Talk:List of video games considered the best/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Indiscriminate

The list currently violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics." It has a total of nearly 200 entries, with no explanation or context given for any of them (e.g. no rankings or numbers). The criteria needs to be stricter, in order to trim the list. For comparison, List of best-selling video games contains 50 entries, and List of best-selling video game franchises contains just over 90 entries.

I would propose either:

1. Increase the threshold from 6 lists per game, to somewhere in the range of 7-10 lists per game.
2. Increase the ranking requirements for each game from the top 100-200 of each list, down to somewhere in the range of the top 10-50 of each list.

Maestro2016 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd really call these statistics, and they certainly aren't unexplained? More generally, I disagree with your premise that somehow a shorter list is inherently better. This article's first concern should be accuracy. If something like List of PlayStation 4 games is long or Honorary citizenship of the United States is very short, oh well. This is a list across computer games, arcade games, and all consoles - the size isn't unreasonable given the breadth of the topic, IMO. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if by "no rankings or numbers" you mean no Wikipedia-rankings / numbers, or not including the publication's ranking. If by the first, that would seem to be a clear violation of WP:NOR; I've actually removed that kind of thing from Wikipedia lists I've seen elsewhere that decide to "rank" things by some Wikipedia criterion. If by the second, I think that would be pretty distracting to display in the main chart, and not what the vast vast majority of readers are interested in or care about, whether a particular game was ranked #39 or #46 by GamePro. SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

When the list has nearly 200 games, then "the best" loses all meaning. It's no longer a list of "the best" games, but is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of acclaimed games. At this point, it looks like almost every acclaimed classic made in the last few decades is being included in this list. It's almost approaching the number of games included at List of Game of the Year awards, the scope of which is only the best of each year. This list's scope is supposed to be the best of all time, yet every year has almost as many games represented as the GOTY article. The criteria for this list is too inclusive and indiscriminate.

And yes, I'm referring to the rankings given in the actual sources, not Wikipedia-rankings. What is the purpose of including games that barely managed to crack, say, #92 or #144 on a list? I highly doubt most readers even care about games ranked so low. That's stretching the definition of "the best" way too far. Again, that's too inclusive and indiscriminate. I believe there should be a cut-off point to the rankings, e.g. only include games that cracked the top 50 or top 25. Maestro2016 (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I've actually proposed a tighter cutoff myself before, but not on the grounds you are. I just don't think publications that publish a top 200 or whatever should essentially have extra weight. That said, top 25 or top 50 isn't really capturing the spirit of what's going on here; top 100 is probably fine. Ranking within a list isn't that important; any one critic can have favorites. The goal is to check commonality; "considered the best by 5 critics" is more powerful than a high ranking on any 1 critic's list.

Also, sorry if I sound like I'm being a nitpicker, but this still isn't WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you think, as an editorial judgment, that the list is better if it's shorter and tighter, that's fine. That is not the same as the linked policy. Again, List of Playstation 4 games is a very long list, but we're not going to drop 2/3 of the PS4 games randomly just to make it shorter: by the criteria it has, it needs to include the exact list of games it has (barring errors / omissions). This entries on this list are explained and given the stated criteria, this is exactly what we got (thanks again to Phediuk for doing all of the most recent compilations). See List of prominent operas for an example of a similar long list generated by using stated criteria and a set of reliable sources. Whether the criterion is set at 5 books mentioning an opera or 6 books, it's objective either way. SnowFire (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What was the tighter cut-off you previously proposed? Including games that were ranked #80-100 on dozens of different lists is just scraping the bottom of the barrel. The rankings that each critic gives is very important, as their views need to be accurately represented in the article. If the rankings don't matter, then the critics would've published unranked lists. But the fact that most of the lists are ranked demonstrates that rankings clearly do matter to the critics who published those lists. It's usually the top ten of their lists that the critics actually consider to be "the best", not the bottom 50+ of their lists. For example, the Sight & Sound critics poll determines the best films of all time by asking each critic to give a top ten list, not a top 100 list, and then they publish the ten films that have received the most top ten votes from the polled critics.

The List of PlayStation 4 games and List of prominent operas do not proclaim to be "the best" PS4 games or "the best" operas, but they have an entirely different scope to "best" articles. If you want this article to be a list of "prominent" games, then that should be reflected in the title. Having a list of nearly 200 games all equally considered "the best" is misleading and downright absurd. No other "best" article is using the word so loosely with such a wide scope like this article does. For comparison, see List of films considered the best (11 entries on the global critics list), List of novels considered the greatest (5 entries), List of best-selling video games (50 entries), and List of best-selling video game franchises (92 entries). But since it seems unlikely we'll come to an agreement on this, I think we may have to get an outside opinion on this (i.e. from users not previously involved with this article). Maestro2016 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As a frequent reader of this list, I rather like the way that it is currently set up. I do not mind the length because I feel it gives more variety in the types of games that can be considered best games. If the list was more restrictive I don't think there would be as much variety in genre. I think the length is also good currently because it creates a good balance between readers and editors. We already see people trying to add their favourite games to the list without meeting the criteria. If there were even less games, the amount of people trying to add their favourites would only increase to replace the games that were removed. Although, I do admit that my personal feelings for this list might be getting in the way, since I have been playing chronologically through each game on the list in order to experience the best games for myself, and don't want any of them to be removed because someone thinks there are too many great games on the list. I see where both sides are coming from, but I feel that this list is already doing a great job at showing which games have been considered the best over time. I think that if a game is good enough to be on six different lists from six different publications, then the game therefore is notable enough to be considered the best, regardless of where it was placed on a specific list. Sorry if I talked for too long. This is my first post, but I felt passionately enough about this discussion to make an account and post this. Keep up the good work. Orman Schnozborn (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I can understand why this list is set up the way it is, so that the different platforms and genres all get their fair share of representation. But I think the way this list is currently structured is the wrong way to go about it. The way List of films considered the best goes about having more representation and inclusivity for different genres and countries is by having separate sub-lists for different genres and countries. So whatever films don't make the main list can still get represented by having sub-lists demonstrating which are considered the best of a genre or country. If representation and inclusivity is such a big deal, we could easily have sub-lists for different genres and platforms, so that fans of different genres and platforms don't feel left out. And that way, we could more clearly identify what's the best of each genre or platform, rather than just having them all on a single long indiscriminate list with no explanation of context whatsoever. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetical by-genre separate lists would invite far more original research, "context and explanation" that is just Wikipedia editor rambling, and unclear inclusion criteria. It'd also falsely imply that game critics hold all genres in equal regard. It'd be a mess. SnowFire (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing "hypothetical" or "original research" about genre lists. There are a ton of reliable sources that have lists specifically dedicated to specific genres and platforms. What would be "original research" would be to take a general top 100 list and try to determine the best of a genre from that. Which is clearly not the case in List of films considered the best, where the genre list only lists the film considered the best on a genre-specific list, not the highest-ranking film of a genre from a general top 100 list. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(de-indent) Wait a second. Maestro, we already went over this with a long pointless conversation about semantics at Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best/Archive 5#This_page_does not_accurately_portray a_list_of_video_games_considered the_best . Also note that Hurrygane was blocked for sockpuppetry for a time so that was just Hurrygane again as Delirious Monk, his sock. From what you said above:

If you want this article to be a list of "prominent" games, then that should be reflected in the title. Having a list of nearly 200 games all equally considered "the best" is misleading and downright absurd.

It is reflected in the title, okay? And the lede is abundantly clear as well. That's exactly what we told you last time, and it's apparently what we have to repeat now. "Best" is not singular here, but plural, we've been over this, if that's really your complaint then step away from the dead horse, it's okay to have more than 1 game listed here and it's not some shocking breach to have a list of 200 games. So yes, pretend this article is titled "List of games critically acclaimed on multiple best-of lists" or "List of prominent games" or something if that makes the length of the list acceptable semantically for you. You've said your piece already. (Mind, in my piece, List of novels considered the greatest is an abomination of original research of an article that I even proposed deleting a long time ago on the talk page. It should be refactored to be like this list if kept at all. But that's just me, I'm not a maintainer of that list, so whatever.) SnowFire (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have been over this before. And I did agree with Hurrygane's arguments at the time. However, the suggestion back then, which I supported at the time, was to have a #1 rank only list, akin to List of films considered the best. One of your arguments for rejecting the proposal at the time was:

"I think a better hypothetical example than your examples would be something like five sources where there's one game (call it Game-A) that gets #2, #5, #6, and #18 on 4/5 of the sources, and another Game-B where a single source gave it #1, but all of the others ignored it."

That is consistent with my proposal above: only list games that have appeared within the top 20 of each list (or top 50 if you want to be generous). Using your own hypothetical example, a game that has consistently appeared in the top 20 on various lists is far more worthy of inclusion than games that have consistently appeared in the bottom 50 of those same top 100 lists.

While you keep attacking List of novels considered the greatest to make this article look good, you keep ignoring List of films considered the best, which clearly does a better job than this article. That article is clear and concise with its usage of "the best" and does not suffer from semantic confusion like this article. And it does a better job of inclusivity and representation at the same time, with its sub-lists representing different genres and countries.

And finally, this article's methodology is WP:Original research. I'm not aware of a single reliable source on the subject using the same methodology that this article uses. For comparison, check out Metacritic's list of best video games of the decade. The methodology used there is weighted rankings of different lists, and it only counts the top 20 of each list (games below the top 20 get zero points). Or check out the Sight & Sound list of greatest films, which only includes the top 10 of each critic's list, similar to my proposal above. This article's methodology is completely baseless, with no precedent anywhere, whether on Wikipedia or in any reliable sources (including reliable WP:GAMESOURCES). This article's methodology is original research. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding more recent video games to the list

No more video games appear in the list after 2017. With the addition of the new lists, could it be possible to add more video games in the list from circa 2017-2018 and onwards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.179.172 (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

An entry requires it to have appeared on lists by six different publishers. If no game after 2017 has qualified yet, that can't be helped. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Some Crash Bandicoot Games

Adding Crash Bandicoot Games Houssam Hiani (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Crash Bandicoot (1996) Crash Bandicoot 2 : Cortex Strikes Back . Crash Bandicoot : Warped Houssam Hiani (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys , i'm a new wikipedia editor , plz can you guys accept my demand to edit ? Houssam Hiani (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Read the criteria on the top of this page. None of those games qualify. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New lists

I’ve found several lists that might qualify, but I don’t know how to add them. Could you please help me, I’d appreciate it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.179.172 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Link them here and if they qualify, they will be vetted and any new game that hits the inclusion standard will be added to the list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out, however I can’t link them due to some of them being on the “blacklist” apparently. The websites I got the lists from are The Guardian, Business Insider, and PC Gamer. If you could once again help me out, I’d very much appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:FD8:3351:15A5:D871:F6D9:7C16:D3AB (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe I know which lists you are talking about. Thanks for the suggestions; however, none of them qualify for inclusion. The Guardian's list covers only games from 2000 onwards; Business Insider's list is not chosen by their staff, but instead pulled directly from Metacritic; and PC Gamer's list cover only PC games. Phediuk (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Power Unlimited

The Power Unlimited list was published in print in 2015. Only the online reprint was published in 2018. I'd change it myself, but I don't have much experience with tables on Wikipedia and I don't want to mess anything up. 67.241.190.3 (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible list for inclusion

I’ve found a 2007 list from GamePro that might qualify for inclusion. I have linked the page below. https://web.archive.org/web/20070621090806/http://gamepro.com/gamepro/international/games/features/110028.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:FD8:3351:43EA:3815:57B1:E3D:584 (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The preamble explicitly distances importance from quality, though: "This list was surprisingly challenging to write because it ranks importance, not necessarily quality or popularity." So it's not a list of "best" games. Phediuk (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Considered One of the Best

Most top lists are in "countdown" form, where the #1 spot is the actual best and everything else has something better. So to really get at "the best", you should only consider the #1 spot on such lists. With your inclusion criteria, I think "one of the best" or "among the best" is a less misleading way to present your data.--2603:8080:1803:E100:2804:4402:AABA:8C50 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That would make it a boring list. Enjoyer of World — Talk 02:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GAMINGbible's List

GAMINGbible has released its list of the 100 greatest video games of all time (top 20 here). Lsn11 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of them and they aren't listed at WP:VG/RS either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die

Since 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die has recently been added as a reliable source to WP:VG/S, I'm going to go ahead and incorporate it into the main page. The book is an editorial selection of explicitly the "best" video games, all formats and timeframes inclusive.

Here is the list of games selected for the 2013 edition:

1001 Games

1080° Snowboarding 1943: The Battle of Midway 42 All-Time Classics 720° A Boy and His Blob A Mind Forever Voyaging Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation ActRaiser Advance Wars Advance Wars: Dual Strike Adventure (Atari 2600) Afrika Age of Empires Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings Age of Empires: Mythologies Age of Mythology Alex Kidd in Miracle World Alien Soldier Aliens versus Predator (1999) Alone in the Dark (1992) Alter Ego Amplitude Animal Crossing Animal Crossing: Wild World Anno 1701: Dawn of Discovery Another World APB (1987) Ape Escape Archer Maclean's Pool Archon: The Light and the Dark Arkanoid ARMA: Armed Assault Armadillo Run Art Style: Intersect Art Style: Orbient Assassin's Creed II Asteroids Astro Boy: Omega Factor Audiosurf Auditorium Axelay Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance Ballblazer Bangai-O Bangai-O Spirits Banjo-Kazooie Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts Banjo-Tooie Bank Panic Batman: Arkham Asylum Battalion Wars Battlezone (1980) Battlefield 1942 Battlefield 1943 Battlefield 2 Battlefield: Bad Company Bayonetta Beatmania Bejeweled 2 Bejeweled Twist Beneath a Steel Sky Beyond Good & Evil BioForge Bionic Commando Rearmed Bioshock Bioshock 2 Bioshock Infinite Bit.Trip Core Black Black & White Blade Runner Blast Corps Blasteroids BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger Body Harvest Bomb Jack Bomberman (1990) Bookworm Boom Blox Bash Party Boot Hill Borderlands Boulder Dash Bounty Bob Strikes Back! Braid Breakout Breath of Fire II Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars Bubble Bobble Buggy Boy Bully Burning Rangers Burnout 2: Point of Impact Burnout Paradise Bushido Blade Buzz!: Quiz TV California Games Call of Duty Call of Duty 2 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Canabalt Cannon Fodder Capcom vs SNK Captain Forever Carcassonne Carmageddon II: Carpocalypse Carrier Command Castle Crashers Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow Castlevania: Symphony of the Night Cave Story Centipede Chibi-Robo! Chime Choplifter Chrono Cross Chrono Trigger ChuChu Rocket! Chuckie Egg City of Heroes Civilization Civilization II Civilization IV Civilization Revolution Cogs Colin McRae: Dirt Colin McRae: Dirt 2 Columns Combat (Atari 2600) Command & Conquer Command & Conquer: Red Alert Commando Commandos 2: Men of Courage Company of Heroes Contra III: The Alien Wars Contra 4 Counter-Strike: Source Crackdown Crayon Physics Deluxe Crazy Taxi 3: High Roller Crimson Skies Critter Crunch Cruise for a Corpse Crush Crush Crysis Crystal Castles Cursor*10 Cyber Troopers Virtual-On Oratorio Tangram Cybernator Daigasso! Band Brothers Dance Dance Revolution Darius Dark Chronicle Dark Souls Darwinia Daytona USA De Blob Dead or Alive 4 Dead Rising Dead Space Dead Space: Extraction Death Tank Def Jam: Fight for NY DEFCON Defender Defender of the Crown Defense Grid: The Awakening Déjà Vu Demolition Derby (1984) Demon's Souls Descent Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf Desktop Tower Defense Deus Ex Deus Ex Machina Deus Ex: Human Revolution Devil Dice Devil May Cry Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening Devil May Cry 4 Diablo Diablo II Dig-Dug Disaster Report Disgaea 2: Cursed Memories Disgaea: Hour of Darkness Dishonored Dissidia Final Fantasy DJ Hero Activision DoDonPachi Donkey Kong Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat Donkey Konga Doom (1993) Doom 3 Doom II: Hell on Earth Double Dragon Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training Dr. Mario Dragon Age: Origins Dragon Quest Dragon Quest V Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King Dragon's Lair (arcade) Dreamfall: The Longest Journey Drill Dozer Driver Drop7 Duke Nukem 3D Dune II Dungeon Keeper Dungeon Master Dungeon Siege Every Extend ExtraE4: Every Extend Extra Extreme Eamon EarthBound Earthworm Jim Ecco The Dolphin Echochrome Earth Defense Force 2017 Eets Einhänder Elasto Mania Elebits Eliss Elite Elite Beat Agents Empire: Total War Eternal Darkness EVE Online EverQuest EverQuest II Everybody's Golf 5 Everyday Shooter Excitebike 64 Exile (1988) Exit 2 Eye of the Beholder EyePet F-Zero GX F-Zero X F.E.A.R. F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin Fable Fable II Façade Fahrenheit Fairlight Fallout Fallout 3 Fantastic Contraption Fantasy World Dizzy Far Cry Far Cry 2 Far Cry 3 Faselei! Fat Princess Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly Fatal Frame: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse Garou: Mark of the Wolves Ferrari F355 Challenge Fight Night Round 3 Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Final Fantasy Tactics Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Grimoire of the Rift Final Fantasy IV Final Fantasy V Final Fantasy VI Final Fantasy VII Final Fantasy VIII Final Fantasy IX Final Fantasy X Final Fantasy XII Final Fight Final Furlong Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance Fire Pro Wrestling Returns Flashback FlatOut: Ultimate Carnage Flight Control Microsoft Flight Simulator X Flipnic: Ultimate Pinball Flow Flower Flywrench Forgotten Worlds Forza Motorsport 2 Forza Motorsport 3 Stretch Panic Free Running Freedom Fighters Freedom Force vs the 3rd Reich Freespace 2 Frequency Frogger Front Mission 3 Frontier: Elite 2 Fuel Full Throttle G-LOC: Air Battle Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords Galaga Galaga '88 Galaxian Galcon Garry's Mod Gauntlet Gauntlet II Gears of War Gears of War 2 Gemini Wing geoDefense Swarm Geometry Wars (2003) Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 Ghosts 'n Goblins Ghouls 'n' Ghosts Giants: Citizen Kabuto Gitaroo Man God Hand God of War God of War II God of War: Chains of Olympus Golden Sun Golden Tee Golf GoldenEye 007 Gorf Gottlieb Pinball Classics Gradius Gradius V Gran Turismo Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec Grand Prix Legends Grand Slam Tennis Grand Theft Auto Grand Theft Auto 2 Grand Theft Auto III Grand Theft Auto IV Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories Grandia II Gravitar Gravity Power Rush'n Attack Gregory Horror Show Grim Fandango GrimGrimoire GROW GT Legends GTI Club GTR 2 – FIA GT Racing Guardian Heroes Guild Wars Guitar Hero Guitar Hero II Guitar Hero World Tour Guitar Hero: Metallica Gunpey Gunstar Heroes Gunstar Super Heroes Gyruss H.E.R.O. Half-Life Half-Life 2 Half-Minute Hero Halo: Combat Evolved Halo 2 Halo 3 Halo 3: ODST Halo Wars Harvest Moon Harvest Moon: Friends of Mineral Town Head over Heels Heavenly Sword Heavy Rain Henry Hatsworth in the Puzzling Adventure Herzog Zwei Hexic 2 Hidden & Dangerous 2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Hitman 2: Silent Assassin Hitman: Blood Money Homeworld Hotel Dusk: Room 215 Hotline Miami Hunter Hyper Sports I, Robot Ikari Warriors Ikaruga IL-2 Sturmovik IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Impossible Mission II Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis Infamous I.Q.: Intelligent Qube International Karate + International Track & Field Interstate '76 ISS Pro Evolution Jade Empire Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy Jak II Jeanne d'Arc Jet Force Gemini Jet Set Radio Jet Set Radio Future Jet Set Willy Jetpac John Madden Football (1990) Journey Joust Juno First Just Cause Karate Champ Katamari Damacy Kid Icarus Kill Switch Killer7 Killer Instinct (1994) Killzone 2 The King of Fighters '94 Kingdom Hearts Klax Knight Lore Kung-Fu Master Laser Squad Leader Board Left 4 Dead Left 4 Dead 2 Lego Star Wars: The Video Game Lemmings Let's Tap Limbo Line Rider Little Big Adventure Little Computer People Little King's Story LittleBigPlanet LocoRoco 2 Lode Runner Loom Lords of Midnight LostWinds LostWinds 2: Winter of the Melodias Luigi's Mansion Lumines Lumines Live! Lunar Lander M.U.L.E. MaBoShi: The Three Shape Machinarium Mad Planets Madden NFL 10 Mafia Manhunt Maniac Mansion Day of the Tentacle Manic Miner Marathon Infinity Marble Madness Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga Mario Golf Mario Kart 64 Mario Kart DS Mario Kart: Super Circuit Mario Kart Wii Mario Power Tennis Mario vs. Donkey Kong Mark of the Ninja Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes Mashed Mass Effect Mass Effect 2 Max & the Magic Marker Max Payne Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne Maximo: Ghosts to Glory MDK MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Medieval: Total War Medieval II: Total War Mega-Lo-Mania Mercenary Mercury Meltdown Mercury Meltdown Revolution Metal Arms: Glitch in the System Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes Metal Slug Meteos Metroid Fusion Metroid Prime Metroid Prime 2: Echoes Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Metroid: Zero Mission Metropolis Street Racer Micro Machines Micro Machines Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament Midnight Club: Los Angeles Midtown Madness 3 Midwinter Midwinter Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes Mighty Flip Champs! Minecraft Miner 2049er Minesweeper Missile Command Mojib-Ribbon Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge Monster Hunter Freedom Unite Monster Max Moon Patrol Mortal Kombat (1992) Mother 3 MotorStorm MotorStorm: Pacific Rift Mr. Do! Mr. Driller Ms. Pac-Man MUD Muramasa: The Demon Blade Myst Myth: The Fallen Lords N+ Naked War Narc NBA 2K10 NBA Jam NBA Street Vol. 2 Nebulus Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2005) Need for Speed: Shift Neptune's Pride NetHack Neverwinter Nights (2002) NHL Hockey Ni no Kuni Nights into Dreams Ninja Five-O Ninja Gaiden (2004) Ninja Gaiden Black Ninja Gaiden II Nintendogs No More Heroes No One Lives Forever 2: A Spy in H.A.R.M.'s Way Noby Noby Boy North & South Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath Odin Sphere Oids Okami Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising Operation Wolf The Oregon Trail (1971) Outcast Outrun Outrun 2006: Coast 2 Coast Out Zone Pac-Land Pac-Man Pac-Man Championship Edition Pain Pang Panzer Dragoon Orta Panzer Dragoon Saga Paper Mario Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Paperboy Paradroid Parappa the Rapper Patapon Peggle Perfect Dark Persona 3 Persona 4 Phantasy Star Online Phoenix Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Picross DS Pikmin Pikmin 2 Pilotwings Pilotwings 64 Pinball Dreams PixelJunk Monsters PixelJunk Shooter Planescape: Torment Planet Puzzle League Planetfall PlanetSide Plants vs. Zombies Plok Point Blank Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Pong Populous Portal Portal 2 Power Drift Power Stone 2 Powermonger Prey (2006) Prince of Persia (1989) Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Pro Evolution Soccer 3 Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box Professor Layton and the Curious Village Project Gotham Racing 3 Prototype Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy Psychonauts Punch-Out!! (Wii) Pure Puyo Pop Fever Bust-a-Move Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords Q*Bert Qix Quadradius Quake Quake II Quake III: Arena R-Type R-Type Delta R-Type Final R4: Ridge Racer Type 4 Race Driver: GRID Race Pro Radiant Silvergun Raiden Railroad Tycoon Railroad Tycoon 3 Rainbow Islands Rampart Ratchet & Clank Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters Rayman Raving Rabbids Rebelstar Rebelstar: Tactical Command Red Dead Revolver Red Dead Redemption Red Faction: Guerrilla Reset Generation Resident Evil (1996) Resident Evil 2 Resident Evil 4 Resident Evil 5 Resident Evil – Code: Veronica Resident Evil Zero Resistance 2 Retro Game Challenge Return Fire Return to Castle Wolfenstein Return To Zork The Revenge of Shinobi Rez HD Rhythm Heaven Ridge Racer (1993) Ridge Racer (2004) Rise of Nations Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends Robotron 2084 Rock Band Rock Band 2 Rocket: Robot on Wheels Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis Rogue Rogue Galaxy Rolando 2 RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Rolling Thunder Rome: Total War RuneScape Sacrifice Saints Row 2 Salamander Sam & Max Hit the Road Samba de Amigo Samorost Samurai Shodown II Saturn Bomberman Scramble Scribblenauts Seaman Second Sight Secret of Mana Sega Bass Fishing Sega Rally Championship Sensible World of Soccer Serious Sam Shadow Complex Shadow of the Colossus Shadowrun (SNES) Shatter Shenmue Shenmue II Shinobi (2002) Shining Force III Shinobi (1987) Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Sid Meier's Pirates! Silent Hill Silent Hill 2 Silent Hunter III Silent Scope 2: Dark Silhouette Silhouette Mirage SimCity (1989) SimCity 2000 SimCity 4 Sin and Punishment Sin & Punishment: Star Successor SingStar (PS3) Sins of a Solar Empire Siren: Blood Curse Skate 2 Skies of Arcadia Skool Daze Dwarf Fortress Slitherlink Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus Sly 2: Band of Thieves Smash TV Snake Snake Rattle 'n' Roll SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash Sokoban Solomon's Key Sonic Adventure Sonic the Hedgehog Sonic the Hedgehog 2 Soulcalibur II Soulcalibur IV Space Channel 5 Space Giraffe Space Harrier Space Invaders Space Invaders Extreme Space Invaders Infinity Gene Space Station Silicon Valley Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe Spelunky Spider-Man 2 Spider: The Secret of Bryce Manor Spindizzy Splatterhouse Spore Spy Hunter Spy vs. Spy SSX Tricky S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Star Control 3 Star Trek: 25th Anniversary Star Wars (arcade) Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast Star Wars: Rogue Squadron Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader Star Wars: TIE Fighter Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter Starcraft Star Fox 64 Stargate Starship Patrol Steel Battalion Stranglehold Street Fighter II Turbo Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike Street Fighter IV Street Fighter Alpha 3 Strider (arcade) Stunt Car Racer Sub-Terrania Suikoden III Summer Games II Super Castlevania IV Super Hang-On Super Mario 64 Super Mario Bros. Super Mario Bros. 2 Super Mario Bros. 3 Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels Super Mario Galaxy Super Mario Galaxy 2 Super Mario Kart Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Super Mario Sunshine Super Mario World Super Metroid Super Monkey Ball Super Punch-Out!! Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo Super Smash Bros. Brawl Super Smash Bros. Melee Super Sprint Super Stardust HD Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix Super Tennis Supreme Commander SWAT 4 Swords & Soldiers Syndicate (1993) Syndicate Wars Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow System Shock 2 Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together Tales of Symphonia Tapper Team Fortress Classic Team Fortress 2 Tecmo Super Bowl Tehkan World Cup Tekken Tekken 3 Tempest Tempest 2000 Test Drive Unlimited Tetris Tetris Party The 7th Guest The Bard's Tale The Beast Within: A Gabriel Knight Mystery The Beatles: Rock Band The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay The Curse of Monkey Island The Darkness The Dig The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim The Hobbit (1982) The House of the Dead 2 The House of the Dead: Overkill The Incredible Machine The Last Express The Legend of the Mystical Ninja The Legend of Zelda The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages (joint entry) The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Logical Journey of the Zoombinis The Longest Journey The Lost Vikings The Mark of Kri The Movies Activision The Neverhood The NewZealand Story The Path The Secret of Monkey Island The Sentinel The Settlers The Sims The Sims 2 The Sims 3 The Typing of the Dead The Walking Dead The Warriors The Witcher The World Ends with You Theme Park Thief: The Dark Project Thief II: The Metal Age Thirty Flights of Loving Threads of Fate Thrust Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10 Time Crisis Time Gentlemen, Please! Time Gentlemen, Please! Time Pilot TimeSplitters 2 TimeSplitters: Future Perfect Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent Tomb Raider (1996) Tomb Raider: Legend Tomb Raider: Underworld Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 Tony Hawk's Project 8 Top Spin 3 Torchlight Torus Trooper Total Annihilation Tower Bloxx Track & Field TrackMania DS TrackMania: United Forever Transformers (2004) Trauma Center: Second Opinion Trauma Center: Under the Knife Tribes 2 Trine Trinity Tron (arcade) UFO: Enemy Unknown Ultima I: The First Age of Darkness Ultima Online Ultima Underworld 2 Ultima VII Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins Uncharted: Drake's Fortune Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception Uniracers Uno Unreal Tournament 2004 Unreal Tournament 3 Uplink Utopia Vagrant Story Valkyria Chronicles Vectorman 2 Venture Vib Ribbon Viewtiful Joe Virtua Cop 2 Virtua Fighter Virtua Fighter 5 Virtua Racing Virtua Tennis 3 Viva Piñata VVVVVV Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II Warhawk (2007) Wario World WarioWare: Twisted! WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgames! Warlords (1980) Wave Race 64 We Love Katamari Wetrix Wii Fit Wii Sports Wii Sports Resort Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom Wipeout Wipeout 2097 Wipeout HD Wipeout Pulse Wizball Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap World Games World in Conflict World of Goo World of Warcraft Worms X-COM: Apocalypse X3: Reunion Deep Silver XCOM: Enemy Unknown Xenogears Xevious Xybots Yakuza 2 Year Walk Yie Ar Kung-Fu Yoshi Touch & Go Yoshi's Island Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders Zen Bound Zeno Clash Zombies Ate My Neighbors Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner Zoo Keeper (2003) Zork Zuma

The following 29 games will be added to the main page as a reult of this list's incorporation: Centipede, Tempest, Frogger, Star Wars, Ghosts 'n Goblins, Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe, Virtua Racing, Dune II, Flashback, Doom II, Command & Conquer, PaRappa the Rapper, Ultima Online, Quake II. Dance Dance Revolution, Silent Hill, Devil May Cry, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne, Dragon Quest VIII, Company of Heroes, Mass Effect, Burnout Paradise, Rock Band 2, Valkyria Chronicles, LittleBigPlanet, Gears of War 2, Dragon Age: Origins, and Bayonetta.

Will incorporate the list shortly. Phediuk (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. I have also C+P'ed the list into the omnibus section at the top of the talk page. Phediuk (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Listings for games not yet on the article

Is there an easier way of checking how many listings games that aren't on the article yet have?

--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User TarkusAB made an uofficial tally for all games back in 2017; should still be of some use, though it's outdated now. Phediuk (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks!

--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

83.89.63.110 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Super Mario Sunshine

 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. Seagull123 Φ 22:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

I would like to add a whole bunch of new games to this list please :) 72.80.209.101 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How does this pass WP:LISTCRIT?

Per WP:LISTCRIT:

"Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources".

In what way are the selection criteria of this page supported by reliable sources? They appear to have been decided by editors themselves based on original research. My suggestion is that either reliable sourcing being sound to support the criteria, or that the criteria be changed to one that is supported by reliable sources. For example, which list of the best games are considered reliable by experts/reviewers? FOARP (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

FOARP, all sources in use are considered reliable by WP:VG/RS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dissident93 - what is the source for the list criteria? FOARP (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

FOARP, for what exactly are you asking? For WP:VG/RS or this list? Did the FAQ not answer it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Dissident93 - Per WP:LISTCRIT the selection criteria must be supported by reliable sources. This means not just that the information on the page must be sourced in reliable sources, but that the criteria used to select the information in the list also has to be sourced in reliable sources. The reason for this is because otherwise you can assemble a list of anything, completely through original research. As far as I can see, the selection criteria for this list were entirely decided by editors themselves without any reliable sources saying that this is the appropriate selection criteria. The FAQ does not show any sources for the selection criteria - it just links to discussions where a few editors said that they thought this was how to do it. FOARP (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

FOARP, all of the sources included on the page should be considered reliable by WP:VG/RS, which have to be vetted first on the talk page there. Or are you questioning the other inclusion metrics that must be met for new lists to be added here? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

FOARP: The policy is to prevent people from using genuinely reliable sources for their own flights of fancy. In this particular case, it's a very strict line being drawn with solely "inclusion", so yes, as Dissident says, sources accepted by VG/RS are directly supporting the claim that these games are highly regarded. You can basically confirm this by if it would be policy-compliant to have sourced commentary in an individual game's article's "Reception" section that claims they are highly regarded by games journalists, which I presume you wouldn't have an issue with (e.g. Half-Life_(video_game)#Reviews. What this policy discourages is using sources that say one thing for something else - e.g. if this article simply took glowing lines from contemporary reviews, which really would invite OR (and is a problem IMO with some of the other "List of best XYZ"s on Wikipedia), as it is not really the same thing. But for this article, the Wikipedia article and the reliable sources are in accord: they both agree on an unambiguous, objective claim that Game XYZ is considered among the best by 6+ reliable sources. SnowFire (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia as a source. A list can be assembled out of literally anything, what's needed is reliable sources supporting the criteria on which the list is assembled. To take an example, our list of countries by GDP is actually three lists - we don't try to aggregate those lists into a single list using OR. What we appear to have done on this page is effectively aggregate sources using OR, since no reliable source is cited saying that the six-lists methodology should be used. Where did this six-list criteria come from? Why not five? Or seven? Or ten? Or just one? Making up our own criteria like this is the very essence of OR. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a passerby chiming in but how is having a minimum inclusion criteria original research? If anything it seems analogous to something like limiting the list of best-selling video game franchises to at least 20 million sold because at some point there has to be a cutoff, else the page would become unwieldy. I don't immediately see anything on the featured list list of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories that defines that twenty should be the cutoff even though the lead makes mention of five victories being the standard. redsparta^talk 10:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's original research if editors decide inclusion criteria by themselves. Inclusion criteria should be those supported by reliable sources (i.e., there should be something in a reliable source saying that this is how items in the list should be selected). Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a good argument, but in the case of aces/top-selling games at least a clear numerical cut-off is being used. In this case for some reason it's structured as a list of games released by year that are included in at least six lists of "good" games at any position on those lists (theoretically, six 100th places is sufficient to make the list), any number of sources are used without discriminating between them (e.g., are the random lists used here - some of which aren't even from specialist games publications - really the equivalent of something like PC Gamer's top-100?). Saying that these are sources passed by VG/RS begs the question of whether they are reliable for lists of all games released throughout all time for any platform, or whether these are simply sources that have been passed at some time for a specific purpose?

The OR nature of this article is particularly highlighted by the lack of any source in the lead section, and the confused web of cites that makes the article content practically unverifiable. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

FOARP, couldn't "editors decide inclusion criteria by themselves" be applied to literally every aspect of Wikipedia? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

For this reason Wiki has policies and guidelines. WP:LISTCRIT is one of these, and it says that inclusion criteria should be sourced in a reliable source. Not doing so makes this article basically a WP:Synth. FOARP (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree with FOARP. The inclusion criteria for this article is WP:Original research, WP:Synth and WP:Indiscriminate. Myself and others have raised similar concerns previously (see Indiscriminate section above, for example). Maestro2016 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You say that the this article's methodology is original research but seemingly have no issue with the list of films considered the best page. Is it the fact the film one uses more poll-based sources rather than ranked lists? I don't really get how having a game be consistently cited among the best of all time is a flawed methodology, nor do I see how it fails WP:LISTCRIT's guidelines of being unambiguous (all the sources make it clear what their focus is; that being listed games they considered to be the best of all time), objective (while these are all technically opinions, any list of this sort is going to be like this), and supported by reliable sources (already brought up, all of the sources should be considered reliable per WP:VG/RS). Weren't you also the editor that tried to rename the page based on semantics a while back too? Is that still one of your issues with the page? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Dissident93 - WP:WAX. It doesn't matter if there are other problematic pages on Wiki. We have selection criteria on this page. These selection criteria are not sourced in any reliable source. This is the problem. Continually pointing to sources existing for individual items in the list does not address this, because it is not the sourcing of list-items that is the problem, but the lack of sourcing for the criteria for selecting them. Talking about items being "consistently" in lists is obviously wrong given that there are 50 different lists, of differing lengths, made using different criteria, combined in more than 200 different ways, and each item need only be mentioned in six of them, at any position - any reasonable interpretation of "consistently" would require at least a majority of lists used to include them. What we have here right now is a clear WP:SYNTH.

But, hey, there's an easy way of dealing with this: add references to support the selection criteria. If these sources exist this should be easy to do. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

PS - considering the dictionary definition of 'consistently' is "in a way that does not change", "with no or very few exceptions", "In every case or on every occasion; invariably" for these items to truly be "consistently" included in lists then they would arguably have to be included in every one of the 50, or nearly every one of the 50 lists used here. Not only are the selection criteria not supported by references, but they do not even match what is on the page. I've edited the lead section to be more accurate - these are merely games consider among the best by some critics. FOARP (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

FOARP: Dissident was more responding to Maestro2016, who has been somewhat inconsistent on this topic. Or, put another way, Maestro2016 has very different ideas about what counts for how to present such content on Wikipedia (For example, in this edit, Maestro is restoring content I cut out as being an inappropriate raising of a single source as somehow being the Authoritative Guide to the Most Acclaimed Games of the 2010s.)

Anyway, I fundamentally disagree, and think we're going in circles. You need a source to show that "US history" is a valid topic. You don't need a source dictating exactly how to subdivide the topic into subarticles like History of the United States (1865–1918); the year ranges are up to editor discretion. What requires a source is "is this game regarded as the best", which this article does, in spades. Things like the threshold of articles are up to editor discretion, and this is noncontroversially true elsewhere. If you are okay with reporting a single source's beliefs on such topics - Time Person of the Year, NFL Top 100 Players of 2019, U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking - then you have to be okay with reporting multiple sources on the topic. In my opinion, things like Maestro's change above are fundamentally more problematic, because they put a single source on a pedastal which invites all sorts of inappropriate editor discretion over which sources "count". Multiple sources are an improvement, not a problem. SnowFire (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

SnowFire - There's a simple issue here: the sources do not support what's on the page. A game need only be included in 12% of the sources to feature in this list. Probably more than half of the games listed here are not included in a majority of the lists. They do not at all represent a consensus, the items are not selected based on anything stated in the sources as a whole. You've created a WP:SYNTH that states as fact conclusions not supported by even a simple majority of the references. I am OK with a single-source list as no original research is required to list, say, Time Person of the Year. I am not OK with WP:SYNTHing multiple sources to reach a conclusion not supported even by a majority of them - this would be the equivalent of collecting Time's list of people of the year with 49 other lists of people of the year (e.g., People Magazine's) and writing a single-list Wiki article entitled "Best People Of The Year" including anyone who was mentioned on at least six of those lists as the "Best Person of 2020".

To take a specific example: Joust (video game) is included as one of the "best" games. Exactly six sources are cited to support this (meaning probably the remaining 46 sources don't include it) - one of them is HG101 which looks a pretty peripheral source TBF. Is it really the (or a) "best" game when 88% of the sources don't include it? FOARP (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

None of this is responsive to the issue of Wikipedia sourcing policy, including the threshold arguments which have been gone over in detail in the past (Which seemed to be Maestro's real complaint from earlier comments of his on this talk page - perhaps why he prefers using just a single source, because then there can be one clear "winner"). Feel free to write a blog post that "There is no greatest game ever because no game has >50% acclaim among critics!" That is not, however, a useful Wikipedia article.

You're farther away from identifying a problem in the sourcing here than where you started, IMO. Let me say this to attempt to reframe the debate: it is true that editor discretion is wide on Wikipedia and can be misused. Take the Reception section of a single video game or film. If 100 sources wrote reviews of a film and 80 were negative and 20 were positive, proportionality / fringe policies indicate that they should be discussed in roughly that proportion, but that can be hard to tell. A fan of the film might cite 2 positive reviews and 2 negative reviews and still fill out the Reception section just fine. A more scrupulous fan might cite 1 positive review and 3 negative reviews, but cite the positive review very prominently while only quoting weak criticisms from the negative reviews. You get the picture: it can be a bit of a mess. However, it's clearly bonkers to demand that there be some meta-source used to dictate how to create the Reception section. Such a section is inherently created by editors having a discussion of what a good sampling of sources would be, and a fair and proportionate way to present them. While partisan slant can be a problem, it's not original research any more than writing any other aspect of an encyclopedia is. Basically, imagine an alternate article that was just 150 single games Reception/Legacy sections, focusing on long-term regard, for games with at least some reliable sources being very positive about them (phrase it this way if you are worried about proportionality; we're talking absolute number here, which is clearly true). Is that compliant with sourcing policy? If it would be compliant within the game articles themselves - which I'd argue it is, almost all of these individual games report that they were well-regarded - then it's compliant here. If you think it's not compliant here, then you probably have a wide-ranging difference of opinion with how Reception/Legacy sections should be conducted everywhere else, too. SnowFire (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with List of films considered the best because it does not fall under WP:Synth like this article does. It does not try to arbitrarily aggregate dozens of lists like this article does, but simply lists each poll one-by-one and states which film came out on top in each poll. I previously suggested something similar for this article, listing each list separately one-by-one and mention which game came out on top in each list, which is one way of avoiding WP:Synth. Either way, it helps that the film industry has Sight & Sound which directly aggregates different critics' lists, so that film editors don't have to resort to any WP:Synth aggregation work like what game editors have done for this article. There is nothing of the sort in the game industry, with the closest equivalent I could find being this point-based list compiled by Metacritic for the 2010s (which appears to be doing something similar to Sight & Sound, but only for the 2010s). Maestro2016 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do see the point brought up here. This list is sourced, but the criteria itself is not. And as much as the inclusion criteria is clear, it doesn't make it any less arbitrary. Certainly, editors decided (by consensus) that the magic number was six, but that was still a number decided by editors instead of reliable third parties, and risks being WP:OR. The obvious solution is to just err on the side of inclusion, so that editors don't cross the line from verifying to gate-keeping. According to the WP:SIZERULE, the 100kb limit is based on readable prose, where this article is less than 14kb in raw characters. It could be twice as long and avoid any issues with WP:SIZE, and protect itself from accusations of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be a viable solution since the inclusion criteria would then be potentially clear(er) - it would be that of any of the sources used, and we might acknowledge that the criteria used in each list are different. If a numerical cut-off is needed, it would more obviously make sense to use the ranking in the lists as the cut-off as this is clearly related to how "good" the game is. This might also lend itself to showing in the list how highly the games were placed - it is arbitrary to the point of being silly that games potentially listed in 100th place in six sources are included, whilst potentially games listed in 1st place in five sources are not listed. FOARP (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad we're making headway with a solution. I honestly wonder how much bigger the list would get if we still restricted it to these reliable rankings, but used a simple "it's appeared in multiple reliable rankings" standard. It would be clear, neutral, non-original, and still avoid being too long in the actual content (e.g.: 90% of this article is markup, and half of the article appears above the reference line). Some of the data you suggested is interesting, but I wouldn't want to get too bogged down in arguing about the best criteria (game X was listed 10 times vs. game Y was listed 5 times with a peak position of #3 vs. game Z was listed 3 times with an average position of #6). Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this suggestion. The rankings in the actual lists themselves need to be taken into account. There needs to be a cut-off point for the actual rankings in the lists. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't this substitute one arbitrary editorial opinion for another? I know we can do whatever consensus tells us, but I think we should strive for something that would put these kinds of disagreements to bed for a long time, with something that truly involves no original insight on our part. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, you are not going to find any non-arbitrary way to format these lists. We could simply only count games that are listed in the top 10 and these same arguments would apply to them. "Why stop at 10? Why not go up to 25?", etc. And a list that simply lists each publication's #1 game becomes more of a article aggregator than a list meant to represent games that have received enough widespread acclaim to be considered among the best ever. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Multiple reliable sources (rankings)" seems pretty non-arbitrary and compatible with Wikipedia guidelines / policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is what boggles the mind. Going with a simple inclusion / exclusion was designed to reduce original research and make a more straightforward, inarguable list inclusion criteria. (See Dissident's comment, basically.) Having some complicated "points" system based on placement makes issues of original research worse, not better, because it increases the ability of Wikipedia editors to toy with the results by using special rankings and bonuses and the like. (And yes, to be clear, if you check the archives, my earliest version of this list did exactly what you describe! I think it was incorrect in retrospect - I had something like 5 points for a top 5 rank, 4 points for a top 25 rank, 3 points for top 100 or the like.) I'm sure if you were to ask elsewhere on Wikipedia, anybody else would say that an editor designing some complicating scoring system is an OR danger flag, but merely citing a source that says a game is in the top 100 of all time is perfectly accepted (per my earlier comments on Reception sections of a single work). Besides, the list has said in the intro for the past several years since Phediuk started maintaing the list that it merely is measuring inclusion at all on the list, not having the #1 spot, so the triumphant got-you claim that having 6 90-100 entries gets you on the list is... already baked into the list and accepted? Yes, that's exactly what is being done here, that's not a surprise or a mistake. (As I've said before, if you want to create a #1 entries only separate list, you can, but it would frankly be in much more trouble for OR and SYNTH than this list.)

Now, that said - I wouldn't complain if we did in fact say that for very long lists, only the top 100 "count", as I've said on the talk page before, so that longer lists don't arbitrarily have more "weight". But that's a quite minor update. SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever selection criteria the article uses cannot just be something made up by editors (which is a big problem with the current article), but needs to have a reliable source actually supporting the selection criteria, in order to avoid WP:OR. For example, this 2010s list compiled by Metacritic has a clear selection criteria: a top 20 cut-off point, 3 points for first place, 2 points for second place, 1 point for 3-10 rankings, and 0.5 points for 11-20 rankings. Using a points system based on this, or just simply having a top 20 cut-off point, would therefore be supported by a reliable source. If there are any other reliable sources presenting alternative selection criteria, feel free to present them. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd give my two cents here. First, this page is not a ranking of games; it is a list of games cited by reliable sources on lists of the best games ever. The "selection criteria" are that the games appear on said lists. The page makes no claims other than that the games are included on said lists, and cites them with RSes, listed by each game. It does not synthesize claims, as every citation for every game says the same thing, namely, that (x) game is one of the best games ever. It is not an indiscriminate list, as every citation is from a RS list created for the express purpose of naming games as the best ever. This is as straightforward as list citations get on WP, and consistent with policy standards. Second, there is no "ranking system" for this page that would not be a WP:SYNTH; the Metacritic page, aside from limiting its puriew to the 2010s only, does not include any of the lists cited here, and to imply it does by subjecting the lists here to it is to make a claim not supported by Metacritic or by any of the lists on this page. I am in full agreement with the arguments of SnowFire and Dissident93 on this matter. Phediuk (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I also think that interpreting the Metacritic system that way is WP:OR and a step in the wrong direction, let alone if we started to synthesize it into a ranking of our own. Agree with Phediuk that every game on this list is really just asking "has this been included on a list of best games of all time", which is a verifiable and neutral measure, and straight to the point of the title. The tricky part has been slowly edging the cutoff from 3 to 4 to 5 to 6 sources, which admittedly involves some original insight. Is there an easy enough way to see how large the list would get if we used a simple "multiple reliable rankings" standard? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use the points system that Metacritic used for the 2010s, but cited that that as an example of a reliable source with a selection criteria for aggregating best game lists (though ones limited to the 2010s). If anything, I would prefer FOARP's suggestion of having a simple cut-off point based on rankings. Metacritic uses a top 20 cut-off point, so I think that would be a good cut-off point, as it's supported by a reliable source. In contrast, the current selection criteria has no basis at all in any reliable sources. There are no reliable sources using such a selection criteria to aggregate all-time best game lists. Like FOARP said above, a game that ranks #1 five times would not be included, whereas a game that ranks #100 six times is included, which is absurd. There should at least be some cut-off point for the rankings. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning and do not disagree with it on principal, but how is having top-whatever cutoff point any less arbitrary than status quo of six total publications? Both would just be numbers we (as in Wikipedia editors) decided upon. You bring up Metacritic as the foundation but I could easily find another reliable source that only lists top 10, 25, or 50 and we go with that. All of the currently posted suggestions are at best a sidegrade solution, with them having generally the same issues that you and the OP originally brought up. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Dissident93 here. The ranking-based proposals above introduce WP:SYNTH issues where they do not currently exist. The Metacritic scheme, for instance, is limited only to the lists in the article itself; it makes no claim to apply said scheme to any other lists (and, furthermore, limits its scope to the 2010s only), nor do any sources on this page subject themselves to it. This is precisely why this page is not a ranking of games, but a list of games named by reliable sources in lists dedicated to naming the best games ever. The page says that each game is named by multiple sources on such lists, and cites the lists accordingly. Backing up a claim with multiple sources is not the same as mixing a ranking scheme from one publication with an unrelated list from another. Hence, this list is a list of cited games and their sources, not of rankings. Phediuk (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the reasons why using a rankings cut-off alone to limit what is on this page is that we are already using a rankings cut-off - lists of games of more than 100 (e.g., Polygon's top 500) have been cut down to only include the top 100. Therefore we are already using a top-100 cut-off as well as the (WP:OR, very arbitrary) six-or-more-lists cut-off. (EDIT, apparently this is not the case, no rankisng cut-off is used). There are sources that support a top-50, top-25, top-20, or top-10 cut-off (supported by e.g., the multiple lists that use those cut-offs) and I would suggest that any of them are OK so long as they do not result in a list that is too big. Presently the list is ~200 items, I'd suggest it shouldn't get much bigger than this unless we want to start organising it alphabetically. I don't think we should be generating our own score-averages, though we could cite an average from a reliable source, or include the highest ranking (noting who gave it). FOARP (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The list does not already use a rankings cutoff; I believe you have misinterpreted SnowFire's comments above. All citations from all lists count as sources for the page, because every game is, by definition, named as one of the best games ever on a RS list. Furthermore, applying one list's rankings to another is WP:SYNTH. For example, no list of top 100 "best games ever" is meant to have half of its entries invalidated because another list was a top 50. To imply such is synthesis of sources. All 100 of that list's games are being named by that source as one of the best games ever, by definition, and therefore can be cited as such here. Conversely, no list of top 50 games claims that a top 100 list should be cut off to match it, either. You will need sources that explicitly lay out such criteria for list of "best games ever", or else you're applying the ranking scheme of one list to another in a way neither of them claim to do. The good news is that this page is already designed to avoid source synthesis, as it is not a ranking; instead, it goes with a simple "does this game appear on this list or not" criterion for every list, which is objective, verifiable, unambiguously supported by every single citation on the page, requires no synthesis of sources whatsoever, does not arbitrarily declare that some games on some lists don't count, and allows all citations on all lists to be treated with the same method (including RS unranked lists, which are just as valid.) What matters here is the fact of the games being listed as one of the best ever by reliable sources, which is why the page is introduced as such, and not as a ranking. Phediuk (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So Polygon's 500-item long list supports inclusion? I see there's lists of "best games" that are 1000+ long - would these also support inclusion?

A "does this appear on a list or not" criteria is not the one we are using, we are using a "does this appear on six lists selected from 50 that we've found, all of which potentially use different criteria and are of differing length". This is the essence of WP:SYNTH - cherry picking results from a small part of a whole and presenting them as the conclusion of the whole. FOARP (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your concerns. All lists are vetted before inclusion specifically to make sure their criteria do not differ. They are all in the same format--chosen by editors, framed as best/greatest of all time, no restrictions by platform/theme, reliable source. As for the allegation of WP:SYNTH, I'm not seeing it. To synthesize sources is to mix claims from them, such as saying "List A ranks Pong at #34, but this doesn't count because List B only ranks 20 games." Conversely, there is no mixture of claims from different sources on this page; it is one claim ("this game is listed by reliable sources as one of the best of all time"), supported by multiple sources for each game, which is in line with Wikipedia policy. If you have an issue with a specific source, that can be discussed, but I haven't seen you raise any. As for your question, yes, Polygon counts, and a 1000-game list would be fine, too, if it was a reliable source, of course. Lastly, you're right that the list does not ask "does this game appear on a list", but rather, "does this game appear on multiple lists", in line with Wikipedia poliicy that multiple sources are generally expected. Now, WP:3REFS cites 3 sources as a typical standard (though not a hard rule), and if the consensus here is to lower the source threshold down to three, I would be totally fine with that. I hope this answers your questions. Phediuk (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Just want to echo the issue of substituting one cutoff for another. I don't see "editors decided to ignore rankings after the top 20" as an improvement on "editors decided to limit the list to items appearing in 6 sources" (as current). It feels just as arbitrary, if not more so, and a step in the wrong direction. If we're looking to remove our editorial opinion of 6 refs, the WP:3REFS standard is plain, neutral, and grounded in Wikipedia policy for extraordinary claims. It would be a longer list, but it wouldn't violate our WP:SIZE guidelines. As we consider it, is there a way to estimate how much longer the list would be? (Intuition tells me it could be twice as long, but that's based on a wild guess.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how lists of different length can really be considered to have been selected according to the same criteria. It obviously means that a different definition of "best" has been applied, if you consider "best" to include only the top 20, or if you include 500 (or even 1001) games as "best", then you clearly are applying a different standard. FOARP (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's still WP:Synth and WP:OR, as that's essentially aggregating multiple sources to derive an original list not found in any of the cited sources, using an original selection criteria with no basis in any reliable sources. There are other alternative solutions to avoid Synth. For example, a suggestion that I had made some time ago was to list each source and mention which game was chosen as the best from each list, akin to List of films considered the best. That's one way of avoiding Synth, but SnowFire and Dissident93 were opposed to it, for whatever reasons (probably because they felt it's too restrictive). If some editors feel that's too restrictive, then we could take it further and just list out the top 10/20/50/whatever for each and every individual list, akin to List of Game of the Year awards. Much of the work for that has already been done here on this talk page, so it's just a matter of taking those lists from this talk page and actually placing them into the article. Sure, that would make the article quite a lot longer, but it should still fall within the 100 KB raw text limit. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's taking WP:SYNTH to an absurd conclusion, as all of Wikipedia's articles are "original" and cannot be found outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia assembles articles where information has been recorded in multiple reliable sources. I think that's a perfectly fine standard for this list. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the problem raised in the OP: the selection criteria itself is entirely WP:OR, with no basis in any reliable sources. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A few of us have suggested other solutions that require no WP:OR, and no cherrypicking of sources either. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Shooterwalker; "examples require multiple sources" is not only not OR, but in fact overt Wikipedia policy per the GNG. Really, the only objection that's been clearly articulated at this point is the precise number of sources that "multiple sources" means; as indicated above, WP:3REFS is the Wikipedia standard, though not a rule. Phediuk (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What other solutions are you referring to? And how are they not WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or cherrypicking sources? Maestro2016 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Where's the cherrypicking? WP:CHERRYPICKING defines it as "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says"; can you provide an example of a cited source not supporting the claim that "this reliable source lists this game among the best ever"? The complete lists are all at the top of the talk page, and most are linked from the main page also, so have a look. As far as I can see, this criterion is straightforward, objective, and supported in every single case by the sources themselves (in contrast to, say, applying one list's ranking rules to arbitrarily exclude part of another list, which actually is cherrypicking, as well as WP:SYNTH); there have yet to be any examples offered of a cited game not being supported by a source. Finally, as mentioned, requiring multiple sources is not OR, but Wikipedia policy as outlined in WP:3REFS. Phediuk (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not repeating myself too much. But according to verifiability, the standard for including any information is that it's been verified in multiple reliable sources. User:Phediuk referred to WP:3REFS from high quality sources for exceptional claims / establishing importance. In essence, anything sourced to three high quality references (sometimes two) will be uncontroversial, unless someone is really pushing a WP:POV. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's go with that definition of WP:Cherrypicking: "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says". This list is misrepresenting the cited sources by excluding "significant qualifying information from" the sources. Most of the sources are clearly ranked, yet this article is entirely unranked. Most of the sources have ranked games in order of greatness and/or importance, yet this article is giving WP:UNDUE weight to bottom-of-the-barrel games that barely cracked the top 100, and treating them as if they're equal to games that were ranked in the top ten. This is not a meaningful reflection of the sources, and is omitting "significant qualifying information" (i.e. rankings) that would actually reflect what the sources are saying. That's cherrypicking. As for WP:3REFS, I don't see how that's applicable here. That guideline is about establishing the notability of an article, not for something like this. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

First, GNG applies to all claims of notability, such as, say, a video game being considered among the best. This also applies to lists, per WP:LISTN, which also grants flexibility in how much notability needs to be established. 3REFS applies here just as anywhere else. Second, the reason this list does not list rankings is because this is not a list of rankings. It is defined, explicitly, in the first sentence, as a list of games named among the best ever in lists by reliable sources. There is no misrepresentation of the sources; the list limits its scope to a specific claim supported by the sources in every case. In contrast, arbitrarily declaring that parts of a list don't count because of the ranking scheme of another list is actually cherrypicking. Phediuk (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

At this point the discussion has taken a strange tone and doesn't need to be so combative and adversarial. WP:LISTCRIT says "selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." That's the standard. WP:3REFS is a normal interpretation of "reliable sources", which an emphasis on the plural "s". Focusing on that will make this an objective and clear criteria and put all these discussions to rest for good. I don't want to keep suggesting ideas about how we as editors are supposed to parse or weight the references, because that's not our job. That is the whole point of WP:LISTCRIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Shooterwalker. I agree that 3REFS demonstrates that a multiple-source requirement is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Phediuk (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:3REFS is an essay, not a guideline, and hence cannot demonstrate that anything is consistent with the guidelines. WP:3REFS refers to requirements for articles passing WP:GNG, it has no relevance to the present discussion because items included in a list do not have to individually pass WP:GNG as "individual items in [a] list do not need to be independently notable". WP:LISTCRIT is a guideline directly relevant to the present discussion and requires a reliable source for the selection criteria. We have selection criteria on the page. The selection criteria are not sourced, nor has any reasonable proposal emerged for sourcing them - instead this requirement has just been hand-waved away. This is the problem.

The majority of the lists presently being used on this page do include rankings and Maestro2016 is entirely correct that this is important information (many of the games included on this page will not have been ranked very highly on these lists, even taking the highest ranking). The items are being cherry-picked if only a small minority (12%) of the sources list them but we are presenting their inclusion as a consensus of the games industry without qualifying their inclusion - you have to go through a web of double-citations (citations which are then cited to citations) to see who actually included them. Moreover the list are of different length and therefore obviously apply different standards of what "best" is, making this a collage of different listings done to different standards. Some of these lists are long enough (200+ items) that it is questionable that these games really are "best".

Finally, when I (and apparently many others) first came to this page I found it confusing - firstly because the title naturally leads you to expect that the games are actually "the best" (i.e., no. 1), and secondly because looking at it it appeared that it was the list of the best games as judged in any particular year. I had to come to the talk page to see what the list criteria actually were (something that 99% of readers won't do) which is where this conversation started. The lede section has been improved a bit since then in response to this (it previously presented the list as a consensus of the games industry) but this only highlights the arbitrary nature of its inclusion criteria. I think it would be useful if the people who have spent so long working on this list could see the problems with it through fresh eyes. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi FOARP, thanks for your response. I will open up this post by stating that all of your concerns have already been addressed in this discussion, but I want to make sure we're understanding each other. First of all, the WP:LISTN sentence you cite includes an important rejoinder immediately afterward, namely that "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items". If we want the entries themselves to demonstrate notability as a game considered the best of all time by reliable sources, we may do so. This is the standard currently used in this list, and so the WP:3REFS convention can be applied. This means each entry should be supported by multiple reliable sources all supporting that claim. Currently, "multiple sources" means six, but this can be altered; Shooterwalker has suggested decreasing it to three.

Second, this list is not presented as a "consensus" of anything. It is exactly what it says it is, a list of games listed by multiple reliable sources as among the best of all time. It makes no claim other than that. It defines what "List of video games considered the best" means in the first sentence. You acknowledge further down in your post that the lede has been revised, so perhaps this is no longer an issue. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "you have to go through a web of double-citations"? The citations are right next to every entry, and since most of them are online, you can click straight through to view the lists for yourself (and, additionally, all lists are transcribed at the top of this talk page.) You're right that the page is not a list of rankings, but it doesn't claim to be, and mixing different ranking criteria from different lists is WP:SYNTH anyway.

Third, the selection criteria haven't been "handwaved" away at all; they've been directly addressed, several times. WP:LISTCRIT says, in its exact words, that selection criteria should be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." This list passes all three conditions; it is unambiguous, in that it asks simply "is (x) game named as one of the best games of all time on this list or not?"; it is objective, in that it requires no arbitrary mixing of ranking schemes or arbitrary cutting off of parts of lists; it is supported by reliable sources, because all sources supporting the claims are reliable. If you have an issue with a specific source, please point it out; as far as I can see, every single citation directly supports the claim that "(x) reliable source names (y) game as one of the best of all time." I have asked repeatedly for a specific example of a source not supporting this claim, and have yet to receive a response. As for your claim that the lists "obviously apply different standards", I ask you, which source differs from the standard of naming games as the best/greatest of all time? That is the only standard with which this page is concerned, and all lists have been vetted specifically to make sure they meet it.

Last, you're right that the page should be as simple to understand as possible for newcomers, which is why it makes a simple claim, "(x) game is listed by multiple reliable sources as one of the best ever", and defines what the list means in the first sentence. Again, perhaps the revised lede has forestalled any possible confusion. Thank you for voicing your concerns, and I hope this post has helped. Phediuk (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• On the topic of "fresh eyes", I wanted to add that I discovered this list in summer of 2020, and made some (constructive) criticisms with the goal of bringing an outside perspective. And this time my outside perspective is that there is a way to resolve WP:LISTCRIT by changing this to an ordinary "multiple high quality sources" standard. The ordinary meaning of multiple would be "two or three". The meaning of "high quality" would be editor-reviewed lists instead of just trivial mentions by a singular journalist (as the list currently does). The only way anything ever gets done on Wikipedia is to form a consensus, and it would be a shame to get nothing done because we couldn't find a way to work together. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

1) Just to be clear on what I mean by the confusing cites: next to each item is a letter or letters (e.g., [AM]), click on them and you see a series of numbers (e.g., [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]), click on the numbers and you will finally see what the actual cite each number referred to was. This is opaque in the extreme.

2) The lack of an supporting references for the selection criteria has most definitely been hand-waved away. Put simply - it should be easy to provide a cite for them and no-one has done this because no-one can do this, because it is WP:OR. If you disagree, add citations to the selection criteria. Where is the citation? I do not understand why people persist in pointing to the cites for the individual items in the list when these are not what we are discussing.

3) The six-source standard is entirely arbitrary and not supported even at essay level. I disagree that WP:3RR is relevant here because I think this is not a notability issue, nor is notability being used to restrict the content really, but at least it has some basis and "multiple reliable sources" is even better since WP:GNG is policy. 6 sources has no support anywhere. Removing the six-cites requirement and replacing it with two would at least be a step in the right direction and there I do agree with Shooterwalker.

4) A list of 500 "best" games and a list of 20 "best" games cannot be considered to be applying the same definition of "best", one is obviously applying a looser standard than the other.

5) I acknowledge that none of the "best of" pages seem to have found an ideal way of solving the problem of avoiding WP:OR whilst still having a meaningful article. List of films considered the best wavers between putting the Sight and Sound list front-and-centre and highlighting other lists. Great books is not a list really, including only an example list. List of novels considered the greatest is really bad and requires either major revision or deletion. Of the lot the films list is probably best but only because Sight and Sound exists and is a list considered especially reliable by the sources, but there is no such major list for computer games so that solution does not work. It may be that there is no ideal solution, but we can try to find a better one that doesn't rely on WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again FOARP, thank you for your response. We are going around in a bit of a circle here; nevertheless, I will still respond to each of your concerns:

1. I'm still not understanding what you consider confusing here. The "series of numbers" show exactly which reliable sources are being cited by hovering over or clicking on them, just like anywhere else on Wikipedia. In addition to list citations being placed right beside the relevant game, most lists are linked directly in the citation so the reader can look at them themselves, and all lists are transcribed here at the top of the talk page.

2. There's nothing being handwaved here. WP:LISTCRIT says selection criteria "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." This page is based on an unambiguous, objective claim, that these are games cited by multiple RSes in lists of the best games of all time. It then provides multiple RSes for each game in support of that claim. If you can provide an example of a citation not supporting the claim that the game in question has been listed by the source as one of the best of all time, then we can discuss that here, but you still haven't provided any.

3. You're right that WP:3REFS is not a policy, but rather describes a convention deriving from policy, that being WP:GNG, which requires that multiple sources be used to establish a claim of notability. What "multiple" means is flexible, aside from being more than one; the 3REFS convention is just that, a convention, and the specific number can be determined via consensus. I agree that requiring list items to be notable is permitted by policy, hence this page's requirement for a game to be listed by multiple RSes as one of the best of all time.

4. All lists have been vetted to ensure they follow the criteria of "RS list of best/greatest games of all time chosen by editors". Again, if there is a source here which does not follow those criteria, please bring it to our attention.

5. Agreed that other "best of" lists have many problems with making WP:SYNTH-y mixtures of different claims fom different sources, as well as ambiguous rules for inclusion. That is why this page focuses on a single unambiguous, objective claim that these games are listed among the best games ever by multiple reliable sources.

Thank you for your concerns, and I hope this helps to clear things up. Phediuk (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As you say, the criteria "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" -- the criteria here are that the game be included on 6 RS lists of "best games ever." But where is the RS that says that the "best games ever" are those that have been included on such a list 6 times? It seems like a fairly arbitrary number arrived at through what amounts to OR on the part of editors. If there is not a RS that makes the case that 6 is the magic number, then I don't see how it can be argued that that criterion is "supported by reliable sources" -Waidawut (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I know this thread is a lot, but I think there is an emerging consensus to remove the "magic number 6", and move to an ordinary interpretation of "reliable sources", as per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Even more plainly, any game that has been included in multiple lists of "best" games is verifiably a "video game considered the best", and we'd be neutrally representing all or most mainstream viewpoints. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Waidawut - Exactly. There just isn't a source for the selection criteria.

Shooterwalker - There is definitely a consensus against the "six sources" criteria based on what has been said above by me, you, Waidawut, Maestro2016. Switching to "multiple sources" would certainly be an improvement as it would make the selection less arbitrary. This is firmly based in the guidelines and policy (WP:OR, WP:LISTCRIT) and notably uninvolved editors have supported it. There's major issues with this page that wouldn't be addressed by it, but it's possible to work towards solving those as well. For example we could add a "highest ranking" (accompanied by a "highest ranked in" column) and/or metacritic score (where available) to the list so that the reader could more easily understand that these games are not all equally considered "best" by the sources - I do not see what reasonable objection could be raised against adding this information. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of confusing things, I'm actually not firmly opposed to the 6 sources requirement, and I'm not firmly opposed to adding a "highest ranking" or "metacritic" column. But in the end I try to look for consensus. In my opinion, one of the easiest ways to find consensus is to play the article as straight as possible, which is why just a straight alphabetical list with any game covered in multiple rankings seemed like it would remove any controversy. My hesitance around adding a "highest ranking" or "metacritic" score is the same hesitance I have around 6 sources, which is the more ideas we come up with as editors, the closer we get to "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I think there's an argument to be made in favor of combining information from multiple sources to provide more context, and in favor of a simple WP:NOR list that doesn't combine anything. But in the end editorial consensus wins the day, and the worst thing that happens is that someone comes along and objects to what we've done and we need to discuss it all over again≠. I hope that makes sense, and the short version is I'm just trying to find common ground and put this issue to bed, ideally for good. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I would second the addition of a "highest ranking" column. Like I mentioned previously, most of the lists are clearly ranked lists, and only a few are unranked lists. The original intent of those ranked lists needs to be somehow meaningfully reflected in the article. It could be an additional column, or even just footnotes. But by omitting such important information and not mentioning any rankings at all, that would be a misrepresentation of those sources, as they clearly did not intend for #1 and #100 to treated equally (or else they wouldn't have rankings). Either way, regardless of whether or not others agree with this, it appears there is at least some kind of emerging consensus against the current "six sources" criteria. But the hard part is coming to a consensus on an alternative selection criteria. Maybe we could make a list of suggestions, and see which ones appear to have more consensus? Maestro2016 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I might be pessimistic here, but an alternative selection criteria seems like a step sideways and I'd likely be opposed. I think the only way out of this is to eliminate selection criteria entirely, and go to an ordinary verifiability standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is still a selection criteria though, is it not? Maestro2016 (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I still think the best solution is to just simply move this list of lists from the talk page to the article space. That's a much simpler way to eliminate selection criteria entirely. It's just a simple list of lists, no selection criteria necessary. It's entirely non-arbitrary, and there's no WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or WP:Cherrypicking either. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The "list of lists" is actually not a terrible idea, as far as removing WP:OR goes. Not my preferred option, but would certainly resolve this discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a move to a "list of lists" as well. I think we might be looking at ~1000 items but this can be dealt with by arranging the list alphabetically. FOARP (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

This list needs to be updated. 72.80.209.101 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? Are there games in particular that you feel are missing? -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 22:14, 28 January 2021 (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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Phediuk has very recently added just a little under 30 new entries to the list by relying on a recently vetted source, so this list has indeed been updated. Unless the list is missing vital sources which should have been covered, I am under the impression that seminal titles prior to the eighth generation of video game consoles have been adequately covered in this list. Haleth (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_(video_game)

In 2001 section is still missing a masterpiece pc gaming "Gothic", almost considered a revolutionary game which brought innovation to the playstyle and controls-style of the genre of RPG 3D. Furthermore, over time, numerous communities have been created that still exist today. The game is always alive in the modder community and there will be some sort of official remake this year.

It must be included in that ranking. Absolutely! 5.90.109.131 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

The list stops at 2017. I know there are several games that do qualify to be added to this list. My top reccomendation is 2018's Red Dead Redemption 2. My list also includes such games as Super Smash Brothers Ultimate which came out after 2017. My final contender for this list is Titanfall 2. Caustic3 (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Caustic3, to be included in this list, the game must meet the inclusion criteria. See the FAQ at the top of this page. enjoyer|talk 05:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See below. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021 (2)

Add new games. Red Dead Redemption 2 meets the criteria established. It was praised by critics and gamers alike including winning Game of the Year. Please consider adding a 2018 selection and adding Red Dead Redemption 2 after BOTW. Thank you. https://www.gamesradar.com/red-dead-redemption-2-review/ Caustic3 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See FAQ - games need to be included in at least six "best games of all time" lists compiled by different publications. That being said, I have also closed the first request above from the same user. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

These 3 games were the foundation for the adventure genre of games and were groundbreaking in their time. Many software developers started their careers after playing these games.

1981 Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizardry) 1982 Telengard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telengard) 1985 Bard's Tale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_(1985_video_game)) Spammola (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You need sourcing saying they are considered the best. There's a whole criteria for it. PS - Trebor Sux! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

New Game

I think Wave Race 64 should be added to the list. It has been listed on at least 6 of the sources, and here they are:

- Next Generation, 1999 (#20) - Entertainment Weekly, 2003 (#75) - IGN, 2003 (#33) - IGN, 2005 (#37) - Yahoo, 2005 (#38) - IGN, 2007 (#96)

They need to be lists from six different publishers. Three of those are IGN. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Another New Game

I think MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat can fit on this list. Does it fit all the criteria?

Sources: - Next Generation, 1996 (#54) - Entertainment Weekly, 2003 (#66) - IGN, 2003 (#60) - GameSpot, 2007 - Stuff, 2008 (#60) - 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.164.44 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It does, actually. Thank you for pointing out that missing GameSpot list, by the way. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice spot there; thanks for the tip. Phediuk (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Another find! The re-addition of the Gamespot list to the omnibus data led me to realize that The Oregon Trail and Sensible World of Soccer are also missing. Added! Phediuk (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Unqualified source?

I've been looking over one of the lists. #45. Pay close attention to what I'm about to say. The citation says it was published in 2018, right? And the citation also says it was added as a source in 2019. Is that right? However, looking at it now, in 2021, this list from 2018--that was added in 2019--contains two games from 2020: Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and the Last of Us Part II. Doesn't that discredit the source a bit? 10:19 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The link takes me to the article in question which says it is published in December 5, 2020. If that is true, it means this source has updated their list with a 2020 version, which implicitly means it supersedes the one from 2018. So the link that is supposed to go to the 2018 version instead is redirected to the most recent one. It is not any different to how the other sources like IGN do their annual lists, where entries do and will change. I think the article just needs to be updated to include this source's 2020 iteration of their list for consideration. PS: Do take note that the cited source has a permanently archived link to the 2018 list. Haleth (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for calling attention to the GQ update. The new version adds Fortnite at #86, Animal Crossing: New Horizons at #40, and The Last of Us Part II at #6, while removing Bloodborne, Rez, and Super Meat Boy. The order of the list was otherwise retained from prior editions (literally, nothing else was changed), and the few added/removed games don't affect the main list either way, so a full-fledged incorporation seems unnecessary for the time being; I have added a summary of the changes to the GQ list in the omnibus section. Phediuk (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Famitsu not allowed?

So my edit to include Famitsu's top 100 video games of all time was reverted which I think is ridiculous to be honest. Its because the entries are reader polled? The only requirement stated in the article is "The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications." Famitsu is the longest running video game publication in the world and the most respected video game publication in Japan. Japanese publications typically makes these lists with input from their readers. Every top ten list from Japan is user voted including the PlayStation awards. By not including the Japanese perspective on which games are considered the best, the article is completely Eurocentric and biased against Japanese games. I don't see how it is any different that it was voted by readers when it was published by a magazine that has far more credibility and history than half of the websites chosen. Famitsu absolutely should be included if you want to have an accurate portrayal of the best video games in the world. Sackchief (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your good-faith edit. This list is meant to aggregate critics' opinions of the best video games, not readers', nor is it intended to be an "accurate portrayal of the best video games in the world", but of games that critics consistently name as such: this purpose is indicated on the page where it says, "While any single publication's list reflects the personal opinions of its writers, when the lists are taken in aggregate, a handful of notable games have achieved something approaching critical consensus by multiple appearances in such lists." Hence, the page excludes reader polls such as the Famitsu list, which doesn't have any critical input at all. Reader polls are not considered critical opinions, regardless of the country where the publication is based. I have further clarified the lede paragraph to reduce any possible confusion. Phediuk (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay understood, but maybe the criteria should be changed to allow some reader voted polls as long as its published by a reputable magazine? Because this criteria does shift this list heavily towards primarily Western choices and if publications like The Irish Times or GQ are being favored for their gaming critiques over a publication as central and essential to the gaming industry as Famitsu, I just there's a problem there. There's not that many top 100 game polls in Japan that don't allow users to vote and I don't see how GQ's editorial staff should have their opinion more valued than the readers of Famitsu. This is just my opinion but the article could greatly benefit from having Famitsu's top choices included. Sackchief (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Famitsu has, in the past, had its critics show up in games that the magazine then went on to rate favorably. It may be a popular magazine but it's worth questioning how "reputable" its opinions should be considered. And as Phediuk explained, this list isn't about reader polls, it's about critical consensus by reviewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:5608:1C00:4920:69DD:9FEB:278 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Stuff's missing 2011 list, and its newly-discovered 2014 list

Thank you to BlueBlurHog for bringing up the archive problem with Stuff's 2011 list. I've figured it out. The archived pages are a mixture between the 2008 and 2011 Stuff lists; since most of the pages are archived only once, it keeps jumping back and forth between the two versions. With that said, I have been unable to actually access the complete 2011 list, since it appears to have been online-only (as far as I can tell), unlike the 2008 list, which is also in print. Has it been scrubbed from the internet? I don't know. Until the 2011 list can actually be located somewhere, I'm removing it from the main list. The only game this affects is Rock Band 3, which will also be removed.

In investigating this, I have also discovered that Stuff did a top 20 staff list in 2014, which has yet to be incorporated here.

Stuff, 2014
20. Far Cry 3 19. Goldeneye (1997) 18. Counter-Strike 17. Hotline Miami 16. The Secret of Monkey Island 15. Street Fighter II 14. Red Dead Redemption 13. Doom (1993) 12. Super Mario Bros. 11. The Last of Us 10. Journey 9. Fallout 3 8. Grand Theft Auto V 7. Age of Empires II 6. Mass Effect 2 5. Portal 4. Super Mario Kart 3. Deus Ex 2. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 1. Half-Life 2

I'll replace the lost (?) 2011 list with the 2014 one. Hotline Miami will be added to the main list accordingly. Phediuk (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Also removed Stuff 2011 from the omnibus data until the list can be located. Phediuk (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved list data to a new document

Just a heads-up that, since the lists section was getting big, I have moved the omnibus list data to a document located here; use the headers at the left to jump to the list(s) you want to check. Let me know if there are any problems. Phediuk (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sega Rally added

In reviewing some of the data after the move, I found that Sega Rally Championship was missing from the main list; it has now been added. Phediuk (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Hi there, i think Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 3 should be on this list too, it’s the highest rated PS2 game on Metacritic and received a rare 10/10 from Gamespot. I along with many others feel it should make the list, and that’s all! Thank you! 2407:7000:89FB:DC00:6185:7704:2683:768C (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page for why this won't be added. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the criteria in the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021 (2)

2017 2A00:23C5:C795:D001:A9C4:6AB1:8C82:EB17 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

DIfferent language, different rules

This isn't of a great importance or anything, but I am curious because I find it hysterical. How come the Spanish and Portuguese pages on this list are consistent with each other in having a five game on separate publisher's lists criteria, but the one in English needs six lists? In fact, why does the Finnish page have a different (albeit unwritten) criteria, with up to 80+ lists as sources, and a different game order? Isn't this a bit inconsistent? May 1, 2021 14:06 (UTC)

We're not in charge of what standards different-language wikis hold, so it can't really be helped. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The rules are up to the respective Wikipedia communities. Our criteria used to only require five lists, too. enjoyer -- talk 03:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Mario Odyssey?

Is there a reason Mario odyssey was removed? I added it a few months ago, it had more than five sources (I believe it had six, all of which are already cited on this page, so there wasn't even any question of me adding new sources), it has a 97 on MetaCritic, I don't understand why it was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charizard777 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that’s not how games are added on this list. Believe me, I’ve tried and learned. The criteria for adding games is on the top of the article. Basically, your game has to be cited by six different publishers (like IGN, Entertainment Weekly, Polygon, etc.) to be added. Metacritic is also not an accepted source for this page, so that won’t be much help for your cause. You can have as many sources as you want, but if the publisher count doesn’t add up to 6, it won’t be added. (BlueBlurHog) 15:06 2 Aug 2021 (UTC)

Another New List

https://kirk.is/vgames/powerlist/egm100.html Is this list eligible? If you want to know what source this is, it is the 1997 staff issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly.

EGM doesn't include PC titles, so their lists are ineligible. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Cat's Tuxedo, by choice or coincidence? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

EGM doesn't cover PC titles whether in a list or otherwise, so I would have to guess the former. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Electric Playground's 2013 list

Here's another list that looks good to add. Electric Playground published a list of their Top 100 Games, in video form, on their Youtube channel in 2013; the video format probably explains why this one wasn't considered until now. EP is a reliable source on WP:VG/S, the entry for #99 also explicitly identifies the list as the 100 Greatest Games of All Time, there's no platform restrictions, and it's staff-chosen. So, I see no reason not to incorporate it into the main list. The list does contain some "series" entries, which will be excluded, as has been the practice for other lists here. Four games will be added to the main list as the result of this list's incorporation: Wave Race 64, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, Angry Birds, and Rock Band 3.

Electric Playground, 2013

1. Grand Theft Auto III 2. Super Mario 64 3. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 4. Half-Life 2 5. Batman: Arkham Asylum 6. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves 7. Doom (1993) 8. Red Dead Redemption 9. BioShock 10. Metroid Prime 11. Resident Evil 4 12. Street Fighter II 13. Super Mario Kart 14. Tetris 15. The Last of Us 16. Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out!! 17. Metal Gear Solid 18. Mass Effect (series) 19. Burnout 3: Takedown 20. Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2 21. Goldeneye (1997) 22. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 23. Halo: Combat Evolved 24. Ico 25. Diablo II 26. Soul Calibur 27. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 28. Super Metroid 29. Star Fox 30. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time 31. Deus Ex 32. Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell 33. Starcraft (series) 34. Portal 35. God of War (2005) 36. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 37. Rock Band 3 38. Final Fantasy (series) 39. Shadow of the Colossus 40. Company of Heroes 41. Super Mario Galaxy 42. Fallout 3 43. Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requim 44. Freespace 2 45. Wave Race 64 46. Devil May Cry 47. Advance Wars 48. Assassin’s Creed (series) 49. Kingdom Rush 50. Homeworld 51. Simcity (series) 52. Lumines 53. Ratchet & Clank (series) 54. Wipeout (series) 55. Star Wars: Battlefront II 56. Ninja Gaiden (series) 57. Pac-Man Championship Edition DX 58. The Need For Speed 59. Mega Man 2 60. SSX 3 61. Command & Conquer / Warcraft: Orcs & Humans (joint entry) 62. Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge 63. Dishonored 64. Flower 65. Civilization V 66. Bayonetta 67. World of Warcraft 68. NBA 2K11 69. Minecraft 70. The Walking Dead 71. LittleBigPlanet 72. Mark of the Ninja 73. Borderlands 74. Crash Bandicoot: Warped 75. Spider-Man 2 76. Tomb Raider (1996) 77. NHL Hockey (series) 78. Jet Grind Radio 79. Limbo 80. Infinity Blade 81. Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 82. Beyond Good & Evil 83. Rayman 2: The Great Escape 84. Perfect Dark 85. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 86. Angry Birds 87. Gears of War 88. Vanquish 89. Donkey Kong Country 90. Unreal Tournament 91. Fight Night (series) 92. Oddworld (series) 93. Marvel Vs Capcom (series) 94. Jak 3 95. Infamous 96. Sonic the Hedgehog 97. Thief: The Dark Project 98. X-COM (series) 99. Mortal Kombat (series) 100. Wii Sports

Will add the list to the main page shortly, as well as to the omnibus data document. Phediuk (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Phediuk (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hyper

Hyper (Australian multi-format gaming magazine) published Top 50 lists on occasion. There's already a 1995 list in the article, but I found this 1999 list today in issue 73. They may have published more lists (I didn't check all the issues). They are available here for perusal.

A lot of the entries on this 1999 list are series so don't count.

Hyper, 1999

1. Quake (SERIES as evidenced by Q3 screenshot) 2. Mario (SERIES) 3. Zelda (SERIES) 4. DOOM (SERIES???) 5. Wipeout (SERIES) 6. Street Fighter II 7. Warcraft (SERIES) 8. Sonic (SERIES) 9. Civilization (SERIES) 10. Ultima (SERIES) 11. Tetris 12. Mario Kart (SERIES) 13. GoldenEye 14. Diablo 15. Virtua Fighter (SERIES) 16. Sam & Max Hit the Road 17. Elite 18. Final Fantasy (SERIES) 19. Gran Turismo 20. Tekken (SERIES) 21. Metal Gear Solid 22. Gauntlet (SERIES) 23. Command & Conquer (SERIES) 24. Tomb Raider (SERIES) 25. Lemmings 26. Pac-Man 27. Sin City (SERIES) 28. Ghosts 'n Goblins 29. Prince of Persia (SERIES) 30. Half-Life 31. Breakout 32. Sega Rally (SERIES) 33. Resident Evil (SERIES) 34. Baldur's Gate 35. X-Wing/Tie (SERIES) 36. Grand Prix Legends 37. Unreal 38. Metroid (SERIES) 39. Galaga 40. Abe's Oddysee 41. Soul Blade (SERIES) 42. Zork (SERIES) 43. Double Dragon (SERIES) 44. Descent (SERIES) 45. Defender 46. Final Fight 47. Bust-A-Move (SERIES) 48. Raiden (SERIES) 49. FIFA (SERIES) 50. X-Com (SERIES)

TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this list and transcribing it. But yeah, you're right, most entries are for series rather than individual games. None of the individual entries will currently affect the main list, but I'll probably add it sometime anyway. Phediuk (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Found another list, Hyper #50 (1997) (81MB WARNING). Not gonna bother transcluding, it also has the same issue of using lots of series. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look through the archive; there's also a top 50 in issue 83 that's really a "best games of the generation" list, a top 100 in issue 100 that's actually 10 different top 10s, a top 100 in issue 113 that's a reader poll, a top 50 list in issue 144 that seemingly-deliberately does not actually state that it's a list of the best games (basically every staff member contributes a game they wanted to talk about for whatever reason), and a "101 Games You Must Play" list in issue 260 that explicitly says it's not a best games list. Phediuk (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Video Game Canon

I’ve found a website named Video Game Canon, which you probably have known already. Inside are multiple “Best Games of All Time Lists” from numerous websites, some of which are not included in this page and perhaps could qualify for inclusion. I have linked the website below. https://www.videogamecanon.com/lists/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.179.172 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an amazing find. At the very least it points us to where we can find those lists. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking over it, the 2001 GameSpy, 2007 Edge, 2009 Benchmark (maybe), 2010 Boston Phoenix and 2013 Electric Playground / Reviews on the Run lists strike me as eligible, though I'd rather let the other guys get a closer look and make their decision. And as a heads-up, the Canon site's copy of the EP list is incomplete, but the missing entries can be easily retrieved from the attached playlist. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised there are no GameSpy lists included already. That should be a priority. They were one of the most respected sites 20 years ago, and would go a long way to resolving any recentism bias. The Hyper list is really well balanced with old and new titles, and that's probably because they've been operating for almost 30 years. A lot of recent lists are naturally biased towards whatever journalists have played during their lifetimes, which might not have even started until 1995. I'd like for us to keep that in mind. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, but the Video Game Canon site has already been picked clean; in fact, a few of its sources appear to have been added in response to this page (GQ and Flux are recent additions there, for instance.) As for the suggestions above, the Gamespy 2001 list is a poll of developers, not the choice of the staff; Edge 2007 is partially a reader poll; Benchmark 2009 is specifically for games of the 20th century; Boston Phoenix 2010 is a reader poll. Lastly, I attempted to transcribe the 2013 Electric Playground list awhile ago, but the entries were too vague; it makes no clear differentiation between individual games and game series. If the EP list had a print version somewhere that made this clearer, I think we could add it, but I think that Youtube playlist is all there is. Phediuk (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Phoenix 2010 appears to be created by the staff. The reader poll is a different ranking and is linked under a separate tab on the archived page. Likewise, GameSpy 2001 was a staff poll that was created with input from developers and freelance journalists, and Edge 2007 was written by the staff with some small amount of input from readers. Neither says these outside groups controlled the process. I'm not sure if that changes their eligibility.67.241.190.3 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Phoenix 2010 list has an intro explanation, although it is a little confusing. I have linked the page below. https://web.archive.org/web/20130109040838/http://supplements.thephoenix.com/supplements/2010/50games/intro/

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:FD8:3351:3570:7983:D35:4FB0:580D (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 

The page says, "Now, with thousands of reader votes fueling our battle engine, the Laser Orgy 500 is a massive, ever-changing list of the 500 best games of all time. And from those rankings, we here at Laser Orgy -- the Phoenix's full-time geek blog -- have weighed in with our own top 50 list." Sounds like the readers voted for the list and then the staff chose 50 games from that pool. Phediuk (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The GameSpy list is from an older era and helps balance the list with more foundational titles. Why would a developer-determined list be less valid than a journalist-determined list? I imagine they both have editorial oversight, and the developers would arguably have an even better idea of which games are truly valuable from a design standpoint. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, it's not "developer-determined" if they just compiled fan voting, even with editorial oversight. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think one or both of us might be misunderstanding "staff poll with input from developers". Admittedly I haven't gotten a good look at how GameSpy describes the ranking as it's buried somewhere in the internet archive. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a link to the GameSpy list in the discussion above. As they explain in the introduction, the GameSpy team asked developers, freelance press, and GameSpy staff to vote for their favorite games, and then they compiled the votes. It was not a poll of readers or fans. Mjf345 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to add a new section for reader polls

I noticed two big differences between this article and the List of films considered the best article.

1. This article includes lists made by individual critics, whereas the film article only includes polls.

   This makes sense to me, because there are many critic polls for film, but there are very few critic polls for video games. A film ranked #1 in a single poll can be included in the article, because a poll is based on many opinions, so it represents a consensus. For video games, due to the small number of critic polls, the easiest way to find consensus is to check which video games appear on many individual critic lists.

2. The film article includes reader polls, but this article doesn't.

   This doesn't make sense to me. Why shouldn't they be included?

I think the exclusion of reader polls violates WP:NPOV. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The opinions of both critics and readers can be considered significant viewpoints, and both have been published in reliable sources, so they should both be included.

I checked the article history, and it was decided very early (in 2013), by a single editor, to only include lists made by critics/journalists. I checked the talk page archives, and I couldn't find a consensus about this issue. I found comments explaining that reader polls are not included, but I was unable to find any discussion about whether or not reader polls should be included.

I can only think of one downside: If critics and readers are mixed in the same table, then the table no longer tells you which video games critics consider the best. Therefore, I propose adding a new section to the article, which lists video games that ranked #1 in a reader poll from a reliable source (like I mentioned above, a poll represents a consensus, so a single poll should be enough). It'll make the article more informative and neutral, without the downside, so I think it's the best solution. Mjf345 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User/reader/player polls violate WP:USERG. This is the same reason we don't include the user score from Metacritic on video game articles. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think reader polls are covered by WP:USERG. WP:USERG is about content (e.g. a blogpost) created by a user. In the case of reader polls, the votes are submitted by readers, but the article is written by a journalist. Additionally, WP:USERG is about factual information, because there's a risk that it might be inaccurate. "Best video game" is subjective, so I don't think WP:USERG applies. Mjf345 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In the manual of style for video games, there's an example of how to cite polls, and it includes reader polls. "Multiple reader polls ranked the game among the best of all time." As far as I can tell, there's no guideline that says you shouldn't cite reader polls. Mjf345 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this if such polls are published by a reliable publication, like EGM or Eurogamer. Crap like GameFAQs or Reddit should obviously be avoided. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The polls that I have in mind were published by Dengeki, Famitsu, IGN, and PALGN. They're considered reliable sources according to WP:VG/S. Mjf345 (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorta on the fence about this, and there may need to be a more general WT:VG discussion about usage of "reader polls" across VG articles. In one way, I don't see much of an issue if the poll is appropriately called out as a reader poll, and our readers should understand the nuances that come with these types of polls and apply weight appropriately. On the other hand, reader polls in the internet age can easily be exploited. Readers can organize campaigns to push for votes for certain games. Sometimes the intent is malicious, sometimes it's inadvertent due to how organized or passionate a fanbase is. Pre-internet polls don't have these problems. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that vote-stacking happens in some reader polls (depending on how it's conducted), but I think they should still be mentioned in the article, for the sake of having a NPOV. At the moment, the article only represents the opinions of a small minority (journalists). I would be ok with including a disclaimer about vote-stacking and self-selection bias (the film article has such a disclaimer). If reader polls are in a separate section, it would be very clear which is which. I'm not sure if there's a good way to do it while keeping them in the same table. Mjf345 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think this is a POV issue. Journalists and readers aren't opposing views. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

They're not opposite viewpoints, but neither are they the same. The current set of sources has self-selection bias because they're the favorite video games of people who chose to become journalists, so they're unlikely to be an accurate representation of the entire population. If we look at the film article as an example, 10 films are cited as the best according to critic or filmmaker polls, and 8 films are cited as the best according to audience polls. These two sets of films only share 1 film in common, so it's a big difference. I don't know how big the difference would be for video games, but it surely wouldn't be exactly the same. Mjf345 (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, no. The goal of this article is to list games considered "the best". Journalists' opinions are valued because they are individuals who are hired and paid to analyze and discuss games professionally. They didn't just "choose" to become journalists, they worked up to it and were hired for their credentials. The opinions of anonymous masses who can manipulate online polls and organize review bombings are reflections of how large a fanbase (or hate) a particular game has. It is not an indication on how "good" the game is. I think there may be places within video game articles to share reader poll information, and that can be discussed at WT:VG, but it's not within the scope of this list. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

They chose to work up to becoming journalists, so it's still self-selection bias. It's not a random sample, so their taste in video games isn't representative of the entire population. Yes, a game with a large fanbase is likely to do better in a poll, but the same is true for journalists. Well-known games are more likely to appear on journalists' lists, because more journalists have played them. It doesn't matter who has better taste in games, because we're not trying to figure out which games are objectively the best. We're trying to figure out which games are considered the best. I think anyone who sees the title of the article would likely expect it to include public opinion. If it doesn't, it's a misleading title. Mjf345 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Business Insider 2021

I was looking around for articles, then I came across this. An article from Business Insider that lists 50 “best games of all time”. I would just like a second and third opinion before this gets included or rejected, if you please?

I should also mention that the Business Insider article keeps crashing every time I scroll down. Maybe it’s the device I’m using? BlueBlurHog, 22:49 1 Jun, 2021

As stated in the article's opening, the list is based on average scores obtained from Metacritic, so it's not eligible. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, then may I add the detail you just stated into the opening paragraph, for clarification purposes? BlueBlurHog, 23:25 1 Jun, 2021

It wouldn't make a difference. If a list is put together based on an outside aggregate rather than an editorial consensus, it's not valid. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m not talking about adding the list as a source, I’m talking about adding it as an example of a source that breaks the last part of the criteria. “The detail that you just stated”, as mentioned before, refers to saying something like “A source that bases its information on an outside factor, like Metacritic, would not qualify.” BlueBlurHog, 03:56 2 Jun, 2021 (UTC)

It's already covered under "Lists such as "best games of 2012", "Best SNES games" or "Best horror games" are thus not acceptable, as are Metacritic and other review aggregator listings. Lists must also be editor-chosen and not reader/fan polls". Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)