There is a lot on here that I think makes sense in light of their criteria. Excluding some of the all time classics (SMB1, Half-Life, MGS) makes sense with the "holds up today" criteria.
I really disagree with their choice of some of the sequels though. Civ IV now feels completely inferior to me when compared to Civ V. If you included all the expansions to both games, V just feels better.
I am also disappointed in the lack of CRPG(s) on the list, as I feel that games like BGII or Planscape: Torment do hold up today. Especially when you consider that the writing in them is so much better than most modern games. The gameplay systems are obtuse, of course, but so are the systems in the Souls games which means that the systems being hard to understand isn't a disbarring factor. Perhaps there just wasn't anyone on the Edge team who were into those games at the time (or since). A bit of a shame since Pillars of Eternity and Shadowrun have been creating a nice little renaissance for these kinds of games.
It also looks like a lot of the much older games have been given short shrift. Games that still play fantastically today are cut in favor of newer versions. Does Pac Man:CE really play "better" than Pac Man the original arcade game (or better than CE DX)? I don't know how to compare those two they are fundamentally different things. It really seems like the default opinion was to take old franchises and find the most popular recent adaptation of them, rather than actually compare anything to the original. Especially in the case of things like, Asteroids or Missile Command. Both of which are excellently playing arcade games and IMO haven't been done well in "home" versions. They happen to be historically significant, but the gameplay in them is more interesting (trackballs are novel when you've never used one before) than another FPS shooter.
I really disagree with their choice of some of the sequels though. Civ IV now feels completely inferior to me when compared to Civ V. If you included all the expansions to both games, V just feels better.
I am also disappointed in the lack of CRPG(s) on the list, as I feel that games like BGII or Planscape: Torment do hold up today. Especially when you consider that the writing in them is so much better than most modern games. The gameplay systems are obtuse, of course, but so are the systems in the Souls games which means that the systems being hard to understand isn't a disbarring factor. Perhaps there just wasn't anyone on the Edge team who were into those games at the time (or since). A bit of a shame since Pillars of Eternity and Shadowrun have been creating a nice little renaissance for these kinds of games.
It also looks like a lot of the much older games have been given short shrift. Games that still play fantastically today are cut in favor of newer versions. Does Pac Man:CE really play "better" than Pac Man the original arcade game (or better than CE DX)? I don't know how to compare those two they are fundamentally different things. It really seems like the default opinion was to take old franchises and find the most popular recent adaptation of them, rather than actually compare anything to the original. Especially in the case of things like, Asteroids or Missile Command. Both of which are excellently playing arcade games and IMO haven't been done well in "home" versions. They happen to be historically significant, but the gameplay in them is more interesting (trackballs are novel when you've never used one before) than another FPS shooter.