What do you want from a video game review? Enlightenment? Purchase justification? Quotes to lob at people in your favorite message board? A link that could shoot you to the top on Reddit?
It seems as though when games get high score, people want to get all jumpy and biased , especially reviewers. The games this fall are great, so don't get to full of yourselves journalists.
Some people were pretty mad about Greg for giving UC3 a 10 at neogaf. Some were mad at Eurogamer. But the stuff they said about Greg was pretty messed up, even bought up his marriage that didn't work out. I'll try to find the page to show you all. Edit: Found it. Crazy!!! http://neogaf.net/forum/sho...
Funny how the gaffers don't see the irony in what they're doing to Miller's review. Well, it would be funny if it wasn't so sexually charged nerd sad.
That's how the Eurogamer review felt, lol. He's done it for other major titles like Gears 3 as well.
Eurogamer did give them the lowest score which was 8/10. i do think they were bit harsh though, but w/e. I dont think they are biased. They are usually bit harsh on popular games and more lenient on less popular games. maybe it is for publicity. personal tastes. who knows.
I was a little disappointed with BOTH the IGN and Eurogamer reviews. I am happy Greg gave UC3 a 10 because he and I like all of the same things about Uncharted 3. So if he thinks it's perfect, I likely will, too. But what disappointed me is that he didn't complain about anything. That's fine, I guess, if there's nothing to complain about. But it feels kinda like he gave it a 10 just because he loves the series so much...and that's not really fair. With Eurogamer, I feel like they took points away just because they like games that aren't so linear. I don't think that's fair, either, because there's not a game in the world that's as polished as what ND delivers, and it's sad to see someone not appreciate that just because they like their 3rd person action games with crumbier stories, bulkier protagonists and spacier themes. Neither review has swayed me, though. Every Uncharted game has been a day one buy for me since I played the Uncharted 1 demo the day it hit the PS Store.
THIS perfectly illustrates the moronic behaviors of some fanboys. As bad as the controversy against Eurogamers review was there is always another side to every coin, while Gregs review was nothing but- and many would tout this during the Eurogamer fiasco- Opinion there are equally hateful comments criticizing him for giving the game a perfect score, sometimes there are really no ways in which a reviewer can win.... What they say on neogaf makes me ashamed to call myself a gamer, and it should to anyone reading this. Equally bad are the comments against Eurogamers review although I have illustrated in another comment how the wording of a review can gain more hate than the content, this however, in no way justifies the torrent of abuse that follows. The core though is this everlasting, ever prevalent console war which invades peoples opinions and tarnishes peoples minds. Reviews are a good way to gain an insight into how derived from reality some can be, ever hoping for their line of products to be classified as the be all end all of gaming.. This desire goes so deep that they themselves feel anger when a part of that line is criticized as being inferior even when factually proven so. This is not one set of fans I'm talking about, they are everywhere and are a blemish to the industry. Sometimes it is so bad that one can not give a personal opinion for fear of being labeled a fanboy.... THIS is why we have a problem with game reviews and gaming journalism... Some criticize the way the review is conducted when the true issue is the psychology surrounding gaming in general. Although as I said in another thread, Sometimes a Reviewer can stir up heat unnecessarily, given what I just talked about the effect is multiplied and the everlasting console war gains new heat to the flame.... Here's a funny fact, in my time among various communities I have been labeled 'ps3fanboy' 'xbot' and 'PCfantard' no joke, so which one am I? I say to some, If the developers of your favorite games heard some of he drivel you come out with, They would probably turn around and slap you straight....
Let's be honest here; the Eurogamer reviewer isn't controversial because it's "only an 8", it's because Eurogamer has a long history of under-scoring ps3 exclusives. How can you blame people for glaring at the only convicted murderer in the room when a dead body is found?
Just wish reviewers would apply their criticisms to all games fairly. That's not a lot to ask. Can Eurogamer say with a straight face that Infinity Ward made their MW2 more "game" than "movie"? Yet it scored a 9/10. If this particular element is THAT important to Eurogamer, why did it not apply to MW2? The article writer at Giantbomb mentions "confirmation bias" in that we as consumers are looking for confirmation to our beliefs in these reviews. We believe UC3 to be a perfect game, so we want reviews to confirm it, not tell us otherwise. Maybe this is true for some gamers. I look at the term "confirmation bias" and sometimes I think reviewers apply it in reverse. UC3 has been so hyped for so long, and has received nothing but positive press and praise across the gaming industry, that I wonder if some reviewers have a bias against it before they pop it into their PS3. Maybe Simon Parkin said to himself before he started playing... this better blow me away- then he was disappointed that the game was great, not perfect. Having too many cinematic moments is a legitimate critique. I'm not denying that. But enough to knock off 2 points or 20% of the score? If so, They've been overscoring games for years, including UC1 and UC2. Consistency. Something reviewers have a really REALLY hard time with. And I believe it was why the gamer made the analogy between sports officials and reviewers. Anyone who's watched any amount of hockey knows the frustration of the ref calling your team for a trip, but letting the other team get away with the same thing 10 minutes later. Bring on the disagrees. Have a nice day.
You make incredibly good points, I have to agree on all of them. Though - I can understand where the reviewers are coming from, although it shouldn't happen when they call themselves professional. With all the advertising and hyping around major game releases you just cannot stop yourself from judging games before you played them, heck even before you really seen them. I myself would make those mistakes - I don't like Uncharted, but I do not even own a PS3, I didn't play one single game from the series - I didn't even watch gameplay-videos or anything that would give me an impression how the games played. My dislike is based solely on the hypes and aggressive advertisement, the fanboys do the rest probably. I can't really explain why I dislike them so much, it's just buried somewhere in my head. But to be fair - I'm not writing reviews...
The fanboy backlash to this review is disgusting. Of course its all coming from NeoGAF, and the sensible gamers on every other site don't really give a shit. GiantBomb is one of the sites favored by NeoGAF. So now were getting articles focusing on NeoGAF related drama.
I guess so, the author here basically said Eurogamer's review was well written, but since it focused on nothing but one negative throughtout and even Uncharted whole series at one point ("Cinematic experiences doesn't make a game good" as well as his movie theory), most people thought it was a troll article. Edit: I think when people started using scores as evidence to say that "their game is better than your game" at the beginning of this gen, it kinda lead to situations like this. People now feel like if their fav games doesn't score well, that it'll surely get blasted as a failure or a terrible game when it isn't (Does happen though). I really don't think people gave a **** about reviews back then like today. Some of the cult classic games scored bad but was well received by gamers in the past.
Eurogamer's review was so much better written than IGN's. The great hypocrisy is that fanboys ran to see the score and then praised IGN of all review sites as a credible source for UC3's perfection. Eurogamer is a fanboy, but IGN's Greg Miller is somehow a credible source. Not saying Miller's review is incorrect, but just that people only trash a review if it doesn't tell them what they want to hear. Eurogamer's reviewer brought up a perfectly reasonable critique: he felt that UC3 would take away too much control--control is fundamentally what a game is about. Even Jaffe defended Eurogamer's review. Not everybody agrees about the criticism and not everybody values it as heavily, but it was a perfectly reasonable point he brought up. If the reviewer felt it was a necessary criticism, then more power to him. I think it's pretty telling how insecure and close minded fanboys are when they have to trash a review just because they don't agree with it. If a review points to minor criticisms: they are nitpicking If a review finds a big fault: they are bashing Some people wanted to see everybody submit to Uncharted 3's "perfect" hype and don't want to hear anything less. Reviews are bragging rights, people want to see that shiny 10/10 and shove it down everybody's throat as law. And if it doesn't work out, then they'll tell you reviews are meaningless and biased anyway.
Well said Alpha. Methinks its time for review scores to go, as I've been saying for years. They've become so perverted in their use and meaning, they have become pointless.
Yeah, maybe you are right, but it's sad because the only people who gave review scores so much weight are the people themselves. People need to learn to read reviews and question validity based on that reviewer's reasoning alone. But instead this generation has turned review scores into war of the numbers. They will use review scores and dispose of them as they see fit. I have no doubt that some reviews will definitely have biases and some will definitely fail to have both valid criticisms and valid praises. But all I see this gen is people inconsistently attacking reviews if the game they are looking out for doesn't get what they want. People don't want to dissect meaning and constructive criticism unless the number they see is too low in which case they'll look for a way to discredit the review
It's like people are not allowed to voice what they like or dislike around here unless they're complete neutral tighta**es. [on topic] I've read it and all(most) of the negative points brought up were vague and overblown. What exactly does "taking away too much control" mean? To do what? Free roam? There's not point. It could work if the game took place in one big map. But it doesn't. The game takes the character through different places, following the story with great pacing. It's not a mission based game. It just wouldn't make sense for a game like Uncharted. It manages to do it better than the first two games, yet it's a bad thing? The player has plenty of control over the character. Things like stealth and melee have improved, giving the player more ways than one to take on enemies. That and his comments about how "cinematic experiences don't make a good game". Is that a fair/unbiased statement? The very element that put the games on the map. What's next? "Great design don't make good graphics"? "Great voice acting, cinematography and script don't make a good story"? Come on! I don't understand why some people/journalists act as if they've never played a linear game before. He's criticizing the very reasons why people actually enjoy these games and focusing on what the game doesn't do to his liking instead of what the game actually does. That' why people see it as a troll review. It's certainly gotten a lot of attention, which I assume is what the reviewer/website wanted. What he wrote was the long version of the typical Uncharted hater: "I don't want to play a movie" and "it's linear". He could have just said "I don't like the game and I don't like how people like the things about it that I don't. It's getting too popular". LOL
The true irony is that we still view something like Uncharted or Heavy Rain as being a "game." As in, this is supposed to be "fun" or a digital toy as opposed to an interactive narrative or social commentary. Please, we are passed the days were the plumber jumping on heads is the standard and norm. A medium is only as deep and sophisticated as people want it to be, and I want something that impacts me as much as the works of Faulkner or the films of Spielberg.
@ -Alpha "Eurogamer's review was so much better written than IGN's" You're right, it is. The production value of the review would probbaly rival the game he's reviewing. What irony. From where I stand, the review was nothing more than complaints about things that have been present in the series since the beginning. If he's just decided he doesn't like these things after 3 installments in the series, sounds like a matter of "it's not you, it's me" syndrome. In which case, perhaps he's not the best person to be reviewing it.
@nathanexplosion "What exactly does "taking away too much control" mean? To do what? Free roam? There's not point." an extreme example would be Dragon's Lair. When you are basically watching a movie or events and asked to do some quick time button pressing to forward you through the game. Not sure what it is that he was referring to as I haven't played UC3 and have only seen a few cinematics to go by... but he obviously felt the game was more cinema then game? Which has been a trend lately of many of the so called big games. MGS4, UC3, Heavy Rain, LA Noire, etc. The question is at what point does a personal opinion go beyond a personal opinion and become an outright lie or gross exaggeration of a games faults or credits? When do fanboys get too big for their britches and start complaining because they aren't getting the review they want? When are journalists becoming media whores by faulting a game for the sake of drawing attention to their publication/webpage? Where does this review fall in line? Well I guess you would have to play the game and judge it on your own merits. As for 8/10... that is far from being a fail review so not seeing it as media whoring. As for the comments against the review... I would just have to point out the one comment in this article... "It’s completely, totally, 100% okay to disagree, just make sure you’re aware of what it is you’re disagreeing with.".
I remember when Cliffy B was saying Gears 3 didn't deserve an 8 from eurogamer but more, according to the work they put into the game. The review is by nature controversial because it can say to a group of people or a man or woman that the effort he put in a game are meaningless; the judgement can be just too much focused on a budy experience with the thing he is reviewing , the problem here is to understand that it's part of the game to let people have the right to do that, to speak about others work. With time players may have understood why eurogamer gave an 8 to gears 3; if it's not the case they maybe will stop according importance to the webzine or just believe that it happens sometimes when people disagreing on things. Now what's embarassing is that mostly of the players who havn't play Uncharted 3 are judging reviews. Let take time to play and enjoy the game and let talk after. If some webzines want exposition by giving so called low scores it's their right, when it becomes a problem is when one system would systematically have low scores for no apparent reasons, because of the trend the console war have drained with the hatred between communities. That would be the biggest problem.
The sad thing is that today, reviews make or break the devs hard work. It isnt easy to make a game, and to just have a review that just spits in the face of developers, it's not a pleasant feeling. Especially when a lot of the salary is based on the reviews. It's sad but true.
Except the review in question here is far from a spit in the face. And it is the Fanboys that make it a spit in the face by complaining about it and thus effecting the situation more negatively. When Fanboys stop complaining about numbers that are far from spit in the face material and start looking at a game for what it does for them, then the review becomes less of a measure of sales merit and becomes simply a review again.
Reviews are just supposed to be people's opinions. In my opinion Ocarina of time didn't deserve a 10/10 but that's just one opinion from one person. Edit: I picked Ocarina of Time just as an example, not to make it look bad or anything of that nature.
Eurogamer Italy gave it a 10, if that makes any difference.
Uncharted or OoT?
Isn't every review nowadays controversial in some way? "The score for this game is too low." "This game's score is too high." Every reviewer is paid-off, a console fanboy, or biased against a console in the eyes of people of the Internet. We never just sit back and think, "Maybe the reviewer really did love this game?" No, we can't accept that, can we? Because that would mean someone has an opinion that is different than ours which makes, Greg Miller for example, an idiot that doesn't know how to do his job correctly. People need to stop relying so much on what everyone else has to say and form their own opinions and stick by them.
You should let the stupid fanboys at their game... They can;t help it they behave like they do.. But the thing nagging at me is, why all this hate for Uncharted? Every xbox fan yells PS3 fans are the worse kind blablabla, but this shows that they are just as bad. It kinda ridiculous that there is so much fuzz about a damn review. And on top off that they did not even play or own a specific console... SO it's just pure hate and that's just really childisch
When games were meant for the pure "fun" sense one received while "playing" it, Eurogamer's review would have been rational. The truth is though, we are over the days where the interactive medium provides a type of stimulus. "Games" stopped being "games" when developers stopped creating products and instead began to craft experiences with true emotion. Games are meant to be played, yes, but Uncharted really isn't a "game." If I want stupid, mindless fun, I would play Angry Birds. The truth is, I don't, I want narrative and character development, and I want to experience it with the most intimate medium. How can we expect this interactive medium to mature when the way we perceive it doesn't?
To whomever disagreed, at least tell me why.
They are talking about Eurogamer? the same Magazine that gave a 10 to GTA IV, that game with horrendous gameplay and technical problems? Mmm... no, this Uncharted thing... not convinced about the shooting... mmm no, animations arent as perfect as they should be. I wonder what is the criteria... so much to some, and so little to others.
Often the situation you just described falls mainly with different reviewers for each game. A magazine has numerous reviewers and not all have the same taste. I recommend you find a reviewer that has a similar like and dislike as you and use them as your measuring tool. And let the other reviews just sit there with no worries to you.
Um, Giantbomb... the review was not "mostly positive". Simon had retarded negative remarks spewed through the whole thing. Not to mention complaints about series staples which all of a sudden apparently stick out like a giant zit. " the game commits the cardinal sin of insinuating you have full control of your character, but in fact tugging you towards trigger points - making sure you're in the right spot to tumble over the bonnet of that braking car, for example. " Oh, you mean like the scene in UC2 when you get to the wartorn city and you have to run in one direction shooting at a speeding jeep that's trying to run you over... yet this was perfectly acceptable, as this game got a 10/10? "It's a game in which the skin of your fingertips saves every rooftop leap, while each stonework puzzle solved in the belly of some inexplicably well-maintained tomb leads to another, yet more exotic continent. " So.... you're complaining about the closeness of the jumps (one paragraph after complaining about the consequences of missing a jump), and the CONDITION OF THE DUNGEONS??????? Again, how is this different than UC2 which scored a 10/10? Simon Parkin: Ucharted is what it is buddy. If you don't like it, please, let someone else review it. If you liked 1 and 2, and all of a sudden realized you don't like the formula they use anymore, please say so in your article, rather than pretending to tell us anything we don't already know about what to expect in the gameplay.
I trust Eurogamer and stand behind their reviews 100 percent. They gave U3 an 8, deal with it. Don't like it? Read IGN and their bad reviews.
Its just a single person's opinion. With UC2 there were also a few lower scores but that didn't stop me from playing the hell out of it. Why do gamers cling to lower scores like their life depended on it? There are many scores 9+ so why is this score so important? Eurogamer gave an opinion and you are free to disagree all you want. What is with people attacking or lashing out at people who protest against it? I think that they nitpicked a few things and an 8 sounds like its undeserving. So what? What is with the eagerness to put down UC3? Geez, are you all that bitter and jealous? Get over it. Why believe the 8 over the 9.5 especially since the people praising the 8 haven't played the game either @ lochdoun bet you wouldn't trust it if it was a 10.
Review scores as a whole are controversial. 8/10 on Eurogamer started a sh!tstorm, and 10/10 on "IGNorant", well, got the entire N4G community to throw the turds in the air like confetti. All of a sudden the former "IGNorant" site is now IGN.
You must not have been looking. While people re happy that the game GOT that score, it hasn't at all changed their opinion of IGN. As one comment said, "Don't get it confused. I love Uncharted." People like the series, and the characters, and the evident love the developers have for the work. It is entirely possible that, in some area or another, UC3 falls short of its predecessor. But the review that has sparked this "controversy" didn't note- or at least focus on- such things. Instead, it focused on the very thing the series has been praised for: its cinematic flair. Suddenly, that which made the first two titles popular is now a detriment in the third entry. And although I may not be flipping out like many are, I'm certainly part of the group that disagrees with such a review. As was said before, it's not about the game being given an 8. It's about an apparent set of inconsistencies when grading games, and about being overly critical of something that was previously praised.
"You must not have been looking." My "entire N4G community" is a hyperbole. It's an intentional exaggeration regardless of fact. By entire I mean the vocal fanboys of this site, and they, unfortunately, make up a significant portion of regulars. Then we have sensible members like -Alpha that are not one of them. Honestly I could apply this quoted excerpt to yourself as well. I don't think you understand how many on N4G alone are upset over the score, and how many are blindly accepting IGN's poorly written review with open arms solely based on the perfect 10 score, even though Eurogamer's review with all the complaints is a more professionally-written review. Whether or not I actually agree with the review and its negative points is a different story. According to a large multitude of comments on this site, IGN just now gained credibility for that review alone. Here's the scenario: Before, it's "you cannot spell ignorant without IGN" After, fanboys are now showering an IGN review with praise and glory for the first time ever. They never have even question the actual contents nor the quality of the review. The number is the only thing that matters to them. That doesn't mean nobody on N4G is bashing IGN anymore, there will always be an IGN hater on N4G. If the score for Eurogamer was a 9/10 the controversy would've been reduced down to at least half.
Sure, you could apply it to me. I could just as well apply the label of dung beetle to my roommate's cat. There's a reason people jump at the numbers, and I'm sure you know that reason very well. Fanboys are more prone to jump than any others.
scores are scores.. But if you take points from games like uncharted for being linear or having dull moments or incompleted plots.. I expect that same thinking to be applied to all games, gears, call of duty, halo etc.. and here is the problem.. the same thinking is not applied.
To the people stating that review scores should go. I would add while that is a good idea it would take some time before the current gamer generation would phase over to that score less review scheme. In the mean time what is one to do...I can see the stance on the cinematic part hindering a game. I can also see how giving it a straight 10 would be nitpicked as well. I'm surprised not one site has taken lead on ushering in a new review score system. Hell keep the numbers but also include second opinions as well. Its also probably best to include increments other than .5 to the score. One has to ask though, what is that other 1pt when dealing with a perfect game. I mean for us 8-9 is considered the best of the best so what is the .5-1pt for. I would have to say its a feeling in which the game gives you. Its the thing that tips the score over the top. Back in the day FF7 would have been that game. So I'm curious to see if UC3 would have that same effect on me. Back to task however. On the issue of the Euro gamer review and the IGN review. I do think Alpha has a point among others as well. Its all Ego based and some gamers (myself included sometimes) feel that if certain games are good then the score should reflect it. That being said I think a lot of people are angry because if UC3 got demoted for having a heavy amount of cinema and got an 8 how does MW3 and other games that don't do as much as UC3 does or does well get a higher score. I think that is where the disconnect is. V/R
Rating a good game down or a bad game up? With one you are surprised at how much better it is than the review indicated. The other is disappointment that it wasn't as good as you were told. Did they really give GTA4 a 10?
The man who reviewed Uncharted 2 had vocalised his slight distaste for the franchise way back in 2009 when it was awarded Eurogamer's "GOTY" so I don't quite understand why they would give someone a title to review with a somewhat negatory perception from the jump. In 2009 He called Uncharted 2 nothing short of a "glorified interactive movie" He's stated countless times that he didn't enjoy Uncharted's gaming formula, who why was he given the responsibility? I wouldn't mind the reviewer pointing out uncharted 3 cons. Every game has them.I do however mind when the reviewer completely ignores what the game is set out to do, complains about various stuff that were never intended to be done and finally gives a score based on a negative perception that was skewed from the get-go What I'm saying is that his criticism is based on something ND never intended to do. They didn't intend to do an open world game. They didn't intend for you to stray off the road and explore somewhere else. They intended for you to follow a path (as does MANY linear games) and have a memorable experience oozing with cinematic flair. Even though most games follow the SAME EXACT trend (ex: Gears of war 3,call of duty) The reviewer ignores this. He Almost completely ignores the MP. He writes a paragraph about it and is done with it. I wouldn't point out that a con in a game like guitar hero or Rockband is that I can't get in a car and shoot people. That's not what the game intended.
I am pretty sure ND stated that they were out to make an interactive cinematic experience. I just wish this guy had reviewed UC3 based on its merits as opposed to what he wanted it to be.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.