Talk:List of video games considered the best/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Didn't Tetris come out in 1985?

I thought that was confirmed at some point last year. Alena 33 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. Fixed. Phediuk (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

GamesTM, 2015

Thanks to some excellent sleuthing from users IlmeniAVG and Rhain, the origin of the mysterious, undated, seemingly un-Googleable "100 Greatest Games of All Time" list from GamesTM has finally been determined. It was a digital supplement offered in September 2015, as evidenced here, here, and here; thank you to Rhain for the links, and to IlmeniAVG for going the extra mile and asking a GTM editor about this. Since the list is from a RS, staff-chosen, explicitly about the greatest games, and unrestricted by platform/era/genre, I see no reason not to incorporate it.

Here is a transcription of the list:

GamesTM, 2015

Super Mario World Hitman 2: Silent Assassin Bloodborne Hotline Miami Left 4 Dead Grand Theft Auto III Fallout 3 Devil May Cry 3: Dante’s Awakening Journey Heavy Rain Worms Outrun 2 Sonic the Hedgehog Doom (1993) Fez Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Spelunky Elite Mega Man 2 Gran Turismo Pikmin 2 Super Smash Bros. Brawl Goldeneye (1997) Virtua Fighter Chrono Trigger Super Meat Boy Mass Effect 2 Bioshock Resident Evil (1996) Lemmings Starcraft Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Grand Theft Auto V Tetris The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Tomb Raider (1996) Bayonetta Super Bomberman Resident Evil 4 Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike Ikaruga R-Type Gears of War Super Mario 64 God of War II Simcity 2000 World of Warcraft Monkey Island II: LeChuck’s Revenge Deus Ex Final Fantasy VII Max Payne Yoshi’s Island Batman: Arkham City Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater Halo: Combat Evolved Metal Gear Solid Red Dead Redemption The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Parappa the Rapper Shadow of the Colossus The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Space Invaders Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Minecraft Super Metroid Metal Slug Command & Conquer: Red Alert Secret of Mana Vagrant Story Borderlands 2 F-Zero Alien: Isolation Metroid Prime Portal Dark Souls LittleBigPlanet Castlevania: Symphony of the Night Burnout 3: Takedown The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Super Monkey Ball Half-Life 2 Silent Hill 2 Super Mario Galaxy Donkey Kong Diablo II The Last of Us Rock Band 2 Hearthstone Super Mario Kart Sensible World of Soccer Pac-Man Beyond Good & Evil Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Star Fox Wipeout Shenmue Okami Syndicate (1993)

If there are no objections, I will incorporate this list shortly. Vagrant Story and Borderlands 2 will be added to the main page. Phediuk (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. I have also added the 2015 GamesTM list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Top 100 Referenced Lists Updated Accordingly. XJJSX (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful job everyone. Visualized data has been updated. BenSVE (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely impressive. Efforts like these really help any article or information thrive. You guys are awesome. Carlinal (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Impressive. Now we know why there was barely any trace of it on the internet in the first place. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Spreadsheet Questions

There's a couple things I noticed when analyzing the spreadsheet. Firstly, when mentioning Microsoft Flight Simulator, which installment is referred to exactly? Secondly, how come Pokémon Crystal is separate from Gold and Silver? Carlinal (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Pokemon Crystal is just an error - given that Wikipedia has a single article on all three, I think the Esquire 2018 mention of Crystal should be added to the "list" on Gold & Silver's entry.

For MS Flight Simulator, I think there's an effect similar to The Oregon Trail or Madden NFL, where all the versions are just lumped together by journalists as one mega-game. SnowFire (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Following on from SnowFire's comment, two of the three current citations for Microsoft Flight Simulator (those of Gamecenter and Polygon) list the 1982 edition specifically. GameSpot refers to MSFS as a single game but does not name a specific version. Phediuk (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Reading how there's a discussion splitting Crystal into its own article again, I assume no changes to the spreadsheet are to be made at this time.

As for titles such as Flight Simulator and Oregon Trail, have there been any discussions or problems arising from this specific technicality? Were the citations for the 1985 release lumped together with the 1971 release as well? Carlinal (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

All citations for The Oregon Trail's entry list the 1970s game specifically. The 2018 Game Informer and 2015 IGN lists cite the Apple II version instead, so they are not included in the main page's entry. Phediuk (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason Crystal is separate is because it used to be its own article--looks like that changed and I just never realized. I merged them now, especially since the discussion to unmerge seems dead at this point. I'll keep an eye out, though. BenSVE (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Carlinal (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic divergence: The Oregon Trail

Don't want to distract from the above, but going back to The Oregon Trail... we've been over this before, but I would argue that the lists are merely mentioning The Oregon Trail's 1970s release date (sometimes 1971, sometimes 1974) but are not really "reviewing" that version specifically. For example, the 2016 Time list mentions it was originally made in the 1970s, but equally mentions the Apple IIe version, and includes a screenshot of what looks like a C64 or Apple IIe version. I wouldn't call that explicitly being about the 1970s game. The 2007 GameSpot version lists 1974 at the top, yes, but the actual article is clearly talking about the 1980s version - it's referring to mechanics that were not in the 1970s game. 2018 IGN mentions 1971 but the tone of the paragraph is referring to the mega-franchise - "played in childhood classrooms for decades and infecting generation after generation" (i.e. it's giving credit for later versions, unlike say later Mario games not being included in SMB1), and says it "reached its definitive edition in 1985 on the Apple II." To me, that sounds like it's really saying the 1980s version of The Oregon Trail was the "best" one. (I will grant that the popular mechanics list merely notes the original 1971 release date and doesn't go into any detail as to why, but by common sense, I still think it's referring to the 80s versions that sold a bazillion copies and not the 1970s version played by a few classes in Minnesota and the occasional retro enthusiast.)

More productively, given the tone of the descriptions, I'd rather link to The Oregon Trail (series) rather than The Oregon Trail (1971 video game), and include a separate footnote if need be explaining that it's not clear which version(s) are being honored. SnowFire (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the thoughts. I should note that the sources do not treat The Oregon Trail as a series, but rather, a single game, originally released in the 1970s. They do sometimes show screenshots of the 1980s version, but, on the other hand, the 1970s releases do not feature any graphics, so this is necessary if they want a picture of the game, rather than just text. The source also often discuss the legacy of Oregon Trail, mentioning features in later versions, but entries in these lists often discuss later versions and entries in a series to contextualize individual games and justify their inclusion -- an entry for Civilization I may mention Civilization VI, etc. Mentioning the Apple II version makes sense even if the original release is the one listed. I believe that if the entries treat Oregon Trail as a single game, and explicitly place the release year in the 1970s, we should avoid assuming that they "really" meant to list the 1980s game. Phediuk (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I was gonna ask if the citations for the Apple II/1985 release should be separated from the spreadsheet into its own slot, but I indeed realized that every re-/release is akin to an enhanced port, and nothing as original compared to what it was in 1971. Even if the '85 release is a codifier, it's still based on the '71 release. At this point all of my concerns have been well answered to the point where my comment looks redundant to me, heh. Thanks a lot for your replies, guys. Carlinal (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Re Carlinal: The 1985 version is based on the 1971 release, yes, but 1985 Super Mario Bros. is probably closer to 1983 Mario Bros. than the 80s Oregon Trail is to the 70s Oregon Trail.

Re Phediuk: To be clear, I'm advocating linking to the series article, for the same reasons you describe. And including a footnote if need be linking to the 1971 game and the 1985 game both due to the lack of clarity. As you say, sources treat it as a single game, but we have two separate Wikipedia articles (correctly) for the versions treated as one mega-game, so best to link the series article IMO. SnowFire (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

To be my clear myself, I would be in favor of linking to the series article if these sources treated Oregon Trail as a series, but they do not; they treat it as one game, first released in the 1970s. These are not "series" citations in the manner that we have occasionally seen, such as when, e.g., a source cites "the Super Mario series" and says so explicitly. The Oregon Trail sources all list one game, and identify it with the 1970s, regardless of the notoriety of later versions. Whether they "really" meant the 1980s version is not a question that I feel we have to answer; the sources, as they are, list the game as a 1970s release, and I do not believe we have to interpret these listings any more creatively than that. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Phediuk (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Should Outer Wilds be added?

The video game Outer Wilds was met with massive acclaim and won multiple awards and has 90% approval rating on Steam. 2601:242:C100:F830:E6D8:823A:2CA6:443F (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Please read the criteria on the top of the page. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

EDGE Top 100

Edge just had a top 100

https://www.resetera.com/threads/edge-magazine-ranks-the-100-greatest-videogames-of-the-past-30-years.771485/unread

I think some stuff (like Persona 5) is finally eligible for the list? Is Elden Ring? Charizard777 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Is "past 30 years" actually part of the ranking or resetera thread name? Because time constraints fail the inclusion criteria. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s the name. They’ve ranked games that released in the 30 years that Edge has operated in. Charizard777 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The list only including games from 1993 to 2023 makes it ineligible, unfortunately. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

They also polled readers, which makes it ineligible even if it encompasses all video games. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 4

I was recently reading Metal Gear Solid 4's article and noticed that it links to this page as "one of the greatest video games of all time" but is not actually included in this list. Was it intended to be in the list, or perhaps removed at some point? I wish to just ask for clarification before any edits are made to either article. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

MGS4 has 5 sources, not the required 6 sources for this article page. As for the link on it’s page to here I’d probably discuss that on MGS4’s page I think. XJJSX (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question. A game does not need to be listed on this page for its article to link here. Editors of a given article determine on a case-by-case basis for each article whether to include such a link. Phediuk (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it from the MGS4 article. People like to slip that in without even checking the list. Linking to the list when the game is not an entry on it represents an Easter Egg link. Whether someone can whip up sourcing to make that claim independent of the list is another topic best handled at the article's talk page. Using the link in this way is akin to saying "the verification is at the list", when it isn't. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Phediuk (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That further confirms to me what linking to the list is really for. Thanks for the effort! Carlinal (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023

Please add Shenmue 2 to 2001 for Dreamcast & Xbox. Please add Sonic Adventure to 1998 for Dreamcast. Both of these games were ahead of their time and have greater acknowledgements now. Also please update the consoles for Tony Hawks pro skater. The game exists on numerous consoles. 68.194.123.37 (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3's original platforms

The previous section has a user requesting an update for the listed consoles of the Tony Hawk's titles. Remembering this section about "original platforms" I'm pondering if it's appropriate to expand the listed platforms for Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 by including the Game Boy Color and GameCube. Thoughts? Carlinal (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The original platforms refers to the platforms it was released on the game’s initial release date, in this case it would just be PS and PS2. XJJSX (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Fix listed publisher for Stardew Valley

Change publisher "Chucklefish" to "ConcernedApe" for the Stardew Valley row.

Stardew Valley is no longer published by Chucklefish and now by ConcernedApe (the game's developer). This change has been reflected on other pages that mention Stardew Valley's publisher and should be changed on this one as well. Nicky9nore (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the publisher row reflects the company that published the game at release, which would be Chucklefish, though I could be wrong about that. XJJSX (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct; the entries list the original publisher for each game. Phediuk (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the comments above. Liu1126 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II

Looking over the spreadsheet I noticed that there are two separate entries for Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II and an entry called “Star Wars: Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight”. Unless I’m mistaken these are the same game and these separate entries need to be consolidated into one. XJJSX (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! BenSVE (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2023

Add tears of the kingdom to greatest video games of all time 204.83.105.15 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Game doesn't even have one listing from sources, and therefore does not meet the basic criteria. NegativeMP1 20:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

About certain sources

I just added Persona 5 on the list after carefully checking every source on the article. Out of these, the game has 5 listings. I added Empire's 2023 list too but apparently it wasn't added since it was a reader's poll.

However I do have some other sources which I wonder if they could be considered for addition: https://www.businessinsider.com/best-video-games-metacritic-2017-11#47-persona-5-royal-5 https://www.pwnrank.com/ https://gaminggorilla.com/best-video-games-all-time/ https://www.listchallenges.com/game-informers-300-greatest-games-of-all-time/list/3 Richarddo1442 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

These are all either unreliable or ineigible, or copies of lists we already consider. Businessinsider is just listing the Metacritic scores of 2017, no critical commentary or editorial. Gaminggorilla and pwnkrank are definitely unreliable. Listchallenges is unreliable, but even if it wasn't, it's just listing out GameInformers' list. -- ferret (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Game Informer's list allowed? Because I'm seeing it listed under multiple titles, such as Rocket League. Richarddo1442 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's already included. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Persona 5 and its rereleases collectively have four listings; different lists from the same publications don't count. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hold up, that is just not true. Look at my previous edit. Persona 5 has five unique listings, and you can't deny them because other games who appear in those same exact five listings get them credited as valid listings for placement on this list.

This is because Rhain confirmed that Game Informer's list is allowed. Check my previous edit and look at the sources.

And of course, if I'm wrong, please explain why. Richarddo1442 (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Including Game Informer, Persona 5 has five entries—the others are IGN, GamingBolt, GQ, and USA Today / SI. It's close, but not there yet.

Also pinging Phediuk, as the omnibus data says that Game Informer 2018 ranked Persona 4 at 105 per the original discussion, whereas these two websites state that it was Persona 5. Does anyone have the original issue to verify? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

So that explains why it was listed as having four entries rather than five. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Persona 5 is also listed as an honorable mention in Digital Trends' Top 50. Does that count as "listed"? It's technically still in their top 100. Elden Ring is also listed as honorable mention and that would be its sixth listing as well. Scdsco23 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch here. The omnibus data lists Persona 4 twice on the GI Top 300, at both #137 and #105, but #105 should be Persona 5. I have corrected the error, and will add Persona 5's entry to the page. Phediuk (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, this brings it up to five listings—so not quite enough for an entry on the page, but getting very close. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, as I just realized when going to add it. The discussion above disoriented me a bit. Phediuk (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

List too long?

I love this list. However, imo it is getting extremely long (300+ entries at the moment), with many years having more than 10 entries alone. At this point the top 100 on this page seems a lot more informative to me.

Perhaps the criteria can be adjusted so games have to be on more separate lists to be included. I've used this page for a while and I feel like new lists keep being added, but this criterium never goes up, which is a bit odd to me. Currently it's 6, so maybe somewhere around 7-10? I assume some people who edit this page would know the best number. With 50 lists that means a game has to be on 'only' 12% of the lists to be included. Is that really 'the best'? 2001:1C03:3C11:B00:45C8:6A74:F5A9:D391 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless I calculated something wrong, the list does infact exceed 200 entries, currently sitting at 320~. From what it seemed, whenever this list crossed two-hundred entries, the inclusion criteria requirement would be increased by one. I'm unsure why this bar was missed this time around. I think bumping the requirements up to 7 or 8 would be okay unless there is a reason or discussion I am unaware of for why it wasn't pruned after crossing the mark. NegativeMP1 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts. To clarify, the reason the threshold has not been raised past six entries is that the readable text has remained manageable and all of the entries are still thoroughly sourced. Furthermore, the list's growth has been slow and subject to continual vetting; in the past year (i.e., since October 2022), 14 new entries have been added, so the list is only 4.4% longer now than it was then. Phediuk (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't criteria be scaled by date? Or else there should be a cutoff for how old a referenced list can be to avoid unreasonable bias towards older games. Seven or eight listings seems easy for older games and very difficult for recent ones. Scdsco23 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no need if there hasn't been a new list issued in months as of this comment, and even then six unique publications to get one entry added is still pretty high. So the current standards do not change the speed of the list's growth in any unusual fashion. Carlinal (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. The amount of readable text in the article is still relatively small; since the source threshold exists to keep the text at a manageable length, and it is, I do not see a reason to increase the threshold at this time. Also, this list is not about what games we consider "the best", but rather, what games multiple reliable sources have listed as such in lists dedicated to that purpose ("multiple" currently being defined as six.) This list is not a meta-ranking, and so, we should not employ a percentage of the currently-used body of sources as a criterion for inclusion. Thanks again for the thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Second. XJJSX (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Also there have been lists from publications that have had way more games than the amount present on this page, so I really don't see what the problem is. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Phediuk. It's important that this list isn't a meta-ranking, as that would cross the line into WP:OR. The standard is something that has been considered the best in multiple reliable sources. If anything there is a case to be made for lowering the threshold, to avoid setting arbitrary limits based on our own editorial judgment. It's a proposal that comes up every once in a while. But the status quo reigns for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

OP here- thank you for clarifying! This makes it make more sense to me; I do use the list as somewhat of a meta-ranking for my own private use (i.e. selecting games I should give a try and/or may have an audience), but I understand that this is not the actual goal of the information shared here. I suppose the goal is, simply put, to inform, not to draw conclusions. What people like me do with this information after is up to them.

As for this goal of informing (while keeping things manageable), I do agree with Shooterwalker that the limit feels a bit arbitrary- technically even games that are on two lists are games that are 'considered the best' by 'multiple video game journalists'. Perhaps using this mentioned manageability is the only thing that would make the limit less arbitrary. The criterium would have its basis in what is doable. This way the list includes as much information (goal) as deemed possible (manageability). Here's my essay on the subject lol:

Summary of information up to this point

According to this comment back when the decision for the 6-list criterium was made, this was done to lower the list from 200+ to 157 entries, with room to expand. That is, the list was 'too long', but the inclusion criteria were discussed as a result of this change. This discussion did not lead to any changes and 6 was kept as the criterium: people accepted the reason for the change and felt that other options were too complicated. A more recent discussion about lowering the criterium also led to no alteration, as (1) any limit would be arbitrary, (2) public opinion of what should (not) be on the list is no reason to adjust it and (3) lowering the threshold would make the list 'too long' (again).

Since the change from 5 to 6, the number of total sources has doubled, with the list also doubling in size as a result.

According to the chart on the first tab of the spreadsheet, the current list size would be as such if the criterium is lowered (criterium: # of games on list): 6 (current): 321 // 5: 373 // 4: 483 // 3: 620 // 2: 907 // 1: 1978 . I can't find this information for 7 and up.

Manageability/length

However, although manageability/length is often mentioned in the previous discussions, I couldn't find an explanation as to what makes things 'manageable' or 'too long'. This judgment does seem to shift over time: the criterium was increased because 200 was too long, but then in the 2021 discussion 230 was deemed okay and 290 was too long, and now 321 is manageable. (Would 373 entries with the 5-list criterium be too long? At this point it's not that a big difference relatively.) So: what does 'manageable' mean, and why does this change? It might be good to figure this out for future reference, even if the criterium remains as is for now.

My new questions for anyone who is really invested therefore are:

• When does the list stop being 'manageable'. What does this depend on? Is there a maximum length of the list, and does this scale with the number of sources?
• How future-proof does the criterium need to be. Can't the criterium just be altered at or right before the point the list stops being manageable, so the list can keep providing as much information as possible?
• And of course: can a somewhat clear consensus be reached here, or is this entirely subjective?

2001:1C03:3C11:B00:D522:8CB:8386:9C4C (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• (de-indent) Just my two cents, but... it's a subjective call based on community consensus. But that is true of prose content in articles too - it's just more obvious for something like list criteria when it comes to hashing out the exact threshold to require. (See arguments for what deserves to be included in prose articles of radioactively controversial people whom entire books have been written on.) This makes it difficult to reason about the future of the list - WP:CCC, consensus can change. Maybe the maintainers of the list in 2033 will have different ideas on how to maintain it. That said... I think the list expanding over time is healthy. Something like the Baseball Hall of Fame has grown over time too as there are more players and more history to cover, so the current list being larger than the 2018 list is fine. If you are really into "providing as much information as possible", I think you're the type of person who'd enjoy using the raw spreadsheet linked above more, which is great, but probably not what is going to be used in the main article for casual readers. That said, if we want to get a crystal ball... one real-world constraint is that gaming journalism probably flourished the most between 1997-2012 or so, when there was an explosion of magazines of all types including gaming. Magazines are steadily dying now, replaced by Reddit & official previews straight from the publisher and the like, their role as intermediary fading. This tends to mean we have proportionately more coverage of that one specific era than later eras. If we ever do decide to increase the threshold to 7 lists, it'd probably hit recent releases disproportionately hard if done naively, so I'd be in favor of something like "7 sources for games more than 20 years old, 6 sources otherwise". Buuuuut to be clear this is a worry for 2024 at the earliest, not now. SnowFire (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• I know this discussion has slowed to a halt, but based on the above, I'm fully in favor of increasing the threshold. As mentioned by the IP address (I'll just say 2001 from here on out), the amount of lists required right now being so low is exactly what has necessitated previous changes in the amount of lists required in the first place, and it's hard for me to see a list this long as manageable per WP:LENGTH. benǝʇᴉɯ 12:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Only the most recent list from the same publication should be considered

I believe that only the most recent list from the same publication should be used to make up the Wikipedia list. This would make the list more coherent, since using several listings from the same publication doesn't make much sense. If it comes from the same source then the most recent list is an updated/revised version of the earlier ones and thus should be the only one considered. This also is relevant considering the name of the article which is "List of video games considered the best" and not List of video games once considered the best. If several old lists from the same publications are used then the end result is an aggregate of several games that were, at some point, considered the best and not a list of games that are now considered the best. This would also make the list far more manageable, which seems to be becoming a problem. For comparison, this list seems to have more than 300 entries while the film one has less than 100, despite being a far older and more popular medium. 2804:14D:5C54:5220:0:0:0:295E (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it could only be eligible if it's been five or more years since the last publication. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. However, reliable sources do not have an expiration date, so I do not favor removing older sources. Furthermore, each publication already counts only once as a source toward inclusion on the page; for example, if a game appears on both IGN's 2003 and 2021 lists, IGN counts once toward inclusion, not twice. Also, regarding the page's length, the amount of readable text in the article is still relatively small, at 60.8KB. This is actually smaller than that of List of films considered the best, which contains 78KB. Since the text of this page remains manageable, every new source and entry is still thoroughly vetted, and the page's growth remains slow (only 14 new entries have been added since October 2022, amounting to 4.4% of the list), I see little reason to restrict the criteria further at this time. Thank you again for your comment. Phediuk (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that unlike the films list, we don't take into account readers' polls. The criteria we have in place is already pretty strict and well-regulated compared to that. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

> "If several old lists from the same publications are used then the end result is an aggregate of several games that were, at some point, considered the best and not a list of games that are now considered the best."

Something about this sentence rubs me wrong a bit. It's not like any of these games on the article would be removed after no one lists them anymore. It kinda sounds like you're advocating for a recency bias. Carlinal (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating for a recency bias, if I was I would have made a proposal similar to user Dissident93, which entails the removal of older publications which are not updated anymore. My proposal would involve keeping these publications but limiting the use to only the most recent list from the same source since the more recent ones are simply updated versions of the older ones.

User Phediuk says "each publication already counts only once as a source toward inclusion on the page, if a game appears on both IGN's 2003 and 2021 lists, IGN counts once toward inclusion" but that is not really what I meant. If a game is removed from the most recent list from the same publication that means it is no longer considered one of the best by that particular source/group.

Actually, my proposal would lessen the recency bias I believe, because sometimes games are mentioned in a particular year only because they are the latest "fad", while the games considered truly "great" are a constant throughout all revisions. 2804:14D:5C54:5220:0:0:0:295E (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi again. I reiterate that reliable sources do not have an expiration date; a publication may publish more than one list over the years, but newer lists do not make older ones any less reliable. Furthermore, a new list is no less susceptible to including "the latest 'fad'" than an old one; virtually all lists include at least some recently-released entries, and this tendency does not invalidate any of them. This page is not intended to be a list of games that are "truly 'great'"; it does not claim that any of its entries have stood the test of time, or that they are the best games, by any measure. It claims only that each game has been listed by reliable sources among the best ever, whenever that was. Furthermore, the rationale you offer for adopting stricter inclusion criteria is to reduce the number of entries on the page; however, the determinant for whether or not the page is too long is not the number of entries, but the amount of text. Again, as mentioned, the page contains 60KB of readable text, which is shorter than List of films considered the best (78KB), the page to which you compared this one in your original comment. Given the page's modest size, I see little reason to cut it down, assuming all entries remain well-sourced and vetted (as they currently are.) Thanks once again for your thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

More popular medium? So why the gaming industry earns billions more than the film industry since 2016? Explain that.84.54.72.20 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Empire list be updated to the newest one? This one: https://www.empireonline.com/gaming/features/100-best-video-games/ Andrija.s. (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a reader poll, so is ineligible. It seems to also suggest the prior list ten years ago was a reader poll. -- ferret (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct; both the 2014 and 2023 Empire lists are reader polls. Phediuk (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

NES Metroid?

Just wanted to confirm, is NES Metroid not on six separate lists? I was surprised to not see it on here Charizard777 (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's right; it's on four publications' lists at present. It appears most prefer to include Super Metroid, Metroid Prime, or the series instead. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to add to this, this is an example where this article veers into WP:OR instead of WP:RS. We have four reliable sources that consider Metroid one of the best, but editors have substituted their opinion that it is not, based on an arbitrary standard. That transforms this list an original creation by editors, out of step with what reliable sources say. I understand that decisions get made here based on consensus, but we should feel uncomfortable when there is a WP:CONSENSUS to ignore what reliable sources say. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I'm very confused by this reply. Reliable sources for which Metroid title? The whole series itself? And it's not like there's any way in hell editors here would get away with original research in this article, which would be reverted as sharply as a zap from a laser. This is just the talk page anyway.

If you're referring to the fact that the subject of this article, about dozens upon dozens of video games being cited several times by notable sources of being the best of their medium, is an original concept thought up by editors then you could not be more wrong. You may as well consider similar articles on movies and television O.R. as well just because it's unnotable to mention the qualities of their respective products. Carlinal (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that the original NES Metroid is noted as one of the best games of all time by four publications, but is excluded from this list. Which part is confusing? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately the rule here is the game needs six separate reliable sources to qualify, you can start a conversation to change the amount of sources needed but at the end of day it is a consensus here to maintain a source limit for qualification, otherwise, say we included every game mentioned even once, the list would become ridiculously unwieldy, which is a concern some users have already voiced with the list as is. XJJSX (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:SIZERULE, this list has less than 3000 words of readable prose, and our guidelines say "length alone does not justify division or trimming" in this case. So I want to note my disagreement with "unwieldly", as another arbitrary editor opinion that is pushing this list towards WP:OR.

Even if I were to speak to the size concerns, we could make the list at least 60-70% shorter by removing the columns for genre, publisher, and platform. Compare that to adding games considered "the best" by five reliable sources, which would make the list only 15% longer.

By removing games that have been cited to multiple reliable rankings, I see editors build an original "metacritic" style ranking of rankings, instead of just reporting what the sources say. So I'll just note my concerns here:

• People are misusing WP:ARTICLESIZE without reading our guidelines.
• This article is not accurate, because it ignores what multiple reliable sources say.
• The inclusion criteria is arbitrary. Consensus doesn't make it less arbitrary, and our consensus is thin.
• This list is effectively cited to an original spreadsheet hosted on someone's google drive.

Shooterwalker (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We had this discussion before, but the short version: three is also an arbitrary threshold. The only non-arbitrary threshold is one, but that would just open a new kettle of fish for "which sources to count", aka undue weight on One Guy's Opinion From 2006. Requiring multiple mentions dulls the impact of any one source going off the grid or being not to the reader's taste, and makes it more about a general consensus. SnowFire (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Also if people do want to count every game counted once then they can look to the spreadsheet for that, which is also maintained for accuracy purposes by editors like you and I. XJJSX (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The spreadsheet does not represent original research. It's simply a list of games and the sources that contain them. This is basic tracking and calculation, "Game X appears on Lists A, B, and C" is not original research. The argument that saying there must be "x number of sources" may be arbitrary, but it's an accepted pattern for lists of this nature that attempts to consider DUE WEIGHT and list size. No alternative system for a LISTCRIT has been proposed really, other than presumably putting every single game that any reliable source ever once said was "the best". Which is just flat out too open a criteria. -- ferret (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:V refers to multiple sources for controversial claims, which usually means three, or at least more than one. Even with a threshold of three, this list still wouldn't double in length, and would still be at the lowest end of our WP:SIZERULE. Even so, we could cut this list by 60-70% by removing columns, instead of removing entries supported by multiple reliable sources.

I won't keep pressing the issue. I just want to make sure that people understand that this article could easily stray into WP:OR, and it does lead to weird outcomes where Metroid and other historic games get removed from the list. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a very well thought out argument. I am in favour of lowering the threshold to three. IlmeniAVG (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent criteria

The inclusion criteria for this list feels way too arbitrary. Inclusion on lists of completely different lengths have equal weightings as opposed to the rank that they actually achieve on said ranks. A game can be included for appearing in a top 500 list, with each appearance in such a list being equivalent to an appearance in a top 100 list. It seems questionable as to whether or not even an appearance in the top 100 would count as even a partial admission of a video game being the “best”. There's also the issue of placing undue weight on lengths based on their length or using dubious lists. Take Overwatch for example. It has 9 different sources backing it up, but 1 of them is a short article from esquire, which is clearly an inappropriate source for gaming related matters. On polygon, Overwatch places 198th and on GQ it places 95th. Only 2 of it's sources place it in the top 25, those being game informer(23rd) and popularmechanics.com(24th). The latter is also not a reliable source for gaming, whilst the ranking on the former is not particularly high. Is it really appropriate to call Overwatch a game considered to be the "best" when its highest ranking on any reliable list is 23rd? It's never been called one of the best games of all time, at least not in any sources and reviews I could find.

If you were to scrutinise most entries on this list, you can find many similar issues. The obvious solution would be to either raise the criteria to placing 1st on a list or placing a certain number of times in the top 25 or top 10 in a ranking. Using lists itself does seem problematic though, a more common sense solution would be to simply find games that are called the best or place 1st on a list as opposed to an arbitrary restriction that allows for games that nobody has ever considered to be the best onto this list. We could also just replace this list with one of critically acclaimed games instead. Originalcola (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If a game appears on a best games list, even if it’s dead last on a Top 500 list or what have you, it still counts towards inclusion. Limiting it to just if it ranks in the top 25 or higher is an arbitrary measuring stick. Also it’s not an “arbitrary restriction”, more accurately it would be “being too inclusive” if anything, and as far as I’m aware all sources used are deemed reliable for this article, though it wouldn’t hurt to check if reliability is called into question. And lastly, finding reliable lists is currently the best way to form an article like this, just “finding games” is too vague. XJJSX (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There is some valid criticism that the current criteria is arbitrary. But most of the suggestions I've seen make it just as arbitrary, if not moreso. Why 25? Why 10? Why not Esquire? Wikipedia should strive to eliminate editor opinion from the criteria altogether, and simply report on what multiple reliable sources say, as per WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I was interested in a list of only the games that place first on a list, but didn't feel like putting it together. Here's all the games that are only in the top 20 of a list, though-- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1logDYpYmRdVZFAq5S5-VUOF0W-QglBFUyfY0UZ1Du0A/edit?usp=drivesdk 100.16.223.83 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help with the work of seeing what a top 1s only list would look like, feel free to continue here-- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X9WdTWqHVAd2MJCFrxYB9tbZGnSDNm1kT0zrAT6h1YY/edit?usp=drivesdk

I only count the most recent list for publications with multiple lists, and lists without rankings are removed. 100.16.223.83 (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Actually, I jusr finished it. Spreadsheet coming soon. 100.16.223.83 (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, and the top 1s list is up as a sheet on the top 20s list. 100.16.223.83 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

How to add more games

It’s been asked by many, many people in the past, and answered by others constantly. So, to reduce the need to ask and answer, I’ll remind the newcomers of what they need to do. To all who are new to this page, and to all who are new to Wikipedia as a whole, there are criteria on the top of the main article. There is also a "Frequently asked questions" box immediately above this section. Read the criteria first, thoroughly, and you’ll find the instructions. If it is not clear enough, feel free to read the FAQ box. BlueBlurHog (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Revised: BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition, if you want to look at how many publications have been highlighted for certain games that may not be on the article yet, you can checkout this spreadsheet. BlueBlurHog (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Revised: BlueBlurHog (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised 1up.com or Electronic Gaming Monthly lists aren't included here. They used to make top games lists every once in a while. 100.15.231.129 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I checked WP:VG/RS and EGM and 1up.com are both on there as reliable sources. Why aren't any of their top video game lists considered here? 108.51.46.15 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20151101094536/http://www.1up.com/features/egm-200-greatest-videogames used to be on the list and was a good source, but the problem was that EGM was a console-only magazine. After the number of sources expanded, policy got a bit stricter about only allowing lists that surveyed all-ish games (including computer games) rather than a subset. Can't speak to 1UP, though. SnowFire (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Noticed that for Gameradar's list in 2015, they only allow one game per series, which ... means it's not an actual list of the top 100 games. For their 2021 list, they say they made exceptions for games that push beyond the boundaries of 2D or 3D. Still excludes a lot of games, though. 108.51.46.15 (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. Lists that use a one-game-per-series rule are fine for this page. The reason is that under such a rule, games aren't excluded from consideration from the outset, but rather, as part of the selection deliberations, which every publication must do to some extent to whittle their lists down. There is a difference between, say, choosing only one Rock Band game as a representative for the series, and not considering personal-computer games at all. In the first case, all games in the series are still considered, with only the one deemed best ending up on the list; in the second, all games from a swathe of platforms are a priori marked as ineligible, and can therefore never be listed. The GamesRadar list does not limit its scope in any such way (platform, era, genre, etc.), so it is suitable for incorporation here. Phediuk (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

GamingBible-related discussions

In regards to the last few edits/reversions this article received I looked over mentions of GamingBible/GamingBible.com (also known as LADbible Group) in this talk page's archives since NegativeMP1 allowed a reference of this publication in one revision. Although there's clear mention of GamingBible as unreliable, compared to SVG.com and WatchMojo there's no mention of it specifically in WP:VG/S. Just in case for an easy reference point in itself, could there be a thorough analysis of it as a source or something? Carlinal (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I let it through because I was waiting on an opinion or two at WT:VG/S for GAMINGbible and was going to give the user that added it the benefit of the doubt. But now there's not just two, but four votes at WT:VG/S that conclude it's an unreliable content farm, and it will probably soon be vetted at VG/S officially. So with that the reference should be removed. NegativeMP1 19:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

LADBible properties are all unreliable in my view. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition of intelligible games and GameInformer 2001

@Eliwert20: You've recently tried to add It Takes Two, Tears of the Kingdom, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder to this kist, ignoring the basic established criteria. This list requires at least six staff-written lists from six different reliable sources to list a game before adding it to this page. While I'm not sure about It Takes Two, Wonder and TOTK have zero mentions in any lists from reliable sources. Please do not readd these games.

Furthermore, someone attempted to add a list from Game Informer written in 2001. Could someone take a look at this list? Or is it already added or has a consensus against using it? [1] NegativeMP1 02:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Per this discussion, Game Informer's 2001 list is a reader poll and therefore ineligible. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright then that's settled, thank you. NegativeMP1 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Self-published(?) aggregation sites

As the person who added Video Game Canon to the external links I kinda hate to ask this, but are any of these three aggregation websites self-published? I'm starting to suspect Canon is the case, the Patreon for the site only mentions one guy. Asking here in case for another opinion. Carlinal (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Video Game Canon should be remove, non-reliable source. Metacritic and Opencritic are accepted reliable aggregation sources enshrined in MOS:VG. -- ferret (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources

(Titles with same number of references will have the older title(s) take preference)

(Update: Newest update can be found in Google Doc link on the Lists talk page - XJJSX)

Top 100 Referenced Games

1. Tetris - 67 2. Street Fighter II - 59 3. Super Mario 64 - 57 4. Doom - 53 5. GoldenEye 007 - 53 6. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - 51 7. Super Metroid - 50 8. Final Fantasy VII - 50 9. Metal Gear Solid - 50 10. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past - 49 11. Resident Evil 4 - 49 12. Half-Life 2 - 46 13. Chrono Trigger - 45 14. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night - 45 15. Super Mario World - 44 16. Super Mario Kart - 44 17. Shadow of the Colossus - 43 18. Silent Hill 2 - 40 19. Metroid Prime - 40 20. World of Warcraft - 40 21. Mass Effect 2 - 40 22. BioShock - 38 23. StarCraft - 37 24. Super Mario Bros. 3 - 36 25. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves - 36 26. Half-Life - 35 27. Minecraft - 35 28. Final Fantasy VI - 34 29. Diablo II - 34 30. Halo: Combat Evolved - 34 31. The Last of Us - 34 32. Sonic the Hedgehog - 33 33. Portal - 33 34. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - 33 35. Tomb Raider - 32 36. Deus Ex - 32 37. Red Dead Redemption - 32 38. Grand Theft Auto V - 32 39. Pac-Man - 31 40. Counter-Strike - 31 41. Journey - 31 42. Pokémon Red, Blue and Yellow - 30 43. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater - 30 44. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - 30 45. SimCity 2000 - 29 46. Grim Fandango - 29 47. Portal 2 - 29 48. Ico - 28 49. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - 28 50. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 28 51. Mega Man 2 - 27 52. Super Mario Bros. - 26 53. Secret of Mana - 26 54. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - 26 55. Ōkami - 26 56. Space Invaders - 25 57. Donkey Kong - 25 58. The Secret of Monkey Island - 25 59. Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island - 25 60. Dark Souls - 25 61. Fallout 3 - 24 62. Lemmings - 23 63. X-COM: UFO Defense - 23 64. Star Wars: TIE Fighter - 23 65. Grand Theft Auto III - 23 66. Super Smash Bros. Melee - 23 67. Batman: Arkham City - 23 68. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - 23 69. Pong - 22 70. Ms. Pac-Man - 22 71. Day of the Tentacle - 22 72. EarthBound - 22 73. Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2 - 22 74. Elite - 21 75. The Sims - 21 76. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker - 21 77. Braid - 21 78. Bloodborne - 21 79. Monkey Island 2: LeChuck’s Revenge - 20 80. Civilization II - 20 81. Resident Evil - 20 82. Final Fantasy Tactics - 20 83. SimCity - 19 84. NBA Jam - 19 85. Myst - 19 86. Age of Empires II - 19 87. Advance Wars - 19 88. Burnout 3: Takedown - 19 89. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - 19 90. Defender - 18 91. Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out!! - 18 92. Gran Turismo - 18 93. System Shock 2 - 18 94. Grand Theft Auto IV - 18 95. Persona 4 - 18 96. Gauntlet - 17 97. Quake - 17 98. Fallout 2 - 17 99. Planescape: Torment - 17 100. Shenmue - 17

Almost Top 100

1. The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask - 17 2. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City - 17 3. Civilization IV - 17 4. Batman: Arkham Asylum - 17 5. Left 4 Dead 2 - 17 6. Asteroids - 16 7. Galaga - 16 8. The Legend of Zelda - 16 9. Donkey Kong Country - 16 10. Star Fox 64 - 16 11. Resident Evil 2 - 16 12. Soulcalibur - 16 13. Thief II: The Metal Age - 16 14. Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn - 16 15. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec - 16 16. God of War (2005) - 16 17. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - 16 18. Wii Sports - 16 19. Halo 3 - 16 20. Super Mario Galaxy - 16 21. The Walking Dead - 16

2605:A601:AE99:A300:69E1:6A7A:E0D0:22E2 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi; I recommend you make this list collapsible, to reduce the amount of space it takes up on the talk page. You can just copy the template from the other lists posted here. Thank you. Phediuk (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Noted, I looked at your template for the Total Games Network 1999 talk page and went off of that, I hope it’s better now. 2605:A601:AE99:A300:A453:B420:6BCB:F1E7 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Phediuk (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's about time for a new edition! Alena 33 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Once either the Times 2023 or Netzwelt 2018 lists are officially incorporated then this list will be updated XJJSX (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Some games were hot when they came out, but are no longer remembered as fondly (or as well :P) these days. In an effort to weigh against that, I also came up with a top 100 games list only from 2013 onwards last year. And as it's a new year now, I just updated it today to only be from 2014 onwards.

Here it is-- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qhUnal80p0H42sRjMvONXCtYozBzFgFcFxWb98HMSvQ/edit#gid=1708103363.

If a game is on that list and older than ten years or so, you can be more sure that it still stands up well today (according to our reliable sources, at least.) 100.16.223.83 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying-- the source lists are only from 2014 onwards now. The games are from across all years. 100.16.223.83 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You’re totally free to post this, but I would like to say that I don’t think any of the games on the 100 list necessarily “don’t stand up well”. It’s not like Computer Space or Pedit5 are in here lol. That being said all freedom to you, I can tell you put a lot of work into your list. XJJSX (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to publish your personal list somewhere else, but that's WP:OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The opposite could just as easily be true, that more recent lists end up with a recency bias based on publicity, marketing, and the inexperience of younger journalists.

That's why we just stick with what multiple reliable sources say, instead of inserting arbitrary measuring sticks. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer a question I’ve seen asked a couple times now, I am only counting Pokémon Yellow alongside Red and Blue for the purposes of this specific list, I am in no way stating that the main article page should change just to accommodate this list XJJSX (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

GameChampions

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/18v6go4/the_oldest_game_forum_in_the_postsoviet_space_has/ List just dropped boyzzzz! Alena 33 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alena 33: We'll need more context than that for this to be considered. A deleted Reddit thread linking to an 800-view YouTube video gives very little. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"TOP 100 GAMES OF THE GAMEMAG FORUM" is the youtube title's translation. Not... encouraging. -- ferret (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WRONG LINK! IM SORRY

https://www.gamechampions.com/en/blog/100-best-video-games-of-all-time/ Alena 33 (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely an unreliable source. A blog attached to a corporate marketing site and "get paid to play" scheme. -- ferret (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Can somebody add Titanfall 2?

It has been widely regarded as one of the best games of all time. BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If you can provide six reliable secondary sources that list it as one of the best games of all time, yes. λ NegativeMP1 16:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

https://twinfinite.net/ps4/after-5-years-titanfall-2-best-fps-games-of-all-time/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/games/2016/11/02/titanfall-2-review-combat-evolved/

http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/titanfall-2-review/1900-756/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/31/titanfall-2-review-robot-shooter-multiplayer-modes

http://www.gamespew.com/2016/10/titanfall-2-review/

http://www.psnstores.com/review/review-titanfall-2/ BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I said six secondary sources that list it as one of the best games of all time. Read the criteria listed at the top of this talk page. λ NegativeMP1 20:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

These are individual reviews, the game needs to be on “Best Games of All Time” Lists. XJJSX (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Terraria should be included

has over one million positive reviews on steam, and has outsold several games on this list 166.70.20.45 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you can find six lists from reliable, secondary sources which list Terraria as one of the best video games of all time, then sure. λ NegativeMP1 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

Add, Persona 5 to the 2016 section of games considered the best. https://www.ign.com/articles/the-best-100-video-games-of-all-time https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/best-video-games-all-time Persona 5 Schlawgq23 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Once the game has six separate reliable sources, sure, but right now it has five so it’s going to need one more. XJJSX (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Both of these sources (IGN, 2021 & GQ 2023) are already in the omnibus data, but part of 5 of 6 needed publications that list Persona 5/Royal. You provided nothing new, I'm sorry. Carlinal (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd feel fine lowering the threshold. Multiple reliable rankings consider this to be one of the best games, and creating a threshold to exclude it edges into WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I second this. The list well has run dry as of late, and I think it is time to go back to 5. Alena 33 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think that's a valid reason at all—we shouldn't just change the inclusion criteria every time we get bored of waiting for a new list. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 to Rhain. -- ferret (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 too. Carlinal (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 here, as well. 100.16.223.83 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It'll be too common and basic to have five unique publications agree that a game is among the greatest, it's another when there's six. Might not seem much of a difference but to me it's the fairest amount to give a credible enough weight to an opinion for something like this. Carlinal (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Not agreeing with them, but you talking about 5 being too common and basic might kinda be their point, like “yeah, it is more common and it is a more basic baseline for inclusion”, cuz 5 just feels like a stronger number than 6, if that makes sense (idk something something Number Symbolism something something). All that being said I still don’t think it’s a good enough reason to lower the threshold, in agreement with Rhain Ferret and Carlinal. XJJSX (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

Add Baldur’s Gate 3 to the list, it’s become one of the most awarded video games of all time and has one game of the year from basically every awards group. 71.93.242.125 (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The game fails the list criteria. It is only included in one "best of all time" list, when six are needed. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Case in point regarding my recent tweaks to the FAQ and DoNotArchive sections (which have not yet archived).... People do not read them :P -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

😛 Carlinal (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Concrete basis for the criteria

Currently the criteria for inclusion in this list is six reliable sources, which has been acknowledged many, many times to be a completely arbitrary number. I have seen arguments both over whether the list is too inclusive (way too long) or not inclusive enough (doesn't include notable games). Therefore, I think it might be a good idea to attempt to get some sort of consensus together on the goals of the list and potentially creating a more concrete basis for the criteria based on that. Currently I see three paths for this article in terms of this:

1. Base the criteria off of a manageable list length: Essentially, this means designating a max list length and saying if the list goes over that number of titles, then we increase the necessary criteria. I've seen the argument that cutting based on list length is wrong at this stage based on the guidelines in WP:SIZERULE, but it's important to note that those guidelines apply only to readable prose, and are approximate numbers anyway. Thus, since this only means deciding what length of list is "manageable", I'd say this option leads to the least chance of arguing whether so-and-so game should be included or not included, placing things firmly out of editors hands and avoiding WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. It's still somewhat arbitrary (with a max length of 400, for instance, why would a list of 400 titles be okay but 401 isn't?) but it's at least arbitrary in a way that is not as subject to the whims of editors.

2. Base the criteria off of when a game would be "considered" the best: Important question to ask for this article: what does "considered" in the title mean? Does it mean considered by a few reliable sources, or does that mean "widely considered"? If it's the former, then basing the article off a manageable list length is a more reasonable way to establish a criteria. If it's the latter, though, then another way to establish a criteria would be to ask what percentage of sources means a game is widely considered among the best, and then choosing a number of sources based on that. This does not come without the caveat that the percentage chosen errs a little on the side of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Why choose 50%, for instance, when a third of sources may also show a widespread support for a game? This is yet another very arbitrary number. It would also likely mean massive changes for the article, likely resulting in massive cutbacks on the number of included titles. Yet, if the point of the article is to ask if what games are widely considered the best, this would help keep the list in line with that.

3. Accept that the number for inclusion will always be arbitrary: This results in no change whatsoever. Essentially, the other two options are arbitrary in their own ways, they just obscure in what ways they are arbitrary. Thus, this makes utterly transparent that the number of sources is arbitrary, and can be argued about in whatever way editors wish. Unfortunately, this also means the same arguments as before about what constitutes a good number of sources that are based on potentially conflicting goals and different standards. Arguably, the other options actually make arguments clearer by exposing what standards are in place for this article, and thus making it about whether those standards should change and not about very subjective claims around this arbitrary number. Also, this option arguably could broach WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, because again, why should editors decide according to guidelines that haven't even been explicitly defined why a certain number of sources is okay for this list?

Personally, I think option 1 is the best path forward, as this keeps editor opinion about whether such-and-such game should be included or not out of this, it will help clarify what standards are being used to make our criteria, and it has been the reason the criteria has changed before, so there is precedent for it. But, of course, this is something to be discussed, so let us discuss. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, how would you decide what is considered “manageable” list length? There would still be a publication number requirement to make the list, right? Or are we just counting any game that has made any list at any time until we reach say 400 like you said? Either way there would still be an “arbitrary” barrier of entry into the list. As for the second suggestion, that is arguably more arbitrary and I think does indeed err too far into WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Not to sound too crass, but I think a lot of the recent outcry over the inclusion criteria is more over the fact that people’s favorite games aren’t making the list, as if you need this Wikipedia article to validate your opinions. XJJSX (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to build on IAmACowWhoIsMad and XJJSX's comments, I agree that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary, but in a way that benefits the article, by tying inclusion to breadth of sourcing rather than to the length of the list. The size of the page should only be a concern if it becomes unmanageable, or begins to break Wikipedia in some way, or if it has rapidly expanded out-of-control; as long the page remains a reasonable length, and stably so, I see little reason to cut it down. I will define "reasonable length" in this context as a page that is not unusually long. The two usual ways of measuring this would be either the number of entries, or the amount of readable text. By neither measure is this page unreasonably long, even when compared to others similar to it. List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, for instance, contains over 450 entries (even with an arbitrary 20-review minimum for inclusion), compared to this page's 323; List of films considered the best contains 78KB of readable text, while this page contains about 62KB. By the usual means of measurement, then, this page is of a reasonable length. Furthermore, the page has remained stable, seeing only about a dozen new entries in the last year; the reason is that every new source is still thoroughly vetted and subject to consistent criteria to ensure suitability. As the page is of a reasonable length and remains stable, well-sourced, well-maintained, and up-to-date, we do not need to define a maximum length for the page at present. If it spirals out-of-control someday, such a measure may be necessary, but that has not happened. Thanks again for the thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Whenever anyone asks (or even accuse) whether this listicle isn't given a sufficient amount of moderation and polish, I find that a ridicule to its maintenance being done by some of the most experienced editors for video game subjects on Wikipedia, including but not limited to Phediuk, ferret, XJJSX, Rhain, NegativeMP1, BenSVE, and Dissident93. In the entirety of my involvement in this article and its talk pages there have been no changes to the inclusion criteria, nor the reasoning for such; this article has no major nor minor flaws that need to be addressed because of such near-pristine moderation and consistency in quality sourcing, along with very slow growth in its size.

If I remember correctly, the last time the criteria was changed was to moderate said size, along with having a "Greatest game ever!" opinion being applied here without any looseness. If the criteria was changed to seven sources or five back then it definitely would not change now or any time soon. And there's no good enough reason today for change, either, aside from the accusations of this criteria being WP:OR. The only thing I'm surprised about is that no one has accused the criteria of having games too recent to allow enough time for vindication; as of my comment, Disco Elysium and Hades are under five years old.

I know this has all been answered before but I'm just gonna kill these questions again for this discussion; Besides size moderation, why six separate publications for inclusion in this article? Why not any more or less? How come this particular detail isn't original research? Carlinal (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly the idea that games should be barred for being "too recent" is one that has little basis anyways. Games like BioShock Infinite and Destiny were added more than five years after they released despite their reception nowadays being much more tepid, so it would feel odd if they had been present on the list but not Breath of the Wild or 2018's God of War. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not intending to disparage the moderation and polish that went into this list. I think the amount of work that has went into it has been phenomenal and I use it as a resource for myself quite often. Genuinely, excellent work to all of the people who put lots of effort to make this list the best it can be.

My main concern is with the potential WP:OR aspect of the criteria, and suggesting possibly using a concrete basis to distance the number of sources from editor opinion as much as possible. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I say we bump it up to 7. Alena 33 (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That only results in the loss of a select few games that'll likely be added back later anyways. No point in doing so, and the current threshold of 6 was already raised from 5. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd mainly try to consider what is "manageable" in terms of what other lists on Wikipedia consider a manageable length (400 was just a number I used for the sake of example, not really a length I was advocating for in particular). I won't deny it's any less arbitrary a standard, but it at least gives a reason for a particular number of sources used, which arguably could prevent claims of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and would likely make conversations around the criteria at least a little more directed. The second suggestion I agree is certainly even worse in terms of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH than the current state of things and I mainly named it in the process of finding potential means of finding a concrete basis for the criteria. I think it is by far the worst suggestion here.

I do agree that a lot of the discussions of inclusion criteria are made by random people mad about their pet game not getting included, which I don't think should be given much credit. The arguments over length, at least, do raise important questions about what length of list is manageable, though I don't know whether I'd consider the current length "unmanageable" yet. At the very least, it's something to consider. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless I’m missing a point to your argument it just seems like the manageable text method would still require a publication threshold for entry, thus effectively still being the same method of inclusion as now, just with a lower threshold to allow more games in, and I think there’s a bit of a disconnect between what more lax users of Wikipedia consider manageable text and what actually is manageable text according to WP:SIZERULE. Pheduik explained this much better than I in a prior response to this, but essentially the list is still manageable and not close to needing cutting. XJJSX (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That's understandable. I've said this on other replies, but my main concern was with potential WP:OR issues. However, seeing as several other replies have said that other similar media lists also use fairly arbitrary criteria, it's probably okay to keep using the same system as it is now. If there's more concerns about avoiding WP:OR later down the line, or there's a catastrophic list length problem that occurs, maybe it will be time to consider option 1, but seeing how the current system has been argued for, I am perfectly fine with an arbitrary criteria. Thank you to all the editors for their thoughtful input. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

At some point, like with the question of whether Sega Genesis should be named Mega Drive or not, it starts to become disruptive to reopen the discussion over and over with no real new argument. I think everyone acknowledges that the six source limitation is arbitrary. The only question from experienced editors has been whether or not that is in itself a problem. However, since numerous lists of similar nature for other media types essentially use the same arbitrary limitation criteria, it seems the project broadly accepts this methodology. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

One reason I brought up how this starts to become disruptive: I just archived five sections just as long as this one, all from the last three months, essentially discussing the same thing, with no new argument or consensus reached. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is a fine length and there is no problem, according to WP:SIZERULE. There isn't any risk of it surpassing the amount of readable prose. Even if we were, I would recommend removing a column like publisher or genre. This would cut the table contents by a quarter (give or take), while preserving verifiable entries (the whole point of Wikipedia). As is, we've already used editorial opinion to remove too many verifiable entries, which approaches WP:OR. We should strive to eliminate any kind of arbitrary threshold and simply go with what the sources say, per WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. All games that meet the criteria are, to our knowledge, on the list already. Yes, the list could be even longer than it is if we diluted said criteria, but I do not think we should feel we have to "max out" the length of the list. Giving the list room to expand slowly has kept the page stable and carefully maintained for years now. Thanks again for the thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Shooterwalker's concerns are legitimate. There are games that multiple reliable sources consider to be among the best, yet they are not mentioned on this page as they have not met an arbitrary threshold. The response to this concern, as far as I can tell, is that any number of required sources is, ultimately, arbitrary. But, this is not true. The interpretation of "multiple reliable sources" for this page should be in line with its interpretation for other, similar pages. If there is some sort of precedent for "multiple" meaning six, then fair enough. But, if requiring six is more (or less) than what other articles require, then I think it needs to be revised. IlmeniAVG (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I do feel that users ferret, XJJSX, et al., are correct that other, comparable articles impose arbitrary inclusion thresholds of their own. See, for instance, List of best-selling video games's restriction to 50 entries, List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes's 20-review minimum for all entries, and List of video games notable for negative reception's criterion of an aggregate review score below 50/100 based on at least 10 reviews, while also excluding "Shovelware, tie-ins, and non-notable indie or mobile titles" (as determined on the talk page.) The point is that the inclusion criteria of each list depends on what editors have deemed to be suitable to the page, a process that is arbitrary by nature. If anything, I argue that the six-source threshold here, though also arbitrary, has a sounder basis in WP policy, since it ties inclusion to breadth of RS coverage, rather than review numbers or an ad hoc maximum number of entries. The relevant question, then, is whether diluting the inclusion threshold would make the article better. I am skeptical of this notion, as by definition, doing so would add a huge number of additional entries (in the hundreds for a threshold of 4 or fewer), every one of them with fewer sources than those currently listed. I do not feel we should compromise the sourcing standard for the sake of making the page longer. Thank you again for your comments. Phediuk (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

None of the above articles set a precedent for the requirement of six sources used in this article. They are, perhaps, examples of other arbitrary thresholds being used, but this does not directly address my concern. If the six-source threshold has a sounder bases in WP policy, as you say, then I would expect there to be a precedent for it somewhere. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to investigate this myself, but this is where I think the discussion should go.

As for whether or not reducing the threshold would make the article better, I feel strongly that it would. If hundreds more games have been cited by multiple reliable sources as being among the best, then listing those games here better reflects what those reliable sources say. The length of the list is not currently a practical concern, and I don't think it should be considered "compromising" the sourcing standard when we are talking exclusively about games that have been cited by multiple reliable sources. IlmeniAVG (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello again. The links I provided are not just "perhaps" other examples of arbitrary inclusion thresholds; they are examples, reflecting the differing natures and needs of each of the pages, and the divergent manner in which RSes cover each topic. This page does not need to follow the inclusion criteria of another page, because it is not that page; it covers a different topic, which sources cover in a different way. As for this page's sounder basis in WP policy, its requirement of multiple sources fulfills WP:EXCEPTIONAL's guideline that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"; the guideline does not define multiple, and so, this page defines it as six, which still qualifies as such. This page's threshold is thus based more strongly in WP policy than limiting the page to a specific number of entries (as in the best-selling games list), or to entries that have a minimum number of reviews on a review aggregator (as in the Rotten Tomatoes list), neither of which are supported by official policy anywhere. Also, I do not feel that adding hundreds of more entries would better reflect the sources, as the new entries would all be cited by fewer of them than those currently on the list. Last, the current inclusion threshold keeps the length of the list under control; while its length is not currently a concern, as you say, the huge expansion you are proposing would make it so. Thanks for the thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I said "perhaps" because I did not look at the examples closely enough to confirm one way or the other, not to cast doubt on your claim (in case that's what it looked like--apologies if it did). As I said before, I was looking for was an article that sets a precedent for six sources being used, so whether or not those articles also have arbitrary thresholds is not pertinent to my criticism.

Anyway, returning to my earlier criticisms of the title of this article, I believe there is a disconnect between the title and the list criteria. A game having been named on six greatest games lists is a valid perspective from which to assess whether or not a game is "considered the best", but it is one of many. I could make a case that games with Metacritic scores above 95 are also "considered the best", or that the threshold should be lower for recently released games that have not had the opportunity to appear on as many lists, or that older lists should be weighted less heavily because far fewer games exited at the time of their publication, or that only rankings in the top 100 should count since anything below that is too inclusive, or that five mentions should be sufficient since five mentions from reliable sources would be sufficient elsewhere on Wikipedia. All of these are, in my opinion, valid points, and I think they get to the heart of a lot of the issues that people have with this page. Editors set the standard of six mentions on all time greatest games lists from reliable sources, but it is worryingly easy to argue that reliable sources actually say something different.

Looking at other, similar Wikipedia pages for reference, the page for films (List of films considered the best) is structured very differently, and in a way that I think avoids most of the issues with this page. The page for books (List of books considered the best) is similar in structure, though it only requires three sources, and also has a note about it potentially not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline. I could not find pages for other mediums such as popular music albums or songs. I think this speaks to the difficulty of writing these articles in a way that is in line with Wikipedia standards. Pages for other mediums either don't exist, are of a questionable standard, or are structured very differently.

For this article, I want to say that I think presenting a list that purports to show a consensus necessarily requires original research, and I am opposed to any attempt at this. Copying the structure of the film page is something that I would not be opposed to, and I would also not be opposed to a page that essentially presented a list of greatest games lists, along with some basic statistics like games with the most mentions, games with the most no#1 mentions, games with the most top 10 mentions etc.

Anyway, I feel like I've said all that I need to for the time being, so I'll step back and let others discuss from here. IlmeniAVG (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I need to note that it would not be helpful to have Metacritic scores or any score aggregation website improve the selection; in fact, it would lead to at least 10 games removed from the current incarnation of said list.

My basis for this reasoning comes from the contrast between the rank inclusion and score inclusion that reveals a great divisiveness among game critics, and critics altogether. My evidence for pointing to this is that the most recent game here, Hades, currently has a 93% positive score, under your suggested minimum. And if we continue with other games on this list with something lower than 93%, arguments will arise as to what percentage a game needs to enter to be classified as an all-time best.

Just to prove that this doesn't only happen with games, take the film The Shining, which currently has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes after 106 reviews. Pretty low right? With this website saying 83 falls into a B average. Yet, in the well-produced list aggregator They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?, the film is ranked as the 86th greatest of all time, despite hundreds of films of larger amounts of reviews on RT having a higher percentage.

What I conclude from this is that critics are more divisive on a consensus of a product's quality than we'd think. Way more divisive. So it's much better off to have this article based on just the lists, as those would be more willing to include more unorthodox selections and games. Carlinal (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry for the double response. I was reflecting on this and I have some suggestions that would address my concerns, and possibly the concerns of others.

First, I think the title of the article should be changed to better reflect the source data, i.e. "greatest video games" lists from reliable sources. I would suggest something along the lines of, "List of video games that have appeared on multiple 'all time greatest games' lists", or, "List of 'all time greatest video games' lists" (a list of games that have appeared multiple times would be appropriate for an article with the latter title).

The problem I have with the current title is it suggests Wikipedia is in a position to interpret the available data and present a sort of consensus based on that data. But, this requires interpreting said data, and thus it would be original research.

If the article were instead a "List of 'all time greatest video games' lists", and contained a list of games that had been mentioned multiple times (perhaps sorted by number of mentions), then I think that would be completely fine. I would probably still argue for reducing the threshold, but I would consider it less of a problem than it is now (because it's clear that the list is not necessarily a list of "games considered the best").

If Shooterwalker is still following this, I would be curious to hear their thoughts on these suggestions. IlmeniAVG (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What you describe is exactly stated in the two sentences of the lede section. Is there some aspect you feel should be expanded on or included there? The precise criteria doesn't have to fit in the article title, it can go in the lede. SnowFire (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm still following. I usually try to back off after I've made my observations known, because I generally respect the core group of editors maintaining this article. But other editors raise criticisms on this talk page, and if other editors respond, then I will too.

I'm observing a large number of critics who never arrive at this talk page at the same time, which should be taken as a cautionary note for the core group that is watchlisting this article. It's worth trying to find a constructive solution, and usually the most objective solution is to go back to the sources.

I still believe this is arbitrary and creeping into WP:OR. No, I don't think that it's valid to compare to "list of best selling films", where the sources agree about what the top selling films are, in dollar figures. I see the suggestion for a rename, but I'm not sure what would work. "List of games included in at least six "best of" rankings" isn't a very good title, and really just makes the original problem obvious. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi. As SnowFire has observed, the page's title does not need to contain the list criteria, as the lede already defines them. Also, the example I provided was List of best-selling video games, which does, indeed, limit itself to fifty entries arbitrarily, drawn from disparate sources, none of which list said games as a unit. I agree that this page should reflect what the sources say, and it does, with multiple RS citations per entry, and multiple defined as six. I feel that lowering this threshold would not strengthen the sourcing, but rather, weaken it, while also (in the case of a 3-source threshold) approximately doubling the page's length. Thanks for the comment. Phediuk (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)