Ouch! Uncharted 3 gets a 4/10 review(30 posts)
No name website tries to troll to get hits? *Shock*
"Even the gunplay fits poorly with the story and characters. Drake and Sully shoot their way through a courtyard occupied by twenty soldiers armed with rocket launchers and riot shields and shotguns and destructible bits of body armor. Then they get to a cutscene in which a couple of dudes in casual attire get the drop on them using pistols. Look, Uncharted, you have established a world in which Drake can easily shrug off bullets and gun down dozens of men with nary a saved game being reloaded. If that's the world you want to build, don't tell me a story that ignores that world. Because that's what those FMV games used to do. You should be better than that. You built yourself on characters that matter. What happened?"
Wonder if the guy applies this to every game, because games where characters die in one shot/hit in an FMV whereas in-game they can take a massive beating are pretty damn common.
I mean, Sgt Blackburn can shrug off multiple gunshot wounds by waiting a bit then can jump straight back into battle and get shot all over again, yet that tank pilot cant take getting his throat slit? What a pussy! He clearly should have reloaded his game.
Stupid review. Why bother?
He said in the review: there is no gameplay but cutscenes, set pieces and famous peeps voices.
Okay. But he didn't said anything about mechanics or gameplay and whats wrong with it. All he is trying to say here that it is not a cool game because there are famous celebrities or it is too linear for his tastes compared to tomb Raider.
Sorry man, but this is not Tomb Raider. This is a third person shooter based in mechanics of the third person shooter. It's not an adventure game.
Shitty blog review is shitty.
also, i'm playing Uncharted 3 right now. I can't say that it is perfect myself, but it's 8/10 experience in my opinion. Uncharted 2 was much better in everything.
Tom Chick is one of maybe 2-3 reviewers I can name off the top of my head, who actually take the time to critisize the games they review. Most other people just stick to writing off whatever it says on the press release and giving it the grade they think people want them to give. That sort of thing is utterly useless to me, actual opinions are not, whether I agree with them or I don't.
read the review, hmmmm cant say i agree at all. i'm sure they couldnt wait to post it on n4g though, the hits THE HITS!!
I think it's more a case of gamers not actually wanting an opinion from reviewers that doesn't tell them what they want to hear, which pretty much defeats the point of having critics in the first place.
The whole idea is to do an honest take on a game based on your own personal perferences. There's not some predetermined scoreboard where you're suddenly right, or suddenly wrong.
I haven't played 2 or 3, but to me the first Uncharted was a pretty boring Tomb Raider clone. I don't care whether that gets a few fanboy panties in a twist, because that's my opinion, and neither should any self-respecting critic out there.
In terms of the whole hit conspiracy-theories, I usually read Tom Chick reviews to get a rare honest opinion on a game, and it doesn't seem to follow a certain pattern. He likes Killzone 3, he likes Call of Duty, he likes Bastion, he likes Battlefield 3, he famously disliked Deus Ex back on Games Domain (the best review site in history) while apparently liking Human Revolution, and he was the only reviewer I've read, who called RAGE the uninspired, faulty mess it was.
Honest Gamer is a not a "troll website" and Tom Chick is not a hack.
I think the kind of logic he's applying to this game in his review is kinda missing the point to be honest. I completely disagree with him, but that doesn't mean I can't still respect his opinions.
Sometimes I think that DSB and OlderGamer are the only two other people on this website capable of applying basic critical thinking to their opinions, and actually able to comprehend the thinking of individuals with different opinions to their own.
Theres a difference between 'critisize' and 'nitpick'. The part i quoted above is a perfect example of logic i'm sure he wouldnt use in the case of any other game, but he decided that suddenly thats valid criticism. This so call review, for the most part, reads more like something along the lines of Zero Punctuation whose main draw is that the 'reviewer' just shit all over the games.
Oh and gamers not wanting an opinion from reviewers that doesn't tell them what they want to hear works both ways, for instant you've clearly decided that you dont like this franchise, therefore this review is "honest" whilst the vast majority praising the game arent.
You can always argue whether a review is fair or not, and in this case I have nothing to contribute with, since I haven't played the game.
And while I hate to stop you putting words in my mouth, I've already stated that I haven't played Uncharted 2 or 3. How the fuck am I supposed to have an opinion on those, or "hate the franchise", when I've only played the first rushed exclusive of it. Take a fanboy chill pill, eh?
Really, if you care to switch your brain on, the main point I'm trying to make here is that the majority means fuck all, but does hint at a serious shortage of reviewers who know what they're doing.
What am I supposed to get out of 5 reviews that sound mostly the same in every concievable way? Not a fucking thing. Excuse me for not having preordered my ticket for the bandwagon there.
@Geki The majority of reviews on the internet are copy paste jobs by people just trying to get their review out at the same time as everyone else.
Most of those sites would never even get review copies if they ever started being honest.
Whose putting words in whose mouth exactly? You might want to calm down for second and check your quote there, because its something i never said.
Sounds like a tinfoil hat scenario to me. Just for good measure, can you name a franchise or two that reviewed poorly and caused the publisher to refuse to send out review copies? I mean plenty of games score poorly, so i assume there are plenty of examples. Sega for example have a track record of average scoring games, so i guess near to no one got their review build of Sonic Generations...
Whilst i accept that people have opinions, this deal with only accepting the lower scoring reviews for generally high scoring games because they're different and therefore they MUST be more fair and honest is stupid. You already have your ticket, DSB, its just for a different wagon.
"for instant you've clearly decided that you dont like this franchise, therefore this review is "honest" whilst the vast majority praising the game arent."
You got that, from this:
"Tom Chick is one of maybe 2-3 reviewers I can name off the top of my head, who actually take the time to critisize the games they review. Most other people just stick to writing off whatever it says on the press release and giving it the grade they think people want them to give. That sort of thing is utterly useless to me, actual opinions are not, whether I agree with them or I don't."
I think that speaks for itself. I haven't said a word about whether Tom Chick is being fair to Uncharted 3 or not, that's entirely a figment of your own imagination.
However I do believe he's being honest, and I base that on the fact that most people aren't identical clones of one another. How their reviews could somehow make it seem like they are, is therefore beyond me.
Looking at pretty much any other medium, you'll usually have serious critics who disagree quite vehemently on movies, tv shows, books and music. Why? They're different people, with different references and different values in terms of what speaks to them in that medium.
Are you really stupid enough to think that the same wouldn't go for gamers? Personally I think it's quite obvious that it does, even if the vast majority of reviews barely hint at it these days. If I had to write a review of Deus Ex Human Revolution it would not only sound entirely different from Tom Chicks, but seemingly also the vast majority of the people who bought the game.
People are different. Reviews should be too.
The fact that you can't stand a second opinion is really your loss. Personally I believe that if you're stupid, you should surround yourself with smart people, and if you're smart, you should surround yourself with smart people, who disagree with you.
Actually I think the latter is something everyone should do.
Theres a clear difference between 'hate' which you misquoted me as saying and "dont like". And no, i didnt get it from that part, but this part:
"I haven't played 2 or 3, but to me the first Uncharted was a pretty boring Tomb Raider clone. I don't care whether that gets a few fanboy panties in a twist, because that's my opinion, and neither should any self-respecting critic out there."
I really wouldnt recommend you play either sequel, you go into something not wanting to like it, you wont like it. I can clearly say that'll be the case with you, especially when you're judging a lower scoring review as 'honest' without having even touched the game yourself.
I think i'll stop this now, i've clearly hit a nerve seeing as you apparently need to start insulting me.
"Just for good measure, can you name a franchise or two that reviewed poorly and caused the publisher to refuse to send out review copies?"
Publishers don't work by "franchises". They either accept negative reviews, or they don't.
Here's an example, based entirely on my own personal experience.
My website is no giant, but we do have decent traffic and some strong contacts in the industry. We built up contacts with Konami at one point. Back when Castlevania: Lord of Shadows came out, our reviewer loved it and praised it. We gave it 8 out of 10. We got tons of traffic from the review, which Konami was obviously happy about.
Then a little known downloadable title by the name of Battle Los Angeles came out. We received a review copy of that as well. We gave it the lowest score we've ever given a game on the site. 2 out of 10.
We never heard from Konami again after that. They didn't like our honesty.
And that's just one example. Do I even need to remind you of the Jeff Gerstmann Kane and Lynch controversy? I'm sure you know all about it, how his poor review score of the game was changed because of the fact that GameSpot had an advertising contract for the game going at the time.
The industry is rife with this stuff, and its because the gaming media is far too reliant on the financial support of the video game publishers themselves. We have countless NDA's, countless secured promotions for high scores, and countless copy paste reviews because people don't actually have the time to play the games fully. You name it.
This is not a "tin foil hat conspiracy". This is the embarrassing state of the industry, and there isn't a single *honest* gaming journalist that would deny the fact if you asked them.
Honest journalists who aren't relying on the mandates forced on them by their publication in order to secure their next paycheck are exceptionally rare in this industry. And not every reviewer who scores a popular game poorly is "trolling for hits" either.
I've lost count of the times I've been accused of that one.
I guess I should be thankful that we have people like you Geki, your powers of clairvoyance are truly a gift. I don't even know myself that well, but I'll definitely listen to you, and accept no other argument to the contrary.
This seems to have gone a bit past common sense, a bit like the unanimous 9's and 10's that reviewers so happily fling out.
I'm starting to think that it's not just reviewers who have a problem, but also the gamers themselves. When a second opinion, or a critical piece becomes so much of a threat to you, that you have to resort to making up ridiculous plots, to somehow explain how someone could possibly have a different view of a game, then something is very wrong with the way your mind works.
Opinions on something like a game aren't dangerous, they shouldn't insult you, they shouldn't make you fear for a game you like, nor make you enjoy it any less. We all succumb to trolling and provocation now and then, but I don't see how not liking the climbing sections of a game, or feeling that it's somehow an excuse not to add real gameplay should be an offence to anyone. It's just an opinion, and you're still free to like that part of the game if you choose.
You're also free to critisize any review on its merits, and you're free not to agree, but I don't see any reason to think that someone is lying or up to no good, simply because they have an opinion that I don't share.
Do you think on some dusty server, deep down in the dark bowels of some long forgotten drinking den, theirs a server where ALL the videogame reviewers secretly post WHAT THEY REALLY THINK?
Someplace safe, where they know they can actually fluent their professional skill, without fear or prejudice?
I hope so... For their sake...
@Orbit Actually, there *are* some anonymous communities for media people do to just that.
The RAM Raider is one of the most enjoyable blogs I've ever read. And he continually managed to troll John Walker to the point of weeping rage, which is something that I think should trigger an instant Nobel Prize.
You'd probably like that OrbitMonkey :P
HAHAAHAH love it!!! when ign and other site review games and give it 9/10s and shit everyone complains and says the game mark is to high but when its below that mark every complains and thinks the site or reviewer is a troll, and you wonder why we get shit games when about 90% of gamers are dumb as fuck and yes erth you are a complete and utter retard good day.
Although I disagree with the score, he's certainly entitled to his own opinion but it'll certainly have a negative effect to it's overall Matacritic score which people take far too seriously anyway.
I often see good movies where the critic has clearly enjoyed & barely criticized given a 3/5(6/10) rating just because they know it won't be everybodys' cup of tea no matter how much they personally enjoyed it, but holy hell do fanboys get up in arms when their favourite blockbuster game receives an average score.
A reviewer needs to be able to think for themself but also consider others' personal perspectives in order to hand out a fair score, I certainly don't mean rate it based on popularity, more like reviewing a game in a genre or a franchise you don't really care for, you have to think from a different perspective sometimes. People read reviews not only to discover whether the writer loves or hates it, but to also gain a rough idea if they will also love or hate it too.
I reckon the entire rating system needs to be reformed, you certainly won't see clichés like Call of Duty receiving 10/10 if it were treated like a movie review, you don't(well shouldn't) hand out perfect scores for more of the same, just a little better, it's simple evolution & hasn't been revolutionary since #4, which even then I wasn't even a fan of but won't disagree with, I personally preferred #5 against the masses simply because of the awesome zombie mode.
Look at the facebook comments! Internetz <3
@topic: Couldn't care less about the score, even less about the game.
I couldn't disagree more ChrisJack.
Writing a critique has nothing to do with providing a consumer service. It's not a question of "best in test", and it never could be, since there are always going to be far too many variables in any game, movie or book to somehow rate something based on a predetermined template of "what's good" or "what's bad". At most you can get "what's good for me" or "what's bad for me".
All you have to do is make sure you're being relevant enough in your criticism, to warrant the space you use for print. That can be by virtue of good writing, loads of references, personal insight into the medium or just being a person with damn strong opinions.
It's fundamentally untrue that critics are somehow supposed to tap into the hivemind of their readers and somehow groupthink their way into determining whether Johnny from Britain or Mikey from Mississippi are going to like the same game. It's never going to happen, because people don't have that much in common.
The best you can do is offer your own honest opinion, and do it well.
What people need to realize is that you can learn just as much from a negative review as you can from a positive review. If Tom Chick or anyone else tends to hate the games you love, then that still provides you with a useful idea of the game.
Criticism is not a consumer service, it never could be. It's just an opinion.
"Sometimes I think that DSB and OlderGamer are the only two other people on this website capable of applying basic critical thinking to their opinions, and actually able to comprehend the thinking of individuals with different opinions to their own."
Just finished it. Okay, but well behind the second instalment. The opening fifteen minutes were awful and the gunplay is poor (ND seriously need to reinstate the original aiming mechanic). The camera movement is quite annoying in places too, I got dizzy at one point. Good final third though. And, despite many opinions to the contrary, I don't think it looks any better than its immediate predecessor.
As for Chick's review I'd say it is mostly fair (mostly), though I would give it 7.5/10.
@DSB, I never said that the review had to appeal to everybody, it's just a reviewer will instantly knock a few points off a game if they don't like the franchise or the genre (In which case they shouldn't be reviewing the game in the first place but it doesn't always work that way).
People want to hear the opinions from unbiased sources & occasionally fans like themselves, a hater will always hate, you wouldn't want to read a review by someone like Erthazus reviewing a game like Halo, he just doesn't get it & that's kind of my point.
@daytripper Thank you. I try.
@sg1974 You'll be glad to know that they've taken that criticism on board and they'll be updating the aiming system in a patch that will be releasing soon. It'll be mostly identical to the second one, though with less of the stray bullet habits, from what I've heard.
@ChrisJack I think you're getting way ahead of yourself. The system you're suggesting would never be fair.
First you're assuming that reviewers are capable of only two extremes, love and hate, which is a bit like what Gekidami was trying to push on me earlier. That's simply not true. If the game doesn't get better, then a good critic will say so, and if it does get better, then a good critic will still say so.
The idea that a reviewer has to be disconnected from, and impartial to, a franchise or a game completely eliminates the opportunity for them to review another game in the series if they've given a previous one any more or less than a 5/10 before in their career.
You have no idea whether the past score was based on a deep seeded hatred of the franchise, or an overwhelming love for it. As such, a significant amount of perfectly qualified critics are suddenly "disqualified", based on paranoia.
Worse yet, it completely removes the element of familiarity and insight into a sequel or reboot, that people expect. Sometimes that can lead to an interesting review, but it certainly also leaves the door open to a lot of misunderstandings.
For example, I didn't buy into the hype on BC2. I thought it was flawed on several critical points. As such, I don't get anything out of reading a review by a guy who loved that game, and also loves BF3.
However, if I read a review by a guy who didn't like BC2, and he likes BF3, then that tells me that the man has been convinced by the merits of the game.
Coincidentally, that example is also true for Tom Chick.
try is the standout word you used michael, try.
Solid review, though I'm sorry he didn't like it. Well, everyone's a critic and entitles to their opinions.
You must log in to post.