yes I agree SC1 shouldn't really be there but the thing is many of those classic highly rated games really don't have that many reviews compared to todays games, actually it would be interesting to ponder if those very highly rated classics had of been reviewed by 90+ reviewers like Halo/RE4/HL2 if they would have still made it to such a high position on the chart, I'm not sure they would have done tbh but then I could be wrong (I know it would have been hard for games like GE to of been reviewed 100+ times due to lack of reputable reviewer/sources at the time but I'm just hypothesizing), I just feel games like RE4 that have been reviewed 106 times with an average score of 95.8 beats Ocarina of Time easy even with its average score of 97.7 because it was only reviewed 32 times, I think it's a fair system provided the games have been reviewed enough times by respectable reviewers to enable you gain a reliable mean/average score which I believe games like I stated above (Halo/RE4/HL2) have been, and I can confidently say that they deserve their rating and Bioshock is on it's way to gaining it's respect to with 52 reviews already and growing with an average score of 95.8, it definitly deserves to be in the top 10 that I'm sure of.
All I'm saying is that reviewers can easily get caught up in the hype and rate a game highly because other publications did (conversely some go against the grain on purpose for attention). I usually completely ignore reviews and try to play the demo or get personal opinions to judge games.