Game Informer Top 200 Games of All Time

[VectorGamer]

 

 

I am convinced of something though. ALL of us have a soft spot for particular companies, systems and games. It's pretty much impossible to be truly unbiased when it comes to video games. It's a lot like sports in this regard. Video gamers are just as much fanatics as any sports guys. They have their favorite teams, we have our favorite companies. Be it Atari, Nintendo, Sega, SNK, NEC, Sony or Microsoft. Or a whole host of others.

 

 

 

This is true to a certain extent. I can't comment on anything later than NES because I am a classic gaming bigot. I cannot comment on Intellivision or Odyssey2 systems because I never owned them. Because I have such a disdain for Intellivision, I am biased to the systems I know.

 

However, within the realm of Arcade, Atari, NES, Vectrex and ColecoVision I will be brutally honest. Atari 2600 Pac-Man downright sucks but 2600 Space Invaders was a HUGE success. So much that it deserved its own entry along with the omitted arcade Space Invaders on the list.

 

ColecoVision is my favorite console but it is not immune to bum releases just like any other console. I couldn't put CV Buck Rogers on the list, for example, but why the omission of Donkey Kong (regardless of its shortcomings) which created such a buzz at the time of its release?

 

Despite my disdain for the Intellivision, surely there has to be something that could have been recognized. What about any of the sports titles since that was supposed to be the system's strong point? Some of you Intellivision owners will be able to answer that question.

[BassGuitari]

 

 

To have a TRULY accurate list, it must be compiled by true blue legends of the video game world, who have been around since the beginning (early to mid 70's?) and bought every new system that came out.

 

 

What does buying every new system when it comes out have to do with being a "legend?" And how does awareness or appreciation of a system only come from buying it when it first came out? I was born in 1985. I got an Odyssey 2 in 1998. And I still love the Odyssey 2. In fact, at least half of the consoles and computers I own were made before I was born. And yet, if I made one of these lists, a substantial chunk of it would comprise pre-1985/NES games...actually, it would probably be MOSTLY pre-1985/NES games.

 

I don't think making an accurate "best games" list (or a "worst games" list, for that matter) is dependent upon how long you've been around...but it does require perspective and impartiality, which for "young'uns" like me, means doing research (that's what I'll call my game collecting hobby now..."research" ). Of course, if you've been playing video games since Pong, that certainly doesn't hurt.

 

Another thing that might make a list like this more "accurate," or at least balanced, is if it were derived from a poll of, say, 100 people over the age of, let's say 35, and 100 people under the age of 35. This particular Game Informer list could only be representative of the under-35 crowd (actually it only represents Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, but I won't go there now). Likewise, if this list were made by only 35+-year-olds (who weren't on Sonintensoft's payroll, so to speak), it'd be all Atari, Colecovision, and Commodore, which is equally as narrow-minded as the "there were video games before Playstation 1?" idiocy.

[BassGuitari]

 

Despite my disdain for the Intellivision, surely there has to be something that could have been recognized. What about any of the sports titles since that was supposed to be the system's strong point? Some of you Intellivision owners will be able to answer that question.

 

*COUGH*RiverRaid*COUGH COUGH*

 

The Intellivision sports games are notable for being more complicated than anything around at the time, which theoretically made them more realistic. Although, World Series Major League Baseball for the ECS was the first baseball game to feature multiple camera viewpoints, stats-based gameplay (based on real players...even their real names were to be used, but Mattel axed that at the last minute), and programmable players and stats...in 1983.

 

Also, I'd argue that Utopia is a pretty important game. Utopia is to SimCity, and now The Sims, what Alone In The Dark is to Resident Evil/survival horror.

[kevincal]

 

 

To have a TRULY accurate list, it must be compiled by true blue legends of the video game world, who have been around since the beginning (early to mid 70's?) and bought every new system that came out.

 

 

What does buying every new system when it comes out have to do with being a "legend?" And how does awareness or appreciation of a system only come from buying it when it first came out? I was born in 1985. I got an Odyssey 2 in 1998. And I still love the Odyssey 2. In fact, at least half of the consoles and computers I own were made before I was born. And yet, if I made one of these lists, a substantial chunk of it would comprise pre-1985/NES games...actually, it would probably be MOSTLY pre-1985/NES games.

 

I don't think making an accurate "best games" list (or a "worst games" list, for that matter) is dependent upon how long you've been around...but it does require perspective and impartiality, which for "young'uns" like me, means doing research (that's what I'll call my game collecting hobby now..."research" ). Of course, if you've been playing video games since Pong, that certainly doesn't hurt.

 

Another thing that might make a list like this more "accurate," or at least balanced, is if it were derived from a poll of, say, 100 people over the age of, let's say 35, and 100 people under the age of 35. This particular Game Informer list could only be representative of the under-35 crowd (actually it only represents Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, but I won't go there now). Likewise, if this list were made by only 35+-year-olds (who weren't on Sonintensoft's payroll, so to speak), it'd be all Atari, Colecovision, and Commodore, which is equally as narrow-minded as the "there were video games before Playstation 1?" idiocy.

 

Because only by buying new systems right when they come out, can one put into context the greatness of that systems games compared to other systems and its games of the time. This is especially true in the 90's, because SO many systems and games came out. How good a game was, was directly determined by pitting games from rival systems against each other. This happened WAY more in the 90's than it does now or at any other time. So for people who buy systems out of curiosity WAY after that system was in its prime, well, to me that person will never have a fair and true assessment of how good the games are FOR THEIR TIME. There is something to be said for this. I mean, look how many 2600 fans are pissed that basic little 8 bit games aren't being put on the list ahead of massive 128 bit games? Because those old games FOR THEIR TIME, were the bees knees, the best games of their time.

 

THEREFORE, to have a truly accurate list of the greatest games of all time, the games that had the most impact when they arrived, you would need a panel of OLD GUYS who have been around since the beginning, and who had an open enough mind to continue buying new systems and games instead of living in the past with their favorite old system. MOST of us are guilty of the living in the past thing. Myself, in my mind, the 90's gaming cannot be beaten, and I haven't even bought a 360, PS3 or Wii. BUT, I know those systems have awesome games. But some people become so blinded by their love for their favorite systems and games that their judgement becomes flawed when it comes to greatest games lists.

 

And lets be honest, the older people are the wiser they tend to be. It's easy for us youngg guys to shoot off at the mouth like we know it all, because we are young healthy and full of confidence. But in reality for every year we live, we experience so much without even trying, and learn new things and ideas every single year. So 10 years is a LOT and your judgement of things becomes refined the older you get.

 

In ending, a best games of all time list must be compiled by older guys who have bought and loved almost every single video game system since the 70's. This is a rare breed, but surely there are guys and posssibly the rare girl or 2 that fits this criteria.

[BydoEmpire]

Apparently they created this list the same way they score games for their reviews:

 

if (IsHeavilyPromoted(game))

{

game.score = 9 + rand(1.0f);

}

else

{

score = rand(10.0f);

}

Edited November 20, 2009 by BydoEmpire

[BassGuitari]

Because only by buying new systems right when they come out, can one put into context the greatness of that systems games compared to other systems and its games of the time. This is especially true in the 90's, because SO many systems and games came out. How good a game was, was directly determined by pitting games from rival systems against each other. This happened WAY more in the 90's than it does now or at any other time. So for people who buy systems out of curiosity WAY after that system was in its prime, well, to me that person will never have a fair and true assessment of how good the games are FOR THEIR TIME. There is something to be said for this. I mean, look how many 2600 fans are pissed that basic little 8 bit games aren't being put on the list ahead of massive 128 bit games? Because those old games FOR THEIR TIME, were the bees knees, the best games of their time.

 

THEREFORE, to have a truly accurate list of the greatest games of all time, the games that had the most impact when they arrived, you would need a panel of OLD GUYS who have been around since the beginning, and who had an open enough mind to continue buying new systems and games instead of living in the past with their favorite old system. MOST of us are guilty of the living in the past thing. Myself, in my mind, the 90's gaming cannot be beaten, and I haven't even bought a 360, PS3 or Wii. BUT, I know those systems have awesome games. But some people become so blinded by their love for their favorite systems and games that their judgement becomes flawed when it comes to greatest games lists.

 

 

But we're not talking about the top games of their time. We're talking about the top games of ALL time...(so far). Many old games hold up just as well as more recent ones, which is why people get annoyed when these lists skew toward the present day. It simply feels like misrepresentation.

 

I don't buy the argument that you can't fairly assess how good/bad a game/system was in its "prime" if you first experienced it many years after. Maybe they won't "wow" you like they would have when they first came out, but that doesn't mean you can't judge it in the context of other systems that were past, future, and contemporary. Just gotta do some research...preferably by playing the games personally. Take the Astrocade, for instance. By playing it, its contemporaries (Atari VCS, Channel F, Odyssey 2, and to an extent Intellivision), its predecessors (Pong, Studio II, Channel F again), and successors (Colecovision, Atari 5200, onward...), I can safely surmise that the Astrocade was far ahead of its time, despite my not even having been born yet. And in the case of the Astrocade, I challenge you to find ANYONE (who knows what they're talking about) who will dispute that assessment. Likewise, with the RCA Studio II, by having played it, its contemporaries, and systems past and future, I can tell you for a fact that the Studio II was a piece of garbage even in 1977. Again, I wasn't there. But then again, find someone who will dispute that assessment.

 

And no, most of us are not "living in the past" and refusing to buy new consoles and games. If that were the case, and no one was buying anything, new generations of video game soft/hardware would have no reason to exist, and the industry would shut down. Or maybe the 2600 would make a comeback, I don't know. Unless, by "us," you only mean people on AtariAge or video game collectors...and even then, I doubt that's true. But I don't know, I could be wrong.

 

I'll agree with that last part about fanboyism and flawed judgment, though. That's pretty spot-on. This Game Informer list is proof of it (not that any is needed ).

 

I maintain that for a list like this to be "accurate," there needs to be some balance between old and new. I'm not saying it's got to be 50/50 (that would be pretty contrived anyway), but to sway overwhelmingly one way or the other indicates either ignorance or bias.

[VectorGamer]

 

But we're not talking about the top games of their time. We're talking about the top games of ALL time...(so far).

 

"Their" meaning the peeps that voted on the list not "their" meaning respective games in "their" heyday, right?

 

I don't buy the argument that you can't fairly assess how good/bad a game/system was in its "prime" if you first experienced it many years after.

 

The argument is true to a degree. I keep pointing to Space Invaders and I think we are all in agreement that it is a huge omission. I grew up in the classic era and just from the arcade genre Space Invaders, Asteroids, Pac-Man, Galaga, Ms. Pac-Man, Pong, Computer Space, Defender and Tron make that list easily.

 

Conversely, since some of those I listed were omitted and given that there were members of the panel who were playing these games at the time, your statement holds true - not because they were not there but because they were and still couldn't get it right.

 

And no, most of us are not "living in the past" and refusing to buy new consoles and games.

 

I just don't care for modern games. They take too long to play for one thing and the game play just isn't my cup of tea. I don't have a disdain for modern gaming, I just can't get interested just like a kid nowadays can't get into playing a classic arcade game. I'll play the sports and racing games but that's it.

[kevincal]

But anyways, we all know the best "top XXX games" lists come from people like us who poll our OWN darn lists right here in forums like Atari Age. These mainstream outfits ALWAYS have an agenda. I think that's why their lists never really make sense. Cus usually something fishy involved with money is going on.

Edited November 20, 2009 by kevincal

[BassGuitari]

I don't buy the argument that you can't fairly assess how good/bad a game/system was in its "prime" if you first experienced it many years after.

 

The argument is true to a degree. I keep pointing to Space Invaders and I think we are all in agreement that it is a huge omission.

 

See, though, the fact that everyone agrees that Space Invaders is a huge omission kind of proves my point. How many of us were actually alive, let alone conscious of video games, when Space Invaders first hit? A significant number, sure. But a significant number of us also were not. Yet, we agree upon the importance of Space Invaders.

 

 

But anyways, we all know the best "top XXX games" lists come from people like us who poll our OWN darn lists right here in forums like Atari Age. These mainstream outfits ALWAYS have an agenda. I think that's why their lists never really make sense. Cus usually something fishy involved with money is going on.

 

Right on, man.

[WatchVenusSpa]

Not ONE GTA game should have made this list, PERIOD.

[WatchVenusSpa]

Another glaring omission is Where In The World Is Carman Sandiego? One of the greatest and most influential PC games of all time. It is still a fun game to play to this day.

[8th lutz]

I was born in the same year Space Invaders came out in 1978. I didn't remember seeing an arcade cabinet of Space Invaders at Chuck E. Cheese in the year I first played an arcade game in 1983 or 1984, yet I felt Space Invaders was an a huge omission for this list.

 

I wasn't hooked into console gaming until was almost 9 1/2 years old.

 

Space Invaders was one of the first games I remembered playing for the Atari 2600 Jr in 1988 after I got the system.

 

Space Invaders and Demon Attack got me into space shooters before I first played Galaga on the Atari 7800.

[Csonicgo]

I'm amazed Doom was that far up. id spent like $20 promoting it.

[Gregory DG]

I remember playing Space Invaders at a truck stop during it's heyday. That alone ought to tell you how popular/influential it was if it was at a FREAKING truck stop!

Edited November 21, 2009 by Gregory DG

[vrocko]

Wow, I see Game Informer has botched up another top games of all times list. Yes there are glaring exclusions to this list.

 

Missle Command, Space Invaders, The original Tempest (Don't get me wrong I like the Jag Tempest and have played it to death but the original started it and I wouldn't have the Jag version without the original), most definitely Pong (most of us were brought up on Pong), I don't see Zaxxon, Pitfall I and II for sure (probably one of the original platformers), someone said Pole Position and I definitely agree as well as Q'bert, Frogger, Centipede, all these have been said and are sadly missing from this list. How about others like Wing Commander, I loved that series and still play it today. 4 GTA's on the list? Why? Why is Borderlands on this list?(it just came out and I don't think a game that just came out should even show up on this list) and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for that matter. I know that's my opinion but if a Top 200 games of ALL TIME list is going to come out you need the classics before the new stuff.

 

Without the classics, which we all have played and still play, you can't have all the new games. Again another EPIC FAIL for a Top games list . I don't know what all of you think but I think that Atari Age, Nintendo Age, Sega-16 and other Classic games sites need to sit down with the newer game sites and discuss a top games list that we can all agree on.

 

Rich

[wang2chung]

For the sake of reviving this one because it is the best list I've seen from a mag in a looooong time. Just wish they would've killed the GTA before ever listing it and Added Space Invaders and some ADVERTURES OF LOLO!!!

[NinjaWarrior]

This list fails

[Cynicaster]

Glad to see Twisted Metal 2 made the list; that is one of my favorite games of all time.

 

But I agree with those old posts lamenting the under-representation of the Atari 2600. It's a crime that not a single 2600 Activision title made the list. Kaboom, Pitfall, River Raid, Pressure Cooker, Frostbite, Enduro... I'd be satisfied with any of these.

[akator]

Over the last decade, most greatest game lists skip over the arcade... which is very strange considering the arcade was extremely influential up until the early-to-mid 90s. The pre-crash arcade hits are no-brainers, but many more followed. There is at least 1 awesome and defining arcade game for each year in the decade between 1984-1994, with most years providing several. Any list of greatest games that isn't at least 25-30% arcade titles isn't worth paying attention to.

[CommodoreStaffen]

Am I the only one that thinks PONG should be number one? It's what STARTED the video game market. The entire first generation of video game consoles were just pong consoles.

 

And on a more related note- I smell extreme bias. There is really nothing here pre-NES, and most of the games are post 2000. Either Nintendo paid GI off, or GI is just that much of a "Dick Sucker".

[Megaman Legends]

I think theres too many greats and WAY too many baddies *cough*dr.jekle and mr hydecough couf****

[Megaman Legends]

Am I the only one that thinks PONG should be number one? It's what STARTED the video game market. The entire first generation of video game consoles were just pong consoles.

 

And on a more related note- I smell extreme bias. There is really nothing here pre-NES, and most of the games are post 2000. Either Nintendo paid GI off, or GI is just that much of a "Dick Sucker".

 

 

I'm with you man. Pong is addicting