tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4800344275936363336.comments2014-12-11T20:52:27.416-05:00Acclaimed Video GamesScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17432335719007233150noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4800344275936363336.post-82616589869592556682012-08-04T17:36:59.592-04:002012-08-04T17:36:59.592-04:00The thing Halo did right was trick a bunch of peop...The thing Halo did right was trick a bunch of people who didn't know what FPS games were into thinking Halo invented the genre, using the influence of Microsoft to advertise and promote itself, while people who actually knew video games were playing Quake and Unreal Tournament on their PCsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4800344275936363336.post-79703492862086890612012-02-13T14:34:52.817-05:002012-02-13T14:34:52.817-05:00I don't know. While I agree with your statemen...I don't know. While I agree with your statement about games being highly ranked solely due to nostalgia, I disagree with GR's rationale for not including OoT or FFVII. I read the list and they said that OoT had "aged poorly." I call bullshit on that; the layout and control are essentially the same as they are in TP. Leaving the only part that "aged poorly" being the graphics. I hate it when people pick newer counterparts to older games just because they have prettier graphics. Graphics are not gameplay. It doesn't matter if the graphics suck by today's standards, if the game is still fun, it shouldn't be unfairly criticized. On a side note, Super Mario 64 was on the list, and it's graphics aren't that great by today's standards. True, it was listed behind Super Mario Galaxy, but it was at least on the list. I want you to know that I am not a fanboy or a nostalgia whore, but the reason I hate the fact that those games were left off of the list is because the editors at GR, despite their claims otherwise, are clearly graphics whores. I'm not disagreeing with your statement, I just think they had a poor rationale.Jamin T.http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003064542851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4800344275936363336.post-5924416481179508902011-08-22T14:15:51.185-04:002011-08-22T14:15:51.185-04:00You're right about the database score being un...You're right about the database score being unclear. I'll probably add a more thorough explanation in the near future.<br /><br />Basically, the score is normalized on a scale from 0 (which would be a game that has not appeared on a single list) to 100 (which would be a game that ranks #1 on every list that it is eligible for). The actual database score is from 1 to 1000, with 1 being the best. However, I thought that a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being best, would be easier to read, so that's the version that I published here.<br /><br />Any game that scores above a 30 or so would have had to appear on numerous lists, so you are right in thinking that a score of 40 is far from average here. A truly average game would probably have a score of 0, since it is unlikely that anyone likes an average game enough to list it among the best of all time.<br /><br />Thanks for reading.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17432335719007233150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4800344275936363336.post-42674302800778095342011-08-20T11:59:27.258-04:002011-08-20T11:59:27.258-04:00Thanks for the list! This is much more interestin...Thanks for the list! This is much more interesting data than a single person or publication's listing.<br /><br />"Database score" is unclear. I would have thought that 40/100 would correspond to an average critic's rating of 4 stars out of 10 -- yet it seems like games toward the bottom of the list are highly regarded. Can you talk more precisely about how this number was generated?Matt Ryannoreply@blogger.com