Game Informer Ranks Doom #6 In Top 200 Games

[newt]

Game Informer Magazine has reached 200 issues, and in commemoration they have compiled a list of the Top 200 Games Of All Time. Doom is ranked in sixth place.

Id Software's Wolfenstein 3D threw out the first pitch when it came to popularizing the first-person shooter, but Doom knocked it out of park, giving the genre the kick start it needed to rule the gaming landscape two decades later. Who could forget the first time they chainsawed a demon or pulled the trigger on the BFG9000? More important than the awesome weapons and setting is the inception of Internet-enabled deathmatches; legend has it that Doom co-creator John Romero coined the term. Opening up John Carmack's brilliant engine to the masses started the first widespread modding community, resulting in endless user content distributed over bullentin board systems, and providing training grounds for many of today's top designers.

This December 2009 issue is delivered in eight unique cover designs; one of these eight features none other but the Pinky Demon, in all its pixelated glory.

[Mr. Freeze]

More like Game Misinformer.

[Creaphis]

That, and I really don't get why anyone cares about these lists. They're all just some guy's opinion, sometimes Doom is near the top, sometimes it isn't... so what?

[DuckReconMajor]

So what??? Doom's getting some recognition for being a great game, that's what. Why do people root for sports teams that win often? Why do they like to see their team win? We all want to be associated with something that is great, and we enjoy being reminded that it is great. I'm sure all of you take it for granted, but it's still exciting to see that someone still thinks this is one of the greatest games of all time, whether you hate the magazine or not.

[newt]

Oh hey, it made it. I feel all special inside.

I've really never much cared for game magazines or "top" lists, but I figured it was worth the mention. It doesn't have so much to do with the fact that it's high in the list but that it is in the list at all--as DuckRecon said, it's for the recognition. Who knows, maybe some casual lamecakes who've never heard of it would pick it up and give it a whirl now.

...Nahhh. But wouldn't that be nifty?

[DuckReconMajor]

newt said:

Who knows, maybe some casual lamecakes who've never heard of it would pick it up and give it a whirl now.

Certainly. In fact, in their Top 100 Games list they did on their 100th issue, they had Doom at #5 and said

Why not download a shareware copy in your spare time to see just how well the game has aged, and just how much other games have borrowed from this classic?

[Talvi]

When I saw Starcraft too low and 4 Zelda games on list I already thought this is bullshit.

[40oz]

Mr. Freeze said:

More like Game Misinformer.

Someone already made that joke in a similar thread.

[caco_killer]

I get Game Informer through my Gamestop Edge card membership, and I did not get the Demon cover. I am very disappointed.

[Scuba Steve]

MegaWTF at #5 and #29. This isn't even a debatable point, Half Life 1 |is| better than Half Life 2. Maybe you could switch these two around... but this invalidates any opinion game informer has. All the nominees are at least worthy... but this is wrong.

[Texas Libra]

Talvi said:

When I saw [...] 4 Zelda games on list I already thought this is bullshit.

Wow.

[reki107]

Scuba Steve said:

MegaWTF at #5 and #29. This isn't even a debatable point, Half Life 1 |is| better than Half Life 2. Maybe you could switch these two around... but this invalidates any opinion game informer has. All the nominees are at least worthy... but this is wrong.

agreed

didn't we already have a thread about this?

[Csonicgo]

in order for a bestgameofalltimeeverever list
there has to be space invaders.

Is there? If not, this list is auto-bullshit.

[Vermil]

In order for this to be a best game list it must have "insert name of my favourite game here" on it.

[reki107]

Csonicgo said:

Is there? If not, this list is auto-bullshit.

FOUND

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/everything-else/48751-according-to-issue-200-of-gameinformer/

[jon_infektion]

newt said:

one of these eight features none other but the Pinky Demon, in all its pixelated glory.

I was not aware of this when I renewed my subscription today and got the damn Tetris cover

[hobomaster22]

Scuba Steve said:

MegaWTF at #5 and #29. This isn't even a debatable point, Half Life 1 |is| better than Half Life 2. Maybe you could switch these two around... but this invalidates any opinion game informer has. All the nominees are at least worthy... but this is wrong.

The first Half Life didn't really hook me like the 2nd one did. My review of it probably isn't fair because I don't even remember it, but I do remember playing it for a few hours and then putting it down because I got bored. Half Life 2, however, caused me to shut myself in my room until I beat it. I still play HL2 deathmatch with my friends every once in a great while because it's pretty fast paced and you can throw toilets at each other. The engine has also aged incredibly well since it's basically the same engine they've been recycling up until Left 4 Dead 2. Still. Nothing compared to Doom, in my opinion. :P.

[Scuba Steve]

For the same reason kids playing Modern Warfare 2 would play Doom and say "This is ugly and it sucks". Half Life 1 was unbelievably significant when it was released... unless you played it then, you cannot understand how important the game was. Half Life 2 is just a good game... but there is nothing significant. Same for Doom... unless you really played Doom when it was released... it's hard to understand that it single handedly changed videogames. The original Half life was just as significant.

To even suggest that HL2 is better or even more important shows the ignorance and unprofessionalism of Game informer.

[Mr. Freeze]

Scuba Steve said:

To even suggest that HL2 is better or even more important shows the ignorance and unprofessionalism of Game informer.

Opinions do not equal fact.

[newt]

What's wrong with saying HL2 is better than HL1? It took the same basic formula, added some more variety, fleshed out the story, expanded the physics and puzzle concepts, and polished it to a sheen with all them fancy graphics and animation to boot. HL was revolutionary for certain--with that I cannot and would not argue--but HL2 was the logical next step.

It is tremendously difficult to follow a revolution with another revolution in sequence. So they took what they did with the revolution and improved upon it. The game was still far from perfect, and it lacks the same nostalgia, but just because the first game was a serious revolution does not automatically make it the better of the two--just the more important. It's still a fantastic game to this day, but I like its successors just as much for other reasons.

Also, what Mr. Freeze said. No matter how objectively you try to look at this, these are still all positions based on opinion--nothing more.

[Scuba Steve]

Well shit...

Doom 3 is just the next logical step... Doom 3 is better than Doom 1. And yet I seriously doubt anyone here will agree with this. As far as a full experience, Doom 3 is better... but I would never consider it "better" in a "Top X" list. There has to be some criteria for judging and one of the biggest ones is always "significance" and rating games based off their appeal for their time. If you just want to say "Oh shit, 200 most fun games" you instantly discount everything until the late 80s. Text adventures and Atari games are unbelievably boring and shitty to play... yet, if you want to make an informed list (which they truly are attempting), you have to acknowledge the significance of a game at the time of its release. Even the most banal game today is more approachable and playable than any 2600 game... but you have to create some kind of rubric.

Half Life 2 was an outstanding game at the time of it's release, however the original was an unbelievable masterpiece that changed the format of gaming. If you want to be taken serious, you have to acknowledge that. If not, shit, then Doom 3 needs to replace Doom since, for all intents, it really is a better experience.

Half Life 1, at the time of it's release, was more important and more entertaining than it's sequel. This is not opinion, this is essentially an undeniable fact.

[newt]

Ah, you've got me there. And, true enough, HL2 was not terribly revolutionary for its time. Although I wouldn't say it's a completely fair comparison, as HL2 (IMO) made for a much better sequel than Doom 3 did, it's a fair point there.

I will agree that HL was much more important, influential and revolutionary at the time it was released, and I'm as it was very new and unique it obviously had more entertainment value in its time than the sequel did. But as far as FPS of this decade are concerned, I still consider HL2 to be one of the best, most balanced, most varied etc etc that have been released since 2001 or so. When you look at the competition, that's not all that impressive, but even if it didn't take a step forward I don't consider it any less fun than its predecessor.

And neither your position or mine on this point is factual, because it has no objective basis whatsoever--it completely relies on what either of us considers to be entertaining in reference to a time frame or a genre or what have you.

There does need to be perspective in reference to time, I agree, but that becomes problematic. With each new revolution it becomes more difficult to make another; games have been borrowing ideas from each other for decades, at which point I begin to wonder why bothering trying to make a list at all. Nevertheless, you'll certainly be more hard-pressed to find something truly ingenious that has been produced in the past ten years than in the ten years prior, at which point you have to be willing to say that a newer game that wasn't as breathtaking or new was still better than the rest at the time.

I do agree that HL2 shouldn't have been so high on the list, or at the least not higher than HL1 (and Doom), I do. But it's just a damn list, after all. Nobody has to agree with it. It is what it is.

[Scuba Steve]

Half Life 2 came out in 2004... after Doom 3. Agreed, this is just a stupid list... however, if you're going to maintain a sense of objectiveness about your choices (as Game Informer did), a glaring screwup like this really invalidates your journalistic integrity.

You wouldn't compare a senior thesis to a 3rd grader's essay on Thanksgiving and say "See how much better this thesis is!?"

[Leo Sosnine]

I support those, who consider HL to be better than HL2.

[Mr. Freeze]

WHERE IS EPISODE 3 GABE
YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE EPISODE 3

[Creaphis]

Leo Sosnine said:

I support those, who consider HL to be better than HL2.

Yeah, I'll throw my hat in that ring. I haven't even played HL2 yet but I know the first one is the one that redefined the genre.

[kristus]

Yes, It's HL we can thank for game studios starting to make shit instead of fun games like Doom and Quake.

[Creaphis]

Come to think of it, maybe "redefining a genre" isn't really an accomplishment in itself. Invariably, it's the geniuses that create new tropes, and it's the hacks that copy them*. Saying that something has "redefined a genre" is saying "Congratulations, you've given these slobs a new cash cow," so let me instead say that Half Life 1 is the better game for doing something new, and for doing it well. It shouldn't be held responsible for the drudgery to follow.

* More examples (off the top of my head):
Watchmen -> Gritty "Dark Age" antiheroes
Buffy the Vampire Slayer -> This hideous curse of teen vampire dramas

[kristus]

I would like someone to point out what HL actually did that was new. Had an incredibly tedious unskippable intro sequence? I think we could've done without that.

[Mr. Freeze]

kristus said:

I would like someone to point out what HL actually did that was new. Had an incredibly tedious unskippable intro sequence? I think we could've done without that.

It was one of the first games to rely on in-game events to tell a story, rather than text breaks or cutscenes.