Avatar image for delt31
#1 Posted by delt31 (79 posts) -

I love this website. I support it with a membership but the rating scale is unnecessarily harsh. Four out of Five or Five out of Five (80 vs 100) is not appropriate. There needs to be a 90 or something in between. I'm well aware that the guys on the site want the reviews to answer whether you should buy it or not but cmon - mario super land 3d as an 80? I believe even Jeff would give it a 4.5 out of 5 or something like that.

Please consider redoing the scale.

Thanks!

Avatar image for jjnen
#2 Posted by jjnen (680 posts) -

No.

Also 4.5 would translate to 5 in GBs scale.

Avatar image for everettescott
#3 Posted by EveretteScott (1649 posts) -

@Rappelsiini said:

No.

Exactly. Go somewhere else if you want more numbers/stars.

Avatar image for triviaman09
#4 Posted by triviaman09 (940 posts) -

They have said no to this multiple times. They believe the 1-5 scale serves its purpose well and I mostly agree.

Online
Avatar image for daroki
#5 Posted by Daroki (772 posts) -

Didn't realize that Metacritic mattered towards the rating system. I'm sure in bombcasts before they've said they're happy with their out of 5 rating scale so I don't think there's any desire to change it because of how an outside influence uses the score.

Avatar image for tourgen
#6 Edited by tourgen (4568 posts) -

No.  It's everyone else who has the messed up rating scale.
 
If you care about metacritic so much petition to move the 5 star system to 60-70-80-90-100.  That's what all the other sites do in reality anyway.
 
And just to clarify, your post is factually incorrect.  Mario 3D got a 4 star rating here, not an 80 or any other numerical rating.  Metacritic gave it the 80.

Avatar image for artigkar
#7 Posted by Artigkar (193 posts) -

Is this about Metacritic or something?

Avatar image for pinworm45
#8 Posted by Pinworm45 (4069 posts) -

The five star system is the best system for rating video games.

Do not think of it as 80% because that is silly.

Avatar image for iamjohn
#9 Posted by iAmJohn (6232 posts) -

Get lost.

Avatar image for rockinkemosabe
#10 Posted by rockinkemosabe (647 posts) -

Wasn't there a thread exactly like this a few weeks ago??

Avatar image for inkerman
#11 Posted by inkerman (1493 posts) -

The number of stars do not translate into percentages, I believe the translation is as follows; 
 
5/5 - PLAY THIS GAME!!!! 
4/5 - This game is very good, we would recommend you play it. 
3/5 - This game is good, but has some problems. 
2/5 - Don't play this game unless you're a fan of the genre/series or can overlook the numerous problems. 
1/5 - Do not play this game.

Avatar image for mikemcn
#12 Posted by Mikemcn (8175 posts) -

You seem to misunderstand GB, it's not like other websites, if it was like other websites, Most of us wouldn't be here.

Avatar image for ssj4raditz
#13 Posted by ssj4raditz (1156 posts) -

How about no?

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

The meta critic! YOU RUINED THE META CRITIC!

Avatar image for pw2566ch
#15 Posted by pw2566ch (499 posts) -

Actually, I think everyone should throw away all review scores. Just post the review. No score. It will literally get rid of Metacritic (the gaming portion) and throw off the publishers completely.

Avatar image for liquidswords
#16 Posted by LiquidSwords (2728 posts) -

@Mikemcn said:

You seem to misunderstand GB, it's not like other websites, if it was like other websites, Most of us wouldn't be here.

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

@delt31 said:

I love this website. I support it with a membership but the rating scale is unnecessarily harsh. Four out of Five or Five out of Five (80 vs 100) is not appropriate. There needs to be a 90 or something in between. I'm well aware that the guys on the site want the reviews to answer whether you should buy it or not but cmon - mario super land 3d as an 80? I believe even Jeff would give it a 4.5 out of 5 or something like that.

Please consider redoing the scale.

Thanks!

No, Giantbomb's scale isn't harsh, Metacritic is just a bad site, and it's just plain dumb to average out the scores. Have you seen how they handle 1up's scores?

Avatar image for dagbiker
#18 Posted by Dagbiker (7041 posts) -

Your grip should be with megachronic not giantbomb

Avatar image for fodigga
#19 Posted by fodigga (143 posts) -

@delt31: It is a 5 point scale. That is what it is, what it probably always will be and what you should accept from this site.

You're not supposed to be looking at a score of 4 out of 5 and translating that to 80 out of 100. Scores don't work like that.

For Giant Bomb, a 5 star score is the highest recommendation they can give and 4 stars is their second highest score. Don't look at those numbers and try to translate them into some other 10 or 20 point scale because that is not at all the purpose of their reviews.

Avatar image for ahmadmetallic
#20 Posted by AhmadMetallic (19301 posts) -
And you're reading the GB reviews on Metacritic.com why..?
Avatar image for chilibean_3
#21 Posted by chilibean_3 (2185 posts) -

Half stars are for indecisive chumps. You aren't a chump, are you?

Avatar image for pw2566ch
#22 Posted by pw2566ch (499 posts) -

@Pinworm45 said:

The five star system is the best system for rating video games.

Do not think of it as 80% because that is silly.

I disagree. If I had to choose any rating system. It would be a 10-scale system. Or what the OP was mentioning about .5's and such. It seems like the 5-scale rating system is best because most reviewers don't follow it right. As far as I know, Jim Sterling is the only one.

Avatar image for kingzetta
#23 Posted by kingzetta (4497 posts) -

that's stupid

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

lol

Avatar image for packie
#25 Posted by Packie (257 posts) -

Why do people care about the metacritic score so much? sheesh...

Avatar image for doctorchimp
#26 Posted by Doctorchimp (4186 posts) -

@delt31 said:

I love this website. I support it with a membership but the rating scale is unnecessarily harsh. Four out of Five or Five out of Five (80 vs 100) is not appropriate. There needs to be a 90 or something in between. I'm well aware that the guys on the site want the reviews to answer whether you should buy it or not but cmon - mario super land 3d as an 80? I believe even Jeff would give it a 4.5 out of 5 or something like that.

Please consider redoing the scale.

Thanks!

Are you a troll?

It feels like you're trolling.

Avatar image for ben_h
#27 Posted by Ben_H (3938 posts) -

People said this in 2008. We told them to go away. People say this in 2011, we still tell them to go away. Read the review, don't just look at the score.

Avatar image for dagbiker
#28 Posted by Dagbiker (7041 posts) -

Your all wrong, the Puppy scale is the best scale.

Avatar image for video_game_king
#29 Posted by Video_Game_King (36564 posts) -

I'm surprised that nobody has posted what Giant Bomb's rating system actually means (by that, I mean the literal words, or a link to them).

Avatar image for landon
#30 Posted by Landon (4137 posts) -

They didn't give Super Mario Land 3D an 80, they gave it a 4/5.

Avatar image for spiceninja
#31 Posted by spiceninja (3239 posts) -

You're taking review scores way too seriously.

Avatar image for mikkaq
#32 Posted by MikkaQ (10296 posts) -

Who gives a care about percentages and metascore? 4/5 is not 80/100, it's 4 out of fucking 5. If people can't get that through their thick skulls, then there's no helping them.

Avatar image for smitty86
#33 Posted by smitty86 (708 posts) -

I argue that Giantbomb should go even further. Giantbomb - Home of the World's only 1000 Point Rating System....until Gamebomb.ru steals it and improves on it.

Avatar image for delt31
#34 Posted by delt31 (79 posts) -

I must admit that I hold this website above all else including the people that usually are contributing on the forums but this intense backlash and put downs are ridiculous. I could give a rats ass about metacritic. I'm sorry but I'm a person who uses math and logic to base my decisions and opinions, which I recommend some of you guys doing. In the logical world where something receives 4 out of 5, that equals 80% plain and simple. I am not trolling, I don't care about raising scores for X game, I want the best gaming website in the world to recognize that there scoring system should be re-evaluated which Jeff said they have done and will continue to do. I am simply reminding them that this system (imo) is flawed. Yes I can look at it as 4 stars equals great but when you have a scale that is SO compact and doesn't allow you to decipher between what is a Mario 3d land 4 stars vs what is a Fruit ninja 4 stars, you probably have an issue. Again, i value this website for the input, videos and tons of other things that I pay for via membership but when I look at things to improve, their rating system is the top of my list. If I can't express that without being put down for not sucking _____, than seriously, you guys are no better than the IGN fanboys.

Avatar image for nintendoeats
#35 Posted by nintendoeats (6222 posts) -

The crew have explained their reasoning several times, and I ***** out of ***** agree with it.

Avatar image for chilibean_3
#36 Edited by chilibean_3 (2185 posts) -

@delt31: If you had used some sort of logic then you would have tried to understand the rating system before asking for pointless changes. It's simple. It's straight forward. It's the best system out there.

If that's not enough, here are some simple illustrations we think you'll find helpful:

While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation.

Still very good and easy to recommend, though it doesn't quite live up to its full potential.

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.

This game's problems outweigh its good qualities.

This game will make you wish you had died in a fire moments before turning it on.

Damn you, Video_Game_King.

Avatar image for fluxwavez
#37 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19836 posts) -

Catherine got a 40/100 on Giant Bomb. Probably the lowest reviewed high profile game (by Metacritic standards) on any website this year? This thread just made me think of that is all.

Avatar image for landon
#38 Posted by Landon (4137 posts) -

@delt31: This rating system isn't made to compare two games. Fruit Ninja and Super Mario Land 3D both getting 4 stars isn't running into any problems. They are both great games, so says the review. If you need to make a decision over which one you should buy, then read the review and watch the quick looks. Problem solved.

Avatar image for artgarcrunkle
#39 Posted by artgarcrunkle (988 posts) -

Game reviews are a joke I don't know why you care anyways.

Avatar image for pulledabrad
#40 Posted by PulledaBrad (631 posts) -

Its for gauging a games quality at a glance, not some end all be all to the review. I wish that scores would be done away with and THEN people might read the reviews and make up their minds instead of bickering about what a game should be scored.

Avatar image for guided_by_tigers
#41 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8020 posts) -

@RockinKemosabe said:

Wasn't there a thread exactly like this a few weeks ago??

There are a lot of threads on this subject.

Avatar image for iamjohn
#42 Posted by iAmJohn (6232 posts) -

@delt31 said:

Yes I can look at it as 4 stars equals great but when you have a scale that is SO compact and doesn't allow you to decipher between what is a Mario 3d land 4 stars vs what is a Fruit ninja 4 stars, you probably have an issue.

It's called the review text. Maybe you should read it.

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

Please update your life and stop worrying about a video game rating scale.

Avatar image for williamhenry
#44 Edited by WilliamHenry (1285 posts) -

@pw2566ch said:

@Pinworm45 said:

The five star system is the best system for rating video games.

Do not think of it as 80% because that is silly.

I disagree. If I had to choose any rating system. It would be a 10-scale system. Or what the OP was mentioning about .5's and such. It seems like the 5-scale rating system is best because most reviewers don't follow it right. As far as I know, Jim Sterling is the only one.

I can understand why you would want a 10 point scale, but its fundamentally flawed. What would really be the difference between a 4 point game and a 1 point game? They are both bad enough that you would never play them, so theres no need for those points to even exist. With the way games are scored these days, you might as well say whats the difference between a 6 point game and a 1 point game. A five point system works just fine.

To everyone who always says they should drop the start system altogether, how many people actually read text reviews? Its got to be like 1 out of 10.

Avatar image for evilsbane
#45 Edited by Evilsbane (5562 posts) -

You don't need a goddamn 1000 point scale taking every little detail into account, the stars are not meant to be put up against each other, every game is rated on its own merits it doesn't fucking matter if Fruit Ninja Kinect scored the same as fucking MW3 they are two Entirely different games and were never meant to be compared like that, your whole argument pretty much for me Validates why the 5 star system is clearly superior to anything else, a fucking number doesn't mean anything it was created to let you know at a glance what the overall feeling for the game was and that score is supposed to be taken with READING THE GODDAMN REVIEW.

Half stars are pointless, 9.3's are pointless, A- B+ D-- are pointless,

1 Star: Fucking Sucks

2 Stars: It's pretty rough, approach with caution

3 Stars: Didn't live up to its full potential but if you like the genre try it

4 Stars: Great Fucking game just a few points that kept it from greatness

5 Stars: We Can't recommend it more highly

Nothing is missing from that you can put every fucking game every made to that scale and it makes total sense, the obsession with scores and MetaBullshitic truly baffles me. Guess what, Catherine didn't score a 40, BF3 and MW3 didn't score 80,

2 OUT OF 5 and 4 OUT OF 5

Avatar image for slightconfuse
#46 Posted by SlightConfuse (3996 posts) -

learn to read son, the score is just a number assigned to the reviewers thoughts by it self means nothing. only publishers care about scores

Avatar image for sniperxan
#47 Posted by SniperXan (233 posts) -

The five point system forces them to use the entire scale period. Every website that uses a 10 or 100 point system usually only uses the top 50% of the scale anyway, making a 5/10 the worst you can get in most cases... I love the five point system, keep on keeping on GB! Oh, and I hope Metacritic and its makers die in a fire.

Avatar image for myketuna
#48 Posted by myketuna (1881 posts) -

@Evilsbane said:

You don't need a goddamn 1000 point scale taking every little detail into account, the stars are not meant to be put up against each other, every game is rated on its own merits it doesn't fucking matter if Fruit Ninja Kinect scored the same as fucking MW3 they are two Entirely different games and were never meant to be compared like that, your whole argument pretty much for me Validates why the 5 star system is clearly superior to anything else, a fucking number doesn't mean anything it was created to let you know at a glance what the overall feeling for the game was and that score is supposed to be taken with READING THE GODDAMN REVIEW.

Half stars are pointless, 9.3's are pointless, A- B+ D-- are pointless,

1 Star: Fucking Sucks

2 Stars: It's pretty rough, approach with caution

3 Stars: Didn't live up to its full potential but if you like the genre try it

4 Stars: Great Fucking game just a few points that kept it from greatness

5 Stars: We Can't recommend it more highly

Nothing is missing from that you can put every fucking game every made to that scale and it makes total sense, the obsession with scores and MetaBullshitic truly baffles me. Guess what, Catherine didn't score a 40, BF3 and MW3 didn't score 80,

2 OUT OF 5 and 4 OUT OF 5

But, but...

Seriously though, what Evil said.

I love the passion here.

Avatar image for fodigga
#49 Posted by fodigga (143 posts) -

@delt31: Coming from someone who doesn't think there should be review scores for anything, I think boiling the system down to something as simple as 5 stars is probably the best we're going to get.

I appreciate math and logic more than most, but I just don't understand your insistence on extrapolating one of the simplest scoring systems into something far more complex. If you really wanted to use percentages I think it would be more fitting to apply a range of values for each star. For instance, a 4/5 star review should be interpreted as somewhere between 70% and 90%, and 5/5 would be anything higher than that.

This all harkens back to the old gamespot and ign 100 point scales where there was such granularity in each score that most of the scores were rendered pretty much useless.

Think about it, is there really much difference between and 80% and 85%, or 85% and 90%?

I'm just trying to be reasonable about this issue, but I do think you are looking at in a far too complex manner.

Avatar image for deactivated-589cf9e3c287e
#50 Posted by deactivated-589cf9e3c287e (1984 posts) -

@delt31:

I like Giant Bomb's review scale, it forces me to read the review text and pay attention to the games I want to purchase.

Get an avatar, you'll get an achievement.