SolidSnakex
Member
Cruzader said:
You should see the thread started after Morgan Webb called Super Mario Galaxy 2 "kiddie". It a 14 page thread filled with personal insults.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Uncharted 3 reviews
- Thread starter Robinspain
- Start date
- Status
You should see the thread started after Morgan Webb called Super Mario Galaxy 2 "kiddie". It a 14 page thread filled with personal insults.
For the new page
Why Uncharted 3′s 3D Eats Your Eyeballs (And Face)
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/10/25/why-uncharted-3s-3d-eats-your-eyeballs-and-face/
Why Uncharted 3′s 3D Eats Your Eyeballs (And Face)
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/10/25/why-uncharted-3s-3d-eats-your-eyeballs-and-face/
RedRedSuit
Member
DevelopmentArrested said:
Exactly. The beauty of Uncharted 2's many holy-shit moments was the absurd awesomeness of the set pieces *while* you're controlling the character and affecting the outcome. It's a game where you can have your cake and eat it too. Not only was it full of solid "regular" gunfights with plenty of tactics and verticality, but it even allowed an unprecedented amount of interactivity during set pieces of pretty spectacular scope. Of course, this interactivity was still limited in some cases, just by the spectacularity of what's happening. (I mean, how exactly do you make the sequence where that helicopter is shooting away the train car you're running through? It's just not going to happen. Yet the level of participation in such an event is higher than most top shooters.)
Plenty of competing games, that do not get this criticism, are perfectly content in having a bunch of courtyard fights strung together with on-rails segments. My guess is Uncharted 2 took that style of game to another level, almost like some kind of next generation of 3rd-person shooter, which makes people's imaginations run wild with TEH POSSIBILITIES it hasn't yet explored. In no way is Uncharted 2 any more linear or "non-interactive" than the best of the genre.
That's Uncharted 2 though. Who knows about Uncharted 3? Maybe he's right. It's certainly something of which I'm wary. It's probably tempting as a game designer to sacrifice interactivity for spectacle. Maybe U3 is more that way... we'll see.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
In case people haven't noticed, this link is already being used elsewhere on the forum.Mama Robotnik said:
ithasbegun.gif
lochnesssnowman
Member
The reason the IGN review is up for legitimate criticism* is because it's an *awful* review, not because of the score. Very short, poorly written, doesn't label a single flaw and completely alienates anyone who hasn't played a previous Uncharted game. There''s very little in the way of (real) justification for why the game deserves a 10 - or what exactly is so satisfying about the actual gameplay. Someone above mentioned it reads like a forum post - and that's pretty accurate.
I am a huge Uncharted fan. I, sadly, feel that needs to be clarified here. I said right here that I think Uncharted 2 is one my favourite ever games and I sure as hell loved Uncharted 1 as well.
However, I can completely appreciate the Eurogamer score after reading the review. Even though I know I won't agree with it once I get my hands on Uncharted 3. It's well written and the reviewer goes into detail about why, for him, the experience is somewhat knocked by certain aspects of the design. I am given enough information, as a reader, to draw my own conclusions - and, for me, those aspects don't diminish the Uncharted experience and I'm fully on board for another adventure with Drake. In fact, the Eurogamer review has a more positive impact on my thinking on Uncharted 3 than the IGN one.
The closing statement -
Whilst some of the posts in the wall of shame are a little out of context - there are certainly many that are embarrassing to read.
[*however, attacking the IGN reviewer personally is very poor form]
I am a huge Uncharted fan. I, sadly, feel that needs to be clarified here. I said right here that I think Uncharted 2 is one my favourite ever games and I sure as hell loved Uncharted 1 as well.
However, I can completely appreciate the Eurogamer score after reading the review. Even though I know I won't agree with it once I get my hands on Uncharted 3. It's well written and the reviewer goes into detail about why, for him, the experience is somewhat knocked by certain aspects of the design. I am given enough information, as a reader, to draw my own conclusions - and, for me, those aspects don't diminish the Uncharted experience and I'm fully on board for another adventure with Drake. In fact, the Eurogamer review has a more positive impact on my thinking on Uncharted 3 than the IGN one.
The closing statement -
I am very much in step with that objective. Thanks EG. Purchase confirmend.
Whilst some of the posts in the wall of shame are a little out of context - there are certainly many that are embarrassing to read.
[*however, attacking the IGN reviewer personally is very poor form]
xenorevlis
Member
I call bullshit, or they were playing on a tiny ass monitor. From what I experienced at the AMC event, its the same low-res crap all the consoles have to do (with the exception of titles that run at 60FPS or 1080p by default) to handle the 3D.Loudninja said:
Yeah, it was better than Resistance 3, but it was about par with what Killzone 3 did for 3D. Lower res, pixelated edges, etc. I was not a fan and shutter glasses can suck it.
LG has 3DTVs with passive glasses like in movie theaters, which helps alleviate the cost of 3D TV viewing, but yeah, 3D on consoles won't be very good until next-gen.
Lagspike_exe
Member
ITT: Delirious SEGA fanboy calling other fanboys delirious.
xenorevlis
Member
No, I'm talking about the 30 inch TVs we were on. Although, the settings on the TV made the contrast and all that look bad, too. They weren't professionally calibrated (I used to do this) but the 3D on the theater screen itself wasn't TOO bad, just blurry compared to the pre-recorded 3D videos and 2D videos.grendelrt said:
xenorevlis
Member
I'll give it a try on my buddy's 47" TV and report back with the final game. Will probably be playing on it this weekend.grendelrt said:
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
Marius_ said:
Well, it is pretty funny.
AzureNightmare
Banned
8/10 sounds about right for a game of Uncharted 3's caliber. Great score.
I defy you to find a single person, just one solitary person, whose mouse was hovering over the 'buy now' button on amazon's Uncharted 3 page, and then furiously cancelled because Eurogamer gave it a score marginally outside the average?
Lots of fuss over nothing, but at least now Eurogamer know the secret to getting a massive amount of traffic next time they review a big game.
Lots of fuss over nothing, but at least now Eurogamer know the secret to getting a massive amount of traffic next time they review a big game.
LeonSKennedy90
Banned
Skeksis said:
>_>
<_<
*raises hand sheepishly*
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Gvaz said:Is uncharted 2's combat better than uncharted 1? Because I fucking hate all this wave after wave combat, I just want to explore and go splunking
It's better, and grenades are actually useful in UC2 (using grenades in UC1 is a pain in the ass), but there's not much exploring and spelunking in UC2 either, except for what ND wants you to explore.
After reading Mama Robotnik's breakdown... wow some of you people are pathetic.
Combat encounters are definitely improved over the first game. But yeah, you're still going to see a lot of combat, and it's going to involve waves of enemies. There is for sure a lot more variety in the combat in Uncharted 2 though.Gvaz said:Is uncharted 2's combat better than uncharted 1? Because I fucking hate all this wave after wave combat, I just want to explore and go splunking
AzureNightmare
Banned
Bleh? wtf, 8/10 is a very strong score. I'd say anyone rating the game higher than a 9 are falling victim to the metacritic disease or completely lack a sense of responsibility as a video game critic.Tabz said:
XeroSauce
Member
EloquentM said:
So I'm on page 37, right..trying to read the whole thread.
I look down and see the next page is 38..so I'm only missing a page! I'm post my reply now!
Welp.
I remember back when Brink got horribad review and I went apeshit. Then I actually played the game and realized I judge things too quickly.
We all know that in the gaming world, 8/10 is not a very strong score --gaming review scores are a lot closer to school style grading than movie review grading. It's actually just like, above average.AzureNightmare said:
And how can you say anyone rating the game above a 9 are "falling victim" to anything if you haven't even played the game yet?
plagiarize
Banned
sold. and with that i'm out of this thread.nofi said:
although, Alex, the game shouldn't compensate for brightness, that should be left to the display, as not every display will be dimmed equally, and something like the Sony HMZs won't be dimmed at all. most TVs have seperate settings for brightness for their 3D mode, which can be pumped up accordingly.
hell, some have brightness settings for the glasses too.
RedRedSuit
Member
Gvaz said:
That's not the issue everyone is having. In games, 8 is well established to be a B, 7 is a C, 9 is an A, and 10 is an A+. 6 or below is failure. Bad or good that's the accepted scale.
When EG gives it an 8, they're more or less calling it a B.
Fine with me. They are entitled to their opinion. Perhaps I'll ever agree with them when I play the game myself. However the "8 is a great score" argument is both untrue and a red herring for the conversation. It is not a great score. It's a pretty good score.
RedRedSuit
Member
Gvaz said:
Right, for YOU, that's how you would prefer it. I have no problem with that. What I'm saying is, despite how you or anyone else would like it, that's NOT how it is. 5 = fail. So there's no point bringing up an orthogonal discussion, is my point.
When you have 40+ reviews at a 9+ scale and then you have reviews like Eurogamer and G4TV it's pretty obvious who's "opinion" is wrong.
It's the same as going to a movie worthy of best picture; if you are there with 50 other people and you are the only one who did not think the movie was fantastic it's pretty obvious you don't know a great movie from an average movie.
They do this to be controversial, they have always been known to do this and why anyone takes anything from that site seriously is beyond me.
For the people defending them what if the score was a 4/10 when everyone else is scoring it 9+??? Still be defending them then?
It's the same as going to a movie worthy of best picture; if you are there with 50 other people and you are the only one who did not think the movie was fantastic it's pretty obvious you don't know a great movie from an average movie.
They do this to be controversial, they have always been known to do this and why anyone takes anything from that site seriously is beyond me.
For the people defending them what if the score was a 4/10 when everyone else is scoring it 9+??? Still be defending them then?
RedRedSuit
Member
x-Lundz-x said:
Nah. There is a difference between having an opinion and trolling for a reaction. Though even a 4/10 would have to be examined to check for how reasonable the explanation is.
That review, and that score, don't read like a troll attempt. It's easy to spot trolling; see Armond White the film critic.
BruiserBear
Banned
Between some of the posters in this thread and Giantbomb's article on this topic, I get this distinct feeling of people reveling in this controversy, and looking to use it for their own purposes. People investing equal time in critiqing the very people they aim to paint as fanatics.
Giantbomb often treats PS3 exclusives like weekend chores, requiring attention, but ony by the person who got the short straw that week. But the minute this controversy pops up, they've got a front page story ready to go. lol
Giantbomb often treats PS3 exclusives like weekend chores, requiring attention, but ony by the person who got the short straw that week. But the minute this controversy pops up, they've got a front page story ready to go. lol
Yes, so long as the text backs up the review.x-Lundz-x said:
Just like I was I believed in the review when 1up gave AssCreed a 4 or whatever which caused a similar freak out and everyone was angry because it had production values so high that it was impossible to give it such a low score.
Also Eurogamer and the reviewer are big and more then enough well known they don't need to low ball a review just to drive hits. Even less so when the so called bad review is calling the game great.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Gvaz said:
Is that an objective fact?
- Status