On Games, Reviews, And Criticism -- Part 1

Game criticism is fine, but a review is not where that criticism should be said. A review is suppose to be just that a review of the game. It should talk about what the game is, is it open world, brief explanation on what the story is about, what type of gameplay it has, not what you think is good and bad about a the game.

The criticism of a game should have it's own article, at the least it's own section under the actual review. That is where the review should talk about the good and the bad and what that could do in the future.

By the way great read and I'm looking forward to the next part.

Yes, more like this. Good job Patrick.

Why does this have to be divided up?

@Blubba said:

Why does this have to be divided up?

We went back-and-forth three distinct times over the course of a few months. He's busy finishing Mass Effect 3, after all.

@Hugh_Jazz said:

I haven't played Uncharted 3 or any other Uncharted game for that matter, but I was of the opinion that the criticisms levelled against it by Simon Parkin had to do with the linearity directly affecting gameplay in a way that hadn't happened as much in the earlier games. Namely, if you didn't make a jump exactly how and when you were supposed to you wouldn't make it, kind of like a QTE. In Modern Warfare, for example, the linearity of the game doesn't force you to edit your actions in the same way. If you stand still, dudes will keep running at you, and you will keep shooting them. The game doesn't further penalize you.

It seems to me like there's a pretty big difference between these two series that Manveer Heir kinda failed to touch upon, or recognise. Or am I all wrong?

Exactly this.

After beating Uncharted 3 myself, the problem isn't that the game is linear, in the sense that you don't have branching paths.

The problem is that the game is SO linear that you are almost like an actor in a movie, and if you don't hit your queues, they call cut and start the scene over. In a game like Modern Warfare, you have a relative kind of freedom between one script trigger and the next, but in Uncharted, you are barely even making decisions anymore, you simply have to jump now, run, kill that rocket launcher guy, etc.

Like, imagine a new Pac man game where you automatically lose at every intersection if you do not take the 1 winning critical path.

Let's hope this guy's hatred of linearity extends to his own game, because it looks like the plot will be pretty damn linear... I hope I'm wrong, though.

Patrick, I'm really happy that there's stuff like this on the site. You're contributing to the reason I put my subscription down in the first place: quality internet. Keep going.

Great stuff Patrick! Interesting discussion/conversation.

Good stuff Patrick! Love your writing!

Great article Patrick.

But it seems to me that, since this a conversation about the coexistence of scores and criticism the logical solution is to stop giving scores. I think that would completely remove this issue from our minds.

I want to see a lot more articles like this, I think you both present interesting arguments (and damnit, now I want cake and pie).

I disagree with Manveer though - separating criticism from a review is a nice principle in theory, but then we all end up reading twice as many articles about the same game. Does the review then just become the shallow number/rating without a rationale for it and conversely, the criticism becomes the thoughtful, well-written piece that nobody reads because Metacritic can't quantify that?

I will also say that as I have gotten older and the industry grows up too, I find myself caring a lot more about the criticism than the actual review score. When I was younger and could only afford to save up 6 weeks of allowance for one game, I would only want to buy 9/10, 10/10, 5/5 games. Now that I have more disposable income and freedom with my choices, I will buy, play, and even enjoy the games that reviewers don't necessarily rate highly, but have more interesting critiques (Catherine is a great recent example of this). The reviews on Giant Bomb are both reviews and (I think) great criticisms of every game they choose to evaluate, even if I disagree with them, because I know a lot of thought went into producing that copy and star rating.

One last thought: 4/5 on one game does not equal 4/5 of another, I agree with Patrick that comparing Fruit Ninja Kinect and Skyward Sword like that is unfair to everyone. BUT what comparing 4/5 does help with is the purchasing decision - not on value, but the "Yes" or "No" to playing the game. Fruit Ninja and Skyward Sword are definitely not on the same quality level and I detest it so much when somebody points out when XYZ game is better, equivalent, or worse to another game because the scores are different. Not how that works, duder: read the critique and judge based on mechanics, your personal experience, etc.

@danieljd said:

Yes, more like this. Good job Patrick.

Wait, so a review should have a score since it is objective but if it is subjective then it shouldn't? Aren't all reviews by their nature subjective. I mean, I like Cakes, but I don't like pies, so if i rated a pie a 1 out of 5 or a cake a 5 out of 5, then is my reviews are void, since these are subjective ratings? And the same could be applied to well anything, since I have thoughts and feelings on most things as do most people (and reviewers, whom happen to be people too). And isn't that the point of a review, to find out what a certain person with known biases thinks about a product?

Love this Patrick, keep this stuff coming!

People not getting that already shaky analogy while clinging to it adamantly is making me lose my appetite...

@Icon said:

@Christoffer said:

@Icon said:

I disagree with his, and Manveer's, stance that reviews and criticism should be separated, however. They are one in the same. A review is criticism.

I don't think you get his point at all. Ones opinion of a game (or any kind of media) is never the sum of it's parts. Good music can be highly regarded even if the sound isn't top notch. Litterature isn't worse if there's a few typos. I think readers can misunderstand the quality, or the purpose, of a game if the reviewers get into such detail.

Also, you need to untangle that "pie inside of a cake" allegory. Do you suggest Uncharted claimed to be an open-world game inside a linear game? I don't get it?

I think you have a misunderstanding of what criticism is. That's okay. A lot of people do. That's why this argument hasn't stopped since it began in October. A critical work does not judge another work by the 'sum of its parts.' It simply relates the merit of the work to the reader. Kind of sounds like a review, doesn't it? There are certainly different levels of critique, but you won't find typos discussed in criticism unless we're talking about textual criticism, in which case it is very important.

The issue behind the original review wasn't that it covered trivial aspects like 'a few typos' or the fidelity of the music. Nor was Manveer's issue with the reductionist nature of some reviews; that's something he now finds 'abhorrent' (In fact, Manveer seems to shrug off all attempts to compartmentalize a review, but strangely holds tight on the score). Manveer's issue with the review was that it went beyond the game, giving the game real world context, while still giving the game a score. His distinction - his only distinction - is that reviews have scores, criticism does not. He also states that criticism is objective, while reviews are subjective, but that's just silly. While there are objective techniques used to develop an argument, at the end of the day, it is still an argument and an argument is only as strong as the evidence. If the objective measurements are used poorly, it is a poor argument.

As for the analogy, Uncharted 3 the game is the pie, while Uncharted 3 the linear, cinematic experience is the cake. Parkin claims that the cake gets in the way of the pie, or rather, that the game's tight scripted narrative intrudes on the exciting gameplay far too often.

You say I misunderstand critisism and then acknowledge there's different levels of critique? There's your reason why this debate has been going on since October. There is no standard and that's the problem. Where's the line between what you can measure (objectivity) and can't measure (subjectivity)? Why isn't the linearity in Uncharted criticised on the same level as any other linear game? When you say Parkin explains his point I presume you mean this:

"but, at the same time, beneath the spectacle there's a nagging feeling that your presence in the scene is an irritation rather than a preference. Your freedom of choice risks ruining the shot. Indeed, throughout the game, if you jump into an area you are not supposed to visit, Drake will crumple on the floor dead, Naughty Dog switching role from movie director to vindictive god. That is not your predestined path: Game Over."

He speaks of a "feeling" (subjectivity) but can't argue beyond that. Can you tell me why this doesn't concern CoD, Limbo or Portal 2? If I was a game developer, I would think this critisism was unfair and irrelevant to any gamer who happens to love cinematic and linear games.

I would say that word of mouth affects what I purchase. That tends to lead me to reviews, critics, demos, and trailers.

I never held any interest in Saint's Row The Third, until it's fans started to evangelize.

It was then that I looked for critical information. I'm not sure if "word of mouth" would generally fall under "criticism" or a "review", but I'd say it's as important as standard journalism.

This is why I am glad that Patrick is part of GiantBomb. And this is why I am glad that I am paid member of GiantBomb too.

Being a computer scientist, I am hoping maybe the Bombsquad would start writing articles about the tech out there (e.g. bump mapping, toon shading, etc), in layman term, but still peppered with some technicalities.

Or maybe someone would focus on the business aspect of it (e.g. licensing Speed Tree, or CRI Middleware, etc).

I assume that average gamers are not young kids anymore, and they would also be interested in other aspects of it (i.e. tech, business, etc)

Anyway. Great job Patrick.

Great Stuff Patrick

This is an excellent start to what I'm expecting to be an excellent series, and I would most definitely like to see more of this sort of thing.

In regards to criticism versus reviewing I've personally given up on seeking out opinions on games. Broadband Internet and sites like Youtube have exponentially decreased the relevance of the written word for myself. Just watching some kid do a "Let's Play" series gives me a direct and visual understanding of how a game functions and if I may like it. Quick Looks as well, or even something like TNT, have provided a new and rawer outlet of information regarding games that purpose-made trailers, previews and even reviews can deliver. In fact, despite loving the Giant Bomb crew's opinions (even when I vehemently disagree) a 10-20 minute video of a game actually being played does far more for me than any review or written piece can. That's not even touching on point scales and ratings, which are wholly inaccurate when trying to encapsulate someone's opinion. Review scores are a necessary evil for the game enthusiast press and not particularly useful beyond a cursory glance.

That all said, game criticism should be embraced and nurtured. The video game industry, at least in its current form, is still a relatively young phenomena and subsequently still rough around the edges. Game's started as toys and diversions and have quickly over a few short decades come to become a true story telling medium and an outlet for ideas. With this comes critiquing, for how else do we improve on games (beyond the mechanical)? The issue is that criticism and reviewing should honestly be separate things despite kind of going hand-in-hand. Separating them is difficult though because of the personal and interactive nature of games compared to other mediums. Namely, games have "working parts" that can be openly judged in a substantive and direct manner. Anyone can tell if controls are off or if there are game breaking bugs. These things can be reviewed easily. It's the more esoteric and subjective game elements (just as with film, music and books) that can draw criticism that really doesn't hold up well to review. I thought the action set pieces of that game were over the top and preposterous, whereas you relished in their outrageous insanity. This is where critiquing becomes relevant and moves away from basic "reviewing."

It's the simple concept of objectiveness in light of subjectiveness. All in all, reviewing and criticism do tend to be similar but they serve different purposes. They're two sides of a dissimilar coin. Another issue that also makes reviewing/critiquing discussions difficult is that some people just want games to be fun. To be diversions and toys, whereas others want the medium to become more, and this is where criticism becomes mostly relevant.

@Christoffer said:

@Icon said:

@Christoffer said:

@Icon said:

I disagree with his, and Manveer's, stance that reviews and criticism should be separated, however. They are one in the same. A review is criticism.

I don't think you get his point at all. Ones opinion of a game (or any kind of media) is never the sum of it's parts. Good music can be highly regarded even if the sound isn't top notch. Litterature isn't worse if there's a few typos. I think readers can misunderstand the quality, or the purpose, of a game if the reviewers get into such detail.

Also, you need to untangle that "pie inside of a cake" allegory. Do you suggest Uncharted claimed to be an open-world game inside a linear game? I don't get it?

I think you have a misunderstanding of what criticism is. That's okay. A lot of people do. That's why this argument hasn't stopped since it began in October. A critical work does not judge another work by the 'sum of its parts.' It simply relates the merit of the work to the reader. Kind of sounds like a review, doesn't it? There are certainly different levels of critique, but you won't find typos discussed in criticism unless we're talking about textual criticism, in which case it is very important.

The issue behind the original review wasn't that it covered trivial aspects like 'a few typos' or the fidelity of the music. Nor was Manveer's issue with the reductionist nature of some reviews; that's something he now finds 'abhorrent' (In fact, Manveer seems to shrug off all attempts to compartmentalize a review, but strangely holds tight on the score). Manveer's issue with the review was that it went beyond the game, giving the game real world context, while still giving the game a score. His distinction - his only distinction - is that reviews have scores, criticism does not. He also states that criticism is objective, while reviews are subjective, but that's just silly. While there are objective techniques used to develop an argument, at the end of the day, it is still an argument and an argument is only as strong as the evidence. If the objective measurements are used poorly, it is a poor argument.

As for the analogy, Uncharted 3 the game is the pie, while Uncharted 3 the linear, cinematic experience is the cake. Parkin claims that the cake gets in the way of the pie, or rather, that the game's tight scripted narrative intrudes on the exciting gameplay far too often.

You say I misunderstand critisism and then acknowledge there's different levels of critique? There's your reason why this debate has been going on since October. There is no standard and that's the problem. Where's the line between what you can measure (objectivity) and can't measure (subjectivity)? Why isn't the linearity in Uncharted criticised on the same level as any other linear game? When you say Parkin explains his point I presume you mean this:

"but, at the same time, beneath the spectacle there's a nagging feeling that your presence in the scene is an irritation rather than a preference. Your freedom of choice risks ruining the shot. Indeed, throughout the game, if you jump into an area you are not supposed to visit, Drake will crumple on the floor dead, Naughty Dog switching role from movie director to vindictive god. That is not your predestined path: Game Over."

He speaks of a "feeling" (subjectivity) but can't argue beyond that. Can you tell me why this doesn't concern CoD, Limbo or Portal 2? If I was a game developer, I would think this critisism was unfair and irrelevant to any gamer who happens to love cinematic and linear games.

It should have affected those scores. It probably only occurred to him in this instance because how blatantly similar to existing movie the property already feels (and aims to feel). Portal 2 is in essence a puzzle game, so having only one way forward at least ties the gameplay to the story; some grace to Limbo for being an allegorical march towards the inevitability of death grafted onto a black-and-white platformer, overrated plaudit-winning be damned. The two parts of what combine to make "a video game" aren't busy stepping all over each other's toes. Plenty of people have that criticism for Call of Duty.

I agree with one point that Manveer Heir makes, and that is, if you're going to use your review score as a vehicle for criticizing a mechanic or style that is very prevalent in games, make sure you do it consistently. Don't single out the highest profile game you can find and make an example of it. Also, make sure you do it because your issue made you enjoy the game less and not just because you had some problem with the mechanic or style philosophically.

Thank You Patrick and thank you GiantBomb. Articles like This one is why I love getting my gaming news here. Not only do you entertain and have fun, but you deliver serious and informative articles that challenge both the game developer's, the game consumer's and the game journalist's (including your own) long term beliefs, Bias and assumptions. Keep it up

I think more of the responsibility these days has to fall unto us, the readers, enthusiasts, whatever, to handle criticism in an adult manner; not let the discussion run away and become a shallow talking point "THIS IS WHY THIS IS A BAD GAME."

I've seen it happen so much over the past 2 years. These things that writers just want to articulate more (or sometimes a writer is just looking for a hook to hang his review on). The length of Shadows of The Damned, the running sequences in Uncharted 3, the encounters in Alan Wake. These games do a whole lot of things. They all achieve what they set out to do (at least I feel they did), yet whenever I read discussion about these games on forums, the topic was dominated by these singular things. Almost as if they were a meme. The internet's obsession with memes strikes again!

Oh, and great article, too.

I think you can boil this down for the Uncharted linearity issue, like this:

Linearity, like all things, is only a problem when it doesn't work. In Uncharted 2, in Modern Warfare 2, etc., linearity works beautifully. You're taken on a journey that you don't want to deviate from. You don't feel like you're just being pushed down a corridor; you just feel compelled to continue down the path that has been crafted for you. In Uncharted 3, linearity is done poorly. There's a chase scene early on, for instance, that I kept dying at. You're supposed to run a very narrow path, but it doesn't look narrow. I made rights when I should've made lefts, lefts when I should've made rights. Each time I made a mistake, it was an instant-fail and I had to replay part of the chase over again. This is the kind of stuff Simon Parkin was running into, which can ruin an experience like Uncharted 3.

But there's also stuff like how different the set pieces feel from Uncharted 2's. In Uncharted 2, Drake climbs up a train precariously hanging over the edge of a cliff. He's alone in this. In Uncharted 3, Drake climbs up cargo precariously hanging out of a plane. People are shooting at him, and he has to return fire while he climbs. Another scene has him trying to escape a sinking boat. People are shooting at him, throwing grenades at him, trying to punch him. It's a needless distraction, and in fact, actually detracts from the tension of the scene. If there were guys shooting at you during a scene like this in Uncharted 2, like the collapsing building, there were only ever one or two guys, easily dispatched, just there to add a bit of color to the scene, but not to add difficulty. Uncharted 3 doesn't have that kind of restraint, and so it blunders.

It's as simple as saying, "Well, Uncharted 2 and Modern Warfare 2 did linearity right. Uncharted 3 didn't." And that's why you get the criticism of Uncharted 3, and not those games.

I love these kind of meta-industry discussions. Keep them coming.

So Patrick is 32?

...

...waoh.

I thought he was a very (very!) mature and smart 24 year old. Maybe he made a deal with the devil, or something.

By the way, I give this article a 9.6/10.

Excellent article/feature. I love insider stuff like this and I think the best way for the games industry to move forward is with open discussion. I also like the interview done with Team Meat as well. Good job, Patrick!

As with the discrepancy between criticism and review, I agree with Manveer to a point. In my opinion criticizing different types of games for the same feature is mostly invalid. For example: MW3 is an FPS, UC3 is a third person action/shooter. In an FPS, linearity can be forgiven more because of the corridor-ish nature by which they originated. In a third person game, those originated by having more freedom of movement. It's somewhat apples and oranges. Yes, both MW3 and UC3 have taken on a more cinematic approach to their presentation, but we're talking about the gameplay/genre and how it was affected by being more restrictive in its activity.

Great article as ever Patrick! Keep it up.

This sort of dialogue between press and developer is fascinating and should be opened up more often.

EDIT: I like that the Uncharted 3 review link leads to a review surrounded by an ad for a film called Troll Hunter.

Regardless of if this guy was trolling or not, I got a kick out of that fact!

To me, it seems like gamers are so starved for actual journalism, that they'll happily get in line to praise an article like this one. I like Patrick's work, don't get me wrong.

@patrickklepek said:

I don't need my opinions validated, I need my opinions challenged.

This will never happen on the internet, where discussion about anything and everything is just one massive circle-jerk. Look at Reddit for example.

A good read Patrick, keep it up.

What comes to pies and cakes, in my opinion a game that offers choices and offers amazing cinematic experience for each of those choices should score better than a game where you run on a linear path resulting in a same quality cinematic experience. I don't think anyone should buy a game based on review scores but if the publishers pay so much attention to metacritic- they should be notified when someone is doing a better job than the developers or creative directors under them. Pointing out whats wrong in a game allows them to fix these things and not just blatantly copy what their competitors are doing.

Great piece. I absolutely agree with Manveer that linear and open-world games are simply different styles of games which each have their own place, but I think the reviewing of a game and criticism of games in general sometimes intertwine in a way that writers can't get away from and this leaves them in a difficult position.
 
A reviewer can only give an honest opinion of a game based on their experience of it, but what if their experience was impacted by some fundamental issue with the medium in its current form? Do they pretend it isn't an issue and try to review the game as though it didn't affect their experience, or do they deviate out of the normal review pattern into a potentially wider industry critique?
 
Sadly, I think issues like these are beyond what a lot of big gaming sites out there are currently dealing with. Many sites still seem to have trouble with not using the full 1-10 review scale and doing the kind of flawed points-based ratings for graphics, gameplay, sound, etc. that were talked about in this article.

This is journalism and highly interesting, a good worthwhile thought-provoking read, and the haters can jump up my butt, and then go to kotaku and Tim Rogers personal blog for what they want. Thank you Patrick.

Great stuff. I'll gather my thoughts and offer a more thoughtful response once the rest of the conversation is out there.

I definitely want more content like this. Games journalism/criticism is in a very odd place right now and intelligent conversation from both sides of the industry is greatly needed.

Very nice! Yes, keep these types of articles coming. Maybe as a middle ground instead of rating a game based on 5 stars, rate a game based on the type of gamer who will like it and whether it's a pass, rental or buy. I dunno maybe that's a stupid idea, but I think it would be beneficial.

Klepek making news his bitch, Great stuff duder keep it up,

Excellent work, Patrick! Congratulations, again! :)

@Christoffer said:

You say I misunderstand critisism and then acknowledge there's different levels of critique? There's your reason why this debate has been going on since October. There is no standard and that's the problem. Where's the line between what you can measure (objectivity) and can't measure (subjectivity)? Why isn't the linearity in Uncharted criticised on the same level as any other linear game? When you say Parkin explains his point I presume you mean this:

"but, at the same time, beneath the spectacle there's a nagging feeling that your presence in the scene is an irritation rather than a preference. Your freedom of choice risks ruining the shot. Indeed, throughout the game, if you jump into an area you are not supposed to visit, Drake will crumple on the floor dead, Naughty Dog switching role from movie director to vindictive god. That is not your predestined path: Game Over."

He speaks of a "feeling" (subjectivity) but can't argue beyond that. Can you tell me why this doesn't concern CoD, Limbo or Portal 2? If I was a game developer, I would think this critisism was unfair and irrelevant to any gamer who happens to love cinematic and linear games.

He does argue beyond that. Read the first three paragraphs and then look at how he ends the scene: "cut." Or paragraph eight: "...the developer's theatrical choreography and player-controlled interactions is clear. In order to ensure each set-piece is set off correctly, the game commits the cardinal sin of insinuating you have full control of your character, but in fact tugging you towards trigger points..." Or this excerpt which you omitted before your choice quote: "...mistimed leaps are given a gentle physics-defying boost to reduce the staccato rhythm of having to restart a section." He's using language, both subtly and explicitly, to explain that there's a disconnect the game the player wants to play and the game that the game wants the player to play (say that five times fast!). Perkin doesn't just say there's a feeling the game gives off, as you suggest. He aptly describes the sensations he felt while playing the game.

Other games aren't relevant when judging Uncharted 3 as a single-player experience, and that is why Parkin only discusses Uncharted 3. The game is judged on its own merits. Parkin critiques the game based on how effectively it masks its cinematic roots, and using his examples, he argues that the choreographed set pieces are often distracting. There is no need to incite other linear experiences.

As for the line between subjective and objective that you mentioned, it's simply what I said earlier: techniques that the author(s) use. These are going to vary based on the medium. Staccato drums in music, religious allegories in literature, the use of lenses in cinema, framing in comics, etc. The critic then notes these techniques and uses them to build an argument. For an example of that, look no further than Screened.com's excellent analysis of High and Low: http://www.screened.com/news/can-black-and-white-still-matter-a-look-at-kurosawas-high-and-low/3187/

I hate how so much time is spent talking about an issue that is fixable, but no actual action is taking action to change anything. We aren't talking about games, we are not talking about people making them or people playing or buying them, we are not even talking about people who are critics of them, we are talking about talking about games and how we talk about them and I am currently talking about that...(and now I will go on to write a shit ton and become a hypocrite :D )

I feel as though there are just so many layers of insanity that discussing it alone will do nothing because discussing the inter-workings of something that is completely broken is pointless. It would be much better to try to fix it or throw out and rebuild it. I guess my real problem is that this problem could be fixed if the people reviewing games where active about changing the broken system instead of only discussing the oddness of their profession. To me it just seems as though everyone sits around thinking and talking among themselves about how scoring games is stupid and game reviewing is weird and all this random nonsense, but in the end no one takes any step to do anything or change anything.

I guess I'm saying that this was interesting to read, but in the end I felt as though this is a discussion about nothing. Instead of this discussion that seemingly accomplishes nothing, I would say lets stop talking about how reviewing games is a strange process and score is weird, and start talking about how we are going to effectively change how this thing works and then CHANGE IT. For example, if I was a driving a car, then i got a flat tire and pulled off the road, I may take a minute to try to figure out why it happened. Then soon after I would take steps to fix my tire and get my car back on the road working properly. I would not get everyone I know to come discuss how and why the car got a flat tire, I would take action. If my car broke down and went to the shop, the mechanic would not spend hours upon hours discussing the problems it has with the other mechanics, he would take the necessary time to find the problems, and then take action to fix them. It's kind of a ridiculous analogy, but my basic point is when something is broken you do not spend infinite time talking about how and why the problem is the way it is, you take action to fix it, which no one seems to be doing in games criticism. I will however say that articles like this are at least a good way to start to realize that the system is weird, but I feel as though people have been talking like this for a while now and no action seems to be taking place.

Now, to get into the actual discussion of how I personally (internet joe schmo) think that the whole think could be fixed. I know that score is not the overarching theme of this interview/article, but I do believe that score is a real reason that discussions like this take place. That is why I feel like focusing on changing the way scores work is a vital part to make game criticism better. Then along with that comes the way a reviews work.

Anyway, I think the whole talk of eliminating score is an extremely stupid thing to discuss and is just laziness instead of trying to actively fix the way it works. Yes, right now score is a weird thing that is a bit fucked up, but that does not mean that it should be eliminated completely. Score should stick around and it should actually mean something. As of now, score is just the rating of the reviewers experience with a game on whatever scale is established, but it is also weirdly arbitrary and sometimes does not actually represent what I just said it is supposed to represent. As many reviewers have said, sometimes the reviews and score together do not seem to match up. The criticism in the review seems oddly negative when compared to the good score, but maybe the criticism in the review are totally valid. Also, as many reviewers complain, the score can often overpower the review because, as anyone majoring in communications will learn (as I am), the visual always overpowers the written or spoken word. This creates a problem for the reviewer. He wants to get something across in his review that is negative about the game that he feels strongly about, but at the same time he truly believes that the game deserves a fairly high score. I think this brings the obviously conclusion that both score and reviews should be separated and changed. Instead of writing what we now call a review, and attaching a score that, let's come up with a different solution. I'm just going to bounce some ideas around, but this is basically the whole point of me writing this thing. I dont have all the answers obviously, but the point is to stop simply discussing this as a problem, and start being extremely active in fixing it.

I will say I actually think that the guys here at Giant Bomb have done a fairly good job at attempting to fix some parts of a system that is inherently flawed. They have made their scale 5 stars instead of the insanely ridiculous 10 stars of most sites. If the scale of 10 is not the most obvious reason things need to change than i do not know what is. No one actually knows what a score means on that scale, so not only does the visual override the written review, but no one actually has a clear understanding of what the visual really means. In Giant Bomb's 5 star scale though, the visual score is actually something that the observer can understand because it makes way more sense, and has been spelled out many times by Jeff. In this way I applaud Giant Bomb, but it is not like they have solved or even effectively changed the way things are done. As someone who values what these guys say, guess which one analysis of a game I took the time to read this year and actually cared about every word...Matt Rorie's article on Dark Souls. This was not even technically a review, but I felt that this was the most interesting review like thing I have read in a while, and the simple fact that I actively wanted to read it is a testament to it. I admit that I should probably read more of the reviews these guys put hard work into, but because the system is so flawed I find it way more helpful to simply glance at the score and then listen to what these guys say on the bombcast. That fact alone I believe should be changed. I think that every part should be helpful in one way or another without detracting from each other. The hard part is figuring out how to do that. I do not have all the answers, I do not even claim to have any answers, but I would like to see those who have the power to change the way things are done to be active in doing so.

I have a few suggestions, but I think the simple discussion of solutions with the plan to take action is better than simple arbitrary discussion without any plan of action. This is the reason why I say at the beginning that I would rather see discussion of solutions than observatory discussion. Anyway, maybe the score should stand alone as a simple recommendation for purchase, with reasons beneath it. For NBA 2K12 the score would be a 5 because there are no other basketball games out there right now. Maybe make the score not a number that one singular person gives the game, but multiple numbers or a series of pictures (like the giant bomb guys use) that represents each persons feelings for the game and underneath a brief summation of how much of the game they've played. This could be altered over time and posted whenever the person feels they are done playing the game. In the same way if they feel that the game is not for them, they can say that as well. Then it is one person's job to write the "review".

Those are just two random ideas, but the point is to make the score stand for something that isnt linked with the "review". Then take the review and make it a separate entity. Maybe make the review a series of articles that the person can create to effectively explain their experience with the game as well as give a detailed explanation as to why they love it, have a problem with it, wish it could have been different, or just express anything they feel the need to regarding that specific game. Basically, I want to read more of what Rorie wrote about Dark Souls for each game these guys play, and I think that the score as a number is a valuable thing that should not simple be thrown away, but adjusted to serve a purpose that does not detract from anything else.

Obviously, like I have said I am not an expert and I do not think that these ideas I have are somehow the answer, but I think if we all can agree that the system is broken then everyone who claims to be a critique of games should be actively trying to fix it. I want to clarify that I am not bashing this interview/article that Patrick has made, I am simply saying that I want to see some actual change as a result of discussion the insanity that currently is games criticism instead of casual observation that leads to nothing significant.

@whatisdelicious said:

I think you can boil this down for the Uncharted linearity issue, like this:

Linearity, like all things, is only a problem when it doesn't work. In Uncharted 2, in Modern Warfare 2, etc., linearity works beautifully. You're taken on a journey that you don't want to deviate from. You don't feel like you're just being pushed down a corridor; you just feel compelled to continue down the path that has been crafted for you. In Uncharted 3, linearity is done poorly. There's a chase scene early on, for instance, that I kept dying at. You're supposed to run a very narrow path, but it doesn't look narrow. I made rights when I should've made lefts, lefts when I should've made rights. Each time I made a mistake, it was an instant-fail and I had to replay part of the chase over again. This is the kind of stuff Simon Parkin was running into, which can ruin an experience like Uncharted 3.

But there's also stuff like how different the set pieces feel from Uncharted 2's. In Uncharted 2, Drake climbs up a train precariously hanging over the edge of a cliff. He's alone in this. In Uncharted 3, Drake climbs up cargo precariously hanging out of a plane. People are shooting at him, and he has to return fire while he climbs. Another scene has him trying to escape a sinking boat. People are shooting at him, throwing grenades at him, trying to punch him. It's a needless distraction, and in fact, actually detracts from the tension of the scene. If there were guys shooting at you during a scene like this in Uncharted 2, like the collapsing building, there were only ever one or two guys, easily dispatched, just there to add a bit of color to the scene, but not to add difficulty. Uncharted 3 doesn't have that kind of restraint, and so it blunders.

It's as simple as saying, "Well, Uncharted 2 and Modern Warfare 2 did linearity right. Uncharted 3 didn't." And that's why you get the criticism of Uncharted 3, and not those games.

I don't know if I'd say it "works beautifully" in those games either, but it's closer to where I would suspect Parkin is coming from. Linearity is just another tool in the toolbox of creating an experience, but it's one that's been used so much in AAA titles that it's become almost a crutch. Shouldn't we be seeking out games that succeed in being games more than games that wish they were movies?

Why has it gotten easier for Hollywood to make movies from games? I miss when Bob Hoskins disowned his stint as Mario because the story was inherently ridiculous because it knew its place as secondary to the act of pressing the buttons and working your way through levels. Beats a movie with button prompts and gunfights I theoretically have to rewind until I get it right.

(This is a drastic simplification of what I'm getting at, mind you.)

@Grimluck343 said:

@patrickklepek said:

I don't need my opinions validated, I need my opinions challenged.

This will never happen on the internet, where discussion about anything and everything is just one massive circle-jerk. Look at Reddit for example.

You don't have to travel nearly that far to find people keeping up an echo chamber...

@Gaspar said:

@Grimluck343 said:

@patrickklepek said:

I don't need my opinions validated, I need my opinions challenged.

This will never happen on the internet, where discussion about anything and everything is just one massive circle-jerk. Look at Reddit for example.

You don't have to travel nearly that far to find people keeping up an echo chamber...

True, but goddamn I feel like that's where it's the worst.

@Beb said:

@Hugh_Jazz said:

I haven't played Uncharted 3 or any other Uncharted game for that matter, but I was of the opinion that the criticisms levelled against it by Simon Parkin had to do with the linearity directly affecting gameplay in a way that hadn't happened as much in the earlier games. Namely, if you didn't make a jump exactly how and when you were supposed to you wouldn't make it, kind of like a QTE. In Modern Warfare, for example, the linearity of the game doesn't force you to edit your actions in the same way. If you stand still, dudes will keep running at you, and you will keep shooting them. The game doesn't further penalize you.

It seems to me like there's a pretty big difference between these two series that Manveer Heir kinda failed to touch upon, or recognise. Or am I all wrong?

Exactly this.

After beating Uncharted 3 myself, the problem isn't that the game is linear, in the sense that you don't have branching paths.

The problem is that the game is SO linear that you are almost like an actor in a movie, and if you don't hit your queues, they call cut and start the scene over. In a game like Modern Warfare, you have a relative kind of freedom between one script trigger and the next, but in Uncharted, you are barely even making decisions anymore, you simply have to jump now, run, kill that rocket launcher guy, etc.

Like, imagine a new Pac man game where you automatically lose at every intersection if you do not take the 1 winning critical path.

OK, you had me with the actor thing. I was actually thinking the very same thing when I played it as well.

The pac-man bit is a little too far though. This problem was only happening during the chase/escape scenes. Which make up a small percentage of the game. This isn't Dragon's Lair. You're free to explore the environmental platforming. You can choose who you want to fight in what order, or at least I felt like I did. Which brings me to my point; linearity isn't the problem, it's the lack of illusion. Uncharted 3 didn't fail to instill freedom of choice; it failed to prop up its illusion of choice.

Look at the first chapter of Half Life 2. You're forced to flee through buildings and rooftops. Not a lot of options (only one, if memory serves), but Valve does such an incredible job of giving you just enough clues so that you think you're improvising, but following their subliminal directions. I nailed that sequence in one shot, and felt an incredible rush.

Just as I nailed the museum chase in Uncharted 3 in one go. It felt awesome. I watched my sister do it over Thanksgiving weekend, and she was having lots of trouble. Having played videogames a lot, I know when I see boxes arranged in a ramp like formation, I should go that way. She didn't see a landing platform on the other side of that ramp, so kept skipping that point, and losing. It was frustrating, and the illusion fell apart.

Branching paths is an awesome solution (though I could imagine a nightmare for developers). But another is just to work out and test those subtle hints and cues. Valve has proven it can be done, even just this year, Portal 2 - entirely on rails. In nearly every situation, there was only one way out, but you still figured it out and felt like you came up with it on your own.

So, Uncharted 3 really isn't any different than most guided experiences these days. There were just a few areas (in this 13 hour game) that they failed to communicate to the player on what to do. It makes for a good discussion on game design in general. What's new, what's obsolete, what works, what doesn't. But using it to paint a broad stroke of "NO FREEDOM"... That just doesn't fly, because of so many titles that guide you just as strictly, but disguise it better.

Or maybe I'm just too damn old; and grew up on tank controls in survival horror, point & click adventures, and teeth grating platformers. When I died in Uncharted, I shook it off and just tried again.

I don't really get the difference, feels like nitpicking semantics. Criticism should, in my opinion, be part of a review. Otherwise, you're pretty much left with a product description of the game and a score, that's a boring thing to read. I like the notion of reviews actually reviewing and not just presenting and evaluating simplistic entertainment value.

Yeah like someone from Bioware gets to talk about good writing. Dragon Age has some of the worst writing this generation.

I want more pieces like this. Just, y'know, letting you know.

MORE, PATRICK MORE!

"Look for the next installment of our three-part conversation on Monday. Want more pieces like this? Let me know."

Yes. Absolutely yes.

@Roomrunner said:

OK, you had me with the actor thing. I was actually thinking the very same thing when I played it as well.

The pac-man bit is a little too far though. This problem was only happening during the chase/escape scenes. Which make up a small percentage of the game. This isn't Dragon's Lair. You're free to explore the environmental platforming. You can choose who you want to fight in what order, or at least I felt like I did. Which brings me to my point; linearity isn't the problem, it's the lack of illusion. Uncharted 3 didn't fail to instill freedom of choice; it failed to prop up its illusion of choice.

Look at the first chapter of Half Life 2. You're forced to flee through buildings and rooftops. Not a lot of options (only one, if memory serves), but Valve does such an incredible job of giving you just enough clues so that you think you're improvising, but following their subliminal directions. I nailed that sequence in one shot, and felt an incredible rush.

Just as I nailed the museum chase in Uncharted 3 in one go. It felt awesome. I watched my sister do it over Thanksgiving weekend, and she was having lots of trouble. Having played videogames a lot, I know when I see boxes arranged in a ramp like formation, I should go that way. She didn't see a landing platform on the other side of that ramp, so kept skipping that point, and losing. It was frustrating, and the illusion fell apart.

Branching paths is an awesome solution (though I could imagine a nightmare for developers). But another is just to work out and test those subtle hints and cues. Valve has proven it can be done, even just this year, Portal 2 - entirely on rails. In nearly every situation, there was only one way out, but you still figured it out and felt like you came up with it on your own.

So, Uncharted 3 really isn't any different than most guided experiences these days. There were just a few areas (in this 13 hour game) that they failed to communicate to the player on what to do. It makes for a good discussion on game design in general. What's new, what's obsolete, what works, what doesn't. But using it to paint a broad stroke of "NO FREEDOM"... That just doesn't fly, because of so many titles that guide you just as strictly, but disguise it better.

Or maybe I'm just too damn old; and grew up on tank controls in survival horror, point & click adventures, and teeth grating platformers. When I died in Uncharted, I shook it off and just tried again.

In my experience with UC3, 100% of the game felt like the chase pieces.

Even in the combat, there were sections where I had a very hard time, and kept saying out loud "I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Where am I 'supposed' to be for this fight?"

In the first two UC games, I felt like each combat was a sort of arena I could run around and play as I wanted, but in UC3 this seemed completely gone. There were parts where it seemed like I was supposed to stealth, but I couldn't tell at what point it was unrealistic to remain hidden. Or when I was in a firefight I found I would take cover and enemies would spawn behind me and kill me. I constantly felt like I was doing it wrong, and did not know WHY.

The climbing, which has always been linear, is basically pointless, since there aren't even climbing dead ends. The chases are basically QTEs with no button prompts. The puzzles were few and far between.

It may be that you lucked out in the combat and ended up where you were 'supposed' to be, so that it seemed fun and dynamic. It could be that I had an unlucky and non-typical experience, too. But IMO UC3 was barely a game. I think we agree that it did a bad job of tricking the player in to thinking they had more options than they did.

@Deff_Janiels said:

Yeah like someone from Bioware gets to talk about good writing. Dragon Age has some of the worst writing this generation.

But... Manveer is a designer working on Mass Effect 3.