• 59 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by DarkGamerOO7 (574 posts) -


#2 Posted by CharlesAlanRatliff (5355 posts) -

No. And it's not going to happen.

#3 Posted by OroJackson (680 posts) -

Reviews scores are useful, like them or not they serve an important purpose

#4 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

Yes. Because anyone who pays 60 dollars for a product based on a star rating is a moron.

#5 Posted by Video_Game_King (34648 posts) -

B is exactly what I was gonna say.

Online
#6 Posted by TheHumanDove (2397 posts) -

Words are a problem too. They should just draw a picture about how they feel at the end.

#7 Posted by DarkGamerOO7 (574 posts) -

I personally believe it would be great to see Giant Bomb be one of the few professional review websites that does not use ratings or stars but rather just text reviews that people will have to read and interpret on their own to decide if the game is worth it for them. I think far too many people simply see a number and just say "eh, 7.5 I will pass...", "8.5 game is a flop", "the game got a 10 it must be the best game ever." I think the number system is far too narrow and restrictive when it plays into art because it is hard, if not impossible to evaluate video games on a purely objective system, which is what the number system tries to do but fails.

#8 Posted by Claude (16251 posts) -

Hell no. It works for what it is. I prefer a simple ten scale, but I like reading reviews too.

#9 Posted by LiquidSwords (2739 posts) -

>2011

>Caring about reviews

#10 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

B. Stop worry about how others make purchase decisions and ignore the scores that come with the reviews. Some people want scores, while others just want to read and interpret their on their own. Everyone is happy.. except for you.

#11 Posted by upwarDBound (654 posts) -

Okay, but the staff reaction pictures must remain.

#12 Edited by SoldierG654342 (1687 posts) -

Scores are fine when used properly.

Also, GiantBomb puts out so few full reviews that I hardly think they are going to change the system by dropping the stars.

#13 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

No. Giant Bomb has the perfect method of giving scores.

#14 Posted by UnsolvedParadox (1852 posts) -

0-5 stars is pretty straight forward, it's here to stay.

#15 Posted by Khann (2622 posts) -

Yes.

#16 Posted by Xtrememuffinman (958 posts) -

No, I don't want to read every review, but if a star rating catches me by surprise, I'll read it. 
 
Also, never going to happen.

#17 Posted by Paulus (166 posts) -

I think they should do it in the form of interpretive dance.

I myself am not a big fan of the star system (or any number system), but for a growing site like giantbomb doing away with a quick and simple rating system that pops out might limit their exposure to new people, eiter via metacritic or any other means.

#18 Posted by Yanngc33 (4496 posts) -

@Xtrememuffinman said:

No, I don't want to read every review, but if a star rating catches me by surprise, I'll read it. Also, never going to happen.

You must remember that GB is trying to do things differently than other websites so you never know

#19 Edited by Claude (16251 posts) -

Also, with no score, how do you get on metacritic? Say what you will, but metarcritic gets clicks. Clicks matter.

#20 Posted by Zero_ (1970 posts) -

No. Power of Metacritic. Unfortunately.

/thread

#21 Posted by JasonR86 (9381 posts) -

If I'm personally undecided on a game, whether to buy it or not, the last thing I look at is the score. The justification for the score is in the written word and there have been times where the things that a reviewer hates in a game are the exact things that I love about a game. Just looking at a score wouldn't tell me that.

That said, I'm in the minority. For Giantbomb to be relevant to the audience that it mainly wants then they have to have scores put on there reviews. So, they should keep the scoring system.

#22 Posted by RockinKemosabe (619 posts) -

Jeff has already stated that he thinks the review scale is perfectly suited for their reviewing needs.

#23 Posted by NTM (7035 posts) -

No. Plus, I think scores probably give more incentive for people to read it, since it makes us wonder why the game got that score. I prefer another scoring system other than the star system giantbomb has, but I don't think they should get rid of it. I don't think many people that go on sites for reviews will just look at a score and say that's that. People will want to read into why the game is scored as well as or as bad as it is.

I personally like to give numbers to games when scoring, but not exactly like others do. It's not like I'll go to IGN and see that they gave Uncharted 3 a ten, then get off the internet, put my laptop to sleep and say "Well, IGN gave it a ten; I guess I'll go buy it now!" If I had all the money in the world, then I probably would. Let's be realistic though, as much as some people would like to think scores don't matter, they very much do.

#24 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1522 posts) -

No, the star-scale gives context to the review text, just as the text give context to the star-scale. They feed off each other and both are just as important to delivering on the reviewers' opinion of the game.

#25 Edited by Milkman (16233 posts) -

Absolutely not. There's nothing wrong with reviews having ratings. The problem lies in the childish, asinine crowd that this industry attracts. Let me give you example of how star ratings should work. I love Uncharted 2. It's up there in terms of my favorite games of this generation. Therefore, I am very much looking forward to Uncharted 3. So, the review on Giant Bomb (a website I trust) written by Brad (a reviewer I trust) goes up and it gets 5 stars. I don't need to read that review to know that the game is worth my time. If the game had gotten 3 stars (or even 4), then I would read the review and decide if it was still worth my time. People don't want to read every review on the site to find out if a game is good. If Ryan gives Spider-Man: Edge of Time two stars, that tells me that that game is not worth my time and I don't need to read that review to figure that out.

#26 Edited by Dylabaloo (1549 posts) -

Metacritic is a necessay evil, companies would not ship out review games to Giantbomb if they axed review scores as they rely on those 10points/5stars for chunky pay cheques. Although I would love Giantbomb to go against the stream, but it's not likely to happen.

#27 Posted by atomic_dumpling (2442 posts) -

Yes.

#28 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2128 posts) -

Personally yes, because of how useless they have become compared to the text themselves. It will never change though, because too many people either use scores alone to determine a game's worth (and thus think that a single value is enough to describe a game's contents, features and quality in multiple areas), or just can't be bothered to read or 'somehow' don't have enough time to read it on day 1 instead of reading it at another time when they are free.

Milkman makes a good counter-point, however it's weakness is that you assume that enough of the reviews will always be accurate to the score it was given. Surely a few seconds skimming the text would also tell you the game is fine without reading it thoroughly? Also not reading a review because it hits top marks or hits really low is pretty dumb unless you are fine with aligning your tastes to what you are told is good by people with subjective opinions, of which some you might not have agreed to in the first place if you had just read them regardless of score.

A good recent example is of course BF3, where people who were intrigued if (regardless of track record) DICE could create a decent single-player campaign for those that like to shoot but not in multiplayer. Just reading the top rated reviews should indicate it was all fine right? Well it's all on you if you had such an expectation and didn't properly read what is a bad review. You can guess it was to be expected, but you will never 'know' until you read the reviews and impressions of the consumer-base and even then, you will only surely know if you find a way to try it out for yourself without paying for it if possible (eg. friend's place).

#29 Posted by redbliss (647 posts) -

I am convinced the star rating, without half stars, is the best way to score games. I know Clint Hocking wrote a great article awhile back about why the 10 point or 100 point systems werent useful, and in that he gave a lot of good support for the 5-point system. I really believe everyone should use the 5 point system and that if more sites did we wouldnt have as many people complain about scores.

#30 Posted by Dunchad (460 posts) -

I've never used game ratings to make my purchasing decisions, so I wouldn't mind if they went away - might get rid of the irrational feedback/discussions they generate. For what it's worth though, the 5 star system is probably the best one out there - if you go more granular than that (10-point/100-point scales) you're just fooling yourself.

#31 Posted by Rudyftw (554 posts) -

@TheHumanDove said:

Words are a problem too. They should just draw a picture about how they feel at the end.

#32 Posted by hbkdx12 (779 posts) -

Ratings are cliffnotes to what is written/said in the review. Nothing more. 
 
It's not meant to take precedence over the actual review.

#33 Posted by Landon (4115 posts) -

I am much more likely to read @gladspooky said:

Yes. Because anyone who pays 60 dollars for a product based on a star rating is a moron.

Anyone who thinks video games shouldn't have a score system while EVERY OTHER medium does is fucking stupid.

#34 Posted by Example1013 (4750 posts) -

People complain about sites using a "6-10" scale, but 6 just means that there's more good than bad in a game (as opposed to 4, which means more bad than good). Is a game where the good only marginally outweighs the bad really worth the full $60 price just the same as a game that is completely flawless and a must-buy? a 5 indicates mediocrity, and mediocrity is less valuable than perfection, except apparently in video games, where apparently they both are supposed to have equal value, as indicated by price. Maybe if games existed in a vacuum as far as appreciation is concerned (similar to how one doesn't have to purchase a painting to look at it, or purchase a movie to watch it) then a 1-10 scoring system would make less sense, but in such a competitive market only the good games are going to be worth money to the majority, meaning that only the better games will be recommended for purchase (think 7-10 range).

#35 Posted by FulgoreSenpai (71 posts) -

I just wanna know why the majority of 10 point scale sites use only half of the scale. I mean, good or bad the games usually get score at the very least 5 and up. ( or at least it seams that way to me. )

I'm fine with GB's system, its one of the reasons why i love the site because they don't want you to focus on the rating. its just a reference of whats to come in their review.

5 star isn't a perfect game. it just means for that type of genre, it excels greatly. BTW I never base my purchases on reviews anyway because i know what i like.

#36 Posted by ch3burashka (4913 posts) -

They should because everyone should, but that ain't happening. I was really sad when Joystiq started giving reviews stars, after years of talking about how words speak louder than stars.

I think that, with age, people slowly understand that scores are too shallow to properly inform and do actually read.

#37 Posted by Gerhabio (1969 posts) -

I like the 5 star rating, it is a good summary of stance.

#38 Posted by JoeyRavn (4888 posts) -

@DarkGamerOO7 said:

I personally believe it would be great to see Giant Bomb be one of the few professional review websites that does not use ratings or stars but rather just text reviews that people will have to read and interpret on their own to decide if the game is worth it for them. I think far too many people simply see a number and just say "eh, 7.5 I will pass...", "8.5 game is a flop", "the game got a 10 it must be the best game ever." I think the number system is far too narrow and restrictive when it plays into art because it is hard, if not impossible to evaluate video games on a purely objective system, which is what the number system tries to do but fails.

Then the problem is the people, not the numerical rating in reviews. Should we stop using people in the site?

#39 Posted by Example1013 (4750 posts) -

@FulgoreSenpai said:

I just wanna know why the majority of 10 point scale sites use only half of the scale. I mean, good or bad the games usually get score at the very least 5 and up. ( or at least it seams that way to me. )

I'm fine with GB's system, its one of the reasons why i love the site because they don't want you to focus on the rating. its just a reference of whats to come in their review.

5 star isn't a perfect game. it just means for that type of genre, it excels greatly. BTW I never base my purchases on reviews anyway because i know what i like.

I can actually tell you why the bottom half of the scale isn't used as often: a game that gets a 4 means that there are some good things you can look through and find in the game, but the majority of things you can say about the game are bad. Most games have functional mechanics and few bugs, making them technically proficient, but they fail to achieve any kind of distinctive experience by being extremely derivative and/or bland, without any really exciting things to make the game memorable, or worth paying and/or paying full price for. Games that get poor ratings (around 4 and below) usually have that bland/samey factor that keeps mediocre games from being good, but on top of that they also have marring technical glitches that compound to make an experience really not worth the money.

Think about taking the 10 point scale, and each single point-range represents about an $8 drop in price (9-10 is $60, 8-9 is about $52, 7-8 is $44, etc.) and ask yourself if the review score reflects how much the game is really worth. As a good example of this, I think of that Operation Blacklight game that got QLed last year. The guys went over it basically saying "it's great...for a $10 game". If the game had cost $20, I believe they'd have likely been a noticeable amount more critical about the game, don't you?

#40 Posted by SecondPersonShooter (580 posts) -

Although the intelligent response would be to say yes they should get rid of them, the truth is I don't think anyone actually reads every single review the site posts. The ratings give you a solid indication of the level of quality found in the game. Especially using the five-point scale, I think you can accurately portray what your impression of the game is when you are only using five areas of categorization. I think they have the best score-rating system possible honestly, there's way less drama over scores most of the time.

#41 Posted by Fattony12000 (6367 posts) -

ALL VIDEO REVIEWS ALL THE TIME.

#42 Edited by 2HeadedNinja (1452 posts) -

Review scores serve no purpose but to fuel flamewars and to please publishers. I'd rather have a fully written rewiew with a small personal note and/or pro/con list for those that are too lazy to read a full review.

#43 Posted by Sanaj (169 posts) -

No. Most people don't have any problems with review scores until it doesn't line up with what they believe. Review scores are just a general guide. People that were only here to look at the score weren't going to invest the time to read the whole review anyways.

#44 Edited by kingando420 (210 posts) -

Yes, If people actually bothered to read the review then review scores are totally unnecessary. Review scores are distracting and missleading, drawing conclusions from a five star scale is asinine. As a quick guide a relevent headline is much more useful (as with news articles).

#45 Posted by FateOfNever (1761 posts) -

No. The people that care enough about a score system will just go other places and stop looking at GB reviews. And then they'll come back here and proclaim how "such and such a site gave such and such a game such and such a score and how that's such bullshit or how that makes the game a failure or..." you get the idea, I hope.

Plus, having a score tied to a written review can help reinforce the written review itself. It also helps organize the reviews. If, say, I want to know "what are the worst games that giant bomb has ever reviewed." having a rating system lets me go to the review page and sort by score and look at all of the one star games. Or vice versa. If it was nothing but written review, I couldn't just look up game reviews like that.

#46 Posted by Getz (2955 posts) -

Metacritic is not the reason why Giantbomb has scores... don't be ridiculous.

#47 Edited by Still_I_Cry (2494 posts) -

@DarkGamerOO7 said:

I personally believe it would be great to see Giant Bomb be one of the few professional review websites that does not use ratings or stars but rather just text reviews that people will have to read and interpret on their own to decide if the game is worth it for them. I think far too many people simply see a number and just say "eh, 7.5 I will pass...", "8.5 game is a flop", "the game got a 10 it must be the best game ever." I think the number system is far too narrow and restrictive when it plays into art because it is hard, if not impossible to evaluate video games on a purely objective system, which is what the number system tries to do but fails.

Proof of this is how much I am enjoying The Cursed Crusade (playing it co-op).

If I had to rate it I would give it around a 7 out of 10. Whereas reviewers gave it around a 4-5 last I saw.

#48 Posted by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

Gears of War 3 makes Maeby feel.... C-

#49 Posted by BlinkyTM (1054 posts) -

@Claude said:

Hell no. It works for what it is. I prefer a simple ten scale, but I like reading reviews too.

Yeah, the star rating works good too though.

#50 Posted by Aaron_G (1603 posts) -

NEVER!