[PS3] Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception

[Twigg4075]

I'm hating power plays more and more. I like the idea of them but it's just bullshit how they are used. For instance, my team was just up 23-17. The other team gets a power play and of course ties us. Then they go up my like 8 with about 10 kills to go but do we get a power play? Of course not.

 

[Handleit_44]

Link: IGN Review - 10

IGN defines a 10.0 -- a masterpiece -- as "the pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better." That's Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception. From start to finish, single player to multiplayer, this game sings. The characters, the graphics, the sound, the story – they’re all top notch. If you’re willing to skip Uncharted 3, be prepared to miss one of gaming’s finest moments.

 

[Handleit_44]

Link:EDGE - 9

That adventure remains the jewel in Uncharted 3’s crown. Every time the game confronts you with another gilded, millennia-old piece of architecture, the same thought occurs: how could a primitive civilisation build something so immense, so confoundingly ornate? The present console cycle is expected to last nearly a decade, and there will inevitably be developers advocating the need for more sophisticated tools. But just like Machu Picchu, the Pyramids and every other engineering marvel of antiquity, Uncharted 3 will stand as a reminder to future generations of gamers that enough problem-solving imagination can turn any old trowel into a magic wand.

Link: Eurogamer - 8

Back in the main campaign and, as a slice of one-view entertainment, Uncharted 3 is peerless. The execution exhibits a kind of workmanship and polish way beyond the ambition of most other developers, let alone their abilities or budgets. As an expression of all that a video game could be, however, Uncharted 3 is narrow, focused and ultimately shallow. It is a majestic tribute to cinema, a movie game in the literal sense, and your enjoyment will be in precise step with your appreciation of that objective - and whether or not you believe it to be Drake's great deception, or Drake's great delight.

Link: Giant Bomb - 5/5

Naughty Dog achieved an incredible feat in Uncharted 2, elevating the basic action video game to such a cinematic height that, as clichéd as it sounds, you could almost believe you were playing an action movie. That game set the bar so perilously high that it's no crime this sequel merely rises to meet it, and not surpass it. Both games are so impressive that it's tempting to wonder whether there's even much more to be done in this style of game on this generation of hardware. That's a question only time will answer, but today, right now, you should spend some time playing Uncharted 3.

Link: Joystiq - 4.5/5

It's just an inch further from perfection than Among Thieves -- but that's still closer than most game franchises get within their lifetimes. Moment to moment, it outshines just about every other game on the market, and while it doesn't exactly break the action-adventure mold, it fills it with such practiced substance that you don't really mind the familiarity of its shape.

Link: CVG - 9.5

Confident storytelling, astonishing visuals and obscenely ambitious set pieces make Uncharted 3 the best of the series. An absolute must-have.

Link: 1UP - A

Uncharted 3 doesn't reinvent the wheel after 2009's superb game of the year, but manages to present its own set of unique moments and gameplay. The player-driven action sequences are memorable. The subtle layers of dialogue and character interactions are impressive. And ultimately, the eight-hour campaign experience provided plenty of harrowing escapes and charm. And after all that you've still got a competent multiplayer experience packed in too. Developer Naught Dog continues to prove they are masters of their craft, and the third chapter of Uncharted is a fun and rewarding adventure that's easily one of the best games this year.

Link: Gametrailers - 9.5

 

[SethMode]

I liked Adam Sessler's review (4/5 stars) because he seemed to approach the same way that I am: excited but tentative because of how fucking amazing UC2 was. Of course he's getting eviscerated in the comments because he apparently has thrown out his years of credibility because G4 is "pro 360". Sigh.

 

[KNUBB]

I liked Adam Sessler's review (4/5 stars) because he seemed to approach the same way that I am: excited but tentative because of how fucking amazing UC2 was. Of course he's getting eviscerated in the comments because he apparently has thrown out his years of credibility because G4 is "pro 360". Sigh.

This has been the case for a long time. I lol'd at Gears 3 getting a 5/5 and being compared to UC2. I played quite a bit of GOW3 with my friend and never felt it was anything beyond a 3rd person shooter. Unlike UC2 which felt like an experience. More than a game.

 

[SethMode]

This has been the case for a long time. I lol'd at Gears 3 getting a 5/5 and being compared to UC2. I played quite a bit of GOW3 with my friend and never felt it was anything beyond a 3rd person shooter. Unlike UC2 which felt like an experience. More than a game.

I don't understand this logic. It's one person's review/opinion (and in this case 2 different people's reviews opinions of 2 different games). I refuse to believe that Adam Sessler played through UC3 and decided to give a 4/5 just because it is a PS3 exclusive (especially considering UC2 is one of his favorite games ever).

I am happiest with his review because it keeps my expectations in check. I get tired of seeing a shit ton of 9.5's and 10's with all the same tag lines and all the same rhetoric. It's why I like Sessler because his reviews are very well written and often insightful, focusing on the game as a whole and not just some silly taglines and a number score. Numbers = pointless.

 

[KNUBB]

I don't understand this logic. It's one person's review/opinion (and in this case 2 different people's reviews opinions of 2 different games). I refuse to believe that Adam Sessler played through UC3 and decided to give a 4/5 just because it is a PS3 exclusive (especially considering UC2 is one of his favorite games ever).

I am happiest with his review because it keeps my expectations in check. I get tired of seeing a shit ton of 9.5's and 10's with all the same tag lines and all the same rhetoric. It's why I like Sessler because his reviews are very well written and often insightful, focusing on the game as a whole and not just some silly taglines and a number score. Numbers = pointless.

It has been common knowledge for the longest. I don't know if you just haven't noticed it or what. I haven't and prolly won't read his review or any reviews as a matter of fact. I am one to form my own opinion of a game based on my own experience. When reading someone's review and they point out an issue then that issue is magnified due to people keying in on that particular problem and searching for it, thus taking away from the experience of the game itself.

 

[SethMode]

I guess I'm missing what is common knowledge about it. Is it because they use Xbox 360 box art when the game is multiplatform? I'm just trying to understand what the impetus for this statement is. Is it because they gave Reach and Gears 5/5? Or is it because they use the 360 to review multiplatform games? It just seems like such a crazy accusation because it seems almost solely based on the fact that the 360's big gun got a 5/5 there and the PS3's got a 4/5 (even though Resistance, LBP2 and the Ico/Shadow pack both got 5/5 as well -- and shit they gave DC Universe a 4/5 and no one 360 biased could give that steaming pile of shit a 4).

I agree for the most part about forming one's own opinion but I still think that reviews are fun to read and can be a nice way to entertain (I don't find that they sway me either way most times -- if I want to play a game I'm going to play it and give it a fair shake). Anyway, sorry to veer off topic.

 

[Twigg4075]

I don't understand this logic. It's one person's review/opinion (and in this case 2 different people's reviews opinions of 2 different games). I refuse to believe that Adam Sessler played through UC3 and decided to give a 4/5 just because it is a PS3 exclusive (especially considering UC2 is one of his favorite games ever).

I am happiest with his review because it keeps my expectations in check. I get tired of seeing a shit ton of 9.5's and 10's with all the same tag lines and all the same rhetoric. It's why I like Sessler because his reviews are very well written and often insightful, focusing on the game as a whole and not just some silly taglines and a number score. Numbers = pointless.

I'll take a Brad Shoemaker review over a Adam Sessler one any day. I don't mind Sessler but, besides maybe Uc2, the video reviews of his that I've watched on the G4 podcast channel on iTunes have seemed skewed towards the 360. I have a pretty good idea that Uncharted 3 is going to be deserving of at least a 9, just on the videos I've seen and the time I spent seeing it and playing it at the event. Couple that with what I have played of Gears 3 and if somehow Gears is better than Uncharted 3 then he loses all credibility.

Plus, his review is on par with Eurogamer. They have notoriously lower reviews than pretty much every other outlet. Again, lost credibility.

Maybe Uncharted 3 is an 8, but I highly doubt it.

Are reviews opinions? Of course. But you have to wonder when 90 out of 100 reviews say the game is a 95/100 rated game. What game were those other guys playing? Or what biases do they have?

 

[Twigg4075]

I guess I'm missing what is common knowledge about it. Is it because they use Xbox 360 box art when the game is multiplatform? I'm just trying to understand what the impetus for this statement is. Is it because they gave Reach and Gears 5/5? Or is it because they use the 360 to review multiplatform games? It just seems like such a crazy accusation because it seems almost solely based on the fact that the 360's big gun got a 5/5 there and the PS3's got a 4/5 (even though Resistance, LBP2 and the Ico/Shadow pack both got 5/5 as well -- and shit they gave DC Universe a 4/5 and no one 360 biased could give that steaming pile of shit a 4).

I agree for the most part about forming one's own opinion but I still think that reviews are fun to read and can be a nice way to entertain (I don't find that they sway me either way most times -- if I want to play a game I'm going to play it and give it a fair shake). Anyway, sorry to veer off topic.

Pretty much. No way either Reach or Gears 3 are 5/5. No chance. Gears is a great game but not near perfect. And Halo was pretty meh. If it wasn't Halo no one would've given a shit. Actually, most people didn't and don't. Hell, that was the only Halo game I ever remember where people stopped playing it a few weeks after launch.

And yeah, ONLY playing 360 multiplatform games always makes me wonder. At this time in this generation, the split between whether a game is better on 360 or PS3 is probably close to 50/50. Most of the time the differences are minute but they are there. So if an outlet always chooses Xbox over PS3 when reviewing a game, that's just ridiculous. It's one of the main reasons I couldn't give a fuck about Kotaku's reviews. Crecente and those others clowns are so pro 360 it;s sickening. Please tell me that Sessler reviewed the 360 version of L.A. Noire for instance. If he did I refuse to acknowledge his existence.

Edit: Just found his L.A. Noire review and it appears to be the PS3 version so he lives to see another review day in my eyes.

 

[SethMode]

I'm not going to rehash point by point, but I think it's a little silly that a site is Xbox friendly because it gives Halo and Gears 5/5. Doesn't it conflic with your argument about it being weird that someone is giving a game a 4/5 when most are giving it a 5/5?

I can't speak to it being bad to review on one system consistenly because I prefer 98% of the multiplatform games I play on the 360 because, as I said, I really don't care for the DS3 and I love the feel of the 360 controller. So I can imagine if I were reviewing something I would prefer to play it on the controller I prefer as well, as long as the experience is similar.

I am a little baffled that you keep talking about lost credibility based on your preference of games. So, because you expect to like UC3 more than Gears or Halo, any reviewer that liked them more has no credibility. WTF? This is more metacritic nonsense at its finest. Because a game has a 95 score, someone who scores it lower has no credibility? And let's just ignore the fact that sites with actual GOOD review systems (Giantbomb and Xplay) get pigeon-holed by a number value of 4/5 = 80 on stupid Metacritic, when the point is to actually READ the review, not just grab the number and add it to the overall score.

Okay, NOW I'm done derailing.

 

[Buzzman]

Seth, what is it about the written part of my reviews that you don't like. I always feel I do a decent job of describing the game and its mechanics rather than trying to compare it to other games. Its the score parts that's so damn hard and stupid because I really cant justify what the difference between a 8.5 in graphics and a 9.

 

[SethMode]

Seth, what is it about the written part of my reviews that you don't like. I always feel I do a decent job of describing the game and its mechanics rather than trying to compare it to other games. Its the score parts that's so damn hard and stupid because I really cant justify what the difference between a 8.5 in graphics and a 9.

I am mostly giving you a hard time, but what I don't like about any reviewers anywhere is exactly what you said: you can't justify what is an 8.5 or a 9. I just think that that scale cheapens any review, and it's why I don't read a lot of reviews that don't utilize a basic overall score system (my favorite is out of 5 with no half points, but a 10 is okay as long as it isn't breaking down individual categories -- graphics, sound, etc...). I just think that system cheapens what is actually written in the review and steers focus to silly things like you said, "what is actually the difference between a 8.5 or 9 in graphics?"

Also, to further the discussion about this (particularly to Twigg's point about credibility), I thought that Patrick Klepek's article about this was fantastic and did a better job of pointing out my overall position on it (albeit without the number shit).

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/when-a-mostly-positive-review-becomes-controversial/3764/

 

[JayDizzle]

Trophy List:

http://www.ps3trophies.org/game/uncharted-3-drakes-deception/trophies/

 

[jms493]

Got the game today :smug:

 

[Bomberooski]

So jealous of you jms

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[Twigg4075]

Got the game today :smug:

My buddy got his copy too. I'm stuck at work and the ship tracking still shows out for delivery on the truck.

I don't think I've ever been more hyped for a game in my life.

 

[Swarley]

Damn you people lol.

 

[Twigg4075]

If it doesn't get delivered today I might cry. :atb:

 

[Twigg4075]

So of course they try to deliver it one hour before I get home and refused to deliver it without a "Direct Signature". But they had no problem leaving my cousin's and buddy's copy on their porches.

I'm in serious rage mode right now. I swear if I see a Fed Ex truck I'm going to ram it off the road.