BeefJack: "This week, renowned games critic Tom Chick awarded UNCHARTED 3 just 4/10 in his review, prompting yet another fan backlash against a reviewer. But what does this say more about: the critic, the fans, or the very nature of games reviews? We investigate…"
60°
120°
240°
60°
Ad 
90°
20°
40°
20°
20°
30°
Related video
We all know that but we still comment and give it attention, just ignore it, Shit! now I just commented
Yes, it is subjective, but I've come to realize that all the best reviews tend to be just that. I'm glad I got to read his critical opinion.
And getting upset about something like this is just weak. If you love the game, why should anyone elses opinion matter to you?
We all know that this game is far from a 4, even if it's not your kind of game!
This reviewer is a moron who gave the game a 4 for hits and to be on Metacritic. Simple as that. A review should literally be a summary of what the game does well and what it does poorly without emotional attachment. As a reviewer, it's not your job to sell the game or discourage someone from buying the game. Your job is simply to talk about the game's merits and its flaws. That's all. Numbered scores are independent of feelings.
Personally, I wish reviewers were forced to write reviews without any kind of grading. Just a written review, no scores, nothing like that.
I'm sure for every top AAA game there will always be someone who just isn't into that game. No matter how great the game is, I guarantee 100% that you can find a few ppl that just find it boring and could not get into it.
I know a few people who find Dark Souls incredibly boring and tedious and feels more like work than a fun engaging game. But I and many millions of people love Dark Souls. If my friend was a reviewer then he should not be allowed to review Dark Souls because the game is just not for him. No matter how good the game is he will find it boring, uninteresting and ultimately bad.
Tom Chick complains about boring storytelling, characters, lack of risk/reward balance, setpieces blah blah blah, all of those things he disliked I thought it was awesome and apparently so did many other reviewers and gamers.
Tom Chick as an experienced reviewer and the site that supported this trolling campaign know full well what they are doing. Maybe a linear scripted type of game is not for this Chick? Maybe this Chick will dislikes any game that guides the character along a set path and will never get over the fact that he doesn't have 100% control and therefore will never sit back and enjoy the ride.
I've read a many times several reviewers in the past where they state that the game is not for them but they understand that fans of this game will enjoy. They understand what the game was aiming for and although the game is not for them they can see how other people will enjoy it and give it a fair honest objective score. This makes Tom Chick sound like a immature child ranting about a great game just because he no like.
These publications need to KNOW their writers better and base assignments on that knowledge to get the most accurate of reviews. At the same time, these publications need to let their readers know what kind of games the reviewer enjoys, so we can have an idea of what kind of gamer they are.
But no matter what - the best reviewer is the gamer themself, because you can't base what you will like on another's opinion. To each his own.
A review is not a pure 100% opinionated piece with no structure. It holds an objective component piece broken down into a plot synopsis, structure components, (in all mediums: dialogue, characters, etc. In gaming: bug, errors, sound design, graphic design, art direction, animation, gameplay, musical score, ie watch a gametrailer review.) Then the latter half (third) of a review is devoted to the "opinion" of the writer.
The review is designed to inform and educate as well as give a fair analysis and finally a personal voice to the writer.
So if we looked at the points aformentioned about a review's structure, the writer's opinion should at most constitute 10%-20% of the overall score. Ie 1-2 points out of a 10 point system.
Typically when a review score drops below 6 or 5, you are taking the case to the educated reader, that there are game breaking problems that impinge upon basic playability. Ie menu system that is confusing, characters sticking to walls, invisible holes one falls through, enemy ai that just stand there, or sound cutting out in the middle of a firefight, etc.
Of course then you have reviewers with big enough egos that they can handily "believe" their opinion is worth 6 points out of a total 10.
I'm flabbergasted by some of the responses above condoning this behavior. If there isn't objectivity in a review, anybody could give a game a 1/10 simply because they hate the sound of a how the gun fires or how Sully wears an ugly red shirt, but ladies and gentlemen... happily that's now how it works in the industry. Anyway if this writer is 'renowned,' he's certainly lost a lot of credibility.
There's many different types of ways to review products. Specially when it's a review on something that's subjective like a entertainment experience such as video games. He could write about Uncharteds technical merits, execution and composition but that's only part of the equation. Video games are more than about their technical components seeing as the purpose of a video game is to induce fun which everyone comprehends differently. When a person is tasked with reviewing something of that nature you tread into a different territory as opposed to something that can be analyzed more scientifically.
Reviewing entertainment mediums in itself is hard specially when scientists can't even deduce why a person laugh may laugh. This is multiplied by the fact that games as a medium is still young compared to movies, music and books. This industry as a whole is still figuring out what "works" and what doesn't along with crafting new experiences, genres, audiences, platforms, messages etc. It also shows how we as consumers have grown accustomed to reviewers operating on a 6-10 scale as opposed to a true 10 point scale. I think in the end all this backlash to lower than expected reviews of Uncharted 3 has only fortified the fact that developers, reviewers and us gamers have a long way to go in this entertainment medium.
As I said before you give bad scores to games people enjoy and your only hurting yourself mo matter how much attention they originally get you. LOL 4/10 thats desperate
Secondly, when you review anything you review it by the standards of it's genre(an opinion on JRPG game, say, is pointless if the reviewer knows nothing of the genre, hates the genre, decides to review it by the standards of a different genre and so on)or oyour review becomes nonsense. This review smacks of nonsense as I fail to believe , judging U3 by the standards of it's genre, that a 4/10 score is defensible let alone credible but as long as people get upset by these scores and give the lazy writer the oxygen of their attention we will always get them.
Sadly, we also have some fanboy, platform hating writers in gaming(of all shades)andthese bitter people will mark fown anything exclusive to a platform they fon't love if it suits them-I unno whther this is the case here, mind, as I seriously couldn't take the review as a proper piece when I knew the score as it really isn't credible given what I, and everyone I know, knows about both the game and the genre it's in. sometimes a review is poor and sometimes it's just way off the mark and shouldn't be taken seriously or clicked on.
The real shame is we get worked up enough by this stuff that we end up legitimising it as a hit whoring tactic. A 4/10 game is a game which ticks few of it's genre's quality boxes and U3 isn't even near being that game. It's simple and this, at best, was a knowing grasp for hits.
in order for anyone to consider you a "legitimate" reviewer, you are forced to put numbers. look at yahtzee. he gives some of the best, most insightful perspectives on games out there; but because he doesn't give you a number, a lot of people can't wrap their tiny brains around it and dismiss it as entertainment. especially when he doesn't shower unwarranted praise on some of these mainstream popcorn games.
Maybe IQ tests should be mandatory for reviewing games.
If you were to remove a decimal in 4,5 you'd end up with 5.0. So 4/10 is less specific than 40/100, even though they're both of the same value.
I'm not saying that this can be applied to reviews and all that, but it is a mathematical fact.
edited
Related image(s)
mathematical fact is that 4/10 = 40/100 = 400/1000 = ...
But to answer Starfox811 Tom Chick's rating system does specify that 4/10 means "weak"
The same for 35 or 45. No matter how you look at it, it is a bad score. I personally will NOT be listening to reviews for this game. I loved parts one and two. I am not a blind fanboy though. If part two was not such an improvement of part one then I would have fell off the wagon. Here is hoping part three is at least as good.
....WUT? They're the same value; you can convert them between each other without changing anything. 4/10 is EQUIVALENT to 40/100.
And your rounding exercise in the first sentence does not mean anything. It doesn't change the fact that 4/10 and 40/100 are the exact same thing.
Don't say that N4G should have IQ tests for posting when you're making stuff up about statistics.
Without using decimals you only have 4 and then 5, nothing between. If you use the 100 point scale then a 42/100 or a 49/100 is possible. Like I said, a 4 or a 5 are both really low. I don't think the extra accuracy is necessary. In my opinion, a 40 is just a bad as a 50.
But I love Uncharted, and they have not let me down yet, so I'll be ignoring reviews.
Personally,i feel the biggest lesson here, and I despise using them for my own reviews, is that review scores are flawed and that's that. When we get back to reading the words in a review(and one done by a writer with an understanding of the genre he's reviewing) we'll all be better off.
I remember reading a review on god of war 3 that said it was extremely close to perfect but it was given a 9/10. That 9/10 could mean 98/100, 99/100, or 96/100
Yes. Yes I am.
If I now said "hey cod mw3 is the worst game in history" I know I'm gonna cause a shit storm, so reviewers can't really complain about disagrees and criticism.
Technically and story telling wise it is all of the highest quality.
He should really be ending by saying " there is no doubt that Uncharted 3 delivers a technical masterclass and demonstrates that story telling can be properly incorporated into a much perceived immature industry. Fans of the first two will be right at home with Drake and his adventures and will be fully fulfilled, for myself as the reviewer it's just not my cup of tea but even I can appreciate a game that's the best at what it does"
There is no such thing as a "professional" reviewer as we are all reviewers because at the end of the day we buy the games.
Uncharted 3, 9.2/10. See there is my score.
Starfox811 said that 4/10 might not mean the same for a reviewer as a 40/100, (even though they are mathematically the same value)
Then MariaHelFutura missed the point and said that 40/100 and 4/10 is the same value, which they are, but that was never the point (I think)
Then 360ICE sort of got that point through, but I disagree a little bit and think that reviews are in fact where the values could be different (since the numbers here are hiding subjective values)
Then we all sort of started talking about the numbers instead of the point here: That Starfox thinks it's unfair to sum up an opinion in a number.
Right now there are a lot of disagree because a lot of us are discussing different subjects and misunderstanding each other, so let's just stick to the point.
Perhaps every reviewer that rates a game a 9 or 10 should also qualify their score, stating, "This game really may not be your cup of tea, and many others will enjoy it less than I did."
Reviews would get pretty boring if they all did that.
the 20% worst and better reviews should'nt be included in the metascores (then probably, they would stop giving stupid scores for hits)
Reviews like this shouldn't be taken seriously.
I still think his Low review scores are written specifically to be submitted on N4G, to gain hits and attention. He's also the one who submits them on here to show his hate.
I look forward to see his other PS3 exclusive troll reviews for Starhawk and Twisted Metal. I predict a 4 and 5.
So make sure to keep an eye out for those reviews.
It absolutely isn't a 4/10 game though but it's not as perfect as some people would have you believe.
The story and graphics are amazing as usual but the gameplay feels broken (camera controls and aiming) and there are a lot of little features that have been in the first 2 games that are missing here such as the ability to watch the cut scenes in the bonus menu and also all the unlocks you get after finishing the game for your next play through.
I have to wonder how much this game suffered because of the implementation of 3D, as sadly imho it is by far the worst in the Uncharted series. It just felt like a chore to play tbh I wish I had just watched the cut scenes on YouTube and not bothered with the game at all.
I mean, just take a look at the average game that is given a 4/10...movie licensed games, games with massive amounts of glitches or gameplay issues, games with repetitive levels and nonexistent stories, etc. Y'know...bargain bin stuff. Uncharted hardly deserves to be there. A 4/10 implies that Uncharted 3 is a below-average game, which it simply isn't. Even if the game isn't the reviewer's cup of tea, that doesn't mean it's a bad game or that it deserves such a low score. I personally don't like racing, but if I was reviewing a good racing game I wouldn't give it a low score just because I don't like racing. I'd have to look at the game objectively.
It makes me wonder if the reviewer has even played many games. Because they would DEFINITELY know the difference between a 4/10 game and Uncharted 3 if they have.
XperiaRay
The fact is that the Unchartered series is at the top of it's game, & if everyone reviewed great games like this waaay below average, then it is bound to hurt sales & developers reputations.
The blood, sweat & passion that ND & other quality developers put into there games (like Team Bondi with LA Noire) shouldn't be scoffed at, & fact is that many film based attributes have been introduced into videogames after the 16bit catridge era ended...& to be honest, it's still in it's infancy. To be honest, I think certain reviewers put to much stock into many of these film attributes, & they seem to either wanna forget, or consciously forget that they are playing a game, not watching a movie. The most stock has to go into gameplay, graphics, sound, performance, controls, etc, etc, & FUN. The cineamatic aspect really needs to take the backseat when it comes to reviews, otherwise these reviewers should p!ss off & review movies.
Don't get me wrong, as I'm the same as the next guy that wants to see storylines, camera angles, dialogue & other cineamatic qualities improve constantly for videogames, but I don't want these things to take precedence over the very reason I play videogames, & that is for game qualities implemented flawlessly to equate to FUN.
So maybe if this guy gave the game an 8, knocking 1 to 2 points off for the attributes he found to be lacking, I could take his review seriously.....Hell, even if he thought the game was only 7 worthy, then fair enough & while I would think he is still 2-3 points off the mark, at least it shows some journalistic integrity, instead of it looking like the review of a fanboy, & his no. 1 Sony hating fan has posted this on N4G's trying to convince us of this Chris clowns journalistic integrity & respect as a reviewer.....but it is laughable when he scores one of the most fun, awesomely controllable, ridiculously well produced game series this gen.
I mean, his equivelant score for GeOW3 would possibly be 2 or 3 out of 10, MW3 would maybe get a 5/10 if lucky, BF3 a 2.5/10, etc, etc.
Hard to take a guy & the site he represents seriously, when he is handing out scores like this to some of the best games not only this gen, but of all time....big call, yes, justified, damn straight as UC just nails so many of my interests in a game it's not funny...It has adventuring through lush enviroments for antique treasures with a protagonist that is pretty darn cool & funny....It's a bit like a 2009-2011 reboot of Indiana Jones.
Really you only have to look at journalism outside of video games to see that a journalist doesn't merely write an opinion. For example in my country there is a writer who is actually being sued for writing a politically incorrect article in the largest newspaper in circulation against a racial minority group.
Sure video games doesn't sit in the realms of seriousness as what I have just mentioned, but consider the point that I'm making is that when you have the power to communicate your "opinion" across 1000's of readers in a format that might imply credibility (such as a popular website) you have the duty to be damn careful about what you say. Quite frankly giving a 4/10 for something that's top of it's game, as you have said, is irresponsible and downright derogatory.
I can't say I agree with the reviewers score, but I'm of the opinion that UC3 is the weakest Uncharted game thus far and probably the biggest disappointment for me this year as far as campaigns go. I'm ready for the disagrees to pile in, in fact, I expect it. I'm only supremely disappointed because I love this series, and I want it to be great. The talk that this critic is biased or making the review for hits makes me laugh every time someone gets offended by an OPINION. It's one big circle of denial.
not very bright are you? they did it for attention plain an simply, if giving UC3 a good score make you a sheep an you don't want follow then don't review the game. just because you have a opinion does not make you entitled too piss on any game you want in review an not have negative feedback
There is NO problem in which you feel that it's the weakest of the 3 and that's ok.
But honestly, given with the way how a scoring system is, and with mathmatics, 5.5/10 is the middle, or average(this is math now, so 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10/10), and by setting a 4 means that you're saying the game is below average.
The issue with many reviewers, is that the score they set, does not stay consistent with what they say.
Uncharted 3 > Uncharted 2
It is also still a fantastic game and deserves a much higher score than 4/10.
even if you dont like the game it should get a 7/10
for a technical standpoint at least.
The guys just trying to get attention
and its worked.
give 4/10 means it is not playable and it is not a game.
I would only understand a low score.... if a product is released exactly the SAME time as another product with the EXACT target market just for comparisons sake in determining which product is better. But honestly there is no game out there there that compares to UC3 when it comes to a nice balance of adventure, story, action, and cinematic feel.... well UC 1 and 2.
I would only expect this type of opinion/score when comparing games like dantes inferno vs god of war 3. Good thing dantes was released 1>2 months earlier.
Now, maybe a 4/10 is a blatant attempt for hits, but the game sure doesn't sound like the 9/10 or 10/10 so many other sites are giving it. There is obviously are far bigger problem with overly inflated review scores than the occasional lower than normal score, but where is the outrage toward that? Oh yeah, it's no where to be seen because review scores are nothing more than fanboy fuel for their stupid loyalist war.
Edit: I still dont think he should have scored it 4/10. That is WAY too low from what apart from the annoyances is a great game.