I dunno about 08, but is going to have a HARD time trying to top this years Q4 chaos.

As i said before 90% is a very good indication that this is an AAA title, Not a fact but you can try that yourself pick up a game that u think it' s an AAA and it will likely get at least 90%, However there are many good games that are really good but still didn' t reach that 90% because they are simple sequals with no real innovation although they are still really good, so i thought that 88% would be The limit.

you know what , let' s make it 90%, seriously almost all those game would be a real disapointement if they get anything less.

Yes, I agree. 90 seems fine, so lets see which games really deliver.

Percentage scores aren' t indicative of innovation. God of War 2 recieved 94% and Crush recieved 84%. Don' t bring out the " innovation" card unless it' s applicable.

Anyway, I think there should be three rating calculations:

1.) AAA status, or 90% and above.

2.) Green status, or 75% and above.

3.) Big seller status, 500k or above.

I think we can get a pretty good idea of what year owns which with such metrics, no?

not really, while i fully agree with AAA > 90% this is clear, but for the rest 75% is a way low for a green status to me, all games below 80% in gamerankings suck or just average which i really don' t need, here is how i look at it and I verified that with many games and seen almost no contradiction (it can' t be perfect)

AAA masterpiece > 93%
AAA > 90%
great game > 87%
good Game > 85 %
so so > 80%
Sucks > 75%
Sucks ASS > 70%
anything below is hell


now before you wonder how did i pick up these numbers, please pick up 5 games and check if that' s correct, if you agree on at least 4/5 then it' s good.

It' ll be interesting that all of us apply this as everybody knows what does 90% mean, when you guys play a game you rate it based on this model on mind... don' t be arrogant, try it and see if that' s good, else let me know.

Well, I obviously don' t agree, simply because I feel that differences of 2 or 3 % are not big enough to make a difference. I also think that the number of reviews is also something that is important and has to be considered, as well as the reviewing site. For example, there are sites I trust more than other sites, as well as reviewers I trust more.

Anyway: I' ll do the thing you said.

I pick:

Halo 2: 94,6 Definitely not a masterpiece, just a brushed up sequel to a masterpiece.
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker 94,7 Definitely not a masterpiece, just a brushed up seuqel to a masterpiece.
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 94,6 Definitely not a masterpiece, just a brushed up sequel to a masterpiece.
Tom Clancy' s Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 93,8
Tekken 3 95,6 Who' d seriously consider this one to be a masterpiece? Tekken has always been in the shadow of Soul Calibur and Virtua Fighter.


At least half of the games that are >= 93% simply got their rating because of the name, because they are a sequel to a fantastic game. Therefore I say once again you can' t simply call a game a masterpiece because of ratings it got. This can only be decided by studying what influence the game had over time.

god damn EvilKiller you answered before i was going to say that there is +- 2 that wil differ from each player , some games will be masterpieces to other whilee some wil think it' s great, a masterpiece game CANNOT be thought as CRAP Nor average unless the opinion is coming from a person that has nothing to do with games...

Applying that 2+- thing will make thing a bit more accurate, i' m just trying to find a great formula here so that i will never be confused about websites reviews.

What surprise me with you is that you picked some game that i don' t agree with , for exemple Halo 2 is waaay exagerated in gamerankings but that game fall in the few exception out there, i already said that this method is ALMOST accurate , because i was thinking about Halo 2 and i knew it' s no masterpiece... hell even if you apply the +-2 it still a masterpiece... Don' t forget that many and many peopel think that halo 2 is a masterpiece, may be we are the exception this time... i Usualy get along with what the industry think, i rarely disagree not because i' m influenced by their opinion but because MOSt of the time each game deserve waht is get as an average from the industry, and Gamerankings show it.

Tekken 3 was marvelous back at its timeand i do remember it as a masterpiece, it got great reviews , awesome feedback from gamers who played it at the time of its release.

Did i say that your pick was like on purpose to show that this model is seriously flawed, did you really picked the game arbitrary or did u just picked the one that shows weakness.

here are some games i picked randomly

Gears of war 94%
Mario 64 96%
Ico 90%
Devil May Cry 92%
Devil May Cry 2 72%
Silent Hill 2 90%
Resident Evil 4 96%
God of War 93%
Golden Eye 96%
Metroid Prime 96%
Zelda Ocarina of time 98% !!!!
Call of duty 2 90%
Soul Calibur 96%
Rainbow Six Vegas (360) 89%
Shenmue 89%
MotorSTorm 83%
Final Fantasy x 91%
Final fantasy 7 92.5%
Riddick xbox 88% pc 90%
Kameo 81%
Tomb Raider: angel of Darkness (ps2) 56%
Tales of Symphonia 86%

I don' t think Gears of war is a masterpiece (some do) but I do think it' s an AAA game that deserve respect. if in apply 2+- i would fully agree with that score. there will always be some VERY few exception but even those exception will not be far from the truth.

Also, don' t compare games score between each other if they don' t belong to the same generation (of time or hardware), just see if it falls in the range i wrote above.

Haha yeah, I know, I can be annoying!

Anyway, I consider myself to be a really, really big Halo fanboy (In fact, the Halo series places second on my personal list of favourite game series), still I think there is NO way Halo 2 can be considered a masterpiece (I am talking Singleplayer, of course. Multiplayer is a completely different story) and I believe everybody who isn' t totally blended by fanboyness simply has to agree. Still the game got high ratings because it' s fantastic(and/or Microsoft paid lots of money)[and I fully agree with those ratings. [Remeber, I am a fanboy]]. For me, the ratings a game got and the question if it' s a masterpiece are completely unrelated.

As for Gears of War. I believe this game is a master piece. Why? Because it set standards. Gears can be considered to be the first " next gen" game. It showed how a game has to look like and, as for gameplay, while taking cover wasn' t a completely new mechanic, Gears showed how it has to be implemented. And watch now - every f' n game copies that, not just your Shooter, but also games like Metal Gear Solid.

And no, I didn' t pick the games randomly because I wanted to point out, that the fatal flaw of your method is that there are many games, that simply get great ratings because they are sequels. They seem to get a bonus.

Anyway your random picks reveleaed another flaw. Why did the XBox version get 2 % less than the PC version? The games are almost completely identical. And that can be seen on many occassions with multiplattform titles.

Anyway, whats your opinion on my thesis that the question if a game can be considered a master piece should rather be answered by it' s impact on gaming landscape rather than by looking closely at numbers.

i do agree with you, that a masterpiece game influence heavily all the next games in its genre and sometimes other genres, Still when i put 93% it goes hand on hand with that for ALMOST any game.

You did ignore the +- 2 thing which is extremly important and answers why some games are AAA for some and for soe they are not, yet an AAA game will always be a great game, unless judged by fanboys or people who don' t know shit.

In the case of gears of war, for me it' s no masterpiece but an AAA title, may be because i don' t consider much the multiplayer side , which by the way might explain why i' m not happy with that Halo 2 score, a game should be judged for both so that score you see in gamerankings reflect the single and multi experience COMBINED...

So always think that there is +-2 to any game out there.

Anyway your random picks reveleaed another flaw. Why did the XBox version get 2 % less than the PC version? The games are almost completely identical. And that can be seen on many occassions with multiplattform titles.

2% only, you apply that +-2% and it' ll turn out the same thing.

hat the fatal flaw of your method is that there are many games, that simply get great ratings because they are sequels. They seem to get a bonus.

that' s ABsolutly not often ture, many sequels get bashed even if they are better than the first, but if they don' t show a significant margin, reviewers punish them (which is good so that next time they will really make a true sequal), so many of the sequals get trashed even if they don' t deserve that.

and evilkiller you didn' t HAVE to show that my method is totaly wrong, you rather see if it works for the most part and if it does then it' s really great, i' m so looking forward to see how much these games will score. i want the xbox to have some epic games and i' m sorry that Bioshock is NOT a true exclusive and therefore 360 cannot really brag about it, it' s not a major seller console because you can have it on pc (if you do have the right hardware).

all in all, i think this method is great , i don' t see any input from other members, this forum start to suck seriously .

Yeah well, I believe there is no solution for this argument. I completely accept your opinion and this and the method you use, but I don' t agree with it. Anyway I think we should stop this now and rather see how Bioshock and Blue Dragon will score (as they are going to be released really soon). I' ll guess Blue Dragon will be around 85%.

yeah i don' t think Blu Dragon will reach 88% but it' ll be farily close
Bioshock will get above 90% with a very high probability for more than 93%
Medal of honor will be between 85% and 88%
Strangehold 85% and 88%
so that' s for the major games heading this august, mark my words

Hmm damn forgot those. Well I agree with Medal of Honor and Bioshock but Stranglehold.....to me this looks like it' s shaping up to be a 75-80% game. I was pretty hyped when I saw the first videos but by now I fail to see anything special in Stranglehold. But hehe, we will see who' s right.

Look, the 75 as green status is taken from Metacritic and it makes sense. Green Status is good to go for playing the game, not some epic achievement.

You' re clearly interested in letting your own bias of what metrics to use and what games deserve the metrics interfere with your thread. It' s okay to disagree, but you' re more in the business of dictating than discussing. Thusly, I don' t see much use in this thread any more.

So you want to use a metric of something selling 500k plus units as being a good title.....Film tie-ins normally hit those, if the film was good then the kids want the game to go with, doesn' t neccessarily mean the game is going to be good.

Ratings on games is a dangerous thing to go on, best thing is for devs to publish more demo' s that are as close to the finished article as possible. That way the general public can then make an informed choice based on the gameplay....If this had been the case Hour of Victory would not be selling by the bucketload, it is selling because of few good reviews, which the publishers had probably greased the palms of the reviewers. Reviews are dangerous to go on purely to purchase something, you need something to test drive, you don' t just buy a car without test driving it first, if you do then your an idiot and shouldn' t be allowed to ride a push bike let alone a car.

I think sites like Gamerankings, while good on paper are fundamentally flawed as any game with enough hype ends up scoreing better, even if it deserve' s a lower rank.

like ? you guys love to exagerate too much, yes there are some but silent you' re making it like it often happens , i do not agree , please support your claims next time.

Dontpee i don' t dictate any damn thing, i just want to show a good way for all of us so we can follow the saaaaame method of rankings, therefore i can have a very close idea of what your score means.

i made a list just above of the game that i think they deserve their score (+-2) yet nobody said anything about them, when there is a minor flaw you people like to bark, always the same shit, trying to complicate matters and follow the exception. at least in gamerankings there is NO score far from the truth.

like ? you guys love to exagerate too much, yes there are some but silent you' re making it like it often happens , i do not agree , please support your claims next time.

well I didnt list on purpose as I have said that big franchise are shit before and people got pissed off. The like of Gta,Halo,Zelda get high scores just because of their name and the reviewers bias. but you right, its not that exterme enough to effect all games but I' d never trust gamerankings on something like Halo3/Gta4.

so you don' t like zelda ?? i get it now

So you want to use a metric of something selling 500k plus units as being a good title.....Film tie-ins normally hit those, if the film was good then the kids want the game to go with, doesn' t neccessarily mean the game is going to be good.

It' s a metric for measuring success. That' s why I suggested three different ratings to ecompass success, because success is multi tiered and complex.