All that needs be said about the list is it has a large bias in favor of newer, crappier games at the expense of out-and-out classics. I'd wager a large majority of those who voted have played few, if any, Atari VCS or NES games, for example. If they had, we might have seen a few VCS games in there and we would have seen a hell of a lot more than 3 NES games of course. It's tough not to laugh at a top 100 games of all time list that has twice as many Xbox games (not to mention PS2/X360/PS1/Wii/PS3/etc) as NES games.

It's easy to say people are stupid and have bad taste. It's a common belief on these forums. However, this is what the forumgoers on VGChartz actually thinks. It's as real as a list like this can ever get. If your top games are not on the list, it only shows that you have a different taste than the majority of people on this site.

Being allowed only 5 votes also had a considerable impact on the results. There's many games that I adore that I couldn't vote for because I was forced to name only 5. I couldn't vote for a Mario game, I had to choose which Zelda I liked best, there was no room for Brawl or Diablo II or any Final Fantasy.

Compressing 20+ years of gaming in 5 games is asking for important games to be left out. If VGChartz does another round of this, I sincerely hope they'll give us more than 5 votes.

Yeah, I totally agree.

And elprincipe, I grew up playing NES, the Panasonic video pac, atari and commodore 64, but I still think that lots of new games are much better. Because of the advancements in the gaming industry, developers are able to deliver much more immersive experiences. Defining games in the history will make the list, but you can't expect every great game from generations past to make the list. You can't judge a 16 year old for not voting for archaic games like Space Invaders, PAC-Man or whatever either, when you have immersive games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy VII and Zelda Ocarina of time. They are much better games if you look past nostalgia and history. And if the younger gamers don't care about the history and don't have any nostalgia towards old games, then why should they vote for what we consider classics? Personally I tried to vote for one game for each platform I've owned. I ended up voting for 1 NES, 1 SNES, 1 PSX, 1 PS2 and 1 Xbox360 game.

Actually, I think 5 is a pretty good number. Doesn't require two years of effort to build the list, and you still get to choose a couple. But yes, if you want to have opinions about how this list is, this is more the type of opinions that I respect.

Game X should be at place Y, or Game X deserves to be above Game Y - these are just complaining about the fact that other people have different opinions.

Nice work compiling all this info!

I don't understand the qualifier by Sony:

My only real complaint with the list was that Ico was no where to be found. I also think MGS3 should've made the top 20, MGS4 should've been much lower, let alone #4, and No More Heroes shouldn't have made the list, but those aren't as big a deal as Ico not being on the list at all.

Where would you say MGS4 should be?

Well, for my personal list, it would be in the top ten with all the 3D Zeldas, LBP, Okami, and the other consoles MGSes. :P

But for a list representing everyone, somewhere in the 40s seems right.

I personally think the list would've looked a lot better if we had allowed 10 games per person instead of just 5. We would've seen a lot more old favorites on lists, rather than just their five most recent favorites. I think that's why we saw so many recent games on the list, like Uncharted. People were like "Wow, this game was awesome," and it pushed older games like Baldur's Gate II, games that truly stand the test of time, further down on people's lists of favorites, not quite making their top 5.