IGN's Top 100 Games (2007)

I would absolutely argue #2. It's not that fun of a game, and it's certainly not that important either. Creating a subset (well-type) of a niche genre (puzzle games) isn't something to sneeze at, but it's not deserving of a #2 "all time" spot either.

I would argue with #1 from a "fun" perspective. As in, it's not.

//Zig

There are games missing from that list.

Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Gothic II
Legend of Dragoon
Wizardry 8

I didn't see that many that could embody the "open adventure" sort of game that these titles are (minus LoD). LoD had an innovative combat system for RPGs that I will never tire of.

EDIT: Well, Fallout *was* on there, so there is *some* representation for the "open adventure" type of game on the list, but... that's about it.

Oh, and no Age of Empires, either!

and where the **** is Irritating Stick on that list?

//Zig

Open adventure games started with Zelda, which was on the list.

And I may not enjoy Tetris that much, but you couldn't find a more well known game. Call out Morrowind, only gamers will have heard of it. And some will like it, some will hate it. Call out Tetris, not everyone may like it, but everyone knows it and everyone has played it and it's influenced the creation of every puzzle game since.

Mario IS fun. Also, it's what pretty much created gaming as we know it. I really don't know where you're coming from on that one.

I dunno. I mean the kind of open adventure where you can literally do whatever where moral outcomes and choices are valued and have an effect on the world, its people and certain events / the end of the game.

I suppose some Zelda games do this, too, but they struck me largely as linear in plot, and while the world was probably largely free to explore, it's not like you could kill an NPC and then be arrested for it later or something.

Zelda's not really a precursor to open adventures. If we want to stretch it, then there was stuff that predated Zelda that could just as easily fit.

Are Starflight or Wasteland on the list? I didn't go through it. Those were early, well-known open adventures.

Regarding Super Mario, it didn't create gaming as we know it. It was the launch title for a very popular system, but it was clearly influenced by earlier games (such as Montezuma's Revenge, which I enjoyed more, and Pitfall II, which I didn't). If the list is valuing popularity above all else, then sure it fits #1. If the list is valuing entertainment value or importance, then there are better picks.

I would personally put Chaos Legion or Warriors Orochi 2 above Super Mario Bros on a top games of all time list. The entire point of saying "all time" is to put all games on a level playing field. If you give priority to old stuff simply because it came first, then that's hardly level. Not to mention it's kind of insulting. Truly classic games don't need to be given a handicap.

//Zig

I think the point is that Mario, for most of us, is still fun today.

As for Zelda being open world, I would say it popularized the concept of a free roam world, yes. There were games before it that played with the concept, but none nearly as popular.

See, it's where popularity and history combine that a classic is born. That's why Wasteland is not on the list, but Fallout is (although Wasteland is mentioned). You say Fallout, even before Bethesda took the thing in their grimy little paws, and people knew what you meant. Even if they hadn't played it themselves, they had friends who had... somehow they knew about this game. But you say Wasteland and people stare blankly.

Sad, perhaps, but true.

Similarly, in the film world, many would argue whether Casablanca is actually a well made film (same goes for a number of other classics I could name, especially of that period). But it is considered a classic because of the effect it had on the industry as well as the popularity of its time (and even today, to a degree).

I think this is the only video game 100 list I've seen that uses that standard procedure of determining classics. It's a good procedure because it's highly unbiased, in the fact that it tends to draw from a large range of material that speaks to historical development of the medium.

Easy to draw data from.

WOLFQUEEN: I've yet to see a game that adequately does what you describe.

I think trying to subjectively measure popularity is a silly way for a site to make a Top 100 list. In the world I grew up in, Wasteland and Fallout were both pretty darn popular, so my assessment of popular would be different from yours. Not to mention, such a list wouldn't necessarily reflect the 100 games you or I most enjoyed.

But that method does explain why their list is the way it is.

//Zig

Yeah, it's not a perfect method. But it is good for historical systems of analysis. It's a tried and true method that's been used for years to study popular culture.

I'm actually shocked to see IGN use it, since they usually fall into a basic popularity contest and inevitably Ocarina of Time ends up as #1 game with Halo somewhere in the 'teens and something stupid like Fallout 3 or Batman Arkham Asylum in the top twenty. Not that Batman isn't a good game, but I rarely feel that recent releases can be objectively added to these lists.

One of the few exceptions would be anything by team Ico.

Just in case we didn't already disagree enough, Ico would not make my top 100. Which I will be publishing at some point (I tried it once before, but made the mistake of making it a top 250 or something ridiculous and never finished)

//Zig

It's one of the reasons I don't like personal top 100 lists. Unless you read about a 1000 of them, or are doing a biographical study, they offer no workable data.

Yeah, but what are the chances IGN did a scientific study? Unless it's some editor's personal list (in which case, that editor has crummy taste), they're just making weird guesses about what was popular throughout history.

//Zig

They are sticking to certain formats and formulas that, as I mentioned, have been used in critical assessment throughout the ages to good effect.

Look at the difference between this list and next year's list. The next list makes me want to puke a fat one.

I guess I'm still not getting what you're saying. What you described before (when bringing up Fallout/Wasteland and Casablanca) isn't really a format or formula. It's just one perspective on "what was more popular?" What you said makes sense, but there are certainly counter-arguments to be made.

If IGN was going for enduring popularity, then Mario 3 would have seemed like it should have ranked higher than Mario 1. And if they're incorporating "influence/importance" then there are certainly more deserving picks. It's almost like they felt Mario should win, and they picked the first NES game just because it was first. That seemed to be their method: guess at popularity, then give more credit to "first". Maybe that's the method you're describing, but it sounds kind of like you have something a bit more firm in mind.

Anyways, that whole "guessing" thing is what I'm getting at. It doesn't represent how they really feel, and I don't think it represents overall impact on gaming either. That's the danger with guessing at what other people think -- you're likely to guess wrong.

It probably seems silly to discuss this so much, but this is something that I also see people doing in reviews... trying to guess at how other people feel in an effort to be "objective". And often producing a weaker (certainly less heartfelt) product as a result.

//Zig

It's a good subject to discuss, that's why we're doing it.

I actually completely agree with you. The only point I'm trying to make is that there is a well-documented "method" of determining objectivity and objective relevance that is used in educational, historical, and cultural studies in the world wide academia and that this IGN list is the closest I've seen IGN come to such objectivity.

There are most certainly counter arguments to the list and to the methodology. But it's still better than the usual popularity contest (though that studies another type of data).