yeah i don't like short games either i didnd't b uy uncharted until it was 30 $ but now u2 have multiplayer thats 100+ hours.

what magazine do you write for?

it's a personal preference of mine. i prefer that the game be longer, so i score it as such. there's no explanation i can say except that i wanted it to be longer. 

I'd say your score is a smidgen low - 9.4 to 9.6 seems right bracket for Uncharted 2 - and some of your reasons aren't valid criticims really, particularly the following 2:

Body count? Every game with gunplay has a ridiculous body count. I think it just feels more in Uncharted titles as Drake seems so much more average - when you're in a war setting like COD or SF like Halo you don't notice. To put it another way, in a shooter, imagine the length of the game if there were only 100 bad guys. Heck, one major spree of bad driving, explosives, etc. in GTA IV and you could probably go way past the amount of bad games dropped in Uncharted, and in that title you'd be mowing down innocent folks!

Length - Uncharted 2 has by far and away one of the longest and most varied SP campaigns recently, much meatier than Halo, GoW, Mirror's Edge, etc titles. Plus it has an exceptionally good coop and MP component. There is nothing, looking to market for comparison, to find fault with regarding length. You actually contradict yourself regarding how varied locales are etc. then state it is too short. I know what you mean it is so good it seems short and you wish it were longer, but that shouldn't translate to any score dropping as you need to compare to market and actual content.


I'd agree stealth is weak but its really only an added gimmick, only really central to plot in one early mission. In reality, compared to its peers, you can only nitpick Uncharted 2, and that means a lot less than 0.8 of flaws to me.

I'd say you captured what is good about the title from your summary, but are over exaggerating a little the flaws in relation to the actual game - for example if stealth was a constant and necessary mechanic I'd agree with your view of its impact, but when it's only for one level and your own amusement after that, it's significance is minimal to the overall game.

1.) Yes, the game is imo the best looking console game ever released, second only to Crysis (which is starting to show its age.

2.) The scripted parts of the game are indeed fantastic, because they don't feel "scripted."

3.) The stealth is pretty shoddy at normal and hard, but once you play through on crushing, the AI becomes a lot smarter. Did you play through on crushing, or just up to hard? I agree and disagree on this point.

4.) Dude...it's a game! Would you rather there be 3 enemies throughout the game, or Drake die 1/10th of the way through? Of course he's able to kill hundreds of soldiers! And we know nothing about his background. He's in his 30's (?), so there is still a lot of history that can be uncovered. He's shady; we know next to nothing about him.

5.) I don't understand what you're referring to in the first sentence. Also, would you rather this game be like FF with a heavily scripted love story? I found the amount of tension between Drake, Elena, and Chloe perfect, and their situation wasn't too heavy-handed. The ending imo was superb. It made me giggle and left the game open for another iteration.

6.) How is the SP too short? Did you play through on Crushing? I think that's the difficulty it's meant to be played on. Also, this would help establish the point for you that Drake is mortal and can be killed with 1-2 bullets. Did you collect all treasures and get all trophies? I think every reviewer should at least try to 100% a game to get the most out of it. This requires at least 2 playthroughs and treasure hunting, making this game ~25 hours or more. Add in the multiplayer, and your argument makes no sense to me.

Ultimately, I can't disagree with your 9.2 (I'd give it closer to 9.7/9.8), but your reasons for giving the score are incomprehensible to me. Did you try to find something you didn't like just so you wouldn't give the game a high score? That's what it seems like.

^it boils down to personal preference.

I felt that the fact that we know nothing of Drake except he's a fortune hunter to be unsettling due to the fact that he kills hundreds of professional soldiers. It's not about "oh it's a game". It's about how you take the background you know of a character and the things he does being consistent.

Imagine if say Solid Snake suddenly reveals he likes cross-dressing as a schoolgirl. Weird right? Because we know Snake as the most awesome bad ass soldier. And in that Otacon moment (do you think love can bloom on the battlefield), I think everyone felt a little strange because it seems like an uncharacteristic topic to talk about.

I also felt that the characters of Chloe and Elena weren't fully explored. We don't even know why Drake and Elena broke up in the first place and how he ended up with Chloe. It just felt like there were too many gaps in the story for the player to guess. Some people may like the mystery, but I don't like it.

About the length of the single player story, again, it's just a matter of preference. I wanted the game to last longer, and it didn't. Basically that's it.

Good score. Awful reasoning. I feel sorry for the people who actually are going to read this and believe it holds some kind of weight. For once I hope a magazine awards only a score with no explanation, because after reading a few of your threads that's where your reviews really fall apart. But hey at least you get the scores in the right ball park or close to most of the time.

The point is that you should try to look at it as your regular gamer, not exactly your own opinion and push that through in a review.

And if you are going to use the "he shouldn't be able to do that"-move, then I sure hope you downgrade every game from now on for that exact reason. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical.

In Ratchet & Clank - games, it took until this new adventure to learn certain things about Ratchet's and Clank's past. Would you have docked points for all previous games because they were not "filled in enough"?

You're going about it the wrong way if you push through your own preference. "What would an average gamer want to hear" is the question you should ask. The fact that he only got shot once storywise, you can't brush that off as "well, that's how I see it". That means I could dock points because "well, I wanted the BackStreet Boys in the game, they weren't... -4" :s

This is one of the better reviews I've seen for the game so far...

The score is even on par with what I have experienced and felt in playing the game so far.

I thought the number of bad guys you have to shoot in Uncharted 1 was too much. If the body count goes up in UC2 then it wil be a negative point for me. I'd be more in favour of fewer baddies to kill but make their AI better so making it harder to kill them. Gun battles will last as long, but they will feel more "real" for want of a better word.