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

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

KLXVER on 15 May 2016
Normchacho said:
KLXVER said:

Then why didnt the reviewer say anything instead of continuing to bash the game on Twitter?

Likely because being a contrarian is most of what he does. This is the same guy that said DS2 was the worst game of all time and that the Wii U was the best console for third party games.

But MC links to the bad review. It was the other review that gave it a 4/4.



Around the Network
Nuvendil on 15 May 2016

A petition to censor a contentious opinion? What is this, Stalinist Russia? Anyone who signs this and then complains about a bit of boob being covered by a publisher or localization team is a hypocrite of the absolute highest order. Pathetic.



Normchacho on 15 May 2016
KLXVER said:
Normchacho said:

Likely because being a contrarian is most of what he does. This is the same guy that said DS2 was the worst game of all time and that the Wii U was the best console for third party games.

But MC links to the bad review. It was the other review that gave it a 4/4.

Now, I don't KNOW that this is what happened. But this is my best guess.

Metacritic gets in toutch with the Washington Post and asks them for their score.

They say "4".

Metacritic takes that, looks up their review, sees the most recent review for the game, links that and puts up a score of 4/10.

 

Could I be wrong? Of course. But it makes more sense than the Washington Post putting up a review that had a score, then putting up another (frankly badly written) review without a score, and then deciding that one was the "true" review.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Bryank75 on 15 May 2016
vivster said:
Bryank75 said:

.... there are some chapters that "set up" for the story. Mostly the early 4 chapters are a bit slow but interesting if you like a good story. It does get going then, ramping up quickly. 

 

Gunplay is approaching MGSV quality now with the improvements and the stealth option is a whole other way to play. The enemy AI is ramped up and the game really opens up in various areas to give you plenty of options.... explore or fight or avoid and go for objectives. 

 

Since it took me 19hrs and 30 minutes ..... I think judging it off a few minutes of a stream is a bit of an unfair assessment. In short, it is no less a game than MGSV or Gears or any other big franchise... in fact it varies the pace and gives you more variety over the course of the game with puzzles, climbing, story, exploration and combat than most other games. 

Shouldn't the introductory chapters get me excited to play instead of lull me into a sleep? Considering there are games that captivate me within 2 minutes and UC4 had nothing happen in like 2h I'm wondering if the game is actually good. I'm not even talking about the actual story content or the characters. It's about The stuff that ND tries to pass off as gameplay.

For some reason I had a lot more fun walking through a suburban house and brushing my teeth in Heavy Rain that watching Nathan Drake climbing onto the 86th pipe that - OH THE SURPRISE - will break from the wall. Seriously, if you madr a drinking game out of Uncharted and things breaking off while someone climbs on them you would die of alcohol poisoning after the first hour. All of the gameplay is so tightly scripted that you can't even be sure if your button presses actually matter.

In Gears of War, how many times do you chainsaw the enemies in half? Some things come to define a series and ND pioneered that platforming with things breaking and crumbling around you... if you didn't like it in Drakes Fortune, you are not gonna like it now and it is a fairly limp reason to suddenly change your mind on a series too. 

 

If you don't like uncharted, you wouldn't be there in the first place... it is a fairly known entity at this point. Although the scope and gameplay has broadened to include various vehicles and paths, stealth etc. 

This entry is a particularly long game so... you need to embrace the slower sections. Once you get to the last third of the game, it becomes clear that the pace was well thought out. If you are at breakneck, all guns blazing 100% of the time....it's just meaningless! 

I mean Call of Duty does that every year... what is so special about it?



TheSting on 15 May 2016
KLXVER said:
midrange said:

This however, is a joke review that is being used in an official setting. The other reviews, good scores or bad, are fine

Has the reviewer said that it is a joke review?

The only joke is this petition.



Around the Network
barneystinson69 on 15 May 2016

People are overreacting here, its just one person's review. Does this game deserve the solid 10's its getting as well then? 



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Ultrashroomz on 15 May 2016

Why do people care so much about someone's opinion about a game?

I don't care if their opinion is severely flawed. If it is, just ignore them, move on, and enjoy the darn game.



"Just for comparison Uncharted 4 was 20x bigger than Splatoon 2. This shows the huge difference between Sony's first-party games and Nintendo's first-party games."

Bryank75 on 15 May 2016
TheSting said:
KLXVER said:

Has the reviewer said that it is a joke review?

The only joke is this petition.

At almost 1,500 signatures and celebrity attention.... I think it is gone well beyond a joke!



DivinePaladin on 15 May 2016
StarOcean said:
DivinePaladin said:

If anything this review should show why metacritic is awful. Removing it only encourages more score whoring like we currently have, because it sets the precedent that if you score a game badly your review doesn't count then.

 

And yes, I know it's allegedly a joke review. That doesn't matter to the people reading the headlines if it gets reviewed. Hell, having a joke review here actually improves the argument to make about metacritic being terrible. 

This. People put too much of their opinion of a game based off a review site. Reviews are valuable for letting a person know what kind of game they may be buying into -but even then, most who use Metacritic seem to only look at the numbers. They don't care about the actual reviews at all. Metacritic acts more of a buffer to boost their confirmation bias or to fuel their justification to love/hate a game more than using it as a library to see how or why a game was given the score it was given at the time of its publication. 

Couldn't have said it better myself. 



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

pokoko on 15 May 2016

After looking at all the surrounding circumstances, there does seem to be some grounds for asking Metacritic to look into the validity of this review. Certain elements here don't seem to add up. I don't know if it should be removed or not but some things should probably be clarified. Also, the reviewer sounds pretty awful at his job but that's an issue for the Washington Post.

I've got to say, though, that's it kind of fun watching how people change their minds about things like this depending on the game involved.