The greatest games - A Personal list of Neocracker~

[Wolf Kanno]

It's Persona 1 man, read any thread I've talked about it except maybe the one when it came out, and you'll see I tell people to avoid it and play it later only if you feel obligated to. Its not a great game, and even when I played it, I often wondered how it somehow managed to spawn much better sequels.

I do greatly disagree with Twilight Princess, its my favorite 3D Zelda game, but to be fair, I have yet to play Majora's Mask or Wind Waker, so its not like I can give an informed opinion since I haven't actually played the whole series.

Lunar is disappointing too because I do really love the games but its also been 10 years since I played them, so I don't know how well they've aged and maybe if I did replay them, I would come to a similar conclusion.

I'll probably get testier when you start posting games I don't feel should be as high up. I already know we're going to come to blows about P3 vs. P4, as well as some of the Xenosaga titles. I'm already expecting Xenogears to show up in your "Worst List" but we've had that talk...

[NeoCracker]

The diffuculty is the only thing really keeping TP down the list for me though, so that doesn't really leave much room for us going back and forth.

And get to those two games, they are great!

[Pete for President]

I really try not to let one or two small things, or even one big thing kill a game for me. Deus Ex I couldn’t do it though. This game has one of the most piss poor excuses of an ending I have ever seen. Well, kind of, it doesn’t really have an ending. It ends with you making a choice, then speculating on what might have happened. He even makes sure to point out this speculation is just what he thinks. You don’ t even get a hint as to what happens following the end. All of the decisions you have made throughout the game, as a result, are completely smurfing pointless. The worst bit was one of the endings is quoting Albert Einstein to make all technology sound bad, which was just plain smurfing infuriating.

Ah, Deus Ex: HR's ending: probably the most misunderstood ending of all time. I think it's great and for good reasons. And you sir, should think again.

"All of the decisions you have made throughout the game, as a result, are completely smurfing pointless." Yes. That is the point. Throughout the game you have been nothing but a pawn and that will never change. Thought you could change the world? A normal man has no power at all, much like it is in the real world. It's a lesson. In the end, no-one controls the masses except the super rich. It is how it works in Human Revolution, it is how it works in RL.

And that is what the endings do perfectly; they link to our real world and bring problems to light.

The speeches are hypotheses. Not about what could happen in Deus Ex universe, but what could happen in our own world. They are intended to make you view the issue of man meddling with nature from different perspectives. They make you think. They make you wise. And that is why the endings to this game are amazing; they are education, not entertainment. Any person who thinks otherwise is obviously a sheep in the herd not questioning issues in our society, the way we use technology, how we try to play god and interfere with nature, and ultimately; who controls us.

[Loony BoB]

Oh man, I hope you linked Pike to you placing Morrowind in the "worst 13 games of all time" list. I mean, I think she might simply 'pop' with disbelief.

Anyway. I see your point, Pete, but that doesn't make the ending any better. Also, I disagree with your point. You say...

Thought you could change the world? A normal man has no power at all, much like it is in the real world. It's a lesson. In the end, no-one controls the masses except the super rich.

...and then, in the end, it is indeed the character that goes around changing the world throughout the entire game. You are the one that not only brings down the super rich, you are also the one that gets to dictate how the public hear about the end result. In the end, you, one man who is not in the super-rich institution, are changing the world. You did it all. The only thing is, you don't get to see how the world will react. And that for me ruins the game. You don't know what happens once you press that button and that is like saying it would be really interesting if Lord of the Rings ended at Rivendell with the council imagining what might happen if they took different actions. That wouldn't be interesting. We're not here for a philosophy lesson, we're here to play the role of a man in a game and when he presses that button, he witnesses what happens next, and despite playing the role and dictating his actions throughout the game, don't witness what he witnesses.

It's smurfing diabolical and despite really enjoying DE:HR, I believe it's one of the worst if not THE worst ending I've ever come across in a game.

I think I'd actually prefer it if they just ended it with the press of a button and that was it, roll credits.

[NeoCracker]

Wow.... Just wow.

Ah, Deus Ex: HR's ending: probably the most misunderstood ending of all time. I think it's great and for good reasons. And you sir, should think again.

"All of the decisions you have made throughout the game, as a result, are completely smurfing pointless." Yes. That is the point. Throughout the game you have been nothing but a pawn and that will never change. Thought you could change the world? A normal man has no power at all, much like it is in the real world. It's a lesson. In the end, no-one controls the masses except the super rich. It is how it works in Human Revolution, it is how it works in RL.

This entire point falls apart when you take into account the level of impact your action at the end would have to cause. Exposing the truth of the illuminati to the world, destroying the illuminati and every trace of their existance, or basically choosing one of two radically different people to hand over the future of the Illuminati to. You, as an individual, have a massive impact on what will happen to this world.

The Reason I say it's pointless is the game just decides not to tell you what that impact ends up being, it doesn't really even give you an Idea of what could happen. It's 'Well, I picked this path for this vague set of reasons, lets hope for the best'.

And that is what the endings do perfectly; they link to our real world and bring problems to light.

The speeches are hypotheses. Not about what could happen in Deus Ex universe, but what could happen in our own world. They are intended to make you view the issue of man meddling with nature from different perspectives. They make you think. They make you wise. And that is why the endings to this game are amazing; they are education, not entertainment. Any person who thinks otherwise is obviously a sheep in the herd not questioning issues in our society, the way we use technology, how we try to play god and interfere with nature, and ultimately; who controls us.

Alright, time destroy one ending after another.

Firstly, going with Darrow's plan. The monologue states that Darrow understood the destructive nature technology can bring about and that we should be careful with it. Well, good point and all, but this is seriously a 'no trout sherlock' moment. There is nothing deep or insightful here. Just a bunch of dialogue to state a point that's pretty damn well understood.

Next we have Sarrif. The premise that 'creativity and ingenuity have moved mankind forward, and that we should keep doing it, for the chance of overcoming all of our weakness's. The problem here is once again, we come to the 'no trout' moment of all this. I don't think a person alive doesn't think technology advancing is something done for the good of man kind, even if it doesn't always work. We are left with Sarrif's ending once again offering us no education, but simply pointing out something the vast majority of humanity has long since figured out.

Now we have Taggart. This ending proposes that perhaps that absolute freedom that Sarrif pushed for in the advancement of technology could be bad if people let to go loose, and perhaps people can't be trusted with such power. It puts forth the Idea that maybe the power should be guided by a select few, but that you run the risk of them becoming corrupt. For a third time, this is nothing new.

The final Idea, for sinking the entire place, is that neither he nor anyone else in this place, has the right to decide this for humanity. Which I find funny, because this spits in the face of the Idea of 'No one controls the mass's but the super rich' because you pretty much destroy all of that which controls them with the destruction of this place. If that was the entire point of this game, this ending as an options undermines that point entirely.


The point being, it doesn't make you view it from different perspectives, it simply tells you the perspectives are there. It offers nothing new to these perspectives that someone who spent a good thirty minutes on the internet couldn't discover. If there was some grand insightful message this game tryed to get across, it is at best shallow. This game does a piss poor job at questioning issues. All it says is 'Well, there certainly are issues, think about it'.

This game offers me absolutely nothing in that regard, and worse yet if that's the intention it means they didn't even bother trying to give you an ending to the story at hand. Which again, if the point was you were a pawn who had no power or control over what happened, is completely undermined by the simple fact you have the choice to do something that would, without a doubt, completely smurfing alter everything about the entirety of the world.

Finally, 'How we try to play god and interfere with nature, and ultimately, who controls us?" Well yes we play god and interfere with nature, Nature is out to smurfing kill us. We don't really have a choice but to interfere with nature if we want to survive. The thing is, the game doesn't really offer us any reason to think we are going to far with it. There is the side effects of Cyber they brought up, but considering that was a problem curable by virtue of our hero existing, that's not really a valid point.

Tl;dr Version:

It offers nothing new to these grand Ideals, does a troutty job at saying one little pawn like you can't change anything since you are given the ability to change everything due to your drive forward, and the Idea that even in reality we meek and poor folks can do nothing against the evil tyranny of the rich is smurfing stupid. If we assume that's true, the message itself would be pointless to put out there anyway as it would do nothing but depress us. And all this pseudo-intellectual nonsense keeps us from getting an actual ending.

[Pete for President]

Anyway. I see your point, Pete, but that doesn't make the ending any better. Also, I disagree with your point. You say...

Thought you could change the world? A normal man has no power at all, much like it is in the real world. It's a lesson. In the end, no-one controls the masses except the super rich.

...and then, in the end, it is indeed the character that goes around changing the world throughout the entire game. You are the one that not only brings down the super rich, you are also the one that gets to dictate how the public hear about the end result. In the end, you, one man who is not in the super-rich institution, are changing the world.

Ah, interesting discussion

I agree that Jensen bringing down the super rich - or at least a part of it - makes him a quite extraordinary ordinary man. This however, (I believe as the endings show) only barely changes the course already set by the rich. Unlike many other videogames, the hero Jensen can not bring the world a happy ending. All Jensen can do is pick a direction already plotted by the rich and watch. That makes him still pretty powerless.

We're not here for a philosophy lesson, we're here to play the role of a man in a game and when he presses that button, he witnesses what happens next, and despite playing the role and dictating his actions throughout the game, don't witness what he witnesses.

I think this is somewhat of a personal preference. Personally I like it when a game goes deeper than just entertainment, so you could say I am here for a philosophy lesson but I understand if others are not. I like to think of games similar to books and movies; there's arthouse/literature to enlighten the mind, blockbusters to entertain, etc. To me DE:HR is in the arthouse category and it's open endings sparked thoughts and theories long after finishing the game. I doubt I would have that if the ending contained closing facts rather than open speculations. But for players who considered DE:HR as entertainment all way through I can understand the endings don't really meet expectations.

Edit: will get to your post later, Neo!

[NeoCracker]

If you want an even simpler explanation, the 'intellectual' attempt fails for me because it offers me absolutely nothing I haven't heard or thought of before.

[Pike]

Okay I was linked here so I guess I have to post something xD

I don't have much of a beef with this to be honest. Sure I obviously disagree about placing TES III on a list of "worst games" (go ahead with TES IV, idgaf), but here is the thing with TES. TES works if you love digging into some ridiculously in-depth lore and really, really getting into bizarro metaphysical stuff that forums are still arguing about ten years later. TES works if you like to spend hours learning about a fictional culture so you can roleplay as an everyday joe. If you don't want to do that; if you don't want something that lacks a really straightforward linear path, then you are not going to enjoy TES.

Morrowind is not a breakthrough RPG on a technical level. Not by a long shot. I would even hesitate it to call it an RPG. It's a universe that contains some incredibly complex and detailed cultures within (as I wrote about recently at my blog here) and the point is for that universe to be a sandbox. People who are not looking for that in a game will not enjoy Morrowind. Different strokes.

[Madame Adequate]

And you people say I have bad taste.

[Loony BoB]

I agree that Jensen bringing down the super rich - or at least a part of it - makes him a quite extraordinary ordinary man. This however, (I believe as the endings show) only barely changes the course already set by the rich. Unlike many other videogames, the hero Jensen can not bring the world a happy ending. All Jensen can do is pick a direction already plotted by the rich and watch. That makes him still pretty powerless.

We're not here for a philosophy lesson, we're here to play the role of a man in a game and when he presses that button, he witnesses what happens next, and despite playing the role and dictating his actions throughout the game, don't witness what he witnesses.

I think this is somewhat of a personal preference. Personally I like it when a game goes deeper than just entertainment, so you could say I am here for a philosophy lesson but I understand if others are not. I like to think of games similar to books and movies; there's arthouse/literature to enlighten the mind, blockbusters to entertain, etc. To me DE:HR is in the arthouse category and it's open endings sparked thoughts and theories long after finishing the game. I doubt I would have that if the ending contained closing facts rather than open speculations. But for players who considered DE:HR as entertainment all way through I can understand the endings don't really meet expectations.

While this is all true, that doesn't mean they can't actually put together a proper cutscene showing what happens immediately afterwards. They could show the hours, the day or two. They don't have to show the human reaction, to be honest - what they do need to show is your character carrying out the act and what he witnesses in the immediate aftermath. They could have the exact same words for the ending, said by Jensen in a narrative, as we watch him press the button, watch him die/escape/whatever. But we see nothing, and that for me is unaccepatable.

DE:HR didn't really strike me as a philosophical game. It was predominantly about the action, the exploration, the story (which was part philosophy, but not 100%). Perhaps this kind of ending would have been better for a movie, but even then, you should still see the immediate aftermath of the button-pressing. If you think about it, the fact that so many people were too busy being enraged at the ending actually means the philosophy was completely lost on it's target audience. The kind of game they made - stealth/action/FPS/RPG - is not one that is normally targeted towards the philosophers of the world! If they wanted the people who were going to play this game to enjoy the ending and actually take in the philosophy, they would have put it in after showing the immediate aftermath, allowing people to have a sense of conclusion regarding Jensen's story. And this is Jensen's story, we need to remember that. We weren't seeing what was going on at the far ends of the Earth, we were only seeing what Jensen saw. Should we get a conclusion as to what happened to the world? Perhaps not. Should we know what happened to Jensen? Yes.

[NeoCracker]

Okay I was linked here so I guess I have to post something xD

I don't have much of a beef with this to be honest. Sure I obviously disagree about placing TES III on a list of "worst games" (go ahead with TES IV, idgaf), but here is the thing with TES. TES works if you love digging into some ridiculously in-depth lore and really, really getting into bizarro metaphysical stuff that forums are still arguing about ten years later. TES works if you like to spend hours learning about a fictional culture so you can roleplay as an everyday joe. If you don't want to do that; if you don't want something that lacks a really straightforward linear path, then you are not going to enjoy TES.

Morrowind is not a breakthrough RPG on a technical level. Not by a long shot. I would even hesitate it to call it an RPG. It's a universe that contains some incredibly complex and detailed cultures within (as I wrote about recently at my blog here) and the point is for that universe to be a sandbox. People who are not looking for that in a game will not enjoy Morrowind. Different strokes.

I actually love learning about culture and lore. The problem is that's great to supplement I world I am interested in, but I'll get to that in a future game on this list.

The thing is if the plot can't grab me, which Skyrim actually managed to do in two regards. The amazing opening with Rolof for one, it showed both a strong person as well as this devotion to his culture and people, the Nords, in a way that showed something profound about the Nords. It made me really want to know more about the conflict going on in Skyrim and to learn of both sides. (The dropping of the ball on this was another story entirely though. ;p)

I also loved the Kajeet book you find that details the culture of Kajeet's to people who would be their allies. At first glance it may have felt like it made no sense and was entirely a contradictory description, but if you take a bit to read into it you'll start to get a good idea at the mindset of these people, and the weird speak of it makes sense. However this didn't engross me in the land of Skyrim, all it did was make me wish the game were to take place in Elswhere (Probably spelled that wrong.) and didn't really have relevance to anything going on anywhere in Skyrim.

And you people say I have bad taste.

You do.

[Madame Adequate]

Says the guy who thinks Morrowind and Human Revolution belong on a "Worst games" list

[NeoCracker]

Says the guy who thinks Morrowind and Human Revolution belong on a "Worst games" list

In my defense, I fully acknowledge the good of HR, and that I'm being horribly unfair when I put it on the worst of list.

And in a slight continuation of my last post, if there was a game in elswhere I would totally buy that ElderScrolls. ;P

[Madame Adequate]

Also the fact that there's plenty of references to places you don't go and stuff you don't see is sort of the definition of lore-building and world-building. Morrowind doesn't hold your hand, but when you find a book about some Dwemer ruins chances are you can go there if you pay attention.

[NeoCracker]

Also the fact that there's plenty of references to places you don't go and stuff you don't see is sort of the definition of lore-building and world-building. Morrowind doesn't hold your hand, but when you find a book about some Dwemer ruins chances are you can go there if you pay attention.

The problem I had with that is the same thing with Lost Oddysy's Thousand Years of Memories. I'm sitting here reading these cool stories, but then I can help but feel I'd much rather be doing that then what it is I'm doing now. That's something that pulls me out of a game.

I do like when these random things you find may actually lead to something in world, or additional information on the goings on of whats around you. That is something I really appreciate in these games. It's when so much of it has nothing to do with whats around me, it starts feeling pointless after a while.