First off, on the one hand I love top 100 Games of all time lists. Why? Well it gives me some perspective on games that I missed along the way that should definitely be checked out. If the game is good enough to make a top 100 of all time list, then I figure it's worth 10 minutes of my time to at least check the game out if nothing more.

But there are some serious problems with top 100 of all time lists too. The biggest problem is the fact that any of these lists will always be overweighted with games from that particular year, and the previous two years. Of course it's only human nature to include games that are more recent to you memory in the list. Plus back when these lists were done, people thought that certain games were super revolutionary and somewhat mind blowing. Only to find out as years go by that some of these so called revolutionary and mind blowing games are just average decent games. But because they are new and fresh, alot of times they get included in these "Top 100 Games of all time" lists.

When I look at a "Top 100 Games of all time" list, I always take the games from the current year that the list was made, and two previous years and remove them. I figure that the games that are at least 4 years old or more when the list was made are more legitimate.

Sometimes I wonder if current games should even be allowed to qualify for a list like this. Especially sports games. It seems that at least one of the newest crop of Football games is always labeled, "Best Football Game of All Time". When everybody knows that this is blatantly false statement. (Madden '93 on Genesis is of course the best of all time.!)

The other serious problem that I have with these lists is when they will rank a series of games as one game. Like "Mario series" or "Zelda series" or "Castlevania series" or whatever. God I hate that. Each game should be judged individually and by itself. Each of these games are a work of art and need to be respected individually and not grouped into a "series" for convients sake.

The heck with being "convient" and saving some spots. Rank the games right. Don't group series together like that. I friggin can't stand that shit. It's like they are embarresed to have 4 different Mario games in the top 10. If 4 different Mario games deserve to be ranked in the top 10, then deal with it and rank the damn games accordingly. Super Mario World has it's own unique flavor and it needs to ranked seperately from Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Bros 3 and the original Super Mario Bros.

I hate to ramble on about this, but I just can't express how much it bothers me to see games grouped in series like that. These classics are being so disrepected by not allowing each individual game to stand on it's own.

It's like when people rank the "John Madden series" as one game. Not only should they specify a specific game, like John Madden '93, but they should also specify the specific version. Like the Genesis version.

By the way, I know that Next-Generation magazine did a Top 100 Games of All Time, and that EGM did one as well, but does anybody know of any other mags that did this? If so, what issues were they?

Any gaming websites rank the best games of all time? What is the most recent Top 100 of all time list?