Well if we're going to be bringing math into this I'd just like to point out that a 5 point scale isn't the same as a 100 point scale if we're only using integers. A 5 point scale allows for much less precision which simply cannot represent scores such as 90 on the 100 point scale that metacritic uses. So do the stars on Giantbomb represent a range of percentage points or do they just see any 4 star game as being equivalent? Not criticizing Giantbomb's scoring system, rather I'm criticizing the whole idea of scoring systems in general because they ignore the context of the review and just arbitrarily substitute 100 percentage points as the context for the score. Basically I give the whole notion of scores 7 thumbs up. Tell me what that is on metacritic.

These are on different scales of measurement.
 
Ask a child how much he likes ice-cream, then ask an adult. 
 
In my opinion, the five point GB system is the adult here. Instead of numbers, it's "average /  really freaking good / this is amazing" 3-4-5, not "80/100 this game has a lot of faults and sucks"
 
In the early 90's, an Amiga magazine reviewed a pile of shit of a game and gave it six points out of 100. Today, it would have received zero stars, or one, from GB, but 60 or more from a publication who uses a hundred points.

I beat my wife and inadvertanely killed my unborn child in a fit of rage because of Dave's review.

OH NO! THE HORROR! THE DRAMA how can this be!

@Milkman: Wouldn't a better way to think about it be:

5 Stars = 100%

4 Stars = 90%

3 Stars = 80%

2 Stars = 70%

1 Star = 60%

?

@Dread612 said:

@Milkman: Wouldn't a better way to think about it be:

5 Stars = 100%

4 Stars = 90%

3 Stars = 80%

2 Stars = 70%

1 Star = 60%

?

This isn't school.

He gave it a 4 because the single player is crap. End of. If you like t then you like like it, why care about what anyone else thinks of it?

 Basically I give the whole notion of scores 7 thumbs up. Tell me what that is on metacritic.

@Scapegoat said:

@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....?

I think Funkdupe's point is that 4/5 stars is not the same thing 80/100, which basically means that everyone on this thread is in agreement. Another first for the internet.

@Dany:Ok sure, but isn't the point of the numbers to quickly sum up the written review? So why not use a scale most people are familiar with?

@Axxol said:

@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.

This.

4/5 = 80/100.

That's just the way math works, sorry.

@ProfessorEss: Maybe you only care about converting values to percentages. If so I agree that 4 out of 5 stars is 80 percent of the total possible stars. The point I was trying to make is that mathematical equivalency is not what metacrtic should be concerned with. It should be qualitative equivalency since the whole point is trying to determine the quality of a game and that can't be done with simple percentages because it ignores the context of the score which is the actual review.

@Funkydupe:

That's what 4 divided by 5 equals.

GB's star rating fits into metacritic as follows.

5 stars = 100%

4 stars = 80%

3 stars = 60%

2 stars = 40%

1 star = 20%

@Mr_Skeleton said:

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.

Yet, they are still a part of it, I dont think Metacritic adds websites without their approval. Jeff might not care for Metacritic, but I bet he likes the trafic it gets them.

4 out of 5 translates directly to 80 out of 100, although when talking review scores the 4 out of 5 represents a larger margin than just 80.

Also you shouldn't care about Metacritic, no-one should care about that site in reality.

@JordanK85 said:

@ProfessorEss: Maybe you only care about converting values to percentages. If so I agree that 4 out of 5 stars is 80 percent of the total possible stars. The point I was trying to make is that mathematical equivalency is not what metacrtic should be concerned with. It should be qualitative equivalency since the whole point is trying to determine the quality of a game and that can't be done with simple percentages because it ignores the context of the score which is the actual review.

The problem is that aggregation sites like Metacritic are all about mathematical equivalency. Otherwise you can't produce an aggregate score. It's "meta"critic after all, not "critic." They don't review the games themselves, and shouldn't be concerned with qualitative equivalency. They have to leave that up to the sites actually offering the score. Would you be any happier if some idiot over at Metacritic was in charge of reinterpreting Giantbomb's scores? No, Metacritic takes Giantbomb and every other review score at face value, as they must.

There's no doubt there is very limited usefulness with the aggregate score, but Metacritic leaves it to math precisely because it's supposed to be a neutral interpretation of game scores. The whole idea is that in aggregating scores, you eliminate the unusually high and low scores and come up with a consensus number. They leave the interpretation of the score up to the individual sites. You could fix this, I suppose, if you could get every critic on every site to use the same scale, but that isn't going to happen. The score is meant to be a guideline. It's just like when statisticians say that the average American family has 2.2 kids. No one actually has 2.2 kids. But the score is useful only in the big picture. You have to look at individual families to see the specifics.

Just don't take the score that seriously.

I just think the OP has an issue with BF3 only receiving 4 stars. I mean, look at his earlier post:

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

See?

@haggis: I pretty much agree with everything you said except the part about limited usefulness. I'd say they have zero usefulness since you can't reliably convert a qualitative score into a quantitative value. The example statistic you give is useful because it's the average of a quantitative value (number of kids) and you don't have to do conversion to find actual equivalency of children. A child is a child but saying 4 stars on Giant Bomb is the same as 80/100 on Metacritic is like saying 4 ouf of 5 apples is the same as 80 out of 100 oranges.

@haggis said:

Just don't take the score that seriously.

This is the most relevant, important quote any person who has ever been upset about a review score should read.

The answer is to switch to a 7 star system. Pretty sure that's how Skynet gets activated.

@Krakn3Dfx said:

The answer is to switch to a 7 star system. Pretty sure that's how Skynet gets activated.

Then, once you give three games in a row 6's, Satan rises.

I'm closing this because not only does this subject get beaten to death virtually every time a high profile game comes out, but everyone who replies is essentially saying the same thing that the people before them have said. Moving on people, nothing to see here.