The Best PC Games (You Should Be Playing)

[Julio Franco]

It's that time of year again when we take another look at the best PC games you should be playing. Some exciting new titles are arriving over the coming weeks and months, including Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus, Far Cry 5, and Metro: Exodus, but there are plenty of excellent options to keep you going until they arrive.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/bestof/pc-games/

 

[Versutus]

Fortnite Battle Royale? I think it is at least a honorable mention.

 

[Xasrai]

Correction for the article : DotA 2 is free to play. Lol is more pay 2 win, due to the fact that they sell heroes as unlockables. For people who do not buy heroes, there is only a small pool of heroes available to play in each match meaning that those who don't buy heroes will generally be at a disadvantage compared to those who do.

Edit: for this reason alone, I consider DotA 2 to be a superior game.

 

[enemys]

Correction for the article : DotA 2 is free to play. Lol is more pay 2 win, due to the fact that they sell heroes as unlockables. For people who do not buy heroes, there is only a small pool of heroes available to play in each match meaning that those who don't buy heroes will generally be at a disadvantage compared to those who do.

Edit: for this reason alone, I consider DotA 2 to be a superior game.

But heroes can be unlocked with free, in-game currency earned with each match, which you can amass quickly if you play regularly. By the time you get to play ranked games (if that's your thing - I never bothered with these), you'll have quite a lot of them - and most people don't need every single one, especially if they specialize in a single playrole.

 

[Julio Franco]

Correction for the article : DotA 2 is free to play. Lol is more pay 2 win, due to the fact that they sell heroes as unlockables.

What @enemys said. LoL is most definitely not pay to win.

 

[Arris]

Correction for the article : DotA 2 is free to play. Lol is more pay 2 win, due to the fact that they sell heroes as unlockables.

What @enemys said. LoL is most definitely not pay to win.

Pfft, play Heroes of the Storm instead

 

[Nobina]

B...but why my game isn't there?

 

[Forebode]

Please include more of an introduction that explains the qualifications of a "best game". Please make these top 10 (or in this case 11; 1 more makes it less click baity) more of a review of your experiences rather than a few short paragraphs with fact filler. If they're the best, my argument is that we already know the filler facts.

At first I thought it was all games released in 2017, obviously not the case. Witcher 3 is reference and the list is missing an rpg in that play style... There's no racing game listed and 2 were recently released. No card games like hearthstone/gwent/magic. Seems as though you'd include several categories if it's not specifically looking at a specific time span.

Just seems like it's more of a personal list with a vacant touch. These type of articles result in many posts about this mocking post:

B...but why my game isn't there?

Instead of it being a full fledged article where people could read and understand where you're coming from.

 

[BSim500]

"There are some caveats... early access... optimization is still needed... stream sniping controversy... bugs... in-game ads... toxicity issues... muting voice chat is advised"

As someone who's never played PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, reading just that makes it sound like an over-hyped train-wreck to be honest...

 

[bexwhitt]

That's like saying here's a drink you will like without knowing the person you are talking about.

 

[Satish Mallya]

That's like saying here's a drink you will like without knowing the person you are talking about.

And that's why there's a full spectrum represented here.

 

[MonsterZero]

PUBG just sucks, there are some many other FPS games out there without the whiney streamers.

 

[That Other Guy]

That's like saying here's a drink you will like without knowing the person you are talking about.

But its TS Koolaid, you are guaranteed to like it!

 

[Strawman]

But heroes can be unlocked with free, in-game currency earned with each match, which you can amass quickly if you play regularly. By the time you get to play ranked games (if that's your thing - I never bothered with these), you'll have quite a lot of them - and most people don't need every single one, especially if they specialize in a single playrole.

Have you actually played the game? I had been playing it regularly for 5 years and I still didn't even have half the champions. You definitely can't amass in game currency fast. Especially considering that all new heroes cost 7800, you need 53 games that last 55 minute each to get enough IP for a single one! That's not even considering buying runes. Also, rune pages can't be bought with in game currency, you need to pay for them!

With a new account by the time you get to level 30 (which is the max level) I'm not even sure you'll have enough IP to get the runes, let alone any champion. Then it's the fact that you need at least 2 rune pages for each champion, and you can only buy rune pages with real money.

TL : DR, it's definitely pay to play.

 

[Abraka]

You forgot "World of Tanks" which is a really fun multiplayer game. "Armored Warfare" is fun too, but not enough human players.

 

[HimymCZe]

Is is "the best" or just "the most common", cause I see multiple cases of THE LOWEST quality games with the HIGHEST amount of media coverage. Just like US election.

 

[EClyde]

"...mental health...from clumsy to outright embarrassing," How and why?

I only do SP and am playing GTA5 from the list. The other games unless they are $2 don't interest me

 

[Julio Franco]

@HimymCZe and some others who hinted at the question. This is TechSpot's list of PC games you should try. We update this article 3-4 times per year, based on our staff's impressions and games we are playing and like the most.

All "best" lists are subjective by nature, and with ours we are not even trying to make it an all-encompassing definitive list for everybody, but definitely one that is aimed at our readers and regular audience.

As for LoL, @Strawman after years of having different friends tell me I should play League of Legends (and not wanting to after getting addicted with two Blizzard titles in the past), I've been playing it somewhat regularly for the past two months. Some of your figures are not correct, you don't need to spend money to play or level up at all, you don't need every one of 130+ champions either, you start with one or two (I have 4 or 5 and only play 2), and so far I've been able to buy runes and other stats without spending any real money. I understand DOTA is different, but at least in my experience LoL can be played indefinitely without spending a dime.

 

[enemys]

Have you actually played the game? I had been playing it regularly for 5 years and I still didn't even have half the champions. You definitely can't amass in game currency fast. Especially considering that all new heroes cost 7800, you need 53 games that last 55 minute each to get enough IP for a single one! That's not even considering buying runes. Also, rune pages can't be bought with in game currency, you need to pay for them!

With a new account by the time you get to level 30 (which is the max level) I'm not even sure you'll have enough IP to get the runes, let alone any champion. Then it's the fact that you need at least 2 rune pages for each champion, and you can only buy rune pages with real money.

TL : DR, it's definitely pay to play.

Yeah, I've spent like a year or two playing it. I've never needed to pay a single dime for a champ nor for any runes and still got by easily, with like 20 or 30 different champions unlocked - more than I could possibly master by playing casually for like 10 to 15 hours every week. If you really can't stand living without 130 heroes, then you're right, LoL is pay to play, but judging by the player base, you definitely are in a very small minority of LoL players.

 

[wONKEyeYEs]

Well, since you didn't say new,
Portal.
Esp co-op.

 

[Strawman]

Yeah, I've spent like a year or two playing it. I've never needed to pay a single dime for a champ nor for any runes and still got by easily, with like 20 or 30 different champions unlocked - more than I could possibly master by playing casually for like 10 to 15 hours every week. If you really can't stand living without 130 heroes, then you're right, LoL is pay to play, but judging by the player base, you definitely are in a very small minority of LoL players.

It's not a matter of needing to pay. No "free 2 play" game requires you to pay in order to play. But if you don't you are at a severe disadvantage. That's a fact. If I have 2 rune pages full of runes for each hero (which you can't get without paying) and more heroes than you do, I have the advantage.

I don't know, maybe you didn't play competitively enough so it wasn't an issue for you, but when you get to diamond and upwards having all the heroes and plenty of runepages is pretty much a prerequisite to succeed.

 

[toooooot]

I disagree. I should be playing what I like playing: FIFA18, Ark Survival, Garry's Mod, AC4.

 

[enemys]

It's not a matter of needing to pay. No "free 2 play" game requires you to pay in order to play. But if you don't you are at a severe disadvantage. That's a fact. If I have 2 rune pages full of runes for each hero (which you can't get without paying) and more heroes than you do, I have the advantage.

I don't know, maybe you didn't play competitively enough so it wasn't an issue for you, but when you get to diamond and upwards having all the heroes and plenty of runepages is pretty much a prerequisite to succeed.

Yeah, you're right. But for one, being a pro in any field is costly. It's no longer just playing, it's serious competing - casual fun is no longer the only part of the equation. What's more, if you play on such a high level, expensive gaming gear also gives you an advantage (lower input lag, better framerate, greater precision), and in-game purchases are just a (financially) small part of it.

I can see your point, but, as you pointed out, I never got to that level of competing, so I wouldn't give it much importance. Having to pay for a pro-level advantage sucks, but it's not a thing for most of players - the best are always few.

 

[Adhmuz]

"What can you say about PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds that hasn’t already been said? There’s a good reason why it passed the 10 million units sold milestone in September and now holds the Steam record for most concurrent users (over 2 million!): it’s simply an incredibly exciting, fun game to play."

And that's how you say nothing at all, mention no one fact that makes the game fun, but over 10 million people have bought it... Why?

"There are a number of ways to survive the onslaught of 99 other players, but however you choose to approach this battle royale event, you’ll almost certainly have a great time. And like so many things in life, PUBG is made all the better when friends join in."

Again, not saying much towards why the game is good, so you play against 99 other players, okay, and you have to survive? So like hide under a rock?

"There are some caveats, even more so for a game still on early access: optimization is still needed (but it keeps improving), the stream sniping controversy, and the appearance of bugs have led to some negative scores, and the Chinese in-game ads resulted in a review bombing by disgruntled players. There’s also the toxicity issues, but that’s a given in most online games, sadly — muting voice chat is advised."

Nothing really positive to say about the game but easily find negatives... But it's a recommended game because over 10 million people have bought it? This logic is so flawed and shouldn't be a reason to buy anything. Especially when issue number one is the only reason anyone should require not to buy this game right now, although the streamer issue is a strong second reason not to buy this game in itself. Other than the highlight reels of the really broken stuff that happens in this game, or incredibly lucky shots from across the game world, I have yet to see anything in any of the videos of game play that would make me want to play this.

 

[wONKEyeYEs]

"What can you say about PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds that hasn’t already been said? There’s a good reason why it passed the 10 million units sold milestone in September and now holds the Steam record for most concurrent users (over 2 million!): it’s simply an incredibly exciting, fun game to play."

And that's how you say nothing at all, mention no one fact that makes the game fun, but over 10 million people have bought it... Why?

"There are a number of ways to survive the onslaught of 99 other players, but however you choose to approach this battle royale event, you’ll almost certainly have a great time. And like so many things in life, PUBG is made all the better when friends join in."

Again, not saying much towards why the game is good, so you play against 99 other players, okay, and you have to survive? So like hide under a rock?

"There are some caveats, even more so for a game still on early access: optimization is still needed (but it keeps improving), the stream sniping controversy, and the appearance of bugs have led to some negative scores, and the Chinese in-game ads resulted in a review bombing by disgruntled players. There’s also the toxicity issues, but that’s a given in most online games, sadly — muting voice chat is advised."

Nothing really positive to say about the game but easily find negatives... But it's a recommended game because over 10 million people have bought it? This logic is so flawed and shouldn't be a reason to buy anything. Especially when issue number one is the only reason anyone should require not to buy this game right now, although the streamer issue is a strong second reason not to buy this game in itself. Other than the highlight reels of the really broken stuff that happens in this game, or incredibly lucky shots from across the game world, I have yet to see anything in any of the videos of game play that would make me want to play this.

I think you might find this illuminating....