Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Games Entertainment

Games of the Year 243

markpapadakis writes "Gamespot and Gamespy have released their top games for 2002. Gamespot features worse game of the year as well as some additional categories."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Games of the Year

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Spot the dupe on /.
    But it's getting too easy now...
  • This is better.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by new_breed ( 569862 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @07:46PM (#4958352)
    Penny Arcade has some of the best games of the year as well ;)

    We're Right part one []

    We're Right part two []
  • On a related note... (Score:2, Informative)

    by sinnyin ( 530106 )
    Be sure to check out the Shacknews GOTY awards. []

    I like this list better because it was created via poll results and not just editor opinions.
  • Nah, I know a game that is more worser than that.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...was duke 4 ever. Wait a sec
  • Funny how gta 3 is in the action genre, isn't it more of an adventure type?

    And what about strategy game WC3? I doubt many people bought Medieval even though it is a good game.. doesn't reach up to WC though in my oppinion.

    Best RPG ? Definitely Morrowind, that game is huge, and quite fun for a long time. So many different quests, and the GFX are still excellent, in comparison with other RPGs it's size.
    • Re:Games (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Kind of looks like adventure games should really be called pixel hunts.
    • Re:Games (Score:3, Insightful)

      And what about strategy game WC3?

      There's not that much strategy involved in WarCraft 3. It's fun and all, but it's definitely not a game of strategy.
      • Re:Games (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mustangdavis ( 583344 ) on Thursday December 26, 2002 @11:19AM (#4960357) Homepage Journal
        There's not that much strategy involved in WarCraft 3. It's fun and all, but it's definitely not a game of strategy.

        Obviously, you haven't played WC3 enough to make that judgement ...

        I used to think the same thing when I first started plaing it, but then, after a week of plaing it, I realized that this game has a TON of strategy! I used to be a big Age of Empires buff, and thought that this game paled in comparison to WC3 when it came to stratgey, but I found out that I was very mistaken ....

        In fact, the strategy in WC3 is unbelievible! You have to micro-manage EVERYTHING! Loosing just a couple more units in one battle can turn the tide of a game. Healing units is VERY important, as is managing the limited gold on the map. I have won MANY games where I had less resources, produced feweer units, and had less technology than my enemies .... and these were high ranked players! How is this possible, you may ask?? STRATEGY!!!

        Try playing the game for a month or so against some better players, and you will see what I mean. It took me to see it to believe it myself. WC3 is one of the BEST strategy games out right now. In fact, I quit playing Age of Mythology and went back to WarCraftIII just because I am sick of the shitty stratgey in the Age of xxxxx series (I thought I'd never say that!!!)

        Just my 2 cents ...

        • Obviously, you haven't played WC3 enough to make that judgement ...

          Obviously? You jerk. "You disagree with me, and I simply cannot understand how that could be the case if you had all the information, therefore you must necessarily be insufficiently informed."

          In fact, the strategy in WC3 is unbelievible! You have to micro-manage EVERYTHING!

          That's not strategy. That's logistics management. Choosing what units to build because of limited resources-- and god knows they're limited; who the hell thought a maximum of 90 units was an okay idea?-- is not strategy. Strategy is the question of what to do with those units once you've built them. In Warcraft, the answer to that question is, "send them straight up the middle in a massive rush and hope it turns out all right."

          The playing field simply isn't big enough to bring strategy into a Warcraft game. Let's say you need to destroy an enemy's base. Does it make sense to bring in long-range siege weapons and pound his city walls to dust? Well, no, because first of all there are no real long-range siege weapons, and second because there are no real passive defenses like city walls.

          Hell, you can't even control your units in a way that allows you to employ battlefield tactics. How do you lead a charge in Warcraft 3? The best you can do is get your units to wander over there to the enemy units and start hacking away. There's no way to advance under cover in order to break an enemy's line.

          Battles in Warcraft end up looking like a high school cafeteria. Instead of holding strategically important positions and employing defense in depth, the good guys and the bad guys end up in little knots pounding the shit out of each other until everybody dies.

          Warcraft can be a game of logistics, true. But it is not really a game of strategy.
        • You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

          (from Webster's via Google) Strategy
          \Strat"e*gy\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. strat['e]gie. See Stratagem.] 1. The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship....

          Although I enjoy such 'RTS' games as both *Craft X and Ao*, these games are neither 'real-time' nor 'strategy'. See both the definition above and the previous poster's comment for why it is not strategy, but what I find funnier is the idea that taking an hour to develop from the first to fourth age and building a 'Wonder', then defending it for another 15 minutes (representing a millenium) can ever be called real-time.

          True real-time strategy games will take months or years to play, presumably with AI avatars there to help.
  • What about 'classics'!? Everyone in my precal class was hooked on ZTetris. I think I've spent more time on it (1.5 hours 5 days a week) than Quake 3; the games I'm writing shouldn't be included at 8 hours a day 7 days a week.
  • Best of 2002 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oateater ( 593228 ) <oateater&nerdclub,net> on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @07:51PM (#4958367) Homepage
    I agree that the best music of any game has to be Mafia. GTA3 Shouldn't of been nomintated for that award, simply because the music in that game sucks. It IS funny, though. UT2003 Really did deserve the best graphics win, and they got it. I only wish my geforce 2 mx could handle it :/ And how about the budget game!! Horray for serious sam. Playing cooperative missions at lan parties made that game great, and I love the graphics. Gamespot made some great choices, although I think Half-Life should still win awards :D
    • Yeah, I agree; I'm a pretty jaded gamer, but when the huge outrageous bosses showed up in my first game of Serious Sam (which was LAN MP to begin with :) ), I flipped...

      That, together with the beginning of the 'Gardens of Cadesh' level in Homeworld (even more deserving of continued praise IMO), are true and utter memorable moments in gaming for me.
      • the only other game that excites me as much as serious sam 2 .. doom ! both gives me the adrenaline one needs when playing a FPS .
    • GTA3 Shouldn't of been nomintated for that award, simply because the music in that game sucks. It IS funny, though.

      They're talking about GTA: Vice City, not GTA3. GTA:VC's soundtrack is made up of several hours worth of top hits in various genres from the 80's.
  • by Weffs11 ( 323188 ) <weffrey&gmail,net> on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @07:52PM (#4958368) Homepage
    Moonbase commander [], Best Game No One Played on PC [].

    Anyone else look for the games that fall through the cracks of marketing and end up in the discount bin? I know there are other poor college kids out there that can't afford $40-50 a game.
    • Moonbase Commander is really a terrific game. A few of us on AllOutGames [] play every once in a while. While the singleplayer is pretty dull, the multiplayer is great fun and worth the price alone. Play a 2 vs 2 game, and you wont want to quit. I wish more people would pick it up.
    • It wasn't released in 2002, but Tribes 2 (which I found for $15 at Target) is the best computer game I've ever played. It has a few Unhandled Exceptions, but not too many.
    • The games that fall through the cracks don't necessarily end up in discount bins. Look at The Neverhood [], for example.

    • Disciples 2 also ended up winning that reward, looks like the turn based strategy games are overrepresented. I like them, but I guess that for many it's too exact to plan and execute, rather than just point-and-click away in RTS (not saying there isn't strategy in RTS, only there you implement it continously while playing).

  • Mafia was considered for nearly every category it was eligable for in the Gamespot article. I haven't heard of this game, I'll have to check it out. I was glad to see Battlefield 1942 got recognized.
    • Re:Mafia (Score:2, Interesting)

      by oateater ( 593228 )
      Mafia is truly a great game. The driving is VERY realistic in my opinion, and it is worth the money. The graphics, the story, hell, even the menus made this game by far my favorite new one of 2002. No multiplayer is the only downfall to this game however.
  • I thought their choices were quite poor. I'll leave it at that. If youve never played hitman 2, go download the 2 demos. The game is just unbelievable, with so much detail, but manages to run very smooth on my semi old 8500.
  • Strategy games (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jacek Poplawski ( 223457 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @08:07PM (#4958411)
    All nomined strategy games are RTSes. Worst game is Civ3 multiplayer. I haven't played it (I like single player games), but to me Civ3 is one of best games in last year. Almost every other "strategy" game is RTS (arcade/strategy mixture) or HoMaM-like. Do you remember first Heroes of Might and Magic? It was succesfull only because graphics and simplicity. Today nobody say "HoMaM is for children". In world where RTSes are best strategy games and Civilization is "dissapoiting" (I know it's about mp-add-on, but last year everyone talk how bad Civ3 is) - HoMaM is no more childlish.

    PS. Nobody noticed Moonbase Commander? It was the only strategy (except Civ3) I found fun last months.
  • by wobedraggled ( 549225 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @08:09PM (#4958421) Homepage
    Nuff said.
  • I just got it today, and finally had to stop playing it since my wrists were hurting, wife was getting cranky and the kid wanted to watch his new movies.

    Moving from the PS2 to the computer will definitly help. ;-)
  • These lists would be a lot more useful if the editors made some effort to link to the games' official pages and especially to playable demos. I don't know what the game industry expects from consumers, but if I can't test it out I sure as hell am not going to blow $30-50 on word of mouth.

    I did find the Syberia demo, but I think its being slashdotted.

    While I'm at it, may web designers who embed music into html die horrible deaths.
    • Gamespot doesprovide links to demos. If you click on the game name, if there is a demo available at gamespot, it will be listed.
    • These lists would be a lot more useful if the editors made some effort to link to the games' official pages and especially to playable demos.

      "Downloadable playable demos" applies only to PC platforms such as Windows (vast majority), Mac (very few), and Linux (fewer still). It does not apply to console platforms such as GBA, GCN, PS2, and Hbox. It may apply to the GP32 handheld system from Gamepark because Gamepark encourages homebrewing (and thus redistributable games) on the GP32 system.

      I did find the Syberia demo, but I think its being slashdotted.

      Cyberia (which may not be Syberia) [] was published by Interplay several years ago. Check the bargain bin or an online auction venue if you want to play Cyberia (which may not be Syberia).

  • seriously, who likes nwn as single player game? maybe somebody who thinks diablo2 is rpg too. ok, nwn can evolve into something good in multiplayer, but the single player is just plain stupid key fetchingm, not even rpg'ish, character interaction is WEAK and the story is more linear than a straight line, breaking rpg into chapters isn't really that smart. not to mention that the engine is essentially very very very very very much like vampire: the masquerades engine from few years back, even the mplayer capabilities(and yes, the stupid engine was vampires weakest point too, with bad pathfinding and ridiculous fighting, which filled the singleplayer game, much like in nwn).

    morrowind on the other hand is easily the best single player game that can be said to be rpg instead of 'action game with rgp elements' in many years.

    if you didnt rtfa, they chose nwn.
    • Wait, what the hell are you talking about. I though both Morrowind and NWN sucked ass, and I finished both games, so I spent a lot of time on them. Diablo 2 is one of the best games I've ever played. The story in all 3 games was crap, the gameplay in Diablo 2 is really fun.

      In the case of NWN, can you please explain to me how it was supposed to be fun? I picked the mage or whatever, and 99% of the spells sucked, I ended up just using fireball and iceball or something. At least in Diablo 2 you can use a variety of skills. I'm tired of people who are down on Diablo 2, it sold way more copies than NWN and Morrowind combined and many people think its a better game.
      • but neither nwn(single player) or diablo2 are even remotely rpg. they're just hack'n'slash action games that have swords and spells, like most games that are released as 'rgp' games. seriously, what rpg elements does for example dungeon master have, or final fantasy VII? nada zip zero nothing, you go to a place A, do thing B, maybe watch cutscene C, then it's again to some other place and repeat.

        in morrowind YOU make up the story, and there's enough stuff to do to play it through n+3 times, be a vampire, play for different guild/house or be a monk. in it you don't have to just play it 'level by level', you can wander around and find some vampires in the mountains, or some smugglers, get infected, fight your way back to a temple to get cured.. get a stronghold.. that sort of stuff that makes it feel like you're free to pursue your own ambitions instead of going through very strictly placed plot. you can skip most of the 'plot'(aka main quest, but it's just main quest because you're pushed to it at the beginning) in morrowind if your character becomes unable to fulfill it otherwise. my first character was a crusader that eventually became the head of thiefs guild before i wandered off to finish the main quest.

        oh, and, games like nwn and d2 can be fun.
        nwn was not, the how it was supposed to be fun completely eluded me though i had some hope for 2 chapters that there would be something 'more' into it(more than just fetch 4-5 key items from 4-5 different 'levels', kill boss, move on)."can't open this door because plot doesn't allow you to go there now".

        biggest disappointment for me was pool of radiance this year though. the original kicked way too much ass to be raped by such shoddy 'give us money' sequel.
    • seriously, who likes nwn as single player game? maybe somebody who thinks diablo2 is rpg too.
      I liked NWN all around. I never got too much into the whole mod scene because most mods are so painfully amateurish. If/when the Linux version comes out, I expect I'll try out more mods to see if there are any that don't suck now.

      Anyway, I suspect that I liked NWN for exactly the reasons you didn't. You seem like much more of a hard-core RPGer. Maybe you play them in real life, or have in the past. I'm coming from primarily an adventure game-style background. My first "real" RPG was Ultima VI, which was an RPG in only the extremely general sense, and my first one of the modern era was Baldur's Gate II.

      So I guess the go-here-do-this style of NWN didn't bother me much, because you still have more freedom than in any adventure game ever made. I guess I also really empathized with Aribeth's character, which is bad since I'm not a girl, but it really helped draw me into the story. As for the character interaction, I assume you're talking about your henchmen and such, and I really agree with you there.

      In some weird way, I think BG2 (for example) was a better game than NWN, but I had a lot more fun playing NWN. With BG2, I would take breaks for weeks because I got bored of doing all the idiotic, pointless quests, or frustrated at not being powerful enough for later battles (because I skimped on all the quests). I was also never into the plot of the game at all. I was much more clinical about playing, which made the game addictive but not fun. Actually, all it did was make me start over and cheat.

      I think the reason NWN won, by the way, was that it's much more fun for non-RPGers than a "real" RPG would be. The only crowd that it truly alienates are people like you, who would much rather play full, traditional RPGs. Which group, I suspect, (stereotype alert!) has a disproportionately large representation here on /..

      • well, yes, i wouldn't have any problems with nwn winning 'rpgish game of the year' or something like that, but when putting nwn and morrowind and then trying to figure which one is the rpg of the year..

        and i did like baldurs gate, it felt much more free in the same way fallout feels free, many ways to do things, which is just about the most important thing in a plotted, adventurous, character development game. nwn lacked this :\ there was just the kill 'em way.

        i got friends who are into nwn.. but they play single player only to beef up their characters for multiplayer.. some mods are quite nice btw.

        i have played 'real' paper&scissors rpg's.. and a lot of computer games, rpgish and others. it is darned annoying if a game has dozens of skills and no real ways of using them to advance your characters situation, it feels like the games creators had intentions to use them but then didn't have enough motivation or talent to make it work well. a 'good' rpg could be played like a hack'n'slash game though, just killing everybody is a somwehat good tactic in fallout or morrowind, but it shouldnt be the only tactic available.
  • by ShecoDu ( 447850 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @08:17PM (#4958451) Homepage
    Ive played it, its nice but I wouldnt rate it the best RPG of 2002, Neverwinter Nights [] is more like it, but I still have my issues with action-RPGs. I grew with Final Fantasy, Ive played them all, Im used to them.

    One thing I find VERY annoying about action-RPGs is its miss-rate, for an instance... in morrowind, you have good agility, good weapon level... you have a big monster in front of you... you strike.. and miss, strike again... and miss... and so on. Its even more anoying with non mastered weapons, you are not an expert using a long sword, you swing your sword and no matter what, youll never hit... I mean, come on! if you can lift the sword, you can definitevely hit, ok, it might be a lame strike, but you have to do at least a little damage, minimum but you CAN touch the enemy unless it is very nimble, SLOW and BIG monsters can be hit easily. The same applies to long range weapons, in morrowind you throw things, and they just go through the targets... the least they could have done is change the direction of the thrown object, so it is visually obvious it was a clear miss.

    Another thing that really brings me down is when you are attacked from a blind spot, or when you hear some enemy might be coming, you have to search all around while it is coming and when you are attacked you dont even know where from. Its really anoying having an archer attacking you from some higher location and your character is so dumb he doesnt recognize the location... instead of the whole screen flashing red, it could have a hint about where you have been hit and an arrow giving you a little more hints.

    Besides all that, having to be clicking like crazy is no fun. Besides if you are playing a role, your character levels up and gets smarter... I dont want the whole thing to depend upon my reflexes and stuff, the character is smart/strong/quick enough to turn around when it hears some enemy, attack automatically at its possible rate and stuff like that.

    Ill still be waiting for a good RPG.

    Is there any of you who knows the kind of RPG Im looking for?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @08:23PM (#4958471)
    Notice how every game requires a CD-check? It's easy to get around, but illogical and annoying. The first game to just skip the CD-check should win game of the yaer. And it should be free information!
    • What about games made by Id? I've noticed that Id games, such as RTCW, don't require a CD check.

      I remember that Quake 3 required it at first but then Id removed it with one of their updates.

  • Hearts of Iron, ww2 strategic game. if you ever played risk, you should try this. paradox, strategy first.
  • If I was voting, I'd still write in Zork. Few adventure games have ever bettered this Infocom classic.
  • But the worst games of all time are all listed here [].
  • by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @08:54PM (#4958559)
    Here are the winners:

    Best budget game: Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
    Most Improved Sequel: Hitman 2: Silent Assassin:
    Biggest Surprise: Battlefield 1942
    Best Game No One Played: Moonbase Commander
    Best single-player action: No-One Lives Forever 2: A Spy in H.A.R.M.'s Way
    Best Multiplay action: Battlefield 1942
    Best Adventure: Syberia
    Best Driving: Rally Trophy
    Best RPG: Neverwinter Nights
    Best Sci-Fi Simulation: Star Trek: Bridge Commander
    Best Simulation: Flanker 2.5
    Best Sports: Madden 2003
    Best Single Player Strategy: Medieval: Total War
    Best Multiplayer Strategy: Warcraft III
    Game of the Year: Warcraft III
    Most Dissapointing: Civ III: Play the World
    Worst Game: Demonworld: Darl Armor

    Action Game of the Year: Grandtheft Auto III
    Adventure Game: Syberia
    RPG: Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
    Strategy: Medieval: Total War
    Sports Game: Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003
    Racing: NASCAR Racing 2002
    Game of the Year: No One Lives Forever 2: A Spy in H.A.R.M.'s Way
    • No offense to GameSpot and GameSpy, but they could have condensed this whole thing down the way parent has without making us load a billion pages... Plus, if you look at GameSpy, there's a page number menu at the bottom... and they all go out of order if you click on the icons on the title page.


    • by Mac Degger ( 576336 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @11:32PM (#4958957) Journal
      You know what? After all the hype, and all the anticipated games, I only now, after reading this list, realise how mediocre this years games are!?

      I mean, NWN was supposed to be the be-all-end-all RPG...but SP was just Diablo, and MP is Diablo+chat(+usre made adventures, but user made content is such a butch that you can't give it points for that, really).

      Then we have UT2k3...a quake-ified UT...looked good, played ok, but nowhere near a big wow-factor. Not even close.

      The rest? GTAIII; if it wasn't so bug-riden and limited, it would stand a chance. Medieval: Total War; Shogun with different sprites. Warcraft III; YARTS (yet another RTS).

      There was nothing really cool this year; nothing really innovative, nothing to make me sit up in front of my keyboard and really say 'wow'. The closest was Morrowind, but even that wasn't a truly great game.

      Odd, but it';s been a bit of a lackluster year. Here's hoping Paradise Cracked and Homeworld 2 will make 2003 worthwhile, gamewise.
      • I hear ya!

        A week or so ago I realized within myself a need - nay, a craving - to own a new computer game. After a furious search of several hours I was proud owner of Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle. [] It's a new game but it's build on engine of Sid Maier's Gettysbury (1998 I think). The best and most interesting game (aside of NWN) of last year is a four-year old re-heat? Later I came to think that I might have done better going with Syberia, but nevermind.

        On the positive side, Neverwinter Nights. Yeah, SP isn't that spectacular, but why shouldn't NWN get points for trying to activate and empower users to make their own adventures. So user made content does suck most of the time, but so do most Open Source projects. (The ones that get a mission statement or early alpha into Freshmeat and then die. Also most bands formed suck too.) What more should Bioware have done? They can't make people make great games. Much like Linux, NWN is a tool and a process, and I for one am grateful to all who give me tools.

        • I was hinting more at the difficulty of getting your own content in. Have you tried to get a model in? Or a tileset? What about a placeble? It's way too complex for a game which promised to do that from the getgo. Sure, the scripts they released made it easier, but in that half year before they released the scripts, the community had already programmed it's own tools! Bioware should be very embarressed by that.
          And even with the scripts, it's overly complex. AQnd yes, I got my own stuff in, but I'm kind of used to getting my own content into games. Even then, screwing around with hakpaks and bifs etc is far from hassle-free.
      • I mean, NWN was supposed to be the be-all-end-all RPG...but SP was just Diablo, and MP is Diablo+chat(+usre made adventures, but user made content is such a butch that you can't give it points for that, really).

        I don't know, man. I agree that the official campaign was a bit disappointing, but I think your statement that SP NWN is "just Diablo" is unfair.

        What aspects of NWN do you regard as Diablo-like? NWN lets you choose any combination of seven classes (not including subclasses), six races, and two genders of characters to play, along with a customizable look and a large number of voice sets to choose from. In Diablo, you can be a barbarian, a sorceress, a paladin or a ranger. NWN has a large, deep story involving not only battles but non-combat interactions with complex NPCs that evolve as the game moves along. NPCs in Diablo are little more than animated signposts pointing to the next clickfest.

        Not to mention that NWN (in addition to the huge official campaign) provides a powerful toolset with which the community has already made almost 2000 new modules. Despite your dismissal, many of these are really good, providing hours of fun multiplayer (or even single-player) gaming. Maybe you just haven't tried the right modules. Check out the top-rated list at; there's some good stuff there.
      • Who cares? There are plenty of great computer games. Just because they haven't been released this year doesn't mean anything.

        People still play Soccer, after hundreds of years.
        People still play Chess.
        People still play Quake.
        People still play Civ2.
        People still play tetris.
        People still play Sokoban.

        Truely good games last forever.
  • I thought I'd take a moment and share my experience with Xbox live. MS haters can stop reading now since your mind is already made up. I'm in my early thirties, make my living using open-source software, and gaming since I was ten..blowing my quarter collection on Asteroids and wasting massive hours on my Atari.

    In short, XBL is nothing short of a revolution in console gaming. Say what you will about MS software, few question the quality and innovation of MS hardware and the Xbox and XBox Live are shining examples of that.

    I've rarely had so much fun playing video games. I know I'm not alone becuase I can hear the shrieks and groans, the yells and crys and curses, the outright bawling laughter of other gamers from across the country and the world coming right through my XBL communicator.

    I'll start with a quick overview of why I chose the Xbox as my gaming console and then to a review of the XBox Live (XBL) service.

    After wearing out my N64 I was ready for my next gen console. The decision was fairly simple. Yes the PS2 had more games, but a great majority of those games were throwaways. Not only that but I wasnt planning on buying a bookshelf worth of games anyway. I usually just buy the best games of a genre and play them through and through. The Xbox seemed like the best choice. It had the better graphics (by far), the HDTV, the 5.1 sound, the hard drive, ethernet, CD burning to HD all built in! The other two did not even come close. I buy a console because of the CONSOLE, not the games.

    So I buy a Xbox and Halo. On a side note, Halo might be just be the best video game ever and definatly the best FPS ever. But don't take my word for it, just read the reviews.

    When Xbox Live was released I was first in line. Setup was super easy and painless. Drop a line from my hub to the Xbox, insert setup CD, verify that I'm a adult with my credit card, pick a gamertag and presto! I'm online.

    Xbox live comes with two games. Whacked! and MotoGP. Whacked is some whacked platformer that girls seem to line. MotoGP is one great motorcycle racing game. Needless to say, the graphics and gameplay are outstanding. But the no doubt..the best part is the online play.

    So far I'm playing Unreal Championship, MotoGP and Mech Assault. All games are great. Online play is smooth. Lag is almost non-existant. The voice-communicator works great. The sound is clear and clean, and has the quality of a cell phone.

    To sit on my soft, legs on the coffee table, 27" TV in front of me (soon to be HDTV), hooked up to the world and kicking peoples ass on Unreal is a amazing thing. It really really is.

    There is sense, when talking to other people on XBL, that were part of a something new. And indeed we are. Ok, ok, I know all this is possible on a PC. But we're talking console here. Since my XBL, my PC is exclusivly for work and making money and my console is for games. I play in my den, I work in my office.

    I'm sure the PS2 and GameCube have some fun and great games, but if I cant

    Play online with one login across all games

    Listen to my music playing from the HD of the console as I play

    Listen the games in 5.1 and see it in hi-res HDTV

    Hear you curse as I blow your ass-up in Mech-Assault

    And much much more
    Then I'm not intereted.

    You don't think the Xbox and Xbox live are revolutionary? See if the next gen Nintendo and the PlayStation3 don't have everything the Xbox has today.

    See you online!

    • I buy a console because of the CONSOLE, not the games.

      Guess you're still enjoying your 3d0 then.
      • yeah, considering games are the only software around for consoles..

        maybe he enjoys a fancy cd player or something, or maybe he is the dream consumer, who will buy a whizmogizmo gadget because it's a whizmogizmo gadget.
      • Do you write your own games for the console then?

        Would you buy a console if it didn't have any games released for it?

        *I* bought a console (gamecube) that had games I wanted to play. I guess you use yours for some kind of technological art piece? :)
  • Exclusivity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @09:18PM (#4958637) Homepage Journal
    All other things being equal, we preferred to honor those games that were released exclusively for a particular platform
    Dickheads. Exclusivity is a pain in the arse to gamers. I want to play Buffy The Vampire Slayer and GTA Vice City. Rewarding exclusivity in your reviews isn't exactly pro-user, it's pro-marketing bullshit.
    • Hear-hear!! A great game is a great game. Exllusivity has as much to do with a great game as the colour of someones skin has to do with how nice they are.
    • I'd much rather see an award go to a well polished, well designed, well tested game that works like a champ on one platform, than look at a game which is ok-looking, fairly well designed, and somewhat tested on all platforms.

      Working with one set platform has a way of allowing designers to be more expressive. I mean, if it's a problem for you, go buy that console. You obviously really don't want to play those games if you haven't bought the consoles that will play those games. And a PS2, Xbox, and GameCube all together still costs less than a Radeon 9700 and new mobo/Athlon CPU to run UT2K3.
      • A good game deserves to win over a worse one, no question about that.

        These guys are saying that if two games are "equal" they'll prefer the one which is more restricted in terms of availability.
        You obviously really don't want to play those games if you haven't bought the consoles that will play those games
        What cretinously ridiculous bollocks. These things cost money.

        Personally I ended up buying an Xbox for myself a few weeks ago, it was a reasonably good deal, came with Halo which I've heard is excellent (as well as a couple of other games) and seems to be a bit more "state of the art" than the PS2. And of course I can play Buffy on it (which I'd previously played on a demo box in a store and liked). I still want to play GTA Vice City, but there's no way I can justify buying a PS2 just for that.
        • "A good game deserves to win over a worse one, no question about that."

          True, but Tony Hawk doesn't deserve to win 8 awards (2 per console it's released on). If it's the best game that is also multiplatform, give it a separate category, or only award it the award on the platform it's best on (the Xbox, naturally).

          I know consoles cost money. But unless you really, really want to play Vice City, you won't buy one. If you won't buy one, there's no use complaining about it -- is there? You merely waste electrons and time.
  • Gotta be Bonestorm!

    2 million Simpsons fans can't be wrong!
  • by haggar ( 72771 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @10:37PM (#4958846) Homepage Journal
    I have read the sites, the nominees and the winners, but what I find confusing, with regards to the strategy games, is that none of these sites makes it clear whether a strategy game is turn.based or real-time. For me that's hugely important, because I stopped liking real-time strategy games a few years ago. I got slow (eh.. the age) and more impatient with RTS games. And I know at least one more guy like me in my town ;o) so there is at least some segment of the market that would really like a clear information about the kind of strategy game at hand. Note that most of the time not even the box/cover of the game spells it out clearly whether it's RTS or turn-based.

    My question, finally, is: is there a gamer's site that lists strategy games and has an appropriate designation whether a game is RTS or turn-based? It seems that perhaps there's a lot of fine strategy games out there, except for the Civiliation and HOMM series - the ones to which I'm sticking, for now...
  • My own year in games (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jvmatthe ( 116058 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @10:49PM (#4958873) Homepage
    Not that anyone gives a rip what a schmoe thinks, but I played a right decent number of games this year and wrote up a summary of what I thought were my games of the year []. The catch is that I'm playing games not just for the PS2, but also for platforms that are no longer supported and games that have been out for years, but are new to me. So my games of the year included GTA3 and Vice City [], but also Monster Rancher 2 [] for the PSX and Donkey Kong [] for the GameBoy and Necronomicon Pinball [] (import) for the Saturn.

    I'd love to hear from gamers that keep similar websites about their gaming habits.
  • pretty good list (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jlechem ( 613317 )
    ok they did a fairly alright job. The PC games for the most part were spot on. But WC3 for GOTY? I mean come on what the fuck? It was in no way revolutionary, it was the same damn game from before ala new/more races from starcraft. A good game maybe, but GOTY no way!

    And their gamecube games choices, well they were smoking crack or something in their pipes. About the only thing they got right was giving metroid prime GOTY on GC.

  • Or do those guys in the GameSpot video [] have issues with making eye contact? I think they all stared at the surface of the table when talking.
  • Nice stuff, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by katalyst ( 618126 ) on Thursday December 26, 2002 @02:00AM (#4959384) Homepage
    There are lotsa cool games that were left out.. COMPLETELY. There was no mention of Jedi Outcast (Jedi Knight II), which has been a blast to play. There were no bike racing games. I guess, there are way too many games out there, and way too many genres.
    Next year will be more interesting. The games to watchout for:
    Doom III (2003 I hope)
    Counterstrike Condition Zero
    Unreal II
    Enter the Matrix
    Duke Nukem Forever ?(now i know y its called so, tho)
    ahh... bliss
  • I bought bf1942 when it first came out sometime in September. I think I picked it up on the second day of its release. Come to find out, they released a patch for the game at the same time they shipped the game. Even with 1.1 it was nearly impossible to kill people. You had to aim an unrealistic 1 inch in front of the player, and had to calculate your lag in order to figure out how far to shoot in front of your opponent.

    Yes, it's really neat that you can play with a wide assortment of WWII vehicles and on 64 player servers, but the gameplay still needs improvements IMO.

    The ground infantry interface is clumsy; Day of Defeat (half life mod) does it much better.

    Yes, I do realize that one can't classify this as a first person game per se--strategy is required for enjoyable play--but I found the game more frustrating than fun. I often felt that there were often too many elements out of my control.

    I did play in a clan for a few months and then decided it would be a better use of my time to carve a 1880 Victorian city out of a large soapblock I found by a local prison while joyriding.

  • by Bobtree ( 105901 ) on Thursday December 26, 2002 @03:23AM (#4959541)
    I picked up 2 copies on a whim monday for $10 ea at Best Buy. Just now I finished my first evening of online play (the gamespy service is decent) - and I'm totally hooked. Our final game was a 4-player (2 teams) 4 hour marathon, with some seriously surprising twists. It eventually ended due to Internet disconnects. I can't really compare MBC to anything else, it has a very unique feel. Easy to pick up, hard to put down, and really tough to master. Turn based but fast paced, and very intense.

    There's a downloadable demo, but I'd even recommend just buying it outright. If you like strategy games, you won't regret it.
  • I find it appropriate that in the PS2 category (fuck PC's... I don't have time to dink around with installers, expensive video cards, etc), Gamespot nominated GTA: VC in every category that it didn't win in. I noticed that the other one seemed to exclude GTA:VC altogether. Kinda' say something about the websites... Gamespot is straight up with their reviews. I expect the guys at Gamespy are the kind of guys who sit around and say, "We can't say that GTA:VC was the best. It's so October. It's for the masses. Let's pick really, really obscure stuff, cause then we'll be l337. Sorry guys. GTA: VC wins hands down, whether or not it was popular. I've been playing video games for more than 20 years, and GTA: VC is the best ever. PC or console. Action or adventure. Hands down.
  • Macintosh Gaming (Score:4, Informative)

    by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Thursday December 26, 2002 @10:29AM (#4960163) Homepage Journal
    ...does exist, and is alive and well for its size.

    Since it's not really represented on either review page (for obvious reasons of market size), I'll throw in my $0.02 on selected games I've seen or played that were ported to Mac OS X this year. No real ranking except for overall value, out of 5 stars. (YMMV)

    Star Wars: Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. (***-1/2) Nothing is more fun than the powers of a Jedi Knight with a lightsaber in a very realistic (for Star Wars) environment. AI isn't bad. Humor is prevalent. Single-player game is great--once. Not as strong a replay value, any mods out on the 'net notwithstanding. Needs very powerful hardware since this Q3A-derived game apparently had some hooks in its PC version that aren't available for Mac OS, despite the point that I had a more powerful G4 and video card than on a PC I used for playing that version. As a result, the game can lag in some maps. Multiplayer is good, especially since MP supports multiple processors. Combine with high-speed connection, and you're the Emperor.

    Return to Castle Wolfenstein: (*****) Artful, authentic, realistic single-player. Great replay value since the diversity of how to accomplish a mission can be modified. Its multiplayer game shines brightest, with great maps and strong diversity in four soldier classes.

    Medal of Honor II: Allied Assault: (*****). Just play the Omaha Beach at Normandy level to know the art that this game represents. Very good AI, ultra-realistic.

    Other notables:
    Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (If you bought one for your PC, you have the Mac version, too)
    No One Lives Forever
    Soldier of Fortune II
    The Sims: Hot Date
    The Sims: Vacation

  • by wackybrit ( 321117 ) on Thursday December 26, 2002 @10:56AM (#4960282) Homepage Journal
    I've been very disappointed with the releases in 2002.

    2001 had Wolfenstein, which provided a lot of multiplayer fun, and while GTA3 provided many wonderful hours, I can't help but feel 2002 has been an extremely crap year for games.

    2003 promises us SimCity 4 in January, along with Vietcong, the AI team-based action game, Doom 3 will be out, Half-Life 2 is on the cards, Halo for PC will be out, Vice City for PC will be out. 2003 is going to be a BUMPER YEAR for PC games! I think the studios have been focusing on PS2 and XBox this year.. so next year it will be our turn.

    I have been enjoying Half-Life this Christmas. I have found nothing that beats the FPS gameplay of Half-Life (or its add-on packs). Max Payne was good, but way too short.

    I found Half-Life BlueShift for $5 in a bargain bin a few months ago, I completed it within a few days, but for $5 that was great value! And it still looks like a great game.

    Unreal Tournament 2003 disappointed me a lot. It's SO SLOW! I have 1Ghz and a GeForce 4 Ti4200, yet I still can't run it at 1280x1024 over 20fps. I think my system upgrade for Doom 3 might solve that ;-)

    So.. I still think a 4 year old game engine is providing the best entertainment out there right now. Let's hope 2003 gets the PC gaming industry innovating again, instead of throwing out rehashes of other games (MOH:AA comes to mind)
    • So.. I still think a 4 year old game engine is providing the best entertainment out there right now. Let's hope 2003 gets the PC gaming industry innovating again, instead of throwing out rehashes of other games (MOH:AA comes to mind)

      Don't forget, they are still making the kick-ass FREE mods for the Half-Life engine. I'm having a lot of fun with this one []. The interface is a first-person shooter, but it's actually a team-based resource management game. I'm not aware of any other game that's tried this (no, not even Warcraft - in Natural Selection, every grunt is another human player!). If you have the broadband and the time, check it out.

  • Best of 2001 (Score:2, Informative)

    by rirugrat ( 255768 )
    A look back at last year's Gamespot's Best of 2001 Games shows Max Payne at #2 and Serious Sam: The First Encounter at #1. Since both games were published by the now-defunct GodGames, they are available at a huge discount.

    Do yourself a favor and go to your local EB and pick up the Pack 5 Action Games [] which includes Serious Sam TFE, Heavy Metal 2 FAAK, Myth II, Oni and Rune for the grand total of $4.99! (Forget what the price says on the box, it will ring up less than 5 bucks). Serious Sam is a GREAT mindless shooter!

    Also, Compusa had Max Payne for $4.99 right after Thanksgiving, so for less than $10 I bought the Top 2 PC games of last year and a whole lot more!

    It pays to be a year behind the curve...


  • Where's HALO?!?!?! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jedir0x ( 522662 )
    Is it me, or am i the only one that EVER plays halo? I know it's not meant to be played online... but i see an average of 400 people playing it on GameSpy, every time i logon. Although that number is not high at all, it's good considering the very high possibility that the game will lag to hell and disconnect if you have more than 3 boxes playing together in a game. Halo wasn't mentioned once though. I think it should get best shooter, best graphics, and best game of the year... if it didn't lag, best online multiplayer game too. Maybe it was counted last year or something, anyone know? O well. I must be getting old, i haven't heard of ANY of these games... well.. some anyway. BTW: how does Super Mario SunShine get "Best platformer" and "Biggest disapointment" at the same time? weird...

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.