Dorks vs IGN

[OB1]

The most revolutionary thing was the graphics. At that point in time such a change really was huge... bigger than a new graphics engine is now, for sure. And you know as well as I do that Doom multiplayer is on a slightly different level than Sonic... what a stupid example...

Do you even know what revolutionary means? Better graphics and multiplayer modes (that play almost the same as single-player) are not revolutionary concepts. Doom did not invent the genre, and it did not invent multiplayer. Sonic 2's multi was of course less influential, but the point still stands.

If you think that, then why do you dislike Gamespot? They're the closest to saying that of the game review publications I know of, after all...

Because they give lots of great games low scores and lots of shitty games high scores.

Of course I think that Medieval is a much better game than Serious Sam. Serious Sam isn't bad though, it's good, so it also deserves a good score... just not quite that good. Medieval is a fantastic game. ... okay, so I haven't played it nearly as much as I should. I'd rather play Warcraft III... But Medieval is really, really good and I can understand why Gamespot ranked it above WC3 in the 2001 awards. I don't agree, but I certainly understand how they could do it.

I also understand how they could rank Serious Sam game of the year, of course. Some people appreciate simplistic shooters a lot more than you do...

You have to judge a game a little more objectively than that.

As I said on MSN, I don't see why this is a point. So there are some more console games. So? Who cares? There are a huge number of great PC games. Far more than anyone could ever play, in just about every genre consoles have (excepting, probably, fighting games). And they have more replay value than most console titles due to such things as: 1) online multiplayer 2) map / level / game editors 3) longer games (or more optional things that extend the game, like quickmissions or stuff like that) 4) more configurable options (similar to editors point). Yes, some console games have each of those things. But far, far more PC games have more of them than console games. By a big factor. Yes, length doesn't mean that they are better but my point is not many people are exactly hurting for games to play on PC. Your 'point' is pretty much meaningless.

My 'point' is contesting your post, which denied the fact that there are far more AAA console titles than PC ones. That's all.