The thing was that if some had stated likely causes, simply to offer possibilities, that would be okay. Instead, there seemed to be insistance that the mere existance of those possibilities proved my arguments wrong, when I was also discussing posibilities. It was even in the OP.

You don't counter a list of possibilities with more possibilities (not just you, all of those doing this). You bring in proof of wether any possibility is the actual cause or if it is not the actual cause.

That was what I was trying to bring here, and a lot of them just assumed I was biased, and tried to force this discussing into crashing down, instead of actually discussing it. 

Sir you continue to just dig your own grave further. You won't win this so stop arguing. It's over. I'm sure OoT will have more retro reviews added in the years to either hurt of help it's score.

In all honesty we should all think OoT shouldn't be on top. This shouldn't even be debateable. There are so many more influential games that aren't even represented on Gamerankings it's ridiculous. The data is missing so much that anything that can be gathered from Gamerankings should only be based on a game by game basis. Judging this list like it represents the best games of all time is ludicrous, because I don't see Tetris, Super Mario Bros., Final Fantasy, The Legend of Zelda, Street Fighter II, Pong, Pac Man, Sim City or Space Invaders on this list and all are more influential and better represent the greatest games of all time than the Ocarina of Time and GTA IV do.

it looks like someone got lazy and simply changed the field type to INT, which cuts off everything behind the dot...

That was a side point, I was just bringing up then. And it was to discuss how they would be viewed, not what I think of this.

And I guess you hadn't heard what happened. It wasn't a new Zelda game. It was that GTA IV was just about to lose the top gamerankings spot, and then this adjustment came. 

I know damn well they didn't do it to spite OoT, since cubed3 is a pro-Nintendo site (my issue was the math there, but I'm still looking that up). It's just that to others, it's not going to look good. 

@math argument,

I'm beyond certain that there is no defined rounding practice, it all depends on the rounder and what they want to achieve. There are three types of rounding: 1) To the nearest multiple of 'n', 2) Rounding down to a multiple of 'n', and 3) Rounding up to a multiple of 'n'.   Normally 'n' is 1 but it can be 0.5 or any other rational number honestly.

As far as I know the only thing you can't choose to do when rounding is round to an irrational number ...well I suppose you could manually but I don't know how you would go about figuring out a formula for it.

@topic,

First let me say this is a silly topic, and it doesn't matter, but equally silly is the idea that "because they didn't want to give it a 10 it must be rounded down". Does that mean if you win a bunch of money and they want to only give you 9.9M but decide they want to give a more even number that they should lop off the 900k?

The real reason this isn't a big deal is because they did it to all of the games, any rationalization or discussion about "why" they rounded OoT down specifically is ignoring the fact that it was done entirely by shrinking the field the numbers were stored in in a cold and uncaring truncation process with very little if any emotion, thought, or care put into it. It just was, now stop trying to rationalize it.

Sorry, but your possibilities are not the only possibilities we get to discuss. Nothing I have said is inflammatory, or directed at you. You pointed out that a site changed it's numbers, and gave some possibilities as to why. I entered giving my possibilities as to why.

That how a discussion works. If only you get to bring points to the table, it's called a lecture ;)

 Stop assuming this is about any particular game. I am trying to be objective here, which is why I tried to argue the existance of the rule (and if it isn't really a rule, it isn't really a rule), not whether a game deserved a score.

And I'm not still arguing this. I wrote "fuck it", and I wrote, "I'm going to look it up."

I didn't write you can't discuss other possibilities. I wrote that they don't counter my possibilities. They add to it, which would be a good thing, as it adds to the discussion.

The posts seemed to be trying to prove me wrong, rather than adding to the discussion, or actually proving or disproving those possibilities, which is what I was taking issue with.

Furthermore, I got a few replies stating that cubed3 might have thought it wasn't truly a 10 game, which I did write in the OP. That makes me wonder if those posters really read the OP.

As for cubed3, I see they don't follow the 7-10 rule, so I like that.

 BZzzzZZzzzT

Sorry but no, you can argue that OoT is not "the best" game ever if you'd like but you're just wrong if you think there are more than a handful of games that even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. OoT is high on the list for influential games, best games, etc...it was and is a classic masterpiece by even the most frugal standards.

They did it to all games, thus there is a rule.

They are an all Nintendo site, so they probably felt if they did it to all games, there is no bias. What it does to some other site that references them is not there concern.

As far as GameRankings "objectivity", there is none. They take 1-5, 1-10, F-A+, and 1-100 systems, and add them all together.

If we rounded, a 4= 80%, and a 5=100%, so a 5 means anything 90% or more. If we wanted to be fair, that means half of the 5's would be below 95%, and half would be above 95%.

That means a 5 in a 1-5 system, would = 95% most of the time, yet game rankings gives it 100%. 95% would be the most accurate number.

Game Rankings is there for fun, to roughly list games so you can see how they fair across the industry. It's not some bible to use when trying to say what the best game is.