Problems inherent in Top 100 Lists of All time that bug me!

[Anthony1]

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?

[whoisKeel]

i have a fairly recent game informer magazine that lists the top 50 games of this console generation (ps2, gc, xbox). does that make you feel better?


and what in the hell is this thing?

[Arcturius]

I get annoyed with the top 10 always being full of Half-life (inc Day of Defeat or Counter Strike), Quake (I, II or III), Wolfenstien (or return to castle), Doom (I or II), Golden Eye, etc etc etc seriously why does everyone vote for FPS games all the time there were generes around BEFORE this one with far better games. Don't get me wrong I like the games but they do get highly overrated in these 'top' lists.

[IntvGene]

I agree completely that the Top 100 lists should not include anything recent. It definitely takes time to see how something fits in with the other top games, and it can't be done until much later.

As for grouping games, sometimes it has to be done. I don't see tons of difference between Super Mario 1-3 personally. And, if you don't group things, you only get more arguments about which one is representative of the series, and which ones should be included, etc. In the grand scheme of things, (already looking at over 25 years of gaming!) you have to cut corners, and in the end over time, you aren't going to remember a single game out of a series more than the series itself.

My personal problem with these lists are when average gamers are allowed to vote or add their input. It totally dilutes the list, and ends up easily overlooking many obscure games. To do it effectively, there needs to be a large group of experts that can span across all the genres and all the systems. But, even then it isn't easy. Remember that 16 page thread we had on the topic?

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12325

[anagrama]

Edge ran a top-100 in issue 80 (Jan '00)

[AB Positive]

Did we ever finalize that top-100 list? I remember it was one of the first things I got in on when I joined here.

Ahhh, all the bickering, the arguing. WiseSalesman and I fighting over whether FF7 belonged on the list....


-AG

[Kid Ice]

Did we ever finalize that top-100 list? I remember it was one of the first things I got in on when I joined here.

Ahhh, all the bickering, the arguing. WiseSalesman and I fighting over whether FF7 belonged on the list....


-AG

Yeah, this has been seriously attempted here twice in my memory. It's not surprising that it hasn't worked because it's a headache. Even doing a personal top 100 is pretty difficult.

[Rogmeister]

The current issue of PSE2 is their 100th issue blowout...well, maybe not...I haven't been to a store in a week or two so maybe the next issue is out by now...anyway...

As one of the features of this issue is Zach Meston's compilation of his pick for the 100 best games for the original Playstation. Interestingly enough, he avoids listing most racing and sports games. He also doesn't list Resident Evil or Metal Gear Solid because "...the GameCube remakes look and play better..." I don't really agree with that. They may indeed look and play better but you don't get the feeling you got when you first played the originals.

He does do something that Anthony1 hates...he bunches the franchises together so you have the 3 Crash Bandicoot games listed together. Oh well. This still is a nice list to help you fill out that PS1 collection.

With that in mind, what's the best single PS1 football game. Would you believe I don't have a single pigskin game in my PS1 collection?

[Garry Silljo]

What if everyone submitted a top ten and then the most frequently given answers were pulled to get a top 100 and the frequency would dictate the spot held by the title. I realize its slightly flawed, but if anyone wants to tweak the idea to make a DP top 100 work, set some more rules... I think it could work with less bickering than in the past.

[§ Gideon §]

I've already thought about this subject and agree with all of the points made by Anthony1.

PC Gamer does (did?) an annual top 100 PC games. In 1997, they were pretty good about it; the top 10 included Tie Fighter: Collector's Edition, DOOM, Civilization 2, X-COM: UFO Defense, Heroes of Might & Magic II... I forget the rest. Also, they did not group things by series until a year later. I doubt the list is still as top-notch as it used to be. The entire staff has changed.

[Daniel Thomas]

My only real problem with "Top 100" lists is how everything is packed with the big-name sellers. Yes, Mario and Zelda and Final Fantasy are classics, but I probably don't need to be reminded of that fact when the latest sequel is about to come out.

I'm tending to judge these lists on how obscure the choices are. There are lots of great games that just disappeared on sight, and a lot of the top sellers are just drivel. It's bad enough that consumers only flock to easily-recognized brand names. Who's bought all those Dukes of Hazzard games?

Show me something out of left field, like Elite or the Infocom games or Herzog Zwei. If you dropped Final Fantasy 7 for Princess Tomato in the Salad Kingdom, I'd be pretty impressed. I'd also think you were loopy, but, hey.

[esquire]

I agree completely that the Top 100 lists should not include anything recent. It definitely takes time to see how something fits in with the other top games, and it can't be done until much later.

How can you dismiss games like Grand Theft Auto III and/or Vice City, Half-Life, Halo and Call of Duty. These games revolutionized the way games are made and played. Just because they are recent does not mean they can't become an instant classic or one of the Top 100 games of all time.

What is best about Top 100 of all time lists is that as time changes so do the lists. The lists are never fixed, unless the world were to end today.

[IntvGene]

How can you dismiss games like Grand Theft Auto III and/or Vice City, Half-Life, Halo and Call of Duty. These games revolutionized the way games are made and played. Just because they are recent does not mean they can't become an instant classic or one of the Top 100 games of all time.

What is best about Top 100 of all time lists is that as time changes so do the lists. The lists are never fixed, unless the world were to end today.

I didn't dismiss those titles at all, but I sure can't add Call of Duty, and omit the rest of the titles from last year. Sure, there are some titles which look like automatic selections, but you stilll need to take some time and look at them in the grand span of games. It's just safest to say that nothing from the past year(or whatever) should be included, because unless you played all of the games released last year, you risk making a poor decision. It's way too easy to get caught up in the game of the week and overestimating its importance.

And, I totally agree with you that lists should change over time.

[§ Gideon §]

C'mon, guys... Duh. That's why they're called "top x games of ALL TIME" lists.

The "top x games that aren't even out yet" lists really bother me. Those seem to be more popular, now that the industry has boomed into mainstream.

[Anthony1]

There isn't any question that games like Halo and Vice City are going to be part of top 100 of all time lists, but I think that they shouldn't appear on the lists right now.

I just think it would be easier for all the dumbasses that are making such lists to avoid the temptation of putting alot of recent games on the lists by not allowing themselves to put anything on there that was released in the last 3 years. Really, I think they should actually avoid all the current systems. No PS2, XBOX or GameCube games should be included in the lists. That might be kinda strict, but it's better than them including tons of games that seem incredible now, but over time will appear to be just average games with graphics and sounds that blew people away in the early 2000's.

Sure Halo and Vice City and maybe Metroid Prime will stand the test of time, but they should have to wait their turn to be on such lists.

In good time they will have their day on these lists, but I think if you eliminate the most current systems and games from consideration, then you will force people to take a better look at the Atari 2600 and the NES and the TG-16, SNES, Genny, Etc, etc.

Otherwise, one third of the list is going to be filled with your flavor of the last 24 months games.

[ddockery]

This is a problem inherent in all top XX of all time lists. Take any top # of players in X sport arguments. Those work the other way around and are usually loaded with OLD time players. Just as it's impossible to compare Babe Ruth to Willie Mays to Alex Rodriguez because baseball as a whole has changed, it's also very hard to compare an Atari 2600 game to a PS2 game. They are very different creatures and always will be. It's for this very reason hat I prefer to look at lists based with a console generation, or perhaps a certain genre. We ca compare GTA3 to Pacman all day long, but they are so very different neither is really better. Same goes for comparing a comedy to a drama. They don't try to do the same things, so a direct comparison isn't really relevant.

[Anthony1]

This is a problem inherent in all top XX of all time lists. Take any top # of players in X sport arguments. Those work the other way around and are usually loaded with OLD time players. Just as it's impossible to compare Babe Ruth to Willie Mays to Alex Rodriguez because baseball as a whole has changed, it's also very hard to compare an Atari 2600 game to a PS2 game. They are very different creatures and always will be. It's for this very reason hat I prefer to look at lists based with a console generation, or perhaps a certain genre. We ca compare GTA3 to Pacman all day long, but they are so very different neither is really better. Same goes for comparing a comedy to a drama. They don't try to do the same things, so a direct comparison isn't really relevant.

I understand what you are saying and that is a very interesting way of looking at it. But when I think of "TOP 100 Games of ALL Time" lists, I really don't think of any of the games being better than any of the other ones ranked lower down the list.

For example, a game like Super Mario Bros. 3 for the NES might be ranked pretty high, while a game like Adventure for the Atari 2600 might be ranked closer to 100. To me that doesn't mean that Mario 3 is better than Adventure, it just means that the person that did the ranking feels that Mario 3 is a more important game to be experienced than Adventure for the 2600.

When you get to a top 100 ALL Time list, every single game is going to be golden. I think you could have a top 1000 games of all time and still every single game should be A+++ games. So I don't think of a game at 21 being way better than a game at 93. Of course, having said all of that, I'm sure that there are alot of simple minded individuals that would actually think exactly just that.

If I were to create my own TOP 100 Games of ALL TIME list, I would be creating the list with a certain individual in mind. I would try to think of this when I made my list:

I would imagine that I'm making the list for a very good friend who knows virtually nothing about video games, and who wants to play the best of the best of all the greatest games since video gaming first started until now. This is going to be somebody with an open mind and no preconcieved notions about what he should be playing and what he shouldn't. It's simply a guy that wants to sample the best of what this industry has had to offer since the earliest days of the industry all the way up to the present day. Like he's going through a museum of the greatest games of all time. So the way that I would rank the games is based on what I think are the MOST IMPORTANT EXPERIENCES in gaming for somebody that would be encountering them for the first time, with no preconcieved biases.

That would be the way that I would try to craft the list. But I honestly wouldn't be a good canidate to make such a list, because I just haven't sampled enough of what's come down the pipe over the years. I'm trying to sample alot of stuff now, but back in the day I was more focused on particular systems and particular genre's of games. Maybe in about 10 years time I can come up with a pretty good list. I will have had more time to go back and play all the major classics and have a better understand of what games really provide the greatest experiences to somebody who is picking up that controller for the first time.

Of course it's alll subjective. But hey, you gotta start somewhere.

[zmweasel]

As one of the features of this issue is Zach Meston's compilation of his pick for the 100 best games for the original Playstation. Interestingly enough, he avoids listing most racing and sports games.

Yep. As I stated in the intro to the list, "I'm using 20/20 hindsight to choose games which are still loads o' fun to play in the present day, regardless of how they were rated in past issues of PSExtreme and PSE2. For example, you'll only find a precious few entries from the disposable categories of sports and racing, whereas you'll find several dozen examples of story-driven RPGs and gameplay-driven puzzlers and shooters."

He also doesn't list Resident Evil or Metal Gear Solid because "...the GameCube remakes look and play better..." I don't really agree with that. They may indeed look and play better but you don't get the feeling you got when you first played the originals.

Hmmm. The only feeling I get when playing the GCN remakes of RE and MGS is "Wow, these are WAY better than the PS1 versions." :) I did mention that VR Missions was a PS1-exclusive, though.

He does do something that Anthony1 hates...he bunches the franchises together so you have the 3 Crash Bandicoot games listed together. Oh well. This still is a nice list to help you fill out that PS1 collection.

Yep, although it certainly wasn't done to disrespect individual games; it was because I wanted to cram as many games into the list as I could.

In my pathetic defense, for some of the combo listings, I ranked the quality of individual games, such as the Tomb Raider entry: "You can safely pass on III, the Last Revelation, and Chronicles, all of which were developed after Lara Croft's creators left Core Design." Or the Destruction Derby entry: "Avoid Destruction Derby Raw, which was coded after the developers of 1 and 2 fled to Accolade's Test Drive and GT Interactive's Driver franchises."

-- Z.