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

I loved OoT at the time, but it shouldn't even be in the top 10 now imo.Tykain

If it does it will only be because of the amount of reviews. Currently the 360 version has 20 more reviews, and the PS3 has 6 more and both are still higher than OoT. I really don't care at the end of the day though, imo Zelda is a joke compared to GTA, regardless of what critics say.

JayPee89

I think gta 4 might stay number one. The ps3 version has perhaps the best chance as it will probably get less reviews

I just noticed that GamerNode gave it 87%EVOLV3

and gamecritics gave it 85%. It seems like it couldnt beat galaxy's straight AAA's

Ocarina failed, at 32 reviews 360 GTA had smashed it, now, with lots of more opinions, it's easy to someone hand out a 7 out of nowhere.... galaxy had already beaten it That's why GR suck.Junior_AIN

GR sucks course now with lots more opinions its easy too hand out a 7 ?????

what kind of people handed out 10's then ? the one without opinions ?

the later reviews are more accurate than the early ones !!

[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.

The "critical eye" is far more affected by hype than it is by nostalgia, especially since any hint of nostalgia is easily broken when a game is replayed for the sake of the review and any flaws that were taken for granted back then suddenly crop up. There's a reason why early reviews tend to push the game's score up, while later reviews tend to push the game's score down. I can't count how many games in the past ten years were #1 on GameRankings for the first few days after release, only to drop half a dozen places and usually more a week or two afterward.

What really annoys me is that 2 games in the Top Ten on GameRankings take up 4 spots. :|Hexagon_777

Yeah, that's pretty much the stupidist thing in the world.

What really annoys me is that 2 games in the Top Ten on GameRankings take up 4 spots. :|Hexagon_777

agreed 100%

GTA4 will drop. Small reviewers who want to make a name for themselves/Bitter about game being #1 when etc. is flawed. OoT didn't have that problem.

OoT was a gloryfied hack and slasher, hardly better than GTA4 in my book.-DOT-

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read about OoT. A glorified hack and slasher? Forget the huge adventure...forget all the minigames...forget all the puzzles...forget all the other weapons in the game that you cannot hack and slash with. But, hey...OoT is still a "glorified hack and slasher" anyway. :roll:

OoT was a gloryfied hack and slasher, hardly better than GTA4 in my book.-DOT-

You obviously have never played Zelda have you?

GTAIV > Zelda:OoT

[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.

Your argument is that the more reviews you get the more likely the average scores will be lower. That implies that you start of with a higher score, meaning the first scores will be higher (as in the case of GTA IV). My argument is if you were to say take only 32 reviews out of the 52 reviews for GTA IV to make it a fairer comparison in your eyes, why would you think the higher scoring reviews or first reviews are more valid to be included in those 32 reviews than the later or worse scoring reviews?

As I said if you were to take the scores from only sourses that review both games and work out the average OoT actually ends up with a higher average than GTA IV.

As for Nostalgia, an argument could be made against GTA IV reviews that they got carried away by the hype and excitment surrounding this game. It could even be claimed that the significant drop in the average score due to later reviews support the claim that once the hype and excitment simmered down the review scores also decreased. Now I am not saying that is the case, but it is as valid a point as your claim of nostalgia effecting game scores (maybe even more so since OoT got its lowest scores post 2001, that is 3 years after the game was launched).

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]What really annoys me is that 2 games in the Top Ten on GameRankings take up 4 spots. :|skingus

Yeah, that's pretty much the stupidist thing in the world.

Precisely. If there's no significant difference between the two games, then only one version should be represented. It's the same damn game shown twice otherwise.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]What really annoys me is that 2 games in the Top Ten on GameRankings take up 4 spots. :|samusarmada

agreed 100%

Do I get Ownage Points? :P

That is very close.

One single review will either keep GTA there or throw it down to 2nd or 3rd place.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="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.

evilross

The problem with your part on Revolutionary is that its in comparison to a time frame. Zelda OOT was Revolutionary for its time but if you compared it to games that come out no it its. Why? Because back then Zelda OOT set a new standard to which today all the current games pretty much all meet.

To make it short and sweet. What was considered revolutionary 10 years ago isn't going to be revolutionary now.

The problem with your part on this whole idea is that it is not in comparison to any time frame. Games that are truly worthy of the "Best of All Time" logo are games that transcend genre, graphics, and time-frames.

Games like Doom, Baldur's Gate, and Half-Life changed gaming, and did new things, and in the case of Baldur's Gate, blurred the lined between video games and other forms of entertainment like books and film.

OoT did none of that. It was a great game, and it perfected the 3rd person adventure at the time, but it was a late comer had time to prefect the system, and drew on its established fanbase to propel itself to greatness.

There is no game today that comes out, expecting to be judged by the standards of Zelda : OoT. Your idea of it setting a standard relevant to today is ridiculous. However, games like Baldur's Gate are still revered by modern devs like Bethesda as " the pinnacle of gaming " and " something that we would like to achieve "

A time frame is very imporant to consider in a time frame man. Like I said what was revolutionary 10 years ago is now standard today. The fact that you say OOT did none of that when people are still talking about how great it is a decade later just proves how far off your comment is. Its almost as bad as claiming Nintendo didn't help make Metroid Prime.

It should.

People complain about rehashes when GTA is exactly the same, well actually it isn't. Each mission doesn't feel that different from any other, wasn't that also a complaint about Assassin's Creed?

If it does it will only be because of the amount of reviews. Currently the 360 version has 20 more reviews, and the PS3 has 6 more and both are still higher than OoT. I really don't care at the end of the day though, imo Zelda is a joke compared to GTA, regardless of what critics say.

JayPee89

Zelda OOT isn't one of the big boys of gaming?

I played the game for the first time in 2005, when i found my cousins old Legend of Zelda gamecube disk, the one with the OOT, OOT MasterQuest, and WindWaker demo.

I still loved it, more than Wind Waker itself, due to the tightness of the world, exploration and puzzles. No SAILING!

Zelda and BG1-2 can both be revered, since they both do two different things. Half life as well. One is not conclusively better than the other, pc/console elitists be prigged.

I don't know whether or not GTA4 is more deserving, since i haven't played the game yet, but the high falluting attitudes in this thread are malodorous indeed.