Here's a good joke:

[sf_mike]

http://top100.ign.com/2005/index.htmlLaugh it up. Do note the abscence of a single Mega Man. The only Final Fantasy games more recent than FF6 on the list are FFX, at number 86, and FF7, at number 88. How they ranked FFX over FF7, I have no idea. Waverace 64 at number 37? Super Mario 64 at number 5? Were they too busy eating sausages to come up

Comments

[meph_]

I'm convinced they get paid to rank those games ;o any mainstream media list you see is similar.

[schierke]

why does everyone think they're VH1? (aka crap)

[sf_mike]

I LOVE THE 80'S.

[jigsawpattern]

wow...the only games worth being in the top 10 were metroid, tetris, and tie fighter. How come every top 10/100 list for video games is always shit?

[plerocercoid]

It seems that they rank them based on what they feel is their importance rather than how fun they are. They keep saying stuff like "this game brought so-and-so genre to the masses" or "helped sell whatever console." Still a retarded list though. I'm more surprised at Final Fantasy 4 being ranked far above 6 than with X being above 7. It's like they have some sort of fetish for original games rather than sequels. They have Sonic the Hedgehog, but not Sonic 2, Doom instead of Doom 2, and Secret of Mana rather than it's sequel (which never made it to the U.S., but still.) I'm surprised they didn't have FF1 somewhere above all the other FF games. There are some sequels, (Super Metroid, Street Fighter 2, Civ. 2, Baldur's Gate 2) but only when they are like 100 times better, or the originals weren't well known. It's like instead of playing the games they just asked random people what were some games they knew of.

[scooch]

river city ransom was way better than #100

can someone just post the list somewhere? IGNs website makes me angry with all the advertising.