Your Excellency
Banned
If Uncharted 3 was a food, it would be a strawberry placed atop the vagina of a beautiful virgin.
Variety doesnt change the fact that leon's upper torso is kinda planked, and the fact that enemies actually have to warn you that they are behind you due to handicapped gameplay mechanics doesn't help either, regardless of the variety of enemieshey_it's_that_dog said:Remind me, which game has more enemy types? Uncharted must have far, far, far more, right?
Box quote right there.Your Excellency said:If Uncharted 3 was a food, it would be a strawberry placed atop the vagina of a beautiful virgin.
Rengoku said:To be fair, Uncharted 2 also got 4.5/5 from them.
Bad_Boy said:does the score even matter? we are all buying it regardless lol.
Reeked of shit? Lol, chill out.thuway said:This is almost stupifying. Three publications that are absolutely strict about grading policy have released less than perfect scores.
I really just want to see the flood come in so I can gauge my hype. One thing is for sure, GTA IV / Halo got 10s from every single site / publication ever, and those games reeked of shit.
darkwing said:LOLZ
blitzcloud said:Variety doesnt change the fact that leon's upper torso is kinda planked, and the fact that enemies actually have to warn you that they are behind you due to handicapped gameplay mechanics doesn't help either, regardless of the variety of enemies
Your Excellency said:Basically, it comes down to this: if Uncharted 3 is objectively better than Uncharted 2, yet gets lower scores, then we have a situation on our hands. None of us know quite what's going to happen if that happens, but this much is true: the shit is gonna hit the fucking fan.
For realz.Your Excellency said:Basically, it comes down to this: if Uncharted 3 is objectively better than Uncharted 2, yet gets lower scores, then we have a situation on our hands. None of us know quite what's going to happen if that happens, but this much is true: the shit is gonna hit the fucking fan.
Your Excellency said:If Uncharted 3 was a food, it would be a strawberry placed atop the vagina of a beautiful virgin.
hey_it's_that_dog said:RE4 (96) and RE4HD (83) are already evidence of this dreaded Reviewer's Paradox and we are already dead.
Your Excellency said:If GTAIV was a woman, it would be 10/10 in terms of hotness and attraction, but a 8/10 in the sack and personality-wise.
Some might think that makes her a 10, but actually it makes her an 8.
Your Excellency said:Basically, it comes down to this: if Uncharted 3 is objectively better than Uncharted 2, yet gets lower scores, then we have a situation on our hands. None of us know quite what's going to happen if that happens, but this much is true: the shit is gonna hit the fucking fan.
hey_it's_that_dog said:The fact of the matter is, RE4 has a ton of variety in its enemies and scenarios. That's why it's revered. Uncharted has a fair amount of variety too, but if I had to directly compare them, neither would be far, far, far ahead of the other in that category.
for being a sequel, "more of the same" and all thatthuway said:I just want to know what they are knocking points off for.
Otrebor Nightmarecoat said:One of the most virgin quotes ever
They flipped their shit over the whole 8.8 even though 8.8 is really good.Nostalgia~4ever said:people freak out for 9.5 reviews, really?
Luthos said:Does that make Arkham City the whipped cream that so awesomely sets up the strawberry vagina?
But that's not the same situation at all. This isn't an Uncharted 2 port.
RE4 has more enemy types but the ratio leans too heavily on endless streams of boring ganados variants.hey_it's_that_dog said:Remind me, which game has more enemy types? Uncharted must have far, far, far more, right?
Your Excellency said:If Uncharted 3 was a food, it would be a strawberry placed atop the vagina of a beautiful virgin.
roman2003h said:How can any game be "objectively" better? Reviews are always subjective.
raziel said:RE4 has more enemy types but the ratio leans too heavily on endless streams of boring ganados variants.
the ratio breaks down something like:
10-25 of every enemy; and 750 ganados/illuminados/commandos.
so while RE4 may have more enemy types, the bulk of the time spent is killing the same enemies - easily at least 10 times more than the next most prevalent enemy in the game. the differences between it and uncharted then are 1) there isnt as much shooting and arent as many enemies to shoot overall in uncharted, 2) uncharted isnt overlong to the point where it wears out its enemies as RE4 does, and 3) the action/combat in RE4 cant dream to be as varied or dynamic as it is in uncharted because of the stand-still, shooting gallery nature of the gameplay - its pure shooting and nothing else versus shooting, taking cover, scaling the environment, moving while shooting, etc.
i dont even love uncharted. but as someone that, on the whole, doesnt care for shooters, i feel uniquely qualified to say which game was more of a repetitive slog - and that was easily RE4. not even close, really.
Your Excellency said:It's one thing giving a PS2 gen game a higher review score than it's HD remake. Because over that length of time and that sort of change in the paradigm concerning technology, memory, controllers, resolution, we can accept that maybe a 10/10 PS2 game isn't up to the standard of a 10/10 PS3 game. But if we're comparing two games FROM THE SAME CONSOLE, barely a year apart, and one is better but gets lower scores, then that madness will not stand. It can't stand, and we shouldn't allow it.
he was saying that he's less biashey_it's_that_dog said:Enemy placement/environmental variety compensates for enemy repitition, IMO.
Interesting logic that because you don't like shooters your opinion about shooters is somehow more accurate or objective rather than less.
I really don't need to argue about RE4 in this thread. I'm just here to watch people freak out about misinterpreted numbers.
EloquentM said:he was saying that he's less bias
hey_it's_that_dog said:It's the closest example I can think of where a game, RE4HD, is objectively better than the original, vanilla RE4, but due to the changing times and standards and whatever else, has earned much lower scores.
And I'm not trying to say it should be scored higher than the original RE4, I'm saying it's a very good example of a situation where factors other than the game's quality (as difficult as that is to define) determine scores.
roman2003h said:How can any game be "objectively" better? Reviews are always subjective.
Your Excellency said:Basically, it comes down to this: if Uncharted 3 is objectively better than Uncharted 2, yet gets lower scores, then we have a situation on our hands. None of us know quite what's going to happen if that happens, but this much is true: the shit is gonna hit the fucking fan.
I'm sorry but after reading this post, I can't help to think that you even played RE4.raziel said:regardless of how you feel, here is the actual fact of the matter:
RE4 is far far far worse than either uncharted game when it comes to slogging through the same damn repetitive hordes of enemies - mindless enemies too. and there is little of anything else to be found in that game to break up the longest shooting gallery game ive ever played.
dont really see the problem with it. its easy enough to connect my thoughts/opinions to relative terms i.e. less repetitive/more repetitive = more awesome/not as awesome. and despite not being a fan of the genre, i would still qualify both games as "shooters that i liked" but not loved. i felt the pang of repetition and tedium with both as i tend to with games in the genre, but uncharted did a better job of mitigating that. probably because uncharted to me did a better job of feigning an action adventure whereas RE4 felt like a straight up arcade shooter (tons more shooting and for a longer time in RE4).hey_it's_that_dog said:Biased in what way? Biased in favor of shooters? If someone was biased in favor of shooters, they'd be similarly biased towards RE4 and Uncharted, and so the bias wouldn't explain a preference for one over the other. He's saying he can tell the differences better because he doesn't like the genre, or so it sounds like.
Yoshichan said:I'm sorry but after reading this post, I can't help to think that you even played RE4.
Your Excellency said:I think of it this way. If some kid in 2030 wants to play some retro gaming and he looks at the Uncharted series, he'll see that UC2 got higher scores than UC3 and conclude that UC2 is a better game. In reality, the opposite is likely to be true. How can we allow that to happen?
Uncharted 2 didn't get great scores because of some amazing new experience like GoldenEye, or some Mario64-like 'what is this I'm seeing' factor, or come up with a great gameplay trick like Portal, or have insane realistic graphics like Gran Turismo, or reinvent a genre like LittleBigPlanet. No, it got great scores because it just did everything like we've already seen it, but with the quality and polish set to 11 throughout. No boring moments, only high points and stunning moments and great gameplay. As a result of that, you can't possibly fault Uncharted 3 for not being a game-changer.
Uncharted 2's only 'gimmick' was in doing everything better than anyone else ever did. Uncharted 3 looks to have done that all over again, and yet it's still going to get lower scores than GTAIV, because gaming magazines are AFRAID to give it a 10 out of 10. Gaming magazines won't give it a 10 out of 10 because they think that people will laugh at them for giving this 'mere sequel' the same score as GoldenEye or Portal.
Too bad!raziel said:oh i did, to completion. i wont be playing it ever again though!
Pai Pai Master said:If it's the same kind of obvious step up from Drake's Fortune to Among Thieves?
roman2003h said:I can bet that there are people that think Drake's Fortune is better than Among Thieves. (Personally I think that the story and the atmosphere was better in U1)
The End said:Pfft. It's no 6/5*
*Actual Yahoo Games review of Arkham City
Your Excellency said:Uncharted 3 looks to have done that all over again, and yet it's still going to get lower scores than GTAIV, because gaming magazines are AFRAID to give it a 10 out of 10. Gaming magazines won't give it a 10 out of 10 because they think that people will laugh at them for giving this 'mere sequel' the same score as GoldenEye or Portal.
Kusagari said:I can't believe someone in here is saying that U1 is less repetitive than RE4. .
raziel said:dont really see the problem with it. its easy enough to connect my thoughts/opinions to relative terms i.e. less repetitive/more repetitive = more awesome/not as awesome. and despite not being a fan of the genre, i would still qualify both games as "shooters that i liked" but not loved. i felt the pang of repetition and tedium with both as i tend to with games in the genre, but uncharted did a better job of mitigating that. probably because uncharted to me did a better job of feigning an action adventure whereas RE4 felt like a straight up arcade shooter (tons more shooting and for a longer time in RE4).
oh i did, to completion. i wont be playing it ever again though!
hey_it's_that_dog said:So say everyone gives it a 10. What happens when the next game is even better? It gets a 10 again? Then you still have the problem of the score not reflecting the quality differential.
Actually its Res 4 which I would say is ok but not that good._tetsuo_ said:lol@ Uncharted vs Resident Evil 4 stuff. Uncharted is good, not that good.
Your Excellency said:I think of it this way. If some kid in 2030 wants to play some retro gaming and he looks at the Uncharted series, he'll see that UC2 got higher scores than UC3 and conclude that UC2 is a better game. In reality, the opposite is likely to be true. How can we allow that to happen?
Uncharted 2 didn't get great scores because of some amazing new experience like GoldenEye, or some Mario64-like 'what is this I'm seeing' factor, or come up with a great gameplay trick like Portal, or have insane realistic graphics like Gran Turismo, or reinvent a genre like LittleBigPlanet. No, it got great scores because it just did everything like we've already seen it, but with the quality and polish set to 11 throughout. No boring moments, only high points and stunning moments and great gameplay. As a result of that, you can't possibly fault Uncharted 3 for not being a game-changer.
Uncharted 2's only 'gimmick' was in doing everything better than anyone else ever did. Uncharted 3 looks to have done that all over again, and yet it's still going to get lower scores than GTAIV, because gaming magazines are AFRAID to give it a 10 out of 10. Gaming magazines won't give it a 10 out of 10 because they think that people will laugh at them for giving this 'mere sequel' the same score as GoldenEye or Portal.
Your Excellency said:the graphics of the T-Rex at night in Jurassic Park, the speeches of Good Will Hunting,.