Rank the 98+ club (Metacritic)

[Nautilus]

Ka-pi96 said:

Nautilus said:

So my remark is "sad" because I am of this opinion(and being in my right to say this in the way I want without really insulting anyone) but your isnt?

"This. Saying 'they were that good at the time' seems kind of silly especially since some people here even played them at that time."

A bit of double-satndard, dont you think?

I can fully understand when people dont like the game.I mean, i dont like GTA while most people do.And while everyone has the right to say whatever they want about the game, I personally feel silly for people to say that the game is overrated and shouldnt have had the 99 score when this is the ONLY game to receive such score.So this is the only game reviewers were more biased about?The same goes for the other 3 games.Never played them, and while I could potentially score them lower based on my experiences, the game must have done something right to have been awarded such scores.Being biased only goes so far.

How is anything I said a double standard?

And you're saying scores shouldn't be criticised because reviewers gave them? Review scores absolutely should be criticised. People have different ideas about what makes a game good or not and how well it should be rated. Just because it was the only game to receive a certain score doesn't mean people should just accept it. There's nothing wrong with some people feeling it should have scored lower (or higher). And there's no reason to try and devalue their opinion because they didn't play it at the right time or something. I'd expect the majority of people that like gaming enough to be on a site like this wouldn't particularly care that a game is old and would still rate it fairly. Besides, if a game ages poorly then I'd say that's further justification for calling it overrated.

And while I don't fully disagree with criticising people for comparing them to more recent games (as I said aging well is important too) it seems that people aren't really criticising that but instead assuming any negative opinion is because 'they didn't play the game at the right time' or whatever.

You saying that Im wrong for the remark I made, because I critized about people who didnt like the game the same I did, but you go on(or before, since you made that post before me) to criticize people that the reasoning that you should rate the games based when they released is silly.If my critic is "sad", or wrong to make in other words, how come yours isnt?Thats what I meant by double standards.

I never said that scores shouldnt be criticized.Scores are given by persons and just as ourselves, they are bound to eventually make mistakes, or not make a quality or objective review.And review is an opinion anyways, so its really subjective at the first place.What i said is that reviewers scores in general should be respected.One thing that people(again, in general) is that, while reviews scores should not be used as a definitive metric of wether you will enjoy the game or not, the reviewers are professionals.They are persons that dedicate their lives to the videogame industry.While I do agree that individual scores should be held with a certain level of skeptimism, agregate scores such as metacritic, for all the flaws the system has, should have some level of respect.After all, its the job of the reviewers review games, and while there are clickbait reviews here and there, the serious ones far outweight them.

Plus I find your reasoning about "if a game ages poorly, it means it was overrated at the first place" completely wrong.First because anything ages, from music to games to movies to any kind of product.Everything gets outdated, because the newer products are build upon the older ones.We wouldnt have the level of tecnological fidelity today if someone didnt pioneer things in the first place.So of course the older models, or older games will be outdated as the years passes.Thats why its silly to judge something by today standards.Secondly is that any game will be worse 10, 20 years after its release.Its obvious, since the modern games will take the best parts of the games that came before and build upon it and make it better.Any game ages, including even your favorite games.A game that was 90 in the past, may be 80 by nowadays metrics.So its not only unfair to make such assumptions, but also completely wrong.One thing that would be a good metric however, is how well the game has aged.Now that has merit.And OOT for me has aged really well.

Now to your last point, I agree with you.Criticizing someone because they think you didnt play the game the right way is stupid.I mean, the experiencing to playing the game when it launches and playing the same game 10 years later will of course be different, but if you keep thinking thats the reason someone didnt like the game, when the game was not their cup of tee at the first place is wrong.