Vote for Half-Life 2 as game of the year

[Nick Perrin]

Ayu said:

...annoying 20 minute or so no-weapon opening...

I don't know what's wrong with you people!!* The beginning is incredible!! Like something out of a movie. And like all good movies there can't always be action. Anyway the beginning is extremely detailed and really sets the mood for the rest of the game. Besides, the action sequences are SO good, even if you didn't like the beginning they more than make up for it.





*Too much DooM. j/k

[toxicfluff]

I loved the rooftop climbing enemies.... I got shivers when the drainpipes began to rattle. I really like most of the HL2 enemies I've encountered so far.... well thought out and quite unusual in my opinion.

I'd say it's the best new game I've played this year. But I still ain't gonna vote.

[Nick Perrin]

toxicfluff said:

I'd say it's the best new game I've played this year. But I still ain't gonna vote.

If you like it so much, vote for it!!

[Murdoch]

I can't vote. They seem to have left out the "I Don't Give a Flying Shit" option :D

[Grazza]

Voting is overrated anyway. :p

[DoomDan]

Nick Perrin said:

If you like it so much, vote for it!!

Ummm, Why are you so desperate for Half Life 2 to win.We already know its probably gonna win due to all the CS fanboys so dont worry.

[Nmn]

JoelMurdoch said:

I can't vote. They seem to have left out the "I Don't Give a Flying Shit" option :D

heh, seconded.

DoomDan said:

We already know its probably gonna win due to all the CS fanboys so dont worry.

Oh damn! I hate them. They are friggen everywhere, in my school, on LAN, on streets assholes keep talking about CS ("it's so cool!"... ) makes me wish I had a gun for real, heh.
That is, I live in such a damn hole I am forced to look at those retarded mugs while taking a walk.. :(

[NiGHTMARE]

Yeah, it's pretty much between the CS/HL fanboys and the Halo 2 fanboys... though maybe the Sims 2 fangirls might upset things? :D

[Sharessa]

NiGHTMARE said:

No, paranoid and rather arrogant people who refuse to accept that general public opinion differs from their own think that :|. Being very familiar with the journalism industry (I did, after all, study media and journalism for six years ;)), I can tell you that such a theory is utter shite and should be placed in the same location other shite goes - down the toilet. Though it'll most likely still leave a nasty smell behind.

Right... I don't see how this is a theory. It's not like I've just been sitting here making shit up. I've actualy read many reviews in the past year and they do stupid crap like spend half of an article talkign about all the bad points of the game then end it by saying "but the game is really pretty! 9.8/10!" I'd say that's rather assinine reviewing. And it seems like the more mainstream the company is, the better reviews somethign gets. Anything that's not Sierra/Id/Eidos/Atari/Blizzard/Rockstar usualy gets, at best, 8/10. Anything from the aforementioned companies usualy gets at least that uless it's some title that they weren't expecting to sell well anyway. I wouldn't call that an "arrogant" and "paranoid" "theory".

No magazine publisher in their right mind would chance the short term benefit of a bit of extra cash over the long term risk of complete bankruptcy if they got found out; after all, who would buy a magazine from a company they knew for a fact they couldn't trust?

The ignorant masses. Seriously, I'm fairly sure most people just ignore most of the article and see the shiny big "9.8/10" (or "11/10 FFS") at the end and go "oooh, must buy!" Consider the fact that most gamers are American and America re-elected Bush. :P

First of all, if you're going to start using foul language and flaming people, please calm yourself down a bit and think carefully about how to act like a mature and reasoned individual when taking part in an otherwise intelligent and rational discussion.

Well honestly, I spent about a half-hour putting together that post and if you're just going to act like you completely ignored it, that really kind of pisses me off. At least I'm not insulting you.

Yes I did read that. However, I could say that the majority of people think that I am their belligerent overlord and they should do whatever I say, but that wouldn't make it true! :D

I'm not just pulling this out of my ass here. Seriously, you can't dismiss that at least Doom is a contender against Half-Life as the best game ever. Sure, it's old and most gamers under the age of 18 don't know WTF it is, but anyone our age or older probably enjoyed Doom more. Really, I think it's probably a generational thing anyway. Older PC gamers prefer Doom, leet kiddies prefer Half-Life. Though really, I think most gamers never even touched a PC before the 90s ended and the majority would rather play Metroid or whatever than any of the games we're areguing about. :P

The fact that just about any opinion poll you care to look at ranks Half-life higher than these games just shows that you didn't answer the question properly. The games you listed are not more well liked than Half-life... and without facts (which I have - as I said just look at the opinion polls) I'm afraid you cannot prove otherwise.

I thought opinion polls were for politics. They have them for games too?

[Fredrik]

Danarchy said:

Seriously, you can't dismiss that at least Doom is a contender against Half-Life as the best game ever.

If you want it to be the best game ever, just decide that way. Again: there is no objective way to measure the "best" game, only your personal opinion.

[Sharessa]

Which is why this coversation is completely stupid. Who started it anyway? If I got to choose the best FPS ever, I'd most likely go with Quake 2 anyway. That game is pure sex.

[NiGHTMARE]

It wasn't about being games being "best" or "worst", it was about games being overrated. Completely different things.

I'll reply to Danarchy's big post tommorow.

[Nmn]

Yep, it's all personal opinions, but if a mass of players decide that it's their fave game, shouldn't it be called the best (or at least one of the best)? Hmm..

[Fredrik]

NiGHTMARE said:

It wasn't about being games being "best" or "worst", it was about games being overrated. Completely different things.

And as I've already explained, overratedness is equally subjective...

[Murdoch]

Fredrik said:

And as I've already explained, overratedness is equally subjective...

Oh my God. I agree with you. Everyone to the bomb shelters, the end of the world must be nigh.

[Fredrik]

JoelMurdoch said:

Oh my God. I agree with you. Everyone to the bomb shelters, the end of the world must be nigh.

I think we had an agreement in early 2002 too. Something about water being wet, but the argument needed before we got there spanned screen-meters.

[NiGHTMARE]

Fredrik said:

And as I've already explained, overratedness is equally subjective...

And as I've already explained, no it isn't:

- You can objectively say whether there are more people who think a game is the best thing ever made there are who don't like it, since this a fact, not an opinion.

- If the qualified* "best evers" outweigh the "not best evers", then that gives you an objective answer on what the majority of the gaming community consider to be best (not what it is best, just the majority opinion).

- If this objective answer is in favour of "best evers", then a game cannot be overrated.

- Claiming that a game is overrated when the "best evers" outweight the "not best evers" is saying that the majority opinion is wrong, but opinions cannot be wrong (beliefs can be wrong, but opinions cannot). It is also extremely arrogant.

- Also, what gives an individual the right to proclaim that the majority of the population is wrong about their opinion of something? Answer: nothing and nobody. An individual can believe that the majority opinion is wrong (though as already mentioned, such a belief would be silly because opinions cannot be wrong), but he cannot possibly turn it into an actual fact.


If you happen to believe that "overrated" has nothing to do with majority opinion and everything to do with personal preference, that causes problems. If this were the case, by claiming that something is overrated you're saying "this game doesn't deserve the praise it's recieved". At first glance that might seem fine, but that statement is actually saying either:

- The opinions of other people are wrong... but once again, opinions cannot be wrong.

- Lots of people are lying/exagerrating, and they actually don't think the game is the best even though they claim otherwise. Why would people do this? I'll address Danarchy's claim that the video games journalism industry is full of greed and corruption later (suffice it to say "no!"), but we're talking fellow gamers here, not just journalists and industry types. We've already had the theory that it's some kind of mass hysteria/brainwashing or something (which IMHO is just nonsense paranoia), and I can think of no other explanation.


* it's probably a good idea not to include unqualified answers, since f.ex someone who's opion is that a game is the best ever doesn't really count if it's the only game he's ever played.