These lists are always so silly, especially once you reach the top. Like why are we comparing Elden Ring, to Tetris, to Super Mario 64, and saying “one of these is definitively better than the other”.

It’s also a weird mix of how good the actual game is, vs how big its historical legacy is. Like, as the resident pokemon fan, I will freely say this: RBY sucks. It’s not fun to play. And yet it seems to be included simply for being popular…?

tldr: botw is #2

Not too bad of a list… I’d say most of the games on there probably deserve to be on there, even if they aren’t to my taste. Chrono Trigger all the way down at #84 is a headscratcher, though. That’s a top 10 game as far as I’m concerned.

All the usual problems you expect with lists like these.

• Franchises represented by their first or most ubiquitous game rather than their best (or better yet, all of them that deserve it making the list)
• Recency bias toward games that likely won’t be recognized as this good 5 years from now.
• Missing entries so egregious that almost anyone would agree they belong on the list (see the lack of Symphony of the Night, for example).
• Arguably too much weight put on storytelling.
• (most importantly) The items above being applied randomly and inconsistently.

Can almost never agree with the exact numbering, but still a great collection of amazing games. Some I wouldn’t include, but opinions are opinions.

Top X Lists are fine but I hope people don’t take them too seriously given their subjectivity. Like my number 2 is gravity rush 2, variety is the spice of life

Half-Life, Half-Life 2, and Half-Life Alyx all made the list. That’s pretty cool.

It seems inconsistent on how they rank series. For instance,

Starcraft 2 but no starcraft 1, which had a much bigger impact on the gaming world. Portal 2 but no Portal

But then they go and include all the half-lifes.

I can see this article garnering controversy with some of these choices