Talk:List of video games considered the best

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Lists

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)[reply]

It was allowed to archive deliberately, as the omnibus is linked in the FAQ. -- ferret (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Phediuk (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What version of Tetris?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Baldur's Gate 3

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Should Half-life Alyx be included?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Developers instead of publishers?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024

2003 93.65.100.133 (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Fortress of Solitude

https://www.fortressofsolitude.co.za/the-12-best-video-games-of-all-time/ Discuss Alena 33 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deletion Discussion for Songs Considered the Best

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NegativeMP1 21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noted it is self-published, which should mean it isn't reliable anyway...? Carlinal (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 NegativeMP1 01:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion

Meta discussion regarding this page 202.58.204.234 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NegativeMP1 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NegativeMP1 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So does anyone have any ideas on adjusting this pages criteria to get rid of the original research? Or are we going to continue basing this page off of an arbitrary requirement as some of y'all have stated. λ NegativeMP1 19:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a clarification here: a multiple-source threshold does not fall under WP:OR, which concerns itself solely with whether sources support article claims; that policy makes no mention of inclusion criteria, or the number of sources in an article. Supporting the claim that multiple (in this case, six) sources list a particular game as one of the best of all time requires no more than to provide said sources. This page does so for all entries, and therefore, all of its claims are supported. Phediuk (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section has been dormant for a week so I'll state I support Phediuk's claim, and ferret's claim of a lack of set count on WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I'm also confused at Shooterwalker's comment that two or three sources are valid and ordinary, but six would cross into OR. What's the thought process in that? Did they decide for themselves on that number? Wouldn't that be OR in itself? That's not really considerate.
Going through all this, I'm gonna ask if the lede should be revised again to better reflect its criteria. It's been scrutinized but knowing the IP's initial accusation I feel the need to discuss it here. Carlinal (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need; the lede already states the criteria, and several others have already refuted the IP's initial claim. Phediuk (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aight, cool. Carlinal (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2024

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
For future reference, but we do give some leeway for ports released within a month or so after the initial date. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2024

In my opinion the following games should be added since they were either innovative, unique or produced great numbers and were liked by everyone: 2013: - Metro Last Light - Rayman Legends - Outlast 2014: - Five Nights and Freddy's: I would add this first one simply because it had a slight twist on your average horror game at the time. 2015: - Ori and the Blind Forest: It was one of the main ambassadors of the indie scene alongside with Undertale. 2016: - Dark Souls III: Till this day some claim it to be the best Souls Like FromSoft has ever made. - Pokemon GO: Debatable if it was ever "the best" but without a doubt an innovative game and one of the biggest draws of AR mobile gaming EVER. 2017: - Resident Evil 7: BioHazard: One of the greatest Resident Evil games ever made. - Cuphead: One of the greatest 2D games with an incredible design and unmatched quality. - Hollow Knight: Once again a great ambassador from the indie scene. 2018: - Monster hunter World: I mean it literally have won RPG of the year in 2018. Has it's flaws but it's achievements and ratings cannot be doubted. - Spiderman: Still considered one of the greatest super hero game ever made. At least this first one deserves a spot in my opinion. - Celeste: At this point, I feel like it would be a crime not to include a great indie each year. 2019: - Sekiro: Shadow Dies Twice 2020: - Doom Eternal: It reinvented and perfected this arcade-like new age doom genre and people will buy it for decades. - Ghost of Tsusima: Simply one of the greatest open world games of the last 20 years. - Animal Crossings: New Horizons: Single handedly saved us all during the pandemic - Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time: I'm biased as hell but I can't think of another 3D platformer from recent years that could ever match this game. 2021: - It Takes Two: One of the greatest co-op game I played. Once again, 1 in a 100 quality. - Forza Horizon 5: Might be a bad pick but I can't stop hearing about how Forza and racing games peaked here. 2022: -God of War: Ragnarök: It was bigger and better in almost every aspect but some bugs and unpolished bits left a sour taste. Still a ridiculously high quality game. 2023: -Baldur's Gate 3: Game of the year. Also such a high quality that it should borderline be a crime. Incredible game. - Hogwarts Legacy: Controversies or not, it was still the greatest Harry Potter related game EVER released. Ewokman6464 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please see the criteria listed on the page itself and this talk page, the opinions of individual editors is not what determines what is placed on this list. λ NegativeMP1 19:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving GameInformer lists

So GameInformer shut down today and nuked all of their content, anyone knows if their lists have been archived yet? Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every list implemented on the article can be found on the Google Docs omnibus data (found in the FAQ), including Game Informer's. Shit still sucks, though. Carlinal (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GI lists were both published in the magazine itself, so the website shutdown should not affect anything here. Phediuk (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esquire, 2019

I searched around trying to find a potential Japanese source for the article, considering the rather unfortunate lack of them, but ran into a new source from Esquire instead. I found this source:
https://www.esquire.com/jp/lifestyle/tech/g26743189/best-video-games-ranked-190307/

I thought that perhaps I had found what I was looking for, given that this source was in Japanese and was distinct from both the 2018 and 2020 list. But the inclusion of World of Warcraft on the list struck me as odd, since there is no Japanese translation of WoW to my knowledge and seems like a pretty niche title over there as a result. Sure enough, on closer inspection, at the end of the list I saw "From Esquire US". I took the link to archive.org and found the original source, released in 2019:
http://web.archive.org/web/20190306080814/https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/g26572573/best-video-games-ranked/

To my knowledge, this archive is the only way to access this page in English, as the link on the Japanese page now leads to the 2020 article, and trying to force the URL into the English version by removing the /jp/ from it just leads to an error page. Nevertheless, this does seem to have similar editorial standards to the other Esquire articles, and is distinct from the other lists, and thus should be counted as a new source.

The list in question:

Esquire, 2019

1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 2. Super Mario World 3. Tetris 4. Street Fighter II 5. Wii Sports 6. Pokémon Red and Blue 7. World of Warcraft 8. Kingdom Hearts II 9. Overwatch 10. Super Mario Kart

IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work digging this up. This list does appear to meet all the criteria -- RS, editor-chosen, greatest games, no platform/era/genre restrictions -- so I see no reason not to include it. If there are no objections, I will incorporate it shortly; Kingdom Hearts II will be added to the main page. Phediuk (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best&oldid=1238769848"