I played LOZ on the N64 and I found it boring and difficult. I had to use a strategy guide to pass the game, I would ofnever been able to figure out the puzzles. Games on top of the list have inflated review averages. Review score Averages in excess of 95% are ridiculous

Goldeneye was the best game that I played on the N64. Goldeneye had great multiplayer and the single player on 00 Agent was fun and challenging and trying to unlock all the cheat by beating levels under timme limits and on specified difficulty level was fun and I unlocked all the cheats in Goldeneye. the best one was definitely the Archive one you had to just run through the whole level and escape in under 80 seconds on 00 Agent.

Using the cheats on levels was fun in Goldeneye especially the all weapons, unlimited ammo cheats and invincibility cheats I would spend hours putting mines everywhere and blowing enemies and things up. it was hilarious the enemies would keep re-appearing.

You call Goldeneye challenging but LOZ: OoT difficult?

My 6 year old beat OoT (and recently LOZ: TP)

 I was in 7th grade when OoT came out and I had no trouble with it. How could you think it is too hard?

It's not out yet. It should be I agree, but I wouldn't count my chickens.

The fact that people are still talking about LoZ:OoT 10 years later shows how great the game was. In two or three years R* will have another GTA game out that will do everything this game did but better and GTA4 will be forgotten about. And if that isn't the case then on the next generation of systems they will have 2 or 3 GTA games that will surpass it and by the time GTA4 is 10 years old it will be forgotten. LoZ:OoT has stood the test of time and GTA4 has a .00000000000000000000000001% chance of doing the same.

And Rock On, I found GoldenEye to be to easy and boring, what is your point. And if you can't figure out the puzzles in a Zelda game your adventuring skills are weak and need to be honed, you should go play some Zelda to redeem yourself and hone your skills.

It's a way better chance than that, cwbys21. At LEAST 0.1%.

Even if the 360 version gets bumped below OoT, its still a better reviewed game. It has more reviews overall. Nice try though. 52 vs 32. I'm surprised Galaxy is so high with 69 reviews.

Firstly, in statistical terms OoT does not really have enough reviews for those reviews to be a reliable indicator of the games quality. Worth noting that basically no game does but the like ot OoT are particularly bad and no real meaning can be obtained by looking at the "average".

Secondly, even looking at the "raw" scores there is very little difference between any of the top ten. This is particularly so given the first point I made, there is no statistically significant difference between their raw scores and no conclusions can be made about which game is better. Sad I know.

Thirdly, looking at standard deviations is probably more relevant than raw scores, even acknowledging for my first point. SMG actually has a lower standard deviation, than GTA IV or OoT, based purely on raw scores and according to my brief analysis we can expect 95% of all scores to be 91.30 or higher out of a 100.

This compares with:

GTA IV (PS3) 91.48
GTA IV (360) 90.52
OoT (N64) 91.26

However, adjusted for statistical outliers (which I defined as reviews that were 2.5 or more standard deviations away from the mean) the results change somewhat.

GTA IV (PS3) 92.78
GTA IV (360) 92.58
OoT (N64) 91.26
SMG(Wii) 91.30

That is to say, on average we expect 95% of all reviews for GTA IV (PS3) to be 92.78% or higher once outliers have been adjusted for. Adjusting for outliers reduces the standard deviation thereby reducing the range of the 95 per cent confidence intervals. If you were analysing an average game outliers would also include unusually high scores, as well as unusually low scores.

Interesting note, GTA IV (PS3 and 360) and OoT (N64) are the only games released (that I could find) where over half their reviews were 100%. The next closest is Soul Calibur with 48.15%.

A further interesting note, GTA IV (360) has as many 100% scores as OoT has reviews (although one or two are not counted as part of the analysis). How anyone could argue that OoT having a raw score higher than GTA IV as indicative of it being better is quite simply beyond me.

Overall, there are clearly many ways to determine what game is the best reviewed. Looking at the average (adjusted for outliers) is undoubtedly superior than the Gamerankings way of looking at a purely unweighted average. By the measure GTA IV (PS3) still has quite an advantage over OoT.

Although there is the irony of using objective standards to determine subjective ratings. Not just you, I mean the concept of gamerankings and metacritic, and rotten tomatoes. Not that they aren't useful, jus the irony there. 

I don't disagree. I openly hate Gamerankings for being rather stupid. But I figure that if people are going to read so much into these numbers they might as well look at them in a slightly less superficial way.