Super Meat Boy tied for 2nd Top PC Game of All Time

[builer680]

I too see very little progress in the game industry. I remember the old amiga games.

I loved the Amiga, I was around 8 or 9 when Dad bought one.

Starflight I and II
Elite I and II
Space Rogue
The Settlers
Battle Chess
Lemmings
Stellar Seven
Civ I
Star Wars (in spaceships, not Jedi light saber bullcrap)
Wings
F-18 Interceptor
Dune 2
Populous
Empire: Wargame of the Century
Pirates
Wing Commander
Railroad Tycoon
Sim City
Colonization


...and dozens I can't remember.

So many games, many (but not all) with unbelievable depth for their time. It feels like we should be so much further than we are with PC gaming now. There are some shining examples, but not nearly enough.

 

[PieceOfMind]

It's late here so forgive me if the structure of this post is a bit disjointed.

builer680, I know that at least on the subject of describing the state of the PC games industry we aren't going to agree on a lot. For example you wrote me a brief description of the problems with the latest WoW expansion but personally I quit the game never to return after about a month of playing because I realised (in part) how much it took advantage of player psychology and how dull its gameplay was. Actually there were several reasons on top of those but elaborating on those would be beside the point. Probably you would have had different ways to have found that program entertaining than I would have had.

Speaking of complexity and depth, these are not necessarily things that I find necessary for me to be entertained by a video game. More likely they are just factors that increase the length of time the product entertains me. One of my favourite games is MasterMind, which is easy to find a freeware program for on the net (for when you don't have someone to play against). The game is very simple in its rules and design (hence not complex) yet it's relatively deep in terms of the strategies that can be used. The game is decades old.

A game that has provided me possibly the most entertainment ever but in the shortest burst of time is the browser game qwop. It was a game that made me laugh til my sides hurt, but I find boring if I play now.

A game like civ5 I would argue is definitely complex, certainly moreso than the vast majority of games on any platform. Whether the game plays well or not depends more on things like how well it's balanced and how good its AI is. Of course other things like how stable the program is, how it runs on recommended hardware and how responsive its UI is to inputs affect how enjoyable its gameplay is too, and personally these three things are where I would usually be most critical of civ5.

I think the best way for me to put what I want to say is that I think you have a much more pessimistic view of the way PC gaming is headed than I do. I think the only legitimate reason to be concerned as you are would be if people really were going to become less interested in complex or deep games (I assume we're mainly talking about the strategy game genre). If that didn't happen, it would suggest there would forever be a demand for that type of game and hence obviously someone somewhere will always fill that void with a game for the monetary incentive.

I think a genre of game that has suffered even fewer releases than complex strategy games over the past few years is the hardcore flight sim. Yet not much longer than a year ago we were given the flight sim DCS: Black Shark from a Moscow-based developer Eagle Dynamics and the game has received critical acclaim, especially from the hardcore simmers. Strangely enough probably the two most common criticisms leveled against the game would be its overwhelming depth (hardcore sims are known for having long and steep learning curves) and its DRM system (starforce ).

I guess I will finish this post by saying I'm sure there will always be sufficiently complex strategy games for to enjoy and that probably there are many out there already that you have yet to discover. You just need to find them. I am curious to know whether two games I've heard great things about, AI War: Fleet Command and Space Rangers2 , are two such games for you.

 

[builer680]

I appreciate the civil response. A little more optimism is probably a good idea.

The Space Ranger looks like it has promise but appears to be poorly translated and a bit too buggy from what I've seen in a few minutes reading user reviews.

However, I'm extremely interested in the Fleet Command title especially. Thanks for mentioning it! I hadn't heard of it yet. I will definitely be looking into it further.

 

[JohnnyW]

I question Crysis being on the list more than SMB.

You wrote SMB, we were talking about side-scrolling PC platformers, and even though this thread is about super meat boy I thought super mario brothers.

 

[Tarkhan]

"top" game on any platform is a pretty silly list, honestly. and, like GameSpot did, all you can do is quantify them by review score, or by number of copies sold.

Top lists and game of the years, are simply there so that gaming news sites have something to post during the slow jan-feb months.

Best game on the platform is too hard, because using this community as an example, like half of them would be strategy games - because we're fans of the genre. Does this mean shooters are junk? Nope. It simply means that we don't play them or like them as much.

Regardless of the problems with the PC gaming industry right now (THe PC as a platform has no one entity to market it like consoles do, publishers have no idea what the actual effect of piracy is, and thus assume the worst...) I think the problem here, is that review sites like comparing apples to oranges far too much.

 

[Kennigit]

It makes me incredibly sad that they rate starcraft II so high. Starcraft brood war best game ever in my biased opinion.

SMB is amazing. Playing through it now and it definitely deserves a lot of credit.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I've been playing SMB and I must too say I think it's great. I can see why it's not for everyone though. It requires such pinpoint precision with the player's inputs that it would possibly drive most "strategy" gamers nuts. I haven't played many platformers lately but I think this one deserves most of the praise.

As for how it ranks on a list with games from other genres, I see the comparisons as pointless. The method of rating a game is arbitrary after all... no need to get worried or worked up about a "bad ordering".

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sure it's fun. So is Max Dirt Bike, and it's free. But I'm not calling it the 2nd best game ever. /shrug

They werent calling it the 2nd best game ever either. Or did you utterly fail to note all the other games rated at 9.5?



What you called up is simply a historical record of their game ratings....not a statement of whats best of all time.

For that you need to get their most recent pc gamer mag. A panel of 12 or so writers/editors culminate their votes for the 100 best pc games of all time.

Just as an FYI: super meat boy wasnt even on the list.

 

[builer680]

They werent calling it the 2nd best game ever either. Or did you utterly fail to note all the other games rated at 9.5?



What you called up is simply a historical record of their game ratings....not a statement of whats best of all time.

For that you need to get their most recent pc gamer mag. A panel of 12 or so writers/editors culminate their votes for the 100 best pc games of all time.

Just as an FYI: super meat boy wasnt even on the list.

RE READ THE THREAD. I mentioned EXACTLY what you are saying SEVERAL TIMES specifically FOR THIS CLARIFICATION. Maybe YOU need to stop "utterly failing" at reading comprehension.

When a game site has done reviews for ~20 YEARS, and reviewed THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of games, and only about TEN have a 9.5, and only ONE has a score higher than that, it IS IN FACT calling it one of the best games of all time. I don't care what your stupid reasoning about point scales is. I've also repeatedly pointed out that I don't care one way or the other what Gamespot thinks, they're bought and paid for like most reviewers out there, BUT it still baffled me to see it rate a 2d platformer that highly in 2010 even knowing they're bought and paid for. No matter how good it is, it's still barely a step up from the original SMB with Goombas. That's all.

Learn to read more comprehensively before you go around saying that somebody else "utterly failed."

Also, you're already ignored, so your incoming insipid reply won't be seen.

 

[Akka]

Builer : I can perfectly understand from where you come from. I agree with the "dumbing down for the mass market" trend that has taken over video games since it has become an "industry", and I've had the same experience with WoW - and don't come back, Cata had better instances than Wrath, but they have already dumbed it down due to scrubs unable to use more than two buttons, and it's /faceroll all over again.

Notice that I'm not someone fond of platform games. I'm not really passionnate about the game itself.
This being said, I disagree with your take on Super Meat Boy. I think it's actually, on the contrary, a "back to the root" game. It may LOOKS like a continuation of the "dumb game for dumb people" on the surface, but if you look closer, the design is actually at the total opposite.

First, the game is hard. VERY hard. INSANELY hard. In a complete opposition to all the "make it stupidly easy so that even retards can win and feel very good", this one slaps you with sadism and laugh in your face. The first few worlds are introductory, but after that the gloves are off.
And THEN you have the "hard mode", which is twice as hard.

Next, it's big. Huge. Titanic. There is HUNDREDS of worlds to discover. This is the total opposite of the usual "movie-like" games like Call of Duty that are gone in a handful of hours and are tiny.

Finally, it's simple, but not simplistic. It's "gameplay" before "passivity". The commands are simple, but the game is in how you handle them. Again, a total opposite of the "here is plenty of commands that will be useless because you can just mash one to win in five minutes and the rest of the game is a movie where you just look and don't play anyway".


This game is a breath of fresh air in the ultra-commercial, ultra-bland, ultra-marketing-based pile of crap that the video game world has become. It's weird, original and, in the end, it's HARDCORE. It's not to everyone's tastes (I'm having fun a bit with it, but I'm not spending hours on it like I could on RPG or strategy games), but it definitely has this feeling that it was made by PLAYERS and not a marketing department.

 

[builer680]

Builer : I can perfectly understand from where you come from. I agree with the "dumbing down for the mass market" trend that has taken over video games since it has become an "industry", and I've had the same experience with WoW - and don't come back, Cata had better instances than Wrath, but they have already dumbed it down due to scrubs unable to use more than two buttons, and it's /faceroll all over again.

Notice that I'm not someone fond of platform games. I'm not really passionnate about the game itself.
This being said, I disagree with your take on Super Meat Boy. I think it's actually, on the contrary, a "back to the root" game. It may LOOKS like a continuation of the "dumb game for dumb people" on the surface, but if you look closer, the design is actually at the total opposite.

First, the game is hard. VERY hard. INSANELY hard. In a complete opposition to all the "make it stupidly easy so that even retards can win and feel very good", this one slaps you with sadism and laugh in your face. The first few worlds are introductory, but after that the gloves are off.
And THEN you have the "hard mode", which is twice as hard.

Next, it's big. Huge. Titanic. There is HUNDREDS of worlds to discover. This is the total opposite of the usual "movie-like" games like Call of Duty that are gone in a handful of hours and are tiny.

Finally, it's simple, but not simplistic. It's "gameplay" before "passivity". The commands are simple, but the game is in how you handle them. Again, a total opposite of the "here is plenty of commands that will be useless because you can just mash one to win in five minutes and the rest of the game is a movie where you just look and don't play anyway".


This game is a breath of fresh air in the ultra-commercial, ultra-bland, ultra-marketing-based pile of crap that the video game world has become. It's weird, original and, in the end, it's HARDCORE. It's not to everyone's tastes (I'm having fun a bit with it, but I'm not spending hours on it like I could on RPG or strategy games), but it definitely has this feeling that it was made by PLAYERS and not a marketing department.

Cool post. I don't really have a "take" on the game though as you stated. As I've said, it may very well be the best 2d platformer ever to exist in all of creation. Doesn't change that it's still a 2d platformer. To each their own, I'm still baffled.

Love your sig btw, very funny

 

[Maniacal]

When a game site has done reviews for ~20 YEARS,

Almost 15 years actually.

and reviewed THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of games, and only about TEN have a 9.5, and only ONE has a score higher than that,

All reviewed by many different people, some of whom did a good job, and some of whom did an absolutely horrible job ob reviewing. Quantity doesn't always mean quality.

it IS IN FACT calling it one of the best games of all time.

What makes a game a "best game of all time" is not a completely objective thing. There are many subjective parts to it, and while from what I've read SMB is an amazing game and quite possibly one of the best platformers in recent years (and maybe does deserve its ranking), I am pretty sure I would damn well hate it if I played it. Neither does compiling a list by 'review' scores on Gamespot automatically make all the games in it the top games ever. There are a few 9.5s in there that while I realyl did enjoy, don't belong up there (Dragon Age: Origins, Crysis, and I';m not even going to mention the many 9.0s that really shouldn't have a 9.0).

I don't care what your stupid reasoning about point scales is. I've also repeatedly pointed out that I don't care one way or the other what Gamespot thinks

And nobody here gives a damn about what they think.

, they're bought and paid for like most reviewers out there,

This is why we don't care (even if bought and paid is a lot less outright bribery and more bonus crap and encouragement).

BUT it still baffled me to see it rate a 2d platformer that highly in 2010 even knowing they're bought and paid for. No matter how good it is, it's still barely a step up from the original SMB with Goombas. That's all.

True enough, it just goes to show that there is no such thing as a dead genre (except maybe one but I can't recall it atm) or platform (pun not intended), it all depends on how they use it.

 

[MobBoss]

RE READ THE THREAD. I mentioned EXACTLY what you are saying SEVERAL TIMES specifically FOR THIS CLARIFICATION. Maybe YOU need to stop "utterly failing" at reading comprehension.

That wouldnt be a reading comprehension fail, as I didnt read the comments.

If your going to accuse someone of failing at reading comprehension it may help if you know what it is.

When a game site has done reviews for ~20 YEARS, and reviewed THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of games, and only about TEN have a 9.5, and only ONE has a score higher than that, it IS IN FACT calling it one of the best games of all time.

No, its saying that the particular game being rated appeals to the current panel of employees that rates games. They havent keep the same employees doing ratings all those years, and the current panel may indeed rate games a bit differently, than say the panel 20 years ago.

I don't care what your stupid reasoning about point scales is. I've also repeatedly pointed out that I don't care one way or the other what Gamespot thinks, they're bought and paid for like most reviewers out there, BUT it still baffled me to see it rate a 2d platformer that highly in 2010 even knowing they're bought and paid for. No matter how good it is, it's still barely a step up from the original SMB with Goombas. That's all.

If you dont care, why all the ranting?

Also, you're already ignored, so your incoming insipid reply won't be seen.

And thats another notch on my keyboard. Could someone reply to this please so he will see it?

 

[tycoonist]

That wouldnt be a reading comprehension fail, as I didnt read the comments.

If your going to accuse someone of failing at reading comprehension it may help if you know what it is.



No, its saying that the particular game being rated appeals to the current panel of employees that rates games. They havent keep the same employees doing ratings all those years, and the current panel may indeed rate games a bit differently, than say the panel 20 years ago.



If you dont care, why all the ranting?



And thats another notch on my keyboard. Could someone reply to this please so he will see it?

Hello mobby, how are you?

 

[jimbob27]

Cool post. I don't really have a "take" on the game though as you stated. As I've said, it may very well be the best 2d platformer ever to exist in all of creation. Doesn't change that it's still a 2d platformer. To each their own, I'm still baffled.

Love your sig btw, very funny

And what's wrong with 2d platformers?

You sound a bit like those kids from Back to the Future 2.

"You mean you have to use your hands? That's like a babies toy!!"


Super meat boy is an awesome game and deserves to be rated very highly: It's one of the best 2d platformers out there and offers hours more gameplay than most single-player FPS's do (which can usually be completed on the hardest setting on the first attempt). From reading your posts, it really sounds like you need to play the game in discussion. I don't think you really get what the game is about.


Comparing different genres of games doesn't really work. Is it better than WoW? Is Wow better than civ4? Is civ better than fight-simulator? SMB got a high rating because it's one of the best platformers to be released in years.