Your Excellency
Banned
If Uncharted 3 was a food, it would be a strawberry placed atop the vagina of a beautiful virgin.
-
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
blitzcloud
Banned
Variety doesnt change the fact that leon's upper torso is kinda planked, and the fact that enemies actually have to warn you that they are behind you due to handicapped gameplay mechanics doesn't help either, regardless of the variety of enemieshey_it's_that_dog said:
Resident_UA
Member
Rengoku said:
Finally some context
Now I just need to know if it is the same reviewer. Your Excellency
Banned
Bad_Boy said:
Basically, it comes down to this: if Uncharted 3 is objectively better than Uncharted 2, yet gets lower scores, then we have a situation on our hands. None of us know quite what's going to happen if that happens, but this much is true: the shit is gonna hit the fucking fan.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
Reeked of shit? Lol, chill out.thuway said:
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
blitzcloud said:
Leon's planked torso is part of the design - a design not shared by most 3rd person shooters which is why I don't regularly draw comparisons between RE4 and 3rd person shooters. The fact that enemies warn you that they're behind you is also coherent with the design and has nothing to do with anything.
The fact of the matter is, RE4 has a ton of variety in its enemies and scenarios. That's why it's revered. Uncharted has a fair amount of variety too, but if I had to directly compare them, neither would be far, far, far ahead of the other in that category.
Your Excellency said:
RE4 (96) and RE4HD (83) are already evidence of this dreaded Reviewer's Paradox and we are already dead.
Otrebor Nightmarecoat
Banned
Your Excellency said:
One of the most virgin quotes ever
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
people freak out for 9.5 reviews, really?
Resident_UA
Member
Your Excellency said:
How can any game be "objectively" better? Reviews are always subjective.hey_it's_that_dog said:
Uncharted 2 has good situational variety with many ways to approach an encounter, but the enemy variety was somewhat lacking, as you had 5 different types of soldiers and two types that were actually removed from the first one, that is the grenadier that charges you and the elite soldiers with laser pistols that move around the environment and not just be glorified snipers as the ones in U2.
I hear ND is bringing up some new enemy types though which is good.
polyh3dron
Banned
for being a sequel, "more of the same" and all thatthuway said:
Your Excellency
Banned
Otrebor Nightmarecoat said:
Whatever you say, 'Otrebor Nightmarecoat'. Heh.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Luthos said:
It's the closest example I can think of where a game, RE4HD, is objectively better than the original, vanilla RE4, but due to the changing times and standards and whatever else, has earned much lower scores.
And I'm not trying to say it should be scored higher than the original RE4, I'm saying it's a very good example of a situation where factors other than the game's quality (as difficult as that is to define) determine scores.
RE4 has more enemy types but the ratio leans too heavily on endless streams of boring ganados variants.hey_it's_that_dog said:
the ratio breaks down something like:
10-25 of every enemy; and 750 ganados/illuminados/commandos.
so while RE4 may have more enemy types, the bulk of the time spent is killing the same enemies - easily at least 10 times more than the next most prevalent enemy in the game. the differences between it and uncharted then are 1) there isnt as much shooting and arent as many enemies to shoot overall in uncharted, 2) uncharted isnt overlong to the point where it wears out its enemies as RE4 does, and 3) the action/combat in RE4 cant dream to be as varied or dynamic as it is in uncharted because of the stand-still, shooting gallery nature of the gameplay - its pure shooting and nothing else versus shooting, taking cover, scaling the environment, moving while shooting, etc.
i dont even love uncharted. but as someone that, on the whole, doesnt care for shooters, i feel uniquely qualified to say which game was more of a repetitive slog - and that was easily RE4. not even close, really.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Your Excellency said:
Best description ever.
Your Excellency
Banned
roman2003h said:
No need to get pedantic. The point is, if it plays better, if it plays more fun, if the graphics are more stunning, if the polish is more shiny, if the set pieces are more incredible, if it's more involving and if it's better scripted and directed, then we and all the reviewers are completely fucked.
It's one thing giving a PS2 gen game a higher review score than it's HD remake. Because over that length of time and that sort of change in the paradigm concerning technology, memory, controllers, resolution, we can accept that maybe a 10/10 PS2 game isn't up to the standard of a 10/10 PS3 game. But if we're comparing two games FROM THE SAME CONSOLE, barely a year apart, and one is better but gets lower scores, then that madness will not stand. It can't stand, and we shouldn't allow it.
All signs are pointing to Uncharted 3 being a 10/10 game but it won't receive 10/10 because the main character happened to appear in another game on the console a while back. That is bullshit. You don't see people giving Godfather 2 a 8/10 score because it reuses the same characters and settings from The Godfather. Art must be judged on its own merits and all signs are pointing to Naughty Dog getting fucked by the system.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
raziel said:
Enemy placement/environmental variety compensates for enemy repitition, IMO.
Interesting logic that because you don't like shooters your opinion about shooters is somehow more accurate or objective rather than less.
I really don't need to argue about RE4 in this thread. I'm just here to watch people freak out about misinterpreted numbers.
Your Excellency said:
It's hard for me to tell how serious you are about this, but UC2 and UC3 are two years apart, and that's an adequate time frame to affect people's perceptions.
Also, these games are being rated at the top of the scale. They can't be rated any higher, and reviewers shouldn't be artificially lowering their scores in the present because they know that in the future games will be better.
That's how scoring has to work.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
EloquentM said:
Biased in what way? Biased in favor of shooters? If someone was biased in favor of shooters, they'd be similarly biased towards RE4 and Uncharted, and so the bias wouldn't explain a preference for one over the other. He's saying he can tell the differences better because he doesn't like the genre, or so it sounds like.
Your Excellency
Banned
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I think of it this way. If some kid in 2030 wants to play some retro gaming and he looks at the Uncharted series, he'll see that UC2 got higher scores than UC3 and conclude that UC2 is a better game. In reality, the opposite is likely to be true. How can we allow that to happen?
Uncharted 2 didn't get great scores because of some amazing new experience like GoldenEye, or some Mario64-like 'what is this I'm seeing' factor, or come up with a great gameplay trick like Portal, or have insane realistic graphics like Gran Turismo, or reinvent a genre like LittleBigPlanet. No, it got great scores because it just did everything like we've already seen it, but with the quality and polish set to 11 throughout. No boring moments, only high points and stunning moments and great gameplay. As a result of that, you can't possibly fault Uncharted 3 for not being a game-changer.
Uncharted 2's only 'gimmick' was in doing everything better than anyone else ever did. Uncharted 3 looks to have done that all over again, and yet it's still going to get lower scores than GTAIV, because gaming magazines are AFRAID to give it a 10 out of 10. Gaming magazines won't give it a 10 out of 10 because they think that people will laugh at them for giving this 'mere sequel' the same score as GoldenEye or Portal.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
roman2003h said:
If it's the same kind of obvious step up from Drake's Fortune to Among Thieves?
DerZuhälter
Member
I don't get why so many have a problem with the statement "U3 is better than U2" but it scoring lower at the same time.
2 Years passed since U2. A 10 today should always be harder to achieve than a 10 5 years ago. So yeah. U3 can easily surpass U2 without getting higher scores than it.
2 Years passed since U2. A 10 today should always be harder to achieve than a 10 5 years ago. So yeah. U3 can easily surpass U2 without getting higher scores than it.
LeonSKennedy90
Banned
Review scores: SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS
Its like we learned NOTHING from "8.8"
Its like we learned NOTHING from "8.8"
dont really see the problem with it. its easy enough to connect my thoughts/opinions to relative terms i.e. less repetitive/more repetitive = more awesome/not as awesome. and despite not being a fan of the genre, i would still qualify both games as "shooters that i liked" but not loved. i felt the pang of repetition and tedium with both as i tend to with games in the genre, but uncharted did a better job of mitigating that. probably because uncharted to me did a better job of feigning an action adventure whereas RE4 felt like a straight up arcade shooter (tons more shooting and for a longer time in RE4).hey_it's_that_dog said:
Yoshichan said:
oh i did, to completion. i wont be playing it ever again though!
Resident_UA
Member
Your Excellency said:
Hopefully by 2030 idiotic 100 point scales in video game reviews will not exist.
For example a movie that gets 85% on Rottentomatoes is not objectively better than the movie that gets 95%. I love Uncharted series, but I'm somewhat pissed that no one had balls to give Uncharted 2 anything lower than 80. Better graphics, music, controls, story (there is no way that story can be objectively better, but I will let this go) do not necessarily mean better experience. If Uncharted 3 gets 90 Metacritic score in 2030 nobody will be concerned by that. In fact I'm sure that with sample size that Metacritic has and the publications that they include 90 is statistically the same as 98.
Yoshichan
And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
Too bad!raziel said:
Well I've played Uncharted 1 and 2 to completion, loved them but I won't be playing them ever again. Meanwhile, I just recently replayed RE4 for my 12th time or so on PS3.
Resident_UA
Member
Pai Pai Master said:
I can bet that there are people that think Drake's Fortune is better than Among Thieves. (Personally I think that the story and the atmosphere was better in U1)
roman2003h said:
I kind of agree with that. However, U2's gameplay, and the fact that it didn't have as many boringly long fights as U1, makes it the better game.
I can't believe someone in here is saying that U1 is less repetitive than RE4. I was dreading seeing a truck in the first game because I knew it meant another boring, long fight.
Rated-Rsuperstar
Member
The End said:
Wow I thought you were joking. So stupid.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Your Excellency said:
So say everyone gives it a 10. What happens when the next game is even better? It gets a 10 again? Then you still have the problem of the score not reflecting the quality differential.
I don't see any solution to this other than to keep in mind that numerical scores are not a perfect system and this is just one of the many reasons that is true.
LeonSKennedy90
Banned
Kusagari said:
Wait what
*goes back and reads thread*
...I don't...I don't know how to respond to such a statement
The Xtortionist
Member
RE4 is probably the most varied and well-paced action game ever, by a wide margin.
UC2 did a good job of mixing things up though. It didn't get boring.
UC2 did a good job of mixing things up though. It didn't get boring.
LeonSKennedy90
Banned
RE4 and UC2 are both fantastic action games
Can we go back to whining about <10 review scores, please?
Can we go back to whining about <10 review scores, please?
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
raziel said:
The pacing of RE4 does not fall into my definition of "arcade shooter." It also has more exploration, more items, upgrade trees, and an economy. Uncharted has none of that, which makes it the more arcadey game IMO.
And I should clarify that I'm NOT saying your opinion is any less valid or that you can't possibly understand the games well enough to recognize repetition just because you don't love shooters. I don't love shooters either. I was specifically questioning the idea that liking shooters less would lead to more accurate evaluations of how they differ. Typically it's someone who loves a genre who is most familiar with it and therefore most able to make subtle distinctions between instances of the genre.
The Xtortionist
Member
Reviews are useful for determining if a game is good or not (generally), even if it's difficult to compare two games' quality by their scores.
Your Excellency
Banned
hey_it's_that_dog said:
If Uncharted 3 gets a 10/10 and then Uncharted 4 (on PS3) is even better, then it should get another 10/10.
10 out of 10 is a way of saying 'this game does everything right', not 'this game could not possibly be any better'.
catashtrophe
Member
Actually its Res 4 which I would say is ok but not that good._tetsuo_ said:
Your Excellency said:
Every time a new game comes out I'm still surprised people care that much about a random score attached to a review.
You certainly can fault Uncharted 3 for being more of the same. It won't have the same effect that Uncharted 2 gave when it came out, so it won't give people the same emotional reaction. That's all it is, more of the same game you enjoyed a few years ago, and that certainly doesn't deserve perfect scores.
LeonSKennedy90
Banned
Your Excellency said:
Ok, that made me laugh
- Status