So does cubed3 thinks rounding 9.9 equals 9, or did they adjust the review?

[LordTheNightKnight]

Onyxmeth said:

LordTheNightKnight said:
Fuck it. If they truncated, whatever. If they though OoT wasn't a 10, then that's their choice. I would like to see a proper explanation of what they did.

Not asking for a link. I'm going to look it up.

Although it's kind of funny how most of those defending this seemed to be the ones agreeing that OoT shouldn't have been on top. I could be wrong though. I just notice I'm only getting arguments from a few of you.

Also, right or wrong. cubed3 had lousy timing in making this adjustment. It is going to look suspicious simply because of when they did it.

Sir you continue to just dig your own grave further. You won't win this so stop arguing. It's over. I'm sure OoT will have more retro reviews added in the years to either hurt of help it's score.

In all honesty we should all think OoT shouldn't be on top. This shouldn't even be debateable. There are so many more influential games that aren't even represented on Gamerankings it's ridiculous. The data is missing so much that anything that can be gathered from Gamerankings should only be based on a game by game basis. Judging this list like it represents the best games of all time is ludicrous, because I don't see Tetris, Super Mario Bros., Final Fantasy, The Legend of Zelda, Street Fighter II, Pong, Pac Man, Sim City or Space Invaders on this list and all are more influential and better represent the greatest games of all time than the Ocarina of Time and GTA IV do.

 

 Stop assuming this is about any particular game. I am trying to be objective here, which is why I tried to argue the existance of the rule (and if it isn't really a rule, it isn't really a rule), not whether a game deserved a score.

And I'm not still arguing this. I wrote "fuck it", and I wrote, "I'm going to look it up."