Jump to content

Talk:List of video games considered the best

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.177.75.175 (talk) at 16:58, 30 August 2017 (→‎This article is a mess). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games List‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
WikiProject iconLists List‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Era Bias

So this article bases its claim that the best games are rated the highest by lists created by critics. But this leaves out many games from the 1970's and 1980's. This was before the commercial internet! Reviews were published in (a very few) magazines. Most of the lists cited didn't even exist!

There are no text based games on the list. Where is Zork? Also, many early arcade games seem to be missing. Pac-man? Centipede? Donkey Kong? Joust? And the adventure games of Sierra were hugely popular. Where is Kings Quest? Space Quest?

This list seems to exclude entire eras and genres of games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.248.45 (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable criteria for this list

So, as a heads up... the good news is, this kind of list is fine, and several recent AFDs attempting to delete such kinds of lists have failed. The bad news is that this article WILL be nominated for deletion if it's unsourced, which is correct, and right now all that's listed is the GamesRadar top 100 list. And the list here doesn't even perfectly follow the sole source it's using! (Which is understandable, this isn't "List of games GamesRadar thinks are the best ever...")

Anyway, the only way to save this list from becoming random fanboys wandering past and adding "Halo was the best game evar!!" is to use objective criteria. Take a look at List of important operas, a Featured List, for an example, or Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States for something with a lot of good literature. I think the only comparable source we have are magazine top 25 / top 100 / etc. lists to really use here, which is unfortunate as they inherently want to generate some churn & linkbait rather than develop a staid "canon" list. Still, when used in aggregate, I think it's fine, and it's certainly better than contemporary reviews, which often do not reflect the long-term consensus of quality (and are famously erratic / swayable by company pressure). I would tentatively propose a scoring system along the lines of 5 points for being in a top 5, 4 points for top 6-15, 3 points for 16-25, and 2 points for 26-100 (if the list even includes such). Then we strictly take the "highest scoring" games (possibly adjusting a bit by decade - e.g. the 1980s have their own separate cutoff) and that's that, it's objective, the only subjective part will be choosing which lists to include. It'd ideally be nice to include some older lists as well, to reflect the consensus at the time, but this is tricky when few physical magazines have uploaded scans of their archives. Anyone want to volunteer toward digging some of these up? There's also something to be said for including some platform-specific lists, especially for PC Gaming (which covers many different eras), so long as the lists-per-platform is fairly balanced (e.g. 1 PC games list, 1 PlayStation 2 list, and so on).

Another note, and I don't think this is really fixable, is that the GamesRadar list explicitly notes that it only gives one game in a "series" a nod, and many other lists probably do this implicitly - which is good from a readership perspective, and really bad from an "objective" perspective, because what if both Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World and Super Mario 64 are all top 10 quality? They could end up underepresented because three different magazines picked a different series standby to represent the entire series. Oh well, we'll worry about that when we get to it.

Anyway, I'll take a look and see if some usable top X lists can be found. SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm talking to myself here, but I did indeed compile a giant spreadsheet o' rankings. I suppose this can be used for "objective" criteria on subjective critic opinions... which will mean including a few odd ones (is Red Dead Redemption really best-of-all-time caliber?) and leaving off a few unfortuante candidates (Silent Hill 2 apparently was forgotten). I'll see if I can add it to the list. SnowFire (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SnowFire, much thanks to your added content to this article. I had originally intended to include more sources from other websites than just GamesRadar, but you listed them perfectly. There is still room for polishing, of course. I was thinking about scratching the table system and instead dedicate one short text for each games which describes why and how it is considered a great game. Images could also be attached if necessarily. /Jonipoon (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2013 (CET)
Hrmm. That'd be good for a magazine piece, but it's tricky on Wikipedia. It does get done, but then ideally each little blurb is referenced as well. List of video games notable for negative reception uses the blurb style and has an "original research" complaint on it, for example. If you want to try it, go ahead, but let's keep the table as well for now.
Also, there's another advantage of the table: it's harder to edit, so it's somewhat less likely that people will stop in and just drop off "here's my favorite game ever!" (Which is an understandable urge, there's definitely some games I think are underrepresented here and the critical consensus shows a huge and obvious bias for AAA big budget games, but I'm sure everyone's list of games that should be here is slightly different, so that way lies madness.) SnowFire (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other obvious point to be nervous about blurbs, of course, is that if someone isn't familiar with the game, they can just click the link and see a full article, which will presumably include a "Reception" setting that covers why people thought the game was good in detail. If we did do blurbs, I'd want some kind of "spin" or value-add that showed why a game was particularly good in this context, which is really hard to find good sources on. Why exactly is Tetris one of the best games ever? This is a hard question! SnowFire (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future additions

Figured I should set aside a section for this for when people inevitably want to add to this list.

It's important that, to be objective, it's not specific games that get added, but rather specific sources. In other words, if there's a good top X list out there (especially a Japanese / South Korean one!), I can totally add it to the spreadsheet o' doom and recalculate to see which games cross the threshold for inclusion. But doing it on a per-game basis is obviously biased; there are enough top X sources out there that if we simply said a game needed 3 references to be included, the list could explode to 300 entries. Picking the lists is tricky, too. Some of the better recent Top lists were specifically of the PS3/360/Wii generation, so to counteract that some from that generation being "overcounted", I used, say, the IGN list written in 2006 rather than a more recent one. Also, console-specific lists are tricky, because there's no guarantee that any games from that platform really qualify. So the broadest Top X lists, or Top X across a time period or generation, are definitely the best to include.

For the record, the current standings are as such. I didn't include the "score" in the article because it's obviously arbitrary, but it used the formula mentioned above: 5 for 1-5, 4 for 6-15, 3 for 16-25, 2 for 26-100. Cutoff point was 10 points, that basically guaranteed at least 3 references that gave a reasonably high ranking. 9 points is the bubble; I included the older games at 9 points, because older sources are underrepresented in the sources and continuing to make modern lists is more of an achievement for them, but didn't include the modern games at 9 points, since we'll see if they can stick around and get into future lists or not.

  • 24 : BioShock
  • 23 : Half-Life 2
  • 21 : Portal, World of WarCraft
  • 19 : Mass Effect 2, Tetris, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
  • 18 : Team Fortress 2
  • 17 : Super Metroid, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
  • 16 : Chrono Trigger, Red Dead Redemption
  • 15 : Grand Theft Auto IV, Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario Bros.
  • 14 : Counter-Strike, Half-Life, Halo, SoulCalibur, Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario Galaxy 2
  • 13 : Deus Ex, Golden Eye 007
  • 12 : Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Super Mario 64, Uncharted 2
  • 11 : Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Grand Theft Auto 3, Metal Gear Solid, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, XCOM: UFO Defense
  • 10 : Civilization IV, Diablo 2, Fallout 3, Final Fantasy 6, Left 4 Dead, Super Mario Galaxy, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, The Legend of Zelda

-- Bubble starts here --

  • 9 : Braid, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Doom, Dragon Age: Origins, Grim Fandango, Mega Man 2, Metroid, Perfect Dark, Star Wars: TIE Fighter, StarCraft, StarCraft 2, Street Fighter II, Street Fighter IV

-- Cutoff point!--

  • 8 : Batman: Arkham City, Dark Souls, Donkey Kong, Minecraft, Rome: Total War
  • 7 : Assassin's Creed II, Baldur's Gate II, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Contra, Final Fantasy 7, Gran Turismo, Halo 2, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid 3, Portal 2, Super Mario Kart, System Shock 2, The Elder Scrolls IIi: Morrowind, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3

2014 Update

The above list is obsolete now that I stuck the Empire 2014 list in (it'd be nice if someone could find a good list published around 2000-2004, too, to get more perspective on games of the 90s - we're overrepresented in the 2000s at the moment). Not going to republish everything, but the short version is that w/ Empire, the following games crossed the threshold: Dark Souls, Arkham City, Final Fantasy 7, Call of Duty 4, Super Mario Kart, Dragon Age, & The Last of Us. Also should be noted that some of these lists are sneakily updating in the background rather than "versioning" their list - my spreadsheet of GamesRadar's list doesn't quite correspond to what they have up now, as they snuck in The Last Of Us and the like into their current list that I'm pretty sure wasn't in the 2013 version. Anyway, here's the bubble, which is the important part:

(Last of Us is at 15!)

  • 13: Fallout 3, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
  • 12: Batman: Arkham City, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Dark Souls, Diablo 2, Final Fantasy 7, Left 4 Dead,
  • 11: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Doom, Dragon Age: Origins, Grand Theft Auto 3, Grim Fandango, StarCraft, Street Fighter II, XCOM: UFO Defense

-- Bubble starts here--

  • 10: Civilization IV, Final Fantasy 6, Super Mario Kart, The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Galaxy
  • 9: Assassin's Creed II, Baldur's Gate II, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Braid, Grand Theft Auto 5, Journey, Mass Effect, Mega Man 2, Metal Gear Solid 3, Metroid, Perfect Dark, Portal 2, Star Wars: TIE Fighter, StarCraft 2, Street Fighter IV, System Shock 2, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

-- Nope --

  • 8: Donkey Kong, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, League of Legends, Metal Gear Solid 2, Minecraft, Pokemon Red / Blue, Rome: Total War, Super Smash Bros. Brawl
  • 7: Contra, Gran Turismo, Halo 2, Planescape: Torment, Shadow of the Colossus, Super Mario World, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, Warcraft III

Per before, "old" games at 9 were included (= pre 1995 or so), "new" games with recentism bias weren't. SnowFire (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Of Us / GTA V

Just two critically acclaimed totals that revolutionized their respective systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeitergeist1997 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the Methodology section notes: "Very recent games are not usually represented either." Games released within the past 2 years can't possibly show up on lots of these lists, because they were published before then, and that's okay - some games end up as passing fads anyway. That said, GTA5 at least was on a few of the very recent ones, so we'll see. SnowFire (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Variants??

Why is there Tetris, Street Fighter II, and Counter-Strike listed here? Each port and versions of these games make them different games. It is also bias/unfair to combine awards from all ports/versions to reach the threshold to be on the list.

If the game is considered the best, the version released at that time should have all the awards. So all three should be removed.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "and variants", but the claim they should be removed is silly - World of WarCraft & Team Fortress 2 has changed greatly since it first came out, StarCraft having enduring popularity surely includes the Brood War expansion pack, etc. Tetris is Tetris, even it happens to have an unusually fraught history of its early releases on various systems. I just checked, and both the references mentioning SF2 don't talk about the expansions, so it seems safe to remove the disclaimer - that's just another game that happens to have an unusually large number of subtle variants. SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to this page by User:Mammothphones

See the edits here: they appear to contain some vandalism, but they haven't been reverted yet. Jarble (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been hugely edited by IPs in the past few weeks. I was the one who made the original list with at least a semi-objective method... I should probably take some of the new sources added since and incorporate them in, but I don't want to commit WP:OWNership violation. On the other hand, if this list becomes "games Wikipedia editors like a lot" then that's trouble. The problem is that *any* well reviewed game can probably find a few sources of people calling it the best ever; a 3000 game long list isn't very useful, IMHO. I personally am on the side of keeping the list short and punchy; leave off the games that don't significantly appear in a *lot* of lists, with perhaps some leeway for pre-2000 games as sources for that era are harder to find.
Anyway, if any of the IP addresses editing this page see this, I'd love to chat about the methodology you're using to add games... you can see the one I used above. SnowFire (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a criteria of at least five sources for post-2000 games and four sources for pre-2000 games. That should hopefully prevent the list from becoming too bloated. 86.179.202.49 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's

Five Nights at Freddy's was been prased from the Critics and gamers alike which the ratings is 85% (PC) 80% (iOS) from GameRankings, 78 outta 100 from Metacritic, 4 and a Half outta Five Stars in Game Revolution and 80 outta 100 PC Gamer US which it become as the best point and click survival horror game ever maded in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcpend (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Undertale gets a spot on this list (even thought it's a) too young to deserve a spot and b) a really mediocre game, then Five Night's at Freddy's deserves a spot.

I'm surprise Undertale got so many listing within just a few months to get added to the list as well. Are the listings added all according to the established rules of the given methodology? Furthermore, could any other games be added now more sources are used? I have a hard time imagining eight new sources equaling only one new game. ~Mable (chat) 21:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who added the metacritic and gamerankings lists?

I am not objecting to them being there, just wondering who put them there. Also, I think games with a metacritic/gameranking score of 95+ should be there. If the list seems shortsighted for that, then we shoul add games with 90+. but let's start with 95+. Osh33m (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rayman Legends deserves a spot. Featuring excellent graphics, fun co-op play and engaging missions, it was critically acclaimed. It received a Metascore of 92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easportsforever (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countries section lacking sources

What exactly is up with the Countries-section? Though it makes sense to also list what video game is considered the best from many countries (I am indeed quite curious what the "best" Chilean video games are), the sources used in this section are horrendous:

  • "China: FTL: Faster Than Light is the 11th best PC video game ever according to PCGamer" sounds rather silly and doesn't even make clear the game is made in China.
  • "Chile: Rock of Ages is the best Chilean video game according to server PanamericanWorld.com." What even is this website? I have never heard of it, it doesn't seem to be an "expert" on the field of video games and again, it lists the best Latin American games, and Chile's game is on number three. Which brings me to:
  • "Argentina: Preguntados is the best video game from Latin America according to server PanamericanWorld.com." This game actually has an American release titled Trivia Crack.
  • "Finland: Max Payne is the most popular Finnish game." Most popular doesn't indicate quality, and this section doesn't explain at all how the book got to this conclusion.
  • "Japan ..." There are so many Japanese games already on the list itself, with The Ocarina of Time already being on top according to number of lists it appears on. All of the games listed in this section are already on the list, most of them very high up. It looks more like some people wanted to point out a little bit extra that they really like this game, for no real reason. A Japan section could work if we would only base it on games Japanese sources site as the best (so we can contrast these results with the international sources used in the main list), but right now, this section is just useless, and I would vote for it specifically to be removed.
  • "Kenya ... Nigeria" These two countries are based on a top 10 by IT News Africa, perhaps not a particularly reliable source to be used to define the best game from a specific country. The games themselves do not even seem to have their own articles. Again, the lack of back-up here makes it impossible to take serious.

I am all for trying to figure out what the best games are from countries that don't get as much credit in English speaking media. Most of the sources we're using come from the United States and they have a great bias for games published within their borders. However, unless we can find at least a few sources agreeing on a title, we really can't include it in this article. Does anyone have an idea on how to fix this issue?

It might be a good idea to list sources covering the "greatest games of all times" in non-US/Japan countries on the talk page and only add information to the list itself when we have enough to base such an inclusion on. ~Mable (chat) 09:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken release years

Say, @Osh33m:, I can't help but notice some minor edit warring going on. What exactly is the problem with the release years for Tekken here? Do you know why it keeps being changed? ~Mable (chat) 05:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging:, could we please discuss this before it gets changed again? Which version of the games are we really talking about? The original arcade version, or the console version(s)? ~Mable (chat) 06:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since they're basically the same, I would assume we should use the earlier year, as we do for all of the other arcade games in the list.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Using the arcade years do not make sense because clearly, the sources are describing the playstation versions, which are 1996 and 1998 respectively. If you don't believe that, why don't you think about why tekken 3 on the gamesranking list is 1998 and not 1997? There you go. If you have it listed as 1998 there and 1997 on the conglomerated list then it is inconsistent. Osh33m (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTimesAreAChanging:, the arcade versions and playstation versions of the tekken games are NOT the same at all, whatsoever - the arcade versions are just that, the arcade mode gameplay which is included in the playstation version, along with the rest of the full, packaged, retail game...Osh33m (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't played either version, so I have no idea how different they are, but I would assume that there's a good chance most, if not all the sources, are praising the console version. If they really are notably different, I'd think the retail release years should be listed. That being said, TimesAreAChanging, you say that there are other games on this list where we specifically give the release date of the arcade version rather than the console port? I'd like to know what games they are, so we can compare them with this case. I'd say a game like Pac-Man, for example, would have the release date of its arcade version listed here, as that version is the one most people are talking about. ~Mable (chat) 16:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The arcade & PS1 versions of Tekken 2 & 3 are almost identical, since the System 11 & 12 are based on the PS1. The only differences are that the PS1 versions add several additional modes, while at the same time cutting some graphics from T3 (because PS1 is weaker than System 12). Either way, one of the Tekken 3 sources is a 1997 EGM list which specifically lists the arcade version, so it would be inconsistent to list its release date as 1998 when one of its sources is from 1997. And finally, the column heading is "original release year", which means the date it first released, regardless of platform or popularity. That's why, for example, Tetris is listed as 1984, despite the 1984 version never being released outside the USSR. I don't see why Tekken should be any different. RetroGameFan (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is one source while the vast majority of the sources listed are talking about the playstation versions. You say that the only differences are the modes when really, they make it a very big difference since there's much more to the retail version than the arcade version. You want to talk about inconsistency? Again, the gamesranking list has tekken 3 as 1998. I am the one who originally added the tekken games to these lists, and I'm reverting the dates again Osh33m (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of Tetris sources talk about the Game Boy version, so does that mean Tetris should be changed from 1984 to 1989? And what about all the other games with multiple versions? The column heading specifically says "original release year", clearly referring to the first version that released, so it doesn't matter which version is most popular. As for Tekken 3, the PS1 version adds extra modes, but it also cut out some graphics, like the background in Ogre's stage. As for GameRankings, it doesn't cover arcade games, so why would it list the arcade date? Besides, it's completely separate from the main table, so there's no inconsistency there, compared to having a glaring contradiction within the main table itself, where it'd appear a 1997 source is awarding a 1998 game. And finally, if you were the one who originally added it, WP:Ownership. RetroGameFan (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, if you don't stop edit warring, I'll request a temporary lock -_- Reach consensus and then change the article. There is no deadline. ~Mable (chat) 08:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point when I said I was the one who added it originally was that those games might've not been on the list like they were supposed to if I hadn't added tekken 3 in the first place. As for tetris, if the majority of the awards are for the gameboy version then I would say yes, the year should be changed, but my fight here is for the tekken games, not tetris. now you've begun listing some of the reasons why tekken 3 the home version is much more than what the arcade version was aside from the setbacks. if gamerankings doesn't cover arcade games, that should tell you something about all the awards that are listed on the main list - that they are being attributed to the home version. Osh33m (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean we should try to figure out the exact version that is most critically acclaimed of each game on this list? How different are the original Tetris, the well-known Tetris on the GameBoy and, let's say, Tengen Tetris? Perhaps it's the most important to really understand what function the years serve in this list. ~Mable (chat) 17:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's up for you to decide. Like I said, my fight here is for the tekken games. Before tekken 6, the routine for these games were arcade releases and a year later, playstation releases. that's straight forward. and the playstation releases were the full, retail game home releases. most of the awards pertain to the home releases and with that logic in mind, the retail releases are what should be on the list. Osh33m (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that really matters to me here is consistency: I don't mind if we list games according to their very first release or to their popular releases, but we should understand why we pick the dates the way we do. This topic is much bigger than just Tekken though - for example, Street Fighter II was released in arcades a year prior to its first retail release as well. I don't see how Tekken would be in any way different to that game. ~Mable (chat) 19:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MGS: The Phantom Pain

Surely Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain deserves a spot in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easportsforever (talk • contribs) 09:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You realize how new the game is, right? :p No sources could have probably covered it yet. We wait for that to happen - might take a few years. No hurry, this is an all-time list :) ~Mable (chat) 10:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic and Gamerankings

Since all-time best scores from Metacritic and Gamerankings are already taken into consideration on the main list, why are there lists for Metacritic and Gamerankings as "other criteria"? These lists, in my opinion, should be removed from the article. It would be okay to have them displayed if they had not been used in the main list, but as it is now, it serves no purpose. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar project

There is a website which has not been updated since 2012 that follows a line of thought very similar to the one used when creating this article. There are a few more lists not included here that could be useful for the ranking. The website is http://www.jjmccullough.com/games.htm

Some links to the lists are dead, but can be accessed through http://web.archive.org

I hope this can be useful. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color reversion

In this edit I reverted ThiagoSimoes well-meaning coloration changes to the "Video games by the number of 'best games ever" lists' table. The table is sortable, so I don't see a real benefit being provided by adding colors. Aesthetically, the colors do overwhelm the table and the page, IMO. Beyond that, we should be sure that changes like these still provide for a high contrast ratio between text and background colors per WP:COLOR. While most of the backgrounds I tested seem to work okay with black text, the default link color on some browsers (Chrome for example) is #0000EE, which, on a background of #FFA07A doesn't fully conform to WCAG 2.0 AAA. (Useful tool is here). Technical drivel aside, if the community decides that colors are what the table needs, we need to make sure that the data is still accessible to the visually impaired. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fond of colors, but I didn't feel like the way Thiago added them really added much to the list. I have to agree that the article is better off without the color coding. I am open to other ideas for how to use color coding, though. A way to make it easier on the eye might be to only color code one column of the table, instead of the entire table. ~Mable (chat) 08:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be reasonable. Though I think Thiago linked the colors to the Original platform column. All "Arcade" entries were colored yellow, all "PC"s were colored salmon-ish, and so on. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb is right. I tried to sort the colors by platform, but I have to say the final result is not exactly what I expected. I decided to leave it that way and add a note that the changes could be reverted with no loss to the content of the article, so the other users and editors could decide what best suits the article. I think the revert is for the best, actually. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yobot removing spaces between citations

The Yobot automatically removed all the spaces between the references, which messes up the table. How could this be fixed? ~Mable (chat) 10:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not your problem, it's up to bot owners to write well-behaved bots. Go to [[1]] and request the page be blacklisted from Yobot or the issue otherwise fixed. SnowFire (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project page

I created a project page you may be interested in. There is also pwnrank which is similar. SharkD  Talk  23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 09:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of sources

I strongly believe that in order to avoid confusion we should limit the games being displayed to at least eight different sources. There are currently 100 games that fit this criteria, and this is more than enough, in my opinion, to offer a broad view on what games are considered all-time best games. I also recommend that we keep a topic on this talk page listing the games that were nominated in 5, 6 or 7 sources, so they could be added to the list in the future if an eighth source mentions them. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd express some skepticism here since this would make it even tougher for "recent" games to show up, but checking the list, everything <8 isn't very recent anyway, so I'd agree that they should be moved off to a subpage. (Okay, there's 1 recent entry, but it's got a measly 3 sources and is probably too recent anyway in The Witcher 3?! That should definitely go.) SnowFire (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Getting rid of everything with 8 sources or less is a pretty good idea to shorten the list. (Farewell, Earthbound :c ) ~Mable (chat) 09:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this in theory, but I think it could prove problematic because, as I've combed through these lists, many of these titles actually appear on more lists than they're currently given credit for. EarthBound is a great example, a few days ago it was credited as appearing on only 7 lists (hence would have been subject to deletion with the increased count), but after checking through may of the lists on the table, I've found that it appears on at least 14 of them, and I'm sure that I'm probably missing some (or in other words, it clearly fits the criteria even with the increased requirement). Other games such as Phantasy Star Online weren't on the list, I've found it listed on 7 so far so I included it, but I'm sure that it appears on others that I've missed. So, if all of my work from the last couple of days proves anything, I hope that it's if a game appears on at least 5 lists, than there's a very good chance that it actually appears on more than that. It's just a matter of doing the research and being thorough. If we increased the limit to 8, then I think most of the titles that would be deleted in the process would technically still belong on here, it's just that their sources lists aren't complete. If and when the required number is increased, I think that anything higher than that would feel excessive. Eight sources listing a game as an "All Time Best" is a pretty strong consensus, strong enough that I feel they certainly achieve "notable" status and should be mentioned here. Vorpal76 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not for this, then something else should be done. Isn't there a template that collects all the references and places them in some sort of tool-tip for readability? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

199.193.147.190

So, I didn't know "best video games" meant "blatant Zelda bias." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.147.190 (talk • contribs)

Talk pages should be used to discuss improvements to articles, not for random complaints. If you have specific suggestions for how to improve the article, feel free to continue the discussion. Alternatively, since this is a volunteer project, you could volunteer your time and make the improvements yourself. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria (and recent edit warring)

There are individuals changing/reverting back and forth now, definitely to the point of edit warring. As someone who is relatively new to this article, I'm wondering what criteria should be used here? Is this list referring to the "best of all time"? If so, games appearing on a list of "best games of 2015" or any other year, should certainly not be sufficient criteria for inclusion. If it isn't, and just appearing on a single year's best of list, albeit multiple lists is sufficient, this list will probably get out of control. Caidh (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring is starting to get really bad... ~Mable (chat) 11:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Undertale doesn't belong on this page.

Okay, I've been removing Undertale from the page for god knows how long. And I thought I might list the main reason as to why I keep doing it.

First of all, practically all of the sources for Undertale haven't been viable enough for being on this page. Most of the sources I see are stuff like "Best Game of 2015", "Top 10 Indie Games you Need to play" etc. The problem with those is that they are either not helpful, doesn't talk about how Undertale is a game for the ages or are only for the year it was released in. Compare Undertale's sources to a game like Skyrim for example. That game won A LOT of Game of the Year awards and was highly rated in Top 10 Games of 2011 list and when you look at that game's sources, it's mostly stuff like Top 100 Games of All Time lists and a Metacritic page, which I'll get to later. Heck, compare it to something like Journey for example, that's an Indie Game as well and the sources for that don't have stuff like "Top 10 Indie Games" or "Best Games of 2012", it has the same sources as Skyrim, features in Best Games of All Time lists and stuff like that.

Next up is Steam's "Highest Rated Games" source. Honestly, that is a TERRIBLE source for one reason and one reason only, it is user-based. If you look at the top-rated games you can see that One Finger Death Punch a small little Indie Game that is somewhat stupid, yet awesome. Is not only above Undertale, but is at Rank TWO right behind Portal 2.

Finally, there's Metacritic. First of all, the Metacritic page isn't judging the Greatest games across all platforms, it talks about PC games ONLY. Also, on the Methodology section, you can see that it says that seventh generation games need to be in the Top 25 to be considered for the page. When I wrote this, Undertale is at 28th place on the best PC games and is in 159th place on the best games of all platforms. Not to mention, Metacritic has it's OWN section on the Other Criteria part, which considers the Top 20 games on their site, which Undertale ISN'T in.

Subtracting all of the sources that are "Best of 2015" lists (-2), the lists that consider only Indie Games (Journey didn't have them so why Undertale?) (-2) and Metacritc and Steam (-1 for both) that leaves Undertale with only 2 sources left, invalidating it's addition to this page and as such needs to be removed. I suggest people who want to put Undertale on this page read this before considering how they do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.147.168 (talk • contribs)

MGSV and The Witcher

How come The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is in the list of video games considered the best, when the sources given are dated before the release of the game? I might have looked past it, but it was kinda odd. Both Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and Wild Hunt won at least five Game of the Year awards so I figured that either both games could be on here or neither could be on here. Lacon432 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Lacon, it appeared someone (intentionally or unintentionally) copied/pasted old references to the Witcher 3 listing, which definitely predate the original game. There didn't appear to be a *single* reference actually about Witcher 3. I wonder how many other references on this list are broken/invalid. Regardless, since the references are all invalid I've removed the game from the list. If there are significant valid references (in my opinion, they should be references specifically referring to the game as one of the best ever, not just best of 2015, then it can be removed. Caidh (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue in references column

It seems like not everyone sees the same issue that I do, and since I find it difficult to explain it, I took a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/5a6Uwgy.png

I do think the best way to solve this issue is by placing spaces between each ref, but these spaces keep getting removed. Opinions? ~Mable (chat) 21:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what the issue is, I think that's how it's supposed to look. Adding spaces between the refs would attract the bot that fixes spaces between refs, because that's against one of the manuals of style. What is the issue? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the references column is needlessly wide. This is the only Wikipedia article that makes a second scrollbar appear for my browser. Surely, this is not an intended effect? The table definitely looked more attractive in this version, don't you agree? I don't believe the manual of style rule applies in this case, as we're not dealing with inline citations (I suppose possibly covered by WP:IAR) ~Mable (chat) 09:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List inclusion criteria

I see that this has been brought up as an issue before, and I don't think that the solution is a proper one. This list seems to have invented a definition of what it is to be a "game considered the best". It's a reasonable definition, but if there aren't any reliable sources we can cite which have published this definition, then Wikipedia is inventing it. If that's the case, then the whole list is WP:SYNTHESIS. That would make this a deletable article, I think, but before going that route I wanted to see if the definition can be refined or reliably sourced. Thoughts? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intro definition is fine, myself; it's as if the full title of the article is "List of video games considered the best by video game journalists", similar to how List of important operas could be phrased more fully as "List of important operas according to opera experts." If the article was "List of the best video games [according to Wikipedia editors]" it'd be more problematic. I agree there *are* OR problems as far as source selection, but I don't really follow about "invented a definition." Do you want a source that says games are considered the best when they're listed as the best? Not really sure what exactly you're looking for... I think we're reflecting the content of the articles pretty exactly as is, so not sure where I see the potential-OR "invention," unless you think these lists really meant something else (what?). SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think these "considered best/worst" lists are weird (because it's almost like Wikipedia is endorsing best/worst labels) and crufty to begin with, but if they must exist, either the leads or the article titles should be clear as to intention. Some of the pitches above are okay. Maybe "List of video games that have made critics' 'best game' lists"? Wordy. I deliberately used plurals so that the base standard is that the game has made multiple lists. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the problem. We've given these games a quality ranking based on the number of times they've appeared in "best of" lists. The definition that we've created here is that a game is considered better (more "the best") if it has appeared on more lists; we spelled it out pretty clearly in the "methodology" section. This list should be stripped down, really: if a game is "considered the best" it should be in this list, but it is not encyclopedic to rank a game higher in the list based on the number of lists it appears in. That's the part that's original research. Our list clearly states that The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is definitively better than Chrono Trigger because it has appeared in three more "best of" lists. I don't think you can source that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've not dispute that if it appears on a single best list it can be added. I agree that putting them in order of how many best lists they've appeared on, is problematic. Alphabetical seems a reasonable solution. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how someone could come to the conclusion that this list is saying that Ocarina of Time is better than Chrono Trigger, but such conclusion would be the result of synthesis from the material presented here. The article actually only says that more critics have listed one game than another (not that the number of lists actually "makes it better"), which is true, and is certainly something that the sources can and do support. To have a game that's appeared on 32 lists and one that appears on only 11 listed side by side without any distinction between the two seems like it would be a lot more misleading. Now, if we were to change the default presentation of the table to say the year of release instead, then I don't see any problem with that, since readers can then sort the table by whichever criteria they want. However, I do feel that including the number of lists that a game appears on someone in table is something that is necessary in order to get an accurate picture of the information being presented. Vorpal76 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New source: The latest PC Gamer list

The PC Gamer list was updated last autumn. You can find it here. -Makkool (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ocarina of Time Omission?

Maybe I'm not schooled to the methodology of this chart on the page, but Ocarina of Time is nowhere to be found, even though every list I've ever seen includes it somewhere. There are 5 other Zelda games on this chart, and only LTTP is as frequent in my findings. I know that sounds like original research or whatever, but I'm certain if one cross referenced these lists they'd find OoT AT LEAST more than 5 times. Or is there some other factor that I'm missing out on? 2601:3C7:8200:D757:D57F:7EBA:F016:BCC1 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The missing factor is vandalism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Games I'm surprised aren't here

Baldur's Gate II Team Fortress 2 Pokemon Gold and Silver Braid The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt System Shock 2 Rome: Total War Undertale Shovel Knight Minecraft Batman: Arkham Asylum Civilisation IV Civilisation V XCOM: UFO Defense Dragon Age: Origins Starcraft 2 Mass Effect Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 Assassin's Creed II Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag Warcraft III Planescape Torment

Keep in mind this isn't bias, I haven't played all of these, it's just that these get referred to as some of the greatest, and they aren't here. Especially Baldur's Gate II, Braid, TF2, MGSV, Witcher 3, and Pro Skater 2.

Wedcvujnmugyoj7ygnokmitf (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they're listed or not purely depends on whether they appear on enough of the lists on the table. Search through the lists and, if you find the requisite number of sources for a title, then it should indeed be included. For the newer titles, (i.e. The Witcher 3, etc.) my guess would be that they probably haven't appeared on enough all times lists yet (which isn't to say that might not change in a year or two) but for the older titles, I'm sure you're right, some of them probably have appeared on enough lists to warrant inclusion. It's just a matter of collecting the sources.
Vorpal76 (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources don't actually have lists which come up. How do I know what these lists have?
Keiran'sawanker (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't come across any that have dead links, or that don't link to what they claim to, so I believe all of the lists should be verifiable in some form. There are, of course, a number that come from print publications. In some cases, there are scans from these available online, other times you have to just reference the physical copy.
Vorpal76 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 16, 2016 updates

I have followed this page for a while now, mostly contributing to the format of the list. I've worked on two updates for the list today. The first one fixes the issue with the way the references are displayed. A minor nuisance is that when sorting the table through other methods, games with 21 or more references are apparently duplicated. While not perfect, this is possibly the best workaround to the serious display issue that was plaguing the list before.

The second update is a lot more drastic. I've double checked every entry and corrected the reference count for each entry. Other fixes include eliminating links where they did not belong, and adding the correct original platform for some games. There was a lot of work put into all of this. I am aware, though, that one final change might be controversial: I decided to streamline the criteria for inclusion and now games must be mentioned on 10 different lists to make it to the article. Seventy-four different lists were selected and analysed, and I strongly believe ten is an appropriate number for minimum inclusion. This list is supposed to be a list of the absolute best games ever, and usually the lists that have been consulted elect 100 games. As of now, 96 games made it to this article, and while it might be a subjective matter to decide when something is too big or too much, I believe this is a more than adequate number of games for the scope of what this article tries to convey.

If there is not enough consensus on this number, please do NOT undo this update. Instead, copy part of the source code from an earlier revision listing only the games which received five to nine mentions on the lists, and paste this fraction of the code to the current article. There are major fixes for games which have received ten or more mentions, and undoing my update would render these fixes useless.

-- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with 10, but I might suggest that earlier games will have lesser opportunity to have been included on more lists (which would cause WP:RECENTISM).

However, the "fix for how the references" was displayed was a bad solution (or perhaps splitting these references into two rows was a problem prior). The correct solution for that is to have all references in a single cell. Breaking them for display can be accomplished by the use of <br/> rather than separate cells. --Izno (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! It does work! I tried this a few months ago and the results were different. I'm glad it works now. Thank you for coming up with an excellent solution.

Now, when it comes to older games not being fairly represented, it is a good idea to take a look at what games are, indeed, represented now. So far, we have: 1 game from the 1970s, 18 games from the 1980s, 38 games from the 1990s, 32 games from the 2000s, and 7 games from the 2010s. Out of 96 games, 57 games were released from 1978 to 1999, and 39 games were released from 2000 to 2013. I believe representation is fair, but it is important to reach consensus about this issue. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The article's title currently says "List of video games considered the best" based on dozens of video game journalists' top 10 or 100 lists; however, the journalists, as the person who tagged the entire article as original research suggested, are not necessarily calling these games the best, but rather the greatest, so I propose that the article be moved to "List of video games considered the greatest". Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft should be listed

There are 11 lists that refer to Minecraft as one of the greatest games ever, so it should be added to the article, and the lists that refer to the game as such are here:

  • List 13
  • List 36
  • List 41
  • List 46
  • List 63
  • List 66
  • List 71
  • List 73
  • List 79
  • List 82
  • List 89

Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added the game to see what happens. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic The Hedgehog CD

A 10/10 from a Sega-16, A 88.57% average on GameRankings,. Where is it on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoebro64 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect score for a Sega fansite really isn't all that noteworthy. While an 88% at GR is good, looking at the sort of sourcing shown in the article, you must realize that a stronger argument than this would be required to put it on the list, right? Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just found another link: http://www.gamesradar.com/why-sonic-cd-one-greatest-games-all-time/ (TheJoebro64 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Question

Isn't this article a massive violator of WP:OVERCITE? There has to be a better way to keep the sources, but not directly show 20+ of them per game, right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on List of video games considered the best. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about sources

Greetings, everyone!

I added Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn to the list, after managing to scrape together 10 sources. I've noticed that other games use lists from the same publication in their citations; for example, IGN's Top 100 Games, for 2005, for 2007, for 2010, and so on. And, doing this, their source count is increased. Shouldn't those lists count as a single reference, since they are often the same list merely updated every few years? I could do the same for Shadows of Amn, since I think it is listed a few times, for example, on the different IGN lists; but something tells me that it is not right. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a serious issues with the number of Nintendo only sources here. Yes, they are the longest continual producer of games and have an incredible back catalogue, but surely including publications such as Nintendo Power skews this entire ranking towards them. Either include other dedicated manufacturer publications or (more likely) remove them! 107.208.228.155 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • But we can't just ignore them either. We really should have a readjustment of the qualifications here; maybe make it mandatory to include 3 or 4 third-party publications to fix that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Amiga - Atari ST - 16bit era games

As an addition to the first remark about Internet era bias, which I suppose points towards the lack of 8bit computer games (Commodore 64, Sinclair Spectrum, Amstrad CPC - only Elite on BBC Micro is mentioned). I consider the article untrustworthy because there cannot be a list of best video games with no 16 bit era games in it; especially on the Amiga computer. A great collection of fantastic, original games is excluded.

  • Well in all fairness I don't think its an Internet bias so much as an American bias. Many of the sites and publications that have put out "best of" lists are American, so they naturally gravitate towards platforms popular in that country. The Spectrum, BBC Micro, and Amstrad CPC were not widespread in North America, and many of the Commodore 64, Atari ST, and Amiga games that enthralled European audiences either failed to make it to the United States or failed to have much impact there. This article is bound by what games reliable sources have listed, so that is going to naturally omit much of the European scene. Indrian (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about which games are fantastic. This is about which games have reliable sources that they're considered the best, especially in contrast with other games. While I agree that computer games sometimes require computer-specific sources and wholeheartedly agree with trying to include as many computer-game sources as possible, demanding per platform or per time period games to appear or else "be biased" is the wrong approach. Maybe there wasn't anything good on the Spectrum as far as later reviewers were concerned, or it all faded away too quickly. For example, if there was a list somewhere of the "best 20 games from the Atari Jaguar" or some other forgotten console, it's not a very useful source. What would be useful are sources that are overviews of computer games in general that happen to think Commodore 64 games are worthy of inclusion. It is entirely possible that these sources do not actually exist, and in that case, it doesn't mean the games were any less fantastic, merely that game journalists ignore them - which is stated right at the start of the article. Basically I'm saying that I don't think the globalize tag is helpful, so should be removed. If you can find good sources, add them, though. SnowFire (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess

Sorry, but there are just too many problems here. The sources are arbitrary and there is absolutely no way to justify the main list. Metacritic and Gamerankings (is the latter even notable, though?) can be used to compare games. How many sources one can scrounge up to support their favourite game can not. There's a comment not far up in which one user admits to having found enough sources to include their favourite game. It seems he was far from the only one to do this. What establishes the notability of a gaming media source? Why are many of them from the same source, and simply from different years or publications? Many of them are also quite specific; I see titles like "Top 100 Arcade Games" or "Games of the generation" or "Top PC games", even one "Top console games". Then there are much more specific ones such as "Best of their time", "Best console games of the 80's" and national picks. Some are actual blog polls. Honestly, this article can only be saved by changing the title to something like "highest-rated on Metacritic" or whatever and then only doing that. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I 100% agree that the use of sources is a mess, I disagree that Metacritic is the answer. That's measuring something different than what this article was, at least originally. Metacritic shows reviews made at time of release, while this article focuses on historical retrospectives. By analogy with movies, we're looking for games that stood the test of time, not merely games that got a lot of hype on release, or that have publishers who pressure the reviewers to hand out high scores. There's much less fear of bias in retrospectives, as nobody is getting paid for hyping older games.
I also disagree that using "specific" lists is a problem; see the complaint above, which is basically the reverse of this - that there aren't ENOUGH "specific" lists being used. No journalist has played every game ever, so narrowing the field a bit is a perfectly respectable thing to do. While TOO specific a list is problematic - "Best XBox 360 games" or the like - something like "Best PC games of the 90s" suggests that subject-matter experts of that field are writing the article, which is actually a good sign of reliability, not a bad one. SnowFire (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying we shouldn't use Metacritic at all? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine as a single source among many. I wouldn't want it to overwhelm the other sources cited, though. SnowFire (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I added a new column giving the number of lists that a game topped. I think this approach would bring this article more in line with List of films considered the best, which only takes into account the top-ranking film of each list. 86.177.75.175 (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a grump, but... I disagree. (I've disagreed with a lot of where this table has gone - I'd remove all the genre bloat columns too, so don't take me too seriously, I don't want to be overbearing and could be wrong.) #1 is very swingy. Is there much difference between #1 and #2? I doubt it. It makes different list criteria much swingier as well, as #1 on a "best games of all time" list is more impressive than "best games of a more specific criteria". As another comment, tables shouldn't spread out endlessly horizontally if they want to be mobile-friendly on low resolutions - there's already too many columns. What I *do* agree with is somehow baking in place-in-the-list into figuring out what deserves hype, but not do something as dramatic as #1 vs. everything else - maybe something more like you get 5 points for #1-10, 4 points for #11-25, and 3 points for #26-100 (I did something like that above in one of the earlier versions of this article). Of course, this can't really be directly stuck in the article as being a bit arbitrary, but it could be used to quietly create the criteria for inclusion. SnowFire (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, we should at the very least massively shorten the column header so there isn't tons of wasted space. If you want to keep the data you researched, we could also potentially move it into its own table. SnowFire (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SnowFire on this, and thus reverted back to the last good version until this can be discussed more first. This entire article needs major cleanup, if not a complete rewrite. Perhaps we can enlist the help of WP:VG and make it a large community project? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the article should be more along the lines of List of films considered the best, which exclusively lists only the #1 ranked film on each list, not anything below that (unless if it's for individual countries or genres). I think it would make sense to do the same here. But if you guys don't agree with altering the main table, then I'm quite happy with SnowFire's suggestion of having the data for #1 ranked games moved to a separate table. 86.177.75.175 (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and moved the #1 ranked data to a separate table, as suggested by SnowFire above. If you guys feel there is any issue with it, then feel free to mention it here or edit the article. 86.177.75.175 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Witcher 3 should be on this list

I know it was released only two years ago, but a totally critically acclaimed game and the players as well, in addition to having won over 250 goty awards and being often referred to as the best 8th generation console game, I think it should Join this list. An excellent game like The Witcher 3 should not be left out of this list, since it has The Last of Us and GTA V included.(Sorry for some grammar error.) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F0:A090:B43C:6554:5DFD:621C:B50A (talk)

I agree that this list is a mess and needs a complete remake and review for what sources we use. The problem is that we need a group of editors to be involved to help speed up the process and make sure any new/updated sources are all agreed upon to be reliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best&oldid=798041613"