Ocarina of Time --- Will it regain the top spot on Gamerankings?

While this isn't a Gamerankings forum, I would like to say that this shows one of the flaws of GR- the number of reviews. GTAIV is likely to end up with at least 60 reviews (I could see it racking up nearly 100). So if it has twice as many reviews but comes in .1% under OoT, is OoT really still a better game?

I think it's pretty obvious that more opinions= more variance of opinions. The fact that OoT impressed 32 reviewers compared to 52 for GTAIV considerbly weakens the argument that OoT is "highest rated game of all time," even if the final percentages favor OoT.

It's sort of like the old saying- There are three kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Your not taking into account all the other games that came before OoT that paved the way for the transition to a 3D environment. Your saying OoT perfected the 3D action adventure game, without a predecessor being a 3D game, but thats only because the series was late to coming to 3D. There were many, many, 3D action adventure games available long before OoT came along, and OoT borrowed liberally from those sources in its gameplay, as well as taking inspiration from its old roots.evilross

Such as what? Tomb Raider? I'm not saying Ocarina was developed in a complete vacuum, but while individual mechanics (like controls) were taken from other action-adventure games, the overall game design formula which Ocarina idealized -- and especially the level design -- was not. That is what separates Ocarina from other greats like BGII. Technical execution is only part of the picture.

A truly great game is a game that you can play right now, and it still seems fun, relevant, and fresh. OoT is a great game, but its not what I would consider "one of the greats" compared to the true heavyweights of gaming like Baldur's Gate, Doom 1, Half-Life 1, and Everquest.evilross

EverQuest...? And Doom 1 is FAR from what "you can play right now, and it still seems fun, relevant, and fresh."

Anyway, I think that's a terrible criteria for judging classic games, simply because the technical limitations of the time would preclude almost any game of the time from being considered a "truly great game."

Those are games that truly defined a genre, changed gaming, and moved gaming in a new direction.evilross

Maybe, but they did not achieve excellence in doing it. Baldur's Gate was bloody tedious with its endless (and useless) wilderness, Doom 1 was simplistic, and EverQuest was bug-ridden AND tedious. Only their successors (BGII, World of WarCraft) really captured their genres to the same degree that Ocarina did with the action-adventure genre, and they did it mainly through a process of technical refinement, not design originality. The same is true for GTAIV.

But this is NOT true with Ocarina. As I said, Ocarina used many of the same mechanics as earlier action-adventure games, but its accomplishment lay in the originality and quality of its game design. The design philosophy behind the puzzles, the exploration, etc. With games like BG, Doom, EQ, and GTAIII, they got the design (mostly) right, but the execution (partly) wrong, and it fell to their successors to remedy their problems. But with Ocarina and a few others, like Half-Life, Diablo, Dune II, they got both original game design and technical execution right the first time out (with only minor flaws), and that's what I think elevates these games as accomplishments above the ones that are great simply because of their technical refinements.

I guess the difference is that I'm judging these games as accomplishments of the designers, not simply as games, but I think that's the only way to compare games across many years and still recognize the contributions of older games.

I'd even go as far as saying Super Mario Bros. and the original Legend of Zelda belong somewhere up on the list of the games that I mentioned that really deserve the praise of "one of the best of all time".evilross

Those are already on the list of "the best of all time."

But OoT was more about the perfection and evolution of the series, not a standout and evolution in gaming.evilross

I think it's both. I don't see how you can't call it an evolution.

[QUOTE="evilross"]Your not taking into account all the other games that came before OoT that paved the way for the transition to a 3D environment. Your saying OoT perfected the 3D action adventure game, without a predecessor being a 3D game, but thats only because the series was late to coming to 3D. There were many, many, 3D action adventure games available long before OoT came along, and OoT borrowed liberally from those sources in its gameplay, as well as taking inspiration from its old roots.mjarantilla

Such as what? Tomb Raider? I'm not saying Ocarina was developed in a complete vacuum, but while individual mechanics(like controls) were taken from other action-adventure games, the overall game design formula which Ocarina idealized -- and especially the level design -- was not. That is what separates Ocarina from other greats like BGII. Technical execution is only part of the picture.

A truly great game is a game that you can play right now, and it still seems fun, relevant, and fresh. OoT is a great game, but its not what I would consider "one of the greats" compared to the true heavyweights of gaming like Baldur's Gate, Doom 1, Half-Life 1, and Everquest.evilross

EverQuest...? And Doom 1 is FAR from what "you can play right now, and it still seems fun, relevant, and fresh."

Anyway, I think that's a terrible criteria for judging classic games, simply because the technical limitations of the time would preclude almost any game of the time from being considered a "truly great game."

Those are games that truly defined a genre, changed gaming, and moved gaming in a new direction.evilross

Maybe, but they did not achieve excellence in doing it. Baldur's Gate was bloody tediouswith its endless (and useless) wilderness, Doom 1 was simplistic, and EverQuest was bug-ridden AND tedious. Only their successors (BGII, World of WarCraft) really captured their genres to the same degree that Ocarina did with the action-adventure genre, and they did it mainly through a process of technical refinement, not design originality. The same is true for GTAIV.

But this is NOT true with Ocarina. As I said, Ocarina used many of the same mechanics as earlier action-adventure games, but its accomplishment lay in the originality and quality of its game design. The design philosophy behind the puzzles, the exploration, etc. With games like BG, Doom, EQ, and GTAIII, they got the design (mostly) right, but the execution (partly) wrong, and it fell to their successors to remedy their problems. But with Ocarina and a few others, like Half-Life, Diablo, Dune II, they got both original game design andtechnical execution right the first time out (with only minor flaws), and that's what I think elevates these games as accomplishments above the ones that are great simply because of their technical refinements.

I guess the difference is that I'm judging these games as accomplishments of the designers, not simply as games, but I think that's the only way to compare games across many years and still recognize the contributions of older games.

I'd even go as far as saying Super Mario Bros. and the original Legend of Zelda belong somewhere up on the list of the games that I mentioned that really deserve the praise of "one of the best of all time".evilross

Those are already on the list of "the best of all time."

But OoT was more about the perfection and evolution of the series, not a standout and evolution in gaming.evilross

I think it's both. I don't see how you can't call it an evolution.

Simple response

Everquest = Revolution of online gaming, millions of players, paved the way for games that were better like WoW, but there would be no WoW without Everquest.

Doom = Revolution of gaming as a whole, redefined what gaming was, solo and online, millions of players, still fun to pick up and play today.

Baldur's Gate = Do I have to even go there? BG Redefined the very essence of the WRPG, and the RPG in general, as seen by the decline of traditional JRPG's. Freedom, and choice with real consequence mark a profound change in the way RPG's are made.

OoT : Fun game, did nothing new, but did everything well. A refinement of 3D action games, and the best Zelda game so far. Nothing the game did had not been done before, and nothing the game did changed anything, but it combined things together into one game that where only found in other games, and did so in a top quality fashion, with top notch production value, and still somewhat retaining the feel of the old Zelda games.

Simple response

Everquest = Revolution of online gaming, millions of players, paved the way for games that were better like WoW, but there would be no WoW without Everquest.

Doom = Revolution of gaming as a whole, redefined what gaming was, solo and online, millions of players, still fun to pick up and play today.

Baldur's Gate = Do I have to even go there? BG Redefined the very essence of the WRPG, and the RPG in general, as seen by the decline of traditional JRPG's. Freedom, and choice with real consequence mark a profound change in the way RPG's are made.

OoT : Fun game, did nothing new, but did everything well. A refinement of 3D action games, and the best Zelda game so far. Nothing the game did had not been done before, and nothing the game did changed anything, but it combined things together into one game that where only found in other games, and did so in a top quality fashion, with top notch production value, and still somewhat retaining the feel of the old Zelda games.

evilross

Fallout preceded BG

GTA4 was higher when it and OOT had the same amount of reviews. That's all that matters.bstickq1

This man said it.

Everquest = Revolution of online gaming, millions of players, paved the way for games that were better like WoW, but there would be no WoW without Everquest.evilross

EverQuest never exceeded 400,000 players, and while there might be no WoW without EverQuest, that still does not excuse its numerous technical problems and general lack of polish, even compared to games of its time. Everything it did, it did only to mediocrity. The same was true for most MMORPGs of EverQuest's generation, and it only survived because it practically had no competition. Besides, Ultima Online is generally considered to be the real instigator of the MMO movement. At its peak, it was twice as popular as EverQuest, and introduced many of the concepts which EverQuest would later implement.

Doom = Revolution of gaming as a whole, redefined what gaming was, solo and online, millions of players, still fun to pick up and play today.evilross

Mmmmm....it's fun to pick up and play, but it's little more than a Flash game in terms of its gameplay by today's standards. This is why I don't understand why you don't consider Ocarina to be "fun to play" after all this time. I didn't play Ocarina in 1998; the first time I played it was when it was released on the VC, and even then I could tell that apart from graphics, this game has survived very well, and could still hold its own against modern games.

Baldur's Gate = Do I have to even go there? BG Redefined the very essence of the WRPG, and the RPG in general, as seen by the decline of traditional JRPG's. Freedom, and choice with real consequence mark a profound change in the way RPG's are made.evilross

True, Baldur's Gate can probably be considered to be the start of the popularization of the genre. But like EverQuest, it suffered from a good deal of technical problems and questionable design decisions that were only fixed in its successor. I think that in terms of catalyzing the success of WRPGs, BGII takes a bigger share of the pie.

OoT : Fun game, did nothing new, but did everything well. A refinement of 3D action games, and the best Zelda game so far. Nothing the game did had not been done before, and nothing the game did changed anything, but it combined things together into one game that where only found in other games, and did so in a top quality fashion, with top notch production value, and still somewhat retaining the feel of the old Zelda games.evilross

I really would not call it a "refinement of 3D action games," because it was not a refinement. It may have used similar mechanics as other action-adventure games, but Ocarina was known for its level design, not its mechanics.

What is this? A Zelda hate thread. Everyone knows:

OoT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Any GTA ever

bstarter29

[QUOTE="bstickq1"]GTA4 was higher when it and OOT had the same amount of reviews. That's all that matters.Fondness

This man said it.

He's right, but that is a little flawed arguement. Were all the reviewers the same when the two were matched up? Some of the reviewers who played both games liked Ocarina of time more, like Game Revoloution and Electronic Gaming Monthly. Also, some of Ocarina of Time's reviews are almost as much as five years late, and standards may have changed.

I'd also like to mention to everyone here that having more reviews does not decrease your average score... It increases the probability .

While this isn't a Gamerankings forum, I would like to say that this shows one of the flaws of GR- the number of reviews. GTAIV is likely to end up with at least 60 reviews (I could see it racking up nearly 100). So if it has twice as many reviews but comes in .1% under OoT, is OoT really still a better game?

I think it's pretty obvious that more opinions= more variance of opinions. The fact that OoT impressed 32 reviewers compared to 52 for GTAIV considerbly weakens the argument that OoT is "highest rated game of all time," even if the final percentages favor OoT.

It's sort of like the old saying- There are three kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Vampyronight

metroid prime reached 90 reviews.

and that's four statistics.

i hope so, because GTAIV is good, but not as good as OOT was at the time

it also annoys me that the 360 and PS3 versions get different scores .. they show average them or something

it takes away from the top 10 list when the same game takes a few spots

Gamerankings is flawed. GTAIV doesn't deserve its spot, but neither does all other 10 games on the list. There are far better games then Zelda OoT. There I said it. Now flame me to death.

Age of Empires II, Starcraft, Baldurs Gate II, Fallout, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Medal of Honour Allied Assault, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (God I love how the FPS genre was back then).

And my favourite Half-Life.

OoT was a great game, but its receiving far too much credit for what it actually deserved.

[QUOTE="Fondness"]

[QUOTE="bstickq1"]GTA4 was higher when it and OOT had the same amount of reviews. That's all that matters.ATW_machine

This man said it.

He's right, but that is a little flawed arguement. Were all the reviewers the same when the two were matched up?Some of the reviewers who played both games liked Ocarina of time more, like Game Revoloution and Electronic Gaming Monthly. Also, some of Ocarina of Time's reviews are almost as much as five years late, and standards may have changed.

I'd also like to mention to everyone here that having more reviews does not decrease your average score... It increases the probability .

I wish that I could tell you, but I didn't find gaming fascinating at that point in time.

[QUOTE="Vampyronight"]

While this isn't a Gamerankings forum, I would like to say that this shows one of the flaws of GR- the number of reviews. GTAIV is likely to end up with at least 60 reviews (I could see it racking up nearly 100). So if it has twice as many reviews but comes in .1% under OoT, is OoT really still a better game?

I think it's pretty obvious that more opinions= more variance of opinions. The fact that OoT impressed 32 reviewers compared to 52 for GTAIV considerbly weakens the argument that OoT is "highest rated game of all time," even if the final percentages favor OoT.

It's sort of like the old saying- There are three kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics.

nintendo-4life

metroid prime reached 90 reviews.

and that's four statistics.

And I'm willing to accept Metroit Prime as one of the highest ranked games.

But lets say GTA reaches the same number but comes in just a hair under OoT- is it *really* a better-rated game? I mean, go ahead and play OoT and give it a score. Now choose 5 random people from this forum- I bet you one will rate it a tad lower. Now do it with 90 people- you're going to find a few people who only find it to be an AA game honestly.

[QUOTE="ATW_machine"][QUOTE="Fondness"]

[QUOTE="bstickq1"]GTA4 was higher when it and OOT had the same amount of reviews. That's all that matters.Fondness

This man said it.

He's right, but that is a little flawed arguement. Were all the reviewers the same when the two were matched up?Some of the reviewers who played both games liked Ocarina of time more, like Game Revoloution and Electronic Gaming Monthly. Also, some of Ocarina of Time's reviews are almost as much as five years late, and standards may have changed.

I'd also like to mention to everyone here that having more reviews does not decrease your average score... It increases the probability .

I wish that I could tell you, but I didn't find gaming fascinating at that point in time.

...What? No, what I'm saying is that when he said Grand Theft Auto IV was rated higher when the two were at the same amount of reviews, not all the reviewers were the same. So while Grand Theft Auto had a higher average, it also had different reviewers, making the earlier arguement somewhat false.

Edit: I'll also say it again- for those who reviewed both games, Ocarina of time seemed more favourable. The three tie-breakers I saw were Game Revoloution, Electronic Gaming Monthly, and some New Zealand gaming newsource. 2 of those sources liked Ocarina of Time more, while the other source liked Grand Theft Auto IV more.

[QUOTE="Fondness"][QUOTE="ATW_machine"][QUOTE="Fondness"]

[QUOTE="bstickq1"]GTA4 was higher when it and OOT had the same amount of reviews. That's all that matters.ATW_machine

This man said it.

He's right, but that is a little flawed arguement. Were all the reviewers the same when the two were matched up?Some of the reviewers who played both games liked Ocarina of time more, like Game Revoloution and Electronic Gaming Monthly. Also, some of Ocarina of Time's reviews are almost as much as five years late, and standards may have changed.

I'd also like to mention to everyone here that having more reviews does not decrease your average score... It increases the probability .

I wish that I could tell you, but I didn't find gaming fascinating at that point in time.

...What? No, what I'm saying is that when he said Grand Theft Auto IV was rated higher when the two were at the same amount of reviews, not all the reviewers were the same. So while Grand Theft Auto had a higher average, it also had different reviewers, making the earlier arguement somewhat false.

Edit: I'll also say it again- for those who reviewed both games, Ocarina of time seemed more favourable. The three tie-breakers I saw were Game Revoloution, Electronic Gaming Monthly, and some New Zealand gaming newsource. 2 of those sources liked Ocarina of Time more, while the other source liked Grand Theft Auto IV more.

I don't know anything about that. I'm just aware of Grand Theft Auto IV's accomplishment in connection with critique.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="bstarter29"][QUOTE="thermovie644064"][QUOTE="bstarter29"]

[QUOTE="thermovie644064"]man that game droped quick last time i saw it they both had like 98.some % ps3 and 360 verson i hope it stays at the top though cause that zelda game has been there for far to longNEILMEHTA

"That" Zelda game?

I'm heartbroken.

LOL sorry dude. I know what zelda game it is just didnt feel like typing it for some reason. i have never been a zelda fan though but i respect what the games have done for gaming there just not my cup of tea

Oh, it's o.k. I was just thinking you may be someone who had never heard of OoT or something.

There are people out there who haven't.

I'm wondering how many people have seriously even played OoT. This idea that a superior game hasn't been released in the past decade is completely laughable. Just looking at PC games alone, Half-Life came out the same week as OoT and wipes the floor with it, with the likes of System Shock 2, Baldur's Gate 2 and Deus Ex as other Ocarina-crushing PC contemporaries.

People really need to stop putting OoT on such a ridiculously high pedestal, especially when it comes to something as subjective as the quality of a video game, and especially since it's all based on arbitrary numbers. There were better games than it long before now.

Dude, OoT was revolutionary, those games are not.

I even say TP is better than OoT, but it did not do much to revolutionize the genre. Metroid Prime was revolutionary, Metriod Prime 2 wasn't as much. SM64 was revolutionary, but sunshine is not, however galaxy is. See what im saying here. Half life was not as revolutionary. Same with those other games.

Did you just call Deus Ex not revolutionary?

Gamerankings is flawed. GTAIV doesn't deserve its spot, but neither does all other 10 games on the list. There are far better games then Zelda OoT. There I said it. Now flame me to death.

Age of Empires II, Starcraft, Baldurs Gate II, Fallout, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Medal of Honour Allied Assault, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (God I love how the FPS genre was back then).

And my favourite Half-Life.

OoT was a great game, but its receiving far too much credit for what it actually deserved.

PullTheTricker

Did you just call Deus Ex not revolutionary?

tmatte

Did he just call Deus Ex not revolutionary?

[QUOTE="tmatte"]

Did you just call Deus Ex not revolutionary?

thrones

Did he just call Deus Ex not revolutionary?

.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]I'm wondering how many people have seriously even playedOoT. This idea that a superior game hasn't been released in the past decade is completely laughable. Just looking at PC games alone, Half-Life came out the same week as OoT and wipes the floor with it, with the likes of System Shock 2, Baldur's Gate 2 and Deus Ex as other Ocarina-crushing PC contemporaries.

People really need to stop putting OoT on such a ridiculously high pedestal, especially when it comes to something as subjective as the quality of a video game, and especially since it's all based on arbitrary numbers. There were better games than it long before now.

evilross

If you want to see how good a game actually is, and how " revolutionary " it was, go back and play the same game today, and judge it by today's standards in gameplay, story, interaction and overall fun.

You will find Zelda : OoT just does not hold up to the test of time the way that other games do.

Go play Baldur's Gate 2 right now, and see what you think. Go play Planescape : Torment, or Half-Life. These are games that were released years ago, and in the same general time frame as OoT and even by today's standards have much better gameplay. They are more complex, more interesting, deeper, and overall better games.

Zelda : OoT was praised and renown because it was a evolution of the Zelda franchise, not an evolution of gaming. The Zelda franchise was already so far behind gaming at the time any step forward would be a good step.

Zelda : OoT was a good game, and the best of the Zelda games to date. But hardly the best game of all time by any stretch of the imagination.

evilross

It's not about whether games are better, because games will always get better. It's about a game's positive influence and impact on the industry.

Ocarina idealized the 3D action-adventure genre. It didn't perfectit, but pretty much every action-adventure game that came after it can trace its game mechanics in some major way to Ocarina. Now, there are many games that had the same effect on their particular genre -- GTAIII for example -- but Ocarina accomplished it without any major flaws in its execution (meaning: the biggest objections you can make about the game are either based purely on personal preference, or are minor flaws), and most importantly, it accomplished this with no game design predecessor except a 2D game series with which it shared only a common mission structure.

GTAIV accomplished something similar by (IMO) idealizing the open-world sandbox genre, but unlike Ocarina, GTAIV was an evolution, not a revolution. All of GTAIV's mechanics and improvements can be traced either to previous GTAs, or to other games. The same can also be said for the PC games you've mentioned. Now, if GTAIIIhad had all of GTAIV's improvements, then GTAIII would've been an accomplishment equal to Ocarina in terms of impact. But GTAIII itself had several clear flaws in its game design that, as I understand it, weren't even addressed until GTAIV.

Your not taking into account all the other games that came before OoT that paved the way for the transition to a 3D environment. Your saying OoT perfected the 3D action adventure game, without a predecessor being a 3D game, but thats only because the series was late to coming to 3D. There were many, many, 3D action adventure games available long before OoT came along, and OoT borrowed liberally from those sources in its gameplay, as well as taking inspiration from its old roots.

A truly great game is a game that you can play right now, and it still seems fun, relevant, and fresh. OoT is a great game, but its not what I would consider "one of the greats" compared to the true heavyweights of gaming like Baldur's Gate, Doom 1, Half-Life 1, and Everquest.

Those are games that truly defined a genre, changed gaming, and moved gaming in a new direction. I'd even go as far as saying Super Mario Bros. and the original Legend of Zelda belong somewhere up on the list of the games that I mentioned that really deserve the praise of "one of the best of all time".

But OoT was more about the perfection and evolution of the series, not a standout and evolution in gaming.

from a historical point of view i think it should be nr. 1.

GTA4 is great.. one of the greatest, but.... not like ocarina of time back then

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]

While this isn't a Gamerankings forum, I would like to say that this shows one of the flaws of GR- the number of reviews. GTAIV is likely to end up with at least 60 reviews (I could see it racking up nearly 100). So if it has twice as many reviews but comes in .1% under OoT, is OoT really still a better game?

I think it's pretty obvious that more opinions= more variance of opinions. The fact that OoT impressed 32 reviewers compared to 52 for GTAIV considerbly weakens the argument that OoT is "highest rated game of all time," even if the final percentages favor OoT.

It's sort of like the old saying- There are three kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Vampyronight

metroid prime reached 90 reviews.

and that's four statistics.

And I'm willing to accept Metroit Prime as one of the highest ranked games.

But lets say GTA reaches the same number but comes in just a hair under OoT- is it *really* a better-rated game? I mean, go ahead and play OoT and give it a score. Now choose 5 random people from this forum- I bet you one will rate it a tad lower. Now do it with 90 people- you're going to find a few people who only find it to be an AA game honestly.

I am sorry but what makes the early scores more valid than the later scores? Especially when some of the sites that scored GTAIV the lowest are also some of the sites that scored OoT. If you are going to compare GTAIV to OoT in GR using the same number of reviews, then the first thing you have to do is make sure that all the reviews of GTAIV from the same sourse as those that reviewed OoT are included on the GTA side. When you only compare the reviews from sites that reviewed both games OoT comes out on top.

Also something to note, GR for some reason does not include 1UP's review of OoT where it scored A+, and the dates of the reviews for OoT range from 1998 to 2008, which I would think would be more detrimental to its final score than GTAIV having more reviews.

Slightly off topic since this thread is about Gamerankings, but I think people place way too much importance on game review numbers.

Have we really come to the point where:

if 2 games were reviewed by 30 review sites

and each of those 30 websites each gave both games 100%

and there was only one website left to review the game that we would allow that one review site to "break the tie" and eternally establish one of those games as the best of all time by giving it 1% higher than the other?

" REVIEW SCORES ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT" would be a perfectly good point for me to make if this thread was not about Gamerankings but I feel out of place because the point of this thread is "okay let's take a look at Gamerankings"

Also being a proponent of neither side I think the discussion about how review criteria changes over time is interesting. I would say that it's true that if a game is review later, it's reviewed by the standards of the current time and not the time it was originally released.

There is no solution to arriving at the best game through review scores since as they say it's all subjective to begin with. The highest rated game on Gamerankings is not the best game of all time, it's just the highest rated game on gamerankings. I don't think there can be a best game of all time.

Meh doesn't really bother me. If anything what we need right now is games that are trully worthy of getting there. Not saying that GTA4 is, because I still haven't played it; but, then again, that list of top ten does not hold true to a lot of people either.

Tech is evolving more and more this days and it is possible for developers to create something more drastically revolutionary, original, if not down right better than a 1998 game. Not that I hate OOT, but I don't want to see it in there forever. Then again, not that it would make much of a difference to me.

Seriously, have any of you actually played OoT lately? It's really not that great. A game should be weighted on more than fond memories alone.funnymario

I've played Ocarina of Time of late. Still my favorite game ever. Not only do I still get sucked into the game like I did 9 years ago, I still find thing in that game thats more interesting than what Twilight Princess offer. Even if "Technically" Twilight Princess is better than Ocarina of Time, I'd still take it over Twilight Princess. The only flaw I've seen in Ocarina of Time is the frame rates. And the graphics can use a touch up. If Ocarina of Time get these, and maybe a alittle more revamped dungeons specifically when Link is a child, the game would be marvelous and would up hold it's title for ages....

I hope not, since it doesn't deserve it.lucas_kelly

yes it does. imo.

Seriously, have any of you actually played OoT lately? It's really not that great. A game should be weighted on more than fond memories alone.funnymario

'Lately' you should play it when it's out.

think about a zelda game with the same amount of bugs like in gta4 :D

reviewers today are lazy

[QUOTE="Vampyronight"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]

While this isn't a Gamerankings forum, I would like to say that this shows one of the flaws of GR- the number of reviews. GTAIV is likely to end up with at least 60 reviews (I could see it racking up nearly 100). So if it has twice as many reviews but comes in .1% under OoT, is OoT really still a better game?

I think it's pretty obvious that more opinions= more variance of opinions. The fact that OoT impressed 32 reviewers compared to 52 for GTAIV considerbly weakens the argument that OoT is "highest rated game of all time," even if the final percentages favor OoT.

It's sort of like the old saying- There are three kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Philmon

metroid prime reached 90 reviews.

and that's four statistics.

And I'm willing to accept Metroit Prime as one of the highest ranked games.

But lets say GTA reaches the same number but comes in just a hair under OoT- is it *really* a better-rated game? I mean, go ahead and play OoT and give it a score. Now choose 5 random people from this forum- I bet you one will rate it a tad lower. Now do it with 90 people- you're going to find a few people who only find it to be an AA game honestly.

I am sorry but what makes the early scores more valid than the later scores? Especially when some of the sites that scored GTAIV the lowest are also some of the sites that scored OoT. If you are going to compare GTAIV to OoT in GR using the same number of reviews, then the first thing you have to do is make sure that all the reviews of GTAIV from the same sourse as those that reviewed OoT are included on the GTA side. When you only compare the reviews from sites that reviewed both games OoT comes out on top.

Also something to note, GR for some reason does not include 1UP's review of OoT where it scored A+, and the dates of the reviews for OoT range from 1998 to 2008, which I would think would be more detrimental to its final score than GTAIV having more reviews.

Nobody said earlier reviews were more valid than later reviews. Please do not put words into mine or anyone elses mouth.

The point is, if one game has two or three times as many reviews, you're considerbly more likely to have a few review scores drag its overall score just enough.

Furthermore, I'm less inclined to believe reviews written YEARS after the games release. Nostalgia kicks in instead of the critical eye.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]

While this isn't a Gamerankings forum, I would like to say that this shows one of the flaws of GR- the number of reviews. GTAIV is likely to end up with at least 60 reviews (I could see it racking up nearly 100). So if it has twice as many reviews but comes in .1% under OoT, is OoT really still a better game?

I think it's pretty obvious that more opinions= more variance of opinions. The fact that OoT impressed 32 reviewers compared to 52 for GTAIV considerbly weakens the argument that OoT is "highest rated game of all time," even if the final percentages favor OoT.

It's sort of like the old saying- There are three kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Vampyronight

metroid prime reached 90 reviews.

and that's four statistics.

And I'm willing to accept Metroit Prime as one of the highest ranked games.

But lets say GTA reaches the same number but comes in just a hair under OoT- is it *really* a better-rated game? I mean, go ahead and play OoT and give it a score. Now choose 5 random people from this forum- I bet you one will rate it a tad lower. Now do it with 90 people- you're going to find a few people who only find it to be an AA game honestly.

maybe some of the reviewers are biased?

doesn't matter really, they are just opinions in the end.

The PS3 version is ranked higher? This I was not aware of.bstarter29

It has less reviews that the 360 version.

[QUOTE="Philmon"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]

While this isn't a Gamerankings forum, I would like to say that this shows one of the flaws of GR- the number of reviews. GTAIV is likely to end up with at least 60 reviews (I could see it racking up nearly 100). So if it has twice as many reviews but comes in .1% under OoT, is OoT really still a better game?

I think it's pretty obvious that more opinions= more variance of opinions. The fact that OoT impressed 32 reviewers compared to 52 for GTAIV considerbly weakens the argument that OoT is "highest rated game of all time," even if the final percentages favor OoT.

It's sort of like the old saying- There are three kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Vampyronight

metroid prime reached 90 reviews.

and that's four statistics.

And I'm willing to accept Metroit Prime as one of the highest ranked games.

But lets say GTA reaches the same number but comes in just a hair under OoT- is it *really* a better-rated game? I mean, go ahead and play OoT and give it a score. Now choose 5 random people from this forum- I bet you one will rate it a tad lower. Now do it with 90 people- you're going to find a few people who only find it to be an AA game honestly.

I am sorry but what makes the early scores more valid than the later scores? Especially when some of the sites that scored GTAIV the lowest are also some of the sites that scored OoT. If you are going to compare GTAIV to OoT in GR using the same number of reviews, then the first thing you have to do is make sure that all the reviews of GTAIV from the same sourse as those that reviewed OoT are included on the GTA side. When you only compare the reviews from sites that reviewed both games OoT comes out on top.

Also something to note, GR for some reason does not include 1UP's review of OoT where it scored A+, and the dates of the reviews for OoT range from 1998 to 2008, which I would think would be more detrimental to its final score than GTAIV having more reviews.

Nobody said earlier reviews were more valid than later reviews. Please do not put words into mine or anyone elses mouth.

The point is, if one game has two or three times as many reviews, you're considerbly more likely to have a few review scores drag its overall score just enough.

Furthermore, I'm less inclined to believe reviews written YEARS after the games release. Nostalgia kicks in instead of the critical eye.

i think in GTA4 your legendary critical eye becomes a bit blurry :D

how many bugs and glitches were found the first 24 hours ? is that quality ? NO

are the graphics as stunning as other titles ? NO but but but.. TE SANDBOX !!!

GTA4 is a great game but its not near perfect. wait 10 years after they released 5 other gta's and think about it if it was really the best GTA

the first zelda experience were great and never forgotten

my first GTA "4" experience was more like " cool graphic update"

It alreday lost it imo, it's still down with GTA having almost twice the rviews. When they had the same amount of reviews, GTA was up by over a point. Gamerankings should raise the review minimum to 50, 'cause no games get less than 50 reviews anymore. pins_basic

I agree.