Support NeoGAF

[The Xtortionist]

It's not like the hand-holding is even a major part of gameplay. Combat was the meat and taters of UC2 and goddamn that game had some amazing combat bowls. Quite challenging too, even on normal.

 

[Magicpaint]

it's good to see people standing up against Uncharted series flaws. It's a decent-to-good series, but it really does have a lot of potentially really simple problems to fix that are holding it back from true greatness.

Plus that fuckin' automated platforming. Christ devs is it so hard to let me die? I won't be mad, you can let the pussy mode stay for people who need their mommies to gently guide them to each ledge. Let the men play the game with some tension plz

Agree with this.

 

[Tricky I Shadow]

Think back to Uncharted 2's highlights - the train level (both in the opening climb and, later, the moving warzone), rifle battles on huge Himalayan bridges, the unexpected calm of a native village - and Uncharted 3 out-does them all, comprehensively. Its visual effects are more arresting, its action more hyperbolic. Dammit, even the peaceful bits are more peaceful.

HYPE!!!

 

[Auto_aim1]

I always find it strange when fans get all upperty at criticisms against the franchise for its extreme hand holding and linearity. I personally believe Naughty Dog is one of, if not the most talented developers when it comes to seamlessly blending a movie-like experience with the interactive medium of video games, but it does come at a price, and there's still room to expand the concept while retaining the same authentic blockbuster presentation, narrative and set pieces.

When I saw that 'Where am I' level in Uncharted 2, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Man, I hope they make an RPG with this engine." I guess the hardware limitations doesn't allow them to make it less linear at that graphical fidelity, or maybe it's intentional. But you're right, the platforming is one of the weakest parts and I hope they rectify it if they make an another Uncharted game.

 

[ZeroRay]

It's not like the hand-holding is even a major part of gameplay. Combat was the meat and taters of UC2 and goddamn that game had some amazing combat bowls. Quite challenging too, even on normal.

Agreed, there were a good number of ways to approach combat situations in UC.

If the game was totally linear in all ways, like in COD, then it wouldn't have high acclaim as it does now.

 

[Raonak]

I never saw linearity to be a strong complaint. Which is why it isn't getting docked more points. Since it's only something that becomes an annoyance in multiple playthroughs.

Only the traversal is linear, since theres nearly always only 1 path. Hopefully for U4 they put in more paths and dead ends
the only problem i could see is that increased dev time. :/ and sometimes it's hard to tell where you're meant to go.

the combat is varied enough. especially with stealth. loved avoid certain enemy sequences altogether by silently killing everyone.

 

[EatChildren]

It's not like the hand-holding is even a major part of gameplay. Combat was the meat and taters of UC2 and goddamn that game had some amazing combat bowls. Quite challenging too, even on normal.

There is quite a bit of hand holding and linearity to the franchise though, notably in the climbing/jumping sequences, of which are scattered quite generously throughout both games. For good reason too, as they give Drake and co their Indiana Jones-esque pitfall moments and show off the scale of environments, something of which has become a trademark of the series.

But since Call of Duty has been mentioned, let me pose a question; Let's say a reviewer writes a piece on any Call of Duty game of your choice, and in describing the moment-to-moment linearity of level progression and encounter design suggests that the game lacks stimulating, rewarding and challenging game design due to excessive hand holding and that, regardless of how exciting or visually pleasing the sequences might be, wishes the developer would explore richer, complex game design that challenges and rewards player thinking over pushing them always in the right direction.

Would this be a fair criticism, and warrant the reviewer imposing a lower score for what he/she feels is gameplay that could and should be taken to greater heights?

And if this is okay, then surely the Uncharted series warrants equally valid criticism for it's moment-to-moment climbing/jumping sequences which, in both games, amount to little more than tilting the analogue stick in one direction and mashing X. A reviewer complaining that these climbing/jumping sequences are overly scripted and linear, wishing Naughty Dog would expand on the formula for more open ended platforming sequences, and feeling nothing of the franchise's trademark cinematic presentation would be lost in doing so, would be coming from a similar angle as the above Call of Duty complaints, right?

 

[Pranay]

There is quite a bit of hand holding and linearity to the franchise though, notably in the climbing/jumping sequences, of which are scattered quite generously throughout both games. For good reason too, as they give Drake and co their Indiana Jones-esque pitfall moments and show off the scale of environments, something of which has become a trademark of the series.

But since Call of Duty has been mentioned, let me pose a question; Let's say a reviewer writes a piece on any Call of Duty game of your choice, and in describing the moment-to-moment linearity of level progression and encounter design suggests that the game lacks stimulating, rewarding and challenging game design due to excessive hand holding and that, regardless of how exciting or visually pleasing the sequences might be, wishes the developer would explore richer, complex game design that challenges and rewards player thinking over pushing them always in the right direction.

Would this be a fair criticism, and warrant the reviewer imposing a lower score for what he/she feels is gameplay that could and should be taken to greater heights?

And if this is okay, then surely the Uncharted series warrants equally valid criticism for it's moment-to-moment climbing/jumping sequences which, in both games, amount to little more than tilting the analogue stick in one direction and mashing X. A reviewer complaining that these climbing/jumping sequences are overly scripted and linear, wishing Naughty Dog would expand on the formula for more open ended platforming sequences, and feeling nothing of the franchise's trademark cinematic presentation would be lost in doing so, would be coming from a similar angle as the above Call of Duty complaints, right?

While I agree with you here but dont you feel that the combat aspect which its strongest element in the game and the main element was hardly focussed in that review ?

The Reviewer spent too much harping on the linearity and set piece and forgot their are other aspects on that. which some other reviews which mentioned


He said the mp is generic which i can disagree with since i have played it long enough now to judge the mp. Also in the podcast it was mention he didnt play the mp much.

While his review was "well written" he spent too much time harping on the negative aspects and focussed less on the other aspects of game.

 

[EatChildren]

I'm not talking about any specific review, and certainly not Eurogamers. I'm simply commenting on the tendency for fans of the series (and many other series, mind you) to dismiss valid personal complaints against a game that they think is the bees knees. Uncharted is an interesting specimen because though it's clear why people love the series, and for good reasons, its also a series where it's obvious why people might not love it. It's dressing up the series as an untouchable, flawless God's gift to gaming of which can never be criticised that I disagree with.

Not that I'm making any particular accusations here, just playing devil's advocate to the gushing love for the franchise.

 

[The Xtortionist]

But since Call of Duty has been mentioned, let me pose a question; Let's say a reviewer writes a piece on any Call of Duty game of your choice, and in describing the moment-to-moment linearity of level progression and encounter design suggests that the game lacks stimulating, rewarding and challenging game design due to excessive hand holding and that, regardless of how exciting or visually pleasing the sequences might be, wishes the developer would explore richer, complex game design that challenges and rewards player thinking over pushing them always in the right direction.

I have to disagree about CoD. Those games can become quite brutal on harder difficulties. Uncharted's hand-holding is on a completely different level.

...But there's nothing wrong with criticism. Either you like UC's platforming or you don't. Challenge-hounds will hate it for being too easy, others will love it for marrying gorgeous graphics and interactivity (however limited).

 

[OceansAndEarth]

Perfect. I hope this game gets ripped by reviewers just to see the hilarious fanboy rage on this forum.

I think this series has the saddest fanboys of any game. Some of those comments. I mean....jesus. To think that people on this forum are that emotionally invested in review scores.

Chill brah.

 

[StarEye]

I decided to continue on my Crushing run through Uncharted 2 which I started a long time ago, just to warm up to Uncharted 3, and I'm noticing one particular thing I think is extremely bad design. The train boss, where you can't kill him with bullets (even though he wears not more protection than the average soldier). You have to pump him full with bullets and grenades until... get this... he loses his helmet. Then you have to run towards him and beat him with melee. You can't do this until he loses his helmet though, because this particular QTE to finish him off won't activate until then.

This is a horrible design that nobody in the industry should deem acceptable. It's actually even worse than the last boss, because at least then there's an explanation for why you have to do what you do.

It seems boss fights in general is the achilles heal of Naughty Dog in Uncharted.

 

[MrCookiepants]

I like the platforming in Uncharted. I don't want it to change.

 

[Diablos]

Wow, I love Uncharted, but some of the things I've been reading in here are just silly. I think the series as a whole is Top 5 material for this gen, but let's not get ahead of ourselves: people are going to have their say about this game, as it's one of the most anticipated PS3 releases of the year, and one of the most popular console games out there. Some things will be said that you don't agree with. Fact of life. It's doing quite well review-wise regardless, so I don't know what the point in getting worked up over some dismissive commentary is, even if it is ultimately biased or dumb.

It's as though some people are allowing this to become bigger than the game's actual release (which I'm sure will be successful), cutting into their own personal experience of, would you believe, actually sitting down and enjoying this game. How silly. It's not healthy to act as though games should live or die based on what metacritic has to say. It is, of course, fine to discuss games and how they are reviewed and such, but what I seem to be noticing here in some cases are people allowing that aspect of the game's release to overshadow everything else.

 

[jonnyp]

When I saw that 'Where am I' level in Uncharted 2, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Man, I hope they make an RPG with this engine." I guess the hardware limitations doesn't allow them to make it less linear at that graphical fidelity, or maybe it's intentional. But you're right, the platforming is one of the weakest parts and I hope they rectify it if they make an another Uncharted game.

The less linear the game, the less cinematic it becomes so it's a design choice they've made in order to create this specific type of cinematic gameplay. This is not directed at you Meisadragon, but that's why I just facepalm every time someone criticizes the games for being too linear. That was the developers' aim, that's what they have to do in order to create that cinematic experience for the player and that's what a lot of us actually like about these games and it can't be used as a valid criticism against the games. It's like criticising a 2D side scroller for being too 2D and not enough 3D. It's totally missing the point and aim of the developer.

I also facepalm when people complain about it being too much of a shooter. ND has always said it's a shooter first and foremost, so that is not a valid criticism either, that's a matter of the individual's taste if anything.

And I also think it's completely unfair that some on here think that the rage against the Eurogamer review is purely fanboyism. There are a lot of other sites/publications that have given the game 8/10 which people have ignored because the feeling is that Eurogamer has a tendency of doing this. I also thought their score for Gears 3 was too low. Gears 3 is an excellent game and one of the pinnacle action TPS games this generation and deserves plaudits for that. I suspect for a lot of people it seems Eurogamer deliberately gives out low scores to stand out from the crowd and to try and be controversial in order to get hits for their website. And I think that's journalistic dishonesty and does a great disservice to the developer who may actually suffer lower sales based upon scores given by big and well-known publications (not that I think ND will suffer many lost sales in this particular case of course).

The actual Eurogamer review is pretty well written, most of the content I have no problem with and criticisms are fine, it's just that his criticisms are trivial at best and more worryingly the reviewer makes no effort to come up with any solutions as how to solve his criticisms about the relationship between cinematic experience and player control and freedom - because it's a pretty damn difficult problem to solve due to the inherent duality of this problem: the more you have of one, the less you will have of the other. If he enjoys less cinematic games and more freedom that's fine, but he can't criticise a developer for catering to the people who like it the other way around and there are a few million of us, judging by sales, that like it that way. We have GTA and RDR (also one of my favourite games this generation by the way) for the other side.

Calling the game ultimately shallow is ridiculous too IMO as I don't think there's anything shallow about the actual gunplay, it certainly isn't worse than the other top TPS games this generation. After reading that review and having read a lot of other reviews, I just don't see how his criticisms can validate an 8/10 score.

/rant over.

 

[ULTROS!]

I was expecting 8.5 low. Oh well, I doubt I'm buying this game anyway (probably in the future).

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

Yes, you're a perfect example for this.

 

[spekkeh]

That was the developers' aim, that's what they have to do in order to create that cinematic experience for the player and that's what a lot of us actually like about these games and it can't be used as a valid criticism against the games. It's like criticising a 2D side scroller for being too 2D and not enough 3D. It's totally missing the point and aim of the developer.

Well I totally facepalm from this 'argument', if the developer's aim was to create a piece of turd, no critic would give the resultant turd a ten because 'it was totally what the developer strove out to do'. And even suppose that a critic would not rate a media experience according to how he experienced it, and goes along with your train of thought, I reckon it was Naughty Dog's intention to create an immersive blockbuster experience, where the player becomes Drake. Apparently there were moments where the EG reviewer felt the game didn't succeed in achieving this goal, because there was a lack of player agency and because of this it ultimately felt like you weren't Drake. He didn't expect or even want actual player agency (nb the use of the words smoke and mirrors), just for this illusion to not shatter so often.

 

[Majmun]

http://mobile.twitter.com/Victor_Lucas/status/129297544844034049

OH SNAP!

Now that is an attentionwhore.

 

[Aguirre]

I was expecting 8.5 low. Oh well, I doubt I'm buying this game anyway (probably in the future).



Yes, you're a perfect example for this.

dont even bother buying it. if you have any respect for uncharted as a franchise, dismiss this entry to the shadows and bask in the greatness of 1 and 2.

3 didnt happen.

 

[The Elite]

Someone looking for hits. His site hasn't reviewed a game in 2+ years.

Do they still not show Reviews on the Run in the states?

 

[Jeramii]

i like the eurogamer review, it raised some great points.

i for one don't give a shit about the score of reviews. i've played way too many 9/10 games that sucked big time.

i read reviews thoroughly looking for positive and negative comments and compare with other reviews casting score aside. and from what i take with uncharted 3 it will be a great game. but as eurogamer said, it pushes you a certain direction and doesn't leave you much room for choice. in the case of uncharted i'm fine with that because i love getting lost in the visuals and story. not all games are built like that, and the few that are aren't very good or have lots of issues. uncharted is stunning looking, has fun combat and gunplay, and regardless of what the game wants me to do or not to do... i have a blast the whole way through. it's like watching the first die hard for me. some of the shit john mcclain does would not be possible in the real world, but holy shit its fun to watch.

plus, it'll be a nice break from dark souls.

 

[Raonak]

But since Call of Duty has been mentioned, let me pose a question; Let's say a reviewer writes a piece on any Call of Duty game of your choice, and in describing the moment-to-moment linearity of level progression and encounter design suggests that the game lacks stimulating, rewarding and challenging game design due to excessive hand holding and that, regardless of how exciting or visually pleasing the sequences might be, wishes the developer would explore richer, complex game design that challenges and rewards player thinking over pushing them always in the right direction.

Would this be a fair criticism, and warrant the reviewer imposing a lower score for what he/she feels is gameplay that could and should be taken to greater heights?

I disagree. I myself, can't see linearity being much of a negative except for in replay value.
would more open platforming really make the game any different the first time you're playing it?

And it seems a bit unfair for a reviewer to degrade a game because he/she thinks it could be better. It should stand on it's own merits.
And if anything, the "simpleness" of COD is what makes it successful.

 

[Sneds]

I disagree. I myself, can't see linearity being much of a negative except for in replay value.
would more open platforming really make the game any different the first time you're playing it?

And it seems a bit unfair for a reviewer to degrade a game because he/she thinks it could be better. It should stand on it's own merits.
And if anything, the "simpleness" of COD is what makes it successful.

I'd say that's one of the core purposes of a review.

The simpleness of COD is probably what made it successful but that doesn't meant that people can't criticise it's simplicity.

 

[Hydrargyrus]

I'd say that's one of the core purposes of a review.

The simpleness of COD is probably what made it successful but that doesn't meant that people can't criticise it's simplicity.

Is expecting something the core purpose of a review?
I think the core purpose is to analyze without previous expectations or prejudices

 

[Raonak]

In my opinion
A review should critisize flaws in the game. rather than the style itself.

I wouldn't write a heavy rain review complaining about the fact theres abosutely no challenge in it, because thats what it is. I would complain about plot holes, horrible voice acting, some dodgy controls, etc. (I still love it though)

views on styles of games vary, ie: a game that plays itself wouldn't bother me, but would other people.
but we will all get bothered by bad framerate, or blocky graphics, lack of content, unresponsive controls, repetiveness etc.


Thats probably why i don't tend to like reviews. they seem to knock points down for arbitary reasons. especially the complaint about not enough innovation.

 

[krioto]

all reviews are arbitrary opinions. i thought this was known. i'm getting it because i liked 1 and 2. all this reviewer rage is pointless and uninteresting.

 

[Jimrpg]

Simon Parkin's previous reviews (a selection)

Only clicked on the games that interested me

Red Dead Redemption 8/10
Super Street Fighter IV 10/10
Yakuza 4 8/10
Resonance of Fate 8/10
Virtua Tennis 4 8/10
Just Cause 2 8/10
Dead Rising 2 8/10
Bayonetta 9/10
Modern Warfare 2 9/10
Real Racing (iphone) 7/10
Shadow Complex 9/10
Shadow of the Damned 7/10
Street Fighter III: Third Strike 9/10
Xenoblade Chronicles 9/10

I don't actually have a point I'm making - but just wanted to see what he gave other games. And it seems his writing style is generally pretty dour and boring. I generally like all the eurogamer reviewers. They write the best reviews, but I thought the Uncharted 3 review was way off the mark. I didn't really agree with any of his criticisms and it was a chore to read through his review. I could understand if he complained about some of Uncharted 3's gameplay and design choices, but he was generally critical of the cinematic linear action game as a whole. Its like being critical of tennis in a tennis game!

In my opinion
A review should critisize flaws in the game. rather than the style itself.

I wouldn't write a heavy rain review complaining about the fact theres abosutely no challenge in it, because thats what it is. I would complain about plot holes, horrible voice acting, some dodgy controls, etc. (I still love it though)

views on styles of games vary, ie: a game that plays itself wouldn't bother me, but would other people.
but we will all get bothered by bad framerate, or blocky graphics, lack of content, unresponsive controls, repetiveness etc.

Yes but if I wrote a review on heavy rain i would definitely criticise it for not actually implementing any meaningful gameplay whatsoever. like what is that stuff where you turn the fridge handle or the other gazillion QTEs in the game. the style of the game is still a crime story adventure game, but you can definitely criticise it for lack of challenge.

 

[crazy monkey]

http://mobile.twitter.com/Victor_Lucas/status/129297544844034049

OH SNAP!

OH god. I watch reviews on the run daily so it will be intresting. Scott is kinda odd though and victor some times get carried away.


"
ScottCJones Slight correction re: my 6.5/10 for Uncharted 3: I WAS COMPLETELY WRONG. ORDER IS RESTORED. THE WORLD MAKES SENSE AGAIN, PEOPLE. (PHEW.)"


He corrected it. He was trolling i guess lol

 

[dark10x]

Looking at their other recent reviews I see that Gears of War 3 also received an 8. I've always felt the two series are quite similar despite the differences in themes. Uncharted has a bit more variety, but the experiences are definitely similar. The Eurogamer review for Gears 3 actually made many of the same points as the Uncharted 3 review. They simply want more than a straight forward roller coaster ride. It's their opinion and at least that gives some consistency to the site (which I enjoy reading).

 

[Raonak]

Yes but if I wrote a review on heavy rain i would definitely criticise it for not actually implementing any meaningful gameplay whatsoever. like what is that stuff where you turn the fridge handle or the other gazillion QTEs in the game. the style of the game is still a crime story adventure game, but you can definitely criticise it for lack of challenge.

well would you do the same to any telltale game? look at sam and max, no challenge per se. no gameplay whatsoever. But thats the style of game. a point and click adventure. which is also what heavy rain evolved from. It's the style of game it is.

QTE's could be a critisim (but i personally think it adds to the game)

 

[Massa]

I'm not talking about any specific review, and certainly not Eurogamers. I'm simply commenting on the tendency for fans of the series (and many other series, mind you) to dismiss valid personal complaints against a game that they think is the bees knees. Uncharted is an interesting specimen because though it's clear why people love the series, and for good reasons, its also a series where it's obvious why people might not love it. It's dressing up the series as an untouchable, flawless God's gift to gaming of which can never be criticised that I disagree with.

Not that I'm making any particular accusations here, just playing devil's advocate to the gushing love for the franchise.

I see your point, but here's a counter-point: would you give a game like God of War 3 for review to someone who previously spoke against the combat system in God of War 2? (for example that it's too simple and boring compared to Devil May Cry, like many people feel).

I think having people like that reviewing a game could lead to much more interesting reviews, certainly more than "omg this game is awesome! barf barf 10!". That's exactly what happened with Eurogamer's review, in fact. The problem is that assigning a score to it leads to much more problems than usual, from the usual fanboy cries to even some valid ones, like consistency with the rest of your website: what would a casual reader of Eurogamer think when they see their scores for Uncharted 2 and 3?

If the only reason websites do scores is to get page hits than they deserve every bit of bitching and crying about them that they get.

 

[Jimrpg]

well would you do the same to any telltale game? look at sam and max, no challenge per se. no gameplay whatsoever. But thats the style of game. a point and click adventure. which is also what heavy rain evolved from. It's the style of game it is.

QTE's could be a critisim (but i personally think it adds to the game)

i haven't played the latest tell tale games for sam and max - but i did play the old version and the old versions tested me and got my mind stimulated, thats gameplay to me - I had to think about how to solve the puzzle. I think in heavy rain you are just controlling the guy around - heavy rain is like that but with the thinking removed.

i don't know.... i know where you're coming from, but calling out a game like Uncharted 3 where its basically best in class in what it does for being linear.... well what about the other million and one games that are exactly the same as this....

i do admit uncharted 2 in hindsight is awfully linear! but it was still spectacular - thats the trade off! You don't get the train level by being not linear... yeah it could work in an open world game but nowhere near as well.... there's a huge build up leading to that point in time... it felt amazing.

 

[Jimrpg]

Looking at their other recent reviews I see that Gears of War 3 also received an 8. I've always felt the two series are quite similar despite the differences in themes. Uncharted has a bit more variety, but the experiences are definitely similar. The Eurogamer review for Gears 3 actually made many of the same points as the Uncharted 3 review. They simply want more than a straight forward roller coaster ride. It's their opinion and at least that gives some consistency to the site (which I enjoy reading).

i think its more important if there is consistency with each of the authors individually.

having consistency across the site on ideas and opinions would turn out to be something like IGN, a cesspool of ill-informed crappy articles written for that target audience like why dark souls will eat sky rims face....

 

[Mael]

Wait! People actually liked the platforming in Uncharted?

 

[Sneds]

Is expecting something the core purpose of a review?
I think the core purpose is to analyze without previous expectations or prejudices

That's fair and doesn't contradict what I was saying.

 

[The Elite]

OH god. I watch reviews on the run daily so it will be intresting. Scott is kinda odd though and victor some times get carried away.


"
ScottCJones Slight correction re: my 6.5/10 for Uncharted 3: I WAS COMPLETELY WRONG. ORDER IS RESTORED. THE WORLD MAKES SENSE AGAIN, PEOPLE. (PHEW.)"


He corrected it. He was trolling i guess lol

Scott's ex-wife was pissed.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

http://mobile.twitter.com/Victor_Lucas/status/129297544844034049

OH SNAP!

6.5? Now this should be interesting.

Edit: Ah, just joking, I see

Perfect. I hope this game gets ripped by reviewers just to see the hilarious fanboy rage on this forum.

I think this series has the saddest fanboys of any game. Some of those comments. I mean....jesus. To think that people on this forum are that emotionally invested in review scores.

Eh, personally I think Zelda fans are by far the worst.

Wait! People actually liked the platforming in Uncharted?

I liked it. It's not particularly complicated, and would probably be better if they added a bit more platforming to the mix, but for what it is, I think it's fine.

 

[Chinner]

so you guys are still doing this.

 

[Raonak]

i haven't played the latest tell tale games for sam and max - but i did play the old version and the old versions tested me and got my mind stimulated, thats gameplay to me - I had to think about how to solve the puzzle. I think in heavy rain you are just controlling the guy around - heavy rain is like that but with the thinking removed.

i don't know.... i know where you're coming from, but calling out a game like Uncharted 3 where its basically best in class in what it does for being linear.... well what about the other million and one games that are exactly the same as this....

i do admit uncharted 2 in hindsight is awfully linear! but it was still spectacular - thats the trade off! You don't get the train level by being not linear... yeah it could work in an open world game but nowhere near as well.... there's a huge build up leading to that point in time... it felt amazing.

Hahah, holy shit. we're on the same side XD.
I was trying to argue that linearity of uncharted is the style of the game. and that it isn't a flaw on the game, since it's how it's meant to be played.

Well, sam and maxes are pretty easy; But you don't play for the puzzles. you play for the humour and adventure. thats essentially what heavy rain is. You're not playing it for deep gameplay, not for challenge. you're playing it for the mystrey and the unique storytelling.

ie: like IGN's godhand review. for being too hard :|
thats the style of the game. it's a brutally hard game. But thats how its meant to be played. and not a real flaw.

 

[JaseC]

so you guys are still doing this.

Controversy breeds controversy, which itself breeds GAF posts.

 

[Mael]

I liked it. It's not particularly complicated, and would probably be better if they added a bit more platforming to the mix, but for what it is, I think it's fine.

As far as platforming goes they're a means to an end, they're never anything interesting since the path is quite clear anyway and they're never challenging anyway.
It's clearly no Mario/Sonic. Then again it never tries to be it anyway.

 

[Deleted member 81567]

I wonder what Uncharted 4's metacritic score will be...

 

[Combichristoffersen]

As far as platforming goes they're a means to an end, they're never anything interesting since the path is quite clear anyway and they're never challenging anyway.
It's clearly no Mario/Sonic. Then again it never tries to be it anyway.

Exactly. It's a means to an end to tell a story, not really an integral part of the gameplay.

 

[StuBurns]

I wonder what Uncharted 4's metacritic score will be...

Hopefully there won't be one.

 

[badcrumble]

Hopefully there won't be one.

I agree, hopefully Metacritic won't exist by the time the next generation of consoles launches.

 

[Mael]

Exactly. It's a means to an end to tell a story, not really an integral part of the gameplay.

Well way and they're boring too which why I think they'd better do away with it or....vastly improve it.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

Well way and they're boring too which why I think they'd better do away with it or....vastly improve it.

I'd rather have them improve it than completely remove it. Hell, I'd even rather just have it as it is rather than have them completely remove it. If they made the UC games about nothing but shooting foreigners in the face, I'd get bored rather quickly, I guess.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I agree, hopefully Metacritic won't exist by the time the next generation of consoles launches.

Haha.

...

 

[Deleted member 81567]

Oh it'll exist. With more precise statistics and users reviewing reviews.

 

[Mael]

I'd rather have them improve it than completely remove it. Hell, I'd even rather just have it as it is rather than have them completely remove it. If they made the UC games about nothing but shooting foreigners in the face, I'd get bored rather quickly, I guess.

All I know is I'm not replaying the games when they're there since they bore me to death on anything but the initial playthrough.