GiantBomb rating system

Im listening to the bombcast right now and Jeff says something along the lines of "AvP is 8x (i forgot the exact number he said) better than Rogue Warrior."
 
Thing is they both got 2 stars. (And both rated by the same person)
 
So what reasoning is there behind this?

Hm, that's a good point. I don't see how a game could be better than another game when they both got the same rating.

I imagine he means in the controls and graphics and perhaps even storyline.  
 
It probably just isn't fun to play in the end but is still a better game than Rogue Warrior. 
 
Most people when the review a game don't say  "Hey is this better or worse than X game" they just review it based on their expectations of what they are playing.

" Hm, that's a good point. I don't see how a game could be better than another game when they both got the same rating. "

" Hm, that's a good point. I don't see how a game could be better than another game when they both got the same rating. "

" @natetodamax said:

" Hm, that's a good point. I don't see how a game could be better than another game when they both got the same rating. "

Dont get me wrong, something being better and getting the same rating on a 5 point rating system does make sence, however making such a remark makes it seem that one is MUCH better than the other, meaning that they do not deserve the same score whatsoever. "

" @natetodamax said:

" Hm, that's a good point. I don't see how a game could be better than another game when they both got the same rating. "

That point is wrong, at least to several game reviewers.  I've heard plenty of them on several podcasts say that, even though the game has received thesame score of another game that they reviewed and that they actually disliked more, review systems are so vague and unspecific that they are borderline meaningless.   "

This is why people need to actually read the reviews and not put as much stock in scoring systems.  The GB star system only tells you on a very basic level what the reviewer thought of the game.  You need to actually read the text in order to understand the reasons why it was given that score.

I imagine it's a magnitude kind of thing.
 
Two stars is ten times better than one star, three stars is ten times better than two stars, etc.
 
But that is even more arbitrary than the system as it appears to be.

" This is why people need to actually read the reviews and not put as much stock in scoring systems.  The GB star system only tells you on a very basic level what the reviewer thought of the game.  You need to actually read the text in order to understand the reasons why it was given that score. "

" @Hailinel said:

" This is why people need to actually read the reviews and not put as much stock in scoring systems.  The GB star system only tells you on a very basic level what the reviewer thought of the game.  You need to actually read the text in order to understand the reasons why it was given that score. "

In an ideal world, people would do this.  However people do not, and this site's scores count for metacritic. To help the majority, they really need to expand upon their system to give a more accurate glance... "

" @SuperSambo said:

" @Hailinel said:

" This is why people need to actually read the reviews and not put as much stock in scoring systems.  The GB star system only tells you on a very basic level what the reviewer thought of the game.  You need to actually read the text in order to understand the reasons why it was given that score. "

In an ideal world, people would do this.  However people do not, and this site's scores count for metacritic. To help the majority, they really need to expand upon their system to give a more accurate glance... "

Then why not put Metacritic to blame?  They're the ones that arbitrarily take non-numerical review scores and assign numerical values to them just so that they can fit into their absurd average scoring system.  Giant Bomb, nor any other website, should not be held accountable for the failures of Metacritic and Gamerankings. "

Don't take it so seriously, you can't apply math to it.  Both of those games are in their own 2 star grouping, but he feels AvP is of better quality than Rogue Warrior.

" @SuperSambo said:

" @Hailinel said:

" This is why people need to actually read the reviews and not put as much stock in scoring systems.  The GB star system only tells you on a very basic level what the reviewer thought of the game.  You need to actually read the text in order to understand the reasons why it was given that score. "

In an ideal world, people would do this.  However people do not, and this site's scores count for metacritic. To help the majority, they really need to expand upon their system to give a more accurate glance... "

Then why not put Metacritic to blame?  They're the ones that arbitrarily take non-numerical review scores and assign numerical values to them just so that they can fit into their absurd average scoring system.  Giant Bomb, nor any other website, should not be held accountable for the failures of Metacritic and Gamerankings. "

Their rating system is fine. It's like that so that you CAN'T compare games side by side. It's almost as good as a thumbs up/thumbs down approach. The game requires the review to be read to differentiate between other games you might be trying to compare, rather than just using a static number score.

So by your logic, AVP is a 16 star game. 

" Hm, that's a good point. I don't see how a game could be better than another game when they both got the same rating. "

I always think that comparing two games, especially in terms of score is a bad idea. Since there are always different types of fun and enjoyment there will also be varying types of hate and dissatisfaction for a game. 
 
Also: AVP is 5.8x better than Rogue Warrior apparently (in terms of polish anyway).

I feel like this is another case reading to much into a comment that was not made all that seriously.

I can always count on the internet to go crazy over a throwaway comment that was made as an obvious joke. 
 
Cheers guys, you always make me lol. d(^_^)b

" I can always count on the internet to go crazy over a throwaway comment that was made as an obvious joke.  Cheers guys, you always make me lol. d(^_^)b "

" @Hailinel said:

" This is why people need to actually read the reviews and not put as much stock in scoring systems.  The GB star system only tells you on a very basic level what the reviewer thought of the game.  You need to actually read the text in order to understand the reasons why it was given that score. "

In an ideal world, people would do this.  However people do not, and this site's scores count for metacritic. To help the majority, they really need to expand upon their system to give a more accurate glance... "

But that's not the point of the rating system. The Metacritic rating in case of Giant Bomb (and plenty other sites) is inaccurate (like the whole fucking 1-10 and percent scale).

2 stars are the equivalent of a mediocre, below a set level game. 3 stars is a controversial, not always flawed one (like Brutal Legend, where 80% of the game's appeal comes from the acceptance of the style of gameplay and the game's world).

And AvP is 8 times better than Rogue Warrior, even if Jeff said that as a joke. Rogue Warrior is a mediocre, uninspired title with mechanics work (not like RIDE's), while AvP is a game that has a plentiful of good ideas, but the game gets clusterfucked in its shortcomings, as the single is too damn bad and the multiplayer does not leave much hope for the game's survival, as barely anyone is playing and not everything clicks.

This is why you should always read the review and not just look at the score the game has been given.

Jesus. I wish people would stop obsessing over little throw away things the guys say in videos or on the bombcast.You have to be able to differentiate between bullshitting around for comedy and cheap laughs and their reviews which they write with their journalist hats placed firmly upon their heads.
 
If you want to comfort yourself just tell yourself that Rogue Warrior was close to 1 star and AVP was close to 3 stars.

He's saying AVP sucks, Rogue Warrior moreso.

There's a certain level of "you know what I'm talking about" behind that statement. Keep in mind that while Rouge Warrior sucked, it didn't suck enough to warrant a 1 star in Jeff's opinion. While AVP is still better than that game, it's still below mediocre. Don't attach yourself to specific phrases like that for the most part.

they are both 2 star games just one is functionally crap and the other is just crap

This is why I abandoned the stars system/points system for the thumbs up/thumbs down system NoobToob's been employing for two years. These numbers are too arbitrary, on EVERY site.

I might have made this up, but I think the Giant Bomb guys intended their rating system to be a suggestion of how fun a game is, of how likely it is one might enjoy a game, rather than a strict, analytical 9.0 or 8.0 or 7.5 style rating system. But this thread just keys straight into my opinion that rating systems are stupid. For me, it's a case of "who cares if this game is better than the other". Honestly, I could not care less. I'm waiting for the day when all rating systems evolve into a thumbs up/thumbs down system. That will never ever happen, but in a magical far off place, where people have realized that scores like 4/5 stars and 9.3/10 don't actually mean anything, they are using a thumbs scale, and they're happy.

He wasn't being too serious when he said that.  Now that I think about it though, if Giantbomb used a 10 point scale then AVP would've gotten a higher score than Rogue Warrior.  GB's ratings aren't meant to be so precise and that's what I like about it.  Scores aren't as important as people make them out to be.  In the end, the only thing that matters is that they're both bad games, but one is worse that the other.  Who cares how much worse one of them is when you should be avoiding both?

The ratings are a range. So 2 stars does not mean the games are the same. If one is shit that smells like cheese, and another smells like cheesecake, sure one might smell better, but in the end they are both pieces of shit and fall into that category...
 
This made more sense in my head.

In an ideal world, people would do this.  However people do not, and this site's scores count for metacritic. To help the majority, they really need to expand upon their system to give a more accurate glance... "

A thumbs up/down system? Why? Giant Bomb's five star scale is perfect. I don't want a world where something like Darksiders routinely gets the same rating as Arkham Asylum. Even though I personally like both, it's simply misleading.

Even if the game is 8 times better, what exactly does he mean with that? It might be its 8 times better polished, but id doesn't mean its 8 times more fun to play. This sort of problem is the biggest problem in a scoring system, especially a scoring system with a small scale, which is exactly what the giant bomb staff was going for. They don't want they rating system taken that seriously, but they didn't want to abandon it completely either so they came up with a simple 5 point system. This is the same reason why they don't even want to hear about half stars. Think about it this way, the rating is their claim of how good the game is, the writing is their evidence. Depending on how good the writing is, you'll be more or less convinced but you will always be informed.

Rogue Warrior got a low 2, AvP a high 2. Big whoop.