| bigtakilla said: Yeah a 90.4 (or 9.04 when converted from percent to whole numbers) is still smaller than 93 (or 9.3 cinverted to whole numbers). What point was there in that?saying that out of around 1700 people (making the averages even closer to each other than just compairing the more popular title) is worse than the 92 I was trying to give you. Something is telling me you seen 90.4 and thought it was a bigger number than 93, lol. Also Are you implying that Twilight Princess can't be beaten in 7 hours? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn0JIM1nUDc Now you could be saying he skipped through the text, which is true, but text doesn't take 3 hours to read, lol. That's all besides the point though. |
I never said 90.4 was a bigger number than 93. I was trying to show you how easily numbers can be skewed and distorted and how arbitrary they really are (not much different from internet forum polls.) You didn't post the 92 GC version anyway, you posted the Wii version which was a 90. Do you honestly believe that Twilight Princess GC ( with its 92) is closer to Ocarina of Time in quality and esteem than it is to Twilight Princess Wii? The same exact game? Of course not. And if you do, it conflicts with your original point that it is the content of the game rather than the interface which makes OoT more esteemed. Which shows that such a categorization of game quality is not objective nor is is it any better than many other means of doing so. An aggregate of arbitrary is still arbitrary.
As for Twilight Princess being beaten in 7 hours, I doubt the guy did a speed-run of a game he hated so that he can use it for a review (in fact I doubt he even played it.)
But to do a quality speedrun you must use tricks that allow you to skip certain cutscenes (not just the text.) Like you said that is besides the point. My point was that people like that can skew the score just by giving a game a 0.
Edit: To emphasize my point further. Look at the User Score for OoT 3D, which is supposed to be the best version of OoT.
