It finally recovered after the devastating 2.5/5 review from Gamespy.

It now stands 0.1% above Blue Dragon, thanks to 3 new reviews coming in, bumping the average score up about 2-3%.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928334.asp <- Lost Odyssey (7 reviews, 77.6 avg)

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927950.asp <- Blue Dragon (58 reviews, 77.5 avg)

Just an FYI for those that care. A few of the comparibles:

Currently, the GS review still bodes poorly for LO, but overall, I think LO will wind up with stronger scores: 53% of Blue Dragon scores were 80% or better. For Lost Odyssey, 71.4% are above 80% thus far.

Never like gamerankings...

Metacritic has Blue Dragon at 79% and Lost Odissey at 75%

As soon as I get my free copy of Halo 3 I am trading it in for this one. Only knock I seen on it is the technical stuff which a number of people here have said hasn't been issue. In terms of the story is up to the individual to decide if they like it or not similar to a movie. I recalled people whining about Blue Dragon's story yet I really enjoyed it. I am just glad 40+ hour rpgs are still being made even if they don't "innovate" they offer a different take on figthing turned based which is what all the older rpgs used to do anyways. Funny thing once we get this "innovation" people will find someway to bitch about it.

Lol...that's why I hate the power of a few reviewers telling an entire world of gamers what is good and what is bad. A 76% average instead of an 82% average based on one reviewers score.

Lost Odyssey gets an 82% average if you don't include the ONE outlier vote of 50%. Why should ONE GUY that may hate JRPG's, or had a bad day, or is trying to get more hits on his website, or is mad because he had to pay for his review copy, or just felt like being an ass, etc. have the power to influence a game so strongly...

I still think the merit of a game being based on professional review scores ONLY is flawed. User opinion/reviews should have some type of weight in the equation OR a percentage of outlier votes (top 3%, bottom 3%) should be thrown out, etc.....I don't know what...but SOMETHING...I won't say a game is average just because one or two reviews is grossly out of place compared to the vast majority of other review scores. Sorry.

What if Halo 4 gets a 89.9% because one guy decides he thinks it is overhyped so will penalize it by giving it a 60%?  Is it no longer AAA?  It is in my books....well, just my opinion on things--different strokes for different folks.

this is why i hate it when 1 site gives a game a low score just to stand out from the others

elnino - I think the issue is that most western reviewers are just too tired of traditional JRPGs to ever really review them favorably (unlike Japanese reviewers).

Everyone will clamor "but Persona 3!" - yet that was Atlus's first SMT game in years to come to the west, and was very different.

The worst tragedy is the fact that Eternal Sonata got a much higher score than either thus far (about 82.5% on GR) - which leads me to believe they never, ever play the game all the way through. ES, despite being great the first 5 hours, gets repetitive, and the story at the end is a joke.

So anymore, unless it's radically different (like Persona 3), or has Square Enix backing, it typically doesn't do well. A similar game such as Final Fantasy X can score in the upper 80s, but LO struggles to get to the 80s. Is that fair for a game that is equal in most areas as FFX?

It's a bit of a joke that LO doesn't average above 80% in my opinion. I'd rank it anywhere between 80 and 85.

interesting,
all who gaved BD higher score, gave LO lower and vice versa.
probably a matter of taste. =))
because both games have framerate problems.

Blue Dragon has framerate problems? When? I played the game for over 35 hours and never saw it hitch once.

Basically says LO wasn't MUCH of an improvement from Blue Dragon...

not that Blue dragon was bad at all....