What he's saying is... since Mario Galaxy has the same % rating as Zelda OoT, that Gamerankings had to break the ratings down into .000 % to seperate the games.
He's suggesting they did it because they want to keep Zelda at #1.
I say they're doing it because the race is so close, they want to show who is genuinely #1.
What he's saying is... since Mario Galaxy has the same % rating as Zelda OoT, that Gamerankings had to break the ratings down into .000 % to seperate the games.
He's suggesting they did it because they want to keep Zelda at #1.
I say they're doing it because the race is so close, they want to show who is genuinely #1.
Pretty simple, really.
Jbul
maybe, but if this was between say #12 and #13, the higher one would just to the one with more reviews.
What he's saying is... since Mario Galaxy has the same % rating as Zelda OoT, that Gamerankings had to break the ratings down into .000 % to seperate the games.
He's suggesting they did it because they want to keep Zelda at #1.
I say they're doing it because the race is so close, they want to show who is genuinely #1.
Pretty simple, really.
snakeofsolid
maybe, but if this was between say #12 and #13, the higher one would just to the one with more reviews.
Perhaps, but this is for the number 1 position. Simply having a few more reviews won't cut it.
What he's saying is... since Mario Galaxy has the same % rating as Zelda OoT, that Gamerankings had to break the ratings down into .000 % to seperate the games.
He's suggesting they did it because they want to keep Zelda at #1.
I say they're doing it because the race is so close, they want to show who is genuinely #1.
Pretty simple, really.
snakeofsolid
maybe, but if this was between say #12 and #13, the higher one would just to the one with more reviews.
You might be right. I don't work at Gamerankings, so I can't say. Does it really matter who nabs the #1 spot though? They're both almost flawless games for their respective eras.
What he's saying is... since Mario Galaxy has the same % rating as Zelda OoT, that Gamerankings had to break the ratings down into .000 % to seperate the games.
He's suggesting they did it because they want to keep Zelda at #1.
I say they're doing it because the race is so close, they want to show who is genuinely #1.
Pretty simple, really.
Jbul
maybe, but if this was between say #12 and #13, the higher one would just to the one with more reviews.
You might be right. I don't work at Gamerankings, so I can't say. Does it really matter who nabs the #1 spot though? They're both almost flawless games for their respective eras.
I agree why argue over the number one spot when being anywhere on the list is a great accomplishment.
You might be right. I don't work at Gamerankings, so I can't say. Does it really matter who nabs the #1 spot though? They're both almost flawless games for their respective eras. Jbul
It matters to a lot of people what "the best game of all time" is... especially those people in places such as System Wars where something like this could mean the difference between a won and lost argument or to those who try to find objectivity among the opinions of others.
I myself don't care much for scores that reflect an overall evaluation... I find them to not be very specific about a game's actual qualities. And like you said, they are both "amazing games for their time" while comparing them to each other would lead to Mario Galaxy being declared the unanimous winner. I don't think it is actually possible to name one game as "better" over another especially when considering time periods... and I really don't think Gamerankings is that important unless you consider score to be a deciding factor determining what games you buy.
Log in to comment