Quoted from PanzerFreak:

I still want to play the TH and can't count out one day buying one as Keith Johnson is my favorite pinball programmer. Keith knows how to tell a themes story through code in unique ways so I'm sure I'll be surprised how well the game eventually plays thanks to his great code work. JJP also has David Thiel working on the games audio which from what I heard sounds like one of the best audio offerings in pinball. Combine that with JP's great animation work and it's easy to see how TH once the code is done will be a great game.

Quoted from someoneelse:

Same problem that WoZ has ... way too analytic gameplay-wise.

Quoted from lowepg:

Size Matters here too.
If I had room for like 20 machines, I think TH would have to have a place. It's unique, it's gorgeous to look at. The sound is great. Theme integration is great. Gameplay, however, is like the 5th best thing about it . So, if I "collected" pins - it'd be a little different. But in my limited collection, I need to focus on games I love to PLAY.
TH falls short in that area (for me). GB looks to have the better balance of looks (finally, Stern) and FUN.

Quoted from lowepg:

Yes, but I was talking about TH, not WOZ. And, while there are similarities, i think they are different gameplay-wise, which is my challenge....

Quoted from lowepg:

Apples and Oranges.
In 8 years, JJP has delivered almost 1 game I enjoy playing. So, let's round up and give them a 50% hit rate.
Sterns hit rate is lower, but it can afford to be. Why? Because theyve delivered like 10x more titles to choose from. AND, they can afford to build games with smaller, yet super passionate followings (Kiss), where JJP has to deliver a broad market hit EVERY time or risk business failure.
So, in the same time period, while there's some losers from Stern, there's more winners than JJp has had. I'd consider ACDC, MET, GB (and I'm leaning towards adding TWD) to be winners in the "JJP timeline." Others probably would suggest the list of Stern winners is even longer...

Quoted from Jvspin:

I wouldn't either because of their track record in producing games I consider worth buying. That's why I always take a "wait and see" approach when they announce a new title. The only reason I pre-ordered Hobbit was because of my excellent experience with WOZ, to get a discount and to lock in a price (I thought this important knowing the game would take years to complete).
But consider, I've been collecting long enough that I've gotten to the point where a game has to have the entire package for me to purchase at today's prices. Being "fun" is not enough. It has to have enough toys or special features, good fit and finish, art, sound, theme integration and be "fun". That's a pretty tall order.
I'll admit Hobbit is a risk. I definitely think it has enough in the theme integration, sound, display, fit and finish and art departments to make it special in my collection. Question is, will I think it's fun enough? I'm hopeful as I like drop targets and Keith has been the programmer on some of my favorite games. As you can tell, I lean towards the past history as an indication of future performance philosophy.

Quoted from wtatumjr:

I may be in the minority but I like WOZ from the first time I played it...I'm guessing it had code 4.11 or so it was somewhat developed by then.

Quoted from colonel_caverne:

What is calculating the médian rating?

Quoted from DaveH:

Thank goodness there is a Statsdoc in the house!
The problem is that people still try and game the system. If someone like (insert manipulative user) wants to manipulate the ratings and the formula gets changed, they simply look for the new edge that still does the most damage. When people were suggesting getting rid of bogus "1" ratings, "3" became the new one.
Ratings tend to get watered down in the face of intentional manipulation. Statistics can help, but in the end intentional manipulation still skews any results making them less reliable.

Quoted from DaveH:

Back on IPDB if I was looking at a machine I ignored it's ratings, and just went and read the comments. You can learn a lot about a game reading them. Agendas become obvious in the text, and some people write insightful things about the game. They text is always more valuable on the less "politicized" games. You can't get much truth on any new Stern or JJP game anymore.

Quoted from Jvspin:

So you're saying unless a shot passes through or drops into an area it isn't satisfying to hit or very meaningful. You really don't consider the ram shot on GOT or the captive balls on GB as shots? What about hitting the correct stand up on HS to light the kickback, or the individual targets to advance from green to yellow to red?
I guess I'll agree to disagree. Satisfying and meaningful are very subjective.

Quoted from Concretehardt:

I 100% agree SKB! It would be a blast to drive a tank for a day or a week but pretty soon it would be like "oh it's time to go drive the tank again.. meh". JMHO after driving said tank, so don't take my word for it drive it your self.. Im not a tank guy (I prefer sports car)
Disclaimer: I spent 10 hours in a skid steer loader on Saturday, it beat the crap out of me.

Quoted from DaveH:

Call me crazy, but if I had a big tank, I'd commute to work in it every day. Each day I would find, or make a new route to my office. I'd want a second tank in the garage in case I sank the first in a swimming pool or something. Sure, it would be slower than my car, but I'd never have to sit in traffic.

Quoted from lowepg:

I agree. An underutilized feature is pretty benign....
Hell, I have buttons on my camera - I have no idea what they do -it's still a great camera!
Does it really negatively affect ANYONE's gameplay???
To me, its a non-issue, and there are far more relevant things to be critical of with TH (in its current state).

Quoted from kpg:

I have a feeling TH and GB are going to be a similar story with location vs home use- where you need them in your house and to put several hundred games on them to appreciate to their fullest.

Quoted from kpg:

That's why I can't pit them against each other, apples and oranges, and play completely differently.