Frequently asked questions Q1: What is the inclusion criteria for this list?
A1: As decided by previous discussions here (see
1,
2,
3, and
4), each game must be included on at least six "best games of all time" lists compiled by separate publications. The publications must be identified as a reliable source per
WP:VG/RS, and the lists must be inclusive of all games released up to that point. In other words, a list cannot have any limiting criteria that narrows its scope to a particular time period, platform, or genre. Lists such as "best games of 2012", "Best SNES games" or "Best horror games" are thus not acceptable, nor are review aggregators such as Metacritic and OpenCritic. Lists must also be editor-chosen and not reader/fan polls. Q2: Can [X] game be added to the list?
A2: If you can provide citations that satisfy the criteria listed in the answer above, yes. Otherwise, no. Journalists calling it "one of the best ever" or making similar comments is not satisfactory. This means that recent releases that have achieved a particularly high degree of critical acclaim should not be added immediately. Give each game the time it needs for its legacy to be assessed and be included in such lists that satisfy the criteria. Q3: Can the inclusion criteria be changed?
A3: Of course, but only after consensus is reached between editors. Start a discussion here if you would like to suggest an alternative. |
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of video games considered the best article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "List of video games considered the best" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11Auto-archiving period: 90 days
 |
 | Deletion and move discussions | ||||
| |||||
The omnibus list data is located here; use the headers at the left to jump to the list(s) you want to check. Phediuk ( talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was allowed to archive deliberately, as the omnibus is linked in the FAQ. --
ferret (
talk)
22:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Phediuk ( talk) 16:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have access to many best game lists or anything, but it seems strange the game isn't on the list yet considering its pedigree, how much game publications seem to love it, and the fact that the Wikipedia page itself says it's considered one of the best rpgs of all time. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been added sooner! 66.253.187.27 ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is using articles from the same people but from different years allowed? Because I took a look at that omnibus list data from up top and, when factoring in those different year best game lists, like ign's 2019 and 2021 lists, persona 5 scrapes by with six articles calling it a best game of all time, but I'm not sure if that counts or not.
66.253.187.27 (
talk)
03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Each publication only counts once. Persona 5 / Royal is at five of six entries, so it won't be long before it's included on the list. –
Rhain
☔ (
he/him)
03:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks for letting me know.
66.253.187.27 (
talk)
03:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you're seeing this now, Persona 5 (and Elden Ring) are now considered one of the Greatest Games of All Time! Congratulations!
Fujimotofan235 (
talk)
20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not like an achievement or anything but I guess it does show and confirm a stage of critical recognition. And both games are now added thanks to a surprisingly legit source by Screen Rant, of all things. Total OMEGALUL. Carlinal ( talk) 23:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you're seeing this now, Persona 5 (and Elden Ring) are now considered one of the Greatest Games of All Time! Congratulations!
Fujimotofan235 (
talk)
20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks for letting me know.
66.253.187.27 (
talk)
03:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Each publication only counts once. Persona 5 / Royal is at five of six entries, so it won't be long before it's included on the list. –
Rhain
☔ (
he/him)
03:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
There are so many different versions of Tetris, some better than others... Are all of these versions worthy of being considered among the best games ever made, or just a few of these versions, or even just one? FiveBlue ( talk) 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's like with
The Oregon Trail; both games are ported to death and some ports have varying significance, but we stick with the first versions. While the
Atari and
two
Nintendo ports are the most historic, Tetris originated on the
Electronika 60. It would be unreasonably complicated to split by every port for something near-identical in concepts and gameplay.
Carlinal (
talk)
19:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, all Classic Tetris games can be eligible, including those released only in Japan, except Guideline and TGM games, correct?
FiveBlue (
talk)
21:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, they're all still the same game, at least including those mentioned on the sourced lists.
Carlinal (
talk)
21:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand that with Tetris, but the Oregon trail series varies greatly in all but spirit. Deserves a bit more reconsideration
Alena 33 (
talk)
00:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're right that I shouldn't dismiss versions of TOT as the same from each other. However, a previous discussion shows that while the Apple II version is emphasized as the best, it has been treated almost no differently compared to the 1971 version by sources, most of them mentioning TOT as a single game rather than as a series. Carlinal ( talk) 08:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand that with Tetris, but the Oregon trail series varies greatly in all but spirit. Deserves a bit more reconsideration
Alena 33 (
talk)
00:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, they're all still the same game, at least including those mentioned on the sourced lists.
Carlinal (
talk)
21:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, all Classic Tetris games can be eligible, including those released only in Japan, except Guideline and TGM games, correct?
FiveBlue (
talk)
21:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
New list just dropped. Would like the source evaluated https://wealthofgeeks.com/essential-video-games-everyone-needs-to-play/ Alena 33 ( talk) 01:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for bringing this list to our attention. A quick Google search turns up only 3 citations of Wealth of Geeks across all of Wikipedia, and it is not listed at WP:VG/S. You should at least get it evaluated at the talk page there first. Phediuk ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
https://screenrant.com/best-video-games-all-time-ranked/ This is another list that dropped recently, and I'm pretty sure the wikipedia folk have already evaluated this source, but not 100 percent sure. Alena 33 ( talk) 19:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Definite no to Valnet churnalism sites. --
ferret (
talk)
19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per
WP:RS/P, Screen Rant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons", and
WP:VG/S says it "May be inappropriate to cite for controversial statements in BLP pages, but source is deemed reliable enough for other uses." A Google search indicates that the site is
widely-cited across Wikipedia in entertainment-related articles. It should be fine as a source for this page, unless I am missing something here. Furthermore, the list is staff-chosen, explicitly about the best games, and unrestricted by platform/era/genre. If others are strongly opposed to this one, I will refrain from adding it, but otherwise, it looks good to go.
Phediuk (
talk)
22:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- My disdain for Valnet is well known :P I won't push anymore than this so. -- ferret ( talk) 23:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- If this were a typical Valnet list (typically chosen by only one editor meeting their weekly quota) then I'd argue to exclude it, but this seems to be chosen by the entirety of the sites editorial staff. There are concerns related to Valnets contributions towards notability (typically, it's a no), but in this very specific case, it seems to be good enough in my opinion. I'd support allowing it here. λ Negative MP1 23:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per
WP:RS/P, Screen Rant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons", and
WP:VG/S says it "May be inappropriate to cite for controversial statements in BLP pages, but source is deemed reliable enough for other uses." A Google search indicates that the site is
widely-cited across Wikipedia in entertainment-related articles. It should be fine as a source for this page, unless I am missing something here. Furthermore, the list is staff-chosen, explicitly about the best games, and unrestricted by platform/era/genre. If others are strongly opposed to this one, I will refrain from adding it, but otherwise, it looks good to go.
Phediuk (
talk)
22:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a transcription of the list:
Screen Rant, 2024
|
|---|
|
1. Elden Ring 2. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3. Minecraft 4. Red Dead Redemption 2 5. Final Fantasy VII 6. Stardew Valley 7. Fallout: New Vegas 8. Baldur’s Gate III 9. Dragon Quest XI: Echoes of an Elusive Age 10. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 11. Metal Gear Solid 12. World of Warcraft 13. Super Mario Bros. 14. Super Mario World 15. Pokemon Red and Blue 16. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 17. Slay the Spire 18. Super Metroid 19. Tetris 20. Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 21. Dark Souls 22. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 23. Persona 5 Royal 24. Doom (1993) 25. League of Legends 26. The Last of Us 27. Bioshock 28. Resident Evil 4 (2005) 29. God of War (2018) 30. Goldeneye (1997) 31. Silent Hill 2 32. Street Fighter II 33. Halo 3 34. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35. The Oregon Trail (1985) |
I will wait a bit to see if there are any objections to this list; if not, I will incorporate it. Mario Kart 8, Persona 5, and Elden Ring will all receive entries on the main page. Phediuk ( talk) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Heh, why'd you title that
Goldeneye (1997)? I get there's two games titled
GoldenEye 007 but that's a little weird.
Carlinal (
talk)
18:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm kinda confused what you're asking... how is it weird that Phedium indicated which (among 3-4) Goldeneye games this was referring to? --
ferret (
talk)
19:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...Well there's GoldenEye and GoldenEye 007, and I'd be amazed if we find a viable list that prefers
the remake over the original.
Carlinal (
talk)
19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say COMMONNAME wise, no one says "Goldeneye 007" normally. It's just Goldeneye --
ferret (
talk)
19:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I list the game as "Goldeneye (1997)" because that is how it is already listed throughout the omnibus data. Phediuk ( talk) 19:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say COMMONNAME wise, no one says "Goldeneye 007" normally. It's just Goldeneye --
ferret (
talk)
19:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...Well there's GoldenEye and GoldenEye 007, and I'd be amazed if we find a viable list that prefers
the remake over the original.
Carlinal (
talk)
19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm kinda confused what you're asking... how is it weird that Phedium indicated which (among 3-4) Goldeneye games this was referring to? --
ferret (
talk)
19:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also, should this list be integrated, Fallout: New Vegas will need only one more entry before it gets added. Anonymouseditor2k19 ( talk) 19:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- While Screen Rant is normally a pretty weak source, per others, this does appear to be an attempt at a "legitimate" list and not a college student picking 35 games from a hat in something dashed off in 2 hours, so usable enough to be added IMO. SnowFire ( talk) 20:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Screen Rant list has now been incorporated; I have also added it to the omnibus data. I also abbreviated PlayStation 2/3/4/5 in the platforms column to PS2/3/4/5, since these names are commonly understood and widely used in their WP articles.
Phediuk (
talk)
18:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Really great that you simplified the titling for the PlayStation consoles. But just to make sure, has there been any recent conversation over a similar case with
the original PlayStation as the primary redirect to "
PS1"?
Carlinal (
talk)
19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The original PSX was usually abbreviated PSX, though. But this abbreviation isn't very intuitive to people not around in the era, so writing it out seems harmless enough.
SnowFire (
talk)
20:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense, thank you. Carlinal ( talk) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The original PSX was usually abbreviated PSX, though. But this abbreviation isn't very intuitive to people not around in the era, so writing it out seems harmless enough.
SnowFire (
talk)
20:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources Updated (See Lists Talk Page for Link). XJJSX ( talk) 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Visualized data updated. BenSVE ( talk) 01:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Really great that you simplified the titling for the PlayStation consoles. But just to make sure, has there been any recent conversation over a similar case with
the original PlayStation as the primary redirect to "
PS1"?
Carlinal (
talk)
19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
More console abbreviations
So extending the abbreviation thing, should we do the same with the Nintendo 64 (N64) and Nintendo 3DS (3DS), or even the GameCube (GCN/NGC)? How about the Commodore 64 (C64) and Xbox One (XBO)? Carlinal ( talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- No need at this point; none of those platform names are currently stretching the platforms column. If they ever do, we can abbreviate them. Phediuk ( talk) 04:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
While this is somewhat understandable given the fact it is on English-language wikipedia and statistically speaking, most contributors here are unlikely to speak another language, but it seems like a major oversight to use a set of publications that doesn't include all the major markets. Going through the list, there isn't a single Japanese, South Korean, Brazilian, or Chinese publication on the list. All publications are either based in the US, Europe, or Australia, leading to a bias toward what was popular there.
There should be some attempt to compile a list of sources that reflect a better diversity with respect to countries/languages, or this article should be reworded and retitled to show that this is a list of games considered to be the best in the US/Europe/Australia.
PúcaCiúin ( talk) 00:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's an issue beyond the scope of this list alone. The issue is that we have very few vetted sources that are non-English. The best thing you can do is make suggestions for non-English sources at WP:VG/S and help explain and show that they are indeed reliable. -- ferret ( talk) 00:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is one Brazilian source, Super GamePower, which I had proposed to be added (as a Brazilian). But yes, I think that English-language bias is always present no matter what considering this is the English Wikipedia. It'd be extremely hard to counter this issue. Skyshifter talk 00:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I was looking at the visualized omnibus data and noticed that there were two separate entries for "Robotron: 2084" (with a colon) and "Robotron 2084" (without a colon). This seems to be a mistake, as there is only one Robotron: 2084, and their entries should be merged accordingly. IAmACowWhoIsMad ( talk) 00:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. If there are any other errors please feel free to reach out on my talk page! BenSVE ( talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Can Kingdom Hearts II be added to the list? LifelongLoser ( talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Once the game has six reputable sources then yes.
XJJSX (
talk)
14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'll add that five separate publications listed it, as shown in the omnibus list data (read the FAQ, btw). I wouldn't bet on how long for another list, however. Carlinal ( talk) 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change / add The Last Of Us Part II (2020) Sources:
- GQ (68)
- IGN (54)
- Parade (50)
- The Times (51) [tied with The Last Of Us (2013)]
- USA Today (78) [tied with The Last Of Us (2013)]
- Sports Illustrated (79) [tied with The Last Of Us (2013)]
Brendan195 ( talk) 01:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Five of six separate publications listed it. To make sure it gets listed, only one more unique publication needs to include the game in a subsequent list. It's been listed by GQ twice, but that doesn't count.
- Speaking of which, @ Phediuk do dual entries add a point for both games listed? And can you revise the mentions of these games, I see "Part II" and "Part 2" in the same document. Messes up some quick searching for me. The remake of Part I counts with the original version too, right? Carlinal ( talk) 04:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The USA Today and Sports Illustrated count as the same source, as mentioned here--
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jjQ5HPnd_mhmVeIqNpxVgasGXQlhLlztOfwCh3odxI/edit?usp=sharing
100.16.223.83 (
talk)
06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the question. Dual/"series" entries are not counted; The Last of Us Part II is currently at three sources. Currently, there are no listings for
The Last of Us: Part I specifically, but it would be counted separately from the original, since it has it own WP article.
Phediuk (
talk)
14:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, I believe there is one entry for The Last of Us Part I, under GamingBolt 2023, correct? Or is that being excluded for some reason.
BenSVE (
talk)
00:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's there on both the omnibus data and spreadsheet.
Carlinal (
talk)
06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, correct. My bad. Phediuk ( talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's there on both the omnibus data and spreadsheet.
Carlinal (
talk)
06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, I believe there is one entry for The Last of Us Part I, under GamingBolt 2023, correct? Or is that being excluded for some reason.
BenSVE (
talk)
00:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the question. Dual/"series" entries are not counted; The Last of Us Part II is currently at three sources. Currently, there are no listings for
The Last of Us: Part I specifically, but it would be counted separately from the original, since it has it own WP article.
Phediuk (
talk)
14:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The link for the Bubble Bobble entry links to the entire Bubble Bobble series, rather than just the original game. Could someone change this? 74.96.253.5 ( talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done. You're welcome! :) Carlinal ( talk) 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I have added Baldur's Gate 3 with 6 references (3 existing references and 3 new references). Daceyvillain ( talk) 23:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The three new references fail the criteria. Two of them focus on PC games and ports only, and the other is…WatchMojo?
Seriously? It's
been reverted all in all, my apologies.
Carlinal (
talk)
00:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have edited the page to make it clear that only multi-platform lists are eligible.
Daceyvillain (
talk)
02:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- That was a great idea. Rhain did the usual copyediting but I'm surprised no one thought about adding the inclusiveness detail. Your last edit has been much appreciated, thank you. :) Carlinal ( talk) 03:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have edited the page to make it clear that only multi-platform lists are eligible.
Daceyvillain (
talk)
02:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure it’s not a video game in the traditional sence, since it was published on Steam for the Valve index as a virtual reality exclusive.
But i’m sure that because of the fact that most sources list it as the best (vr) game on the list.
I’ve noticed that in the article, there are no vr games (aside from Elder scrolls V: Skyrim, which had a vr port), so if any game should be here that is the best and only on vr, it should be half-life Alyx. Led lore ( talk) 16:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It being VR doesn’t exclude it from the article, it’s still a video game like any other here. That being said, it only has 2 sources right now so it will need four more from lists claiming it the best before it can be included (reference the front of the article page and the learn more section if you want to know more). XJJSX ( talk) 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link to Daytona USA is outdated, as it links to the page before it got moved. Could someone please update the link? 2600:1006:B014:2EC0:81EC:4E7:1DE1:771C ( talk) 18:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Harmless enough, so done, but for future reference, see WP:NOTBROKEN. Linking to a redirect is okay and perfectly fine, so I don't recommend a policy of going around and making such changes. SnowFire ( talk) 18:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Why does this list feature publishers and not/or developers? I think that the latter is far more important because is about who actually created a game. To me is kinda like ignore the author of the novel and instead put publisher on the list.
Should this be changed? Starigniter ( talk) 03:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- This has come up before, and I believe this is the most recent discussion: Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best/Archive_10#Why_list_publisher_but_not_developer?.
- There is some support to do this, but also some opposition. You can read the old discussion for more, but the short version against IMO is that we always have the publisher, but we sometimes don't have a sensible entry for developer because the developer situation is complicated (e.g. "developers" that are just an internal team at a large publisher, developers changing during production, multiple developers for different parts of a game). Complicated is bad for a simple list. Casual readers want to search all the Nintendo games, not the Nintendo EAD games.
- You could argue we could include both, but the list already requires horizontal scrollbars on mobile even on gigantic phone screens. And >50% of our readers are on mobile. So there's something to be said for cutting down columns to just the most important ones. The link we really want people to click on is the link to the game anyway, where they can find wikilinks to the developer, publisher, creators, and so on. So every column really needs to earn its keep.
SnowFire (
talk)
04:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- If this has to be brought back, then one suggestion could be to make the column support both if different ( FromSoftware / Bandai Namco). But I think the current iteration is fine, if anything we could remove genres for even less clutter. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Since my arguments during the last discussion, my concerns for clutter still stand, and while I do believe crediting the developer could be important, the approach to who and how many for each game can be a bit of a turn-off. (For instance, Super Smash Bros. Brawl has two main developers but with several co-operating developers. Should all be credited or should there be an et al.-approach?) And yes, some developers are just subsidiaries for companies also acting as publishers (like with Nintendo EAD). Other games ( The Oregon Trail) don't even have a company/label for a developer. Going through all this gives me less concern over listing developers compared to the original publisher, as there's more complications than needed.
- As to Dissident93, while we can remove even less clutter with the genres column, it should stay as it's the only descriptor of what the games are about, perhaps being more informative than the publisher column. Carlinal ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- We should remove genre, publisher, and developer, for the sake of
WP:SIZE. I agree that publisher is the least informative, and that it is more useful to know who made the game.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- The table is fine as is. IMO the article's amount of columns is in a fair balance as both accessible and informative. Carlinal ( talk) 20:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2003 93.65.100.133 ( talk) 08:49, 18 June 2024 (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.
JTP (
talk •
contribs)
09:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
https://www.fortressofsolitude.co.za/the-12-best-video-games-of-all-time/ Discuss Alena 33 ( talk) 02:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for finding this new list. A quick Google search turns up only a few WP citations for Fortress of Solitude, so the site's reliability is uncertain. It should at least be vetted on the talk page at WP:VG/S first. Phediuk ( talk) 21:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, I've just read the AfD discussion for List of songs considered the best and there was a pretty strong consensus that the page should be deleted per WP:TOP100. They noted that this page is also in violation, but no-one seems to have brought this up, either in the talk page archives or the AfD for this page. Just wondering what editors thoughts were; if they got it wrong or why the criticisms don't apply to this page. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 03:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- That AFD discussion is from January 2016. This article looked very different at the time ( Article as of Jan 2016). It was one editor who brought up this article in that AFD as a similar problem, Ivanvector. If you were able to dig up old AFDs, you can look up the old talk page discussions at the time too, see Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best/Archive_1#List_inclusion_criteria. Ivan's point in February 2016 (after that AFD closed) that "We've given these games a quality ranking based on the number of times they've appeared in "best of" lists. " was an accurate criticism to the version of the article that existed in 2016, and that's part of why it was revised back to the form it's in today. It should be noted that this article was subject to heavy attention from mysterious IP addresses & low-edit users who may well have been sockpuppets at the time as the article did not start off in that form. The article in 2014 did no such ranking, nor did the article after Phediuk & others revisions. So basically you're looking at a criticism from the era when this article was at its nadir of poor sources and OR-organization. I don't think it's that relevant to the article in 2024. SnowFire ( talk) 05:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting, thankyou for the links. This seems to only respond to a synth problem, rather than the
WP:COPYVIO problem. Not all "list of 100 best x"s are ranked (for example the first citation), so ranking is not a prerequisite for recreating, and solving that particular issue doesn't mean all issues are resolved.
Rollinginhisgrave (
talk)
05:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Who is saying this article is a copyvio? Nobody in that ancient AFD - that was a criticism of the song list, which presumably repeated all of a source's list. We don't do that in this article.
SnowFire (
talk)
07:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- The songs list was a textbook example of
WP:TOP100 before it was deleted—take a look
here. The games list, while certainly not perfect, does not have the same problem. –
Rhain
☔ (
he/him)
07:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Rhain, that's very blatant. I couldn't track down a copy of the page, so I presumed the criticism was of lists aggregating sources to determine what's considered the best. It is unclear to me why the page was deleted rather than just deleting rankings 2 -> 10 to conform with list of films voted the greatest. I might recreate the page in light of this.
Rollinginhisgrave (
talk)
07:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you do get around to recreating it, I suggest you check out
Acclaimed Music in looking for sources, if you haven't heard of it earlier. The website itself is self-published but it's a professional aggregator that can help you find lots of all-time lists and whatnot. For this article we sometimes go to Video Game Canon for similar reasons. Good luck!
Carlinal (
talk)
20:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not against the idea of a "List of albums/songs considered the best" page, but please be cautious that Acclaimed Music is not considered a reliable source, so do not cite it directly. λ
Negative
MP1
21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I noted it is self-published, which should mean it isn't reliable anyway...?
Carlinal (
talk)
00:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't too certain on if the editor knew that directly, and either way, it was worth bringing up that it's listed at WP:A/S directly as unreliable. λ Negative MP1 01:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I noted it is self-published, which should mean it isn't reliable anyway...?
Carlinal (
talk)
00:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not against the idea of a "List of albums/songs considered the best" page, but please be cautious that Acclaimed Music is not considered a reliable source, so do not cite it directly. λ
Negative
MP1
21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you do get around to recreating it, I suggest you check out
Acclaimed Music in looking for sources, if you haven't heard of it earlier. The website itself is self-published but it's a professional aggregator that can help you find lots of all-time lists and whatnot. For this article we sometimes go to Video Game Canon for similar reasons. Good luck!
Carlinal (
talk)
20:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Rhain, that's very blatant. I couldn't track down a copy of the page, so I presumed the criticism was of lists aggregating sources to determine what's considered the best. It is unclear to me why the page was deleted rather than just deleting rankings 2 -> 10 to conform with list of films voted the greatest. I might recreate the page in light of this.
Rollinginhisgrave (
talk)
07:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- The songs list was a textbook example of
WP:TOP100 before it was deleted—take a look
here. The games list, while certainly not perfect, does not have the same problem. –
Rhain
☔ (
he/him)
07:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Who is saying this article is a copyvio? Nobody in that ancient AFD - that was a criticism of the song list, which presumably repeated all of a source's list. We don't do that in this article.
SnowFire (
talk)
07:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting, thankyou for the links. This seems to only respond to a synth problem, rather than the
WP:COPYVIO problem. Not all "list of 100 best x"s are ranked (for example the first citation), so ranking is not a prerequisite for recreating, and solving that particular issue doesn't mean all issues are resolved.
Rollinginhisgrave (
talk)
05:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Meta discussion regarding this page 202.58.204.234 ( talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- "This is a list of video games that multiple video game journalists or magazines have considered to be among the best of all time. The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications (inclusive of all time periods, platforms, and genres), as chosen by their editorial staffs."
- The promise (not premise) of this page is to list games considered the best of all time. The actual content of this page is a list of the "best" games per year. It's a super bizzare page and I'm surprised it continues to exist in it's current format. It should be called what it actually is
202.58.204.234 (
talk)
17:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because that’s just been the most convenient way to organize the page my guy. If you have an idea for how the page can possibly still adhere to its “promise” while still having a clean, organized and easy to read format then you are free to suggest that. XJJSX ( talk) 18:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not the list of "best games per year". It's just that the release year of the games are denoted. -- ferret ( talk) 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The "on at least six separate lists" requirements is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and must be removed from this page.
- There is also a major WP:DUE / WP:UNDUE issue with excluding reliable, published "best game of all time" lists that do not rank PC games. (Or any other combination of platforms.) As discussed here:
-
PK-WIKI (
talk)
20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- So what are either of you (both PK-WIKI and the IP) suggesting be done with the page then? Do you want a format similar to List of films voted the best, where it would only list games ranked as #1? Do you want the six lists requirement lowered? I don't agree or disagree with the points brought up, but similarly to what XJJSX said, if you're going to take the time to point out these "issues" (and bring back up a debate that was settled and archived), then suggesting ways they could be fixed helps. λ Negative MP1 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- A) The entry requirements for this list has been discussed to death at this point so just saying “it needs to change” without saying how just isn’t being productive quite frankly.
- B) The article explicitly says on the front page (and has been checked to make sure of this) that the lists are inclusive of all time periods, Platforms, and genres, so unless I or another user has missed something then I don’t know where this console only point is coming from. XJJSX ( talk) 21:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The "six separate lists" requirement has been discussed several times before. I brought it up several months ago and the discussion already seemed old hat at that point. Basically, everyone agrees that the requirement for six lists is pretty arbitrary, but barring a completely different way of organizing the list that hasn't been discussed as of yet, it is the most removed from editor opinion as we can get at this point.
- Also, that last point will do the exact opposite of what you argue, putting an
undue weight on console games. If this list is to be inclusive of all platforms, that obviously would not be good for the list.
IAmACowWhoIsMad (
talk)
22:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would not put undue weight on the article to include the
EGM 1997 "Best Games of All Time" list. This wiki article is titled "List of video games considered the best". The citation is for a list of the video games considered the best by one of the main reliable source gaming magazines from the 1990s. Including that article is thus provides appropriate
weight for this article. It's
WP:UNDUE for us here to exclude contemporary, top-tier reliable source lists on the basis of complete
WP:OR
WP:LISTCRITERIA such as "must contain PC and console games" when that criteria does not exist in the contemporary reliable source lists.
PK-WIKI (
talk)
20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the comment. However, I want to clear up one point here, as your comment implies that EGMs console-only approach to making top-games lists was common in the 1990s. This is not the case. The majority of lists from the 1990s are not console-only lists; in fact, it's pretty much just EGM that made a list like that, per WP:VG's collection of
top games lists. The Next Generation, GamesMaster, Hyper, Flux, and The Independent lists are all-platform-inclusive. Nothing has really changed on that front; even today, EGM is one of the very few RS publications (maybe the only? Google isn't turning up much) that has made an editor-chosen, console-only list like this. There is no evidence that console-only lists like this have ever been common. We exclude this console-only list for the same reason we would exclude a computer-only list, such as Computer Gaming World's 1996 Top 150.
Phediuk (
talk)
20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Phediuk. I have no doubt that EGM's list is high-quality and reliable, but why would we need a list that glaringly omits a large part of video game history when we have countless other high-quality, reliable sources that actually are comprehensive lists, including ones that are contemporaneous to the EGM list? This is the "List of video games considered the best", not the "List of console games considered the best", so ignoring PC, a highly influential platform with a long history of acclaimed video games, is so blatantly WP:UNDUE I shouldn't even have to say it. IAmACowWhoIsMad ( talk) 22:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the comment. However, I want to clear up one point here, as your comment implies that EGMs console-only approach to making top-games lists was common in the 1990s. This is not the case. The majority of lists from the 1990s are not console-only lists; in fact, it's pretty much just EGM that made a list like that, per WP:VG's collection of
top games lists. The Next Generation, GamesMaster, Hyper, Flux, and The Independent lists are all-platform-inclusive. Nothing has really changed on that front; even today, EGM is one of the very few RS publications (maybe the only? Google isn't turning up much) that has made an editor-chosen, console-only list like this. There is no evidence that console-only lists like this have ever been common. We exclude this console-only list for the same reason we would exclude a computer-only list, such as Computer Gaming World's 1996 Top 150.
Phediuk (
talk)
20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would not put undue weight on the article to include the
EGM 1997 "Best Games of All Time" list. This wiki article is titled "List of video games considered the best". The citation is for a list of the video games considered the best by one of the main reliable source gaming magazines from the 1990s. Including that article is thus provides appropriate
weight for this article. It's
WP:UNDUE for us here to exclude contemporary, top-tier reliable source lists on the basis of complete
WP:OR
WP:LISTCRITERIA such as "must contain PC and console games" when that criteria does not exist in the contemporary reliable source lists.
PK-WIKI (
talk)
20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that there's no real basis for the "at least six sources" standard, and it edges into
WP:OR. It definitely is arbitrary. Ironically, a lot of the proposals to fix it are also arbitrary. It would be very easy to just lower the threshold to "multiple reliable sources" (e.g.: three) as per
WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Even for those who are concerned it would create a size issue, we could easily remove a column or two, make room for some new rows, and preserve the current size.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
23:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that EXTRAORDINARY doesn't set any count. It doesn't make a floor of three (or any floor other than "multiple"), so three is no less arbitrary. --
ferret (
talk)
23:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Three seems to be an ordinary reading, but two would also be valid. (Six is WP:OR.) Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- An alternative idea that I saw someone bring up at the talk page for List of films considered the best was making this list more like that article ( link). The criteria for that page is if a movie was voted/placed at #1 on a "best of" list, and subsections existed for lists that were only for specific genres. It only listed #1s, and anything below was excluded. User/viewer polls are also present there. I don't necessarily agree with that type of list being implemented here, since I don't think it'd be easy or feasible to implement here (if we take into account console lists, all genres, etc) and my own list similar to this one would (by extension) have to implement it, and basically cease to exist since most of the lists there don't use numbers. But even though I don't agree with it, it's technically a less-arbitrary criteria than "X amount of sources = you're in." λ Negative MP1 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that EXTRAORDINARY doesn't set any count. It doesn't make a floor of three (or any floor other than "multiple"), so three is no less arbitrary. --
ferret (
talk)
23:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't get your accusation of "PC games" because that is ambiguous. Several listed titles in the last 10, 15, even 20 years have a fair amount of PC titles listed, including cross-platform titles released on both PCs and consoles. Do you mean PC-exclusive? Or older PC titles? The latter makes more sense since the gap between PC and console hardware was wider. But can you provide a ratio of PC and console titles in the 20th and 21st centuries, to confirm a console-only bias?
- And yeah, you can't provide an argument without having a proper counter-counterargument and solution to their counterarguments. This is arbitrary, yes, but what if the current form of the article is the least arbitrary anyway? Carlinal ( talk) 00:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the Red Dead Redemption 2 table row, add that it is a PC game apart from also being for XBox and Playstation Computeroid ( talk) 03:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Per the header, that column is for "Original platform(s)" only—for Red Dead Redemption 2, that's PS4 and Xbox One. –
Rhain
☔ (
he/him)
03:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)