Well at first I thought it was a great idea. VG Chartz is a fairly popular gaming website, so they deserve to rate games.

Well, obviously I was wrong. The ratings seem either biased, or just wrong.

Examples:

Endless Ocean - 8.3  > Fallout 3 - 8.2

Valkyrie Chronicles - 9.4 > Bioshock - 9.3

Tales of Vesperia - 8.8 = Halo 3 - 8.8

Civilization Revolution - 8.7 = Uncharted - 8.7

God of War: Chains of Olympus - 7.9?

So your saying Endless ocean, a diving sim, is better than Fallout 3 which has been arguably the best game of 2008 (by IGN). 

Your saying Valkyrie Chronicles (which is a great game, don't get me wrong) is better than Bioshock, the 2007 GOTY by many sites.

Tales of Vesperia is as good as the 360's biggest game which is still being played a ton 2 years after release.

This one I don't even understand. A game nobody's heard of as good as the best graphical game on any console except maybe Killzone 2 or Gears of War 2.

And this one doesn't sit well with me. Chains of Olympus has a 91 on Metacritic based on 79 reviews. And out of those 79 reviews only 1 is less than 80 (Edge Magazine). Are you just trying to shake things up by giving the PSP's best game a horrible rating?

Well I've said all I have to say. Thanks for reading. Post what you think about VG ratings. 

this is gonna sound funny, since im on record slamming vg chartz reviews . . .

but a game no one has heard of better than uncharted?

civilisation for the last 15 years has routinely topped best computer game of all time lists, and its probobly one of the top sellers ever. yes it can be just as good as uncharted. and to be honest, more people have definetly heard of civilisation.

i hate the fallout review fine, but endless ocean is one of the best wii games there is

also halo 3 sucks, i think they rated it too high, thats the fucked up part, halo 3 better than fallout 3.

but yeh anyway, im not a huge fan of vg chartz reviews, but look up civilisation online maybe, you may find its more well known than you realise

so you think that VGchartz do not deserve to rate games anymore because the reviewers opinion are wrong? please enlighten me and tell me what qualifies an opinion as WRONG? I'm not saying you're not entitled to disagree with their opinion, but that's the point, you're saying that the opinions here are wrong, because other opinions say so? and you include game nobody heard of as an excuse?

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one.

You need to be educated on these rating I think.

1) They represent one persons opinion, which does not in any way have to correspond with the opinion of the mass media.

2) A game is played through, and then you say "On a scale from 1 to 10, how good was your time with this game". You can't compare scores just like that, unless you compare scores for games that are similar in some way. Compare Fallout 3 to Oblivion, Endless Ocean to Afrika etc. And comparing scores, and saying that one score is wrong because more people agreed on another score, is wrong on so many levels.

3) This is not in place to create an "all-time-ranking" for games. How could Tales of Vesperia not be just as good as Halo 3? This is all about opinions after all.

Opinions are Opinions are Opinions...

[imo]

Endless Ocean is a very good game, Fallout 3 is also good I suppose, so that one sounds right

VC chronicles is by all reports an excellent game, as is bioshock. They both deserve the scores they got

Halo 3 is an alright game, i wouldn't have given it 8.8 but oh well. I know nothing about Tales of Vesperia

No idea about Civ Rev or Uncharted

I've not heard much good about GoW:CoO so that score seems about right

What was your point? Which ones did you think deserved higher? which did you think deserved lower?

[/imo]

In my opinion, Torillian should not be allowed to review JRPG's. His bias shows in with inflated scores for both VC and ToV.

I didn't review ToV, and how do my reviews of ES, ToS2, and Persona 4 fit into your theory?  Your pattern of two games has now become a pattern of one that is refuted by other examples.  Have fun with that :)

@ Pyramid - I know Civilization, i was really exaggerating my point. I'm talking the console version that nobody ever talks about, not the well known PC franchise.

@ Saliminizer - no I think VG definately should keep rating games, I'm just saying my opinion that I don't agree with a few of their ratings, although for the most part I agree with them. Theres just a few odd reviews I don't agree with.

@ Rainbird - You right, its just one guys feelings on a specific game. I guess I shouldn't get so uptight, since theres game I hate that other people love.

@ Scottie - Fallout 3 deserves a lot higher (like I'm talking low-mid 9's), Halo 3 maybe a big higher, VC maybe not quite that high, Chains of Olympus a lot higher. Most of them are fine, its just a few exception that seem way off kilter. But like you said in your post, thats only my opinion.

Believe it or not, aside from brilliant atmosphere Bioshock was incredibly unoriginal. It was a downgrade of System Shock 2's gameplay mechanics.