Well, it could have been worse. They could have put World of Warcraft at #1, like the last two lists like this that I read.

There is one thing in particular that I have to take issue with, and it's something I hear from a lot of people: Earthbound is, in my opinion, one of the best games ever made, but the humor is not the backbone of the entire game. It's just a veneer. The true backbone of the game is much more subtle, thoughtful, and emotional than that. The warmth and wisdom at the core of the story is really what makes Earthbound such a unique and important game.

OK.

I played:

#99 DuckTales
#83 King's Quest VI (finished)
#75 Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (finished)
#61 Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (finished)
#55 Doom II: Hell on Earth
#50 Grim Fandango (finished)
#38 Diablo II (probably finished, not sure)
#2 Tetris

I have (but not played yet): Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, Fallout 2


as usual in such lists, too many new games, too many console games, too many shooters and racing games.

If someone create a list where there's no Civilization (original), Heores of Might & Magic 3, or there's no Planescape Torment or Baldur's Gate, then this list is not worth much. Another World. Full Throttle. Where's Sid Meier's Pirates! Spy vs Spy. Warcraft 2. Where's Secret of Monkey Island?

Video games have over 30 years of history, and list containing 100 best games has only 36 pre 2000 games (not to mention that more than half of them are console games).

In top 20 we have only 6 pre 2000 games, which are only console games (but Tetris). Wtf, PC had no games that could qualify to the top 20? 12 games from top 20 are games released later than 2005.

This list is ridiculous. I don't say new games are bad, or worse than old games. But they still need their time, and after ten years we'll be able to say if Uncharted is better than Secret of Monkey Island or Another World. How one couuld tell if anyone will remember Red Dead Redemption in 10 years? Everyone will praise HoMM3, though.

Agree with you .

While I always enjoy these lists you have to remeber they are highly subjective. I would disagree with 60% of the games in that list although it did make me happy to see Sega Rally and Shenmue. There are glaring ommisions from the Saturn and Dreamcast though. No Panzer Dragoon Saga? Madness.

I agree with almost everything in that list, but Chrono Trigger should not be close to the top 5, and Tetris should be #1.

Also, Kudos for keeping Final Fantasy VII off the list. I hate that game. I loathe it on a molecular level.

"By best, we really mean best. These are not the most important, most groundbreaking or most definitive games of all time, though a majority would certainly overlap with those descriptions as well. In selecting what to include, and what rank to assign, we focused only on the word “best.”"

heh - good luck on defining something so subjective as "best" and create a definitive list...

Edit: I mostly do not agree with the ranking of the list, however they redeemed themselves with this line: "The world needs more games like Ico." ... shame it is only on 31 though...

Yay! Another terrible list thrown together by the gaming press. These things are always so reliable when there are so many quantifiable factors in gaming. :P

The further I read, the more worried I got. Too many current gen titles. Far too many!

And then you go and take a look at their other "top", the one with the best games on each platform, and start noticing inconsistencies.

And don't like the way they present some games, like they apologise for including some of these games. Crap top.

Eh, it's not really worth taking these lists seriously. Sometimes the writers do make valid observations about the games, but the lists as a whole are really only worth looking at to get a laugh at the stupid shit they came up with.

Example: Metal Gear Solid is not only implicitly better than Deus Ex, but also explicitly named - twice - as the best game on the Playstation.

Of course, it's only my opinion that that this is terribly amusing, rather than a authoritative validation of all that I hold sacred.

Not a great list in my opinion. A better list would be PC Gamer's top 100 (PC games only, obviously). Still, these lists are ALWAYS going to be subject to debate. I still read them however, because there are many good games I've never played before, so it's a good way of getting ideas for what new games to play.

These kinds of lists always make me go ehhhh. Even PCGamer did a list of best PC games and I hated it with a passion. :P Way too many newer games and the older ones that I happen to adore (like PST, SS2 and BG) were way too low on the list. I think HL2 was number 1 which irritated me since while it is a good game, it certainly is nowhere near as good as the three I previously mentioned (which I can't remember if they were even in the top 10). Subjective lists just fill me with disappointment.

EDIT: Okay, the list I was thinking of is different than the one GoJays posted. I can't remember if the one I am thinking of was one they posted in their magazine or if another company posted top X PC games and I hated it none the less (I'll just blame IGN since their lists usually make me rage anyway)...

Yo Gamesradar! I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish

But Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind was the best game of all time...OF ALL TIME!

-----------

Seriously though, this is just another worthless, horrible list made purely for website hits but hey, at least I'm thankful that they didn't put OOT in the number one spot, which is easily the most overrated game to ever exist

Incidentally, I would have an awfully hard time even putting my own personal favorites into an ordered list. At best, I might be able to order games that belong to a narrow subgenre. I certainly couldn't give you a list of the 100 or even the 10 best games of all time with any sort of confidence.