• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

You're missing out if you haven't played these games!

sharknice said:
Well you're dead wrong.

They made a new UT. It was in pre-alpha and barely got any attention so they cancelled it. Some people are keeping it alive and you can still play it, but there is barely any interest. https://www.ut4ever.org
The most budget spent on a new arena shooter was Quake Champions which failed hard. There are dozens of classic arena shooter indy games released every year and no one plays them. The higher budget the game the more money they lose.

The classic arena shooter genre peaked 20 years ago. Nobody wants to play new classic style deathmatch games anymore. If they want to play deathmatcch they just play the old games.
Click to expand...
I've heard UT4 was pretty good 🤔
 
Liffir said:
Yeah, I think that's the key distinction here: the list itself isn't objective, the metric is.

If the guy explicitly says he's ranking by sales and actually shows the numbers, then it's pretty hard to complain that the list isn't measuring something else. You can certainly argue that sales aren't the best way to define the "greatest" or "most important" PC games, but that's a different criticism.

I actually like the idea of using several metrics and seeing how radically the list changes:

sales = commercial success
unique players = reach
total playtime = engagement
revenue = financial impact
active playerbase = longevity
influence on the industry = historical significance
And then you could have a separate subjective ranking for things like quality, innovation and personal impact.

The free-to-play issue is a pretty big one, though. If we're talking about games that actually shaped PC gaming, leaving out things like LoL or Fortnite simply because they don't fit a sales-based list creates a pretty obvious blind spot.
By the way, speaking of massive commercial success and platforms that capture millions of active players worldwide with high-end digital engagement, checking out top-tier https://mostbetbd.asia/ projects or platforms gives you a pretty clear look at what drives massive player retention and industry trends today.



Personally, I'd rather see a video that clearly says "Here are the best-selling games" than one that pretends to have calculated the objectively greatest games in history. Once you start deciding that Counter-Strike is more significant than Skyrim because of its competitive influence, you're inevitably making a value judgment.
Click to expand...
One thing I forgot to add: the time period being measured matters quite a bit too. Comparing a game that has been around for 20+ years with something released recently can be pretty misleading, especially when looking at sales, revenue, or player counts.

It might make more sense to include the release date or normalize some of the numbers by years since release. Otherwise older games automatically get an advantage simply because they've had more time to accumulate players and sales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top