As of 4/29/2008:

GameRankings
1. Grand Theft Auto IV (Xbox 360) -- 98.850%
2. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (Nintendo 64) -- 97.688%
3. Super Mario Galaxy (Wii) -- 97.274%
4. The Orange Box (PC/Xbox 360) -- 96.306%/96.260%
5. Metroid Prime (Gamecube) -- 96.264%
6. Soul Caliber (Dreamcast) -- 96.259%
7. Super Mario 64 (Nintendo 64) -- 95.905%
8. Tekken 3 (Playstation) -- 95.804%
9. Resident Evil 4 (Gamecube/PS2 ) -- 95.783%/95.571%
10. Halo: Combat Evolved (Xbox) -- 95.515%

As of 4/30/2008:

MetaCritic
1. Grand Theft Auto IV (PS3/Xbox 360) -- 100/99
2. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (Nintendo 64) -- 99
3. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (Playstation/Dreamcast) -- 98/97
4. Soul Caliber (Dreamcast) -- 98
5. Perfect Dark (Gamecube) -- 97
6. NFL 2K1 (Dreamcast) -- 97
7. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (Playstation 2) -- 97
8. Halo: Combat Evolved (Xbox) -- 97
9. Metroid Prime (Gamecube) -- 97
10. Grand Theft Auto III (Playstation 2) -- 97

Thought it was a good time to put this thread together, since after 12 years it looks like Zelda has finally been knocked off her perch.

Is it strictly to console-only or open end (including PC games)?

I can't tell if this is funny Groucho, or nerdy Groucho. Assuming the latter, isn't it a bit early to be crowning GTAIV the greatest game of all time... you know since the game came out today and all. I'm guessing by Thursday it won't be occupying the top slot.

These rankings are across all platforms (so you'll see a couple PC mentions in there).
You're right. Super Mario Galaxy topped the list for a week or two, as I recall, until more reviews poured in. But in my opinion, GTAIV has staying power. The reviews have been universally gushing so far.

Metacritic hasn't updated yet but GTA4 has a 99 score for the 360 and a 100 for the PS3.

I sincerely hope this isn't the best game of all time.

How come?

Mostly because I agree with Penny Arcade on this:

The core game of the GTA series has never seemed to be that great. It either got too frustrating (because of shitty controls) or the story was never that interesting. It's like the game is fun because you can do all this other stuff. I realize that this is the most undiluted hypocrisy coming from someone who thinks Oblivion is one of the best games, but it's the truth. That game wrapped smaller "side stories" around your character so these small side quests felt important. In the GTA series, if there are any side quests they seem like distractions (pizza delivery?).

That, and the fact that Saint's Row completely improved on the technical/control aspects of a series that seemed stagnant in that regard for 5+ years kind of dulled the shine of the GTA series for me.

Look, I'm still getting GTA4. I'm sure it's going to be an awesome game and a defining experience for this console generation, but branding it the best game of all time feels a bit like calling The Dark Knight the best movie of all time.

Is that quote specifically about GTA4? Or about the series in general? Because it's possible for a game to improve from iteration to iteration. I would hope that this isn't just GTA3 at 720p with better textures. But it could be -- I know that a lot of reviewers these days tend to be blinded by nifty graphics, and give crappy gameplay a pass.

I don't want to talk bad about a game I haven't played. So I won't comment specifically about GTA4. But right now I'm not really interested in the game.
I've played previous version in the PC, PSP, PS2 and Xbox and I just can't get it. I just can't control the game really well, I get bored.
I don't care about critic's reviews but I'll be checking user's reviews, specially here to see how everybody is liking the game.

GTA as a series is better than Saint's Row but Saint's Row almost eradicated every single control problem with GTA. A friend (who agrees with me on this) says the Saint's Row controls are still better than GTA4. I would be baffled if two great-controlling sandbox games (Saint's Row, Crackdown) came out and GTA4 still relied on the familiar-but-broken scheme of its predecessors.

I get the very distinct feeling that a lot of reviewers are being blinded by hype. Not in GTA4 being a 9 or a 10, but in being the best game of all time.

Definitely blinded by hype. The controls are inexcusably bad after playing Crackdown especially. Every GTA game I have the same complaints, and the same view as what was written above, and yet I still buy them just for the whole feel of the game.

I am completely disappointed in part 4. Nothing was improved, and I almost feel there is a step backward in control.

Updated the Metacritic list. GTAIV has now knocked Super Mario Galaxy off the chart.

I agree. I have a more detailed rant in the GTA thread. I think I actually enjoyed Saints Row better.

Honestly, I don't think reviewers would let a game be reviewed this favorably across the board based entirely on hype. It's pretty simple to me that not every game is for everyone and there are games on both GameRankings and MetaCritic lists that I don't care for despite the high ratings.

For instance, I thought the controls in Halo sucked because i'm a PC guy, but plenty of people think they're intuitive for a FPS on a console.

I haven't played GTA IV yet, but I don't disagree with what's been said in this thread. The main game itself really isn't all that fun, at least not for me. I enjoy that game in more of a toy capacity. That is crashing cars in an intersection, creating a traffic jam, and then dropping a bomb on it. Or looking for jumps. That kind of thing.

The main game has never been able to hold my interest, since so many of the mission fall apart due to those damn controls.

That said, because of how fun the sandbox aspect of the game is, I still think the games are great. I just don't see how IV can be Ocarina of Time great, but I will be able to better judge once I play.

GTA definitely suffers the Legend of Frank syndrome that Cheapy D and Wombat endorse.

I haven't played it yet, but from the sounds of it Crackdown and Saints Row improved GTA's problem areas while GTA itself, did not. In essence a game that should be a 9 is getting an extra point boost because of the name on the front of the box. So it gets a pass on some of the flaws just like Zelda does.

I wonder if I would be as high on Crackdown if the game was more dense. Part of the reason I absolutely love it is it gives me a lot of what I liked about GTA, without ANY of the stuff I didn't want (story/cut scenes/"missions"). It was pretty much a toy out of the box.

Is Saint's Row good for this type of sandbox gameplay too?

The best game of all-time, I've seen so much bitching about it, I'm wondering what the disconnect between players/reviewers are.

99% "professional" reviews, 77% user reviews.

Interesting.

Wow. That's a huge disconnect.

Well, IGN's reader reviews are at 9.1, while Gamespot's is 9.3.

Not sure why GameRanking's user score is so low, unless its the IMDB effect where enough users are trying to vote it lower.

I'm not going to say I had more fun with NFL2K1 than I did with Tecmo Bowl, but it's certainly the best NFL game in existence.

I bought All-Pro Football for my PS3 ($10) and have played exactly one game.

Internet users tend to be pretty hyperbolic when it comes to games. They tend to either be the "best ever" or "worst ever" with little room for middle ground. Which corresponds to them voting "10" on games they enjoy or "1" on games they don't. Compare to reviewers, who rarely go below a 5 or 6 -- even for truly crappy games -- and a real disconnect starts to happen.

True. Then you have people over-rating (in either direction) to compensate for the current score. So if a game has a 8.0 user rating and I think it should be 9, I'm going to vote 10 to compensate. I'm sure that kind of voting is rampant.

I wonder how much that top 22% cost Rockstar...?

Actually, I'm sure that that can be easily explained by scared-as-hell reviewers. I mean, this is easily the biggest game of the year and do you want to be the one site to cross the GTA-blind with a 89-92% score when everyone else is giving away perfect scores like they're herpes?