gundamkyoukai
Member
flabberghastly said:
It's a action game\TPS with some puzzle and platforming throw in UC was never a adventure game.
It not the game problem that people want some it's not really going to do .
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Uncharted 3 reviews
- Thread starter Robinspain
- Start date
- Status
It's a action game\TPS with some puzzle and platforming throw in UC was never a adventure game.
It not the game problem that people want some it's not really going to do .
DangerStepp
Member
Gears of War Raidergundamkyoukai said:
I love the series, but you know it's true.
I wouldn't care to see Uncharted become open world, but I'd love to see it's levels get a little more open, more like the early sections of MGS4 where there really are a few different paths within linear environments. I really liked the small flexibility the stealth added last time around, anything to feel like I have more agency is a plus I think.
I can handle the highlighting work load.jett said:
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
gundamkyoukai
Member
DangerStepp said:
Expect this allow you more freedom in movement .
Both Gear and UC good but i play both for different reasons .
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
DangerStepp
Member
Oh, I agree. You're totally right.gundamkyoukai said:
Two totally different tones.
BruiserBear
Banned
DangerStepp said:
No, I have argued that they hit enough high points to warrant better than an 8/10. Not that they're perfect games, but they most certainly do a lot of things better than most games today, and no one will argue that's not true.
Resident_UA
Member
BruiserBear said:
Go away... You are making Uncharted fans look like idiots. What's really a difference between 8/10 and 10/10??!
badcrumble
Member
Scoring on a 1-6 scale? Madness.Combichristoffersen said:
Steve Youngblood
Member
This makes sense when there's well-defined criteria to explain exactly how points are handed out, and every person on playing and reviewing understands the metric. However, everyone has their own metric in place to answer the following vague question: using an arbitrarily selected points system, how awesome (or not) is the experience of playing the game?BruiserBear said:
D
Deleted member 81567
Unconfirmed Member
dice are so postmodern
Neuromancer
Member
2.roman2003h said:
Callibretto
Member
none of tomb raider gameplay is actually important in Uncharted. people keep saying it dude raider simply for the theme/setting. the gameplay focus between TR and UC is very different it's almost opposite of each other.DangerStepp said:
Criminal Upper
Banned
Absolutely SHOCKED at a 10/10 from IGN.
SHOCKED.
SHOCKED.
BruiserBear
Banned
Steve Youngblood said:
That would work perfectly fine if we never had any other points of reference. We've seen Eurogamer hand out plenty of 9's before.
Callibretto
Member
Criminal Upper said:
ever since I've heard that there's not gonna be any 0,5 at the score's end, I've got feeling that it will get 10. that said, I never expect it to get full 10 in all categories.
flabberghastly
Member
I wasn't referring to it's game genre, but rather it's tone. That's precisely where the dissonance comes in - between what the game does in its narrative, and what we can do with its mechanics.Ricky_R said:
Just because they achieved what they wanted to do in their vision does not mean that someone must love that vision. If my vision was to create a game full of broken mechanics and plot holes, I might very well achieve it while everyone detests it. The problem I have with the vision of Uncharted is that it seems a bit cross-eyed, providing the sense of aforementioned dissonance.perineumlick said:
As for being pompous or pretentious: I honestly don't care. If forthrightly demanding that video games evolve beyond imitations of popcorn flicks makes me an elitist ass in some eyes, so be it.
The thing about video games is that they're such a varied medium with differing genres that mean so much more to the end product than genres of books or movies. You have a completely different playstyle and level of control depending on the genre. Right now, I think, the industry is trying to move to a certain blending of genres together in order to create a new standard for the medium or to at least do something new with it. Uncharted games however unabashedly stick to their specific genre and attempt to give you the most out of it that they can.
I honestly almost feel like gaming journalism has to move to a genre based system where reviewers work within the predefined conventions of the type of game they are reviewing, but I know people just want a "is this better than this" kind of review. Comparing an RPG to a FPS is extremely hard though. In this case comparing a streamlined action-adventure game to a more open-world action-adventure game (Uncharted compared to Zelda perhaps) is still rather difficult. Both have a completely different mentality that they're working in.
That said I think the reviews should make it obvious, even Eurogamer's 8/10, that if you like this kind of game you'll love Uncharted 3 as it's the current pinnacle of the genre. If you don't like this kind of game, you might find it somewhat boring or predictable. They certainly don't bash the game, they just acknowledge the constraints placed on the genre alongside what the game actually does and place into consideration using their scores. There's nothing wrong with that, it just clashes with how other game reviewers do things. I'm fairly certain movie and book criticism has mostly evolved to the point of considering genre in a review, but then again film and novels have not had as major an overhaul in the medium as video games have had which is a medium that continues to revamp itself and continues to create 'sub-mediums' in the form of new genres or hybrid genres along with pushing the existing genres to newer and better standards every year nearly.
Take for instance Gametrailers, who I know have an odd reputation. They also seem to have a shifting scale of balance for their reviews. Their Battlefield 3 review gave a low (7 or something) review to story, but clearly in the final score they weighed the story much less than the other 3 aspects they use (design, gameplay and presentation, if I remember correctly) which were all somewhere in the 9's I think. This skewed the score to being in the 9's as well, as they gave the story a rating but didn't place much (if any) weight behind that for the overall score. BF3 after all is primarily played and certainly advertised as a multiplayer game, so they rated it as if they were rating a multiplayer game. I'm sure for Uncharted they probably give more merit to the story score as opposed to say, design, because it's a story driven game.
Sorry, this went longer than I expected but I guess I'm basically agreeing with the whole "game journalism is a weird field that has to account for many different factors and it's not easy".
This all being said, I'm really excited for Uncharted 3 and these reviews (even the 'controversial' or 'bad' scores of 8 seem to be positive in terms of what I'm looking for in this game which is really all that should matter when you watch/read a review) make me confident that it's not going to disappoint me at all and I'm going to love it.
Edit: I feel like I've written a short essay here and whenever I write an essay I always fail to explain myself in the clearest way possible on my first write, so apologies if you actually read this and some sentences seem odd; I hope you pick up on the main messages.
I honestly almost feel like gaming journalism has to move to a genre based system where reviewers work within the predefined conventions of the type of game they are reviewing, but I know people just want a "is this better than this" kind of review. Comparing an RPG to a FPS is extremely hard though. In this case comparing a streamlined action-adventure game to a more open-world action-adventure game (Uncharted compared to Zelda perhaps) is still rather difficult. Both have a completely different mentality that they're working in.
That said I think the reviews should make it obvious, even Eurogamer's 8/10, that if you like this kind of game you'll love Uncharted 3 as it's the current pinnacle of the genre. If you don't like this kind of game, you might find it somewhat boring or predictable. They certainly don't bash the game, they just acknowledge the constraints placed on the genre alongside what the game actually does and place into consideration using their scores. There's nothing wrong with that, it just clashes with how other game reviewers do things. I'm fairly certain movie and book criticism has mostly evolved to the point of considering genre in a review, but then again film and novels have not had as major an overhaul in the medium as video games have had which is a medium that continues to revamp itself and continues to create 'sub-mediums' in the form of new genres or hybrid genres along with pushing the existing genres to newer and better standards every year nearly.
Take for instance Gametrailers, who I know have an odd reputation. They also seem to have a shifting scale of balance for their reviews. Their Battlefield 3 review gave a low (7 or something) review to story, but clearly in the final score they weighed the story much less than the other 3 aspects they use (design, gameplay and presentation, if I remember correctly) which were all somewhere in the 9's I think. This skewed the score to being in the 9's as well, as they gave the story a rating but didn't place much (if any) weight behind that for the overall score. BF3 after all is primarily played and certainly advertised as a multiplayer game, so they rated it as if they were rating a multiplayer game. I'm sure for Uncharted they probably give more merit to the story score as opposed to say, design, because it's a story driven game.
Sorry, this went longer than I expected but I guess I'm basically agreeing with the whole "game journalism is a weird field that has to account for many different factors and it's not easy".
This all being said, I'm really excited for Uncharted 3 and these reviews (even the 'controversial' or 'bad' scores of 8 seem to be positive in terms of what I'm looking for in this game which is really all that should matter when you watch/read a review) make me confident that it's not going to disappoint me at all and I'm going to love it.
Edit: I feel like I've written a short essay here and whenever I write an essay I always fail to explain myself in the clearest way possible on my first write, so apologies if you actually read this and some sentences seem odd; I hope you pick up on the main messages.
Steve Youngblood
Member
But, again, the score is ultimately more or less an overall gut feeling about how awesome a game is. Your analysis is fine when you're grading a multiple choice exam of fifty questions and it's agreed that each incorrect answer subtracts two points from the perfect score of 100. But, that's not what we've got here. It's just a question of "hey, what was your overall opinion of the game expressed as an integer from 1 to 10?" You seem to be arguing that he's a lying liar who is telling lies for clicks if he thinks that Uncharted can be justified a score one point less than some of the other games that have gotten 9s that are arguably technically inferior.BruiserBear said:
I don't understand why you are so confident in your assessment on how games should be reviewed.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
The problem is that the game's movie moments - which, lets face it, is Indy inspired - gives you one type of story while the actual game play gives you another type of story. They want to tell this grand adventure with romance and globe trotting, but your moment to moment actions all involve murdering people. It depends on whether or not you can resolve that dissonance.
D
Deleted member 81567
Unconfirmed Member
The number at the bottom.(._.) said:
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
(._.) said:
Because it wasn't a 9/10 or 10/10 like most other outlets were giving it, so some people got a case of the butthurt and cried. I mean, I was surprised to see an 8 inbetween all the 9s and 10s, but it's not like 8 is a bad score.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Pranay_ said:
How come? Haven't seen it myself
BruiserBear
Banned
Steve Youngblood said:
I feel that strongly that the greats of this industry should be recognized for their greatness. There are very few developers today who produce such refined pieces of work, where everything works as it should, and nothing feels unpolished. Short of Uncharted 3 taking steps backwards from Uncharted 2, I don't see how this game shouldn't be viewed in the same light as that game was (which was a GOTY contender).
Combichristoffersen said:
Well he said that the reason he deducted point was that he scored the game a 4 out of 5 is because he felt like this game was released on the heels of Uncharted 2 too soon. Not to mention that he states that maybe he hasn't given the game enough time to sink in.
also he felt multiplayer was "tacked on"
perineumlick
Member
Never said that people had to love it; it is what it is. Some will like that vision, some won't. And there are so many different genres in gaming, and many games that don't even fit into a set genre, that I really don't understand what has to evolve. Maybe more diverse and creative games could get more success and acclaim than the usual blockbuster retreads, but that's about it.flabberghastly said:
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Pranay_ said:
Oh, right, I read about it on GAF, actually. Funny complaint though, should reviewers deduct points for annual sports games because it's been only a year since the last release?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Hey cool, David Cage posts hereflabberghastly said:
Steve Youngblood
Member
If reviews mean anything at all (and I think they mean something but should not be seen as an end-all-be-all), its greatness is already reflected in the review scores. Look at the Metacritic score. It's very high. It's high enough to withstand a few reviews that don't conform to some standard expectation that shouldn't exist in the first place. In that regard, I think what you're arguing for represents a rather immature expectation of adherence to some imagined standard on your part.BruiserBear said:
More to the point, though, I don't like what you're arguing because it represents something I find distasteful about the design process of AAA gaming. If I'm understanding what you're proposing, essentially, it seems to me that you envision an environment where Naughty Dog can know precisely what the reviews should be before anyone even touches the game. And to me, that's silliness. I'm all for trying to be somewhat objective when offering academic analysis or purchase advice on a title, but I don't think it should be some sort of boring, mechanical process.
Someone should be allowed observations that don't conform to rigorous expectations. Subjectivity has a place. We shouldn't just be looking at some imagined bullet-points of greatness and going "does this game hit the right notes? Okay, then the score will be a minimum of this, with the only deviation being to allow for people to love it even more than anticipated." I think game design needs to allow for more abstract qualities than just facilitating the refinement of a system perceived to already be "almost-perfect" and thus be guaranteed a homerun when they know they've improved upon the previous outing in an almost mathematical fashion.
It's okay Uncharted fans, nobody says the game is bad. I think Gamekult's review is perfect in a sense that it highlights all the good points by making a pretty good list of them. But it also underlines the fact that there is no evolution from ND, it's more of the same. That said, the score is the view of the reviewer. Reading "the tops and the lows" you immediatly know what to expect and that is "more of the same".
I prefer reviews more harsh because they highlight a lack of risk taking because it's a message to game devs, players and publishers. Yes it's good, but we want more. In my view, sequels must bring something new, and that ISNT new levels/locations & story. It's gotta be more than that (hint: GAMEPLAY).
I prefer reviews more harsh because they highlight a lack of risk taking because it's a message to game devs, players and publishers. Yes it's good, but we want more. In my view, sequels must bring something new, and that ISNT new levels/locations & story. It's gotta be more than that (hint: GAMEPLAY).
planar1280
Banned
So the tally is : Uncharted 1: 88/100 avg
Uncharted 2: 96/100 avg
Uncharted 3: 94/100 avg
Uncharted 2: 96/100 avg
Uncharted 3: 94/100 avg
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I posted what I think is a reasonable argument about something that bugged me in that review:(._.) said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32125457&postcount=4883
It's just a case of different priorities/different preferences IMO.
perineumlick
Member
Please. Why would you wanna do that?Patapwn said:
RooMHM said:
No Offence But their are plenty of Games which are more of the same interms of sequels.
But one thing i dont understand ?
is how easily people are dismissing so many review and are only concentrating on thhe "8".
Not so huge fan of uncharted = those 8 reviews are perfect
fans of uncharted = how did he gave that a 8 ?
- Status