I thought you had to own a game to be able to rate it. I also thought there was a way to see who owns which game. I'll check when I get home from work.

I happen to have the cash to buy this game and I do want a 3DS. Why haven't I pulled the trigger on this one, yet?

I'll be honest, a 7/10 average sounds pretty damn honest to me. OoT was the last Zelda I finished (in terms of release date, at least, since I've beaten LoZ a couple of times since then) and the last time I really felt like I enjoyed the direction Nintendo was taking the series. It was innovative in its time and well put together compared to the competition of its day, but comparing it to what's on the market now (as one should do with a remake) means that serious changes have to be made to make this game as good for its time as OoT was. I haven't played it, so I can't judge that, but if it's OoT + Master Quest (I also played that) and a handful of extras plus smoother graphics, that's not anywhere near 10/10 territory. That's just a fresh coat of paint, and that's not enough. There are a lot of games that work with similar gameplay, have better graphics (and perhaps art direction), more content, and equally good stories. What do these games tend to get these days? Somewhere between 8 and 9 out of 10. If the game just tweaks what already was (which I expect) and ignores most of what has come since and delivers a product that at its core most gamers have already experienced to its fullest, a 7 is quite justified.

I'm a big Nintendo fan and, if we count replays, I've completed Zelda games far more than any other (excepting Civilization, which would be low on the list without replays), but OoT doesn't hold up that well these days. It still holds its charm, and graphical improvements along with extra gameplay certainly can't hurt that, but its charm is based primarily in a time when epic 3D adventures were an experiment, not par for the course. If this game were simply new, it'd get lumped in that 8-9 range too, and being that it's not it's quite reasonable to see it a point or so lower. OoT as it was with a graphics rehaul wouldn't score over a 9 today, and certainly not a ten. It got a lot of its praise for being an innovator, and now that it's 13 years old it doesn't deserve extra points for doing something other games hadn't done 13 years ago when so many have since that time.

The problem isn't the score itself but the scoring system has been so broken, a 7 is equivalent to a poor-average/shovelware game.

Ocarina of Time 'was' the perfect game back in 1998, my grandpa was also a really good boxer back in 1972, but that doesn't mean that I'd want him to back me up in a punch on in 2011. Games age, game design evolves, Ocarina is a fantastic game but it's flaws have become apparent and maybe other people have come to that same conclusion.

The people bringing up the HD collections are running into brick walls, the collections usually come with three games on one disk, they all cost $40 each, they run at a smooth 30 FPS or 60 FPS and they are made to look better by upressing them. All the games on the collections are also fairly new, the oldest God of War game is from 2005, the oldest Tomb Raider game is from 2006 and the oldest Sly Cooper game is from 2002. All the games released on these collections are also critically acclaimed and some of them are the best of breed. Ocarina of Time is one game released at $40 with a decent visual upgrade, added touch controls and an extra 'Boss Challenge' mode, it's a good remake, but it also has much less value than the HD collections.

when I rated mine it was at 10. I was the third person to rate and did mine at 9.7, so I reduced the average score.

And people who didn't play it the first time around also can't give it a 10?

Your standpoint is very shaky at best. Just because it's a remake doesn't make it a bad game. If a remake is so awesome it deserves a 10 it should receive a 10.

Of course you have to "own" the game to rate it, but nobody can check whether you really own it or not when you add it to your VGChartz collection. ;)

And: You should definitely pull the trigger. Now!

Unfair score, more like 8.5

Still I will maintain that in its own year OOt doesn't even make the TOP 5 GAMES Of The Year for me, I found GT1, Xenogears, Starcraft, Grim Fandango and most importantly MGS1 to be far better.

That's where the argument falls down. If stuff is going to be remade, it should be older games, not stuff from ~5 years ago. Hell, the recent Tomb Raider set has games from this generation FFS...

There's a whole heap of old games I'd love to see updated and remade to modern standards just out of sheer curiousity to see if they'd stand up.

How does that destroy my argument? What an odd thing to say.

Newer games are games that don't suffer the aging evolution of gaming as much, they all still hold up really well and they actually look good when upressed and stabilized. MGS1 will always look ugly by todays standards, the only thing they could possibly do is remake the whole game, gameplay and all, because anyone who's not a masochists and who's recently played MGS1 (I have) knows it doesn't hold up well at all. 

My argument was also about value, three five year old games that were all critically acclaimed and actually look good are better than a single game that's probably older than a lot of people buying it, especially when they are all being sold for the exact same price.