Some of those comments are ridiculous. However I don't agree with the score given based on the written review. The content of that review doesn't justify the score nor is it consistent with any other reviews by Eurogamer based on linear games.
| Wagram said: Some of those comments are ridiculous. However I don't agree with the score given based on the written review. The content of that review doesn't justify the score nor is it consistent with any other reviews by Eurogamer based on linear games. |
You're basically saying the same thing as them except more polite - I find that funny 
miz1q2w3e said:
You're basically saying the same thing as them except more polite - I find that funny |
Well there is no need to be a raging jack ass about it like those people are doing. It his that person's opinion after all and I just don't agree with it. That's nothing new though. The only person I trust review wise is myself :)
Gamereactor Denmark's review was bad, they awarded the same score as Eurogamer but the way they planned the review out was atrocious. They couldn't tally their overall score up correctly either.
Why don't we just support a rule that only allows games to be rated between 90-100. That way, no one can complain about a game getting a low score. Actually, we would probably have people getting angry when a game gets a 90 or 92 ... maybe we should just get rid of scoring entirely since scores are already so messed up with a 7-8 being bad or below average.
I don't really see the purpose of reviews in their current format. Every game gets at least a 7-10 score so everything is, apparently, good/great. If every game made is worthy of such a high score (only exceptions being low budget games which don't have enough money to put ads up on review sites) then I don't need to read a review to tell me this is the case.
Even abominations like Homefront and Brink ended up with a metacritic score of 70 ... put enough money behind a game and you will get a 7-10 score it is just a fact of life now.
As far as Uncharted 3 goes, 8 out of 10 sounds about right for the second sequel to a popular franchise. In a perfect world, sequels would get progressively lower review scores on the basis of their lack of originality. The only exceptions would be games that completely change the formula from the original, or ones that have major innovations that mix up the experience and make it something completely different.
Are they idiots? Yes, some of them are but if those were the 5 silliest comments you could find its not really that bad at all imo. I've seen much, much worse.
Is it a bad score? I haven't played it myself but suspect I'm going to love it just like the two first, which by no means makes this review unfair. Everyone has different tastes, I'd probably review some pretty high scoring games a lot lower. And, besides; an 8 is not a poor score, its the same old thing this gen, reviewers shell out 9's and 10's everywhere and people start whining when games get scored "average" at 8's...
| Kantor said: I have problems with that EuroGamer review, and it has nothing to do with the score. Take a look here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncharted-2-among-thieves-review A review from the same publication of a game in the same series. Ignore the score; the score is irrelevant. Look at what he says and you'll find that he's actually saying exactly the same thing, but saying it in a positive light. Wherever possible, a sequel to a game your publication has reviewed should be reviewed by the same person. That's our policy, and it should be EuroGamer's policy. What do you do if the reviewer of Uncharted 2 adored it, and you didn't? It's pretty clear from the review of Uncharted 3 that the reviewer didn't adore Uncharted 2, because everything he said about excessive cinematics and control being out of the player's hands applies to Uncharted 2 as well. In the event that it has to be reviewed by someone else, that person does have to take the Uncharted 2 review into account. Think. The people who loved Uncharted 2 are exactly Uncharted 3's target audience. You could be reviewing it for someone who hates all games except Angry Birds and Farmville, and they would find it unnecessarily heavy-handed and complicated. That person would never consider purchasing Uncharted 3, even if you gave it 11/10. The Uncharted 3 review is a fantastic editorial on the state of the gaming medium and honestly quite an awful review. It's like reviewing Gran Turismo and pondering why on earth anybody would want to make a game about driving cars. The Uncharted franchise, and hell, the entire action adventure genre, is based on cinematics and structure. Would the game honestly be improved if slightly misjudging a jump made you plummet to your death? It's an intentional design choice, and one which has clearly gone over well with pretty much everyone else who has played the game. A review is not solely an opinion; it is an analysis and appraisal of different parts of the game. That review was an opinion. It would have been great as a blog post, or an editorial, or with some more colourful language, even a rant, but it isn't fair to the game and it isn't honest to fans of the series and the genre, and for that reason, not an arbitrary score, it's not a good review. EDIT: I should point out that the quality of the writing was fantastic as usual, and that other than this slight hitch, EuroGamer is still one of the best review sites out there. Better, indeed, than the majority of sites that gave Uncharted 3 a 10/10. The review isn't trying to be controversial in the slightest; it's just excessively philosophical and not analytical enough. |
if i was as well spoken as this guy, this is exactly what i would have said.
this is exactly my sentimates towards this review.
this review is leagues ahead of Greg Miller's ign review, in writing quality, but still a bad review.
| morenoingrato said: The funniest thing is that another 2 publications also gave it an 8 yet all the hate goes to Eurogamer  |
The really funny thing is that the Gamereactor review makes the Eurogamer review look positively glowing by comparison. I think the fact that it's not in english diverted a lot of the attention.
"Of course there are some glitches where track design becomes stereotyped, gray and template named"
"There are few places where the textures load slowly"
" it's a really bad decision to put the button on rolling case with the front cover. It's frustrating having to hassle with the cover system, even for seasoned players, and it thus creates undeniable frustration. "
"Uncharted Series has been one of the backbones of storytelling in these modern gaming times. Unfortunately for Uncharted 3 live game's plot is not up to its predecessors"
"An example is Drake trudging through the desert, where the player must feel hopelessness, but instead you end up with just being bored, when the scene does not contribute significantly to the story. You feel transported to being a spectator and not playing. "
"For this reviewer has the bearing of Uncharted Series has always been history. But what happens when a good story is no longer quite so good? You could be indifferent and argue that the game's quality is so unprecedented caliber that history weaknesses are subordinate. I think not, because the story is the engine that pushes the train forward, down the track and beyond. If we do not know where the train go, why should we be interested?
Uncharted 3 is a game of very high quality and very commendable, but it is not necessarily the gameplay revelation, as many had hoped. "
@TheVoxelman on twitter
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
