Hence, that post is low rated. :P

I do like Lynch's movie, I just....well like you said, it's a beautiful grand mess. I really can't describe it any better.

@misteryo Your whole point is trying to say that the game isnt all that bad, possibly even enjoyable. It still doesnt justify calling this a classic.

We should turn this around and instead of pointing flaws try to define the qualities (if there are any) that would make it a classic. This goes for the other games as well.

That's sort of the point. It's subjective for each person even in light of objective details. You might never revisit a particular game and thus put it in one particular category, while others will revisit it again and again for years and put it in a different category. How is one of those right and the other wrong? This can include games with various flaws large and small. I mean, goodness knows that Fallout and Arcanum have their fair share of problems. Still great games, though.

Why does it seem that way? Because I don't agree?

I've played three of those four, plus sequels. Still own three of them on disk from buying them new way-back-when, and have all four in my gOg library. The reason I liked DA:O has nothing to do with playing those other games, though familiarity with the Infinity Engine made it easier to get into the mechanics of this later game. Maybe it felt bland to some, but I came away with a different perception of the game. And would possibly feel differently about the others you object to, as well, regardless of what others think of them. That's why we play them: to enjoy them (or not) for ourselves.

One could argue that BG was flawed enough that many players feel that to enjoy it nowadays all-but-requires folding it into the later BG2 engine. Personally, that's a better use of the later updated engine - BG2 bored the daylights out of me, though I've read posts from many who call it the superior game.

Anyway, not trying to make a big deal out of this, that gOg has used the term as a marketing tool... I don't really see this as a problem, especially when it's mostly a matter of opinion. The term is thrown around so much in so many arenas (music, movies, TV, cars, architecture, furniture, etc., etc.) that trying to stake a firm claim on its meaning is somewhat futile. I can understand a personal feeling that something doesn't warrant the term, but it doesn't really mean that other people should not feel differently and use it even though you feel its undeserved.

Your post fails to distinguish between what is well regarded by you or maybe the people you know or even some reviews on this website versus what is well regarded by the general public and the press (therefore earning classic status). You're really just presenting a list of unsupported assertions. Both metacritic and Steam have high marks for all 3 games you mention. You can find Dragon Age and Witcher 2 on pcgamers list of top 100rpgs of all time as well as other places. Besides (again) your inability to distinguish between your individual opinion and the wider public - one of the big innovations in Doom3 as I remember it was around lighting. Further, artistically the game was and still is a huge achievement in sound design. All of that team went on to work on blockbuster Hollywood movies after Doom3. Side note: Skyrim's first hour is terrible too - it really says nothing about the game overall if you decide not to expose yourself to more than a sliver of it.

As for the rest of your complaint, GoG allows you to make your own list so maybe try that. Or just be grateful they had a sale and gave away free and cheap games before the typical Nov./Dec events.

Also you could use some help learnng the definitions of words like objective vs subjective.

Probably the biggest facepalm of my life....

You also try way too hard to present your opinions as facts.

You ain't seen nothin' yet, you ain't been around.

Well, thanks for your opinion Bleep, but cry as you might, it's not an objective fact. I really enjoyed Dragon Age and Doom 3. Now I have to deal with the fact that I'm just not critical enough.

I think I'll get by. Somehow.

@HereForTheBeer I think you're missing the point. Actual classics all boast undeniable qualities, whether you enjoy them or not is up to you. Fallout, Arcanum, BG and PST all have these qualities. These games shine despite their flaws. Same couldnt be said of DAO.

It really seems like we arent arguing about the same thing here so I dont know what to reply. Your main argument is that enjoyment is subjective, but subjective enjoyment isnt what defines a classic.

@xSingh Your comment fails to demonstrate how DAO deserves being called a classic. It seems like people are unable to support their argument so they try to attack mine instead. Typical 'prove that you're right or you're wrong' comment here. Also a top 100 RPG list is bound to be a complete joke since there are so few good RPGs avail most of these lists get filled with games that either arent good or arent even RPGs.

As for Doom 3, you cant call a game a classic just because the devs made some tech improvements. That sound and lighting are nothing but gimmicks in a video game and pretty much everything else about the game sucks. Once again historically important =/= classic.

My complaint is more about GOG disrespecting its customers by promoting some of the worst games ever created as classics. I fear for our future as a society.

@Linko Its more like 'I enjoyed it years ago and now felt like replaying it, thus it is a classic' is not a fact, but an opinion. Let's remember this, as it seems to be fading away.

@idbeholdME Care to elaborate? I would say that its everyone else that is trying to dismiss objective flaws by calling them opinions. Everyone is trying to avoid delving into an objective and critical analysis in fear of being wrong. Its one of the main reason why games are getting worse, any form of criticism is an opinion.

@drewpants Its crazy how illiterate some native English speakers can be. I think you completely misread my post. DAO can be enjoyed, just like Mc Donalds can be enjoyed, but dont try to claim that DAO is some AAA Angus.

That's what bothered me, too. One might not like how Metacritic comes up with scores, but the site also links to each of the actual reviews that was used to generate the score. So these aren't just users like you and me, but sources that make a living off reviewing these things. Looking at DA:O, out of something like 67 reviews, all but one rated it 80% or higher, and most are right around 90%. That's a solid score based on the views of experienced critics.

----

The other games he mentions as being actual classics, they got good professional reviews and scores, too. And I certainly very much enjoyed Terraria. Whether any of these games will have the legs to make it to a recognized "classic" status is a matter that time will determine, though some of them do have around a decade behind them already. My personal feeling is that the design of DA:O will give it legs, at least in that the engine won't feel overly dated for a good long while. Terraria, too.

But one can look at some other old games that we have loved and now feel that time has not done them any favors. For example, I LOVE me some original Harpoon but the interface now is tough to swallow. Crusader is another game that suffers from time, as the controls were tough to use when released and just as tough today. Some people can get used to them and some can't. Just the way it is. That will make it difficult for many to lump it in with other true classics.

Or hey, MoO2 is usually considered the best of the Master of Orion series but I would personally place the original Master of Orion on a Classics list and leave off MoO2. The original had a certain charm and appeal for me while the follow-up felt more like working on a spreadsheet. Who is wrong? I like what I like, someone else likes what she likes.

Sorry you didn't like it. Sorry you hng out in an echo chamber. Most people I know loved it. So my opinion is more valid than yours. That's your logic, should work for me. This game was not great. I agree with your opinion on this one. The game was bad, and most people panned it because it wasn't a Doom game. It wasn't a bad game, just a bad Doom game. And here you completely lost me.In all, you seem upset because your opinion and others' opinions don't line up. Sorry you can't think outside your box. I've panned a lot of games, but I know when a game is quality, even if I don't like it. And I know when a game is shit, even if I do like it. You seem to not be able to put your own personal opinion aside when judging games.

Support was given. The games you mentioned (Witcher2 and DoA) have high metacritic scores, high steam scores, and are featured heavily on 'best of' lists.

It's you that hasn't supported what you've said with anything more than your feelings - which is fine - you're allowed to feel however you want. It just doesn't merit respect by the rest of us given your pathetic anger directed at GoG and everyone else that doesn't share those 'feelings.'

Again this is just your unsupported assertion. This is a feeling of yours based on nothing more than laziness.

Sorry both DoA and Witcher2 are well regarded by the public and press and I say that as someone who hasn't played either and isn't invested in how good they are to me personally. You obviously are.

It made more than tech improvements it was a completely different Doom.

That's your subjective opinion not the objective reality in which the game was received by most.

Actually historically important is a metric for why something is a classic. There are plenty of 'classics' that are not necessarily enjoyable by today's standards but are relevant and 'classic,' purely on the bases of an innovation or way something was treated by them for the first time whether that's a video game, movie, book etc.

Again you just conflate your idiosyncratic feelings about what should be considered classic with the wider acceptance of the norms the term is used under..

Given the way you've expressed your complaint (and therefore all the down votes) you should be able to extrapolate, you're not winning many allies in your grievance.

I think most of us are happy that the fear is limited to you. It would indeed be a scary thing for society if there were a mob of people that thought a list of games they didn't like was a threat to the future.

Yeah. Ultimately whichever review aggregator you use metacritic, steam, or something else they consistently show high scores for the titles mentioned (as do all the placements on best of lists) - so to make broad proclamations of how games were received based on nothing more than your personal feelings is childish nonsense.

@HereForTheBeer Just like subjective enjoyment, metacritic score cannot justify calling a game a classic. Even if 90% of the population enjoys McDonalds it doesnt mean they serve quality. Also have you ever wondered how exactly they make a living with their reviews? Certainly not by being honest and objective.

The games I mention being classics all boast unique qualities. Terraria is pretty much the pinnacle of its own genre and pixel art doesnt age so it definitely is a classic. Can you say that DAO stands out from other games of its genre?

@paladin "Sorry you hng out in an echo chamber. Most people I know loved it." That was sarcasm, right?
"And here you completely lost me." Google your way to enlightenment then come back.
"In all, you seem upset because your opinion and others' opinions don't line up" Its not 'others opinions' but more like GOG's marketing approach.

"Sorry you can't think outside your box."

What makes you think so? What is 'the box'? What is outside of that said box? As far as im concerned people who rely solely on review sites and metacritic scores are the ones thinking inside the box. Seems like you're throwing words around without being aware of their meaning.

"You seem to not be able to put your own personal opinion aside when judging games."

Implying that I was biased when judging these games and missed out on their objective qualities? How did my opinion affect anything? What was my opinion? How did I develop it? Are you implying that YOU are able to put aside your own opinion when judging games? Please do tell, what did you discover that I missed? What is good about the games I criticized that makes them worthy of being called classics?

@xsinghx Are you trying to be ignorant on purpose or something? A score is merely a number and it takes more than that to call a game a classic. A score is a proof of appreciation, not quality.

I have quite clearly supported what I claimed. I said DAO (and other listed games) didnt have any qualities or features to make it stand out from other games of its genre. No one has yet been able to disprove that.

"Again this is just your unsupported assertion. This is a feeling of yours based on nothing more than laziness."

It is quite supported actually. The number of RPGs released is too low to justify 100 entries, these are click bait articles. Its like making an article about the 500 best Super Nintendo games ever.

"It made more than tech improvements it was a completely different Doom."

This statement hardly supports your argument. Actually do you even have an argument? Seems like you just try to argue for the sake of arguing.

"That's your subjective opinion not the objective reality in which the game was received by most"

The logical fallacy is strong with this one. The game wasnt even well recieved by most. Seeing how you go as far as lying to argue makes me think you arent interested in a genuine debate.

"Actually historically important is a metric for why something is a classic."

But surely you can comprehend that it shouldnt be the main metric and that quality is the highest importance, especially in the context of a video game store that wants to offer a well curated catalogue.