1.

1. Final Fantasy VII
2. Final Fantasy VI
3. Final Fantasy IX
4. Final Fantasy IV
5. Final Fantasy XII
6. Final Fantasy XIV
7. Final Fantasy XIII
8. Final Fantasy V
9. Final Fantasy I
10. Final Fantasy III
11. Final Fantasy XI
12. Final Fantasy VIII
13. Final Fantasy X
14. Final Fantasy II

Then you have the problem that inclusion implies equality, which will demonstrably not be the case in any list of a large-ish size. A small list, perhaps–ten games, maybe even fifteen, you could argue are similar in quality so as to be indistinguishable. But for a very large list? Some of them are clearly going to be better than others, and hence gradiation (or separate lists, or non-listing of the ‘worse’ games) is going to be necessary.

Ultimately I don’t see much purpose for a list of this sort except as a buying guide for genres/systems/etc. Otherwise it’s like ranking the Final Fantasy games–what does that serve, except to demonstrate what the ranking creator likes and dislikes? And surely there are better ways of conveying that information than with a list of games which one must interpret in order to get to the likes and dislikes of the list creator.

It may be that the concept I propose has its place somewhere and not as a replacement of these lists. However, I think if a game achieves excellence (vague term, I realize, and would require justification) it shouldn’t necessarily be cut out because the list has to be a finite size because of its use as a buyer’s guide. It’s not that we’re fitting these apples into a pie, there is no pie and we’re appraising more than just apples (i.e., more than just one kind of game). If we were ranking all the RPGs or shooters in one list, that might sit better with me. But we’re not. I don’t think they should be appraised with the ulterior motive of making an affordable short-list for someone’s Christmas shopping, and if that is no longer the case then I don’t know why we would need rankings or a limited number of honorees.

Also,

Giving someone a one-hundred game list may err on the side of inclusivity, but it is manifestly impractical. And, with so many degrees of difference, what’s the meaningful separation between individual objects: e.g. why is X ranked 87 and Y ranked 86? What’s the manifest difference between these two things?”

I take your other points, but this one doesn’t apply. I’m advocating not ranking them at all because, like with review scores, I find doing so to be unnecessarily reductive.

Well, yes. The point of a list is to select the very best individuals from a larger group, and that means there has to be a finite (and usually small) number of ‘very best’ titles so selected. The larger the number of titles, the more diminished the accolade being granted.

If we have one hundred apples (games), and you ask me to select only the very best for a pie (time/money), and I come back with ninety-five apples and say, “these are the best,” you would be quite right to tell me:
1) My standards of judgement need to be more critical; and,
2) We can’t use all ninety-five apples in the pie.

Lists of this sort are generally created as a short guide to tell people what the handful of ‘most essential’ titles are, whether that is for a genre, system, etc. Giving someone a one-hundred game list may err on the side of inclusivity, but it is manifestly impractical. And, with so many degrees of difference, what’s the meaningful separation between individual objects: e.g. why is X ranked 87 and Y ranked 86? What’s the manifest difference between these two things?

Listicles are stupid as news items, absolutely. But that doesn’t mean that ranked lists are themselves unprofitable or useless. They are not news, they are not an acceptable substitute for news, and they are largely click-bait when presented as if they were. But, as a set of general consumer guidelines they have more than a little use.