I really don't care.

" You al seem to be missing what he's saying... "

" You al seem to be missing what he's saying... "

" @Pie said:

" You al seem to be missing what he's saying... "

I thought he was talking about John Davison and what he might do to change metacritic since he's becoming VP. "

" @Claude said:

" @Pie said: "

I wasn't directly accusing you of something you know? "

Though this completely stems away from the original argument, I feel as though I should get this out there.
 
Why the hell are they so bent on sticking to this 'five star' system? Why don't they throw in the half-star for the game that deserves it? I'm not saying that Halo: Reach is the game that deserves this half-star, mind you, but sometimes it feels like 'No, this reviewer is not giving it a perfect review, but it feels better than 'four stars''.
 
These guys are entitled to their opinions, yes. But it just fuckin' sucks that because of how adament they are to this 'five star' system that...well...sometimes it gives the wrong impression.
 
A five star review can only mean one thing. Perfection.
 
A four star? That can mean -alot- of things.
 
They're very vague values.

"
You could say that such a fear is... 
 
a bit of a reach 
 
yeeeeeaaaahhhh "

" But didn't Giant Bomb give MW2 5/5? So is MW2 a better game than Reach???? I certainly think not!!! "

" Though this completely stems away from the original argument, I feel as though I should get this out there.  Why the hell are they so bent on sticking to this 'five star' system? Why don't they throw in the half-star for the game that deserves it? I'm not saying that Halo: Reach is the game that deserves this half-star, mind you, but sometimes it feels like 'No, this reviewer is not giving it a perfect review, but it feels better than 'four stars''.  These guys are entitled to their opinions, yes. But it just fuckin' sucks that because of how adament they are to this 'five star' system that...well...sometimes it gives the wrong impression.  A five star review can only mean one thing. Perfection.  A four star? That can mean -alot- of things.  They're very vague values. "

What's the Deal With Your Rating System?

Giant Bomb reviews games on a five-star scale that does not include half-stars. We feel that this benefits our reviews for a number of reasons. Five-star rating systems are a widely accepted standard outside the field of video games, from Amazon.com to The Source, and we feel that the pervasiveness of the five-star system makes it more intuitive for the reader.

It also helps avoid the hair-splitting that can occur within more granular rating systems. A score is designed to provide the most basic at-a-glance information about a game for those considering making a game purchase--it is not there to justify/attack anyone's entrenched position on the relative value of one video-game franchise, developer, publisher, or hardware manufacturer versus another. We include the full text of the review for those looking for more detail.

We do not use any algorithms to reach our final scores, relying instead on the experience of the reviewer. While fundamental issues such as graphical performance and gameplay originality will almost always be factors in determining a final score, it ultimately comes down to how worthwhile the reviewer found the whole experience to be. If that's not enough, here are some simple illustrations we think you'll find helpful:

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.

" Haha, that's not my problem. I don't care! "

I just found something interesting. I am now thinking this guy is from gamespot 

The 80 GB gave them doesn't really effect the score that much. I did the math and it would be a 94 instead of a 93 if Jeff would've given it 5 stars. Which after reading his review, I don't know how it didn't. I saw no formal complaints, other than his distaste for how "slow" Halo is. 

" The 80 GB gave them doesn't really effect the score that much. I did the math and it would be a 94 instead of a 93 if Jeff would've given it 5 stars. Which after reading his review, I don't know how it didn't. I saw no formal complaints, other than his distaste for how "slow" Halo is.  "

My god OP,  you're the biggest idiot I've seen posting here in a long while.   Mostly because you seem to believe your own retarded ideas and aren't trolling. 

I don' t think they care about being "discriminated" against. They're going to give games what they deserve. 

" But didn't Giant Bomb give MW2 5/5? So is MW2 a better game than Reach???? I certainly think not!!! "

I've never understood the Metacritic hate. The fact that you people check it clearly indicates that it has a reason and purpose for existing. I know that I certainly appreciate what it does, allowing me to get a birds eye view of just how well received a game is. Do I make that my only deciding factor? No, of course not. But it's generally on the ball.

well the alternative is to make half-stars in reviews which sounds more realistic than completely changing the review system, but whatever. the stars represent the reviewer's general attitude, and not the exact score. If he thinks its good its 4 stars, if he thinks its excellent then its 5. jeff thought reach was a solid game, so he gave it an according score

" I just found something interesting. I am now thinking this guy is from gamespot  "

Giant Bomb has no comitment or interest in that, I'm sure. If publishers discriminate against them because they use a 4-star ranking system, then I am sure the Bomb crew is fine with that.

Looks at movie reviews; 4 stars is the average for a good movie. 5 stars are much higher to achieve. I think game scores have become inflated to the point that top-tier games need to get 95 or above to be the norm.

Its a very good review imo, but its kinda odd that they give it a 4 out of 5 without stating anything other than that its treading some familiar ground at times. But maybe thats enough for not a perfect score.

Halo: Reach doesn't have a perfect 100% on Metacritic?? 
 
I'M NOT BUYING IT NOW

you guys should seriously learn to not give a crap about scores.

I wonder if Microsoft are going to blacklist Giantbomb for this, it really wouldn't suprise me.

4/5 is 80%. Live with it. /thread
 
This should have been the first answer

They can use whatever rating system they want to it's their site, and besides if in Jeffs opinion he thought it was better than 4 stars, he could of made it 4.5 stars so leave it be.

metacritic needs to go away.

meh. wired gave it an "80" so I think giantbomb'll be fine

and that matters... why?

Now tell me how 4/5 isn't 80%?

Why 5 Stars, because once you hit 3.5-3.0-2.5 you're pretty much splitting hairs and it's not really worth the trouble of trying to dissect the different between a 4.5 and a 4... at the end of the day, they are both great games and you should go play them.
 
And I saw some people mention RDR and them not reviewing it, they didn't review b/c Rockstar is selective about how they give review copies too and that the game would take too long to review (look how long it took Brad to get the FFXII review out.)

Not that I give a damn about Metacritic, but Jeff's review of Halo: Reach was the best I've read. Some reviews have stank of fanoyism, and that makes me sad. Jeff's review was honest and to the point. For lords sake, IGN UK gave it a perfect score and while Reach sounds great, it's certainly not a perfect game.

"who cares about metacritic?"

Who cares about Metacritic, it's useless. Jeff's review of Reach is the best out there, I've read some proper fanboy like reviews of the game that are pure crap. IGN UK gave it a perfect 10, so apparently Reach is the most perfect game ever... Bullcrap it is.

" why even look at metacritic? "

That review is strangely super positive on the game for being a 4-star review. if you didn't have the rating attached to the text, you would've sworn Jeff would've given it a 5/5.

" Now tell me how 4/5 isn't 80%? "

" They can use whatever rating system they want to it's their site, and besides if in Jeffs opinion he thought it was better than 4 stars, he could of made it 4.5 stars so leave it be. "

Wasn't that a reason that they did not get a RDR copy early to review it? I thought that happened.
 

" @raiz265 said:

" Now tell me how 4/5 isn't 80%? "

Let me put it this way, that same logic makes a 3/5 a 60%. Mathematically, does that make sense? Yes. But what would a be 3/5 equivalent to on a 100 point scale? If you ask yourself that question honestly, the answer is that a 3/5 would be more akin to a 70 than a 60. Why is that? It all comes back to score inflation, and the way in which different publications make different interpretations of scores.  You can look at Eurogamer and Edge and see that phenomenon there, as well. To those two publications, a 5/10 is average; however, when converted to Metacritic's numbers, a 5/10 would be a 50, which on the average 100 point scale is absurdly low.  The problem is that Metacritic is trying to suss out a consensus by over-simplifying reviews, and boiling them down to a point where the scores given by various publications lose any minute bit of meaning they originally had. "

" @jukezypoo said:

" @raiz265 said:

" Now tell me how 4/5 isn't 80%? "

Let me put it this way, that same logic makes a 3/5 a 60%. Mathematically, does that make sense? Yes. But what would a be 3/5 equivalent to on a 100 point scale? If you ask yourself that question honestly, the answer is that a 3/5 would be more akin to a 70 than a 60. Why is that? It all comes back to score inflation, and the way in which different publications make different interpretations of scores.  You can look at Eurogamer and Edge and see that phenomenon there, as well. To those two publications, a 5/10 is average; however, when converted to Metacritic's numbers, a 5/10 would be a 50, which on the average 100 point scale is absurdly low.  The problem is that Metacritic is trying to suss out a consensus by over-simplifying reviews, and boiling them down to a point where the scores given by various publications lose any minute bit of meaning they originally had. "

3 divided by 5 is 60, it is a 60 "

" @Dany said:

" @jukezypoo said:

" @raiz265 said:

" Now tell me how 4/5 isn't 80%? "

Let me put it this way, that same logic makes a 3/5 a 60%. Mathematically, does that make sense? Yes. But what would a be 3/5 equivalent to on a 100 point scale? If you ask yourself that question honestly, the answer is that a 3/5 would be more akin to a 70 than a 60. Why is that? It all comes back to score inflation, and the way in which different publications make different interpretations of scores.  You can look at Eurogamer and Edge and see that phenomenon there, as well. To those two publications, a 5/10 is average; however, when converted to Metacritic's numbers, a 5/10 would be a 50, which on the average 100 point scale is absurdly low.  The problem is that Metacritic is trying to suss out a consensus by over-simplifying reviews, and boiling them down to a point where the scores given by various publications lose any minute bit of meaning they originally had. "

3 divided by 5 is 60, it is a 60 "

Yes it is but he is saying that the principle of the matter is that the score doesn't translate well on metacritic since a 3 star game isn't that bad and a 4/5 may really be 86 not 80 based on the text of the review which metacritic tries to just turn it into a percentage with no real value. "