Support NeoGAF

[Drinky Crow]

that ign review has to be one of the worst things i've read in ages.

 

[Uno Venova]

Jesus, I think there's been like 10 times more posts along the lines of "People are freaking out about an 8?! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE OMG THEY NEED TO GET A LIFE AND STOP FREAKING OUT!!! RAAAAGE!" Then there have been "WTF, an 8, RAAAGE!"

There was like half a page of people irrationally bitching about the score, followed by a lot of people bitching about the content of the review (and some valid debate about that and the nature of reviews in general), followed by 10+ pages of people bitching about people bitching about the score. I think if people had just left it alone after the initial half page of irrational rage posts, it wouldn't have turned into a big deal at all.

This. Talk about making a mountain out of 10 irrational posts.

 

[Dead Man]

This thread makes me weep for the future of gaming media.

 

[Lord Error]

Hehe dude he was joking.

Seriously, if there's three things AlphaSnake can be trusted on, it's cars, women and games. Except for Bouncer - he was too young to be critical enough back then.

 

[mysticwhip]

SPOILERS

UNCHARTED 3 chapter 1

 

[LowEndTorque]

This thread is a smouldering wasteland.

It went from fun and entertaining to just plain depressing real quick.

I think Metacritic's rise to prominence is the worst thing to happen to both the gaming community and industry. If Meta didn't exist, Eurogamer's 8 wouldn't be controversial (nor would any other review for that matter) because nobody would give a shit. It would just be seen as exactly what it is: another review. I miss last gen =(

Metacritic = Satan.

 

[Loudninja]

This thread is a smouldering wasteland.

It went from fun and entertaining to just plain depressing real quick.

I think Metacritic's rise to prominence is the worst thing to happen to both the gaming community and industry. If Meta didn't exist, Eurogamer's 8 wouldn't be controversial (nor would any other review for that matter) because nobody would give a shit. It would just be seen as exactly what it is: another review. I miss last gen =(

Metacritic = Satan.

Most of the topic is filled with overreactions.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

And this is one of the reasons why the enthusiast press is a joke: the people who say things like this, who need games to get a certain score and a certain level of praise in order to justify all the hype and enthusiasm they've put in prior to release. It's effectively DEMANDING that the press gets swept up in the hype too and not actually form their own opinions.

 

[Satchel]

that ign review has to be one of the worst things i've read in ages.

This is what I said much earlier on. Just in a less blatant way.

It's just cringeworthy to read. Funnily enough, the Eurogamer review praises Uncharted 3 almost as much as the IGN review does. Except it doesn't read like a fanboy wrote it.

 

[Tricky I Shadow]

What the hell happened to this thread?

 

[reKon]

I actually don't think it's the number that's the issue (believe it or not). I think that people get upset because of ratings of games RELATIVE to others...

It's funny how most of the people here jump to conclusions and say how sad it is that fanboys are angry about a score. You can't be that close minded about this, but then again it really doesn't matter because all of this is about something as stupid as review scores for a game that are all very good overall

You know, what what be a good start? Changing the title of this thread to not include Eurogamer

 

[olimpia84]

That IGN is the biggest bullshit ever. Fanboy painted all the way in that one.

 

[EloquentM]

SPOILERS

UNCHARTED 3 chapter 1

this was posted in another thread a couple of days ago lol...I wonder if yours has better quality though

 

[sly2thefox]

1-7 out of 10 = Worst game ever
8 out of 10 = Shit.
9 out of 10 - One the the best games ever created.
10 out of 10 = The best game ever created until the next 10.

I love the rating scale of this gen...

WTF are u on? There's only a handful of games that touch a 90 in metacritic each year just like the PS2 generation. Go look at the all time scores for the PS2 and you realize that the 360 and PS3 have around the same amount.

 

[Mxrz]

I think I find far more disturbing the self-appointed and self-righteous judges of others in the thread who seem to be more than happy to look down their extremely long noses at other individuals. Speaks to a deficit of character, being so drawn to this thread for the sole purpose of repeatedly shaming admonishing or demonstrating some form of believed superiority over the huddled masses of 'Uncharted fanboys'.

This is what it seemed like earlier today, and now there's a lot more pages of it. People love to feel uppity.

 

[Loudninja]

NZ Herald 5/5

Sony has pushed several exclusive titles into the 3D realm this year, and though it makes for even more immersive gameplay, it does detract from graphic quality and pulls the frame-rate down. The environments overall are staggeringly good, and there were many moments when the lighting and haze effects were so vivid and accurate it was like looking at live video.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760479

 

[jackdoe]

that ign review has to be one of the worst things i've read in ages.

Greg Miller is one of the worst writers, if not the worst, at IGN after all. His reviews read like a forum post!

 

[pharmboy044]

There are more than 230K views of a fuckin reviews thread! Really?

 

[squidyj]

I'm looking forward to the game also, but I also like reviews like Eurogamer's that will point out legitimate 'concerns' about a game.

I don't like the idea that because the Uncharted/SonyGAF hivemind lives or dies by the review scores and awards that Uncharted 3 receives, then that must mean that any review below a 9.9 or 10 or a review that points out legitimate areas where the game is lacking (for want of a better word) should be labelled as disgraceful or should be ignored.

Which is how this shit all started. Which then brought about 'the list'.

Why can't 8/10 be viewed as a good score (not addressing you directly on that question)?

To be fair I feel like an 8/10 is less than what Uncharted 3 deserves and having read the review I agree with many who argue that he was docking the game for not being what he wanted it to be. Something the game was never trying to be and that fans of the game wouldn't expect it to be. To comment on it's linearity and the 'nudging' in sequences is valuable information to a newcomer to the series but I'm not sure that rating a final score based on those variables is fair to the game or the devs. I think that mostly it serves to highlight the flawed nature of review scores and a question of their intent. If review scores are intended to help determine the quality of a game for people who are simply unable to plop down money for it sight unseen then how can a single score account for variance in taste and interest? In this way this is similar to the discussions on the BF3 review scores because in that game it's the multiplayer and single-player components that are more or less night and day differences from one another. Who do you target that score to? To fans of Uncharted a linear experience is exactly what they are expecting and docking marks for it is absolutely ridiculous. For a player interested in a sandbox or open world experience or one who is abhorrent of cutscenes the opposite is true. Likewise with the vast variety of outlets and reviewers with no real cohesion between review metrics it becomes difficult to establish any objective value in a score given by a particular reviewer at a particular outlet.

I, obviously, haven't had a chance to play Uncharted 3 yet save the multiplayer beta earlier this year. The media I've seen, however suggest to me that this will be the best Uncharted adventure yet, improving upon just about every aspect of what made Uncharted 2 so enjoyable for so many. In that light I say I think Uncharted 3 deserves more than an 8.

 

[Drinky Crow]

http://www.really-esoteric-review-sources.cz/ps3/uncha3.aspx -- 10.5/10, "...like a gorgeous, well-built lad delightfully defecating directly into my pleasure centers"

 

[Lord Error]

Greg Miller is one of the worst writers, if not the worst, at IGN after all. His reviews read like a forum post!

Is it intellectually dishonest or not, to dismiss someone's arguments and opinions because they are not very eloquently presented (which that review definitely is guilty of)? I skimmed though it, and it reads more like a commentary to a video, which is probably what it really is. I'd think more people watch their video review than read the written one.

 

[Puppet Shadow]

http://www.really-esoteric-review-sources.cz/ps3/uncha3.aspx -- 10.5/10, "...like a gorgeous, well-built lad delightfully defecating directly into my pleasure centers"

Bad link?

I think I find far more disturbing the self-appointed and self-righteous judges of others in the thread who seem to be more than happy to look down their extremely long noses at other individuals. Speaks to a deficit of character, being so drawn to this thread for the sole purpose of repeatedly shaming admonishing or demonstrating some form of believed superiority over the huddled masses of 'Uncharted fanboys'.

It's quoting people's exact words. I don't think you know what 'repeatedly shaming admonishing or demonstrating some form of believed superiority' really means.

 

[jackdoe]

Is it intellectually dishonest or not, to dismiss someone's arguments and opinions because they are not very eloquently presented? I skimmed though it, and his review reads more like a commentary to a video review to me, which is probably what it really is. I'd think a lot more people watch their video review than read the written one.

When it's supposed to be a "professional" article, I say yes. Some people like his way of writing, but I find it amateurish. And I never dismissed his opinions. I said he was a shit writer, not that he had shit opinions.

There are more than 230K views of a fuckin reviews thread! Really?

Haha. When Skyward Sword reviews start coming out, its number of views should jump to that amount as well!

 

[WillyFive]

There are more than 230K views of a fuckin reviews thread! Really?

 

[LightofRohan]

I think people also got to understand that this thread is for discussing Review scores... so it's either going to be, "yay nice review" or "gahhh terrible review". Not much else to say. So why are people surprised?

 

[Drinky Crow]

http://www.diehardgamefan-timemachine.com/fwd-to-2011/games/ps3/uncharted-3/default.htm -- 99/100, john titor, "MY RETINAS SPRAYED PERFECT PARABOLAS OF RADIANT JOY WHEN THE LUSCIOUS VISAGE OF NOLAN NORTH'S DRAKE ILLUMINATED MY BRAVIA'S SCREEN LIKE A LUMINOUS VISION OF A DIGITAL CHRIST ON EARTH"

edit: apparently docked one point for being, and i quote, "TOO DAMNED GOOD TO BE POSSIBLE."

 

[LowEndTorque]

I actually don't think it's the number that's the issue (believe it or not). I think that people get upset because of ratings of games RELATIVE to others...

Well that's exactly the problem.

All metacritic does is provide a platform for making stupid comparisons between games and their scores. Metascores purport to be the ultimate final authority on a game's quality, and both gamers and the industry have bought into this idea wholesale. Combine this with the rampant fanboyism that is the defining characteristic of this gen and you're just asking for trouble.

GTA fanboy: "omg GTA IV got a 98 so it's the best game of this generation"

Sony fanboy: "haha UC2 got a 96 and that's better than any 360 exclusive. Suck shit 360 fanboys. U jelly? :trollface"

Nintendo fanboy "not so fast Sony fanboys. Super Mario Galaxy 1 AND 2 both got 97 which is higher than UC2. Besides uncharted is linear, unoriginal and over-rated anyways. Nintendo >>> Sony, Skyward Sword GOTY, SMG GOTG"

Arkham City fanboys "haha Batman scored a 95 and UC3 only got a 93. How do you like them apples Uncharted fanboys? Batman is the better game and is GOTY 2011 bitches 95>93 haha suck shit"

and so on....

of course these feelings would never be expressed that overtly in a place like gaf but it would be silly to deny that these types of undercurrents don't exist.

All of these undercurrents are precisely what drives all of the interest, views, hits, posts and "debates" in threads like these.

 

[jett]

http://www.diehardgamefan-timemachine/games/ps3/uncharted-3/default.htm -- "99/100" john titor, "MY RETINAS SPRAYED PERFECT PARABOLAS OF RADIANT JOY WHEN THE LUSCIOUS VISAGE OF NOLAN NORTH'S DRAKE ILLUMINATED MY BRAVIA'S SCREEN LIKE A LUMINOUS VISION OF A DIGITAL CHRIST ON EARTH"

hahahaha at john titor


JOHN TITOR 3:16

 

[Satchel]

To be fair I feel like an 8/10 is less than what Uncharted 3 deserves and having read the review I agree with many who argue that he was docking the game for not being what he wanted it to be. Something the game was never trying to be and that fans of the game wouldn't expect it to be. To comment on it's linearity and the 'nudging' in sequences is valuable information to a newcomer to the series but I'm not sure that rating a final score based on those variables is fair to the game or the devs. I think that mostly it serves to highlight the flawed nature of review scores and a question of their intent. If review scores are intended to help determine the quality of a game for people who are simply unable to plop down money for it sight unseen then how can a single score account for variance in taste and interest? In this way this is similar to the discussions on the BF3 review scores because in that game it's the multiplayer and single-player components that are more or less night and day differences from one another. Who do you target that score to? To fans of Uncharted a linear experience is exactly what they are expecting and docking marks for it is absolutely ridiculous. For a player interested in a sandbox or open world experience or one who is abhorrent of cutscenes the opposite is true. Likewise with the vast variety of outlets and reviewers with no real cohesion between review metrics it becomes difficult to establish any objective value in a score given by a particular reviewer at a particular outlet.

I, obviously, haven't had a chance to play Uncharted 3 yet save the multiplayer beta earlier this year. The media I've seen, however suggest to me that this will be the best Uncharted adventure yet, improving upon just about every aspect of what made Uncharted 2 so enjoyable for so many. In that light I say I think Uncharted 3 deserves more than an 8.

But he doesn't complain that the game is linear. He complains it's TOO linear. Which is fair enough.

It was the major issue I had with Uncharted 2. Even though the original Uncharted was linear, it had a clever way of fooling you into thinking it wasn't as linear as it actually was.

Uncharted 2 had me feeling like it was rushing me to the next checkpoint/shootout/scripted sequence. Thanks to that Eurogamer review, I am now expecting something similar from Uncharted 3, as opposed to reading the IGN Review which may have made me believe god had developed the game itself (ugh), if I didn't know any better.

Does that mean I won't enjoy Uncharted 3? Fuck no. But it does mean, that in all likelihood, the original will be my favourite of the 3, but that's neither here nor there in the context of this thread, that's just how I feel.

 

[GQman2121]

I would really love to know what Greg Miller's peers think of him. And not just because he wrote their review for U3, but because he clearly carries himself in a certain way and is the face of their website. It's actually quite remarkable.

 

[Loudninja]

Here is a video the Museum multiplayer map
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BQFHeHSvgE&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[rdrr gnr]

Greg Miller is one of the worst writers, if not the worst, at IGN after all. His reviews read like a forum post!

Your statement is insulting to forum posts.

 

[Yoboman]

http://www.diehardgamefan-timemachine.com/fwd-to-2011/games/ps3/uncharted-3/default.htm -- 99/100, john titor, "MY RETINAS SPRAYED PERFECT PARABOLAS OF RADIANT JOY WHEN THE LUSCIOUS VISAGE OF NOLAN NORTH'S DRAKE ILLUMINATED MY BRAVIA'S SCREEN LIKE A LUMINOUS VISION OF A DIGITAL CHRIST ON EARTH"

edit: apparently docked one point for being, and i quote, "TOO DAMNED GOOD TO BE POSSIBLE."

Drinky Crow
Banned
(Today, 01:58 PM)
Reply | Quote


Thank God I don't think I could've dealt with another post like that

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

that ign review has to be one of the worst things i've read in ages.

Drinky!! Ahh hell man I have missed you where have you been?

 

[Ricky_R]

Thanks to that Eurogamer review, I am now expecting something similar from Uncharted 3, as opposed to reading the IGN Review which may have made me believe god had developed the game itself (ugh), if I didn't know any better.

Did you really think that Uncharted 3 would be that different than Uncharted 2 when it comes to linearity?

Did the IGN review make you believe that Uncharted 3 would be more open or that it wouldn't add the "limited controlled" cut-scenes that we all love (fans)? He still praised the game for what it is in terms of mechanics and design. Unless I missed something.

 

[Quicksilver4648]

Oh god, I just attempted to watch the IGN video review. I got about half way. That guy is wayyy to intense and hyped up to be allowed to critically review a game.
"OMG! And the way he touched the wall! And the way fire burns up the wall! And OMG! The way the light glistens off his beautiful and perfect eyes! There was that one part with the twist, I thought it was going to play out like Uncharted 1 but I was wrong!"
He sounded like the Nintendo 64 kid attempting to explain his joy to other kids.

Don't get me wrong, it seems like a great game and he can surely enjoy himself playing it. But, when you are doing a review you need to be calm, ordered, and subjective. I got the impression that an Uncharted fanboy would love it but what about those who have never heard of the franchise before.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Drinky!! Ahh hell man I have missed you where have you been?

ah, y'know, workin', parentin', frontin'

 

[Brazil]

Drinky Crow
Banned
(Today, 01:58 PM)
Reply | Quote


Thank God I don't think I could've dealt with another post like that

Come on now.

 

[timetokill]

Damn you, Drinky, for making me read that IGN review. Truly one of the most embarrassing reviews of a game ever.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Damn you, Drinky, for making me read that IGN review. Truly one of the most embarrassing reviews of a game ever.

Could you take some spoiler-free quotes out of context so I can revel in my own sense of syntactical superiority?

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

ah, y'know, workin', parentin', frontin'

Very nice very nice. This thread summoned you back faster than Serano summoning Jobu.

 

[EloquentM]

Could you take some spoiler-free quotes out of context so I can revel in my own sense of syntactical superiority?

the review itself is pretty spoiler free

 

[Red]

Drinky Crow
Banned
(Today, 01:58 PM)
Reply | Quote


Thank God I don't think I could've dealt with another post like that

 

[Drinky Crow]

Could you take some spoiler-free quotes out of context so I can revel in my own sense of syntactical superiority?

sure. the best worst bits involve spoilerish things, but here's two hurtsome turns:

It takes you to the precipice of the Uncharted hallmarks you might expect, let's you stare at them, and then veers off in another direction.

what is this i don't even

Yes, the gameplay still revolves around climbing walls and shooting bad guys, but refinement found those mechanics. For the first time, the words "fun" and "useful" describe melee combat.

good thing refinement's been looking! guess it was all that useless, unfun melee combat in all other games, or maybe just the 9.6 uncharted 2.

enjoy!

 

[pramath]

Gamespot. Post. Your. Fucking. Review.

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh god, I just attempted to watch the IGN video review. I got about half way. That guy is wayyy to intense and hyped up to be allowed to critically review a game.
"OMG! And the way he touched the wall! And the way fire burns up the wall! And OMG! The way the light glistens off his beautiful and perfect eyes! There was that one part with the twist, I thought it was going to play out like Uncharted 1 but I was wrong!"
He sounded like the Nintendo 64 kid attempting to explain his joy to other kids.

Don't get me wrong, it seems like a great game and he can surely enjoy himself playing it. But, when you are doing a review you need to be calm, ordered, and subjective. I got the impression that an Uncharted fanboy would love it but what about those who have never heard of the franchise before.

Matt Cassamavania was like the only good video reviewer IGN had.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

It takes you to the precipice of the Uncharted hallmarks you might expect, let's you stare at them, and then veers off in another direction.

Yes, the gameplay still revolves around climbing walls and shooting bad guys, but refinement found those mechanics

what does this MEAN

 

[Drinky Crow]

Matt Cassamavania was like the only good video reviewer IGN had.

reverend david smith impolitely disagrees, fuckface.

 

[Bad_Boy]

SPOILERS

UNCHARTED 3 chapter 1

 

[EmCeeGramr]

whenever i watch uncharted videos i laugh because i imagine nathan drake just walking around his house and suddenly snapping about and lurching into a running pose whenever he changes direction or commences movement