Talk:List of video games considered the best

Meta discussion

Meta discussion regarding this page 202.58.204.234 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"This is a list of video games that multiple video game journalists or magazines have considered to be among the best of all time. The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications (inclusive of all time periods, platforms, and genres), as chosen by their editorial staffs."

The promise (not premise) of this page is to list games considered the best of all time. The actual content of this page is a list of the "best" games per year. It's a super bizzare page and I'm surprised it continues to exist in it's current format. It should be called what it actually is 202.58.204.234 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Because that’s just been the most convenient way to organize the page my guy. If you have an idea for how the page can possibly still adhere to its “promise” while still having a clean, organized and easy to read format then you are free to suggest that. XJJSX (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not the list of "best games per year". It's just that the release year of the games are denoted. -- ferret (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The "on at least six separate lists" requirements is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and must be removed from this page.

There is also a major WP:DUE / WP:UNDUE issue with excluding reliable, published "best game of all time" lists that do not rank PC games. (Or any other combination of platforms.) As discussed here:

• Talk:List of video games considered the best/Archive_11#"Best Games of All Time" articles are frequently console-only; NPOV issue to exclude them

PK-WIKI (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So what are either of you (both PK-WIKI and the IP) suggesting be done with the page then? Do you want a format similar to List of films voted the best, where it would only list games ranked as #1? Do you want the six lists requirement lowered? I don't agree or disagree with the points brought up, but similarly to what XJJSX said, if you're going to take the time to point out these "issues" (and bring back up a debate that was settled and archived), then suggesting ways they could be fixed helps. λ NegativeMP1 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

A) The entry requirements for this list has been discussed to death at this point so just saying “it needs to change” without saying how just isn’t being productive quite frankly.

B) The article explicitly says on the front page (and has been checked to make sure of this) that the lists are inclusive of all time periods, Platforms, and genres, so unless I or another user has missed something then I don’t know where this console only point is coming from. XJJSX (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The "six separate lists" requirement has been discussed several times before. I brought it up several months ago and the discussion already seemed old hat at that point. Basically, everyone agrees that the requirement for six lists is pretty arbitrary, but barring a completely different way of organizing the list that hasn't been discussed as of yet, it is the most removed from editor opinion as we can get at this point.

Also, that last point will do the exact opposite of what you argue, putting an undue weight on console games. If this list is to be inclusive of all platforms, that obviously would not be good for the list. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It would not put undue weight on the article to include the EGM 1997 "Best Games of All Time" list. This wiki article is titled "List of video games considered the best". The citation is for a list of the video games considered the best by one of the main reliable source gaming magazines from the 1990s. Including that article is thus provides appropriate weight for this article. It's WP:UNDUE for us here to exclude contemporary, top-tier reliable source lists on the basis of complete WP:OR WP:LISTCRITERIA such as "must contain PC and console games" when that criteria does not exist in the contemporary reliable source lists. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. However, I want to clear up one point here, as your comment implies that EGMs console-only approach to making top-games lists was common in the 1990s. This is not the case. The majority of lists from the 1990s are not console-only lists; in fact, it's pretty much just EGM that made a list like that, per WP:VG's collection of top games lists. The Next Generation, GamesMaster, Hyper, Flux, and The Independent lists are all-platform-inclusive. Nothing has really changed on that front; even today, EGM is one of the very few RS publications (maybe the only? Google isn't turning up much) that has made an editor-chosen, console-only list like this. There is no evidence that console-only lists like this have ever been common. We exclude this console-only list for the same reason we would exclude a computer-only list, such as Computer Gaming World's 1996 Top 150. Phediuk (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Phediuk. I have no doubt that EGM's list is high-quality and reliable, but why would we need a list that glaringly omits a large part of video game history when we have countless other high-quality, reliable sources that actually are comprehensive lists, including ones that are contemporaneous to the EGM list? This is the "List of video games considered the best", not the "List of console games considered the best", so ignoring PC, a highly influential platform with a long history of acclaimed video games, is so blatantly WP:UNDUE I shouldn't even have to say it. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there's no real basis for the "at least six sources" standard, and it edges into WP:OR. It definitely is arbitrary. Ironically, a lot of the proposals to fix it are also arbitrary. It would be very easy to just lower the threshold to "multiple reliable sources" (e.g.: three) as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Even for those who are concerned it would create a size issue, we could easily remove a column or two, make room for some new rows, and preserve the current size. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that EXTRAORDINARY doesn't set any count. It doesn't make a floor of three (or any floor other than "multiple"), so three is no less arbitrary. -- ferret (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Three seems to be an ordinary reading, but two would also be valid. (Six is WP:OR.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

An alternative idea that I saw someone bring up at the talk page for List of films considered the best was making this list more like that article (link). The criteria for that page is if a movie was voted/placed at #1 on a "best of" list, and subsections existed for lists that were only for specific genres. It only listed #1s, and anything below was excluded. User/viewer polls are also present there. I don't necessarily agree with that type of list being implemented here, since I don't think it'd be easy or feasible to implement here (if we take into account console lists, all genres, etc) and my own list similar to this one would (by extension) have to implement it, and basically cease to exist since most of the lists there don't use numbers. But even though I don't agree with it, it's technically a less-arbitrary criteria than "X amount of sources = you're in." λ NegativeMP1 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't get your accusation of "PC games" because that is ambiguous. Several listed titles in the last 10, 15, even 20 years have a fair amount of PC titles listed, including cross-platform titles released on both PCs and consoles. Do you mean PC-exclusive? Or older PC titles? The latter makes more sense since the gap between PC and console hardware was wider. But can you provide a ratio of PC and console titles in the 20th and 21st centuries, to confirm a console-only bias?

And yeah, you can't provide an argument without having a proper counter-counterargument and solution to their counterarguments. This is arbitrary, yes, but what if the current form of the article is the least arbitrary anyway? Carlinal (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So does anyone have any ideas on adjusting this pages criteria to get rid of the original research? Or are we going to continue basing this page off of an arbitrary requirement as some of y'all have stated. λ NegativeMP1 19:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a clarification here: a multiple-source threshold does not fall under WP:OR, which concerns itself solely with whether sources support article claims; that policy makes no mention of inclusion criteria, or the number of sources in an article. Supporting the claim that multiple (in this case, six) sources list a particular game as one of the best of all time requires no more than to provide said sources. This page does so for all entries, and therefore, all of its claims are supported. Phediuk (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This section has been dormant for a week so I'll state I support Phediuk's claim, and ferret's claim of a lack of set count on WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I'm also confused at Shooterwalker's comment that two or three sources are valid and ordinary, but six would cross into OR. What's the thought process in that? Did they decide for themselves on that number? Wouldn't that be OR in itself? That's not really considerate.

Going through all this, I'm gonna ask if the lede should be revised again to better reflect its criteria. It's been scrutinized but knowing the IP's initial accusation I feel the need to discuss it here. Carlinal (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No need; the lede already states the criteria, and several others have already refuted the IP's initial claim. Phediuk (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Aight, cool. Carlinal (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2024

In my opinion the following games should be added since they were either innovative, unique or produced great numbers and were liked by everyone: 2013: - Metro Last Light - Rayman Legends - Outlast 2014: - Five Nights and Freddy's: I would add this first one simply because it had a slight twist on your average horror game at the time. 2015: - Ori and the Blind Forest: It was one of the main ambassadors of the indie scene alongside with Undertale. 2016: - Dark Souls III: Till this day some claim it to be the best Souls Like FromSoft has ever made. - Pokemon GO: Debatable if it was ever "the best" but without a doubt an innovative game and one of the biggest draws of AR mobile gaming EVER. 2017: - Resident Evil 7: BioHazard: One of the greatest Resident Evil games ever made. - Cuphead: One of the greatest 2D games with an incredible design and unmatched quality. - Hollow Knight: Once again a great ambassador from the indie scene. 2018: - Monster hunter World: I mean it literally have won RPG of the year in 2018. Has it's flaws but it's achievements and ratings cannot be doubted. - Spiderman: Still considered one of the greatest super hero game ever made. At least this first one deserves a spot in my opinion. - Celeste: At this point, I feel like it would be a crime not to include a great indie each year. 2019: - Sekiro: Shadow Dies Twice 2020: - Doom Eternal: It reinvented and perfected this arcade-like new age doom genre and people will buy it for decades. - Ghost of Tsusima: Simply one of the greatest open world games of the last 20 years. - Animal Crossings: New Horizons: Single handedly saved us all during the pandemic - Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time: I'm biased as hell but I can't think of another 3D platformer from recent years that could ever match this game. 2021: - It Takes Two: One of the greatest co-op game I played. Once again, 1 in a 100 quality. - Forza Horizon 5: Might be a bad pick but I can't stop hearing about how Forza and racing games peaked here. 2022: -God of War: Ragnarök: It was bigger and better in almost every aspect but some bugs and unpolished bits left a sour taste. Still a ridiculously high quality game. 2023: -Baldur's Gate 3: Game of the year. Also such a high quality that it should borderline be a crime. Incredible game. - Hogwarts Legacy: Controversies or not, it was still the greatest Harry Potter related game EVER released. Ewokman6464 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see the criteria listed on the page itself and this talk page, the opinions of individual editors is not what determines what is placed on this list. λ NegativeMP1 19:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Archiving GameInformer lists

So GameInformer shut down today and nuked all of their content, anyone knows if their lists have been archived yet? Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Every list implemented on the article can be found on the Google Docs omnibus data (found in the FAQ), including Game Informer's. Shit still sucks, though. Carlinal (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The GI lists were both published in the magazine itself, so the website shutdown should not affect anything here. Phediuk (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Esquire, 2019

I searched around trying to find a potential Japanese source for the article, considering the rather unfortunate lack of them, but ran into a new source from Esquire instead. I found this source:
https://www.esquire.com/jp/lifestyle/tech/g26743189/best-video-games-ranked-190307/

I thought that perhaps I had found what I was looking for, given that this source was in Japanese and was distinct from both the 2018 and 2020 list. But the inclusion of World of Warcraft on the list struck me as odd, since there is no Japanese translation of WoW to my knowledge and seems like a pretty niche title over there as a result. Sure enough, on closer inspection, at the end of the list I saw "From Esquire US". I took the link to archive.org and found the original source, released in 2019:
http://web.archive.org/web/20190306080814/https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/g26572573/best-video-games-ranked/

To my knowledge, this archive is the only way to access this page in English, as the link on the Japanese page now leads to the 2020 article, and trying to force the URL into the English version by removing the /jp/ from it just leads to an error page. Nevertheless, this does seem to have similar editorial standards to the other Esquire articles, and is distinct from the other lists, and thus should be counted as a new source.

The list in question:

Esquire, 2019
1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 2. Super Mario World 3. Tetris 4. Street Fighter II 5. Wii Sports 6. Pokémon Red and Blue 7. World of Warcraft 8. Kingdom Hearts II 9. Overwatch 10. Super Mario Kart

IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice work digging this up. This list does appear to meet all the criteria -- RS, editor-chosen, greatest games, no platform/era/genre restrictions -- so I see no reason not to include it. If there are no objections, I will incorporate it shortly; Kingdom Hearts II will be added to the main page. Phediuk (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm down Alena 33 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. I have also added the 2019 Esquire list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve updated my Top 100 list for those who are curious/miss it

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DW-2yjPbKkdj4qaIkE85VsT1T2uhDwxsPn70kfuHimw/edit XJJSX (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts II

Hello, just wanted to point out that according to the spreadsheet version of the omnibus, Kingdom Hearts II is apparently eligible to be added to the page. Jabberwocky7297 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Pheduik is working on it he’s incorporating KH2 into the list as we speak. XJJSX (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I just preemptively added it so I did not forget. Should be on the main page soon given no issues (otherwise I will revert). BenSVE (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary lists do not belong on Wikipedia

"Each game must be included on at least six 'best games of all time' lists compiled by separate publications."

This criteria strives to be objective by referencing six official publications, but this is in no way representative of what the majority of players consider the best games. It is totally arbitrary and has no place on Wikipedia.

When assessing the subjective worth of objects that have had a proportionally large impact on human consciousness, it is crucial to provide at least a basic context to argue its case. This might be its technical innovations or increasingly relevant themes, emotional storytelling, fluid controls, or a combination of these. How could anyone understand why Pong is on this list without the background of how simple and addictive it is?

It would also help in rationalizing some of the more questionable choices. For example Crash 3 is mentioned, but many would consider it diluted and gimmicky compared to the more refined Crash 2, which is not mentioned. The other perspective might say the additional vehicles and time trial mode makes it the most complete experience of the trilogy. My point is that the short explanation tells us what kind of impact it made to earn its spot on the list, becoming actually informative and fulfilling its purpose on Wikipedia. 2A01:4B00:F01A:BE00:4EEE:239F:ADC6:F520 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The criteria of coverage in multiple reliable sources is not arbitrary. As the lede indicates, this article does not purport to be representative of what the majority of players consider the best games, and what is questionable to you may not be to another reader. - Aoidh (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If the article is not representative of what the majority of players consider the best games, why is the title "list of video games considered the best"?

It should be something like "list of top-ranked video games". Games are not considered the best because they appeared in six "best of all time" lists, the evidence lies in their cultural impact. 2A01:4B00:F01A:BE00:4EEE:239F:ADC6:F520 (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The title reflects usage in reliable sources, which is how such titles are determined. If reliable sources don't describe the majority of players thinking a game is the best, it wouldn't be verifiable and wouldn't be included (and is itself a very subjective metric and can vary wildly depending on what should be considered a player or a majority). Flipped around, what you're describing is "culturally impactful games" which also isn't this article's title. There are many games that may not be the best by most reasonable metrics yet are still being quite culturally impactful. Reliable sources detailing the "best" video games is the best reliable metric for this article. Six may seem arbitrary but if there's an issue with that, it's an issue with the consensus (which can change) used to determine what "multiple" should mean in this instance, it doesn't mean the list itself is arbitrary. - Aoidh (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that six is arbitrary. But we are not here to argue the case either -- that's still just one editor's arbitrary opinion over another. We're here to summarize what the sources say, and people will need to read the individual game articles to learn more. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While the impact of a game may be with popularity, and by that I assume you meant reception with a general audience, why should we base this list on such popular opinion? We could start with reader's polls, especially with Famitsu, but the quality of this article would dip very quickly as a result, and wouldn't look any different if we had self-published sources (especially from YouTube) implemented with it. All of the referenced sources here are professionally curated, by established publications and critics. Yes, even Screen Rant's. I don't want to begin explaining why a popular opinion doesn't equate a professional consensus. Wikipedia isn't based on fans' opinions, even if a reliable source reflects that. Also, "list of top-ranked video games" wouldn't work because the selections aren't based on ranking, but that the games are included in these lists at all. "List of top-ranked video games" would be better off for something like which games are most often considered #1, and that's nowhere nearly as a rational subject to base with.

As for having to add an explanation with each video game listed, it's pointless. Every last game has their own article linked, and gives readers the option to find out about each game's content, reception and impact from there, without bloating either their experience or this article itself. There's several columns worth of info in the table already, and the proposal of adding rationalization on each of the 200+ games would greatly disrupt this balance of informativeness and accessibility. No space for a notes column in this one IMO. Carlinal (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How long before Dragon Quest 1 gets added

Just curious. Seems like a major blind spot Alena 33 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably never. You can click the link in the FAQ above for the visualized spreadsheet, and it's sitting at 3/6 lists. No new American list is ever going to include it (they'll pick DQ8, DQ11, or possibly DQ3/4/5/9 as curveballs) because it hasn't aged very well, so it'd solely be an "influence" pick. So the only way it'd be added is if we found a bunch more Japanese lists that qualified for our criteria, as Japan is where the game was mega-popular. (But even then, I'd guess nostalgic JP fans would pick DQ3 for an NES entry.) Feel free to suggest any JP lists you find that might meet the criteria, just be warned that Japan really really likes reader polls which are excluded by the current criteria. SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just another reason I disagree with the construction of this list. According to multiple reliable sources, Dragon Quest is ranked one of the best games of all time. It feels arbitrary to exclude something of historical importance because of the subjective criteria of a few editors. Reliable sources should take precedence. I recognize that others disagree, but I want to point out the loss of reliable information. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

GameSpot, 2001/2005

So in relation to the above discussion on the first Dragon Quest (1986/1989), I snooped around for some "all time" sources and found a citation from 2009 of a GameSpot list published four years before that. Neither the archive link nor the original page in the citation I found worked, so I went to the Wayback and found the relevant page and list that's archived as far back as...2001? This 15-game list is certainly different than GameSpot's "100 Games of the Millennium" (2000), but I think it still qualifies. Did someone look into this before? Carlinal (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for digging this up. However, this list does not make any claim that these are the best games; it is explicitly about the most influential games. Phediuk (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you. Did some checking and it looks like Collider's 2020 list is in since it has "greatest" in the title, if that's correct reasoning. Carlinal (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Dexerto

Gaming news and review site Dexerto just posted a staff list of the "100 best games of all time" today. It is unrestricted by platform/era/genre. The site is currently listed as situationally reliable on WP:VG/S, and a quick Google search turns up thousands of citations for the site across Wikipedia, so it is de facto widely used as a source. This list therefore seems good to go, to me. I have transcribed it below

Dexerto, 2024

1. Elden Ring 2. Red Dead Redemption 2 3. Persona 5 4. The Last of Us 5. Portal 2 6. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 7. Mass Effect 2 8. Baldur's Gate III 9. Bloodborne 10. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 11. Resident Evil 4 (2005) 12. Super Mario World 13. Final Fantasy VII 14. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 15. Halo: Combat Evolved 16. Pokemon HeartGold and SoulSilver 17. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18. World of Warcraft 19. Grand Theft Auto V 20. Dark Souls 21. Tetris 22. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 23. Halo 3 24. Half-Life 2 25. God of War (2018) 26. Minecraft 27. Destiny 2 28. Stardew Valley 29. Hades 30. Inside 31. Super Mario Galaxy 2 32. Undertale 33. Cyberpunk 2077 34. Silent Hill 2 35. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 36. Shadow of the Colossus (2005) 37. Super Mario 64 38. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 39. Overwatch 40. Journey 41. Fallout: New Vegas 42. Left 4 Dead 43. Bioshock 44. Spider-Man (2018) 45. Uncharted 4: A Thief's End 46. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate 47. League of Legends 48. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2009) 49. Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening 50. Chrono Trigger 51. Gran Turismo 4 52. Outer Wilds 53. Animal Crossing: New Horizons 54. Batman: Arkham Asylum 55. Hitman: World of Assassination 56. Apex Legends 57. Celeste 58. Gears of War 2 59. Resident Evil (2002) 60. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater 61. Civilization IV 62. Borderlands 2 63. Persona 4 Golden 64. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas 65. Ico 66. Nier: Automata 67. Dota 2 68. Yakuza 0 69. Kingdom Hearts II 70. Sea of Thieves 71. Counter-Strike: Source 72. Fire Emblem: Three Houses 73. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 74. Street Fighter IV 75. Return of the Obra Dinn 76. Spec Ops: The Line 77. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood 78. Fortnite 79. Age of Empires II 80. Metroid Prime 81. Doom Eternal 82. Tomb Raider (1996) 83. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds 84. 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim 85. Soulcalibur II 86. Diablo IV 87. The Sims 3 88. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (2004) 89. Animal Crossing: Wild World 90. Phantasy Star Online 91. Dead Space (2008) 92. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 93. Mortal Kombat 11 94. Firewatch 95. Need for Speed: Underground 2 96. Earthbound 97. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 98. Assassin's Creed Odyssey 99. Doom (2016) 100. WWE Smackdown! Here Comes the Pain

If there are no objections, I will incorporate this list shortly. Entries for Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, The Sims 3, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, and Fallout: New Vegas will be added to the main page. Phediuk (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no problems with this list for similar reasons why I supported adding ScreenRant to the list, since I think a site-wide staff team putting a list together is enough to make an exception to a "can't demonstrate notability" / "low-quality source" rule. With that being said, I'd still take caution with the fact Dexerto is described as a tabloid by WP:RSP and a lot of people (myself included) brought up concerns regarding its quality at the reliable sources noticeboard discussion for it about a year ago. But again, I think this can be an exception. λ NegativeMP1 20:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The people who were waiting for New Vegas can finally celebrate.

Which games would have five entries due to this list? Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ditto to Phediuk and BenSVE for all entries that went up a level, including new additions.

Also it's amazing how we found two viable lists this month, how sunny, lol Carlinal (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Dude, where's the link? Is this it? Carlinal (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot the link; added it to my initial comment. Thank you. Phediuk (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to use a situational source, especially one that has faced numerous RfCs at WP:RSN. The last RFC in Sept 2023 nearly found it generally unreliable but was weakly considered situational still. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_416#Dexerto. This is the RFC that WP:VG/S cites. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. If the site is ever found to be generally unreliable, it can always be removed; currently, WP:VG/S allows it to be used case-by-case, and it is widely-cited across the VG project, indicating acceptance both in policy and practice. While the site does contain low-effort articles, this is not one of them; it is long, every entry has a write-up, and dozens of journalists have contributed to it. Not seeing much of a reason to exclude it at present, unless others are strongly opposed. Phediuk (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I back what Phediuk said. Besides that the provided list is exceptional in production and devotion despite the uneasiness of Dexerto, that the publication is still used in these thousands of references, right now at least, makes the skepticism for this potential reference understandable, but more disproven. Also, even if Dexerto eventually has a downgrade after the acceptance of this list, hopefully no earlier than next year, it'll be no more situational than Kotaku and the time period for the former's quality will be noted. Carlinal (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Are we going to add the games? Alena 33 (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. I have also added the Dexerto list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve Updated My Top 100 List

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DW-2yjPbKkdj4qaIkE85VsT1T2uhDwxsPn70kfuHimw/edit XJJSX (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The top 100 list using no older than 10-year-old sources has been updated, too-- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qhUnal80p0H42sRjMvONXCtYozBzFgFcFxWb98HMSvQ/edit?usp=drivesdk 100.16.223.83 (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Visualised data updated. Also, to answer Anonymouseditor2k19 and Carlinal:

Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Celeste, Counter Strike: Global Offensive, Doom (2016), Firewatch, Nier: Automata, Return of the Obra Dinn, and Yakuza 0 are all at 5 sources now. BenSVE (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

|- |Jak II |Action-adventure |Sony Computer Entertainment |PS2

93.65.100.133 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• If you're asking for Jak II to be added to the list, I'm afraid it's only been named by one publication so far. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

SVG

https://www.svg.com/852269/98-best-video-games-of-all-time-ranked/ Another list just a week or two later, I think this is solid. Alena 33 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable source per WP:VG/S. λ NegativeMP1 18:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Still, I think this particular list seems quite well constructed even if source is shoddy Alena 33 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that SVG is a flat out unreliable source, unlike Screen Rant or Dexerto that are situational and can technically still be used. Unreliable sources can not be used per the reliable sources policy except in some rare circumstances (ex. as a primary source, qualified author). So no, this source can not be used on this page, even if it seems "quite well constructed" per official Wikipedia policy. λ NegativeMP1 20:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancies between omnibus data and VideoGameCanon

I've only checked a few lists but so far I've noticed the following discrepancies:

1. Hardcore Gaming 101's Punch-Out!! entry. VideoGameCanon has this as Punch-Out!! (2009) whereas this article has it as Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! I have this book (specifically, the updated version) and I can confirm that VideoGameCanon is correct: it should be for Punch-Out!! (2009).

2. Game Informer (2018). The omnibus data has 26. Super Mario World, whereas VideoGameCanon has 26. Super Mario 3D world. I can't check this myself as I don't have that issue, but, given that the the above entry is wrong, I think this should be checked.

3. Electric Playground Network (2013). The omnibus data has 38. Final Fantasy (series) whereas VideoGameCanon has it as 38. Final Fantasy VI, VII, X, and XII. I personally interpret it as being for Final Fantasy VI alone, but the video is still available so you can check for yourselves (I can't post a link here as YouTube is blocked). I wouldn't be surprised of there are other discrepancies for this list as many entries are ambiguous.

If I find any more, I will post them here. IlmeniAVG (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right about HG101, so I've removed it. I'm confident that our Game Informer entry is correct, but it couldn't hurt to check. Electric Playground Network's entry is actually focused on Final Fantasy III, but they also talk about VII, X, and XII ; I'd say the omnibus listing is appropriate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering that this article does not count series entries as mentions for any specific games within the series, I think it makes more sense to count Electric Playground Network's Final Fantasy entry as a mention for Final Fantasy VI (Final Fantasy III is the North American title), and perhaps some of the other mentioned games as well. This article currently does not consider Electric Playground Network to have highlighted Final Fantasy VI as one of the best games of all time. I'm not sure if I would consider it an official mention for the other highlighted games, but I think that is clearly incorrect to say that Electric Playground Network didn't mention Final Fantasy VI. IlmeniAVG (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Since EPN's entry is about the series, I personally don't think it should be added for VI on this list (and certainly not for VII, X, or XII). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a reasonable interpretation, though I'm still leaning in the direction of it being for VI alone. I'll quote the parts that make me think that in case anyone else want to weigh in, but I won't push it any more after this.

Scott Jones: "Final Fantasy has arrived on our list of the 100 greatest video games of all time. It is number 38, and we are specifically talking about Final Fantasy III, but we are reserving the right to also talk about VII and XII."

Victor Lucas: "I remember loving III though, for the Super Nintendo, the most..."

It's also worth mentioning that the list text shows "38. Final Fantasy III", though there's often a discrepancy between the list text and the video presentation, so I wouldn't take this as conclusive. Beyond these quotes, the presentation definitely is about the series. IlmeniAVG (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phediuk, might wanna check on this... Carlinal (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have updated the omnibus data to correct the Punch-Out!! discrepancy. The Electric Playground entry is ambiguous; the video description identifies the entry as simply "Final Fantasy", while the list graphic in the video says "Final Fantasy III". I do not have Game Informer #300 on-hand to confirm the Mario World/3D World conundrum, though I can order it online if need be. For what it's worth, I have located three different transcriptions that all place Super Mario World there, not 3D World. Also, this video, which reads the whole list from the actual magazine out loud, also says "Super Mario World" there (skip to 23:57). Phediuk (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that ordering the magazine online is necessary. I'd be sceptical of just the transcriptions as it's always possible that they are copies of the same transcription rather than independent transcriptions. But the video is definitive: they are reading from the actual magazine and it's Super Mario World. Thanks for tracking that down. IlmeniAVG (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phediuk Just pinging you instead of creating a new topic. I hope that's OK.

I have found some more errors in the omnibus data. First, there are a couple of issues with the Hyper (1999) list. Both Doom and Civilization should be series entries. I have a pdf of the magazine and, while it's hard to read, "Series" is visible in very light letters.

This is not technically an error, but something else that you may want to consider changing is the Warcraft entry. It is officially a series entry (the omnibus data also has it as a series entry), but the blurb reads, "The first Warcraft had potential but not a lot of sparkle. It was functional, and people played it, but it paled in the shadow of Warcraft II."

Finally, the Edge (2000) should have Gran Turismo 2 in 5th place, not Gran Turismo. Again, this is based on a pdf of the original magazine. IlmeniAVG (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I checked the Hyper (1999) issue myself, and you are right that the word "series" is present for both the Doom and Civilization entries; I must have missed them the first time around due to how hard the white letters are to see against the already-light background. I have corrected the main page and the omnibus data. Good catch with Gran Turismo 2 in the Edge (2000) list, also; I have checked the issue myself and can confirm your finding. However, Warcraft is listed as a series entry in both the Hyper (1999) omnibus data and the issue itself, so it will stay as-is. Phediuk (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phediuk One more. Power Unlimited has "52. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory en Castle Wolfenstein", i.e. a dual entry for Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The Omnibus data currently only has Enemy Territory listed. IlmeniAVG (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks. Phediuk (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Phediuk This will definitely be the last one as I'm done checking my own lists now. Anyway, I've got one definite error and one possible error in the Yahoo (2005) list.

The definite error is 14. WarioWare GBA. The article cites WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgames! as appearing in this list, but the date and the screenshot both match WarioWare: Twisted. The screenshot is of the minigame Cutting It Close, which does not appear in Mega Microgames!, and the 2004 release date matches the Japanese release of Twisted! (Mega Microgames! was released in 2003, worldwide).

The possible error is 72. FIFA Soccer. The release date matches FIFA Soccer 96 (they may also have assumed, incorrectly, that the "95" in "FIFA Soccer 95" referred to its release date), but the screenshot is clearly from the original. The advertising barriers are the giveaway; they're different in 95 and 96). Up to you what you want to do with this one, but I've recorded it as the original in my own data, albeit with an asterisk. IlmeniAVG (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Phediuk (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

ScreenRant updated

The 40 Best Games Of All Time (screenrant.com) Discess Alena 33 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Screen Rant added five additional entries to their list, bringing it from 35 to 40 games. They are as follows:

36. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

37. Portal 2

38. Grand Theft Auto IV

39. Diablo II

40. Death Stranding

I have added these to the main page, and to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Top 100 Updated along with other recent Omnibus data changes

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DW-2yjPbKkdj4qaIkE85VsT1T2uhDwxsPn70kfuHimw/edit XJJSX (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

missing data

I know there are too many games to be picked for years 2020-23, I just want to suggest adding Subnautica if it is available on any top games list Vadno (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems it has been named on one list at present, so I'm afraid it might be some time before it is added here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)