Talk:List of video games considered the best/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Please add a "Reference Count" column?
Hi all,
I've very much enjoyed this page over the past several years, and I appreciate your diligence in keeping it up. I have a request that would really help me as a reader.
Would you please list the reference count in a new column on the table?
By looking at the reference list (clicking [V] in the last column) for Tetris, I can see that it's featured on 41 lists, as follows:
[9][10][40][39][27][11][14][22][35][41][42][36][24][28][38][23][1][13][20][43][17][37][4][15][25][16][3][2][44][45][7][18][6][29][26][32][8][33][46][30][19]
By clicking [FS] for Company of Heroes, I can see it's featured in 6 lists, as follows:
[39][41][2][34][18][7]
Those count figures encode obviously important information. If we had to choose, say, five games as the best of all time, I can certainly see Tetris making that list over Company of Heroes, even if both are among the best games of all time more broadly.
And that information is on the page already; it's just hard to access. Adding it directly into the table (and making the table sortable by that column) would do a lot to help me as a reader, and would only entail making existing information more accessible. 2600:8807:5780:3510:FD8C:C558:D1F5:E37F (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Could it be automatically tracked and displayed? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- That would be awesome if it's possible. Who would know how to handle implementing it? 2600:8807:5780:3510:9D1:43CE:E535:F9BB (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- It should be possible but I lack the knowledge to do it myself. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mind putting in some work but don't know where I'd start. Is there a bulletin board for technical projects or a place to learn advanced uses of the editor? 2600:8807:5780:3510:5984:739:F94:15BB (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Counting existing references (so that readers don't have to do it manually) does not constitute original research. "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Counting the sources themselves is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
- Would you like to try to substantiate "bad idea"? Not giving a lot of information there. 2600:8807:5780:3510:5984:739:F94:15BB (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fine, I'll type it out again, although this is really more for Dissident93's benefit. On the off chance you are actually a new user, welcome! Unfortunately, somebody before you poisoned the well with a long stream of IP edits that made this article crap for a long while, and I thus have to assume I'm actually talking to them, since you're essentially proposing the same thing. It was discussed in detail in the talk page archives. See there. We don't want the list looking like this where Wikipedia is declaring Ocarina of Time the ultimate game because somebody dug up a lot of sources that liked it. It's just completely wrong in every regard - we can show a simple condition is met ("did enough sources honor this game") but attempting to use them for anything further is OR. The references are used to construct the result, but they are not the result. There's nothing holy or blessed about the current lists used by this article, nor should there be, but for something like what you describe to happen, we would need to be working from an objective and complete list, like "most Academy Awards won". There's many more lists of best games than what is listed here, which is fine for the purpose currently used, but not for some "ranking by score" that you want. SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. For the record, I truly am an infrequent contributor who may have a username but doesn't know how to find it.
- Fine, I'll type it out again, although this is really more for Dissident93's benefit. On the off chance you are actually a new user, welcome! Unfortunately, somebody before you poisoned the well with a long stream of IP edits that made this article crap for a long while, and I thus have to assume I'm actually talking to them, since you're essentially proposing the same thing. It was discussed in detail in the talk page archives. See there. We don't want the list looking like this where Wikipedia is declaring Ocarina of Time the ultimate game because somebody dug up a lot of sources that liked it. It's just completely wrong in every regard - we can show a simple condition is met ("did enough sources honor this game") but attempting to use them for anything further is OR. The references are used to construct the result, but they are not the result. There's nothing holy or blessed about the current lists used by this article, nor should there be, but for something like what you describe to happen, we would need to be working from an objective and complete list, like "most Academy Awards won". There's many more lists of best games than what is listed here, which is fine for the purpose currently used, but not for some "ranking by score" that you want. SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Would you like to try to substantiate "bad idea"? Not giving a lot of information there. 2600:8807:5780:3510:5984:739:F94:15BB (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I remember the versions of this page like the old version you linked to. I found the counts extremely helpful, even if it sounds like behind the scenes the selection criteria weren't well-defined or well-enforced at the time. Relatedly: in terms of the concern you shared about people digging up lots of sources that like a game, that problem seems to be completely handled by the clear selection criteria this page is now using, reflected in the Talk threads above this one. So that doesn't seem like a relevant problem, even if it was previously.
- Because I found the counts so helpful, since the format was changed (maybe two years ago?) I've continued to check this page periodically to see if a count of sources might be reinstated. When I saw that the information's already available in the footnotes, I made the post starting this thread.
- To me, providing a reference count in no way alleges that the references themselves are holy and blessed: it simply makes useful information easier to access—"this page is currently summarizing 51 lists, and 41 of them (or 6 of them) list this game." If that information does encode a real difference in perceived "bestness" between Tetris and Company of Heroes—or even if, bizarrely, it doesn't—Wikipedia is not declaring any sort of ultimate winner in any sense at all; it's just allowing human beings to easily see the factual information of how many of its own 51 possible sources mention a given game.
- To be clear, I find that the count does encode a very clear meaning: it shows which among numerous seminal games are considered most seminal across a wide aggregation of carefully chosen sources. As those sources change, the counts will change, straightforwardly. The point I'm making is that simply allowing people to see that information without resorting to reference-counting hacks is not declaring an "ultimate game according to Wikipedia"—it's just surfacing already-there data that is so useful that people (like me) will otherwise go looking for it.
- I believe the most likely intent of "Routine calculations do not count as original research" is precisely to stop processes that surface useful information that is "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" from being miscategorized as OR.
- I'm sorry to hear the well has been poisoned here; I hope a fresh look is at least possible, because this change would help me so much as a reader that I'm learning how Talk pages work to advocate for it, and I'm really unconvinced that it transgresses OR, even if previous threads terminated there. 2600:8807:5780:3510:5984:739:F94:15BB (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- SnowFire, I thought the editor was asking to simply have a (hidden?) counter of the amount of references within the refgroup and not a count of how often a game was listed, although I guess the answer would be the same for both. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Gotta be honest here and say it is far from obvious to me why counting cites and giving the number of cites would be WP:OR, but counting cites and listing games that pass a certain number of cites is not WP:OR. Earlier this year I made it pretty clear that I consider the present inclusion criteria to be basically editor-invented so pretty obviously I consider both to be OR, but if the inclusion criteria are not OR then what is the objection to counting cites and giving this information to the reader? FOARP (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @FOARP: We clearly disagree / have different standards, but to explain my two cents as to the distinction... this list could theoretically be converted to referenced prose, e.g. a line in Mega Man 2#Reception that says something like "Many publications consider Mega Man 2 one of the best games ever made.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" (although in reality, more spelled out in calling out the specific articles / journalists in the real article). Including a referenced line of prose that said such is acceptable (and happens all the time - see the lede of that article). It would, on the other hand, be very weird and inappropriately self-referential to include a line in the article like "Wikipedia editors found 20 articles that considered Mega Man 2 one of the best games ever published." It would be misleading to write "20 articles consider Mega Man 2 one of the best games ever published" too; there surely are more than just those that Wikipedia editors haven't found, that will be written in the future, that are in Japanese or German or the like, etc. Translated to list form, that means we shouldn't explicitly call out the reference count as inappropriately self-referential, but the vanilla statements of "Many publications consider XYZ one of the best games" (equivalent to inclusion on this list at all) are still fine. SnowFire (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Gotta be honest here and say it is far from obvious to me why counting cites and giving the number of cites would be WP:OR, but counting cites and listing games that pass a certain number of cites is not WP:OR. Earlier this year I made it pretty clear that I consider the present inclusion criteria to be basically editor-invented so pretty obviously I consider both to be OR, but if the inclusion criteria are not OR then what is the objection to counting cites and giving this information to the reader? FOARP (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden (NES) added
After combing through the omnibus data again to see if anything was still missing from the main list, I actually found a game: Ninja Gaiden for the NES. It has now been added. Phediuk (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
New List
I recently discovered this 2019 list from Popular Mechanics: https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/gaming/g134/the-100-greatest-video-games-of-all-time/ I hope this counts as a list of best games/helps fill the list out
47.14.147.55 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's already in the article. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I realized that right after I posted about it on the Talk page. My apologies! 47.14.147.55 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021
 | This edit request to List of video games considered the best has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
83.89.63.110 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
mega man x
- See the FAQ above for why it's not included. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hardcore Gaming 101 "Bonus Edition", 2020
Hardcore Gaming 101 updated their "200 Best Video Games of All Time" list in 2020. More precisely, they added 18 additional games to the list, so, in the words of Kurt Kalata, "now it’s something like '218 Best Games of All Time'". The additions are as follows:
Hardcore Gaming 101, 2020
|
|---|
|
428: Shibuya Scramble Alien: Isolation Batman: Arkham City Celeste Crazy Taxi Donkey Kong ’94 Doom (2016) Dragon Quest Builders 2 Dragon’s Dogma The House in Fata Morgana Killer Instinct (2013) The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Life Is Strange Lode Runner Nex Machina Super Mario Odyssey Undertale Valkyrie Profile |
Once these additions are incorporated, Lode Runner will be added to the main list. Phediuk (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Oregon Trail date
Fairly minor note, but any objection to changing the Oregon Trail entry to reference The Oregon Trail (1985 video game) rather than the 1971 one? I'd be shocked if that wasn't a better and more accurate article/date to pick - the number of people who played that version & its descendants is much, much greater than the 1971 one. Can add a footnote to explain worst comes to worst. I tried to check a few of the lists but many seem to have "updated" to remove that one as far as yearly rotations, and I'll grant that two of the ones that were still up offered 1970s dates, but I suspect that was more from laziness. SnowFire (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Of the eight lists referenced, seven specifically refer to the original 1971 game, and only one refers to the 1985 game. Most of them use screenshots or cover art from the later game, but, to be fair, the original wasn't exactly great for illustration. It's possible that those seven lists are mistaking the two games, but that's not really for us to say. – Rhain ☔ 05:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Quick Observation
I’ve looked at the source material used to build this list, and many of them, six publishers if I remember correctly, have the game, Battlefield 1942. Could I have a second opinion here? (BlueBlurHog) 16:45 (UTC)
- Which six sources? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I checked the omnibus data; Battlefield 1942 is listed by Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Game Informer, 1001 Games, and Polygon, so 5. Phediuk (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I counted:
- Entertainment Weekly 2003
- IGN 2003, 2005, 2007, 2015, 2018
- Game Informer 2009
- 1001 Games to Play Before You Die
- Polygon 2017
- And, then I got Game Informer again as a separate list.
- You were right, my mistake. (BlueBlurHog) 14:54 2 Aug 2021 (UTC)
- I counted:
Importance
Just thought I'd like to hear the views of other editors who contribute to this list article. Do you believe that it is a sign of a video game's importance and perhaps influence within the video game industry as a whole if it meets the criteria for inclusion in this article, seeing as how it would have been vetted to be one of the best or greatest video game works by no less then 6 distinct sources? Haleth (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Haleth, being cited by multiple sources as among the best of all time in anything surely gives great weight towards notability. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Haleth: Having enough longevity to be considered one of the best by at least six different publications (and counting) years after its release is definitely no small thing. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
How to add more games
Everybody, it’s been asked by many, many people in the past, and answered by others constantly. So, to reduce the need to ask and answer, I’ll remind the newcomers of what they need to do. To all who are new to this page, and to all who are new to Wikipedia as a whole, the criteria on the top of the main article. Read it thoroughly, and you’ll find the instructions. BlueBlurHog (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Lists
The omnibus list data is located here; use the headers at the left to jump to the list(s) you want to check. Phediuk (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Source log doesn't match
Stuff, 2011 Log
|
|---|
|
1. Half-Life 2 2. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3. Super Mario Bros. 4. Doom (1993) 5. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City 6. Portal 7. Sonic the Hedgehog 8. Angry Birds 9. Tetris 10. Super Mario Kart 11. Goldeneye (1997) 12. Red Dead Redemption 13. Rock Band 3 14. Elite 15. Space Invaders 16. Outrun 17. Final Fantasy VII 18. LA Noire 19. Sensible World of Soccer 20. Quake 21. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec 22. Mass Effect 23. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 24. Pac-Man 25. Super Mario 64 26. Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe 27. Super Mario Galaxy 2 28. Pro Evolution Soccer 4 29. Wii Sports Resort 30. Tomb Raider (1996) 31. Halo: Combat Evolved 32. Lemmings 33. Fallout 3 34. Counter-Strike 35. LittleBigPlanet 2 36. SingStar 37. Street Fighter II 38. Sega Rally Championship 39. Mega Bomberman 40. Burnout 3: Takedown 41. World of Warcraft 42. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 43. Championship Manager 97/98 44. Monkey Island 2: LeChuck’s Revenge 45. God of War III 46. Simcity 47. Kinect Sports 48. Wipeout 49. Worms 50. Bioshock 51. Bubble Bobble 52. R-Type 53. Forza Motorsport 2 54. MotorStorm 55. Streets of Rage 2 56. Patapon 57. Star Wars: X-Wing 58. Deus Ex 59. Shenmue 60. Left 4 Dead 61. Wii Fit Plus 62. Jet Set Willy 63. Command & Conquer 64. Defender of the Crown 65. Diablo 66. Resident Evil 4 67. Medal of Honor: Allied Assault 68. Super Metroid 69. DJ Hero 2 70. The Sims 71. Stunt Car Racer 72. Virtua Tennis 73. Underwurlde 74. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty 75. Crazy Taxi 76. Road Rash II 77. Castlevania 78. Phantasy Star II 79. FIFA 11 80. Metal Slug 81. Knight Lore 82. Sid Meier's Pirates! (1987) 83. Double Dragon 84. NBA Jam 85. Grand Prix Legends 86. Alone in the Dark (1992) 87. TimeSplitters 2 88. Ico 89. Skate 90. Oddworld: Abe’s Oddysee 91. Micro Machines 92. California Games 93. Rainbow Islands 94. Virtua Fighter 2 95. Age of Empires 96. PGA Tour Golf 97. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves 98. Red Baron 3D 99. Dungeon Master 100. Civilization |
I looked through this list from the horse's mouth, and under the log, but this is what the horse's mouth has to whinny:
Stuff, 2011 Cited
|
|---|
Half-Life 2 Super Mario Galaxy 2 Ocarina of Time Super Mario Bros. Doom 1 RDR 1 Sonic 1 Tetris Super Mario Kart GoldenEye 007 Beatles Rock Band Space Invaders World of Warcraft Elite Flight Control (2009) (iPhone) Sensible World of Soccer Final Fantasy 6 GTA 3 Quake Gran Turismo 3
Angry Birds Turrican 2 Street Fighter 2 Mega Bomberman Sega Rally CoD: Modern Warfare 2 Football Manager Handheld 2010
Monkey Island 2 God of War 3 Wipeout SimCity Worms BioShock Bubble Bobble R-Type Forza Motorsport 2 MotorStorm Patapon Star Wars: X-wing Deus Ex Shenmue Left 4 Dead WII Fit Plus Jet Set Willy Command and Conquer Defender of the Crown Diablo 1
Resident Evil 4 Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Out Run Super Metroid Guitar Hero Metallica The Sims Stunt Car Racer Virtua Tennis Underwurlde MGS 2 Crazy Taxi Road Rash 2 Castlevania 1 Phantasy Star 2 FIFA 10 Metal Slug Knightlore Pirates! Double Dragon NBA Jam
Grand Prix Legends Alone in the Dark TimeSplitters 2 Ico Skate Oddworld: Abe’s Odyssee Micro Machines Ant Attack California Games Rainbow Islands Virtua Fighter 2 Rome: Total Warrior PGA Tour Golf Uncharted 2 Red Baron 3D Dr Kawashima’s Brain Training Dungeon Master Mercenary Dungeon Master Civilization |
Notice how in the original source, Dungeon Master is repeated, and that placements of certain games don't match (regardless if slots are missing)? Or do I have the wrong source? Because if you go directly to the 2011 issue of Stuff Magazine, as directed in the citation, you won't get what was logged. Also, a weird glitch happens. If you’re at #95 or beyond, and click “100-81” again, you’ll be taken to Jet Set Radio, which doesn’t start at 100. 15:23 10 April 2021 (BlueBlurHog)
New List?
https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2009/11/16/game-informer-s-top-100-games-of-all-time-circa-issue-100.aspx Should this list be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PS4Fanboy1232 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have GI's issue #100 from 2001 and can confirm that the top 100 list there is a reader poll, so no, it will not be added. For whatever reason, they left the original preamble out of this online version, even though they retained all of the original writeups. Phediuk (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.gamingbible.co.uk/features/games-the-greatest-video-games-of-all-time-20-1-20201202 Should this list be added? JYmasktape (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, not a reliable source. See also #GAMINGbible 2020. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Tekken 3
I was thinking that the PlayStation should be added as one of the platforms for Tekken 3, since both the arcade and console versions released within six days of each other, and the game itself sold around 8 million units on the PSX, which pivotal to getting the series to the status it has nowadays.
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Anonymouseditor2k19, the PS1 version released a year after the arcade version. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh.
That's embarrassing.
Sorry about that, forget anything I said.
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Anonymouseditor2k19, it's fine; honestly an easy mistake to make since they were both in March. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2021
| This edit request to List of video games considered the best has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think that Red Dead Redemption 2 should be added to this list as millions of people including me consider it to be one of the greatest video games ever made. Jfewme (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See the FAQ at the top of this talk page for inclusion criteria. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Question regarding Omnibus
Hello, I was looking over the omnibus data and had a question. For the entries saying "series collectively", are those ignored for this page or is the first game in the series taken? Thanks. --BenSPVE (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for asking. All "series" citations are ignored for this page. Phediuk (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
California Games
Hello,
I could be wrong in this, but I believe California Games should be on the list. One source calls it "Californian Games" but I can't seem to find a game by that name, so I assume it is California Games?
Hyper 1995, Next Generation 1996, GameSpot 2007, Stuff 2008, FHM 2010, and 1001 Games are the sources. Thanks. --BenSPVE (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Next Gen 1996 entry is for the whole Epyx "Games" series, so that leaves California Games at 5 sources. Thanks for pointing out that typo. Phediuk (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for that. Another question if you don't mind regarding something similar: do joint entries not count either? I also noticed Alone in the Dark has six sources but one of them is a joint entry. If so, was there a discussion on why not to count joint entries? Thanks once again. BenSPVE (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Correct, joint entries aren't currently counted either. Since there's very few joint entries, there has never been a discussion about them specifically, though really, they're the same thing as "series" entries, just with two games lumped together instead of 3 or more. Thanks for the question. Phediuk (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
How to add to the Notes list
This is probably just me being new, but could someone tell me how to add a section to the Notes section, in my case add IE with sources next to it? Thanks. Shikomu (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to add a note, put {{efn-ua|...}} and list all of the references that you want to add to the note after the vertical bar. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone keeping track of games that haven't been added yet?
There was a Google Sheets list that kept track of the games found in multiple lists, but haven't reached the six different entries that qualify games for this page. When I decided to check on it recently, apparently the Sheets list was deleted due to no one editing it for some time.
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot guarantee this is 100% accurate, but I made one recently: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qSGKMHMjTXaxdLha__VE29AalPHciQONEC8hx8v7S0g/edit?usp=sharing
- Feel free to look at it and if anyone finds anything wrong you can let me know. I'll try to keep it updated--should not be too hard as only a few lists are added per year it seems. --BenSPVE (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey BenSPVE, very impressive list!! One omission that deserves credit, Sword of Fargoal. Great early dungeon crawl. From Wikipedia's own page... Computer Gaming World in 1996 listed Sword of Fargoal as #147 on the "Top 150 Best Video Games of All Time" Thanks. AA Pilot16 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
New list?
Stumbled on this list from Florida Today, doesn't seem to be included yet. Is it eligible? https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2016/09/21/complete-list-50-greatest-video-games-ever/90809786/
- Hi, thanks for the suggestion, but the preamble says it's for console games only. Also, it says the list was made with reader input, which suggests it was only partially editor-chosen. Phediuk (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Why was the threshold raised from five listings to six?
Apparently the threshold was originally five listings only, but at some point it was raised to be six listings?
In short, what were the specific reasons for raising the threshold?
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- A consensus appears to have been established for the change in March 2019. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Another way of adding games
Before I begin, I should preface that I think that the six listings threshold works for the most part, and that it shouldn't be removed. That being said, looking over at the list compiled by BenSPVE, there are a still number of games that are cited as some of the best games of all time (some of which are even referred to as such on their own Wikipedia pages), but aren't listed due to falling just short of the threshold limit. These are mainly games that have only five listings or less, yet according to popular opinion, are games that would likely be expected to show up on lists like these. The specific games I have in mind are games like Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots and Perfect Dark, both of which have five listings each and are referred to as one of the greatest games of all time on their own articles. There even some games that only have four listings, and yet are considered to be some of the most influential and beloved games of all time, like Mother 3 and Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes. At the same time, however, there are some games with four or five listings that would not fit on this list, such as Heavenly Sword, which has been by and large forgotten by the gaming public at large.
So while I don't think the six listings threshold should be removed, I would like to suggest an addition to the process of adding games on here:
- If a game has six listings or more that meet the criteria already defined, they are automatically added to the list, no questions asked.
- However, games that have five or four listings (that meet the criteria already defined) can be put up for discussion by a user, who will present an argument explaining the merits of the game, its impact on the medium and/or a genre at large, and why it should be added to the list. If a specific number of users support the addition (ten users for games with five listings, thirteen for games with four) or are convinced by the case made for the specific game in question, then the game can be added to the list after debate. If the game does not receive the amount of support needed from other users, then the game cannot be put up for further discussion until:
- A game with four listings receives a fifth listing, at which the game can be put back up for debate.
- A game reaches the six listings required to be automatically added to the page.
I think that while the six listing threshold does work, I don't think it should be the only method of adding games onto the list, especially for games that the gaming public at large otherwise thinks highly of. If this list is meant to reflect the opinions of gaming journalists and the gaming public as accurately, then I think the process to adding games needs to be improved, especially when considering the impact of some games that aren't mentioned at all here, yet are generally considered to be some of the best outside of this page.
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure about this particular method but I do agree on the initial point, that there are many games that are unquestionably considered the best of all time that are not reflected on the list due to the strict "best game of all time list from reputable outlets only" criteria. Lists like that don't happen all the time and I get the feeling that as gaming history gets larger these lists will become even less common in favour of more specific lists. In order to keep the page relevant and accurate, we need to start looking into alternate inclusion methods. 2A00:23C6:8281:A501:CC68:5B67:25D9:5809 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've had my issues with this list as well, but I'm opposed to anything that gives more weight to editorial opinion than reliable sources. That said, there was a discussion where a few people raised the possibility of going down to a simple WP:3REFS standard, which would probably enlarge this list, but not beyond the limits of what is considered a good size for the article body. It would truly include most games that are considered the best. A link to the archived discussion is here: Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best/Archive_7#How_does_this_pass_WP:LISTCRIT? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I had a look over the previous discussion and the case for a WP:3REFS approach seems compelling. Of course in the linked discussion many other problems are brought up that are different discussions entirely, but strictly on the subject of the 6 cited sources, switching to a more widely used 3REFS approach would solve a lot of problems regarding notable games currently excluded. 2A00:23C6:8281:A501:6153:A53F:2CB4:26BD (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think "editor discussion" is a workable criterion. The theory behind the current form of the list is to reduce editor discretion as much as possible. Such discussion would be great for, say, a message board's list of best games, but doesn't work well for Wikipedia, which relies on external sources rather than internal ones.
- For 2A00's first comment, I do agree that in the long term, this criteria will need updating. All the "all time lists" include the inherent asterisk of "all time up to the point of publication", so it's not strictly true that all the lists are the same - earlier games will be favored compared to later games, because of less "competition" on all-time lists made around their time of publication compared to the present day. One way to fix this chronological imbalance is to allow more time-restricted lists, sure, but a simpler way is just to enforce a weaker requirement for more recent games - I've suggested this before. This would hopefully be more automatic and require less editor discretion - games after 2010 require 1 less source, etc. (And maybe after enough time has passed and new lists added, change this to 2016 for requiring one less source, etc.) No big deal now, but will definitely matter later - this article in 2030 will be affected even more by such distortions. SnowFire (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I personally think an option worth considering is more leniency towards genre lists from reputable outlets. I gather they have historically been excluded due to their limiting factor but I think it's worth considering whether they truly are that limiting at this point in time. If say, Mother 3 were to appear in a "top 10 RPGs of all-time list" from a reputable outlet alongside other games already represented here such as Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, the Elder Scrolls or whatever else already represented, does that not provide a solid reference for the claim that it is among those considered the best of all time? The RPG genre is a long and storied genre and for any game to be included on a list chronicling the best of the best of any particular major genre must by inference also be worthy of the best of all time. This is a very different scenario to a best of the year list which, by nature of the list's premise, has no inference to all-time great quality. Implementing this in a clear way could require shifting at least in part to a genre-segregated page as with the List of films considered the best, but it seems like a clear next step in opening the inclusion criteria up. As was mentioned earlier, as gaming history grows it will become much harder for even reputable outlets to categorize all-time lists without some form of segregation. There are just too many notable games. 2A00:23C6:8281:A501:6153:A53F:2CB4:26BD (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect that genre-specific lists would be among the last ways to "fix" this, as there would be an almost unsolvable problem with how to balance them. We'd need to include a list for "each" genre to avoid bias and that would be difficult. If you were really set on the idea, you could hypothetically make a new list strictly based on "best RPG" lists so that it'd be an apples-to-apples comparison in your draft space, but I wouldn't be in favor of integrating it into this list - that would be material for List of RPG video games considered the best. (I would argue that if we really wanted to loosen the restrictions on lists to use in this article, we'd start allowing things like Game Informer's Best Games of the 8th Generation to try to allow more recent entries a legit shot, i.e. time based more than genre based.) SnowFire (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Zork I or Zork?
Hey all, I was looking through the different sources for Zork on the list and I noticed that most of them either cite what we know as Zork I - The Great Underground Empire or use imagery from that game instead of the 1977 PDP version. Should we list Zork I from 1980 instead of Zork from 1977? Or does it not matter either way? 73.249.13.223 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- The sources pretty much all treat the two versions as interchangeable -- the 2019 Popular Mechanics list, for instance, lists the release year as 1980 but the original platform as the PDP-10. Most sources name the game as simply "Zork" rather than "Zork I", also, regardless of the year listed. As for the screenshots, pictures of the 1980 version are much easier to find than for the 1977 version, so that's probably why they all depict the 1980 version regardless of whether they specifically name it or not. I'd be fine with moving the entry to 1980, though I don't think it matters too much either way. Phediuk (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
GAMINGbible 2020
I propose GAMINGbible, 2020 for submission. This is the first page of 5 for the best 100 video games of all time as of 2020, presented by GAMINGbible: https://www.gamingbible.co.uk/features/games-the-greatest-video-games-of-all-time-100-81-20201130?c=1606757309701. Heads up, Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow is on 51. I’m not sure how that one will go. (BlueBlurHog) 11 Oct 2021, 21:03 (UTC)
- Opposed for the same reason given at WP:VG/RS in regards to GamingBible's reliability. The user
is awaremay not be aware that that discussion is against this, let's not waste time. -- ferret (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)- Excuse me, but I AM unaware of this “discussion”, and I’ve got plenty of time. What are you talking about? What’s wrong with what I’ve brought up? (BlueBlueHog) 11 Oct 2021, 23:42 (UTC)
2011 - Skyrim (Request)
Requesting that someone add Skyrim. It was a game which not only was extremely hype for that year (11//11//11 release date); it also exceeded beyond the hype and was an intensely phenomenal and record breaking game. To this day it is understood to be a game well worth its value and time. Please accept this humble request JasonMoore (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @JasonMoore: It's already on the list. I also suggest that you read the FAQ at the top of this page for a better understanding of the inclusion criteria. – Rhain ☔ 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Skyrim is also on 13 of the lists on the omnibus data (and probably more). Only 5 showings are required to make the cut. JasonMoore (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @JasonMoore: Six, not five. Skyrim is on 16. – Rhain ☔ 15:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Roger thank you JasonMoore (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Lowering the threshold
Initially, when suggesting a way of adding games to this list, I was of the opinion that the six listing threshold shouldn't be lowered, but after giving it some thought, I ended up changing my mind.
The suggestions that were made as alternative methods went nowhere, and as other people brought up, the six listing threshold becomes much more strict as time goes on, due to publications and journalists not wanting to make their own lists of greatest games ever, and instead choose to make more specific lists for certain genres or generations of games. Personally, I don't believe that taking those specific lists into account would help much, as that would just lead to bloat in the list proper.
The five listing threshold may have made the list somewhat longer, but removing it also caused a bunch of games widely considered the best by the general public and journalists to be removed. Some of it got added back over time, like Ninja Gaiden, but many games commonly considered to be some of the best and most influential, such as Alone In The Dark, Demon's Souls, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and Populus, are still excluded due to their inability to meet this criteria. And if anyone is worried about more questionable games showing up, it's worth reminding people that Destiny has already been added to the list, despite being divisive upon release and now being overshadowed by its sequel.
If this list were to more accurately reflect the general public and their opinions on which games are the greatest, then I think the threshold needs to be lowered. It would make the list longer, sure, but that was going to happen over time anyways, and the lists used as criteria for this article are getting less common. It's also worth mentioning that some games are always going to show up on these "greatest of all time lists" (think Final Fantasy VII, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Bros., Halo: Combat Evolved, Half-Life 2, etc.), which basically results less room on those lists for newer games anyways, even if some of those newer games are as acclaimed as the ones on this article so far.
In conclusion, I think the threshold needs to be lowered in order to more accurately reflect the opinions of the public on what games are considered to be the best.
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I completely missed the discussion that led the criteria to be raised from five to six lists. Lowering the criteria to five will not bloat the article since there's barely any prose. Neo-corelight (Talk) 02:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the proposal, but I'm going to vote no. I'd be more inclined to raise the threshold than lower it, personally. The list already has over 230 games on it, and a five-source threshold would add 60 more. Keep in mind that one of the older complaints about this list is that it was too inclusive; the relatively strict sourcing requirements are a way to head those objections off. There is no rush here. Entries can be added as new sources become available. I don't feel we should get into the mindset that certain games are obligated to be on the list and so we should lower the requirements to accommodate them. Every entry on the list is currently backed up by at least six RSes, a high standard for any WP article, and retreating from it will only weaken the strength of the sole claim on which the list rests (i.e., that [x] game is listed by multiple RSes among the best ever.) I do agree with your argument that adding genre/generation lists are a much worse option, though. Phediuk (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Phediuk—no game is obligated to be on the list, no matter how deserving you think it may be. I don't have a particular preference for the number of lists for inclusion—make it 10 if you want—but I certainly don't support lowering the threshold simply because the current one is too "strict". The point isn't to "accurately reflect the general public and their opinions", it's to report the content published by various reliable publications. – Rhain ☔ 04:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- What's come up a few times is that the current standard violates the WP:LISTCRIT policy. Linking to an older discussion here:
- WP:LISTCRIT says that "selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". There is no reliable source that establishes "5" or even "6" lists are what will establish a game as "best". I think we need to move away from these arbitrary numbers, which are WP:OR. I understand the need for a clear standard, but it shouldn't be the invention of a small consensus of editors. Other lists have been deleted entirely for this reason, and I believe the editorial-determined threshold puts this list at risk. Even the idea that a certain number of games is too inclusive or too exclusive is an editorial invention that isn't supported by reliable sources, and violates WP:OR. The frequent challenges to the facts in this article are a strike against it.
- The most relevant policy is always WP:VERIFIABILITY, and we should rely on the policy about WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Claims that are frequently challenged need a high quality and quantity of sources to support that claim, and I believe that applies to the frequently challenged claims about what should / shouldn't be considered one of "the best" games. Where WP:V says "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", we should take "multiple" to have the plain meaning of the word, which is 2 or 3. ("High-quality" should mean editorial driven lists and not singular authors, which this list currently does.) Shooterwalker (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your post. I'd like to respond to a few things here: most importantly, this page does not claim to be a list of the best games, or to be "establishing" a list of such. This is not a claim the page makes, period. The page claims, rather, that these games are listed by multiple RSes as among the best, a much narrower and easier-to-prove claim that is unambiguous, objective, and verifiable. Accordingly, this claim is supported by at least six multiple RSes for every single entry on the list. "Multiple RSes" is currently defined for the purposes of this page as six, a latitude allowed for in WP:GNG, which states simply, "no fixed number of sources [are] required .... but multiple sources are generally expected." WP policy deliberately does not define "multiple". WP:3REFS is a convention, but not a requirement. In short, this page is not about WP editors determining what is or is not the best game; that is not its purpose. Its purpose is solely to report what critics list as among the best. Phediuk (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No one has said that WP:3REFS is a requirement, but certainly, WP:6REFS isn't a real thing. Nor is WP:5REFS. Those standards have zero grounding in Wikipedia policy, and zero grounding in in reliable sources. The standard is entirely WP:OR. Until we fix that, this article will continue to receive criticism for WP:OR, and it may even one day be a subject at AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your reasoning in general, but be aware that WP:GNG and WP:3REFS are about article notability, not whether content within a given article or list is due weight. The relevant guideline here is WP:LISTCRITERIA, which is simply that we have a consensus for whatever criteria there is. -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your post. I'd like to respond to a few things here: most importantly, this page does not claim to be a list of the best games, or to be "establishing" a list of such. This is not a claim the page makes, period. The page claims, rather, that these games are listed by multiple RSes as among the best, a much narrower and easier-to-prove claim that is unambiguous, objective, and verifiable. Accordingly, this claim is supported by at least six multiple RSes for every single entry on the list. "Multiple RSes" is currently defined for the purposes of this page as six, a latitude allowed for in WP:GNG, which states simply, "no fixed number of sources [are] required .... but multiple sources are generally expected." WP policy deliberately does not define "multiple". WP:3REFS is a convention, but not a requirement. In short, this page is not about WP editors determining what is or is not the best game; that is not its purpose. Its purpose is solely to report what critics list as among the best. Phediuk (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have any particular argument here, as there's no real guideline or policy to argument. Any limit chosen is ultimately arbitrary to what consensus achieves. I am not particularly swayed that we should lower standards because games x, y and z deserve to be included, however. An alternative criteria has not yet been proposed, so no views on changing it completely to something else. -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks ferret; just to clarify, I only referred to WP:GNG to demonstrate that Wikipedia does not prescribe what "multiple sources" means. Given that the sole claim of this list is that multiple RSes list a given game among the best of all time, the meaning of "multiple sources" is the fulcrum of the discussion here, and we can determine what that meaning is. If you already understood it that way, my apologies, just want to make sure I'm as clear as possible. I also agree that lowering the standard for inclusion to accommodate games that "should" be on the list seems like the wrong way to go. Phediuk (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I've said before, I'd be in favor of lowering the threshold for "recent" games where what exactly counts as recent is somewhat flexible, due to the inherent structural issues newer games have with being represented under the rules as they stand now. I suspect if the threshold was lowered unconditionally everywhere though, this would spark renewed complaints about the page being over-inclusive, per Ferret. (Also, I'd only want to do this with the strong buy-in of Phediuk - the person doing the hard work of updating deserves some deference.) SnowFire (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to that suggested solution because it creates the opposite structural issue: that recent journalists are more likely to cover recent games, and there are very few lists of "best games" before 2000 (unless you start dividing by platform). Wikipedia already has a structural problem with WP:RECENTISM . As for "over-inclusive", that criticism is WP:OR and not supported by WP:RELIABLESOURCEs. Treating that as a legitimate criticism might be the root problem with this list. Once you start indulging criticisms that aren't grounded in policy or sources, you end up following a slippery slope of more and more exceptions to guidelines, until you have an article that's out of step with most Wikipedia standards. We'd be a lot better off if we followed broadly applicable policies, instead of editorial opinion about this singular article. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that, in theory, very old games suffer from a similar problem, although I think the coverage of 80s games is pretty decent as is. That said, I won't repeat myself, but see comments above - even if every list was hugely biased toward games released in the decade prior to its publication, nobody ever ranks games that haven't even come out yet. If in the year 2100 there's a single list from every year from 2001–2100, 2095's hottest game could appear on 5-6 lists at absolute maximum, while a game from 1995 could potentially appear on all 100 lists, giving it a lot more spins of the "does the writer like this game" roulette wheel.
- Also, since you seem to be advocating 3 sources as sufficient inclusion threshold - maybe the solution is to break off another list? Not sure what it'd be called, but "critically acclaimed games" or something perhaps. I suspect that just 3 sources will drastically increase the amount of not-really-actually-that-acclaimed games sneaking on from the occasional loopy writer or one who bought into a short-lived hype train, but maybe okay as a separate thing. SnowFire (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I do see your point. I just think that if we were to have a list of, say, U.S. Presidents, and it were starting to get long, we wouldn't say "I guess we should remove the one term presidents" or "we should remove the presidents with less coverage". You're either a U.S. President, or you're not. By the same token, the only way this list meets Wikipedia guidelines is if it's verifiable that a game is considered the best, or it's not. What damages this list the most is that there are games that Wikipedia considered the best just one year ago, and they have been removed, despite their verifiability on multiple "best of lists". They were only removed because editors said so, using an original standard that they invented, with no basis in sources or policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- To try to make the issue more abstract - I agree that for certain distinctions, either you've achieved it or you haven't, like movies that won Academy Award for Best Picture. But there are other distinctions that are more like relative thresholds, like "movies that have received the most Academy Awards". Looks like List of Academy Award records just shows the three that tie for having received 11 awards at the moment, but this is a sample (non-Wikipedia) ranked list. That list cuts off at 8 awards rather than going all the way down to 1 award for a "full" list, but if they made a version that used 7 or 9 awards as a cutoff, that's fine. Just a matter of editorial judgment. SnowFire (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've watched this article for a long time, and I've shrugged off the perennial criticisms. But the fact that they come up so frequently suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the current approach. Your Academy Award examples are helpful. The List of Academy Award records is exactly what it sounds like it should be about, which is limited to films or artists that have received the most awards. The Academy Award for Best Picture has more than 600 films that have been nominated, and as far as I can tell, there have been no editors who insisted on culling the list based on their own judgments. I'd also add, if we deleted some of the complete Academy Awards lists (Best Picture, Best Director, etc.) and just had the record-holders list, the whole topic area would attract more (valid) criticism. Back to the current list, it's supposed be "List of video games considered the best", which would be easily verifiable in multiple sources. But without any reliable sources or policy to support it, it's been edited to become "List of video games that have received the most best of rankings". (I suspect that if the article were named more accurately, it might even be taken to AFD.) So much of this list is based on editorial opinion, and we continue to fix editorial opinion with more editorial opinion, which damages the list more than it helps. We need to fundamentally fix it by going back to sources and policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is no subjective way you can structure this list without still basing it on editorial opinion/judgement, which is the fundamental problem here. The only way to fix that would be to have this list (and similar ones) not exist at all. But back to the OP's suggestion, I don't see how lowering the threshold improves the page any. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think the answer is to use the ordinary meaning of the world "multiple" when it comes to multiple sources, in WP:V. You'd be hard pressed to find a policy based criticism once we do that. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- So is this just semantics? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Multiple doesn't mean 5 or 6. Multiple means more than one, and trying to impose some other meaning is WP:OR. A lot of the criticism would go away if we used the plain meaning of the word, instead of inventing and debating new standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Every single guideline and policy on Wikipedia started as a form of WP:OR until it just became accepted as such. I understand your position, but I don't think any of the alternate proposals so far would be an improvement. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Multiple doesn't mean 5 or 6. Multiple means more than one, and trying to impose some other meaning is WP:OR. A lot of the criticism would go away if we used the plain meaning of the word, instead of inventing and debating new standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- So is this just semantics? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think the answer is to use the ordinary meaning of the world "multiple" when it comes to multiple sources, in WP:V. You'd be hard pressed to find a policy based criticism once we do that. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is no subjective way you can structure this list without still basing it on editorial opinion/judgement, which is the fundamental problem here. The only way to fix that would be to have this list (and similar ones) not exist at all. But back to the OP's suggestion, I don't see how lowering the threshold improves the page any. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've watched this article for a long time, and I've shrugged off the perennial criticisms. But the fact that they come up so frequently suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the current approach. Your Academy Award examples are helpful. The List of Academy Award records is exactly what it sounds like it should be about, which is limited to films or artists that have received the most awards. The Academy Award for Best Picture has more than 600 films that have been nominated, and as far as I can tell, there have been no editors who insisted on culling the list based on their own judgments. I'd also add, if we deleted some of the complete Academy Awards lists (Best Picture, Best Director, etc.) and just had the record-holders list, the whole topic area would attract more (valid) criticism. Back to the current list, it's supposed be "List of video games considered the best", which would be easily verifiable in multiple sources. But without any reliable sources or policy to support it, it's been edited to become "List of video games that have received the most best of rankings". (I suspect that if the article were named more accurately, it might even be taken to AFD.) So much of this list is based on editorial opinion, and we continue to fix editorial opinion with more editorial opinion, which damages the list more than it helps. We need to fundamentally fix it by going back to sources and policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- To try to make the issue more abstract - I agree that for certain distinctions, either you've achieved it or you haven't, like movies that won Academy Award for Best Picture. But there are other distinctions that are more like relative thresholds, like "movies that have received the most Academy Awards". Looks like List of Academy Award records just shows the three that tie for having received 11 awards at the moment, but this is a sample (non-Wikipedia) ranked list. That list cuts off at 8 awards rather than going all the way down to 1 award for a "full" list, but if they made a version that used 7 or 9 awards as a cutoff, that's fine. Just a matter of editorial judgment. SnowFire (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I do see your point. I just think that if we were to have a list of, say, U.S. Presidents, and it were starting to get long, we wouldn't say "I guess we should remove the one term presidents" or "we should remove the presidents with less coverage". You're either a U.S. President, or you're not. By the same token, the only way this list meets Wikipedia guidelines is if it's verifiable that a game is considered the best, or it's not. What damages this list the most is that there are games that Wikipedia considered the best just one year ago, and they have been removed, despite their verifiability on multiple "best of lists". They were only removed because editors said so, using an original standard that they invented, with no basis in sources or policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to that suggested solution because it creates the opposite structural issue: that recent journalists are more likely to cover recent games, and there are very few lists of "best games" before 2000 (unless you start dividing by platform). Wikipedia already has a structural problem with WP:RECENTISM . As for "over-inclusive", that criticism is WP:OR and not supported by WP:RELIABLESOURCEs. Treating that as a legitimate criticism might be the root problem with this list. Once you start indulging criticisms that aren't grounded in policy or sources, you end up following a slippery slope of more and more exceptions to guidelines, until you have an article that's out of step with most Wikipedia standards. We'd be a lot better off if we followed broadly applicable policies, instead of editorial opinion about this singular article. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, not to hold any sides here, I just want to know what everybody wants to do as of late. All in favor of this proposal, please respond by typing “:yes” in source editing mode. All opposed, please type “:no” in source editing mode. No need to explain any reasoning. (BlueBlurHog) 9 Nov 2021 21:20 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBlurHog (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's not at all how WP:Consensus is arrived at. -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Let me repeat myself. This is not some order to change anything, it’s just me asking a question that I want answered by everybody involved in this discussion saying what they want. I’m not asking to change anything, I don’t want to make alterations, it’s just curiosity of what everybody is thinking. Also, forgive me citing the wrong time, I don’t live in a UTC zone. (BlueBlurHog) 10 Nov 2021, 02:32 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBlurHog (talk • contribs)
- That's not at all how WP:Consensus is arrived at. -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: edit: 6 is an arbitrary number, and nobody provided any rule or guideline to this number, or any solid argument for it. It is obvious from previous discussions that 6 was reached because they didn't want to have a list of hundreds of best video games regardless if backed by multiple reliable sources, but only to include "the best of the best". So, it is logic to assume with time this threshold will be raised over and over again. This idea of "the best of the best" was created by editors which contraries Wikipedia:No original research, and does not reflects the title of this article. Furthermore, by having the number as high as 6 and possibly with the the raise of this number following past editors' criteria to exlclude viewpoints rather than include viewpoints under the idea of "the best of the best", it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which instead says to represent "...all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As such, the minimum criteria for inclusion should 3 reliable sources because it is a minimum for increasing the representation of different viewpoints while also agreeing over a single entry, and seemingly is agreed by editors to be a minimum on the meaning of multiple reliable source on wikipedia.--Arw2 (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Original comment: 6 is an arbitrary number, and nobody provided any rule or guideline to this number. A game can be listed as best in genre X in many reliable sources, while it may not be listed in 6 known reliable sources for best games of all time, which validates your point in the by genre inclusivity. So in regards to that, what could be proposed is, the game has to be in multiple sources all time best games (ideally 3+), and multiple all best games in that specific genre (ideally 3+).Arw2 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd support 3 as a plain reading of the word "multiple" in WP:EXCEPTIONAL, but introducing editor opinions around genre or platform would be WP:OR. I think it's fair to ask that the lists truly be best of all time lists supported by an entire editorial team to meet the standard of "high-quality" in WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and not lists about singular platforms / genres. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Right. That might led to lists for particular genres though (which in my vision is a good thing). Now on the number, it seems people reached to 6 to include only "the best of the best", which is not objective and is inaccurate to the article's title. Another thing is that many sources are just lost as can be seem by the high number of archive-only retrieval sources in this article.
- Another point I forgot to add is that discussion on having a separate inclusion criteria for recent games is potentially problematic in regards to circular reporting (I'm not sure if wikipedia has a policy on this though), more than older games, in the logic that they did not establish themselves as other games in relation to time but having wikipedia confirm that might led to editorial teams to find about it on this list and as a consequence increase their chances inclusion on a new list.Arw2 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- 3 is way too few since most of the publications include 50+ games, which would result in this page having 100s of entries. Again, I understand your point about 5-6 being arbitrarily selected by Wiki editors, but I still fail to see this as an improvement in any way. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- What is the problem in having 100s of entries if every entry is backed by multiple reliable sources (which seems to be minimum of 3 as consensus rather than 6)? If there is a problem in quantity, then to be transparent the title should reflect objectively like: List of *insert number* video games considered the best.Arw2 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- So this whole thing is just about semantics? Three might be the minimum but how is lowering the threshold and thus increasing the number of games here an improvement? The intended idea of this list (however flawed you might believe it to be) is to present games that are regularly cited by publications as among the greatest of all time. Using the bare minimum of three just seems too few for something that becomes more common if a publication include 100 games, especially older ones as there would have been fewer games for them to chose from. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The whole thing is about Wikipedia policy, and removing WP:OR is always an improvement. There's nothing inherently wrong with a longer list, and there's no guideline that limits the number of entries here. (I also wouldn't be concerned about older rankings, as the oldest list is from the Fifth generation of video game consoles. Keep in mind that the boundary between PC and console games only began to disappear with the shift away from cartridges, so there's a reason we only start to see cross-platform lists in the late 1990s.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- There's WP:CSC, which says "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Which of course limits by the notability criteria. The problem lies in how we seem to agree that minimum notability criteria is 3, not 6, the latter which is applied in this article from seemingly artificial reasons.--Arw2 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not just that. It is mainly in how we seem to agree that meaning of multiple sources is minimum of 3 and not 6, while in this article that consensus is not applied because seemingly editors saw as bad in having 100s of entries without further explanation. Again, what is the problem in having 100s of entries if every entry is backed by multiple reliable sources (which again seems to be minimum of 3 as consensus rather than 6)? It seems contradictory to me the way things are currently, so by using the criteria of 3 would eliminate that contradiction, and eliminate the need for things like a separate criteria for recent games.--Arw2 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- 3REFS is an essay that observes that, in the context of judging WP:N, which we are not doing here, 3 is typically the minimum observed requirement for notability to be established. It does not represent a consensus that "3 sources is enough". It simply observes that is often the case. It's use in this discussion is entirely flawed. We're not establishing notability. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE is the policy that informs WP:LISTCRITERIA, which is to not make lists with open ended indiscriminate inclusions. Notability is sometimes used as a LISTCRITERIA, but is not useful for this list. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I did not mention any essay. There's WP:CSC, which says "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Which of course limits by the notability criteria. How is 6 a reasonable number for inclusion in this list? Why is 3 not reasonable?--Arw2 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- The "minimum notability criteria is 3" comes from WP:3REFS, an essay. It is neither policy nor guideline. You should fully read WP:LSC, of which CSC is a subsection that offers that Notability is *one kind of criteria* that could be used. It is a useless criteria for this page, as all of the potential entries are notable anyways. We are not evaluating notability. We are evaluating due weight and NOTINDISCRININATE. -- ferret (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Alright. Again nobody did reply why 6 instead of 3. But it is obvious from previous discussions that it was reached because they didn't want to have a list of 100s of games, but only "the best of the best". So, it is logic to assume with time this threshold will be raised over and over again.--Arw2 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- The "minimum notability criteria is 3" comes from WP:3REFS, an essay. It is neither policy nor guideline. You should fully read WP:LSC, of which CSC is a subsection that offers that Notability is *one kind of criteria* that could be used. It is a useless criteria for this page, as all of the potential entries are notable anyways. We are not evaluating notability. We are evaluating due weight and NOTINDISCRININATE. -- ferret (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I did not mention any essay. There's WP:CSC, which says "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Which of course limits by the notability criteria. How is 6 a reasonable number for inclusion in this list? Why is 3 not reasonable?--Arw2 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- 3REFS is an essay that observes that, in the context of judging WP:N, which we are not doing here, 3 is typically the minimum observed requirement for notability to be established. It does not represent a consensus that "3 sources is enough". It simply observes that is often the case. It's use in this discussion is entirely flawed. We're not establishing notability. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE is the policy that informs WP:LISTCRITERIA, which is to not make lists with open ended indiscriminate inclusions. Notability is sometimes used as a LISTCRITERIA, but is not useful for this list. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- The whole thing is about Wikipedia policy, and removing WP:OR is always an improvement. There's nothing inherently wrong with a longer list, and there's no guideline that limits the number of entries here. (I also wouldn't be concerned about older rankings, as the oldest list is from the Fifth generation of video game consoles. Keep in mind that the boundary between PC and console games only began to disappear with the shift away from cartridges, so there's a reason we only start to see cross-platform lists in the late 1990s.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- So this whole thing is just about semantics? Three might be the minimum but how is lowering the threshold and thus increasing the number of games here an improvement? The intended idea of this list (however flawed you might believe it to be) is to present games that are regularly cited by publications as among the greatest of all time. Using the bare minimum of three just seems too few for something that becomes more common if a publication include 100 games, especially older ones as there would have been fewer games for them to chose from. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- What is the problem in having 100s of entries if every entry is backed by multiple reliable sources (which seems to be minimum of 3 as consensus rather than 6)? If there is a problem in quantity, then to be transparent the title should reflect objectively like: List of *insert number* video games considered the best.Arw2 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Another comment: There's constant support votes that are "6 is arbitrary" so we should lower it. All lower values are just as arbitrary. I've seen WP:3REFS quoted a few times, but need to remind that it's an essay in regards to WP:GNG. WP:LISTCRITERIA often uses WP:GNG as a line, but that's not really applicable here, as all entries under consideration are bound to be notable. LISTCRIT does not forbid what is essentially "arbitrary" limits. Consensus chosen limits of "only the top 10" or "the top 25" or "above x millions" are common and widespread, and take into consideration things such as page length and creep. List of video games notable for negative reception has a listcriteria that is miles longer than this one and has essentially been cemented by 10 AFDs/RFMs as a valid approach. In short, there's nothing wrong with "Must have X sources". The chosen X is consensus established. It's an ugly case because it really comes down to discussion participants, but the community accepts such cases. I am simply unswayed that we should lower the limit because certain games "deserve" to be included. Perhaps time would be better be spent looking for more sources that are appropriate to use on this list, which might then make those entries eligible. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would have to disagree. When we talk about multiple sources in WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it's that it takes more than one "best of" list to push the "exceptional" claim that a game is considered one of the best. I don't think that means six sources. I do generally have a problem with a lot of subjectively constructed lists, including some of the other examples you brought up. It should bother everyone that this list is effectively created by using an excel spreadsheet analysis off of Wikipedia, making it impenetrable and incomprehensible to most editors, and virtually impossible for an ordinary editor to contribute. I think that type of construction stretches into WP:OR and breaks what Wikipedia is fundamentally about.
- All that being said, this list is better than some of the other examples, because we've been able to keep out some of the pushes for subjectivity, or claims cited to only one source. And with this discussion going in circles, I would say that we share the common ground that it's not about trying to re-fit the criteria to include our favorite games, and I appreciate you trying to build something consistent and neutral. Overall my goal is to try to build a solid encyclopedia where articles are based on transparent, objective, and unoriginal criteria. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate that the "must have 6 sources" is a subjective arbitrary limit set by editors. I just don't believe the community has forbidden such, and there's little immediate policy and guidelines that limit how LSC can be applied. Ultimately, LSC is about fighting WP:NOT issues. I'm happy to entertain other list criteria for this topic, I just feel the "lower it to 5 because x and y games deserve to be here" is a bad argument. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- OP and you are the only ones argumenting about X Y games. Nobody gave a solid argument on the number 6, why it is better than 3 or 4 or 5. I personally don't appreciate artificial numbers that only may become stricter for editors sake (which is analogue to "lower it to 5 because x and y games deserve to be here") and not giving proper explanation. As I said above, it is obvious from previous discussions that 6 was reached because they didn't want to have a list of 100s of best games by reliable sources, but only "the best of the best". So, it is logic to assume with time this threshold will be raised over and over again.Arw2 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what response you're after. You say nobody has given a solid argument on the number 6, then explain exactly what the reasoning was from the past discussion. That's the reason. It's a solid one. The consensus could change in either direction in the future. What I don't see is a solid argument to change it at this time. The nominator/OP posited that it was because certain games deserve to be on the list. That is why I have referred back to that argument, as it's the opening statement for this entire discussion. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- So you basically agree that this list is about the "best of the best" which is an idea created by editors, and by agreeing with that in the future you'd agree to raise that number because with time there will me more games and more games will need to be avoided from the list. I disagree this is a good reason for 6, and I disagree with the idea of only the "best of the best". Wikipedia should be neutral WP:NPOV, and this includes reflecting the title of this list, not only the "best of the best". 3 is the most neutral to include more viewpoints and likely agreed upon the community as a minimum of multiple sources.Arw2 (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what response you're after. You say nobody has given a solid argument on the number 6, then explain exactly what the reasoning was from the past discussion. That's the reason. It's a solid one. The consensus could change in either direction in the future. What I don't see is a solid argument to change it at this time. The nominator/OP posited that it was because certain games deserve to be on the list. That is why I have referred back to that argument, as it's the opening statement for this entire discussion. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- OP and you are the only ones argumenting about X Y games. Nobody gave a solid argument on the number 6, why it is better than 3 or 4 or 5. I personally don't appreciate artificial numbers that only may become stricter for editors sake (which is analogue to "lower it to 5 because x and y games deserve to be here") and not giving proper explanation. As I said above, it is obvious from previous discussions that 6 was reached because they didn't want to have a list of 100s of best games by reliable sources, but only "the best of the best". So, it is logic to assume with time this threshold will be raised over and over again.Arw2 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate that the "must have 6 sources" is a subjective arbitrary limit set by editors. I just don't believe the community has forbidden such, and there's little immediate policy and guidelines that limit how LSC can be applied. Ultimately, LSC is about fighting WP:NOT issues. I'm happy to entertain other list criteria for this topic, I just feel the "lower it to 5 because x and y games deserve to be here" is a bad argument. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'll keep this brief, but Arw2, discussions are not won by talk page filibuster. They're decided by consensus. The positions ferret, Phediuk, Rhain, myself, and others are backed by the results of earlier AFDs and discussions on the WPVG talk page, which did think over-inclusivity on earlier versions of this list was a problem, and would almost assuredly think that over-inclusivity would be a problem in a 3-list threshold version of the list with the current number of lists consulted. The 3REFs guideline isn't really relevant here per points raised. You're free to disagree, and your disagreement has been noted, but I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns. My suggestion - if you're really set on this, try creating a spin-off list in User space of all the games that a lower threshold would include. I suspect you'll find it's rather unwieldy and not picky, but maybe, maybe there's a spinoff article to be made there. (No guarantees.) SnowFire (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality
This article sources' are almost exclusively English, while according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/308454/gaming-revenue-countries/ the world's top game market is China, only then US, then Japan, Korea. So, this article is biased towards English publications. As such, sources in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, should be added.--Arw2 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- If relevant RS lists exist in those languages, we'd be happy to consider them. I have searched myself for Asian sources on Google with little luck, though I note that non-Latin-alphabet sources are difficult to track down for Westerners who aren't fluent in them. Famitsu has done a couple of reader polls, and no one else we know of (yet) has even done that. Phediuk (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- An English Wikipedia is of course going to prefer English publications and links. The only thing preventing reliable non-English ones from being used is their rarity. Present them here and they will be used. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Ultima Series
I'm surprised that none of the Ultima games are listed on this Wikipedia page especially Ultima IV... That particular game was one of the first, if not the first game to be more than just a hack-n-slash, shoot'em up, rack up as many points as possible. It had a storyline and inspired the player to look deeper into the game's completion requirements. And this from a game (IV) made/sold back in 1986!! Besides, it is included on many of the lists from the Video Game Canon site. Please give it consideration. Thank you. AA Pilot16 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ultima IV currently appears on lists from five different sources, so it doesn't qualify. Though it would if there was any interest in including the Entertainment Weekly/G4TV list from 2003. The original list is in issue #709, but it's also online at Video Game Canon (https://www.videogamecanon.com/lists/entertainment-weekly-g4tv-2003/) 67.241.190.3 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, the EW 2003 list is already included. Furthermore, Ultima Online is already on the page. Phediuk (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I completely missed that (I just looked under G4, whoops). I also forgot about the "series" rule, so just ignore me. 67.241.190.3 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, the EW 2003 list is already included. Furthermore, Ultima Online is already on the page. Phediuk (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
GamesRadar+ 50 best games of all time
GamesRadar+ just published its list of the best 50 games. While the order of the top 20 was decided by readers, the information that actually matters—the games themselves, not the order—was selected by a panel of "industry experts and luminaries"; the criteria is outlined more here, including a list of some of the panelists. The list seems to meet the inclusion criteria, so I think it's certainly worth considering. – Rhain ☔ 03:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for pointing out this list. Note that this is essentially two lists in one, chosen with separate criteria; the top 20 were selected by the Golden Joystick Awards panel (and the order determined by a viewer poll), while #21-50 were chosen by GamesRadar's staff. Whether or not we count the top 20 doesn't matter much, since everything there, except Pokemon Go, is already on the main list. The remaining 30 are definitely good to go, though no new games will be added as a result. I'll incorporate the 30 picks of the GamesRadar staff, at least, sometime in the next couple of days. Phediuk (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- List:
GamesRadar 2021
|
|---|
|
1. Dark Souls 2. Doom (1993) 3. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 4. Half-Life 2 5. Minecraft 6. Street Fighter II 7. Tetris 8. The Last of Us 9. Super Mario 64 10. Metal Gear Solid 11. Halo: Combat Evolved 12. Super Mario Bros. 3 13. Grand Theft Auto V 14. Portal 15. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 16. Pac-Man 17. Super Mario Kart 18. Space Invaders 19. SimCity (1989) 20. Pokemon Go 21. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 22. Bioshock 23. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24. Journey 25. Resident Evil 4 26. God of War (2018) 27. Mass Effect 2 28. Red Dead Redemption II 29. Final Fantasy VII 30. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves 31. Super Metroid 32. Stardew Valley 33. Dead Space 2 34. Dishonored 2 35. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 36. Shadow of the Colossus 37. Inside 38. Bloodborne 39. Bayonetta 2 40. Batman: Arkham Asylum 41. Fire Emblem: Three Houses 42. Destiny 2 43. Hades 44. Forza Horizon 4 45. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 46. Persona 4 Golden 47. Fortnite: Battle Royale 48. Fez 49. Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50. Animal Crossing: New Horizons |
- Hi, I have also updated the visualisation of the omnibus data. --BenSPVE (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Missing games
There are a few games that belong on this list that haven’t been added yet. I would add them myself, but the referencing in this article is too complicated. If anyone’s up for it, here’s a list of video games I found that should be added to the list (the multiple references needed can be easily found on each Wikipedia page respectively under "Reception"): Dynamite Headdy (1994), Jet Set Radio Future (2002), Viva Piñata (2006), BioShock 2 (2010), and Horizon Zero Dawn (2017). --Daniel.Nemitz (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- None of those meet the criteria. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- These games aren’t on the list for a reason. There are rules for how this article is managed, you can’t just and a random assortment of games onto it, even if they are universally loved. If, say, BioShock 2 were to be added, it would first have to be cited by 6 different publisher sources; all of which have to be accepted by Wikipedia’s standards of what makes a reliable source, and what doesn’t. To keep it brief and to the point, the sources’ information also has to be from the reporters’ genuine, unbiased word——without any basis on the opinions of others such as what Metacritic does. (BlueBlurHog) 03:08 2 Dec 2021
Possible sources I've come across
Recently, I've come across "The 100 Best Video Games of All Time" by HiConsumption and "The 500 Greatest Video Games of All Time" by Screenage Wasteland. Could these two lists be considered as reliable sources or not? --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
https://hiconsumption.com/best-video-games-of-all-time/
https://screenagewasteland.com/the-500-greatest-games-of-all-time-500-476/
- Probably not, unfortunately. HiConsumption was discussed before, it's not clear they're really reliable enough: Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best/Archive_4#HiConsumption . They might be borderline, though, if they've improved since 2019. Screen Age Wasteland, definitely not - 3 digit followers on their Twitter account https://twitter.com/sawasteland shows that they're closer to an independent blog, and it's not a known journalist - it's someone named "Sailor Monsoon" who doesn't have any sort of bio on their author page at all, so as far as we know it's some college student doing freelance writing by their word or the like. SnowFire (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
New game for the list?
I was wondering if Persona 5 could be added to the list? Persona 5's wikipedia page has a link that leads to this article. 73.89.153.119 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Once it meets the criteria listed at the top of this page, sure. – Rhain ☔ 02:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
hiconsumption, FORGET THIS, and focus on a second article
I figure I should at least bring this blog from hiconsumption.com to your attention: https://hiconsumption.com/best-video-games-of-all-time/. You’ve probably never heard it before, well neither have I. Because of that, I’d like a second opinion of if this is within Wikipedia’s guidelines, as I have lost how to find the page. (BlueBlurHog) 8 December 2021, 02:34 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I just noticed a discussion above which already dismissed this. Forget this, then. (BlueBlueHog) 8 December 2021, 02:38 (UTC)
- I did however find a second article, https://mashable.com/article/best-video-games-of-all-time, though my initial stance on HiConsumption still stands here. (BlueBlueHog) 8 December 2021, 02:42 (UTC)
- @BlueBlurHog: Already included. – Rhain ☔ 02:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- … this is embarrassing, lol (BlueBlurHog) 8 December 2021 03:02 (UTC)
- FYI BlueBlurHog, if you sign off using four tildes (
~~~~), you won't need to fix your signature so frequently. You can edit your signature in your preferences. – Rhain ☔ 03:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- FYI BlueBlurHog, if you sign off using four tildes (
- … this is embarrassing, lol (BlueBlurHog) 8 December 2021 03:02 (UTC)
- @BlueBlurHog: Already included. – Rhain ☔ 02:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag?
Considering that Assassins Creed II was added, and Assassins Creed IV having many times contested Assassins Creed II as the best game of its franchise, I was wondering if it would be accurate to add it too? 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @1st Duke of Wellington: Once it meets the criteria at the top of this page, sure. How it compares to other games in the series, however, is irrelevant. – Rhain ☔ 03:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Alright then, thank you for your clarification; I just wondered. I agree, I'm probably lacking some information and merely suggesting from another game's reviews. I'll let you guys know if I come across any source. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Disco Elysium
Any chance of getting disco elysium on the list? It got very high review scores and stands out among even games on this list in terms of writing, art and level of execution, especially after the huge free update it got. 172.58.156.91 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- At this moment it doesn't meet the criteria. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
IGN, 2021
IGN has just posted a new top 100 staff list, which I will transcribe and incorporate shortly. Phediuk (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- List:
IGN 2021
|
|---|
|
1. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2. Super Mario World 3. Portal 2 4. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 5. Super Metroid 6. Mass Effect 2 7. Super Mario 64 8. Red Dead Redemption 2 9. Half-Life 2 10. Disco Elysium 11. Super Mario Bros. 3 12. Grand Theft Auto V 13. Hades 14. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 15. Halo 2 16. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17. The Last of Us 18. Bioshock 19. Bloodborne 20. Undertale 21. Super Mario Bros. 22. Street Fighter II 23. Portal 24. Chrono Trigger 25. God of War (2018) 26. Half-Life: Alyx 27. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater 28. Tetris 29. Doom (1993) 30. Final Fantasy XIV 31. Half-Life 32. Halo: Combat Evolved 33. Minecraft 34. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 35. Civilization IV 36. Metal Gear Solid 37. Red Dead Redemption 38. The Last of Us Part 2 39. Shadow of the Colossus 40. Resident Evil 4 41. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 42. Metroid Prime 43. Pokémon Yellow 44. Final Fantasy VI 45. Fallout: New Vegas 46. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 47. World of Warcraft 48. StarCraft 49. Diablo II 50. Earthbound 51. Left 4 Dead 2 52. Counter-Strike 53. Ms. Pac-Man 54. Hollow Knight 55. Apex Legends 56. Overwatch 57. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves 58. Journey 59. The Witness 60. Dishonored 2 61. Batman: Arkham City 62. Rise of the Tomb Raider 63. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 64. Control 65. XCOM 2 66. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas 67. Silent Hill 2 68. Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island 69. Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory 70. The Sims 3 71. Donkey Kong 72. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 73. Dota 2 74. Return of the Obra Dinn 75. Spelunky 2 76. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate 77. Goldeneye (1997) 78. Fable 2 79. Fortnite 80. Dark Souls 81. Persona 5 Royal 82. Mortal Kombat 11 83. System Shock 2 84. Resident Evil 2 (2019) 85. Monster Hunter: World 86. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 87. Titanfall 2 88. Inside 89. SimCity 2000 90. Thief II: The Metal Age 91. Animal Crossing: New Horizons 92. Mega Man 3 93. League of Legends 94. Fallout 2 95. Burnout 3: Takedown 96. Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge 97. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag 98. Final Fantasy VII 99. Divinity: Original Sin 2 100. Borderlands 2 |
- Will incorporate this into the main page in the next couple of days; no new entries to be added. Phediuk (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Done. I also added the list to the omnibus data document. Phediuk (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've also updated the Omnibus Data Visualised document. --BenSPVE (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done. I also added the list to the omnibus data document. Phediuk (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not to open a can of worms, but we have at least one game now, Undertale, that is listed here because it has appeared in two IGN lists. Something about that doesn't quite seem right. If a game appears over and over in a single publication's iterative lists, does that really count as multiple lists? In this case, lists only separated by 2 years. -- ferret (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I see the inclusion criteria already covers this and the addition has been reverted besides. -- ferret (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just for anybody else reading this, games have to be mentioned by six separate publications/companies and not just six different URLs to qualify. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I see the inclusion criteria already covers this and the addition has been reverted besides. -- ferret (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Multiple games should be considered
In my opinion, there are a lot of games that should've been on this list. Maybe they don't fit the criteria or whatever, but they are truly some of the best games ever (maybe, just maybe, the criteria should be modified?). Here are some that come to mind: God of War (2018), Super Mario Odyssey, Red Dead Redemption 2, Hades, Celeste, Fallout: New Vegas, Hollow Knight, Metal Gear Solid V, Castlevania: Rondo of Blood, The Binding of Isaac, Divinity: Original Sin 2, Persona 5, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, Mega Man X/X2, Doom (2016), Contra III, Donkey Kong Country II, and Gunstar Heroes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterestedGamer (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- If they don't fit the criteria, they don't get added, regardless of your personal opinions. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Original versions only or ports as well?
Hello, I would like to know: only the original versions can be considered the best games or their ports as well? If ports also matter, which ones? Thank you. 80.214.159.56 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's all up to the sources. Most sources will lists the original game over ports/remasters. However, there are some instances where a publication listed a version with some significant changes over the original. An example is IGN putting Pokemon Yellow in their top 100 games list instead of Red and Blue. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Public Polls
TV Asahi just released the results of a massive poll of the Japanese public, ranking the top 100 games of all time. 50,000 Japanese citizens took part in the poll and the results were announced as part of a 3 hour TV special. With such a large sample size, it seems like a pretty notable source for determining what games are considered to be the best of all time. I'm going to assume that this list still won't count though, because this page only takes into consideration lists *by critics*, so I have to ask, why is this restriction in place? It doesn't appear to make sense within the terms of the page's title. "List of video games considered the best" you would think would take into account the opinions of the general population, to limit consideration to just critics appears like an arbitrary exclusion method. It's not as though the article is titled "List of video games considered the best by critics", though that is in effect what it is, because you cannot presume a minority of critics is a good sample for what is considered the best by the wider population. A poll of 50k people conducted by a major TV network feels pretty appropriate for inclusion. 2A00:23C6:8281:A501:B946:68BF:BC93:547E (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The restriction is in place to avoid us including crap like GameFAQs polls (yes we used to do this). I understand your point, but where's the line we would have to draw to include a reader poll of 50,000 vs excluding one of 500? But I do agree it would be nice to somehow include other forms of critical opinions than just publication lists. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the comments. First, just building on what Dissident93 has said: focusing on critic's lists is not a problem so long as the page clearly defines that focus as such, as the page's preamble does already. Second, in response to Dissident93, the focus on dedicated lists also serves a useful purpose: to ensure that the page is not an indiscriminate list of every time someone wrote "best game ever" in relation to a video game. Hence why we're not sourcing reviews or other routine coverage here. This page's focus is deliberately much narrower, reporting only those mentions of games that appear in editorials specifically devoted to naming games as among the best ever. Phediuk (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Fallout 3 and GTA V?
I would like to know what is the criteria for evaluating or what constitutes as the “greatest” games. To my knowledge, both Fallout: New Vegas and Red Dead Redemption 2 are held in much higher regard (by both gamers and critics, alike) than Fallout 3 and GTA V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.47.152.77 (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Commodore 64
Not one single game on this list originating from the most popular home computer of all time, the Commodore 64? It was THE "indie game" computer of its time, and the de facto gaming machine in Europe for many years in the 80s and early 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabdah (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not one single C64 game is on the page, because there haven’t been enough sources to justify such existence. It’s been said multiple times before; the criteria for video game inclusion is on the top of the main article. Read it thoroughly, because you may have missed something important, like first you need to cite six different credible publishers of already-existing lists (like from IGN, EGM, Entertainment Weekly) before certain games can be added. BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism
I’ve seen people add games without the proper citations before, so I must ask; how exactly is this page constantly prone to vandalism? I’m not even allowed to edit the article, so how are strangers able to arbitrarily add games in? BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Unsourced or improperly sourced edits are not WP:Vandalism. -- ferret (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fine, I’ll rephrase.
- I’ve noticed that people are able to simply add games that they want onto the page, only for them to be undone later. However, I tried to click the edit button just see what happens, and I don’t have that kind of permission. That’s a good thing, but why and how are a select bunch of strangers able to make these edits only for them to be undone afterwards? BlueBlurHog (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Scratch that, I completely misinterpreted the lock icon. My mistake. But still, I clicked the real edit button, just to see what happens, and I had full permission to edit. How is it that permission is not more restricted? BlueBlurHog (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because disruption is not at a level that warrants a higher protection level. -- ferret (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Old sources unreliable?
Looking through the omnibus data, I can't help but notice that some of these lists are well...old. In fact, the oldest were created almost 27 years ago, older than most Wikipedia editors. I think it's not unfair to say that these lists are lacking some much needed perspective, given that the games listed are lacking a dimension. I believe that these lists should be removed and replaced with more recent lists, or at the very least given less weight than lists published last year, because at the moment this page has a very clear anti-recency bias in the games selected. For example, 13 of the games listed are from 1993 alone, while 0 are from 2018-2022. 216.154.44.171 (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary if we only include newer sources, the list will be biased toward more modern games. No, the fact that the sources are old and published when the industry was younger doesn't make them less reliable. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. If we take IGN's 2021 list of the top 100 Videogames, you'll see quite a few that aren't at all recent. On the other hand, an old list such as the one by Flux, you will not find a single game more recent than the early 90s. Perhaps an article called "List of Video Games considered the best (1971-1995)" would be interesting, but that's not the point of this article. If a game has truly stood the test of time, like Donkey Kong, Goldeneye 007,Super Mario World, or Half-Life, it will continue to appear on best of all time lists as these games have. Aleaniled (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the thoughts. I agree with Neocorelight; reliable critical opinions don't have an expiration date. Newer games haven't appeared on very many lists yet, but well, yeah, they're new. There's no rush here; we can add newer games as they appear on new lists. Phediuk (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. If we take IGN's 2021 list of the top 100 Videogames, you'll see quite a few that aren't at all recent. On the other hand, an old list such as the one by Flux, you will not find a single game more recent than the early 90s. Perhaps an article called "List of Video Games considered the best (1971-1995)" would be interesting, but that's not the point of this article. If a game has truly stood the test of time, like Donkey Kong, Goldeneye 007,Super Mario World, or Half-Life, it will continue to appear on best of all time lists as these games have. Aleaniled (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This article rarely gets new games added.
Why are games being consider the best hard to put here? It’s practically never been updated since BOTW was out here. Kramirez0113 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because publications and gaming sites rarely make new lists, I guess. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Kramirez0113: The article is updated all the time—there are two lists from 2021, for example—but no game since 2017 has managed to fit the criteria yet. I'm sure there'll be more soon enough. – Rhain ☔ 12:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I personally can't wait for Red Dead Redemption 2, God of War 2018, and Half-Life: Alyx to be added to the list. All of those games are in the latest IGN list. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Where tf is Mario Odyssey Kramirez0113 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's on five lists. I'm sure it'll be eligible soon. – Rhain ☔ 15:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Underrated
This topic is very good and underrated. I wish this topic be updated to 2022 Hakimehsasani (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Potential list for inclusion
Digitally Downloaded (which is listed under WP:VGRS as reliable) made a list of the "100 canonical games" apparently dated to 2016, but it's clearly a top 100 list. http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2016/09/the-top-100-of-all-time-how-many-have.html for the full list, with write-ups earlier at http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2016/09/the-100-canonical-games-10-1.html ,http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2016/09/the-100-canonical-games-20-11.html , etc. Any objections to including it? SnowFire (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unless the author has questions about his reliability (not saying he does), then I don't see any other reason why this couldn't be added. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I support including it. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nice work finding this. Looks like it meets all criteria, so I'll go ahead and incorporate it. Transcription below:
Digitally Downloaded, 2016
|
|---|
|
1. Nier 2. Persona 4 3. Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc 4. Doom (1993) 5. Minecraft 6. Metal Gear Solid 7. Earthbound 8. Eternal Darkness 9. No Man's Sky 10. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 11. Civilization 2 12. Beyond Good & Evil 13. Chrono Trigger 14. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 15. Super Mario 64 16. Animal Crossing 17. Soulcalibur 2 18. The Sims 19. Catherine 20. Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth 21. Fatal Frame 2 22. Final Fantasy X 23. Journey 24. Life is Strange 25. Mass Effect 2 26. Mega Man 2 27. Dragon Age: Origins 28. Fire Emblem: The Blazing Blade 29. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 30. Samurai Warriors 3 31. Pokemon Red and Blue 32. Simcity 2000 33. Spec Ops: The Line 34. Pac-Man 35. Papers, Please 36. Final Fantasy 6 37. Metroid Prime 38. 1979 Revolution: Black Friday 39. Ori and the Blind Forest 40. Street Fighter 2 41. Bound 42. Yakuza 5 43. American McGee's Alice 44. To the Moon 45. Day of the Tentacle 46. Pokemon Gold and Silver 47. Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE 48. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves 49. Final Fantasy Tactics 50. Double Dragon 51. Magic Carpet 52. Heavy Rain 53. Gauntlet 54. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 55. Half-Life 56. Tetris 57. Kingdom Hearts 58. Little King's Story 59. Garou: Mark of the Wolves 60. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis 61. Pandora's Tower 62. Super Mario Bros. 3 63. Nethack 64. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind 65. Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour 66. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time 67. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door 68. Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure 69. Valkyria Chronicles 70. Mario Kart 64 71. Suikoden 2 72. Shadow of the Colossus 73. Prince of Persia (1989) 74. Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 75. Yoshi's Island 76. Star Wars: TIE Fighter 77. Super International Cricket 78. Steins;Gate 79. Rock Band 80. Road Rash 81. Wild Arms 3 82. The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings 83. Super Smash Bros. Melee 84. The Last of Us 85. Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos 86. Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord 87. Tales from the Borderlands 88. The Walking Dead: Season 1 89. The Wolf Among Us 90. WWF No Mercy 91. Baldur's Gate 92. Hatsune Miku: Future Tone 93. King's Field 4 94. Space Invaders 95. Lollipop Chainsaw 96. Xenogears 97. Europa Universalis 4 98. Goldeneye (1997) 99. Dark Sun: Wake of the Ravager 100. Gregory Horror Show |
Will incorporate this into the main page shortly. The new additions will be Eternal Darkness, Pokemon Gold and Silver, Heavy Rain, Suikoden II, and Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos. Phediuk (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done. I have also added the Digitally Downloaded list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Phediuk! Neocorelight (Talk) 23:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've also updated the Omnibus Data Visualised document. --BenSPVE (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Phediuk! Neocorelight (Talk) 23:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Easy Allies & GameRevolution
I read through WP:VGRS , and Easy Allies is an reliable source. I searched, and found https://forums.easyallies.com/topic/4820/allies-what-are-your-top-10-games-of-all-time-name-one-game-per-franchise. Although I’m curious if this list meets the criteria for inclusion as a source for THIS page, because the very title of it says “One game per franchise.” Is this too exclusive of a source? BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
If so, I found a second one, which is also listed under WP:VGRS as reliable: https://www.gamerevolution.com/features/1995-the-greatest-games-of-alltime. Of course, is this source also acceptable for this particular article? BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
You know what, I found a third article that I’d like checked. It’s not on WP:VGRS, similarly to Tony Mott’s “1000 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die” book, but even if it were, I am unsure if this one from PBS should be included, as it claims to have asked “some notable gamers (some of which are big names in video game history) to share their lists of hits and bombs.” BlueBlurHog (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- EasyAllies list is not reliable. It's from their forums so is WP:USERG. While GameRevolution is a reliable source, the list is short and may not have any major impact. The PBS source is no good. It is not a compiled and editorially reviewed list, but a random selection of "expert gamers" from the industry simply stating their favorites and least favorites. One of them says they don't play games and let their 13 year old grandson submit the list. -- ferret (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- BlueBlurHog, the GameRevolution list can be used, although it won't add anything to the list. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Adding the original developers for each game
It seems odd to me that only the games' publishers are listed, and not their original developers, despite the developers doing the main heavy-lifting for the creative process of each game. How would everyone feel about adding another column to list the original developers of each game (i.e. Remedy Entertainment for Max Payne, HAL Laboratory for Super Smash Bros. Melee, PlatinumGames for Bayonetta, Turtle Rock Studios for Left 4 Dead, etc.)
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's an issue that's come up before (archives search). I'm personally not a fan. The two biggest reasons: Table bloat is a thing. Every column needs to justify why it's relevant for a table, especially with many viewers seeing the article on small mobile displays. This requires discipline to avoid adding Every Interesting True Detail as a separate column. Developer is interesting for some games, yes, but, someone interested in the developer or many other facts about the game can just click on the wikilink to the game's article. For this particular article, the important thing is the game itself. The second reason is that developer isn't always clear. Many old games don't have a separate developer studio or just have in-house studio teams, some games do have a separate developer but they don't matter or even have articles, and some modern games have multiple developers (one studio does the PC port, another studio does the DLC, etc.). So even if the information was deemed important enough to include, is it simple enough to really fit in the table accurately? For every Mass Effect 2 where there's a simple and relevant answer like "BioWare", there'll be something like GTAIV, where the answer is the uninteresting "Rockstar North, Rockstar Toronto, Rockstar New England" which says little beyond yeah, Rockstar Games did it. SnowFire (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Eurogamer or Guinness
This is not a list I want added, but I’m perplexed. Do I credit this as going to Guinness Book of World Records, or Eurogamer?
On the one hand, it’s from Eurogamer’s own website.
On the other hand, it says the list if from Guinness.
The article also says “The list was decided on by ‘a crack team of industry experts’ and some girl called Ellie.” Ellie being the author of the very article.
It’s nit my interest that this list be added, I just want to know who this lost gets credited to, and at the very least if it is one more source to add to the trash barrel. BlueBlurHog (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I assume Eurogamer and/or the author was part of the "crack team of industry experts", and the "some girl called Ellie" is just a bit of light self-deprecation—she says later in the article that she "helped write" the book. If it were to be added, I'd say credit Guinness as the publication, but use the Eurogamer article as the reference. I'd be more interested to see who else was part of the "crack team" of experts, though. – Rhain ☔ 00:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Gematsu & Howchoo
I found a Gematsu list from 2021. Even though it says here, WP:VGRS that Gematsu is reliable, having learned from past experiences, I’d like some feedback about it. BlueBlurHog (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I also found this. Howchoo is not declared reliable by WP:VGRS like Gematsu, but because the article is written by the word of the author, I’m curious if it’s possible for inclusion. BlueBlurHog (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
videogamer.com is also declared a reliable source by WP:VGRS, and it just so happens to have a best games of all time list. Although, I can’t seem to find the publication date. Could somebody look at this in case I overlooked something? BlueBlurHog (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Gematsu one is just a report of a TV Asahi user poll, so it doesn't meet the criteria of inclusion.
- I support the inclusion of Howchoo, although not listed at VGRS, the article and site looks professional. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait, I take that back. Howchoo looks like a community site. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- The videogamer.com one is just their list of games that they have scored a 10 on, meaning it was not curated and thus doesn't qualify for inclusion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, I gave them a shot. BlueBlurHog (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- No to all. Gematsu is reporting a user poll, but even ignoring that, it's the top console games, which is not suitable. Howchoo looks community based, like a sort of Pinterest/how to site. Even if they weren't, I'd be concerned about a "top video games of all time" list with 0 comments on it. This indicates it's not a site with traffic as well. This is a random listicle buried in a bunch of user generated content. Their front page lists a "3d printing" category that has 75 "guides", 299 "subscribers", and 6 "contributors. This is definitely not a reliable source. As for Videogamer, Dissident has the right of it, this is just a database output and not curated. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Need to add more publications
Like seriously, the fact that there is not even a single game from past 5 years proves newer publications and magazines needs to be added in consideration. Games like red dead redemption 2, Fallout New Vegas, God of war, hades, disco Elysium and many other games deserve this spot , more than many old and forgotten games mentioned in this list. Shank19112000 (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome to propose new lists if you find any that fit the criteria. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The problem isn't that we're unwilling to add new lists, but no such valid lists have appeared recently. -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- New qualifying lists are added as they appear; for instance, there are two from 2021, and four from 2020. More recent games haven't appeared on very many lists yet because, well, yeah, they're recent. There's no rush here; newer games will be added as they meet the criteria. Phediuk (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- If your concern is newer games, then it’s best to wait and see if they stand the test of time, as arbitrary and unspecific as it may sound, and then find publications which cite those games as the best—of all time. If your concern is newer lists, then the only lists that will appear here are ones released by reliable sources. You can find some on WP:VGRS, but there’s no guarantee you’ll find a new list instantly. Just keep looking and you’ll find something. BlueBlurHog (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Elden Ring
Elden Ring (2022) is one of the best reviewed games of all time by now. I believe it's time that it is included on this list. Thank you 190.237.54.50 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- It has not appeared in any lists that fit the criteria, so no, it is not time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Super Mario sunshine and odyssey anyone?
I feel like these games should be on here, ngl. Kramirez0113 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- They don't fit the criteria. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulations on Odyssey btw. 182.1.72.243 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
GamesTM 2018 List
I found a GamesTM Top 200 list from 2018 that seems to meet the inclusion criteria. I can post the rankings if it's eligible.
https://www.gamesradar.com/gamestm-200-is-here-the-200-greatest-games-of-all-time-revealed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnnecessarySuggestions (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nice work digging this up. The list seems promising based on this preamble, but I have not been able to view the full 200 entries yet, and so cannot transcribe it. Anyone have it? Phediuk (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- You need to buy a copy in order to access it (https://pocketmags.com/us/games-tm-magazine-2/issue-200), so if anyone is willing to chalk up $3.99, please do so. Or even better, finding a copy online that doesn't require any money to be spent. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was able to get access to the magazine via a free trial. Should I just copy the list here or are images needed somehow as evidence? Thanks. --BenSPVE (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Games TM 2018
|
|---|
|
BenSPVE (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I also have an album of pictures of the magazine here: https://imgur.com/a/XpRyg3r Let me know if you need anything else. --BenSPVE (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well done. I'm going to look over the list before incorporating it, but, assuming everything checks out, looks like Populous, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, Gunstar Heroes, Wipeout 2097, Far Cry 3, The World Ends With You, League of Legends, Stardew Valley, Demon's Souls, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Bioshock Infinite, Streets of Rage 2, Contra III: The Alien Wars, The Sims 2, and Super Mario Odyssey will all be added to the main list. Phediuk (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Whoa, that's a lot of addition. 182.1.90.163 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well done. I'm going to look over the list before incorporating it, but, assuming everything checks out, looks like Populous, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, Gunstar Heroes, Wipeout 2097, Far Cry 3, The World Ends With You, League of Legends, Stardew Valley, Demon's Souls, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Bioshock Infinite, Streets of Rage 2, Contra III: The Alien Wars, The Sims 2, and Super Mario Odyssey will all be added to the main list. Phediuk (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- The album appears to start at entry 200. Was there a previous page introducing the list or talking about how they chose? If you can provide please, as it may help cement that the list is proper (I.e. there weren't any weird conditions like "console only", though I think we're good there.) -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- This seems to be the only preface: https://imgur.com/a/Jr4EphU which I believe does fit the criteria? BenSPVE (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, that clinches it. Much appreciated. I'll incorporate the list within the next day. Phediuk (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Phediuk (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've also updated the Visualised Data Table. Maybe we could put this at the top of the page along with the regular list? Might give more encouragement for people to check before requesting games with no extra data to add. BenSPVE (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's listed in the FAQ under the first question. But if you can make it more visible then go ahead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've also updated the Visualised Data Table. Maybe we could put this at the top of the page along with the regular list? Might give more encouragement for people to check before requesting games with no extra data to add. BenSPVE (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Phediuk (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, that clinches it. Much appreciated. I'll incorporate the list within the next day. Phediuk (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- This seems to be the only preface: https://imgur.com/a/Jr4EphU which I believe does fit the criteria? BenSPVE (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I also have an album of pictures of the magazine here: https://imgur.com/a/XpRyg3r Let me know if you need anything else. --BenSPVE (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't expect such a quick response. It seems like everyone else has this covered, but I also have access to the magazine if anything more is needed.UnnecessarySuggestions (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Percentage rather than arbitrary cutoff?
I find the cutoff at 6 mentions quite arbitrary. Wouldn't it make more sense to record for each game the percentage of lists that it appears on, and to let the list be sorted by that metric? Since lists are differently long, I would compute a separate metric for "percentage of top-100 lists". (To save some work, this needn't be expressed as a percentage either, but could just be the absolute number of mentions so long as the number of lists included is clearly stated. The data is there already, in the reference column, but that can't be used to sort or select on...) Better yet, one might correct for the age of a game by displaying the percentage of lists *since its release* that it appeared on. (That would have to be a percentage or an "X of Y" though since the number of lists considered would vary between games...) 2A02:8109:B640:1518:E958:B8F2:2110:5BC0 (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that we name every game that has ever appeared on one of these lists, and sort them by percentage of inclusion? That would be over 1,700 games. – Rhain ☔ 09:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Percentage is just as arbitrary. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Edge's 100 Best Games of All Time (2000)
I've perused the four older Edge lists (2000, 2003, 2007, 2009) to see if any of them are usable. The 2003 list is just a bunch of top 10s for different genres; the 2007 list uses reader votes; and the 2009 list seems to treat "Best Games to Play Today" as a different thing from "best of all time" in its preamble. So, no to all of those. However, the 2000 list from issue #80, titled "The 100 Best Games of All Time", meets all criteria: best games ever, staff-chosen, no platform/genre restrictions, and, being Edge, RS. Segaretro has conveniently preserved the issue here; the list starts on page 52.
Edge 2000
|
|---|
|
1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 2. Super Mario 64 3. Goldeneye (1997) 4. Tetris 5. Gran Turismo 6. Quake II 7. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 8. Street Fighter II 9. Half-Life 10. Super Mario World 11. Pokemon Red and Blue 12. Civilization II 13. Final Fantasy VII 14. Super Metroid 15. Puyo Puyo 16. Metal Gear Solid 17. Super Bomberman 18. Super Mario Kart 19. Tekken 3 20. Tomb Raider (1996) 21. Total Annihilation 22. Grand Prix 2 23. X-COM: Terror from the Deep 24. Final Fantasy Tactics 25. Nights into Dreams 26. Simcity 2000 27. Anna Kournikova’s Smash Court Tennis 28. Tempest 2000 29. Starcraft 30. Soul Calibur 31. ISS Pro Evolution 32. Resident Evil (1996) 33. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 34. International Track & Field 35. Pilotwings 64 36. Colin McRae Rally 37. Bust-a-Move 2 38. Doom II 39. Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter 40. Hidden & Dangerous 41. 1080 Snowboarding 42. Secret of Mana 43. Sega Rally Championship 44. Star Fox 64 45. Wave Race 64 46. R4: Ridge Racer Type 4 47. Ultima Online 48. The Secret of Monkey Island 49. Robotron 2084 50. R-Type 51. Sonic Adventure 52. Bubble Bobble 53. Outrun 54. Stunt Car Racer 55. Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe 56. Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament 57. Death Tank 58. Daytona USA 59. Sensible Soccer 60. Sonic the Hedgehog 61. Virtua Fighter 2 62. The Need For Speed 63. Elite 64. Defender 65. Head Over Heels 66. Super Sprint 67. Mercenary 68. The Sentinel 69. Exile (1988) 70. Grand Theft Auto 71. Shinobi (1987) 72. Contra III: The Alien Wars 73. Rampart 74. Pac-Man 75. Galaga 76. Bomb Jack 77. Return Fire 78. Chu Chu Rocket 79. Gauntlet II 80. NHL ’98 81. Marble Madness 82. Populous II 83. Super Pang 84. Thrust 85. Legend of the Mystical Ninja 86. Xenogears 87. Gradius 88. Lemmings 89. Asteroids 90. Paradroid 91. Boulder Dash 2 92. Wipeout 93. Strider (arcade) 94. NBA Jam 95. Syndicate (1993) 96. Phantasy Star III: Generations of Doom 97. Choplifter 98. Time Crisis 99. Solomon’s Key 100. Super Punch-Out!! |
I'll go ahead and add this, if there are no objections. As a result of this list's incorporation, Total Annihilation will be added to the main list. Phediuk (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Also added the list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are there any games deleted as of now? BlueBlurHog (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. What do you mean by deleted? Phediuk (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I mean since you replaced four sources with one, does that mean any games that were previously on the list taken down as a result? BlueBlurHog (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be unless we increase to seven (or more) publications or one is found to have been added in error. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. What do you mean by deleted? Phediuk (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are there any games deleted as of now? BlueBlurHog (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Also added the list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- The visualised data list has also been updated as of now. BenSPVE (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Popular Mechanics "The 100 Greatest Video Games of All Time"
It seems like Popular Mechanics may have updated their list of "The 100 Greatest Video Games of All Time", since apparently this list was published eight days ago according to the website. I may be mistaken here and this may be an older list that they decided to repost, but I'll leave it here in case if it's actually an updated version.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/gaming/g134/the-100-greatest-video-games-of-all-time/
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
EGM Top 100 - 1997
So I found EGM's Top 100 list from 1997, and while it fits Wikipedia's criteria for selection (no input from readers, no limiting to one genre, etc.), there are still some oddities with the list, such as listing games twice due to them counting each version of a game as its own game (such as Mega Man X4's Saturn and PlayStation versions being listed separately rather than together). That being said, I'm gonna leave it here and see if it can be implemented into the list.
https://kirk.is/vgames/powerlist/egm100.html
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that EGM ignores PC titles as a whole, that particular list does not include any console predating the NES, so it is ineligible. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Index with a bunch of "Greatest Video Games" lists
I stumbled upon this index that has collected around 66 "greatest video game" lists. Some of these lists in question are already integrated into the main page, but I'm gonna leave this here in case if there's one or two lists from this index that aren't present and meet Wikipedia's standards.
https://www.videogamecanon.com/lists/
--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
GamingBolt Top 30 (2022)
GamingBolt has released a new list of the top 30 games of all time. Source: https://gamingbolt.com/top-30-video-games-of-all-time -- Wrath X (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- At a glance, it looks like Undertale now meets the criteria threshold, with at least six different publications vouching for its prestige. Haleth (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, this list looks good. Best games of all time, staff-chosen, no platform/genre/era restrictions, RS. Transcription:
GamingBolt, 2022
|
|---|
|
1. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2. Red Dead Redemption II 3. God of War (2018) 4. Half-Life 2 5. Elden Ring 6. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7. Bloodborne 8. Grand Theft Auto V 9. Super Mario Odyssey 10. Resident Evil 2 (2019) 11. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty 12. The Last of Us 13. Persona 5 Royal 14. Hollow Knight 15. Hades 16. Horizon Forbidden West 17. Forza Horizon 5 18. Ori and the Will of the Wisps 19. Undertale 20. Silent Hill 2 21. Halo 3 22. Control 23. Portal 2 24. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 25. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec 26. Batman: Arkham City 27. Mass Effect 2 28. Shadow of the Colossus 29. Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory 30. Burnout 3: Takedown |
Once this list is incorporated, Undertale will be added to the main list. Will do so shortly. Phediuk (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I think God of War 2018 and RDR2 both now qualify for the list too, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charizard777 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, because they have to have six lists from different publications. GoW you added used IGN twice. -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks for the clarification! Charizard777 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Game Informer's Top 100 Games Of All Time
Found a Game Informer list published all the way back in 2001. The only Game Informer lists used so far are from 2009 and 2018, and like with those lists, this was made to commemorate a milestone issue (in this case, being their 100th issue) and seemingly fits the criteria for this page (editor selected, reputable outlet, etc.)
Game Informer, 2001
|
|---|
|
1. The Legend of Zelda 2. Super Mario Bros. 3. Tetris 4. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 5. Doom (1993) 6. Metroid 7. Final Fantasy VI 8. Super Mario Bros. 3 9. Ms. Pac-Man 10. Final Fantasy VII 11. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 12. Super Mario 64 13. Contra 14. Mike Tyson's Punch-Out 15. Chrono Trigger 16. Goldeneye 007 17. Metal Gear Solid 18. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 19. Galaga 20. NHLPA Hockey 93 21. Gran Turismo 22. Street Fighter II 23. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 24. Sonic the Hedgehog 25. Warlords 26. Crash Bandicoot: Warped 27. Madden NFL 2001 28. Command & Conquer 29. Super Metroid 30. Super Mario Bros. 2 31. SimCity 32. Mega Man 2 33. EverQuest 34. Resident Evil 2 35. Super Mario Kart 36. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 37. Dragon Warrior 38. Tecmo Bowl 39. Pokemon Blue / Red / Yellow 40. Final Fantasy IV 41. Pitfall! 42. Star Wars: X-Wing 43. Final Fantasy IX 44. Excitebike 45. Final Fantasy Tactics 46. Super Mario World 47. Adventure 48. Castlevania 49. Counter-Strike 50. Virtua Tennis 51. Ridge Racer 52. Lode Runner 53. Metal Gear 54. Tenchu: Stealth Assassins 55. Chrono Cross 56. Tempest 2000 57. Arkanoid 58. The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening 59. Tekken 2 60. Donkey Kong 61. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 62. Civilization 63. Baseball Stars 64. Gauntlet 65. Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest 66. Bionic Commando 67. Ghouls N Ghosts 68. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 69. Resident Evil Code: Veronica 70. Zork 71. Banjo-Kazooie 72. Robotron 2048 73. Twisted Metal 2 74. Soulcalibur 75. Double Dragon 76. Dr. Mario 77. Secret of Mana 78. Panzer Dragoon Saga 79. Pro Wrestling 80. The Sims 81. Age of Empires 82. Suikoden 83. Kid Icarus 84. RC Pro-Am 85. NFL 2K1 86. Tomb Raider (1996) 87. Hot Shots Golf 88. Road Rash 89. Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn 90. Super Bomberman 91. Mario's Picross 92. Cool Boarders 2 93. Ninja Gaiden 94. Phantasy Star 95. NBA 2K1 96. Tetris Attack/Panel de Pon 97. Mortal Kombat II 98. Starcraft 99. House of the Dead 2 100. Ape Escape |
Doesn't seem like any new entries will be added with the addition of this list, but I say integrate it anyways. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- It should still be added even if it doesn't directly add any new entries. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks, but GI's 2001 list is a reader poll. They replaced the preamble for this online version (the print version goes over the voting process in detail), but everything else, including the text of the entries themselves is identical to the print version, with a few of the entries still referencing the voting. So, it won't be added. Phediuk (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Sorry for the mistake on my part. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's good to know, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
GamesRadar 2021 Top 20
Regarding the Top 20 entries of GamesRadar's 2021 list. According to the article, they "were shortlisted by a panel of industry experts and luminaries, and voted on by the viewers of the Golden Joystick Awards". To me, this means that the top 20's inclusion in the list was decided by industry experts/luminaries, with their rankings decided by viewers. The top 20 should thus be taken into account here albeit unranked. This article explains the selection of the top 20 in greater detail. What do others think of this? -- Wrath X (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I thought the same thing when I found the list. Considering that the panel consists entirely of reliable journalists (and a few developers), I see no reason for the top 20 to be excluded. – Rhain ☔ 06:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds good. I'll add them in shortly. Phediuk (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
EGM
Somebody claims that this is EGM’s 1997 list. But is EGM an accepted source for this article? I don’t remember if it’s been brought up before, though I have a shaky feeling it has. Someone let me know? BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nevermind. It has. BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
GameSpy Top 50, 2001
Following the full inclusion of the GamesRadar 2021 list, I think we should probably incorporate this list, too. Similarly to the GR list, it was chosen by the GameSpy staff with solicited input from industry experts (ie., journalists and developers.) Since there were no objections to such an arrangement with the GR list, I believe GameSpy's is also suitable for inclusion. It meets all other criteria as well: no platform/genre/era restrictions, clearly noted as "our list of gaming's best", and reliable source.
GameSpy, 2001
|
|---|
|
1. Doom (1993) 2. Half-Life 3. Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness 4. Civilization 5. Quake 6. Diablo 7. Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar 8. Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss 9. Starcraft 10. The Legend of Zelda 11. Super Mario 64 12. System Shock 2 13. Duke Nukem 3D 14. Age of Empires 15. Everquest 16. Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings 17. The Bard’s Tale 18. Deus Ex 19. Tetris 20. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 21. Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord 22. Civilization II 23. Final Fantasy VI 24. System Shock 25. M.U.L.E. 26. Star Control II 27. Asheron’s Call 28. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 29. Counter-Strike 30. Street Fighter II 31. Command & Conquer 32. Metal Gear Solid 33. Simcity (1989) 34. Wing Commander 35. X-COM: UFO Defense 36. Baldur’s Gate 37. Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn 38. Goldeneye (1997) 39. Zork 40. Thief: The Dark Project 41. Ultima III: Exodus 42. Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny 43. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 44. Marathon 45. Planescape: Torment 46. Super Metroid 47. Quake II 48. Ultima Online 49. Empire: Wargame of the Century 50. Total Annihilation |
If there are no objections, I will incorporate this shortly. M.U.L.E. will be added to the main list. Phediuk (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done. I have also added the GameSpy list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hyper's 1997 and 1999 lists
Hyper has published several top games lists over the years, which I will summarize here; all issues may be perused in this archive (thank you to user TarkusAB for bringing this collection to my attention.) We have already incorporated their 1995 list. As for the rest, here goes: there's a top 50 in issue 84 (2000) that's really a "best games of the generation" list, a top 100 in issue 100 (2002) that's actually 10 different top 10s, a top 100 in issue 113 (2003) that's a reader poll, a top 50 list in issue 144 (2005) that seemingly-deliberately does not actually state that it's a list of the best games (basically every staff member contributes a game they wanted to talk about for whatever reason), a "101 Games You Must Play" list in issue 260 (2015) that explicitly says it's not a best games list, and a "200 Games You Must Play" in issue 269 (2018) that does not clearly state it's a best games list either. However, I believe the issues from issue 50 (1997) and issue 73 (1999) are acceptable for inclusion; they're a reliable source, staff-chosen, clearly about the best games, and are not subject to any platform/genre/era restrictions. Therefore, I see no reason not to include them here. The 1997 list, which is unranked, is titled "The 50 Best Games Ever!" on the cover and "The 50 Most Shit Hot Games Ever" in the issue itself; I hope no one minds if I cite it under the less-vulgar title. The 1999 list, which is ranked, is about naming the "greatest experience in gaming" according to the preamble, and is just called "The Top 50 Games of All Time!"
Hyper, 1997
|
|---|
|
Quake Doom (1993) Wipeout (series) Ultima (series) Final Fantasy (series) Diablo Virtua Fighter (series) Street Fighter (series) Tekken (series) Barbarian Gauntlet (series) Samurai Shodown (series) International Superstar Soccer (series) Prince of Persia (series) Bomberman (series) Virtual-On Command & Conquer Warcraft (series) Another World / Flashback (dual entry) Virtua Cop 1&2 (dual entry) Dark Reign Tobal 1&2 (dual entry) Nights into Dreams The Legend of Zelda (series) Star Wars: X-Wing / TIE Fighter (series) Donkey Kong (series) Shadowrun (SNES) Metroid (series) Castlevania (series) Tomb Raider (1996) Monkey Island (series) Simcity (series) Super Mario 64 Descent Pitfall (series) Spy vs. Spy Ghosts 'n Goblins Tetris Daytona USA NBA Jam (series) Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee Civilization (series) Mario Kart 64 Elite Sega Rally Championship Time Crisis Sonic the Hedgehog (series) Way of the Exploding Fist Lemmings The Elder Scrolls (series) |
Hyper, 1999
|
|---|
|
1. Quake (series) 2. Mario (series) 3. The Legend of Zelda (series) 4. Doom (1993) 5. Wipeout (series) 6. Street Fighter II 7. Warcraft (series) 8. Sonic the Hedgehog (series) 9. Civilization 10. Ultima (series) 11. Tetris 12. Mario Kart (series) 13. Goldeneye (1997) 14. Diablo 15. Virtua Fighter (series) 16. Sam & Max Hit the Road 17. Elite 18. Final Fantasy (series) 19. Gran Turismo 20. Tekken (series) 21. Metal Gear Solid 22. Gauntlet (series) 23. Command & Conquer (series) 24. Tomb Raider (series) 25. Lemmings 26. Pac-Man 27. Simcity (series) 28. Ghosts 'n Goblins 29. Prince of Persia (series) 30. Half-Life 31. Breakout 32. Sega Rally (series) 33. Resident Evil (series) 34. Baldur's Gate 35. Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter (series) 36. Grand Prix Legends 37. Unreal 38. Metroid (series) 39. Galaga 40. Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 41. Soul Blade (series) 42. Zork (series) 43. Double Dragon (series) 44. Descent (series) 45. Defender 46. Final Fight 47. Bust-a-Move (series) 48. Raiden (series) 49. FIFA (series) 50. X-COM (series) |
Due to the high number of "series" and dual entries (which are not counted), there isn't that much to add, but there will still be two more games added to the main list once these are incorporated: Mario Kart 64 and Baldur's Gate. Will add them shortly. Phediuk (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Two games I already assumed were on the list already. Nice finds. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done. I have also added the two lists to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Esquire, 2018
We already have Esquire's 2020 list on here, but they also did another top 20 in 2018, titled "The (Real) Greatest Video Games Of All-Time". It meets all criteria: reliable source, editor-chosen, clearly about greatest games, and no platform/genre/era restrictions. So, if there are no objections, I'll incorporate it. The list is not ranked. Here's the transcription:
Esquire, 2018
|
|---|
|
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Battlefield 1942 Mario Kart 8 Pro Evolution Soccer 6 Tetris Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Theme Hospital Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 Snake (mobile) Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars Pokemon Crystal Super Mario 64 Goldeneye (1997) Batman: Arkham City The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Portal Metal Gear Solid The Secret of Monkey Island Pokemon Go Final Fantasy VII |
Battlefield 1942 will be added to the main list. Phediuk (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)