Why isn't Quake 4 on the list? Was it 2006?

It was between CoD2, Quake 4, and SCCT for me because I haven't played any of the others. Chaos Theory won out in the end because the bank level was so awesome.

I agree, Smock. Chaos Theory was amazing, especially with the co-op mode.

I just wish I had the kind of machine I'd need to see it in its full graphical glory.

YES! SOMEONE WHO APPRECIATES THE BANK LEVEL!

So the best overall game could only be based upon MP experience?

That's just plain wrong. Yes, Battlefield 2 may have had some addictive qualities to its MP games, but everywhere else it was exceptionally poor, particularly graphics. A GOTY should be an all-around great balance that you'll never forget. And the fact that they limited it to MP games is inexcusable, even though the games that I considered actually worthy of the GOTY title were multiplyer anyway. (Call of Duty 2, Age of Empires III, and particularly Civilization IV)

But, really... Battlefield 2 was badly over-hyped in my opinion. Yes, you can go in as the US Army and beat the snot out of a pseudo Al-Qaeda. Yes, there are vehicles, a variety of types of soldier, etc. But the game would've only looked good had it been released in the year 2002, and after a while, I actually found it boring. That, and the horrifically poor programming hurt it a lot. (NO other game has any use for more than 1GB of RAM, yet this won't run quite well enough unless you have 2GB)

Easily the best-looking game of 2005 was Call of Duty 2; I was breathless when I saw the Stalingrad maps. F.E.A.R. also looked good, though they lose points for calling their "AA/FPS-killer" option "soft shadows." Age of Empires III did well, but perhaps kind of dissapointed in the face of all that was expected out of it. Lastly, Civilization IV shows why unlike most other beaten-to-death franchises, everything Sid Meyer is different.

I would also give some kudos to Indigo Prophecy; I recently picked it up, and a lot of it is quite intruiging. However, a lot of the scenes are repetitive, and it's visual quality is on a par with Battlefield 2. (in other words, limited to the capabilities of the original Xbox) But there's something to be said for scenes to cover-up a bloody murder.

I'm not going to read this thread, but I'll summarize it anyway.

WTF PCGAMER SUCKS THOSE ARE THE WORST CHOICES EVER, TOTALLY WRONG

Whatever. I liked BF2. :p

<3.

Wow, 2005 had some pretty ****ty games.

My rig is finally capable of running F.E.A.R., and other than the sharp shadows, the game is amazing (and creepy as ****) :p

Quake 4 didn't do so well with the critics. *shrug*

GASP! But it was like Quake 2!

With good graphics!

Good Quake Graphics 2!

No it wasn't...at all.

What the hell are Silent Hunter and Indigo Prophecy?

Not too off, but I'd like to consdier that my post had a bit more intelligence than you'd expect out of the sort of people who post that way, or at the very least, actually could've caused damage.


Actually, that was one of my own sentiments. It's a shame that unlike most other years, there was a dearth of really good games, what with some titles, like Oblivion and Twilight Princess, being pushed into 2006.


No, it was the story of Quake 2 super-imposed on Doom3. If you compare screenshots, you really can't tell much of a difference, only that in Quake 4, like Quake 2, you can't see a blasted thing because it's so dark. I honestly think that John Carmacks' claimed work-around for "higher dynamic range" was to double the precision of light levels, subsequently reducing all said light values by 50%.


I can't say much about Silent Hunter, but Indigo Prophecy was actually pretty good; it billed itself as an "interactive movie," where gameplay mostly revolves around tedious mouse gestures and key combos, but does have a good number of highlights, such as trying to hide blood-soaked murder evidence from the police.

Oh, and the graphics weren't all that impressive, given that they never bothered to create more than the Xbox was capable of, leaving PC users the short shrift.

It definitely wasn't completely as fun as Quake 2, but the gameplay was more like it than any other game I've played recently. Sure, it wasn't quite as fast or fun, but I had a great time.

And I'm not getting into a debate about whether or not the graphics were good.

Not enough intelligence to realize that people always get outraged about game magazines' yearly awards and nobody else cares. :p

I don't like BF2 because I can play as different types of soldiers, or because it runs well, or because it looks nice. I play it because it's really friggin FUN!

Anyway, stuff n' things.

Nobody mentioned RE4... that came out last year right?

RE4 aint not no personal computer game?

It's not out on PC yet? I see.