I'd like to add to this. A majority of the teens/young adults nowadays who grew up watching the Star Wars prequels in cinemas rate them as better than the original Star Wars trilogy. The older people know better, however...  ;)

New Vegas is one of the best wrpgs of this generation, it definately deserves a top 100 spot. Fallout 3 and Skyrim will be in the top 40 easily despite the fact that New Vegas is far better than both of them.

Suikoden 2 and Valkyria Chronicles both making the top 50 makes me a happy man.

Both games ranking higher than Mass Effect 2, on an IGN list, makes me very happy.

Both of them being right next to eachother? Its fate!

Seriously guys, stop this VII vx VI argument! It taints countless RPG threads. Instead, give some lesser known games the publicity.

Argue for Suikoden. Lunar. Fire Emblem. Wild Arms.

Suikoden 2 is IMO, by far the greatest game released on the PlayStation. It gets overlooked because it came out at a time when the World was Final Fantasy crazy.

Everything about that game is excellent. The characters, the story, the themes within the game, the battle system, the music... The game engine itself is just brilliant. I could write an essay on just how and why this game is so special.

People. Play Suikoden 2

some average games get rated higher than AAA games. Controversial list indeed.

Xenoblade is too low. That is all.

No it's not.

Objective there things this game does that doesn't make top 10.

Being a very big game with a short story and looking pretty doesn't make it great.

Hell most of the missions was doing repeative things.

'Get mushroom give to x person.

There are so many games out there that are better rpg in that genre and just better games overall.

100 hours doesn't mean best game ever it mean 40 hours of pointless run arounds like what was most of Skyrim.

I hope we get some REAL good rpg in there.

It was great, but I disagree with it being better than Fallout 3. It's two years newer than F3 but on the exact same engine and the graphics/gameplay is no better, just as buggy (if not worse). And I like how they added in some stuff like aming down the sights of your weapon and adding modifications...but I hate certain things they did like how you only get a perk every other level-up and how to win a speech challenge your speech just has to be at a certain level and you automatically win it...I like the Fallout 3 system better where the higher your speech is the higher the chance you'll win it but there is never a guarantee (and you are never shut out from trying even if it's like a 5% chance). 

I really like New Vegas but Fallout 3 is easily in my top probably 5 games all time so no way I accept you calling New Vegas better. 

With your claim to fallout 3's superiority your only mentioning minor changes and faults, not the big scope that makes RPG'g great, such as story, characters and setting. New Vegas is superior for having a big branching story incorporating many factions and quests all over the wasteland that effect the final battle and ending and doesn't just have a singular straight line, the quests are interesting and have multiple ways of finishing and progressing through them. There are more memorable personalities in New Vegas and the setting offers a more intriguing setting with a great range of locations.

New Vegas also fits in with Fallout Lore a lot better than F3, linking up and referencing events in the previous games often, whilst F3 brought back the previously wiped out organisation of the enclave and introduced a BoS who acted nothing like the BoS to have a clean cut "good guys vs bad guys".

Whatever you think is better I reccomend to play at least 100 hours of NV (that's what it takes) before making a final decision.