What are your top games of the decade? Of all time?

[Anacybele]

1 minute ago, Etheus said:

Oh, it wasn't intended as an insult at all. I just found the completely first party Nintendo list to be amusing.

 

Better to be a Nintendo fangirl than just about any other company. They make quality games.

Oh, okay then, my bad. Though I didn't really think you meant to insult me, I just wasn't sure why you found it funny, is all.

Yeah, Nintendo sure does!

[Lightcosmo]

1 hour ago, Etheus said:

Better to be a Nintendo fangirl than just about any other company. They make quality games.

This kinda depends on your definition of "quality" but I personally don't agree, to a degree. To each their own, though.

[vanguard333]

Am I the only one that thinks that Valkyria Chronicles 4 belongs on top 10 games of the decade? It's definitely better than God of War (2018).

[Fabulously Olivier]

16 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Am I the only one that thinks that Valkyria Chronicles 4 belongs on top 10 games of the decade? It's definitely better than God of War (2018).

Hey, that's your opinion, and that's cool. I'm not knocking VC4. I just... don't care for the series' blend of third person shooting and strategy. It's great that you enjoy it.

 

But the knock to those who like God of War was also unfair and unnecessary. It's a special game for me. It's a special game for a lot of people. The story is endearing. The father and son journey was emotional. The combat is meaty and satisfying. It's a bona fide linear story game in a market that is obsessed with open world busywork. It's not a perfect game (I personally found the post-game content infuriating and unnecessary), but it's a damn good one. 

[Anacybele]

21 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

This kinda depends on your definition of "quality" but I personally don't agree, to a degree. To each their own, though.

What different definitions are you talking about exactly? If you're talking about things like graphics and art style, that's a poor definition. Sure Xbox and Playstation have higher quality graphics in their games, but graphics do not make a game and it isn't like the graphics of Nintendo games are horrible.

If you're saying Nintendo is kiddie, that's an even worse way to go. They make more cartoony games, yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for teenagers and adults to enjoy them. And even then stuff like FE and Bayonetta still exist on Nintendo consoles too.

I'm just not sure what definitions you're referring to here that don't sound...well, idiotic to me.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Anacybele

[Fabulously Olivier]

13 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

What different definitions are you talking about exactly? If you're talking about things like graphics and art style, that's a poor definition. Sure Xbox and Playstation have higher quality graphics in their games, but graphics do not make a game and it isn't like the graphics of Nintendo games are horrible.

If you're saying Nintendo is kiddie, that's an even worse way to go. They make more cartoony games, yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for teenagers and adults to enjoy them. And even then stuff like FE and Bayonetta still exist on Nintendo consoles too.

I'm just not sure what definitions you're referring to here that don't sound...well, idiotic to me.

I'm curious myself. One could not enjoy a Nintendo game, but the quality of it is irrefutable. Their library has a justly-earned reputation for polish, low bug count, optimization, and excellent file size compression. Oh, and a lack of egregious monetization practices, of course. These are objective markers of a quality product.

 

Everything else is subjective and enters the realm of "I didn't like it."

[Anacybele]

1 minute ago, Etheus said:

I'm curious myself. One could not enjoy a Nintendo game, but the quality of it is irrefutable. Their library has a justly-earned reputation for polish, low bug count, optimization, and excellent file size compression. Oh, and a lack of egregious monetization practices, of course. These are objective markers of a quality product.

 

Everything else is subjective and enters the realm of "I didn't like it."

Yeah. I of course won't say I liked every single Nintendo game I've played, but I've enjoyed a vast majority of them to some degree.

[Fabulously Olivier]

2 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Yeah. I of course won't say I liked every single Nintendo game I've played, but I've enjoyed a vast majority of them to some degree.

I think that there is a distinction between a quality game and a good one. The former is an objective technical measurement. The later is a subjective personal one. These usually correllate (because games with effort put into them tend to be good, shock of shocks), but a quality game can be considered bad to someone, and a low quality game can be an enjoyable experience to someone.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a technical marvel. It is a quality game. I do not enjoy it one bit, and a lot of what makes it technically impressive directly contributes to what I find unfun about it (tedium through overdetailed animations and mechanics).

 

Skyrim is an objectively low quality game. It is buggy. It is poorly optimized. The PS3 version of the game had a memory bug that made it more and more literally unplayable as you progressed. It has ancient bugs that still have not been patched out. But that hasn't stopped it from developing a reputation as an incredible RPG with a rabid fanbase, even if I personally did not care for it.

[Anacybele]

46 minutes ago, Etheus said:

I think that there is a distinction between a quality game and a good one. The former is an objective technical measurement. The later is a subjective personal one. These usually correllate (because games with effort put into them tend to be good, shock of shocks), but a quality game can be considered bad to someone, and a low quality game can be an enjoyable experience to someone.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a technical marvel. It is a quality game. I do not enjoy it one bit, and a lot of what makes it technically impressive directly contributes to what I find unfun about it (tedium through overdetailed animations and mechanics).

 

Skyrim is an objectively low quality game. It is buggy. It is poorly optimized. The PS3 version of the game had a memory bug that made it more and more literally unplayable as you progressed. It has ancient bugs that still have not been patched out. But that hasn't stopped it from developing a reputation as an incredible RPG with a rabid fanbase, even if I personally did not care for it.

Oh, really? I never thought about there being a difference between a quality game and a good game. You just gave me a new perspective on things here.

[Lightcosmo]

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

What different definitions are you talking about exactly? If you're talking about things like graphics and art style, that's a poor definition. Sure Xbox and Playstation have higher quality graphics in their games, but graphics do not make a game and it isn't like the graphics of Nintendo games are horrible.

If you're saying Nintendo is kiddie, that's an even worse way to go. They make more cartoony games, yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for teenagers and adults to enjoy them. And even then stuff like FE and Bayonetta still exist on Nintendo consoles too.

I'm just not sure what definitions you're referring to here that don't sound...well, idiotic to me.

Well, let's see, Smash Ultimate is a disappointing simple upgrade from smash 4, even most the attacks stats are copy/pasted! No good alts, no effort towards most characters movesets, there isn't any "skill" in the game anymore. I could go on with Smash, to me, there isn't any "heart" in it anymore. They are just riding off of the name now.

 I went through Pokémon shield without losing to one trainer, no planning or anything, just blazing through, and I soloed the champion with my Clefairy, which was only level 62 at the time! Why am I bothering exactly? I mean, if the game is supposed to be a little easier, fine, but that's just extreme! Stuff like this just doesn't capture most people's interests, since it's boring and the game might as well be played on auto then.

I don't mind if games are geared towards children, and graphics... yeah I enjoy a lot of games from the N64 era and those graphics are... awful.

And if they have to update a game to make it playable, well that just speaks for itself, now doesn't it?

Edited December 6, 2019 by lightcosmo

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Etheus said:

I think that there is a distinction between a quality game and a good one. The former is an objective technical measurement. The later is a subjective personal one. These usually correllate (because games with effort put into them tend to be good, shock of shocks), but a quality game can be considered bad to someone, and a low quality game can be an enjoyable experience to someone.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a technical marvel. It is a quality game. I do not enjoy it one bit, and a lot of what makes it technically impressive directly contributes to what I find unfun about it (tedium through overdetailed animations and mechanics).

 

Skyrim is an objectively low quality game. It is buggy. It is poorly optimized. The PS3 version of the game had a memory bug that made it more and more literally unplayable as you progressed. It has ancient bugs that still have not been patched out. But that hasn't stopped it from developing a reputation as an incredible RPG with a rabid fanbase, even if I personally did not care for it.

 

16 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Oh, really? I never thought about there being a difference between a quality game and a good game. You just gave me a new perspective on things here.

The same of true of any form of art really. Writing, music, dancing, painting, etc. There’s an objective measure of quality of something but that doesn’t mean you have to like it because we all have different tastes at the end of the day. Personally the mark of a good critic to me is one that can say “while this may not be to my particular tastes, I can still say that it is objectively pretty good or I can appreciate the good it has to offer”.

As for the topic at hand, my favorite games of the decade in no particular order:

-Code Vein

-Fire Emblem Awakening

-Fire Emblem Three Houses

-Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate

-Monster Hunter World

-Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate

-Smash bros Ultimate

-Breath of the wild

-Persona 5

-Persona 4 golden(I think that was released this decade could be wrong)

[Anacybele]

2 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

Well, let's see, Smash Ultimate is a disappointing simple upgrade from smash 4, even most the attacks stats are copy/pasted! Does that really sound like "quality" to you? It sure isn't to me, that's for sure. It's not that hard to change them, honestly! No good alts, no effort towards most characters movesets, there isn't any "skill" in the game anymore. I could go on with Smash, sadly.

 I went through Pokémon shield without losing to one trainer, no planning or anything, just blazing through, and I soloed the champion with my Clefairy, which was only level 62 at the time! Why am I bothering exactly? I mean, if the game is supposed to be a little easier, fine, but that's just extreme! 

I don't mind if games are geared towards children, and graphics... yeah I enjoy a lot of games from the N64 era and those graphics are... awful.

I take you don't understand game development here from what you're saying. You're saying it's EASY to program over fifty new models and animations and then there was probably a ton of work put into the story mode too. The story mode is massive. Several characters got new voice clips too, despite having been in previous titles, like Ike. There's only so much time they can take to develop all this.

As for Pokemon, you're mostly complaining about the difficulty, which differs for different people. Just because it was easy for you doesn't mean it was easy for others. I've actually struggled in Sword, somewhat. As for the graphics, they're fine to me and that's still a minor thing.

Also, you only described two games here. Two. 😕 Two games you dislike means Nintendo doesn't make quality games. Right.

4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

The same of true of any form of art really. Writing, music, dancing, painting, etc. There’s an objective measure of quality of something but that doesn’t mean you have to like it because we all have different tastes at the end of the day. Personally the mark of a good critic to me is one that can say “while this may not be to my particular tastes, I can still say that it is objectively pretty good or I can appreciate the good it has to offer”.

Yeah, this is true too, I'd say. I didn't like books like Lord of the Flies or Animal Farm, but I can say they send good messages and were well-written. Their plots and disturbing aspects just weren't my cup of tea.

[Lightcosmo]

18 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

I take you don't understand game development here from what you're saying. You're saying it's EASY to program over fifty new models and animations and then there was probably a ton of work put into the story mode too. The story mode is massive. Several characters got new voice clips too, despite having been in previous titles, like Ike. There's only so much time they can take to develop all this.

As for Pokemon, you're mostly complaining about the difficulty, which differs for different people. Just because it was easy for you doesn't mean it was easy for others. I've actually struggled in Sword, somewhat. As for the graphics, they're fine to me and that's still a minor thing.

Also, you only described two games here. Two. 😕 Two games you dislike means Nintendo doesn't make quality games. Right.

Yeah, this is true too, I'd say. I didn't like books like Lord of the Flies or Animal Farm, but I can say they send good messages and were well-written. Their plots and disturbing aspects just weren't my cup of tea.

Have you not modded before? It's not that hard, really, it's not. Voice clips? After all this time, we got... voice clips, impressive, and most of those are ported all the way from Brawl!

As for Pokémon, There needs to be a line when a game is to easy, it's on FE8's level, and that's not a good thing. I appreciate the older games for that, they challenged you, a lot! Who doesn't remember losing to Gary and seeing "am I good or WHAT!?" when he beat you, it just got you fired up to beat him the next time.

If I wanted to complain about other games, we would be here for... a long time, Smash Ultimate is the worst for this in my opinion, that's all. PM is a mod of Smash and has 10x more heart than this game does, and that's fan made! They actually gave Link the ability to play his Ocarina, and all mapped to the same buttons as the GC port, along with the sounds and such as well.  now that's dedication to the character! Giving Samus the ability to go Morph Ball mode and move around in it? Switching modes from Fire to Ice? Y'know, things for her game? What novel concepts, and it's not that hard, either! And don't get me started on alts, right now, PM has 18 for each character right now, I believe? Smash U has 8... and most of them consist of repalletes! A lot of the characters got changes to make them more fun, Smash U lacks that, severly. Sure characters like ZSS are fun to play with the total rework, but they need to focus on other characters now. Most of the cast is boring, and that's not a surprise.

Keep in mind this is a personal opinion, and not every cares about alts, characters being fun, etc. This is just what I feel about the game, they can improve it, sure. But they won't, and we all know it.

Edited December 6, 2019 by lightcosmo

[Anacybele]

10 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

Have you not modded before? It's not that hard, really, it's not. Voice clips? After all this time, we got... voice clips, impressive, and most of those are ported all the way from Brawl!

As for Pokémon, There needs to be a line when a game is to easy, it's on FE8's level, and that's not a good thing. I appreciate the older games for that, they challenged you, a lot!

If I wanted to complain about other games, we would be here for... a long time, Smash Ultimate is the worst for this in my opinion, that's all. PM is a mod of Smash and has 10x more heart than this game does, and that's fan made! They actually gave Link the ability to play his Ocarina, and all mapped to the same buttons as the GC port, along with the sounds and such as well.  now that's dedication to the character! Giving Samus the ability to go Morph Ball mode and move around in it? Switching modes from Fire to Ice? Y'know, things for her game? What novel concepts, and it's not that hard, either! And don't get me started on alts, right now, PM has 18 for each character right now, I believe? Smash U has 8... and most of them consist of repalletes! A lot of the characters got changes to make them more fun, Smash U lacks that, severly. Sure characters like ZSS are fun to play with the total rework, but they need to focus on other characters now. Most of the cast is boring, and that's not a surprise.

You're still ignoring things like the massive story mode and the fact that a lot of these models and animations are clearly much more than just modding. I wouldn't even be surprised if a majority of the development time went to the story mode.

Too easy to you. Once again.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Anacybele

[Lightcosmo]

6 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

You're still ignoring things like the massive story mode and the fact that a lot of these models and animations are clearly much more than just modding. I wouldn't even be surprised if a majority of the development time went to the story mode.

Too easy to you. Once again.

Massive story mode... right, you mean the one most people say was disappointing compared to Brawl's, right? It should be much better considering the system difference, and it's not. Also, those battles you do in the world of light are the same ones on the spirit board, so what's special about them?

There is a difference between to easy and what that game has. What is the game teaching by letting you walk all over your opponents? Going up against other players isn't going to be that easy and because they let you walk in the story mode a crushing loss against another player could really hurt your self-confidence.

Also, way to ignore my other points about Smash U, things like the alt disappointment are facts. Why don't they add Valentines (I think it's valentines, not sure) Ike? I think it would be pretty cool and i'm sure others would, too.

Edited December 6, 2019 by lightcosmo

[Anacybele]

6 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

Massive story mode... right, you mean the one most people say was disappointing compared to Brawl's, right? It should be much better considering the system difference, and it's not. Also, those battles you do in the world of light are the same ones on the spirit board, so what's special about them?

There is a difference between to easy and what that game has. What is the game teaching by letting you walk all over your opponents? Going up against other players isn't going to be that easy and because they let you walk in the story mode a crushing loss against another player could really hurt your self-confidence.

Also, way to ignore my other points about Smash U, things like the alt disappointment are facts. Why don't they add Valentines (I think it's valentines, not sure) Ike? I think it would be pretty cool and i'm sure others would, too.

Disappointing? I thought it was WAY better than Brawl's. It was longer, more challenging, and very fun. I've also not ever heard of anyone saying they were disappointed with it.

Valentine Ike came way after Smash Ultimate came out, you know.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Anacybele

[Lightcosmo]

6 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Disappointing? I thought it was WAY better than Brawl's. It was longer, more challenging, and very fun. I've also not ever heard of anyone saying they were disappointed with it.

Valentine Ike came way after Smash Ultimate came out, you know.

How is it a "story"? There isn't a story it's just battling all the time, nothing unique. Challenging? I aced that no problem.

Sure, but updates do exist, they can add him as an update, it wouldn't be unheard of to add alts via updates. Also, that was just an example, there are others I could have used, really. As long as you wouldn't have to pay for it, it's better than nothing.

Edited December 6, 2019 by lightcosmo

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

As for Pokemon, you're mostly complaining about the difficulty, which differs for different people. Just because it was easy for you doesn't mean it was easy for others. I've actually struggled in Sword, somewhat.

The thing about difficulty in games is that it’s not entirely subjective that’s not to say there isn’t a large subjective component to it but overall there is a difference between how challenging pokemon is compared to how challenging games like persona or octopath are. For sword and shield specifically, I’d say the game can present a fair challenge granted that you don’t absolutely abuse the wild area. Gym leaders this time around have very interesting team setups with varying types and unique movesets to cover their weaknesses. The eighth gym in particular is one of my favorites because not only is it a double battle but Raihan actually uses pokemon that aren’t dragon type. His team also centers around weather which can catch you off guard if you’re not prepared for it.

Personally, I wouldn’t say SWSH is the most challenging pokemon game. Far from it, but it’s certainly much better than X and Y and it’s piss easy difficulty. I never found myself struggling at any point in the game but I never found myself completely curb stomping either. Though I did play the game on “set” which likely had something to do with it.

[Anacybele]

1 hour ago, lightcosmo said:

How is it a "story"? There isn't a story it's just battling all the time, nothing unique. Challenging? I aced that no problem.

Sure, but updates do exist, they can add him as an update, it wouldn't be unheard of to add alts via updates. Also, that was just an example, there are others I could have used, really. As long as you wouldn't have to pay for it, it's better than nothing.

This is Smash. You don't expect a big deep story in Smash. But the mode was still long and big and fun.

I'll give you that I wish we'd gotten more costume alts in updates. But that's still a minor nitpick.

39 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

The thing about difficulty in games is that it’s not entirely subjective that’s not to say there isn’t a large subjective component to it but overall there is a difference between how challenging pokemon is compared to how challenging games like persona or octopath are. For sword and shield specifically, I’d say the game can present a fair challenge granted that you don’t absolutely abuse the wild area. Gym leaders this time around have very interesting team setups with varying types and unique movesets to cover their weaknesses. The eighth gym in particular is one of my favorites because not only is it a double battle but Raihan actually uses pokemon that aren’t dragon type. His team also centers around weather which can catch you off guard if you’re not prepared for it.

Personally, I wouldn’t say SWSH is the most challenging pokemon game. Far from it, but it’s certainly much better than X and Y and it’s piss easy difficulty. I never found myself struggling at any point in the game but I never found myself completely curb stomping either. Though I did play the game on “set” which likely had something to do with it.

Yeah, I didn't abuse the Wild Area. Well, I am a bit now, to level up another Pokemon to use in the next gym. But I'm not using it a ton right now. And I agree, there have been some interesting team setups and moves. Even Hop's been interesting, he changed his team up after awhile. He didn't have his Wooloo or Corvisquire the last time I battled him.

[Rapier]

My top games of the decade are probably Crusader Kings 2, The Witcher 3 and Bloodborne.

[vanguard333]

8 hours ago, Etheus said:

Hey, that's your opinion, and that's cool. I'm not knocking VC4. I just... don't care for the series' blend of third person shooting and strategy. It's great that you enjoy it.

 

But the knock to those who like God of War was also unfair and unnecessary. It's a special game for me. It's a special game for a lot of people. The story is endearing. The father and son journey was emotional. The combat is meaty and satisfying. It's a bona fide linear story game in a market that is obsessed with open world busywork. It's not a perfect game (I personally found the post-game content infuriating and unnecessary), but it's a damn good one. 

Sorry; I was just trying to make a joke and express my opinion about the game; not "[knocking] to those who like God of War". I'm just not a fan. I didn't mean (or say) anything towards those who like the game; just the game itself. 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

The OP explicitly asked for "favorites" so that's what my list was comprised of. It would indeed be different if I tried to rank based on objective scores and quality. Fallout New Vegas may be my favorite of the decade, but objectively it's...a low 7. Less if we went off how the game performed on launch and excluding all the DLC and official mods added to the Ultimate edition, which is the version of the game you can buy on steam or modern systems in 2019. I do try my hand at rating games objectively, but doing so for a game I hadn't played as far back as eight or ten years ago is difficult and unfair without giving it a full replay. My making a list of mere favorites I only need to search my feelings for the answers.

[Lightcosmo]

8 hours ago, Anacybele said:

I'll give you that I wish we'd gotten more costume alts in updates. But that's still a minor nitpick

It really adds to the character when they interesting alts, makes them feel more personalised/unique. And I dont see any downside to adding them in, simply for fun.

[Slumber]

4 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Fallout New Vegas may be my favorite of the decade, but objectively it's...a low 7.

I can't agree with this.

First, it's bullshit to say any games is "objectively" a certain score. The only thing I can say is no game is objectively 10/10 because every game can be improved upon, and no game is a 0/10 because every game can always be worse. Yes, even Big Rigs. If games could only be scored by their gameplay, then there'd be no need to make shooters or third person action games anymore, because DOOM 2016 and Devil May Cry 5 are just about the most perfect examples of their respective genres in terms of gameplay.

Second, there are things New Vegas that no games have managed to accomplish since. It's arguably the most "free" open world game in the medium since... Well, probably Fallout 2. The ability to craft your own story and build it by your own means is second to none. The only things that come close are maybe the Divinity games. To anyone who values that kind of thing, like you or me, or the number of any other people who hold Fallout New Vegas in high regard, that quality alone is a HUGE deal. And a low 7 is not at all indicative of what those kinds of people value in games.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Slumber

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

I cannot give any videogame a 10/10 because giving this rating would stand for being flawless and no single videogame has been perfect for me yet, and never ever will.