So its no brainer that most people that rate games usually are either biased or simply don't rate it well based on what truly matters, whether its fun to play, the replay value even, those are two key aspects I look for when I rate a game. People tend to say "oh yes this one game is sooo good but I've only played it once and moved on" so in my opinion that's a tad shallow rating. Let's take Resident Evil Remakea and 5. In my opinion I truly believe that RE5 is the best Resident Evil based on my own experience of replaying its campaign over and over and completing it on all difficulties and basically unlocking every secret weapon and buying the dlc and costumes and getting all guns to infinite ammo etc. The way I rated it was based on how fun it was, how good the replay value was to keep me interested for about a few months. But some people who I've spoken to would say Resident Evil 4 or 2 are better but only played them once or even worse, didn't even finish them. So then what else? You can't give a proper rating if you don't explore all or most of the aspects of such game. Like resident evil remake I've spent way less but still more time than my least fave RE which is Revelations 2. And again some friend of mine said he loved RE Rev 2 yet never even got halfway thru the game so what gives you know? The same went for some of the new halo fans that praise Halo 4-5 but only played them once, you can't really say a game is great until you've at least sunk in the campaign multiple times like some of us old halo fans did growing up playing that halo 2-reach campaigns multiple times that we lost count. Well at least I did since I didn't have access to Xbox live but the point is that game rating should be based more on whether after you beat the game, you'd still love to replay it over again at least twice. [spoiler]just my thoughts, what's you guys opinions?[/spoiler]