Codex Gamicus
Advertisement

In response to the deletion review, I would like to point out that a similar article such as this already exists on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_considered_the_best

The only difference here is that the games are ranked using a weighted ranking system. If this is problematic, then we could change the format to something more in line with Wikipedia.

Jagged85 (talk) 05:46, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

  • Any weighted ranking system is purely subjective on the part of the person who created it. If the format is changed to bring it line with Wikipedia, then we duplicate Wikipedia's content needlessly. Both are problematic.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 00:35, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I have alternative proposals:
  1. Use the Wikipedia format, and simply expand on it by adding more games and sources, since the Wikipedia article looks like it's missing some big names.
  2. Bring it more in line with this article: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/games.htm. All the weighted scores will be taken from, and sourced to, this article.
  3. Use a combination of the two above, whereby we use the weighted scores from Filbuster, while at the same time any additional games or sources will not count towards the weighted rankings.
Let me know what you think of these ideas, or if you have any ideas of your own.
Jagged 85 (talk)
The other problem is, historically, there are many, many sites that are essentially paid to write very high scores of games from particular publishers/developers. Bioshock Infinite was a good example of this, the game was far from perfect, yet there were at least 17 reviews from established video game journalism sources giving it a perfect 100 shortly after launch. While this doesn't technically affect the above scenario, it does call into question the legitimacy of other sites. I think I will have a solution to this problem in the near future. The best example I can think of is Metacritic, because we have two scores to compare; one for critics, and one for players. From my under, this system is reasonable free of influence, monetary or otherwise.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 21:49, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
This article isn't necessarily about review scores though, but rather lists that have named certain games as among the greatest of all time. While publisher interference in affecting review scores is well documented, that has little to do with lists of all-time greatest games. Jagged85 (talk) 17:32, December 23, 2013 (UTC)
In the mean time, I've removed the Delete tag from the article, until the discussion here reaches a consensus. Jagged85 (talk) 21:46, December 29, 2013 (UTC)