Sony fans are hilarious; I particularly like these comments

I remember when Sony fans got mad when VGC gave Uncharted 2 a 9.2. To whoever is reviewing U3, I wish you luck.

1. There is absolutely no reason for this to be the policy of Eurogamer. Two different people will have two different opinions, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with having two opinions put out by two people so long as it's made clear who those people are - and in this case it's very clear indeed, as each review is signed off on by the person who wrote it.

2. Reviews are not products or commodities meant to be targeted at specific audiences, they're opinion pieces meant to communicate the pros and cons and overall picture of a game viewed through the lens of a particular value set. You're not writing it for the guys who love Uncharted, you're writing it for everyone, including the 200 million gamers who do not play Uncharted games. As such the only thing thatm atters is the perspective of the person writing it, and making your piece different to suit the opinion of someone else entirely is dishonest journalism and irresponsible reviewing, because it does not communicate the value of the game as you see it.

This review was fine as a piece of writing and communicated valid criticism. It's fine not to agree with it and even debate the points of contention, but anyone who attacks the integrity of the review itself or questions the process behind the review is badly missing the point.

Why is it when a few idiots (in this case some PS3 fans) make a fuss over trivial stuff like this every PS3 fan takes the blame?

So now your character is defined by the console you buy, what next?

If everyone did like me and ignored these critics and instead base their decisons on what to buy based on the views of real everyday gamers not on a payroll (as on this site) these reviewers would be out of business.

Every game I bought over the past couple of years came from reading your reviews on this site...no, not the vgcharts reviewers but people like you posting on this forum.

Of course you know who the stealth fanboys are so you don't take their opinion seriously but YOU ARE the best reviewers of any game. Trust me.

I suppose this works best if don't care for buying a game on launch day but I hardly do.

<<<<<<

it'll be fun on the bun.  If it can match up with the time I gave Tales of Symphonia 2 a 7ish score (can't honestly remember the exact score or bothered to look it up) I'll be surprised.  

Torillian. Prepare the bonfire.

Trollillian is reviewing it? Oh noes! D:

0) Khuutra! <3

1) It is the responsibility of a publication to have some sort of normality when it is reviewing one single series. The reviewers have to act as a team and not like individual bloggers. If your website said something about a game, you don't really want to be going back and contradicting that in a later review. A fantastic way of overcoming this problem would be to make it clear that your staff disagree and as such have multiple reviews for every game, but that's not really feasible - it's hard enough getting ONE review copy let alone four.

2) You are certainly not writing for the 200 million people who have never played and will never play Uncharted. You are writing for the people who either like Uncharted or have the potential to like Uncharted, and to a very small extent the rest of the gaming audience. Somebody who hates racing games will never buy a racing game no matter how many 10/10s you throw at it. Moreover, the reason you can't compare, say, Gran Turismo and Uncharted reviews is that they exist on separate scales, and they exist on separate scales because they are aimed at different people. You're not writing a review to suit someone else's opinion; that's the whole point of choosing a reviewer who likes the basis of the game to write a review.

As an opinion alone, a review is worthless. It's the same as any number of user reviews you can find on the internet. It's the opinion of one single person who may or may not share your tastes and may or may not agree with you on whether a game is good. The only way to fix that problem is to keep the review largely impartial, set out the good and bad points of a game, and comment only in small amounts. Your opinion as a reviewer is as important as any opinion, but what sets a (good) reviewer apart from a rant on Amazon is the ability to step back and look analytically at the game.

I can't deny that the EuroGamer reviewer looked analytically at the game, but he looked too analytically. He's going to the opposite extreme. Rather than including anything resembling his own opinion on the matter or how the game actually played, he went on a highbrow rant about the excessive cinematisation of games. This is hardly the time to complain about that when a great deal of games that have come before have exactly the same "problem" and your publication - the publication that accepts responsibility for what you write - has never so much as mentioned it.

To summarise that long and meandering rant, you're on the list.

I'm scared for your safety! Hand it over to someone who wouldn't be missed ... like Kantor or Khuutra!

Reviewers and the publications for which they write are not single entities, and every review publication - including this one, to the best of my knowledge - has warnings to that effect. No two reviewers are obligated to sync up for reviews, and no publication is obligated to make sure that they do so. If that's the aim of a publication, that's a horse of a different color, but not aiming for that can hardly be considered a fault.

You do not write reviews for fans of the game you're reviewing. You write it for all gamers, but you primarily write it for yourself. If you cannot communicate what you see as problems with the game, you have no place as a reviewer in the publication for which you write.

More, quantifying pros and cons is problematic on its own. How does one qualify the railroading of Uncharted as inherently positive or negative? How does one say that it's inherently a good thing that the game's most bombastic scenarios will play out in basically the same way every time, and that the danger is largely illusory and scripted? How does one say that it's inherently negative that you know when a building is going to fall over with you in it? You can't. The aim to quantify design as good or bad is a fool's errand. All one can do is offer one's own take.

Here is what separates a good review on a website from a good review on, say, Amazon: nothing. Both will be erudite, well-written, and communicate what the writer sees as good or bad in the game. Over the course of the review, the value set of the reviewer will be revealed in what they see as good or bad. If that's not the case then they are not writing an honest review.

Khuutra: It has been argued since the start of this gen that reviewers who are prone to dislike a genre or franchise should not review them. This argument was usually used to defend Wii games that got low scores that were (in vgchartz users' minds) unfair or too low.
I believe in a blend, there was one site (can't remember which) who set a reviewer to work on a massive blocbuster title that she butchered in the review and a quick glance at her past work showed that she had primarily done things like Monopoly, Viva Pinata, Barbie and other tosh before trying this one. She had little to no insight and verve to review such a title.
Then there are those who are a little too fond of either hype, a platform or a given genre. The tidal wave of perfect scores for GTA IV is a good example of this, reviewers lost their shit and didn't really have much choice if they wanted to keep their readers after all the hype and anticipation. It will be one of those titles one looks back on ten years from now and go; "why the hell did that get a perfect score?!".

I can't say that I object to the score itself (in this case with UC3), but Kantor has arguments that are somewhat valid. In the meantime, I understand where you're coming from as well, having worked briefly as a journalist, I defend the objectivity of the press and the responsibility to report with breadth and honesty regardless.

In many cases ("underscored" Wii games, lower than expected scores for the likes of GT5 and Halo Wars) it comes down to the simple fact that the game(s) simply aren't good enough to warrant higher scores in many people's opinions while in other cases the reviewers are clearly clouded in their judgement either from hype or quite simply economic reasons (ads and the like "bribing" sites) and dish out near ridiculous scores.
This gen as a whole has too many perfect scores or scores that are very close to perfect, in my opinion.

I guess my conclusion is that a reviewer should not be the most avid fan of the console/franchise/whatever nor someone who has openly expressed dissent or nonchalance towards it. These people are hard to come by and that's why we have so many (imo) crap reviews.