Of course not. It has new game stink all over it. I don't need 12 months to know Modern Warfare 2 is one of the best games ever either. However, based on history and how I and everyone else can hype new games to oblivion, there were plenty of times it was better for me to keep my mouth shut. While Uncharted 2 may be a game that ages gracefully, it may also be a game that gets replaced quickly with a far superior sequel or far superior copycats. Uncharted was not a bad game. Back in 2007, it may have been able to be on a list just like this. It has now been torn to shreds by it's sequel (or so I've heard). This is why it's best to wait. Not for you though. You do what you want. I'm talking about what the most circulated video game magazine should be doing when they create a list like this.

Just like number 30 in this list, it is oblivious.

No' 1 is just absurd, too. If you're putting a Zelda up there, then put A Link To the Past.

But they should consider the impact the games have had when they came out and not if the game was beaten by it's sequel.

It's true that Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is worst in every way than Uncharted 2 but when Uncharted: DF came out, it was big.

I also noticed GTA III above HL2, FF VI, and SMB3.

LOLWUT?

They should first ask which games are still relevant after so many years. They require more attention than whatever games were hot when they first released. A lot of very forgettable games now were hot when they first released. I don't particularly mind so much that some newer games make the list, but I think they should be stuck near the bottom until they show they have the same longevity as the earlier games on the list. MW2 has a much more appropriate place right now, because it's behind a lot of games that have proven themselves to have staying power on big lists like these for years and years. Games that jump started entire genres should always take very high precedence on the list, because historical importance is important so the list isn't some big clusterfuck.

For the record. I agree with you. But at the same time, your logic is slightly flawed because the first Zelda and Mario have been approved apon time and time again and yet the originals still ranked higher because of the impact they had when they first released. Even if Uncharted 3 is better then Uncharted 2, which it should be, it won't have the same impact. No one expected Uncharted 2 to be as good as it is. Uncharted was amazing, sure. Uncharted 2 is as close as a game can come to perfection within the constraints of the genre at this point in time (imo). Just looking at metacritic and how it's ranked against other incredible titles when they also had the "new game stink" just shows how amazing Uncharted 2 is. Even if Uncharted 3 is superior, it won't  have the same impact and Uncharted 2 should top it on any list, just like Bioshock 2 "might" be better then Bioshock. But it won't matter if it is. Once a game blows everyone away, it's expected from the games that follow it so much so that it's almost impossible for them to surpass them. Almost. Obvious exceptions to the rule exist. And it of course only applys to games who blew people away to begin with.

Scroll back up to the earlier post I made about why Tetris should be #1. I addressed that Mario and Zelda shouldn't have been above it and mentioned it had to do with design improvements to the formula. I firmly believe that SMB3 and A Link to the Past should be the games to represent the franchises first because they created the true formula that Mario and Zelda have become. The originals were unfinished blueprints.

These are the kinds of things that take years to realize though. This is why it's stupid to have games that have been out for a month on the list. Remember that it takes a few weeks to publish this magazine past when the articles get written, so minus a few weeks and a few of these newer games might not even have been released yet. It's just very premature. Allowing yourself to look back, even for an instant is important when compiling the greatest of anything all time. I wouldn't expect a brand new movie or CD released a week prior to make this type of list in their respective fields. I hold gaming up to the same standard. Most publications that do this Top 200 games list will purposely use a cut off date of about a year or two for this very reason, and they state as such. 

Good discussion arose from this list. Thanks for the last 10-15 replies. I enjoyed em.

Looks like they went with the first in a series being the better game

True...

That's why Uncharted 2, Jak III and Crash 3 are in that list while Uncharted 1, Jak 1 and Crash 1 are not. rofl