I've been wanting to do a top ten list for a long time now. The list would be the Top Ten Games of all Time. There are plenty of sites and magazines that already do this. The problem I'm running in to is, what defines a game as great? Is it based on the technical aspects such as control, graphics and audio quality, lack of bugs, etc? Or is it purely the opinion of the person making the list?
For example, Gran Turismo is widely regarding as the greatest racing game of all time. This is due to the immense amount of detail that went into the game. From the replication of the real world tracks to the infinite amount of fine tuning that can be done to the cars. The game is so realistic that professional racers play the game to train for upcoming races.
Myself, I can't stand Gran Turismo. I prefer Blur, a game that blends real cars and Mario Kart. A game whose regular player base on the 360 now consists of 50+ players on a Saturday night. Blur and Gran Turismo are on opposite ends of the racing game spectrum. Now, what is the better game? The one that is based on real life and is near technical perfection or the more arcade style racer? The online number of player say Gran Turismo, but I'll pick Blur each and every time.
I suppose most top ten lists are based purely on the community. What the popular opinion is, how the game ranked on a number based rating system, etc. I've never been a fan of number based rating. I feel that games can't be rated on a chart like that. There are too many aspects to them, too many ways to interpret them and too many people to do the interpreting. In the end, the review is based entirely on the opinion of the person who played the game. Call of Duty is hailed as one of the greatest shooters of all time. I treated Modern Warfare 2 poorly in my review. Technically speaking, is it a great shooter? My personal opinion clouds my judgement.
Hopefully you can see my dilemma. Would my list really be the ten greatest games to grace our world or merely my top ten favorite games?