I think both games are overrated.

 Well, i think the lesson to be learnt here is that only certain websites reviews should be counted under Gamerankings because it difficult to determine which game should be on top when they all have different number of reviews.

I mean a game with 60 reviews can not be compared with a game that has 30.

All this thread was for is this.

If say the first 35 or so reviews counted in gameranking then anything after that is discounted, then GTAIV PS3 had the lead, thats all i am saying, i dont know about SMG tho, so i can not comment on that 

Why the FUCK does it matter?

When the reviews ignored all flaws and blindly gave it a 10, it is credible?

I could name dozens of flaws in GTAIV. I want you to name 3 in OoT.

Of course, it is ALL opinion, right?

 I was thinking of bringing this up too, but I only had a theory that later magazine reviews actually had reviewers that spent more time playing the game.  I didn't really know if my theory was true or not. Do you really know that the magazine reviewers get to spend more time on the game?

Because, in that case, obieslut is even more full of fail.  He's saying we should remove the scores of the reviews that actually got the time to fully critic the game.

 OoT does not have no flaws to be honest. i do prefere this game to GTAIV. i am just saying that if the games had the same amount of reviews GTAIV would have won.

But it is ok for someone to make a thread saying how great it is that OoT is back on top but nobody can make a thread saying that if they had the same amount of reviews then OoT would not be on top at this point. i am just bringing all these Ninty fanz out the clouds  

I think this clown should get banned, as the thread tittle is totally misleading, since he said otherwise in his first post.

 And who gave you the power to bring down the ban hammer

I haven't grounded this in theory, just basic thought. A website is expected to put up a review right before the launch, on the day it launches or at most a few days after that. It's easy as a website is updatable any moment you chose.

Most gaming magazines come out once a month. Most developers consider this in their lead time (sending their games early on under embargo) and the magazines try to come as close to putting the review up around the release. This can take a couple of weeks though and gives the reviewer more time to experience the game. And as we all know the longer we play a game the more flaws we notice. A website-reviewer is probably still in his buzz after playing through the game once, or maybe even just a couple of days.

Now compare this to a reviewer who has had several weeks with the game. This difference in time and experience is reflected in the scores.

this thread has crashed and burned.
Anyway, the ps3 and 360 versions are the same, basically. And going by your logic rock_on, the 360 must have higher reviews than the ps3 version, because it will get DL cities.

im really happy about that ,i wish mgs4 to do better