D-FENS on 27 August 2007
| mrstickball said: As some might of said (or maybe not?) the problem with a game ever beating OOT is that it's impossible. There ARE better games out there than OOT, but the advantage is that OOT had 23-ish reviews that were glaringly positive. Bioshock already has double that, and climbing. The more reviews are out, the lower the mean score will be. Look at Gears of War: At one time, it was well above Oblivion in average scoring (around 94.5%), but is far lower. IMO, I don't think, even if they are great, most any other game this year, save possibly SMG, will remotely get into the top-10. Look at Zelda:TP. If it can't do it, I don't hold out alot of hope for others. Why? Your always going to get your stupid scores to ruin the averages. Twilight Princess got an insane 8.8 - that totally ruined the score. All it takes is a bad impression from 2-3 reviewers to ruin an uber-score. Which is what's happening to Bioshock. The fact that Bioshock is near 50 reviews, and STILL on the top 10 is a marvel. |
Interesting, would there be a way to limit reviews? Like say for example, a site that collected 15 - 25 reviews from large/established sources only? For example, some newspapers/publications have a chart of new movie review based ONLY on NY Times, USA Today, Miami Herald, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, etc. [You could do GI, IGN, GAMESPOT, etc, but not Nintendo Power, PSM, XBOX Mag, etc]
I think THAT would be a far more credible ranking system than throwing stuff in from "bobsmomsbasementgamers.com"
