IGN's top 100 RPGs is a garbage list. As expected.

[kupomogli]

They're currently at 61, but you don't need to look at the list. It looks like they took any influential or good RPGs, put them in a list, randomly picked 100, and are going to toss a 100 die until they get the base list. Then they're going to hand pick the top 10 or 20 of the overrated RPGs that you'd expect them to put on the list, and then throw overrated games that don't belong in there somewhere in the middle just because they defined the genre or some bullshit like that.

Dragon Warrior is in their top 100, but so far hasn't hit this list yet. Final Fantasy and Phantasy Star, plus just about every other game that's been listed is better. Still can't believe they're using the "first JRPG means it gets a free pass" bullshit. Dungeon Master is on the list as well. There is a limit of 100 games out of the entire genre but they list Dungeon Master, Phantasy Star, and will more than likely list Dragon Warrior.

Instead of their journalists who haven't played these games and probably looked up a few previews or reviews to get the basics of the games down to write a paragraph about them, they should ask some people who actually have played video games to make up lists for them, gather data and cross reference the lists, and then make their shitty top 100 lists that way. It would turn out way better than how they're doing it.

[Ryudo]

Ys I & II is my fave game of all time. I'm glad to see such an amazing series so often overlooked get some cred. Deserves to be higher but I will take it.

[Aussie2B]

Any list like this is going to seem random to anyone other than the list creators. I mean, even if you're a huge RPG fan, what sane person thinks in terms of "Oh yeah, so-and-so game is the 67th best RPG ever made"? You know your top favorites and then it's a bunch of other good games that can really go in any order. With a list from IGN, I bet they just had their staff nominate and vote on a certain number of titles. The order is determined by how many points each game got, and games in the 101st spot and so on didn't make the cut. There isn't really a better way to do these kinds of things. I'm sure the top games will be really predictable because they don't want the whole internet boycotting them for not putting Final Fantasy VII in the top 10 or something, but that's a different matter.

Skimming through the list, it's really not so bad. It seems pretty diverse, and games appearing so far are by and large pretty good and get acclaim from RPG fans.

[mailman187666]

I don't really care for what order these games are on the list, I just like reading the little blurbs for each game. Some of the games on the list I have never had the opportunity to play, so seeing that they made the list and reading the small paragraph underneath kind of makes me want to check them out (Ys Book 1 & 2 being one of them unfortunately).

[RCM]

Why are you surprised IGN released a shitty list? IGN IS shit, so it makes perfect sense that their work would be reflective of that company.

[Gameguy]

Is Hydlide on the list?

[Porksta]

Where is the link to the list?

[wingzrow]

Where is the link to the list?

You really want to give IGN hits?

[Nature Boy]

I hear ya.

It's totally hard to believe that *anyone* could create a top 100 games list and not have it match our own thoughts on the matter exactly, even though a group of more than one of us couldn't agree on a list either.

What the hell's wrong with them?

(Seriously, can't we just enjoy the list for what it is - an entertaining look at a genre we appreciate - and save the debate for the end when we can compare what we would've done to what they produced, rather than just bitching from the start without even seeing the final list?!? Is it such a slow news day that we had to jump on this to fulfill some troll quota?)

[kupomogli]

Here's the link. Right now it goes to #40.

http://www.ign.com/top/rpgs

[The 1 2 P]

As long as Kotor 1 and 2 are on there I'll be happy. I could care less about the other 98.

[Bojay1997]

I'm not seeing the problem. Frankly, the list seems awfully JRPG heavy, but that's what a lot of console gamers seem to play, so I can't fault them for that. Like all similar lists, it's entirely subjective and I can't understand why the OP or anyone else should have an issue with it. If you don't like it, just ignore it.

[Gameguy]

Hydlide isn't on the list at all. This list might have a chance then.

[Aussie2B]

I'm not seeing the problem. Frankly, the list seems awfully JRPG heavy, but that's what a lot of console gamers seem to play, so I can't fault them for that. Like all similar lists, it's entirely subjective and I can't understand why the OP or anyone else should have an issue with it. If you don't like it, just ignore it.

I actually felt it had pretty strong representation of Western RPGs, but I say that from the perspective of someone who doesn't give a crap about Western RPGs. Maybe I'm just not educated enough on Western RPGs, but I don't really see how a list like this could have an equal amount of Western RPGs. There are so many Japanese RPGs that get a lot of acclaim, so to have a perfectly balanced amount, I think you'd have to dig into more obscure stuff that isn't so highly regarded to have the same number of Western RPGs. Seems like most self-proclaimed fans of RPGs, these days at least, mean they're fans of Japanese RPGs more so than Western RPGs. People who are big on Western RPGs seem to be more about playing a handful of games and dumping a TON of hours into them, while Japanese RPG fans are constantly blowing through titles, looking for the next one to play. The numbers don't seem to be in favor of Western RPGs.

[j_factor]

These lists are usually pretty awful. Sometimes I think they're bad on purpose. Also, is it really necessary to make people load a new page for every single entry?

Wow, this list really does suck...

[kedawa]

It's going to be a list of 100 boring games no matter what they pick.

[M.Buster2184]

They're currently at 61, but you don't need to look at the list. It looks like they took any influential or good RPGs, put them in a list, randomly picked 100, and are going to toss a 100 die until they get the base list. Then they're going to hand pick the top 10 or 20 of the overrated RPGs that you'd expect them to put on the list, and then throw overrated games that don't belong in there somewhere in the middle just because they defined the genre or some bullshit like that.

Dragon Warrior is in their top 100, but so far hasn't hit this list yet. Final Fantasy and Phantasy Star, plus just about every other game that's been listed is better. Still can't believe they're using the "first JRPG means it gets a free pass" bullshit. Dungeon Master is on the list as well. There is a limit of 100 games out of the entire genre but they list Dungeon Master, Phantasy Star, and will more than likely list Dragon Warrior.

Instead of their journalists who haven't played these games and probably looked up a few previews or reviews to get the basics of the games down to write a paragraph about them, they should ask some people who actually have played video games to make up lists for them, gather data and cross reference the lists, and then make their shitty top 100 lists that way. It would turn out way better than how they're doing it.

While the original Phantasy Star, Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior haven't aged very well,(not saying they're not still enjoyable) and I like their sequels more, there is something to be said for being the forefather of something. I would hope these three games are on the list. It'd be like making a top platformer list and not including the original Super Mario Bros., even though its arguable most the sequels are better. I understand there are better RPGs, but I don't think you can make a list like this and not include the firsts.

[duffmanth]

IGN's lists of top games are a joke. Their top 25 PS3 games list doesn't even have MGS4 on it despite the fact they gave the game perfect 10's across the board.

[VACRMH]

It's going to be a list of 100 boring games no matter what they pick.

Why do you say that? They even started off with a great game (Ys)

[Zing]

Dragon Warrior is in their top 100, but so far hasn't hit this list yet. Final Fantasy and Phantasy Star, plus just about every other game that's been listed is better. Still can't believe they're using the "first JRPG means it gets a free pass" bullshit. Dungeon Master is on the list as well. There is a limit of 100 games out of the entire genre but they list Dungeon Master, Phantasy Star, and will more than likely list Dragon Warrior.
It sounds like you are saying that Dragon Warrior is not one of the best RPGs. If so, I have to strongly disagree with you. I don't know what the game ever did to you as a child, but it is definitely deserving to be on the list.

[Ryudo]

Why do you say that? They even started off with a great game (Ys)
Finally someone who knows some sense and is smart.

[The 1 2 P]

Also, is it really necessary to make people load a new page for every single entry?

That was pretty annoying. They should of had atleast 3-10 entries per page to make the viewing simpler. But perhaps they'll do that once the entire list is live.

[Gameguy]

Also, is it really necessary to make people load a new page for every single entry?
I guess they get more ad views this way.

[JSoup]

Right off the bat they had my nerd sense tingling with number 99. Lunar: Eternal Blue, listed as being released in 2000, which would make it Lunar: Eternal Blue Complete, but then the blurb goes on about the Sega CD version for six years before hand. Granted it's the same game, but the upgrade from Sega CD to Complete version make the game a substantially different experience.

[kupomogli]

Didn't I call it?

http://www.ign.com/top/rpgs/29

Just about every game released before this has been better.




Correct.

[quote]If so, I have to strongly disagree with you. I don't know what the game ever did to you as a child, but it is definitely deserving to be on the list.

Here's a question. What makes Dragon Warrior so deserving to get a lower ranking on the list than Dragon Warrior 7 other than the fact that Dragon Warrior was nothing more than a free pass? At number 29, what makes Dragon Warrior deserve to get a better ranking than 69 of the better RPGs on that list. Why 69, not because I'm trying to think of a your mom joke, but one game on that list sucks worse than Dragon Warrior and one game isn't even an RPG.

That's right. That's how much of a shitfest this list is. A game that's not even an RPG makes the top 100 RPG list. Clearly this shows how great the journalism over at IGN is. This isn't, "possibly could be considered an RPG, etc." It's not an RPG. You retain default stats, weapons and equipment being the only modifications to stats, like many, many, many other games that are also not considered RPGs, such as Call of Duty, with different power weapons, different perks that allow you to take more damage before dying, etc. Same thing Zelda isn't an RPG like when people like to mention it is. Devil May Cry has all the same aspects that Zelda has, and more, but it's not an RPG is it?

So like my thread topic implies and the fact that I even called what was going to happen in the first post. Being an IGN list, I quite clearly expected it to suck ass.

[BHvrd]

I just like reading the little blurbs for each game.

True that.

Oh, btw.

Phantasy Star Online #23:

http://i.imgur.com/WK6GX.jpg

[Aussie2B]

but one game on that list sucks worse than Dragon Warrior

Lemme guess, you're referring to Disgaea?

You do realize that your opinions aren't facts, right? Right? ...Right?

There are lots of games on that list that I wouldn't consider RPGs, but who gives a fuck. It's all opinions. IGN does indeed suck, but this list really isn't any worse than any other list out there. If you really want to showcase their poor journalism, there are far better ways to do so.

Also, I don't particularly like Final Fantasy VII or the first four Final Fantasy games, and I'm sure at least some of those will be higher up than Dragon Warrior. Who cares. Get over yourself. I also don't like Phantasy Star II, and it's pretty high.

[kupomogli]

It's actually not Disgaea. Btw, Dragon Warrior not being as good as most everything up there is fact. There's really no opinion about it. For example. What makes Dragon Warrior so much more deserving of a better ranking on the list than Dragon Warrior 7, a with a far worse ranking and the exact same but better gameplay? What I mean, is other than getting a free pass for that high ranking, what makes Dragon Warrior better than Dragon Warrior 7. I'll give you one. Dragon Warrior 7 takes atleast an hour until you get in your first battle. So it's a slow starter, but it's better than fighting the same few monsters in the exact same location for hours on end before you can progress two feet. People complain about Dragon Warrior 7 for taking an hour or so for the game to start, but they praise Suikoden 5 when the game doesn't start for atleast 10 hours, or Final Fantasy 13 when it doesn't ever start to get good, although people say 20 hours.

If you've played both Dragon Warrior and Dragon Warrior 7 and you've enjoyed them to place them in a top 100, guaranteed you liked that playthrough of Dragon Warrior 7 more. So. Common sense would mean that, if you like playing one game more, and the game has more and better features, then maybe, just maybe, it might be the better game. Or maybe that's opinion. Maybe the games you like aren't the better games and the better games are always going to be the older ones because they get bonus points for being classics. The reason why Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City are always ranked as the best in the GTA series.

[j_factor]

Technically, the "top" RPGs isn't exactly the same thing as the "best" RPGs. Even in the intro, they don't say these are the best RPGs, they say "The Top 100 RPGs of All Time list celebrates the games that we believe most accurately exemplify the tenants of the role-playing game genre" -- and by the way, that should be tenets, not tenants, and IGN has shitty editors.

[Edmond Dantes]

What makes Dragon Warrior so much more deserving of a better ranking on the list than Dragon Warrior 7, a with a far worse ranking and the exact same but better gameplay?

Not the exact same. Dragon Warrior 1 is a single character game with relatively straightforward development, DW7 has a party and complex development options.

Personally, I enjoyed Dragon Warrior 1 enough to beat it but got bored of Dragon Warrior VII. I played both in 2003, mind you.

[WanganRunner]

I don't even think of FF:T as being an RPG, honestly.

List so far has a very westen-heavy skew, and a PC skew IMO. How is Xenogears not in the top 40 but ALL the Fallout games are? What the fox?

Panzer Dragoon Saga not in the top 40? I don't think that whoever wrote this list ever owned a PS1 or a Saturn.

Where's FFXII?

[Nature Boy]

IGN's lists of top games are a joke. Their top 25 PS3 games list doesn't even have MGS4 on it despite the fact they gave the game perfect 10's across the board.

This statement got me thinking on two fronts: one is what does being a "top game" actually mean?

The second was more about the score comment above itself: how many people are involved in making the list, versus how many people are involved in giving a given game a score?

The second question seemed easier to answer to me, in that at most 2-3 people generally give scores on review sites, whereas a list like this probably has 2-3 times as many people actively involved in making it. Since there wouldn't be universal agreement in rating any specific game (I think it's fair to say in looking at this thread that kupomogli would give Dragon Warrior a 1/10, whereas others would be in the 7-9 range), it makes sense that a game that was rated a 10 by a few people wouldn't necessarily make it to the top of a list being created by a larger group of people.

And from there I figure the "top game" question gets answered too. I mean you can't quantify games in such a manner that the 'best' are easily measured. Sales are as much a measure of popularity or name recognization as they are of quality. Outside of sales what is there that is quantifyable? How can you call something the best, as it's all subjective to individual tastes? Using the word "Top" probably makes the most sense after all.

Anyway, I haven't had a chance to look at the whole list (nor do I really care about it as much as others do), but I will always enjoy lists and thinking about where I would put the games myself (I would probably put Fallout 3 at the top, although I would argue with myself that it's still too recent and it needs more time to age).

[j_factor]

This statement got me thinking on two fronts: one is what does being a "top game" actually mean?

The second was more about the score comment above itself: how many people are involved in making the list, versus how many people are involved in giving a given game a score?

The second question seemed easier to answer to me, in that at most 2-3 people generally give scores on review sites, whereas a list like this probably has 2-3 times as many people actively involved in making it. Since there wouldn't be universal agreement in rating any specific game (I think it's fair to say in looking at this thread that kupomogli would give Dragon Warrior a 1/10, whereas others would be in the 7-9 range), it makes sense that a game that was rated a 10 by a few people wouldn't necessarily make it to the top of a list being created by a larger group of people.

And from there I figure the "top game" question gets answered too. I mean you can't quantify games in such a manner that the 'best' are easily measured. Sales are as much a measure of popularity or name recognization as they are of quality. Outside of sales what is there that is quantifyable? How can you call something the best, as it's all subjective to individual tastes? Using the word "Top" probably makes the most sense after all.

Anyway, I haven't had a chance to look at the whole list (nor do I really care about it as much as others do), but I will always enjoy lists and thinking about where I would put the games myself (I would probably put Fallout 3 at the top, although I would argue with myself that it's still too recent and it needs more time to age).

Of course, there are inherent problems with making a list like this. Which is why I think they would've been better off making a different list. People always bitch about the rankings. So here's an idea: don't rank them. Just say these are the games that made the list, and list them in chronological order. It's very arbitrary to say Persona 4 is better or worse than Pool of Radiance.

And you know what? I agree with kupo that Dragon Warrior (1) sucks. But, it's hard to come out with a big list like this, and not include it. So, instead of the "top" RPGs of all time, how about a list of the most notable? That pretty well solves the issue, as no one can argue that it's not notable.

[Nature Boy]

Of course, there are inherent problems with making a list like this. Which is why I think they would've been better off making a different list. People always bitch about the rankings. So here's an idea: don't rank them. Just say these are the games that made the list, and list them in chronological order. It's very arbitrary to say Persona 4 is better or worse than Pool of Radiance.

And you know what? I agree with kupo that Dragon Warrior (1) sucks. But, it's hard to come out with a big list like this, and not include it. So, instead of the "top" RPGs of all time, how about a list of the most notable? That pretty well solves the issue, as no one can argue that it's not notable.

I hear what you're saying, but for them people bitching about the list is probably a good thing. It gets people writing about it outside IGN (like here), and brings in extra hits (like mine, as I never would have hit IGN outside of looking for a review on a game).

IGN gets a lot of flack for being crappy, and yet everybody still seems to read it. It's like the shock jock phenomenon: the highest readership is probably those who say they dislike IGN the most, and they read it because they're just dying to find out what stupid thing IGN is going to say/do next. :)

[Griking]

When I saw #4 I threw up a little inside.