Hmmm...yeah that's not exactly what I was trying to say. I just dislike a post full of "Yes Men" just believing Gamerankings is rigged because it conveniences their bias, when they easily could have spent five minutes like I just did and see if the numbers actually match up or were off. Everyone is just too quick to jump to conclusions.

 its just a little surprising that that has happened 10 years after the games release.. there is really no way to prove or disprove this unless someone can remember exactly what all the listed review scores were for OoT prior to this change in percentage.. i doubt it was a simple miscalculation before only because i'm sure that they have an automatic algorithm for averaging all the listed scores.. the only thing i can think of that could have changed is one of the reviews were brought lower.. and since we don't have the original scores for each of those places, its hard to prove who is in the right or wrong

Why would a review source change their review ten years after the fact?

Edit: The tool to figure out what the difference is.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070311233605/www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/197771.asp

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/197771.asp

Who wants to go about it? 

LOL This is fun. All these average game review score fetishists got sucker-punched once again. I think after three million threads about this completely useless topic you deserve it

well the old score was 97.688 so it's kinda close but, I just dont think something like this would have gone unnoticed this long

Edit: especially when SMG had passed it for a little while back there

Wow, ominous:

MESSAGE BOARD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Post a message about a Particular Game, please look up the Game and go to the Messages tab to post your message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're sorry, this feature is temporarily disabled

Everyone arguing about whether GTA IV or Zelda is better is really missing the point of this thread. I frankly don't care which game is on top of the list but it's about maintaining some degree of journalistic integrity. I don't think reviews are the be all and end all but i definitely look at reviews before purchasing a game and i'd like to know i can at least place some faith in what i am reading about a game.

Is it important in the big scheme of things, no of course not. ,nothing related to games is important in the big scheme of things. However when PS3 numbers get adjusted down on this site people ask for an explanation and i think the same thing is reasonable to expect in this situation.

It seems Cubed3 genuinely has changed their review for a 9.9 to a 9, I'm guessing they changed their scoring system and it rounded all of their reviews down.

Thats what the difference seems to be, a review changing from 99 to 90. 

This is exactly what happened. In years past, Cubed3.com included decimals in their review scores, and OOT had received a 9.9/10 score. This can be proven by looking at some of their past reviews, such as Resident Evil (US import review). That game now has a score of 9/10, but if you read all of the comments from years past, you'll find some where the commenters are talking about how impressed they are with the 9.9 score that game just got. And on the second page of those comments, you see where someone specifically mentioned that OOT had a 9.9 on that site. and was therefore content that the 9.9 score for RE didn't go beyond OOT's score.

  So when the site was reformatted, the decimal values were just stripped - not rounded.

 I find it unlikely that the original reviewer would have opted for a 9/10 over a 10/10 if those had been his only two choices. It was clear from the review that he felt it was the best game of all time. I think we should write to the Cubed3.com staff and ask them to reconsider rounding this from 9.9 down to 9. There's a fair amount of publicity at stake!