Uncharted 3 reviews

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just been catching up. Wow at some of the participants in this thread.

Acquiescence said:
That fat fuck isn't reviewing it thankfully.
French said:
Very good, except that Eurogamer joke review.
Meisadragon said:
Wow, EG. How disappointing. When EDGE can give it a 9, how the hell did you think it was an 8? They are doing this to stand out.
Radec said:
lol, what an attention-whore Eurogamer is.
nib95 said:
I'm almost certain they're leeching for attention on this one.
LowEndTorque said:
Amazing what Eurogamer's 8 did to drag down the overall metascore.
Oozinator said:
Eurogamer is angry because this master game competes with one of the few AAA made by domestic failing UK game industry (Batman AC).
upJTboogie said:
Lol, they knock the game for being linear? Makes sense people are unhappy with them, never cared about that site
The Lamp said:
When a game comes this close to perfection you have to come up with silly reasons to criticize it.
Russell said:
I can't believe those mutherfuckers had the nerve to give Uncharted 3 an 8.

Fucking trolls.
delta25 said:
ya, an 8 is beyond pathetic and just a lame attempt at getting some extra hits.
tusken77 said:
lol Eurogamer, you clowns.
TrojanBlade said:
Euro(Trash)gamer being a bitch as usual. WTF at that review.
Second said:
Quality is not subjective.
Marius_ said:
ban this site
zinder said:
Fuck the score scale is really messed up. How can Uncharted 2 get 96 metacritic and Uncharted 3 92? Makes ZERO sense. It's better in every single way, yet is worse reviewed.
corkscrewblow said:
Watch out for the Nintendo cult.
Gustav said:
I really think the "8 still means it's a good game" argument really doesn't fly here. Uncharted is not simply a good game, it is outstanding in the truest sense of the word. The production value alone is unrivaled, gameplay is incredibly fluid, letting the player PLAY the most spectacular moments and the story/performance is, at least compared to its contemporaries, stellar. An 8 does not reflect that.
cpp_is_king said:
I don't put much stock in review scores, but generally the highest confidence measure I've found of a game's greatness is when IGN gives it a perfect 10. Obviously this leaves out tons of good games that I would consider 10s, but the false positive rate is basically 0. If IGN gives a game a perfect 10, it's basically a masterpiece.
The-Warning said:
people who dislike the Uncharted series have poor taste. It's a mark against their character.
nib95 said:
Truth is, no gaming outlet is without it's flaws and really we shouldn't give too much value to any of them, but pitting certain one's as far more flawed than the others is imo nonsense. To me they're all hit and miss and all do questionable stuff.

Like Eurogamer in this instance lol.
Acquiescence said:
IGN giving perfect marks for EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT of the game though...that just brings a tear to my eye.
Even in your most intense, eight-out-of-ten induced fanatic delirium over a game none of you have played, I still love you GAF.

EDIT : More from the thread from before and after this post:

CozMick said:


It's beautiful gaf, absolutely beautiful.

I have 10's streaming down my face...
Cheska said:
In the end, the sites that actually matter have not let us down.
Mooreberg said:
Random internet site or somebody from G4 aren't opinions I'm particularly concerned about... ever.
FINALBOSS said:
Why did this Simon dude even review this game in the first place?
thuway said:
I really hope we see a few more 10 out of 10s. I really want to see it on top this year on metacritic.
Hyuga said:
There are always some "renegades" out there in the review pool.
Acquiescence said:
Apart from that 8/10 business with Eurogamer, but we'll just hastily sweep that under the carpet.
sly2thefox said:
Eurogamer is joke at this point.

EDIT 2 - further comments from the thread:

ThisWreckage said:
When other publications and sites are giving the game high 9's to perfect 10's and then Eurogamer comes along and gives it an 8 I can't help but laugh. What's sad is that their 8 score will garner a ton of hits and they know it.
KingK said:
that Eurogamer review was kinda shitty.
VIVIblkmgIc said:
Uncharted 3 may have better core gameplay than many other games, but people will reject it on the grounds of putting a character with a personality up front.
_tetsuo_ said:
The Uncharted receiving 8's from these sites is a good thing. We know which ones to ask the mods to ban now.
Dragon said:
eurogamer you piece of shit!!
Gvaz said:
10 means perfection or pretty fucking close to it, the fuck are you smoking
Cheska said:
It's almost like he hasn't played an Uncharted game at all.
Luckyman said:
CliffyB is right about Eurogamer. "Haters!"
Cheska said:
And while an 8/10 is by no means a bad score, it sticks out like a sore thumb, especially when stacking against more credible websites.
Marius_ said:
Is anybody else F5ing the metacritic page every minute to see if the score changes or is it just me
and everything on this page onwards treating the oft-lambasted IGN as gospel when it produces scores judged as acceptable by those who haven't played the bloody game yet.

EDIT 3 - FINAL ENTRIES IN THE HALL OF FAME (including some from the splinter thread):

Russell said:
Anyone who gives Uncharted 3 anything less than a 9.0 is nothing but a troll and deserves to be slapped.
Tricky I Shadow said:
a mod should change the title to “Official Uncharted 3 Reviews Thread”, and put in at the end “IGN – 10/10”
Marius_ said:
ITS AT 94 AGAIN!!!!!!

[Celebratory GIF of joy in response to a change of number on Metacritic]
squidyj said:
I feel like an 8/10 is less than what Uncharted 3 deserves [...] I, obviously, haven't had a chance to play Uncharted 3 yet [...] I think Uncharted 3 deserves more than an 8.
jonnyp said:
Did anyone expect Eurogamer to give an exclusive AAA PS3 game more than 8/10? Oh Eurogamer...
squidyj said:
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'.
Your Excellency said:
if Uncharted 3 is objectively better than Uncharted 2, yet gets lower scores, then we have a situation on our hands..
BruiserBear said:
Sure, it's possible they actually believed the game was an 8/10, or a 4/5. But if they follow this industry closely, and play a lot of games each year, it's just hard to believe.
Lothars said:
I do have issue with someone taking Eurogamer as a credible review site, I don't think they ever have been credible actually I feel exactly the same way about them as I do about EDGE.
BruiserBear said:
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.
Callibretto said:
UC3 is at the top of the game and should be scored as such.
upJTboogie said:
EG is getting so many extra clicks because of this.
BruiserBear said:
No, I have argued that they hit enough high points to warrant better than an 8/10.
Your Excellency said:
10 out of 10 is a way of saying 'this game does everything right', not 'this game could not possibly be any better'.
Marius_ said:
Back to a 94!! get me on my meds!!

[ANOTHER CELEBRATORY GIF CELEBRATING THE SLIGHT CHANGE TO THE METACRITIC AVERAGE]
thuway said:
GTA IV / Halo got 10s from every single site / publication ever, and those games reeked of shit.
Your Excellency said:
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.
BruiserBear said:
If those same reviewers were handed this game, and it wasn't called Uncharted 3, it would get a higher score. Because this is Uncharted 3, they decided it was time to give a statement score.
spwolf said:
if you give game that gets 94 score on average same grade as game that gets 58 on average, it means you are simply not fit for the job.
tha_devil said:
But looking at other game reviews from eurogamer that received an 8. Uncharted is clearly better than those.
Lion Heart said:
none of this hate would exist if this were Xbox or Nintendo exclusive.
spwolf said:
this is not an question of hard ass reviewer, but simply an person willing to play the hits game - as thats what their salary depends on.
BruiserBear said:
when you see a reviewer throw down an 8/10, or a 4/5, you get the distinct feeling they're trying to make a statement. Like they're special, or different, and they see things in a more critical light. They're fully aware this game offers a polished package that almost no other game this year will deliver, and yet they're going to make sure it's not getting the highest score possible
tha_devil said:
uncharted is a 9/10 or maybe 10/10 game, i can understand if u think its an 8 game. But if u compare it to other 8/10 reviews on eurogamer, i think this is very unfair to uncharted. With it unmatched production values.
arbok26 said:
I mean Uncharted games always make you feel good inside, and he says this in his review many times that its a crowd pleaser... so why be a whiney little bitch about it.... the guy was just in a bad mood...
Duxxy3 said:
Eurogamer is just attention whoring.
spwolf said:
If your reviews constantly differ from rest of the community, then you are simply not fit for the job.
BruiserBear said:
The sum of Uncharted 3's parts make it worthy of a higher score than an 8/10. Based purely on what I know right now, without having even played the single player campaign, I know this. Anyone reviewing videogames today knows this.
A final reminder, for history, that at the time of writing NONE OF THE ABOVE HAVE ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME.
 
Arpeggio23 said:
You can't be serious? 10 divided by 10 = 1. 5 divided by 5 = 1. Neither are "anything from 80 to 100%". Both are 100%.
Not really. 10/10 = 10/10. 5/5 = 5/5. In terms of review scores, they reflect very different things. It's not a mathematical thing.

It's why no-one would ever claim 3 stars = 6/10.
 
Arpeggio23 said:
You can't be serious? 10 divided by 10 = 1. 5 divided by 5 = 1. Neither are "anything from 80 to 100%". Both are 100%.
No.
Crunched said:
what

Can you break this down for me.
If someone at GiantBomb wanted to give a game a 91/100, they'd give it a 5/5, if they wanted to give it 100/100, they'd give it a 5/5. If IGN wanted to give a game a 91/100, they'd give it a 9.1, if they wanted to give it a 100/100, they'd give it a 10.0.
 
Uncharted 2 benefited from the "refined sequel" syndrome. The first game did most the heavy lifting, leaving the sequel with a lot of room to perfect its formula and push its limits both creatively and technically.

Arkham City is currently benefiting from the same thing. Bioshock Infinite will likely be the next example.

Uncharted 3, on the other hand, has little room to grow technically..it has to rely on its script in order to deliver an experience that is simply more enjoyable, even if it's technically very similar. Lower scores are almost entirely the norm in this stage of a franchises life, even if most still herald the entry as the franchise's best. Most recent example would be Gears 3..maybe Rock Band 3 (haven't checked this one myself). It probably has something to do with the initial impact. The post-game breathlessness, if you so please.

That Uncharted 3 is probably STILL going to hit 95 on the metacritic is a massive surprise for me. I expected lower scores..but I still expected most people to say this was the best one.

Things are funny that way. Popular trilogies tend to be that way throughout any medium (so long as the third installment actually turns out good), or any successor to a wildly successful movie/game/book/tv show..etc. It'll probably happen with The Dark Knight Rises, for example.
 
Someone needs to update the PS3 chalkboard with Uncharted 3. IT'S OFFICIAL, PS3 IS DOOMED!

In all seriousness, I thought the Eurogamer review was really well-written and articulate. Quite the opposite of IGN's review, seemed like they sucked the superlatives out of Uncharted's ass and regurgitated them onto a keyboard.
 
Mama Robotnik said:
Just been catching up. Wow at some of the participants in this thread.
Even in your most intense, eight-out-of-ten induced fanatic delirium over a game none of you have played, I still love you GAF.
This post is full of so much win.
 
I like how you people have decided what score the game deserves before you've even played it. Where did you learn your psychic powers? The reviewers have a lot more authority on the matter than most of you.
 
StuBurns said:
You can't be serious? 10.0/10.0 is nothing like 5/5, one is 100%, the other is anything from 80 to 100%.
If you're using that bizarre metric, one is actually 91% - 100%, the other is 81% - 100%.

But they are really both "perfect scores" and mean there are no significant flaws worth considering.
 
Secret_Riddle said:
Uncharted 2 benefited from the "refined sequel" syndrome. The first game did most the heavy lifting, leaving the sequel with a lot of room to perfect its formula and push its limits both creatively and technically.

Arkham City is currently benefiting from the same thing. Bioshock Infinite will likely be the next example.

Uncharted 3, on the other hand, has little room to grow technically..it has to rely on its script in order to deliver an experience that is simply more enjoyable, even if it's technically very similar. Lower scores are almost entirely the norm in this stage of a franchises life, even if most still herald the entry as the franchise's best. Most recent example would be Gears 3..maybe Rock Band 3 (haven't checked this one myself). It probably has something to do with the initial impact. The post-game breathlessness, if you so please.

That Uncharted 3 is probably STILL going to hit 95 on the metacritic is a massive surprise for me. I expected lower scores..but I still expected most people to say this was the best one.

Things are funny that way. Popular trilogies tend to be that way throughout any medium (so long as the third installment actually turns out good), or any successor to a wildly successful movie/game/book/tv show..etc. It'll probably happen with The Dark Knight Rises, for example.

Nice ! 100% Agreed
 
Secret_Riddle said:
Things are funny that way. Popular trilogies tend to be that way throughout any medium (so long as the third installment actually turns out good), or any successor to a wildly successful movie/game/book/tv show..etc. It'll probably happen with The Dark Knight Rises, for example.
LOL I was gonna say this, looking at you avatar, but you already on top of things. That, plus "WTF no Heath Ledger? 8/10"
 
zoukka said:
Probably because nobody took points from the game because it was linear, as was discussed in so many posts in so many pages already.
I never said they took points off, but going by the post I quoted they did criticize it for being linear, which I think it a silly complaint, but I must be a fanatic for thinking that.
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
If you're using that bizarre metric, one is actually 91% - 100%, the other is 81% - 100%.

But they are both "perfect scores" and mean there are no significant flaws worth considering.
No, IGN have one hundred scores to choose from, not ten.
 
VIVIblkmgIc said:
HAhaha dude, you are such a joke.
No, I think the joke is you for trying to bring mathematical precision to subjective reviews of entertainment products that will entertain people in different amounts.

He's been brought up before - Roger Ebert uses a four-star grading system. It doesn't mean 2-stars = 5/10.
 
Mama Robotnik said:
Just been catching up. Wow at some of the participants in this thread.

Even in your most intense, eight-out-of-ten induced fanatic delirium over a game none of you have played, I still love you GAF.
Welcome to the party, pal.
 
Yo, forget Eurogamer guys, I for one have blocked that shit with Microsoft Security Essentials.

That writing is like a fucking virus man, :trojan.8outta10 popping up all over this shit.
 
StuBurns said:
If someone at GiantBomb wanted to give a game a 91/100, they'd give it a 5/5, if they wanted to give it 100/100, they'd give it a 5/5. If IGN wanted to give a game a 91/100, they'd give it a 9.1, if they wanted to give it a 100/100, they'd give it a 10.0.
But the purpose of the truncated review scale is to eliminate those in-betweens. It's not like 5/5 is hiding a set of imaginary numbers. It's exactly equal to 10/10. No one should assume that a 5/5 = 9/10. That doesn't make sense.

The reason a 5/5 scale is used is to get away from the silliness of fractions of points being taken away or added, because how do you qualify that? What's the difference between a 94 or 95? Just say 100 and be done with it.

That doesn't change what the numbers literally represent.
 
flabberghastly said:
Your axiomatic approach is fine so long as we recognize the contingency and artificiality of the axioms themselves. As such, I'd say we must either recognize a malleability to objectivity, or we should adopt a third term which escapes the connotations of object and subject as terms.
I think we do and I agree. The polarization of terms is rarely helpful to the discourse at hand, as evidenced by this thread. What fueled my initial post was the notion of pure subjectivity as an interchangeable phrasing for essential infallibility.

The idea of adopting new terminology free of connotations is an interesting one. I can't ever see that happening, given that language i.e. the words in themselves, carry unintended meaning. I'd rather people simply re-frame the utility of reviews scores in their dialogue. If I have little-to-no interest in a game and that game receives 90%+ on metacritic, I see that as reason enough to research the game further or at least give it a rental. Conversely, if I am anticipating a game and it gets poor scores (I'm not talking 6s or 7s, I'm talking about 4s and 5s) I find that reason enough to become disinterested or wary (without it weighing on my conscious or sense of individualism).

It's unfortunate that these types of discussions rarely occur though. For most people, they simply glance at a number and decide without ever questioning what that number really means.
 
Secret_Riddle said:
Uncharted 2 benefited from the "refined sequel" syndrome. The first game did most the heavy lifting, leaving the sequel with a lot of room to perfect its formula and push its limits both creatively and technically.

Arkham City is currently benefiting from the same thing. Bioshock Infinite will likely be the next example.

Uncharted 3, on the other hand, has little room to grow technically..it has to rely on its script in order to deliver an experience that is simply more enjoyable, even if it's technically very similar. Lower scores are almost entirely the norm in this stage of a franchises life, even if most still herald the entry as the franchise's best. Most recent example would be Gears 3..maybe Rock Band 3 (haven't checked this one myself). It probably has something to do with the initial impact. The post-game breathlessness, if you so please.

That Uncharted 3 is probably STILL going to hit 95 on the metacritic is a massive surprise for me. I expected lower scores..but I still expected most people to say this was the best one.

Things are funny that way. Popular trilogies tend to be that way throughout any medium (so long as the third installment actually turns out good), or any successor to a wildly successful movie/game/book/tv show..etc. It'll probably happen with The Dark Knight Rises, for example.
It's funny because the technical gap between Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3 seems be higher (IMO) than exists between Batman AA and Batman AC
 
Mama Robotnik said:
Just been catching up. Wow at some of the participants in this thread.

Even in your most intense, eight-out-of-ten induced fanatic delirium over a game none of you have played, I still love you GAF.
This is amazing, thanks for the summary!

EG is the only review I've read so far and regardless of the mark, the text itself makes sense. As, you know, an opinion.
 
Nobody can deny the fact that Uncharted 3 is more of the same, that also means more of the same good stuff but also the same flaws. That means every site giving it a 100 or 10 are joke sites and/or reviewers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.