Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Top 20 PC Games on Windows XP

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the we-who-are-about-to-become-obsolete-salute-you dept.

PC Games (Games) 194

ApacheVE writes "Voodoo Extreme has up a story called Generation XP: Top 20 Games of the Last Generation. They call out some of the best games released in the Windows XP era, to mark the passing into the 'next generation' of PC gaming this past week. Some favorites include Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament 2004, Civilization IV, World of Warcraft and other titles that helped shape the era." Any titles you see missing from the list? The XP years were truly great, as far as PC titles went; how long do you think it will be before Vista has enough market penetration to make a difference in gaming?

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WARNING (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17877950)

Article spread out over 20 ad-laden pages. Didn't see a print option. Lame.

Re:WARNING (0, Offtopic)

jpardey (569633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17877974)

I have finally seen the light and installed ad-block. Sometimes I will turn it off for fun (and I might enable Project Wonderful ads because it is a somewhat interesting system) but it is a great firefox extension.

The Goods (5, Informative)

TriezGamer (861238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17877954)

20) Rise of Nations
19) Halo: Combat Evolved
18) Rome: Total War
17) Unreal Tournament 2004
16) Medal of Honor Allied Assault
15) Neverwinter Nights
14) Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne
13) Command & Conquer: Generals
12) Guild Wars
11) Civilization IV
10) Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
09) Doom 3
08) F.E.A.R.
07) Company of Heroes
06) Battlefield 1942
05) Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
04) Call of Duty
03) The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
02) Half-Life 2
01) World of Warcraft

Re:The Goods (1)

DeafByBeheading (881815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878022)

None of the Grand Theft Autos made the cut?

Re:The Goods (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878042)

Well, GTAIII wasn't quite 'XP generation' and the others haven't been very groundbreaking compared to most of the list.

Re:The Goods (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878214)

Suck Zonk's cock. You're about as cool as a brown Zune...

Re:The Goods (1)

I'll Provide The War (1045190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878326)

GTA:VC is the second highest rated PC game of all time on Gamerankings and was released two years after the launch of XP. It is certainly better than most of the other console ports they selected.

lets start the obvious 'missing' list. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878062)

ok, winxp came out late 2001.

grand theft auto iii was released (for pc) early 2002.
grand theft auto: vice city was release (for pc) early 2003.
grand theft auto: san andreas (for pc) sometime 2005.

for anyone that hasn't played with them on pc... wow.
my favorite thing to do, in gta 3 at least, was set up key macros to spawn 100's of any vehicle (like, one of the race car type things). it would make them into a huge pyramid stacked in front of you, and they wouldnt catch fire. at least, not until you hit the 'spawn tank' macro. talk about one massive explosion. if you use over 50 cars, its guaranteed to crash the game.

oh, and playing it multiplayer.... http://mtavc.com/ [mtavc.com]
multitheftauto, yo.

now i just play text twist. violence got to me after awhile :(

Re:lets start the obvious 'missing' list. (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879314)

OK then, this would be my list for the top ten WinXP games, in alphabetical order. Judging from comments here, I think this list is fairly representative, though with a couple of extra contributions of my own --
  • Civ 4
  • Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind
  • Far Cry
  • FEAR
  • GTA 3 plus sequels
  • Half-Life 2 plus mods
  • KotOR 1
  • NWN 1 plus mods
  • ScummVM (OK, this one's kind of cheating)
  • UT2k4

(I made up a list for 11-20 as well, with things like Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, and Escape Velocity Nova, but I figured they were all way too subjective to bother listing here.)

Re:lets start the obvious 'missing' list. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879840)

Why did you remove Company of Heroes?

Re:The Goods (3, Insightful)

Sosarian (39969) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878234)

Thank you, 20 pages of barely readable text with 5 times more ads than story was not worth reading that.

Re:The Goods (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878294)

Worms + Quake III = Soldat [wikipedia.org] . Fast paced, strategic, looks great (a game doesn't have to be 3D to look good *gasp*), always loads of players online, doesn't need the latest computer, runs quite well in WINE, and free.

Re:The Goods (1)

cephyn (461066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878598)

Too bad I'd still rather play worms or quake3 than soldat.

Re:The Goods (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878346)

Where's Ms. PacMan dammit!?

Woo hoo! (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878352)

Perfect score, I never played any of them! (Ok, really not that hard since I only use Mac and Linux OS on modern machines).

Re:Woo hoo! (1)

Duke Machesne (453316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878490)

Haha I was thinking the same thing.

Well, I tried Civ4 for a few minutes but my onboard nForce video wasn't nearly good enough to handle it.

Re:Woo hoo! (1)

moranar (632206) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879350)

Warcraft 3 and Starcraft run just fine on WINE, and from what I know, WoW works on Cedega. Games from ID Software usually have Linux binaries. NWN has a Linux binary, too. Try again, it might surprise you.

Windows XP games? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878600)

How many of these games are available for OS X? And Linux? Granted, a lot of these games came out on Windows XP first, but in the end, which games were also available on other platforms or even consoles? Most people will know that Warcraft III and World of Warcraft came out on both Windows and OS X at the same time. Heck, World of Warcraft can even run on Windows 2000.

Funny how Microsoft kinda screwed OpenGL on Vista to prevent easy porting from Windows/Xbox to OS X, Linux, Wii and PS3.

Re:The Goods (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878614)

Hmm... I think I've played three games on that list: Halo, Warcraft III and NWN. Halo was fun. The latter two were dropped within hours, since watching paint dry was more entertaining. Coincidentally, I think the reason was similar in both cases: when you've played the BG series with a party of six, and RTS games with armies of hundreds of units, somehow you+henchman or "armies" with only a handful of units just don't seem spectacular or varied enough as drop-in replacements. You could certainly have games based on those ideas, but you'd need very different gameplay to what works with the larger groups, and for me, these titles just didn't have it.

I played a demo of Oblivion too, but while technically impressive, the gameplay just didn't inspire me enough to buy the real thing. There must be something to it given all the rave reviews, so maybe that was just a bad demo.

Disclaimer: my PC is about four years old now, so some of the games on the list are beyond my current kit, and will probably get tried when I've finished building the new box.

Re:The Goods (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878838)

The online aspect and the expansions to NWN were worthwhile, but the official campaign sucked ass.

Re:The Goods (1)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879320)

F.E.A.R. made it and Far Cry didn't? Give me a break. I bought both and Far Cry was amazing while F.E.A.R...... wasn't.

Re:The Goods (5, Interesting)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879734)

Hmm... thoughts on each of these in turn:

20) Rise of Nations - yeah, ok, this seems fair enough. It's a nice concept and still a fun game to play. I may even have moved it a little higher up the list. Graphics are dated quite badly now, so a sequel wouldn't go amiss.

19) Halo - w... t... f... - sure, the Xbox version was great, even if its own sequel does comprehensively out-shine it, but the PC version always felt like a nasty hack at best.

18) Rome: Total War - reasonable pick and probably in about the right place on the list. Very solid game.

17) Unreal Tournament 2004 - this made me go "hmm" at first, but on balance, I think I could live with this here. It was definitely the best iterration of the series. I'm not quite sure how TFA manages to claim the original is better.

16) Medal of Honour Allied Assault - I guess you have to include one of the WW2 shooters and I guess this one is the obvious candidate. If this were the only one on the list, I could have been perfectly happy. Unfortunately, if you look further down...

15) Neverwinter Nights - ooooh, tricky one. On the one hand, the game as released, straight out of box, is pretty damned poor, with an original campaign that falls waaaaay short of the usual Bioware standards. The sequel is massively better in this respect. However, I will grant you that, with two solid expansions and a huge mass of mods available, NWN has grown way beyond what originally came out of the box.

14) Max Payne 2 - Can be completed in about 4-6 hours by an average player and has no replay value. No thanks.

13) Command and Conquer: Generals - Oh god no. Command and Conquer with a slight graphical facelift, but none of the production values that made the very early installments in the series great. Gameplay that was outdated compared to other RTSes even at release.

12) Guild Wars - not played it, so can't really comment.

11) Civilisation IV - frankly, the Civ games have never done it for me. However, I will grant that they do seem to push the requisite buttons for an awful lot of people, so happy to let this one stand.

10) Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos - yeah, good pick. Probably the best of the small-scale RTSes from the XP era. I'm mystified as to why the article says the controls were tricky, though. They were basically the same as any other RTS around, if not slightly better due to the decent hotkeys system.

9) Doom 3: Yep, decent pick. I know a lot of people found fault with it, but this game scared the living shit out of me (at least for the first half of the game). I'd probably have put this in the bottom end of the list, though, given the lack of variety. I actually felt Quake 4 was better, so may just have substituted that altogether.

8) F.E.A.R: again, a decent pick just on account of atmosphere. Plus the graphics were beautiful and the AI probably the best we've seen in an fps.

7) Company of Heroes: Hmm... maybe. Personally, I'd have substituted Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War for this, though. They're basically the same game underneath but, particularly with the expansions, I find Dawn of War slightly deeper. Still, there's no denying that Company of Heroes is very, very pretty.

6) Battlefield 1942: Yes, I'd probably go along with this, on the proviso that all of the sequels and expansion packs are excluded. BF2 in particular was an utter crock.

5)Knights of the Old Republic: Yes, definitely. Proof that Lucas should have let Bioware write Episodes 1-3.

4) Call of Duty: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO. What the fuck is it with this game? Why the hell do it and its sequels continue to attact such plaudits. An inferior, dumbed down Medal of Honour clone which brought nothing new to the genre at all. On a related note, why do all these countless WW2 fpses only feature battles from the second half of WW2 which the Allies won (oh, and Pearl Harbour). I grow tired of the "inevitable march to victory" feel of these games and feel that it actually fails to do history justice.

3) Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - A decent game, but personally I'm not sure the PC version should be here, due to the overwhelming sea of bugs it drowns in. I know quite a few people who bought the PC version, then bought the 360 version a couple of months later just so they could actually *play* it.

2) Half-Life 2: I'd move this much further down the list. Personally, I think this represents the most over-hyped game of the XP era. While it was undoubtedly fairly good in places, it lacked the atmosphere of Doom 3 and the scope of Far Cry. Plus, I found it kept breaking my suspension of disbelief with respect to the setting quite badly. Having a mute Gordon (the guy's supposed to be a PhD and a charismatic resistance leader for god's sake) was a particularly sloppy decision. Further demerits for Steam.

1) World of Warcraft: Hmm... possibly. I don't actually like this much myself, but there's no denying it's been the most influential game of the XP era.

So, now that I've kicked out or demoted so many of the original picks, what do I think should be in there instead.

Farcry: How the fuck did this not make it in? The closest thing to a really open-ended action fps that we've seen in years, with vast environments containing multiple paths to objectives, decent AI and fantastic graphics. Ok, the final few levels were a bit too hard, but even so, this should have been near the top of the list.

Icewind Dale 2: The only Infinity Engine game to be released in the xp era, but definitely a good one. Much harder and more tightly designed than its predecessor, this remains, for me, the best 2d game of the era.

Battlestations - Midway: Ack, maybe this one qualifies as Vista-era. The relase date was certainly within a few days of Vista's and I can't remember which was out first. At any rate, a fantastic looking naval strategy/action game, even if it is still only a couple of weeks old.

Dawn of War: I know I mention this above, but it deserves mentioning again. The full package running through Dark Crusade is about as good as RTS gameplay gets right now, from what I can see.

This ain't hard, folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878004)

Go to your favorite torrent site, and run their Top NN list for Windows games.

19: Halo - what the hell? (4, Insightful)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878024)

Seriously. A bloody ordinary Windows port of one of the more dull console shooters I've had a tinker with in years. About halfway through I just couldn't fight back the tears of boredom anymore.

I'd imagine millions of people still play Solitaire, by the 'merits' Halo has, I'm fairly certain it deserves a spot in this arbitrary list too.

Understated (0, Flamebait)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878078)

I got a used copy of Halo for my GF's XBox to see what all the hype was all about. Not only was it boring, but the graphics were terrible to the point of not being able to see what the hell you're shooting. The sound was a joke. The controls made me feel like I was perpetually drunk when I was playing, it was so sloppy. Halo was actually the worst FPS I've ever played, and luckily, I was able to return it. I don't know why people bought this piece of shit game. It was truly terrible.

Re:Understated (-1, Flamebait)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878228)

I was unable to give my copy of Halo away (came with the Xbox...). Nobody would take it. I ended up turning it into a frisbee and had a hell of a lot more fun with it that way.

Re:Understated (2, Interesting)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878278)

The PC version of Halo was a lot of fun. The controls were just like any other FPS and the graphics were on par with other games made in that same year. My friends and I enjoyed playing Halo after ut2k4 became a bore and, in my opinion, it has a lot of great multiplayer maps (Blood Glutch, Sidewinder, and Death Island to name a few). There were many game types and had a decent number of hacks/mods to make the game interesting for quite a long time. If this list came out a few years ago, I would be shocked to not see the game within the top 5.

Saying the game should not be on the list of greatest PC games of all time because you didn't like the xbox version is complete BS. The controller issue you talk about is non-existent on the PC version and the graphics aren't that bad at all. It mainly sounds like your complaints are with the xbox itself and not the actual game.

Re:Understated (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878336)

Good point. My gaming rig is a PS2 for action games (GTA, etc.) and my laptop for strategy games (Warcraft 3, Civ 4, etc.). That was my first XBox game. Maybe you're right. Maybe the XBox just sucks. That could be true. I haven't played a lot of other XBox games.

Re:Understated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878408)

My gaming rig is a PS2 for action games (GTA, etc.)

You liked GTA but hate Halo for reasons of gameplay? I call BS. Your entire post was nothing more than FUD. Anyone who's played these games knows exactly what I mean.

my laptop for strategy games (Warcraft 3, Civ 4, etc.)

Heh. Get a real laptop, my boy. I can play anything out there on my rig. Maybe your problem is crappy hardware instead of gameplay issues.

I love fucktards who expect the best while putting in the minimal amount themselves. No wonder PC users (and gamers) get so much bad feedback with how cheap they are.

Halo?! Doom 3?! (4, Insightful)

ChaosDiscord (4913) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878030)

Halo? A highly repetitive game that features midget aliens that ran around like toddlers on cocaine? A dark future where the elite special forces get issues crap guns by default? Sure, it was an exception FPS for consoles, but that has more to do with the high level of suck of FPSs on consoles.

Doom 3? A single trick pony, not that "sucks that in the future we'll forget how to attach lights to guns" is much of a pony to start with. It's gorgeous, but it's a crappy game. Game design has moved on since the original Doom.

It's not that there aren't better games. Where is Far Cry, which blew Halo's outdoor scenes away (It jumps the shark midway through, but there is still a lot of great gameplay)? How about Quake 4, which took Doom 3's amazing technology and coupled it with rock solid gameplay (and features the radical idea that a future military might issue its troops useful assault rifles!). NOLF2? Return to Castle Wolfenstein?

*Bah*

Re:Halo?! Doom 3?! (1, Troll)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878240)

they put (the entirely forgettable, purely eye candy, shallow as a puddle) Oblivion at #3, what do you expect? Still I can't believe they didn't put FarCry in there, easily should've been in the top-5.

Re:Halo?! Doom 3?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879408)

Oblivion "shallow"?? Uh, yeah... right.. Troll elsewhere, ok?

Re:Halo?! Doom 3?! (1)

MWoody (222806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879420)

You're absolutely right. To call Oblivion "eye candy" is unfair and incorrect.

It looked like shit, too.

Re:Halo?! Doom 3?! (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878260)

Your comments were fine, up until you got to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Seriously, wtf? That game's sole thing it had going for it was the Wolfenstein remake factor. It didn't have a very good plot, the gameplay was run-of-the-mill, the enemies weren't that good, even with the "satisfying to kill Nazis" factor, and the weapons were... ok, I lied, the game has 2 factors going for it. Wolfenstein remake, and flamethrower. But seriously, if Halo doesn't deserve a place on the list, RtCW sure as hell doesn't. I liked the game, but it just wasn't very great.

One thing. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878982)

RTCW had the first truly decent teamplay factor since Tribes. Teamkillers were mostly just wasting their time, not being able to adversely effect the other players or the objectives, and hacks or "cheating" are relatively rare, unlike in most other multiplayer FPS'emups, such as CS.

The List and My Commentary (4, Interesting)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878034)

20 -- Rise of Nations. It was ok. I really liked the nukes.
19 -- Halo. WTF? It was great on the XBOX but not a good FPS by PC standards.
18 -- Rom Total War.
17 -- UT2k4. Why this version? All of them were really good. Sequels should be disqualified.
16 -- MoH Allied Assault. It was ok. I really hated the way the game cutscened a lot. And the fact that it forced a tutorial sucked.
15 -- NWN. Great game and very modable. Still play this after, what, 5 years.
14 -- Max Payne. Loved bullet time.
13 -- C&C Generals. Never played it.
12 -- Guild Wars. MMO without fees. Awesome.
11 -- Civ4. After Civ3, I was really not willing to buy another Civ game. I still play Alpha Centuari though.
10 -- Warcraft 3. Not a big fan of RTS. Never tried it.
9 -- Doom3. Never played it. Too dark. Duct tape mod really showed how dumb game designers are. And WTF with batteries that last 10 seconds?
8 -- FEAR. Stupid name but great game. The demo gave away almost all the scary parts though. Bullet time and the nail gun was awesome.
7 -- Company of Heroes. Very fun for a RTS. Still, never played it more than a few hours.
6 -- BF1942. Played the shit out of this at LAN parties. Once Desert Combat was out, played the shit out of it again. The follow-ups sucked bad though.
5 -- KOTOR. Another port from XBOX. It was fun. Loved the moddable lightsaber.
4 -- Call of Duty. I was really burned out on WW2 games at this point. God, can we get another war?
3 -- Oblivion. Something about a first-person RPG just sucks. After 10 minutes of not knowing where the last rat was, I gave up and uninstalled it.
2 -- Half-Life 2. I guess it was OK. I only bought it because of CS:S
1 -- WoW. This game is a lot of fun and very social. Most of my friends play this to extremes. Once I got high-level, I quit. I don't have time to do the same 6+ hour crawl 20 times to get the uber sword of pwnage. I really loved the fact that I get credit for *not* playing. Makes leveling much easier.

So, where was X2 or X3? Both were lots of fun. How about GalCiv or GalCiv2? Empire at War was a blast as was Hero Quest. Flight simulators (all sims really) were missing. GTR, Falcon Allied Force, Flight Sim X, LOMAC, and IL2 were a ton of fun. As was Silent Hunter 3. Realistic sims are, for me, what really keeps me updating my PC. Everything else can be duplicated on a console. The first time you complete the ramp start in Falcon, you'll know the PC is king.

Re:The List and My Commentary (1)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878112)

So, where was X2 or X3? Both were lots of fun. How about ... GalCiv2? .Flight Sim X, ... and IL2 were a ton of fun. As was Silent Hunter 3.

...

Sequels should be disqualified.

Cue Inigo Montoya: "I don't think that means, what you think it means."

Re:The List and My Commentary (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878132)

Mac fanboi during the XP era: "Get a Mac. For games, just get a console."

As your comment shows, Mac fanbois missed out on a lot of fun games.

Mac users don't NEED pee-cee games (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878274)

No one cares, because we Mac fanbois were (and are) enjoying our social lives instead, something you PC users will never understand. I'd write more, but I gotta get ready for a show. Ta!

Re:The List and My Commentary (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879864)

Mac fanboi during the XP era: "Get a Mac. For games, just get a console."
Mac fanboi during the 90s: "there's no first person shooter you can have on the PC that's as good as Marathon."

Re:The List and My Commentary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878154)

Oblivion had a third person mode, just push the button or scroll your mousewheel out.

The tutorial sucks balls and is not representative of the game, stick with it for an hour and you'll probably enjoy it...

Yeah, not a single racing game? Even Need For Speed: Can't Tell The Difference Any More is more fun than Doom 3.

This 20-page adfest is clearly a pageview grab throw up in 20 minutes anyway, there's no point in discussing it.

Re:The List and My Commentary (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878286)

God, can we get another war?

Ask and ye shall receive, but don't expect to be doing much gaming after it's done.

KFG

The meteor and My Commentary (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878488)

Cage match: Dinosaurs vs Cavemen. Two go in, one leaves.

Re:The meteor and My Commentary (1)

cephyn (461066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878564)

if it's a T-Rex, then the caveman just has to stand still, and the T-Rex will leave. Jurassic Park taught me that, and I hear they really did their research on that one.

Re:The meteor and My Commentary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879158)

OK, so T' Rexes couldn't see very well ... but haven't you ever considered they were probably able to smell pretty well?

Re:The List and My Commentary (3, Insightful)

cephyn (461066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878584)

How about the 6 day war? Haven't seen any games on that one. Play as the arab alliance, see if you can win.

Or what about Gulf War II? Starts out as a war game, morphs into a military/city strategy game. A cross between command and conquer and simcity2000. See if you can stabilize Iraq before it can happen in real life.

Re:The List and My Commentary (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878964)

>>How about the 6 day war?

Janes' IAF was a flightsim based on that. Of course, you are no-so-much an arab in that one.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/janes-combat-simulat ions-israeli-air-force [mobygames.com]

>>Or what about Gulf War II?

Falcon Allied Force was about the first Bosnia invasion. Circa 1995. They got the title wrong, but whatever. These have been several GW2 games. A few flight sims and several shooters. None of them were any good. I'd love to see something like a driving sim in a humvee through the red zone. Or multiplayer with a driver and gunner.

>>A cross between command and conquer and simcity2000. See if you can stabilize Iraq before it can happen in real life.

Easy, cut the country up into three parts and move each tribe into a diff part. Pump the oil dry so they don't fight over who gets that part. Threaten Turkey to keep them from invading Northern Iraq.

Win 98 FTW (5, Insightful)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878094)

The Vista era was good, but nothing compared to the Windows 98 era (though I don't know that using OSes as a quantitative factor for determining gaming eras is particularly valid). I'll stack up Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, System Shock 2, Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment, Starcraft, Diablo 2, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and Grim Fandango against the best games from *any* era.

Re:Win 98 FTW (1)

thebudgie (810919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878266)

There should be some Command and Conquer in your list of games. The C&C games have shaped the RTS genre for a long time- but then again you might not like that type of game. For the XP generation it should include some of the Total War series, more highly ranked than Rome was, and maybe the first warhammer game.

Re:Win 98 FTW (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878472)

I don't think that C&C gets enough recognition in the RTS genre. It's my favourite series, and I really don't get why more people don't like like it. My biggest problem with most of the other ones are too many resources. In C&C you had tiberium, and that's all you had to collect. In Warcraft 2, you had wood, gold, and oil, and you need varying amounts of each for building units. Then there's games like starcraft where you have to constantly click around your base figuring out which buidlings you can finally upgrade, and which ones you can start doing research on. On C&C everything could be controlled on the right hand part of your screen. No reason to click on your barracks to build a soldier, or you factory to build a jeep.

Re:Win 98 FTW (1)

DarkJC (810888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879852)

Hear hear. I think that's why Generals was such a letdown to me. I might have been a notable game on its own, but it was NOT a C&C game. Everything that defined the C&C series was ripped out of Generals. The sidebar where you controlled everything? Replaced with a starcraft-esque bottom bar, which was not only a step backwards, but was badly designed. You could only stack up to 9 units in a build order at once. The universe of Generals had nothing to do with any of the other C&C games. FMV? Gone. Storyline/plot? Gone. I'm hoping EA at least accomplishes something with C&C3.

And for those RTS fans who have not had the privilege of trying the beta, Supreme Commander is indeed supreme. I have not had more fun with an RTS since...I can't even remember. This is going to be a keeper RTS fans, so on February 20th, march over to your local game store and pick up a copy. The only thing that might keep you from it are the system requirements...they're quite steep.

WoW? WTF? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878104)

Why is it that EQ Lite gets so many props? Is it because most gamers are too limp to play a real MMORPG?

Re:WoW? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878148)

Not limp. Whatever that means. Smart. Most people are too smart to play any MMORPG. They recognize them for the time and money wasters that they are. They suck. hardcore. Although, I must say I do like them. Not to play mind you, but to suck up the time and mony from morons. That way there's a lower chance of dealing with them in the real life.

Re:WoW? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878296)

Not limp. Whatever that means.

Are you really that stupid?

Smart. Most people are too smart to play any MMORPG.

Yeah, you really are that stupid. Not to invalidate your own dislike for MMORPG, that's fine: to each their own, but the question was why does a certain MMORPG get so much notice when there are better ones. Your response is that MMORPGs are smart even though you think they're stupid? Man, you must be fucktard of the week.

No Starcraft or Fallout 2? Forget it! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878174)

Yah, I know those are old games now, but damn I have had a lot of fun playing them. I enjoyed Space Rangers 2 also...I guess I enjoy RTS/RPG games. Call of Duty/COD2 were not bad, either, but I did not burn myself out on WWII games. I also noticed that Warhammer 40k is not included which is too bad, I thought that was a lot of fun. How much repeat playability/moddability does a game have to have to be considered a classic? Maybe to be fair to this list we can have a comprehensive list made that shows game popularity by year (lets start with Atari 2600 games and work our way to the present)

Sure Halo repeats itself, but you then again so did lots of games; Wizardry is a fine example of kill, heal, repeat. And that piece of software is over 25 years old now.

I didnt read the article (this being /. of course) so I wonder what this list is based on, overall sales or overall ratings?

(and I'm posting AC since im too lazy yo log in and karma whore or whatever.)

ps, I am currently playing around with KOTOR again..fun game!

Re:No Starcraft or Fallout 2? Forget it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879644)

Note how this is titled "Top 20 Games on Windows XP". While both good enough games (although personally I've always felt Starcraft was madly over-rated and even close to Total Annihilation), both of those games are firmly in the Win 95/98 camp. Yes, they run fine on modern PCs, but they weren't released during the XP era.

Where's the good stuff? (1)

Black-Six (989784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878198)

What happened to games like MechWarrior and Fighters Anthology? The only game on that list that I think deserves to be there is COH. We need better game players to pick all time favorites IMHO.

Re:Where's the good stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878644)

MechWarrior 2 was the last great MW game in the series. After that, FASA sold/gave (something) the license to Microsoft and MS made the games too user friendly, removed a lot of customization options and made the game very easy compared the the activision MW:2, Ghost Bear Legacy, and Mercenaries.

MW had lost its fan base, with the license change, and I think FASA also went under as well. That is what happened to the series.

I still laugh at MW:4 or 3 where I didn't need to put any armor on the head piece since it could not get hit no matter what.

HL2 is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878256)

Bundled with Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2 is consistently one of the most-played, free games currently available.
Emphasis added.

Re:HL2 is free? (1)

Profound (50789) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879584)

I think they meant to play online.

The most popular - WoW - has subscription fees.

Let's face it - XP was terrible for games (1)

Conrad Mazian (805099) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878284)


Consider the real classics - like Zork. Or Reach for the Stars. How about Bards Tale, or Pool Of Radiance (the original, not the crappy sequel). How about Trade Wars? How about the original Warcraft, or Wing Commander:Privateer? There were some absolutely beautiful games in the old days, that still have not been beaten for game play and fun. Really out of all the games specifically designed for XP, the only two that I enjoy are Star Fleet Command:Orion Pirates and Neverwinter Nights.

The rest are mostly junk. I know that a lot of people lover WOW - heck, my three kids are addicted, but it leaves me cold. Same with Warcraft 3.

Yeah, the graphics are nicer - but that's like putting a Dior suit on a 500 pound human. The colors and style are neat, but what's underneath can't run, can't jump, and one flight of stars will kill them.

Oh, and for anyone who wants to criticize me - I'm 6 feet tall, weigh 250 pounds. I have lost 30 pounds in the last 7 months, hope to be down to 230 by summer. And considering how much better I feel at 250 - well I'd expect anyone who weighs 500 is going to have a rough time.

Re:Let's face it - XP was terrible for games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879226)

best slashdot comment ever.

Re:Let's face it - XP was terrible for games (1)

Gabrill (556503) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879252)

The problem with those games is not gameplay. It's not graphics. It's not entertainment value. All those qualities were and are completely adequate to the awsome games that they are. The real problems with those games, and why new people don't hold them in the same awe is this: The don't play on new hardware. From hardware cycle timing to obsolete graphic modes, they just don't play the same as they did. God I wish we could have decent ports to current OS's.

Re:Let's face it - XP was terrible for games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879646)

Take off the rose colored glasses. 99% of games were crap then too. The only reason you think they were better is because those are the ones you remember. It's just like the oldies station on the radio. You'd think with 30 years of music to choose from you'd hear a lot more variety. But you don't. Music as a whole wasn't better in the 60's, 70's or 80's. They just only play the good stuff. It's hard to find today's good stuff because it's hard to separate wheat from chaff. Give it ten years and you'll be amazed at what survives from today and you'll be lamenting the games of the twenty-teens as being inferior to those turn of the century classics. I think you've already found some. You named 7 games from two decades and then lamented there were only two from the past 5 years.

Best game of the generation? (2, Insightful)

MotorMachineMercenar (124135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878290)

Best game of the XP generation: Nethack. And Windows ME, 2000, 98(SE), 3.1, MS-DOS, DRDOS, 4DOS, not to mention Macs, Unixes, Linuxes, WinCEs, Amigas, etc. And the only game that literally has survived a human generation - I remember playing it 20+ years ago for the first time. And I still do.

Nethack, the best game of this, past and probably future generations.

Re:Best game of the generation? (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878862)

Nethack was a great game for its time, and everyone that's interested in serious gaming should play it at some point.
Why?

Because Nethack has so many ridiculous game design flaws it isn't even funny.

Every single game designer out there should be forced to play Nethack nonstop until they ascend. That's the only way we'll get the shitty game design elements from roguelikes out of games forever.

Re:Best game of the generation? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879304)

Amen. I love nethack but there are serious issues with the entire structure of the game.

Re:Best game of the generation? (2, Informative)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879880)

And the only game that literally has survived a human generation - I remember playing it 20+ years ago for the first time.
Have you heard of Tetris?

XP?! (3, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878314)

Hasn't everybody upgraded to Vista by now?

Re:XP?! (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878426)

Funny, the games on the list that I played, all worked fine on Windows 98SE, even though at least one of them (Civ IV) said it required Windows 2000/XP. It's very stable on 98 for me.

You wouldn't think I'd keep falling for the "we'll fix the issues in Windows this time, really" trick after the 95->98 transition, huh? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... can't get fooled again!

It seems like with Windows, you can choose either crashes (9x) or viruses (nt/2k/xp). I much prefer crashes, especially since I only use Windows for games nowadays (when I have time).

I guess I'll have to get something newer (or get Wine/Cedega working) when I get a computer with more than 512 megs, though...

Re:XP?! (1)

Spike15 (1023769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878480)

You wouldn't think I'd keep falling for the "we'll fix the issues in Windows this time, really" trick after the 95->98 transition, huh? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... can't get fooled again!
Well they added USB support in Windows 98. I should also point out that fixing every problem in a multi-million line piece of code is hard... ...I don't think that this has occurred to anyone on here. You try debugging an operating system with the complexity of Windows. When you can do it, then we'll take your complaints about Windows seriously.

Re:XP?! (1)

moloko_synthemesc (961937) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879328)

Yeah, I hear ya man. Buncha ungrateful S.O.B.'s. It's just like when I left a few tiny instruments in a patient while performing surgery once. He had the nerve to complain to me about it, and I told him that when he could perform a quadruple bypass that I'd take his complaints seriously. Or back before med school, when I worked at a Jiffy Lube. I changed the brake pads on this guy's car, but...

Thank God You're Here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879516)

...I don't think that this has occurred to anyone on here.
Man, we'd never have thought of that all by ourselves! I bet you went to school and everything.

Re:XP?! (1)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879492)

It seems like with Windows, you can choose either crashes (9x) or viruses (nt/2k/xp). I much prefer crashes, especially since I only use Windows for games nowadays (when I have time).

Ahem.

XP is pretty good about not having viruses or worms if you apply the proper precautions, the first of which is turning on a firewall (default in SP2) and only opening ports when you absolutely have to. And if you don't download sketchy software or mount sketchy disks. I run XP semi-frequently directly on the public Internet (meaning not behind a router, although that helps a lot and is encouraged if you can), and I haven't had problems; I keep the firewall on and I run Windows Update.

Windows 98 probably has a bunch of vulnerabilities (the WMF exploit is the first that comes to mind; Messenger Service is the second) that haven't been patched thanks to it being end-of-lifed; I'd be really worried about running it on a regular basis, especially if outside a physical firewall/NAT.

Re:XP?! (2, Funny)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879476)

Hasn't everybody upgraded to Vista by now?

This soon? I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting for the progress bar to move past 47%.

Why? (2, Insightful)

mqduck (232646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878436)

What the heck is the point of the premise of this article? Why in the world would you group games by what the latest version of Windows was when they were released? Unlike many Slashdotters, I'm not one to bitch about the job the editors do, but it seems to me that they were seriously trolled by these 20 pages of ads.

GalCiv II (2)

cephyn (461066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878544)

GalCiv2 should really be on there. It's better than of the strategy games on that list, save for maybe Civ4. And it's close. It's the most well thought out 4X game of the WinXP generation, hands down.

Re:GalCiv II (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878720)

And don't forget that they did not treat us like criminals. (CD check)

Far Cry (2, Insightful)

SlayerDave (555409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878592)

Where was Far Cry? In my opinion it was significantly better than the other FPSs on the list, with the possible exception of HL2. Doom 3 above Far Cry? I don't think so.

Re:Far Cry (1)

erbbysam (964606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878864)

You couldn't remotely compare Far Cry to Doom 3. In my opinion the gfx in Doom 3 were just about as good as HL2 but the gameplay was a bit repetitive and I'm personally not a huge fan of horror video games. Having played all 3 games fully online and offline Far Cry is the lowest on every list. Having just recently gotten the urge to go back and play Far Cry the graphics look old and outdated on my new system and yet still slow it to a crawl, sure you can have huge scenes but what's the point when you just have to stare at the ground every two seconds to get you framerate back up? Besides that it's a very solid FPS but isn't anything remarkable or groundbreaking like HL2 and Doom 3 were. I fell like Far Cry gets vastly overrated by people who have never played other games (ie. Battlefield 2 or 2142 or even just 1942 for gameplay).

Re:Far Cry (1)

SpecialAgentXXX (623692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879818)

I finished HL2 w/ no cheats. I finished FarCry using cheats for the last couple of levels - I really wanted to play to the end. I'm not even halfway through Doom 3 and quit. I enjoyed the "spooky/scary" factor, but it got a bit dull. FarCry should have been in the top 20.

Re:Far Cry (3, Interesting)

Judge_Fire (411911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879948)

I'd put Far Cry above HL2 and D3 in my list.

Far Cry allowed exploration and variation in moving around and solving scenarios. The latter two tried to be interactive movies, where story kept you from stepping outside the preset ride, sometimes in really ugly ways. They must be nice as a first FPS experience, but they're not about playing so much as shooting on que.

Far Cry had a crap story with great gameplay and I love it :)

These are just more of the same. (2, Interesting)

j741 (788258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878656)

This list sucks. It's just more of the same old crap rehashed with newer graphics, physics, maps, AI, etc.

What about the games that actually tried (and succeeded) to do something a little bit different, like Grimm Fandango, Hitman, GTA, and so forth?

Diablo and/or Diablo II? (1)

NJVil (154697) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878666)

I suppose that there's only so much love that can be had for Blizzard, and WoW was a no-brainer.

Zonk are you retarded? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17878690)

What exactly did the shift from 2000 to XP do to change game design? That's right - exactly nothing. So it will be with Vista. Hardware affects game design. Not the OS, or the graphics API, when they all (Mac, Windows, Linux) do pretty much the same things.

Vista? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878762)

how long do you think it will be before Vista has enough market penetration to make a difference in gaming?

Is that a trick question?

I'm guessing there is a lot of overlap between the kind of person who buys the latest and greatest games and the kind of person who finds Vista's DRM, signal degradation, product activation, upgrade-unfriendliness and such offensive. Anyone with the dough to buy a system that can run Vista sensibly could use the same money to buy all three of the latest gen consoles, all of the big name titles for each of them, and enough takeaway for several weeks of gaming with the change. Not much of a geek/supergamer market, then.

As far as I can see, the only technical advantage Vista has over XP for most home users is DirectX 10. AFAICS, exactly no current games on the planet are anywhere near using current video hardware and DX9 to their full capabilities yet. Moreover, DirectX as a whole is a nasty vendor lock-in that's never popular with game vendors who also want to support the much larger console market (and may even be considering support for other desktop platforms, given the bad press Vista has been getting). Put that all together, and I can't see DX10 being worth more than the advertising it gives to $500 video cards that no-one can take advantage of, at least not for several years. Meanwhile, numerous compatibility problems are already being reported between big name graphics cards, drivers, and Vista. Doesn't look like the software support is going to drive Vista adoption, either.

And finally, there is simply no compelling reason for most home users to upgrade their hardware any more. Any desktop bought in the past five years is going to cope with your average e-mail, web browsing, word processing, and so on in its sleep, and most will do things like photo editing and video editing for those with digital cameras/camcorders too. In other words, while previous versions of Windows have benefitted from users buying new PCs fairly often and upgrading by default, I don't think that's going to happen to anything like the same extent in future. Games and serious multimedia editing are the only major software that might stretch a current PC (apart from running Vista, of course), and the gamers can more cheaply buy a console, while the multimedia people are probably nervous about the artificial limitations in Vista and giving Apple a renewed interest. That pretty much rules out high uptake through the new hardware channel. Strike three, Microsoft: you're out.

So the short answer is: I doubt Vista will ever have enough penetration into the serious gaming market to make a difference.

(Final amusing anecdote, reported in local press, for the benefit of doubters: our local PC superstore opened two hours early on 30 January, so the gagging hordes could get their Vista upgrades. They sold exactly zero upgrades for Vista all day, and while Vista was supplied preinstalled on their new PCs from that date, there was no significant increase in sales of new PCs that day either.)

Re:Vista? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879904)

Anyone with the dough to buy a system that can run Vista sensibly could use the same money to buy all three of the latest gen consoles, all of the big name titles for each of them, and enough takeaway for several weeks of gaming with the change.

Bull. I spend £600 on upgrading my current system a year ago, and it'll run Vista just fine. True, I "only" bought 2 250GB drives, Athlon X2 4400, motherboard, 7800GTX, 2GB of RAM and a 500W PSU, but for another £300 or so I could've thrown in case, monitor, optical drive, sound card, keyboard/mouse and speakers then, and could definitely get it all now for less than £1000. The PS3 is slated to cost about £450, the Wii costs £180 and the XBox 360 is £280, for a total of £910 *if* you can find the Wii and PS3 for retail and don't have to get scalped on eBay.

I've read the "Vista capable PC + Vista = all three consoles + games + change" thing a few times, and it's simply wrong.

Any desktop bought in the past five years is going to cope with your average e-mail, web browsing, word processing, and so on in its sleep, and most will do things like photo editing and video editing for those with digital cameras/camcorders too.

Now, I'm impatient, but transcoding an hour-long home movie of my daughter's birthday (or whatever) takes too damn long on my PC for my liking. I don't do it enough to warrant a serious investment in hardware for it, but a 5 year old desktop is going to absolutely suck for it.

So the short answer is: I doubt Vista will ever have enough penetration into the serious gaming market to make a difference.

I remember when people said the same thing about XP. There was no reason to upgrade from Win 2k (or even 98), WPA was an egregious violation of privacy, etc etc. A quick look at Valve's Half Life 2 survery results [steampowered.com] shows that 88% of HL2 players are running XP SP2; XP is used by 97% of players.

Now I don't know whether or not Vista will gain a significant share of the gamers market, but I do know one thing - it's far too early to be predicting that it never will. Serious gamers are well used to dropping serious money on serious hardware, and mostly have a serious thing for eye-candy and modding their machines. If there's one thing Vista definitely supplies, it's eye candy. Any "serious" gamer already has a machine that's perfectly capable of running Vista, so that won't be an issue.

A Good Hint For Games (1)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 7 years ago | (#17878948)

I know this could be considered off-topic, but it is game related and a good hint I wanted to share: to get the most out of your video card and computer in gaming, instead of buying a new LCD use the money for a CRT (21" for example). Get it with a high refresh rate (easy on the eyes, > 85hz IIRC). This way, you can play Oblivion at 800x600 on an aging card at say 60 FPS instead of at 1280x1000 (I forget the exact resolution) at say 10 FPS.

NOTE: for those uninitiated, LCD's only clearly display their native resolution. Otherwise, it will scale the picture and appear blurry. For example, displaying a 800x600 game full screen on a 1024x768 native LCD looks blurry and unclear (because it basically blows up the picture). Of course I would imagine playing a game in a window at 800x600 on a 1024x768 LCD would fix that problem; I just don't like playing games in a window, but that's me.

Re:A Good Hint For Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879164)

Agreed. I literally spent more on a crappy ebay 15" Dell LCD than I did to get my two 21" CRTs (also ebay, but are astoundingly good quality). For anyone who complains about all the excess desk space taken up - you can buy another desk with the money you have leftover and still be ahead..

Re:A Good Hint For Games (1)

PachmanP (881352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879370)

I happen to like using my space limited desk, and am a fan of not getting hernias when I have to move my stuff. Honestly I haven't really noticed any problems running games at non-native resolutions on my LCDs, and if you're bumping down to 800x600 to play a game I doubt that graphics quality is gonna be a deal breaker anyway.

Well, here's a better idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879860)

Buy a high-res 1600x1200 LCD panel.

That way, you can play your games at 800x600 with no blurring whatsoever, and still have uber resolution for viewing that por^H^H^H - er, editing those word processing documents, when you need it.

That's because of the exact 1:2 ratio of image pixels to hardware pixels, of course! So every "pixel" in your image is actually made up of a block of four from the LCD.

Of course, you'll still get blurry pixel interpolation with anything in between 1:1 and 1:2 image to screen resolution...

And if you like to play games at higher res, then go buy one of those 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 panels floating around. Then you've got the option of playing 960x600 or 1280x800 modes, too!

Sequel heaven! (2, Insightful)

yroJJory (559141) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879110)

Why is it that over half of the games (11 out of 20) on the list are sequels?

  • Halo: Combat Evolved
  • Unreal Tournament 2004
  • Medal of Honor Allied Assault
  • Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne
  • Command & Conquer: Generals
  • Civilization IV
  • Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
  • Doom 3
  • The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
  • Half-Life 2
  • World of Warcraft

Re:Sequel heaven! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879182)

Halo: Combat Evolved

Not a sequel.

World of Warcraft

Also not a sequel.

Re:Sequel heaven! (1)

moloko_synthemesc (961937) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879366)

Because great original games, like Psychonauts, don't sell. Even when people get the rare chance to show that they want something new or different, they prove that they don't. Drones.

So... (3, Insightful)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879134)

Every. Last. One. of them involves violence and combat?

Wow. That's sad.

Re:So... (1)

PachmanP (881352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879388)

Ummm that's the what you do in a video game. If I wanted to make happy fun fun that didn't involve violence and combat I'd just go outside and interact with real people. Video games allow you to run around and shoot things whereas doing that is looked down on outside video games.

An analysis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17879196)

YOU GUYZ = TEH SUX045

No GTA? (4, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879324)

Not a single GTA? Sounds like either of the 3 last one was pretty important, and GTA:III on its own was quite a breakthrough, not to mention the commercial success and popularity of each episode.

A while (1)

Kuvter (882697) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879336)

...Vista Drivers [slashdot.org]

Last Generation (2, Interesting)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17879434)

Generation XP: Top 20 Games of the Last Generation

Given there's one DX-10 card line out there - nVidia's - and they're facing a class action lawsuit because their Vista ready card isn't Vista ready [slashdot.org] ... Given that Vista takes away several audio features from Creative's line of sound cards [creative.com] ... Given that the best known technical name in the gaming industry says it's not worth bothering with... [slashdot.org]

Can you really call the most current generation that actually works "Last Generation"?

As things stand, I was under the impression that all Vista does for gaming is disable features you have under XP. Oooh... And give you a couple of exciting menus for games and game specs.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>