Lists[edit]

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

There's a new list from For the Win (FTW!) - USA Today, I don't know if it meets the inclusion criteria but I'll post the link here: https://ftw.usatoday.com/lists/best-video-games-all-time-list-zelda-mario Andrija.s. (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DW-2yjPbKkdj4qaIkE85VsT1T2uhDwxsPn70kfuHimw/edit
This is the link to the Google Doc for my List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources + Almost Top 100. I will be making updates exclusively on the Google Doc from now on. XJJSX (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad the fun got preserved somewhere more appropriately. Almost trivial, yes, but a minor pleasure to see. Thanks overall for your efforts on this article. :)
(Btw @Phediuk on the omnibus and spreadsheet thing I had the ugliest double take upon realizing they were already listed in the FAQ. My dumb brain thought there was no Q4 somehow, LOL.) Carlinal (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlinal It was actually part of Q1 all along, but I explicitly moved it to Q4 to be clearer last night. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources[edit]

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

(Update: So, after some talks with other users, it’s decided that this Talk Page will, indeed, have its DoNotArchive removed. I sincerely hope those who have seen and engaged with this list had fun. Thank You. - XJJSX)

Top 100 Referenced Games

1. Tetris - 67

2. Street Fighter II - 59

3. Super Mario 64 - 57

4. Doom - 53

5. GoldenEye 007 - 53

6. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - 51

7. Super Metroid - 50

8. Final Fantasy VII - 50

9. Metal Gear Solid - 50

10. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past - 49

11. Resident Evil 4 - 49

12. Half-Life 2 - 46

13. Chrono Trigger - 45

14. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night - 45

15. Super Mario World - 44

16. Super Mario Kart - 44

17. Shadow of the Colossus - 43

18. Silent Hill 2 - 40

19. Metroid Prime - 40

20. World of Warcraft - 40

21. Mass Effect 2 - 40

22. BioShock - 38

23. StarCraft - 37

24. Super Mario Bros. 3 - 36

25. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves - 36

26. Half-Life - 35

27. Minecraft - 35

28. Final Fantasy VI - 34

29. Diablo II - 34

30. Halo: Combat Evolved - 34

31. The Last of Us - 34

32. Sonic the Hedgehog - 33

33. Portal - 33

34. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - 33

35. Tomb Raider - 32

36. Deus Ex - 32

37. Red Dead Redemption - 32

38. Grand Theft Auto V - 32

39. Pac-Man - 31

40. Counter-Strike - 31

41. Journey - 31

42. Pokémon Red, Blue and Yellow - 30

43. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater - 30

44. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - 30

45. SimCity 2000 - 29

46. Grim Fandango - 29

47. Portal 2 - 29

48. Ico - 28

49. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - 28

50. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 28

51. Mega Man 2 - 27

52. Super Mario Bros. - 26

53. Secret of Mana - 26

54. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - 26

55. Ōkami - 26

56. Space Invaders - 25

57. Donkey Kong - 25

58. The Secret of Monkey Island - 25

59. Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island - 25

60. Dark Souls - 25

61. Fallout 3 - 24

62. Lemmings - 23

63. X-COM: UFO Defense - 23

64. Star Wars: TIE Fighter - 23

65. Grand Theft Auto III - 23

66. Super Smash Bros. Melee - 23

67. Batman: Arkham City - 23

68. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - 23

69. Pong - 22

70. Ms. Pac-Man - 22

71. Day of the Tentacle - 22

72. EarthBound - 22

73. Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2 - 22

74. Elite - 21

75. The Sims - 21

76. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker - 21

77. Braid - 21

78. Bloodborne - 21

79. Monkey Island 2: LeChuck’s Revenge - 20

80. Civilization II - 20

81. Resident Evil - 20

82. Final Fantasy Tactics - 20

83. SimCity - 19

84. NBA Jam - 19

85. Myst - 19

86. Age of Empires II - 19

87. Advance Wars - 19

88. Burnout 3: Takedown - 19

89. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - 19

90. Defender - 18

91. Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out!! - 18

92. Gran Turismo - 18

93. System Shock 2 - 18

94. Grand Theft Auto IV - 18

95. Persona 4 - 18

96. Gauntlet - 17

97. Quake - 17

98. Fallout 2 - 17

99. Planescape: Torment - 17

100. Shenmue - 17

Almost Top 100

1. The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask - 17

2. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City - 17

3. Civilization IV - 17

4. Batman: Arkham Asylum - 17

5. Left 4 Dead 2 - 17

6. Asteroids - 16

7. Galaga - 16

8. The Legend of Zelda - 16

9. Donkey Kong Country - 16

10. Star Fox 64 - 16

11. Resident Evil 2 - 16

12. Soulcalibur - 16

13. Thief II: The Metal Age - 16

14. Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn - 16

15. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec - 16

16. God of War (2005) - 16

17. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - 16

18. Wii Sports - 16

19. Halo 3 - 16

20. Super Mario Galaxy - 16

21. The Walking Dead - 16

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

Hi; I recommend you make this list collapsible, to reduce the amount of space it takes up on the talk page. You can just copy the template from the other lists posted here. Thank you. Phediuk (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted, I looked at your template for the Total Games Network 1999 talk page and went off of that, I hope it’s better now. 2605:A601:AE99:A300:A453:B420:6BCB:F1E7 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Phediuk (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's about time for a new edition! Alena 33 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once either the Times 2023 or Netzwelt 2018 lists are officially incorporated then this list will be updated XJJSX (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some games were hot when they came out, but are no longer remembered as fondly (or as well :P) these days. In an effort to weigh against that, I also came up with a top 100 games list only from 2013 onwards last year. And as it's a new year now, I just updated it today to only be from 2014 onwards.
Here it is-- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qhUnal80p0H42sRjMvONXCtYozBzFgFcFxWb98HMSvQ/edit#gid=1708103363.
If a game is on that list and older than ten years or so, you can be more sure that it still stands up well today (according to our reliable sources, at least.) 100.16.223.83 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clarifying-- the source lists are only from 2014 onwards now. The games are from across all years. 100.16.223.83 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You’re totally free to post this, but I would like to say that I don’t think any of the games on the 100 list necessarily “don’t stand up well”. It’s not like Computer Space or Pedit5 are in here lol. That being said all freedom to you, I can tell you put a lot of work into your list. XJJSX (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to publish your personal list somewhere else, but that's WP:OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The opposite could just as easily be true, that more recent lists end up with a recency bias based on publicity, marketing, and the inexperience of younger journalists.
That's why we just stick with what multiple reliable sources say, instead of inserting arbitrary measuring sticks. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

GamingBible-related discussions[edit]

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

I let it through because I was waiting on an opinion or two at WT:VG/S for GAMINGbible and was going to give the user that added it the benefit of the doubt. But now there's not just two, but four votes at WT:VG/S that conclude it's an unreliable content farm, and it will probably soon be vetted at VG/S officially. So with that the reference should be removed. NegativeMP1 19:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LADBible properties are all unreliable in my view. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition of intelligible games and GameInformer 2001[edit]

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

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

Per this discussion, Game Informer's 2001 list is a reader poll and therefore ineligible. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright then that's settled, thank you. NegativeMP1 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-published(?) aggregation sites[edit]

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

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

GameChampions[edit]

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

@Alena 33: We'll need more context than that for this to be considered. A deleted Reddit thread linking to an 800-view YouTube video gives very little. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"TOP 100 GAMES OF THE GAMEMAG FORUM" is the youtube title's translation. Not... encouraging. -- ferret (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WRONG LINK! IM SORRY
https://www.gamechampions.com/en/blog/100-best-video-games-of-all-time/ Alena 33 (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is definitely an unreliable source. A blog attached to a corporate marketing site and "get paid to play" scheme. -- ferret (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USA Today, 2024[edit]

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

USA Today, 2024

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

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

Go ahead and add it Timur9008 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can there at least be a list of games that receive an entry closer to being put on the page with this? λ NegativeMP1 18:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have incorporated the USA Today list, and added it to the omnibus data. As for the inquiry above, Anthem, New World, Baldur's Gate III, Starcraft: Brood War, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, and SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs have gone from 0 publications to 1; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time has gone from 2 to 3. Phediuk (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, finally. Thus it begins for Baldur's Gate III and TOTK. For some reason I thought Turtles in Time would be at least one entry higher. Carlinal (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Omnibus visualized data has been updated. BenSVE (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024[edit]

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

Once the game has six separate reliable sources, sure, but right now it has five so it’s going to need one more. XJJSX (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both of these sources (IGN, 2021 & GQ 2023) are already in the omnibus data, but part of 5 of 6 needed publications that list Persona 5/Royal. You provided nothing new, I'm sorry. Carlinal (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd feel fine lowering the threshold. Multiple reliable rankings consider this to be one of the best games, and creating a threshold to exclude it edges into WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second this. The list well has run dry as of late, and I think it is time to go back to 5. Alena 33 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. I don't think that's a valid reason at all—we shouldn't just change the inclusion criteria every time we get bored of waiting for a new list. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to Rhain. -- ferret (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 too. Carlinal (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 here, as well. 100.16.223.83 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'll be too common and basic to have five unique publications agree that a game is among the greatest, it's another when there's six. Might not seem much of a difference but to me it's the fairest amount to give a credible enough weight to an opinion for something like this. Carlinal (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not agreeing with them, but you talking about 5 being too common and basic might kinda be their point, like “yeah, it is more common and it is a more basic baseline for inclusion”, cuz 5 just feels like a stronger number than 6, if that makes sense (idk something something Number Symbolism something something). All that being said I still don’t think it’s a good enough reason to lower the threshold, in agreement with Rhain Ferret and Carlinal. XJJSX (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can somebody add Titanfall 2?[edit]

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

If you can provide six reliable secondary sources that list it as one of the best games of all time, yes. λ NegativeMP1 16:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://twinfinite.net/ps4/after-5-years-titanfall-2-best-fps-games-of-all-time/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/games/2016/11/02/titanfall-2-review-combat-evolved/
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/titanfall-2-review/1900-756/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/31/titanfall-2-review-robot-shooter-multiplayer-modes
http://www.gamespew.com/2016/10/titanfall-2-review/
http://www.psnstores.com/review/review-titanfall-2/ BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said six secondary sources that list it as one of the best games of all time. Read the criteria listed at the top of this talk page. λ NegativeMP1 20:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are individual reviews, the game needs to be on “Best Games of All Time” Lists. XJJSX (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terraria should be included[edit]

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

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

Concrete basis for the criteria[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Well, how would you decide what is considered “manageable” list length? There would still be a publication number requirement to make the list, right? Or are we just counting any game that has made any list at any time until we reach say 400 like you said? Either way there would still be an “arbitrary” barrier of entry into the list. As for the second suggestion, that is arguably more arbitrary and I think does indeed err too far into WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Not to sound too crass, but I think a lot of the recent outcry over the inclusion criteria is more over the fact that people’s favorite games aren’t making the list, as if you need this Wikipedia article to validate your opinions. XJJSX (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to build on IAmACowWhoIsMad and XJJSX's comments, I agree that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary, but in a way that benefits the article, by tying inclusion to breadth of sourcing rather than to the length of the list. The size of the page should only be a concern if it becomes unmanageable, or begins to break Wikipedia in some way, or if it has rapidly expanded out-of-control; as long the page remains a reasonable length, and stably so, I see little reason to cut it down. I will define "reasonable length" in this context as a page that is not unusually long. The two usual ways of measuring this would be either the number of entries, or the amount of readable text. By neither measure is this page unreasonably long, even when compared to others similar to it. List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, for instance, contains over 450 entries (even with an arbitrary 20-review minimum for inclusion), compared to this page's 323; List of films considered the best contains 78KB of readable text, while this page contains about 62KB. By the usual means of measurement, then, this page is of a reasonable length. Furthermore, the page has remained stable, seeing only about a dozen new entries in the last year; the reason is that every new source is still thoroughly vetted and subject to consistent criteria to ensure suitability. As the page is of a reasonable length and remains stable, well-sourced, well-maintained, and up-to-date, we do not need to define a maximum length for the page at present. If it spirals out-of-control someday, such a measure may be necessary, but that has not happened. Thanks again for the thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whenever anyone asks (or even accuse) whether this listicle isn't given a sufficient amount of moderation and polish, I find that a ridicule to its maintenance being done by some of the most experienced editors for video game subjects on Wikipedia, including but not limited to Phediuk, ferret, XJJSX, Rhain, NegativeMP1, BenSVE, and Dissident93. In the entirety of my involvement in this article and its talk pages there have been no changes to the inclusion criteria, nor the reasoning for such; this article has no major nor minor flaws that need to be addressed because of such near-pristine moderation and consistency in quality sourcing, along with very slow growth in its size.
If I remember correctly, the last time the criteria was changed was to moderate said size, along with having a "Greatest game ever!" opinion being applied here without any looseness. If the criteria was changed to seven sources or five back then it definitely would not change now or any time soon. And there's no good enough reason today for change, either, aside from the accusations of this criteria being WP:OR. The only thing I'm surprised about is that no one has accused the criteria of having games too recent to allow enough time for vindication; as of my comment, Disco Elysium and Hades are under five years old.
I know this has all been answered before but I'm just gonna kill these questions again for this discussion; Besides size moderation, why six separate publications for inclusion in this article? Why not any more or less? How come this particular detail isn't original research? Carlinal (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly the idea that games should be barred for being "too recent" is one that has little basis anyways. Games like BioShock Infinite and Destiny were added more than five years after they released despite their reception nowadays being much more tepid, so it would feel odd if they had been present on the list but not Breath of the Wild or 2018's God of War. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I was not intending to disparage the moderation and polish that went into this list. I think the amount of work that has went into it has been phenomenal and I use it as a resource for myself quite often. Genuinely, excellent work to all of the people who put lots of effort to make this list the best it can be.
My main concern is with the potential WP:OR aspect of the criteria, and suggesting possibly using a concrete basis to distance the number of sources from editor opinion as much as possible. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I say we bump it up to 7. Alena 33 (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That only results in the loss of a select few games that'll likely be added back later anyways. No point in doing so, and the current threshold of 6 was already raised from 5. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd mainly try to consider what is "manageable" in terms of what other lists on Wikipedia consider a manageable length (400 was just a number I used for the sake of example, not really a length I was advocating for in particular). I won't deny it's any less arbitrary a standard, but it at least gives a reason for a particular number of sources used, which arguably could prevent claims of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and would likely make conversations around the criteria at least a little more directed. The second suggestion I agree is certainly even worse in terms of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH than the current state of things and I mainly named it in the process of finding potential means of finding a concrete basis for the criteria. I think it is by far the worst suggestion here.
I do agree that a lot of the discussions of inclusion criteria are made by random people mad about their pet game not getting included, which I don't think should be given much credit. The arguments over length, at least, do raise important questions about what length of list is manageable, though I don't know whether I'd consider the current length "unmanageable" yet. At the very least, it's something to consider. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless I’m missing a point to your argument it just seems like the manageable text method would still require a publication threshold for entry, thus effectively still being the same method of inclusion as now, just with a lower threshold to allow more games in, and I think there’s a bit of a disconnect between what more lax users of Wikipedia consider manageable text and what actually is manageable text according to WP:SIZERULE. Pheduik explained this much better than I in a prior response to this, but essentially the list is still manageable and not close to needing cutting. XJJSX (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's understandable. I've said this on other replies, but my main concern was with potential WP:OR issues. However, seeing as several other replies have said that other similar media lists also use fairly arbitrary criteria, it's probably okay to keep using the same system as it is now. If there's more concerns about avoiding WP:OR later down the line, or there's a catastrophic list length problem that occurs, maybe it will be time to consider option 1, but seeing how the current system has been argued for, I am perfectly fine with an arbitrary criteria. Thank you to all the editors for their thoughtful input. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At some point, like with the question of whether Sega Genesis should be named Mega Drive or not, it starts to become disruptive to reopen the discussion over and over with no real new argument. I think everyone acknowledges that the six source limitation is arbitrary. The only question from experienced editors has been whether or not that is in itself a problem. However, since numerous lists of similar nature for other media types essentially use the same arbitrary limitation criteria, it seems the project broadly accepts this methodology. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One reason I brought up how this starts to become disruptive: I just archived five sections just as long as this one, all from the last three months, essentially discussing the same thing, with no new argument or consensus reached. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is a fine length and there is no problem, according to WP:SIZERULE. There isn't any risk of it surpassing the amount of readable prose. Even if we were, I would recommend removing a column like publisher or genre. This would cut the table contents by a quarter (give or take), while preserving verifiable entries (the whole point of Wikipedia). As is, we've already used editorial opinion to remove too many verifiable entries, which approaches WP:OR. We should strive to eliminate any kind of arbitrary threshold and simply go with what the sources say, per WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for the comment. All games that meet the criteria are, to our knowledge, on the list already. Yes, the list could be even longer than it is if we diluted said criteria, but I do not think we should feel we have to "max out" the length of the list. Giving the list room to expand slowly has kept the page stable and carefully maintained for years now. Thanks again for the thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Shooterwalker's concerns are legitimate. There are games that multiple reliable sources consider to be among the best, yet they are not mentioned on this page as they have not met an arbitrary threshold. The response to this concern, as far as I can tell, is that any number of required sources is, ultimately, arbitrary. But, this is not true. The interpretation of "multiple reliable sources" for this page should be in line with its interpretation for other, similar pages. If there is some sort of precedent for "multiple" meaning six, then fair enough. But, if requiring six is more (or less) than what other articles require, then I think it needs to be revised. IlmeniAVG (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts. I do feel that users ferret, XJJSX, et al., are correct that other, comparable articles impose arbitrary inclusion thresholds of their own. See, for instance, List of best-selling video games's restriction to 50 entries, List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes's 20-review minimum for all entries, and List of video games notable for negative reception's criterion of an aggregate review score below 50/100 based on at least 10 reviews, while also excluding "Shovelware, tie-ins, and non-notable indie or mobile titles" (as determined on the talk page.) The point is that the inclusion criteria of each list depends on what editors have deemed to be suitable to the page, a process that is arbitrary by nature. If anything, I argue that the six-source threshold here, though also arbitrary, has a sounder basis in WP policy, since it ties inclusion to breadth of RS coverage, rather than review numbers or an ad hoc maximum number of entries. The relevant question, then, is whether diluting the inclusion threshold would make the article better. I am skeptical of this notion, as by definition, doing so would add a huge number of additional entries (in the hundreds for a threshold of 4 or fewer), every one of them with fewer sources than those currently listed. I do not feel we should compromise the sourcing standard for the sake of making the page longer. Thank you again for your comments. Phediuk (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of the above articles set a precedent for the requirement of six sources used in this article. They are, perhaps, examples of other arbitrary thresholds being used, but this does not directly address my concern. If the six-source threshold has a sounder bases in WP policy, as you say, then I would expect there to be a precedent for it somewhere. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to investigate this myself, but this is where I think the discussion should go.
As for whether or not reducing the threshold would make the article better, I feel strongly that it would. If hundreds more games have been cited by multiple reliable sources as being among the best, then listing those games here better reflects what those reliable sources say. The length of the list is not currently a practical concern, and I don't think it should be considered "compromising" the sourcing standard when we are talking exclusively about games that have been cited by multiple reliable sources. IlmeniAVG (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again. The links I provided are not just "perhaps" other examples of arbitrary inclusion thresholds; they are examples, reflecting the differing natures and needs of each of the pages, and the divergent manner in which RSes cover each topic. This page does not need to follow the inclusion criteria of another page, because it is not that page; it covers a different topic, which sources cover in a different way. As for this page's sounder basis in WP policy, its requirement of multiple sources fulfills WP:EXCEPTIONAL's guideline that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"; the guideline does not define multiple, and so, this page defines it as six, which still qualifies as such. This page's threshold is thus based more strongly in WP policy than limiting the page to a specific number of entries (as in the best-selling games list), or to entries that have a minimum number of reviews on a review aggregator (as in the Rotten Tomatoes list), neither of which are supported by official policy anywhere. Also, I do not feel that adding hundreds of more entries would better reflect the sources, as the new entries would all be cited by fewer of them than those currently on the list. Last, the current inclusion threshold keeps the length of the list under control; while its length is not currently a concern, as you say, the huge expansion you are proposing would make it so. Thanks for the thoughts. Phediuk (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said "perhaps" because I did not look at the examples closely enough to confirm one way or the other, not to cast doubt on your claim (in case that's what it looked like--apologies if it did). As I said before, I was looking for was an article that sets a precedent for six sources being used, so whether or not those articles also have arbitrary thresholds is not pertinent to my criticism.
Anyway, returning to my earlier criticisms of the title of this article, I believe there is a disconnect between the title and the list criteria. A game having been named on six greatest games lists is a valid perspective from which to assess whether or not a game is "considered the best", but it is one of many. I could make a case that games with Metacritic scores above 95 are also "considered the best", or that the threshold should be lower for recently released games that have not had the opportunity to appear on as many lists, or that older lists should be weighted less heavily because far fewer games exited at the time of their publication, or that only rankings in the top 100 should count since anything below that is too inclusive, or that five mentions should be sufficient since five mentions from reliable sources would be sufficient elsewhere on Wikipedia. All of these are, in my opinion, valid points, and I think they get to the heart of a lot of the issues that people have with this page. Editors set the standard of six mentions on all time greatest games lists from reliable sources, but it is worryingly easy to argue that reliable sources actually say something different.
Looking at other, similar Wikipedia pages for reference, the page for films (List of films considered the best) is structured very differently, and in a way that I think avoids most of the issues with this page. The page for books (List of books considered the best) is similar in structure, though it only requires three sources, and also has a note about it potentially not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline. I could not find pages for other mediums such as popular music albums or songs. I think this speaks to the difficulty of writing these articles in a way that is in line with Wikipedia standards. Pages for other mediums either don't exist, are of a questionable standard, or are structured very differently.
For this article, I want to say that I think presenting a list that purports to show a consensus necessarily requires original research, and I am opposed to any attempt at this. Copying the structure of the film page is something that I would not be opposed to, and I would also not be opposed to a page that essentially presented a list of greatest games lists, along with some basic statistics like games with the most mentions, games with the most no#1 mentions, games with the most top 10 mentions etc.
Anyway, I feel like I've said all that I need to for the time being, so I'll step back and let others discuss from here. IlmeniAVG (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again, sorry for the double response. I was reflecting on this and I have some suggestions that would address my concerns, and possibly the concerns of others.
First, I think the title of the article should be changed to better reflect the source data, i.e. "greatest video games" lists from reliable sources. I would suggest something along the lines of, "List of video games that have appeared on multiple 'all time greatest games' lists", or, "List of 'all time greatest video games' lists" (a list of games that have appeared multiple times would be appropriate for an article with the latter title).
The problem I have with the current title is it suggests Wikipedia is in a position to interpret the available data and present a sort of consensus based on that data. But, this requires interpreting said data, and thus it would be original research.
If the article were instead a "List of 'all time greatest video games' lists", and contained a list of games that had been mentioned multiple times (perhaps sorted by number of mentions), then I think that would be completely fine. I would probably still argue for reducing the threshold, but I would consider it less of a problem than it is now (because it's clear that the list is not necessarily a list of "games considered the best").
If Shooterwalker is still following this, I would be curious to hear their thoughts on these suggestions. IlmeniAVG (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you describe is exactly stated in the two sentences of the lede section. Is there some aspect you feel should be expanded on or included there? The precise criteria doesn't have to fit in the article title, it can go in the lede. SnowFire (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still following. I usually try to back off after I've made my observations known, because I generally respect the core group of editors maintaining this article. But other editors raise criticisms on this talk page, and if other editors respond, then I will too.
I'm observing a large number of critics who never arrive at this talk page at the same time, which should be taken as a cautionary note for the core group that is watchlisting this article. It's worth trying to find a constructive solution, and usually the most objective solution is to go back to the sources.
I still believe this is arbitrary and creeping into WP:OR. No, I don't think that it's valid to compare to "list of best selling films", where the sources agree about what the top selling films are, in dollar figures. I see the suggestion for a rename, but I'm not sure what would work. "List of games included in at least six "best of" rankings" isn't a very good title, and really just makes the original problem obvious. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. As SnowFire has observed, the page's title does not need to contain the list criteria, as the lede already defines them. Also, the example I provided was List of best-selling video games, which does, indeed, limit itself to fifty entries arbitrarily, drawn from disparate sources, none of which list said games as a unit. I agree that this page should reflect what the sources say, and it does, with multiple RS citations per entry, and multiple defined as six. I feel that lowering this threshold would not strengthen the sourcing, but rather, weaken it, while also (in the case of a 3-source threshold) approximately doubling the page's length. Thanks for the comment. Phediuk (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024[edit]

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

The game fails the list criteria. It is only included in one "best of all time" list, when six are needed. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Case in point regarding my recent tweaks to the FAQ and DoNotArchive sections (which have not yet archived).... People do not read them :P -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
😛 Carlinal (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories