That's just actual heresy
Probably MW3. Of course, it won't have multiplayer though, because no one buys Call of Duty for the multiplayer
It was far weaker than the first two. It had a few great moments, but also some dull sections. It never really reached the heights of the Ares or Sisters of Fate boss fights. The story was a letdown, with a few jarring plot holes. The gameplay was stale after playing the first two and CoO, so it got repetitive quick.
In my opinion, it wasn't even the best God of War to come out in 2010.
I just want GTA6 to have a better story than 5. It doesn't need to follow Red Dead's lead, it needs to follow GTAIV's lead.
Red Dead is meant to have slower pacing than GTA, so it shouldn't look to far in that direction.
If Mass Effect 3 had a good ending then it would would easily have that title. The first two games certainly set the stage. However, 3 had the worst ending in the history of gaming, and the way it trivialised the major decisions of the first two games was cheap. It didn't help that the transition from 2-3 was rough, with DLC being required to bridge the gap.
However, I say it may still be the best. The fact your decisions played some role throughout all three games was ...
I think most Souls fans agree that Dark Souls 2 was weak. The Mario Bros games were great for the time, but I think the 3D ones took it to a higher level, so I couldn't give it to that. Crash, Spyro and Ratchet I don't think were ever considered the best games on the planet, as good as some of them were.
Not sure if Mass Effect is the best, but it's certainly ahead of that lot.
God of War 3 wasn't great. Uncharted 3 was a bit of a mess, and the first game wasn't quite up there. Not sure if Mass Effect is the best, but I'd say it's ahead of those two as a trilogy.
2 had great multiplayer, and while the campaign was nothing special, it did nail the atmosphere. However, 1 and 3 were mediocre, and Shadow Fall was a train wreck. After Horizon, I see no reason for them to return to Killzone.
I'm so sick of titles that needlessly use brackets.
Square Enix isn't a Sony developer. I also seriously question Spider Man placing first.
Because they're moving on to Hitman: 007 Edition.
Lol yes, just dodge SpeedDemon's point. Obviously it's okay that PS5 doesn't have any actual new exclusives that you can't find on PS4, but it's unforgivable when Xbox does it.
It's nice, but it's not game changing. I don't feel like I'm missing anything when I switch back to the Xbox.
Easily the best game of the year, with a lack of any real competition.
It's bland, repetitive, and doesn't improve on the first game in any meaningful way.
I personally don't think there were 100 games worthy of a mention. Just keep it to the absolute best 10, or at a stretch, 20.
You know it's been an awful year when the next Mass Effect 3 ending is the best game of the year. I almost wish like for like remakes would count, because Demon's Souls is by far the better game.
And I just realised this is a GameSpot article... They already gave Demon's Souls game of the year in 2009.
If it counts, then it should win. The trouble is higher production values don't make it a new game.
It's not the intended experience, it would detract from the quality of the game for anyone that decided to use it. It would eliminate the satisfaction of beating difficult sections, and removes any of the dread you're supposed to feel. Do you really think a level like the Valley of Defilement should be played on easy mode? It would eliminate the entire point. The story would be pointless. Games can be an art form, so why should every game cater to everyone?
It would...