" @Kombat: Yeah but no one interprets them as being symbolic. The vast majority of people look at it, convert it to a percentage or a score out of 100 and then whine. This is why the vast majority of gaming sites go for a 10 scale (or run the 5 point scale in 0.5 point increments). Some use the grading scale also which is again is a very good scale to use because of commonality in schooling. Either way the whole point of a review is for other people to read. If they really were just symbolic, why not just make them an arbitrary scale of 17 tacos or something? It's very clear that GB uses the 5 scale because they thought it was the perfect balance between brevity and complexity but I think they got it wrong and went just one step too far. "

" @Icemael: No, no, I understand the written review is important for a more detailed understanding of the game, we're just saying that using a 5 scale scoring system is nonsensical. Society uses 100 as a number for totality as a reason. That's why 10 point systems are so popular, it's just one decimal point dropped off but gets the point across just as well. 5 point scales are far more arbitrary and cut number of allowable scores (by whole numbers) in half. I just feel that 10 point is about as simple as it should go and is far more effective at letting someone know if a game is good or bad just by glancing at it. "

While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation.

Still very good and easy to recommend, though it doesn't quite live up to its full potential.

The halfway point. An inherent appreciation of this game's specific gameplay style, characters, subject matter, and so on may play as big a role in your enjoyment as the actual quality of the game.

This game's problems outweigh its good qualities.

This game will make you wish you had died in a fire moments before turning it on. 

" @RsistncE said:

" @100_Hertz said:

" @RsistncE:   no but seriously.  just a simple 1-10 scoring system (no decimal points like gt and ign...ugh don't even get me started on ign) would be SO much more telling of a game's quality than the current 1-5 system, which, c'mon on guys you all know it's true, is vague as fuck. "

I agree. My limit is 0.5 increments. "

They have DESCRIPTIONS on the site of what each score means.  It's not vague AT ALL.  It's especially not vague if you READ THE REVIEW, because the text within tells you EXACTLY what the score means. "

Agreed.

  @Icemael said:

" @RsistncE said:

" @Icemael: No, no, I understand the written review is important for a more detailed understanding of the game, we're just saying that using a 5 scale scoring system is nonsensical. Society uses 100 as a number for totality as a reason. That's why 10 point systems are so popular, it's just one decimal point dropped off but gets the point across just as well. 5 point scales are far more arbitrary and cut number of allowable scores (by whole numbers) in half. I just feel that 10 point is about as simple as it should go and is far more effective at letting someone know if a game is good or bad just by glancing at it. "

A 5 point scale is more than large enough to "let someone know if a game is good or bad just by glancing at it". Check the site's FAQ: 

While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation.

Still very good and easy to recommend, though it doesn't quite live up to its full potential.

The halfway point. An inherent appreciation of this game's specific gameplay style, characters, subject matter, and so on may play as big a role in your enjoyment as the actual quality of the game.

This game's problems outweigh its good qualities.

This game will make you wish you had died in a fire moments before turning it on. 

 
Do you really need -- do you really want -- more information than that from a score? Because I sure as hell don't. "

"   @Kombat said:

" @RsistncE said:

" @100_Hertz said:

" @RsistncE:   no but seriously.  just a simple 1-10 scoring system (no decimal points like gt and ign...ugh don't even get me started on ign) would be SO much more telling of a game's quality than the current 1-5 system, which, c'mon on guys you all know it's true, is vague as fuck. "

I agree. My limit is 0.5 increments. "

They have DESCRIPTIONS on the site of what each score means.  It's not vague AT ALL.  It's especially not vague if you READ THE REVIEW, because the text within tells you EXACTLY what the score means. "

Ok, so let's just disregard the written reviews for a second here.  Pretend you're an illiterate video game enthusiast and you're looking through Giant Bomb's review scores.  What's the difference between GOW3 and Darksiders, for example?  They both got 4 stars.  You see, it is rather vague seeing as GOW3 is undoubtedly a tighter, more well-crafted game than Darksiders, yet they both get the same review score.  And do you honestly think GOW3 is deserving of an 80% score?  Or Darksiders for that matter? "

"Dude, you just like disagreeing with people."

This thread has been derailed into a discussion of review scores rather than the actual product. Disappointing. However, I'm partly to blame - I should have given this thread a different title.
 
Still...

I'm finding the controls to be a little bit unresponsive, probably by design. Jumping out of a dodge roll being the most annoying. It doesn't feel snappy enough, and also being unable to dodge quickly enough while Kratos is finishing off a particular attack he was performing lead me to frequently lose any fluidity or rhythm I had going with a particular battle, often leading to my death, forcing me to restart and play the game more by trial and error. 

"   @Kombat said:

" @RsistncE said:

" @100_Hertz said:

" @RsistncE:   no but seriously.  just a simple 1-10 scoring system (no decimal points like gt and ign...ugh don't even get me started on ign) would be SO much more telling of a game's quality than the current 1-5 system, which, c'mon on guys you all know it's true, is vague as fuck. "

I agree. My limit is 0.5 increments. "

They have DESCRIPTIONS on the site of what each score means.  It's not vague AT ALL.  It's especially not vague if you READ THE REVIEW, because the text within tells you EXACTLY what the score means. "

Ok, so let's just disregard the written reviews for a second here.  Pretend you're an illiterate video game enthusiast and you're looking through Giant Bomb's review scores.  What's the difference between GOW3 and Darksiders, for example?  They both got 4 stars.  You see, it is rather vague seeing as GOW3 is undoubtedly a tighter, more well-crafted game than Darksiders, yet they both get the same review score.  And do you honestly think GOW3 is deserving of an 80% score?  Or Darksiders for that matter? "  

@100_Hertz said: 

"Dude, you just like disagreeing with people."

That doesn't sound very convincing coming from a guy who has spent half of his posts in this thread disagreeing with people. "

" @Icemael:    Until you've played on titan in the moving cube section or the three judges with the fire cerberus,exploding puppys and satyrs and the scorpion fight (just a handful of examples,I could list more but I don't want to give away spoilers)you have no idea what you're talking about.Play Titan mode and then get back to me. "

"I'd love to play on a harder difficulty level, if the combat was good. It's not. Avoiding enemy attacks is really easy, and playing on Titan or Chaos wouldn't make it any harder; it would only force me to press the square button a whole lot more, and die a ton in the segments where the screen is so full of shit and the camera so poorly positioned, I can't see what I'm doing."