• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

IGN's top 100 games of last gen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stumpokapow said:
Another interesting list, and I'm glad to see a few neglected games make it (Civ Rev in particular is something that a lot of people forgot about, and I'm also very glad to see Rock Band so high!) There are also definitely some black sheep choices like Turok, Transformers, and Castlevania HD, which is always cool because it sort of shows what your personal taste was. Thanks for putting it together. :)

This is the part where if you published this list on a site, GAF members would pull it apart because it includes "garbage" and doesn't include some "god tier" stuff and "The Last of Us is below Lost Odyssey how is that even possible?!?!?!?!" or whatever.
Click to expand...

I could see how tough it would be for anyone to do and put out there like IGN's list. I'm not sure it's possible to not have at least one severely unpopular spot in the list. There are just too many games in a generation, between 3 popular consoles.

Nemmy said:
Man, have an internet pat on the back for including Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. Such a fantastic, yet forgotten title.
Click to expand...

It really is a cool game. I kept looking at the list from a 'what if I could only have 100 games from last gen' perspective, and that is definitely one of them.
 
nbnt said:
#68 Demon's Souls
#67 Dishonored
#66 God of War III
#65 Catherine
Click to expand...

this list is a joke.

Look I'm happy that Catherine is on here, it's one of my favorite games, but for it to beat Demon's Souls and for Demon's Souls to be so low on this list, below forgettable games like Dishonored and God of War III is just ridiculous. It's one of the most important games of last gen, and its influence will last well into the current one if not longer.
 
Raist said:
What's a good vs a bad opinion, tell me?
It's a vicious circle. You see "invalidated opinions" and inconsistency because you're putting too much weight into a review. There's no inconsistency as soon as you realize that a review is one man's opinion, be it from IGN, Edge or a random blog.

What you'd qualify as a "good" opinion is one which would fit yours, I'm sure. But that's not how it works. Similarly, there are no "experts" when it comes to reviews. These are not factual statements which can be objectively proved wrong or right. So there's no inconsistency when the opinion of 20 does not 100% match the opinion of one. This just perfectly highlights the fact that a review should not be taken at face value. If you think there's a problem with Zelda being low on the top 100 while someone gave it a 10, then in a way you realize that reviews are not 100% objective truthfacts.

Reviews are at best informative, and that requires reading them and not stopping at an arbitrary score. Lists like this, which are an agregate of several people's opinions, are actually potentially more useful than just one man's review, because they're closer to being more objective. Besides, IGN would likely not give a Zelda game to review to someone who couldn't care less about A-RPG, or someone who just hates Zelda in general.

As for the bolded, it seems fairly unlogical for you to have a problem with this.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem. You've immediately assumed that A. I agreed with the initial praises awarded by IGN, and B. That I want the reviews to reflect my own opinion. If you read my arguments you would find no basis for either of those claims. Lets avoid assumptions and other fallacious arguments.

I take issue with this nice new age liberal idea that all opinions are valid and no expertise exists. I'm sorry, but that's a load of shit. There are experts in every field. There are obvious tangibles in the medium to evaluate, including gameplay mechanics, visual execution, storytelling, etc. You're trying to sell me the fact that good taste doesn't exist, and I'm not buying it.

Certainly there are categories of taste (I like this kind of game, or that sort of mechanic, or this type of narrative), but we all know what kind of baseline experience a Zelda game provides, so this reviewer was working within those bounds. If someone despises the Zelda formula, of course they wouldn't review the game, and their opinion would not be devalued because of this. He was saying that this game provided the best Zelda experience of any Zelda game.

I have no idea why it would be illogical for me to take issue with a professional review outlet claiming a new Zelda was the "Best in the series", only to rank it behind Lego Marvel in their best of the generation list a couple of years later. There are publications out there that stand behind their rankings and treat them with respect, because they know that they are reflections of their brand, not their employees. Eurogamer and Edge stand out to me in this regard. It's a basic respect for what they provide to the industry, and to the consumer who they know come to their site because they trust their brand. There a consistency that exists there, and a history that is upheld. Whether you agree with them or not, they are consistent. That's all I want from IGN. Consistency.
 
Fantastapotamus said:
Top 10 (This is what I think IGN's Top 10 will be, not mine)

-Bioshock
-Mario Galaxy 2
-Mass Effect 2
-Last of Us
-GTA 5
-Dark Souls
-Red Dead Redemption
-Last of Us
-Gears 2
-Uncharted 2

What do I get if I'm correct?
Click to expand...

I think this is spot on.

RMI said:
this list is a joke.

Look I'm happy that Catherine is on here, it's one of my favorite games, but for it to beat Demon's Souls and for Demon's Souls to be so low on this list, below forgettable games like Dishonored and God of War III is just ridiculous. It's one of the most important games of last gen, and its influence will last well into the current one if not longer.
Click to expand...

Well ok then.
 
Stumpokapow said:
This is where an army of GAFfers quote you and complaint that their pet game is not present, or that the game they've played 900 hours of but hate is on the list and shouldn't be because XYZ, without recognizing that multiple people can write multiple lists that are interesting and worthwhile without having the same games.
Click to expand...

Stumpokapow said:
This is the part where if you published this list on a site, GAF members would pull it apart because it includes "garbage" and doesn't include some "god tier" stuff and "The Last of Us is below Lost Odyssey how is that even possible?!?!?!?!" or whatever.
Click to expand...

Stumpokapow the buzzkill :P

but yeah, everyone bitching about how awful this list is should realize it is literally impossible to create a single list out there that won't piss off a lot of people

Xenoblade at #80? list is shit confirmed
 
nbnt said:
http://www.ign.com/top/games-of-a-generation

#80 Xenoblade Chronicles
#79 Call of Duty: Black Ops
Click to expand...

tumblr_m4wsv7HenA1qcb58yo1_500.gif
 
theprodigy said:
Stumpokapow the buzzkill :P

but yeah, everyone bitching about how awful this list is should realize it is literally impossible to create a single list out there that won't piss off a lot of people

Xenoblade at #80? list is shit confirmed
Click to expand...

Not only that but one that is a compilation of several opinions versus just one and then demanding consistency.
 
TIGER-COOL said:
I take issue with this nice new age liberal idea that all opinions are valid and no expertise exists. I'm sorry, but that's a load of shit. There are experts in every field. There are obvious tangibles in the medium to evaluate, including gameplay mechanics, visual execution, storytelling, etc. You're trying to sell me the fact that good taste doesn't exist, and I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...

"Good taste" is not a fact. It's a subjective measure reflecting an opinion. what you think is good taste might be utter rubbish to countless other people. Who's right and who's wrong, who's the "expert" then?
Expertise relates to knowledge and facts, which has nothing to do with "I think this is a good game, I like it". It's not measurable by any standard way. It's not like someone says "I think SotC's framerate is locked at 60FPS". It's factually wrong, and you suck at judging framerate if you think that. If you say "I don't mind SotC's framerate" then it's a perfectly valid opinion, even though many people might try to argue that you're crazy.

I have no idea why it would be illogical for me to take issue with a professional review outlet claiming a new Zelda was the "Best in the series", only to rank it behind Lego Marvel in their best of the generation list a couple of years later. There are publications out there that stand behind their rankings and treat them with respect, because they know that they are reflections of their brand, not their employees. Eurogamer and Edge stand out to me in this regard. It's a basic respect for what they provide to the industry, and to the consumer who they know come to their site because they trust their brand. There a consistency that exists there, and a history that is upheld. Whether you agree with them or not, they are consistent. That's all I want from IGN. Consistency.
Click to expand...

Because there's nothing contradictory at all about saying "Best Zelda ever" and ranking it below a Lego game. Unless Lego games are part of the Zelda IP, suddenly.
I don't know if Eurogamer and Edge will do such a ranking, but I bet you there will be inconsistencies. It's perfectly expected and logical, despite what you might want to think.
 
W Hudson said:
Yeah there really needs to be a GAF list done on this, it would blow IGN's crap out of the water.
Click to expand...

and then EviLore ships the list one day in advance to some news outlet who publishes it, GAF calls it shit, and then the official thread goes up the day after, where everyone eats crow

yeah

edit:

GDJustin said:
I know it's pretty standard for NeoGAF threads to be filled with dozens of pages of analysis from people that didn't actually read the very thing they're discussing
Click to expand...

THE CALLOUT
 
Hey all!

I know it's pretty standard for NeoGAF threads to be filled with dozens of pages of analysis from people that didn't actually read the very thing they're discussing, but I just wanted to point out that "excellence" isn't the only criteria that determined which games were included, and their ranking:

The list was hand-picked by IGN's editors from across the globe and the judging criteria was diverse, with games qualifying because of their innovation, influence, longevity, excellence or uniqueness -- or in some cases, all of the above. And of course, they had to be released on PS3, Xbox 360 or Wii.
Click to expand...

(source)

So, if a game does almost nothing entirely original, its pure quality might still let it chart rather highly (Mario Galaxy 2). On the other hand, a game might have meaningful deficiencies, but be so iconic and important when we look back on last gen that it also earns a spot (COD 4, Wii Sports).

This list isn't a pure reflection of IGN's tastes or a message that a game ranked 80th is "better" than a game ranked 79th. The introductory text makes this clear. Thanks!
 
Super Mario Galaxy 2 is the greatest game from the last generation. I could not care less what IGN thinks the top 100 games are, this list is already questionable, but I just figured I'd chime in with my opinion.
 
ServBotPhil said:
No Vita/3ds, damn.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean PSP/DS?

IGN, bruddah, y u not list games from these two systems? Shit, look at your current list. 40 games up there and most of them are like "oh shit I need more games. I'll just put in some random console game instead"
 
GDJustin said:
This list isn't a pure reflection of IGN's tastes or a message that a game ranked 80th is "better" than a game ranked 79th. The introductory text makes this clear. Thanks!
Click to expand...

The introductory text makes it clear that a ranked list isn't really a ranked list, it's just a list? And it does so by clarifying that the games were picked based on je-ne-sais-quoi instead of any criteria your readers are expected to engage with or articulate whether they agree or disagree with? Come on, you don't get to mount an invincible defence here.

I'm a big fan of lists, and a big fan of rankings, and think the constant kvetching about how things are "wrong" is un-productive, but this is a terrible way to contextualize your choices. If you don't want to clearly convey that those responsible for the list think #79 is better than #80, don't use the word "top" and don't rank your list. I will note this will significantly lower the number of comments, views, and clicks you get, because a good psychological trick for getting people to pay attention is numbering and ranking.
 
Stumpokapow said:
The introductory text makes it clear that a ranked list isn't really a ranked list, it's just a list? And it does so by clarifying that the games were picked based on je-ne-sais-quoi instead of any criteria your readers are expected to engage with or articulate whether they agree or disagree with? Come on, you don't get to mount an invincible defence here.
Click to expand...

It's a ranked list, based on the qualities set out, but it's not a ranked list of "best" games. It's ranked list of the "games of a generation", which I'd agree is kind of a silly thing to rank, but that's the Internet for you.
 
Stumpokapow said:
The introductory text makes it clear that a ranked list isn't really a ranked list, it's just a list? And it does so by clarifying that the games were picked based on je-ne-sais-quoi instead of any criteria your readers are expected to engage with or articulate whether they agree or disagree with? Come on, you don't get to mount an invincible defence here.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean.

The selections and their rankings were considered and discussed across five major specific criteria, not intangibles.
 
GDJustin said:
I'm not sure what you mean.

The selections and their rankings were considered and discussed across five major specific criteria, not intangibles.
Click to expand...

I think your post cam across as "this is just the best 100 games, with no order of preference" while the actual list seems more like an actual ranking, from "worst" to "best".
 
Stumpokapow said:
The introductory text makes it clear that a ranked list isn't really a ranked list, it's just a list? And it does so by clarifying that the games were picked based on je-ne-sais-quoi instead of any criteria your readers are expected to engage with or articulate whether they agree or disagree with? Come on, you don't get to mount an invincible defence here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this as well. Hell I've defended the fact that it's not easy to have put a list like this together, and that there's a difference between rating something for quality versus a collaborative piece about ranking a game, but as someone who did read this I would've preferred even a short piece explaining what the exact qualifiers were within the descriptions of the games. Even if it was something like "Xenoblade's impact on the RPG market and sales were minimal due to the limited release of the game in many territories, but it was still a great game that deserves recognition on this list for being an outstanding technical achievement on the Wii." or some BS like that. Right now it's more a brief summary of the game with no real reason for the placement.
 
Raist said:
I think your post cam across as "this is just the best 100 games, with no order of preference" while the actual list seems more like an actual ranking, from "worst" to "best".
Click to expand...

That isn't what my post said at all.

To reiterate: the list was generated and ordered with 5 major considerations in mind, of which excellence is one. Most of the people in this topic seem to be making that their only consideration (or think that it was IGN's only consideration).

That's what I'm correcting.
 
Will be interesting to see how the top half looks. Pretty surprised at Rayman Legends being 61. I thought Rayman Origins was better difficulty wise, though it was flawed in areas which Legends fixed, such as having all abilities from the start, more variety in level, but Legends ruined it by being too easy. Games lower down in the list definitely deserved to be higher.

Cool some games ended up here though, Xenoblade, Unfinished Swan, Heavy Rain, Brothers. Though whether I think they deserved to be higher or not depends on the next rank of games added, though COD/DJ Hero/Dance Central above AC IV? That was the best AC for a while for me. Though I think a list like this will always have disagreements and not really an easy job.

If more CODs or Fifa ends up being higher...IGN's opinion will be once again, deemed invalid to me, ha ha, the games in this half of the rank are already among the highlights of last gen for me,no COD or Fifa has or deserves to be looked at as better than these.
If they have sense, TLOU for sure should be near the top... Bioshock, Portal 1/2... perhaps too. MGR for me too was definitely among the best games of last gen for me too, at least very special.
 
GDJustin said:
That isn't what my post said at all.

To reiterate: the list was generated and ordered with 5 major considerations in mind, of which excellence is one. Most of the people in this topic seem to be making that their only consideration (or think that it was IGN's only consideration).

That's what I'm correcting.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, just saying how it came across. :P
Especially the bit about "#79 is not necessarily better than #80".
 
GDJustin said:
I'm not sure what you mean.

The selections and their rankings were considered and discussed across five major specific criteria, not intangibles.
Click to expand...

The clear meaning of a Top 100 ranked list is that the thing ranked at #1 is better, in whatever metrics used, than the thing ranked at #2, #5, #10, #50, #100. That people are bitching because they don't agree with the rank is a function of the fact that you've chosen to rank things. Trying to wave your hands by saying that rank order just means rank order and carries no actual implications about any dimension of analysis other than rank order is a cop-out. The plain reading of the list is that things higher on the list are better by the metric used than things lower on the list. That's as open to praise as it is to criticism. If the intent is not to convey a ranked order of the "top" games that "defined", intangibly, the generation, then one should not use a ranked list of top games, one should publish an article that's called "A List of Excellent or Important Games from Last Generation"--and suffer the consequences of less controversy and fewer hits.

Moreover, that a variety of factors went into analysis is obvious and not relevant. Those factors were synthesized together in an abstract, holistic way. That's fine. But people are free to disagree with the emphasis that you've put on any one factor or the way in which you've synthesized the factors. Attempting to divert criticism by just saying "if you're concentrating on that other factor, you must have forgotten this factor". When someone says a list is bad, they don't mean that you threw darts at a wall, they meant that they either don't think you've applied your methodology well or they don't agree that it's a useful methodology.

Again, I think people griping about something that's impossible to get right are missing the point and mostly looking at things very myopically, but I also think trying to ward off criticism structurally while still enjoying the reader attention and hits is dishonest.
 
Hubb said:
Oh Lawd
I'm just messing with you :p
Click to expand...

hey it's cool, man. I think the idea is legit anyway. I should look at my last gen library and make a list, just for funsies. Will make for some very nice reminiscing. Now it's up to me if I wanna make that list known though :)
 
MYeager said:
Yeah, this as well. Hell I've defended the fact that it's not easy to have put a list like this together, and that there's a difference between rating something for quality versus a collaborative piece about ranking a game, but as someone who did read this I would've preferred even a short piece explaining what the exact qualifiers were within the descriptions of the games. Even if it was something like "Xenoblade's impact on the RPG market and sales were minimal due to the limited release of the game in many territories, but it was still a great game that deserves recognition on this list for being an outstanding technical achievement on the Wii." or some BS like that. Right now it's more a brief summary of the game with no real reason for the placement.
Click to expand...

Write-ups for each game were spread out amongst the staff so I can't speak to each specific one. But broadly speaking I think they do accomplish exactly what you're asking of them. They make a case for why the game is on the list, and its position on the list:

"Ni No Kuni is one of the best JRPGs to grace Sony consoles in years, a collaboration between genre masters Level-5 and animation gurus Studio Ghibli. Though the genre has fallen on hard times of late, Ni No Kuni was an example of JRPGs done right, bringing together gorgeous graphics and a touching story, with Pokemon-esque combat and truly deep gameplay. A truly unique offering that revitalised a niche many thought finished, Ni No Kuni is the game every RPG fan owes it to themselves to play."
 
GDJustin said:
Write-ups for each game were spread out amongst the staff so I can't speak to each specific one. But broadly speaking I think they do accomplish exactly what you're asking of them. They make a case for why the game is on the list, and its position on the list:

"Ni No Kuni is one of the best JRPGs to grace Sony consoles in years, a collaboration between genre masters Level-5 and animation gurus Studio Ghibli. Though the genre has fallen on hard times of late, Ni No Kuni was an example of JRPGs done right, bringing together gorgeous graphics and a touching story, with Pokemon-esque combat and truly deep gameplay. A truly unique offering that revitalised a niche many thought finished, Ni No Kuni is the game every RPG fan owes it to themselves to play."
Click to expand...

I think they make a case for why they are on the list, but there's nothing about what is written there that to me makes a case for its position. That paragraph is entirely complimentary but wouldn't explain to me why it should rank any better or worse than a different RPG on the list, or other games higher/lower on the list.

It's a nitpick and really I don't know if it'd make any difference towards people who might flip out over the number next to the game. Understandably it's a lot of time to have multiple people write 100 of these, it's just a thought while reading them that I personally didn't get much insight from the summaries as to why the game has the position that it does (whether it's of great quality, influence, etc).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What is your 3 top games of last Gen and this Gen?
2
62
1K
Putonahappyface replied
Top 100 BEST Horror Games Of All Time!
44
4K
RedC replied
  • Poll
PC Gamer: Top 100 PC Games of 2025
2
54
7K
johnysands replied
IGN: The 100 Best Xbox Games of All Time
Opinion Trailer Platform 
1
417
The_Mike replied
IMDb's top 250 rated games of all time
2 3
102
1K
Bojji replied
Top Bottom