buy the magazine

Has it though? All I've seen are posts on various forums with the list and people arguing.

Forgive my ignorance but isn't Tetris Blitz the mobile phone game? The one with in-app purchases? And touchscreen controls? It's therefore worse than Tetris on Gameboy.

There are many games better than L4D2, starting with L4D1.

Yes.

Yup, but it's a lot of fun.

Anyone who doesn't like hitting zombies with fire axes is fundamentally broken.

Craster confirms.

I disagree with the notion that classics should be replaced in lists like these with later games that basically do the same thing but with better graphics.

If they basically do the same thing why would better graphics not make them better? Should people stick with worse presentation when better is available through some kind of weird loyalty to an older game? I don't think that really makes much sense.

You could argue they're better or worse games. Better because they've been refined and polished, or worse because they lack innnovation and are just a retread.

Lacking innovation doesn't somehow actually make a game worst to play though so I think that argument would be very hard to make.

It all depends what your criteria are for 'best game'.

Of course, but the implication here is that a game should only be judged 'best' if it's also the first to do something and that's not a meaning of the word best I've ever heard.

Fifa 15 > Fifa 16 (and 13 > 14. It's like the Star Trek films).

It didn't add enough to be a genuine sequel, and it split the userbase by being released a mere 12 months after the first game.

What about Call of Duty, or Fifa as examples? The most recent games might be the most polished and therefore provide the best graphics and gameplay, but franchise fatigue may ensure that no one would consider them 'best' in the series.

If something has the best graphics and gameplay then it's the best. It's completely fair for someone to say they're not interested in actually playing something because they're bored of that kind of game, but it still doesn't make any sense to deny that a particular entry in the series is the best example just because you personally aren't interested.

It split the userbase into losers and winners, yes. Even if it wasn't a genuine sequel and was effectively just a map pack, that still has the same effect on the userbase.

Actually it's completely subjective. My criteria for best game is obviously different from yours. This is where 'best of' lists fall down.