We can fuss all we like about the placements, like we might for any list, but what jumps out at me is the blandness and the absence of a truly individual voice. This is an exercise in ticking boxes and, like so many of the 21st-century retrospectives The Guardian has run so far, reads like its intended audience are people who don't really follow the medium.
This is exactly the sort of introductory list one would put together for those who don't play games: broad out of obligation and afraid to be iconoclastic. Its only purpose for specialists is to give us yet another triviality to bicker about, as though the ranks and numbers mattered.