Do Hateful ‘Fans’ Defeat the Purpose of Having Honest Opinions in Review Scores?

ThisGenGaming says "As a brief disclaimer, it’s worth mentioning that this article will centre mostly around one recent major AAA release but is in no means a reflection of that game itself. The game in question, Uncharted 4, has been picked because it specifically highlights an issue surrounding the defeating of the purpose of honest opinions in review scores."

[gangsta_red]

Of course, any opinion that doesn't align with their own and all of a sudden it's a "joke of a review", "clickbait" or that review is either "biased" or "paid off".

A lot of gamers like to throw the term entitled around every chance they get, even when it's not even the case or relevant to the topic or situation. But in this case this is truly an example of gamer entitlement, the fact that some feel a bad review (one at that) is unwarranted and should actually be removed is just beyond ridiculous.

Who cares, one review score isn't going to take away from the 100 other scores that gave this game or any other that has been widely received as excellent. It is so funny to see the littlest things annoy certain fanboys.

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

Eveyone agreed that The Order sucked. Ok, But this is another story.

People should take responsabilitu for the things they say whether positive or negative, and gamers have a right to call out BS if applicable. Being a reviewer doesn't give a right to trash a game unfairly, especially a very anticipated game that eveyone has given nothing but praise.

Notice where I said "unfairly," which is what this issue is about. That "review" didn't even have a score. Where did Metacritic get that score from? The guy didn't say a single thing about the game. No objective view anywhere... It was a rant. How can this be taken seriously?

Cherry pick all you want, but there's something fishy going on here. I wouldn't care enoug to make a petition, but there was a guy with more balls to expose this shit. Whether you call him a fanboy or whatever, he's got a pretty good point.

[Liqu1d]

My theory on why Metacritic gave the negative review a 4/10 is because that's the highest a "bad" review can be rated, a 5/10 would be an average score which they probably felt didn't match what the review was saying so they might have thought 4/10 was 'fair'.

That said Metacritic have no business making up scores for other peoples reviews, it is up to the reviewer to give a score to their review and no one else.

[Vegamyster]

"Being a reviewer doesn't give a right to trash a game unfairly, especially a very anticipated game that eveyone has given nothing but praise."

The Washington post one which didn't have a score makes sense but likewise with the users doing the criticism, how can a user say a review that gives a good score (8-8.9) is terrible before the full product is available to the public to play? Yes there are some bad/vague reviews but those ones aren't limited to low scoring ones which seem to be the only ones that get attention.

[DarkZane]

That 4/10 score was satire, so in this case, it should be removed from metacritics. The real review was also posted in washington post which was more like 8-9/10, but somehow the one that went on metacritics is 4/10.

[ziggurcat]

@liqu1d:

and that review was satire... so not even a legitimate review to begin with.

[Saito]

The Order had it faults, but in no way it was a bad game. Sucked? No way.

[Gaming101]

In case people don't get it yet, the market for reviews is very saturated, and if you have a new website it's hard to get noticed and get any clicks whatsoever. IGN, Gamespot and few others have tied the market up in terms of click throughs for somewhat objective reviews, so people create overly negative reviews of just about everything just to get clicks. It's about money, not journalistic integrity. There is no editor, there is no journalistic standard that people are following, it's the Internet. The wild west of information, where people can say ANYTHING.

So don't jump to call gamers entitled for pointing out this nonsense when they see it. Since no score was given in the review, Metacritic has no right to assign one themselves, and calling them out for that corruption is duly deserved.

[DragonKnight]

Right, the review wasn't satire. I repeat, the review WAS NOT satire. This has been confirmed multiple times already.

And the review itself would not be removed. You could go to the Washington Post and still see the review. That isn't the issue.

The issue is metacritic's over reach. Metacritic can talk all it wants about defending its way of doing things, but adding a score to a scoreless review is a problem. People forget that people's MONEY is on the line with metacritic scores. We know that contracts have bonuses imprisoned behind metacritic aggregate scores. Metacritic surely knows this as well. People with power use that power and that's where the problem lies.

No one actually cares that a random nobody gave UC4 a bad review for clicks. Everyone expects that these days. What everyone cares about is the over reach of metacritic assigning numbers based on THEIR OWN opinion and NOT the reviewers. A hit like this could be the difference between the ND devs receiving a bonus or not. Can you actually say then that this is all just about "honest opinion?" Especially when that "honest opinion" (if you believe that, you're naive) would still be freely available on the actual site?

The issue is, and always has been, metacritic. Not the review, not an opinion, just metacritic. UC4 doesn't deserve a 4/10 no matter who you are. a 4/10 means a below average game with technical issues on the LEGITIMATE scale, not on the B.S. inflated garbage scale used these days. Does anyone really think that UC4 is below average? Can people point me to videos proving game breaking bugs? No? Well then hopefully now you see the problem with metacritic handing it a 4/10 when even the clickbait reviewer didn't himself do that.

[phoenix_dusk]

Hypocrite, much?

You've thrown away a term like gamer entitlement yet you have no idea what that actually means.

You really have no right to call out on people like that.

Reviews are up for readership and obviously means it's subject to criticism as well.

[Bimkoblerutso]

That's fine. Criticism is perfectly fine. Feel free to criticize the review to your heart's content. I think the vast majority of people will agree that it's way, WAY off base.

But what people are asking for is censorship. There is no other way to spin it. They are asking for a score that they disagree with to be stricken from the public record.

What's hypocritical is that we all seem to agree that it is unethical for publishers to do the same thing with user reviews...because it most certainly is.

[Imalwaysright]

Reviews are opinions. When you start to criticize someone else's opinion all you're doing is forcing your own opinions on that person.

Edit

@ ShadowWolf712

Yes they disagree and are entitled to it but then the arguing starts and what will they say? That the person is wrong for having any given opinion? That their opinion is the only one that matters? That the other person is crazy for having such opinion?

How do you argue against something that is entirely subjective?

When you argue against someone else's opinion aren't the points you're trying to make entirely subjective as well?

[ShadowWolf712]

@Imalwaysright
No, what you're doing is disagreeing. People are entitled to disagree with someone's opinion and attempt to argue the opposite all they want.

@Bimkoblerutso
No, people aren't, by and large, asking for censorship. They're asking that an unscored review that was assigned a score be taken from the scored reviews and placed back in the unscored reviews where it belonged in the first place.

That's not censorship at all.

[gangsta_red]

@Xi
"Eveyone agreed that The Order sucked. Ok, But this is another story."

That would be a no, everyone did not agree as that game even got defended by the hardcore fanbase. But that is another story...for real.

There are going to be even the most fantabulous games that some people, even the smallest minority aren't going to like. Earthboand Beginnings...fantastic game...can you believe there are gamer reviews that are giving that game a low score!? I sure can't. Oh well!

"Being a reviewer doesn't give a right to trash a game unfairly, especially a very anticipated game that eveyone has given nothing but praise."

So basically if the majority likes the game and is bowing down in droves on their hands and knees then that means everyone should follow and bend the knee too? That is basically what you are telling me. You guys are on a slippery slope here. Imagine having the power to take off reviews you don't agree with? A lot of you complain and moan about shady reviews and reviewers being paid off and not trusting reviews. Imagine if they were controlled by extreme gamers (i.e fanboys) who had the power to remove bad reviews. All because they felt it was "unfair", would that make you trust reviews or metacritic even more?

The wide majority agrees that Uncharted 4 is a great game. Why are you worried about this one guy and this one review and this one score on mertacritic? Seriously...one review, one score over all the 10's and 9's...it's the same with the recent IGN review that got an 8 even though it was incomplete. An incomplete review still netted UC4 an 8 and people still flew off the handle..it's hilarious!

And cherry pick? Really? You really want to use that term here? Because that is exactly what you and Krang and anyone else who cares about this are doing, cherry picking ONE bad review and turning it into some huge conspiracy (fishy? shady? Really?) to take down Naughty Dog and Sony.

"but there was a guy with more balls to expose this shit"

There was a guy with more time on his hands than necessary is what you mean.

@phoenix_dusk
"Hypocrite, much?"

Huh? Not sure you're using that term correctly.

"You've thrown away a term like gamer entitlement..."

I think you missed the point of how I was using it. I guess I could use another overblown and overused term called "irony". ;)

"You really have no right to call out on people like that."

Why not?

"Reviews are up for readership and obviously means it's subject to criticism as well."

And I am completely fine with that. Never said anything else. The issue is calling to take it down, ban it, apply some ridiculous conspiracy to it or anything else that is being done BESIDES it being criticized.

[Maybay]

Gaming's becoming too serious nowadays. I cringe a little anytime a casual person mentions video games, because of the reality of the "other side" (blatant fanboy-ism) of it.

[magiciandude]

UC4's Metascore only lost 1 point from this review. People are really blowing it out of proportion. It's still one of the highest rated games on the PS4. I'm playing UC4 right now and while it's good, it isn't the greatest game I've ever played this generation.

[Dark_Knightmare2]

It is getting blown out of proportion but at the same time that "review" wasn't a review it was a rant that talked about nothing besides his hate for the series. I mean where in the review did he mention gameplay,level design, animations etc hell he didn't even talk about mp. Oh just wondering what game so far this generation was better than uc 4 in your opinion because in mine it was the complete package and the only games to come close were bloodborne and dark souls 3

[magiciandude]

The two games you just mentioned are best games this generation IMO. After playing Dark Souls III most games just feel like a chore.

[Letthewookiewin]

Well when some dipshit writes a flat out hateful review it deserves backlash, that review was COMPLETE bullcrap purely for clicks and fame. But come on, I can completely see how someone who is not really an Uncharted fan may not give UC4 an 8,9 or 10, but that AP review was so bad people truly thought it was satire, and then it was the exact reason it dropped UC4 an entire point. Metacritic is taken very seriously in the industry and the public, its not fair to Naughty Dog what happened.

[shinrock]

That's good ol' N4g for ya.

[Inzo]

You will also be frustrated if you read the actual review, allot of the things said, cannot be justified and it becomes clear early on that the review has one purpose and that is to bash down U4.

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

Ok @Gangsta

You keep ignoring the real issue here... Metacritic added a score that wasn't there. <--- this!

I didn't mean the mayority of gamers but reviewers. If everyone agreed that the story was great, who's gonna take a troll reviewer seriously? Oh yeah, the PS4 haters

[gangsta_red]

https://twitter.com/metacri...

What's the issue again?

This reviewer by the way wrote harsh reviews for Dark Souls and Red Dead Redemption. Was there an issue then? Was there claims of satire then? I have no idea, this is the first I have even heard of the guy.

Edit:
The PS4 haters...right...this is the issue with you lot. You're worried about the so called "haters" that are actually complaining about fanboys wanting to censor reviews they don't agree with.

[rainslacker]

@Gangsta

What about the evidence provided by Andrew in another thread that he got directly from MC own FAQ on site policies that stated that MC goes to the sites and gets the reviews themselves, and explicitly stated that they assign scores to reviews that have none.

Snipped quote.

"Our staffers will go through every publication on our Movies Publications list (see below) looking for reviews for Iron Chef vs. Godzilla. For each review found, we will take the score given by the critic and convert it to a 0-100 point scale. (For those critics who do not provide a score, we'll assign a score from 0-100 based on the general impression given by the review.). These individual critic scores are then averaged together to come up with an overall score."

Here's the link to their site

http://www.metacritic.com/f...

Clear as day what their policy is, wouldn't you agree? Yet your accusing people of spreading misinformation?

Lets look at the evidence, since maniac decided to say I didn't research and put it all together.

1. MC tweeted TWP gave them the score
2. MC own policies state they get the reviews from the websites they track by going to the website
3. MC own policies state they read an unscored review, and assign a score.
4. TWP staff member in the comments of the review is unaware of how MC got the score.
5. The author of the review has given no indication that I can find what score he'd assign
6. No one at TWP has taken responsibility for assigning a review score.
7. TWP only claims that the review itself is valid(not the MC score)
8. TWP only interest in this seems to be that they stand by the material that they publish.
9. TWP has taken no stance on MC review score.

Despite that tweet, the evidence is that MC assigned the score, because TWP isn't taking responsibility, and MC own policies state that this is what they do. No one has taken responsibility Maybe it is different for TWP, maybe they do give MC a score when requested. Doesn't change the fact a score was assigned to an unscored review by a 3rd party.

My initial arguments may have been based on assumption without all the evidence, however, now it's not. It's based on reasoning out the most likely scenario given the evidence provided. Are you just using selective evidence now? I gave 9 pieces of evidence, you and Maniac are using one.

[rainslacker]

@ Gangsta cont'd

In response to your comment in another thread, I wasn't deflecting. I was stating exactly that MC own policies directly counter the tweet from MC itself. The only evidence that exists is that MC has several TWP reviews that had no score in their aggregate. If you think calling out maniac on his fervent attempts to discredit my entire credibility based on one issue or several comments on a particular issue deflection, then you don't realize I wasn't deflecting, but actually responding to him, actually addressing what he said, thus, not deflecting.

I don't really care who's to blame, I think the practice of assigning scores to unscored reviews itself is unacceptable, an issue which you continuously deflect(proper use of the term) and refuse to take a stance on as you continuously make attempts to try and discredit others who have taken a stance.

I'm not sure what you and maniac were asking for. Seemed you just wanted to try and discredit me while avoiding the issue. But, if I can put it together and shorten it, it seems you want to know my stance on people over reacting to partial or misunderstood information. If that's the case, then I'm against that.

But you and maniac would be well off not trying to discredit others who do it, because you both do it much more than I do, maniac more so. You know me well enough to know I will try and fight against people using inaccurate info to make a decision or form an opinion. I'll do it for any console maker or game or issue. Sometimes I don't follow my own beliefs. The utter ferocity of maniacs attacks were just an opportunistic attempt at trying to make me look bad, disregarding every time I don't screw up, as is typical for him. I expect better of you.

I made a possible mistake in assigning blame to MC, and owned up to it. If you guys believe TWP assigned the score, that doesn't remove the issue at hand because TWP didn't write the review, and you vehemently refuse to actually address the issue at hand in favor of using all this to call out hypocrisy or bad fan boy practices. I did not make a mistake on my stance of the issue itself, or at least my opinion of it.

[Davi123]

You couldn't like romantic movies for example, you could even hate them. But aren't you able to see that movie with eyes of the persons who like this type of movies? You will to all of them give a 1/10 because you hate them?
U4 is in the section of action games. All of us could find easily a action game, but not with the quality of U4. Is impossible someone give a 6/10 with no trolling included.
If you have played the game, then you easily agree that U4 couldn't be rated as 6/10, even if you didn't like the story.

[rainslacker]

One can objectively reason out what is good or bad about a movie in a genre or style they don't care for. They can even put into objective terms how their dislikes affect their own view of the movie, and a good reviewer can contextualize that so the reader can relate it to their own likes and dislikes to determine if they would like a movie based on those objective reasons, or if the subjective reasons are likely to be an issue for them. In fact, that's what a review is supposed to do.

This review did none of the objective work involved in helping the reader to form an opinion on if they would like the game or not. The whole thing read as if the reviewer was only speaking to those who already wanted to believe what he did, and none of the brief negative aspects of the game he did mention were contextualized into how it affected the overall experience. Thus, it was a piss poor review.

That being said, that kind of stuff happens. It sucks, but we've come to expect it, and more often than not, we say the same thing about any review that does the same thing for other games...hence all this dislike for reviews which seem to just be trying to go against the common consensus. Some scathing reviews can be very good reviews, because they can objectively state why the subjective is a problem, and they can be well written. Some people will criticize it as a bad review, but it's not always the case. In this case, it was just a bad review by any ethical review standards.

[Captain_Mushroom]

100% agreed. The fact that you have more downvotes than upvotes shows just how pathetic this community really is. Go suck some more Sony c**k, you entitled pr*cks.

[Davi123]

So much angry! lol

[Sparta07]

Yes red, nice comment. But where were you when all the fan girls was crying when QB got all those low scores!?
It's funny everytime you get a chance to try to bring down a certain base your the first one in!!! Lol, and the first to protect the other. hypocrisy is every strong with you my friend.

I think is bullshit that the meta would just put up a score when the review didnt!! Lol
I don't understand that I never knew that's how they always did it.

[gangsta_red]

"But where were you when all the fan girls was crying when QB got all those low scores!?"

I was there saying that QB was not the game it was hyped up to be, you know where I wasn't...crying and making petitions to remove the bad scores. I left that up to your fan base.

Funny how you and other sony centric users fail hard to see this.

"I don't understand that I never knew that's how they always did it."

Maybe it's because The Washington Post actually gave meta the score to post. You know like they did with other past games.

http://n4g.com/news/1888231...

Notice that score of 7 and yet the actual review there is no score. It's because TWP has been doing this since they started doing reviews. Funny how all the fan girls didn't make petitions for that, I guess it took crazier fan girls to stand up and notice.

[rainslacker]

That's nice.

What's your view on a 3rd party assigning a review score to a review that didn't originally have a score?

[Krangs_Uncle]

The author of this article is an expert cherry picker.. And is either hiding under the blanket of gross ignorance, is stupid, or clearly misinformed.

The problem is mainly, that the 'review' wasn't even assigned a score - which this author fabricates clearly. The blame is mainly on Metacritic, not on the WP author - I do not agree with him, but troll opinions on the internet will always exist. Metacritic have a section specifically for unscored reviews, this is where it should reside.

I would like any MS fan who are acting coy to the reasoning behind this review (because let's face it, they are mainly choosing to ignore the reasoning in the hope the review stays), to find the same treatment to one of their games on their console (where Metacritic have gone out of their way to slap a score on a review so brashly, which wasn't scored in the first place). There is no point claiming "but Forza got 2/10", because I don't agree with that either, but this Uncharted review would be less of an issue if a score was actually given in the review.

The petition could have been written better to be honest, it could have really outlined the issue with Metacritic and WP on some part without claiming the issue is to do just with how good the game is and an unfair score. The PROCESS of how this score arose is what is being deemed unfair.

The WP 'review' was neither truthful or honest, Metacritic are being shady and moulding their own narrative, and authors of articles such as this one are fueling the fire, and their own agenda.

EDIT: gangsta_red above right on cue to pull the ignorance card. Good work brother, as unshady as ever. What is funny to see than what you have claimed, is the effort MS fans have gone to, to try and berate and disregard valid reasons to the problem with this so called 'review'.

[gangsta_red]

Nobody has a problem with Metacritic when their games are getting great scores. ;)
That should really be the only thing said.

"...is the effort MS fans have gone to, to try and berate and disregard valid reasons to the problem with this so called 'review'."

And see this is where the problem is. People assigning what fanboy group is the cause of their supposed personal woes. The whole point of my comment is "who cares" not Xbox, Sony or Nintendo fans. It's one review out of a million that are praising the game. But instead of letting it go or even disregarding it, all I'm reading from fanboys is "agenda", "clickbait", "ban it", " it's xbox fanboys fault".

"I would like any MS fan who are acting coy to the reasoning behind..."

Why? What would that prove and would it make the Washington review go away? It's so funny to see you drag another fanbase into your made up mess to get some sort of justification. That is where the true ignorance lies.

It was so funny to see the math done and rationally explained for the QB low scores affecting the overall meta of the game. There were a lot of comments explaining that one or two low scores would not change the overall score of the game and that people should not blame the low reviews for that game, which I agree with completely....but the outrage for just one score for Uncharted and we have people scrambling to remove it because it might effect the overall score for that game.

There has been plenty of reviews of some of my favorite games that were not favorable but I would never say (at least I hope) that review was paid off or that they were being shady. Shady for what reason? What is the end goal of Metacritic being shady?

And maybe it's not MS fans trying to berate and disregard the so called valid reasons of the review, maybe these are just regular people with common sense that are trying to tell you to get over it, stop letting metacritic or reviews rule your life and take away your enjoyment of a game.

Edit:
In response...

"there is no reasoning with you..."

Then goes on to call me a raging fanboy and accuse me of being Rookie. The absolute comedy of it all. Where exactly was the reasoning at?

"Your ploy of often acting neutral is vitriolic and everyone knows it."

It really does kill some folks that a person can be neutral on this site. I have called out MS and Nintendo many times, I wonder why no one sees those comments? Oh well...

"The fact you say there is no issue at all with the review is telling,"

Because IT'S ONLY ONE REVIEW! If it was an occurring thing, if there were more, if it was an epidemic then yes it would be an issue. But it is ONE review out of the HUNDREDS that are praising the game. Seriously, how can you not understand this?

"I think you should be more concerned about the current output of games on your console, than the review situation with WP and Metacritic."

*GAAASP* A comment directed at Xbox meant to hurt my feelings!! However will I recover from such a fatal blow!! "faints*

"Your ability to cherry pick my comments above is impressive though,"

Cherry pick? I replied to your comment, I wasn't going to answer most of those questions because it has nothing to do with the actual issue. And clearly you missed my point because all your reply consisted of is calling me a "raging fanboy", games on Xbox (why?) and that I'm Rookie_Monster. Can I apply cherry pick to that or just extreme hate?

[Krangs_Uncle]

gangsta - there is no reasoning with you, as you have shown countless times to be one of the biggest raging fanboys on this site, who insists to have conversations with cookie which sound suspiciously like someone talking to themself (or themselves should i say). Your ploy of often acting neutral is vitriolic and everyone knows it.

The fact you say there is no issue at all with the review is telling, as is your insistence in blowing your horn in all these articles. I think you should be more concerned about the current output of games on your console, than the review situation with WP and Metacritic.

Your ability to cherry pick my comments above is impressive though, without actually answering the issue in hand that I addressed. Hats off, Cookie.

P.S. I don't think it's wise to accuse reviews of ruling my life, when you go out of your way in literally hundreds of articles to try and discredit them.

[kfk]

Well known Xbone-fanboy defends a negative review of a universally acclaimed PS4 exclusive: surprise! You spent more time writing these comments here than most individual fans have given to this issue, haha, yet for all you wrote, you didn't once address the only relevant point: that Metacritic invented a score out of nowhere when they have an "unscored" section that it should've gone in. The end.

[Phil32]

*disregards gangsta_red's posts completely, acts like fanboy in process, gets very defensive*

This is what is happening. Why bother responding gangsta_red? People are just purposefully ignoring what you write. Some Uncharted fans are really upset over one review out of the hundreds of positive ones. They have an irrational need to get that score removed from this obviously perfect game. It's pathetic and petty, and it makes me ashamed to say I'm an Uncharted fan.

[Saito]

I can feel the emotion behind your text. You're hiding something else behind your statements.

[jb227]

"And maybe it's not MS fans trying to berate and disregard the so called valid reasons of the review, maybe these are just regular people with common sense that are trying to tell you to get over it"

Honestly Gangsta, just take one look at all of the people supporting the negative reviews & suddenly calling for the respect of all opinions across the board, no matter how misguided or confusing. Not to mince words, but you've plainly stated your platform preference on numerous occasions, and everyone else defending these reviews have that same preference in common. It's not conspiracy if information to support it is plain as day & in the open. The sites posting these articles bashing the response have been legitimately called out for their bias (this gen gaming has at least one writer who stokes the fan flames with every article, The proof is in his entire run of articles, the other one from earlier today had it's writer literally getting down in the muck & bashing "Sony fanboys" in the N4G comments, plainly showing his biases)

There is a kernel of truth in both sides, and if you are unwilling to see at least a modicum of the logic in the other side then I'm not sure what makes your viewpoint any different from theirs. The review in question was missing a score & had one magically applied. The issue isn't with the review, it's with Metacritic's process, and it matters because devs base part of their livelihood on it, receiving or not receiving bonuses based off of their scores. The negative reviews themselves miss a lot of points and clearly show a reviewer with some sort of bias, be it towards the franchise in particular or the entire genre. If Roger Ebert hated comedies & went on to bash The Jerk, all the while pretending to be non biased & even keeled, he would be called out for it.

It's just annoying in this day & age where everything is taken to extremes for clicks. The major outlets don't print pieces like these because they are just flame bait, and they are never presented in a way to inspire conversation, just arguments...the same kinds of arguments that they are hypocritically calling for an end to.

Is everyone's opinion valid for themselves? Absolutely...when you share that opinion in an open forum, you are open to criticism & the input of other opinions. Crying about it doesn't change that fact. The people going overboard & personally attacking reviewers are wrong to do so, just like the people personally attacking other commenters for arguing their own opinions. It's just a bunch of people shouting into the echo chamber & holding their own tastes to massive double standards on both sides, when the correct position is somewhere in the middle.

Metacritic's issues need to be addressed, mean spirited commenters need to go away, and reviewers need to work better to express themselves or grow a thicker skin. Also, Uncharted 4 is absolutely phenomenal. End of story.

[gangsta_red]

@JB
"Not to mince words, but you've plainly stated your platform preference on numerous occasions,"

And now show me where I have called to ban a site, shut down a reviewer's opinion, petition to remove a bad score or even discuss that a bad review had a personal agenda? So funny to see people think that a person's preference has anything to do with THIS issue.

Jb2 seriously...who is DEFENDING the negative reviews? You guys are confusing the issue right here, no one is saying that the review was right, people are defending a person's opinion only. Something that a lot of you want to take away or hide or pretend there some type of ulterior motive behind it because you feel it's "clickbait". Just because you don't like an opinion doesn't mean it should be silenced, changed, or taken away. Do you not see the danger in that type of thinking?

It won't be long before fanboys start to petition for all bad reviews to be taken off for every game they love. Will you trust reviews then? Knowing that reviewers are bending to the wills of insane fanboys on the net?

You and others are desperately trying to neatly knit together that "only" the xbox fans and fanboys are defending this but I have seen a lot of people state they are Uncharted/Playstation fans and even they think it's ridiculous to get bent out of shape over one review that has no impact on the overall metascore of Uncharted that currently sits at an impressive 93.

And if you think that the majority of people so called "defending" the review are xbox fan(boys) then what are the majority calling to ban not only the review, take it off metacritic but now once again call to ban numbered scores?

People are not defending bad reviews, they are calling out the absurd nature of fanboys trying to petition to get one score taken off of metacritic because it was one bad score. ONE SCORE! That my friend is call Censorship!

I seriously don't know how many times I have to state that in my comments.

"...it's with Metacritic's process, and it matters because devs base part of their livelihood on it, receiving or not receiving bonuses based off of their scores."

Stop it, please, just stop it. Most of these devs make six figures or more a year! Not getting a bonus to a lot of these guys/gals means they won't spend that extra week in Havana like they wanted. No need to play that small violin here, especially to a person who lives in the heart of Silicon Valley. I have seen the money these engineer cats make first hand.

"It's just annoying in this day & age where everything is taken to extremes for clicks."

And once again, anything that a person doesn't agree with is now considered click bait right? Do you not see the fallacy in your argument? Because you don't agree with a review it's because they are looking for clicks? Can we apply that logic to a review that gives a game a perfect score? I mean no game is perfect so that review HAS to be looking for clicks right? No...because it's your favorite game and you have no problem with those scores, no need to remove them and call them out but for ONE bad review it's "their bias", "it's clickbait", "flame", "satire" or whatever else you want to attach to something you don't agree with.

That JB is the real issue here, how fanboys are "cherry" picking and choosing what is clickbait. Fanboys trying to remove ONE score because they feel it's not deserved, complaining about one review in an ocean of stunning, fantastic reviews.

[Stogz]

Lol dude everyone here knows your a MS dick rider, it's always great when you pretend to be neutral, your comment history says otherwise, fanboy.

[Realms]

What part do you not understand the problem is not that the WP writer wrote a bad article about U4 but that metacritic added a score to an article that didn't have one. So what was the reasoning behind that, what was the purpose of giving a score to a review that didn't have one and how did they come to this conclusion? There is a bigger underline issue that has to do with integrity and honesty and less to do about gaming.

Feel free to continue to minimize what it actually means but that is the real issue a lot of people have with this whole fiasco.

[maniacmayhem]

Has anyone here checked out the other reviews from The Washington Post?

Surprise, they don't add scores to any of their reviews either.

So now why all of a sudden are you guys getting upset with this now? Why are you guys starting petitions now?

I'm just laughing at you all as you try and blame the xbox fanbase and justify all your overreactions and blame people who are actually and truly looking at this with some sort of rationale and not through mud covered fanboy goggles.

[jb227]

@gangsta

"You guys are confusing the issue right here, no one is saying that the review was right, people are defending a person's opinion only. Something that a lot of you want to take away or hide or pretend there some type of ulterior motive behind it because you feel it's "clickbait". Just because you don't like an opinion doesn't mean it should be silenced, changed, or taken away."

The issue lies with the poor excuses for reviewers like Thomsen. There's no need to put the term "clickbait" in quote because he literally said in his twitter just a few days before his UC4 review:

"Trolls are just as valuable as any ad on this page"
"Anything that can be spoiled, should be spoiled"

His history as a "reviewer" also includes headlines like this:

"Is Dark Souls II the Worst Game Ever Made?" (for the esteemed Forbes.com, gaming journalism at its finest.

He also wrote this "piece" for IGN under their 'Contrarian Corner' banner, bashing Uncharted 2 for no specific reason, other than the game having cutscenes & a lot of gunplay (hint: he's one of those "Nathan Drake is a Mass Murderer" types, the type that ignore the entire history of video games) http://www.ign.com/articles...

The guy has also written poor reviews for games like Red Dead Redemption, he literally wrote an article admonishing Valve for trying to eliminate cheaters.

So let's see here, the man has never met a video game he actually likes most of all any of those games that you love, he actively recognizes himself as a "douche" for being a writer, he encourages spoilers, he actively admits to utilizing trolls to push hits, he's worked for such esteemed gaming sites as Forbes, Washington Post & Paste Magazine, and he thinks cheating is the best & should be allowed in games.

Does any of this seem like the work of someone who should have a platform & an opinion on gaming? Sure he's got a right to one, but as a gamer, I don't want this guy speaking for my medium. I don't think he should be "silenced", I just think any site w/ a gaming section should stay far away from his brand of "journalism".

The issue now is that his tactic worked, he got his hits, he got his notoriety, he's got guys like you standing up for his right to have a wide platform to push his "thoughts & opinions" onto the unsuspecting public, and now he's most likely got a handful of sites banging down his door in order to get them hits & to mislead their general viewing public.

[maniacmayhem]

Forget it Gangsta, people like JB, Rain and others are so blind with rage that all they can see and care about is how a reviewer didn't like Uncharted.

We have repeatedly told them that was not the issue, there is no issue if you liked the review or not. The issue is a fan base overreacting, thinking that the score came from another site and then trying to ban or remove that score.

But every time one of us tries to tell these foaming at the mouth fanboys all they see is furious red and start to quote the actual review as if that was the problem all along.

It's hopeless, let them be upset at one review

[NotAFanboyyy]

What about the other "low" scores? The woman from IGN gave it a 9...a freakin' 9 and people made a petition to get her fired. Some of these people are seriously borderline insane if they aren't there already. A 9 is a great score. And yes, I get it was a WHOPPING 3 points lower than her Rise of the Tomb Raider score, but maybe she just enjoyed that game more? Or is that not allowed in the gaming community to enjoy one game over another?

[Realms]

Really because that's a whole other issue with IGN why post a review of in progress? Why not finish the game and then give it a proper assessment surely a website as big as IGN would know how to properly review a game right? So what if she liked TR more we are talking about how IGN went about reviewing U4 and created controversy when all they had to do is post their final score which was a 8.8 but wait they didn't do that to create controversy right? She absolutely loved the online portion so she gave it a 9 wow what a bunch of BS.

IGN knew exactly what they did and a lot of people called them on their BS.

[rainslacker]

That was a bit extreme to ask her to be fired. Ultimately, IGN's editors allowed the score to go through. I think people were more upset that she assigned the score despite admitting to it not being a final review, because she hadn't finished certain parts of the game. It seems like it's more than would be typical due to the popularity of the game, and the dedicated and passionate fan base the series has, but ultimately, it was wrong to assign a score to a review in progress.

At best, in that situation, I'd just prefer IGN inspect it's own scoring policies to try and just put out the score when the review itself is complete. The idea of a early review is nothing new, and commonly accepted as a first impression kind of thing.

Granted, I will concede that there were some people who were more upset about the actual score, which was kind of silly, but ultimately, it's worth being upset when the score isn't reflective of the entire experience.

[Kemo_Spear]

@Krangs.

Do not be surprised by the cherry picking, Charlie Oakley is one of the biggest xbox fanboys that site has. And given any chance, he will slam anything to do with the PlayStation.
Hell, that whole site is about 90% Xbox fanboys. So one really should not be surprised by this lump of crap article.

[Krangs_Uncle]

I meant to agree not disagree.. Sorry dude.

[Kemo_Spear]

Hakuna matata. It happens.

[YinYangGaming]

I think the VideoGamer 8/10 review is perfectly reasonable in the way they justify their score, it was shameful to see them get the abuse for the 8 that they have. Aside from the WP review I actually agree that this is a bigger more toxic problem in the industry as a whole

[WellyUK]

the problem we have is that people see 7/8 as average. The whole scoring system is broken, I have played a lot of 7/8 out of 10 games that are miles better than games that get 10 or high 9's. One of the reasons I like Angry Joe is that he actually has a review system that is how it SHOULD be with 4,5 and 6 being AVERAGE and with 9/10 being very good value for your money and not meaning "perfect" as no game is perfect.

[theshredded]

Watch gameplay or play the game yourself and watch/read reviews of a trusted source and don't be affected by the score.
I can't follow any other strategy after how many throwable crap I've purchased last gen that costed me a fortune and had to sell later on. Never purchase based on hype, popularity, , review scores or user reviews (inevitable lies and false statements). We need more demos!

[phoenix_dusk]

Sorry but the real world doesn't work like that.

[rainslacker]

In the grand scheme of things, one negative review among numerous great reviews isn't likely to dissuade many people from buying the game. The review itself, on TWP, may dissuade people, because it was quite scathing, and it's hard to imagine someone unknowledgable of the game could walk away thinking it'd be a good game, as they aren't likely to analyze the review on its merits of quality.

But those going to MC probably would just chalk it up to some random hit seeking review.

It's like me looking at user reviews on Amazon for any product. If there are 100 reviews, and 95 are all int he 4-5, and 5 being negative, with reasons that deal with things that don't involve the product like it came late or was damaged on arrival, it's a safe bet that the product is probably of good quality.

[Artemidorus]

Fanboys ruin gaming as a whole just speak your mind and let them cry.

[phoenix_dusk]

Fanboys usually buy games full price though which means higher revenue and wider profit margins for the developer and retailers/digital stores. So not really.

[TheGreatGamer]

I actually disagree with that sentiment @phoenix_dusk as most of these fanboys are young children and are mostly all talk and don't back that up with their wallets.

[Artemidorus]

Again modern gamer talk, prices and sales numbers instead of just discussing an actual game being good or not.

They might support something alot they might defend something alot but COD is a perfect example of a fanbase that has ruined FPS from progressing.

Fanboys are a cancer to me

[opinionated]

Those people aren't fans. I'm a fan of the uncharted franchise. These people are... Something else.

[phoenix_dusk]

Hyperbole, much. At the end of the day, this will help gaming forward a bit. You may think this should be ignored but this kind of reviews will only hurt the smaller unknown devs.

Hoping Metacritic adds a review voting system where we could be asked to remove one very unhelpful review.

Honestly, metacritic has run its course, we need a rottentomatoes kind of review aggregate.

[opinionated]

I agree, metacritic should die. Then you wouldn't need to justify your unnecessary outrage.

[ShadowWolf712]

"Hoping Metacritic adds a review voting system where we could be asked to remove one very unhelpful review."

Right, then fanboys can pile on and affect the critical metascore of any exclusive not on their Console of Choice like they already do in the Userscores.

That sounds like a great idea.

[joab777]

It's fine. I think if people read and watch enough they will know. As far as U4 goes, there's very few people who doubt it's quality. I'm on chapter 13 and this shit is unreal!!

[Skankinruby]

What role do 'honest opinions' play in writing a professional review for a game? You get paid to analyze the quality of the game as it was intended to be, not pick it apart for not being your style or game of choice. One moronic writer titled his article 'thank god its a thiefs end' then proceeds to admit he never liked the franchise and it should have stopped after the first one. How the hell is that criticism? It's just as stupid if not worse than the idiots that went on trolling amazon with one star reviews the day the game came out. I want to hear legitimate flaws the game has, or where it excels the most, not whether or not it fits your taste.

[phoenix_dusk]

Because according to the enablers, opinions are supposed to be respected. Hitler has his opinion about the jews, does it mean should I respect it too? Crazy enablers.

[Drithe]

Not hateful fans. But paid internet trolls by Sony and Naughty Dog. When a site gets zerged because they give it a 9/5 instead of a 10. When sites get zerged to defend the "OMG MOST PERFECT GAME EVER" when the game doesnt even sell 1/100 of what COD or Destiny does. When someone says its a good game but I dont like these types of games. And every single one of these events gets zerged by Sony trolls, ALL FOR THIS ONE SERIES OF GAMES, then you know something is going on.

This game series is good. And I, being a Sony fanboy, loves the way ND makes great games. But I am embarrased by how some of these internet trolls insist on perfect 10's for every ND game. Hell, you can almost point out every single article that you know is made to be planted as a ND love fest. Just watch the Sony internet trolls zerg the first 200 posts on how ND is the greatest and you are a moron if you dont like their games. Pathetic. It is getting to the point that Sony and ND hype for ND games are about as bad, or worse, than Disney using ABC to promote everything of theirs.

[phoenix_dusk]

I guess you haven't read that Washington Post review.

Loving that concern trolling though. Keep it up.

[rainslacker]

I wish I got paid to promote Sony. As much as I do it, I'd be a rich man right now.

Seriously? You think thousands of people are being paid by Sony to boost it's reputation? People do that free of charge. There's no reason to pay for it.

[ThatGuyDart]

How is this still hard to understand for some people?

Metacritic made up a score and attached it to a review that didn't have one. That was undeniably a wrong thing to do and the score should be removed. Case closed.

[ninsigma]

It seems now that the reviewer had actually scored the game a 4 but Washington post removed the score when it was published. They then submitted the review to metacritic with the original score. Still seems wrong to me. It should be submitted to metacritic in the same way it was published.

[vongruetz]

I hate assigning numbered scores to games. I used to review games, and the score I gave a game went to Metacritic and either positively/negatively effected that games overall score. The problem I would always have is that by giving a game a number, I was saying it was better/worse than another game I reviewed and gave a score to. This game was a 4/5 for me, so it's better than the game I gave a 3.8 to? Well, maybe not in every way. So is it more a 3.7? What is the definite number that should be assigned to it?

The problem people have is that they think a reviewer analyzes a game and rates it based on some technical score. This isn't the case. They play the game and pass on their impressions of it. If they enjoyed what they experienced, it gets a positive score. If not, then it gets a bad one. And since not every reviewer has the same taste, scores will vary. Some people really like Knack (like me). Some people don't like The Last of Us (unlike me). And that's fine. The thing is, that reviewer usually goes to a lot of effort to write down their thoughts on a game, which makes the score obsolete. But people like the quick and easy number so they don't have to read the actual review. Just throw out a number and let Metacritic do the rest.

I've written reviews that gave high marks to games people have generally hated, and I've given terrible scores to games people praise. But that's what reviewing a game is. You play the game and give your impressions. Fans hating on that are completely missing the point.

[Realms]

How about let's just be honest why don't you ever see the Grand Theft Auto series ever get all these nonsense BS reviews let me guess because it's a multi console game. ND is just as good if not better than rockstar at telling a story yet there is never a question as to the quality of their games why? So the question is not so much about hate among gamers towards the gaming media but the tiresome way they use controversy to generate clicks, views and traffic to their sites even if it's negative.

It's not about censorship or extreme fanboyism but the lack of quality gaming journalist covering games that bothers me the WP review IMO is just an example of how this current system is flawed or how metacritic assigned U4 with a 4/10 but the WP never gave it a score. Other entertaintment mediums have standards and we need to be able to be discern real gaming journalist from fanboys and trolls that can write opinion pieces and pass them off as a legitimate reviews.

[maniacmayhem]

You do realize that TWP has never posted review scores for the games they covered right?

https://www.washingtonpost....

Now read that review and then check out the Metacritic score

http://screencast.com/t/zZZ...

You also realize that The Washington Post are the ones who submit the numbered score for Metacritic to post on their site right?

Or do you truly believe there's some type of controversy to generate clicks? Now do you see why people are laughing at you fanboys and this stupid petition? I know I'm asking a lot of questions but I just want you to understand how foolish this all is and how this is nothing more than a group of crybabies mad at a bad score and wanting it removed so they can pound their chests and brag to everyone else. You know a type of censorship to remove a bad score you don't agree with.

[ninsigma]

The point that a lot of people seem to be missing (whether honestly or just cherry picking) is that the review was published without a score so it shouldn't be submitted with one.

[maniacmayhem]

@ninsigma

The point that a lot of people seem to be missing is that ALL their reviews were submitted without a published score. That The Washington Post gives metacritic the score to publish.

They have done this in past reviews if you even bother to check the links I posted.

So why now for Uncharted is this an issue. Why is one bad review for a game now trying to be taken down when this has been going on forever?

That my friend is cherry picking. You guys are picking this review to make some sort of stand.

[Silly gameAr]

Uh Oh. New hot topic for click bait. "Meta scores and the crazy fanboys who love them". I've already seen three of these articles approved one right after the other. Latch on guys.

[fanboysmackdown]

F%&kin' bunch of crybabies is what they are. Pissypants, soother sucking, momma's basement babies can't handle their favorite fanboy game getting any negative ink, pathetic really.

[WelkinCole]

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

[showtimefolks]

in this day and age where review scores do matter the publishers/developers care

understand this fallout new vegas developer were gonna get their bonuses if the game gets 85/100 overall so when it got 84/100 they didn't get their bonuses

so you want to tell me again how review scores don't matter

if you are a hard working development studio and everyone gives you 9 and above and some give you low scores to write clickbait articles than gamers and developers have every right to be mad

honest opinion isn't a review. a review should be what's in the game and not what's suppose to be in the game.

most honest reviews come from youtube

angryjoe
angrycentericgamer(very very very under rated)
chicago charlie
and few others

honest reviews should be praised but issue is sites are looking for clicks.

you mean to tell me if a game is getting 9.4 or above from others that all of the sudden a 6/10 makes sense? seriously that's click bait at it's finest

sadly fanboys from xbox will bash ps4
and fanboys from ps4 will bash xbox

that's why click bait articles exist

[kenwonobi]

You assume all scores are honest. No bias. Not bought by advertising money or flat out a fanboy themself. To think none out of all these reviews one won't fall under those categories is dumb itself. It's human nature that at least a few are these that fall under that toxic review category. It's simply logical statistical probability.

[kenwonobi]

You honestly think all reviews are honest opinions? Then you are more gullible than us gamers.

[kenwonobi]

Seriously. I'm honestly asking if you believe all reviews are honest 100% in this day and age? That there isn't a small percentage based on human fanboyim itself or bought off influenced.

[WelkinCole]

In journalism when they make a mistake they correct it. The 4/10 score is a mistake because that was not the score. Why?, because there is no score. How on earth you people that are saying this is not an issue is beyond me.

Just shows how low you fanboys have gone.

If someone assigns Gears 4 a 4/10 that was not the score given I would call BS and they should correct that mistake.

I am not that low because it would be unfair on Coalition and their efforts. Obviously you xbox fans are which is sad.

I like to banter and all but you guys are have now officially fall out from the bottom. Sad.

[maniacmayhem]

http://n4g.com/news/1888231...

Washington Post gave QB a 70, except the actual article there is no score. Where was your outrage Welkin?

Why wasn't this an issue back then Welkin? Maybe because it's not a big deal, that the more reasonable fanbase knows it's just a review and that it won't take away the enjoyment they personally feel for the game.

Just goes to show how sad you and your sony fanboy brothers are. Nothing matters until it happens to you right?
One stupid low score out of hundreds of great ones and quick to cry foul, scream, rage and make petitions to do away with one score.

Maybe this is why all the other fanbases are laughing at you.

[Sparta07]

@maniac, no what's really sad is you! Holy sh!t!!!! Really? Man every article so far of uncharted you are on bitching and complaining. As far as calling a fan base names cause you have a different opinion is very mature of you.
Why are you so angry? Lmao... when QB was getting all those low scores you were there complaining and crying. So STFU!! Look at all the xbox fans here only a game as great as uncharted could bring us all together lol

[kenwonobi]

70 was not a abnormal score. It was almost close to the QB average. 40????? Is completely on the opposite end of the spectrum as far as most Uncharted scores. In fact it was the first and only negative review at the time.

[rainslacker]

I recall a year or two ago there was a site where it's editors were assigning scores for the reviews that their authors wrote, often times not playing the game themselves. It was revealed that the score was derived based on the text of the review, and what the editors(several as I recall) thought was appropriate from the substance of the review.

At the time, everyone was opposed to it, regardless of console preference, because it was attributed to every game, across all platforms.

Now, because this has come to light as being something MC does by the masses, as stipulated in their own policies in their FAQ, we are upset about it. However, because it's for a console exclusive, the issue at hand is being ignored in favor of pressing console war rhetoric.

I'm willing to concede that TWP did provide the score to MC based on the tweet, regardless of the contradiction to MC policies, but that doesn't change the unethical practice at issue here.

On a side note, can anyone remember the site implicated in this? I can't remember, and googling it is not effective. I'd like to go back and find out when it happened, then check some people's comment histories on the topic, because I have a feeling it's where I'll find my answer on how they feel about 3rd party scores being assigned. Asking them their views on the topic isn't working out so well.

@Maniac

In the past, I'd imagine that no one noticed that this was happening. I can't recall it ever being mentioned before. Did you notice it was happening before, or did this instance just bring it all to light? IF this had been noticed on QB, how would you have reacted? Maybe because it was UC4, people were paying more attention, because this one really stood out from the rest. Makes sense doesn't it? Now that it's known, and given how people were opposed to the practice of someone other than the reviewer assigning a score in the past, shouldn't we be against it now, given that it's a 3rd party not related to the review giving the score?

More curious on your stance on a 3rd party(or someone other than the author) assigning a score. We're all well versed in your opinions of Sony fan boys. Are you afraid to take a stance because it will make you look foolish or dismantle many of your arguments?

You can write 4000 word comments to me discredit what I say, yet can't say whether you are for or against the practice of someone else assigning a score to a review. Is it really that hard to do without making it into something else? Do you have an opinion on that matter?

Anyhow, since I know you'll use this comment to attack me, in lieu of repeating myself, I encourage you to go read the "evidence" that I posted above in response to one of Gangsta's comments, then get back to me on how wrong I am, and how right you are.

@Welkin below

I've also said, and believe that QB is a good game, and some of the reviews were unfair. I have some of my own criticisms of it, but not so many that it makes it a poor game. Easily an 8, possibly a nine if someone likes the story and presentation(which I didn't much), but could see why some people might say 7, and would be reluctant to accept a 6 unless someone really made the case in a good review.

[WelkinCole]

1. I didn't even know about QB situation with WP.
2. Believe it or not I have been defending QB because it is actually a good game and has been attacked unfarily. Check my history if you don't believe me. I gave it an 8.5 out of 10.

[kenwonobi]

Just tell me you believe no site is influenced. I will show you a fool. There is a small element at the very least of bogus site reviews. Either for clicks, advertising, or preference.

[P_Bomb]

For one, lets not confuse "honest review score" with "blatantly transparent trolling".

Oh, too late.

I guess saying the game aspires to be a toilet is now professional? SJW that.

[lastking95]

These fanboys are making themselves look bad. I was annoyed at the fh2 2/10 and even jokingly said that reviewer should be thrown in jail for it(obvious troll) but wasn't jumping for petitions and making huge deals out of it. Legit, trolling, satire or paid off idgaf about a review score. I'll make a comment maybe and move on. People sound like they were going to commit suicide of uc4 4/10

[zb1ftw777]

The hatefulness in this gens fanboyism is definately the most spiteful gaming has ever seen.

I find a few bad eggs that harbour the loudest voices come from the Sony camp and linger here in N4G and NeoGaf.

It's a real shame they are hurting the industry so bad with their attitudes.

[Krangs_Uncle]

What a load of shit. You don't call out anyone else when gangsta_red is clearly being the "loudest". Pathetic really. Xbox fans have half the install base of PS4, and still manage to swarm these articles.

Your bias is duly noted.

[zb1ftw777]

I say what i see.

Show me where the XB1 playerbase openly mocks the ps4.

There is a clear trend of ps4 users hating on the xb1.

Its impossible for me to be bias since i love both machines and gaming is my interest.

Your response shows the level of bias you posess though, and was a very salt reply.

Comments like "you're pathetic" and threats of "your bias is duly noted"(im now out to get you), is exactly what im talking about.

And since you are clearly a sony fanboy, youve just proved the point i was making to be true.

Shame on your spitefulness and fanboyism, as a gamer, im sad you have the same hobby as me.

[Krangs_Uncle]

What a joke.. Your comment history is 90% Xbox based. You even refer to Sony fans as Ponies.

Be quiet.

[zb1ftw777]

I've never written the word Ponies.

What weird behaviour you show.

Truly weird.

[kenwonobi]

Looks like healthy industry on the Sony side.

[CJQNSNYC]

It's very simple. A review is the personal opinion of that person...PERIOD! You can either agree or disagree..PERIOD!

Petitioning to have an opinion you disagree with censored is idiotic in every way. By that same logic, it's perfectly fine to have YOUR opinion censored because someone else doesn't approve of it. The reviewer is under NO obligation to agree with anyone's opinion or assign any particular score. If someone doesn't share the same opinion?

SO WHAT!!!!

How does someone's opinion affect what you enjoy? If it does, that's on you.

[ChickenOfTheCaveMan]

I respect any opinion like the many who said The Order was bad even though I think this was bandwagon, but for a site like metacritic that compiles GIVEN scores and make an average, it's amateur to give a rating if the reviewer didn't give one, just pass on the review, that's it.

Saying this is fanboyism is non-sense, metacritic has a very simple job and they can't do it. Also, anybody knows if they are certifying reviewers like Rotten Tomatoes does?

[ITPython]

Man, the Xbox fanboys are sure trying their hardest to defend the ONE bad review U4 got Thing is, the score was completely made up by some xb1 fanboy over at metacritic, and its not even a legit score.

Yet every one of them crawls out of the woodwork to make pathetic attempts to defend the score.

[moegooner88]

Can you blame them ? Almost three years in and not a single 90+ rated exclusive for their system.

[kenwonobi]

Eh. It's kinda showing their true colors. Holding on to a score because it's the only negative yet it's bogus and questionable sums up Microsoft and it's fans.

[Aenea]

You know, the review was silly, he admitted he didn't like the other Uncharted games either so he was bound to dislike this one as well, if I had been him I would have declined to write a review about it since I couldn't do it justice. But he didn't and wrote it anyways, I know it's his opinion and I respect that but there isn't much in that review that show he even tried to be a little objective.

Then there's the fact it didn't have a review score but apparently WP gave metacritic the score of 4/10, if this is indeed what happened, only they know.

Sure it's sad that WP reviews are weighed so much that it lost a point in the metacritic score, but does it really have to make people upset and start petitions? It's a great game and one silly review like this will not change that.

Just let it go!

[MagicBeanz]

The author of this article is apparently another one of those individuals that doesn't understand the real issue behind the Washington Post review, it wasn't that people disagreed with it, its that the review was satire, bogus, and wasn't an official review so it had no business being added to the overall Meta score. This article points out the real issue, uneducated people writing articles about gaming and pretending to be "journalists" because they have a computer and an internet connection.

[ShadowWolf712]

I wouldn't say it was satirical in any sense. But it was definitely not a proper review, almost to the point that I question if he even fully played the thing. Nothing on mechanics, nothing on any of the supposed flaws, just an angry "This series and everything about it SUCKS!" and that was it.

That said, I doubt people will take it seriously, but this practice of adding scores after the fact is ridiculous.

[MagicBeanz]

Right at the top of the review page it is labeled as "Comic Riffs". Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule. The review was meant as a joke, perhaps it was so subtle people dont even realize it, Meta certainly doesn't.

[Ceaser9857361]

ya honest opinion is very much appreciated.. even if its a poor score but but the point here is first there wasn't a review score and 2ndly Washington post already gave 4/4 score... So why did meta add this up...

[LastcenuryRob]

It only matters if those who write reviews and if those who publish reviews cave in from fanboy pressure.

[assdan]

Jesus, I'm so tired of hearing this, no. It's clearly a troll review. Look at the guy's other articles. He hates almost every game.