Giant Bomb : [80] on Metacritic.com

  • 73 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for funkydupe
#1 Edited by Funkydupe (3613 posts) -

I'm pretty sure Dave meant to hold the game in higher regard than 80/100. Did you feel that way reading his review or is 80 spot on?

Exactly what Battlefield fans most likely wanted: a chaotic, gorgeous multiplayer game with small, but important tweaks to what already worked in past games. That it includes a short, somewhat mediocre solo campaign and some hit-or-miss co-op action does not detract from the fact that, online, this is the best Battlefield game yet. The PC version's online matchmaking tools are way ahead of the curve and a good example of how to do social networking in video games the right way.
Avatar image for cincaid
#2 Posted by Cincaid (3051 posts) -

Just stay away from Metacritic. Problem solved.

Avatar image for savage
#3 Posted by Savage (618 posts) -

Dave meant to give the game exactly the score he gave it: 4 out of 5 stars. People can attempt to convert that to different scales at their own peril.

Avatar image for immortalsaiyan
#4 Edited by ImmortalSaiyan (4748 posts) -

Dave scored the game 4 stars not 80 out of 100 so it's irrelevant.

Avatar image for maystack
#5 Posted by Maystack (941 posts) -
No Caption Provided
Avatar image for funkydupe
#6 Posted by Funkydupe (3613 posts) -

@Savage: Metacritic has people gathering scores around the web or how the hell does that whole process work?

Avatar image for countinhallways
#7 Posted by countinhallways (633 posts) -

Metacritic scores a 4.0/10 on my website metametacritic.co.meta.com.

Avatar image for beachthunder
#8 Posted by BeachThunder (14578 posts) -

He really meant to give it an 8.8.

Avatar image for mr_skeleton
#9 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5195 posts) -

Oh numbers, you so silly.

The bomb crew have said many times they don't really care for metacritic, and almost everyone else in the industry feels the same.

Avatar image for efwefwe
#10 Posted by wefwefasdf (6730 posts) -

Not this again...

Avatar image for somejerk
#11 Posted by SomeJerk (4077 posts) -

Four out of five is four out of five, not 80/100.
 
Anybody who thinks it's 80/100 should get out of life.
 
And metacritic should stop being taken seriously. Especially by publishers.

Avatar image for cosmicqueso
#12 Posted by CosmicQueso (582 posts) -

If YOU like the game, why the F&%* do you care what anyone else thinks?

Will you receive a bonus if the game hits a certain score? Are you an officer of EA or a major shareholder? No?

THEN JUST STOP.

Avatar image for mikey87144
#13 Posted by mikey87144 (2102 posts) -

He meant to give it 4 stars. If you read his review you know why. A couple of years ago Jeff gave Borderlands 4 stars and that was his favourite game of that year. Just because a game gets 4 stars doesn't mean it isn't amazing.

Avatar image for infinitegeass
#14 Posted by InfiniteGeass (2150 posts) -

Dave's review is super controversial in my opinion.

Avatar image for milkman
#15 Posted by Milkman (18913 posts) -

4 stars = 80. There's no way around that.

Online
Avatar image for funkydupe
#16 Posted by Funkydupe (3613 posts) -

@mikey87144: Dave wrote "this is the best Battlefield game yet." I did read his review. I fully agree with his review, and score of 4/5 stars. Apparently Metacritic never reads reviews before posting?

Avatar image for jimbo
#17 Posted by Jimbo (10472 posts) -

Dave wrote the Battlefield 3 review?? I'm going to read the Battlefield 3 review!

Avatar image for aishan
#18 Posted by Aishan (1066 posts) -

Unless you work for EA/DICE, why do you give a fuck what metacritic rating it has?

Avatar image for clstirens
#19 Posted by clstirens (854 posts) -

@Funkydupe: Man... Metacritic has far bigger issues than how it converts 5 star scales into 100 point scales.

Just google search "1up review scores metacritic"

Avatar image for scapegoat
#20 Posted by Scapegoat (140 posts) -

@Funkydupe said:

I'm pretty sure Dave meant to hold the game in higher regard than 80/100.

@Funkydupe said:

@mikey87144: I did read his review. I fully agree with his review, and score of 4/5 stars.

Uhh....?

Avatar image for funkydupe
#21 Posted by Funkydupe (3613 posts) -

@Jimbo: Haha, yes. One of the few he's been responsible for so far. :)

@Aishan: A lot of people use Metacritic when making up their minds about a game, hence it has significance for those people and the industry. You better fucking believe it.

Avatar image for funkydupe
#22 Posted by Funkydupe (3613 posts) -

@Scapegoat: Does not compute?

Avatar image for marz
#23 Edited by Marz (6016 posts) -

Dave did not score it an 80, it is 4 out of 5 stars, which giantbomb has an explanation in their faq.... metacritic just has a lousy way of converting it to a 100 point system which is not representative of sites that don't use a 10 point system.

Avatar image for professoress
#24 Edited by ProfessorEss (7957 posts) -

Complain about Metacritic all you want but they use the simpliest and most universal system there is.  
 
It's called MATH. Simple math at that. 
  
If a site doesn't like a simple straightforward math equation being used to convert their already numeric score (for example: 4/5) I think the onus is on the site to develop a non-math rating, not Metacritic to create some complex, site-by-site system of conversion.

Avatar image for scapegoat
#25 Edited by Scapegoat (140 posts) -

@Funkydupe said:

@Scapegoat: Does not compute?

Sorry I was confused as you said that you thought 80/100 wasn't the score he intended to give but also you agreed with his 4/5.... doesn't 4/5 = 8/10 = 80/100 = 800/1000?

Avatar image for bravetoaster
#26 Posted by BraveToaster (12636 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

Complain about Metacritic all you want but they use the simpliest and most universal system there is.

It's called MATH. Simple math at that.
If a site doesn't like simple straightforward math equation being used to convert their already numeric score (for example: 4/5) I think the onus is on the site to develop a non-math rating, not Metacritic to create some complex, site-by-site system of conversion.

/thread.

Avatar image for chilibean_3
#27 Posted by chilibean_3 (2185 posts) -

Yeah. Sounds about right. Is 80 bad to you?

Avatar image for jozzy
#28 Posted by jozzy (2053 posts) -

@SomeJerk said:

Four out of five is four out of five, not 80/100. Anybody who thinks it's 80/100 should get out of life. And metacritic should stop being taken seriously. Especially by publishers.

Well purely mathematically speaking 80/100 is the same as 4/5, so what else can metacritic do with it. Only solution would be for metacritic to aks GB what the 100 point scale score would be (75 to 84?) . but that would be silly.

Avatar image for ajayraz
#29 Posted by AjayRaz (12803 posts) -
@BeachThunder said:

He really meant to give it an 8.8.

oh no. 
Avatar image for spunkyhepanda
#30 Posted by SpunkyHePanda (2049 posts) -

I know that Jeff has said that Giant Bomb's review scores translate just about perfectly to Metacritic.

Avatar image for stalefishies
#31 Posted by stalefishies (411 posts) -

Jeff has said multiple times that the way metacritic translates GB's star scale is pretty much perfect.
 
80 is a good score. 4/5 is a good score. It's not a perfect score, but Battlefield 3 isn't perfect.

Avatar image for yoshimitz707
#32 Posted by yoshimitz707 (2539 posts) -

I think the scoring system translates perfectly. 2 green scores, 1 yellow, and 2 red.

Avatar image for dystopiax
#33 Posted by DystopiaX (5661 posts) -

Whatever. Metacritic do what metacritic does, and there is no better way to interpret 4/5 than 80, even if it's not necessarily accurate relative to other sites' inflate review scores. Read the text, not the numbers.

Avatar image for galiant
#34 Posted by Galiant (2237 posts) -

Metacritic can be manipulated by people who just want their favorite game at the top (voting down other games they probably haven't even played). It's a horrible tool. Read about what happened to Bastion!

I don't even know if this is true, but if it is, it's pretty upsetting that companies base bonuses or paychecks that they give out to the people that worked on the game on what its Metacritic score is...how about looking at sales instead?

Avatar image for slaker117
#35 Posted by Slaker117 (4873 posts) -

...
I don't see the problem.

Avatar image for funkydupe
#36 Posted by Funkydupe (3613 posts) -

@stalefishies: You're right, it certainly isn't perfect. But hey, I never thought Batman: Arkham City was a 100 either but, there it is.

Avatar image for jack268
#37 Posted by Jack268 (3370 posts) -

it's over DICE is finished

Avatar image for winternet
#38 Posted by Winternet (8397 posts) -

Yes, 4stars = 8/10 = 80/100 = 800/1000

Avatar image for afroman269
#39 Posted by Afroman269 (7440 posts) -

I still don't get why people get way into figuring out and keeping track of review scores other than to fuel their childish, idiotic fanboy wars.

Avatar image for fluxwavez
#40 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19836 posts) -

Jeff has said that Giant Bomb's rating system perfectly matches with the way Metacritic translates it, so no. By giving BF3 a 4/5, he did indeed mean an 80/100. Plus, it's mathematically equivalent so... 

Avatar image for dany
#41 Posted by Dany (8018 posts) -

When I see a 4/5, I don't see 80/100.

The reason meta critic is a fucking trash of a website is because idiots inherently assume the review is on a 100 point scale instead of the 5 point scale giant bomb uses. Each publication has a different system that is tallied to a 100 point system when some are on a 4, 5, 10 or 20 point system.

Avatar image for fluxwavez
#42 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19836 posts) -
@Winternet said:

Yes, 4stars = 8/10 = 80/100 = 800/1000

= 8.0*10^6/10*1.0^7 
 
@Dany said: 

When I see a 4/5, I don't see 80/100.

The reason meta critic is a fucking trash of a website is because idiots inherently assume the review is on a 100 point scale instead of the 5 point scale giant bomb uses. Each publication has a different system that is tallied to a 100 point system when some are on a 4, 5, 10 or 20 point system.

Then you disagree with Jeff on his own rating system.
Avatar image for flyingrat
#43 Posted by FlyingRat (1454 posts) -

It's pretty simple, man... Basic percentages.

Avatar image for imsh_pl
#44 Posted by imsh_pl (4207 posts) -
@SomeJerk said:
Four out of five is four out of five, not 80/100.  Anybody who thinks it's 80/100 should get out of life.  And metacritic should stop being taken seriously. Especially by publishers.
Unfortunately it's not that likely to happen.
Avatar image for fluxwavez
#45 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19836 posts) -
@Roflwaffles said:

@FluxWaveZ said:

@Winternet said:

Yes, 4stars = 8/10 = 80/100 = 800/1000

= 8.0*10^6/10*1.0^7

Wrong! No wonder you're failing calculus lol.

Almost failing. And in this case, for once, it was a typo, not a logic error:  8.0*10^6/1.0*10^7
Avatar image for dirkfunk
#46 Posted by dirkfunk (175 posts) -

Read the words.

Disregard the numbers.

Avatar image for taliciadragonsong
#47 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8734 posts) -
@Cincaid said:

Just stay away from Metacritic. Problem solved.

This.
 
It got a 4/5, what the rest of world makes of it is their problem.
Avatar image for mikey87144
#48 Posted by mikey87144 (2102 posts) -

@Funkydupe said:

@mikey87144: Dave wrote "this is the best Battlefield game yet." I did read his review. I fully agree with his review, and score of 4/5 stars. Apparently Metacritic never reads reviews before posting?

They don't read all the reviews, probably not even 20% of them. In any case who cares what the meta score is. You know from reading it he highly recommends the game, and you know from the score he highly recommends it. Everyone who visits the site knows that to. All that score means is that while great, the caveat of the game is that it's a 5 star multiplayer experience with a 3 star co-op and single-player campaign. If you come into the game expecting a great single-player then prepared to be disappointed.

Avatar image for dany
#49 Posted by Dany (8018 posts) -

@FluxWaveZ said:

@Dany said:

When I see a 4/5, I don't see 80/100.

The reason meta critic is a fucking trash of a website is because idiots inherently assume the review is on a 100 point scale instead of the 5 point scale giant bomb uses. Each publication has a different system that is tallied to a 100 point system when some are on a 4, 5, 10 or 20 point system.

Then you disagree with Jeff on his own rating system.

I simply think that meta critic needs to include both the 4/5 and the percentage they will use to aggregate the average to let consumers know how the publications are reviewing the games.

Avatar image for jayzilla
#50 Posted by Jayzilla (2703 posts) -

critics are just people with no talent criticizing people with talent. who cares?

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.