Talk:List of video games considered the best

Discrepancies between omnibus data and VideoGameCanon

I've only checked a few lists but so far I've noticed the following discrepancies:

1. Hardcore Gaming 101's Punch-Out!! entry. VideoGameCanon has this as Punch-Out!! (2009) whereas this article has it as Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! I have this book (specifically, the updated version) and I can confirm that VideoGameCanon is correct: it should be for Punch-Out!! (2009).

2. Game Informer (2018). The omnibus data has 26. Super Mario World, whereas VideoGameCanon has 26. Super Mario 3D world. I can't check this myself as I don't have that issue, but, given that the the above entry is wrong, I think this should be checked.

3. Electric Playground Network (2013). The omnibus data has 38. Final Fantasy (series) whereas VideoGameCanon has it as 38. Final Fantasy VI, VII, X, and XII. I personally interpret it as being for Final Fantasy VI alone, but the video is still available so you can check for yourselves (I can't post a link here as YouTube is blocked). I wouldn't be surprised of there are other discrepancies for this list as many entries are ambiguous.

If I find any more, I will post them here. IlmeniAVG (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right about HG101, so I've removed it. I'm confident that our Game Informer entry is correct, but it couldn't hurt to check. Electric Playground Network's entry is actually focused on Final Fantasy III, but they also talk about VII, X, and XII ; I'd say the omnibus listing is appropriate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering that this article does not count series entries as mentions for any specific games within the series, I think it makes more sense to count Electric Playground Network's Final Fantasy entry as a mention for Final Fantasy VI (Final Fantasy III is the North American title), and perhaps some of the other mentioned games as well. This article currently does not consider Electric Playground Network to have highlighted Final Fantasy VI as one of the best games of all time. I'm not sure if I would consider it an official mention for the other highlighted games, but I think that is clearly incorrect to say that Electric Playground Network didn't mention Final Fantasy VI. IlmeniAVG (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Since EPN's entry is about the series, I personally don't think it should be added for VI on this list (and certainly not for VII, X, or XII). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a reasonable interpretation, though I'm still leaning in the direction of it being for VI alone. I'll quote the parts that make me think that in case anyone else want to weigh in, but I won't push it any more after this.

Scott Jones: "Final Fantasy has arrived on our list of the 100 greatest video games of all time. It is number 38, and we are specifically talking about Final Fantasy III, but we are reserving the right to also talk about VII and XII."

Victor Lucas: "I remember loving III though, for the Super Nintendo, the most..."

It's also worth mentioning that the list text shows "38. Final Fantasy III", though there's often a discrepancy between the list text and the video presentation, so I wouldn't take this as conclusive. Beyond these quotes, the presentation definitely is about the series. IlmeniAVG (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phediuk, might wanna check on this... Carlinal (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have updated the omnibus data to correct the Punch-Out!! discrepancy. The Electric Playground entry is ambiguous; the video description identifies the entry as simply "Final Fantasy", while the list graphic in the video says "Final Fantasy III". I do not have Game Informer #300 on-hand to confirm the Mario World/3D World conundrum, though I can order it online if need be. For what it's worth, I have located three different transcriptions that all place Super Mario World there, not 3D World. Also, this video, which reads the whole list from the actual magazine out loud, also says "Super Mario World" there (skip to 23:57). Phediuk (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that ordering the magazine online is necessary. I'd be sceptical of just the transcriptions as it's always possible that they are copies of the same transcription rather than independent transcriptions. But the video is definitive: they are reading from the actual magazine and it's Super Mario World. Thanks for tracking that down. IlmeniAVG (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phediuk Just pinging you instead of creating a new topic. I hope that's OK.

I have found some more errors in the omnibus data. First, there are a couple of issues with the Hyper (1999) list. Both Doom and Civilization should be series entries. I have a pdf of the magazine and, while it's hard to read, "Series" is visible in very light letters.

This is not technically an error, but something else that you may want to consider changing is the Warcraft entry. It is officially a series entry (the omnibus data also has it as a series entry), but the blurb reads, "The first Warcraft had potential but not a lot of sparkle. It was functional, and people played it, but it paled in the shadow of Warcraft II."

Finally, the Edge (2000) should have Gran Turismo 2 in 5th place, not Gran Turismo. Again, this is based on a pdf of the original magazine. IlmeniAVG (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I checked the Hyper (1999) issue myself, and you are right that the word "series" is present for both the Doom and Civilization entries; I must have missed them the first time around due to how hard the white letters are to see against the already-light background. I have corrected the main page and the omnibus data. Good catch with Gran Turismo 2 in the Edge (2000) list, also; I have checked the issue myself and can confirm your finding. However, Warcraft is listed as a series entry in both the Hyper (1999) omnibus data and the issue itself, so it will stay as-is. Phediuk (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phediuk One more. Power Unlimited has "52. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory en Castle Wolfenstein", i.e. a dual entry for Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The Omnibus data currently only has Enemy Territory listed. IlmeniAVG (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks. Phediuk (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Phediuk This will definitely be the last one as I'm done checking my own lists now. Anyway, I've got one definite error and one possible error in the Yahoo (2005) list.

The definite error is 14. WarioWare GBA. The article cites WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgames! as appearing in this list, but the date and the screenshot both match WarioWare: Twisted. The screenshot is of the minigame Cutting It Close, which does not appear in Mega Microgames!, and the 2004 release date matches the Japanese release of Twisted! (Mega Microgames! was released in 2003, worldwide).

The possible error is 72. FIFA Soccer. The release date matches FIFA Soccer 96 (they may also have assumed, incorrectly, that the "95" in "FIFA Soccer 95" referred to its release date), but the screenshot is clearly from the original. The advertising barriers are the giveaway; they're different in 95 and 96). Up to you what you want to do with this one, but I've recorded it as the original in my own data, albeit with an asterisk. IlmeniAVG (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Phediuk (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

ScreenRant updated

The 40 Best Games Of All Time (screenrant.com) Discess Alena 33 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Screen Rant added five additional entries to their list, bringing it from 35 to 40 games. They are as follows:

36. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

37. Portal 2

38. Grand Theft Auto IV

39. Diablo II

40. Death Stranding

I have added these to the main page, and to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Top 100 Updated along with other recent Omnibus data changes

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DW-2yjPbKkdj4qaIkE85VsT1T2uhDwxsPn70kfuHimw/edit XJJSX (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

missing data

I know there are too many games to be picked for years 2020-23, I just want to suggest adding Subnautica if it is available on any top games list Vadno (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems it has been named on one list at present, so I'm afraid it might be some time before it is added here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Just read your reply. Seriously, some of the best games have been missing from this list, especially on the years 2020 to present

Also, how do you even add these games from the list and what site have y'all been basing it on? Might be able to help Vadno (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There's an FAQ atop this talk page that should be able to answer your questions. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

XBOX ONE ORI

Not sure it has already been evaluated, but I was really surprised not to find it here. It has always received tremendous (positive) reviews... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.194.183 (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Read the Learn More About This Page info icon to learn how adding games works please. XJJSX (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We don't "evaluate" games here; we simply add them once they're named by six publications, per the FAQ. Ori and the Blind Forest has been named by five (and Will of the Wisps by one), so I assume it will reach the threshold at some stage. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Some have stayed at five for a long time, though, so maybe not. :p 100.16.223.83 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

I do find it surprising that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is not listed in this article as I'm sure there must be a number of ranking lists from reliable sources that include the game, it essentially being as equally revered as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (if perhaps having even less innovation). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Surprisingly, it has only been named by four publications, one of which was only this year. Perhaps we will see some new entries as nostalgia grows, but I fear it might be some time. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yars Revenge

I am very surprised that this game is not on the list. Surely it belong? 80.198.18.220 (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems it only shows up on one list so far, that being Flux (1995). -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition of best expansion packs of all time

I feel that it would be a good idea to add a section dedicated to DLCs and Expansion packs that are commonly regarded as among the best of all time. Since this is what Wikipedia refers to certain expansions such as Shivering Isles and Undead Nightmare as, then we should be able to have objective standards for such a list. Officer Memes (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It would probably have to be a separate Wikipedia page. There’s also probably far fewer reputable video game websites that have greatest expansions lists so the page may not have a lot to work with, at least initially. XJJSX (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily need to start as a separate page if it only includes a few entries. If we can source at least 10 or 15 of them, then I'd support it's inclusion/creation. Ideally, the entries there would have their own Wiki articles but being cited as among the best of its type should serve as a great article idea to work on. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

---

List of video games considered the best → List of video games voted the best – Influenced by the discussion at Talk:List_of_films_voted_the_best#Requested_move_13_June_2024, I'm proposing a similar change here. The inclusion criteria are, and have for a long time been, that a video game in question must have been voted the best in a notable poll. The lead states that The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications The proposed new title better reflects the actual contents of the list as being pulled from polls from journalists and publications. As we can't quantize something like "the best", this title is more neutral and better reflects what the lead and list suggest and contain. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Nomimator's statement of the criteria used is simply incorrect. These aren't polls. In fact, this list specifically excludes reader polls. These are critic opinions, instead, sometimes with just one author. And the neutraility complaint makes no sense - the word "considered" in the title already clearly indicates opinions. This is a neutral, factual recounting of the opinions of authors and journalists. No neutrality problems here. SnowFire (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: To clarify, I never implied these were polls from audiences, these are either polled from critics. If we are polling from individual critics or poll, that should probably be clarified on how this is tabulated as regardless of the statement, a best of list, regardless how it is formed, it not an accurate way to decipher how an any work is received as "best", "worst" or any description. This would still make the intro description inaccurate and non-neutral. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

    eh? is this an implication that wikipedia's doing the voting? that's the most conclusive thing i got from it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Per SnowFire. While I might be open to some alternative names, the proposal would move the article to a less accurate title, as this article is not restricted to, or even primarily built on, polls and votes. This is not a list of games that have been 'voted' on. Nor does the highlighted statement from the lead indicate it is. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Misleading; we do not know whether the contributors to these publications conducted a vote to decide their rankings or used some other form of selection. -insert valid name here- (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

oppose. critics consider them the best, as opposed to those opinions coming from polls or whatever. the sources word them like opinions from said critics, as opposed to saying that "we" created the roblox oof. the article says that's the case, though it does provide a metacritic link at the bottom in case anyone feels like going there. should be enough to let the average reader know that those aren't votes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Straight up misleading and a blatant lie.

λ NegativeMP1 19:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There is a big misunderstanding to what I am proposing. To clarify, the way this list is tabulated was I presumed polls from magazines who polled their staff. Not readers or our own opinions. Furthermore, as @SnowFire: said some lists are from individual critics. This creates an imbalance in the list. Some are from individuals who can pick and choose what is on their list, the others are formed neutrally through polls of their staff while others are from individuals. Applying both with equally is not a valid representation. Furthermore, the way this is tabulated causes inconsistencies. For example, Combat is included on the list. However, in the reception section in that article, the game was considered very poor quality. It can not be "considered" the best under this kind of headline. My proposal would be to reformat how lists are applied as one list created simply through polls from staff would be neutral, and halt inconsistencies and match my proposed title. Otherwise, the current list title can not possibly be consistent with any sort of tabulation under its current rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If you'd like to change how the list works, it should be discussed on the talk page separately; merely making a move discussion for this purpose seems like a case of the XY problem. -insert valid name here- (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You are right. I'll move this point to a separate section. Regardless, I do believe the responses to the topic at hand have still been misinterpreting my understanding of what was being lifted and how it was applied. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You've just made statements that are inaccurate to the scope and list criteria of the article. You cite the lead as evidence this is a list of games 'voted' on, but it does not say that, not even mentioning polling (which is not voting). It is a list of games that appeared on "best of" lists by various publications, not bounded by whether those were polls, votes, or some other collaborative form of ranking. As such, the proposed name is simply wrong for the article. Whether there are other changes needed to the list criteria is a perennial discussion on this talk page, never ending. -- ferret (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

(Regarding Combat, I think your reading of that reception section is way off... It mentions rather glowing reviews, that five years later, retrospectively, the game was seen in a poorer light, but going on to denote a general lasting impression as a quality game and placing on numerous best of lists, some of which aren't even used here) -- ferret (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The Combat sentences aren't good reasoning at all. Adding to what ferret said, Combat's note of poor graphics (among other flaws) was only in retrospect, but a) Combat was well-received from its initial release, and b) Those retrospectives do not deny Combat as one of the greatest despite its outdatedness. I mean, your sentences are almost ridiculous...should we suggest that Super Mario 64 be removed from here because its camera mechanics are crap, or that EarthBound be removed because of its confusing initial launch in the States? It's safe to assume every game on every list here was considered professionally no matter their flaws, major or minor.

Also, to kill the question before it's brought up, this article should not be defined by scored reviews either. I elaborated on this at a previous criteria discussion. Carlinal (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have said, calling it "votes" would be misleading at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose "votes" implies there's some hard criteria. If an alternative name were to be made, I'd suggest "List of video games notable for positive reception" to mirror the opposite page, but I think the current title of "best" is appropriate and shouldn't really be changed. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  hmmst'd... i don't think moving to "(list of) video games notable for positive reception" would work either, as it could easily and reasonably turn into a devolver/new blood fan page (if for good reason). then again, this is a weak oppose to that idea, seeing as those games slap- i mean, there are reliable sources about said games, and it can overlap with the games listed here, plus ultrakill :) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: "votes" would be a misleading title. Miiversal (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this isn't exactly a vote. I understand the spirit of the suggestion and the article is misleading in some ways. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the title is misleading but I don't think the suggested title is an improvement. I would suggest something along the lines of, "List of games that have appeared frequently on greatest games lists." This avoids what I believe is the biggest problem with the current title, which is that there are a number of valid ways to determine that a game is considered among the best by reliable sources, but only one is accepted by this article (for example, if a reliable source says that a game is among the greatest of all time in prose, then that does not count for this article). This would also, as an added bonus, lend credibility to the current requirement of six sources, as a common sense understanding of the word "frequently" implies a greater number than "multiple", which could mean as low as two. IlmeniAVG (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the sources in the article are votes, so this title doesn't work. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:33, 4 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.

List fails several wiki rules

Per the suggestion from @-insert valid name here-:, the criteria for the fails several rule standards of wikipedia.

• WP:SYNTH Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. While it is true that we have found in a games that appear on three, six, or a dozen lists, suggesting this be applied as "considered the best" fails the above rule as it "would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion" While discussions have been brought up in the past mentioning this here there did not seem to be any reason why this was still advocated.
• Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, "Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." in short, the regulation for being on at least six lists appears is not viable for list criteria because there is no standard within the video game industry or even media that this is how greatness is deterred.
• Also per WP:LISTCRITERIA, the material included must be "unambiguous". There is no group consensus on how the a video game is defined as "the best". The criteria from our sources applied have their own variables: Some works such as the Age applied restrictions such as "games have been judged on their entertainment value today rather than their impact when released." while the GameSpot source which state that their list had great games that were "hugely innovative, or a simple idea brilliantly executed, occasionally it's the best of its breed, and some games are complete originals." Some sources simply just start listing games with no context to how the list was organized while others such as GameSpy state their list includes votes from people within the game industry. Our list at the top stating this is applied from "multiple video game journalists or magazines" is false as it draws from numerous sources, some that have no context to how or who was included in the data.

This material has been brought up in the past here and here. But currently, the lists organization is not stating what it claims and it no grounds of being tabulated in the way its been agreed upon per the rules mentioned above. It needs either some form of standardization, or this article should probably not exist. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the thoughts. I will address all three of your points. First, WP:SYNTH is not a problem here, as the page's sole claim is that each of the games on the page are listed among the best of all time by multiple RSes, and defines "multiple" as six. If a game is listed on such a list, it is, by definition, considered one of the best of all time by that publication; there is no conclusion being drawn here that does not reflect the sources. The source threshold is solely a means to control the page's length, along similar lines as, for example, the 20-review threshold on List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, or the 50-entry limit on List of best-selling video games. Regarding the second point, there is a standard method for determining the best games of all time across a wide swathe of RSes, and you can see it for yourself on this page, with the huge number of RSes that have produced "best games of all time" lists in a similar format. This page reflects that format's demonstrably wide usage. Regarding the third point, the page is indeed limited to lists that unambiguously define the games they list as the greatest or best of all time; there is no conflict on that front. Sources have differing ideas on what "best" means, and that is fine, as long as they still consider their choices to represent the best games. The "numerous sources" you mention are all RSes, sometimes soliciting opinion from industry figures and experts, meaning that they are all chosen by people with relevant credentials, and not just user polls. In short, the page's format reflects a single claim for each game -- i.e., that multiple RSes list it as one of the best of all time, in lists devoted to that purpose -- and every entry fulfills those criteria. As such, I do not agree with your objections. Thanks again for the post. Phediuk (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Just because any other article does this, does not mean our application of it breaks the suggested rules. As we are still original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. J, there is no criteria that it has appeared in so many lists that its now considered applicable as "great" or even "considered great" because we are applying rules chosen by the editors of wikipedia. So you can't say "this page solely does this" when the title of the page is not match the content as there is no standard rule for what could or could not qualify. As for having the rule of six to counteract the length, that is not a valid reason. WP:SPLITLIST and WP:NCSPLITLIST suggest splitting a table if the list is long, not applying our own arbitrary rules. So regardless, the list description is faulty as some lists do not state who or how lists are tabulated and saying it games from magazines and jouranlists is plainly untrue. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. A few things here: first, requiring multiple sources for a claim does not violate WP rules -- on the contrary, it is encouraged for contentious claims, such as a particular game being considered one of the best ever. At the same time, policy does not define what "multiple" means, so we may determine such. This page claims that multiple RSes name each game as one of the best of all time, and so, multiple RSes should be expected; they are provided, for every single entry. The source threshold is consistent with policy, while also keeping the list of manageable length. The page is not yet in danger of being too long, as it contains only about 64KB of readable text, which is less than List of films voted the best, which contains about 80KB. Nevertheless, its being of manageable length does not mean we need to maximize that length with looser inclusion criteria; letting the list slowly expand as new lists appear has kept it stable (see, for example, its lack of edit wars) and ensured that all sources and entries are vetted before they go on the page. In short, the source threshold ensures that each entry is supported by the available RSes. Second, there is a consistent criterion for all of the games listed here; namely, that they have all been listed as one of the best of all time by multiple RSes. This criterion is uniformly applied throughout the article. Whether the cited sources use identical methods for determining what the best games are does not really matter, because they all arrive at the same claim, i.e., that (x) game is one of the best games of all time. This page, therefore, reflects what the sources say. As for how the lists are tabulated, every list is either from the publication itself or solicited experts; the precise manner in which the lists are deliberated or determined is not relevant to the page's purpose except where it has overtly restricted its scope (e.g., "100 Best RPGs of All Time" excludes anything that is not an RPG), as all lists nonetheless arrive at the same end: that is, they say that each game listed is one of the best ever. Thanks again for your thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Simply making it six still "original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list". You don't make rules to shorten a list, nor can we say this is from journalists and magazines when the sources do not indicate how their list originated if they are not all congruent. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems every six months like clockwork we have this discussion. Each time, the issues apparent are brought up, and I think no one is super happy with them, not even the regular maintainers. But each time, no alternative proposal is presented. What is here works and is reasonable. There is plenty to nitpick about it, but without an alternative proposal, it's impossible to actually change anything. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's the new Genesis/Mega Drive conversation. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

To me it seems like they’re hurt their move request didn’t get traction so now they’re trying to significantly alter this page (they can say what they want to this but this is my assessment of their recent behavior). XJJSX (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@XJJSX Please don't cast aspersions like this. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok. XJJSX (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That does not mean we return to the status quo If you want proposals. If we have no basis of making a list that is actually satisfying a criteria, the article probably should not exist as there is no accurate way of measuring it outside our own rules which we shouldn't apply to make a list shorter or longer as that's against standards. Alternatively, make it so the list only pulls from lists that suggest how they are calculated. Currently, if it's at least that we "can't agree upon", why is this list even still here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If you don't have an alternative proposal and see it as intractable, then another AFD would be the next step. There's plenty of editors who feel this list criteria, even if imperfect, works though. IAR does exist, though I myself am not a fan of quoting it. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have some proposals, but I feel they would just be still be original rules that aren't established criteria of terming "great". So I'm leaning towards what you are saying is probably the way to move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas I would like to draw your eyes to the fact that the two prior discussions you've linked to and cited in support of your argument were waged by sockpuppets and community banned editors. I'm not going to claim they had zero merit at all, but those individuals are banned for a reason, particularly POV pushing and synthesis of original research themselves. I really don't believe the SYNTH argument holds here. The lists all claim "the best video games" or "the greatest video games", and that's rather unambiguous. The only part of the LISTCRITERIA that has typically seen true opposition and argument has been that the limit of 6 publications, or 5, or 7, or really any number, is arbitrary. -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No idea that they were by banned users or not. Just wanted to check out how discussions went in the past. I think i've made it clear that synth from what I've said above and unless something that addresses the issue. While you state the list ""The lists all claim "the best video games" or "the greatest video games"" its done through a method that's driven by community decisions of what qualifies is WP:LISTCRITERIA. I'm not arguing for a different number, its that considering a certain amount is a qualifying factor which is "original or arbitrary criteria". Unless we can establish this is some sort of cannon among critics, which it is not, then we can't really make it our deciding factor. I'm not saying I think this, this is clear cut and dry. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• I fundamentally don't agree with the slant here, but explaining why requires taking a step back. Since people keep complaining, they're not wrong that there is something a bit different about this list - but what is that difference, and is it a bad difference?
  • Let's put this list aside entirely and talk about prose in articles on a specific piece of media, like a game or film or book. Let's say a piece of media has tons and tons of critical reception - say 100+ reviews out there. It is fine and accepted to "sum up" the opinions in general, with something like "Critics heavily praised The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild." It's not original research or synthesis to do this, even if it's clearly a little more distant to the source than directly quoting 90 reviews saying something positive. And this is okay even if the reasoning used by these 100 critics was all a little different. Okay, so proposition 1: it's okay to sum up sources who are all largely saying the same thing. Second: Would it be a valid statement to write something like "Critics have considered Breath of the Wild one of the greatest games of all time" and throw in 6+ references of examples in prose? I would argue that yes, it would be. In fact, six references is a lot higher a standard used than many other areas of Wikipedia. This would not be a neutrality violation or anything, because we've prefaced this with "Critics have considered." They're the ones saying it, not us in Wiki-voice, that's the basis of all Reception sections. Flip side, if an editor were to add "Critics have considered Random Game Here one of the greatest games of all time" and cite a single contemporary positive review, that sentence would not be merited, and should be taken out. Proposition 2: Saying that some games are considered the best by critics in article prose can be merited, if strongly referenced. Now let's get at Proposition 3: Transferability. If there's a valid statement somewhere on Wikipedia, and it'd be relevant somewhere else, it's still valid. If a gremlin deleted the List of Nintendo Switch games article, it'd be totally valid to pull info & references from the Breath of the Wild article and so on to rebuild it. The Breath of the Wild article says it's a 2017 Switch game, so it's okay to put that in "List of Nintendo Switch games" and note it's from 2017. My final proposition: prose can be transmuted into list entries and vice versa. We could, hypothetically, have a very bad WP:PROSELINE article at "List of Nintendo Switch games" that was along the lines of "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is a Nintendo Switch game that came out on March 3, 2017. Super Mario Odyssey is a Nintendo Switch game that came out on October 27, 2017. And so on. That organization would be terrible, so it's usually displayed in a table form, but it's not "invalid" or original research or anything to do it that way. And might be merited for a platform with like 4 games total, say.
  • Okay, if you accept all 4 of the above principles, then this article is not a problem with Wikipedia rules, no need to invoke IAR. All of these are Wikipedia articles where the sentence "Critics considered ($GAME) one of the best of all time" could be a merited, referenced prose addition "summing up" multiple critical views. We could write that exact same prose sentence here. We can transform these prose sentences into list entries. If you disagree with this somewhere, then where? The main difference this article has compared to List of Academy Award–winning films is that there isn't a crystal-clear, undeniable yes/no entry criteria. But most lists don't have that. What we do have is the validity of such a "summing up" statement, and if you disagree with the ability to do that, then I think you basically disagree with how most "Reception" sections are currently written, as well as the style advice at WP:VGREC which specifically says "Stack similar claims". SnowFire (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will throw in, since it hasn't been brought up yet, that this list is a clear pass on grounds of WP:LISTN. It has over 93 sources at this time clearly indicating that reliable secondary publications regularly, and frequently, produce groupings of video games considered the best/greatest. -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You see. we shouldn't even do that with Breath of the Wild @SnowFire: and please focus on the situation of this article, not other lists or articles as that's not really relevant to this conversation. This is because we shouldn't supplement finding six reviews calling it excellent as that would still be WP:SYNTH. However, it would not be incorrect to say "The Guardian reported that Breath of the Wild was receiving wide critical acclaim" or "Metacritic reported a score of [whatever] indictating "universal acclaim"" because we can attribute it to a source stating such a statement. Just like how we can't say "retrospective reviews have been positive" of an item because its been listed on five lists or 10 or six lists, because there is no source cataloguing or measuring such lists, just our own research on what material is made available. List of Academy Award winning films for best picture because its easy to attribute it to an award. There is no violation of synth, so I do not understand this argument. I do have a proposal that we do split the list. We could split the list by the amount of time a game is mentioned on a said list or a few times (i.e: 1-3 3-5, etc.) That way, we avoid any issues with the length of a list. That said, I still have issues of using lists that would negate some games from being included if they aren't all tabulated with a degree that any game is valid, how can we be content with using it with lists that do not apply such standards? As for your comment about WP:LISTN @Ferret:, I'm not sure what you are stating, I do not believe I have stated there is content related to "best" or "great" but the article lead does not indicate what this means other than its on six lists, but, as said, that's something a community here on wikipedia has agreed upon, which is not valid because it is an implied synthesis of the sources. We have selected individual titles and listed them, which fails WP:STICKTOSOURCE and synth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: But these other cases are extremely relevant to the conversation. You're arguing that this list violates "wiki rules". Well, so does it? That involves looking elsewhere on the wiki for if the content of this list violates Wiki rules, i.e. saying whether something is considered the best by critics. And I'm not talking about random crap articles, I'm talking about FA-level content here which can be trusted to be an example of what we expect Wikipedia content looking like. If it's acceptable to write that Breath of the Wild is considered by critics one of the greatest games ever in the article on BOTW, I'm arguing that is extremely important for if it's valid to say the same exact thing in this list.

I am not trying to misrepresent you here, but let me very specific: we absolutely do say "retrospective reviews have been positive" all the time in articles on Wikipedia, if you meant to say that's a problem. I'm not talking about just video games here, just anything - see Groundhog_Day_(film)#Legacy for a FA-class Film article that confidently says that the movie was reassessed in later reviews and is now considered a classic. There are multiple sources backing this up, as just a single reviewer saying they liked it retrospectively would not be enough. And it's understood that these retrospective reviews might have different takes, and that some might still disagree. Are you arguing that actually, we shouldn't say that in other articles? That we can only go source-by-source and make no statements whatsoever about the aggregate? That the FA-level Groundshog's Day article is in violation when it writes "[Groundhog's Day is] considered to be among the greatest films of the 1990s and one of the greatest comedy movies ever."? Because if so, I understand your opposition to this list, but I also think that the ship has already sailed and you need to accept that the current Wikipedia guidelines don't agree with your stance. (Which doesn't mean you're wrong, I have areas I disagree with Wikipedia standards too, as does Ferret.) If you don't agree with the above and think the it's sometimes okay to write statements like "Critics considered (GAME X) one of the best ever" in articles on that game - then see my above argument again. What's the problem with including that same sentence somewhere else, in a different article, like this one? SnowFire (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Groundhog Day has articles that state this claim, such as the Variety article. No synth there. There is a violation of synth here per what I've said. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Then pick a different FA article that does do this basic, non-SYNTH opinion stacking. I simply picked a very non-controversial case to start with, I hope you're not saying that what I described never happens, because it does, constantly, and it's trivially easy to show.

Do you have a reply to the main point of everything else I wrote? Which one of the four principles I mentioned above do you disagree with and why? SnowFire (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia rules to comment from that perspective, but my personal perspective is that this page is problematic. I think that a page summarising Greatest Games lists is in the community's interest, but I think it should be structured in a similar way to the equivalent film page. This avoids any concerns about synthesis, original research, and arbitrary inclusion criteria.

If it is presented as a list, then I think it's unavoidable that people will expect it to represent the consensus opinion of games media. Clearly stating the eligibility criteria does not prevent this misinterpretation, as evidenced by topics on this page, as well as throughout the archives. The problem I see is this: the list cannot claim to represent the consensus opinion of games media because that would be original research and perhaps violate other Wikipedia rules as well. But if that's not what it's doing, then what is this list? What meaning can be ascribed to a game appearing on six greatest games lists from reliable sources? I don't think that means much at all, personally, which raises the question of why we have a page dedicated to listing such games. IlmeniAVG (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

A) It really doesn't. IMO, this article is way better and far more policy-compliant than the films list. But that's another issue. B) Any standard will be misinterpreted, because what some percentage of readers "want" is a list of "my favorite games" validated. That's by far the most frequent comment on this talk page. C) I think the conclusion is rather obvious, no? Any game that gets on six such lists from different publishers by definition has acquired some acclaim from the video games media, aka was "considered the best". Don't see what's hard to parse about the meaning here. SnowFire (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

B) Some of those people may have good reason to believe that the game that they think is missing really is considered among the best by games media, perhaps even specifically on lists. They can't all be dismissed as people wanting a page that validates their personal favourites.

C) This is not a list of games that have acquired "some level of acclaim", because having appeared on six greatest games lists (strictly all-time lists with no platform restrictions) from reliable sources is not the same thing. IlmeniAVG (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

At this point I feel like the only thing this page could do would be to convert the Google Sheet that has all the games from all the lists on it into a Wikipedia page. Maybe you could organize and condense it in a way that wouldn’t be overwhelming, but if it means the page doesn’t violate (‘‘Violate’’) any Wikipedia rules then I’d be down. XJJSX (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Your inclusion rule is still a violation of WP:$ynth snowfire. Implying people want their favourites is based on assumptions and applying arbitrary rules. I'm leaning towards @XJJSX, as I have suggested a list that is consistent and split among pages suggesting how many times and item appears on found lists and sorting it by that might be an approach. I'm not sure it's ideal, but it's better than the current standard of applying a number chosen by the community. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To clarify: I didn't propose an inclusion rule above. Did you see someone else's proposal as originating from me?

And second: What you propose here is a violation of SYNTH. I went into some detail above as to why this article is fine and got a short reply that didn't engage with the crux, so I'll let you search the archives to find out the reasoning why. If there is an alleged problem here, you are making it far worse by having some sort of "ranking" by lists mentioned. SnowFire (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested you created it, and who suggested is not important as we're not here to call out editors, we're here to find a solution. If you don't like mys uggestion I respect your commentary, but that not make the status quo any more applicable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You wrote "Your inclusion rule is still a violation of WP:$ynth snowfire." What inclusion rule were you talking about? You're clearly associating some inclusion rule with me. SnowFire (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with SnowFire; this page deliberately does not present a meta-ranking of its entries, nor should it. The source threshold exists as a criterion for inclusion, not a means to rank entries against other entries; to do so would be a WP:SYNTH violation. Phediuk (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I basically agree with ferret's response. This article might be WP:OR and might be arbitrary in its inclusion criteria, but there isn't much of a consensus to do anything about it. (And a lot of suggestions make things worse.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: "make things worse" includes deleting it. There is no doubt at all this is a notable list topic that passes LISTN and should exist. Everything else is a bit of hem and hawing over imperfect ways we can represent such broad topics to avoid simply listing every single thing any publication ever once called "the best", even in isolation. We've put the best guardrails we could think of in place, and no one has yet to offer anything better. -- ferret (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

There is doubt because lists require a topic. There is no article discussing "games considered great" or even video game critism as there is Film criticism. List is based on some topic that has no established topic on wikipedia, so leaving it as is not really suitable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas I really hate to do this but... uh... What are you talking about? Lists do not require a parent topic. We have a specific notability guideline for stand-alone lists like this. -- ferret (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

For sure there is no rule for a parent article. I was trying to address that even on wikipedia, we've tried to apply some idea of how evaluate greatness when there is no defining verifiable or even any attempt at doing so. Our deciding factor is trying to disguise original research in what qualfies for a list in order to keep it short, but there is not guideline or anything we're following to suggest this is how it should be done. As the content is applying WP:SYNTH and WP:OR breaking habits. From the move discussions above and from the discussions here, it seems like nobody is happy with the current standard, but nobody has given real reasons why this article should exist in its current form. Without some better thought about how to apply some standard or expand the list and split it, this list should not remain as it still breaks the rules and is really "iffy" in how it interprets "greatness" via a synthesis of lists. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're overstating unhappiness. I know I've alluded to the fact no one is perfectly happy with the setup, particularly the arbitrariness of "six publications", but that's a far far cry from most people being so unhappy they feel it simply shouldn't exist. I really strongly disagree with your views that we're applying SYNTH and OR here. We have a whole guideline on this very thing at WP:LSC, and the only component that is at all questionable is using a minimum of six. The list criteria otherwise very tight and unambiguous, requiring that the sources (which are all reliable secondary sources, there is no unreliably or unsourced content here at all) cover all video games, rather than being bounded by other limitations that might make the inclusions ambiguous (i.e. the best Xbox games, rather than best video games, or the best games of 1999). I really am having a difficult time understanding how "video games considered the best" is a SYNTH/OR issue with sourced to 93 reliable secondary sources that are literally titled "The Best Video Games of All Time" or "The Greatest Games Ever" and so on. It's quite a stretch to claim we're synthesizing a topic that these sources don't represent. -- ferret (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As you stated, "the only component that is at all questionable is using a minimum of six" which is the entire crux of the page, and is against WP:SYNTH. I don't have much more to discuss if we agree on this point and am really only interested in discussing alternatives at this point. Beyond that, simply suggesting the list is all that qualifies as "best" is WP:OR on how any critical canon that applies this label to such material, as no author, historian, journalist or critic would put that much weight in this to assume greatness. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is SYNTH. It's arbitrary, but I honestly don't believe list criteria like "Only notable subjects" are really any less arbitrary, and are explicitly allowed. At it's core, "Notable" means we all got together and decided a topic had enough coverage to be a standalone article. We also have guidelines that suggest controversial statements need at least 2-3 sources to be included, and things like FRINGE. In short, while we can debate if six is too many or too few, our guidelines have plenty of room for such a limit to exist. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think either of us want to go back and forth on this further, but we've clearly reach an impasse if this numeric equivalent or even choosing just pulling from best-of lists. Its probably best to go towards arbitration instead of just replying back and forth. This isn't meant as a threat, but it would probably just help from a third party unrelated to the project to weigh in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope you mean an RFC rather than Arbcom, haha. But you're rehashing an argument already made, and rejected, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games considered the best. -- ferret (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Despite my earlier suggestion, I still find this whole discussion rather ridiculous/pointless. XJJSX (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes sorry, should clarify arbitrstion is what I meant. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean ArbCom or an RFC? Those are two very different things, and it would be helpful to know which one you are talking about. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at that deletion post though, nobody was about to contest it was not a violation of synth. There was a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFF or that it meets notability. Nobody has really shown how it does not violate WP:SYNTH other than "well I don't think it does". Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think multiple people have explained why its not an issue here. I do suggest before considered a third discussion (The move discussion above, and this one), be it RFC or something else, you weight the fact that some 10 or so experienced editors have said your position isn't really valid here. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I made this suggestion in response to the above topic, but I'm going to restate it here because it didn't get any traction there, and it's one that I actually have confidence in.

I think that this article needs to be renamed. I say that because I believe the essential issue with this article is a conflict between the article's title and the eligibility criteria: appearing on six all-time greatest games lists is not the same thing as being "considered the best". It is, perhaps, a sensible way of determining what games are considered the best, but is not the only one, or even necessarily the most reliable one.

The most obvious illustration of this are reviews where the reviewer explicitly calls the game one of the greatest ever made. This hypothetical review would not count towards inclusion on this list, because the editors have decided that only mentions on specific lists count. This points to s a clear contradiction between what the article claims to be, and its eligibility criteria. I don't know what Wikipedia rule this violates, but it seems obvious to me that Wikipedia editors have no authority to set eligibility criteria like this and exclude what reliable sources are saying.

Previous discussions have focused on the number of sources, and I agree with the argument that there is no reason or precedent for including games that have six mentions but not games with only five. But regardless of the agreed upon number, there is still a disconnect between the title of the article--"Games considered the best"--and the inclusion criteria: mentions on unrestricted all-time lists.

I think the only solution is for the article to be renamed to better reflect the criteria of the list. So, it should be along the lines of, "List of video games that have appeared frequently on greatest games lists." I would have no issues with the article with such a title, even if the number of sources remained at six. IlmeniAVG (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That's where I disagree. There's a lot of hemming and hawing on the name of the article. No one (well one) seems to hold any belief that this list shouldn't exist. It's clearly heavily sourced and a topic that passes LISTN. What hasn't been mentioned so far in the two discussions is WP:LISTNAME, which calls out that The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the name I suggested, or something along those lines, is better in the sense that it both more clearly communicates the contents of the article, and addresses a lot of the criticisms that people have levelled at the article in its current form. That seems like a significant improvement to me. Pointing out that the name doesn't have to be perfect does not address this at all. Is there any reason to think that the current title is better that what I suggested? Or is there a drawback to the suggested name that I'm not aware of? IlmeniAVG (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with ferret here; the article's title is already explained in the lede, and the suggested title would have to be explained itself, anyway, e.g., what "frequently" means, and what lists are included. Since either title would require a lede to clarify it, I believe we should stick with the shorter title. Phediuk (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

List of video games that have appeared frequently on greatest games lists. is essentially says "Here's a list of games, that reliable publications have listed, on lists of greatest games", because we are somehow pretending that numerous publications including something on lists of greatest games doesn't mean they "consider" it one of the best/greatest. If you take a glance at WP:LISTNAME, you'll the example regarding the Isle of Wight. You'll also see that it calls out Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.. We also don't do things like "List of games considered the best by reliable sources", because that's a given due to WP:V.

This title is more than reasonable. -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that this article would reject a reliable source saying something that is exactly in line with the current title of the article because it's not expressed in a format that has been chosen arbitrarily by the Wikipedia editors. I understand that titles don't have to be perfect, but surely there shouldn't be that much of a discrepancy--especially in light of the frequent and intense debates here about this article.

I'm looking over the summary of reviews of Ocarina of Time on Metacritic now. Many call it one of the greatest games every made, either in those exact words, or words to that effect. That's all irrelevant according to this article. I'm sorry for restating the same thing over and over, and for the probably obviously frustrated tone, but how is this not extremely damning? It is not up to the Wikipedia editors to decide by what method and at what threshold a game should be considered among the best, as this article currently does. IlmeniAVG (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s not that the review is rejected because of format, the review, so long as it’s from a reputable source, still counts towards inclusion in the list. It’s just the whole six sources thing is there to keep a form of order and to weed out outlier games, like if one reviewer was just really adamant that the Shrek 2 video game was a GOAT game (I mean I think it is but that’s beside the point) but not one other reviewer thought the same. Even editors like ferret admit that while it is inherently arbitrary, any other idea would make the list too inclusive and become potentially unwieldy. One other idea I have for this page is maybe having a section for games that have yet to make the list but are on track to, but otherwise I’ll say that I’ve been following this page for years and have never had an issue with how it’s worked. XJJSX (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"the review, so long as it’s from a reputable source, still counts towards inclusion in the list." This is not true. The article states, 'The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications (inclusive of all time periods, platforms, and genres), as chosen by their editorial staffs.' IlmeniAVG (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The review is accepted, it’s just that there’s an admittedly arbitrary inclusion method of six sources minimum for it to be included (for the record I see the spreadsheet as the real list at this point). Like it’s added as a publication source to a game that is on the spreadsheet but not the “”official”” list, so if it had 2 sources it now has three, but don’t you worry it’ll get to six someday, maybe, who knows, if it’s an older game then probably not (I’m beginning to see people’s problems with this page). XJJSX (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, IlmeniAVG is right: reviews are not accepted per the inclusion criteria, no matter how reputable the outlet is. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say list, not just individual reviews, my bad. XJJSX (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This again would apply if there was some consensus outside wikipedia that appearing on six lists makes a game great. As said before Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. (WP:LISTCRIT). Which applying any arbitrary number does to this article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this page makes no claim of any of the games' greatness; it claims only that these games are considered among the best of all time by multiple RSes, a claim thoroughly supported for every game on the page. We are not making a list of the greatest games, but only reporting what multiple other sources have listed as such. Phediuk (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If we "makes no claim of any of the games' greatness" clarify what greatness means, than it would fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE where "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." If we can't declare what makes a game great (which I've said above in the original post, some sources make no context to what makes a game "great", and when they do, they say there is no direct criteria for the list. I know we're walking around around in circles, but the more explantions do not make me confident that anything here is organizable unless we follow rules that should be pulled from lists and it has to be on six which is based on nothing. I'm sorry gang, but if anything the further explanations have suggested further that this is not a list that can be organized and despite sources existing, it does not mean we should try to organize it into a list, at least under this title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This page is not indiscriminate; on the contrary, it draws specifically from lists from reliable publications devoted to naming the best games of all time. It is not plucking any such mention from any article, but from lists dedicated to that purpose. As for "declar[ing] what makes a game great", this page does not have to do that, because it does not claim that any of the entries are great; it claims that RSes have listed them as such, and provides those sources for every entry. Last, the source threshold is not based on nothing, but rather, based on Wikipedia's guidelines that contentious claims (such as, e.g., that multiple RSes name a game as one of the best of all time) should be supported by multiple sources. Phediuk (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just putting this out there, but are we generally opposed to the idea of organizing the page by year, giving each year its own drop down section, and when you click that year it then shows all the games that have ever made a greatest games list that happened to come out that year? Just getting a feeler. XJJSX (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That just splits the existing content into dozens of individual pages, not actually changing anything. -- ferret (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you mean individual wiki pages that’s not what I meant, I meant like how we can open the section on this page currently that says List and then it shows the list of games, and you can open or close it whenever. XJJSX (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Article content should never be collapsed by default per MOS:DONTHIDE, though collapsible options are permitted. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarification, why is that not ok but the way this page collapses its contents is? XJJSX (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This page doesn't have any collapsible content (besides the sidebar). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

My understanding from the responses here is the rule of six was applied to keep the list short, but the suggestions on the rules above says to split list articles up if they become long, not to apply restrictions of how items can be included, which is the current situation. What would your by year example look like @XJJSX: ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well at this point I’m not sure what constitutes a collapsible section or not, but basically I’m thinking like how you can click on the part of the page that says List and it will show all the games that are on the list, and you can open/close it whenever, or like how where it says Publications you can click it to show all the publications that have been used as sources. So whatever these… things, are even called, you do that but you have it be like 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s etc. and it’ll list all the games in that decade that have ever made a greatest games list. I’m sorry I’m not super familiar with all the technical Wikipedia terminology. XJJSX (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok so on desktop they don’t collapse they’re just like sections of an article that’s all legible in front of you. So I guess the sections would still be the decades and then on mobile they collapse, I think. XJJSX (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if splitting into decades is appropriate either, but removing the numeral rule and applying this would stop the issue of having the games being limited by our own issue of trying to make the list shorter @XJJSX:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless there’s a Wikipedia rule I don’t know about I don’t think organizing by decades is a bad idea, it would give some level of manageability to what would become a VERY long list page, and without some form of header organization the page would just become a wall of text nightmare to navigate, especially on desktop I’m sure. XJJSX (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No, don't worry to suggest ideas. I'm not familiar with every rule in Wikipedia either. That being said, I'm not sure if even splitting it up captures our issue with what is qualified for "greatness" so the wording still might have to be adjusted or some better clarification outside a one-sentence lead followed by hundreds of games. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but from what I know the six-source minimum wasn't applied to keep the list short, but to keep it manageable. I think I remember a time when the then five-source limit wasn't enough to keep the then quickly-sprawling list in control, but that's as much as I can say with a near-passerby comment. This list-article's current selection isn't out of style or personal opinion at all, just to keep appropriate management.

And if anyone suggests I state my opinion on this whole matter...I'm not the most knowledgeable guy on this talk page, much less so as a Wikipedian, but I believe (one of) the cores of this encyclopedia is to preserve notable subjects and related info through an abundant amount of reliable (secondary) sources justifying its existence. An article of reception like the best video games here qualifies in my perspective of what Wikipedia is and is supposed to be. In terms of organization such as having to rely on an arbitrary criteria, I couldn't care less, because with the current form here, it isn't any better but isn't any worse either, and no alternative I've seen, then and now, have proven to be superior. Carlinal (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If 5 sources in unmanageable but 6 isn't then how does that not bring the entire page into question? An arbitrary cutoff value was chosen because the alternative was too much data to process. That in itself should be a sign that this is built on false pretenses. 47.16.18.244 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The list is entirely subjective and is used as a reference in other pages lowering the integrity of other articles. A lot of the articles being used to source on this list are from entirely questionable places too. It should absolutely just be deleted. 47.16.18.244 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The integrity of other articles can be discussed elsewhere, but I agree that a game's inclusion on this list should not be cited as proof that it is generally considered among the best. I am in favour of keeping this page as I think there is value in seeing what games pop up on these kinds of lists the most often, though I think the title is misleading. IlmeniAVG (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

to r'lyeh with this, i should probably pile on with a disagreement

while people here are being a little opinionated, their only opinion that gets reflected in the article is "6 critics should be enough for this list :3". no one's been putting words in the critics' mouths here, so all is well in that regard. if someone wants to argue that it should be more or less, i'm not gonna opine (much), but i don't think it's synthesizing, being ambiguous, a third thing, or contradicting rules or precedents

for the name... meh. this one is fine, if only by default. "(list of) games notable for positive reception" is a slightly different thing and would have different criteria and include different games, and "list of games that have appeared frequently on greatest games lists" is somehow more restrictive and vague at the same time (how frequently is "frequently"?), and is also too many words cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• I long ago gave up on caring about this particular list because, honestly, I could tell it just was not going to change no matter what because a few people care deeply about it and that will trump all other opinion. That said, I think this is a good time to add my two cents only because I come at this from the perspective of someone who originally thought this list made a mockery of Wikipedia's list policies but now have an opinion more akin to "its fine, I guess, but..."

I honestly think the problem is the framing. The name of the list does not match the intention of the list at all. "The best" has one meaning and only one meaning in this context: these are the games that excel all others. This list does not and cannot live up to that standard. The underlying sources cross eras, personal sensibilities, editorial predilections, etc. There is no formula being used that processes objective criteria across these lists to derive a master list of the best games of all time (and yes, this can be done Video Game Canon does it). Indeed, many of the games on this list would not be considered among "the best" by the majority of the voters across all of these different sources. From this perspective, the list is arbitrary and compiled though synthesis and engages in original research by claiming that these entries represent "the best" of anything.

But that is not what this list is actually trying to do. It is just trying to say "here are some games that multiple editorial staffs at one time or another considered pretty great." You can extract some value from that. Its interesting enough to be a list. It's fine. But call it what it is, which is not a list of games "considered the best." Indrian (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, even though my criticisms are different. If you were to reframe / rename this list, what would you call it? Shooterwalker (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a clarification here: this page does not claim any of its entries are the best games; it claims only that each of these games are considered among the best of all time by multiple RSes, and supports that claim with thorough sourcing for every entry. We are not determining what "best" means here; we are reporting what other sources deem to be such. The Video Game Canon, to which you have linked, also does not claim to be a list of best games, but only a "statistical meta-analysis of 76 Best Video Games of All Time lists". It adds a meta-ranking element to its list (that this page deliberately does not), but otherwise uses a similar approach to this page, even using mostly the same sourrces. Phediuk (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A few things here:

The Video Game Canon takes a completely different approach by using a mathematical model to create a ranking of the best games of all time based on the underlying data. I am not suggesting that is or should be done here.

You missed the entire point of my post apparently. It is not about what the page is doing; it is about what the framing of the content is IMPLYING the page is doing. This is why someone comes along every six months to bash the list as violating policy.

The problem with framing this list as games “considered among the best of all time by multiple reliable sources” is that this premise is not true due to the concept being a moving target. A source from 1999, to pick a random year, is a relic of that time when decades of video game history had not yet occurred. The editors of such a piece would surely have a different list today. This is a list of games considered the best of all time at some point in time, but the title indicates that they are considered the best of all time right now, with “now” being whenever a person is reading this article.

So again, I do not expect anything to change because it has become painfully clear over several years that you and the other main contributors have no interest in listening to constructive feedback, but I think if you reframed and retitled your list you would not have to spend so much time defending it. Anyway, that is all just my two cents, for what its worth. I have no desire to be a force for change for this list myself. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

About a year ago when my “List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources” was more relevant on this page, another user, whose name I don’t remember right now, came by and suggested that the list only use sources from within the last decade, boiling the reason down to basically because older sources are somehow unreliable in comparison to modern opinions. Your point about the title framing reminds me of that discussion; every opinion when it is given is of its time, including now. Arguably today’s opinions will be antiquated in ten years, just like how you claim an opinion from 1999 is now. This page makes no such move to disregard older opinions just because they’re old, so to do so would be disrespectful. Also I don’t know how you can look at a title as simple as “List of Video Games Considered the Best” and extrapolate from that “This title is false because it uses sources as old as my grandpa”. XJJSX (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I love it when someone uses a “”straw man”” to discredit an argument that is not being made, but you do you. This is exactly why I have no desire to actually try to fix any of the framing problems I perceive with this list. Indrian (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a straw man at all, you shouldn’t be casting such aspersions on here, you’re saying the title indicates these are games considered the best right now when that’s not what it’s saying at all, literally so even. XJJSX (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

...ferret told you not to cast aspersions either. Just felt like pointing this out. Sorry. Carlinal (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

tbf indrian has bordered on npa territory just 4 comments up. that last paragraph really needed some more time in the oven cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider the inclusion of older lists to be a problem, but it's obvious from looking at the length of the source lists that most publications consider the threshold for "best of all time" to be in relation to other games rather than at a specific level of quality. For example, all seven of IGN's lists are top 100s. It doesn't matter to them that vastly more games competed for a spot on their latest list (from 2021) compared to their first (from 2003). And IGN is not an outlier. Most lists end at a round number, regardless of publication data. We have a top 50 from 1984, as well as a top 50 from 2021. We have a top 1001 from 2013, and nothing longer than that since. From this, I believe a strong argument can be made that the older lists are outdated.

However, since this article does not claim to represent the current consensus, I don't have a problem with older lists being cited. There may be games here that haven't been mentioned once in the last two decades, but if they're here then they did get mentioned at some point, and it makes no sense to obscure that data. IlmeniAVG (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Indrian, if you're still reading this, your comment has got to be the most valuable take I learned from this exact discussion. The criteria thing really couldn't be improved, it aligns appropriately on Wikipedia, and (as I said earlier) no proposals or alternatives have been proven superior. But all that's over the criteria and mechanics of the list. In presentation, I see why there's this biannual gigantic discussion popping up over the article list's current state, and how it has been repeated with slightly different perspectives/accusations each time, because the title is making the list and its mechanics look like a bait-and-switch.

Now I'm looking back at the latest move request which, while I see as so sloppy I didn't feel a need to say oppose earlier, it could've been refined to showcase a better(?) option. I hope I'm not misinterpreting you; I think what needs a change all along are the title and lead prose, and the real question here is "How, if possible, can we portray our list most accurately?" In this case, a move request is too rigid to allow for a more fluid discussion of options, and I imagine a superior presentation of said title and lede can be achieved through extensive consideration and then a move request.

Is a better option for framing the list available? I'm hopeful for that, but I imagine it wouldn't exactly be easy, and I don't mean the seeming stubbornness of veteran editors (with all due respect to those I appreciate here). I believe it can be done. Carlinal (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I am glad people are coming around to this perspective, as arduous as the process was getting here. The name change that I suggested above proved to be unpopular, so here's another one: "An overview of all-time greatest video games lists." I don't expect that to be a popular title either, but maybe it will set someone on the path of coming up with a name that the community is happy with. IlmeniAVG (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Indrian's perspective is welcome here. I might disagree with the small points (for example, an older list has more experience with older games, where recency bias is a real problem). But the bigger points are important. It's a bad sign when a new person shows up to the article every month to point out some lapse or error, only to explain an arbitrary cut-off. It's also a bad sign that this list is effectively built from an off-wiki google sheet.

I still find that most of the suggestions aren't constructive, and I'd be interested if Indrian has any ideas. But I keep coming back to the perennial suggestion that we drop the inclusion criteria to 3 ranked lists, as the unfiltered meaning of multiple reliable sources seen in the WP:EXTRAORDINARY policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the others who have stated that the current state of the list is fine. The source-number restriction is necessary because multiple sources are needed for controversial statements. One person listing a game in their Top 100 isn't enough to prove that it is considered among the best, but six people doing so is enough. Also, if this article violates SYNTH, then so does the reception section of nearly every video game article on the site. Community consensus tends to go against that opinion. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC) The comments seem to continuously following the basic trends

• The list's is problematic, but we can't agree on a better phrasing for a title
• The list is important, because it delves into a important topic
• The list is problematic because we are applying arbitrary rules to apply what is considered "best"
• Arguements of this failing WP:SYNTH is because its implies a certain amount of listings make it "considered one of the best".

I'm going to basically ignore any arguments that state WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as its not addressing the issue. Reception sections are complicated, but can be organized appropriately. As we can't seem to agree whether this is against synth or not. I'm proposing we bring it up with arbitration. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I ask you to clarify what you mean by "arbitration". This isn't a manner requiring ARBCOM, and you haven't exhausted all avenues of dispute resolution. I also believe you're grossly overstating how many editors are pressing that there is a SYNTH issue. Indrian has posted some comments in that direction, but otherwise it has mostly just been you. -- ferret (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It does not really matter if its 70 people repeating the same process because it hasn't addressed the issues I've brought up. I've suggested some attempts to improve it per (WP:NEGOTIATE) and have given time for others to discuss it per WP:DISENGAGE (on doing so, the banner was removed from the talk page). I suppose we could bring it up on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Noticeboards, but I'm not sure which would be the appropriate one here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

For clarity for interested parties, I've gone ahead an opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard as I'd like some outside editors who have not contributed to the article to take a look. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Since the matter of the SYNTH tag was brought up again. Andrzejbanas, it's simply not true that the arguments against are "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS." You are either misinterpreting the arguments in favor of the status quo, or misinterpreting OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or both. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS uses "something else is currently true on-wiki, therefore something similar here must be fine" and stops there - that would be something like "because List of films considered the best exists, therefore this article is also fine." Mentioning policies elsewhere on wiki, and how they apply to other articles, is in fact fine and strengthens an argument, not weakens it - it just can't merely stop at existence, hence otherstuffEXISTS.
• As for SYNTH, I think SYNTH is a major problem on Wikipedia that is unfixed in many parts, but this isn't SYNTH. SYNTH is when two unrelated facts are tied together in a way that is not true in the sources. "The St. Louis Cardinals won the 1982 World Series (source about the World Series), leading to the 1983 video game crash (source about the video game crash)." You'd need some crazy source that directly said the Cardinals victory caused the crash, or linked them somehow. But this is different from WP:EXCEPTIONAL, wherein contentious claims can be given "multiple high-quality sources". Let's say that there's a problem in the future at List of best-selling video games where controversial sources are throwing around exceptional claims. It would be within the rights of the maintainers of that list to demand two sources for every entry. But these sources are all saying similar things, like "Mario Kart 8 sold X million copies" and another source two years later saying "Mario Kart 8 sold Y million copies." That's not SYNTH; that's just multiple backing for the same basic claim. The argument - which you can choose to accept or not - is that all of these "BEST GAME EVER" lists are making basically the same claim, that a game is considered 'among the best'. So it's the "multiple sources for one claim" case, not "multiple sources on disjoint claims used to create a new, phantom, SYNTHY-y" claim. This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SnowFire (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  The problem, again, is how the list is framed. Determining which games are considered the best by games media/reliable sources is something that I think necessarily requires synthesis/original research. It's the place of websites like Metacritic and VideoGameCanon to answer this question, not Wikipedia. But yes, I know, that's not what this list is. This list does not claim to represent the consensus, current of historical. It's just a list of games that have appeared on six unrestricted greatest games lists. OK, fine, I understand that, and as long as we don't imply that any conclusions can be drawn from a game being mentioned on six lists, then it's not synthesis. But this points to the disconnect between the title and the methodology. The defence against claims of synthesis is literally, "These aren't necessarily the games that are considered the best." In other words, an admission that the title is misleading. IlmeniAVG (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  This above is basically my issue. While article does state games have shown up on several lists, there is no grander approach outside our own choices that this violates a synth of the only qualifying factor of what makes a game great. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  IlmeniAVG: See my earlier long comment on Reception sections in other articles. It absolutely is Wikipedia's place to write detailed, sourced "Reception" sections. If it's valid to make lists of "2017 games" based on sources about release date, it's valid to make lists of "games by reception attribute" as well.

  Andrzejbanas: Well, we will once again point to what the lede section plainly says, which is not "what makes a game great". We aren't here to figure out what makes a game great. We're here to catalog what reliable sources have said about games they say are great. Which this list does in an exceptionally guideline-compliant way, much more so than many other lists. SnowFire (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  If a reception section were written using the same methodology as this article, there is no way it would be in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. You cannot look only at one very specific aspect of a game's reception and imply a conclusion about how it was generally received based on that. If that's what this list is doing, then I have to throw my weight behind those who see it as synthesis/original research (and bad synthesis/original research at that--VideoGameCanon does a much better job). If there are reception sections out there that are this bad, then they should be improved as well. IlmeniAVG (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to note here, in response to the clause "If that's what this list is doing", to clarify that it is not doing that. This page does not seek to lay out how a game was "generally received"; it makes no such claim to do so. This is not a tabulation of review scores, but rather, a list of games that multiple RSes have named among the best of all time, in lists dedicated to that purpose. The notability of such lists is demonstrated by the huge number of RSes that have made them. The sole claim the page makes is that multiple RSes list each game, and it supports that claim by providing multiple RSes per entry. The page's claim is specific by by design, to keep the page objective and reflective of the sources, and it remains so. Phediuk (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am responding to SnowFire's framing of the list, which was explained in detail in their above post. They argued that, since it is 'fine and accepted to "sum up" the opinions in general [in review sections]', it should therefore also be fine to do the same thing here. I'm not sure if I agree that what's done in review sections is actually the same thing, or that it's "fine", but that's not relevant here. What's relevant is that SnowFire does see the list as representing the "opinions in general" of reliable sources. I don't have a problem with your framing of it, but it's concerning that different editors have different views about what the list is doing. No wonder it's not clear to readers what the list is supposed to be! IlmeniAVG (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Re @IlmeniAVG: I think you're misreading me. I'm not talking about the entire Reception section, but rather, very specifically, inclusion of retrospective critical views in a Reception section. Specifically, is it merited to include a sentence that says something like what featured article Super Mario 64 has in the lede, "Retrospectively, Super Mario 64 has been considered one of the greatest video games of all time." And then cite... retrospectives considering Super Mario 64 one of the greatest video games of all time. Not SYNTH. Just what the sentence says, and multiple references backing that up. If that sentence is valid to write in a featured article and not considered problematic, then it's not problematic to write the exact same sentence in a different article, when relevant. SnowFire (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  1) I don't necessarily agree that the cited sentence from the Super Mario 64 article is OK, but here's not the place for discussing that. Either way, if game pages must contain such summaries, then I hope the editors have taken appropriate care to make sure the summary is accurate, and that means having a broader perspective than just how many mentions a game has on specific kinds of lists. The appropriate methodology, and what statements (if any) pass scrutiny, is likely game dependent. This article ignores such things, but (apparently) makes the same kinds of claims.

  2) It concerns me that your framing of the list appears to differ to that of Phediuk. They have argued that this list makes no claims regarding the general reception of games, but you seem to be arguing that it does (otherwise, why are statements like the one made on the Super Mario 64 page, which is a statement about the general reception, relevant?). Do we not even have a consensus regarding the list's purpose? It certainly appears that way. IlmeniAVG (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am not pulling rank or trying to scare off newbies here, but if you are "concerned" that the opinions of other editors have mild differences of opinion, this is where I note that you have 35 edits to Wikipedia, nearly exclusively this talk page, and others have tens of thousands of edits. I can assure you that editors agreeing but not for 100% the same reasons happens all the time on every single topic on Wikipedia, and it's fine, things work out. So you can assuage your concerns on that count, this topic isn't any different. SnowFire (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  My concern is that it's not clear to readers how this page should be interpreted. Seeing two editors frame the list differently strengthens that concern. The lack of clarity matters because I believe it is at the heart of both this discussion, and many others on this page. Some of these discussions have been heated and have included suggestions that this page is not in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I would rather see an end to such things, but I think they're going to keep happening if the article remains in its current state and purpose of the list isn't clarified. Specifically, is this a list of games that are "considered the best", or it is simply a list of games that have appeared on six unrestricted all-time lists from different publications, with no attached claim about where this places them in the general estimation of reliable sources/games media? IlmeniAVG (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I remain utterly confused how anyone is interpreting the LISTCRIT and the 93 reliable sources in use as not representing "considered the best". There is no other possible interpretation for a video game appearing of 6 or more reputable publications as "top x games of all time", "top x greatest games", "the best games of all time", etc. All of these, clearly, indicate by their very nature, video games considered the best. Now. Are there forms of being "considered the best" we're excluding? Certainly. We're excluding a random review that just says in a vacuum "this game is the best I've ever played". We're using a bar of six sources (some argue that three is enough, but no one argues that multiple shouldn't be required) for an extraordinary claim. I am beating the dead horse here, but WP:LISTNAME calls out the very situation in the example for Norwegian bands. The restriction to unbounded lists and rankings (that is, not the "Best Xbox 360 games of all time") is a valid and necessary restriction for this same purpose, similar (though in reverse) to how the list of "best-selling PC games" only includes actual direct PC copies sold, not every game that was released on PC+other platform and sales were not specific.

  As SnowFire pointed out, these discussions have been somewhat driven by multiple SPA (single purpose account) editors who infrequently edit, and have never or rarely edited outside of this talk page. It's fine that less experienced editors ask questions or ponder why our policies or guidelines are being applied the way they are, but when experienced editors explain it, there needs to be a willingness to accept that. There is still a pretty clear consensus here that the list is in line with guidelines, and at best, a slight rename to replace "considered" with "ranked" might be in order. But even that is just being pedantic in the end, and if moved, the redirect would almost certainly never be deleted. Nor would the dozens of redirects that already exist for synonyms of "best". -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  There are many reasons not to consider this a list of games "considered the best." Here are just a few:

  1. Time: What games are considered the best is not static. It's possible that some of the games here were considered among the best at some point but are not generally held in as high regard now, either because other games have surpassed them, or because the assessment has changed on reflection.

  2. List criteria: Many lists consider influence/impact/importance, not just quality as part of their criteria. So, some games may have been included on lists and met the threshold of six in part due to qualities other than their... quality.

  3. Opportunity: Older games have had far more opportunities to appear on lists and meet the threshold of six. The uneven spread of publication dates also possibly biases the list in a certain direction, with the lack of early lists having been highlighted before.

  4. Method: There are other valid ways in which to determine which games are considered the best, with the most obvious being statements made elsewhere by reliable sources, high/perfect review scores, high aggregate review scores, appearing on or topping lists with few restrictions e.g. decade/generation/console/PC lists etc. The fact that this page ignores series entries on lists is also worth mentioning here. Obviously, if Wikipedia were to attempt to combine all of this data, then it would be synthesis. But that's just the problem: determining what games are "considered the best" requires synthesis/original research.

  With all of that in mind, I don't think that a game meeting this list's criteria necessarily means that it's "considered the best" (especially in light of some of the games that aren't here).

  Also, can we stop talking about my account history? That's clearly not relevant here. IlmeniAVG (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  "were considered among the best at some point but are not generally held in as high regard now" I would agree with that. Some games were held in high regard because they were the cutting edge of their era in terms of memorable characters, well-written stories, settings for the action, music elements, etc. A couple of decades later, several of these elements tend to be seen as dated in comparison to advancements in the field. Take for example the original version of Street Fighter II (1991). It was considered revolutionary for introducing a wider selection of playable characters than any previous fighting game. The whole roster included eight playable characters. Most Street Fighter variants since then (and several other fighting games) have included even wider rosters of playable characters. What was revolutionary in 1991 may seem dated in the 2020s. Dimadick (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, Street Fighter II is still appearing on these lists as recently as 2024, and has been named over a dozen times in the last decade alone. Dated or not, a lot of these games are still considered among the best even today. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a possibility that should this type of discussion resurface in the future, we can direct them to…well all of this? XJJSX (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  yes, probably within this week cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with some points IlmenIAVG has made here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." Sure, we can verify things have been on at least six best of lists but evaluating it as the only way to describe it as being "great" is weak. The problem with making best of lists as rules more "strict" for weight can be compared to similarly as this article does for film. The author that best-of lists, with various rules applied to them "negate the function of serious film reviewing and criticism." Similarly, critics discussing best of lists on NPR suggest that "We're often more kind of approaching these things anecdotally, talking about the stuff that really, really matters to us instead of kind of trying to collect a consensus around ranking the best." and similarly that "I love the fact that there is not this fixed canon. This is the only best movie that's ever been made, and nothing can ever be better. Like, no. It's constantly shifting." With that, compiling a list that compiles games from several different eras (a list from 1984 is intersting to compare with one from 1996 and one from 2022, but compiling them feels like a 1996 list had the same opportunity to vote for the same amount of games as a 2022 game did, which it did not and "counting" from lists from different eras on the same level does not seem to break any wikipedia rule I'm aware of, but it does not feel feel like an idea the just muddy conceptual waters on what a "great game" is. I think @SnowFire: is making a false equivalence in their comment above. The article on Super Mario 64 has prose discussing the specific qualities people did and did not appreciate. When the article passed its GA review here, "It has been placed high on "the greatest games of all time" lists by many reviewers, including IGN, Game Informer, Edge, Official Nintendo Magazine, Electronic Gaming Monthly, and Nintendo Power." which is far more neutral and accurate than saying it is "considered one of the best games ever" just because six magazines put it on a list. The prior is more accurate.

As for the defenders of the status quo, outside the obvious "games that appeared on best of games six times", who is this content useful for, because it seems to want to promise a critical canon, but from the discussions from critics above, this seems to not be a great approach. But as we can't really As for IlmeniAVG's account history, I'll remind editors of Wikipedia:Civility, comment on the content. Not how many you feel about an editor. If an editor is truly here to cause trouble, that will come out in the wash. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to quickly clarify one point since I see I've had the civility guideline cited at me: I brought up IlmeniAVG's account history not to insult them or accuse them of being a sockpuppet (I think they're clearly good-faith), but rather because I believe one of IlmeniAVG's points originated from a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia, and thus bringing this fact up sooner rather than later would be useful (on Wikipedia in general, not just this topic). It was a good-faith effort by me to share some info about how Wikipedia works and why this argument would not be convincing here. Specifically, the idea that all editors are expected to 100% agree with each other. I'm not even sure what distinction IlmeniAVG was drawing between me and Phediuk, but I don't think it was very substantial... but even assuming it was substantial, that really does not matter at all. It is common that even in consensus discussions where explicit !votes are cast, closers will respect the vote even when completely opposite grounds are offered. Think, say, disputes over how to title Senkaku Islands - two editors might oppose "Pinnacle Islands", but one because they prefer "Senkaku", and the other because they prefer "Diayou". That's fine. Both !votes against Pinnacle would "count", on Wikipedia. In the same way, noting editors here have different opinions (which is clearly true) isn't a compelling line of argument for anything. SnowFire (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair, thank you for clarifying SnowFire. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I understood the sprit in which my inexperience was brought up the first time, and while I appreciate the clarification that it was intended in good faith (which I believe), please understand that it still comes across as dismissive. If you believe that the disagreement between editors is not substantial in this instance, then you are free to assert that and challenge me to explain why I think it matters. It's not necessary or productive to bring my history into it.

For what it's worth, I still think that the argument that I made was reasonable. Or perhaps I should say the argument that I intended to make was reasonable. Because in that comment I just said that the disagreement among editors was "concerning" without explaining why. In light of that, I understand why it came across as an argument from inexperience. That's my fault.

Because I'm sure it will come up again at some point anyway, the distinction that I see has to do with whether or not the list represents the consensus, or how a game was "generally received". Some have argued that the list makes no claims to do this. Others have argued that it's fine to infer, from the fact that a game has been mentioned on six unrestricted all-time lists, that it is generally considered to be among the best, with an equivalence drawn between that and statements that sum up the "opinions in general" in reception sections.

This difference in framing, I believe, is substantial. It is the difference between an article that, to quote Indrian above, "makes a mockery of Wikipedia's list policies", and one that's actually fine. This list is the former if it claims to represent "opinions in general" and the latter if it doesn't, in my opinion.

Policy aside, another reason the framing matters is so that it's not misunderstood by readers. Take the comment below about the lack of games from 2019, for example. They suggested that perhaps Sekiro should be here. If this list claims to represent "opinions in general", then I understand where they are coming from. Sekiro is held in higher regard than a lot of games on this list (has a higher Metasscore, for example). It is closer to being "among the best" than some of them. Its absence is conspicuous for a list that claims to represent "opinions in general".

To be clear, I know that the comment that I'm referencing is silly. Sekiro should not be included here, nor should the criteria be expanded to include things other than mentions on unrestricted all-time lists. But I think we can expect these comments as long as the list is framed as (or mistakenly understood as) representing "opinions in general".

This is why I think framing is important, and why I think there needs to be a consensus among editors on what the list is doing. My line of thought when I made the above comment was, "How can we expect readers to know what the list is saying when even the editors have different understandings of it?" I don't think that's an argument made due to inexperience. At the very least, it shouldn't be dismissed as that. IlmeniAVG (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)