wikipedia's list of best games

For some time I have been analyzing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best

I want to talk about it with you guys. I mean, what's wrong with this list. Some hallmark games are not there at all. I am not stating my own taste, really. I don' like and I don't play some of them games (short example: minecraft, final fantasy, sonic) but I know that they are very popular and have to be on that list. On the other hand some hallmark games (short example: duke nukem 3D, battlefield, crysis) are not there! Looks like someones' personal favourite games have made it to that list.

What is wrong with that list?

Any "best of" lists are subjective, can't reflect everyone opinions on that matter.

"The games listed here are included on at least five separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different reliable publications. While any single publication's list reflects its own taste, when the lists are taken in aggregate, a handful of notable games have achieved something approaching critical consensus by multiple appearances in such lists."

The list is an aggregation of opinions. By design the list is heavily skewed toward more popular games among reviewers each year. Duke3D couldn't compete with games in its year to get really good scores. Same for the other games. It is also a terribly made list because a ton more games qualify for just a few good reviews. (And some years completely don't exist in the list, 2014 didn't have a single good game?!)

For a list based on aggregate scores, it looks precisely how I would expect it to. I don't find anything glaringly wrong with it.

Doom: Check

Deus Ex: Check

StarCraft: Check

Half Life: Check

I'd say thats a pretty good list

Pfft, they didn't even add Morrowind.

I'm shocked to see R-Type on there. In no way has that ever been on anyone's list of best games other than best horizontal shmups.

15 hours ago, Avoozl said:

Pfft, they didn't even add Morrowind.

Oh crap your right, nevermind, shit list.

warioware on the GBA, REZ? Splinter Cell Chaos Theory?

Fallout 3 aka oblivion TC and not F1 or 2?

shit list.

Not even New Vegas is on there, or Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

15 hours ago, geo said:

I'm shocked to see R-Type on there. In no way has that ever been on anyone's list of best games other than best horizontal shmups.

It deserves it. 

ummm i dont see a error, but everyone have opinion

i think is a good list

On 10/2/2018 at 5:44 PM, DesecratorJ said:

Any "best of" lists are subjective, can't reflect everyone opinions on that matter.

This one isn't, as it's based on aggregate review scores. 

5 hours ago, Ajora said:

 

This one isn't, as it's based on aggregate review scores. 

And review scores are facts made by opinion.

Wow... Braid is on there. Super Meat Boy, I remember that causing issue, because it's score was as high as Oblivion's at the time on a lot of sites. Yet I look up Meatboy on Metacritic now and it's 84%.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/switch/super-meat-boy

Lucky games to be the first out of the gate. Although I can make a far better argument for Meat Boy to be there than I can Braid.

For as many people that hated Mass Effect 3 for its ending, I'm surprised to see it there. I'm also surprised to see Inside on there. People don't seem to talk about it endlessly like the developer's other game Limbo. I never enjoyed Limbo myself. Beyond the visuals, it's quite a clunky game. Having up as the jump button on a controller lead to a lot of issues.

Little Big Planet didn't deserve to be on there, but hey other people said it did.

In my own humble opinion, I'd say the top selling games are the best games. Although sales are not money, and I question concrete numbers. Here is Wikipedia's other list of the best games:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be for opinion pieces.

I notice that all their sources are English language. It's certainly convenient, since all en.wikipedia editors can be assumed to be able to read English language text, but it induces a strong cultural bias, of which they aren't aware since they aren't qualifying it in any way. It's "video game journalists", not specifically "Anglophone video game journalists", and "reliable publications" not specifically "reliable English-language publications".

Out of curiosity, I've looked at the equivalent article in other languages. They offer Azərbaycanca, Español, Português, and Suomi. And whaddaya know, they use the same English language sources (except for the Azeri one, which doesn't have any source at all in the first place). They don't refer to Spanish, Portuguese, or Finnish magazines.

1 hour ago, geo said:

In my own humble opinion, I'd say the top selling games are the best games.

The problem here is that this depends greatly on marketing as well as platform. If you go by best-selling game, it'll make any console-exclusive game better than any computer-exclusive game just because there are vastly more people playing on console than on PC. There are many great games that sold less than comparatively mediocre ones because the mediocre one had more marketing behind it.

11 minutes ago, ETTiNGRiNDER said:

I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be for opinion pieces.

It's not the Wikipedists' own opinion, they're merely recording the opinions of other people in an article about people's opinions.

4 hours ago, geo said:

 

In my own humble opinion, I'd say the top selling games are the best games. Although sales are not money, and I question concrete numbers. Here is Wikipedia's other list of the best games:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

That's not really fair to a ton of games, especially ones in less mainstream genres. 

If you want a legitimately bad list of the best games ever made, then look to Game Informer's reader's choice top 300. No Ultimas, no System Shocks, no Thiefs, no Quakes, no Wolfensteins, and only one Castlevania title.

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2018/03/19/readers-choice-top-300-games-of-all-time.aspx

On 10/2/2018 at 2:10 PM, roboticmehdi2 said:

On the other hand some hallmark games (short example: duke nukem 3D, battlefield, crysis) are not there!

How much are these games really hallmarks/ What ground did they break?

To the general public, what is so special about Duke Nukem 3D that wasn't done by Doom and various other FPSes at the time? What's special about Battlefield compared to Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, Medal of Honor? Honestly, the last question applies just as well to Crysis, but you could throw in Far Cry there too since it was a spiritual successor.

It's not that any of these games aren't good, popular, or deserving of praise in their own right, but they also don't really stand out against competitors in a critic's eye. Groundbreaking titles such as Doom, Quake, even Half-Life are going to resonate a whole lot more.

On 10/2/2018 at 5:10 PM, roboticmehdi2 said:

What is wrong with that list?

Absolutely nothing. It's a list of games considered to be the best according to various reliable sources.

The list does exactly what it says it does.

Naturally, popular games will get more reviews and be "better", while obscure ones will be completely ignored.

Many of your listed "hallmark" games are actually just cookie-cutter games, if you consider it. They follow the same formula as has been set down before and so are distinguished from others by only their names.

So I see nothing wrong with the list.

59 minutes ago, Ajora said:

If you want a legitimately bad list of the best games ever made, then look to Game Informer's reader's choice top 300. No Ultimas, no System Shocks, no Thiefs, no Quakes, no Wolfensteins, and only one Castlevania title.

 

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2018/03/19/readers-choice-top-300-games-of-all-time.aspx

Wow, witcher 3 number one, who would have thunk?

I would agree that list of best selling games of all time is a better list, damn despite the fact that neither doom nor half-life are there...

But list of best games there is just crap.

Oh hey! I found something even better! Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games

This is, I believe, is the most truthfull list I have seen so far. Those stupid non-pc games are not there so the list became much better.

Dooms, quakes, DN3D, crysis, .... all there.

4 minutes ago, roboticmehdi2 said:

Oh hey! I found something even better! Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games

 

This is, I believe, is the most truthfull list I have seen so far. Those stupid non-pc games are not there so the list became much better.

 

Dooms, quakes, DN3D, crysis, .... all there.

Yeah, because fuck non-PC games, amirite? 

29 minutes ago, Ajora said:

 

Yeah, because fuck non-PC games, amirite? 

Actually include some good non-pc games to this list (tetris, mario, legend of zelda, star fox 64, etc..) and it will become a very pretty list of best games.

(again this is not based on what games I like, i hate a lot games on that list ex:minecraft, but still believe it deserves being there)

(this is best games the way I see it, without considering my own taste)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games

Also it is interesting to note that according to this list, doom3 has sold more for PC than other dooms(1/u,  2,  final,  2016), despite the fact that many say that doom3 was not as good as others( not me though, I like all). doom2016 has not even made it to that list (yet) (because the list shows only over 1 million sells)

Also: half-life2,  half-life,  doom3,  crysis  and  counter-strike  are top 5 best selling PC first-person shooters.