Yeah it's pretty odd....
I caught the last 15 minutes (which is all you need to see anyway).
The list wasn't entirely out of left field, but it had a lot of stuff that didn't make any sense.
Super Mario Bros. made #1, at least they got that right.
Asteroids made it to the top 5.... it was the only classic to make it to the top 10... no pacman, no pong... but asteroids? Mind you I'm a big fan of the game, but even I understand that it was kind of a one hit wonder... no real lasting value to "normal" players.
There were a lot of inconsistences in their logic. For example, Zelda LTTP made it in the top 5, while the original Zelda only made the top 10. Their argument was that it built on the original and thus is the better version, which I can see. On the other hand SMB 3 was only in the top 10 while the original SMB made #1... they even go so far in the reviews to say the SMB 3 is the pan-ultimate version of Mario. So why is it ranked lower? Well they said that SMB single handedly changed the home console industry, which again, I agree with, BUT so did the original Zelda, not LTTP.
Also BioShock was in the top 10. Why? I get it, the game had a good story, but it barely has any age on it and it's just another fps. Portal on the other hand, which was groundbreaking to the genre, didn't place nearly as high afaik.
There were a lot like that. In typical g4 fashion, games that were released last tuesday were given as high regard as games that are 20 years old or started a multi-million dollar franchise. I don't agree with that line of thought. It isn't that newer games aren't as good, but rather they are newer, and thus haven't been proven to stand the test of time.
They did a pretty good job though... stuff like Golden Eye ranked highly as did stuff like Ms. Pacman.