Unfortunately, they were really annoying about it and it takes forever to look at them all. 100 separate pages...
I personally don't believe any sports game deserves to be on a top 100 list, as they are all extremely similar and unoriginal.
I also can't believe they have SSBM at only ~80 either. Angry Birds should NOT be #49. Space Invaders is also too highly ranked. Ms Pacman is too highly ranked by far. World of Warcraft is NOT better than LoZ OOT. Golden Eye 007 is NOT better than LoZ OOT (Although still good) Tetris should not be #5. Asteroids should not be #4 Bioshock should be in the 60's-50's. Super Mario Bros is not the best game of all time.
The "Best of" shows are always extremely off. VH1's "Best of" shows are even worse. In "The 100 Greatest Rock Songs of All Time," The Beatles received no ranks for their songs. Yet in "The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time," The Beatles received the number 1 title and John Lennon and Paul McCartney were both listed individually around ranks 30-40. Also in "The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time," AC/DC were listed at rank 25, while they received several ranks for their songs, including the 2nd rank for "Back in Black."
As for G4's take on this idea, the evidence from the actors discussing games had no actual evidence. They would merely describe their childhood times of playing certain games and wouldn't discuss hardly any material in them whatsoever, aside from an occasional memory or easter egg.
These ranking shows are always controversial. By trying to appease most people, the show merely makes everyone mad. After all, my preferences aren't EXACTLY the same as the "average" person. I only saw the top 20, but I felt that they did as good of a job as is practical to expect. And at least the "big titles" all mad it into the show...
