So apparently Giantbomb gave Forza Horizon a 10/10

  • 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Genkkaku (735 posts) -

So this just popped up in my Facebook feed courtesy of EB Games.. I know that technically if you convert it, then yeah sure a 10/10, but it still looks really stupid..

#2 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

Eh. It's a rough translation to a language most people speak.

#3 Posted by StrikeALight (1114 posts) -

They give it full marks, but yeah - it looks a bit dodge.

#4 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@StrikeALight said:

They give it full marks, but yeah - it looks a bit dodge.

I see what you did there.

#5 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -

looks like a job for the FBI

#6 Posted by Grillbar (1838 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@StrikeALight said:

They give it full marks, but yeah - it looks a bit dodge.

I see what you did there.

well thx for poiting it out since i diddent

#7 Posted by TobbRobb (4653 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@StrikeALight said:

They give it full marks, but yeah - it looks a bit dodge.

I see what you did there.

I really hope this was intentional. Too good.

#8 Edited by MachoFantastico (4701 posts) -

A perfect example of why the Giantbomb rating system is better then numbers or even percentages (which literally are the worst). But to be fair, they haven't done a whole lot wrong there and don't think Jeff can get to upset about it, not like they've faked the score he did give it five stars which in marketing terms makes it a 10/10. That and I don't recall him having to many negative things to say about it.

Trouble is when people think of 10/10, they think perfect score which in many gamers minds results in "THE GREATEST GAME EVER MADE" :D

#9 Posted by RazielCuts (2955 posts) -
#10 Posted by ripelivejam (3980 posts) -

@TobbRobb said:

@JasonR86 said:

@StrikeALight said:

They give it full marks, but yeah - it looks a bit dodge.

I see what you did there.

I really hope this was intentional. Too good.

I'D BUY THAT FOR A BUICK!!!!

ermm...

#11 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

The only difference I see between a 9/10 and a 10/10 is that the 9/10 liked the game just as much as the 10/10 but is either more nitpicky, or afraid to give a 10/10. Plus, ratings are stupid.

#12 Posted by Village_Guy (2579 posts) -

It's probably translated from Metacritic where the scores are a 1-100 scale and then changed to a 1-10 scale. Translating 5/5 into 1-10 equals 10/10, it seems fairly logical, granted they could just have said 5/5, but really, who cares?

#13 Posted by Genkkaku (735 posts) -
#14 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@Genkkaku said:

@RazielCuts said:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/forza-horizon - highest review = 100%, bro. It's a metacritic thang.

I thought GB reviews never went up on Metacritic for this very reason.. I guess more power to Foza in this case

I remember Jeff saying that he felt GB's scores worked perfectly with Metacritic.

1 star = 20%

2 = 40%

3 = 60%

4 = 80%

5 = 100%

#15 Posted by CptBedlam (4451 posts) -

@MideonNViscera said:

The only difference I see between a 9/10 and a 10/10 is that the 9/10 liked the game just as much as the 10/10 but is either more nitpicky, or afraid to give a 10/10.

Wat

#16 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

It really isn't the worse thing ever but it does make it look like Jeff says it was a perfect game when that isn't the case.

Still it looks like a good game so people buying it ain't a bad thing

#17 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@Blimble said:

It really isn't the worse thing ever but it does make it look like Jeff says it was a perfect game when that isn't the case.

Still it looks like a good game so people buying it ain't a bad thing

How does a 5/5 score look less 'perfect' then a 10/10 score? I was under the impression that neither score necessarily represents a perfect game. Rather, they represent the highest quality game in context. To me the amount of points allotted is arbitrary. It is what the score represents that matters. Which brings me back to, how does a 5/5 look less 'perfect' then a 10/10?

#18 Edited by CptBedlam (4451 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@Blimble said:

It really isn't the worse thing ever but it does make it look like Jeff says it was a perfect game when that isn't the case.

Still it looks like a good game so people buying it ain't a bad thing

How does a 5/5 score look less 'perfect' then a 10/10 score? I was under the impression that neither score necessarily represents a perfect game. Rather, they represent the highest quality game in context. To me the amount of points allotted is arbitrary. It is what the score represents that matters. Which brings me back to, how does a 5/5 look less 'perfect' then a 10/10?

It's all about how granular the scale is. A 1-5 scale basically translates to "good", "great" etc. but there is some room for interpretation (you normally didn't need to have full points to get an A at school). If you had a 1-10000 scale and gave a 10000, that would imply that the thing rated had practically zero flaws.

That is why a 1-5 scale is superior when it comes to rating entertainment products.

#19 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@CptBedlam said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Blimble said:

It really isn't the worse thing ever but it does make it look like Jeff says it was a perfect game when that isn't the case.

Still it looks like a good game so people buying it ain't a bad thing

How does a 5/5 score look less 'perfect' then a 10/10 score? I was under the impression that neither score necessarily represents a perfect game. Rather, they represent the highest quality game in context. To me the amount of points allotted is arbitrary. It is what the score represents that matters. Which brings me back to, how does a 5/5 look less 'perfect' then a 10/10?

It's all about how granular the scale is. A 1-5 scale basically translates to "good", "great" etc. but there is some room for interpretation (you normally didn't need to have full points to get an A at school). If you had a 1-10000 and gave a 10000, that would imply that the thing rated had next to zero flaws.

That is why a 1-5 scale is superior when it comes to rating entertainment products.

It's still placing a value on an opinion. It might be a personal perspective thing but I, like a lot of people, find scores pointless as one three star game isn't of the same quality as another three star game. But if I were to take these scores seriously and look at them as a consumer assuming a ratio then I would assume a 5/5 score is of the same quality as a 10/10 score. Now there can be discussions about how a 4/5 score compares to a 9/10 score but that's a seperate issue. I don't think changing Jeff's 5/5 to a 10/10 takes anything about from the rationale represented in his written review.

#20 Edited by CptBedlam (4451 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@CptBedlam said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Blimble said:

It really isn't the worse thing ever but it does make it look like Jeff says it was a perfect game when that isn't the case.

Still it looks like a good game so people buying it ain't a bad thing

How does a 5/5 score look less 'perfect' then a 10/10 score? I was under the impression that neither score necessarily represents a perfect game. Rather, they represent the highest quality game in context. To me the amount of points allotted is arbitrary. It is what the score represents that matters. Which brings me back to, how does a 5/5 look less 'perfect' then a 10/10?

It's all about how granular the scale is. A 1-5 scale basically translates to "good", "great" etc. but there is some room for interpretation (you normally didn't need to have full points to get an A at school). If you had a 1-10000 and gave a 10000, that would imply that the thing rated had next to zero flaws.

That is why a 1-5 scale is superior when it comes to rating entertainment products.

It's still placing a value on an opinion. It might be a personal perspective thing but I, like a lot of people, find scores pointless as one three star game isn't of the same quality as another three star game. But if I were to take these scores seriously and look at them as a consumer assuming a ratio then I would assume a 5/5 score is of the same quality as a 10/10 score. Now there can be discussions about how a 4/5 score compares to a 9/10 score but that's a seperate issue. I don't think changing Jeff's 5/5 to a 10/10 takes anything about from the rationale represented in his written review.

I think it does. Not by much, but it does. If you translated it into a 10000/10000, for example, that'd be a pretty different message than a 5/5. Not mathematically, of course, but sure when it comes to evaluating a product by taking away room for interpretation and instead implying that it's basically perfect.

#21 Posted by Inkerman (1451 posts) -

When did Giantbomb scores start to get put on the advertising of major games? That's pretty neat.

#22 Posted by MEATBALL (3244 posts) -

5/5 is lower than 10/10, better fix that!

#23 Edited by Thompson820 (410 posts) -

@Inkerman said:

When did Giantbomb scores start to get put on the advertising of major games? That's pretty neat.

I think this is the better take away here, it's nice to see GB popping up more and more.

#24 Posted by Fattony12000 (7424 posts) -

NO HALF STARS!

#25 Posted by Chaser324 (6556 posts) -

It's the same thing that Metacritic has been doing for a very long time, but outside of that context where you know that all scores are being fiddled with, I do think it's a bit dishonest.

A reviewer that gives a game a 5/5, with the additional granularity of a 10 or 100 point system, might not necessarily score the game a 10/10 or 100/100.

Moderator
#26 Posted by AlexW00d (6275 posts) -

@Inkerman said:

When did Giantbomb scores start to get put on the advertising of major games? That's pretty neat.

When they're the only site to give the game 'full marks'. They have a quote on the Mark of the Ninja steam page too.

#27 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11039 posts) -

Technically what they put is true, but it's also dishonest. They should have put 5/5. Anyone with half a brain would know that was still the max number of stars.

Moderator
#28 Posted by Genkkaku (735 posts) -

I just wonder if marketing really believes people take a 10/10 as a better score then a 5/5

@JasonR86: Okay fair enough.. I just thought that since there reviews convert so binary that they wouldn't be in consideration for Metacritic, and I thought I read somewhere that was one of the reasons the 5 star rating was chosen, but I must be wrong..

@Chaser324 said:

It's the same thing that Metacritic has been doing for a very long time, but outside of that context where you know that all scores are being fiddled with, I do think it's a bit dishonest.

A reviewer that gives a game a 5/5, with the additional granularity of a 10 or 100 point system, might not necessarily score the game a 10/10 or 100/100.

Looking through there Metacritic now that I know it's there the converstion looks like games getting 4 stars are getting unjustly rating because of it.. We all know how publishers use Metacritic and that a 4 star review is a pretty good review but it equates to an 80 which I feel is lower than it would otherwise be..

#29 Posted by ttocs (763 posts) -

I'm sure there is some psych survey game publishers have done that found that higher numbers equate to better feelings towards a game. I work in the advertising industry and you'd be surprised some of the things people can learn about users based on their buying/browsing methods. I'm sure somewhere along the line game publishers did something similar.

#30 Posted by hwy_61 (923 posts) -

Those motherfucks.

#31 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@Inkerman said:

When did Giantbomb scores start to get put on the advertising of major games? That's pretty neat.

Alot of big games love the 5 point scale as it gives them a 100% on metacritic instead of the 90% that a site like IGN gives for an awesome game.

#32 Posted by Kerned (1170 posts) -

This is a dumb thing to be worrying about.

#33 Posted by psylah (2177 posts) -

@Thompson820 said:

@Inkerman said:

When did Giantbomb scores start to get put on the advertising of major games? That's pretty neat.

I think this is the better take away here, it's nice to see GB popping up more and more.

The check's in the mail, boys.

#34 Edited by dungbootle (2458 posts) -

On a related note, I don't get why Joystiq's review round-up (which GB is included in) also similarly converts review scores to a 100-point scale. They are not Metacritic, there's no need for consistency across the board as far as I know.

#35 Posted by Genkkaku (735 posts) -

@Kerned: It's more funny than anything

@dungbootle: They sourced the reviews from Metacritic so that'd be why

#36 Posted by dudeglove (7862 posts) -

8.8

#37 Posted by ProfessorEss (7378 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

Eh. It's a rough translation to a language most people speak.

It's not even a rough translation. It's an exact mathematical one.

#38 Posted by Brodehouse (9951 posts) -

It's not a full breakdown of the objective Fun Levels of a game, it's a demarcation of a recommendation.

Because if you scouted the Fun Level of Forza Horizon it would be over ni

#39 Posted by FritzDude (2263 posts) -

They made their font & design around a ten point scale that most people relates to - And I'm sure there are some mentalis involved aswell. They saw the 5/5 thinking it's the highest score and then translates it to a 10/10 so it matches up to the rest. That's my guess. But honestly, do we really care about something this miniscule?

#40 Edited by falling_fast (2224 posts) -

gross.

not Jeff's fault, though.

#41 Posted by mordukai (7151 posts) -

Again, the score system shows just how useless and inane it is and is there only for the PR people to use. Unfortunately many gamers these days focus too much on the score then reading the actual fucking review. I cringe every time I hear people saying "I won't play a game that gets less then an 8" because maybe if they take the time to actually read the reviews then maybe they'll find out that game that's just got a 7 is actually a pretty cool game that they will enjoy. To me having to choose a score belittles the detailed review you just worked on. Also feels that putting score with a review makes the review redundant because I feel that the gamers who play games according to their score don't really care, and sure as hell won't even read, about the finer detailes of a review.

If the GB crew had any sort of balls then they would stop using the score system altogether. Personally I think the GB audiance is smart enough to read the review and ignore the score itself

Sorry, I know my little rant has nothing to do with this particular discussion but this issue just gets to me.

#42 Posted by Demoskinos (14842 posts) -

Well 10 is a bigger number than 5 so even though they could put 5/5 and you would see that Oh, they gave it the most amount of points on first glance side by side with all the other 9's the 5 wouldn't look as good. So...its a bit shady in the way that that isn't REALLY what the score was but the metrics add up so they aren't exactly lying either.

#43 Posted by blastershift (65 posts) -

I just can't get excited for this, all the ads in game, the massive dlc season pass cost, the car tokens and all the buy me buy me crap such a turn off.

pass

#44 Posted by TheVideoHustler (406 posts) -

I dislike the 10 number rating system because at 6 you know the game is shit. So why beat it into the ground by calling it a super failure. What's you've failed, that's pretty much the end of it.

#45 Posted by iAmJohn (6120 posts) -

@Inkerman said:

When did Giantbomb scores start to get put on the advertising of major games? That's pretty neat.

A while ago, actually.
#46 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11750 posts) -

@Inkerman said:

When did Giantbomb scores start to get put on the advertising of major games? That's pretty neat.

The "Greatest Hits" version of Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts totally had Giant Bomb's "Best Xbox 360 Exclusive" on the front, if that counts. That and Trine are probably the earliest examples of that happening, so it's been happening for a while.

#47 Edited by Eaxis (928 posts) -

1000/1000. Would look better if they had the five golden stars or Jeff's Mind blown avatar(someone insert that please) instead of that conversion.

#48 Edited by jozzy (2042 posts) -

EDIT: Yeah it was stupid, don't need more people telling me :)

#49 Edited by CaLe (3988 posts) -

@jozzy: Arbitrary scores don't correlate with physical objects. 5/5 is 100% just as 10/10 or 100/100 is 100%.

#50 Posted by jozzy (2042 posts) -

@CaLe said:

@jozzy: Arbitrary scores don't correlate with physical objects. 5/5 is 100% just as 10/10 or 100/100 is 100%.

Yeah, I guess. It's more that I have a hard time seeing a score/ranking as a normal fraction. That's probably similar to the people saying the granularity matters. These numbers represent something non-mathematical, like great - good- mediocre - bad - terrible in the 5 point scale. I don't feel that that transfers directly to a 10 point scale. That's why I guess a purely mathematical conversion is weird. So yeah, I knew I was saying something stupid.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.