By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Petition: Remove Uncharted 4 Washington Post Review from Metacritic

midrange on 16 May 2016
CenterYharnham said:
nanorazor said:
People commenting based on the title alone. *facepalm*

No matter what the circumstances are, no one other than Naughty Dog should be fighting to have a review removed for Uncharted 4.  

Whether the review was fake, satire, or a mistake, none of us are on Naughty Dog's payroll and the game's reviews have absolutely zero affect on us whatsoever.

If the fact that someone gave the game a 4/10, no matter what the reason, is really this upsetting to you, get up from your computer and go get some help.

 

What people do with their time is up to them. I couldn't be bothered to make a petition, but since one was made, I'll read it and see if it's worth participating in (From what I know either meta critic or WP messed up, but either way, something should be done so that this doesn't keep happening)

If you are so bothered by someone making a petition that you had to comment, maybe you need help 



Around the Network
peterdavid12345 on 16 May 2016

My rating for the game btw: 9.5/10



midrange on 16 May 2016
peterdavid12345 said:

Uncharted 4 has it flaws, i don't think it's the greatest game ever made but anything below 8.5 is unacceptable to me. On top of that, the review is full of shits and trolling, like seriously, "useless visual" "Unnecessary details" "Too much story" ???? What the actual ph*ck ???

Whoever make that review, is either a troll or a complete hater. This is FACT!

Now please excuse me, i will go back and play Uncharted 4 the Masterpiece.

- I can't be bothered to read more than a title! It looks like people are just fans trying to protect a score so I better not read and comment right away! /s

News flash, people aren't upset with the score. They are upset with how meta critic treated a satirical review that never even had a score to begin with



danasider on 16 May 2016

I get that the review was crap, but this thread is petty. No matter what reason they made the review or how you rationalize it to be "wrong," trying to take down a review is worse case an infringement on free speech and best case simply the trigger happy reaction of overly-obsessive fanboys. So it went down one point in Metacritic? Why care? What does it do for you on a personal level if the score is changed back?

I would complain/criticize the piece all day, but trying to undo a score and dictate how metacritic runs for one particular game when it's the same for all of these hi profile games (almost always have some click-bait low baller of a review) is ludicrous.



Frogger on 16 May 2016
pokoko said:

I don't mean to interrupt your argument but you do know that no one else has to give a rat's ass that you intended a question to be rhetorical?  

No, don't answer that, I was being rhetorical.

No, you weren't.

That wasn't even a question. You made a statement and added a question mark.



Around the Network
Aerys on 16 May 2016

Stop it, youre giving him too much attention with your pétition, hes à nobody trying to be somebody with his troll review, you shouldnt help him



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

LudicrousSpeed on 16 May 2016
KLXVER said:
Where is the petition to remove the perfect 10s?

This. It's sad that people fixate on the low numbers and shout about integrity or "click bait" and insult the person writing those reviews, but when games get 10's and high 9's it's extremely rare for someone to question it. A websites integrity can be just as tainted by a high score as a low score. A high scoring review can also be click bait.

Also, I've seen a lot of people shitting on the content of the review, even going as far as to claim it's satire. To me it just reads like a review by someone who is either tired of the Uncharted/Naughty Dog game formula, or was never a fan in the first place. That might lead some to question why he was reviewing it in the first place, but it's not uncommon for a writer to review a particular game even if they are not a fan of the franchise or genre. There was similar fuss with some site recently and Quantum Break. Reading the review, it actually touched on a few of the criticisms I have always had about the franchise. Personally I would have liked more in depth writing about what made it a 4 out of 10 in his book, but not having read any of his other reviews, that just might be his style.

And multiple people in the thread have pointed out that developers salaries/bonuses are tied to MC scores and have used this information as if to imply it assigns some sort of responsibility or blame towards the reviewer or MC itself. Like.. these scores mean money to developers, they need to do a better job reviewing them or tallying the scores. That's bullsh. If ND misses a bonus because Uncharted 4 might end up at 93 instead of 94, the only two entities to blame are Sony for including something so stupid in the contract, and most importantly ND themselves for agreeing to it.

Maybe there was some miscommunication regarding the review and its score. For what its worth, there have been other reviews by that site posted on MC and given bad scores even though the review has no score.



Frogger on 16 May 2016
mornelithe said:
spemanig said:

You're contradicting yourself. Of course it has an answer. It's a question. All questions have answers. It's still a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a question who's sole function is to push a rhetoric from an assumed answer rather than to enquire. All that matters is that I meant it rhetorically and that my inferred answer is understood for it to be a rhetorical question. I asked "Who cares," because the assumed answer in the context that I used it in was "no one should care." When anyone asks "who cares," the assumed answer is always "no one blah blah." It doesn't matter if you have your own answer for it. I didn't ask the question so you could answer it. I asked the question to push the rhetoric that no one should care about a joke review.

Not even Troy Baker. Everyone at Naughty Dog could tweet about this and it wouldn't change the sentiment.

And by the way "who are you to blah blah blah" is rhetorical too. It doesn't matter who you are. I'm not trying to learn about you as a person. I'm being rhetorical. You are not in a place where you have the insight or knowledge to spew that kind of accusation at anybody. That's the rhetoric. People changing history or whatever doesn't matter. I wasn't asking. I wasn't "attacking your bona fides." I was being rhetorical. Troy Baker didn't say or imply that he thought that gaming media made bad reviews for hits. You did. He literally doesn't matter in any of this. You're not basing your accusation on anything but the fact that two reviews don't match the popular consensus. So it's either they did it for the clicks, or the far more likely reason the reviewers just didn't like the fucking games.

Or it was just satire, in which case, who the fuck cares? (Don't answer that. It's rhetorical.) It's a joke.

And I'm not sure you get how this stuff works. You are the accuser, not me. I don't need to have anything - you do. It's not proof, so there's no "then again" here. It is a stretch, and you don't have an even remotely solid foundation from which to make an accusation of ethics like that on such weak theory. You have nothing, and that's all that matters when you're the accuser.

P.S. I follow Troy on twitter and I actually read the OP of the thread. Of course I knew about his endorsement.

This is false, it's not that two reviews (3 actually, AVClub did it as well, years ago), don't match the popular consensus, it's that these 3 reviews are so far outside the min/max of consensus as to...well, strain credulity.   Still 5 sites to finish their scoring, but the lowest score for UC4 currently, is an 80 (5 of them). That's 40 points more than WaPo's review.    You're telling me that doesn't sound a few warning bells?  Screams clickbait to me(and likely is).

And you're right, everything pointed out isn't stable ground to make an accusation.  However, I don't have to be on solid ground.  I can just avoid Metacritic and WaPo for any games related articles, and omit it, when discussion of games/reviews/sites etc... come up.  There's plenty I already go to, crossing one of the list doesn't hurt me.  

That still doesn't change the fact there's plenty wrong with the games journalism industry, that HAS been proven, and yes, I believe the Journalism industry should be concerned with it, and try to handle it internally.

EDIT: Also, we're both forgetting there's more to this petition than just that.   The score itself isn't on the page on the site.  There's some issue w/ the writer not being WaPo staff (one of these is required for submission to metacritic, I don't remember which it's stated earlier in the thread), and there's 2 reviews on the site.  As CGI states later, the petition is just looking for clarity or removal.

Okay, 3. I was going off of the information you provided. It could be 20. Doesn't make a difference. It doesn't strain anything. The only thing it sounds is like the reviewer really didn't like the game. Or was taking the piss and making a joke. You could even argue that the guy wrote a shitty review and didn't make good enough points to warrent a 4/10. None of that even remotely implies that WSJ were being snakes by publishing a bad review against the reviewers true feelings on the game with the sole, or even remote, purpose of driving unwarrented traffic.

You didn't say "journalists are making click bait reviews, so I'll skip those sites personally." You said, "journalist are making click bait reviews, so someone needs to do something about it." That someone needs more than conjecture you yourself agree isn't stable enough to base an accusation off of, so at that point, yes, you do have to be on solid ground.

I never said that there was nothing wrong with games journalism. My point of criticism was directed specifically on your groundless accusation that gaming media had a problem with click-bait reviews.

I didn't forget that. That wasn't a point of contention for me and had nothing to do with the response I was making to you, so I didn't feel the need to bring it up with you.



Puppyroach on 16 May 2016

Why does it matter if someone wrote a satirical review with what was perceived as a low score? Why is it important for that score to be removed?



midrange on 16 May 2016
Puppyroach said:
Why does it matter if someone wrote a satirical review with what was perceived as a low score? Why is it important for that score to be removed?

Why was it included in the first place? This sets a precedent for future troll reviews that raise or lower the metacritic score (which affects the salaries of developers)