I'm fairly new here, care to elaborate? Does it have to do with the amount of points you have or the amount of post?

My o my sure is alot of huffing and puffing about people's difference in opinions, though some seem to base thier's as actual facts...

Anywho, why not wait till we get more reviews out before we start going at each other's throats gentlemen.

why the fuck does mario have to speak to give me a better feeling about the game? i only saw mario speaking a lot one time and that was the movie. you know what happened? it was huge shit.

speaking about uncharted with the great voice acting and comparing it with a freaking fantasy world where plants have eyes and expecting it has to have the same voice acting like an uncharted wtf?

it's the same like i would say i love a mario games, without the voice acting uncharted would be much better without voices as well. no it wouldn't, uncharted would be bad without voice acting mario is great without and zelda is great as well without even if zelda could easily have voice acting.

speaking about the great lbp and how great it is because its almost endless i don't get it. it's not better because it's almost endless most people think mario has perfect controls and levels it wouldn't be much better only because it would take 5000 hours to see everything.

and i bet if they put someone like jak from jak&daxter in a mario galaxy it would get the same score or maybe 1% less (if he could do exactly what mario can). ok they would have to change him little bit to fit in mario's world. it's not mario it's how you can play with mario and what you have to do with him in the games what makes a mario game so great.

or zelda it's only an opinion if you like a zelda game or not and if you like the foes there but if you like this kind of gae how could it be much better? wow the new zelda is so great, the gameplay is excellent if you like this kind of game most people will love zelda. if you like games like uncharted you will love uncharted but for what it is uncharted has more issues than zelda. uncharted's shooting sequences are really not the best i can think about, the puzzles are simple like hell and the climbing isn't a challenge as well. that's the reason i would give uncharted 3 93% because these points could be much better. and if the new zelda is like i think i would give zelda 97% or 98% and it seems like most people think like me as well.

oh boy, you done goofed. Unleash the kraken!...or krakens for that matter!

Zelda is currently at 95, it got already the 80's. Hope it hold there.

Yeah I just saw that. I don't know if G4's review go into account but they gave it a 4 out of 5. They thought the world was too linear and sparse and also complained about some design inconsistencises and recycled content. Wonder how true all that really is or was it just the reviewer who felt that way. Still, I don't see it dropping below 94.

It seems the review for G4 don't count for Metacritics/Gamerankings. Also, the only review a little 'controversial' right now is EGM (8.5) and not for the score, but mostly because the cons were a little weird.

UPDATED:
- Skyrim 96
- Zelda 95
- UC3 92

Controls. Something in the line of:

"I don't know how to use properly Motion Plus, so I just waggled and the game does not rewarded me. I throw the controls and the game cost me a hole in the wall of my living-room. 1.5 points less for that."

And the ones for GamesRadar was worse:

• Ghirahim is EVIL
• Waiting for the HD Zelda

...

Did you ignore my post?

Come on people, what the hell. Metacritic is a place you go to to see the average of reviews that are added.

ALL games on the list at the moment have like what? 60+ reviews? Why are you using the BATMAN PS3 version that only has 37 reviews as opposed to the 360 that has 75+ reviews?

Batman has 94 metacritic based on 70

OR

96 based on 30

Obviously you should take the one that has the most reviews. Thats the purpose of metacritic. To cumulate an average based on a shit ton of sites.

What I said earlier =
"Seriously what the fuck?

If you are going to do a Top 10 games based on meta scores, you should use the versions that have the MOST reviews. Isn't that just obvious?

You're choosing a game like Portal 2 and Uncharted 3 that has 60+ reviews, and you are putting them against Batman which has one version at the exact same reviews (70 being the 360 version) but instead you pick the PS3 version that has roughly HALF the reviews of the 360 version. Come on, you're better than that >_>. Otherwise might aswell take Skyrim on the PS3 version which has 92 as I am writing this since it only has like what? 7 reviews? I just don't see your reasoning buddy. Taking the highest scores for the lulz?

* = Can change

1.Skyrim = 96*
2.Zelda = 95*
3.Portal 2 = 95
4.Batman = 94*
5.Uncharted 3 = 92*

Thats how it should be.

EDIT:
Either that or make Skyrim have 95 metacritic and base all multiplatform games on the PS3 version, which once again is just foolish. USE THE ONES WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF REVIEWS dayum it >_>