Uncharted 3 reviews

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jay-B said:
MW3 will probably meet its middling expectations. Skyrim is the only wildcard, but so far every preview has been very enthusiastic.
Click to expand...

I think bugs are the only thing that could hurt Skyrim. I know one preview mentioned that they died 3 times by falling into the ground. But gaming sites in general seem to be over the top excited for it.
 
After reading the Eurogamer review, I'm not surprised that it was rated as it was rated. In fact, while I won't judge the game before playing it, I suspect that my own views will be similar. I always felt like I was on a leash in the Uncharted games, which was fine as the games continued to add new features; but it seems like this outing might very well be a paint-by-numbers affair: same mechanics, different setting. Making the setpieces bigger merely lends it a Modern Warfare-esque series trajectory, albeit with a better story, more graphical polish, and a more interesting design.

The expected homogeneity of reviews just exemplifies the rash hypocrisy of critics of gaming reviews. We all decry the 8-10 scale, except when it applies to our own personal favorites; then we demand unbiased universal metrics all geared towards the same golden mean of 95+ on Metacritic.
 
zoukka said:
How dare they use anything but 10 to describe the great production values these games offer? What do they think they are, critics, journalists... people with opinions?!
Click to expand...

Well, some games are judged differently. Both Gears and Uncharted were very good games from the start. Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 are probably better than most games released out there, but they didn't improve the formula enough. Stagnation is decline.

So even if a game is good, it gets minus points for being basically the same.

Something I don't agree with personally.
 
LowEndTorque said:
The Eurogamer reviewer is certainly entitled to his opinion, but his opinion is clearly in the minority. Whenever pretty much all the scores are within a certain range but there is one score sitting there by itself that sets itself apart by being noticeably lower than the majority, then you can't blame people for raising their eyebrows a little.
Click to expand...

The range of scores for this game is 3 points. 8s, 9s and 10s. An 8 isn't such an outlier that it should raise eyebrows. What should raise eyebrows is how small the range of scores is for any big game. Surely opinions and subjective experiences should vary more than that.
 
M.D said:
Freedom? Really? Like what? Side missions, maybe? Maybe chose what mission to do when?

What are you talking about when you say freedom?
Click to expand...
The Eurogamer review speaks of a totally scripted, linear path that grants death to the player should they seek to deviate, or gives them a push toward the "correct" goal if they are ever so slightly off. It discusses moments where objects cannot be interacted with until "the correct series of cutscenes plays out" and mentions that there are sections where player control is taken away in favor of a rote push forward. Maybe the most serious criticism for me is about simply having to press a button to watch Drake solve a puzzle.

It's not about having multiple objectives, or side missions, or nonlinear mission structure, it's about having full control over your character and their actions at all times. I don't like the movie-game thing much. UC is the only series I can really stand it in, and that's because it does it so damn well.

It's not like I'm saying "preorder cancelled!" here. I was just real excited after the GT review, which praised better puzzle solving and pacing, and then took a step back again after reading Eurogamer's impressions to realize it's probably just more of the same.

I'm not saying "more of the same" is bad, was just hoping for a bit more beyond that.
 
Sessler's review is pretty shitty, to be honest. I usually like his reviews, but he implies that the reason why 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.
 
I cannot help but laugh at folks who let a few gaming 'journalists' be the determining factor of whether they buy a game or not. Seriously? Did you enjoy Uncharted 1? Uncharted 2? Then wtf are you avoiding Uncharted 3 for? Because some herp derp berp herp 'journalist'? Hate to pull out the old man card here (shut up Best-GAF members) but back in the day you played a game because wait for it... IT LOOKED FUN. I know, whats that about. I don't recall folks waiting for a review from 'coolzgamersbroz4fun' before buying Super Mario 3 or Link to the Past. Seriously, come on folks.
 
SolidSnakex said:
I think bugs are the only thing that could hurt Skyrim. I know one preview mentioned that they died 3 times by falling into the ground. But gaming sites in general seem to be over the top excited for it.
Click to expand...

Skyrim is the wild card for me...I really hope it has a more compelling narrative than previous bethesda games. I have ultimately found most of their games boring after the initial novelty. Everything I have seen from Skyrim has impressed me, but nothing has been revealed about the narrative...Is it going to be as bland as its predecessors?
 
SolidSnakex said:
I think bugs are the only thing that could hurt Skyrim. I know one preview mentioned that they died 3 times by falling into the ground. But gaming sites in general seem to be over the top excited for it.
Click to expand...

I feel as if Skyrim could be the highest rated of the year. It seems to be getting some big buzz everywhere. Glad to see it too.

But seriously, look at all the games in the past month, and coming next month, and look at how many are in the 90's. Best gaming year ever? My last favorite was 2007, but 2011 may top it.
 
funkystudent said:
eurogamer give pretty much everything a 8.0


well unless its made in the UK or something.
Click to expand...

Was Assassin's Creed Brotherhood made in the UK? Was Half-Life 2 made in the UK? Final Fantasy XII? Bioshock? Ico? Uncharted 2? Shall I go on listing non-UK developed games that Eurogamer have given 10/10 or do you get the point?
 
ThisWreckage said:
Sessler's review is pretty shitty, to be honest. I usually like his reviews, but he implies that the reason why 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.
Click to expand...

that does not make sense because UC2 was released 2 years after UC1, UC3 is releasing 2 years after UC2
 
Second said:
Something I don't agree with personally.
Click to expand...

So basically every sequel would get increasing scores until reviewers would only award them perfect 10's one sequel after another.

No thanks.
 
ThisWreckage said:
I usually like his reviews, but he implies that the reason why 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.
Click to expand...
What makes that critique invalid? Gaming experiences are subjective. You may not put any stock into the argument, as it may not apply to you personally, but how is it fallacious?
 
Anabuhabkuss said:
I think you may missing a point. When people complain that the game is linear, I think, it's their way of saying that the game REMINDS them that what they're playing is too restrictive. That it's scripted, etc. I don't think they're attacking linearity here. I think they're attacking implementation.

Gamers don't hate linear games. Not every game on the market right now is non-linear and those sell just as many copies as any other game (see: Gears 3). Arkham Asylum and City are perfect examples of disguising linearity in an open world to give the sense of 'freedom'.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure noone, NOONE played Uncharted 2 the same way. They are so many means to handle each situation. So saying it is scripted doesn't mean much to me. I don't get it.
 
I have always wanted Uncharted to be more explorative based like Tomb Raider, it has the graphical muscle to back it up and ND's art department has few equals.

Looks like I am going to go on a murder rampage again with the killing machine Mr. Drake.
 
Second said:
Well, some games are judged differently. Both Gears and Uncharted were very good games from the start. Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 are probably better than most games released out there, but they didn't improve the formula enough. Stagnation is decline.

So even if a game is good, it gets minus points for being basically the same.

Something I don't agree with personally.
Click to expand...
right. whether we agree with the sites that do it or not, their argument is that a game like Uncharted 2 deserves extra praise for improving the formula, vs a game that just sticks to a winning formula.

If you give Uncharted 3 (which is more of the same) a 10, what do you give Uncharted 4 when it adds a crapload of improvements? eleventy?

personally i think the whole notion of scores are stupid. write a by-line that can be advert quoted at the top for lazy people, and drop the scores. fuck metacritic and rotten tomatoes.
 
dark10x said:
It simply feels as if they wanted the game to be something that it was never designed to be.
Click to expand...

So what? There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting something more out of a game. Just because a game is INTENDED to be a certain way, doesn't mean that intent is necessarily the best vision for the game.

Yes, Uncharted is good at the heavily scripted style of gameplay it aims for. Does that mean reviewers shouldn't criticize the game for being heavily scripted? That makes no sense to me. It's like saying a Japanese horse racing game should get 10/10 if it's the most perfect horse racing game ever conceived. Why can't a reviewer just think horse racing is fundamentally not that great, and score appropriately?
 
hey_it's_that_dog said:
The range of scores for this game is 3 points. 8s, 9s and 10s. An 8 isn't such an outlier that it should raise eyebrows. What should raise eyebrows is how small the range of scores is for any big game. Surely opinions and subjective experiences should vary more than that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is by far the most troubling thing about game reviews. There's a number of franchises right now that will score 90+ across the board, without fail, more or less by virtue of their production budget and by how "crowd-pleasing" they are. It's a shitty climate and it doesn't help that any dissenting opinion is met with absolute insanity such as we've seen from aheeerm some of the people in this thread. I mean, at this point I'm starting to think of Jim Sterling as a necessary evil. It's that bad.
 
marc^o^ said:
I'm pretty sure noone, NOONE played Uncharted 2 the same way. They are so many means to handle each situation. So saying it is scripted doesn't mean much to me. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Technically, no one plays any game the same way. Can you give specifics? I imagine you're referring to combat as that's the only part of 2 that was not mostly scripted. If so, I can't think of why it matters if someone stealth attacks an enemy from behind rather than shoot him point blank at the face. I don't know if that's the variety people are looking for in these games where you're not rewarded for taking a different approach versus a freeflow combat mechanic in batman.
 
I trust naughty dog and I know im buy the game. I care more about reviewer scores mostly for my friends who don't keep up with info like I do. They rely on game sites whether or not they are gonna buy games. I try to fill them in on how badass a game is, in hopes of buying it and playing it with me. Also supporting the creators.
 
Chairman Yang said:
So what? There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting something more out of a game. Just because a game is INTENDED to be a certain way, doesn't mean that intent is necessarily the best vision for the game.

Yes, Uncharted is good at the heavily scripted style of gameplay it aims for. Does that mean reviewers shouldn't criticize the game for being heavily scripted? That makes no sense to me. It's like saying a Japanese horse racing game should get 10/10 if it's the most perfect horse racing game ever conceived. Why can't a reviewer just think horse racing is fundamentally not that great, and score appropriately?
Click to expand...

If you want to criticize a series for what it is you do it right away, you don't wait for the third installment.
 
I enjoy all the review discussion but I have to laugh at anyone that played and liked UC 1 and UC 2 that would base whether or not they would get UC 3 on review scores. Naughty Dog isn't going to make 2 very good to excellent games and then turn around and make a shitty third installment. You should know exactly the kind of game you are getting based on the quality of the first two.

UC 3 is a must play/own to me no matter what the review scores might be.
 
DaBuddaDa said:
What makes that critique invalid? Gaming experiences are subjective. You may not put any stock into the argument, as it may not apply to you personally, but how is it fallacious?
Click to expand...
Saying a game came out too early makes no sense in regards to it's quality.

If Uncharted 3 came out a month after Uncharted 2 would he give it a 2/5 just because it came out so soon after? It's just silly.
 
ThisWreckage said:
Sessler's review is pretty shitty, to be honest. I usually like his reviews, but he implies that the reason why 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.
Click to expand...

He's just giving his impression in the moment and offering honest insight into why he might have felt that way.

Why is this a problem unless you think critics should think more about their impact on the metascore than reporting their experiences honestly?

If you don't think those are good reasons for his score, then you can discount his score and say to yourself "I will probably like it more than he did." Not every review should apply equally to every person. As long as the reviewer explains his/her reasons, the reader can assess for themselves whether they would come to a similar conclusion or whether they aren't bothered by the types of things the reviewer didn't like. Now that gamers are worried about the metacritic score, they forget this and have to complain about every review they disagree with.
 
Chairman Yang said:
It's like saying a Japanese horse racing game should get 10/10 if it's the most perfect horse racing game ever conceived. Why can't a reviewer just think horse racing is fundamentally not that great, and score appropriately?
Click to expand...
Now that's a great comparison.
 
dark10x said:
I'm going to have to agree here. At least 50% of the review is spent harping on the fact that you are offered little in the way of choice. This has always been the case for the series and it was their goal to begin with. Uncharted is not an open ended game and has never aspired to become one.
Click to expand...
Yeah the game is simply not that, and has never been - thankfully, IMO. There's plenty of great games that are much more open ended but I rarely if ever can enjoy them. Latest one being Infamous 2.

I also have an issue with him saying that it's a game that you only play once. Despite being a linear SP experience, I enjoyed replaying both UC games multiple times, just because there's different ways to approach most situations in them.

marc^o^ said:
Now that's a great comparison.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, everyone can find themselves in those shoes. I wouldn't know how to score high, say a Madden game, even if it was the best football simulation imaginable.
 
DaBuddaDa said:
What makes that critique invalid? Gaming experiences are subjective. You may not put any stock into the argument, as it may not apply to you personally, but how is it fallacious?
Click to expand...
Well it depends on what degree of subjectivity you think should be considered in a review. If a reviewer feels traumatized by saturated colors, and gives a game a 3/10 for just that reason, it is not a fallacy. However its a useless review because it doesn't serve an audience. If he feels that 2 years is too short a time span for any game, that's certainly a perspective for a critic to have. But in today's market where Assassin's Creed, and Call of Duty are on schedule for yearly releases, let alone biyearly, his opinion should reflect across different titles. Now if he says, Uncharted in particular as a franchise only warrants a game every 3, or 4 years, it just becomes absurd and too personal. Debating reviews on the grounds of subjectivity, can thus very quickly become a useless exercise in nasal gazing/pretentious crap.
Its also worth pointing out as a general rule that its not an unfair expectation for a critique to reflect a game's content, rather than the reviewer's disposition. Yes, the reviewer's uniqueness is irrevocably tied to their analysis of a game, but at the end of the day they're writing a review and not a personal diary entry.
 
Chairman Yang said:
So what? There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting something more out of a game. Just because a game is INTENDED to be a certain way, doesn't mean that intent is necessarily the best vision for the game.

Yes, Uncharted is good at the heavily scripted style of gameplay it aims for. Does that mean reviewers shouldn't criticize the game for being heavily scripted? That makes no sense to me. It's like saying a Japanese horse racing game should get 10/10 if it's the most perfect horse racing game ever conceived. Why can't a reviewer just think horse racing is fundamentally not that great, and score appropriately?
Click to expand...

But that's because Japanese Horse Racing game might not be the best horse racing game ever made, or even a great game. U3 is neither of those. It's an amazing game and it's also the best adventure game franchise (imo) that exists today. So bit of a weird analogy.

Still surprised this guy game Brink and Dynasty Warriors Gundam 3 the same score lol. And Dead Space 2 a 9, because somehow that's not linear or gives players more freedom or something...smh.
 
Crunched said:
The Eurogamer review speaks of a totally scripted, linear path that grants death to the player should they seek to deviate, or gives them a push toward the "correct" goal if they are ever so slightly off. It discusses moments where objects cannot be interacted with until "the correct series of cutscenes plays out" and mentions that there are sections where player control is taken away in favor of a rote push forward. Maybe the most serious criticism for me is about simply having to press a button to watch Drake solve a puzzle.

It's not about having multiple objectives, or side missions, or nonlinear mission structure, it's about having full control over your character and their actions at all times. I don't like the movie-game thing much. UC is the only series I can really stand it in, and that's because it does it so damn well.

It's not like I'm saying "preorder cancelled!" here. I was just real excited after the GT review, which praised better puzzle solving and pacing, and then took a step back again after reading Eurogamer's impressions to realize it's probably just more of the same.

I'm not saying "more of the same" is bad, was just hoping for a bit more beyond that.
Click to expand...


Have you ever thought that maybe this game just isn't for you? I don't care for Fighting games, so I don't play them. And I sure as shit wouldn't review them if I worked for a gaming site.


It would be like me saying "the controls and fighting are done very well, in fact its the best I have ever played, but I wish it was a story driven adventure game. Being stuck on the screen having to beat the player in front of me holds this game back. Why can't I explore the background? This game is too much of a Fighting Game for me"

8/10
 
Angry Fork said:
Saying a game came out too early makes no sense in regards to it's quality.

If Uncharted 3 came out a month after Uncharted 2 would he give it a 2/5 just because it came out so soon after? It's just silly.
Click to expand...

If it affected a person's subjective experience with the game, which it would, if only subtly, then it's legitimate grounds for criticism if the reviewer is open about the review being a report of his subjective experience and not pretending it's an objective evaluation of a product.
 
Paracelsus said:
If you want to criticize a series for what it is you do it right away, you don't wait for the third installment.
Click to expand...
Why not? Isn't it possible that a formula that's entertaining for a game or two starts to feel a little stale by the third installment? I really liked Modern Warfare's campaign. That doesn't mean I'm going to magically like Modern Warfare 3's just as much. Particular gameplay styles can get boring after they're repeated.
 
Lord Error said:
Yeah the game is simply not that, and has never been - thankfully, IMO. There's plenty of great games that are much more open ended but I rarely if ever can enjoy them. Latest one being Infamous 2.

I also have an issue with him saying that it's a game that you only play once. Despite being a linear SP experience, I enjoyed replaying both UC games multiple times, just because there's different ways to approach most situations in them.
Click to expand...

I reserve my judgement when I actually play the game, there is linearity, and no one is denying UC3 is a linear game, but there is also the term heavy scripting, hand holding and the general been there done that feeling that plagues sequels like UC3 and for my taste also UC2.
 
zoukka said:
So basically every sequel would get increasing scores until reviewers would only award them perfect 10's one sequel after another.

No thanks.
Click to expand...

As long as they're good? Why not? Quality is not subjective.

Gears 3 is just as good or better than the previous game. Uncharted 3 seems to be just as good or better than the previous game.

Why would they score lower then? I don't understand reviewers sometimes. Each game should be reviewed as an individual game.

If Uncharted 4 and Gears 4 both are handled with a lot of care, just like their predecessors, they deserve a high constant score as long as they offer quality.
 
M.D said:
Dark Souls is too hard. 8/10
Click to expand...
Demon's Souls actually got a lot of 7-8's due to being hard. I don't think I read any review for Dark Souls that stated that as a negative. People knew what to expect now and scored it accordingly; wish EG had done the same with UC3.
 
planar1280 said:
that does not make sense because UC2 was released 2 years after UC1, UC3 is releasing 2 years after UC2
Click to expand...
Uncharted 2 was such a massive leap over the first, though. The first was an well-done gears clone with rote 'platforming' and great production values. The second was blockbuster-gaming nirvana. Nobody was expected U2 to be that good. It was practically a whole other series.
Second said:
As long as they're good? Why not? Quality is not subjective.
Click to expand...
Then 'quality' as you're using the word means build quality, not 'fun', 'entertainment' or 'art', as 'is it broken?' is the only type of quality you can objectively perceive.
 
The reviews are great, as expected, can't wait to play it. I wish I had not read any of them, as stuff has already been spoiled for me. Like the opening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom