Top 100 Games Of All Time Decided - Again

Thanks to submitter Brad1138, who points out an article at MSNBC.com about a new list of the top 100 games ever. This time it was staffers at Entertainment Weekly and the games TV station G4 who decided the list, and the article only mentions the 5 highest-rated titles, which include Legend Of Zelda, Doom and Tetris. Which games would you have included in your list?

Comments

useless lists.

[gl4ss]

they're just as useful as 'best song ever' lists..

besides, no mention of nethack ;).

try the useless factor yourselfs... pick a game, and then pick another, and another and another.. until you got enough games that you can't really rate over one, either because they're from different times or for other simlar reasons. make the list again tomorrow and come up with different games.

"nethack, fallout1/2, ultima underworld 1/2, oh wait morrowind too, system shock, oh gripes can't forget star control2 or pool of radiance.. or rick dangerous! oh wait it would all be useless without elite and first encounters... can't forget doom either but halflife was more captivating"

you could try the same thing with movies too.. even if nobody made _any_ new games, there would be enough for lifetimes worth already(actually, nethack is enough for that alone).

sure they're fun but for fun the worst games ever lists kick more ass..

Re:useless lists.

[gl4ss]

the thing is, that these lists make it also possible for you to fall for an overhyped shortlived(in gameplay) game that is on the list only because it was so overhyped at the time of the lists creation, and because of the nature of the business(you don't buy old games, usually) it's more possible that you buy a new game thats not really worth of your money than older title that is great and could keep you captivated for months. some of those titles that end up on these lists have NO chance of getting on that list again after a year, hows that for an all-time-greatest-games listing forming..

also because of the nature of the video-games industry it's not feasible to watch these lists for stuff to buy because the titles are more or less tied to the hardware of it's age, meaning that once great graphics or innovative gameplay are not that great anymore if you only look for 'having a good time'(=look for tips on what to pick up at the mall), but are still worth mentioning and remembering!

whats the deal with no 'post anon' checkbox?

Re:useless lists.

[angle_slam]

they're just as useful as 'best song ever' lists..

They much less useful than Best Song Ever lists. The reason is simple. E.g., Nirvana's 1991 album Nevermind is considered a classic by some. Even if you think it is a little dated or it is not your style, that album was one important thing going for it: It is still available. Can you even find a game from 1991? Of course, the situation with pre-80s material is even worse, as games from those era are obsolete, as little hardware exists that still runs it (emulators can be used, though), but music from before the 80s is readily accessible.

Finding out what albums or songs from the 60s are considered "must haves" can be good. Finding out about how "groundbreaking" a DOS game was is useless, because you can't find it and, even if you could, you might not be able to run it.

The list lacks perspective

[travail_jgd]

From the article: "Rounding out the top five were the classic puzzle game "Tetris," the criminal adventure games "Grand Theft Auto III" and "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" from Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and "Madden NFL 2003" from Electronic Arts Inc."

Unfortunately, their full list is probably going to be full of recent (and mostly) mediocre games, with a few classics[1] thrown in for "flavor".

[1]: Classics being anything before Y2K: Pac-Man, Asteroids, Quake, Civilization, etc.

Re:The list lacks perspective

[Babbster]

Civilization woud easily make my personal top 5 games (counting it's "primary sequels" 2 and 3).

I have to say, though, that any top 100 games list that includes all platforms is ill conceived from the start. After all, I know many people who never played games on the Commodore 64 or Amiga (both of which had some great games) just as I was never into the Atari personal computer (400, 800, 1600XL, ST, etc.). Balance of Power, for example, was a great game but if you didn't play games on an old Mac or Atari ST, you'd never know it.

I liked GTA3 and GTA: Vice City quite a lot, but how do either of those games make the list of the top five games of all time? They're great games and could be in my top 10 for the past five years but they'd probably miss my top TWENTY for all time.

Unfortunately, when these lists are created, it's done by people who a) want to make a list that appeals to important marketing demographics NOW and b) have probably only played games that make the video game equivalent of the best-seller list.

At least I don't have G4 so that I won't be annoyed by the list in its entirety. After all, Ball Blazer and Pitfall! probably won't make the list and that might cause me violent thoughts. :)

Considering the sources.

[An'Desha Danin]

This e'er-so-accurate brought to you buy a magazine that thrives on pop-celebrity gossip, and a TV channel that tries to sell gaming as a "lifestyle brand." Doesn't get much more hardcore than that, nope.

jaded

[rakanishu]

Everyone's so jaded on this topic. These lists can be useful. The AFI's top 100 Movies helped me identify a few that I managed to miss. There might be a few games that you missed that are worth checking out.

Reasonable doubt

[MMaestro]

There is no set standard for rating games that the (mass/mainstream) public can acknowledge yet. 'Top 100 Games Of All Time'? How are you going to rate that? That I think is the question we need to answer before we read these lists.

Zelda is great, but in terms of technological advances (with the exception of the first game) it gets left in the dust compared to the work of Doom, Half-Life, and Quake.

difference between 'best' and 'first'?

[SophtwareSlump]

I always get a chuckle out of these lists. Some of the games are listed because they're one of the first games in their genre (or created the genre) and some of them are just recent games with great graphics and good gameplay.

I still think 'Alone in the Dark', 'Out of This World' and 'Bomberman' are 3 of the most overlooked games of all time (at least for me in the early 90's). Heck, 4 player Super Bomberman on the Super Nintendo is one of the best 'gaming with friends' experiences ever.

It should also be noted that some games age really poorly. Like Doom. I love Doom as much as the next gamer but if you play the original version it's pathetic. What? I cant crouch?? How do I climb ladders? I appreciate Doom for what it was in it's day, but it's no fun now that I've played better :)