Support NeoGAF

[Beth Cyra]

Depends on which asscreed. AssCreed ONE is definitely a 1/5. Ac2 is definitely a 3/5 and acb would have been a four, but it had too many shitty missions to the end so I figure it fits as a 3.5/5

It was the original.

And while we can look back and say that AssCreed was certainly rough and 2 improved on it, the freak out did happen and because it looked so good and the prdocution values were so nice people screamed for blood and kept saying the reviewer was trying to make a name for himself and other stupid shit.

 

[Uno Venova]

Between some of the posters in this thread and Giantbomb's article on this topic, I get this distinct feeling of people reveling in this controversy, and looking to use it for their own purposes. People investing equal time in critiqing the very people they aim to paint as fanatics.

Of course.

 

[Irish]

Depends on which asscreed. AssCreed ONE is definitely a 1/5.

Heh, so wrong.

 

[Gvaz]

AC1 has a bunch of nice ideas but they're just so unrealized and poorly implemented. Then you have the fact that combat isn't fun at all, it's infuriating and doesn't really flow well, and gets in the way of the highly interesting story.

AC2 is such an improvement on it, it left me utterly bewildered that they could have in such short time turned the entire game around.

It was the original.

And while we can look back and say that AssCreed was certainly rough and 2 improved on it, the freak out did happen and because it looked so good and the prdocution values were so nice people screamed for blood and kept saying the reviewer was trying to make a name for himself and other stupid shit.

Graphics don't matter in comparison to gameplay mechanics or content. Music as well is just icing on the cake.

Pretty much every complaint I had about AC1, they fixed in ac2, and acb they refined it even more.

Now all ACR has to do is fix that stupid Full Sync stuff and I'll be like a fat man in Cake Land.

 

[Irish]

AC1 has a bunch of nice ideas but they're just so unrealized and poorly implemented. Then you have the fact that combat isn't fun at all, it's infuriating and doesn't really flow well, and gets in the way of the highly interesting story.

AC2 is such an improvement on it, it left me utterly bewildered that they could have in such short time turned the entire game around.

Yeah, ACII definitely improved upon the gameplay, but I would say it took way too many steps in the wrong direction with the story and structure. If only they had merely updated the gameplay and mission variety.

Uncharted did pretty well in updating the sequel without taking away the core feel of the original.

 

[Mooreberg]

Holy fuck this is hilarious. Robotnik still thinks I was talking about the Eurogamer review, which I never mentioned once.

 

[x-Lundz-x]

Yeah yours.

lol ok

Yes, so long as the text backs up the review.

Just like I was I believed in the review when 1up gave AssCreed a 4 or whatever which caused a similar freak out and everyone was angry because it had production values so high that it was impossible to give it such a low score.

Also Eurogamer and the reviewer are big and more then enough well known they don't need to low ball a review just to drive hits. Even less so when the so called bad review is calling the game great.

If you are a site and are going to hand out a review score, it needs to reflect the text. If the text review is great then 8/10 is NOT a great score. If you were in school and scored an 80% on your History or English exam would you be like "Man, I did AWESOME, look at this GREAt score!" or would you be "Glad I did ok on this test but I should do better next time."?

80% is not great, it's average, it's a B score. They are calling Uncharted 3 an average game when it most clearly is not according to virtually everyone else in game media. Therefore, they are wrong and their opinion is invalid.

 

[vanty]

If you are a site and are going to hand out a review score, it needs to reflect the text. If the text review is great then 8/10 is NOT a great score. If you were in school and scored an 80% on your History or English exam would you be like "Man, I did AWESOME, look at this GREAt score!" or would you be "Glad I did ok on this test but I should do better next time."?

80% is not great, it's average, it's a B score. They are calling Uncharted 3 an average game when it most clearly is not according to virtually everyone else in game media. Therefore, they are wrong and their opinion is invalid.

An average game for Eurogamer is around 6, not 8. Having 8 an as average game is what I'd call wrong, because that's like saying a 4 star movie review is just average.

 

[Tricky I Shadow]

HYPER Magazine (Australian) –--- 10/10

I checked at my newsagent an hour ago.

 

[RedRedSuit]

80% is not great, it's average, it's a B score. They are calling Uncharted 3 an average game

Incorrect; the average game on MC/GameRankings is ~7/10. Eurogamer is a couple of tents of a point under that. 8/10 is an above average game.

when it most clearly is not according to virtually everyone else in game media. Therefore, they are wrong and their opinion is invalid.

That is incorrect logic. An opinion on a subjective topic like the quality of a game cannot be wrong. The worst it can be is uninformed or insincere. If you want to prove that is the case here, go ahead.

 

[iamshadowlark]

. It is about time for someone to call out games for trying to become something that they shouldn't be.

Excuse my ignorance but how does this sentence make any sense at all? Seriously, who are you to decide what a game should and shouldn't be?

Honestly the review is mediocre. Not the score, which is next to meaningless, the actual text. He tries to knock down the game because its not as he envisioned instead of judging the developers execution of what they actually was trying to accomplish. Linearity is not a valid criticism for a single player game anymore IMO.

 

[Gvaz]

Excuse my ignorance but how does this sentence make any sense at all? Seriously, who are you to decide what a game should and shouldn't be?

Honestly the review is mediocre. Not the score, which is next to meaningless, the actual text. He tries to knock down the game because its not as he envisioned instead of judging the developers execution of what they actually was trying to accomplish. Linearity is not a valid criticism for a single player game anymore IMO.

Not when everyone's doing it? Uhh yeah dude it sure is.

Example:

I'm playing UC1 for the first time and there's a ton of times where because of how linear it is mechanically, things I wish I could jump on or grab, but you can't because the developers only wanted you to do something in their way. That's not really a challenge, it's not very fun either. The path through can be fun, but a player should be able to make their own choices. When they're made for you, you might as well be watching a movie.

 

[Nicktals]

Not when everyone's doing it? Uhh yeah dude it sure is.

Example:

I'm playing UC1 for the first time and there's a ton of times where because of how linear it is mechanically, things I wish I could jump on or grab, but you can't because the developers only wanted you to do something in their way. That's not really a challenge, it's not very fun either. The path through can be fun, but a player should be able to make their own choices. When they're made for you, you might as well be watching a movie.

Umm...wait, so you're saying you can only jump on or grab in certain places because that's what the designers wanted. Isn't that exactly the same as being able to jump on or grab in most places? The designers are still placing a 'climbable' object in that area. This point just doesn't make sense. Also, I think you have a strange definition of linearity. In most linear games you can still make choices. Scripted sequences, however, I pretty much agree with you. There seem to be many examples of a trend where, during a scripted scene, you do only have one option, and there's simply some grand presentation behind you. To me that's not 'linear', that's 'scripted'.

EDIT: Any 2D Mario is basically a linear game. And there are still choices. Death is a result of making the wrong choice.

 

[Gvaz]

I mean there were multiple times where I had to grab a ledge from either the right direction, or from another place, even though I was able to grab a similarly high platform in another section.

Also some of the textures look like you can grab on to the platform, but you can't because the developer didn't specifically allow you to. It just feels...constrained.

 

[The Lamp]

Not when everyone's doing it? Uhh yeah dude it sure is.

Example:

I'm playing UC1 for the first time and there's a ton of times where because of how linear it is mechanically, things I wish I could jump on or grab, but you can't because the developers only wanted you to do something in their way. That's not really a challenge, it's not very fun either. The path through can be fun, but a player should be able to make their own choices. When they're made for you, you might as well be watching a movie.

I just don't think Uncharted would be what it is if the game had multiple paths or areas to explore...your focus in-game is always about reaching a destination, and to not break the flow or fast pace, it's almost always clear which direction you must head. It's not like Zelda where you're meant to explore a temple with various rooms to solve a puzzle, nor where you can just go where you'd like. It's that way for various reasons, including the fact that spending a while solving a dungeon and exploring multiple paths would cripple the urgent, action-movie pace of the game. The whole selling point of this game is that it *is* like "playing" a movie. There are benefits, and in some opinions, drawbacks to that.

I think it's what makes the game special and I love what people consider the "drawbacks" of linearity because Uncharted utilizes this key personality of itself well. Unlike other games where linearity can come off as boring or restricting your fun, in Uncharted, you should never feel like you're missing out on something fun or important because you can't climb there or open such-and-such door.

 

[LeonSKennedy90]

Super Mario Bros 3 has more alternate paths and exploration then Uncharted 3

Well, that settles it then

 

[Yamibito]

Not when everyone's doing it? Uhh yeah dude it sure is.

Example:

I'm playing UC1 for the first time and there's a ton of times where because of how linear it is mechanically, things I wish I could jump on or grab, but you can't because the developers only wanted you to do something in their way. That's not really a challenge, it's not very fun either. The path through can be fun, but a player should be able to make their own choices. When they're made for you, you might as well be watching a movie.

Just sounds like you dislike linear games with linear progression, maybe the series isn't for you dude.

 

[Poimandres]

lol ok

If you are a site and are going to hand out a review score, it needs to reflect the text. If the text review is great then 8/10 is NOT a great score. If you were in school and scored an 80% on your History or English exam would you be like "Man, I did AWESOME, look at this GREAt score!" or would you be "Glad I did ok on this test but I should do better next time."?

80% is not great, it's average, it's a B score. They are calling Uncharted 3 an average game when it most clearly is not according to virtually everyone else in game media. Therefore, they are wrong and their opinion is invalid.

I work at a University, and 85% will net you a High Distinction.

Most people would be over the moon with 80%, which is a Distinction, and far from "average".

 

[Nicktals]

I mean there were multiple times where I had to grab a ledge from either the right direction, or from another place, even though I was able to grab a similarly high platform in another section.

Also some of the textures look like you can grab on to the platform, but you can't because the developer didn't specifically allow you to. It just feels...constrained.

Yeah, that sort of thing can really bug me too in some games. I don't call that 'linearity', i call that 'poor design', though.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Final updates to the Hall of Fame.

Brilliant.

Let their raving fanboy mania be etched in stone for all to see.

 

[KingK]

eh, I just realized that I'm on that list. Seems kinda silly.
I never said I cared about the 8 score, I even went out of my way to make it clear in all my posts that I didn't care that it got an 8. I even chastised the people freaking out about an 8. I was discussing my opinion on the content of the review and how I found it odd. But of course, he just took a single line out of one of my posts that had the word "shitty" in it and put it on his list.

I'd also like to see a "list" of all the posts freaking out/making personal insults towards Greg Miller and how, even though they've never played the game, they know that there's no way it could possibly deserve a 10. (note: I agree that Greg Miller wrote a crappy, hyperbolic review. I also agree that some of the criticisms in the Eurogamer review seem odd, and more like criticisms of linear game design in general)

There were plenty of overreactions on both sides, and a shit ton of overreactions to the overreactions.

 

[The Lamp]

eh, I just realized that I'm on that list. Seems kinda silly.
I never said I cared about the 8 score, I even went out of my way to make it clear in all my posts that I didn't care that it got an 8. I even chastised the people freaking out about an 8. I was discussing my opinion on the content of the review and how I found it odd. But of course, he just took a single line out of one of my posts that had the word "shitty" in it and put it on his list.

I'd also like to see a "list" of all the posts freaking out/making personal insults towards Greg Miller and how, even though they've never played the game, they know that there's no way it could possibly deserve a 10. (note: I agree that Greg Miller wrote a crappy, hyperbolic review. I also agree that some of the criticisms in the Eurogamer review seem odd, and more like criticisms of linear game design in general)

There were plenty of overreactions on both sides, and a shit ton of overreactions to the overreactions.

It doesn't matter. The game will come out and likely blow us away and all will be well.
Unless you just hate Uncharted.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Brilliant.

Let their raving fanboy mania be etched in stone for all to see.

Famous on Reddtt:

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/loobd/no_wonder_games_reviewing_is_in_a_mess_with_shit/

First comment nails it for me:

I used to care about review scores and the console wars, but then I grew up.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

of course he is spreading it anywhere he posts

Actually he's not, it's all other posters.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

I mean there were multiple times where I had to grab a ledge from either the right direction, or from another place, even though I was able to grab a similarly high platform in another section.

Also some of the textures look like you can grab on to the platform, but you can't because the developer didn't specifically allow you to. It just feels...constrained.

That's called bad design of the level and a valid criticism. Therefore it will be ignored. There are two solutions - remove the extreme linearity or design the level better, and therefore, make the level look less interesting and compelling to the player. Make shit more obvious so it appears as linear and noninteractive as it truly is and therefore less stimulating. But that's the point of making levels where it may look like you can go 3 different ways but only go 1. It's want your cake and eat it too syndrome.

 

[Gvaz]

I don't see how making a level branch out in the middle and come together in the end would make the level any less interesting. It would allow the player to feel like the game was more open than it really was, allow for more interesting replays, allow the player to tackle the level from whichever way they wanted within reason. That's pretty compelling to me, other games have done it just fine without losing the pacing and whatnot. However Uncharted is pretty cinematic so it feels like levels are just setpieces in order to spend time between each cutscene where actual story develops. Not sure how they'd make the level progression w/r/t to distance in the level work there, but I'm sure they could bring a level back in, in order to introduce some story element.

I already have enough of a problem with developers hand holding players, so I like the way it's setup in UC1. In UC1 it's basically like, It's pretty obvious where to go, but if you're stuck it pops up with L2 HINT after a minute or two. A few times I've been like "everything looks like everything else, where do I go" or it'd be some stairs behind a wall I didn't notice even after passing by it for the fourth time which helps. Otherwise I'd rather figure things out on my own.

 

[nofi]

sold. and with that i'm out of this thread.

although, Alex, the game shouldn't compensate for brightness, that should be left to the display, as not every display will be dimmed equally, and something like the Sony HMZs won't be dimmed at all. most TVs have seperate settings for brightness for their 3D mode, which can be pumped up accordingly.

hell, some have brightness settings for the glasses too.

Yes, I appreciate that now. I think I was just being selfish, an didn't take into effect newer sets.

Will bear that in mind for future stuff, although obviously I'm no Digital Foundry, the 3D thoughts are just general observations.

 

[Ricky_R]

you know what? nevermind.

 

[Owlowiscious]

Just been catching up. Wow at some of the participants in this thread.

FYI

 

[Neuromancer]

FYI

Mama, you're famous! Or should I say, infamous?!

 

[Ydahs]

Final updates to the Hall of Fame.

NeoFAQs

 

[lazybones18]

This been posted yet?

Sessler talking about UC3 review
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/55954/sesslers-soapbox-i-hate-numbers/?quality=hd

 

[TheOddOne]

Giantboms's Patrick Klepek wrote a pretty good article about this whole Eurogamer debacle and review scores in general. This is a small part of his piece, but do visit the link it's a fantastic read.

What this meant, however, was that most reviews would likely largely be a thousand words of praise.

Thing is, I’d rather read a thousand words about why someone didn’t like Uncharted 3, so long as the author’s building a proper case, rather than trolling fans. In Parkin’s review, he outlines a grand critique against the Uncharted series as a whole, written through the lens of its latest release, and makes a credible argument for why Uncharted’s highest highs naturally create unavoidable lows. It’s a feeling that’s been with me since the beginning of Drake’s journey, but especially so in Uncharted 2, when players may miss the directorial cue from the game, such as a timed jump, and have to repeat it over and over again.

Other reviews mentioned this point, including Brad’s take on the game, but Parkin made it the focal point of his. By doing so, Parkin's review cast a slightly negative tone, but on the flip side, such concentration allowed Parkin to properly articulate the nuance of his argument, using his megaphone as a reviewer at a major outlet to make a serious point to a very large audience.

Maybe this illustrates a fundamental disconnect between the audience for reviews and the writers themselves. Time is precious, and when I make time for a work, I want my assumptions to be challenged, preconceptions torn apart. If I’m wrong, maybe I’ll learn something from it. This proved especially instructive with Demon's Souls, a game I was only able to understand by reading other people's passionate thoughts. It’s possible to read something you totally agree with and come away with useful lessons, but I’ve found the most instructive moments in life to come from moments involving viewpoints vastly different from mine. As someone who takes thinking about games pretty seriously, this extends to games writing, too.

 

[Kaako]

This been posted yet?

Sessler talking about UC3 review
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/55954/sesslers-soapbox-i-hate-numbers/?quality=hd

Holy shit. Sessler :bow:
That was spot on.

 

[Raonak]

Linearity only becomes a problem if you realise it.

in U1 i thought it was a bit of a problem. You're in a damn jungle yet theres only 1 way out.
U2 i never really noticed it until my second playthrough. The game did a good job of making the world feel open. plus, it always makes you want to advance.

A lot of the time in U1, you weren't sure what you're doing. for a lot of the game, it felt like there was no real goal. thats why I felt like wondering around, but couldn't. U2 was always on edge.

 

[AzureNightmare]

The problem I have with Uncharted in general is that it sacrifices the quality of gameplay in favor of higher production values in cinematic presentation. This really shouldn't be. You shouldn't sacrifice one aspect in favor of another, both should be in balance, if you can't do that. then there's something wrong and you should go back to the drawing board. When in doubt, throw it out.

 

[Mama Robotnik]

FYI

Mama, you're famous! Or should I say, infamous?!

Ha.

We also made Destructoid with an article titled "Does Uncharted Turn People Psychotic?" with the Hall of Fame as Exhibit A.

The fanatics alas, as the ambassadors of GAF.

 

[SmokyDave]

Ha.

We also made Destructoid with an article titled "Does Uncharted Turn People Psychotic?" with the Hall of Fame as Exhibit A.

The fanatics alas, as the ambassadors of GAF.

This bit....

Even so, there's an alarming number of people who seem emotionally invested in what sites they don't even read are giving a game they've not even played.

Right on the money.

 

[Dr. Malik]

People talking about me on Reddit and on Destructoid

follow me on twitter my fans, I F5 it all the time

 

[SamuraiX-]

This bit....

Even so, there's an alarming number of people who seem emotionally invested in what sites they don't even read are giving a game they've not even played.

Right on the money.

Truthier truth has never before been spoken.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Ha.

We also made Destructoid with an article titled "Does Uncharted Turn People Psychotic?" with the Hall of Fame as Exhibit A.

The fanatics alas, as the ambassadors of GAF.

I rarely agree with Jim, but when I do, I do in spades.

That's kinda fucked up, too.

 

[Auto_aim1]

I have to admit. Seeing that on Destructoid was kind of funny. Although, plenty of people weren't serious at all and were just excited because the embargo was up.

 

[Gvaz]

1. Why am I in the hall of fame?
2. I'm famous!

 

[Infamous Chris]

FYI

Haha, awesome. Let the UC3/PS3 fanboy quotes be etched into the internets for all to see/mock!

Mama, you need to insert an obligatory gif in this shit as a final update :lol

Edit: Okay Reddit is going too far..

"neogaf is a festering shit hole that is only slightly better than the rotten puss-filled shit hole that is /v/."

Holy shit lol

 

[Vice]

lol ok



If you are a site and are going to hand out a review score, it needs to reflect the text. If the text review is great then 8/10 is NOT a great score. If you were in school and scored an 80% on your History or English exam would you be like "Man, I did AWESOME, look at this GREAt score!" or would you be "Glad I did ok on this test but I should do better next time."?

80% is not great, it's average, it's a B score. They are calling Uncharted 3 an average game when it most clearly is not according to virtually everyone else in game media. Therefore, they are wrong and their opinion is invalid.

A B is above average.

 

[RurouniZel]

This been posted yet?

Sessler talking about UC3 review
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/55954/sesslers-soapbox-i-hate-numbers/?quality=hd

So true. I've learned to avoid looking at a game's number and go straight to the review itself. Only there can I learn if the game in question is something I'll truly enjoy.

 

[Gvaz]

F failing, D below average, C average, B above, A exemplary.

IMO in reviews, amongst other reasons, it feels more like the general media is a teacher who feels bad for the class and boosts everyone's grade by a letter and those alright or above average students are now top percentile.

There's too many games with 90+ ratings that imo don't deserve it, and too many 60< games that don't deserve it either. Like PCG gave E.Y.E. a like 45 or something? The fuck? Half the review was complaining it was buggy, but it was by an indie dev with almost no budget, and 99% of the bugs and wonky things are patched out, and it's getting more updates later to polish it up. It's also $20, and that's how it started out at iirc.

Standards, change them.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Holy shit, Nintendo Fanboys. Serious business. I mean you can mock Uncharted fans but you must go back to see the real crazies. Mama Roboto's list on that day must of been full.

Exactly. Nothing rivals N-fans.

 

[RurouniZel]

Exactly. Nothing rivals N-fans.

Nintendo fans, Sony fans, and Microsoft fans alike are all stupid for shit like this (I still remember the backlash for Twilight Princess getting 8.8. *ugh*) I think it's more honest to say we're all shit when we complain about videogame scores for games we have not played yet and move on.

 

[SykoTech]

Exactly. Nothing rivals N-fans.

I still say that they're all as bad as one another, just a little variation when it comes to what game or what site. Feels good to be able to laugh at all of them.