| KylieDog said: Link's Awakening DX > Link's Awakening. While OoT was great in its day and fronted some amazing new things it also had its flaws, and it has been lifted to a far higher standing than it should have been due to sites like metacritic or gamerankings that refuse to add legitimate older reviews because it would lower the games score which it has had for so long, even if that does deafeat the point of the site. OoT has only 22 reviews, are plenty of games were can take 22 reviews and beat OoT score. |
But that's a silly argument... actually more than silly. Yes you could take 22 reviews of anythign with a hell of a lot more than that and make the score seem better. I could also take 22 of the WORST reviews from those games as well and make it seem worse. Considering those 2 cases exist and contradict each other, your argument is well contradictory and therefore illogical.
You can't assume what something would have been had there been more reviewers to review the game for OOT in its time. And discussing how they pick and choose which reviewers go into the overall score is not a good argument either as they still do the same thing too. Either you make the case for both or you don't make it at all... but making it for both obviously would show why this argument doesn't lead anywhere.
We can't play the what if game here. More importantly, we can't state that one side have something done to it when we plead for the other side to not have that done.
