over again. Traversing the same looking cave/ installation/ wasteland until you want to scratch your eyes out. I guess you could fault Dragon Age: Origins for some of the same things. But in terms of narrative, voice acting and animation DAO is in a league of its own compared to Fallout 3.
What you say about game of the year awards being objective is very true and in most instances I’d agree with you. We’d all have very different looking lists if it was us who made them. However in the case of MW2 I can see no logical way that it is deserving of any merits on the PC. I concede that as a console shooter it’s probably one of the best, if not the best that was released this year, but with all the missteps the series took on PC it’s unfathomable how it could be regarded as PC game of the year in anyone’s eyes.
I’d have accepted Arkham Asylum as game of the year, or Machinarium, or Torchlight, or any number of slightly more original, sanely priced games. I’m just having a hard time believing people can love such an average game so much, especially when it’s an inferior version of a console game.
Azimuth
New member
Hmmm. Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough.
I'm not sure I agree that story is important when deciding on a GOTY, simply because having a good story is not necessary to making a good game. Not to say that a good story doesn't add a lot, mind you, but rather that it's still just one part of the game.
Anyway, it's a useful example: it's important to you. And as I've already said, I thought that the story was tedious and full of clichés. After 10 hours or so, I was already getting a bit bored. Hence my comment that arguing over GOTYs is pointless, since everyone has their own opinion, and that opinion is almost entirely subjective. See?
Heh, I didn't think Fallout 3 had a particularly good story, actually (I think Fallout 2's was better, and certainly more coherent). Fallout 3's story was just okay. On the other hand, I absolutely adored the setting. And innovative gameplay? Hardly. It was an interesting RPG system (done before, however - and arguably better - in two previous Fallout titles, and Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader, as well as the very similar system used in Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura) mashed up with a (let's admit it) kinda horrible FPS.
Fallout 3 won a lot of GOTYs because a lot of people in positions to award GOTYs really liked it. The reasons those people liked it are likely to diverge here and there too.
This is an argument? I thought it was just an interesting discussion. :/
That's a fair observation. Although I'm not sure it's been as much of a bomb on PC in America / Europe as it has in South Africa and Australia, where inadequate broadband services have made playing MW2 a chore. Yes, I know IW's forums are stuffed with people complaining - but then, so are Valve's, Bioware's, and pretty much any other developer you can name. People complain about everything. ;P
I'm not sure I agree that story is important when deciding on a GOTY, simply because having a good story is not necessary to making a good game. Not to say that a good story doesn't add a lot, mind you, but rather that it's still just one part of the game.
Anyway, it's a useful example: it's important to you. And as I've already said, I thought that the story was tedious and full of clichés. After 10 hours or so, I was already getting a bit bored. Hence my comment that arguing over GOTYs is pointless, since everyone has their own opinion, and that opinion is almost entirely subjective. See?
Interestingly, you cite fallout 3 as one of your most enjoyable games. F3 happened to win a number of GOTY awards, yet sold fewer units in it's first two months than MW2 sold in a week. Now was it awarded the GOTY because it sold a lot, or because it provided an engrossing storyline along with innovative gameplay?
Oh the irony
Heh, I didn't think Fallout 3 had a particularly good story, actually (I think Fallout 2's was better, and certainly more coherent). Fallout 3's story was just okay. On the other hand, I absolutely adored the setting. And innovative gameplay? Hardly. It was an interesting RPG system (done before, however - and arguably better - in two previous Fallout titles, and Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader, as well as the very similar system used in Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura) mashed up with a (let's admit it) kinda horrible FPS.
Fallout 3 won a lot of GOTYs because a lot of people in positions to award GOTYs really liked it. The reasons those people liked it are likely to diverge here and there too.
This is an argument? I thought it was just an interesting discussion. :/
That's a fair observation. Although I'm not sure it's been as much of a bomb on PC in America / Europe as it has in South Africa and Australia, where inadequate broadband services have made playing MW2 a chore. Yes, I know IW's forums are stuffed with people complaining - but then, so are Valve's, Bioware's, and pretty much any other developer you can name. People complain about everything. ;P
Last edited:
Necuno
The Piper
there........
Azimuth
New member
The new term for "expansion pack" is, of course, "DLC". ;P
Isengard
No Hobbits Allowed
COD Modern Warfare gets my vote for top 5 Games.
Borderlands should also be in there somewhere.
And Dragon Age Origins too !!
All very good games. 2009 was a good year
It was a good year, but 2010 looks like it might be even better.
Some people say MW2 earned more than 700 mil last year. And i thought about a little article i read on that subject. A PC gaming journalist asked the question.. Why is it that the retail price of MW2 is R400 and more for the standard version of the game when most new releases these days go for around R300. The supplier answered that they knew that this title would be in demand so they could raise the price.
It makes business sense but does that give it game of the year status. I dont know. I didn't even bother to buy this game, not just because of the ridiculous price but also because of what i would get for my money. Im old school gamer and so i only play single player. Multiplayer has absolutely no value to me. So i don't care how stunning the graphics are you better give me more than 6hrs of gameplay if you want to call your game exceptional and awesome. Well unless ofcourse you're 15 and you buy the game just so you can have bragging rights to your nerdy friends at school.
It makes business sense but does that give it game of the year status. I dont know. I didn't even bother to buy this game, not just because of the ridiculous price but also because of what i would get for my money. Im old school gamer and so i only play single player. Multiplayer has absolutely no value to me. So i don't care how stunning the graphics are you better give me more than 6hrs of gameplay if you want to call your game exceptional and awesome. Well unless ofcourse you're 15 and you buy the game just so you can have bragging rights to your nerdy friends at school.
fridgevr
New member
SP is more than 6hours if you play it on highest diffuculties, there is Spec ops which is very underrated and im sorry the only reason why any self respecting fps fan has not tried mw2 MP is because they dont have internet.
You can ask anyone on here that the MP is brilliant and for me personally so far well worth the R500. Yes there is a lot of issues with the hosting of games but the pure addictiveness is scary sometimes.
You say you are a old school gamer and you make valid point but mate please point me out nr. 1 a pc game these days which is R299.00 and nr.2 what fps offers you 3 different game modes which are all brilliant in their own right?
You can ask anyone on here that the MP is brilliant and for me personally so far well worth the R500. Yes there is a lot of issues with the hosting of games but the pure addictiveness is scary sometimes.
You say you are a old school gamer and you make valid point but mate please point me out nr. 1 a pc game these days which is R299.00 and nr.2 what fps offers you 3 different game modes which are all brilliant in their own right?
Last edited:
Azimuth
New member
Portal won several GOTYs, and can be finished in less than 4 hours.
I don't see why the length of a game has any relevance whatsoever. Lots of shit games are really long. It doesn't make them any less shit. Still, I don't see the point in getting all hot and bothered about GOTYs. They're completely subjective - deal with it. No matter what game any site picks, there's going to be a huge bunch of people who disagree. Lol?
Also, I was really disappointed with Dragon Age: Origins. So. Boring. And. Full. Of. Clichés. I think it's the only game I played last year that I didn't bother finishing.
Batman: AA was awesome, though.
Azimuth
New member
You can't be much of an old school gamer if you expect more than 6 hours of game time per title. King's Quest I could be clocked in less than 3 minutes.
As I've said above, there are a lot of great games that are pretty quickly over. Braid? Portal? Mirror's Edge? LucasArts' entire back catalogue of adventure games?
The length of a game is absolutely no measure of how good it is or isn't.
[EDIT] Oh ffs, necropost. Didn't even notice. >_>
GReeN_ORB
Persistent illusion
Portal won several GOTYs, and can be finished in less than 4 hours.
Still, I don't see the point in getting all hot and bothered about GOTYs. They're completely subjective - deal with it. No matter what game any site picks, there's going to be a huge bunch of people who disagree. Lol?
Also, I was really disappointed with Dragon Age: Origins. So. Boring. And. Full. Of. Clichés. I think it's the only game I played last year that I didn't bother finishing.
Batman: AA was awesome, though.
And yet I wouldn't have selected Portal as GOTY either?
It was a fun, 3d puzzle solving game, but thats about it.
MW2 was an interactive movie. Fun, visually amazing, but it progressed on rails from the first shot to the last. It's nice when a game gives you a guiding hand at times, but when it grabs you by the hair and drags you along, it can get rather tiresome...