TheRealMafoo said: LordTheNightKnight said: 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. 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.

I was replying to onyxmeth insisting I was biased.

And in case you forgot, I was bringing up that cubed3 did it to all games, not just what they did to OoT.

Sqrl said: Onyxmeth said: LordTheNightKnight said: Fuck it. If they truncated, whatever. If they though OoT wasn't a 10, then that's their choice. I would like to see a proper explanation of what they did. Not asking for a link. I'm going to look it up. Although it's kind of funny how most of those defending this seemed to be the ones agreeing that OoT shouldn't have been on top. I could be wrong though. I just notice I'm only getting arguments from a few of you. Also, right or wrong. cubed3 had lousy timing in making this adjustment. It is going to look suspicious simply because of when they did 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.   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.

Don't get me wrong. Ocarina belongs somewhere in the top 10 of all time, top 15 at absolute worst, but for it to be #1 would cheapen every game that came along that created the blueprint for what got us to Ocarina. Every game I mentioned I believe is more influential and have iconic designs that have aged gracefully and all of them deserve a spot above Ocarina. Mario 64 I believe is a better game than Super Mario Bros. now, but you don't get to Mario 64 without creating the grand daddy of modern videogaming. Actually, I'll change my statement. Only Super Mario Bros. belongs on top. Everything else is secondary. A game being a masterpiece does not mean it automatically gets placement near the top of all games ever released, because there are more than a few masterpieces.

 

Sqrl said: Onyxmeth said: 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.   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.

 I agree with Onyxmeth on this one. I mean it all depends on what you mean by "Best game ever". If you mean most fun, then there is no one game. As if you could sit 1000 people down, and let them play every game ever made, and asked them what there favorite was, you would probably get 1000 different answers.

If you mean what pushed the gaming to what it is today, then you would have to go with Pong, Donkey Kong, or something equally revolutionary.

OoT was a great game, but it did not define anything. It was an adventure game done really really well. It would not be in my top 10.

My top ten would be games that shaped gaming, like Ultima, MS Flight Simulator, Donkey Kong, and Space Invaders. 

BTW, I still haven't seen about their review system, but one thing that did impress me was their review of Mario Kart. Sure they gave it an 8, but it was for simply for the single player mode not being as impressive as the multiplayer, and the gave it a value score of 9 for that.

Note they did mean not impressive. They actually didn't dock points for difficulty. They did mention it's there in 150cc, but they discussed that as a thing to be expected.

http://www.cubed3.com/review/607/

I'd still like to know if they just chopped off the scores or what, just because I'm curious.

onyxmeth, are you arguing why OoT shouldn't be on top indefinitely, or that it shouldn't be on top at all?

The former I agree with, but the latter would put more weight in the review sites than they should have.

This is the silliest argument I have ever read on this site.

LordTheNightKnight said: I'd still like to know if they just chopped off the scores or what, just because I'm curious.

They did. If you look at the GC section, they don't have a 10 game, they are all 9's. If you look at an archive of there site, they had a lot of 9.9,9.8, and 9/7 games back then.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050303064549/http://cubed3.com/

 

TheRealMafoo said: LordTheNightKnight said: I'd still like to know why they just chopped off the scores or what, just because I'm curious. They did. If you look at the GC section, they don't have a 10 game, they are all 9's. If you look at an archive of there site, they had a lot of 9.9,9.8, and 9/7 games back then. http://web.archive.org/web/20050303064549/http://cubed3.com/

Oops. Fixed.

 

And this is silly. I was just trying to discuss the issue with how they did adjustments. If I didn't have all the facts, I could live with that. I also wasn't in the right mood to argue it properly, but I wasn't arguing this out of bias. 

LordTheNightKnight said: onyxmeth, are you arguing why OoT shouldn't be on top indefinitely, or that it shouldn't be on top at all? The former I agree with, but the latter would put more weight in the review sites than they should have.

It probably should be on top based on the games they have represented there, but any sane person knows there are games in existence that should be up there on the top more than Ocarina of Time that Gamerankings and Metacritic can't track reviews fom. My point was that it doesn't matter whether GTA IV or Ocarina stay on top, because neither really deserve it. Super Mario Bros. deserves the top spot and a handful of other games deserve a spot over both Ocarina and GTA IV.

 

Oh common ... what would the result be ? Its a game that was released 10 years ago , and I have no idea how somebody even observed that OoTs review isnt a 10 :?