P&B Ranks: The Top 42 Video Games of All-Time

[SANTAN]

Just now, GAD said:

Well if you aren't going to read what people actually wrote, then why should I?

You definitely implied it. 

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

Lot of weak-arse excuses being made for forcing the player character to beat a developmentally disabled man to a pulp and suggesting it's fine because the man is large, brutish and implacably hostile. 

I think it's a fair criticism but don't think it's anywhere near the worst thing anyone has seen in a Rockstar game, as I mentioned earlier Arthur regularly commits acts of violence you're meant to feel a certain way about, the character is from 1890 and isn't meant to be perfect or even a good guy by any means. They could have perhaps had an option for not engaging in combat and they had a wee cut scene or something but overall I can't imagine many people sincerely being hurt or upset by the scene.

[19QOS19]

Lot of weak-arse excuses being made for forcing the player character to beat a developmentally disabled man to a pulp and suggesting it's fine because the man is large, brutish and implacably hostile. 

An excuse for what? Getting all precious about beating up a disabled person in a game where there are far worse atrocities happening all around you is just an extremely bizarre thing to get upset about.

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, 19QOS19 said:

16 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Lot of weak-arse excuses being made for forcing the player character to beat a developmentally disabled man to a pulp and suggesting it's fine because the man is large, brutish and implacably hostile. 

An excuse for what? Getting all precious about beating up a disabled person in a game where there are far worse atrocities happening all around you is just an extremely bizarre thing to get upset about.

"Getting all precious" is a quality remark from yourself when you regularly get, and are currently getting, pissy about people criticising the media you like.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

There's also a mission in Valentine where you have to fight some local who's huge and a bit slow. 

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

There's also a mission in Valentine where you have to fight some local who's huge and a bit slow. 

You're going to pull a muscle soon. 

[NotThePars]

15 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I think it's a fair criticism but don't think it's anywhere near the worst thing anyone has seen in a Rockstar game, as I mentioned earlier Arthur regularly commits acts of violence you're meant to feel a certain way about, the character is from 1890 and isn't meant to be perfect or even a good guy by any means. They could have perhaps had an option for not engaging in combat and they had a wee cut scene or something but overall I can't imagine many people sincerely being hurt or upset by the scene.

I would argue that most of that is clearly included as a way of developing the character or benefitting the plot which is fair enough given they establish a character journey for Arthur over the course of the game. There's also no agency here which you allude to which doesn't feel in keeping with large parts of the game either. The "it's the times innit" stuff is weak sauce anaw imo when the gang are clearly shown to be very racially progressive and Arthur personally is pretty forward thinking re women's rights which were conscious decisions taken in 2018 to establish sympathy for Dutch's Gang. I just don't think this particular section benefitted any aspect of the story or game and would've been better being jettisoned. It just comes across as Rockstar indulging their South Park-esque shock humour that lets them down as they can do really funny stuff. Call it the Frankie Boyle problem.

 

[SANTAN]

Some of the rednecks are a bit dim. The literacy rates are appalling too and don't get me started on the dentistry..!

[Miguel Sanchez]

11 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

You're going to pull a muscle soon. 

I don't really care about these. I found that and the magician missions a bit weird. Beating up people for the money lender was much more disagreeable to me, mainly because for a game which makes such a big deal of its honour system you have to go somewhere and leather someone because someone else told you to. There's no other option, and it feels like there should be.  No, he's a criminal who does questionable things. Fine. If I feel uncomfortable controlling him in that then that's who he is, so that's fine.

This is all window dressing to the fact the gameplay is by far the most tedious and off-putting thing about it. You referred to Horizon Zero Dawn earlier. For an open world game with crafting elements based on things you collect from the world, it's just better in every way from a gameplay perspective. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Miguel Sanchez

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

I would argue that most of that is clearly included as a way of developing the character or benefitting the plot which is fair enough given they establish a character journey for Arthur over the course of the game. There's also no agency here which you allude to which doesn't feel in keeping with large parts of the game either. The "it's the times innit" stuff is weak sauce anaw imo when the gang are clearly shown to be very racially progressive and Arthur personally is pretty forward thinking re women's rights which were conscious decisions taken in 2018 to establish sympathy for Dutch's Gang. I just don't think this particular section benefitted any aspect of the story or game and would've been better being jettisoned. It just comes across as Rockstar indulging their South Park-esque shock humour that lets them down as they can do really funny stuff. Call it the Frankie Boyle problem.

 

That's all fair. I've said before I can see why some may find it uncomfortable. I didn't find that mission to be fun or particularly important to the wider plot. I wouldn't have missed it but it didn't put me off the game either. I'm amazed nobody's brought up the rape section yet in all honesty. 

[NotThePars]

5 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

This is all window dressing to the fact the gameplay is by far the most tedious and off-putting thing about it. You referred to Horizon Zero Dawn earlier. For an open world game with crafting elements based on things you collect from the world, it's just better in every way from a gameplay perspective. 

I bought RDR2 and Odyssey at the same time and took to Odyssey much quicker because the looting and crafting was much simpler and easier to work with which is fine if you're looking for a frictionless experience. I don't necessarily think that makes a game better though as it depends on what the goals of the devs are. RDR2 is clearly meant to be especially immersive which sometimes translates as clunky but again I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I have a much greater appreciation for RDR2 than I do any of the modern AC games or Horizon even though I like them all and that's partially because RDR2 felt like such a unique experience. Sometimes it's good to feel a game's systems fighting with you. Jank can be fun and memorable in a way that a smooth theme park ride can be forgettable. Depends what you're looking for. Like, I wouldn't recommend Metro to you for example because it's a game that lives heavily off how janky and irritating large parts of the gameplay are but I personally enjoyed the frustration and thought it added to the experience.

2 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

That's all fair. I've said before I can see why some may find it uncomfortable. I didn't find that mission to be fun or particularly important to the wider plot. I wouldn't have missed it but it didn't put me off the game either. I'm amazed nobody's brought up the rape section yet in all honesty. 

I never got to it (I don't think?)! Thankfully tbh!

Edited June 17, 2021 by NotThePars

[19QOS19]

"Getting all precious" is a quality remark from yourself when you regularly get, and are currently getting, pissy about people criticising the media you like.
 

I've already agreed with Miguel's take on the game previously: if folk find it boring, the controls clunky then fair enough, that's their view of the game. To get upset about slapping someone in a game surrounded by violence absolutely screams of bizarre nitpicking and of course I'm going to question that view.

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, 19QOS19 said:

13 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

"Getting all precious" is a quality remark from yourself when you regularly get, and are currently getting, pissy about people criticising the media you like.
 

I've already agreed with Miguel's take on the game previously: if folk find it boring, the controls clunky then fair enough, that's their view of the game. To get upset about slapping someone in a game surrounded by violence absolutely screams of bizarre nitpicking and of course I'm going to question that view.

I'm not sure if you're being reductive deliberately or if you're just incapable of getting it but I'll assume the former and not bother. There's multiple posts either on here or the internet where you can read why people don't find that argument compelling.

[SANTAN]

10 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

I don't really care about these. I found that and the magician missions a bit weird. Beating up people for the money lender was much more disagreeable to me, mainly because for a game which makes such a big deal of its honour system you have to go somewhere and leather someone because someone else told you to. There's no other option, and it feels like there should be. 

This is all window dressing to the fact the gameplay is by far the most tedious and off-putting thing about it. You referred to Horizon Zero Dawn earlier. For an open world game with crafting elements based on things you collect from the world, it's just better in every way from a gameplay perspective. 

Fair first paragraph, I think the Edith Downes story only comes about through those missions but perhaps one was enough and you could have sacked them off after that and that could've made that part better. 

On the second point I profoundly disagree with people that found any of it tedious and off putting, I can see why they might have felt that way but for me the balance was perfect and more immersive than other similar games whilst also being fairly ambitious with some of the controls. Aside from game controls for me the story, graphics, world, dialogue, acting and pretty much every other aspect of the game shite all over HZD and similar vapid games. 

[19QOS19]

I'm not sure if you're being reductive deliberately or if you're just incapable of getting it but I'll assume the former and not bother. There's multiple posts either on here or the internet where you can read why people don't find that argument compelling.

I'm not trying to make an argument for it. I just find folk who completely dissect video games to that extreme very boring. I either like a game or I don't. If I don't like a game that's popular (CoD/FIFA/Fortnite being the best examples) I'll say I don't and leave it at that (unless asked why). But some folk seem to love hating popular games and can't wait to tell us why even if it's the most stupid of reasons. The example being used here is one of those IMO.

[Miguel Sanchez]

8 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Fair first paragraph, I think the Edith Downes story only comes about through those missions but perhaps one was enough and you could have sacked them off after that and that could've made that part better. 

On the second point I profoundly disagree with people that found any of it tedious and off putting, I can see why they might have felt that way but for me the balance was perfect and more immersive than other similar games whilst also being fairly ambitious with some of the controls. Aside from game controls for me the story, graphics, world, dialogue, acting and pretty much every other aspect of the game shite all over HZD and similar vapid games. 

But the point is I've not got as far as caring about any of the writing or characterisation because of how off-putting the gameplay is. I've played it for almost 20 hours and (the fact I've gone large stretches between sessions aside) I don't know anything about any of the characters other than everybody loves Dutch, everybody thinks John is a whiner and they all had it tough when they were up in the snow in the mountains. There are countless people in the gang I'm supposed to do missions or activities with and Arthur knows who they all are and cares about them, but I don't and I don't. I'm going to play it at some point and I appreciate that once I'm used to constantly cleaning my guns or brushing my horse sitting bobbing my head trying to make Arthur move faster I'll appreciate what story there is, but for the time being I'll quote the Zero Punctuation review of Final Fantasy XIII: "People have told me the game gets really good once you're twenty hours in. You know that's not a point in its favour, right?"

It's also worth pointing out that compared to the first RDR, the introductory portion of the game is far inferior. There you get introduced to the player character, the premise of the story, the main villain, a minor villain, a manageable population centre and an archetypal friendly NPC and most of the gameplay within the first two hours. Job done, interest piqued.

Also, I realise you have a tendency to say deliberately provocative things to get reactions out of people, but considering you voted for the latest Assassin's Creed open world effort as your second game on this list you shouldn't really be calling other games vapid to try and make RDR2 seem good. If you can't praise it on its own merits without denigrating other games then your arguments don't look very good. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Miguel Sanchez

[SANTAN]

1 hour ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

But the point is I've not got as far as caring about any of the writing or characterisation because of how off-putting the gameplay is. I've played it for almost 20 hours and (the fact I've gone large stretches between sessions aside) I don't know anything about any of the characters other than everybody loves Dutch, everybody thinks John is a whiner and they all had it tough when they were up in the snow in the mountains. There are countless people in the gang I'm supposed to do missions or activities with and Arthur knows who they all are and cares about them, but I don't and I don't. I'm going to play it at some point and I appreciate that once I'm used to constantly cleaning my guns or brushing my horse sitting bobbing my head trying to make Arthur move faster I'll appreciate what story there is, but for the time being I'll quote the Zero Punctuation review of Final Fantasy XIII: "People have told me the game gets really good once you're twenty hours in. You know that's not a point in its favour, right?"

It's also worth pointing out that compared to the first RDR, the introductory portion of the game is far inferior. There you get introduced to the player character, the premise of the story, the main villain, a minor villain, a manageable population centre and an archetypal friendly NPC and most of the gameplay within the first two hours. Job done, interest piqued.

Also, I realise you have a tendency to say deliberately provocative things to get reactions out of people, but considering you voted for the latest Assassin's Creed open world effort as your second game on this list you shouldn't really be calling other games vapid to try and make RDR2 seem good. If you can't praise it on its own merits without denigrating other games then your arguments don't look very good. 

I think you maybe have a bit of an issue with conflating your opinion with objective fact in all honesty. It happens with almost every Simpsons avatar user ever so I won't hold it against you. 

You're entitled to think all you want about being bored at the start and I'm allowed to have been immersed fully and enjoyed it from the start. 

I'm aware that you also like to say deliberately incorrect or provocative statements to try and get reactions so I'll take your criticism of my opinion with a pinch of salt...RDR2 was fun for me, clearly it was for loads of other people, Robotdino game was vapid to me and I'm sure it was for plenty of other people and that plenty will have enjoyed it and AC Valhalla was brilliant and captivating in my opinion but again I'm aware people may not agree 

TLDR..

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Stormzy

[Miguel Sanchez]

Enjoy your night mate

[54_and_counting]

Jesus this escalated quickly lol

The fact that a story (it essentially is) is voted top game of all time is quite, i dunno, not weird but strange 

Granted ive never played it, but aside from replaying vice city just to cruise around on a bike doing drive byes just to start a fight with the coppers, ive never really felt the need or want to replay a game that has a story as the main selling point (i recently did ff8 remastered but thats only cause it was cheap, hadnt played it in over a decade and it has quick speed etc options making the game much quicker to go through) 

I know the game is outstanding to look at, plays well apparently etc, but knowing what the story is, how it unfolds etc, theres no replayability for me in games like that 

Im 40 next year, and i find it a bit strange how more short burst multiplayer games arent higher on lists, not just here but in a lot of places, games you can go back to and enjoy even an hours worth without having to sit through god boring parts that you know what happens next

Again though, everyone has their opinions etc, thats what makes the gaming industry as big as it is

[GiGi]

It took until the very end of the list but it's finally all kicking off. Quality.