IGN's Top 100 Games

fwice writes "IGN has released their list of the Top 100 Games of all time. This list covers games from all different systems, including PC and various different consoles. Each game listed has a write-up about why it was chosen and what makes it special." Yeah yeah, another list. This one's not bad, though, with selections including TIE Fighter, Tetris, and Civ II ranking high on the list.

Comments

Re:I don't think so...

[bleaknik]

As much as I loved the original (and I did), A Link to the Past trumped it in almost every possible way. Nintendo took the same brilliant gameplay that made the original great, and they multiplied everything by 10.

Would seem that it would be kind of redundant to put both on the list...

Then again... Mario, Mario 3, Super Mario World, Mario 64... lol. Also loved all of these titles, but I don't think all four of them needed to be on the list if they left off the original Zelda... :)

Best or Most Important?

[screwballicus]

The problem with this list is they're trying to straddle the line between honouring games which offer the best possible gameplay to players of any era and, simultaneously, games which, while historically signficant and great in their time, are now far from the best of their kind. And these two categories do not necessarily have anything to do with each other, in many cases.

If this were a list of the 100 Most Historically Important Games of All Time, Super Mario Brothers would certainly fit in their as crucially influential. But few will argue that Super Mario Brothers is a better game than Super Mario Brothers 3, Super Mario World, and various successors in the genre. It probably shouldn't even be in a list of the "best" games of all time at all, evaluated independent of any and all history associated with it as a present day, uncontextualised gameplay experience. If SMB1 were released today as a never-before-seen title, it's fairly obvious what reviewers would have to say about it. Something I expect to the effect that, as free Flash games go, it's pretty dull. You certainly couldn't charge money for it.

Creating a list which mixes unrelated criteria (good games and historically influential ones) as its basis for honouring certain titles is a ridiculous and purposeless exercise. Some will say any sort of list of this type is a purposeless exercise, but I think having an active critical discourse in the gaming world is crucial to its functioning as a meaningful artistic and recreational culture. But naming the "Top" games without basing those choices on something more specific is especially silly.

Re:Best or Most Important?

[grumbel]

I think they did a pretty damn good job with this lists, its a good mix of classics and new stuff, way better then most of these lists I have seen so far. Sure, you might argue if SMB1 should made the first place or maybe 86th place, but you can't get a objective list anyway, even if you clearly state your criteria, I mean how can you compare RE4 against Tetris? Beside sales there is no way and even that would be heavily biassed since Tetris shipped with the Gameboy. So simply ignore the numbers and look at the list as a collection of greatest games of all times, they might have forgot a classic here and there, but from a quick look over it they have caputured most of the good stuff. It gives a good overview about what games you might have missed in the past and which might be worth a second look.

### If SMB1 were released today as a never-before-seen title, it's fairly obvious what reviewers would have to say about it.

If the price would lower then the standard 50EUR for a game I think it would still get away pretty well.

### Something I expect to the effect that, as free Flash games go, it's pretty dull.

Even SMB1 is *not* dull, its still lightyears away from basically all flash stuff out there. It might have less features then Yoshis Island and not as pretty graphics, but the gameplay is still fluent, well balanced, challanging and most importantly straight forward. It always amazes me how good SMB1 still is, even so it was the first of its kind.

What... no C64 or Amiga games :[

[JPyObjC Dude]

I would have had Lode runner (c64) and stunt driver (amiga) on my top 20 at least.

There was also a apple II game called dungeon quest or something like that which I know some people were very addicted to.

Katamari Damacy

[Paul Slocum]

I really think it's a pretty good list, but the lack of Katamari Damacy shows poor foresight IMO. Katamari opened my eyes to the future of gaming in a lot of ways. After playing it at my friend's house, I borrowed his PS2 for a while just so I could play that.

Also annoying is that they seem to think that the NES was the first video game system. When they're leaning towards landmark releases, not including a single Atari 2600 game seems odd for people who are supposed to be experts on video games.

-paul

Are all of IGN's staff children?

[burnetd]

No Amiga games, no Atari ST games, no Spectrum or C64 games in fact nothing predating the NES and Megadrive (Genesis). Where's Elite, Sensible Soccer, Jeff Minter's games, and they've got a platformer at number one, I was bored of platformers years before it even came out.

Missing Some Important Games

[Tempest_2084]

Is it just me, or does this list seem like they randomly picked some names out of a hat? Lakers vs. Celtics? Dear God! There are some important titles missing like Zork, Kings Quest, Wizardry, Phantasy Star, Karateka, Radient Silvergun, Fallout 2 (although they did get the original), Diablo I/II, etc. I suppose no list is going to have them all, but this lists seems so random. At least this one includes some 80's games for a change, most Top 100 lists start at the Playstation era.