That top 70 list is a great tool for finding RPGs to play, but it, like everything else, has its problems. First of all, RPGs are a really broad genre that has fans with completely different tastes and the vast majority of RPGs ever made aren't all around good. They might be good in one area and bad in another, and depending on your tastes, you might find it a great game or a complete piece of shit. Some people are more into combat, others into the writing, others into exploration, some require a C&C approach, others want a virtual world, and many want some combination of all those. That's why just being on that list doesn't mean that it's going to be a game that you like. Reading the user reviews that come with that list is helpful in that regard, as they usually describe the game somewhat, with its strengths and weaknesses, so you can get a better idea of what you would be getting into. I wonder also if it would be too much work to, at some point in the future, do several such lists broken down by cRPG aspects: greatest exploration RPGs, greatest combat RPGs, greatest story RPGs, greatest C&C RPGs, and so on. That would be very interesting to see as well, but might make felipepe have to quit his dayjob.
Another thing about that list is of course how people's nostalgia and personal bias factor into it. At least some of the older games listed can't possibly belong on that list in terms of being played today, but they were very important historically and people have a soft spot for them. We might all hate Oblivion here but of course Oblivion is more fun to play than say Wizardry 1, it's just for its time Wizardry was a special game, and Oblivion, on the other hand, was really shitty when compared to what it could've been with 2006 technology and investment.
