Is that worse or better than

3.193
paynemic 
Awful. Can't imagine how wrong the ratings are to make this number one. Bull.

I just copy and pasted my old ironman Comments and ratings.

Flag them....

Wow, the hate is strong with the B/W only pinball crowd, Now before we all go crazy, I have more B/W pins than Sterns.
Fact is though my Sterns get more plays... Had MM now for 7 years and IM for 2 years... IM has more games on it

How can IM be rated 1-something

It's got good flow, rules are ok at least average, good toy with Monger, whiplash and War Machine, good art at least average, excellent theme integration how can it be any better than to have full movie rips and voice rips from the two films and voice actor (Jarvis) I believe.

If honest, there is no chance IM is less than a mid 6 or 7 low and mid 8 high end

Because you're imposing your criteria on other people, which is always the first mistake; The way you rate games is not the only way. Obviously I'm not referring to a 1...that's crazy

Iron Man is a good machine so it's not surprising that after a few votes the VE is rated a .9 points (9%) higher. The same people that have enough plays on the VE probably also rated the regular high. Don't get bent out of shape about it's exact order in the rankings. As it get's more ratings things will balance out.

PS: I do still think lumping the same titles together in a composite rating would be helpful. If my quick counting was correct that would free up 9 spots in the top 50. I've calculated out a few composite scores: AC/DC = 8.377, Addam's Family = 8.546, Iron Man = 8.141, Star Trek = 8.281, and X-Men = 7.908. In almost all cases there is very little change for the higher rated version. The largest variation between models was AC/DC. Factoring in the lower scores for the pro model only reduced the premium by 0.1 points (1%).

It's really simple math:

AC/DC: (8.468 x 923 + 7.788 x 143) / 1066 = 8.377

The Met pro + Met premium + Met LE = #1

One week of glory.

Almost every machine gets one, and everyone freaks out every time.

Gotta give it to TZ though.....23 years old, almost 1750 votes, and still right there, probably back to # 2 on this list in a week or so, # 1 on IPDB......pretty impressive stuff....I don't play mine all the time, but there will be stretches when it's the only machine I play for a month.....

My IM has a lot of plays on it, but each of my games is about 60 seconds or less.

I LOVE my IMVE for that very reason.....if I've got 10 spare minutes before dinner, always play it, as I know I can get a few games in....

I never really have games for much longer than 3 months, maybe 6 but that would be rare and keepers for me are about something other than gameplay. Ironman is greatness.

Hey, since it's the best pin of all time...any takers at 8k for my Iron Man VE? You can own the greatest pin ever!

Why do people get so bent about "the list" anyway? I mean, I check it out from time to time but it can be pretty goofy. Game of Thrones pro is #101. WTF? It is way more fun than most of the pins ranked above it. Or take this Wolfy guy for instance, he's throwing down silly ratings because he's upset that there are multiple IMs. Are we children here? How many people pull this garbage? I'm guessing a lot. What is the point in that nonsense?

I like to have a couple of games while I wait for my WoZ to boot up.

True.. mine is running at 2m28s a game average.
Start button still keeps getting pushed more than MM Just 1 more game... Just 1 more game....

Hey Hougie, I changed my rating to 6.9 because I hurt the feelings of so many little IM owners like yourself. I could care less about how anybody rates any machine. I sure wouldn't waste my time checking to see how somebody votes unless I didn't have anything better to do.

No hurt feelings here. It's just kind of like the Amazon reviewers that give a product one star out of five because shipping was screwed up. Makes no sense. Speaking of, I think you mean "couldn't care less".

LMAO!!!...done the same thing!!!!

We also use IM as the "on-deck circle" for playing a mutli-player game on WOZ. Kills the time while waiting for your turn- which could be a long while. Will do the same once we get our Hobbit.

Same happened with Ghostbuster And lots of Title They are #1 for one week then it drops

Yeah but what is annoying is people giving 1's and 2's to purposely pull down a games rating.

I don't think that's the point the OP is making. It's not about the rankings of a single machine being too high or low. It's about having separate rankings for each version of a machine. He's suggesting versions of machines are displayed as a composite of each version. You can still view and rank each version differently, but when they are displayed on the rankings page the composite is shown. I agree that that would be a good suggestion.

from a gameplay perspective I 100% agree. i.e. IM and IMVE are identical. SM and SMVE also. TAF and TAFg. etc...

from a actual game and resell value (which is largely what pinside seems to be about) I can't see them making a composit, even though I do like that idea for clarity of gameplay perspective.

In my opinion, Robin just needs to figure out a way to have separate listings for the different version (for valuation/manufacturer/etc. purposes), but unify the reviews for them.

I think you should still have separate pages for each machine including specific rankings, price, numbers, etc. The system is already a bit arbitrary for which variations have their own machines. With pro, premium, limited edition, vault edition, etc. as the norm it seems logical to come up with a standard. I'd create a separate page for each version, and only combine the rankings. I might go so far as to try to somehow link the older 2-player / 4-player editions of games. Take something like Snow Derby and Snow Queen. They are the same game yet ranked #34 and #119. Perhaps even add-a-ball vs replay, where games like Baseball and Batter Up are rated #135 and #219. In all cases there will be those that ague that there are differences in the games. That's true, but you can still view those detailed ratings on each page. I would just prefer to not see 2 or 3 variations of the same game in the top-100.

I was rating games for a while, but I stopped. I finally realized that nobody really gave a shit what I thought about games, and I found myself not even giving a shit what I thought anymore. When I want to know how a game is, I just play it at Silverball or at a show or somebody's house. Everybody's got a different opinion; why would you trust the opinion of a total stranger?

As this thread points out, the rankings are broken in some key ways, IMHO

1) 1-10 scale is too wide a range
2) Honestly, no game should score below a 2. Anyone who votes that low should be removed from voting.
3) A game shouldn't be in the top 50 or top 100 unless it has a reasonable number of votes, which is 100 in my book

I ran across a guy who voted between 1 and 2 for many games... raised it to the mods... they said it was fine.

But the good news is... we can completely ignore the ratings, if desired. Or, you can influence them in any way you see fit because there is no negative for bogus ratings.

I really do like the rankings. I'll often read a review I agree with and then read their other reviews or view their collection.

Is there a difference for Iron Man and IMVE in price? I didn't notice one but there are others who would know better than me.

not much and seems to be based on small preferences.

for SM and SMVE
or
TAF and TAFg there are.

I didn't think there was. It really is similar to Star Trek early run vs. later run that changed the backbox style. I think MET and TWD also had a change in backboxes.

I like reviews and trust them. They are one of the factors I use to decide what to buy. Frankly, it's so important to me, that's why I gave imve a low review. I actually have every intent to alter my review up when it gets to a more normal spot in the top 100. I think it could be misleading to someone who really wants a top 10 all time game and comes up with IMVE and goes shopping for one. Sorry if that pisses people off. I felt the reviews needed balance.

As to the theme of the thread, I totally agree that a composite ranking would be ideal, but still separate pricing history, etc. It does become a trick when a premium or LE has an actual ramp difference or something else that really changes the flow and play...

Just like people giving 10 when the game is just out And not complete And having all Kinds of issues

To each there own , I don't mind the rakings when I want a pin and
Hopefully it is low ranked and so the price is cheap.

The rankings are just fine, it's the people that are the problem. Since rankings are made by people, there is no way they are not going to be annoying to people one way or the other.

Have you played it? You take reviews seriously yet you put a bogus review up. What if people think it's a top ten game?

Count yourself lucky that you've never played South Park then.

South Park is my lowest rated machine and it still got a 5.74 for having "good" side art and "descents" in a few other categories. That's still with me giving out mostly "not so good" and "poor" ratings.

Definitely played it. It was fine. Average. I hate the DMD on it. That is (its average nature to me) why my score is low. To get its ranking to average until that happens organically (which it will).

That's fine if some people think it's a top ten game. So far the only reviewers are owners or others with an axe to grind who are overstating for whatever reason. If it's still number one in a month or two with a significant number of reviews, I vow to delete mine.

I'm really not trying to be a troll or argumentative. Just explaining myself and my review.

IM is one of my top 10 ... that's why I bought it, but there are a few that I would rate higher. Played the game many, many times before a good buy on one popped up on a Facebook group and I bought it. I didn't even look at the rankings/reviews here. I looked and played many games at our local arcade, and played as many pins as I could (and that I would be even remotely interested in buying) at the Michigan VFW Expo over 2 full days (300+ different machines there). My decision to pick my top machines for my wish list was by physically playing many machines and the favorites often. I reduced those selections down by picking the machines I would want at home and would not get too bored with really quickly. I will soon likely enter some reviews, including a legitimate really bad one for GB that will not be popular - too many drains because of a bad basic design IMO. I would never play that game if I had to put money in it each game. Free play, yes I would keep giving it a chance. It wont be a "1" though in all categories, just to make it drop a tiny bit in the polls. Opinions are just opinions. Deceitful false reviews to bring down poll numbers (or raise them) and admitting it is just not morally correct.

Sorry, man. In the words of Pete "That don't make no sense." Have you read what you just typed?

???

But that is exactly what you're doing.

Again ??? You certainly don't explain yourself very well. What is this supposed to even mean (besides being factually incorrect)? Sure I own it....but the only reason I own it is becasue of how much I liked it (that's sort of how it works for most people). It's certainly a top 10 all time pin to me....and I've probably played every pin in the top 200+.

Sorry guys. Please read this in a very relaxed conversational tone, that how I'm writing it. Really.

Feel free to have your opinions on how the top 100 is supposed to work. I'll have mine. I thought I explained myself fairly well but I'll go back and reread.

I completely respect how you feel about this pin and why you may have bought or really like it. No problem.

You don't have get so upset. I'm really not trying to be inflammatory (trolling). If you think I am, I'm happy to drain the thread. I'm explaining that it's very unlikely that the when enough reviews come in to be statistically valid, that the average will (or should be) much higher than the original. Can you think why it should be? If not, then why should a person looking at the top 100 this week be misled while someone who reads it in a couple months will (likely) get a different perspective. I'm just trying to temporarily level that in the only way I can see to do so in the short term. I've already stated that if I'm wrong, and IMVE turns out to be a consensus top pin of all time (despite its predecessor ranking #33 or thereabouts) I will happily remove my skewed review and stand corrected.

I realize this explanation will not satisfy many of you (pinside seems rarely satisfied with anything), but there is my view.

The ONLY reason IM is ranked 33rd is from all the Williams/Bally lovers (and Stern haters) giving it a bunch of 1's and 2's. There is no way IM is 33....look at some of the pins ranked higher.....Cactus Canyon...really? The Shadow, Funhouse (a classic game but not as fun as IM), Scared Stiff (talk about easy), TOTAN and TOM???.....maybe before 2003. Of course that's just IMHO.