Do you consider 3/5 stars a bad score on GB?

I didn't at first, but apparently the editors do because they really grill those 3 star games.

EDIT: I think 3 star reviews should be given to...fairly good games. I guess it's just hard to shake the habit of converting the scores into the GS 10.0 where 6 is bad, because it seems like that's what they have been doing.

I consider it a 6-7.5/10.
Games is decent and worth a rent if I was interested in the game before, but not a purchase.

I consider it an average game... Not too bad, but not too good. Worth a rental, but not a purchase.

I think it's broad enough to convey quite a few meanings, and it's average in my eyes. I can't stand people who try to say "THAT MEANS 6/10 LOLOLOL". It does not. At all.

Yes I consider 3/5 bad on any review for anything cough Soul Calibur IV review Cough

Good enough to check out if already interested, but not if you had no desire to play it beforehand.

A 3 star game is, at the least, a solid rent.  It''s just okay.

I don't go by percentage wise (1/5 = 20 percent, 2/5 = 40 percent, 3/5 = 60 percent, 4/5 = 80 percent, 5/5 = 100 percent). Anything that is a 3 or more is considered "good" in my book. I mean, scoring wise, it doesn't mean I will like it, though. 3/5 does not mean 60 percent to me, it means it is good, but has flaws.

Yes, I do.

"I don't go by percentage wise (1/5 = 20 percent, 2/5 = 40 percent, 3/5 = 60 percent, 4/5 = 80 percent, 5/5 = 100 percent). Anything that is a 3 or more is considered "good" in my book. I mean, scoring wise, it doesn't mean I will like it, though. 3/5 does not mean 60 percent to me, it means it is good, but has flaws."

Of course.. it means 'meh' in my mind. Sort of like a 6 or so out of 10.

Not really, to me it more means, the game has it's issues, but it also has redeemable qualities, and if you can look past the issue, it can be enjoyable.

Umm not really, I see it as "ok". Maybe not good enough to spend $60 on but if I know i will love the game then the score doesn't matter for me. Or if it's a direct sequel to a game I really loved then score also doesn't matter.

I consider it to be an average score.

no. i think its the equivalent of 7/10 on the gamespot scale.

I hate the 1-5 scoring method, even though it comes in halves. I'd much rather them use an, out of 10 scoring method. Would be alot easier to define.

"Not really, to me it more means, the game has it's issues, but it also has redeemable qualities, and if you can look past the issue, it can be enjoyable."

i wouldnt buy no games that scores 3/5

moreso a you try it out if it looks cool

Overall, scores mean nothing to me. 

Blue Dragon is one of my favorite games this gen, so is Lost Odyssey.  Both scored mehly.

Yeah, like a lot of people said, just average but not bad.  I'll probably buy Too Human when it gets to the 30-40 range, I, unlike a lot of people, did enjoy the demo.  If the game was longer I'd buy it for 60.

"I hate the 1-5 scoring method, even though it comes in halves. I'd much rather them use an, out of 10 scoring method. Would be alot easier to define."

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.

Taken from the faq.

Myself, I think of it as a Meh

No. A 3-star is average or good in my opinion, whereas a 5 is amazing, a 4 is great, 2 is mediocre, and a one is just terrible.

No. A 3-star is average or good in my opinion, whereas a 5 is amazing, a 4 is great, 2 is mediocre, and a one is just terrible.

3 Stars is good in my opinion as there is a bigger amount of stars compared to "blank" stars, good as "not really bad, but not really great either".
4 would be great, 5 amazing/must-buy. 2 stars are not worth a purchase, but maybe worth a check to certain people or at least a rental, and 1 star is just "thanks for showing up, now go home".
I think we need a no-star rating. I can think of a number of games that deserve a no star rating.

I believe they are really average and/or bland games, or games with unrealized potential. Many may be worth a rent, and others worth a buy if your interested in the subject matter.

I think the editors at GB have chosen to use the five star system to try and get away from the griping people aim at ten point systems on various websites.  The score is not the be-all and end-all; a good review will tell you whether the game is something you might be interested in, assuming you read it.  I think that in that regard the reviews on GB are pretty good. 

3 stars would be quite good or average maybe.

A lot of my favorite games would be reviewed as average or awful.

it's a '"don't get too excited" or "if you happen to see it REALLY cheap..."

"I don't go by percentage wise (1/5 = 20 percent, 2/5 = 40 percent, 3/5 = 60 percent, 4/5 = 80 percent, 5/5 = 100 percent). Anything that is a 3 or more is considered "good" in my book. I mean, scoring wise, it doesn't mean I will like it, though. 3/5 does not mean 60 percent to me, it means it is good, but has flaws."

EDIT: Double-post. I shall blame the sensitivity of the mouse and pretend like it didn't happen. :P

"I think it's broad enough to convey quite a few meanings, and it's average in my eyes. I can't stand people who try to say "THAT MEANS 6/10 LOLOLOL". It does not. At all."

I see 3 Stars as... "meh"

This is how I break it down in my mind.

1 = Broken
2 = Not Broken but probably boring as hell.
3 = Average. Genre fans only. Others need not apply.
4 = Get out your wallets. It's a keeper.
5 = Gaming masterpiece. Play it or get off the planet.

3/5 basically tells me its just your average, run-of-the-mill game. It doesn't stand out among the other games. Its not bad, but it isn't good either.

3/5= Average

Average= Bad.

/thread

3 stars to me means that the game isnt for everyone.
its a rental

If a game I was anticipating got a 3/5 I'd buy it. If its a game I had no interest in...I wouldnt bother with it.

For me three stars says "rent and see".

Nah. 3 stars is just "average" in my book. Doesnt mean its not worth your time.

I see it as
1. Broken/awful, what were they thinking?
2. Poor, needs alot of work
3. Good, but better if you're a fan or know what you're getting into
4. Great, you'll enjoy it
5. Must have, yabba dabba doo.

I didn't before and I don't now. As as the editors have outlined 3/5 stars doesn't mean they hate it.

I could care less...I don't care what any score says. I respect what they enjoy and respect their opinion, but if they bash a game that I wanted to try out it's not going to change my mind. I wish these scores could just go away, but that will never happen because the majority of people want them...and many live by them.

I think of it as a game that was obviously designed well and many features were included, but it simply doesn't play out that well.

"I hate the 1-5 scoring method, even though it comes in halves. I'd much rather them use an, out of 10 scoring method. Would be alot easier to define."

no. I would cosider that good, but not great. Giant Bomb really needs to go to 1-10