The Best Games of All Time (Part 1: Criteria)

I’ve been following the internet explosion over at GameFAQs with some amusement. Essentially, Undertale is beating out some highly beloved classics in a “for funsies” series of polls for “best game ever”. I think Undertale is a great game, and does a lot of things that require you to be conversant in some fairly diverse and long-held gaming tropes, but I doubt it’s up there for “best game ever”, for a few reasons. It’s nice to see it get recognition, though.


It’s gotten me thinking about what I would pick for the Best Games Ever, though. I use the plural because picking a single one is a laughably meaningless prospect, but there are some that are absolutely brilliant and deserve continued recognition. I’ve worked on coming up with some criteria to narrow the list down, see what you think:

1.) The game must be at least five years old.

This isn’t a slight on newer games, simply a nod to the fact that a game needs to be able to stand the test of time. I use five years because that’s on the long end of the development cycle for games, so games released more than five years ago aren’t going to be able to get by on the quality of their graphics or technology alone. It also ensures that the game has had time to fade into obscurity; if it hasn’t, that’s a good sign.


2.) The game must contain original concepts for its time.

This is a nod to the need for games to continue to evolve. The very best games aren’t just masterpieces in their own right, they push the medium forward into new spaces. The “for its time” clause is there because some games may use those same concepts later, and may build on them, but aren’t necessarily moving the medium forward.

3.) The game must display a near-perfect refinement of its mechanics.

Some games are brilliant but buggy. Some games are very good at a number of things, but excel at none of them. Something worthy of being called ones of the “best games ever” can’t be either– they need to showcase the best of a given genre, be polished and complete, and would benefit little to not at all from any changes made.


4.) The game must have had at least two of the following: at least one re-release on a new platform, have given rise to a remake, have created its own media web of spinoffs/sequels/etc.

This is a nod to games that are enduring, financially successful, and significant or beloved enough that new development offers enough further sales to justify the cost. Re-releasing on the same platform doesn’t count– no “Greatest Hits” reprint releases here (though many of the games probably would have that, too). Whether there’s a remake, a series of sequels, or other media, this addresses both the enduring appeal of the game as well as its footprint on the medium as a whole.

5.) The game must be good at more than one thing.

Maybe it’s got great combat and platforming. Maybe it’s got great voice acting and multiplayer. Maybe it’s got fantastic art and music. Maybe it’s excellent at teaching you how to play it and endlessly replayable. Maybe it’s a lot of these things. Some games are really, really good at a single one of these; these games don’t make the cut. A game need not be multiple games in one and good at all of them, but it needs to be more than a one-note experience.


6.) The game has to be fun or otherwise significant, even now.

Super hard one, and very difficult to determine. It’s a question of whether or not a game has truly stood the test of time, or if it’s a nostalgic hit but doesn’t *really* stand up. It’s the least objective of the list, but I think it’s important. It’s hard for me to claim a game is one of the best of all time if I couldn’t see myself sitting down and playing it or having a drawn out conversation about it in context of more recent games. I don’t necessarily think every one of the “best games of all time” need be a game I could sit down and play again, but they also shouldn’t be games that I can’t compare favorably with games I’ve played recently.


This is the list I’m going to work with, and mull over a ton of games this week. Let me know if there’s some important criteria I missed; I’ll consider adding it to the list.


  1. Interesting criteria. I agree with all of them but #4, as sequels and remasters aren’t necessarily marks of quality. I think #1 is the most important – I couldn’t consider anything super new “the best game ever”. It needs time to breathe, it needs to be able to endure time and technical improvements in gaming. There are a ton of games I thought were amazing 5 or 10 years ago that are now almost unplayable for me.

    1. It’s not necessarily entirely about quality. A brilliant game that is utterly unknown can’t very well be one of the “best games ever” because it doesn’t leave a footprint on the medium as a whole.

      It’s the other half of the “5-year” rule– a game needs to be older than 5 years, but also has to have materially endured past that point.

      1. I find it hard to reconcile #2 and #3. Being the best at something you created/Invented/trailblazed is not only hard, I can’t think of a single game that does that.
        I like most of the others, though. There are some that seem strangely arbitrary, but you generally provide solid reasoning, so I await the list of games!

        1. It’s very, very rare. Plenty of games do one or the other. That having been said, a game eligible for meeting both criteria doesn’t have to come up with something new and be the best at it, it just has to be of sterling quality. Plenty of games will come by later and improve or iterate on mechanics pioneered in an early game– were I to require that a game be the “best” at something, I’d be tacitly suggesting that no future games could do it better. There are very few games I think that’s true of.

  2. That is some interesting criteria right there! It’s definitely rare for games to be “the best game ever” for me because eventually games would evolve and the old games you played won’t be much more fun for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.