The GB rating scale and some Reach review shenanigans.

OK, so last night I read Jeff's (quality) review of Halo: Reach, and this morning I read the comments.  As you probably know, they were pretty gosh darn stupid.  Like, stupid amounts of stupid.  Lots of people were questioning the validity of the rating scale on this site, and another cute little user felt that it was crazy for "niche" games like Flower, Limbo, Trine, StarCraft 2, and Bowser's Inside Story to be 5-star games if Reach was not.  Before I talk about the scale situation, I'm going to give my opinion on why that user's opinions on Giant Bomb's (well, actually Brad's) opinions are not the correct opinions.  First, every game is niche depending on your point of view, so let's instantly discredit that point.  On to the games.  Brad liked the first two for their sense of style and atmosphere they provided.  Also they were cheap and unique.  I don't know much about Trine... but I hear it's great and also it's only $20.  StarCraft 2 is widely accepted as the best RTS since StarCraft.  Bowser's Inside Story is a competent RPG with a good sense of humor, which is  not common on a handheld.  That's all I have to say about that.
 
So about that rating scale... I dig it, others don't because they can't translate it to the 20 pt scale of GS and IGN.  I like it because of its openness, and feel it is the best way to give an opinion.  Speaking of opinions, I decided that, in my opinion, I should opinion-ate below on how I think the Bomb Squad's opinions are represented.
 

  • 1 star- The enjoyment you will get from this game is equal to that of sniffing the anal cavity of a dog.  Avoid this game at all costs.  It is completely broken and unplayable, and is not enjoyable whatsoever to any age bracket, even ironically, no matter the price.
  • 2 stars- This game has some serious issues that get in the way of enjoying the game.  Despite being boring or partially broken, the game is somewhat playable and may be enjoyed by children or extremely casual players of games.  Most ironically entertaining games lie within this category.
  • 3 stars-This game is downright mediocre or generic.  Not much more than a feature or two really jump out at you in this middling experience.  If you if a certain affinity for the game's source material, you may be into it.  If not, it won't be a bad bargain bin pick up.
  • 4 stars- This is a quality product.  Most of its features are well realized and the production values are solid.  There are a few noticeable bugs or issues but they barely inhibit your enjoyment of the game.  If you are a fan of the genre, chances are you will like this game.
  • 5 stars- This game is excellent, and is at the top of its genre.  Sure it's not perfect, but there is no such thing as a flawless title.  Also, just because a game gets this score doesn't mean that everyone will love it, especially if it is a part of a genre disliked by the reader.
 
Alright, that's that.  However, as you may be thinking, that in fact is not that.  I realized while I was halfway through writing this that the GB staff already did  this, official style.  Below, you will see a spoiler tag that contains what the GB crew considers to be a 1-5 star game.  Let's you can post what the stars mean to you and then compare it to what they're supposed to represent.
 
 
Also, feel free to air your grievances over comments that have particularly infuriated you, both in thus case and others.
 
EDIT: NOt sure if this is getting across or not, but I was fine with Reach's review and score, and I too believe that the actual review is more important than the number tied to it.  HOwever, since so many people care only about the number, I feel that it too has to be addressed.
50 Comments