I don't know if you can get any worse than SW, so I'll agree with you.starwarsgeek112

You've obviously never been to NGG. I actually appreciate SW fanboys more after visiting that place.

Firstly, I already posted this.  Secondly, I doubt it.  IGN gave Kirby a 9.5, GS gave it like a 7.5..... either way though OoT is still AAAA so it doesn't matter too muchREVOLUTIONfreak

...in 1998. This is a good idea of seeing how well it stood the test of time. That is unless GS goes the way of IGN and writes a review that might as well not exist. The way I see it, hold it to today's standards or no review at all.

Because people call it the best FPS of all time. It's not. It's score at Gamerankings proves that. Thus, Halo is frequently overrated.

And this old argument about Hermits being jealous of Halo is stupid. Hermits have Halo.
Danm_999

As far as I know, the only FPS ahead of it in Gamerankings is Goldeneye, and they're years apart. They had different standards.

Most Zelda games, but OoT in particular.

Also the original Metroid game on the NES. I thought that one was just a bad game.

I like XBLA better since I already own all the games I would've gotten on VC anyway.

As for my personal preference: I like Doom over each VC game individually, but combined, doubt it.

1. Majora's Mask
2. Windwaker
3. Twilight Princess
4. Ocarina of Time

Top 5 for sure.wooooode

Considering there were only 4...

[QUOTE="Buff-McBlumpkin"]

That's a joke, a complete joke. If Ocarina were released today it would not receive a 10, end of story.

Back then, absolutely. Now? Not even close.

kingsy_the_one

Then what's the point of reviewing it? Grading it by those standards is just appealing to those who remember how awesome it was. Remember that. Was. Not saying it's not a good game, but there's no reason to grade it by its standards back then. That's just throwing out another 10. People playing it for the first time now aren't automatically going to go by 1998 standards, and if you think differently you're wrong. Just wrong.