As per todays RPS blog:

http://www.pcgamertop100.com/editorial/

I think this list is generally fucked up beyond all recognition of reality.

Let's look at the Top-10:

1. Deus Ex
2. HL2
3. TF2
4. HL
5. Rome TW
6. Oblivion
7. Fallout
8. PS Torment
9. Theif II
10. FO3

I generally have fundamental idealogical issues with putting games in order from 1-10, let alone 1-100... but they've fucked up the grouping all together. Let's assume games in the 1-10 range are implied as "class A" games...

Deus Ex and HL I agree with, but why the fuck is HL2 in the same group (let alone higher) than the original? Same deal with Rome... Shogun or Medieval 1 were the ground breakers.

When you categorise things, you need to do so with a certain rule-set or adherence to a criteria. One of those criteria for me is acknowledgement of the conceptual origin or predecessors for the purposes of identifying originality, innovation, bandwagon-ing. It seems this games list has totally disregarded that.

TF2 is a joke in the top 10. Oblivion well, im sure you all know my opinion on Oblivion, but Morrowind is a top 10 game, not it's graphical upgrade.

Fallout, fair play, although questionable. Fallout 3 another fucking utter joke. Theif II, never played it, can't comment. Planescape, I would think BG2 or 1 is more worthy.

The problems continue and perhaps get worse from the #10 ranking and below... e..g 11-20:

11. UFO: Enemy Unknown (X:COM in the US): Never played
12. Civilization IV: Wtf?!?!? Civ 2 is the king of Civ games.
13. Counter-Strike: Source: Maybe... but probably not #13
14. World of Warcraft... If it's the biggest MMO, yes. But i've never played it.
15. Grand Theft Auto IV: You are fucking joking.
16. System Shock 2: Never played
17. Portal: You are having a fucking laugh
18. Unreal Tournament 2004: Consoles FTW
19. Hitman: Blood Money: Good game, but not top 40, not #19!
20. World of Goo: wtf?!

I'm a fucking Nazi when it comes to critique.

The problem of sequels vs their originals in these lists is not as simple as you state. If the ground-breaking Shogun and Medieval I are more important than Rome, why would you place CivII on the list instead of the first Civilization? Those two games are quite similar, and of course the first is more original. Personally I think that Civ IV including expansions is a greater game than Civ II (it's just that its initial buggy release put me off that game for a year), so why shouldn't it be on the list?
Now I did spend (or waste) more time of my life on II than IV, but that's mainly because back in the day, there used to be only one or two interesting games per year. Playing CivII now is pretty boring (I know I did it a few months ago).

That's exactly the discussion that's needed.

It is possible that sequels sometimes "out-do" their predecessors. For Civ I, I wouldn't know since I never played it, so I would have to say "Civ II / Civ I (?)" to replace Rome TW, as opposed to simply Civ II.

Another example, Rinox is of the opinion (afaik) that BGII > BGI, but for me that's not strictly true.

I don't rank Civ IV highly at all. I've played it a fair amount including mods and expansions, but it seems just an overall re-release than a superior adaptation from a functional point of view. Of which I have no problem with re-released gloss-ups, but artistically they don't merit on their own.

Of course, that's what some people probably think of Rome TW, that's its the artistic superior to Medieval / Shogun... but consider that Total War is supposed to be a somewhat sensible war strategy game, Rome introduces quite a few oddities into what war actually consists of. Rather like attempting to make a product based on capability rather than an artistic void.