PLEASE update the rating scale!!! 80 or 100 is not appropriate.

I think you're absolutely right, saying a game is either an 80% or a 100% is overly harsh. That's probably why I've never heard any of them say anything along those lines...

@Mikemcn said:

You seem to misunderstand GB, it's not like other websites, if it was like other websites, Most of us wouldn't be here.

Oh shit! Are we the hipsters of video game sites?

This is why I don't like Metacritic.

On a slightly related note, my film blog uses the .5 scale, but that's a personal preference because it's too hard for me to personally choose between two numbers. GB's 5 point scale is a very handy way to see what they thought right away.

lulz

I don't pay much attention to review scores, or read reviews all that much(I just prefer to play something and decide for myself), but a 4 out of 5 does not equal 80 out of 100 to me. Review scores aren't math equations.

I want to see Metacritic turn a thumbs-up/thumbs-down rating scale into either 100 or 0. If a game or movie gets a thumbs down, it gets a 0.

@Dany said:

The meta critic! YOU RUINED THE META CRITIC!

I feel like there's a Mega 64 video for almost every gaming-related situation.

This has to be the most achingly sincere troll I have seen in a while, because it doesn't look like he's joking. He actually has a problem with this.

@pw2566ch said:

@Pinworm45 said:

The five star system is the best system for rating video games.

Do not think of it as 80% because that is silly.

I disagree. If I had to choose any rating system. It would be a 10-scale system. Or what the OP was mentioning about .5's and such. It seems like the 5-scale rating system is best because most reviewers don't follow it right. As far as I know, Jim Sterling is the only one.

I do not understand what the difference between a 7-8 would mean in quality. Let alone the difference between 7.0 and 7.5.

The five star system works so well in clearly giving an indication of the quality of the game in the reviewers mind.

I always thought it was

1 star: SUCKS!

2 star: SUCKS!

3 star: SUCKS!

4 star: SUCKS!

5 star: PROBABLY SUCKS, I'LL LET YOU KNOW IN THE COMMENTS WITH A STRONGLY WORDED RANT!

@delt31 said:

Yes I can look at it as 4 stars equals great but when you have a scale that is SO compact and doesn't allow you to decipher between what is a Mario 3d land 4 stars vs what is a Fruit ninja 4 stars, you probably have an issue.

You know they write words to go along with the scores, right?

@Brad said:

lulz

Brad be trollin'

lulz

@wasteguru said:

@Mikemcn said:

You seem to misunderstand GB, it's not like other websites, if it was like other websites, Most of us wouldn't be here.

Oh shit! Are we the hipsters of video game sites?

Maybe.....juuuuuuuust maybe.

@wasteguru said:

@Mikemcn said:

You seem to misunderstand GB, it's not like other websites, if it was like other websites, Most of us wouldn't be here.

Oh shit! Are we the hipsters of video game sites?

Maybe.....juuuuuuuust maybe.

lulz

@delt31 said:

I must admit that I hold this website above all else including the people that usually are contributing on the forums but this intense backlash and put downs are ridiculous. I could give a rats ass about metacritic. I'm sorry but I'm a person who uses math and logic to base my decisions and opinions, which I recommend some of you guys doing. In the logical world where something receives 4 out of 5, that equals 80% plain and simple. I am not trolling, I don't care about raising scores for X game, I want the best gaming website in the world to recognize that there scoring system should be re-evaluated which Jeff said they have done and will continue to do. I am simply reminding them that this system (imo) is flawed. Yes I can look at it as 4 stars equals great but when you have a scale that is SO compact and doesn't allow you to decipher between what is a Mario 3d land 4 stars vs what is a Fruit ninja 4 stars, you probably have an issue. Again, i value this website for the input, videos and tons of other things that I pay for via membership but when I look at things to improve, their rating system is the top of my list. If I can't express that without being put down for not sucking _____, than seriously, you guys are no better than the IGN fanboys.

You're completely missing the point of GB's scoring system. As many people pointed out, the scoring is based on QUALITATIVE metrics, not QUANTITATIVE metrics. How would you decipher between a 90% on fruit ninja and a 90% on Mario, for example? They're completely different genres for completely different systems, there is practically no comparison between the two. Yet the numerical scores would tell you that they are essentially exactly the same in terms of entertainment. But how exactly? This is where the quantitative metrics fall short. They tell us nothing of the true experience of the game itself. In reality Giantbomb's scores are just a quick code that reference their five categories of recommendation, they are not truly a percentage, (the game is not 4/5 stars, it is simply 4 stars). The real value of the review is in the actual text, read the author's thought's and see for yourself if the game's strength's are enough to outweigh it's problems.

Now if you wanted to be a real badass mathemagician, you would do the following:

Take all of the main points of a game that truly matter to you, i.e., sound design, art style, physics, realism, pure graphical prowess, length of the game (time), genre, etc.

Now organize the topics in a excel file and give each category a weight based on how much each category matters to you, more important categories get more weight. Make sure all your weights add up to 100.

Now read the review, watch quicklooks, read previews, gather all the info on the game you possibly can. Make sure this info is as objective as possible, you want to base your analysis on your feelings about the game not someone else's (this is impossible in reality as all publications will have some bias).

With all the info you can now rate each category yourself based on your 10 point scale. Multiply each rating by the weight you've given them, add up all the ratings and divide that final number by 100. This will give you a score based on your own feelings towards the game, and if done right, you can now compare any game to another one.

This however only works for you personally, as the score I would give the same game would be completely different based on our tastes. This is why the 10 point quantitative scale has zero merit for a reviews site, as there are as many quantitative scores for each game as there are people interested in the game.

As a logical person I'm sure you can agree, and if you can't, well you're wrong and should not call yourself logical.

@pw2566ch said:

@Pinworm45 said:

The five star system is the best system for rating video games.

Do not think of it as 80% because that is silly.

I disagree. If I had to choose any rating system. It would be a 10-scale system. Or what the OP was mentioning about .5's and such. It seems like the 5-scale rating system is best because most reviewers don't follow it right. As far as I know, Jim Sterling is the only one.

A 10 point system is pointless. What's the difference between a 2 and a 3? a 3 and a 4? a 5 and a 6? and so on.

5 stars is simple.

1. Bad.

2. Flawed but has moments, or for fans only

3. Decent, but won't blow your mind. Average.

4. Great.

5. A must play.

Anything else is a redundant and only leads to the scale being 7-9 with every other number being pointless.

Eh, Don't give a shit about metacritic but you could make a case for adding half stars. Seems to be a humoungous glut of 4 star games in the past couple of years, but then I see why my argument isn't very good cause I don't care if a game lower than a 3 gets half stars or not. The half star system did work pretty well for CGW so they could give HL2 4 1/2 stars cause steam sucked.

What's the point of differentiating games with the same score? It's the kind of pointless distinction that leads to hundred point scales. How do you quantify what difference .1 of a score makes to a game? If you are differentiating games and saying that not all games can be equal, then you're just compiling a top best and worst 100 games list. Having this meticulous a scoring system is ridiculous and unneeded. Games can be fun and enjoyable for different reasons, that doesn't mean they are equal. Scores are not there for you to compare them to other games. They are to indicate the quality of the game itself. Read the words of the review and not just the score, maybe you'll find that .5 difference you're looking for.

I give this topic no stars.

I think Jeff has explained why he thinks this rating system works so well with metacritic, seeing as how the "color" of the rating shifts there when you hit 20/40/60/80/100. It's all good.

Yeah, it's a 4/5.

So that means its an 80/100.

it's also a 1444/1805!

Do you guys SERIOUSLY think that Super Mario 3D Land deserves a 1444? COME. ON.

Scores dont matter. Reviews do.

How about 1 star?

0 or 100. Go big or go home.

@delt31 said:

I must admit that I hold this website above all else including the people that usually are contributing on the forums but this intense backlash and put downs are ridiculous. I could give a rats ass about metacritic. I'm sorry but I'm a person who uses math and logic to base my decisions and opinions, which I recommend some of you guys doing. In the logical world where something receives 4 out of 5, that equals 80% plain and simple. I am not trolling, I don't care about raising scores for X game, I want the best gaming website in the world to recognize that there scoring system should be re-evaluated which Jeff said they have done and will continue to do. I am simply reminding them that this system (imo) is flawed. Yes I can look at it as 4 stars equals great but when you have a scale that is SO compact and doesn't allow you to decipher between what is a Mario 3d land 4 stars vs what is a Fruit ninja 4 stars, you probably have an issue. Again, i value this website for the input, videos and tons of other things that I pay for via membership but when I look at things to improve, their rating system is the top of my list. If I can't express that without being put down for not sucking _____, than seriously, you guys are no better than the IGN fanboys.

The nerve you have to come here and start ragging on us because you are a superficial little shit that cant get over some pointless numbers attached to a product. Go back to IGN with your kind, we here at Giant Bomb play games that we like, not games that review well.

There's a big reason to use the 5-point scale instead of the 10-point scale, but I won't go into it.

Short answer, they both have their purposes. Metacritic is a crime.

The 5 star rating allows for a more accurate representation of a products to quality. If you assign an arbitrary number on a sliding scale of 1-100 then the minute some that might be pretty good scores under the 90's people loose their shit.

Long story short people are to scared to use the full scale these days, just look at those recent shenanigans around that Uncharted 3 review. Using stars helps side step this issue.

@Brad said:

lulz

Not allowed to flag you for spam? For shame, Mr. Shoemaker. For shame!

@yinstarrunner said:

Yeah, it's a 4/5.

So that means its an 80/100.

it's also a 1444/1805!

Do you guys SERIOUSLY think that Super Mario 3D Land deserves a 1444? COME. ON.

Oh man, you are completely delusional, the game is clearly a 158589.6 out of 198237!

This is based on science, pure, unadulterated, unflinching SCIENCE.

I will not accept any other opinions, as they are clearly in the pocket of Big Gaming Site lobbyist groups.

I sympathize with the OP because if the scoring system here is taken at face value (or was meant to be a numerical score) then I would totally agree that a 5 point system is broken. However, the fact is that the 5 STAR system is about assigning a certain recommendation to the game, not really a numerical or percentage score. I think once the OP get's this he'll understand some of the charm of GB.

@the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

@LiquidSwords said:

@wasteguru said:

@Mikemcn said:

You seem to misunderstand GB, it's not like other websites, if it was like other websites, Most of us wouldn't be here.

Oh shit! Are we the hipsters of video game sites?

Maybe.....juuuuuuuust maybe.

Yes

Well, we were. Until you started talking about it.

Who the fuck cares about scores?

...I know the answer but still. Read the damn review and see if you like it. Reviews are there to give consumers an idea of what the product is like and whether it would be something they would enjoy. It's not about who has the highest score. That's childish nonsense.

Scores dont matter. Reviews do.

@Capt_Ventris said:

@pw2566ch said:

@Pinworm45 said:

The five star system is the best system for rating video games.

Do not think of it as 80% because that is silly.

I disagree. If I had to choose any rating system. It would be a 10-scale system. Or what the OP was mentioning about .5's and such. It seems like the 5-scale rating system is best because most reviewers don't follow it right. As far as I know, Jim Sterling is the only one.

I do not understand what the difference between a 7-8 would mean in quality. Let alone the difference between 7.0 and 7.5.

The five star system works so well in clearly giving an indication of the quality of the game in the reviewers mind.

The 1-10 scale is more detailed. I understand the 5 point scale is a much simpler aspect, but the 10 point scale offers reviewers more room to work with. For example What if the game has game changing bugs in the multiplayer, but you know that the single player is perfect. You know that giving it a 3/5 is discrediting the game, but giving it a 4/5 feels like you're not warning the consumers enough. That's why the 10 point scale would work perfect in this case.

The only thing that's wrong with the 10-point scale is that most reviewers abuse it. Mainly most publishers tend to hound review sites if they notice that their game received between a 5-7. There's even cases that publishers will pull early copies from the review site and review sites don't want this. So, usually they'll give games higher scores than what is necessary. I believe this article sums it up just about right.

http://armedgamer.com/2011/11/thinking-thursday-further-proof-quantified-rating-systems-are-flawed.html

Why? I just translate it to great, good, average, sub-par and bad for 5 stars through 1 star respectively. How much fucking granularity do you really need?

@RsistncE said:

I sympathize with the OP because if the scoring system here is taken at face value (or was meant to be a numerical score) then I would totally agree that a 5 point system is broken. However, the fact is that the 5 STAR system is about assigning a certain recommendation to the game, not really a numerical or percentage score. I think once the OP get's this he'll understand some of the charm of GB.

Well I don't get it, but I value this site just the same, and especially the written part of the review. Guess that just how it is for me about the numerical scoring

Edit- i didn't really want to get into this, and I do understand what Rsistnce is saying, but the numercal is used by metacritic (which has gotten to be an awesomely screwed routine) and everyone else. It's just not in house, for us. But I know GB's stance and tonight isn't the night I wanted to go on about it.

I disagree with review scores entirely. They attempt to find a metric by which the common attributes of games can be compared to the common interests of gamers. But games of differing genres cannot fairly be equated (and neither can games of the same genre in many cases) and the varying opinions of gamers ensures that no single metric will rein true for each individual. Instead of trying to find a "theory of everything" for game scores, we should embrace the idea that opinions greatly affect the experience a person may have with a game.

Personally, I'd like to see reviews that include 3 highly opinionated perspectives:

1) that of an avid fan of the genre, who has definitely played previous entries (where applicable)

2) that of a fan of the genre, who may have played previous entries

3) that of a non-fan of the genre, who has not played previous entries.

That information would, in my eyes, be far more benefical than any numerical score.

@pw2566ch said:

@Capt_Ventris said:

@pw2566ch said:

@Pinworm45 said:

The five star system is the best system for rating video games.

Do not think of it as 80% because that is silly.

I disagree. If I had to choose any rating system. It would be a 10-scale system. Or what the OP was mentioning about .5's and such. It seems like the 5-scale rating system is best because most reviewers don't follow it right. As far as I know, Jim Sterling is the only one.

I do not understand what the difference between a 7-8 would mean in quality. Let alone the difference between 7.0 and 7.5.

The five star system works so well in clearly giving an indication of the quality of the game in the reviewers mind.

The 1-10 scale is more detailed. I understand the 5 point scale is a much simpler aspect, but the 10 point scale offers reviewers more room to work with. For example What if the game has game changing bugs in the multiplayer, but you know that the single player is perfect. You know that giving it a 3/5 is discrediting the game, but giving it a 4/5 feels like you're not warning the consumers enough. That's why the 10 point scale would work perfect in this case.

The only thing that's wrong with the 10-point scale is that most reviewers abuse it. Mainly most publishers tend to hound review sites if they notice that their game received between a 5-7. There's even cases that publishers will pull early copies from the review site and review sites don't want this. So, usually they'll give games higher scores than what is necessary. I believe this article sums it up just about right.

http://armedgamer.com/2011/11/thinking-thursday-further-proof-quantified-rating-systems-are-flawed.html

Like the OP you are completely missing the point of GB's scoring system. It's not 3/5 or 4/5 is 3 stars or 4 stars, the difference is qualitative vs quantitative. They are not percentages, and the issues of your example would be talked about in the actual text of the review. If someone bases their purchasing decisions for entertainment based solely on a number then they are an idiot.

Hell, the title of the article you referenced is "Further Proof Quantified Rating Systems Are Flawed", and you use this to argue that a 10 point quantitative rating system is better than a 5 point one.

*facepalm

Even if you associated 4 stars to 80% or whatnot, what's wrong with 80/100? You say Mario 3D Land should be a 90, but why? What purpose would that serve? 4 stars, or 80% still conveys the same information that a 9/10 or an 87/100 would - if you like the style of game/franchise and own the system, you should probably buy this game. Any percentage between 61% and 80% would say that same thing, while anything over 81% would drop the "probably" and say "you should buy this game." Any more information you need to make an informed decision about a purchase would be found in the 7 paragraphs or so of the written review.

When you expand the score, then you have questions like "what's the difference between a 1 and 2? 9 and 10? 5 and 6? The answer is: "not much, you should read the review."

If a game gets a 1 or a 2 on a 10 point scale (0-20%), it usually means you should stay away from it unless you're absolutely rabid about the franchise, in which case you don't need a review.

If a game gets a 1 star on a 5-star scale (0-20%), it usually means you should stay away from it unless you're absolutely rabid about the franchise.

If a game gets a 9 or a 10 on a 10 point scale (80-100%), it means you should buy it if you're interested.

If a game gets a 5 star on a 5-star scale (80-100%), it means you should buy it if you're interested. And read the review if you need more information.

See what I'm getting at? The 5-star system is almost perfect in my personal opinion, and Jeff has echoed that sentiment as well. It tells people what they want to know from a score, and doesn't cater to sites like metacritic. If people need more information before making a purchase, that's what the written review is for.

Personally, though, my perfect review system is 3-stars (buy, rent, pass) or two thumbs (good, not good.) Then the potential buyer could read the review and watch some video to make an informed decision, instead of worrying about how the game compares to something it's not supposed to compare to.

Edit: Just tacking this on here, since I don't want people to get the wrong idea. I personally don't associate stars with percentages, I'm just making my argument to the OP on his grounds.

Pass.

@Krummey:

I really hope in the last 5 pages someone posted this, but, just in case (and I'm too lazy and tired to go scrounging through 5 pages of...well, I don't even want to know what people are complaining about back and forth on this thread), here's what the five star scale means, and why it is not a percentage system and should not ever be viewed as one. There. End of discussion. We are now clear that stars are not points, that 4 stars is not 80%, that 5 stars is not all of the percents, that 2 stars is not 20%, and so on. Thank you, and goodnight.

@2c_b: That's definitely be very interesting and informative but it would also require you to have 3 different people play the game which would be a logistical nightmare. There's probably a way to make it work but I don't think we'll ever see that kind of thing happen.

Also to the OP you can't think of it as a percentage scale. Its more along the lines of Great, good, average, poor, bad or something like that.

@RollingZeppelin said:

@pw2566ch said:

@Capt_Ventris said:

@pw2566ch said:

@Pinworm45 said:

The five star system is the best system for rating video games.

Do not think of it as 80% because that is silly.

I disagree. If I had to choose any rating system. It would be a 10-scale system. Or what the OP was mentioning about .5's and such. It seems like the 5-scale rating system is best because most reviewers don't follow it right. As far as I know, Jim Sterling is the only one.

I do not understand what the difference between a 7-8 would mean in quality. Let alone the difference between 7.0 and 7.5.

The five star system works so well in clearly giving an indication of the quality of the game in the reviewers mind.

The 1-10 scale is more detailed. I understand the 5 point scale is a much simpler aspect, but the 10 point scale offers reviewers more room to work with. For example What if the game has game changing bugs in the multiplayer, but you know that the single player is perfect. You know that giving it a 3/5 is discrediting the game, but giving it a 4/5 feels like you're not warning the consumers enough. That's why the 10 point scale would work perfect in this case.

The only thing that's wrong with the 10-point scale is that most reviewers abuse it. Mainly most publishers tend to hound review sites if they notice that their game received between a 5-7. There's even cases that publishers will pull early copies from the review site and review sites don't want this. So, usually they'll give games higher scores than what is necessary. I believe this article sums it up just about right.

http://armedgamer.com/2011/11/thinking-thursday-further-proof-quantified-rating-systems-are-flawed.html

Like the OP you are completely missing the point of GB's scoring system. It's not 3/5 or 4/5 is 3 stars or 4 stars, the difference is qualitative vs quantitative. They are not percentages, and the issues of your example would be talked about in the actual text of the review. If someone bases their purchasing decisions for entertainment based solely on a number then they are an idiot.

Hell, the title of the article you referenced is "Further Proof Quantified Rating Systems Are Flawed", and you use this to argue that a 10 point quantitative rating system is better than a 5 point one.

*facepalm

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I know people should read the review to make their purchasing decision, but most people don't. They look at the score and buy it based on that. Why do you think publishers are so hard up on reviewers? I also never said that the 10 point review system is flawed, but it's not perfect either. If publishers would get off of the reviewers ass about reviews or if reviewers would stop worrying about early copies of games, then the 10 point score would be perfect. It's a simple fix.

So could you chill out for a second? This is only my opinion. I'm not telling anyone that this is how the gods wanted it, so let it be done.

The number of stars do not translate into percentages, I believe the translation is as follows;    

 5/5 - PLAY THIS GAME!!!!   

 4/5 - This game is very good, we would recommend you play it.   

 3/5 - This game is good, but has some problems.   

 2/5 - Don't play this game unless you're a fan of the genre/series or can overlook the numerous problems.   

 1/5 - Do not play this game.

@pw2566ch: Ummm...you do realize you linked to an article which quite clearly contradicts the point you're making, yeah?

As I said before.
 
Fuck Metacritic.

@triple07 said:

@2c_b: That's definitely be very interesting and informative but it would also require you to have 3 different people play the game which would be a logistical nightmare. There's probably a way to make it work but I don't think we'll ever see that kind of thing happen.

Also to the OP you can't think of it as a percentage scale. Its more along the lines of Great, good, average, poor, bad or something like that.

For a small staff like GB, yes it would be impossible, but for huge sites like IGN, Gametrailers and Gamespot, the added complexity would be of little trouble. If the heads of those sites knew what they were doing, cared about their business, and had any cajones they would implement this system. As it stands though these sites are just playing into the idiotic system wars and all that other shit that comes with fanboyism.

Think of how much less stupidity there would be in the gaming community if there were no scores to argue over! All the fanboys would disappear since they have nothing constructive to give to the community other idiotic, pointless argument. Maybe they would begin using their brains and create a cool mod, or an interesting blog about their favourite game. The apes would evolve into humans, and we would live in a much better place, where we can be proud to declare ourselves to be gamers!

I believe that the onus is on all of us, review sites have to realise that their rating system needs a major overhaul, and gamers need to grow up and start acting like adults. If we can all agree to be more civil and mature then maybe this thing we call gaming can be elevated into something we never thought possible.

The number of stars do not translate into percentages, I believe the translation is as follows;    

 5/5 - PLAY THIS GAME!!!!   

 4/5 - This game is very good, we would recommend you play it.   

 3/5 - This game is good, but has some problems.   

 2/5 - Don't play this game unless you're a fan of the genre/series or can overlook the numerous problems.  

 1/5 - Do not play this game.