Support NeoGAF

[Loudninja]

Guardian review 5/5

Decades ago, all the talk in the world of games centred on beating Hollywood at its own game – but what we got, instead, demonstrated how difficult that was. But Uncharted 3, perhaps for the first time, represents what we all hoped games would eventually evolve into. Its production values are sky-high, and it puts you at the centre of a gloriously rich and irresistible world, controlling a character who is heroic, but also convincingly human. It's also mildly didactic, and feels less dumbed-down than any mainstream movie we've come across in years. For once, you're able to forget that it's a mere collection of ones and noughts: the sheer slickness and believability of Uncharted 3's production and characters ought to induce widespread self-flagellation in Hollywood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technolog...iew?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Callibretto]

Could somebody summarize why there was some controversy over the eurogamer review? I read it and the guy actually formed his own opinion instead of writing the typical "OMFG EXPLOSIONS AWESOME BUY THIS" that clutters gaming blogs.

basically it's about whether a reviewer should give a game for what it's trying to achieve or taking the target audience into consideration, or should we take the reviewer's preference and what he think the game should/could have been over the game.

eurogamer didn't say anything factually wrong. he mentioned Uncharted's flaws for being linear and scripted, think that kind of game is ultimately shallow so he give it 8 for review score, while acknowledging that for this kind of game, it's really really good. so basiaclly, no matter how good Uncharted 3 is, as long as it retain Uncharted formula, it can never get 10 from this particular reviewer.

those who disagree with this basically think this particular game design and formula have merit and should be reviewed for what it's trying to do, which in the scope of linear cinematic game, UC3 is at the top of the game and should be scored as such.

I think it's an interesting discussion really, maybe someone should make a new thread discussing this

 

[Pranay]

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 ?

quoting for new page

 

[Loudninja]

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).

What are you talking about?

Its like people are trying to create controversy that is not there.

 

[LProtag]

Really I think metacritic is to blame for review outrage as these reviews are seen as lowering the overall score.

I don't think metacritic is a good place for video game reviews to be honestly.

 

[Patapwn]

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).

The basis of your argument is incorrect because there is new gameplay in Uncharted 3. (IE new melee system, horse riding, vertical climbing system, in water tps, other stuff I'm sure) And I love how the prefect review for you is the lowest one.

 

[RooMHM]

I totally agree, I think very few games deserve mentionning, in fact I'd say it's one of the worst, if not the worst.

And I love how the prefect review for you is the lowest one.

Maybe because I'm not a fan of sequels without innovation?!

-->edited

 

[StuBurns]

I think Metacritic is a good thing (or at least it was before the horrible redesign, now GameRankings is much nicer to use). The only reason it's seen as bad is because publishers are using it to gauge so much, so the reviews that contribute to it matter, the Metacritic concept itself I think is a positive one.

 

[Mooreberg]

Guardian review 5/5

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technolog...iew?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

What is interesting is that this equates to the exact same thing as a 10/10 but nobody will flip out about this and say they hope the reviewer's wife leaves him. Maybe everything needs to be a five point scale, because the perfect scores on that scale have drawn absolutely no heat, despite having the same impact on the review average.

I totally agree, I think very few games deserve mentionning this game, in fact I'd say it's one of the worst, if not the worst.

The bold part is the most confusing thing I have read in this thread since the guy who said everybody loved the IGN review after ten pages of people bashing it.

 

[Cruzader]

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.

You must joking, right?

 

[LowEndTorque]

Wow, this thread is still chugging along huh? I thought the shitstorm was over.

What's deliciously hilarious is that there are almost as many people raging about 10/10 scores as there are bitching about 8/10 scores.

"Simon Parkin gave GOTG an 8/10? What a pretentious troll!"
"Greg Miller gave this mediocre POS a 10/10? LOL no wonder his wife divorced him!"

There is no such thing as "sane Gaf" Everyone that has posted in this thread, including myself is a batshit crazy fanboy pretending to be sane, balanced and objective. Just admit it people =p

Spoiler

In b4 "speak for yourself" replies

 

[marjo]

You must joking, right?

Why, he's absolutely right. The uncharted series suffers from a huge disconnect between the game story and gameplay actions. It's almost comical. GTA IV had the same problem.

 

[squidyj]

I think Metacritic is a good thing (or at least it was before the horrible redesign, now GameRankings is much nicer to use). The only reason it's seen as bad is because publishers are using it to gauge so much, so the reviews that contribute to it matter, the Metacritic concept itself I think is a positive one.

Metacritic is inherently flawed because review scores are inherently flawed. It's impossible for a review score to accurately reflect the interest of all gamers and the lack of uniformity in processes and standards leads to a mess. The amalgamation into a single score does somewhat alleviate this by averaging a hundred voices but really written reviews remain far and away more valuable in terms of understanding whether or not a game is worth picking up.

 

[BruiserBear]

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.

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.

No, I'm not proposing anything of the sort.


I'm saying that as a reviewer of videogames, if I saw a game like Uncharted 3 roll across my desk, I could not envision myself giving that game less than a 9/10. It does certain things so damn well, and so far beyond the drivel that many games give us today, that it deserves such merit. I say that partially based on what I've seen and played of Uncharted 3, and partially based on what I played with Uncharted 1/2. Of course that doesn't mean it would get a 9/10 without playing it, but it would have to notably regress for me to come to the conclusion that 8/10 was warranted.

I'm not suggesting that as an organization Eurogamer should have this viewpoint. I'm just suggesting that if I were reviewing this game, that is the feeling I would have about it right now.

 

[GhostWriter24]

And a quick word from sane GAF: This and Dark Souls should be in every PS3 gamers' collection this year. If not you are dead to me and this message board.

 

[StuBurns]

Metacritic is inherently flawed because review scores are inherently flawed. It's impossible for a review score to accurately reflect the interest of all gamers and the lack of uniformity in processes and standards leads to a mess. The amalgamation into a single score does somewhat alleviate this by averaging a hundred voices but really written reviews remain far and away more valuable in terms of understanding whether or not a game is worth picking up.

I don't see how that's a bad thing, it's going some way to correcting reviews by adding the 'wisdom of crowds'. It's not intending to tell you if you'll like it, it's intending to tell you if reviewers liked it on average. It gives you the data, it leaves it to you to determine what to do with it.

 

[Dr. Malik]

Thread title deserves a change its attracting too much negativity over something that has been covered for 15+ pages already, either that or give me the OT

 

[Jarmel]

I don't see how that's a bad thing, it's going some way to correcting reviews by adding the 'wisdom of crowds'. It's not intending to tell you if you'll like it, it's intending to tell you if reviewers liked it on average. It gives you the data, it leaves it to you to determine what to do with it.

Exactly. It gives an overall impression about the quality of the game. Not whether you as an individual will like it.

 

[Loudninja]

Thread title deserves a change its attracting too much negativity over something that has been covered for 15+ pages already, either that or give me the OT

Yes!

 

[Patapwn]

Maybe because I'm not a fan of sequels without innovation?!

-->edited

Don't be shy to quote the first part. You might see why your response was redundant and wrong

 

[Cruzader]

Why, he's absolutely right. The uncharted series suffers from a huge disconnect between the game story and gameplay actions. It's almost comical. GTA IV had the same problem.

All video games have this and more so future games with realistic settings. At the end, they are just games. If not seen that way, they will be boring. It's like movies. Transformers is a movie for people of all ages but you ignore all the deaths occurring in the freeway from the transformers skating through it and blowing shit up. It's a movie, who gives a shit who dies in those scenes that look awesome with cars getting crushed and blown to pieces.

 

[dragonflys545]

I totally agree, I think very few games deserve mentionning, in fact I'd say it's one of the worst, if not the worst.

Maybe because I'm not a fan of sequels without innovation?!

-->edited

LOL innovation on sequels... SURE...

 

[Sn4ke_911]

quoting for new page

Why?

 

[Pranay]

Why?

Last Post in the page and it was a reply to someone.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Really I think metacritic is to blame for review outrage as these reviews are seen as lowering the overall score.
I don't think metacritic is a good place for video game reviews to be honestly.

Well the good thing is that it encourages competition between the studios, which in turns increases the quality of games. The amount of good scoring games this year is simply unbelievable.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

So I'm guessing the game is good then.

 

[scitek]

No, I'm not proposing anything of the sort.


I'm saying that as a reviewer of videogames, if I saw a game like Uncharted 3 roll across my desk, I could not envision myself giving that game less than a 9/10. It does certain things so damn well, and so far beyond the drivel that many games give us today, that it deserves such merit. I say that partially based on what I've seen and played of Uncharted 3, and partially based on what I played with Uncharted 1/2. Of course that doesn't mean it would get a 9/10 without playing it, but it would have to notably regress for me to come to the conclusion that 8/10 was warranted.

I'm not suggesting that as an organization Eurogamer should have this viewpoint. I'm just suggesting that if I were reviewing this game, that is the feeling I would have about it right now.

 

[Lion Heart]

Guardian review 5/5

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technolog...iew?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Nice review, thanks for posting. Gt5 DLC will hold me over nicely for the next week.

 

[Gvaz]

No, I'm not proposing anything of the sort.


I'm saying that as a reviewer of videogames, if I saw a game like Uncharted 3 roll across my desk, I could not envision myself giving that game less than a 9/10. It does certain things so damn well, and so far beyond the drivel that many games give us today, that it deserves such merit. I say that partially based on what I've seen and played of Uncharted 3, and partially based on what I played with Uncharted 1/2. Of course that doesn't mean it would get a 9/10 without playing it, but it would have to notably regress for me to come to the conclusion that 8/10 was warranted.

I'm not suggesting that as an organization Eurogamer should have this viewpoint. I'm just suggesting that if I were reviewing this game, that is the feeling I would have about it right now.

Let me paraphrase what you're saying here:

"The previous games were great so this one will be great, I don't even have to play it to know that. I don't actually even have to do my job, I can just write some words and slap a number on it that it may or may not deserve."

 

[spats]

So I'm guessing the game is good then.

Only if you like mediocre 8/10 games.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well the good thing is that it encourages competition between the studios, which in turns increases the quality of games. The amount of good scoring games this year is simply unbelievable.

That...is a weird correlation to draw. The reason we have such amazing games this year is that we got two entries from the industries two best "linear experience" devs, we're getting two more entries in huge franchises that only release every 4-6 years and that are known for their consistently high quality, and a sequel to one of the most surprisingly good games in the last five years. I would say that all of the really excellent games this year all just happened to fall on the same year; they're quality specifically because of the known talent behind them.

 

[EloquentM]

Thread title deserves a change its attracting too much negativity over something that has been covered for 15+ pages already, either that or give me the OT

LOL just 15? lol more like 60+ pages

 

[KingK]

The Gamespot video review is pretty spoilerific. I kinda regret watching it...
It was a pretty good review though. It seems like their only real complaints are that the AI can be dumb/inconsistent sometimes. I wonder what difficulty they played on?

 

[Dr. Malik]

LOL just 15? lol more like 60+ pages

pfft, 50 pp peasant.
and I did add the + to it just to be safe

 

[Corto]

The problem I have with all the cinematic experience claims and defenses I see of Uncharted is precisely the kind of cinematic experience it provides. I honestly agree with what Simon Parkin said in Eurogamer's GOTY2009 article:

There's nothing wrong with a big, dumb feel-good matinee, and Uncharted 2 certainly deserved every accolade laid at its feet, but is that really what we're going to point to as our very medium's best in the last 12 months? Dead Nazis, yetis, stubble and one-liners? It's like picking The Temple of Doom over the Seventh Seal.​

While I won't go so far to claim that there was any Seventh Seal-level game released in 2009, I do find it very telling that the sorts of cinema that developers most often emulate is the standard style-over-substance action blockbuster. The scripting and corridors might be more forgivable if Naughty Dog was achieving more - or even just attempting to achieve more - than letting me play a polygonal Indiana Jones. The games are fun (don't get me wrong), but they're stupid fun, that makes me feel like I should finish it with buttered popcorn grease dripping from my fingers and someone else's spilled soda sticking my shoes to the ground.

An absurd degree of cognitive dissonance exists in the Uncharted series. It's an adventure game, but you're never really permitted by the developers to go off and adventure. You stick to their banal movie script, with one and only one task: be Nolan North's stunt double.

Why not? Should the games industry feel ashamed that it is just that, an entertainment industry? Raiders of The Lost Ark can't be considered one of the greatest movies of all time? It seems to me that any kind of escapist fun being diminished for being just that, in a video game or movie form, that is where lies the true cognitive dissonance. So, yes, when in the future someone wants to list the best games of this generation one could point Uncharted as one of those without any reservation. It seems to me that to leave it out because it is superficial, or not intellectual enough, would be just a contrived excuse to make the medium a more "mature" and accepted than it already is. There is space in the medium to the full spectrum of entertainment, from the highly scripted set-piece driven action game, to the more open world free roaming exploration game, to the platformer, the deep role playing game, to the hybridization of all the above. And excellence can be found in every single one of them.

 

[darkwing]

The Gamespot video review is pretty spoilerific. I kinda regret watching it...
It was a pretty good review though. It seems like their only real complaints are that the AI can be dumb/inconsistent sometimes. I wonder what difficulty they played on?

I think its standard for reviewers to play it at the default difficulty since this is what most players use

 

[RedRedSuit]

No, I'm not proposing anything of the sort.


I'm saying that as a reviewer of videogames, if I saw a game like Uncharted 3 roll across my desk, I could not envision myself giving that game less than a 9/10. It does certain things so damn well, and so far beyond the drivel that many games give us today, that it deserves such merit. I say that partially based on what I've seen and played of Uncharted 3, and partially based on what I played with Uncharted 1/2. Of course that doesn't mean it would get a 9/10 without playing it, but it would have to notably regress for me to come to the conclusion that 8/10 was warranted.

I'm not suggesting that as an organization Eurogamer should have this viewpoint. I'm just suggesting that if I were reviewing this game, that is the feeling I would have about it right now.

This exact mindset is partially the reason why game reviews have this annoying "goodwill" system which causes every AAA sequel -- unless it really fucks up -- to get 90%+ scores almost regardless of flaws or changing standards or repetition. From the moment Halo was released, Halos 2, 3, 4, ... have been guaranteed 90%+ scores. From the moment Uncharted 2 shocked everyone, Uncharteds 3, 4, ... have been guaranteed 90%+ scores. Same with Zelda, main Mario games, and so on. Reviews of AAA games have about as much to do with quality as they do with preconceived notions of the particular series.

The video game press is largely drive by hype and reputation. It's annoying as hell.

Don't get me wrong. Uncharted 3 looks amazing. I have no reason to believe the Eurogamer guy is right and the 10/10 people are wrong. But he should review the game on its own merits and according to his own standards. As long as he explains those, there is no problem. After all, if 1 of 50 reviewers thinks games like Uncharted aren't interactive enough, chances are 1 of 50 gamers might feel the same way. I'm not that 1 of 50... but they are out there, even though I find those people insane. So it all works out.

Why not? Should the games industry feel ashamed that it is just that, an entertainment industry? Raiders of The Lost Ark can't be considered one of the greatest movies of all time? It seems to me that any kind of escapist fun being diminished for being just that, in a video game or movie form, that is where lies the true cognitive dissonance. So, yes, when in the future someone wants to list the best games of this generation one could point Uncharted as one of those without any reservation. It seems to me that to leave it out because it is superficial, or not intellectual enough, would be just a contrived excuse to make the medium a more "mature" and accepted than it already is. There is space in the medium to the full spectrum of entertainment, from the highly scripted set-piece driven action game, to the more open world free roaming exploration game, to the platformer, the deep role playing game, to the hybridization of all the above.

Totally agree. Popcorn entertainment is equally as valid as Oscar bait. Some people just don't feel that way. They are entitled to that opinion.

 

[Neuromancer]

BruiserBear, you're hilarious. Not sure if it's an act or not but either way, I'm entertained.

 

[kayos90]

As much as people bag on McShea, I think he made the right call for this one.

 

[Monarch]

the only major default I see for this game is that it isn't on my PS3 right now

 

[KingK]

I think its standard for reviewers to play it at the default difficulty since this is what most players use

That makes sense. Judging from the last two games, the AI gets a lot more aggressive on hard and crushing. You really have to exploit cover, vertical areas, etc. to survive. I usually play Uncharted on normal the first time, just for the "experience," then hard/crushing for the awesome challenge.

 

[Lord Error]

What is interesting is that this equates to the exact same thing as a 10/10 but nobody will flip out about this and say they hope the reviewer's wife leaves him. Maybe everything needs to be a five point scale, because the perfect scores on that scale have drawn absolutely no heat, despite having the same impact on the review average.

True, although at some point there's enough perfect scores for the game that discrediting all of them would sound ridiculous. The game is not exactly Enslaved or something, where you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find great scores.

 

[Princess Skittles]

This should be in every PS3 gamers' collection this year. If not you are dead to me and this message board.

NeoGAF covers all games of all genres for all players. How can you claim that somebody that doesn't want a game that YOU PERSONALLY are frothing over like a Justin Beiber fangirl, would be dead to an entire message board that has the breadth of this one? Uncharted certainly isn't a game for everybody. In essence, it's just another high production value dudebro shooter with a generic white guy with a "totally not planned" five o'clock shadow spitting quips that would be embarrassing even in a Michael Bay movie. What of interest does it offer to a female gamer that likes RPGs and quirky Japanese games?

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Why, he's absolutely right. The uncharted series suffers from a huge disconnect between the game story and gameplay actions. It's almost comical. GTA IV had the same problem.

If there was no disconnect, the game wouldn't be able to exist.
Maybe ND should create a One Shot and You're Dead mode for all you pedantic cry babies.

 

[kayos90]

NeoGAF covers all games of all genres for all players. How can you claim that somebody that doesn't want a game that YOU PERSONALLY are frothing over like a Justin Beiber fangirl, would be dead to an entire message board that has the breadth of this one? Uncharted certainly isn't a game for everybody. In essence, it's just another high production value dudebro shooter with a generic white guy with a "totally not planned" five o'clock shadow spitting quips that would be embarrassing even in a Michael Bay movie. What of interest does it offer to a female gamer that likes RPGs and quirky Japanese games?

Win post right here. In honesty, this is entirely true. If a game doesn't suit you then then you have no reason to get the game. Why penalize him for that?

 

[RedRedSuit]

NeoGAF covers all games of all genres for all players. How can you claim that somebody that doesn't want a game that YOU PERSONALLY are frothing over like a Justin Beiber fangirl, would be dead to an entire message board that has the breadth of this one? Uncharted certainly isn't a game for everybody. In essence, it's just another high production value dudebro shooter with a generic white guy with a "totally not planned" five o'clock shadow spitting quips that would be embarrassing even in a Michael Bay movie. What of interest does it offer to a female gamer that likes RPGs and quirky Japanese games?

I think he may have been trying to be cute and hyperbolic... not literal.

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

I look down on the people who look down on the people who look down on the people who look down on the people who are complaining about 8/10.

EDIT:

No, I'm not proposing anything of the sort.


I'm saying that as a reviewer of videogames, if I saw a game like Uncharted 3 roll across my desk, I could not envision myself giving that game less than a 9/10. It does certain things so damn well, and so far beyond the drivel that many games give us today, that it deserves such merit. I say that partially based on what I've seen and played of Uncharted 3, and partially based on what I played with Uncharted 1/2. Of course that doesn't mean it would get a 9/10 without playing it, but it would have to notably regress for me to come to the conclusion that 8/10 was warranted.

I'm not suggesting that as an organization Eurogamer should have this viewpoint. I'm just suggesting that if I were reviewing this game, that is the feeling I would have about it right now.

Gosh darn.

 

[Jarmel]

NeoGAF covers all games of all genres for all players. How can you claim that somebody that doesn't want a game that YOU PERSONALLY are frothing over like a Justin Beiber fangirl, would be dead to an entire message board that has the breadth of this one? Uncharted certainly isn't a game for everybody. In essence, it's just another high production value dudebro shooter with a generic white guy with a "totally not planned" five o'clock shadow spitting quips that would be embarrassing even in a Michael Bay movie. What of interest does it offer to a female gamer that likes RPGs and quirky Japanese games?

Everybody loves Indiana Jones.

 

[TheSeks]

People stopped complaining about the Eurogamer review a long time ago. It's now mostly just people reposting Mama Robotniks quotes and complaining about the complainers.

I see.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

I totally agree, I think very few games deserve mentionning, in fact I'd say it's one of the worst, if not the worst.

Maybe because I'm not a fan of sequels without innovation?!

-->edited

So you don't play sequels basically?