..because i need constant reassurance when playing a game to make sure i'm actually enjoying what i play. 

I'm using my example as a whole to show the breakdown in gamerankings' methods. It may not significantly change the review average of Ocarina in particular but my point stands because other games can be raised like Tekken 3 has by these scores.

Also most of the greatest games of all time aren't even represented on gamerankings because they came out before 1996, when data was even harder to find. If you look towards Top 100 lists I'm sure you'll find Super Mario Bros. rightfully atop on most lists. You'll also see no Tetris, Street Fighter II, Pong, Space Invaders, Legend of Zelda, Sid Meier's Pirates, Sim City, Maniac Mansion rany other number of games that were released way before gamerankings could collect data, so even the Ocarina of Time being the greatest should be taken with a grain of salt because it's really not worthy of the position. No game from that era is.

@Onyxmeth: the same thing can be said about this era, in which games are hyped so much that the big boys can't possibly stay objective. Then, the little boys have to come in and review it too low to compensate the average.
I would rather have a game reviewed 30 times, on a consistent rate than a game with 90 reviews that vary between 7/10 and 10/10.
About that, I think it's really impressive what Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime did, but even those games can't be called compeltely not hype-influenced.

Its a very good game - but unless games have roughly the same reviews / review sources - then comparing titles over time becomes somewhat meaningless.

Look at the number of reviews for OoT vs GTA - way more data points for GTA and (statistically) more chance of a broader spread of scores (brining the average down).

I'm not knocking OoT, just this type of comparison.

Just be happy its very, very good indeed.

The problem is you can't prove that games are reviewed high based on hype and you can't prove it's only with recent releases. Games could have had hyped up reviews scores since the NES era.

Games aren't necessarily going to be more consistent because they have thirty reviews also. Conker's Bad Fur Day has reviews ranging from 100 to 60. That's a pretty big range for a game to be at with only thirty reviews.

The point is that nothing from the 32-64 bit era and earlier should even be considered on gamerankings or metacritic because those sites weren't up and running, collecting data during those times. Only games released duing the last and current generations should even be considered, and even those should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Anybody have that huge grain of salt pic to help that sentence out? 

Well i will give OoT my own review with a score of zero so it still will not win lol

@oxy...

presuming you're referring to my comment its about probability. A game with more reviews will probably see less consistency than one with less. That's just a fact - you'll always find exceptions 'link Conkers' but the general rule holds true.

Also, my other point is over time the reviewers/sources will change (and perhaps review criteria as well) so again over time comparisions become somewhat meaningless.

I'd care more if I like OOT more.

As such to me it's just an overrated but revolutionary game replacing an overrated game.

What can I say.  I liked Link to the Past more.   Even though Zelda was a new expierence. 

No I actually think you're correct. I was writing to mariozeldametroid about that because of his quote here:

"I would rather have a game reviewed 30 times, on a consistent rate than a game with 90 reviews that vary between 7/10 and 10/10."

I was only pointing out to him that isn't always the case just because a game has thirty reviews by giving Conke as an example.