Poll: Game Informer's 'Top 200 Games' List, BS?

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

200 is extremely comprehensive for a list of top games and for the most part, it really does cover most of the great games that come to mind. Placement on the list is largely subjective and for this discussion (or any discussion about top games) should be irrelevant.

My only gripe with this list is how they list almost every Mario game ever made (including things like Dr. Mario-- I mean why does a fucking Tetris ripoff deserve a spot on this list?) and omit some truly revolutionary sequels. Devil May Cry 3 was an amazing improvement over the original (and I mean that in a loving manner). The same goes for the Ninja Gaiden sequels which, as far as I'm concerned, are a completely different franchise from the NES versions.

Also, how the fuck did they forget "Katamari Damacy"?

 

[ClaptonKnophlerHendrix]

49-Guitar Hero
73-Rock Band 2

Bullshit.

Both games were made by Harmonix and RB2 improved on GH in every way possible.

I think the point is that guitar hero was the orignal innovation which lead the way for the rest, besides I think GH has better songs then RB2.

 

[odBilal]

82- Left 4 Dead
84- Shadow of the Colossuss

This is BS

 

[Jenkins]

No Psychonauts.

BGAE: 200.

Portal: 100.

No. Just no.

The list loses credibility for Beyond Good & Evil even being on it... art assets be damned, the gameplay of it is throwing switches to open doors and pressing A rapidly to defeat enemies.

Portal, 100?

Seriously?

Seriously?!

The Sims did better than Portal?!

(Also, has any one noticed "The Elder Scrols IV, Oblivious" in there?)

Uhhh... that's kind of an obvious one, given what The Sims did to expand the demographic interested in games.

49-Guitar Hero
73-Rock Band 2

Bullshit.

Both games were made by Harmonix and RB2 improved on GH in every way possible.

Uhhh... except it wasn't as original? Final Fantasy IX has better graphics, music, etc. than the first Final Fantasy; it's still a worse game.

No I don't agree, what's so good about "Bully" to put it on the top 200?
I also don't think that sports sims (gold football etc) should be in the list, neither should MMO's as people before have said

Why should whole genres be discluded at random? The Sensible World of Soccer is a vastly better game than Call of Duty 4, and Everquest is far more influential than, say, Metroid Prime.

10 -- Ms. Pac-Man (coin-op, 1981)

52 -- Pac-Man (coin-op, 1980)

This alone renders it BS.

Agreed. Plus the absence of so many early, important titles (Pit Fall, Pac-Land, Alpha Waves, etc).

umm, GTA III should NOT be that high up, it deserves like a mid 100-200 rating.

I think you're trying way too hard to be cool, and need to try harder.

I hate it when people say that classics are best. A game is not good just because it did something first ppl!

Actually it is, sorry.

Critics need to go crawl in a ditch and die so the new generation can take over. These old games simply do not stand up to modern games in any way 85% of the time.

Name one person you know that enjoys Tetris more than they do Modern Warfare 2. Now note that their opinion is invalid because they're in the minority. New games are simply better.

If criticism were just a popularity contest, there'd be no need for it, as it'd just be performing the same job sales do. As it stands, game critics are tasked with preserving the history of the medium in spite of relative consumer disinterest (when compared to the present) and scrutinizing the playability and innovativeness of new releases.

...Obviously something can only be assessed in relation to its time. So to call a game "great", for journalistic purposes, is to rationally do just that: evaluate it in context and compare it to games that both preceded and succeeded it.

I was being completely honest when I said that, stop trying to act degrade other people.

 

[RealLifev2.0.09]

I voted I thought the list was BS based on one thing. I think Top (something) of all time lists mean that #1 is currently here and now the best at what it is intended to do. In my opinion, any video game's greatest purpose is to entertain. By this standard, I reject the notion that nostalgic games are better then new games because they were once great.

Here are some examples:

Spear < Firearm
Firearms are much easier to teach a fighting force to use in warfare and are also much more effective on a grand scale. (This is assuming the target is not directly in front of you with the spear pointing at there heart.) Just because a spear came from ancient man doesn't make it the "Top Weapon of all time!"

Horse < Airplane
Judging them purely based on there effectiveness in traveling from point A to B the airplane is going to be more effective. An airplane can carry far more people over much greater distances at faster travel times then that of a horse. (Much like the spear this is assuming point B isn't 1 foot in front of you.)

This doesn't mean that an old game cannot be good or could not be on the top 10 but it should only be so if it still is more entertaining (by popular opinion of course) then any game in existence.

I refuse to believe that the original Legend of Zelda is more entertaining then Ocarina of Time.

 

[traceur_]

What the fuck are tetris and ms. pac-man doing on that list?! They can not honestly think that a game that makes you move blocks around and one that makes you eat yellow dots are good in any way, but actually better than Final Fantasy 10?!

This is bullshit.

 

[willard3]

It's too marred by it's adherence to tradition over innovation.

About 99% of all "best games evar" lists stick to this formula, and it kind of pisses me off. You need to define what "best" means, which COULD mean influential or innovative for the time. But unfortunately these list-makers just use every available definition, lump them all together, and go with the nostalgia factor above and beyond anything else.

 

[traceur_]

I hate it when people say that classics are best. A game is not good just because it did something first ppl!

Actually it is, sorry.

Bull.

By today's standards, all of those "nostalgia games" are crap. The original King Kong movie was good in it's time but by today's standards it is shit. Saying that things are good just because they were good at the time of their release is just wrong.

Think of the first racing game, it was probably considered good when it was released. When you compare it to any racing game of today, it is complete shit, so does it still deserve its original status? No. That's like saying that the catapult is as good as the Rail Gun.

 

[traceur_]

Critics need to go crawl in a ditch and die so the new generation can take over. These old games simply do not stand up to modern games in any way 85% of the time.

Name one person you know that enjoys Tetris more than they do Modern Warfare 2. Now note that their opinion is invalid because they're in the minority. New games are simply better.

I mostly agree with you but I disagree with you when you say the tetris lover's opinion is invalid at all, let alone just because they're the minority. The opinion itself is still perfectly valid even though tetris is inferior to MW2 by modern standards.

 

[Credge]

181 -- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3/360/PC, 2009)

Seeing as how the game just came out, this even being on the list is absurd.

 

[RealLifev2.0.09]

181 -- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3/360/PC, 2009)

Seeing as how the game just came out, this even being on the list is absurd.

yeah I agree with that statement, it is far too new to be scrutinized for its overall entertainment value.

 

[Keepitclean]

i'd agree with most things on there but i dont like the placings of them san andreas, halo 1 and oblivion need to be higher

i didnt see mass effect that was awesome and ther eis no foza games that i can see
all 1, 2 and 3 are awesome way better than any gran turismo

 

[Commander Jack Rankin]

Much as I loved Punch Out, I call no way. Topping Chrono Trigger and Super Metroid? I don't think so.

 

[AdambotLive]

Epic.


Fail.

 

[asam92]

As far as the list itself is fine, the order of it is just all wrong
Here is a few things I picked up on
1. If Ocarina of Time is not in the top 5 games, there is something wrong
2. The fact that Jak 3 is all the way in 193 is just wrong, top 30 game for sure
3. Why the hell is GTA 4 on the list at all, the PS2 GTA's (all of them) are way better
4. Chrono Trigger I can agree with, the fact that Secret of Mana isnt just behind it is just wrong
5. Bully, Chronicles of Riddick EFBB, NHL 09, Zork and MoH Allied Assault just to name a few are total BS to be on the list
6. The fact that they put Gran Turismo on but not Gran Turismo 3 WTF?
7. There is way too many Zelda games on here, I love Zelda, but obviously not as much as these guys do. Links Awakening? Wind Waker? Come on? Really?

 

[Kollega]

Well, you can't really do such a list. It's too damn subjective. There's the problems of personal likes and dislikes vs. public acclaim, perfection vs. innovation, and story vs. gameplay, for starters. I say it's BS, just because you can't legitimately make an all-encompassing list of "BEST-GAMES-EVAR". But at the very least, Ratchet & Clank are up there.

It'd be better without ranking, actually. And with franchises taking one spot.

 

[likalaruku]

I won't rate it untill it's either put in chronological or alphabetical order. My brain is lazy right now....wait, they have Age of Empires 1 outranking Baldurs Gate II. I call BS. I don't see Neverwinter Nights on this list either, & it's one of the best story-driven games ever.