Quoted from cooked71:
Neat trick on the Top 100 is that you can generate a custom Top 100 based on different criteria. For example you can make a list based only on rating from the last 6 months. This is great for new games that sucked when released but improved over time. But it does disadvantage older games.
I never realized you could do this. Its fun to play around with and see how the rankings change based on the time frames selected.
There are so many variables in play that muddy the rankings. There are a lot of people that rate games with very minimal play on them. That really puts deeply coded games at a disadvantage against games that are more "approachable". Personally, I try to stick with rating games I have owned, but I'm not saying everyone needs to do that. Its just really helps to give a meaningful review when you can experience the games full sound/light show in a quite room and get deeper into the code. Then you have people that rates some games, and at some point just stopped rating any more. I see a lot of that here. They haven't even rated games they currently own, just sort of lost faith or see value in ratings. I believe that puts new games at a disadvantage. Then of course you have the people that just rate games to inflate the values of their personal collections, so they really zero objectivity to their ratings.