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

Forums - Sony - Uncharted 2 is now the greatest game of all time

Uberkiffer on 23 October 2009

fail



Around the Network
BMaker11 on 23 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
deathgod33 said:
i don't see how reviews indicate the quality of a game.
you know that reviewers are just some nerds who comment on every little aspect of the game and barely even care about the fun of the game.

And are paid mostly by advertising... from videogame companies.

Back before there was so much money on the internet, it was more credible, (reveiw scores were lower back then).

Even then it was just that... nerds commenting about what they like and don't, not actually holding up a game to any critical review process.

If Movie reviews worked like Videogame reviews, stuff like Big Mama's house would get 5 stars.

LOL



rccsetzer on 23 October 2009

This game IS beatiful. Ocarina of Time WAS beautiful. Now it is Uncharted 2 time. In near future we will see other games perform like this. Who played Uncharted 2 or Zelda : OoT at the times of their releases and didn't feel the awesomeness of these games... men you don't like electronic entertainment at all, at least artistically speaking. This is my opinion. UC2 is the greatest game of all time now, when time passes another title will take this title. There is many games coming in near future that can disthrone UC2 : Final Fantasy XIII, God of War 3, Alan Wake, Mass Efect 2, Mario Galaxy 2, Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo 5, Splinter Cell : Conviction, New Super Mario Bross Wii, The Last Guardian. We all want quality games!



Hobson on 23 October 2009

Uncharted 2 is great... I can see myself playing it more than once but it'll never rank up there in my book as the best game ever.



PSN: HobsonA

XBL: HobsonA

BladeOfGod on 23 October 2009
hsrob said:
BladeOfGod said:
hsrob said:
BladeOfGod said:

Love how people are comparing the game who doesnt even have 30 reviews with the game who has 80 reviews

This is barely relevant. So OOT should be penalised because internet reviewing was less well established at the time?  Will U2's status be discounted in a couple of years when we have 200 reviews contributing to each meta score. If anything a lower number of reviews is a handicap as a single bad review can affect the average more than a single bad review among many more. 

Anyway, I have always felt that comparing games from different generations is fraught with peril, there are just too many variables to account for. In my mind Twilight Princess is clearly a better game than OOT but it's impact and relative quality were significantly less. 

U2 is undoubtedly one of the games of the generation, it may even end up being the game of the generation and hence may earn it's place among the best games of all time, but there is no single best game in any meaningful sense.

i didnt said it should be penalised, i said its dumb to compare it with the game who has 2 times more reviews

Why exactly? You certainly implied that a game with fewer reviews and is not worthy of comparison to a game with more reviews, I don't understand the logic. 80 reviews averaging 97% does not equate to a better game than one which averages 99% over 30 reviews.

If we are going to use Metacritic/Gamerankings as a means of comparing games between generations, and I have problems with this anyway, the end result is that presently OOT is ranked higher than U2.  Whether it has 30 reviews or 300 is kind of irrelevant because in the end it still doesn't tell us which is the greater game, just which one has a higher aggregate score.

Its dumb because if OoT got over 80 reviews it would drop on metacritic for sure. MGS4 was sitting at 100 after first 10-15 reviews but it dropped as more reviews came.

 

And i am Ok with comparing a game who has, for example 60 reviews with the game who has 50 or 55 reviews, but comparing a game with less than 30 reviews and the game with over 80 reviews is just not fair. The gap is too big



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 23 October 2009
BladeOfGod said:
hsrob said:
BladeOfGod said:
hsrob said:
BladeOfGod said:

Love how people are comparing the game who doesnt even have 30 reviews with the game who has 80 reviews

This is barely relevant. So OOT should be penalised because internet reviewing was less well established at the time?  Will U2's status be discounted in a couple of years when we have 200 reviews contributing to each meta score. If anything a lower number of reviews is a handicap as a single bad review can affect the average more than a single bad review among many more. 

Anyway, I have always felt that comparing games from different generations is fraught with peril, there are just too many variables to account for. In my mind Twilight Princess is clearly a better game than OOT but it's impact and relative quality were significantly less. 

U2 is undoubtedly one of the games of the generation, it may even end up being the game of the generation and hence may earn it's place among the best games of all time, but there is no single best game in any meaningful sense.

i didnt said it should be penalised, i said its dumb to compare it with the game who has 2 times more reviews

Why exactly? You certainly implied that a game with fewer reviews and is not worthy of comparison to a game with more reviews, I don't understand the logic. 80 reviews averaging 97% does not equate to a better game than one which averages 99% over 30 reviews.

If we are going to use Metacritic/Gamerankings as a means of comparing games between generations, and I have problems with this anyway, the end result is that presently OOT is ranked higher than U2.  Whether it has 30 reviews or 300 is kind of irrelevant because in the end it still doesn't tell us which is the greater game, just which one has a higher aggregate score.

Its dumb because if OoT got over 80 reviews it would drop on metacritic for sure. MGS4 was sitting at 100 after first 10-15 reviews but it dropped as more reviews came.

 

And i am Ok with comparing a game who has, for example 60 reviews with the game who has 50 or 55 reviews, but comparing a game with less than 30 reviews and the game with over 80 reviews is just not fair. The gap is too big

I disagree.

I would infact argue that game reviews have gotten much softer over the years, as the internet became more and more important, and as videogame magazines moved off subscription for revenue and started relying almost soley on advertising.

The average review score of games has gone up dramatically in the last couple generations.

MGS4 dropped as more reviews came in because its the nature of the buisness now.  Companies tell you when you can publish your reviews now.

If you review their game highly you get to publish early.  If you review lowley you have to wait a while to publish.

 

If it were back in the day, MGS4 would of just been where it is now right away... actually lower.  Back thens cores that high were only given out for being innovative... and like groundbreaking, holy shit people are going to be trying to copy this for years innovative.



theprof00 on 23 October 2009

well, as far as how many reviews each one has, statistically Uncharted2 is more possibly the better game, when factoring error (as must be done when predicting anything).
Given the amount of reviews the error for Uncharted 2 might be something like +/- 1, and the error for OoT would be something like +/- 3. So it could have possibly been rated lower on average, but the numbers are the numbers.



Kasz216 on 23 October 2009
theprof00 said:
well, as far as how many reviews each one has, statistically Uncharted2 is more possibly the better game, when factoring error (as must be done when predicting anything).
Given the amount of reviews the error for Uncharted 2 might be something like +/- 1, and the error for OoT would be something like +/- 3. So it could have possibly been rated lower on average, but the numbers are the numbers.

That... doesn't actually make sense... statistically speaking.

  It's a +3, -3.  Meaning there is an equal chance for both.  The score is less percise however it could either be higher or lower by +3,-3.

It could of just as eaisly been rated even higher.

Also, your margins of error are off, and your ignoring outside factors, such as the fact that the games were rated in different eras and that scores on average are higher now then they were during the PS1 era. 

In reality when cross comparing generations games of this generation would have to be adjusted down. 



theprof00 on 23 October 2009

lol
it was just an example. I know none of the math is accurate.
The result could be anything. It could be 10 down, it could be 3 up, it could be even.

It's just a possibility and nothing more, and won't ever be anything more.



Kasz216 on 23 October 2009
theprof00 said:
lol
it was just an example. I know none of the math is accurate.
The result could be anything. It could be 10 down, it could be 3 up, it could be even.

It's just a possibility and nothing more, and won't ever be anything more.

Yeah, but regardless your math doesn't work out... number of reviews in no way means Uncharted 2 should be rated higher if you know anything about statistics. 

Unless that was another one of your jokes i'd suggest relooking at your statistics books.

All having more reviews means is that your scores are more "accurate" as in it's more likely it's around there... pretending that review scores weren't subjective anyway or treating it as a metastudy... this means nothing in relation to the games themseleves however since there is an equal chance of OoT being underrated as there is overrated.

What people are argueing when it comes to more numbers is that review scores go down as people get in more reviews, mistaking more reviews bringing down the score vs the natural reality that no matter how many reviews a game gets, the good ones are going to come first, and the bad ones are going to come last.