Shouldn't GB have a points scale rating system?

I think the system is fine.

I'm really neutral. I can still tell whether or not a game is good by that rating.

Is it ain't broke, don't fix it.

There no need for any granularity in a review beyond great/good/ok/bad.  that pretty much sums up stars 5-2.  I guess 1 can stick around for games that are basically unplayable.  The 100-point rating system is completely unnecessary for anything other than fanboy arguments.

I think it works fine... and the rating is just a general rating.. read the damn review if you really want to know what the game is like in depth.

They said they wanted to go with a bit more simplicity and tell you more or less stay away, rent or buy if you are a hardcore fan or if its awesome but I do think their 5 stars are kinda being given out a lot...

I prefer the 10 point system of the old gamespot.

The staff said that they weren't going to do a complex rating system, they want to focus more on what is written then the score.

I think it works fine.

Although I prefer numerical systems, I have to say I kind of like the star system as a reviewer, it's just a lot easier to judge games that way. And I can give the highest score possible without feeling guilty that I've branded the game as "perfect".

I like the five star system. As a fan of movies and because I frequent many movie websites, I am accustomed to both four and five star rating systems. What I like about this simple five star system is that it tells you basically whether or not you should buy a game, and that's all you really need to know. It also tells you just how good a game is without getting too nitpicky. It's a good system and I hope it's here to stay.

I think stars are straight forward, I can't see how someone decides if a game is a 7.9 or an 8.0, but 4 star or 5 star makes things easier differentiate, point systems don't really make things more accurate just more confusing, at least for me.

I believe the star systems is the better of the two.  Any kind of numeric system makes it seem as if the score was somehow calculated when in reality it wasn't.  The star system makes it seem more like an opinion than a fact (which review definitely are not).  Besides, what the hell is the difference between a 8.2 and an 8.3?

I almost wish there wasn't a point/star/letter grade system at all. Reviews are written in text format for a reason. I would rather there be a "Good points" "Bad Points" section at the end of every article so the reader is forced to read SOMETHING. Great writers get overlooked because of this ridiculous number scale garbage. Reading is FUNdamental people!

I see the reasoning behind the 5 star system but I would really prefer a 10 scale system, simply put, 10 point scale systems are just easier to understand and are more relevant. I get the whole 'score centric' argument but put bluntly I really dont care, I want to know how good a game is.

Points system is too vague.

Stars system is right too the point and much more manageable.

But it's all a matter of taste.

I'd rather have more choice when rating. Like out of 10 would be good. It's hard to decide which star to give certain games with this current one. Although I am a very fussy human being.

basically just treat the stars as 1-5 but i think they are fine

I dont really care about the final score. I read the review because that describes their opinion on every feature in the game instead of just slapping a grade on it.

Jeff and Ryan said when they started doing reviews that they didn't want to focus so much on numbers.  some people just have this addiction to ratings and even if someone is looking forward to a game, if it gets sub-par reviews that person won't buy it.  Ratings in reviews are overrated and too much focus is put on them, IMHO.

Yeah I've got to say, I don't think there should even be stars. You can't break down how good a game is numerically, and having a number at the end encourages people to skip the text entirely.

I think review websites have a vague fear of being ignored entirely though if they don't have the end-all much coveted 'review score' for people to immediately identify with, so perhaps these sites, as good as their intentions may be, don't feel they can afford to lose it.

"Stars are fine, but I'd rather have no ratings at all. People are too score inflated, if something doesn't score over 8.0, it's a bad game in their eyes. A review should be enough and help you decide or atleast get a sense of what the reviewer thought. A score should just be a guide-line along with the review. Scores are ruining the industry, just look at Metacritic. It's just statistics and it doesn't mean much, but look at how companies look into that! It's all about the metacritic scores and all that, it prevents good games from being made it they don't score this and that on metacritic, and the fact that metacritic just translates odd scores that don't fit into say 100 points, they just mash 'em into their own 100 point scale.
 
It's just dumb. What happened to common sense anyway? So yeah, less scores! More emphasis on reviews and reading the reviews. Not scrolling by and looking at the score!
"

I personally love the rating system. Just looking at the stars you can tell the overall view the reviewer had for the game and by reading the actual review you can understand why. When you starting using numbers, especially a 1-10 scale, the numbers mean less and less.

Stars are nice.