Talk:List of video games considered the best

Titling in accordance to methodology

As mentioned in the recent move attempt, the best films article was recently moved to a title that reflects its methodology, and there was an attempt to move this article to the same format, but said format didn't actually suit this article's methodology.

I think it could be good to rename this one in terms of its methodology as well though, as arguably there isn't a single objective manner to see what video game is "considered the best", and this is just one methodology you could use. Another group analyzing this might factor in game awards shows, for example. Since the methodology here is to compile best game rankings by notable sources and include games that appear in enough sources, I think a title like this could be good:

List of video games commonly ranked the best

Can think of a lot of variations, like removing "commonly", making it "among" the best, writing it like "highest ranked video games" or "ranked the highest", or adding "by publications" to the end. Lot of precision-concision tradeoffs.

As a note, I haven't contributed to this article, and I am fairly new to wikipedia in general, so I am just making this suggestion here to see if it's at all a good idea. Feel free to let me know if it's a bad one. Docsisbored (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyone who might do the legwork to see how many of our 90+ sources use the terms ranked/ranking/etc? I suspect it's quite widespread, but a source analysis would help us towards deciding whether this proposal is suitable. "by publications" really isn't needed, per WP:LISTNAME. It's somewhat analogous to saying "per reliable sources". It's a given. -- ferret (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That's true about "by publications" Docsisbored (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, so you're suggesting that the sources should explicitly use the term ranking? Interesting, I was seeing it more as a descriptive label as what articles like this do, that they're ranking the games above others. I see the merit though.

That said, I did a very cursory look and noticed some publications aren't ranking within the list itself, with Gamespot noting that every entry on their list is held in equal regard. Does make calling it ranking a little more dicey, though not fully invalid. Quite a few articles do mention ranking or that it is an ordered list, which does mean I am curious about such an investigation myself and might do one myself if no one offers.

That said, if we wish to sidestep that whole issue, my proposal could be rewritten as such:

"List of video games commonly listed as the best"

It is slightly longer, but not bad at all, compare:

"List of video games considered the best"

Honestly could also drop "commonly" if it's seen as overly describing the criteria regarding WP:LISTNAME, though I think it both sounds better when said aloud and would be less controversial long-term. Docsisbored (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I was bored enough to do this, and here's what I found. Disclaimer: I didn't do a full deep dive on every list so take it with a grain of salt, just read the foreword and top 10 and did a keyword search for relevant terms, so any sneaky references may have slipped by. There were also 13 sources I couldn't verify for whatever reason, be it lack of access or lack of being able to speak the language.

From my research, I found 28 sources made an explicit reference to the list being a "ranking" in those exact terms. I found a further 9 sources that made an allusion to it being a ranking without an explicit confirmation (e.g. "countdown", "in order", the older IGN lists referenced the top 10 as "the golden 10"). Also thought to mention that there were a further 13 whose strongest allusion was a reference to the number one spot as the definitive best game of all time, but made no other mention of ranking besides that. Also notable is Mashable, who formatted theirs uniquely by doing an explicit ranking, but having separate lists for each individual contributor, so wasn't sure how to count it here

That's all I could find. Also wanted to let you guys know of an error in the Power Unlimited source, which the article calls the 2015 list but is actually an updated version from 2018. Hope this helps. 2A00:23C7:D492:E701:2C41:8FFF:FE07:BE89 (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this is very appreciated! Hmm, seems like ordered lists are not overwhelmingly the format of the sources, so calling them "ranking" might be iffy in some perspectives. I think I will switch to the proposal that refers to lists I made earlier then. Docsisbored (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious views on simply replacing the word "considered", which appears to be where a lot of people sour about the list, with "ranked". Nothing more than that. Does "List of video games ranked the best" assuage any concerns from folks unhappy with "considered the best"? And, does anyone feel it has any impact on the scope/listcrit of the article? I tentatively don't believe it does. -- ferret (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

eh... i'm kind of against it. a ranking is a type of consideration. if you want to narrow things down, it can work to weed like 2.5 games out, but i don't think it'd change much cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think being more precise about what forms of consideration are included here isn't a bad thing though.

I can think of a number of ways publications consider games the best that are not considered valid for this list:

Game awards

Games with perfect scores on review websites

Articles that describe a game as the best or one of the best without listing other games

Reader polls by publications Docsisbored (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the change works, it should help clear up confusion, and I don't think it would affect the list criteria very much. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• @IAmACowWhoIsMad: While I'm not the best person to do it, I've early closed your RM below. I think that it's premature, especially so recently after another RM has closed. Speaking just on general principles, RMs that open with a question mark target are harder to close, and if they do close with a move tend to make everyone unhappier. Not saying that alternate proposals don't happen, but they happen in the context of agreement the current title is suboptimal in some way. Additionally, if you think the current title is acceptable, then I question the wisdom of opening a RM at all. A title doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work. Per closing comment, please don't take this as an attempt to forbid future RMs from me, but rather just general wisdom that RMs should have a clear goal in mind and not figure things out later. Better to hash out suggested titles here, and if someone has a title they think is better than the current title, they can explain what it is and why in a new RM.
• On the merits (i.e. taking off closer cap and putting on commenter cap), I'll just restate what I've said before: the current title is accurate and good. There's no problem to fix. These articles aren't talking in code or anything - many of them have titles like "The XXX Greatest Games", "The Best Games Ever", etc. It's reflecting the content of the sources. The current title is correct. Now, strictly speaking, we could say "games considered the best by sources Wikipedia considers reliable", but spelling it out that way shows why it's not necessary - every article on Wikipedia is written "according to sources Wikipedia considers reliable." It should be very rare indeed to have "content from unreliable sources" (perhaps a list-style article like "Official (unreliable government here) economic statistics"?). So we don't need to state that and can just leave that for the lede section. SnowFire (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think the current title is inaccurate in the sense that the list criteria has restrictions that are not intuitive from the name of the list.

  The list doesn't accept various ways sources indicate a game is among the best, such as game awards, standalone articles calling games the best, or perfect scores from critics.

  I agree that there does not need to be a note about reliable sources, but I do think this list is ultimately a little more narrow than all considerations of what's best. Docsisbored (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  • All of that is intentional, though. Perfect scores from critics are something else and not the same thing - "List of games by Metacritic score" or the like. We sort of have that in our various 2014_in_video_games#Top-rated_games and the like articles except a certain banned editor was also very active in messing those up, but I disgress. Standalone articles calling a game the best isn't the topic either and wouldn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. We used to have way back when some articles along the lines of "Comic characters called omnipotent" or the like, and it just wasn't meaningful, because a single mention somewhere that character X is omnipotent doesn't mean it's actually true, and a single article using hyperbole isn't the same thing either. SnowFire (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    It is indeed intentional and I have no complaints with the methodology for an article, but I do not think this name suits this article anymore because of it. There isn't really a good reason why a standalone article isn't a valid source by the title. That is why I suggest a concise name that incorporates the methodology would be good. Docsisbored (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Docsisbored I know I sound like a broken record but need to point back to WP:LISTNAME again, which points out that using notability or similar sourcing criteria to limit lists, is ok. The example there is that a "List of Norwegian bands" is appropriately named even if you are only including undeniably notable bands, excluding various bands that had a single mention in a reliable source. The critical requirement is that the lead must then explain the actual criteria in use, which we do. Honestly, I think one of the reoccurring issues here is that many, not even our more experienced editors (myself included for a VERY long time), even know about WP:LISTNAME. It's infrequently cited in discussions. -- ferret (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    I agree with WP:LISTNAME, but I think it is expressing a caveat to an unlisted common sense aspect of list naming. That names should strive to be accurate.

    From what I can tell, there is nothing in that specific policy that prevents you from naming a list of war horses just "list of horses" but that would definitely be wrong.

    Basically, I don't know if I agree WP:LISTNAME can justify all simplifications of a list's name. I think the spirit of the policy is that names shouldn't lack concision or be confusing just for the sake of precision. Docsisbored (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Since I received mostly critical responses, I am going to assume there is not much interest in a move to titles like these. I will post the totality of my rationale here to see if anyone is interested after hearing all of it, but if not I will accept the consensus and move on from this discussion. I appreciate all the work editors of this article do by the way, this may be somewhat surprising but I actually love this article and only am so critical because I want it to be the best it can be. Here is my last sharing of my rationale:

Since the title doesn't mention "commonly" or "frequently", it could potentially be about a rough consensus among sources on what's the best, but it's actually about what games have been considered the best by enough sources to be notable. Since lists can implicitly reject games not on them as not the best (with a list of 100 games, it's quite likely some omissions of well-known games are intentional), this list can't be the other meaning, so the ambiguity isn't naturally resolved.

The title avoids mentioning something like "by publications" on the basis that that is implied, but it isn't quite implied. This article doesn't allow reader polls by trusted sources, which while shared by publications are the opinion of the general public. This article thus specifically describes the opinions of editorial staffs to the exclusion of the general public.

"Considered" is vague as well, and doesn't share that there's more to the criteria. This page doesn't accept individual articles considering games among the best, which is a way sources express what video games are best, and not including such opinions seems arbitrary.

WP:LISTNAME was brought up in response, that lists should not contain every little detail about their criteria. This is a good policy and I agree with it, but I think it has a specific purpose that is not able to cover all cases. It describes how for example, "List of people from the Isle of Wight" is better than "List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article". When looking at the differences in the latter title intuitively, I notice these issues:

1. It is very long, it is not concise

2. It is confusing to read, dizzying the reader with its precision

3. It mentions notability, which is noted to be unnecessary.

My personal takeaway from this is that list names should not specify their criteria in the title in a way that makes them lack concision, be confusing, or mention why their contents are notable, but I don't think it's a general condemnation of precise titles. As long as it's concise, readable, and without redundancy, I believe precision is good in wikipedia list titles. If the article was specifically people born on the Isle of Wight and no other cases, I would support "List of people born on the Isle of Wight".

That's why I personally suggest "List of video games often listed as the best" since that is precise but not notably longer than the current title. I think it's about on par with Naturalness as well, since realistically the current title isn't the most natural for readers compared to "List of the best video games" anyway, but that title isn't good for many reasons. Docsisbored (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Early closed. Requested moves are not a debating society. Please suggest a title that is better with reasons why. Nominator says "I have no strong feelings about any of these arguments, as I am okay with any title that sounds reasonable, which includes the current one." - if you have no strong feelings and think the current title is acceptable, then that's fine, but there's no need for a Requested Move discussion then. This isn't an RFC opening statement, we're looking for advocacy of some kind of change and what. If there's simply a desire to discuss the matter more, great, but discuss options first and open the RM afterward.

For the record, I have !voted on this topic before and thus am WP:INVOLVED, and will revert my close if someone wants to insist this is a problem. But honestly, it's probably better to just file a new RM anyway if you object - this closure does not stop another requested move. But please keep the above principles in mind to avoid wasting time - they're principles that apply to any requested move discussion, not just this page. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

---

List of video games considered the best → ? – I am making this off the suggestion of Docisbored (thank you for suggesting it!)

In the earlier discussion about the viability of this article, there were several suggestions that the name of the articles might need to be changed to better reflect the methodology used in the article. This has been argued to help with the framing of the content of the article, as it has by Indrian, where the intent of the article was argued to be obscured by the title, making the article more contentious than it needed to be. Previously, a proposal to move the article to "List of video games voted the best" was opposed, as voting was not a part of the article's methodology. IlmeniAVG suggested both "List of video games that have appeared frequently on greatest games lists" and "An overview of all-time greatest video games lists". Docisbored suggested "List of video games commonly ranked the best". These are only some possibilities, and I expect some more to be suggested in this discussion.

There has also been some discussion opposing a name change. ferret has said that, per WP:LISTNAME, the title does not need to be a detailed explanation of the subject of the list. Phediuk agreed, adding that the lede adequately explains the meaning of the title. cogsan described the title as "fine, if only by default.", arguing against "List of games notable for positive reception" as different from the article's intent and "List of games that have appeared frequently on greatest games lists" as both too decriptive and too vague.

I have no strong feelings about any of these arguments, as I am okay with any title that sounds reasonable, which includes the current one. Nevertheless, since there has been some discussion about the name and to assist Docisbored with their wish for a potential re-titling, I am opening this up to discussion. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is jumping the gun a bit, without some very clear alternatives that have garnered some support... but my stance hasn't really changed. Everything that tries to solve the imperfect nature of this article's name is, ultimately, trying to buck against LISTNAME and very verbosely describe the list criteria. Docisbored didn't really need assistance here yet, especially with an RM just failed and no chance for that discussion to develop towards a concrete alternative. -- ferret (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

close, preferably speedily. having one of those discussions every 15 seconds is only doing less and less for getting anyone to agree about anything of importance, and i think we should wait at least a month before trying something else cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

While I am interested in hearing ideas for the article name, and I appreciate that you supported my idea, I do think people need a bit of a break before another move request, and I somewhat worry going this quick will sour people on it before it's genuinely explored.

For the record, I suggested retitling a bit not because I disagree strongly with the current title but rather I think it could be bent towards a similar title that reduces disagreements in the future. I think there is likely a title that is not too wordy yet represents the article in a largely agreeable way. Docsisbored (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That said, I would possibly suggest:

List of video games commonly listed as the best Docsisbored (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page numbers for 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die

Andrzejbanas recently tried to tag the citation towards 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die with a Template:Page needed. In this specific scenario where the entire book is being cited, I don't really think that's practical, and its also not required. However, I do think it could be beneficial if someone with access to the book went through and added the page that each game appears on next to that games citation towards it, likely with Template:Rp as the easiest solution. If someone wants to do that, that could definitely help this page out. λ NegativeMP1 00:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

if anything specific was provided, which page(s) should it even be? would it just be "all of them lol", "1", whichever one comes after all the preamble...

either way, as rhain notes in this edit summary, it's not actually necessary to include specific pages, though it would help. then again, citing a whole book can be easily seen as the exception to this entire thing

also, does the event that led to this discussion count as an edit war? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is that a Template:Rp could be added to each time the books citation is used to specify what page a game appears on. Something like [2]. And yes, it's not required, but it could definitely help out with verification. λ NegativeMP1 00:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

could help on a citation-by-citation basis, while not being included when the whole book is being cited. it is a lot of citations of that book though, at least 5 to my count. maybe even more~ cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. As with how the page is set up currently, its not practically set up for page numbers, but that hardly makes it an excuse to not include them. That said one editor responded that nearly every page of the book is being cited. While that is not the case, the list of games articles on several web pages is stretched across various citations. I know this is complicated the way the page is set up, but as time goes on, this list will only get bigger, not smaller. Its probably best to nip this in the butt before it becomes worse of an issue. I'm frankly surprised anyone here thinks a book does not require a page number for a cite, as Help:References and page numbers and WP:BURDEN which states "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.". I have come across books that do not have page numbers before (only once when I've had to apply a large book to a citation), but Other than it makes things "hard", I'm not seeing any serious reason why we should be violating rules here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through and added the page numbers. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Great work, and thank you! Phediuk (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

I think some games should be added for some years like 2019 (ex. Sekiro) and 2020. Also, there is not a single video game for the year 2021, at least one video game should appear per year. MrWalterDisney (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Only if you find Reliable Sources. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 19:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see the criteria detailed at the top of this page, no games from 2021 qualify yet. λ NegativeMP1 19:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Jeux Video Network (2010) list

I can't find any discussions regarding this website's reliability, but it might be eligible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100312043951/https://www.jvn.com/jeux/articles/les-100-meilleurs-jeux-de-tous-les-temps.html IlmeniAVG (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Jeux Video has long been deemed reliable per WP:VG/S... but I'm curious, JVN is not the normal domain I've seen. Is this actually Jeux Video or a similarly named site? The copyright notice differs. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure they're the same source? The reliable source is JV or jeuxvideo.com whereas this is Jeux Video Network and jvn.com (it has since been taken over). I think they are separate, but nothing I found was definitive. IlmeniAVG (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking :P It seems to be a separate source so would need evaluated for reliability. Make the case at WP:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god how embarrassing. I didn't read past the first sentence. I thought the preview of your response that came with the notification was the entire response. Sorry about that. I'm tired.

Yes, I will bring it up at WP:VG/S when I get the chance. IlmeniAVG (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I realized it wasn't Jeux Video and made edits to my message. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up this list. However, I have been unable to view most of it. Here is all that seems to be recorded in the Wayback Machine:

Jeux Video Network, 2009 (incomplete)

1. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 20. Silent Hill 2 76. Wings (1990) 77. Rez 78. Colin McRae Rally 79. DEFCON 80. Final Fantasy X 81. Super Mario Bros. 3 82. Little Big Adventure 83. Kingdom Hearts 84. Final Fantasy Tactics 85. Braid 86. Secret of Mana 87. Secret of Evermore 88. Ninja Gaiden (2004) 89. Halo 3 90. Gears of War 91. Prince of Persia (1989) 92. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty 93. Loom 94. Lunar: The Silver Star 95. Pilotwings 96. Shadow Hearts: Covenant 97. Ganbare Goemon 2 (SNES) 98. Team Fortress 2 99. Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution 100. Wing Commander II

The site seems not to have not created a page that summarizes the list; instead, it named every entry on a different page, so everything that was not saved by the Internet Archive (73 of out 100 pages, in this case) may be lost, unless there is an alternate URL (or set of URLs) on which a record survives. Phediuk (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an "images" section below each entry. I believe is it a collection of images used in the article, though I'm not sure. The first 25 pages of images have been archived. The images themselves don't always load, but their titles do. Here are those titles:

GTA 3, Super Mario Bros, Monkey Island, Dead Space, Civilization, Batman Arkham Asylum, Ghouls-n-Ghosts, Fallout 2, PES 5, Gran Turismo 4, Resident Evil Code Veronica, Warcraft 3, Silent Hill 3, Vice City, Shenmue, Sega Rally, Okami, Landstalker, KOF 98, ISS Pro Evolution, FF8, Dune 2, Another World, Final Fantasy 12, Day of the Tentacle, Chrono Cross, Half-Life 2, God of War, Flashback, Mario Kart DS, Halo, Street Fighter 4, Morrowind, Left 4 Dead, Castlevania, Streets of Rage, Ico, Bioshock, Modern Warfare, Starcraft, World of Warcraft, GTA 4, Quake 3, Resident Evil 4, Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid, Mario 64, Final Fantasy 6, Final Fantasy 7, Deus Ex, Diablo 2, San Andreas, Silent Hill 2.

The lack of overlap with the known titles is strange and concerning, but it's the best I can do for now. IlmeniAVG (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it! I reached out to PlayThatGame and asked if they would kindly pass on their transcription. I'm not sure if that's enough to be considered reliable, but here it is: (I don't know how to make it collapsible, sorry!)

1| Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

2| Half-Life

3| Resident Evil

4| Super Mario 64

5| Metal Gear Solid

6| Super Mario Kart

7| Deus Ex

8| Diablo II

9| Tetris

10| Resident Evil 4

11| Final Fantasy VII

12| Super Mario World

13| Shadow of the Colossus

14| Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

15| Final Fantasy VI

16| Metal Gear Solid 3

17| Uncharted 2

18| Street Fighter II

19| Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

20| Silent Hill 2

21| StarCraft

22| BioShock

23| World of Warcraft

24| Grand Theft Auto IV

25| Quake III

26| Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

27| Ico

28| Streets of Rage

29| Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

30| Left 4 Dead

31| God of War

32| Street Fighter IV

33| Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

34| Maniac Mansion: Day of the Tentacle

35| Halo

36| Mario Kart DS

37| Final Fantasy XII

38| Flashback

39| Half-Life 2

40| Chrono Cross

41| Final Fantasy VIII

42| King of Fighters 98

43| Landstalker

44| Okami

45| SEGA Rally Championship

46| Shenmue

47| Another World / Out of This World

48| Dune II

49| ISS Pro Evolution

50| Silent Hill 3

51| Warcraft III

52| Dead Space

53| Batman: Arkham Asylum

54| Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

55| Pro Evolution Soccer 5

56| Sid Meier’s Civilization

57| Fallout 2

58| Ghouls n Ghosts

59| Gran Turismo 4

60| Resident Evil: Code Veronica

61| Super Mario Bros.

62| Suikoden II

63| Super Mario Galaxy

64| Tomb Raider (1996)

65| Wipeout 2097

66| Secret of Monkey Island

67| Xenogears

68| Advance Wars

69| DOOM

70| Final Fantasy IX

71| Grand Theft Auto III

72| Puzzle Bobble / Bust-a-Move

73| Skies of Arcadia

74| Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

75| Star Wars Galaxies

76| Wings

77| Rez

78| Colin McRae Rally

79| Defcon

80| Final Fantasy X

81| Super Mario Bros. 3

82| Little Big Adventure

83| Kingdom Hearts

84| Final Fantasy Tactics

85| Braid

86| Secret of Mana

87| Secret of Evermore

88| Ninja Gaiden (XBOX)

89| Halo 3

90| Gears of War

91| Prince of Persia

92| Metal Gear Solid 2

93| Loom

94| Lunar Silver Star

95| Pilotwings

96| Shadow Hearts Covenant

97| Ganbare Goemon 2

98| Team Fortress 2

99| Virtua Fighter 4

100| Wing Commander II IlmeniAVG (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Parade magazine updated

We currently use their 2023 list in the article. They have also now published a 2024 list, which can be found here. The list should be updated to use both versions. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I can confirm this list is identical to their 2023 list; whatever updates they made to it did not affect the selections or order. Phediuk (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Rolling Stone - The 50 Greatest Video Games of All Time

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/rs-gaming-lists/best-video-games-of-all-time-1235215978/

Published today--seems to be a new list as I didn't see any previous Rolling Stone list cited. 38.142.6.114 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The list is RS, staff-chosen, framed as "greatest games", and unrestricted by platform/era/genre, so it looks good to go. I have transcribed the list below:

Rolling Stone, 2025

1. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2. Tetris 3. Grand Theft Auto V 4. Super Mario World 5. The Last of Us 6. Half-Life 2 7. Metal Gear Solid 8. Final Fantasy VII 9. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 10. Super Metroid 11. Halo: Combat Evolved 12. World of Warcraft 13. Doom (1993) 14. Street Fighter II 15. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16. Red Dead Redemption 2 17. Diablo II 18. Madden NFL 2004 19. Baldur's Gate III 20. Mario Kart 64 21. Fallout 3 22. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 23. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 24. The Sims 25. Stardew Valley 26. Mass Effect 2 27. Resident Evil 4 (2005) 28. Minecraft 29. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves 30. Wii Sports 31. Counter-Strike 32. Ms. Pac-Man 33. NBA 2K11 34. Hollow Knight 35. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 36. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate 37. Pokemon Gold and Silver 38. Shadow of the Colossus (2005) 39. God of War (2018) 40. Chrono Trigger 41. Metroid Prime 42. Batman: Arkham City 43. Celeste 44. Elden Ring 45. Fortnite 46. League of Legends 47. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 48. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 49. Hades 50. Animal Crossing: New Horizons

If there are no objections, I will incorporate this list shortly. Entries for Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, Celeste, and Animal Crossing: New Horizons will be added to the main page. Phediuk (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. I have also added the Rolling Stone list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Visualized list has been updated to reflect this new list. BenSVE (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Which games are now at five entries, after this list? Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hollow Knight and Baldur's Gate III. Phediuk (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Original binding of issac?

I Think That TBOI Should be add to the list 85.106.111.198 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, however, the game doesn't meet the criteria to be added to this page. According to the spreadsheet, The Binding of Isaac is about half-way there with three listings out of the six required. λ NegativeMP1 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The count should be four, unless you're not counting Rebirth. The original appeared on two Slant lists (2018 and 2020), two GLHF lists (USA Today 2022 / Sports Illustrated 2023), and one Game Informer list (2018). As for Rebirth, it's on Gameswelt (2016). I haven't double checked that, but that's what's in my notes.

It was also mentioned on Hyper's 2018 list, which I personally consider to be a legitimate greatest games list, but this page does not. And it was mentioned on two GameStar lists, which are ineligible due to them being limited to PC games. I understand why these don't count and I won't argue that they should, but they are still competitive lists, and I think a human reading of this data would conclude that The Binding of Issac has at least as much data behind it as other games here. IlmeniAVG (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I was not counting Rebirth. λ NegativeMP1 18:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2025

Add Roblox because it is a popular game. ImWasnot (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Heart ^(talk) 04:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Baldur's Gate 3

I don't know how to work this absolutely heinous citation stuff at 11PM, but I found six publications listing it as the best of all time.

[1]MSN/The Quick Report

[2]ScreenRant

[3]LinkedIn Pulse

[4]Dextero

[5]Rolling Stone

[6]USA today

So whoever removed my edit, change it back. I don't know how to use the absolutely horrific looking citation stuff for this list, hence why I didn't add them the first time. But here they are. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The Quick Report does not appear to be reliable, and the LinkedIn list is just one developer's personal opinion. Baldur's Gate 3 is already at five entries; it won't be long before it's at six and added to the list. In future, if you're not sure how to add a reference, consider making a suggestion on the talk page first instead. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

How isn't The Quick Report reliable? I think the LinkedIn Pulse list is acceptable too, that ain't a "throw up whatever you want" disposal dump place. That's 7 since I've missed one. If you don't think the LinkedIn Pulse thing is acceptable, surely there's nothing wrong with The Quick Report.

Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The Quick Report looks more like a content farm than a reliable journalistic outlet, but its reliability would need to be evaluated at WP:VG/S first regardless; I couldn't find a discussion about it anywhere. LinkedIn Pulse is literally just a blog service and considered unreliable; anyone with an account can post anything there. The list itself is interesting, especially consider its author's reputation, but it's still just one guy's blog. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should Banjo-Kazooie be added to the list?

Hello,

I noticed that Banjo-Kazooie is missing from the “List of video games considered the best.” This feels like an oversight, considering the game is frequently featured on various “best games” lists. For instance:

1. IGN ranked Banjo-Kazooie in their “Top 100 Games of All Time” multiple times over the years.

2. GamesRadar included it in their “Best N64 Games of All Time” list, highlighting its influence and legacy.

3. Nintendo Life has also acknowledged Banjo-Kazooie as a standout title for its platforming gameplay and charm.

Given its critical acclaim and its place in gaming history, I believe Banjo-Kazooie meets the criteria for inclusion on this list. I’d like to know if others agree and what additional sources might be necessary to support this addition.

Thank you! CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please consult the FAQ for inclusion criteria. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

more games to add to the list

Add these games in their respective years:

Vampire Survivors 2022 Baldurs Gate 2023 Black Myth Wukong 2024 Balatro 2024

In the future consider adding highly rated games to the list from steam reviews, based on players’ experience, enjoyment and popularity. Hades is one of the highest rated games on steam, why not vampire survivors?

PS. You havent added a game from 2023 yet so Baldurs Gate 3 is a good start. Also no other card games on the list besides Hearthstone, consider Balatro for being able to go up against triple A titles and be nominated during the Game Awards in 2024

Links: https://steamdb.info/stats/gameratings/ https://steam250.com/2024 AroYang (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the suggestions. Unfortunately, none of these meet the page criteria. Please see the FAQ. λ NegativeMP1 02:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2025

Please include Dead Space 2, Assassin's Creed Revelations and Need For Speed Most Wanted (2005) in the list of best video games ever made. 2405:201:A805:B1BA:E6B6:4F7A:EC19:A4C (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 not done. this is the list of games considered "the best", as opposed to a list of "best games pretty much ever" (the difference being that the latter would imply wikipedia thinks they're the best, which would violate wp:npov), so even if such a list existed, you'd be in the wrong place. additionally, you'd need sources for their reception consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 13:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Cuphead

Many sources and reviews consider Cuphead as one of the best video games ever 2605:B100:D21:8741:1598:A672:7E8E:7C61 (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Many, yes—but not six "best of" lists, which is required for inclusion here per the FAQ. It's listed on two so far. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2025

Add both Marvel's Spider-man (2018) and Detroit Become Human (2018) to this list of the greatest video games of all time KingDeanII (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done See the FAQ at the top of this talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)