Why LoZ: OOT and Soul Calibur will ALWAYS be #1 and #2 on Gamerankings.com...

[phoenix1967]

2 outstanding games have been released recently: Bioshock and Half Life 2-The Orange Box.

Sadly, in this day and age, no matter how good a game is, it stands no chance of unseeding Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Soul Calibur 1 as the 1st and 2nd ranked games on Gamerankings.com.

With a 97.6 and a 96.4 approval rating, respectively, these 2 games were reviewed at a time where reviewers themselves, in my opinion, were learning by what criteria to score games. 10s were much more common if a game stood out from the crowd.

Also, with fewer sites on the net at the time of their reviews, there have only been 31 and 28 reviews counted on the site towards their total score. So unless more sites decide to go back to review these games, there's NEVER going to be a chance that their overall scores will decline.

Therefore, in 2007, with so many more sites reviewing games, and with reviewers being more experienced in evaluating them, and with so many new games to review (with consequently less time for the old) to stay on the cutting edge of media entertainment, it's safe to say that these 2 games will always be considered #1 and #2.

Just my $.02.

Thoughts?

[Cobra]

If you think about it, Soul Calibur dose deserve such an acclaimed rating. I mean, the leap between this and other titles of the time is phenomenal. I think it is better for games to be reviewed then and there, rather than introspect down the track of how you feel a 8 year old game would fair today.

God, I lost track how many times over I played this game.... good days

At the same time, as for a buyers guide, then it's probably the reverse. So the buyer, if they are after a game to play rather than it's legendary status, they know if it'll be worth the high price tag or not.

[Fuyukaze]

What do you expect?  Both of these games were extremly popular and remain so even today.  Your being rather simple minded in saying that because the games have aged.  What, because Pac-Man has aged it shouldnt rate more then a 1 or 2?  Soul Calibur wasnt just a great game, it was a launch title!  The games earned their ratings not because they were the newest coolest games but because people liked them.

Oh, and you discredit the ability of your fellow gamer to rate and review games.  As games had been reviewed in publication for atleast 10 years prior to their release and atleast 5 years (gamefaqs anyone?) online, the only people still coming around to forming an opinionated view on games were the people coming into games on their first systems.  Maybe there wasnt a thousand sites dedicated to the opinionated views of single sighted site owners but then again back in 96-98, the internet wasnt as widely available as it's become today.  Heck, even I have DSL now.

[Tan]

Keep in mind that review scores don't really mean anything anymore. They hand out 10/10's like Cracker Jack prizes these days, which means plenty of inflated scores. This will become the generation of games with so many 10/10 scores it'll make systems like the 2600, NES, Genesis etc look like failed attempts at gaming with their lack of game libraries with 100 titles that have 9.5 or higher.

Be fortunate that older games haven't recieved as many reviews/votes and newer ones have. Otherwise there would be so many classic awesome games at the top of that list few games from the last 5-7 years would even make it to the top 50.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

I've never been impressed by either.

Oot was annoying and Soul Caliber was inferior to Tekken imo.

[Tan]

I've never been impressed by either.

Oot was annoying and Soul Caliber was inferior to Tekken imo.

I've never cared much for any of the 3D Zeldas myself. I could easily slip Link to the Past in OoT's place and keeping with fighting games either Samurai Showdown II or Street Fighter II CE.

[Tynstar]

I have never played any of them. Well i played OoT for 10 minutes or so.

[phoenix1967]

Maybe the only way to accurately compare ranking todays games to those of yesteryear would be to take the top 31 reviews for the new games and see if it matches or exceeds the 31 review average of OOT or the 28 review average of SC.

[Shimra]

Last I checked recent games seem to be topping gamerankings. OoT and Soul Calibur are a few of the exceptions.

[Tondog]

As Tan said, reviewers hand out scores above 9 like they mean nothing these days.

[BadEnoughDude]

Lists schmists.

It really shouldn't matter, should it? Good games are good games.

[Cobra]

The thing is, new games actually have a pretty unfair advantage with the added novelty of a new game. So when older games are able to hold their head up above the rest you know it's something special.

Honestly I don't think anything that has come out in recent time has been all that ground breaking. Not saying there are no good releases today, but there hasn't been a game good enough to make me get a system solely for that one game since back in '98 when I got a Playstation just for Final Fantasy VII. It was the only game I ever got for it until the Saturn was completely dead.

Then further back in '96 I wasn't ever planning to upgrade from my Sega (I call it a Sega cause it was a MegaDrive/Mega-CD/32X+MasterMega Converter, it used multiple power plugs and was huge, it was a monster that could play any Sega game I had ever played). But then I saw the ad for Dragon Force and was sold.

[Shimra]

The fact Super Mario Allstars isn't in the top 10 shows you the list's credibility.

[Shimra]

I think this needs to be bumped for sheer irony.

[Tondog]

Hahahahahaha. Phoenix is so proven wrong now.