Must-Have Games: The OCR List

[The Coop]

Making people write reviews would force them to actually THINK about their nominations, as well as let other readers judge for themselves if the games would fit their tastes. This way everybody wins, yay!

Folks aren't able to look up stuff on their own anymore?

I can honestly say I've thought about every game on my list. A game isn't there unless I've played it, thoroughly enjoyed it, and weighed it against similar games over the last few years that the list has been added to. I could go into detail about each and every one of the titles on my list, but what would be the point? All it's going to take is one person saying "I don't agree", and the thread maker's going to go and find reviews and info on the game themselves anyway. With a quick stop by sites like IGN, Gamespot, Gamefaqs (depending on the reviewer, and mostly for the older titles), Mobygames, Game Rankings, Rotten Tomatoes, and other sites like them, they'll get all the info they'll need, as well as (usually) more than enough reviews, screenshots, and viewpoints to help them make up their mind. And if they can't, then they can ask about it in the thread they made.

If a game is listed by someone, it means they liked it (well, maybe not megadave's one list ). From there, it's up to the one asking for games to do the research beyond someone's implied, or written out, "I liked it".

[Bahamut]

But some people in this thread have shown questionable choices for games, and it should be up to them to enlighten others exactly why each game they chose should be considered a must-play, even for those disinclined towards it.

[The Coop]

But some people in this thread have shown questionable choices for games, and it should be up to them to enlighten others exactly why each game they chose should be considered a must-play, even for those disinclined towards it.

Questionable by your tastes perhaps, Bahamut, but not theirs.

If the thread maker goes off and looks up a game, finds it to be poorly reviewed, they're going to come back and ask "How could you like this game?" (assuming another poster doesn't ask them that before hand). Then the person can state why they liked it, and what they disagree with in other reviews. I refer back to my original point about "I don't agree". Someone could post every last reason why they liked a given game, and still have a dozen people saying that person's on drugs/full of shit/has no taste. And so, off the thread maker goes to see what's up. A lot of wasted effort, that results in the same actions in the end.

Besides... if sephfire is like so many other people, he'll be looking up more info on the games listed whether someone posts a mini-review or not. Blindly saying "OKAY!" and forking out cash because of a single game review or list on OCR isn't a good plan. And if he has questions on a given game later, he's perfectly free to ask them. A lot of folks have no problems answering such questions, but they're not really up for giving all the hows and whys on something unless they've actually been asked.

So, if Sephfire or anyone's curious as to why someone chose a game, all they gotta do is ask. An answer won't be far behind

[Mouser X]

The original idea of this thread, I thought, was to list what games are well made, enjoyable, and "long lasting." Ideally, it was not to list your favorite game, but a game that should be played, due to its attention to detail and quality. Some people have followed this idea, and said something like "I don't like <game x>, but it oviously belongs on the list, due to <reason>."

Even if a game got a 3 out of 10, it *could* make it on the list, theoreticlly. An example of what I mean would be ET. How could that game possibly be considered a *must play?* Well, the original developer is quite proud of the game. He did what no one else could (or would, in their right mind...) do. He built a commercial game, by himself, in about 6 weeks. No, it wasn't a good game. However, considering what the developer had to work with, he did a decent job. Again, I wouldn't recommend that game as a must play, but I was attempting show how a game no one likes could, theoretically, be included on the list.

The biggest reason, in my opinion, that this is a "favorites thread," is because people are treating it as such. I agree that nominations should have some form of comment on them. Basically, just what Deathtank did. One or 2 sentances. He said "Dark Savior: it has bad controls but the parallel scenario pretty makes the game replay value very good." Due to the bad controls, I would say this game shouldn't be on the list. I say this, because the list is to show games that are "must play" games. Having bad controls makes it difficult to play such a game. Perhaps the game has other redeeming qualities (as Deathtank said it does), but I'm not sure those are good enough to make it a "must play."

So yes, this thread can be highly opinionated. However, I don't think that's what sephire was after. I think he was more geared toward the technical aspects, and enjoyablity, rather than what games people actually liked. Obvioiusly, enjoyablilty and likes are often very close, but I don't think they have to be.

Perhaps no one will listen to me, but hopefully I can at least make some difference in this (preferably a positive one). Mouser X out.

[Bahamut]

Questionable by your tastes perhaps, Bahamut, but not theirs.

If the thread maker goes off and looks up a game, finds it to be poorly reviewed, they're going to come back and ask "How could you like this game?" (assuming another poster doesn't ask them that before hand). Then the person can state why they liked it, and what they disagree with in other reviews. I refer back to my original point about "I don't agree". Someone could post every last reason why they liked a given game, and still have a dozen people saying that person's on drugs/full of shit/has no taste. And so, off the thread maker goes to see what's up. A lot of wasted effort, that results in the same actions in the end.

Besides... if sephfire is like so many other people, he'll be looking up more info on the games listed whether someone posts a mini-review or not. Blindly saying "OKAY!" and forking out cash because of a single game review or list on OCR isn't a good plan. And if he has questions on a given game later, he's perfectly free to ask them. A lot of folks have no problems answering such questions, but they're not really up for giving all the hows and whys on something unless they've actually been asked.

So, if Sephfire or anyone's curious as to why someone chose a game, all they gotta do is ask. An answer won't be far behind

Not even by my tastes - some elements of various games mentioned fall far short to many gamers I've encountered. The simplest example of what I've questioned is the Metroid Prime games, most notably 2. I haven't encountered a person who has finished the second game, and even the first game was a toil for some to finish. When you have situations like that not being isolated in any capacity, clearly something is up.

In fact, the main reason I didn't dispute or discuss more games is because of this exact reason, that someone would choose to mudsling over giving legitimate points as to why so-and-so game is a must-play for people even not typically interested in the style or genre. If someone can't defend a choice adequately, then it wasn't deserving of such an honor in the first place.

[The Coop]

Not even by my tastes - some elements of various games mentioned fall far short to many gamers I've encountered. The simplest example of what I've questioned is the Metroid Prime games, most notably 2. I haven't encountered a person who has finished the second game, and even the first game was a toil for some to finish. When you have situations like that not being isolated in any capacity, clearly something is up.

In fact, the main reason I didn't dispute or discuss more games is because of this exact reason, that someone would choose to mudsling over giving legitimate points as to why so-and-so game is a must-play for people even not typically interested in the style or genre. If someone can't defend a choice adequately, then it wasn't deserving of such an honor in the first place.

Yeah, games can get pretty personal at times, huh? How many flame wars have broken out here over one game or another? Some folks just take it way too personally when someone bags on a game they're fond of... like the put down was for them, and not the game.

Take The Immortal for example. This is a game I had a lot of fun with. Detailed and clean graphics, good music, great animation for the time, tough but not unfair puzzles and sections, simple fights, and interesting characters. To me, this game was pure challenging fun. Yet to quite a few, it was an impossible to play turd. I could sit and defend it all day, but that won't change the fact that I'm in the minority on it. The game isn't broken with bad controls or spotty hit detection, it's just hard. And that level of difficulty turns a lot of people off to it, much like how an art style or gameplay type can do the same (the latter of which is another reason so many hate TI).

I can't comment on the "Prime" series, as I've never played either of them. But I've taken a lot of shit for enjoying The Immortal, and I still defend it when these kinds of game requests come up. To me, the "Must Haves" aren't always the ones that got all the attention, or loads of high scoring reviews. Sometimes, they're the ones that to you, brought everything together for a great game that you enjoy playing over and over again. And really, I think that's part of what these types of threads are about... people pointing out their "Must Haves" that may not seem like it at first

[Dhsu]

I think of this thread as more about establishing a core, baseline library for anyone who owns a particular console. As in, sure there's lots of cool underrated games, but this is THE LIST of games that everyone absolutely MUST HAVE if that own that console.

That said, I disagree with Lament of Innocence. It's good, but not great. Nowhere near the PS2-defining status of games like God of War and Metal Gear Solid 3.

[The Coop]

I think of this thread as more about establishing a core, baseline library for anyone who owns a particular console. As in, sure there's lots of cool underrated games, but this is THE LIST of games that everyone absolutely MUST HAVE if that own that console.

Not to be a smart ass, but... then why make a thread? A quick visit to a couple gaming sites can give you that kind of list. Places like IGN let you narrow down searches by only showing reviewed games that got a certain score or higher. As such, I can't help but think sephfire was looking for something more than just a typical "Top 10" list.

[Arek the Absolute]

We could play Devil's Advocate and argue why these games shouldn't be on the list.

too much effort to do so

[Dhsu]

As such, I can't help but think sephfire was looking for something more than just a typical "Top 10" list.

Our goal here is to form a list of the finest games there are. The games every serious gamer should own. The cream of the crop. They can be best-sellers or underdogs, but they must be solid games.

Not to be a smart ass, but... then why make a thread?

Good point.

[The Coop]

I believe the "underdogs" and "solid games" parts are what make me believe this was to be more than a Top 10 list. Underdogs don't get to the top ten (or the top fifty?), and I believe we all know "underdog/solid games" that we feel everyone should play/own.

Maybe I'm wrong. Care to clarify sephfire? And careful how you word it... your thread may depend on it

[WesPip]

Basically, I thobl what Coop is saying is, don't nominate a game just because you think it's fun.

Nominate a game because you think that, regardless of personal tastes, it's a game that everyone should at least try.

Katamari is a good example of this, IMO.

I have a few friends who don't play much more than shooters. However, I got them to play KD just because I thought that's a game that any actual gamer should at least try, just because that's the kind of game it is. If you don't like it, fine, but but you shouldn't play video games without having tried it.

That's the point of the thread.

[Arek the Absolute]

Actually, I think one way to add some actual value to this thread would be to ask people to argue why their nominations SHOULD be on the list. Basically write a mini-review, of sorts. Right now this thread is just a bunch of people spouting out lists. Making people write reviews would force them to actually THINK about their nominations, as well as let other readers judge for themselves if the games would fit their tastes. This way everybody wins, yay!

Fine, then while Sephire is at it, he can go to every main review site on the nets and post their rating for every game that someone nominates, so that way people at least have some numbers to judge them by.

Then attach links to member's reviews, mainly one that likes the game and one that doesn't, so that way people can get some feel as to what the game has in store for them. Make sure the reviews are thourough and not just a few blurbs of "this game sucks cause its emo" or "this is good cause cloud is awesome".

If you want this thread to work, put a lot more god damn effort into it rather than just listing shit.

favorites thread and seph needs to stop getting away with these

[Magewout]

Basically, I thobl what Coop is saying is, don't nominate a game just because you think it's fun.

Nominate a game because you think that, regardless of personal tastes, it's a game that everyone should at least try.

Katamari is a good example of this, IMO.

I have a few friends who don't play much more than shooters. However, I got them to play KD just because I thought that's a game that any actual gamer should at least try, just because that's the kind of game it is. If you don't like it, fine, but but you shouldn't play video games without having tried it.

That's the point of the thread.

I completely agree on this. I dislike the Final Fantasy series, but I think every self-respecting gamer should at least have tried one.

[Dhsu]

But then shouldn't the thread be called "Must-Try Games"?

[WesPip]

But then shouldn't the thread be called "Must-Try Games"?

Well really, who rents anymore?

[EdgeCrusher]

I guess Ill throw in my 2 cents.

NES:

Castlevania 1-3

Tetris (tengen version)

Mario 1-3

Zelda 1 and 2

Clash At Demonhead

Mega Man 1-6

Super NES:

Mario World

Super Metroid

Zelda 3

Actraiser

Starfox

Genesis:

Sonic 1-3

Shaq Fu

PS1:

CV: SOTN

ps2:

GTA III, VC, SA

DMC 1-3

Shadow of the Colossus

Dreamcast:

RE:CV

N64:

Zelda OoT and MM

Gamecube:

RE4

Wii:

Zelda TP

Super Paper Mario

Thats just a rough outline list done in a few minutes though.

[Dhsu]

Well really, who rents anymore?

Actually, I really got a lot out of my GameFly and Gamerang subscriptions when I had them. Doubly useful if you've got a hard drive.

[EdgeCrusher]

I haven't rented a game in like, 10 years. Since back when the ps1 first came out. But I rent the hell out of stuff on netflix.

[Yellow 13]

We need some PSP love here.

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories

Lumines II

PS2

Ace Combat 4

Ace Combat 5

Zone of the Enders

Gran Turismo 4

Xbox

Halo

Halo 2

Forza Motorsport

Doom 3

[Rambo]

I'm assuming by people's previously suggested lists that primarily multiplayer games aren't to be considered? The only one's I see are halo/halo 2 which have considerable story lines as well. There are some phenomenal games for mainly multiplayer purpose that retain a great replay value anytime people are in the numbers.

[atmuh]

dance dance revolution

[RealFolkBlues]

I'm assuming by people's previously suggested lists that primarily multiplayer games aren't to be considered? The only one's I see are halo/halo 2 which have considerable story lines as well. There are some phenomenal games for mainly multiplayer purpose that retain a great replay value anytime people are in the numbers.

Unreal Tournament springs to mind. Counter-strike as well. There are quite a few games that should be mentioned, if multiplayer-centric games are considered.

[Arek the Absolute]

sephire pay attention to your own thread kthx

[dsx100]

I really think there is no point to this thread now. I agree with Coop as sites like IGN and Gamepsot have there own top 25 or top 100 lists which pretty much give exactly what sephire wanted. I also hate the idea of a list of "Must Play" games by any "real" or "serious" gamer. Like I said before, I don't like nor play many so-called top games like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Halo, and Guitar Hero, but I don't think that makes me any less of a gamer. I am not saying they are bad games but I just don't want people telling me I have to play them just to be considered a true gamer.

For example, for those that don't like Metriod Prime 2, how would you like it if I told you that you were not a true gamer not playing nor liking the game. I bet it would piss you off. So just put yourself in others shoes who would feel the same about other games.

Oh, and by the way Bahamut, I have beat Metriod Prime 2 twice already. Once on normal difficulty and once on hard difficulty. And people think Metriod Prime 2 is hard. They should really try playing on hard mode.