Empire magazine's "100 Greatest Games" list

Red Sleeping Beauty

http://www.empireonline.com/100greatestgames/

Sorry , I know, another "list" thread but just seeing if I can spark some debate here

There's a fair few "retro" games there. I was expecting the list to reflect film influences in games but it seems like it's your standard "most influential" games. I dunno, I'm not a hardcore gamer but reading here I think there's a lot of games that seem to not get a mention in tehse things

Goldeneye is no. 10, I couldn't help thinking about what someone said a few days ago about how it's so flawed today. Is it still "great" ?

Kinetic^

Some dodgy ones in there tbh. No Quake 3? No call of duty 2? Guitar Hero above Quake?

MrStuffins

I think it was me who said it had ages badly..........

BUT..... gameplay wise, still an incredible game. It just looks really bad compared to games nowadays

randomchild

LMAO at Warcraft at 3...

Retr0gamer

A list of infuriating badness on a level with the screwattack lists. It's basically written by someone that doesn't know what they are talking about drawing from the usual suspects, todays popular choices and a few badly choosen retro games.

There's plenty of dreadful games on there. Donkey Kong Country doesn't deserve to be on the list, FFVIII is a pretty poor JRPG, Black and White is just crap and if they did any researh they probably would have been disgusted with how Goldeneye plays nowadays. Looks wise it's a mess. Gameplay wise, a mess. Double Dragon but no streets of rage or capcom fighters?

They seemed to try and include popular franchises but picked totally the wrong games from them. Super Castlevania (IV) over symphony of the night and Dawn of Sorrow? Devil May Cry over the stunning DMC3? Super Contra over Contra Hard Corp? There's better Sonic games than the first. And the MGS series? Granted MGS is a classic but MGS2 is a bit of a mess and MGS4 is just a bad game no matter what the fanboys say. Forgetting by far the best game in the series MGS3?

FFVII at no. 2? Granted it's most peoples only foray into the genre and probably made a big impact but in the JRPG genre it's merely average. Certainly not the second best game ever and ahead of chrono trigger and black isles finest.

Where's Robotron? Why is Super Metroid so low yet GoW is so high? No Halo game deserves to be on the list let alone higher than System Shock 2 and Half-life.

There's only one thing worse than a list i don't agree with and thats a terrible list written by spoof artists. I'd expect nothing less from Empire though.

Command and Conquer better than Starcraft? **** off.

Atavan-Halen

TBH I dont look at greatest x lists. Why? Because usually the number 1 is not that great and I end up wasting money. The last top 100 games list I read was in Edge magazine, while it was an interesting read, I didnt go out and get the games on the list.

Number 1 was Ocarina of Time

A probable un-neccessary spoiler there, but I've always wanted to put one in a post :P

Kinetic^

At least OoT was a decent game and warrants being high up on any Top games list.

ShawnRaven

Looked at the top ten
Shook head
Walked off.

CiDeRmAn

Oh dear, what a load of tosh.
At least Edges top 100 had valid arguements for each and every entry.
Happily, I already own 80 odd of that top 100, and everyone should at least own their top ten.

10-Yoshi's Island
9-Halo 3
8-Super Mario Galaxy
7-Tetris
6-Super Mario World
5-Zelda: Link to the past
4-Resident Evil 4
3-Half Life 2
2-Super Mario 64
1-Zelda: Ocarina of Time

For me though the top two should be switched around, but that's just me.

Retr0gamer

Halo 3 though? It maybe a competent FPS but really there's no way you can say it's the best FPS ever. I can come up with a lot of games that did everything Halo 3 did except way better.

Kinetic^

No way should Halo 3 be there.

CiDeRmAn

Sorry you guys, but I play a lot of FPS and Halo 3 was remarkable, so many great moments, so many engagements with the enemy that ebbed and flowed across a battlefield, and then the battle with the Scarabs, where you really got to feel superhuman, fantastic.
And that's not even taking into account the multiplayer elements.
Overall an awesome package (Ohh err matron) and I think you can get it preowned for only 20 blips, so no excuses.

Just don't play it on anything less than Heroic or you're wasting your time, the strategies are totally different, it's a different game, In slept walked through Halo 2 on normal, so I knew not to make the same mistake again.

civis_liberalis

atavan-halen wrote: »

Number 1 was Ocarina of Time

A probable un-neccessary spoiler there, but I've always wanted to put one in a post :P

Me too

Retr0gamer

Maybe you think highly of it but was it really more remarkable than Half-life 1 and 2, System Shock 2, Deus Ex, the best of Call of Duty, Doom 2, Metroid Prime, Operation Flashpoint, etc.? It definitely isn't the best the best multiplayer game out there and Forge is a sorry shadow of a level editor. Fun game, yes. Deserving of being in a top 100. No. Deserving of being placed as one of the best 10 games ever. Definitely not.

(Was tempted to do a GH Edge joke but I'm getting bored listening to myself say it )

appleidog

1.Mario 64 Nothing comes close to this game!.
2.Ghoul's n ghosts - Saturn
3.Donkey kong: Jungle Beat- Gamecube
4.Bioshock - Xbox 360
5.Vib Ribbon - PS1
6.Sonic 1 Megadrive.
7.Super mario allstars + World (I know that is cheating) Super Nintendo
8.Kirby's Adventure Nes
9.Nights
10.Super Street fighter 2 Turbo.

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

(Was tempted to do a GH Edge joke but I'm getting bored listening to myself say it )

We're all glad to see the pills are working.

And as for Halo 3 being quite that good, well, yes it is.
Perhaps only time will tell.
The likes of Half Life, HL2, Deus Ex and Metroid Prime, well, I too reckon they are only trotting after Halo 3, but then you're into the whole thing of comparing liek with like.
Metroid Prime is not a first person shooter, neither is Deus Ex.
Half Life and Half Life 2 are a very different breed as well.

I have to say, at the risk of offending many, that there seem's to be a touch of inverse fanboyism going on, an ABU of the videogaming world, Anyone But Halo, ABH we'll call it.
Some folk are perfectly willing to overlook the flaws in their favourite game, to quote the prophet "Was tempted to do a GH Edge joke but I'm getting bored listening to myself say it", but when it comes to the Halo series the knives come out.
Hmm....

Or maybe I'm the fanboy :eek::eek:

NeoKubrick

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Some folk are perfectly willing to overlook the flaws in their favourite game, to quote the prophet "Was tempted to do a GH Edge joke but I'm getting bored listening to myself say it", but when it comes to the Halo series the knives come out.
Hmm....

Or maybe I'm the fanboy :eek::eek:

Very true, Ciderman. Though, I don't think Halo 3 is that good. I think Halo 1 and 2 are better. To name System Shock 2, Deus Ex, the best of Call of Duty, Doom 2, Operation Flashpoint better than Halo 1 and 2 is ridiculous.

Retr0gamer

Ridiculous? I don't know, I just think they are far superior games to Halo. For me Halo is just the equivalent of a dumb blockbuster compared to the artier offerings of Metroid Prime and System Shock 2 (not just in story but in game design and fulfilling ambition amongst other things) and not even the best dumb blockbuster.

As for Halo 1 and 2, Halo 1 told a better story than Halo 3 but wasn't as good a game and Halo 2 was a mess imo.

I just feel Halo is a ridiculously overrated series of games. I can understand people fawning over the original since it was something special for consoles but I have played so many much better games especially on the PC. They aren't bad they just aren't anything special.

On an unrelated note, I think I've found something to help bridge my Edge hatred:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/gradius5

One of the few publications not stupid enough to mark that game down for being 2D and too tough.

Atavan-Halen

appleidog wrote: »

2.Ghoul's n ghosts - Saturn

Whats the Saturn version like? I have Daimakaimura on MD, but haven't been able to play it yet due to random problems with both MD's. I must bring one of them out and give it a good clean inside.

BTW, what would be the best way to clean the MD up on the inside? I've heard compressed air, but I dont have any of that lying around, and I've heard the hoovering it can cause static. Any tips?

LoGiE

What the hell is Alone in the dark doing on there? Where is Fallout 1/2? and Monkey Island 2 was way better imo...

Red Sleeping Beauty

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Oh dear, what a load of tosh.
At least Edges top 100 had valid arguements for each and every entry.
Happily, I already own 80 odd of that top 100, and everyone should at least own their top ten.

10-Yoshi's Island
9-Halo 3
8-Super Mario Galaxy
7-Tetris
6-Super Mario World
5-Zelda: Link to the past
4-Resident Evil 4
3-Half Life 2
2-Super Mario 64
1-Zelda: Ocarina of Time

For me though the top two should be switched around, but that's just me.

Is it just a tosh list or do you own a lot of tosh games ? :P


What's the deal with these kinds of lists ? Is it just too hard to condense 20+ years of gaming into a hundred entries ? I think they tried for a list of influential/populist games. Lists of "greatest" games always split people, more so maybe than say a list of films (even people who are mad into the most "pure" indpendents will usually concede that Godfather deserves a serious mention.)

Is it fair to say that rarer games or games that wouldn't have sold that many copies usually don't make these kinda lists ? Like Tomba or something ? (that's about the only rare game I can think of)

Retr0gamer

A lot of rare games don't make the list because very few people have played them. Lists from a single expert are usually better I find even if a little bit of personal bias gets in the way or a group of experts that know their field extremely well otherwise populist titles that don't deserve to place can sneak in. You'll get games like FFVII placing high when much better games but rarer don't place at all like suikoden 2 and panzer dragoon saga.

I found IGN's one they did a few years ago to be very good. Stuff like Panzer Dragoon Saga even made it in a placed very highly.

I don't think there was a saturn version of Ghouls n'Ghosts except as a collection of capcom games. The megadrive version is amazingly accurate to the arcade game other than some reduced graphical quality. I trained on that before 1 crediting the arcade game.

NeoKubrick

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Hold on are you saying Halo 1+2 are better than the above games? As I said before on a thread defending the halo series they are amazing games but they are not better than Deus Ex or System shock, not even close. I wouldnt put any of the COD games in the above list though, pure 100% scripted tripe.

Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are great games, but a FPS game, first and foremost, is combat, and I don't know if you've played either game recently, but both games have simplistic combat which isn't getting better with age. Both games excelled in other areas, but not combat.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Ridiculous? I don't know, I just think they are far superior games to Halo. For me Halo is just the equivalent of a dumb blockbuster compared to the artier offerings of Metroid Prime and System Shock 2 (not just in story but in game design and fulfilling ambition amongst other things) and not even the best dumb blockbuster.

As for Halo 1 and 2, Halo 1 told a better story than Halo 3 but wasn't as good a game and Halo 2 was a mess imo.

I just feel Halo is a ridiculously overrated series of games. I can understand people fawning over the original since it was something special for consoles but I have played so many much better games especially on the PC. They aren't bad they just aren't anything special.

We already had this debate. If we're talking about combat, it would actually be the reverse: Halo would prove to be more the sophisticated and Metroid Prime and System Shock 2 the more simpler. But, again, this is futile to suggest to you, because you haven't finished either Halo 1 or 2 on Legendary. You're in no position to counter any claim relating to Halo 1 or 2, because most of the arguments for the games are based upon the Legendary campaign. Halo on Normal/Heroic and Halo on Legendary are two vastly different games.

Just because a game is popular doesn't make it a good or bad game.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are great games, but a FPS game, first and foremost, is combat, and I don't know if you've played either game recently, but both games have simplistic combat which isn't getting better with age. Both games excelled in other areas, but not combat.

Well for me the combat in Halo is simplistic compared to most FPS games. you can go on about how the energy weapons beat shields but it's the only strategy to use at higher difficulty levels and they are boring weapons to use, I usually end up using the less effective weaposn because they feel better.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

We already had this debate. If we're talking about combat, it would actually be the reverse: Halo would prove to be more the sophisticated and Metroid Prime and System Shock 2 the more simpler. But, again, this is futile to suggest to you, because you haven't finished either Halo 1 or 2 on Legendary. You're in no position to counter any claim relating to Halo 1 or 2, because most of the arguments for the games are based upon the Legendary campaign. Halo on Normal/Heroic and Halo on Legendary are two vastly different games.

I already gave my reason why I didn't finish the games on legendary. I tried to play them but it just wasn't fun on legendary at all. I play games for enjoyment not to play through the same sections over and over and slog through a game I already played but far more frustrating for 30+ hours when I've a massive backlog of much better games to play. I also think FPS games should aspire to be more about than just combat and I think the two games you metion do just that unlike halo which is a dumb shooter and not the best one either. Give me Doom 2 over Halo any day for dumb shooter thrills. At least the toughest difficulty levels are fun. I also wouldn't call the combat in Metroid Prime simple, it excels in boss battles and the latter half of the games.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Just because a game is popular doesn't make it a good or bad game.

Just because a game is popular doesn't make it good.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well for me the combat in Halo is simplistic compared to most FPS games. you can go on about how the energy weapons beat shields but it's the only strategy to use at higher difficulty levels and they are boring weapons to use, I usually end up using the less effective weaposn because they feel better.

I already gave my reason why I didn't finish the games on legendary. I tried to play them but it just wasn't fun on legendary at all. I play games for enjoyment not to play through the same sections over and over and slog through a game I already played but far more frustrating for 30+ hours when I've a massive backlog of much better games to play. I also think FPS games should aspire to be more about than just combat and I think the two games you metion do just that unlike halo which is a dumb shooter and not the best one either. Give me Doom 2 over Halo any day for dumb shooter thrills. At least the toughest difficulty levels are fun. I also wouldn't call the combat in Metroid Prime simple, it excels in boss battles and the latter half of the games.

Just because a game is popular doesn't make it good.

Again, you're holding the Halo series to an extremely high standard for your self-serving argument and holding your favoured games to lesser standards. If that's how you're going to analyze Halo 1 and 2, you may as well just state that Halo 1 and 2 is average without justifying it, because it's basically the same thing if you're not going to hold other games to the same stringent standard. If Halo 1 and 2 (on Legendary difficulty) are dumb, then every other FPS must be certified retards (Metroid Prime is one of my favourite games but, lock, dodge, fire isn't simple?).

Saying something is fun or something else isn't fun isn't really advancing this debate beyond personal taste.

FPS should aspire to be more than combat, but a FPS, by definition, will have to challenge the gamer the majority of the time with combat, and if the combat isn't interesting, then, the most important component of the game is not interesting. You can't put games with inferior combat above games with superior combat in the FPS genre; it just doesn't make sense.

Reganio 2

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Oh dear, what a load of tosh.
At least Edges top 100 had valid arguements for each and every entry.
Happily, I already own 80 odd of that top 100, and everyone should at least own their top ten.

10-Yoshi's Island
9-Halo 3
8-Super Mario Galaxy
7-Tetris
6-Super Mario World
5-Zelda: Link to the past
4-Resident Evil 4
3-Half Life 2
2-Super Mario 64
1-Zelda: Ocarina of Time

For me though the top two should be switched around, but that's just me.

I was looking at that and its crazy, I have always been a gamer but I don't have half of them
Never played Yoshi's Island.
Played Halo 3 but never liked it and never owned it.
Super Mario Galaxy I have never played.
Tetris of course I have owned at some point and it was good back then.
Super Mario World I never played
Zelda link to the past never played
Resident Evil 4, I don't think I owned but rented it or got a loan of it and it was sweet.
Half Life 2 never played
Super Mario 64 never played
Zelda Ocarnia of time was a class game

So that 3 of the 10 that I liked, thats pretty bad

appleidog

atavan-halen wrote: »

Whats the Saturn version like? I have Daimakaimura on MD, but haven't been able to play it yet due to random problems with both MD's. I must bring one of them out and give it a good clean inside.

BTW, what would be the best way to clean the MD up on the inside? I've heard compressed air, but I dont have any of that lying around, and I've heard the hoovering it can cause static. Any tips?

The Saturn version is Amazing to say the least, What is wrong with both the megadrives you have, it seems that everything 16bit with you goes wrong! 1st the Snes then the Megadrive.

Azza

I played Halo 1 on the PC having played FPS games for years and I still play them. I can't understand how popular the Halo games are. The kindest thing I could say about Halo 1 is that its average at best.

Firstly at the the time of the PC release, PC users the world over where having difficulty running the game but for some reason I had zero issues with it technically.

I remember playing through it and thinking this is okay. Can't remeber any of the weapns but I remember the gameplay was average at best, uninspired enemies who where totally unmenacing (the little enemy grunts looked comical) although the A.I was solid for the time, graphics and art direction where so so for the time as well, no sense or atmosphere from any of the gameplay enviorments. Can't recall a single bit of the soundtrack either. Did not find the game to hard or two easy. Story was bog standard SCI-FI stuff nothing special there either, totally lacked tension. Totally shallow and linear. But then all this backtracking BS really got to me, get to A from B, go back to A from B. If there is anything I dispise its backtracking in video games. Then came the section with the flood which was just terrible. Struggled with the urge to quit a while after they showed up. Eventually got almost to the very end when I lost my save games and was never arsed going back to it. Never played a Halo game since never will. From my understanding the sequels are more of the same.
Did not try mutiplayer which would probably been okay too but if I wanted a hardcore shooter online I would be playing UT or Quake.
As for the raved about Forge editor that came with the Halo games, PC gamers had tools like that for years.

Halo did nothing I had not seen before. Maybe it pushed the boat out for console shooters but its an also ran compared to most decent PC shooters, Microsoft just created such hype for it because they needed that exclusive killer app to push the orginal Xbox and people bought into it.

Playing the game on legendary mode would not have made this game any better. I love a challenge as much as the next and always play my game on the hardest available difficulty but just making the game more challenging would not have done anything for me. Besides if I want a challenge I'd go play Quake or UT online for some serious challenge.

Compared to so many other games its just so utterly average. None of the games I mention below are flawless but there combined strenghts more than make up for the flaws.

Take the Half Life games. They have more varied enemies, better shooting mechanics, some fun puzzles which give you a break from jus shooting everything (I agree combat is very important in FPS but there should be other stuff too) far more interesting setting and amotsphere. The game has excellent pacing. Even with so little plot revealed it has a miles better story. Its the high watermark of the linear first person shooter. The multiplayer mode with Half Life 2 was a bit lacking but the multiplayer mods it spawned where not.

Then you have Deus Ex. I can't belive you can compare the two and for a second think Halo is better. Deus Ex does not have the best shooting mechanics but its not terrible in that department either. You have viable other tactics like stealth, as well as RPG elements to turn you into a GOD practically. Of course its open ended unlike Halo has a cracking story that changed depending on your actions, the setting and atmosphere where superb. Brillaint soundtrack. Excellent dialouge even with some ropey voice acting in some area's. But the sheer freedom to create you own playstyle and be who you wanna be was amazing.

I could list out pro's and cons for all the game I mention below but I be here all day. Suffice to say give me any of these over Halo any day.
Aliens Vs Predator
ArmA series
Battlefield series
Call of Duty and its expansion United Offensive
Crysis and Crysis Warhead
Counter Strike
Day of Defeat
Far Cry
Fear
Hidden and Dangerous
Medal of Honor Allied Assault
Left 4 Dead
No One Lives Forever series
Operation Flashpoint and its expansions
Star Trek Elite Force
System Shock 2
Stalker series
Swat 3 or 4
Quake III/Live
Team Fortress 2
UT 99 or 2004
Rainbow 6 series (Pre Vegas)

To get back somewhere on topic. I don't think Empire are up to the task of creating such a list. Its pretty poor in opinion.

Retr0gamer

But the combat in Halo just isn't interesting either for me. It's the same enemies with very little variety in any encounter. Compared to Half-lifes varied encounters, Call of Duties excellent scripted and controlled set pieces, Operation Flashpoint and Alien vs. Predators tension built by how vunerable you are and No One Lives Forevers excellent setpieces and level design it really doesn't stack up. And thats really all it's got going for it.

The story is average but well told in Halo 1. It turns to utter garbages in Halo 2 and 3
A lot of levels in Halo 1 are costructed of repeating corridors that are exactly the same. I know the game was rushed but there's no excuse for the same flaw showing up in Halo 2 and giving us more boring levels. Mercifully gotten rid of in Halo 3 which is why for me it's the better game.
The library and the cheek of them to make us go through another library level in Halo 2.
Backtracking in Halo 1.
The flood appear and the game turns into a bad serious sam clone. They totally ruined Halo 2 since they appear after a great opening chapter and the game turns to arse. They don't appear as much in Halo 3 but there's a reason that the last level is considered one of the worst levels ever made and there's no way anyone can tell me it was fun to beat on legendary since it was a nightmare on heroic.

Every person that I know that is a mainly PC player can't understand the love for the game and I guess I just can't understand it either. With the amount of games I played there's no way I could let Halo into a top 100.

CiDeRmAn

Reganio 2 wrote: »

I was looking at that and its crazy, I have always been a gamer but I don't have half of them
Never played Yoshi's Island.
Played Halo 3 but never liked it and never owned it.
Super Mario Galaxy I have never played.
Tetris of course I have owned at some point and it was good back then.
Super Mario World I never played
Zelda link to the past never played
Resident Evil 4, I don't think I owned but rented it or got a loan of it and it was sweet.
Half Life 2 never played
Super Mario 64 never played
Zelda Ocarnia of time was a class game

So that 3 of the 10 that I liked, thats pretty bad

Erm,
Kinda daft to claim that you only liked 3 of the top ten when you have not played 6 of them, therefore of the 4 you have played, you liked 3 of them, so out of the top games ever made, by Edges estimation, you liked 75% of those you tried.
That's not bad going as lists go then!
Really,
If you are a gamer, and I don't like all this talk of "hardcore" or "casual" but if a gamer is what you claim to be, you really should make it your business to play Super Mario 64, Half Life 2, Super Mario World, Zelda Links to the Past and Yoshi's Story, in fact, jsut go by a Snes and buy the latter three titles, you can buy the Orange Box for peanuts and play Half Life 2 along with eps 1/2 and Portal, and sure Mario 64 is available on every Nintendo console on the market, in one form or another.

So you, or others, don't like Halo, fine, that's entirely up to you, I loved them, got great pleasure out of them, and found the conbat on Heroic to be as good if not better than any other FPS I have played to date.
But then, folk are free to disagree, happy days!

The point was also made that it is impossible to condense 20+ years of gaming into a top100, considering the different genres and the subjective nature of gaming as a whole.
This is an excellent point, and one made by, you guessed it, Edge in the past, where they took something like ten categories and, in no particular order in each, gave us the ten best games, along with some worthy contenders.
A great idea, a better vision of the best of gaming perhaps than a simplistic top 100, I guess the top 20 titles at the very least should be taken in any orde you wish, although few would argue that Zelda OoT isn't one of the most incredible gaming experiences available.

That said, I would, for me the greatest game of all time is Ico, I have never played anything so engrossing, atmospheric or beautiful, it made me care about a bunch of pixels on my screen and hearing the sound of her cry from 2 rooms away while I'm dongling from a chain in a vault underground, instills a panic I have not experiences since.
Pure Genius, and No. 1 in my book.

Atavan-Halen

appleidog wrote: »

The Saturn version is Amazing to say the least, What is wrong with both the megadrives you have, it seems that everything 16bit with you goes wrong! 1st the Snes then the Megadrive.

Ah I know, don't get me started! Well, the SNES I got free so it was bound to be doomed from the start. The MegaDrive 1 Just gives a white-ish picture on the screen when turned on, and AFAIK the MD 2 works but I'm missing the AV cables, which I've been meaning to pick up for ages.

CCCP^

Goldeneye 64 at 10, lulz Retr0!

Retr0gamer

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I played both recently enough and neither seemed dated combat wise. As for people saying that the combat is very simple in the Halo series I would disagree. Its got far more depth than the Half Life series, in HL you just pump the enemies with as much ammo as you can. At least in Halo you have to deal with shielded enemies, enemies are smart enough to use grenades to flush you out and work with other allies to try to rush you. I never found the enemies in HL2 to be anything special.

Maybe so but it was the meatiness and feel of the weapons and the varied and excellent level design that for me more made it much better.

CiDeRmAn

Yup, I had far more fun in Half Life than in the really rather grand and worthy follow ups, I longed for the more cohesive and, well linear experience of Half Life.
I was particularly disappointed when it wasn't on the Orange Box, seems such a small thing to do, ho hum.
Far Cry was another one that was so much better than the frankly cack console editions.
Deus Ex was revolutionary in terms of a self directed rpg played from the 1st person, but a FPS it most definitely was not.
The complex behaviour of the enemy in Halo together with some wonderful scenery and set pieces, not to mention the great reveal of the Flood, followed by the shotgun that turned the game into a 1st person survival horror, fantastic,
Was I the only one who formed a "connection" with Foehammer, and was gutted in the second to last act?

Azza

Deus Ex is certainly an FPS because a major portion of gameplay was killing people with guns for a first person perspective. But it also several other things. Games can be hybrids. There is plenty of FPS DNA in Deus Ex.
The majority of people with play through the game engaging in shooting the enemies rather than avoiding them. They may opt for stealth in later run throughs though.

To say Deus Ex is dated combat wise is not true. It was dated on release. Other games do it better but the combat in Deus Ex is still servicable. In ever other area it clearly surpasses Halo and for that matter almost every other game.

In Halo one I did not note a single case of complex A.I behaviour. Not to say that I notice it in other games either. But in this regard Halo did not stand out but again nor was it bad in this department, just to me the same as alot of other shooters at the time.

Again with relational to weapons in Halo and Half Life, only the gravity gun really stand out for me in Half Life 2 but I can't remember anything about the weapons in Halo at all.

How anyone can have anything positive to say about the flood is beyond me. Terrible in every way possible.

Retr0gamer

Have to agree with the sentiments af being disappointed with Half-life 2's weapons load out. There was far more weapons in Half-life 1. I expected more not less, although the gravity gun was fun.

The AI in Halo isn't all that great shakes. It doesn't work together the only thing that is clever about it is the way it avoids getting stuck in terrain (or so say Gearbox when they were reverse engineering it for the PC).

Eh and that final scene with Foehammer, well it wasn't exactly Shadow of the Colossus. I didn't really care tbh.

And yes the flood were rubbish in every single way. People were talking about the big reveal. I copped it during the level and it wasn't a surprise. The big reveal for me was that the game went from fun to dull. First Person Survival horror? Not for me, it turned into the worst kind of Doom clone circa 1994 with dumb AI running straight at you and bad level design ranging from corridors to open arena.

CiDeRmAn

NOOOO!
The Flood were a great addition, and I know I am in the minority here.
One of my favourite scenes was emerging into a new area to find a battle already in motion, between Covenant and Flood, as I skirted around, hid, and then when one side had finally beaten the other, I went in and mopped up, sweet!
Other friends of mine disagree, and reckon they ruined the whole feel of the game.
They're welcome to their opinion, but their addition only got better as the series continued, they are essential to the plot and how the games story and hence missons are constructed and delivered to the player.

I like the level design, both open snd indoors, and frequently combining both.
Alamo last stands by the Master Chief against incredible odds, only succeeding after every combination of tactics has been exhausted.
Sniping the Elites from afar, watching as the grunts run in panic.
Noting the gleam of a disembodied plasma sword, and realising that you're being hunted.
Trying to hit that smashing orangy bit with a plasa pistol 'cos you've run out of bullets.
Trying not to run down your own troops in the tank.
Realising you can use alien hardware and turning it upon the Covenant horde.

Bugger, now I have to go off and play them all over again!

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Have to agree with the sentiments af being disappointed with Half-life 2's weapons load out. There was far more weapons in Half-life 1. I expected more not less, although the gravity gun was fun.

The AI in Halo isn't all that great shakes. It doesn't work together the only thing that is clever about it is the way it avoids getting stuck in terrain (or so say Gearbox when they were reverse engineering it for the PC).
First Person Survival horror? Not for me, it turned into the worst kind of Doom clone circa 1994 with dumb AI running straight at you and bad level design ranging from corridors to open arena.

I think the gravity gun is the single most overrated weapon in FPS history, the diametric opposite of the Doom Chaingun, the greatest.
And, dunb AI running straight for you, that would be a bit like Left 4 Dead no, I've played that and the enemy behaviour seems to consist of running at you along the shortest path possible.

Retr0gamer

Left 4 Dead has zombies not badly modelled green things and to be perfectly honest Left 4 Dead has a totally different dynamic and feel than Halo especially with the whole mob dynamic working really well. It's a true FPS survival horror, something Halo coul never be for me due to the recharging shields. They really aren't comparable and I know which one I much prefer in everyway.

As for the flood getting better and being part of the storyline, they really should have gotten rid of them after Halo 1. They were far and away the most hated thing in that game and the Halo was supposed to be a unique forerunner artifact. However they ruin all that in Halo 2 by making the flood appear again far too early in the game and ruining it (what were they thinking?) and proclaiming 'Oh in fact there's dozens of Halos and the covenant knew all about them ages ago but for some reason haven't bothered their hole activating them'. It was silly and stunk of a storywriter fresh out of ideas.

CiDeRmAn

Ok man, you like Gunstar, I like Halo, lets just back away quietly, guns back in the holsters and just agree to disagree, especially since you're wrong.










And Edge agree's with me!

MWA HA HA HA HA!!!!

(aside from the copy and paste job on some of the interiors of the Halo, that was irritating, surprised you didn't mention it Retro)

Retr0gamer

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

(aside from the copy and paste job on some of the interiors of the Halo, that was irritating, surprised you didn't mention it Retro)

Some? There were whole levels based around it and they did it again in Halo 2 in places. (thought I did mention it?)

I don't hate the games other than Halo 2 but the thing that really gets on my goat is Edge not publishing one issue where they don't mention 'Bungies masterpiece'. I just can't see how it can hold up to the likes of true classics like Mario World, OoT and Super Metroid.

BTW? Have you tried Gunstar Heroes again recently like you said you would? Just interested if you changed your tune a bit, no rants I promise

CiDeRmAn

I did, I tried it and quite liked it, not sure it's quite as good as some would say, again and again say, but I can always appreciate the glories of the Megadrive, I myself love Biohazard battle, lovely biomech art, very nice, plus great pace to it, I regret not seeing a follow up on any console since.

Halo, Halo 2 and Halo 3 may well date as badly as Goldeneye in years to come sure, in a way that Zelda OoT could never.
Halo2 is very much part 1 of a Halo sequel that ends with Halo 3, it's as if they has one massive game and decided to slice it into two.
It was the relative brevity of Halo 2 that was the only thing I took issue with, I finished it in one sitting, which is why I played Halo 3 on Heroic, get my moneys worth out of it!

Anyone else play Coldwinter or Warhammer: Fire Warrior on PS2? Frankly brilliant games, especially Coldwinter, great Goldeneye vibe to the whole thing, the language is a tad course at times however.

Retr0gamer

To be honest I don't think Halo 1 or 3 will age that badly like Goldeneye. They still play very well. Halo 2 on the other hand suffers from a few of the flaws that made Goldeneye age so badly such as pushing the hardware far too far. The framerate and tearing in that game are really poor compared to most games just like in goldeneye.

I never liked Biohazard Battle, in fact I'd go so far as to say it's ****. The visuals are interesting but the gameplay is sub par. It's never going to topple Eliminate Down and Thunderforce 4 from the best shmup on the megadrive.

As for Coldwinter and Firewarrior, I've only played a little of both. Thought firewarrior was pretty poor, good opening level but after that it's really dull with poor AI. Coldwinter on the other hand is one of those forgotten about great games that sold far less than it deserved. A very gritty shooter and a decent story.

I'm kind of interested in Urban Chaos (the xbox and PS2 FPS not the old PC game). Looks like really dumb fun with a riot shield that can deflect rockets

NeoKubrick

I'm reminded why I don't post on pure gaming forums much.

Azza wrote: »

[...]

I honestly don't know where to start. First off, I can't think of a single killer app for any of the recent consoles that was just all hype. Publishers can only push a game so far with marketing and to attain the status of a killer app (people going out and buying the console just to play the game), you can't pull off with just marketing; the game has to be good, and if not, people quickly realize it isn't and people are then not so keen to tell all and sundry what a great console X is. Aside from that, Microsoft's key objective was online gaming.

Second, the Halo series is not a linear game. A linear game is one that offers one path, choice and style of play throughout the entire game. 'Linear' is a word hack game journalist bandy about when they can't think of anything intelligent to criticize a game with. Another word misused is 'pacing' in games: if the creator isn't in control of time of an event, a creation can't be said to have good or bad pacing because, as an example in games, the creator cannot be said by default to be dictating to the player what he plays and when. Ironically, the games that a developer could apply pacing too would be a strictly linear game.

So, you didn't play Halo 1 on Legendary difficulty, too? Do you often disagree with people on subjects you know nothing of? You're disagreeing with my experience and argument of a game played on a difficulty you haven't played on, which means all of your arguments are not worth the bandwidth its posted on. Compound that with the fact that you've hardly played the games by your own admission on the lesser difficulties. You can't remember the weapons but are assured enough that you can compare the assortment to Half-Lifes' and claim Half-Life has better shooting mechanics (whatever that means)? Do you often remember the soundtracks of games you hardly played?


I don't understand your arguments for Deus Ex. If the majority of the game is a FPS shooting people, and Halo is better in combat, how can the quality of the minority of the game excel the quality of the majority (Halo's combat) of another game? You say the combat was always dated, but say that it wasn't terrible. The combat wasn't dated at the time of release: players were quite content with that type of combat because that's what most developers were churning out, too. It's not serviceable now: trading shots with an enemy and see who dies first is now dated. Deus Ex, like a lot of other older games, is only playable with the difficulty ranked up to the highest and played stealthy making sure you silently kill each guard. In that regard, it's not the best of its stealth type as you so claim: Thief 3 is better. In its other aspects, there are better games (Fallout 3, Morrowind etc.).

Retr0gamer wrote: »

But the combat in Halo just isn't interesting either for me. It's the same enemies with very little variety in any encounter

You slam the game for having little variety but slam the game simultaneously for the inclusion of the Flood, with different behaviour to the Covenant? The Flood levels are not my favourite, but the Flood in levels combined with the Covenant enemies do add another dimension to the game and some of the best set-pieces are when you're faced with both the Flood and the Covenant (and you obviously haven't faced a Flood with an assault rifle to suggest they just chase after you). The Halo series has a lot more variety than most every other FPS in terms of enemies, their behaviour and their attacks (I've told already about the AI; so, why you're repeating Gearbox's comments is a mystery). So, what evidence or high standard of variety in another game are you basing this "little variety" comment on, because Call of Duty, Operation Flashpoint, Alien vs. Predators, No Lives Forever don't qualify?

Do not mention backtracking, again, after your listing the "artier" Metroid Prime: selective standards.


Despite all this, both your core arguments are based purely on ignorance and myth: that PC FPS games are better than FPS console games. A game isn't good based upon what platform it's developed for, and to judge a game by what platform it is released on rises to the same level of reasoning exhibited by Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo fanboys. To satisfy this myth, you have to engage in self-serving logic and in applying selective standards. The amount of banal games you've, Azza, listed is insane, and most are not applicable considering they are thought of as multiplayer games, not singleplayer.

It's okay to set the highest standard for the pinnacle of a genre, but to lower it once you're judging other games (namely, mostly PC games) negates your argument. If a standard isn't applied to all, it has to be applied to none.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Every person that I know that is a mainly PC player can't understand the love for the game

What relevance does a PC player have to critiquing a computer game? It would be the same relevance a console player has: absolutely none.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Second, the Halo series is not a linear game. A linear game is one that offers one path, choice and style of play throughout the entire game. 'Linear' is a word hack game journalist bandy about when they can't think of anything intelligent to criticize a game with.

So by your definition nearly any game can be regarded as non-linear? By videogames very nature any game were you can approach any situation in your own way is non-linear? That describes just about every game and every FPS. Halo is a linear game, make no mistake about that. You go from point A to point B and watch the credits with no deviation from the path. The only time Halo deviated into pseudo non-linearity was the silent cartographer level which was excellent but nothing else ever came close in the series.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

So, you didn't play Halo 1 on Legendary difficulty, too?

So the game is mediocre unless you play it on the highest difficulty level. Isn't there a massive design fault there? Legendary was a frustrating and unrewarding experience and I had better games to play.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

I don't understand your arguments for Deus Ex. If the majority of the game is a FPS shooting people, and Halo is better in combat, how can the quality of the minority of the game excel the quality of the majority (Halo's combat) of another game? You say the combat was always dated, but say that it wasn't terrible. The combat wasn't dated at the time of release: players were quite content with that type of combat because that's what most developers were churning out, too. It's not serviceable now: trading shots with an enemy and see who dies first is now dated. Deus Ex, like a lot of other older games, is only playable with the difficulty ranked up to the highest and played stealthy making sure you silently kill each guard. In that regard, it's not the best of its stealth type as you so claim: Thief 3 is better. In its other aspects, there are better games (Fallout 3, Morrowind etc.).

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Fallout 3, Metroid Prime etc. may not have the best shooting mechanics but in every other area are far ahead of Halo. Halo only has it's shooting mechanics, there's little else their while the other games offer far more in other areas such as exploration, choice and variety, storytelling. They may not beat Halo's shooting mechanics but due to their success in other areas they are far better games than Halo will ever be. If we look outside the FPS genre I can come up with hundreds of games that are better than anything in the series. It's why it would never get near a top 100 list for me.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

You slam the game for having little variety but slam the game simultaneously for the inclusion of the Flood, with different behaviour to the Covenant?

They can add as many and varied enemies as they want into the game but if the enemies aren't fun to play against like the Flood and totally ruin it then thats just bad game design. As for the flood with weapons, not exactly a massive change in behaiour, run straight at you, take a potshot, continue running at you. Anyway I was also on about a lack of variety in the engagements.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Do not mention backtracking, again, after your listing the "artier" Metroid Prime: selective standards.

It's you with the selective standards lumping Metroid Prime in with Halo. Metroid Primes backtracking is part of the game, it's about exploration and the feeling of satisfaction when you find the next place to go after some exploring. The backtracking in Halo is just lazy level design.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Despite all this, both your core arguments are based purely on ignorance and myth: that PC FPS games are better than FPS console games. A game isn't good based upon what platform it's developed for, and to judge a game by what platform it is released on rises to the same level of reasoning exhibited by Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo fanboys.
...
What relevance does a PC player have to critiquing a computer game? It would be the same relevance a console player has: absolutely none

If a game is good it's good and I'd never judge a game based on the platform it's on. As for the relevance of PC gamers to the argument it's becasue at the time of Halos release PC games were absolutely swimming in quality first person and third person games. When they played Halo it was just another mediocre FPS compared to the games they were playing. To people only used to console games the best FPS experience they had was Goldeneye, Medal of Honour and Timesplitters so Halo seemed the them an absolute revelation. From my experience coming from both console and PC gaming Halo was good but I had played much better not just in FPS but in loads of other genres. Someone who only had a PS1 would have thought differently.

Hercule

Personally I wouldnt put any of the Halo series in my top 20 FPS games of all time and I would put it in 80+ in terms of top 100 of all games.

There are loads of far superior options in terms of both single player/multiplayer or linear/non-linear FPS games (albeit 90% of which are only released or worth playing on PC only)

Compared to other games people seem blinded by nostalgia, I understand for a lot of people it was their first real exposure to a "full" FPS game and not a "corridor shooter" and at its launch it was superior to all other console FPS games in that generation, a market in which I can recall only 4 other games Red Faction, Timesplitters 1, Unreal Tournament, Medal Of Honour Frontline (there may be more at the time but I dont recall them). This lasted 2 years until more console FPS games came out which I think were better

Reviewed individually I always found the single player Halo incredibly generic and dull - if it werent for the multiplayer I prob wouldnt have played the game ever again after I finished the SP campaign. The combat/gameplay at times can be quite visceral but only some particularly stirring moments with the main soundtrack blasting are memorable from when I first played through the game. I do also remember a lot of rather diabolical level design (or lack of level design :pac:)

I dont want to open the PC FPS -vs- Console FPS can of worms - Its likely that that will just result in an argument between militant fanboys. Purely based on console FPS games, personally I would place Timesplitters 2, Perfect Dark and Goldeneye,Call of Duty 2 and 4 above any of the Halo series.

Azza

I don't know where to begin replying to your reply.

I can name another killer app that was just hype. Metal Gear Solid 4 recieved almost universal global praise. I'm an absolutly massive MGS fan. MGS 3 was one of my all time favourite games, it got me back into console gaming after several years off, MGS 4 was the primary reason I got a PS3, but I was very dissapointed with. Not that it was a terrible game it was just average at best.

Generally speaking a game has to be good to be popular, but I think there is also a considerable factor of one upmanship due to the so called console wars, people allow themsleves to be easily impressed to say to the other crowd (i.e Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) we have got this killer game that you don't hahahaha.
I'm not saying its the case for you....but I suspect particularly in America there is alot of young fanboys like this. Its my theory and I'm sticking to it

As for Halo been a linear game I can assure it most certainly is. Saying the sky is green over and over doesn't make it so. Don't kid yourself. Its simply location A to B with some tedious backtracking. You can't point out Meteroid to me as an example back as I never played it or mentioned it in a post. The linear FPS has been done to death for so many years. I personally find most linear shooters playable for only short bursts at a time before I get bored (but that was not always the case), thats not just Halo. I'd mark alot of other FPS games down for the same thing. I personally prefer games with more open ended gameplay. Thats why unless their is exceptional praise being heaped upon a linear FPS even on the PC, I'd normally pass over them.

Pacing also exsists in games and your right its used in linear shooters, in these types of games you will want other things to do in a game beside just shooting people, you want cut scenes to help move the story along, you want puzzles to have some other play mechanic, you want stealth sections etc In sandbox shooters the player controls the pacing himself, which is something I prefer. I mean yes in a linear game you could stop, but stop in the middle of the narrow corridor your in but there would be nothing to do there. I prefer open ended gameplay as I previously said as it allows you to set your own pace and employ different tactics and not just do the same thing over and over.

As for not playing Halo on legendary I'm telling you it would not have made any difference to me at all. Shooting the bad guys x number of times more would not have made the game any worse or better. My opinion is equally valid as yours. I played the game and gave it a fair chance, I would of finished it if I had not lost my save files but I still played 95% of the game. It was not that bad that I was going stop playing, but once I finished it there would zero to bring me back. I don't dare have the arrogance to tell you how to enjoy your games or that your opinon is not valid because you played a game in a certain way or on a certain difficulty level. I often wonder for example in RTS games what satisfaction people could get out of playing comp-stomp skirmish matchs over playing against human players. But hey if what they are looking from in an RTS thats fine. Do you think for second Bungie would say ahhh the game is only mean't to be played on Legendary actually, its pretty poor on the other difficulty levels!!

If the game had decent weapons and music, I would remember them. If I liked the game enough I play it again. How many games you found average or outright disliked do you go back and play again, cause for most people we don't normally do that? You don't go to the cinema to see a bad movie twice now do you? I can easily claim Half Life has better shooter mechanics because I can actually remember then, again I tend to remember better games more than average ones. In Half Life 2 you have the gravity gun which at the time was pretty unqiue and fun, killing enemys with toliets is fun as well as stealing their gernades and firing them back. You had a crossbow for sniping, again was fun to pin to people to walls and it wasn't just another generic sniper rifle, the magnum was very poweful and satisfying, the default pistol and machine gun where abit meh but the alturnate fire on the weapons where decent. I loved the controller RPG which you controlled with the laser pointer. Combined with the excellent pyshics engine at the time the kills where very very satisfying in HL2. But shooting mechanics don't alone make a game. yes in an FPS shooting mechanics are very important and the only thing of any importance in online shooters, but you need more in a single player campaign.

Moving on.
Deus Ex was dated in terms of graphics and shooting mechanics on release. It wasn't an issue in terms of gameplay because the shooting mechanics where not terrible, they where just not the best (neither is Halo in that regard). Its the fact that it wrapped so many different game mechanics into one game and made it all work. Most people will play it primarily as a shooting game and it works fine as that but you have several other viable options that can employed equally well. The sheer ambition of that game is amazing, one of the few games to pull it off without totally messing up (See Boling Point) Yes Thief had better stealth mechanics, other RPG games have a better levelling system. But Deus Ex had the best overall package in my opinion, combined with a cracking story which you controlled by your actions! Halo has nothing but incredible banal shooting. To me the gameplay of Deus Ex overall is far superior to Halo and for that matter 99% of other games. However Halo of course has vastly better mutiplayer. Well I assume it does cause Deus Ex multiplayer is ****.
And I never claimed Deus Ex had the best stealth mechanics, I merely said it had stealth mechanics...so kindly refrain from making stuff up. It doesn't help your arguement at all, but implies your where in a rage when writing up your reply.

Moving on to vareity of enemies. Yes it was a good idea to add in more enemys into Halo, no one wants to kill the same types of enemy over and over. Its not the we are complaing they added something different. But the Flood where awful, I mean they where just bland and a total bore to fight against. Might as well been the aliens from space invaders. Sure the add a 3 way dimision to the combat when they mix it up with the player and the covenant troops but its not like this has not been done before in other games now has it?

A.I in Halo did not seem anything special to me. Again they did not seem terrible, but I find that A.I in nearly every game is crap regardless of genre. I don't rate Halo any worse or higher than your average FPS in this regard. I hear in the later games vehicile A.I is terrible.

But its not simply one factor that makes a game better, Operation Flashpoint had dubious A.I. that could see you from a mile away, regardless of cover. Did not matter, just made the game challenging and they where still fun to fight against, although frustration did creep in from time to time. What it had was a massive battlefield, large scale combat, tension, huge vareity of weapons and vehicles and mission types. Open ended gameplay. Battles could play out differently, not the same guys in the same location every time. AvP had 3 radically different species to play as with there own unqiue gameplay and brilliant atmosphere. Call of Duty 1 had great set peices and I really liked the multiplayer, but I found the sequels to be just clones and the novelty had worn off, regardless of how high the presentation was. NOLF had charm, greaty art style, funny characters and gadgets and the shooting mechanics where grand etc. Not the best FPS ever but fun.

I do personally believe PC FPS games are better than console shooters. I own a PS3 and a Wii as well as my PC and the PC is my primary gaming format, but I have enjoyed plenty of console games too. Not using the controls as an issue with Halo as I played it with a mouse and keyboard so no issues there. Generally speaking console shooters are slower paced (in terms of gameplay speed), have aim assist, have health regeneration, use sticky cover system that switch to 3rd person view, lack a lean feature. Overall a joypad will never be as good as a mouse keyboad combo. I personally dislike these features, I also believe the natural home for MMO's RTS and simulation games is the PC. If they released a mouse and keyboard I might be somewhat more interested in console fps games. Other genres it does not matter. I could play an RPG or sports game equally fine on a PC or console, but consoles have a better selection of sports games. Story does not suffer from being on a console, you can get equally bad and good stories on both formats. The formats have there own pro's and con's and everyone will have a different preferrence. Consoles can lead to a reduction in complexity (see the sequel to Deus Ex) but thats the fault of the developer more than the genre not being designed for a particular a platform. Its not a myth that PC FPS games are better its a matter of opinion. You prefer console shooters thats fine I have no problem with it.

If Halo was released as a PC exclusive back in the day, its average review score would of been around much lower. Which funny enough is how Halo 2 scored when it was released on the PC (metacritic score 72%). If you offered Halo 4 as a PC exclusive or the same release date as the console version to the PC FPS community they would not be interested.
If Halo is the pinnacle of the FPS genre I would not like to see the bottom!
PC gamers had games of higher or the same standard of Halo for years, so its just baffling to see this praise for a game that seems so utterly average in nearly every department, Its puzzling when a game like Halo succeeds in the market place when System Shock 2 flops badly

As for my games list being banal I can say the same thing about Halo, but its all a matter of opinion. I thought the Halo series was praised for both its multiplayer and singe player campaign, so it open to be compared to other shooters regardless weather they are single player or multiplayer focused. I apply the same standard to all my games and thats why Halo comes up short, its lacking in so many area's. I could be here all day listing flaws with my preferred games, there is plenty of them, but they do more right than wrong.

Sorry for being so long winded in my reply.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It's okay to set the highest standard for the pinnacle of a genre

Pinnacle of the genre? I thought we were talking about Halo and not Half-Life.

HouseHippo

God i hated Super Mario 64

CiDeRmAn

HouseHippo wrote: »

God i hated Super Mario 64

Get out and never come back, we'll send on any belongings you may have left, just leave.:eek:

CiDeRmAn

Re: Linear Vs Non-Linear,
A linear game has a story line, hopefully a strong story line.
A linear game is one that takes you from one chapter to another, beginning-middle-end and while you may have freedom to choose how to complete specific objectives, the story won't continue until those objectives are fulfilled and you can continue to the next chapter.
This can be a really interesting process, like in GTAIV where instead of continuing along the stories main plot, you can head off instead and drive taxi's and all the other gubbins the series has become famous for, on the other hand this can be boring, like hanging around in Doom after you have killed all the enemies, sure you can avoid pulling the exit switch but what are you going to do tooling around an empty dungeon?
But a good linear game attempts to hide the push from objective to objective and offers some distractions before it forces you to make a certain choice, or fulfill a condition before jumping to the next stage.
A non-linear game is one without this strong story line because, by it's very nature it is entirely player scripted.
One could say that GTAIV, during the main body of the single player campaign is a linear game, but when exclusively played outside the main mission, or especially in multplayer mode it is non-linear.
The Sims series would be a strong non-linear brand, as are most god games, like Civ, there is an ultimate objective but your path to it is entirely player scripted.

As alluded to already, the MMOG has completely rewritten the linear/non-linear notion, as you are online, can have stories and missions decided on the fly and in games like Test Drive Unlimited you have total control of the races you accept, the people you want to play with, similarly with Burnout Paradise, in fact modern racing titles seem to be the vanguard of non-linear gameplay, as in BP you choose to race how you like when you like, with a gentle goal of upgrading your license as the only true goal. Other scores are entirely community decided, of merit or not, by comparing your times and scores with other players online.

Did I ever mention I once had a very groovy Parappa the Rappa hat, a Sony rep brought them in and we all had to wear them, a replica of the very one Parappa wore complete with floppy dog ears and a nose, nice!