Support NeoGAF

[Mman235]

Uncharted 2 from six years ago is more or less at 95 Metacritic. I guess by this logic it would get around 65 if released now.

Based on everything I've seen and heard about this game Uncharted 2 has far more interaction and freedom during combat on top of being much longer, not to mention it only has QTE's at one or two points, actually lets you skip the cutscenes, has extra features when replaying and a multiplayer.

In terms of the article, I guess what I said in the review thread applies here:

Yeah. While the influx of broken AAA games last year shows bugs can still be a problem (and even then, those games will probably end up fixed, if slowly), in general, the current use of review scores has an "is it playable?" baseline that isn't really needed anymore. In the past that was important because many games were broken on a base game design level, now though? It's very rare that a game with mechanics that just flat out don't work comes along; therefore reviews definitely should evolve to be harsh even on very polished games that just aren't very interesting, as opposed to giving them a 7/10 minimum because "it works and has polish".

 

[PumpkinSpice]

The only part that wasn't every good was the final boss fight.

Nothing wrong with spectacle in games.

Bullet sponge wave shooting and bland climbing sections were super duper boring. Uncharted 2 is probably the most overrated game of the last gen.

 

[SolidSnakex]

It was also the IGN user voted best remaster.

But this is because the majority of Halo fans don't care even a little about the multiplayer. Halo 2 was a long time ago. Halo became popular and is enduringly popular because of its lore. Halo is a narrative-driven franchise and always has been, which is why the sorry state of MCC's multiplayer has not affected its review scores or the enjoyment of players who exclusively care for Halo's campaigns.

That is the opposite sentiment on GAF, but GAF is not always any indication of how market at large feels.

Part of the article is arguing that reviewers are harsher now. That if The Order was released in a different year it would've received really high marks. But TO is a new IP, from a developer that's only made handheld games, and the press had never been impressed with it. It was one of the few games that routinely received negative or lukewarm previews. HALO is major franchise that the press has long been in love with. So the scores and review comments are of now surprise. I think when people are critical of reviewers being too easy on games, it's more about established IP's like HALO than new IP's. New IP's have always been far more likely to get hit hard. That goes for any generation.

To be fair, they had no Idea about what would happen with the MP.
They played it at an event, and it worked fine for them the whole time there with the exception of a few smaller bugs.

I think they should have gone back and flagged thier reviews until the MP troubles were gone, but it doesn't make sense to permanently dock the score either, because once the problem is fixed, it will be a 10/10 sort of remaster with all of the content that they managed to pull together for $60.

But how many games released over the past few years that had significant issues with online play? I'd say more than enough that a review event copy for multiplayer shouldn't have been enough to make final call. Especially when you throwing around comments like it being the best remake ever or it shows a lot of respect for fans.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

Playing through the game right now, i'd rate it at about 60 or 70 simply because the AI is pretty basic, the level design is strictly linear and the story is really boring (so far). That being said, one thing The Order isn't is broken. It's pretty sad when The Order can recieve lower scores than both Halo MCC and AC:Unity, when at least The Order runs silky smooth.

 

[Mael]

The Order: 1886 is not a disaster, but it’s not a good game. It’s the sort of game that I would have expected to get an 80 on Metacritic two years ago, a 90 four years ago, and a 95 six years ago. Not that Metacritic is the be all end all, but right now The Order: 1886 sits at a 65, with a user score of 5.6. My reason for this is simple: that’s the score it deserves. The real reason is a little more complicated.

Any knows how much Heavenly Sword or Genji got last gen?
For that matter the Bouncer was a game that was clearly overrated by the press right?
Also remember that time when all the versions of Dragon's Lair got super high reviews?

 

[curiouscharles]

I don't think that there's any truth to it. And a good illutration of that is the Master Chief Collection

Polygon


9.5

GameTrailers


9.3

Game Informer


9.25

IGN


9

Joystiq


9

Eurogamer


9

USgamer


9

Destructoid


9

Super hyped collection from major franchise? Doesn't work like it's supposed to three months after release and yet look at those comments and scores.

this example doesn't really apply though, does it?

are we all forgetting (or am I mis-remembering) why this happened?

they all reviewed the game prior to release, before the broken MP was even live.

they were essentially reviewing Halo 1 - 4 SP in HD / 60fps - as such it's not really reflective of changing (or non-changing) tastes in the gaming / review landscape (maybe more to non-changing if anything).

related side-thought - would even Halo: CE have been a hard sell if it hadn't had such an engaging local MP solution?

 

[Kintaro]

I don't think it's fair to reduce freelance writers to bloggers. That's reductive and insulting to wrIters trying to make a name for themselves because it enforces the notion that if you're not already writing on the payroll of an established company then you aren't relevant enough to be taken seriously.

Interesting point. A forum that embraces the independent developer full on but does not do the same for writers (thus, slapping a catch all on them) is...interesting. =x

 

[jwhit28]

I thought we weren't supposed to pay attention to scores? Even if you lopped all the numbers/letters/stars off the end of reviews yesterday the consensus was reviewers were bored while playing The Order or if they did enjoy the game they felt there wasn't enough of it. What does that have to do with Halo Multiplayer or a game reviewers liked 6 years ago like Uncharted 2?

 

[fuzzyset]

I think we're just seeing gameplay mechanics fatigue. Each console generation before the current brought a much bigger shift in the possibilities of what can be done in games. PS1/N64 brought 3D worlds to us, PS2/Xbox gave us open worlds, PS3/Xbox360 gave use TPS/FPS bliss on consoles. Now, we have the same games just higher resolution versions of the games.

Look at the 2 games that were reviewed/received polar opposite: Middle Earth and Assassin's Creed. ME hung its hat on the GAMEPLAY of the nemesis system which they claim was not possible last gen (hence why the old gen version was gimped). AC hung it's hat on amazing graphics, but with the same tired gameplay. Even when the game is playing right, it's still just Assassin's Creed. ME brought a small fresh twist on the gameplay that changed everything.

I think the author doesn't realize what he is saying when he say "if this game came out 6 years ago...". Games nowadays shouldn't have been possible 6 years ago (a little hyperbolic, but you get the idea, hopefully). God forbid we want to see something new. Jeff (of Giantbomb) put it nicely when doing a QL of Ratz Instagib. It was a fine game. Played well. But if you want that gameplay, just play UT. It's 15years old now, and did what Ratz Instagib did perfectly over a decade ago.

 

[ItsTheNew]

Just play every game ever, never listen to any reviews and assume everyone is pushing an agenda...how else would you know for sure!?

 

[BLunted]

I don't think it's fair to reduce freelance writers to bloggers. That's reductive and insulting to wrIters(sic) trying to make a name for themselves because it enforces the notion that if you're not already writing on the payroll of an established company then you aren't relevant enough to be taken seriously.

Freelance would imply that they are getting paid and are bound by some sort of professional integrity. My understanding is that any joker could be a Forbes "contributor".

That being said, I thought it piece in the OP was good...but he's still a blogger. That doesn't take away anything he wrote about.

 

[godhandiscen]

I don't think that there's any truth to it. And a good illutration of that is the Master Chief Collection

Polygon


9.5

GameTrailers


9.3

Game Informer


9.25

IGN


9

Joystiq


9

Eurogamer


9

USgamer


9

Destructoid


9

Super hyped collection from major franchise? Doesn't work like it's supposed to three months after release and yet look at those comments and scores.

They jumped at the review. None of these sites had any actual time to test the MP, or tried it in controlled environments. It's why review scores don't meant shit nowadays.

 

[Wulfram]

Freelance would imply that they are getting paid and are bound by some sort of professional integrity. My understanding is that any joker could be a Forbes "contributor".

That being said, I thought it piece in the OP was good...but he's still a blogger. That doesn't take away anything he wrote about.

Kain is getting paid. Unless you have reason to think he's lying?

https://twitter.com/erikkain/status/568847153860251649

 

[CrustyBritches]

I think the author doesn't realize what he is saying when he say "if this game came out 6 years ago...". Games nowadays shouldn't have been possible 6 years ago (a little hyperbolic, but you get the idea, hopefully)

I disagree with the article in the sense that this game would have been considered subpar compared to games from early last gen like Gears and Uncharted.

People can try to isolate particular flaws and make bullet points, but the fact remains that the gameplay is very basic and seemingly unrewarding at the same time. Yes it looks fucking amazing! Gameplay is more important, and if the gameplay sucks then it better have content.

Ready At Dawn needs to get into the mechanics and create something unique. Gears and 'A' for everything cover scheme worked great with the pacing of Gears. Deus Ex HR approach could have worked for this with perhaps a Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego element...I'm trying to help out here. >_>

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I will add this ancedotal evidence:

While watching review threads for RE6, Titanfall, Infamous, Destiny, DriveClub, Assassins' Creed, Watch_Dogs, Sunset, and now The Order, I've seen the sentiment, "Why are reviewers only getting harsh on games now?" repeated in some phrasing or another at one point.

Whether that's due to reviewers slowly "opening up" two more points on the 7-10 scale, or AAA seriously dropping the ball in the last two years, who can say.

 

[KingJ2002]

Contributor or not (why does this even matter? Forbes published his piece!)... he made an excellent point.

The landscape is changing in that just introducing refined mechanics isn't enough anymore.

Maybe if the order had a focus on co-op play and dlc it would have scored higher.... but it's just fluff... especially when you consider that it's was meant to be a cinematic experience.

I believe the dev gave us what we asked for... a game that looked like a movie and played like a movie.

Turns out were over that too.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Part of the article is arguing that reviewers are harsher now. That if The Order was released in a different year it would've received really high marks. But TO is a new IP, from a developer that's only made handheld games, and the press had never been impressed with it. It was one of the few games that routinely received negative or lukewarm previews. HALO is major franchise that the press has long been in love with. So the scores and review comments are of now surprise. I think when people are critical of reviewers being too easy on games, it's more about established IP's like HALO than new IP's. New IP's have always been far more likely to get hit hard. That goes for any generation.

This is definitely true and it's something very characteristic of games journalism. Sequels are usually iterative improvements to their original games and there exists this notion that a game sequel will always be great. Therefore, even when it's not, it still reviews well.

I used to point out that Nintendo games virtually all review the same. Almost every Zelda game has 9-9.5s across the board since the beginning of the series. These numbers are arbitrary to begin with, but if they all score the same then that implies no one is better or worse than the other. They are all equally good. And that is just not true.

So either don't have these numbers at all, because they mean nothing, or consider whether you're reviewing a game or a franchise when you give that score.

 

[plasmawave]

Uncharted 2 wasn't very good. It's basically all spectacle and bad story, with bad gameplay tacked on.

 

[JumpJeff84]

I liked the article

 

[AlphaDump]

the big issue is that there is no standardized criteria and associated scale to rate games on.

in addition, you get a ton of sites with various reviewers in each, so it really becomes difficult to track just how consistent they are. Especially when you factor in aggregate sites like metacritic.

it'd be interesting if someone gave enough shit to track and make a listing of each site, their reviewers, and scores given.


i am too lazy, so i just buy what i want, and stream things on twitch to gain interest.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

Uncharted 2 wasn't very good. It's basically all spectacle and bad plot-writing, with mediocre gameplay tacked on.

Fixed.

It got panned not because it was bad, necessarily, but because it wasn’t good. And whether it’s one hour long or forty, I’m not going to spend my time with it unless it can convince me it’s worth it.

That sounds pretty accurate from what I've seen, read, and heard. Hmph.

 

[gamechanger87]

I will add this ancedotal evidence:

While watching review threads for RE6, Titanfall, Infamous, Destiny, DriveClub, Assassins' Creed, Watch_Dogs, Sunset, and now The Order, I've seen the sentiment, "Why are reviewers only getting harsh on games now?" repeated in some phrasing or another at one point.

Whether that's due to reviewers slowly "opening up" two more points on the 7-10 scale, or AAA seriously dropping the ball in the last two years, who can say.

I'd say its both. Reviewers have finally realized that every game isn't an automatic 7 for just starting up. Just go look at the Metacritic scores for PS3 and 360, so many games in the 90s. There are 54 360 games rated 90 or above. Two Fifas?

420 games above 80.

 

[bigjig]

Great, now average AAA games should be slapped down with the score they actually deserve rather than the "encouragement award" of 7/10.

 

[Afrodium]

I agree that the review landscape is changing greatly. I haven't played The Order so I guess I don't know if it's truly as bad as reviewers are making it out to be, but it's getting treated worse than any AAA game was treated a few years ago. It used to be that a bad AAA game would get 7s across the board. The number of 5s, 2/5s, and 6s it's getting signals a shift in the way reviewers are scoring. Games like Destiny were also treated rather harshly.

Note, I agree with the author that this is a good trend. However, I think lots of people are assuming that this gen sucks because there haven't been glowing reviews for most AAA exclusives. I have to wonder though, is the start of this generation particularly bad, or are current reviewers just not as focused on justifying our purchases and hype?

 

[ScepticMatt]

Maybe reviewers just think the game really isn't very good.

 

[AtomnayaKlubnika]

Uncharted 2 wasn't very good. It's basically all spectacle and bad story, with bad gameplay tacked on.

 

[Abounder]

Most importantly, we’re out of the honeymoon period with next-gen: neither the PS4 nor the Xbox One has truly had a game that made us say: yep, that’s worth it

I personally put a lot of blame on the middling hardware where it's difficult for many devs to achieve 1080p/30fps, let alone make some groundbreaking physics or other gameplay features.

For me this generation's hype felt like it was stolen by VR, and I can't think of a must have console exclusive for this year either that would make me say: "yep, that's worth it"

 

[CHC]

Most Forbes contributor shit sucks but this guy is pretty on point. It's a changing landscape for sure, but the fondness for the 2007 era gameplay is definitely fading, more is expected now.

 

[vpance]

Why, as a AAA studio with a huge budget, would you bet the farm on a short, tight campaign, without factoring in deep ideas for replayability?

I don't think that's the case really. We don't know their true budget, and from how I see it it looks like a small team of 100 ex PSP devs, spent 5 years focused on the art and graphics to make an unparalleled looking console game, and there was very little else they could realistically beef up. Their mistake was thinking it would be enough to please most people.

 

[bigjig]

Uncharted 2 had amazing spectacle and production values for its time, but I'd agree the gameplay itself wasn't anything special. It had average third person shooting mechanics, puzzle, melee combat, boss fights and stealth sections. The technical aspects (animation, voice acting, graphics, sound design) are all top notch but in no way is the game itself without flaws.

 

[PensOwl]

My only question - how do we know it would have received this a few years ago?



That feels a little stretched - it needs further support, though I don't necessarily think he's wrong. Just want to know the exact lineage of games he's using to prove this hypothesis. It needs to be one or two, that's certain.

For reference, RE:4 came out ten years ago, and even now I wouldn't say The Order compares favorably to it.

 

[Tripon]

To be fair, they had no Idea about what would happen with the MP.
They played it at an event, and it worked fine for them the whole time there with the exception of a few smaller bugs.

I think they should have gone back and flagged thier reviews until the MP troubles were gone, but it doesn't make sense to permanently dock the score either, because once the problem is fixed, it will be a 10/10 sort of remaster with all of the content that they managed to pull together for $60.

Except its been 3 months and the MP still doesn't work. At some point, its a fundamental flaw instead of a glitch in the system.

 

[Wulfram]

There is some sort of change in metacritic scores going on, but it's tough to see exactly what. 90+ scores have rather rare for 3 years, though much more so in 2012 and 2014 than 2013.

And 2012 and 2014's lack of non-remasters with scores of 94+ is notable too, but 2013 stands in marked contrast again.

 

[ThatManTy]

and yet a game like dragon age inquisition is getting GOTY when it's still the same formula as years ago only the quests are even more generic buti t got a pass because it had good looking open world environments. I guess if you want good scores create an open world with lots of filler quests that you pass off as content and game hours. :/

This is basically how I feel about it. Games with large open world scope and hours of playtime are given passes. In the reviews, people will complain about fetch quests, but not really think it's negative enough to take away points. These games contain bugs, framerate dips, pop in. Lots of technical issues. For the most part contain mediocre stories. Yet the huge world, and time spent is enough. I look at the trophies for GTA on PS4, and only 15% of people actually finished the game! So yea, absolutely, people are placing their value on how much time you can spend fucking around in games, when it comes to AAA. The Driveclub open world comparisons is another example.

Honestly, if The Order had 10+ hours of content, those reviews would have been higher, even if it simply contained boring filler junk.

 

[Malio]

neither the PS4 nor the Xbox One has truly had a game that made us say: yep, that’s worth it

Yup. PC & Wii U for me.

 

[whatsinaname]

I will add this ancedotal evidence:

While watching review threads for RE6, Titanfall, Infamous, Destiny, DriveClub, Assassins' Creed, Watch_Dogs, Sunset, and now The Order, I've seen the sentiment, "Why are reviewers only getting harsh on games now?" repeated in some phrasing or another at one point.

Whether that's due to reviewers slowly "opening up" two more points on the 7-10 scale, or AAA seriously dropping the ball in the last two years, who can say.

Maybe another reason is because some of these gaming websites now have a reputation? If Polygon or IGN or Eurogamer now review a game badly, I don't see them being blacklisted or pressured by a publisher's PR department.

It also raises the question, can smaller regional websites or reviewers afford to be harsh on a big game?

 

[AtomnayaKlubnika]

Uncharted 2 had amazing spectacle and production values for its time, but I'd agree the gameplay itself wasn't anything special. It had average third person shooting mechanics, puzzle, melee combat, boss fights and stealth sections. The technical aspects (animation, voice acting, graphics, sound design) are all top notch but in no way is the game itself without flaws.

Not saying it was a perfect game. It was and still is, imo, a very immersive, entertaining and effective game. It's a good game.

 

[pswii60]

What nonsense.

Here is the share of games released on disc for MS and Sony consoles and their respective review scores, aggregated by 10 point range:

There's nothing in the game review dataset that suggests a major shift has taken place in how reviewers rate games.

This is just the case of a couple titles releasing in a row to mediocre reviews and that being extrapolated as being some kind of larger trend.

Even Forbes contributors should know better.

This.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

I love this trend and I really hope it continues. Farewell to the days of the 7.5-9.5 review scale.

...you mean they're saving high review scores for games that are genuinely great, like they should?

I agree on principal, but there could be a lot of short term problems for the industry if this trend continues.

For one, gamers don't, by and large, purchase games en masse unless their Metacritic is 90+. Because of years of inflated review scores, and because of the advent of Metacritic and increasingly informed consumers, consumers now are intensely picky about buying games.

I have a feeling that if review scores continue to trend downwards, it will take consumers some time to mature, and start realizing a high metacritic isn't the only reason a game is worth buying.

 

[whatsinaname]

Uncharted 2 had amazing spectacle and production values for its time, but I'd agree the gameplay itself wasn't anything special. It had average third person shooting mechanics, puzzle, melee combat, boss fights and stealth sections. The technical aspects (animation, voice acting, graphics, sound design) are all top notch but in no way is the game itself without flaws.

Yes, but it has some amazing set pieces. Even if the game play was mediocre, you have memorable levels like the Train level or the Tank rolling through the town.

I see cinematic games like these as living or dying by their set pieces and timing. Just like action movies. You can boil it down to "punching and shooting" and cliches but you need at least one or two great action sequences and good pacing.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

There is no way in hell a game like this would've gotten a 90 median score 4 years ago.

In fact, I wonder if this game would've gotten a score any higher 6 years ago. These guys claim it would've gotten a 95 average then, but I call malarkey.

Lets take a big, high profile exclusive from the early PS3, namely LAIR.

That game was castigated and fulminated to hell and back. I have scarcely seen a more maligned game.

That game was probably no worse than The Order was. It had a lot of things in common. Beautiful graphics, but flawed gameplay.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

I don't think that's the case really. We don't know their true budget, and from how I see it it looks like a small team of 100 ex PSP devs, spent 5 years focused on the art and graphics to make an unparalleled looking console game, and there was very little else they could realistically beef up. Their mistake was thinking it would be enough to please most people.

Well, if Ready at Dawn is actually 100 developers, spending 5 years on a game when your average employee overhead is upwards of $60,000 a piece, isn't cheap. That would still be upwards of $30,000,000.

I'm guessing those numbers aren't real? but I could easily see this game's budget being $30,000,000+. Add marketing and manufacturing to that, and they'll need to sell a lot of copies to make that back. On the other hand, PC developers are doing far more with far less. Considering then, the huge success of Minecraft on consoles, I think it's safe to say that console gamers are probably hungry for those PC-like open-ended gaming experiences, where gameplay and replayability take the forefront. That's probably why huge open-world games do so well. People want tons of replay value and want to use thier imagination to explore their games.

 

[CosmicQueso]

There is no way in hell a game like this would've gotten a 90 median score 4 years ago.

In fact, I wonder if this game would've gotten a score any higher 6 years ago. These guys claim it would've gotten a 95 average then, but I call malarkey.

Lets take a big, high profile exclusive from the early PS3, namely LAIR.

That game was castigated and fulminated to hell and back. I have scarcely seen a more maligned game.

That game was probably no worse than The Order was. It had a lot of things in common. Beautiful graphics, but flawed gameplay.

Great example. LAIR is sitting on a 53.

You are correct, this whole idea that reviewers are getting tougher is malarkey of the highest... ahem... order.

 

[Orca]

Contributor or not (why does this even matter? Forbes published his piece!)... he made an excellent point.

The landscape is changing in that just introducing refined mechanics isn't enough anymore.

Maybe if the order had a focus on co-op play and dlc it would have scored higher.... but it's just fluff... especially when you consider that it's was meant to be a cinematic experience.

I believe the dev gave us what we asked for... a game that looked like a movie and played like a movie.

Turns out were over that too.

People are going to some pretty decent lengths to avoid admitting The Order might not be a great game.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Just wait till the next piss poor collectathon openworld game comes in and gets 8s and 9s.

 

[KooopaKid]

I will add this ancedotal evidence:

While watching review threads for RE6, Titanfall, Infamous, Destiny, DriveClub, Assassins' Creed, Watch_Dogs, Sunset, and now The Order, I've seen the sentiment, "Why are reviewers only getting harsh on games now?" repeated in some phrasing or another at one point.

Whether that's due to reviewers slowly "opening up" two more points on the 7-10 scale, or AAA seriously dropping the ball in the last two years, who can say.

I think it's because this gen isn't really a new gen. It's already almost 10 years old.

 

[Tycho_b]

I made a post about this very thing in another thing and have talked about it with other players. The Order is the type of game that would've gottens 8s maybe some 9s 4 years ago but starting in 2014 reviewers have been harsher. Overall this is a good thing.
[....]
Reviewers being harsher on game design means that companies will have to step up their game design and hopefully it means better games all around.

Yeah, and that's why Sunset Overdrive scored 9s ..............

 

[SeanR1221]

I'd say its both. Reviewers have finally realized that every game isn't an automatic 7 for just starting up. Just go look at the Metacritic scores for PS3 and 360, so many games in the 90s. There are 54 360 games rated 90 or above. Two Fifas?

420 games above 80.

Hell even Homefront has a 70. And that game is hot garbage.

 

[BLunted]

Kain is getting paid. Unless you have reason to think he's lying?

https://twitter.com/erikkain/status/568847153860251649

I did a bit of research, and you are right and I stand corrected. They do get paid...to blog.

It is important to note that blogging is not on par with writing for an accredited source. They are not held to the same standards as staff writers.

EDIT: Just to add, i pretty much consider any video game site(IGN, gamespot, Eurogamer, etc...) to be blogs as well. Just very popular ones. I truly believe that until something like the NYT covers videogames seriously, there is no such thing as gaming journalism. Just "Games Media". Just my opinion.

 

[Timedog]

Review scores are tougher because of all the indie games that they love so much but can only give 82/100 scores too because of the fact that it's an indie game and not Halo.

I've seen indie games that reviewers near-universally laud as "best game in its genre" given 7.5 or 8/10.