@freeryu: You can compare any game to any game depending on what point you are trying to make. For instance you can compare 2 different franchises when it comes to how much they have moved forward, innovated or simply improved over the series life span. Or how much they get out of the hardware they are playable on. Lots of things can be compared side by side that dont need the games to be similar, how much they listen to what the fans want is another one....etc
@psifire: To be fair reviewers hold certain developers and franchises to such a high standard that if they feel it could have maybe possibly been slightly better they unfairly mark it down, the sad product of high expectations. But if another lesser developer came out with a game of identical quality it would likely get scored higher due to it being a surprise achievement.
@jasonw1978: Uncharted is certainly not one of those games that is more of a movie. People who haven't played it may make that assumption based on how good ot looks, especially the cutscenes, but cutscenes are cutscenes. There is far more time spent playing Uncharted than watching cutscenes and when you are playing the gameplay is actual gameplay, not like The Order 1886 or other similar titles for which your comments would apply (notice I used a Playstation example, no fanboyism here). You can liken it to Tomb Raider. Its got high production value but isn't heavily scripted or anything. In the past they have been quite linear but still left your approach to each situation up to you but now it has opened up even more.
@lpool8: you find tonnes of clothing items, you dress how you want and create your character as you like too, althoug the character creation isn't massively detailed.
"You always know exactly what you're doing and why". Nonsense, its been well documented that there is very little context for why you are killing all the people you kill which ruins the immersion. A mission tasks you with killing a bunch of guys simply because they have health bars so they are enemies.
"Might be the most impressive urban world map outside of a rockstar game". Seriously? Ubisoft games are never believable worlds. They are too "gamey". They are designed as games rather than believable worlds with no context as to why you are finding certain neccessary items in certain places and a map covered in icons denoting every event and collectible in the game. There is no sense of discovery. Ubisoft games all follow this formula, they don't prioritise believable worlds, they just focus on holding your hand to lead you through the experience they want you to have.
"Memorable gameplay scenarios and thrilling boss battles" I wouldn't go that far. Every boss is the same, shoot him until his health depletes. There are no mechanics to bear in mind for any of the encounters meaning each mission plays the same as does each boss battle. After finishing with the game (done all the content, earned the platinum) I have very quickly forgotten everything I did in it.
"If you can pull together a full 4 man team the gameplay blossoms" one example of where you don't do the game justice. You can match make which you fail to mention but is one of the best things about the game. You don't need to put together a team, the game does it for you.
Also what difference would an extra level of gear rarity make?
All in all no offense but not a good review. And 8 is very high for a wannabe MMO with literally zero end game content and in which all the encounters play out the same due to no mechanics beyond shooting enemies until their health bars are gone. There was no need for this to be an RPG.
@GunMuratIlban: Wow you are completely misunderstanding both those criticisms.
Yes RPGs should require a lot of play to get the best gear but they don't need to be repetitive. They can have lots of content or at least more than the tiny amount in this game, or at the very least they can make that content varied rather than each mission feeling the same.
And when it comes to bullet sponge enemies, yes I agree that in RPGs enemies take longer to take down depending on your gear but thats not the issue. The issue is that there are no mechanics or strategies involved. Each enemy is just a case of shoot them and shoot them and shoot them until their life bar depletes. A great example of this is the year 1 Destiny strikes vs the ones added with The Taken King. Everyone complained in year one that the strike bosses were just bullet sponges so in year 2 they added actual mechanics which every encounter/boss should have. Simply shooting enemies with nothing else to think about makes every encounter predictable and samey.
No offence to Alexa but all the things she says she loved about the game that led to her give it a 9 were just completely mundane features that have been present in video games for years and should be expected as the bare minimum. Is she quite new to gaming?
@moesuir: What has the number of games got to do with it? It's the quality that is reviewed, not the quantity. Plus the MCC was completely broken on release. If it is in fact fully fixed now then maybe they will re-review it. But if you ask me Halo is one of the most overrated series ever made.
"Much of the same rings true in Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception. Although the pacing stumbles throughout...."
but in the pro's column you state...
"Masterful pacing in Uncharted 2 and 3"
You use the term disjointed which seems to better describe the content of this review.
Also, of course the first game in a re-release of an almost decade old franchise is going to show it's age more than the others. That's to be expected and is not a down side when the game is that old. You keep comparing the first game to modern standards but it's not a modern game so that's unfair. Drakes Fortune was so much better than the majority of games at the time and this trilogy is just giving the new PS adopters the chance to experience what they missed last gen while all the way being aware that it is an older game. Plus you may be surprised to hear that in the gaming community there are tonnes of people who prefer UC1 to both sequels, it presents more of a challenge and has more gameplay that isn't scripted set pieces. I prefer the sequels personally but I can see why so many love DF.
Oh and also you said that UC was Naughty Dogs first departure from Jak and Daxter. If you mean it was the first game they did since the Jak games then you're right but I hope you're not implying that it was the first game they did that wasn't a Jak and Daxter game because that would display a distinct lack of gaming knowledge, especially as Crash Bandicoot was such a big franchise.
TommyT456's comments