Does anyone thing Giant Bomb should use half stars in their reviews? Occasionally it feels like the overall score is skewed one way or the other because the GB reviewers only have 5 choices. Examples of this may be God of War III getting 4 stars when the text of the review definitely sounded more like a 4.5 kinda thing. Personally I'd be fine if Giant Bomb didn't have any "Score" to go along with the text of the review (ala Joystiq or Kotaku), but I know that is hard to pull off. Any thoughts?
No, because having half stars just make the scoring system essentially a 10 point system, which they wanted to avoid with stars. I agree no reviews should have star,s just read the review but for a good face value of the worth of a game, 4stars is much better then something like 7.8 or a 8.5, less mess
Reviews aren't about stars... they are about the content. "
Well I agree with you. As I said before, I'd be perfectly happy if GB didn't use stars at all, but since they do, the 5 star system seems a bit too imprecise.
Also I understand wanting to avoid the whole IGN, well this game is an 8.45 while this other one is an 8.53 so the second one must be a better game. But I think a 4 and a half stars is not really the same as an 8 out of ten. Plus using half stars would be a 10 point system as opposed 7.5, 8.3 type stuff which is really almost a 100 point system
" No, because having half stars just make the scoring system essentially a 10 point system, which they wanted to avoid with stars. I agree no reviews should have star,s just read the review but for a good face value of the worth of a game, 4stars is much better then something like 7.8 or a 8.5, less mess "
yeah "this game got 4 and a half stars, it's OBVIOUSLY superior than this game with 4 stars"
i like giantbomb because they almost force you to read the reviews. 4 stars doesn't tell you a whole lot.
i ALSO like giantbomb because you get to know the people that write the reviews by watching quick looks, listening to bombcast and all that stuff. you find out about their personal preferences and opinions so you understand a review more when you read it.
Do you remember the Twilight Princess 8.8 "controversy" back in the Gamespot days? I think it was by design that Giant Bomb has an extremely low scale for their scores. It encourages people to actually read the reviews rather than dissecting the meaning of minor score differences.
If you go down the half star route you might as well just go for the .5 thing Gamespot moved to way back when. I actually didn't like that move, but it was born out of people going 'so.. Zelda GC is 8.9 and Zelda Wii is 8.8.. the GAME CUBEZ BETTAR?' Or so I believe, it seemed to come shortly after. Anyway the reviews should always be about the content, not the number at the end. Amazon, Itunes etc all use 5 star systems, and they quickly reflect someones personal view, but always read the written review. I wouldn't mind if no score was given to games.
No, it's great the way it is. It's not about what game is better, it's about what level of quality or the kind of experience you can expect from the game.
I think stars just are there for the people who don't bother reading the reviews. You might skim through the review, while not going int details since you already know the conclusion. I don't have anything against stars, but half-stars just makes it easier just to skip reading altogether. I would prefer ditching the stars, because that way more people will probably read the article.
I like the stars. It makes you read the review to actually understand why it got that score. I feel that to many people just see the score and go with that, instead of actually reading the review.
The scoring system is perfect the way it is. It gives a general overview of what the reveiwer thought of it without pissing anyone off by going to halfs and quaters and shit like that. Gamespot used to do scores from 1 to 10 in decimals and it was just stupid to have a reviewer pick arbitrarily from 100 different numbers to reflect their opinion when it can be easily satisfied with the 5 stars system. Trust me it's better this way.
" Do you remember the Twilight Princess 8.8 "controversy" back in the Gamespot days? I think it was by design that Giant Bomb has an extremely low scale for their scores. It encourages people to actually read the reviews rather than dissecting the meaning of minor score differences. "
I agree, but the problem for me is that since there are so few score differences the score doesn't really tell you very much. if something gets 4 stars on Giant Bomb, there is such a huge range of possibilities about the quality of the game that it tells you almost nothing. Now I can already hear people saying "well then read the review". Exactly, I always read the review, but if that is your answer than why have a score in the first place? Call me cynical, but part of me feels like it is to make sure they get the coveted Metacritic traffic. I just feel like you should either have a score system with enough gradations to be meaningful, or just not use scores at all.
I suppose a 1-5 scale can help at a glance, but as has been pointed out with the JC2 and GOWIII comparison (regardless of which game you think is better) it certainly can create some odd scoring situations.
I like whole numbers because they give a good, definitive, simple picture of the quality of the game. I know what five stars mean, but a 4.5 just gets into territory too complicated for real use, and only pleases fanboys who liked the game better than the reviewer.
" No. The scores are as precise as they need to be. Read the text if you want more detail. "
This is how I feel. Scores, if they exist, should be there to give you a ballpark idea of how the game is, not tell you the whole story. If you're going to go for as much "accuracy" as possible in a score, why even have text?
" The scoring system is perfect the way it is. It gives a general overview of what the reveiwer thought of it without pissing anyone off by going to halfs and quaters and shit like that. Gamespot used to do scores from 1 to 10 in decimals and it was just stupid to have a reviewer pick arbitrarily from 100 different numbers to reflect their opinion when it can be easily satisfied with the 5 stars system. Trust me it's better this way. "
yeah 2 good stars 2 bad stars and 1 star in the middle it's perfect. the 10 point scale is awful and useless
5 star reviews with half stars is the same as the 10 point whole numbers system. I always viewed the 5 star scoring system as:
* = Awful
** = Bad
*** = Okay
**** = Good
***** = Great
There is no reason for a scoring system to be more granular other than to cause "game vs. game comparisons" and other fanboy-centric topics. 5 stars scoring quickly conveys what the reviewer thinks in the most simple and straight-forward manner. Making such a system more complex just undermines its original purpose.
They should do away with the stars and switch to an Siskel and Ebert system but come up with something clever to do with bombs like a dud or explosion.
Yeah, I wonder why users can review using half stars... "
it's from ComicVine they use the half star scale, they came first so it just kinda carried over. i think the staff can use half stars if they want, but they just don't.
The score is supposed to be a rough guide of the overall quality of the game. And the 5 stars system does that well. It'll tell you if a game is fantastic, good, average, poor or terrible. And ultimately that's all the ratings are supposed to tell you. Going into any more detail would be pointless.
While I believe that it would be completely fine to take scores out of reviews, I believe I heard on the bombcast that they won't take out review scores since there are those people who just want to read a score and tell whether or not a game is good. And I'm fine with that too. I do get annoyed however when places (like ign) have reviews with .1 increments since that just causes people to determine a games quality purely on it's score. There are too many times that I have read arguments where someone said that "so and so" a game was better because it got a 9.4 while the other game got a 9.2. I do like the star system because when you have a 10 point scale, then the scores 1-5 essentially are just different scores saying the same thing: That the game sucks and don't buy it. I just think the star system is simpler and easier, and is the best method to use when having scores for reviews.
I never liked stars. They're just kinda stupid and make whatever it is being scored seem less important. But yeah, half stars would be better. I like having five aspects. It could be gameplay, graphics, sound, lasting appeal, and presentation, just like IGN for example. You add each up, then divide it.
1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 + 5.0 = 15 / 5 = 3.0. I've always liked it that way. It seems a lot more important than what stars could tell someone. Because in each number, there's a lot of words in between. Know what I mean? (Ooo, rhyme) I also hate how Gamespot does it too. I also like pros and cons. I'm sure for people who don't like reading reviews all the way through, can at least get through that. It's quick and gets to the point.
Back when GB started they made it pretty clear why they went with the star system, and frankly I agree with them. a solid 5 point scale is easier to understand and gives a clear message. 1 star-absolute shit. 2 stars- Not very good. 3 stars- Its alright, but it's got issues. 4 stars-Pretty damn good. 5 stars- Amazing.
When you give games imprecise numbers like 8.3's it only serves for people to have petty complaints about dark void getting a 7.6 while bionic commanda recieved a 7.7, or MGS 4 getting ONLY a 9.4!
Stars are not meant to be used to compare games. God of War III and Just Cause 2 are not the same because they each got four stars. The star rating is indicative of the game being rated at the time. Also, adding half-stars just turns it into a ten point system. Why not have ten stars at that point? I still don't think we should have any ratings at all, but at least Giant Bomb's star method is a tiny step in the right direction.
"I could dig half stars. A good 1-10 scale is always nice, especially considering the fact that gow3 and jc2 got the same score. "
They got the same score because they are in the same ballpark in terms of quality.
But really, the decimal points just give readers the illusion of minute details that don't exist. Very little, if anything, seperates an 8.9 from a 9.0, but for some reason it makes the idiots of the internet go nuts. The 5-point scale makes everything really easy.
" Whole stars is fine, because I think it's funny how Ryan gave GOWIII and Just Cause 2 the same score. "
yeah, JC2 definitely deserved to be rated higher than GOW3. "
Absolutely "
Agreed.
@Shiftshaper said:
" Back when GB started they made it pretty clear why they went with the star system, and frankly I agree with them. a solid 5 point scale is easier to understand and gives a clear message. 1 star-absolute shit. 2 stars- Not very good. 3 stars- Its alright, but it's got issues. 4 stars-Pretty damn good. 5 stars- Amazing. "
It doesn't get better than that. Numbers don't mean shit since enjoyment of a game is mostly dependent on personal preference
Log in to comment