" @SethPhotopoulos said:

" @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. "

IIn my opinion a 3/5 is a good score, and a 4/5 is a great score, trying to translate that does the reviewed product, reviewer and website a disservice. The score is not meant to be multiplied to tallied up to 100, it is 4/5, not an 80 or a B-, its a 4/5  which isgreat "

" @Dany said:

" @SethPhotopoulos said:

" @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. "

IIn my opinion a 3/5 is a good score, and a 4/5 is a great score, trying to translate that does the reviewed product, reviewer and website a disservice. The score is not meant to be multiplied to tallied up to 100, it is 4/5, not an 80 or a B-, its a 4/5  which isgreat "

I agree but the op was complaining that metacritic determines the fate of games and it's developers which I disagree with. "

" @mnzy said:

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

I dnt know where you got that idea from, but that's not really a good example since they geva the game a 5 out of 5. "

" @_Nuno_ said:

" @mnzy said:

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

I dnt know where you got that idea from, but that's not really a good example since they geva the game a 5 out of 5. "

They didn't get it early because of their reputation. And as long as Rockstar doesn't have psychics, that is a good example. "

" @Claude: The description only helps if you agree with their reasoning.  I agree that a 100 point scale is ridiculously granular, but not much more than I think a 5 point scale is too broad.  ...just my opinion tho, nothing I expect to be changed or have that huge an issue with. "

I think it would have been great to see them not review it at all in any official capacity. The people who look to giantbomb for opinions are hopefully looking for something more than a score.

So, Forza 3 deserves five stars, when it's an iteration of Forza 2 and the multiplayer is gimped? But Halo Reach gets 4 stars, because it's an iteration of the Halo series "which is wearing a bit thin." So, driving around on a track isn't wearing thin? And can we retire "this game is a love letter to its fans." Jeff: cliche alert dude. Well-written review ... right.
 
If Giant Bomb is above the hard scoring issue, then they should remove the stars rating system. They can't have it both ways. (Everything is 4 stars anyway, so what is the point.)

" So, Forza 3 deserves five stars, when it's an iteration of Forza 2 and the multiplayer is gimped? But Halo Reach gets 4 stars, because it's an iteration of the Halo series "which is wearing a bit thin." So, driving around on a track isn't wearing thin? And can we retire "this game is a love letter to its fans." Jeff: cliche alert dude. Well-written review ... not. "

" @ProfessorEss said:

" @Claude: The description only helps if you agree with their reasoning.  I agree that a 100 point scale is ridiculously granular, but not much more than I think a 5 point scale is too broad.  ...just my opinion tho, nothing I expect to be changed or have that huge an issue with. "

I'm not a big fan of the five star system. To me, the crew wanted the opposite of where they had been, a little k.i.s.s. goodbye if you will.  My local newspaper's movie critic has always had a four star scale with half stars. That's always been my favorite, but I'm biased. "

Aggregate critic scores are hokum, and everyone seems to know this except for the advertising execs.

I think that score will be taken differently because of the conversion differences. 4outof5 is a good score. Many many people will buy this game regardless.

I would just like to point out, and correct me if im wrong, metacritic translates the scale used buy giantbomb incorrectly anyway.  Giantbomb doesn't have a 0/5 score.  The lowest score a game can get is 1/5.  When translated into 0-100 scale what it should look like: 1/5=  0,    2/5= 25,     3/5= 50   ,4/5= 75  ,   5/5= 100.

There's 4 80s now. So...

A 4/5 is bad how?  The entire reivewsystem has been inflated to the point of a 9.9 being the same as 5.5. Giantbomb is doing the right thing with this. Not to mention that MS probably gave other reviewsites tons of money to give perfect 10s.

4/5 = 8/10.  
 
To me, everything above 5/10 is good. To the people that expected more: Read the reviews and dont base your opinions on only the ratings.

" Who cares about Metacritic"

This just reminds me of how much I hate scores, not to mention aggregating. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who actually reads reviews instead of just looking at the number or symbols. I never bother looking the score in reviews, it's no use to me. I don't see how a user-experience can translate into a number or symbol, it doesn't make any sense to me. The only way I can find out if a game is for me is by reading what other users have experienced. Hell, I didn't even realize the game was given 4 stars before I saw the scale-translation on Kotaku earlier today and the uproar in the comment-section.  I do respect that others need a score to make up their minds, but please keep the obsessive behavior to yourself when scores don't match expectations.

Every time a big game comes out some site who rates games using the entire scale (ie not just 7 to 10) rates a game 8 out of 10, 85 out of 100 or 5 out of 6 with a tagline saying "super awesome game, everybody should totally buy it", and  every goddamn time that happens the internet go f*cking mental; "LOL Y U GIEF VIDYA 9.5, IS A 9.7 GAEM U SUX". And the worst part is when people who defend the score claim it's because the reviewer "isn't paid by [insert company] like [insert big site]". It's like people have a hard time understanding the fact that reviews only reflect one guy's opinion on one particular product. Do you attack people on the bus if they say "I didn't really like Avatar that much"? Unless you're a sociopath, you don't. The word "subjectivity" is like a curse word to some people.  

And score inflation? Don't even get me started.
7/10 is terrible, 8/10 is average. What the f*ck happened? Shouldn't 5/10 be average, and 7/10 "pretty good"?
 
The only thing that score means is that Jeff didn't feel that it was 100% perfect and flawless, but it seemed like he thought it was a damn good game despite it not being perfect. The review was through and through positive, Jeff even praised the game in the quick look, and I bet he'll have some good stuff to say in the Bombcast as well.

A Google search for "giant bomb halo" shows 4 results on the first page from different forums with users angry about the review by the way.. I'm glad most you guys here don't stoop to such levels.

Bungie should have made a 5-star game.  They didn't.

I think the point that didn't really come across in the review text but was clearly stated in the quick look was that Halo: Reach is more Halo.  If you aren't already someone who likes Halo you aren't going to change your mind with Halo: Reach.  Five-star scores are used for games that are recommended without reservation; which Halo: Reach clearly was not.  Yes, it is arguably the best Halo game to date but that does not mean it can be recommended for everyone who is interested in shooters on the 360 for purchase.

Reach will outsell any game released in 2010, so I don't think Bungie is worried about one 4/5 from a small site like GB.

Unlike most people that have intrpreted this as you saying 'Giantbomb needs to change their scoring system', I know what you mean.
 
Dude is having a go at metacritic having a universal standard when it doesn't properly convey the review. Not this site's 5 star system.
 
Did anyone actually read the post or just reply to the thread name?

I kinda didn't want to see GB rate any game the lowest but still, I kinda expected it to be GB due to their overall lack of enthusiasm and Halo fatigue anyway. 
 
Regardless, I think it speaks volumes to the game that the lowest score is a 80. Which is a fucking amazing score as well.

"so please consider a better way of doing things. "

While the "converting stars into percent ratings" is a problematic, Metacritic applies hidden weightings to scores.  So the some mean more than others.  A tiny little site that is getting it's first review factored in, does not have the same oomph as GameSpot.  
 
The thing that really bugs me about the conversion is that they make 1 star a 20%,  1 star is 0%, otherwise known as the lowest possible score.  It should be 0,25, 50,75, 100.  5 stars, 5 ratings.  Or maybe they should do it intelligently and just say it's like school where they treat the stars like letter grades.  100, 85, 75, 65, 55.  Or something.  I think that would match up to 1-100s fairly well.

" @alternate said:

"so please consider a better way of doing things. "

Wtf are you talking about?    Are you implying that Giantbomb has to change it's scoring system in order to fit metacritic BS conversion? Now that's ret*rded.

For Attention of John Davison (new VP from Programming on Gamespot, Metacritic and GameFAQS).
 
I know you have been critical of Metacritic in the past e.g. how they convert 1up/EGMs letter grades in to percentages, so please consider a better way of doing things.

@CptBedlan said
 
 How about you go tell he metacritic dudes to stop converting stars and letters grades into percentages. "

Oh no! Microsoft and Bungie are going bankrupt now!

Once again scores are proven to be nothing but a point of grief. Just skip the damn stars all together!

I think GB should come up with some absurd ratings system just so there is no way it can be converted for Metacritic. 

"I think the point that didn't really come across in the review text but was clearly stated in the quick look was that Halo: Reach is more Halo.  If you aren't already someone who likes Halo you aren't going to change your mind with Halo: Reach.  Five-star scores are used for games that are recommended without reservation; which Halo: Reach clearly was not.  Yes, it is arguably the best Halo game to date but that does not mean it can be recommended for everyone who is interested in shooters on the 360 for purchase. "

That said, what is the logic in saying that "Halo is more Halo" and should not be recommended without restraint for that reason?

It really sucks that publishers pay so much attention to metacritic, but they do. At least in this case it's Bungie. I don't think they're bothered about things like that. It's also pretty cool that GIantbomb can ignore a lot of that stuff. The good part about being small to begin with.

@ProfessorEss: Snapshots... IN TIME!!!

In other words: the time between SSF4 and SF4 and the balance "fixes" separated the Super version enough from its Vanilla counterpart and improved on it in such a way that, in Jeff's opinion, keyword being opinion, the game was worth the full five points.

" I think the point that didn't really come across in the review text but was clearly stated in the quick look was that Halo: Reach is more Halo.  If you aren't already someone who likes Halo you aren't going to change your mind with Halo: Reach.  Five-star scores are used for games that are recommended without reservation; which Halo: Reach clearly was not.  Yes, it is arguably the best Halo game to date but that does not mean it can be recommended for everyone who is interested in shooters on the 360 for purchase. "

" Yeah, Maybe they should lie so they won't lose any credibility, amirite? "

I was actually just looking up Dead Rising on Metacritic because I was curious about how it scored, and man, they really do butcher up different scoring methods.  I'd known about how they operated before this, but It wasn't until I was actually specifically looking for different scores that it became apparent to me just how hard it is to gauge the reviewer's intended score (or in some cases, anything else) from the Metacritic site itself.    
 
A question, then:  Rotten Tomatoes is the popular movie ranking site, and it seems like  they try to measure the reaction of the reviewer based on 'was it good or bad?'.  The reviews their all have the original scores (at least from the movie I looked at, it seemed that way,)  I don't actually know if Rotten Tomatoes causes the same problems for filmmakers as Metacritic does for gane developers, but if not,   
 
Would metacritic be better if it aggregated scores more like Rotten Tomatoes does?

" How do u equate a star to a number? "

I think I have a solution to all this mess. I'm going to start a review aggregation site that aggregates all of the various aggregation site's scores. Further more, I propose that each publication group follow Gamespot's lead and start their own review aggregation site that calculates their score as they see fit. I will then sell ads and have lots of bitches.
 
Copyright me, now. Don't try nothing.

When it comes down to it, I think a lot of the critics need to realize there are some pretty big problems with the game.  Despite that, I think it's pretty fucking great for a swan song.

The more I play this game the more I realize how speculative my earlier comment was.  I also really like the point that Hashbrowns makes about "some people won't like it" being a poor criticism.
 
That said from what I have played so far doesn't really point to a 4-star experience, but with the last third of the game allegedly being "not so great" I'll hold onto any further judgements.
 
What I have played of the multiplayer so far is really fun, although it was only 3 games of Invasion so I haven't been able to get too deep into it yet.  It also seems to me that Halo multiplayer can be inherently flawed for the player who doesn't really want to play cooperatively against another team.  The way that the weapons and health function in that game make it very difficult to make an impact in a game when you are off doing your own thing.  More often than not the number of players in an area has much, much more of an impact whether or not your team is going to successfully complete an objective.  It is much different from Counter-Strike or Call of Duty where one player can kill several others very quickly where in a game like Halo you can often find yourself reloading mid battle because your weapon didn't pack enough punch to take the other guy down.  Not to say that this is a bad thing as that style of combat is what makes the games so unique and great but at the same time it can seem like one of its biggest flaws to a player even if they are a fan of the series.