Oddly, I thought MGS4 was far less of a movie then I had expected (other then the end).

It's just done so well, that you don't realize how long a cutscene has gone on i guess... you want to see them.

In MGS1 and 2 (never really got into 3), I just wanted to skip most of them.

Well OOT was the game that took the Zelda franchise into 3d world so it was a groundbreaking game.

It is also the game that has to a lesser degree created some duplicates to be created.

Uh huh...

*checks MetaCritic and GameRankings*

Okay then...

MGS1 took MG into 3d. Sonic was taken into 3d, FF was taken into 3d... Metriod, Mario... all of them were. If OoT was the first 3d game, I would agree with you, but it was just doing what had to happen due to advancement in technology, not breaking new ground.

I would call the original Zelda more groundbreaking then OoT.

Game review scores are horrible. I think both games deserve a 10, as both games are the pinnacle of there genres. That does not make them on the same level with respect to each other.

thats good to know. eternal sonata (dont know if much of you have played it) had pretty long cutscenes, but i really did want to see them, and did actually looked forward to them. one of the most underrated games on the 360 i think. only game that i think has a chance at being better is bioshock. my own opinion, of course, most of you would probably disagree.

'halo 3 FTW'.. am i the only one to think it was a bit of a flop?

Game reviewers in general are either corrupt or biased. At the end of the day it is the person playing the game opinion counts the most. OoT was great for its day. MGS 4 is a great game for its day. The two games: MGS 4 and OoT can not be compared.

I bought a x-box at launch, and a 360 at launch. I never owned a Halo game. I have played them all with friends, but never really got into them.

For me (and I know many people disagree with me), a FPS should really only be played with a KB and Mouse. MDK2 on the DC and CoD4 are a few examples of getting it right on a console (both were still better on the PC).

@Mafoo

My point was that I'm not seeing this "Most everyone would put MGS4 light years ahead of SMG." business that you're talking about. And yes, these corrupt or biased (as Rock On likes to put it) reviewers do count as part of that "most everyone" you were talking about. As do I, as does everyone else who has loved playing Super Mario Galaxy.

I'm not saying that SMG is the better game, all I'm saying is that this "most everyone" you speak of seems a bit out of place.

Everyone counts. But if for every 2 of you, there are 3 people who feel like I do, then the "most" comment applies. i think that would probably be the case.

It's not a knock on SMG (I own the game). It's just when looking at the advancement of gaming because a game came out, MGS4 ranks far higher on that scale then SMG does.