http://top100.ign.com/2005/index.html
Don’t know if anybody’s seen this or mentioned it yet. It’s a reassessment of the top 100 games IGN did in 2003. Panzer Dragoon Saga is now there. At number 54, it’s a whole 34 places above Final Fantasy VII’s number 88. XD Final Fantasy III(VI) is also there at 56.
It such a screwed up list.I really would like to know what criteria they used.
Probably their own personal opinion.
I think some of these games are just on here because of popular opinion, or something similar. I think we can all agree that, while games like Super Mario Brothers, Tetris, etc., are good games, they’re definitely not deserving of such high positions. Super Mario Bros. 3 should be higher than 1, because it’s a much better game, and Halo shouldn’t even be on here at all, because it’s really not that good of a game. Resident Evil 4, God Of War, and other such games haven’t been around long enough to see if they’ll really last over the years. Wave Race 64 is barely even a game - just a few tracks, and 4 jet skis. Entertaining, yes. But I can beat hard mode on that game with one hand. Metroid Prime, while entertaining for a while, is far too repetitive and it’s gameplay is far too much backtracking to be considered one of the greatest games of all time.
Anyway, you see where I’m going. Most of these games, there are obvious reasons why they shouldn’t be on such a list… That is, if said list were objective, which I highly doubt it is. So it most likely is just based on their opinions.
Maybe we should all make our own Top 100 lists. Haha. 
Halo should be on there. As should Halo 2, See this is the thing, it’s all about opinions. There will never be a definitive “Top 100” list, ever.
The criteria they base their opinion on.Why is this better than that ect…
Well Baldur’s Gate 2 (not to be confused with Baldur’s Gate: Dark Alliance 2), Gunstar Heroes, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Shining Force 2, Starcraft, Virtua Fighter 4 and Virtua Tennis are in that top 100 game list, so I’m not complaining. They all deserve to be there.
There doesn’t have to be. For instance, I like Tales of Symphonia better than Skies of Arcadia, and I don’t need to justify it with some kind of extremely detailed essay.
Why do I like taco salad better than spaghetti? I just do. The end.
Unless there is some criteria I can’t see how someone can prefer Super Mario to PDS.
Maybe they just prefer it. shrugs
It’s just a list, I wouldn’t analyse it too much.
Maybe because they’ve actually played Super Mario Bros. 
Seriously though, I agree that the list is kind of… well, odd in some respects, and that whoever wrote it probably should’ve tried to look a bit more objective. Considering that “This list represents the thoughts, sweat and tears of over 20 IGN editors, all long-time gamers”, and that they claim to have had some kind of criteria, it looks like just one person’s random whimsical opinion for the most part.
That’s the problem with lists of the “Top 100 Games EVER!!!11eleven1” and so forth, because they tend either to be voted by the public (in which case you can guarantee that modern titles, well-publicised ones and each console’s killer app will always take precedence over everything else), or determined by the preferences of a select group, as is the case here, which if anything makes them even more skewed and unrepresentative.
As subjectivity is so prevalent when it comes to the evaluation of games, lists like these should hardly be considered authoritative, and as such I don’t pay any attention to them - even when Sega titles are near the top.
What would be a more profitable venture instead of these ratings lists would be to develop a canon of acknowledged classics, something like a “Penguin Classics” for computers, which everyone can agree upon as an important title. That would dodge the contentiousness of their particular positions, as would be the case in a chart.
[quote=“Robert Frazer”]
What would be a more profitable venture instead of these ratings lists would be to develop a canon of acknowledged classics, something like a “Penguin Classics” for computers, which everyone can agree upon as an important title. That would dodge the contentiousness of their particular positions, as would be the case in a chart.[/quote]
That is a really good idea.
Maybe we should start writing to Edge and ask them to do another special edition
I don’t see Knights of the Old Republic. That at least deserves to be there(certainly in place of Final Fantasy X).
Personally I think Panzer Dragoon Saga is the best game of all time, but I think their logic is that it only took elements of Final Fantasy VII and the Panzer Dragoon games and made them better whereas Super Mario Brothers literally reinvented the platforming genre, even though Super Mario Brothers 3 may be a better game. Personally I think the original Legend of Zelda is a much more important game, historically, than Super Mario Brothers.
I agree, though it is opinion. But I don’t think anyone can deny that the fact that Super Mario Bros. 3 is way better than Super Mario 1, so why they’re so far apart is a bit odd, to me. But, eh, it is opinion.
I think I was one of the few people who didn’t like that game. I found it to be shoddy, overrated, and very boring, with a very babying battle system. It’s like they couldn’t decide between turn based combat and action-RPG-esque combat. So they settle for you having free motion to run around in battle, but then the game does all of your fighting for you, unless you step in to tell it to do a combo every now and then.
[quote=“dragoon lover”]
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject:
I don’t see Knights of the Old Republic. That at least deserves to be there(certainly in place of Final Fantasy X).
Personally I think Panzer Dragoon Saga is the best game of all time, but I think their logic is that it only took elements of Final Fantasy VII and the Panzer Dragoon games and made them better whereas Super Mario Brothers literally reinvented the platforming genre, even though Super Mario Brothers 3 may be a better game. Personally I think the original Legend of Zelda is a much more important game, historically, than Super Mario Brothers.[/quote]
That’s most likely what it is. That is to say, they’re doing it on the idea of games “revolutionizing” the industry. But in this case, there are still a lot of games out of place or not in the chart. But I must say, I was quite happy to see Deus Ex so high on the chart.
But in the end, it’s just some silly chart, so, who cares what they think are the best. Everyone will have their own ideas. But I wonder if maybe companies paid them to include some of those games on there. Haha.
I disagree about KOTOR. The game was basically Baldur’s Gate 2 set in the Star Wars realm with a 3D makeover. KOTOR owes much of its success to Baldur’s Gate 2’s much vaunted winning formula (i.e. party interaction, nigh-endless character customization and sem-real-time party-based combat). KOTOR just brought that formula to a much larger audience. To this day, I still prefer BG2 due to the availability of larger parties and a much, much larger game world. Looking back at BG2, all the content BioWare were forced to cut from the final game due to time constraints leaves me wondering what might have been…
Granted, God of War deserved to be on there, but the technically superior Ninja Gaiden wasn’t in the top 100. Super Mario Bros on the NES is not even the best Mario game ever (that was Mario 3 or Super Mario World, depending on who you ask), never mind the #1 game of all time. Megaman wasn’t on there. Quake 1 wasn’t listed.
Pff. Screw IGN.
Incidentally, watch that new video of Ninja Gaiden Black IGN put up. It’s called “We pwn 2 Ryus” or something. If you call spamming a single move and using every elixir you have to survive pwning…
What’s Snoop Dogg got to do with the topic? 
If you’re talking about the Xbox one, then I have to question your sanity, because that was, quite possibly, one of the most disappointing games I’ve ever played. I’m sure I’m in the minority, but that game was all flash and no substance. After a while, the fancy effects (wall running, etc.) wear off, and you’re just left with a poor game that relies on enemies blocking 98% of your attacks as difficulty. Not to mention that virtually item you found (new weapons, that is), was essentially worthless save for a few minor uses.
Shinobi was a much more entertaining “Ninja” game and a lot more difficult, in my opinion.