I'm pretty sure Dave meant to hold the game in higher regard than 80/100. Did you feel that way reading his review or is 80 spot on?

Exactly what Battlefield fans most likely wanted: a chaotic, gorgeous multiplayer game with small, but important tweaks to what already worked in past games. That it includes a short, somewhat mediocre solo campaign and some hit-or-miss co-op action does not detract from the fact that, online, this is the best Battlefield game yet. The PC version's online matchmaking tools are way ahead of the curve and a good example of how to do social networking in video games the right way.

Just stay away from Metacritic. Problem solved.

Dave meant to give the game exactly the score he gave it: 4 out of 5 stars. People can attempt to convert that to different scales at their own peril.

Dave scored the game 4 stars not 80 out of 100 so it's irrelevant.

@Savage: Metacritic has people gathering scores around the web or how the hell does that whole process work?

Metacritic scores a 4.0/10 on my website metametacritic.co.meta.com.

He really meant to give it an 8.8.

Oh numbers, you so silly.

The bomb crew have said many times they don't really care for metacritic, and almost everyone else in the industry feels the same.

Not this again...

Four out of five is four out of five, not 80/100.
 
Anybody who thinks it's 80/100 should get out of life.
 
And metacritic should stop being taken seriously. Especially by publishers.

If YOU like the game, why the F&%* do you care what anyone else thinks?

Will you receive a bonus if the game hits a certain score? Are you an officer of EA or a major shareholder? No?

THEN JUST STOP.

He meant to give it 4 stars. If you read his review you know why. A couple of years ago Jeff gave Borderlands 4 stars and that was his favourite game of that year. Just because a game gets 4 stars doesn't mean it isn't amazing.

Dave's review is super controversial in my opinion.

4 stars = 80. There's no way around that.

@mikey87144: Dave wrote "this is the best Battlefield game yet." I did read his review. I fully agree with his review, and score of 4/5 stars. Apparently Metacritic never reads reviews before posting?

Dave wrote the Battlefield 3 review?? I'm going to read the Battlefield 3 review!

Unless you work for EA/DICE, why do you give a fuck what metacritic rating it has?

@Funkydupe: Man... Metacritic has far bigger issues than how it converts 5 star scales into 100 point scales.

Just google search "1up review scores metacritic"

@Funkydupe said:

I'm pretty sure Dave meant to hold the game in higher regard than 80/100.

@Funkydupe said:

@mikey87144: I did read his review. I fully agree with his review, and score of 4/5 stars.

Uhh....?

@Jimbo: Haha, yes. One of the few he's been responsible for so far. :)

@Aishan: A lot of people use Metacritic when making up their minds about a game, hence it has significance for those people and the industry. You better fucking believe it.

@Scapegoat: Does not compute?

Dave did not score it an 80, it is 4 out of 5 stars, which giantbomb has an explanation in their faq.... metacritic just has a lousy way of converting it to a 100 point system which is not representative of sites that don't use a 10 point system.

Complain about Metacritic all you want but they use the simpliest and most universal system there is.  
 
It's called MATH. Simple math at that. 
  
If a site doesn't like a simple straightforward math equation being used to convert their already numeric score (for example: 4/5) I think the onus is on the site to develop a non-math rating, not Metacritic to create some complex, site-by-site system of conversion.

@Funkydupe said:

@Scapegoat: Does not compute?

Sorry I was confused as you said that you thought 80/100 wasn't the score he intended to give but also you agreed with his 4/5.... doesn't 4/5 = 8/10 = 80/100 = 800/1000?

@ProfessorEss said:

Complain about Metacritic all you want but they use the simpliest and most universal system there is.

It's called MATH. Simple math at that.

If a site doesn't like simple straightforward math equation being used to convert their already numeric score (for example: 4/5) I think the onus is on the site to develop a non-math rating, not Metacritic to create some complex, site-by-site system of conversion.

/thread.

Yeah. Sounds about right. Is 80 bad to you?

@SomeJerk said:

Four out of five is four out of five, not 80/100. Anybody who thinks it's 80/100 should get out of life. And metacritic should stop being taken seriously. Especially by publishers.

Well purely mathematically speaking 80/100 is the same as 4/5, so what else can metacritic do with it. Only solution would be for metacritic to aks GB what the 100 point scale score would be (75 to 84?) . but that would be silly.

He really meant to give it an 8.8.

I know that Jeff has said that Giant Bomb's review scores translate just about perfectly to Metacritic.

Jeff has said multiple times that the way metacritic translates GB's star scale is pretty much perfect.
 
80 is a good score. 4/5 is a good score. It's not a perfect score, but Battlefield 3 isn't perfect.

I think the scoring system translates perfectly. 2 green scores, 1 yellow, and 2 red.

Whatever. Metacritic do what metacritic does, and there is no better way to interpret 4/5 than 80, even if it's not necessarily accurate relative to other sites' inflate review scores. Read the text, not the numbers.

Metacritic can be manipulated by people who just want their favorite game at the top (voting down other games they probably haven't even played). It's a horrible tool. Read about what happened to Bastion!

I don't even know if this is true, but if it is, it's pretty upsetting that companies base bonuses or paychecks that they give out to the people that worked on the game on what its Metacritic score is...how about looking at sales instead?

...
I don't see the problem.

@stalefishies: You're right, it certainly isn't perfect. But hey, I never thought Batman: Arkham City was a 100 either but, there it is.

it's over DICE is finished

Yes, 4stars = 8/10 = 80/100 = 800/1000

I still don't get why people get way into figuring out and keeping track of review scores other than to fuel their childish, idiotic fanboy wars.

Jeff has said that Giant Bomb's rating system perfectly matches with the way Metacritic translates it, so no. By giving BF3 a 4/5, he did indeed mean an 80/100. Plus, it's mathematically equivalent so... 

When I see a 4/5, I don't see 80/100.

The reason meta critic is a fucking trash of a website is because idiots inherently assume the review is on a 100 point scale instead of the 5 point scale giant bomb uses. Each publication has a different system that is tallied to a 100 point system when some are on a 4, 5, 10 or 20 point system.

Yes, 4stars = 8/10 = 80/100 = 800/1000

It's pretty simple, man... Basic percentages.

Four out of five is four out of five, not 80/100.  Anybody who thinks it's 80/100 should get out of life.  And metacritic should stop being taken seriously. Especially by publishers.

@FluxWaveZ said:

@Winternet said:

Yes, 4stars = 8/10 = 80/100 = 800/1000

= 8.0*10^6/10*1.0^7

Wrong! No wonder you're failing calculus lol.

Read the words.

Disregard the numbers.

Just stay away from Metacritic. Problem solved.

@Funkydupe said:

@mikey87144: Dave wrote "this is the best Battlefield game yet." I did read his review. I fully agree with his review, and score of 4/5 stars. Apparently Metacritic never reads reviews before posting?

They don't read all the reviews, probably not even 20% of them. In any case who cares what the meta score is. You know from reading it he highly recommends the game, and you know from the score he highly recommends it. Everyone who visits the site knows that to. All that score means is that while great, the caveat of the game is that it's a 5 star multiplayer experience with a 3 star co-op and single-player campaign. If you come into the game expecting a great single-player then prepared to be disappointed.

@FluxWaveZ said:

@Dany said:

When I see a 4/5, I don't see 80/100.

The reason meta critic is a fucking trash of a website is because idiots inherently assume the review is on a 100 point scale instead of the 5 point scale giant bomb uses. Each publication has a different system that is tallied to a 100 point system when some are on a 4, 5, 10 or 20 point system.

Then you disagree with Jeff on his own rating system.

I simply think that meta critic needs to include both the 4/5 and the percentage they will use to aggregate the average to let consumers know how the publications are reviewing the games.

critics are just people with no talent criticizing people with talent. who cares?