Talk:List of video games considered the best

Lists

The omnibus list data is located here; use the headers at the left to jump to the list(s) you want to check. Phediuk (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a new list from For the Win (FTW!) - USA Today, I don't know if it meets the inclusion criteria but I'll post the link here: https://ftw.usatoday.com/lists/best-video-games-all-time-list-zelda-mario Andrija.s. (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DW-2yjPbKkdj4qaIkE85VsT1T2uhDwxsPn70kfuHimw/edit

This is the link to the Google Doc for my List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources + Almost Top 100. I will be making updates exclusively on the Google Doc from now on. XJJSX (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Glad the fun got preserved somewhere more appropriately. Almost trivial, yes, but a minor pleasure to see. Thanks overall for your efforts on this article. :)

(Btw @Phediuk on the omnibus and spreadsheet thing I had the ugliest double take upon realizing they were already listed in the FAQ. My dumb brain thought there was no Q4 somehow, LOL.) Carlinal (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carlinal It was actually part of Q1 all along, but I explicitly moved it to Q4 to be clearer last night. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

For Hardcore Gaming 101, I assume the 2020 list is so short because it's the same as the 2015 list, but a few new games were added. However, both lists are the top 200 games of all time, meaning some games from the 2015 list must not have appeared on the 2020 list to make room for the new games. Do you know which games from the 2015 list didn't make it to the 2020 list? 100.16.223.83 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The 2020 HG101 list is an addendum to the original list of 200; no games were removed to make room for them. Phediuk (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The top 100 games by number of referenced sources using only sources from the past ten years list is here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qhUnal80p0H42sRjMvONXCtYozBzFgFcFxWb98HMSvQ/edit?usp=drivesdk 100.16.223.83 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

USA Today, 2024

The other day, the editorial team of USA Today's video games section, For the Win, published their “definitive ranking of the top 30 video games of all time”. Since the list is from a RS, editor-chosen, unrestricted by platform/genre/era, and explicitly about the best games, I will incorporate it onto the main page, if there are no objections. Note that while the list includes Resident Evil 2, the entry does not clarify whether it means the 1998 or the 2019 game, and the entry writeup contains nothing that clearly ties it to either game specifically. Due to this uncertainty, I will not count this entry. Also, although the list is ranked according to how many members of the team chose each game, the list does not assign any ranking numbers to the games, except for #30; therefore, I have left the transcription unranked.

USA Today, 2024

Grand Theft Auto V The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past New World Starcraft: Brood War The Sims World of Warcraft Baldur’s Gate III SOCOM: US Navy SEALs Mass Effect 2 Fortnite The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Anthem The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom Star Fox 64 Street Fighter II Elden Ring Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 3 Resident Evil 2 (version not clarified; not counted) Mortal Kombat (1992) Grand Theft Auto III Goldeneye (1997) Pokemon Red, Blue, and Yellow Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Super Mario Bros. 3 Tetris Red Dead Redemption 2 The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Super Mario 64

No new entries to be added to the main page, since many of the listed games here overlap with USA Today's list from 2022 (which was cross-published, in somewhat modified form, in Sports Illustrated.) Phediuk (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it Timur9008 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Can there at least be a list of games that receive an entry closer to being put on the page with this? λ NegativeMP1 18:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have incorporated the USA Today list, and added it to the omnibus data. As for the inquiry above, Anthem, New World, Baldur's Gate III, Starcraft: Brood War, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, and SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs have gone from 0 publications to 1; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time has gone from 2 to 3. Phediuk (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, finally. Thus it begins for Baldur's Gate III and TOTK. For some reason I thought Turtles in Time would be at least one entry higher. Carlinal (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Omnibus visualized data has been updated. BenSVE (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The 2022 USA Today/2023 Sports Illustrated Lists have the 2019 version of Resident Evil 2. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that's the version they're talking about in their 2024 list? 100.16.223.83 (talk) 03:03, 6 April 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)

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)

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)

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)

"Best Games of All Time" articles are frequently console-only; NPOV issue to exclude them

I was reading this list today and noticed it did not include the Electronic Gaming Monthly best games lists I remember reading in the 1990s. I found them and added them. These additions were then reverted for EGM excluding PC games.

This raises a major neutral point of view issue for the article. The article gives exclusive weight to published ratings and rankings that are "inclusive of all games released up to that point"; aka they include both Console and PC games.

This exclusive weight to Console + PC publications is WP:UNDUE, because contemporary "best games of all time" lists written by reliable third-party sources were often console-only. For example, Electronic Gaming Monthly and Famitsu.

Even the PC + Console lists currently cited in this article probably did not consider "all games". We absolutely should not be going through and checking that the writers considered handheld games, and arcade games, and mobile games. Leaving out a certain category of games is evidently fine, ipso facto reliable third party sources publishing "best game of all time lists" without including those categories.

A widely read article titled "Best 100 Games of All Time" published by a reliable third party source that doesn't include PC games, or mobile games, but does include arcade games and games from 30+ consoles over several decades needs to be eligible for this list per WP:DUE. These all-console lists should be collated with other such lists by other publications that include Console + PC, or Console + PC + Mobile, or Console + Arcade to produce the combined list of games that is shown on Wikipedia.

PK-WIKI (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi; all lists included on this page are vetted to ensure they include no platform/era/genre restrictions. EGM covers only console games, and is thus ineligible, just as Computer Gaming World covers only computer games, and is thus also ineligible. Contrary to your claim that top games lists are "frequently console-only", the available evidence shows that "Top [Console] Games of All Time" has not been a common format for such lists; as you can observe on this page, EGM is pretty much the only publication that has done so, as the 2006 Famitsu list is also a reader poll on top of that. Lists without platform restrictions are demonstrably more common than console-only lists, even when just looking at sources from the 1990s (such as the ones already incorporated here.) Phediuk (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your "vetting to ensure they include no platform/era/genre restrictions" is the problem; this is WP:UNDUE weight given to lists with "no platform restrictions" when at least one platform restriction, the PC/Console divide, has historically been considered a norm in the video game publication industry.

I see this has been discussed in the past at the wikiproject:

That said, I disagree with the idea that "only" lists that are strictly "list of best games" ever should qualify as a good source. For better or for worse, there traditionally was a large divide between computer games and video games. For example, take the 2006 EGM list "The Greatest 200 Videogames of Their Time" ( link ). It is a great source: it is from a respected-at-the-time dead tree print publication with editorial oversight, it is cross-platform, it covers the then-current history of gaming. But: it doesn't include computer games. Is this cause to throw it out? In the same way, PC Gamer 2013 had a "Top 100 Computer Games of all time." Nothing console-exclusive in it. I think a combined list can be made just fine as long as lists on both sides of the divide are included. - User:SnowFire

I don't think by omitting a certain platform means any opinions on Ocarina of Time or whatever game they list at the top becomes automatically invalid just because of that. - User:Dissident93

These games were hailed as the "100 Best Games of All Time" by a top-tier gaming industry editorial source across a wide range of platforms constituting the majority of all video games. That they don't include one gaming platform in their rankings is immaterial.

PK-WIKI (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the article used to use EGM 2006. Yes, it's a good source, IMO, worthy of inclusion at the time, so I stand by my old comment there. (Although calling computer games "one" gaming platform is a bit loaded - it was a very large "platform".)

However, a bit of background. My earlier work, while it used some sources "restricted" to an era, was careful to "balance" it out and ensure that, say, the EGM list was counterbalanced by a computer-only list, or that multiple generation-specific lists to the same generation weren't used). But that was just one editor's kneejerk. Certain user / users began spamming up the article with very low-quality sources at the time (and I gave up trying to revert them) and put the article in a dire state (we're talking, like, user-submitted ranker.com lists). To try to restore sanity and avoid too much "one editor's take", the result was strict rules directly enforced: has to cover everything. Has to be by journalists / can't be a poll. Has to come from different publications. There is a method behind the madness here: That way we don't have to do any manual editor-driven balance picks, because everything is all-games anyway. Once we allow XYZ-specific lists on, there's the risk of having, say, 10 lists that cover consoles and 1 list that covers computer games, or vice versa. Being strict means that this conversation is preempted.

In general, we've found enough sources now that being strict is fine - we're using plenty of lists, and the main goal is to hit the critical mass where one eccentric list can't really do any "damage". With 88 (!) sources used, we're there. So we don't need to stretch eligibility in the name of getting more sources in.

If there's truly a desire to expand the sourcing criteria, I'd say a more fruitful possibility isn't console-only lists, but rather foreign sources - the current source collection is somewhat Anglosphere-centric. It could be argued that if the Japanese media insists on using polls, we should be stuck honoring that even if we don't like it. But that's a separate issue. SnowFire (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That said, I do think that it could be argued we may eventually need to loosen the chronological criteria. Right now, if a publication makes a list of the best games of all time and in an amazing coincidence they're all from 2000 or later, that's fine, but if the same publication calls it the "best games since 2000", it's ineligible. So I do get the idea that we shouldn't over-stress "must include absolutely everything" since realistically no journalist has played Every Game Ever. Just, per above, we already have plenty of decent sources as is, so we'd need a better reason to loosen the criteria. I'd be more willing to loosen the criteria for, say, a recently published high-quality list with a trivial restriction, than EGM 2006 which doesn't really get us anywhere new. SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

There are several significant sources of bias that are baked into the sources. A lot of old lists are not cross-platform, partially because meaningful cross-platform game engines are a relatively modern thing. In the 80s and 90s, it was normal to distinguish "video games" from "computer games" (look at how old publications like Computer and Video Games or PC Gamer had different focuses). Arcade games were their own lane. It means that a lot of older rankings are excluded because the video game market hadn't consolidated yet. A lot of older games are left off, and it's amplified by a recentism bias.

I don't know that Wikipedia can ever "unskew" the rankings, and I believe that introducing new criteria or exceptions risks crossing over into WP:OR. We think we are removing bias, but we are substituting our own bias. "At least X rankings" is already WP:OR, and it may have the unintended effect of making this list more biased towards long-running franchises with good PR across multiple decades. It will naturally be biased against games from defunct series or studios who aren't maintaining that game's legacy anymore. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Two Edge lists to reconsider

Both of these lists have been discussed here before, but I'm not skilled enough at navigating Wikipedia to find said discussions. Apologies if the points that I'm about to raise are nothing new, but at least it will be an easy response.

The first is this one from 2009: It was deemed ineligible due to the list being a "best games to play today" rather than a typical "best games of all time" list. However, the GamesRadar+ lists from 2011 to 2015 were formulated in the same way, and they are included here. I'll quote from the blurbs of each of these lists to illustrate what I mean:

From their 2011 and 2012 lists (they both say the same thing): "For each contender, we asked ourselves: Would we really recommend this to a friend today? Some games are truly timeless and will entertain no matter how old the graphics or how outdated the interface. The ones that aren’t… aren’t here."

From their 2013 list: "Our list ranks the best games to play today, and that's also why we refresh this list every year. Games like GoldenEye might be historically important, but they’re not necessarily what we’d pick up and play right now."

From their 2014 list: "GoldenEye. Ocarina of Time. Final Fantasy 7. Doom. None of those are on our list of the 100 Best Games of All Time. They're all important, and they were some of the best games at the time they released, but things change." And, "It's with that in mind that we rank the best games to play today, and that's also why we refresh this list every year. We're focusing on the experiences that, in 2014, are the best examples of the medium, and that means being honest about what plays well sans rose-tinted glasses."

From their 2015 list: "Forget nostalgia - these are the finest games you can play right now, even accounting for modern standards or series unfamiliarity. [...] This isn't a compendium of the most important games of all time, either; historic significance doesn't mean diddly if it ain't still fun to play."

So, if these GamesRadar+ lists are included, then I feel like the 2009 Edge list should also be included.

The other list is one from 2007. It was deemed ineligible due to it being a user poll, but this is not entirely true. From the blurb, "The list was drawn together by thousands of reader votes, games industry insiders and the view from Edge's own editorial team." It is not stated how much weight the reader votes were given, but there is reason to believe that their impact was negligible. The list bears strong similarities to other Edge lists, particularly the ones from 2015 and 2017 (based on computer analysis). Detailing all of those similarities would be impossible to do here, but, to give one example, the top six games on this list are the same as the top six on the above list, just in a different order. This indicates to me that the impact of reader votes was negligible, and, for that reason, I think it should be included. IlmeniAVG (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

One factor in the 2009 Edge list's favor is that it explicitly defines itself in the first sentence as a "deliberation over the best games of all time". In that case, I think it would be suitable, and judging from a cursory examination, Peggle would be added to the page. The one thing that gives me pause is that I seem not to be able to access the upper portions of the list; this page gives me an error. Are the games listed in full anywhere? Phediuk (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

VideoGameCanon has the full list here: https://www.videogamecanon.com/lists/edge-2009/

Alternatively, try going back from this archive page. It's a later capture of the same list: https://web.archive.org/web/20121017171031/http://www.edge-online.com/features/100-best-games-play-today/11/ IlmeniAVG (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent; that works. Thank you. The list meets all the criteria, so I see no reason not to incorporate it. I have transcribed thelist below:

Edge, 2009

1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 2. Super Mario 64 3. Half-Life 2 4. Resident Evil 4 (2005) 5. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 6. Super Mario World 7. Tetris 8. Super Mario Galaxy 9. Halo 3 10. Yoshi’s Island 11. LittleBigPlanet 12. Grand Theft Auto IV 13. Left 4 Dead 14. Street Fighter IV 15. Rock Band 2 16. Super Metroid 17. World of Warcraft 18. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 19. Civilization IV 20. Super Mario Bros. 3 21. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater 22. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City 23. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker 24. Virtua Fighter 5 25. Final Fantasy XII 26. Medieval II: Total War 27. Mario Kart DS 28. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas 29. Advance Wars 30. Company of Heroes 31. Bomberman (series) 32. Team Fortress 2 33. Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 34. Bioshock 35. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 36. Burnout Paradise 37. Fallout 3 38. Starcraft 39. Super Monkey Ball 40. WarioWare Inc.: Mega Microgame$! 41. Race Driver: Grid 42. FIFA 09 43. Portal 44. Jet Set Radio Future 45. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 46. Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness 47. Eve Online 48. Final Fantasy VII 49. Rez HD 50. Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes 51. R-Type Final 52. Fable II 53. Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune 54. Ico 55. Pokemon Yellow 56. Counter-Strike: Source 57. Deus Ex 58. Gears of War 2 59. Viewtiful Joe 60. Bust-a-Move 61. Robotron: 2084 62. Ninja Gaiden II (2008) 63. Lemmings 64. Puyo Puyo Fever 65. Thief II: The Metal Age 66. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time 67. Chrono Trigger 68. Shadow of the Colossus 69. Super Smash Bros. Brawl 70. Daytona USA 71. Outrun 2006: Coast 2 Coast 72. Skate 2 73. Frequency 74. Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords 75. F-Zero GX 76. Planescape: Torment 77. The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask 78. X-COM: UFO Defense 79. Pac-Man: Championship Edition 80. Quake II 81. Silent Hill 2 82. Sam & Max Hit the Road 83. Peggle 84. God of War (2005) 85. The Secret of Monkey Island 86. Singstar 87. Doom II 88. Panel de Pon 89. Final Fantasy VI 90. Braid 91. Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory 92. Animal Crossing: City Folk 93. The Sims 2 94. Space Giraffe 95. Football Manager 2009 96. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 97. Resident Evil (2002) 98. Star Fox 64 99. Far Cry 100. R4: Ridge Racer Type 4

If there are no objections, I will incorporate this list shortly; Peggle and Super Smash Bros. Brawl will be added to the main page. Phediuk (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not object Alena 33 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. I have also added the 2009 Edge list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused on why they both appeared now when Peggle and Brawl respectively have seven and eight sources at this point. I'm also asking if we should add the remainder of Peggle's publishers, Electronic Arts and Mindscape. Carlinal (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Both had six or more sources but only five publications. I don't think EA ever published the first Peggle (it was added solely because the game's listing on EA Origin) and Mindscape is a recent, unsourced, and undiscussed addition—so I think just listing PopCap is suitable here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

For anyone who might be wondering over the next few days, I am currently away, so the omnibus data visualized will be updated next weekend. BenSVE (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of adding this when Edge 2017 already exists on the list? 100.16.223.83 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Should Persona 5 be included?

I don't have access to many best game lists or anything, but it seems strange the game isn't on the list yet considering its pedigree, how much game publications seem to love it, and the fact that the Wikipedia page itself says it's considered one of the best rpgs of all time. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been added sooner! 66.253.187.27 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Is using articles from the same people but from different years allowed? Because I took a look at that omnibus list data from up top and, when factoring in those different year best game lists, like ign's 2019 and 2021 lists, persona 5 scrapes by with six articles calling it a best game of all time, but I'm not sure if that counts or not. 66.253.187.27 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Each publication only counts once. Persona 5 / Royal is at five of six entries, so it won't be long before it's included on the list. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for letting me know. 66.253.187.27 (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're seeing this now, Persona 5 (and Elden Ring) are now considered one of the Greatest Games of All Time! Congratulations! Fujimotofan235 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not like an achievement or anything but I guess it does show and confirm a stage of critical recognition. And both games are now added thanks to a surprisingly legit source by Screen Rant, of all things. Total OMEGALUL. Carlinal (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2024

Stardew Valley is considered role-playing genre! 2001:E68:545A:1FFF:F8C0:7836:8544:1EF2 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the lead at Stardew Valley. The infobox names two genres but we only list one here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

New list from GamingBolt

This video released today as a 2024 edition of the GamingBolt best games of all time list: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Kg7HzboGs

Huntergem1 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Full list is here:

GamingBolt, 2024

1. Red Dead Redemption 2 2. Elden Ring 3. Baldur's Gate III 4. Final Fantasy VII Rebirth 5. The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom 6. The Last of Us 7. Dragon's Dogma II 8. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 10. Grand Theft Auto V 11. Dark Souls 12. Bloodborne 13. Horizon Forbidden West 14. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice 15. Super Mario Odyssey 16. Starfield 17. Monster Hunter World 18. Mass Effect 2 19. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty 20. God of War Ragnarok 21. Resident Evil 2 (2019) 22. Half-Life 2 23. Control 24. Dead Space (2023) 25. Street Fighter 6 26. Marvel's Spider Man 2 27. Alien: Isolation 28. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves 29. Forza Horizon 5 30. Tekken 8

--Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Video title is "TOP 30 Games of All Time You Need To Play". A ranked list from a reliable publication, although the selection here consists mainly of 2010s titles, and I think Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty is the oldest. Carlinal (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we have two new entries for the list: Alien: Isolation and Elden Ring, both appearing on their sixth list. Malalatargaryen (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

To correct myself - the only game making its sixth list is Alien: Isolation, as Elden Ring has previously appeared on the 2022 and 2023 GamingBolt lists, so still only five different publications. Malalatargaryen (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for transcribing this list. I will incorporate it shortly, and add an entry for Alien: Isolation accordingly. Phediuk (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. I have also added the 2024 GamingBolt list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources Updated (Lists talk page for link). XJJSX (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Visualized data has been updated. BenSVE (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Edge (2015) "Bomberman" entry (82nd)

While the position is awarded to "Bomberman", it's clear from the blurb that this is meant to refer to the series, rather than a specific game. On which specific game they thing stands out the most, they said the following (source):

"while it's difficult to pick a single, series-defining game from a collection this large, Saturn Bomberman remains one of the highest points."

Saturn Bomberman is the only game discussed at length in the blurb. I say we consider this an entry for Saturn Bomberman, not Bomberman. IlmeniAVG (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the suggestion. However, the Bomberman entry there is still explicitly for the whole series; even its discussion of Saturn calls it only "one of" the highlights of the series, not the single best. Therefore, I argue we should not count this entry for Saturn specifically. Phediuk (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering it a series entry also makes sense. However, unless I'm mistaken, the omnibus data does not have it as a series entry (other series entries have "(series)" following, whereas this just says "Bomberman"). Does this need to be corrected? Also, what about the Edge 2017 list? I don't have access to the original source, so I'm not sure what the Bomberman entry (86th) looks like, but it also lacks the "(series)" tag in the omnibus data. Can someone with access to it please check? IlmeniAVG (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What version of Tetris?

There are so many different versions of Tetris, some better than others... Are all of these versions worthy of being considered among the best games ever made, or just a few of these versions, or even just one? FiveBlue (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It's like with The Oregon Trail; both games are ported to death and some ports have varying significance, but we stick with the first versions. While the Atari and two Nintendo ports are the most historic, Tetris originated on the Electronika 60. It would be unreasonably complicated to split by every port for something near-identical in concepts and gameplay. Carlinal (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, all Classic Tetris games can be eligible, including those released only in Japan, except Guideline and TGM games, correct? FiveBlue (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, they're all still the same game, at least including those mentioned on the sourced lists. Carlinal (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics, 2022

Analyzed the Donkey Kong Country article when noticing an unnecessary footnote for lists calling it among the greatest. I then looked through the sources referenced and saw a Popular Mechanics list that likely hasn't been brought up here yet. How's this? Regardless, once it's dealt with, I'll be removing the footnote since this article is a reference in its own. Carlinal (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe this list is identical to their 2019 list, which is already included. IlmeniAVG (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Then if the 2019 and 2022 editions are identical, can they be merged akin to the USA Today 2022/Sports Illustrated 2023 lists? Carlinal (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Wealth of Geeks

New list just dropped. Would like the source evaluated https://wealthofgeeks.com/essential-video-games-everyone-needs-to-play/ Alena 33 (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this list to our attention. A quick Google search turns up only 3 citations of Wealth of Geeks across all of Wikipedia, and it is not listed at WP:VG/S. You should at least get it evaluated at the talk page there first. Phediuk (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

ScreenRant

https://screenrant.com/best-video-games-all-time-ranked/ This is another list that dropped recently, and I'm pretty sure the wikipedia folk have already evaluated this source, but not 100 percent sure. Alena 33 (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Definite no to Valnet churnalism sites. -- ferret (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/P, Screen Rant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons", and WP:VG/S says it "May be inappropriate to cite for controversial statements in BLP pages, but source is deemed reliable enough for other uses." A Google search indicates that the site is widely-cited across Wikipedia in entertainment-related articles. It should be fine as a source for this page, unless I am missing something here. Furthermore, the list is staff-chosen, explicitly about the best games, and unrestricted by platform/era/genre. If others are strongly opposed to this one, I will refrain from adding it, but otherwise, it looks good to go. Phediuk (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

My disdain for Valnet is well known :P I won't push anymore than this so. -- ferret (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If this were a typical Valnet list (typically chosen by only one editor meeting their weekly quota) then I'd argue to exclude it, but this seems to be chosen by the entirety of the sites editorial staff. There are concerns related to Valnets contributions towards notability (typically, it's a no), but in this very specific case, it seems to be good enough in my opinion. I'd support allowing it here. λ NegativeMP1 23:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a transcription of the list:

Screen Rant, 2024

1. Elden Ring 2. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3. Minecraft 4. Red Dead Redemption 2 5. Final Fantasy VII 6. Stardew Valley 7. Fallout: New Vegas 8. Baldur’s Gate III 9. Dragon Quest XI: Echoes of an Elusive Age 10. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 11. Metal Gear Solid 12. World of Warcraft 13. Super Mario Bros. 14. Super Mario World 15. Pokemon Red and Blue 16. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 17. Slay the Spire 18. Super Metroid 19. Tetris 20. Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 21. Dark Souls 22. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 23. Persona 5 Royal 24. Doom (1993) 25. League of Legends 26. The Last of Us 27. Bioshock 28. Resident Evil 4 (2005) 29. God of War (2018) 30. Goldeneye (1997) 31. Silent Hill 2 32. Street Fighter II 33. Halo 3 34. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35. The Oregon Trail (1985)

I will wait a bit to see if there are any objections to this list; if not, I will incorporate it. Mario Kart 8, Persona 5, and Elden Ring will all receive entries on the main page. Phediuk (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Heh, why'd you title that Goldeneye (1997)? I get there's two games titled GoldenEye 007 but that's a little weird. Carlinal (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm kinda confused what you're asking... how is it weird that Phedium indicated which (among 3-4) Goldeneye games this was referring to? -- ferret (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

...Well there's GoldenEye and GoldenEye 007, and I'd be amazed if we find a viable list that prefers the remake over the original. Carlinal (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say COMMONNAME wise, no one says "Goldeneye 007" normally. It's just Goldeneye -- ferret (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I list the game as "Goldeneye (1997)" because that is how it is already listed throughout the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, should this list be integrated, Fallout: New Vegas will need only one more entry before it gets added. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• While Screen Rant is normally a pretty weak source, per others, this does appear to be an attempt at a "legitimate" list and not a college student picking 35 games from a hat in something dashed off in 2 hours, so usable enough to be added IMO. SnowFire (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The Screen Rant list has now been incorporated; I have also added it to the omnibus data. I also abbreviated PlayStation 2/3/4/5 in the platforms column to PS2/3/4/5, since these names are commonly understood and widely used in their WP articles. Phediuk (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Really great that you simplified the titling for the PlayStation consoles. But just to make sure, has there been any recent conversation over a similar case with the original PlayStation as the primary redirect to "PS1"? Carlinal (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The original PSX was usually abbreviated PSX, though. But this abbreviation isn't very intuitive to people not around in the era, so writing it out seems harmless enough. SnowFire (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, thank you. Carlinal (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources Updated (See Lists Talk Page for Link). XJJSX (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Visualized data updated. BenSVE (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

More console abbreviations

So extending the abbreviation thing, should we do the same with the Nintendo 64 (N64) and Nintendo 3DS (3DS), or even the GameCube (GCN/NGC)? How about the Commodore 64 (C64) and Xbox One (XBO)? Carlinal (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No need at this point; none of those platform names are currently stretching the platforms column. If they ever do, we can abbreviate them. Phediuk (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

English-language bias in sources

While this is somewhat understandable given the fact it is on English-language wikipedia and statistically speaking, most contributors here are unlikely to speak another language, but it seems like a major oversight to use a set of publications that doesn't include all the major markets. Going through the list, there isn't a single Japanese, South Korean, Brazilian, or Chinese publication on the list. All publications are either based in the US, Europe, or Australia, leading to a bias toward what was popular there.

There should be some attempt to compile a list of sources that reflect a better diversity with respect to countries/languages, or this article should be reworded and retitled to show that this is a list of games considered to be the best in the US/Europe/Australia.

PúcaCiúin (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an issue beyond the scope of this list alone. The issue is that we have very few vetted sources that are non-English. The best thing you can do is make suggestions for non-English sources at WP:VG/S and help explain and show that they are indeed reliable. -- ferret (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There is one Brazilian source, Super GamePower, which I had proposed to be added (as a Brazilian). But yes, I think that English-language bias is always present no matter what considering this is the English Wikipedia. It'd be extremely hard to counter this issue. Skyshiftertalk 00:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Mistake with the visualized omnibus data

I was looking at the visualized omnibus data and noticed that there were two separate entries for "Robotron: 2084" (with a colon) and "Robotron 2084" (without a colon). This seems to be a mistake, as there is only one Robotron: 2084, and their entries should be merged accordingly. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. If there are any other errors please feel free to reach out on my talk page! BenSVE (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts II.

Can Kingdom Hearts II be added to the list? LifelongLoser (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Once the game has six reputable sources then yes. XJJSX (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that five separate publications listed it, as shown in the omnibus list data (read the FAQ, btw). I wouldn't bet on how long for another list, however. Carlinal (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The Last Of Us Part II

Please change / add The Last Of Us Part II (2020) Sources:

• GQ (68)
• IGN (54)
• Parade (50)
• The Times (51) [tied with The Last Of Us (2013)]
• USA Today (78) [tied with The Last Of Us (2013)]
• Sports Illustrated (79) [tied with The Last Of Us (2013)]

Brendan195 (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Five of six separate publications listed it. To make sure it gets listed, only one more unique publication needs to include the game in a subsequent list. It's been listed by GQ twice, but that doesn't count.

Speaking of which, @Phediuk do dual entries add a point for both games listed? And can you revise the mentions of these games, I see "Part II" and "Part 2" in the same document. Messes up some quick searching for me. The remake of Part I counts with the original version too, right? Carlinal (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The USA Today and Sports Illustrated count as the same source, as mentioned here-- https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jjQ5HPnd_mhmVeIqNpxVgasGXQlhLlztOfwCh3odxI/edit?usp=sharing 100.16.223.83 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question. Dual/"series" entries are not counted; The Last of Us Part II is currently at three sources. Currently, there are no listings for The Last of Us: Part I specifically, but it would be counted separately from the original, since it has it own WP article. Phediuk (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe there is one entry for The Last of Us Part I, under GamingBolt 2023, correct? Or is that being excluded for some reason. BenSVE (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's there on both the omnibus data and spreadsheet. Carlinal (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct. My bad. Phediuk (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)