However if I am going somewhere new, often my biggest hurdle is street names. I find that even if I have a printed map, I'll often end up missing streets and having to backtrack.
But I have a TomTom now so that's no longer an issue.
Guinness World Records Editor-in-Chief, Craig Glenday, said of the selection process: "We knew this would be a complex task so we invited a crack team of industry experts to form a judging panel - and the result is a 'top 50' list of games ranked both on their importance and on how fun they are to play."
Okay, so now we're rating games by how 'fun' they are to play? I'm sorry but you cannot use 'fun' as an effective way of rating something. Fun is completely subjective and there is not a solid benchmark for something like this.
Now what they should've done, is taken all the reviews for all the different titles, as well as news articles and other things documenting public reaction and hype, as well as looking into how each game actually influenced the industry, such as developing cutting edge technology, or setting a standard that redefined how games were developed. Then you would have an accurate way of rating the games.
But, I'm sorry but rating them by how 'fun' they are is just stupid. There are some games that my girlfriend thinks are the most amazing things ever, yet I can't play for more than 5 minutes without getting bored.
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page