By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 01 February 2008
Edit Thread
rocketpig said:
KruzeS said:

rocketpig said:

Yes, this list of judges just screeeeeeeaaams bias: (.....)

Look, there's not one single Nintendo apologist on that list. How is that fair? *kicks feet and whines*

No, but the fact that the votes of those individuals that were sent to cast them clearly don't represent the position of their editorial teams, does scream bias.

Again, case in point: Mario Galaxy was voted no. 7 by IGN's envoy. I guess the fact that his publication elected the game as their overall game of the year shouldn't have influenced him one bit.

That may be his personal opinion, that's fine. But then this is nothing more than a bundle of 30 or so personal opinions, and really shouldn't be represented as such.


Were the votes supposed to be an "overall" vote for their publication? It doesn't look that way because they list each individual editor by name and give a decription of the person.

Is the Hall of Fame voter for the LA Times supposed to take a poll around the office before casting his or her vote? No, even if that person is a representative for that publication (and only gets to vote because of their status at said publication), they vote based on their opinion. It may not be perfect but no list is ever going to be perfect.

The reason I'm ranting on about this is because it gets really tiring to see any list on this forum that doesn't drop to its knees and suck off Nintendo get called biased, incomplete, stupid, etc. etc. etc. by people who haven't even played half the games on the list.

All of those games on that list are great or have great elements to them. I couldn't care less what order they are put in, they're all getting the recognition they deserve.


While generally true. This was really the wrong one to make this point on... as their are some issues with some of the judges... and the way the voting went seems like it would allow people to "stack" the deck for games they wanted to win. Which could of been the case for people who for some reason elected to not have their votes shown.

Even if some of these people don't have intentional bias, based on who they work for it's almost definite they are going to have a lot more exposure to some games then others.  Multiplatform games in general are going to benefit when you have "specialty magazines" and other publications that only deal with 1 system regularly.

I do agree it would probably be better if instead of a top 10 games in a 1-10 order they just list 10 games in alphabetical order.