That list is ridiculously biased.

this list sux, galaxy FTW

Yes, this list of judges just screeeeeeeaaams bias:

1UP.com

Business 2.0

Comcast Game Invasion

Computer Gaming World

Electric Playground

Electronic Gaming Monthly

GameDaily

Game Informer

GameInformer Online

GameSpot

GameSpy

G4TV

Gamepro

Game-Revolution.com

GamesRadar

GameTrailers

Gannett News Service

Geek Monthly

Hollywood Reporter

IGN.com

Kotaku

Los Angeles Times

MTV

Newsweek

Official Xbox Magazine

PC Gamer

Play Magazine

PSM Magazine

Popular Science

San Jose Mercury News

TIME Magazine

UGO.com

USA Today

Wired Magazine

Yahoo! Video Games

Look, there's not one single Nintendo apologist on that list. How is that fair? *kicks feet and whines*

oh well , even though glaxy was only 5, it won ign so im happy.

My only real problem with this list is Halo 3 over Mass Effect. Metroid Prime should have been there somewhere as well.

Well to be fair... there is something to be said for that as there are Xbox and PS3 apologists on the list.

For example Computer Gaming World... which i believe is owned by Microsoft... Official Xbox Magazine...

Then you have Comcast which has partnerships with Sony... as well as PSM magazine.

Then you've got people who are just going to be biased towards computer games.

You basically had people who were apologists for every platform BUT nintendo.

Also, considering the voting system, it can be set up for some pretty big abuse.  (Listing games 1-9 with 5, then putting the rest behind the game you want to be number 1.) 

No, but the fact that the votes of those individuals that were sent to cast them clearly don't represent the position of their editorial teams, does scream bias.

Again, case in point: Mario Galaxy was voted no. 7 by IGN's envoy. I guess the fact that his publication elected the game as their overall game of the year shouldn't have influenced him one bit.

That may be his personal opinion, that's fine. But then this is nothing more than a bundle of 30 or so personal opinions, and really shouldn't be represented as such.

You know... actually looking at the way the votes were distributed i think some of these people were confused.

The guy for the LA times voted for Cooking Mama.

The USA times guy voted for The Simpsons game. 

Just wondering , how many posters here are thinking to apply for a position on Fox News ?

Because there seem to be a lot of ' I haven't played game  X but it can't be possibly as good as game Y I played so despite I the fact I know nothing about game X I am going to complain that it's ranked higher than my game'....

Were the votes supposed to be an "overall" vote for their publication? It doesn't look that way because they list each individual editor by name and give a decription of the person.

Is the Hall of Fame voter for the LA Times supposed to take a poll around the office before casting his or her vote? No, even if that person is a representative for that publication (and only gets to vote because of their status at said publication), they vote based on their opinion. It may not be perfect but no list is ever going to be perfect.

The reason I'm ranting on about this is because it gets really tiring to see any list on this forum that doesn't drop to its knees and suck off Nintendo get called biased, incomplete, stupid, etc. etc. etc. by people who haven't even played half the games on the list.

All of those games on that list are great or have great elements to them.  I couldn't care less what order they are put in, they're all getting the recognition they deserve.