Destructoid Feat. Giantbomb

Noticed Giant Bomb received a mention in a recen t Destructoid editorial: 
 
  
  The article uses GB to make a point about differences in review scores between publications with IGN as low score and GB as a high score.  The choice of websites might just be arbitrary, but I figured I'd ask; does anyone know how GBs scores trend compared to other magazines and sites?
 
I usually only look at D-toid and GB for reviews because I'm not sure how useful numerical scores are and they both tend to give more thoughtful reviews.  That being said, I am a interested to know if one publication runs higher than most.

well its just standards for me an average could be a 65 while for some stranger average could be 75

There's already a thread for it. Sort of. Here.

I posted this in a different thread already.

My bad, apparently can't delete threads, only posts.  Whoops.  Weird that it didn't come up on search.

Giant Bomb probably does trend higher than other sites, because they're willing to give 5 stars to games that they feel are awesome, even if other critics are all-too-ready to point out the flaws. It's not Giant Bomb's fault their standards are different from the rest of the internet, it's Metacritic's fault for thinking that an aggregated percentage should include reviews in a 5-point scale.
 
I mean, imagine if I ran a game website, and my preferred method for rating games found its way to the metacritic system. All of a sudden, all of my reviews would either be at the top or the bottom of the list for every game I reviewed, because 1/1 is 100% and 0/1 is 0%.

" Giant Bomb probably does trend higher than other sites, because they're willing to give 5 stars to games that they feel are awesome, even if other critics are all-too-ready to point out the flaws. It's not Giant Bomb's fault their standards are different from the rest of the internet, it's Metacritic's fault for thinking that an aggregated percentage should include reviews in a 5-point scale.  I mean, imagine if I ran a game website, and my preferred method for rating games found its way to the metacritic system. All of a sudden, all of my reviews would either be at the top or the bottom of the list for every game I reviewed, because 1/1 is 100% and 0/1 is 0%. "

  I believe Giant Bomb acknowledges that these are afterall just opinions and the star rating isn't a representation of the game's quality, but rather an indication of how likely you are to enjoy it. It makes much more sense as its more qualitative while still being a set number thats easy to identify with. I find the notion of a straight score absurd.    

"   I believe Giant Bomb acknowledges that these are afterall just opinions and the star rating isn't a representation of the game's quality, but rather an indication of how likely you are to enjoy it. It makes much more sense as its more qualitative while still being a set number thats easy to identify with. I find the notion of a straight score absurd.     "

The 5* system has worked fine for films forever, why not for games? 100 scales only exist for fanboy fuel.

"

The 5* system has worked fine for films forever, why not for games? 100 scales only exist for fanboy fuel.

"

"

The 5* system has worked fine for films forever, why not for games? 100 scales only exist for fanboy fuel.

"

" @Suicrat said:

" Giant Bomb probably does trend higher than other sites, because they're willing to give 5 stars to games that they feel are awesome, even if other critics are all-too-ready to point out the flaws. It's not Giant Bomb's fault their standards are different from the rest of the internet, it's Metacritic's fault for thinking that an aggregated percentage should include reviews in a 5-point scale.  I mean, imagine if I ran a game website, and my preferred method for rating games found its way to the metacritic system. All of a sudden, all of my reviews would either be at the top or the bottom of the list for every game I reviewed, because 1/1 is 100% and 0/1 is 0%. "

Not nessecarily. The person running the site has some arbitrary secret math bullshit behind the score conversion. There's a good chance your 0/1 score will convert to 57% or something.  "

"Noticed Giant Bomb received a mention in a recen t Destructoid editorial:        The article uses GB to make a point about differences in review scores between publications with IGN as low score and GB as a high score.  The choice of websites might just be arbitrary, but I figured I'd ask; does anyone know how GBs scores trend compared to other magazines and sites?  I usually only look at D-toid and GB for reviews because I'm not sure how useful numerical scores are and they both tend to give more thoughtful reviews.  That being said, I am a interested to know if one publication runs higher than most. "

" @Suicrat:   Hmm, good point. Then again, I tend to use scores as a sort of "quick review system": let's say I don't have the time (or attention span (that's always a given)) to read a review. I look at the score, maybe the good/bad tab if there is one, weigh all the different factors at hand, and then get the game based on that. I agree, people should read the reviews, definitely, but I still think the review score should be there. Maybe work it into the review somewhere, and not always at the end, so they have to work for it. And spell it out, so they can't just glance over it.  (And what website is this you speak of in a previous post?) "

Destructoid seems to enjoy coating everything in sarcasm. It doesn't work so well in print, and there are much more articulate ways of demonstrating humour in an article. Perhaps a casualty of the common misconception that people that enjoy playing games are journalistic equals to people who actually know how to write.

I don't think we need a topic every time Giant Bomb is mentioned in an outside outlet.

" There's already a thread for it. Sort of. Here. "