The scores given to games over the past couple years are ridiculous. There have been many good games, but once the game reaches the level of good, the reviews are all over the place and generally what should be considered a B game (this meaning it is a good game) gets higher grades based on how anticipated it was and how big the publisher is. A's and A+'s are handed out all over the place for good games from big names. No smaller developer gets sucked off to that level. If a smaller developer puts out a good game with some quirks, it gets a B or B-. At least Famitsu admits that they give rankings according to what the fans expect (and most likely what the publisher expects). Gaming publications are so dependent on the publishers to get the early gameplay and content exclusives that the industry is one incestuous pile of handjobs with the gaming publications providing most of the hands.

So, taking about small changes in the overall rankings of games versus other games is silly. It's like comparing performance stats on WWE wrestlers.

I give this thread a 9.3.

About the red:


Plus this, this and this.

Thanks for trying.

No way... maybe pikmin 4? or the new zelda?

replay value is the most important aspect of a game, a game that you play once or twice and then discard is a failure, if a game isn't good enough to bring you back to it again and again, then i guess all it had going for it was good graphics, or in this generation ( achievements ) 

and whatever it is that PSN calls it, this is the reason why gamers nowadays bother to replay their games, to get achievements, not because they actually want to play them, metal gear no matter how good the games are are not revisited the way true good games are. Look at halo 3, great game, but if it wasn't for the online multiplayer, it would have completely faded away by now, check your local used game retailer, and it's garunteed you'll find plenty of halo 3 copies, and 3-4 months after MGS4 is released it will suffer the same fate, But try and find Mario galaxy, or gears of war, or Zelda:TP  

How long did it take you to beat MGS4?, and after you answer that, tell me if you really do think it won't pick up dust.

and will you still play it once resistance 2 arrives. I still go back to zelda: TP. I put down halo 3 and brought back Gears of War

1. No.  If you play it once and liked it, how is it a failure?  And who said people aren't going to be replaying MGS4 10 times over?  I'm already on a second playthrough.

2.Wrong again.  Gamers for the PS3 don't just play online, and when you say "gamers nowadays only replay their games to get achievements" and that "they don't actually want to play them" is contradicting and doesn't make any sense.  If you're playing it over and over again, you like it.  The single player experience of MGS4 is unbelievably epic, and there is hardly any emphasis on achievement prizes in that game.  There are emblems you are rewarded with after you beat the game and how good you did, but that's it.

3.You've got to be kidding me.  I've seen an ass loads worth of  GeoW and TP used copies.  Not so much SMG, but definitely the latter two.

no the OoT defense force called eurogamer didn't want MGS4 to surpass it , just kidding

1.About 15 hours, and not for at least 2 years will it "pick up dust" in my collection.  2. I'm not really interested in RFom2. GTA4 and LBP are probably my next purchases.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/926596.asp

Right now it's not even in the top fifty. Ocarina, Galaxy, and GTA4 have nothing to worry about.

 Damn... pwned.