Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

The Top 100 Games of the 21st Century 82

Ground Glass writes "Most top ten or top 100 lists are pure opinion, and thus a source of great debate as their objectivity is questioned by everyone with a personal favorite. Next Gen has chosen a different route — this is the top 100 games on PlayStation 2, Xbox, and Gamecube, calculated since the start of the decade by unit sales in America." As you'd expect, GTA, Halo, and Madden are in the top ten ... but did you know Smash Brothers Melee has sold 3.2 million units? Interesting stuff.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Top 100 Games of the 21st Century

Comments Filter:
  • No PC games? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WilliamSChips ( 793741 ) <full.infinity@NOSPam.gmail.com> on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:43PM (#15825638) Journal
    Screw 'em.
    • Re:No PC games? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DesireCampbell ( 923687 ) <desire.c@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:49PM (#15825698) Homepage
      This is why I don't do 'awards'. They never explain why one thing is better than another - and they always choose 'winners' that suck.

      And this isn't "The Top 100 Games of the 21st Century" it's "The 100 top-selling console games of the last 5 years".

      Lame - with a capital 'L'.
      • Re:No PC games? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:03PM (#15825814)
        And this isn't "The Top 100 Games of the 21st Century" it's "The 100 top-selling console games of the last 5 years".

        And?

        You people are saying this as if a) you're giving the rest of us some great revelation that we couldn't otherwise figure out ourselves, and b) it matters.

        So let me get this straight - you clicked the link actually expecting to find the definitive list - no further argument or debate necessary - of the top 100 games of the 21st century? I'm guessing that based on your literal interpretation of the wording, you also thought the list projected 94 years into the future? Wow, you must have been disappointed.

        Here's a hint: some things are just meant to be fun to read.
      • by SamSim ( 630795 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:06PM (#15826407) Homepage Journal
        I'm always wary of poorly-stated awards things like "best games ever". What does that even mean? What are we basing this on? How much we like them now? How well they were originally received? Sales? Impact? This is why I am an admirer of EGM's Greatest 200 Videogames Of Their Time [wikipedia.org]. A much better-stated question, to be sure.
      • Re:No PC games? (Score:3, Informative)

        by richdun ( 672214 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @03:41PM (#15827136)

        This is why I don't do 'awards'. They never explain why one thing is better than another

        Top is a relative term, and the 21st Century is the last five years...and when in doubt, RTFA.

        Here are some notes on how this list works.
        • Stats, ordering and research: thanks to game publishers, retail analysis sources and NPD data.
        • Games are ranked by units sold; then by revenue generated. This tends to favor games released earlier, rather than later, and games which have spent a long time at a lower price point have also done well, but we wanted to reward longevity and popularity across all audiences, not just hardcore.
        • In the event of a tie, games are then ranked by 'most recently released' and then by Gameranking average review scores. Special thanks to gameranking, just for being an exceptionally well produced resource.
        • Games are ranked according to the highest selling SKU only. Otherwise the list would be full of sports iterations and big brand spin-offs and sequels.
        • Other platform versions of that game, and 21st century precursors or sequels are included under the 'franchise sales' but do not affect overall placing.
        • This list is for the U.S market only.
        • This list only features games released since the introduction of PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube. It does not include handheld games or PC games which will be featured in a separate list.
        • Other Franchise Hits qualify if they use the same IP or character in broadly the same genre, and if they managed respectable sales of (roughly speaking) above 200,000 units.
        • Franchise sales includes sales of top selling spin-offs, sequels and predecessors as well as other console versions of the same game.
    • who don't include PC games, I mean.
    • by spyrochaete ( 707033 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:54PM (#15825733) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, it was my understanding that The Sims, with all its addons, was the top selling game of all time. I'm sure Myst and The 7th Guest and probably a sleeper hit like Bejewelled are all up there as well.
    • by WidescreenFreak ( 830043 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:55PM (#15825740) Homepage Journal
      I fully agree with you. The PC is no less a gaming "console" for a lot of people than are the "real" consoles. In fact, one could easily argue that the consoles are all trying to become PCs with media play and Internet capabilities. I won't be surprised if you can have an e-mail address specifically for the console of your choice in the near future. (After all, keyboards are supported on some consoles.)

      I would guess that games like Half-Life 2 and World of Warcraft would rank very highly in term of dollars produced, and last time I checked -- they're games. PC games deserve full recognition in this category as well. The fact that they're not included makes the article meaningless.

      And does it really make sense to offer a Top 100 of ANYTHING where we're only five years into the 21st centry?
      • by kthejoker ( 931838 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:26PM (#15826031)
        Yeah! WebTV, your time has come!
      • by BlackCobra43 ( 596714 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:28PM (#15826042)
        I don't doubt WoW has brought in more than the rest of the top 10 combined if you factor it in... come on, we're talking a BILLION DOLLARS every year just from the monthly fee.
      • First off, I'm a PC gamer and I couldn't agree more.

        Secondly, this sentence brought a question to mind:

        I would guess that games like Half-Life 2 and World of Warcraft would rank very highly in term of dollars produced

        If they did include PC games and they did it based purely on "unit" sales, wouldn't that unfairly underrepresent the importance of games like WOW where subscriptions are a huge portion of the revenue? Similarly, wouldn't it overrepresent them if it was based purely on revenue?

        A lot of people say that Solitare is the most successful game every made, based on number of copies shipped and number of people who have played. But it arguably has brought in zero revenue. How can you compare that on a chart vs. WOW?

        I'm curious what others think abou this.

        TW
        • Bundling a game with an operating system is a totally different thing. This list is based on sales. With respect to games, there's a direct 1:1 correlation. People bought the game for the game. People did not buy Windows for Solitaire.

          In fact, that makes the inclusion of PC games into this list even more critical. It shows that games like World of Warcraft could easily be the most popular games of all. Why? Because people keep paying the monthly subscription fees!! After all, if people suddenly don't play the game, why would they continue to pay subscription fees? Yes, I know, some people think "We'll I might get back into it." But then if the person doesn't get back into it and keeps paying, that's his fault, not Blizzard's.

          Subscription fees are definitely relevant because they show that a particular game is popular enough that people want to keep paying for it. That makes the inclusion of subscription-based gaming that much more important when it comes to lists like this.
        • by BobBalfe ( 943248 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:34PM (#15826631)
          I don't think it would over prepresent them because if you were not happy with the game then you would no longer subscribe. The monthly cost completely represents the popularity because the people are paying for gaming they enjoy. I would however agree that it is very hard to compare these games to games of the other pricing model but from a publishers point, revenue is revenue.
      • by ArmyOfFun ( 652320 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:15PM (#15826473)
        The fact that they're not included makes the article meaningless.
        ...to a PC only gamer. In defense of Next-Gen they did say they'd do more lists, one just for PCs and one for handhelds. The PC and handheld markets are vastly different sizes than the console market, it'd be misleading to directly compare unit sales of such different markets.

        And does it really make sense to offer a Top 100 of ANYTHING where we're only five years into the 21st centry?
        Absolutely. PS2, GC and Xbox were all released in or after the year 2000. So, this list is effectively telling you what the best selling console games were of the PS2-GC-XBOX era.

        Personally, I was surprised by a couple of the list's findings. One was how few XBox games were on there and the other was the complete dominance of the PS2.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:30PM (#15826594)
        I fully agree with you. The PC is no less a gaming "console" for a lot of people than are the "real" consoles. In fact, one could easily argue that the consoles are all trying to become PCs with media play and Internet capabilities.

        Not only that, but PCs are trying to become game consoles. TCPA, etc., will make it possible to implement the same types of security scheme that consoles use, preventing you from playing inside an "untrusted" environment or circumventing DRM restrictions.

      • by rob1980 ( 941751 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @05:15PM (#15827728)
        And does it really make sense to offer a Top 100 of ANYTHING where we're only five years into the 21st centry?

        Sure it does... there won't be any new games made after Jack Thompson shuts the video game industry down for good later this year!
      • by ClamIAm ( 926466 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @09:07PM (#15828860)
        The PC is no less a gaming "console" for a lot of people than are the "real" consoles.

        Yeah, I'd suggest never buying a Gamecube. Updating the graphics drivers is always a fight.

        Also:

        -viruses/malware
        -anti-virus/anti-malware
        -software bugs
        -hardware bugs
        -hardware performance
        -installing new drivers (a version that actually supports your game)
        -installing the game
        -waiting for the patch
        -finding and installing the patch
        -defragging your drive
        -tuning your system (killing tray programs, reading readme files, etc)

        Of course, some yahoo will claim "but you can do so much MORE with a PC!!1". That isn't the point here. The parent said "PCs are basically equal to consoles". In some respects, this is true. In all others, it's not.
    • Re:No PC games? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:13PM (#15825910)
      Here's a list of PC games along with the consoles:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_selling_ computer_and_video_games [wikipedia.org]
    • by Chibi-Hikaru ( 969350 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @08:06PM (#15828618) Homepage
      Please, they didn't include the handhelds either and I know damn well I play my DS the most, followed by games on my PC then my PS2.
    • by Petrushka ( 815171 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @09:06PM (#15828852)

      Considering that PC games are wildly different from console games, I don't really mind. As a PC gamer, I took a look through the top 30 titles and was intrigued to see that

      1. I recognised remarkably few of the titles (barring obvious things like "EA $RANDOM_SPORT 200x"), and
      2. most of them are games that I would not be remotely interested in.

      You get the same kind of thing if you go and compare the top-ranked games on the various platforms over at Metacritic.com [metacritic.com] or similar. Are Halo 1 and 2 really the best and third-best games of all time on the XBox? Well, I guess that's why I'm not interested in owning an XBox. There's really only one or two titles I'm missing out on that I have an interest in.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @09:20PM (#15828900)
      It's not just pc games that are missing, they also omited portables. How can you make a list of the "Top 100 games of the 21st century" without including the top selling gaming system of the 21st century? I'm guessing that if DS game sales had been counted, quite a few DS games would have made it onto the list.
  • Popularity = Money? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ExE122 ( 954104 ) * on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:43PM (#15825650) Homepage Journal
    I know its a bit of a pointless argument since these lists are really just for entertainment. But I think there's a subtle detail missing:

    Software piracy!
    ::dramatic music::

    MPAA and the like are quick to quote numbers on how much revenue is lost due to illegal downloads and file sharing. Yet where are these statistics when it comes to determining a game's popularity and longevity? Industries are so quick to point these statistics out only when they cater to their own demands.

    I know all my illegal downloads of "Spongebob Squarepants: Battle for Bikini Bottom" alone would've easily bumped it up from #67 to #66!

    And yes, I know the stats on lost revenue are stupid since downloading a game illegally doesn't mean you would've paid for it.

    I think the point I'm trying to make is that while they did try to take many factors into account, ultimately they're defining "popularity" as "sales" and I don't think that's entirely accurate.

    ---
    "A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong
    • by andrewman327 ( 635952 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:48PM (#15825689) Homepage Journal
      Regardless of accuracy, there is value in this ranking. Although the specific rankings do not mean very much, this gives a general impression of what the most popular games really are. I agree that there are many confounding variables (ex: can a game be played multiplayer with only one player?), but take this as a whole.
    • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:56PM (#15826311)
      They chose a limited stat: sales, for a limited market: consoles. As noted in there if you included the PC version, The Sims beats out all others, though that's probalby not true if you count MMORPGs since World of Warcraft has ANNUAL revenues of over $1 billion. This list isn't inteded to be a definitive list of the best games, in fact I'd say it's a great example of the saying "popular sure don't mean right" but it's not worthless. It's just saying that, by sales, these are the most popular console games of all time.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:39PM (#15826677)
      Development houses don't get money on games that are sold as used either. So there's nothing stopping them from adding in legal sales of used games as lost revenue to the developers.

      And how can they differentiate lost sales to developers if the difference is between someone downloading a game or buying that exact same game at a retailer used. Both prospects technically fall under the umbrella of "lost" sales.
    • by Pusene ( 744969 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @04:37PM (#15827483) Homepage
      The list is already out! Piratebay already has a "Top 100 PC Games" liste.
    • by ClamIAm ( 926466 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @09:15PM (#15828886)
      I have never seen any unbiased research on how much piracy actually affects sales of software and computer/video games. Obviously, it does. The real question is how much.

      As for this article, it only looks at console games. We need to keep in mind that it is much easier to download crack.rar from a website than to mod your PS2/Xbox/Cube to play copied games. This means that only the more determined will attempt it, further lowering the number.
  • Please..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acvh ( 120205 ) <geek@mscigaIIIrs.com minus threevowels> on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:45PM (#15825661) Homepage
    "This list's order and content is copyright to Next Generation and must not be reproduced or copied without the permission of the publisher."

    OK, content I can go along with. But trying to claim copyright on the rankings themselves? That's kind of like the NFL claiming copyright on the standings and prohibiting newspapers from publishing them without a license fee.

    Come on kids. You're writing about VIDEO GAMES. Not exactly "War and Peace". Be happy that Slashdot picked up your link, is sending all kinds of people to visit, and get off the IP bandwagon.

    • Re:Please..... (Score:5, Informative)

      by vodkamattvt ( 819309 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:01PM (#15825796) Homepage
      If Im not mistaken .. the MLB has copyrighted their statistics and the NBA has claimed copyright over the actual events in a game and challenged commentators in court.

      Its stupid, yes, but as a business you look for any revenue you can. Better safe than sorry, copyright everthing under the sun, and then sue everyone who looks at you funny. Who knows? If your lawyer is scary enough you might get some free $$$ in a settlement.

      Dont you love the litigious society we live in? Myself, it makes me want to puke.

    • by VWJedi ( 972839 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:04PM (#15825826)

      IANAL, but as far as I know, you cannot copyright facts or ideas, only the expression of those ideas. Although the notice claims that the order of the items in the list are copyrighted, I doubt a court would agree.

      The factual information regarding sports results, rankings, etc. is not copyright-able, but the expression of those facts is. You should be able to copy the data (but not any commentary / opinions) by re-writing/re-typing it, but if you photocopied the newspaper page, then you could be in trouble.

    • by Snover ( 469130 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:12PM (#15825904) Homepage
      Ironically (or not), Major League Baseball is trying to do just that [startribune.com]...
  • 11 pages? (Score:5, Informative)

    by linvir ( 970218 ) * on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:46PM (#15825664)

    11 pages for one article? It starts at 100, and gives you no option to click through to the top ten. next-gen.biz are pageview whores, and deserve their ad-free printable version link [next-gen.biz] to be published.

  • by KIFulgore ( 972701 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:46PM (#15825668)
    Anyone paste the results here?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:46PM (#15825673)

  • by OfF3nSiV3 ( 805526 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:46PM (#15825675) Homepage
    page has been slashdotted
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:47PM (#15825682)
    Next Generation
    This site is temporarily unavailable.
    Please notify the System Administrator

    Where can I find more brilliant prose such as this?
  • by 0racle ( 667029 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @12:50PM (#15825711)
    Top selling 100 games of the past 4 and a half years. How very significant.
    • by krell ( 896769 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:24PM (#15826010) Journal
      The century's been on for 5 and a half years, really. Not that this makes it much more significant.
    • by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:09PM (#15826433)
      Top selling 100 games of the past 4 and a half years. How very significant.

      Actually, it is. Pac-Man does not compare very well to Grand Theft Auto, not only because of the type of game, but the venue of playing it. Modern games tend to be 3D and you tend to buy the game. You usually don't rack up "points" against a computer that will then take away "lives", but aim to "finish" the game or gain the most "frags" against a human opponent.

      Sure, there are a lot of similarities too, but I think there are more differences. Add in the complexity of getting unit sales for earlier years and inflation's affect on dollar sales and the year 2000 isn't a half bad place to sum up modern gaming.

      TW
  • by duerra ( 684053 ) * on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:06PM (#15825846) Homepage
    Unlike box office numbers from movies and record sales in music, the US gaming industry does not publically (as far as I am aware) release their sales stats. So where do these numbers come from? I know Japan publically releases these stats, and there is a company in the US that you can buy reports from that give these numbers (how accurately, I don't know), but I have yet to see individual title numbers be made fully public. Does anybody know why the game industry in the US has not elected to release these stats like every other industry?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:07PM (#15825857)
    The only reason Halo sold more than any other fps was it was bundled on a system that even most of its owners claimed had nothing else worth playing.

    I remember a discussion some hardcore pc gamers were having with a diehard Xbox Halo fan. The Xbox was hopelessly trying to convince the real fps players about Halo. After all of his arguments got shot down about 'Halo innovations' with large numbers of previous fps games on pc having long had such features.

    And then the the pc guys stuck the knife in and twisted. They had the Halo guy imagine his reaction to the game if it didn't have that stupid green shiny metal effect for the main character... It was almost sad to see the Halo guy be humiliated right there when it became clear that the only reason he had for claiming Halo was anything worth mentioning was 'cuz it's shiny'.

    It is a scary thought to imagine what a dreadfully average game Halo is if you take away the stupid green metal effect.

    Bungie is fucked by coming out late next year with another Halo. The 360 market is going to be flooded with 'solider in shiny bumpy armor running around shooting things' games by next year.

    • by GundamFan ( 848341 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:30PM (#15826065)
      You underestimate the power of Halo to attract fans (even die hard old school FPS fans) and inspire those fans to rabid loyalty. Halo is not just an FPS it is the FPS to it's fan base, even if it is just OK by industry standards.
    • by twistedsymphony ( 956982 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:38PM (#15826668) Homepage
      Halo wan't bundled with the Xbox 1 ouside of a very limited edition run of green consoles sold no where near the Xbox launch. You seem to assume that Halo sold well because there was nothing else on the Xbox to play. If anything it was Halo that got people to go out and buy an Xbox. Exactly how did the game reach #2 on the list if the Xbox only had Halo worth playing and the only reason people bought Halo was because there was nothing else to play? What do you think got people to buy an Xbox in the first place? It certainly wasn't MS's reputation.

      You seem to be forgetting that a number of early Xbox 1 titles are on that top 100 list, games like Project Gotham Racing, Dead or Alive 3, Splinter Cell, and a few others (some of the best games in their respective franchises IMO). I personally can't stand the Halo series (or FPSs in general) yet I still amazingly found quite a few good games to play around the Xbox 1 launch. To this day I don't have a copy of Halo, yet I have about 30 titles for the Xbox console.
      • by Krater76 ( 810350 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @08:53PM (#15828797) Journal
        I think you give Halo itself too much credit. The single player campaign had a story that was mediocre at best and the level design was boring as hell.

        What made Halo what it is and as a result sell many XBoxes (XBoxen?) was the multiplayer over XBox Live. It was the first console that had LAN/Internet networking integrated and a nice simple interface. Without it the game might have been just another FPS that faded away. Without XBox Live we wouldn't have Halo fanboys.

        MS could've put out Halo without the single-player game and it would've still sold tons which really doesn't say much about the game itself. Honestly, how many people bought Halo 2 for the story?

        Halo is like tittie magazines, you don't buy it for the story.
        • by twistedsymphony ( 956982 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @07:09AM (#15830616) Homepage
          That's great, except for one thing, Halo didn't support Xbox Live. The only Multiplayer supported by Halo was either split screen or system link over a LAN. No bots either, so if you split your screen to play with a friend, it was just the two of you and a big empty level. XBL didn't show up until the console had been out for a year or so, Halo being a launch title couldn't have supported it simply because it didn't exist yet.

          Halo 2 supported Xbox Live Multiplayer, but that came well after Halo 1 had cemented itself as a system seller.
  • by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <[gro.daetsriek] [ta] [todhsals]> on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:08PM (#15825861) Homepage
    This article is only talking about the last 5 years. They're skipping the first, oh, 40 or so years of video games.

    Waste of time and bandwidth. My bets are lots of games from the 80's and 90's would blow most of these titles away in sales.
  • by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:13PM (#15825913) Homepage Journal

    The 21st century is less than a decade old and already some pretentious hacks are lame enough to declare the top 100 games. Anything to suck in readership...

  • by ShadowSonic ( 910417 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:16PM (#15825950)
    ...but I was under the impression that there were still 94 1/2 years left in the 21st century.
  • by spyrochaete ( 707033 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:28PM (#15826040) Homepage Journal
    Mirrordot cache: http://www.mirrordot.com/find-mirror.html?http://n ext-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view &id=3537&Itemid=2 [mirrordot.com]

    This link works sometimes but not others. I was going to paste the article but there's about 3 sentences X 100 listings so it's not really feasible.
  • by rollomatto ( 860924 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @01:57PM (#15826322)
    Did Ninja Gaiden really sell less than 50 Cent?
    I mean black came out and thats probably not included but did the original really not sell out enough before that to put it past that crap of a game?
    (Rounded numbers are always suspicious anyways)
  • by AcidLacedPenguiN ( 835552 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:07PM (#15826413)
    the 100 best are spread out onto 200 click through ad revenue money pits?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:35PM (#15826642)

    calculated since the start of the decade by unit sales in America

    I saw that headline and news blurb and got excited until I came across that line. After that, my interest really died off and I realized its another one of those lists where they just get the top selling games and call that their best games. Just because Madden sells over a million copies each year does notmake it one of the best games ever. Sorry, I just thought it was going to be a REAL Top 100 list and something that was actually planned out.

    Scrolling through 11 pages of that website is a real hassle. Its a good thing I have Adblock ready to go on my Firefox

  • by Bullfish ( 858648 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @04:59PM (#15827643)
    For the magazine that is. It has people talking about what appeared even if the content is a load of tripe. Summer is traditionally a low point for game releases and they need content. Stuff like this always gains an audience. Does it make them relevant as a conduit for game info? Well, you decide.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @07:28PM (#15828451)
    "Top 100 Games of the 21st Century?" We're only 5.5% of the way through the century, and there's already a top 100 list? Well I guess "Top 100 Games of the past Six Years" sounds lame.
  • by MatrixManiac ( 448609 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @08:16PM (#15828650)
    Wow look, another steaming pile of shite... !!

    (And I feel I am being nice....)

  • by mmortal03 ( 607958 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @10:34PM (#15829142)
    Ground Glass, are you a fanboy? The only way you wouldn't know that Smash Bros sold so many copies is if you are a Microsoft or Sony fanboy, or are just not that knowledgeable about video games. Most gamers who aren't fanboys know that Smash Bros did exceptionally well. I can see it now: "But Nintendo is too kiddie! They COULDN'T have sold that many games!!!!11!!"
  • by __aamkky7574 ( 654183 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @06:34AM (#15830523)
    1. USA is not the world.
    2. The 21st century is only 6 years old.
    3. PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube are not the only ways to play computer games. Where the hell is the PC?
    4. I don't think you can copyright the _order_ of a list.

    Seriously, is that site done by 10 year olds?

    P.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly

Working...