Something to say about the ratings and where this 'belongs' in the rankings, particularly in response to comments about how the 90's B/W are there for nostalgia and it should be all Sterns b/c of rules, lighting, etc... Deeper and better rules don't necessarily make a game better otherwise both LOTR and TSPP would be at the top, similarly to number of shots, ramps, modes, etc. It's the overall package and despite nostalgia, the B/W games have 'stood the test of time' (albeit a very brief one from the standpoint of history). I look at the collections I most admire of my friends and they are all varied but have some common features: a few of the regularly sought after EMs - Abra, Atlantis, C37 (and many more), early Bally/Stern/Wms SS - Centaur, FG, Fathom, Paragon, HG, Nine Ball, Meteor, Galaxy; Sys 11 and similar from GTB, then WPC. All in all a good mix of machines each of which brings its own greatness. I can put hours on Paragon. Is it flashy like ST, IM, Tron, ACDC...nope, however it has better art than all of them, a different skillset required for greatness, a whole different feel. I got to borrow an Atlantis for a month or so and I played my other machines almost none. Part of it was the newness factor, part the limited time I knew I would have, but the real reason, the one that counts is how great the game is. Not deep, not flashy, one simple goal - improve my highest score. I managed to roll it twice and it felt so good.
I'd love to propose a rating system where it's about how you feel after really tearing it up on a game. Games like Atlantis, Flash Gordon, Paragon, and the like would probably be at the top of my list but it would still come down to how different the style of the game is. A friend recently said that after years of going from game to game thinking this was a keeper or that was a keeper he's decided that mainly it's about having a game or two at all to enjoy. Unfortunately, ratings only count that factor as one of many in rating the game.