tomchick's Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception review

I still remember when Zig's review of Uncharted 2 prompted 100+ replies, and he gave that an 8/10.

I like this review quite a bit. It's been almost two years since I played Uncharted 2, but I remember praising it for its revelatory use of set pieces. The big review cliche surrounding that game was that "it feels like you're playing an action movie" etc., so your approach here -- taking a logical perspective and noting the inconsistencies Uncharted 3 has, both with the previous games and with the world Naughty Dog have created -- definitely resonates with me. I haven't played Uncharted 3 yet and I doubt these things would irritate me as much as they irritated you, but you've made valid points against a series that's known for meshing cinematics with gameplay.

Of course, I know Mr. Chick doesn't actually hang around the forums, so this post is really intended to act as a counterpoint to what I'm anticipating will be a massive influx of angry fanboys over the next few days. The countdown commences...

I'm playing the game already, Mike, and I have to say I find myself decidedly underwhelmed. This, despite liking the first game, and LOVING the second.

Edit: Just properly read the review, and it's one of Tom's best--a great piece. The score seems a bit low, but the analysis is spot on.

LOL @ the Facebook 'fans', most of whom I'd wager have not actually PLAYED Uncharted 3 yet, yet choose to get butthurt anyway. Yes, we know you loved Uncharted 2--so did I--it doesn't mean the sequel is good.

I think the reason I'm having so much trouble buying into the Uncharted 3 hype is because most of the reviews are bigging up the same qualities that made Uncharted 2 so great, but the reviewers are acting like this is the first time we've seen them. One of the reasons I predicted that the third game would be disappointing was because the second one set the bar so high for what it did well (spectacular action movie set pieces and whatnot) that there's really no place to go except to offer more of the same. I don't have any trouble believing that Uncharted 3 is a great game, or even that it's on par with the last one, but that doesn't make it best-thing-ever, game-of-the-year material.

Again, I haven't played it. That's just my impression as someone who loved Uncharted 2.

I feel like this isn't the most objective review I've read but it's a well done opinion piece and you explain yourself well, at least.

Sounds like if you enjoyed Uncharted 2 then this one looks at the VERY least to be a decent experience. I can't say though yet as I haven't picked it up. But a 4/10? Christ...I have to ask -- what did you think of Uncharted 2?

EDIT: This quote is where I think most of your readers will start rolling their eyes,

"Why don't I just cut to the chase and play a better shooter without all the breaks for something that clearly wishes it was a movie? Why is my decent third-person shooter so bogged down by an overlong, ill-fitting, poorly told, and ultimately uninteresting story?"

Based on this logic, UC2 is also fairly sub-par, but it's not. On paper the story is terrible and overdone, the dialogue is typical hollywood fair, the shooting does nothing to set itself above others and is in fact fairly mediocre. As a package however, UC2 was an incredibly presented video game interpretation of a popcorn treasure hunting flick, and set a standard for what the medium is capable of. Many of the flaws you mentioned for UC3 were indeed the charm of UC2, an so you're understandably alienating a lot of your readers.

I won't say you're wrong though, I haven't played it, after all.

Sadly, people are going to jump on the score you gave this game and use that as ammunition to ignore your valid points.

The screenshots look very pretty and I'd love to hear whether the graphics all fit together in motion. I'd like to know whether they succeeded or failed in making you feel like you were in those locations; a couple well-phrased sentences could have achieved this. Even if you stuck with a basic premise of "no matter how good it looks, the level design keeps it from being interesting" a tip of the hat to this discussion almost feels neccessary in a game that's gotten so much attention for its visuals. Because some people WILL play this, and ENJOY it, for the visual appeal. I'd love to know whether that appeal truly exists.

I don't think the point about the game's visual appeal is all that relevant. Uncharted games have always looked awesome--people know they're going to get a pretty game. It's status quo, if anything.

In fact, it's less than that, because Uncharted 3 doesn't look markedly better than Uncharted 2, so much of the wow factor is removed. With the novelty of "OMG this is like playing out a movie" worn thin, we're left wondering if the game functions as well as it should. It does not, and the review fleshes this out in great detail.

Mike
That's the impression that I got from it, too. I gave UC2 an 8/10. Thought it was an overall above-average (but not great) game that was blessed with amazing presentation, graphics, etc. The sort of thing that's an awesome experience to play through, but after I was done playing it, I didn't have any desire to do so again. I'd seen all the pretty stuff. For me, Final Fantasy XIII is like that, but a bit worse, as it takes much, much longer to play. UC3 doesn't have the "awesome-looking" mystique to make it appealing, because I've been there and done that with this franchise.

In reality, all I hope is that the one dude who took issue with Zig's 8/10 comes back with his offer to tell the reviewer that if they sat down together and played it with random dude explaining everything awesome about the game, his opinion will be changed. That was pure gold.

I won't say you're wrong though,

At the risk of adding fuel to the drama flames, bullshit, that's exactly what you just said. You danced around it by talking primarily about UC2, but that's what you were getting at.

EDIT: Also, I blocked off-site Facebook content shortly after instant personalization reared its ugly little head. Can someone screenshot this alluded-to butthurt so I may enjoy it?

Many of the flaws you mentioned for UC3 were indeed the charm of UC2

No, no that's not right.

Where UC2 is charming, UC3 is obnoxious and just plain dumb. Despite wanting to give UC2 a 9/10, easy--I am actually struggling to keep at playing UC3. I'm at Chapter 7 wondering what the point of this all is.

At present there are 46 Facebook comments, Will. Most of them are negative, some more interesting than others. They don't all fit on a single screen... or two... or three. The consensus seems to be that this review was financed by Microsoft, who apparently is so hard up that the company has now started paying sites and reviewers to sabotage Sony by posting negative reviews for Sony exclusives. It's absurd, of course, but apparently easier for some people to believe than the reality: some people just don't adore Uncharted 3.

For the record, I consider it likely that when I finally get around to playing Uncharted 3, I will enjoy it somewhere around twice as much as Tom did. I still felt that he wrote a terrific review that made some points that definitely need to be made. If we're going to ask for our video games to have a lot more of the story/video element, then we should probably demand that they follow the conventions of good storytelling and remain true to their characters and world. To me, that was what Tom was really saying (as well as that Uncharted 3 didn't do a good job at that).

Here. I'm just going to hyperlink it instead of embed it. The image is kind of fuzzy as is, so you might have to zoom in to read it properly.

pretty much the same old crap

EDIT: Well, that's just a small portion of it then. Still, I imagine the rest of it is much the same BS.

Bahaha. Thanks for the snippit and summary WQ/Jason.

Some people. Yeesh.

Well I guess you can put all that Microsoft money into generous stipends for the news team, hey? xD

Just remember to take everything you see posted via Facebook with a large grain of salt. Remember, this is the online community so stupid that they can't figure out how to use the internet in the first place.

It's funny how no one cries bias when someone writes a positive review. Had Tom had given a 10 to a universally disliked game, he wouldn't have gotten a single off-site comment. Basically: you're so biased = I'm not mature enough to not be offended when someone doesn't have the same tastes as me.

Dammit, Jason. I forgot that people can comment on Facebook now, too. I guess we won't be seeing the forums flooded after all.

Trying to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Fanboys are hilarious.

Suskie, the upside is that we are now free to sit here in our ivory internet tower, cackling maniacally at the mob below who are yelling and screaming for our heads, and casually discussing to ourselves how much more civilized we are than them.

Pass me another cigar, would you?

Haha. Part of me will miss the fanboy drama on the forums because it's hilarious. But most of me is glad we're not bringing that crap to the site directly. Or at least I hope not.

I will, however, continue to insist that people's hypocrisy when it comes to understanding the meaning of an "honest" review will forever sadden, infuriate, frustrate and sicken me all at the same time.

Seriously. The review's negativity IS what makes it honest, in a way. Because it's going against the grain and not just sucking up to the game publishers But, at the same time, it's not being deliberately negative, either. Just merely expressing the author's opinion of a game. If people actually READ reviews instead of just looked at the scores, they might be able to actually comprehend this. (And, I should say, read them without having their minds made up based on the score they saw or general tone of the review, but rather, reading and analyzing fully what the author is trying to argue.)

Of course, the majority people are idiots and we can't expect anything more from them than this, I suppose.

P.S. I am curious as to where the source article came from on Facebook. The one that all the negative comments are posting to. Since the one on HG's FB page are being deleted, I kind of assumed it was someone from HG itself that had posted the link to their page to draw the attention.

EDIT: What Will said. Hahaha.

Nothing stopping you from joining the argument on the facebook side. :P

@CaptainHammer

Fair enough, I did dance around the fact that I do disagree with the review. It was just my attempt to take a step back because I didn't like how I was judging a review of a game I haven't touched. I did notice how we could tear UC2 apart on similar standards however, that's all I was trying to get across. How deeply those standards have been lowered is the issue this review addresses, and I suppose I'll reserve any further thoughts until I get my hands on the game.

But reviews are written for people who haven't played a game before, and the rage from facebook is completely rational since it's so rare we get a franchise that takes such an extreme downturn (e.g. Devil May Cry -> Devil May Cry 2). I understand their disbelief. If there's anything I could say, perhaps the review should of talked more about the dips in quality compared to Uncharted 2, rather than bring in Arkham Asylum, Dark Void, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc...

Unfortunately I won't have time for UC3 for quite a bit =[

Favorite Facebook comment: "You sir are you bad of douche." Well, shit. Chick had better hang it up, then.

I actually joined just to say how much I agree with the review. Though 4 is harsh (at least a 5 or 6 for graphics eye candy I say is abit better) I think the review is spot on in terms of the climbing and shooting parts of the gameplay.

I've always joked that this series was basically one where you press up and then shoot things. So it was nice to see someone agree with that after what I felt has been alot of overhype for a series that offers a very pretty but empty gamplay experience. And then after seeing the 10 review for Arkham City I think I found a new site for actual trustworthy reviews.

I will say the 5 on L.A. Noir is really off since the facial animation and story were so strong, can't be perfect I guess...

...the rage from facebook is completely rational

I don't think it is. Let's get this straight: people get angry because someone who has played a game they haven't has an opinion on that game... and they feel they might not agree with that opinion, were they in a position to actually form one? It makes no sense. At all.

I understand their disbelief.

Disbelief, I can get behind. I get that it's hard to fathom how such a universally loved game could be followed up with something that's so... not good.

...perhaps the review should of talked more about the dips in quality compared to Uncharted 2, rather than bring in Arkham Asylum, Dark Void, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc...

I agree with this. The lack of comparing and contrasting to Uncharted 2 is where the review could stand to improve. But it's still a great review.

I disagree. I rather like that the review tries to make Uncharted 3 stand on its own for the most part. Because frankly, sequels shouldn't have to be propped up by their predecessors.

Propped up? You don't think comparing U3 to U2 while bashing it would have been helpful? That way, readers would know if the writer hates 3, or if the writer simply hates the Uncharted experience as a whole.