So many triggered people, love it.

it's not that better is subjective, it's that it's generic.  If you define it, then the subjectiveness starts to go away.

I don't mean to say the list is flawless. I mean to say that just because there lies flaws in it, people can express discomfort with the choices (or the order of the choices) made. It doesn't necessarily has to reflect nostalgia, it just points out that the list can be criticised for the choices made. Bloodborne is a game that came later than Dark Souls, but it's ranked lower; despite both being modern games, there's room to debate which one deserves to be over the other one.

What you're suggesting is that just because Bloodborne uses a different (better?) combat formula, a more refined (more solid?) gameplay system and it all came later in development, it automatically deserves to be better than Dark Souls. Which is extremely debatable.

You can define it by processing power, sales, etc. You can't objectively define which is better, since it's based on personal enjoyment.

This is a forum, the whole purpose of which is discussion

We're just going to have to disagree.  If Time published a list of "The 100 Greatest People" and it was full of entries like "that old lady who used to give me snacks when I was a kid" I think consumers would have a legitimate complaint.  It might be true that the author thinks that old lady deserves a spot enough to kick George Washington off the list but a publication isn't just about the author.  I think there is some degree of obligation when using a word like "Greatest".

That's my opinion as a consumer and it's something I'm going to look for in situations like these.  It's also why I don't seek out EDGE, Jim Sterling, or the like.

I didn't mean to suggest that, sorry you took it that way.  And I never said you couldn't express discomfort, in my personal experience I see 20-30 year old games that have been improved upon in numerous ways over years, being placed near the top of various "best game ever" lists.  Usually the reason why they are placed there is because "they still hold up well" or "they were good for their time" or "they were very influencial".  And I don't agree with those assessments.

Well, that makes more sense.

Lists like this one always crack me up.

personal enjoyment is just one way to define "better".  But personal enjoyment isn't a great way to judge anything, because personal enjoyment depends on numerous factors that are irrelevent to said thing (i.e. did you have a good night sleep, were you hungry, were you in an argument with a random person on vgchartz etc.  These can effect your emotions which can effect enjoyment).