Insider: Uncharted on PS4 To Have Gameplay = TLOU cutscenes

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by ConanTheStoner (7546 posts) -

I bet UC4 will look fucking amazing. Definitely some "graphics king" shit. That team on the PS4 will be amazeballs.

All that aside, I'll never understand the infatuation with that series. I played 1, 2 and a very little bit of 3. At their best, they're mildly entertaining games.

#102 Posted by funsohng (28994 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:

@funsohng said:

@I_can_haz said:

@funsohng said:

@I_can_haz said:

@funsohng said:

Aren't people tired of Uncharted-like games?

Well considering the last 2 Uncharted games both scored 90+ on metacritic and got an insane number of GOTY awards I guess no is the answer.


People still care about metacritic here?

Yea. Metacritic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the stupid fanboy opinions in here.

Every time Uncharted is mentioned you get the jealous fanboys talking about how it sucks and has no gameplay. Meanwhile the Uncharted games have more GOTY awards than any games released last gen. Shows how idiotic lems and other fanboys on this board are. That's why we need some kind of standard for judging games and so far the best standard on the internet is metacritic since it averages the opinions of all the professional reviewers out there and leaves the shitty fanboy opinions out.

Ah look at this. Few months off SW, and I'm a lem.

Contrary to your delusional mind, I actually own more games on PS3 than 360 + I always said UC2 had one of the best level designs last gen.

I just find that in next gen, we need something more than a heavily-scripted shooter we have seen so much already in the last gen.

Also, I disregard metacritic for many reasons.

1) Metacritic's method of aggregation is not transparent and sometimes incomprehensible

2) Metacritic refuses to change its scores after one of the websites change the score (i.e. Natural Selection 2)

3) I just don't consider giving numerical scores to a work of art and deeming that number as representative of the said work of art appropriate or effective.

4) Metacritic includes some of the most unknown, clearly biased websites as long as they have scores.

5) Gaming journalism is mostly a joke, and gaming reviews nowadays are so inefficient that review "scores" from early in the release doesn't do the game justice.6) Each reviewing sites have different scales and standards, yet Metacritic conveniently ignores them and forces averages.

7) Metacritic and scored reviews in general are the primes causes for the gamers and "fanboys" not reading the actual reviews.

so before calling someone a "fanboy" why don't you recheck your unchallenged faith to so-called "standard" that is Metacritic, because if you think at least a bit, you will know the system is flawed and problematic.

1. I didn't call you a lem.

2. Owning more than one console doesn't stop anyone from being a fanboy. Blackace is one of the biggest lemmings on SW and he owns a PS4 according to him. Numerous cows and lems here own more than one console. Same thing with hermits and sheep.

3. Metacritic>>>>>>>>>>individual reviews>>>>>>>>>fanboy opinions on SW. I'd rather have the aggregated reviews than one single man's opinion. It's better that way. The same way if I was going to buy a car I'd take the opinions of several pro reviewers before buying the car instead of going out and asking my neighbor about how he feels about the car. He could say the car is absolutely awesome and it will end up being a piece of shit that breaks down on me after a month or he could say the car is shit and it turns out to be the best car money can buy. Opinions are like assholes, every one has them. That's why places like metacrtic were invented, to average out opinions so that the you can pick the best based on everyone's opinions and not have to deal with shitty individual opinions.

I do agree with you that giving numerical scores are shit though. I also agree that metacritic isn't perfect and takes the opinions of biased websites into account but at the end of the day it's the best option we've got for rating games based on everyone's opinions, and I'd rather have the average of everyone's opinion than the opinion of a single guy who may be totally wrong.

Oh fine, you didn't call me lem. I'll just let it go of the fact that it was heavily implied.

Problem with Metacritic is that it's not "aggregated reviews". It's aggregated score. And when Metacritic can't get its standard across the board, it's pointless to have one, let alone be "the best". Scores don't tell you shit. Read the damn reviews, and if there is one thing Metacritic does right is that it keeps all the reviews in one place. From there, you have to choose which one's trustworthy. Metacritic should NEVER be the standard at its current state, and should NEVER be considered reliable way of deciding whether a game is good or not.

What gaming needs is a system more akin to Rotten Tomatoes. RT isn't perfect, but at least it's better, and more reflective of the actual review itself and not the damned "scores". Then again, gaming journalism is a joke anyway.