By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - How is Zelda PH at the top of ranked games??

naznatips on 28 June 2007

thetonestarr, 50 people did not import Phantom Hourglass on this website. And some of those 50 people were also being anti-fanboys, voting it negatively on the other side. It's stupid from both ends.

Resident Evil 4 Wii for example had a score of 3.4 at one point 2 weeks before it was released. Ocarina of Time can't break into the 9 range. The whole situation is just pathetic. People are voting on nothing but fanboy opinion, without ever playing games.

IMO, all games should have gamerankings scores as their primary ranker on that list. Then after that you can have user scores. That's a fair and balanced way to do it, and people who aren't familiar with the games wouldn't be so confused about this.



Around the Network
davygee on 28 June 2007

I reckon the game rankings should be assessed from professional review rankings.  This is the only way that we can get an indication of how well received in the professional quarter a game is.

I reckon there are a much higher majority of Nintendo fans here than Sony so thats why there aren't even a good selection of Playstation games on the list.

An example for the PSP in MGSPO....it's got a 7.54 from 61 votes.  I will guarantee you that there aren't 61 PSP owners that post on this website.  And I would be surprised if not shocked if anyone gave it less than an 8.



Prediction (June 12th 2017)

Permanent pricedrop for both PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro in October.

PS4 Slim $249 (October 2017)

PS4 Pro $349 (October 2017)

thetonestarr on 28 June 2007
naznatips said:
thetonestarr, 50 people did not import Phantom Hourglass on this website. And some of those 50 people were also being anti-fanboys, voting it negatively on the other side. It's stupid from both ends.

Resident Evil 4 Wii for example had a score of 3.4 at one point 2 weeks before it was released. Ocarina of Time can't break into the 9 range. The whole situation is just pathetic. People are voting on nothing but fanboy opinion, without ever playing games.

IMO, all games should have gamerankings scores as their primary ranker on that list. Then after that you can have user scores. That's a fair and balanced way to do it, and people who aren't familiar with the games wouldn't be so confused about this.

 Oh, you're perfectly right, but I'm not going to stand by and be all, "wtf game's not out that ranking's not legit" when it perfectly well IS out and many of those votes COULD be legit.

 also: well, according to the game's page, it IS out in america, and has been for twenty-one years.

 |_|



 SW-5120-1900-6153

Alacrist on 28 June 2007
thetonestarr said:
naznatips said:
thetonestarr, 50 people did not import Phantom Hourglass on this website. And some of those 50 people were also being anti-fanboys, voting it negatively on the other side. It's stupid from both ends.

Resident Evil 4 Wii for example had a score of 3.4 at one point 2 weeks before it was released. Ocarina of Time can't break into the 9 range. The whole situation is just pathetic. People are voting on nothing but fanboy opinion, without ever playing games.

IMO, all games should have gamerankings scores as their primary ranker on that list. Then after that you can have user scores. That's a fair and balanced way to do it, and people who aren't familiar with the games wouldn't be so confused about this.

 Oh, you're perfectly right, but I'm not going to stand by and be all, "wtf game's not out that ranking's not legit" when it perfectly well IS out and many of those votes COULD be legit.

 also: well, according to the game's page, it IS out in america, and has been for twenty-one years.

 |_|


Somebody just did that cause I put the info on the game and only had a release date on Japan. Second, i'm not saying the voting is not legit but there are not 66 people (the votes are up to 66) people who have imported this game. People are just voting just to be doing something. Nintendo fans are giving Sony games 0's and Sony  fans are giving Nintendo games 0's. MS fans are not excluded. Point is if Halo 3 or Lair was in the top ten some people would have a fit saying that the game isn't out how can it be in the top ten. If 66 people have imported the game then, I'm sorry have a mod lock this thread!



 

  

 

megaxl on 28 June 2007
ioi said:
OMG I can't believe the fuss that this is causing. The game ranking system isn't mean to be an all-encompassing list of the definitive best games ever made, it is simply a way of us putting some kind of order to the quality of the games (as opposed to just ordering by sales) and is meant as a bit of a fun voting system.

If the site has more Nintendo fans on it (something that certainly isn't intentional and something I'd like to change) then yeah I guess more will vote up their favourite games. If the site had more Sony fans it would have a slight sony bias and so on. Whatever kind of method I implement for the scoring this won't change any bias from the users of the site.

Despite this, and recognising that the feature has only been up for a couple of weeks, I actually think that it is a pretty good list overall. MGS and Final Fantasies are up there, the classic Mario Games, Zeldas, Halos, I don't think it is a bad list at all and will only get better with more and more votes. If I limit voting to only people registered with the site then that cuts out about 85% of people who visit the site - their opinions being as valid as those who are registered and I don't want to force people to register to vote. This means there must be blocks on IP address as we can't track exactly who is voting for which game.

I don't know how to encourage more Sony and Microsoft fans to use the site - if anybody has any suggestions or wants to help then let me know. I've never advertised or targetted the site towards any particular group or bias and if we had maybe a slightly more balanced community then I guess everyone would be happier with stuff like this.

But as I said, I don't actually think the lists are too bad. Good games are ranked highly, bad ones lower down. You only need to have a 0.2 difference in score to move up or down a large number of places - many of the games are quite tightly grouped. I think that with a few more months of settling down and plenty more people casting votes that it will be a very representitive system.

Yes this votes is used for fun (and for abuse of fanboys) and have to continue with his pros and cons, but aside  of this ranking maybe someday you can make a all time top 100 by users (like the all time top 100 by readers of Famitsu) with one vote for users or a top 10 for user, first with 1000 or 500 games and later close to 100 games and a final vote or a final top 10 of the users in this 100 games to view the most popular game to the users, or make the elimination game official, to have all people happy.



Around the Network
stof on 28 June 2007

I think we're just looking at a case of an early database. Over time it'll level out plenty. In the mean time, just rate as many games as you can, but only games you've played and want to legitimately rate for quality. Like many aspects of this still young site, we will see vast improvements in the months and years to come.




I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Woof on 28 June 2007

Well majority here are wii owners, blindly favor nintendo so that explains everything don't it.

I don't see the point of a game rankings on a sales website.



mrstickball on 28 June 2007

Look at it this way:

It's kind of like an anti-IMDB sort of thing. Numbers are going to be really eschewed right now since we might only have 20-30 people voting on games. However, if it ever becomes large enough to where the numbers are 1000+ reviews, then we can get some strong median averages, and really get to the whole ability of having good user-rated game rankings.

Something like this just takes time.

IMO, a "minimum votes" should be established (atleast 10 or 20) before a title is considered on the top list, like what Gamerankings and IMDB do.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Dryden on 28 June 2007
ioi said:
It is, 20 votes.

And there are a lot more than 20-30 people voting but yes the way to improve it all is to vote and encourage others to come and vote - the move votes we get the better the quality of the information


Is there a method to weight voting towards the middle to reduce the effect of fanboy tampering, such as throwing out 10% of the total votes off of both the bottom and top end? The method used over at boardgamegeek is to give every game 100 votes based on the average of all user submitted votes for all games (~5.5). This drastically reduces the effect of padding. Just a thought ...

I like the system so far, but I think it's too early to criticize and the game list isn't really that out of whack. Time and more votes will eventually balance the ratings out.