IGN Gives Uncharted 3 a 10 out of 10
- Thread starter Mechanix
- Start date
I stopped caring what score IGN and other such reveiwers give games... mainly because they almost always give the game a huge score and ramble on, trying to sell the game rather than reviewing it.
Well that's not a big surprise, especially these days. Mediocrity is constantly celebrated, average game get great scores while "only" good ones are considered perfect. Now I haven't played Uncharted 3 yet, and my only gripe with the series so far is that it was too predictable, borrowing only safe aspects of other games and not contributing with any new ideas. Don't get me wrong I like how it's all put together, and I'll (hopefully) like the new one I just seriously doubt it's a perfect 10.
So when did people start trusting IGN for game reviews? Who trusts any reviewer? I decide if a game is good by gameplay videos, like normal people
I don't get why people get so serious about game reviews. they get mad that a good game gets an 8, and mad when a good game gets a 10. you can enjoy a game that got a fucking 4/10, if the problems justifying it don't bother you.
also, usually it seems like reviews in the video game world are more concerned about polish than something like movies, where the focus is on emotional value/ artistic value. so when I see a ten, I assume the game was put together exceptionally well and that it's probably worth checking out at some point.
perspective is good, always.
to drive my point into the ground; people like to say that no game deserves a 10/10 because that would mean it's "perfect", which nothing is. This seemingly logical statement is completely fallacious. why would we have a 10/10 (or 100/100 wtf-ever) as part of a grading scale if we can't use it? All it is, is the best rating, the statement being made with a "perfect" score is on relative quality. (...the game they gave a 9 was really good, so they must think this is even better...) that type of thing. Numbered reviews aren't meant to be something that objectively decides where a game is on a scale between perfect and worst ever (that would be stupid), they are just a simple communication tool to give you a quick idea of what a particular reviewer thought.
also, usually it seems like reviews in the video game world are more concerned about polish than something like movies, where the focus is on emotional value/ artistic value. so when I see a ten, I assume the game was put together exceptionally well and that it's probably worth checking out at some point.
perspective is good, always.
to drive my point into the ground; people like to say that no game deserves a 10/10 because that would mean it's "perfect", which nothing is. This seemingly logical statement is completely fallacious. why would we have a 10/10 (or 100/100 wtf-ever) as part of a grading scale if we can't use it? All it is, is the best rating, the statement being made with a "perfect" score is on relative quality. (...the game they gave a 9 was really good, so they must think this is even better...) that type of thing. Numbered reviews aren't meant to be something that objectively decides where a game is on a scale between perfect and worst ever (that would be stupid), they are just a simple communication tool to give you a quick idea of what a particular reviewer thought.
jawakiller said:
They gave BlaOps & MW2 fantastic reviews just because they're Call of Duty. Both games are rotten eggs in my opinion. Just watch them score MW3 higher than BF3 and Skyrim and Arkham City and Saints Row 3...
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they scored it 18.8/10 because the game is exactly MW2 + MW1; so why not double over their score?
IGNorance, like their Dark Souls vs Skyrim review [http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/119/1196353p1.html] or their "Strategize" Dashboard videos [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OffjUq5cYIQ] that only apply to the totally absent minded. I mean, come on - I've played Arkham Asylum for 2 minutes and I knew this common knowledge.
I've always thought the whole "no game deserves 10/10 because perfection is impossible" argument is a little silly. True, there is no such thing as a perfect game, but I don't believe 10/10 necessarily has to mean a game is perfect. Using numbers to indicate how good a game is doesn't mean reviewing a game is a mathematical process, X/10 isn't indicative of how many percent perfect a game is, it's just supposed to show how good it is compared to other games. 10/10 doesn't mean it's flawless, just that out of ten levels of quality, it's classified as the highest.
At least that's the way I see it. It kind of makes sense to me, because this discussion never comes up when something receives the highest score on a 5-grade scale. If you apply the same logic, 5/5 also means flawless, but you never hear anyone complain about that.
At least that's the way I see it. It kind of makes sense to me, because this discussion never comes up when something receives the highest score on a 5-grade scale. If you apply the same logic, 5/5 also means flawless, but you never hear anyone complain about that.
I can't help but think all this IGN hate on the Escapist is the result of pissed off fanboys more so then actual truth. Greg Miller is an excellent reviewer with high expectations for a start.
I never really gave a shit about the Uncharted games.
Seems a bit too cinematic. It seems more like an interactive movie than an actual game.
It's just not something I'd pla- OH MY GOD A BIRD CRASHED INTO THE WINDOW NEXT TO ME IT'S STUCK WHAT THE FUCK
Seems a bit too cinematic. It seems more like an interactive movie than an actual game.
It's just not something I'd pla- OH MY GOD A BIRD CRASHED INTO THE WINDOW NEXT TO ME IT'S STUCK WHAT THE FUCK
Seeing as I'm the only one whose dog wasn't raped by IGN, I'm gonna assume they're not too far off with that score.
Plus, Uncharted 2 was pretty flippin' amazing so I doubt the sequel would suffer such a drop in quality.
Plus, Uncharted 2 was pretty flippin' amazing so I doubt the sequel would suffer such a drop in quality.
Because games like Gears3 also got 9.5? All because they're Sony fanboys right? :/Sandor [The Hound said:
All big games get really good score, I mean BF3 could be the worst game this year and still get 9's, like it does. Uncharted 3 getting a 10 simply means that well, among big games it shines, and I gotta agree, there's been 3 REALLY big games this fall, Gears 3 which 360 owners hyped, BF3 which PC owners hyped and finally Uncharted 3 which is hyped by Ps3 owners, 2 of those games are shooters with a not so varied colour palette, and the third one is Uncharted 3. Although all those games are big budget games with big fanbases ergo they get great scores, regardless.
Where was I going with this...? Well no big games deserves their "glowing" reviews, except Uncharted 3
(Yeah I'm a Ps3 owner and it looks amazing and deserving of a 10 IMO, u mad?^^)
my main problem with the uncharted franchise is the main protaginist
drake himself
I just don't like him much
had they replaced the main character with a elf complete wit goatee then plastered a small fury animal to his shoulder then i wouldve played it
drake himself
I just don't like him much
had they replaced the main character with a elf complete wit goatee then plastered a small fury animal to his shoulder then i wouldve played it
Ugh. We really need to start using the reviewers' names. Nobody says "The Chicago Sun Times gave that film four stars" when talking about an Ebert review. These are still personal opinions - well informed, professional opinions of people with whom you may or may not share similar tastes. But with individual reviews, you know what to expect and whether the reviewer will address aspects you're interested in.
"IGN" is a nebulous concept to me - it describes no particular perspective on game reviewing. What value can I attach to it? Still, aggregate review sites keep using website names instead of individual reviewers' names.
In this particular case, I presume the reviewer was starved of tombraideresque gameplay for so long that he felt Uncharted 3 was perfect in all aspects. Fair enough, readers with similar tastes will know what to look for. But "IGN gives 10/10", something that will certainly appear on the game's Wiki page under "Reception", makes it look like the entire company unanimously agreed on this (obviously subjective) review score. Or that they were bribed.
But hey, Famitsu regularly gives a 40/40 score to all Square-Enix games, despite the fact that they've been the laughing stock of gaming throughout the last decade.
"IGN" is a nebulous concept to me - it describes no particular perspective on game reviewing. What value can I attach to it? Still, aggregate review sites keep using website names instead of individual reviewers' names.
In this particular case, I presume the reviewer was starved of tombraideresque gameplay for so long that he felt Uncharted 3 was perfect in all aspects. Fair enough, readers with similar tastes will know what to look for. But "IGN gives 10/10", something that will certainly appear on the game's Wiki page under "Reception", makes it look like the entire company unanimously agreed on this (obviously subjective) review score. Or that they were bribed.
But hey, Famitsu regularly gives a 40/40 score to all Square-Enix games, despite the fact that they've been the laughing stock of gaming throughout the last decade.