There's been some outrage at some of the reviews that Uncharted 3's been getting. IFC film critic Matt Singer noticed the backlash and penned this essay about why fans need their beloved games to notch perfect 10 all across the board.
"Uncharted 3" doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it is a super fun ride. Why isn't that enough? Why do gamers get so worked up about any break in the consensus or low Metacritic score? I think it has to do with the nature of games. Gaming is about achievement and competition. You play "Uncharted 3"'s campaign to win; you play its — sorry Scott Jones — insanely addictive multiplayer mode to level up your player, to buy more weapons and boosters for your character, to be the best and look the coolest while you're doing it. That's the same impulse that drives these overly sensitive reactions. It's not enough to get good reviews, you have to get the best reviews. And then it's not enough to get the best reviews; you have to get perfect reviews. So when Scott Jones gave "Uncharted 3" a C, he didn't just give it a harsh critique; he screwed up gamers' quest for ever-elusive 100% complete.
Until gamers recognize that mindset has its place in the games themselves but not in the discussion around them, comment section freakouts will continue to be the norm. "Uncharted 3" shows how far video games — and the people who play them — have come, and how far they still have to go.