BladeOfGod said:
hsrob said:
BladeOfGod said:
Love how people are comparing the game who doesnt even have 30 reviews with the game who has 80 reviews
|
This is barely relevant. So OOT should be penalised because internet reviewing was less well established at the time? Will U2's status be discounted in a couple of years when we have 200 reviews contributing to each meta score. If anything a lower number of reviews is a handicap as a single bad review can affect the average more than a single bad review among many more.
Anyway, I have always felt that comparing games from different generations is fraught with peril, there are just too many variables to account for. In my mind Twilight Princess is clearly a better game than OOT but it's impact and relative quality were significantly less.
U2 is undoubtedly one of the games of the generation, it may even end up being the game of the generation and hence may earn it's place among the best games of all time, but there is no single best game in any meaningful sense.
|
i didnt said it should be penalised, i said its dumb to compare it with the game who has 2 times more reviews
|
Why exactly? You certainly implied that a game with fewer reviews and is not worthy of comparison to a game with more reviews, I don't understand the logic. 80 reviews averaging 97% does not equate to a better game than one which averages 99% over 30 reviews.
If we are going to use Metacritic/Gamerankings as a means of comparing games between generations, and I have problems with this anyway, the end result is that presently OOT is ranked higher than U2. Whether it has 30 reviews or 300 is kind of irrelevant because in the end it still doesn't tell us which is the greater game, just which one has a higher aggregate score.
