|
Game Of The Year 2003 - PC
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ThaDevil |
| Which gets your vote and explain why. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
Neither Splinter Cell, Vice City or Halo are games from 2003. Ports shouldn't count.
And why isn't Legend of Zelda on there :conf: |
|
|
| Puuhis |
| NFS:U for me because it's one of the two games this year. And GTA Vice City was released last year, atleast on PS2. |
|
|
| dbl |
well.. if i have to chose a game from there it's PoP TSOT...
GTA VC is a good game, but not the best game of the year
splinter cell... kinda fun from time to time.. but not that good
halo isn't that good...
and i haven't played the rest
but PoP is a great game :)
GTA Vice City 1 25.00%
Splinter Cell 0 0%
Freedom Fighters 0 0%
Call Of Duty 0 0%
Prince Of Persia TSOT 1 25.00%
NFS Underground 1 25.00%
Halo 1 25.00%
C&C Generals |
|
|
| Mr Game+Watch |
| Ugh... none of the above... FF Tactics Advance probably. It REALLY wasn't a very good year for gaming in the US :( |
|
|
| TeKnoHe@d2025 |
My vote goes to Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
I also agree that Vice City, Halo & Splinter Cell should not be on the poll. I just got finished with Need for Speed Underground and it was a very good game. Although I found PoP to be a little more unique so it got my vote. |
|
|
| ThaDevil |
Just to make things clean, these games are all PC releases (including console ports that are good), no consoles!
GTA VC PC = 2003
Splinter Cell PC = 2003
Halo PC = 2003 |
|
|
| TeKnoHe@d2025 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ThaDevil
Just to make things clean, these games are all PC releases (including console ports that are good), no consoles!
GTA VC PC = 2003
Splinter Cell PC = 2003
Halo PC = 2003 |
Change the title of your poll then to something like Game of the Year (PC) then. It's very misleading. |
|
|
| Trancender |
| GTA VC takes it for me...It was hours of fun and blood! and when ur stressed ... just go kill people :) did it for me |
|
|
| TheDemon |
| I say Max Payne 2. while it was short, it still lived up to its name. best game of 2003. |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
Easily, EASILY warcraft 3 the frozen throne. Anyone who thinks NFS:U is even in the top 100 games of the year is clearly a dilettante when it comes to gaming. The game is horrible, and while I am not an advocate of the playstation 2, GT3 with all its' (MINOR COMPARED TO NSF:U) faults BLOWS NFS:U out of the water, there is simply NO comparison. I'll break it down for you.
Realism:
NFS:U : ABSOLUTELY NONE. The cars (including their handling characteristics, and powerbands) are absolutely fake. The drag mode is pathetic and while it does do it's part in making the game difficult missing a shift by <=300 rpms does not give you a 5 car length deficit. Nobody driving a car with *REAL* speed modifications would bother with the 200 lbs of "reputation" vinyl, underglow lights, pathetic looking body kits, excessively sized wings (or wings at all in most cases), and ed up exhaust (nobody needs a tip with the diameter of a coffee can). Don't even get me started on "well it's for looks" as their is a PRETTY ING BIG BOLD BLACK LINE between "elegance and gaudy", assuming elegance is to the far right, those cars have fallen off the FAR LEFT END (hint: VERY GAUDY). Hmm, mazda miata ripping a skyline? Yeah ing right. Plus, EVERY SINGLE CAR IN THE GAME IS A LOW PERFORMANCE TO MID PERFORMANCE MACHINE. A Honda civic has *no* desirable characteristics for a race car besides maybe its' stripped weight for amateur dragging. big deal, a civic can run a ten... V8's run sevens. They portray the "racing underground (which does exist to some extent, although in no way as glorified as this retarded game)" as a bunch of fscking morons who know NOTHING about real performance. A bunch of high-school punks that think vinyl's make their car look better (and faster...). is what this game appeals too.
Gran Turismo 3 - Has its' FAIR SHARE OF REALISM FAULTS but at least its along the right lines. The performance upgrades are far too general to be realistic and the final state of modability in most cars isn't too real either. To it's credit it allows tweaking of things which *REALLY DO* AFFECT PEFORMANCE IN REAL LIFE UNLIKE NFS:U which is primarily learning the rail for the track and hitting the "N2O" button. Things like gear ratio's, suspension characteristics such as spring rate etc all REALLY DO affect real performance (far more than an "intake filter" and a big vinyl head banner do) although it's questionable whether the game accurately reflects said changes.
Graphics -
NFS:U - NFS:U simply looks dated, the interface is counter-intuitive and has little customizable features which is unusual for a pc game but the de-facto for EA because they pound out primarily mindless bull drivel cos they know dumbasses will plunk 50.00 US down to stroke their ego about their slow vinyled car that they either
a.) wish they had
b.) have
GT3 - DESPITE being on the admittedly DATED PS2 platform which is reaching the ends of it's life in usability looks considerably better than NFS:U in every aspect. One can not expect much game customability on a console platform but I'd say it has as much if not more than NFS:U.
Sound -
NFS:U - hmm... no
GT3 - The sound is alright for the game although it could use a much much more detailed and intensive sample bank for cars. Cars sound about the same minus engine size and whether or not it has a turbocharger.
fun rating -
NFS:U - nauseatingly boring with the computer simply cheating. Imitates the learning curve of a real game by making the rails on the track ridiculous and difficult to learn. Poor ai on EA's part (which is to be expected of them).
GT3 - Car's handle much more like expected and the game does not "cheat" to get difficulty. There is certainly a "skill" to it based largely on something besides whether or not you can learn the tracks "rail". A (large) complaint is that collisions are utterly un-realistic but gaming platforms just aren't at the point to simulate real collisions and for most people it would be very frustrating rather than fun.
WC3:TFT is everything that a RTS should be... the natural evolution from SC:BW. Blizzard deserves the title AGAIN (not that they haven't won almost every year in the past from some magazine) for setting a Paradigm in a genre otherwise swamped with stagnation.
and
STFU N00BS who disagree :p |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheDemon
I say Max Payne 2. while it was short, it still lived up to its name. best game of 2003. |
max payne 2 is simply a rehash of maxpayne one.. they don't play different at all and the graphical differences are marginal.
GTA:VC is a *very* good example of something deserving of the "GOTY" title unfortunately it came out in 2002. Best single player game of 2002 imo. Although I find single player games to be simply inferior in quality to multiplayer games in almost all cases. Conquering AI is nothing compared to conquering real people (well, most of them anyways :p) |
|
|
|
|
