What do you want from a video game review? Enlightenment? Purchase justification? Quotes to lob at people in your favorite message board? A link that could shoot you to the top on Reddit?

One of gaming’s most articulate writers, Simon Parkin, filed his review of Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception for Eurogamer yesterday--read it here. Parkin’s material is typically well considered, thoughtful and challenging. His dissection of Naughty Dog’s latest cinematic adventure was no exception, a sharp critique of the fundamental design choices that have fueled the Uncharted series since the beginning, and how the studio’s emphasis on recreating a movie-like experience means breaking that tight script causes serious issues.

I’m not sure how many people actually read the review, as most comments focused on the 8 score assigned to the game, one slightly under the 9s and 10s (or equivalent) found elsewhere on the web.

There was reason to assume Uncharted 3 was going to be pretty great. Naughty Dog’s track record is solid, and Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was so spectacularly impressive that you mostly felt bad Naughty Dog’s designers, programmers and artists had to follow it up all over again. Plus, nothing Naughty Dog has shown since Uncharted 3 was announced suggested we were in for anything altogether different--Uncharted 3 was more Uncharted, which to most (including me) is fine.

What this meant, however, was that most reviews would likely largely be a thousand words of praise.

Thing is, I’d rather read a thousand words about why someone didn’t like Uncharted 3, so long as the author’s building a proper case, rather than trolling fans. In Parkin’s review, he outlines a grand critique against the Uncharted series as a whole, written through the lens of its latest release, and makes a credible argument for why Uncharted’s highest highs naturally create unavoidable lows. It’s a feeling that’s been with me since the beginning of Drake’s journey, but especially so in Uncharted 2, when players may miss the directorial cue from the game, such as a timed jump, and have to repeat it over and over again.

Other reviews mentioned this point, including Brad’s take on the game, but Parkin made it the focal point of his. By doing so, Parkin's review cast a slightly negative tone, but on the flip side, such concentration allowed Parkin to properly articulate the nuance of his argument, using his megaphone as a reviewer at a major outlet to make a serious point to a very large audience.

One comment beneath the Eurogamer review really stuck out to me.

“I equate reviewers to sports referees and economists; they make a living our of getting it right only some of the time. Once you bear that in mind you don't get annoyed by this review.”

It’s possible this commenter has played and finished Uncharted 3 enough to make a judgement call--but it’s unlikely. By comparing game reviewers to “sports referees,” he (or she) is suggesting the job of the game reviewer is solely to say whether a game is worth a purchase or not. For some, that may be absolutely true; $60 isn't cheap. That’s one of the goals of many game reviews, but reviews can (and should) also function as a design critique, and the best kinds of game reviews are informative to the player and developer, providing an outside perspective that illuminates what did and didn’t work.

Maybe this illustrates a fundamental disconnect between the audience for reviews and the writers themselves. Time is precious, and when I make time for a work, I want my assumptions to be challenged, preconceptions torn apart. If I’m wrong, maybe I’ll learn something from it. This proved especially instructive with Demon's Souls, a game I was only able to understand by reading other people's passionate thoughts. It’s possible to read something you totally agree with and come away with useful lessons, but I’ve found the most instructive moments in life to come from moments involving viewpoints vastly different from mine. As someone who takes thinking about games pretty seriously, this extends to games writing, too.

This disconnect--an intense backlash from fans--isn’t unique to games.

The technical term for the phenomenon is confirmation bias, where individuals seek out information favoring their already established opinion. Confirmation bias is a massive problem in today’s politics, as evidenced by the existence of deliberately liberal and conservative leaning networks like Fox News and MSNBC, and there’s reason to believe today’s highly personalized marketing by the video game industry has trained an audience to seek intense validation for their expensive purchases.

Just take a look at the way Electronic Arts has promoted Battlefield 3 against Call of Duty, stoking the flames of fandom and leading to obnoxious arguments almost everywhere on the Internet. I just want both games to come out so it's all over.

It’s completely, totally, 100% okay to disagree, just make sure you’re aware of what it is you’re disagreeing with.

Next time you read a review that winds you up, take a deep breath, and think before you comment.

If you're looking for other works similar to Parkin's review of Uncharted 3, I cannot recommend places like Kill Screen enough--but go in expecting and wanting something very atypical. Kirk Hamilton wrote an excellent offbeat critique of L.A. Noire, for example, and the publication's web-defying analysis of Infinity Blade by J. Nicholas Giest is as mesmerizing as it is true. Critical Distance is an excellent resource for discovering these kinds of pieces, with quality roundups on a weekly basis.

What do you want from a video game review? Enlightenment? Purchase justification? Quotes to lob at people in your favorite message board? A link that could shoot you to the top on Reddit?

One of gaming’s most articulate writers, Simon Parkin, filed his review of Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception for Eurogamer yesterday--read it here. Parkin’s material is typically well considered, thoughtful and challenging. His dissection of Naughty Dog’s latest cinematic adventure was no exception, a sharp critique of the fundamental design choices that have fueled the Uncharted series since the beginning, and how the studio’s emphasis on recreating a movie-like experience means breaking that tight script causes serious issues.

I’m not sure how many people actually read the review, as most comments focused on the 8 score assigned to the game, one slightly under the 9s and 10s (or equivalent) found elsewhere on the web.

There was reason to assume Uncharted 3 was going to be pretty great. Naughty Dog’s track record is solid, and Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was so spectacularly impressive that you mostly felt bad Naughty Dog’s designers, programmers and artists had to follow it up all over again. Plus, nothing Naughty Dog has shown since Uncharted 3 was announced suggested we were in for anything altogether different--Uncharted 3 was more Uncharted, which to most (including me) is fine.

What this meant, however, was that most reviews would likely largely be a thousand words of praise.

Thing is, I’d rather read a thousand words about why someone didn’t like Uncharted 3, so long as the author’s building a proper case, rather than trolling fans. In Parkin’s review, he outlines a grand critique against the Uncharted series as a whole, written through the lens of its latest release, and makes a credible argument for why Uncharted’s highest highs naturally create unavoidable lows. It’s a feeling that’s been with me since the beginning of Drake’s journey, but especially so in Uncharted 2, when players may miss the directorial cue from the game, such as a timed jump, and have to repeat it over and over again.

Other reviews mentioned this point, including Brad’s take on the game, but Parkin made it the focal point of his. By doing so, Parkin's review cast a slightly negative tone, but on the flip side, such concentration allowed Parkin to properly articulate the nuance of his argument, using his megaphone as a reviewer at a major outlet to make a serious point to a very large audience.

One comment beneath the Eurogamer review really stuck out to me.

“I equate reviewers to sports referees and economists; they make a living our of getting it right only some of the time. Once you bear that in mind you don't get annoyed by this review.”

It’s possible this commenter has played and finished Uncharted 3 enough to make a judgement call--but it’s unlikely. By comparing game reviewers to “sports referees,” he (or she) is suggesting the job of the game reviewer is solely to say whether a game is worth a purchase or not. For some, that may be absolutely true; $60 isn't cheap. That’s one of the goals of many game reviews, but reviews can (and should) also function as a design critique, and the best kinds of game reviews are informative to the player and developer, providing an outside perspective that illuminates what did and didn’t work.

Maybe this illustrates a fundamental disconnect between the audience for reviews and the writers themselves. Time is precious, and when I make time for a work, I want my assumptions to be challenged, preconceptions torn apart. If I’m wrong, maybe I’ll learn something from it. This proved especially instructive with Demon's Souls, a game I was only able to understand by reading other people's passionate thoughts. It’s possible to read something you totally agree with and come away with useful lessons, but I’ve found the most instructive moments in life to come from moments involving viewpoints vastly different from mine. As someone who takes thinking about games pretty seriously, this extends to games writing, too.

This disconnect--an intense backlash from fans--isn’t unique to games.

The technical term for the phenomenon is confirmation bias, where individuals seek out information favoring their already established opinion. Confirmation bias is a massive problem in today’s politics, as evidenced by the existence of deliberately liberal and conservative leaning networks like Fox News and MSNBC, and there’s reason to believe today’s highly personalized marketing by the video game industry has trained an audience to seek intense validation for their expensive purchases.

Just take a look at the way Electronic Arts has promoted Battlefield 3 against Call of Duty, stoking the flames of fandom and leading to obnoxious arguments almost everywhere on the Internet. I just want both games to come out so it's all over.

It’s completely, totally, 100% okay to disagree, just make sure you’re aware of what it is you’re disagreeing with.

Next time you read a review that winds you up, take a deep breath, and think before you comment.

If you're looking for other works similar to Parkin's review of Uncharted 3, I cannot recommend places like Kill Screen enough--but go in expecting and wanting something very atypical. Kirk Hamilton wrote an excellent offbeat critique of L.A. Noire, for example, and the publication's web-defying analysis of Infinity Blade by J. Nicholas Giest is as mesmerizing as it is true. Critical Distance is an excellent resource for discovering these kinds of pieces, with quality roundups on a weekly basis.

Fanboys destroy everything.

if the game wasn't an exclusive there wouldn't be so much hate.

RPS do reviews best.

edit: ^ no idea what this bloke above me is on about.

Like you said, he focused on the negative, is it fair to score the whole game around that one negative out of the mountain of positive, I think not.

It's not really a negative thing either, it just represents a potential for some kind of negative experience.

Great article Patrick, couldn't agree with you more.

...

...

Aah damn, I am doing the confirmation bias again.

This article is teh bias.

@SonofSeth said:

Like you said, he focused on the negative, is it fair to score the whole game around that one negative out of the mountain of positive, I think not.

Where did the 8 points come from if the entire score was based on the negatives?

@SonofSeth: His score was not based on the one thing, he gave it an 8 which is a very good score. The review focused on it. You know, the words next to the score.

@OracleXIII said:

you're really trying to be this oh so professional, so pc, so down with the intellectual shit.. mr. big man journalist. but these, these are just ruining the quality of this once fine website.

I'm happy to hear how any of these additions to Giant Bomb are impacting the overall quality of the website, and I'm not being sarcastic whatsoever. If you have an actual grievance, feel fee to PM me with details. No one is forcing you to read every article on this website, and part of what I'm trying to do is expand the editorial coverage of the site overall.

The thing on confirmation bias is totally true, problem is most people don't know they're doing it. Most of the time, I know whether or not I want a game before the review goes up. The review will point out any glaring issues for me but beyond that it's probably just confirmation that I'm looking for.

@Skel said:

Fanboys destroy everything.

Yup.

Patrick, you continue to be the best thing to happen to this site since Luchadeer. God bless you and your terrific write ups of oft-ignored topics in the game industry. Great article.

Kill Screen's criticism often comes of as performance art to me. Not saying that it always is that, but often times the persona they adopt is more important to them than actually writing a coherent criticism of what they are looking at.

And we really need to separate criticism from reviews. For example some outlets do allow for film criticism what is mostly published are reviews which is more of a personal response to what is offered than a reasoned essay, Of course where criticism shine is in an academic setting and video games have yet convinced enough people (or maybe anyone) that producing such criticism is a worthwhile endeavour that will lead to tenure of even just a job. Someone with more money than sense needs to fund a few chairs or an institute for that to happen. Jon Carmack the world turns its lonely eyes to you.

I feel this article, while articulate and true, is dwelling on what has been said on the internet by essentially man children or kids who honestly aren't developmentally advanced enough to understand this kind of stuff. It's not as if "the masses" are harking on Eurogamer because of their score and negative tone, just a small group of loud idiots.

@SonofSeth said:

Like you said, he focused on the negative, is it fair to score the whole game around that one negative out of the mountain of positive, I think not.

It's not really a negative thing either, it just represents a potential for some kind of negative experience.

8 OUT OF 10

@patrickklepek said:

@OracleXIII said:

you're really trying to be this oh so professional, so pc, so down with the intellectual shit.. mr. big man journalist. but these, these are just ruining the quality of this once fine website.

I'm happy to hear how any of these additions to Giant Bomb are impacting the overall quality of the website, and I'm not being sarcastic whatsoever. If you have an actual grievance, feel fee to PM me with details. No one is forcing you to read every article on this website, and part of what I'm trying to do is expand the editorial coverage of the site overall.

Fuck that, Klepek for president.

@Cyrisaurus said:

So he knocked points off in the review because he's not that great at the game, fails sections, and has to do them again?

So in his opinion, Super Meat Boy must be the worst game of all time, right? Same with Dark Souls?

Blue username and Nathan Drake avatar. You guys make this too easy.

Like you said, he focused on the negative, is it fair to score the whole game around that one negative out of the mountain of positive, I think not.

@OracleXIII said:

you're really trying to be this oh so professional, so pc, so down with the intellectual shit.. mr. big man journalist. but these, these are just ruining the quality of this once fine website.

I don't even know what this means.

I'm a big of a collection whore, anybody have the first or 0th issue of Kill Screen who would be willing to sell it at a reasonable price?

I enjoyed this article and the perspective that you came at it with. It's refreshing to read your work Patrick, I'm happy you're on the crew.

@Cyrisaurus said:

So he knocked points off in the review because he's not that great at the game, fails sections, and has to do them again?

So in his opinion, Super Meat Boy must be the worst game of all time, right? Same with Dark Souls?

Super Meat Boy is built around finishing levels without dying, as quickly as possible. They're gruesomely hard. But the game wants you to die, because that's the type of game it is. Uncharted 3 attempts to be a cinematic experience, and if you die (which will happen, because you shouldn't have to be a 1337-hardcore-gamer to play U3) you're taken out of that cinematic experience. Thus, what the game sets out to be is somewhat disturbed (if that's the right word) by the way you play it. Super Meat Boy, not the case.

But again: an 8 out of 10 is a great score. And it's not like anyone with a PS3 isn't going to buy this game this year. ;)

@Cyrisaurus said:

So he knocked points off in the review because he's not that great at the game, fails sections, and has to do them again?

So in his opinion, Super Meat Boy must be the worst game of all time, right? Same with Dark Souls?

Yup, that was totally what he was doing.... sigh. Did you even read the review in question?

I don't know, it just sounds like he's defending a "negative" review by saying people shouldn't leave negative comments about it. That seems a bit weird. Granted, he's probably talking about comments like "THIS GAME IS PERFECT HEY FUCK YOU BUDDY", but there's something called the law of large numbers, and the internet is filled with large numbers. No one can police that.

The Internet® - It's for morons.™

@tumes said:

I'm a big of a collection whore, anybody have the first or 0th issue of Kill Screen who would be willing to sell it at a reasonable price?

How's Kill Screen? I keep meaning to check it out, but the downside of their whole "let's be like McSweeney's" thing has made me kind of wary on the price.

8/10 is a must buy score for me.

@Cyrisaurus: It has a lot less to do with that than it does about the idea of A) supposedly playing a central role in huge, action movie style set pieces & B) being thrown out of the experience if you make a misstep or deviate from the script. Not saying that he's right or wrong, just that it's certainly warranted discussion.

Reminds me of when Jeff gave Twilight Princess an 8.9 and Nintendo fans freaked out.

i find fanboyism to hurt judging a review. i looked at ign's review of uncharted 3 and greg miller gave it a perfect 10. from their podcast, i know hes an avid fan of the series and i find it hard to take that perfect score seriously with someone who is so vocal about loving that series and someone who has such a love for everything playstation and such distain for every other console that doesnt have the sony trademark on it. good job giant bomb for keeping all your reviews grounded and reliable

Great article Patrick, the explanation that reviews can be design critiques as well as purchasing advice resonated most with me.

I just don't get it, why people get so bent out of shape about this stuff. I love Uncharted, I've received platinum the first two game and plan on doing the same with the third, as well as reaching the level cap of 35 on the early access multiplayer. I also realize that I have not had a chance to play game yet so I have no right to criticize a review. Plus he gave the game an 8, not a 2, which I see as still being recommendable.

Wait, people are mad at the 8 score? Do I need to break out the Penny Arcade again?

@OracleXIII: Don't like? Don't eat!

I think something that many people overlook when talking about this subject is that it involves people's tastes. I can't speak for anyone else, but my tastes are very personal things to me. So when you see something that questions, challenges, or seemingly belittles your taste, however justified, it is seen as a personal attack.

I've read countless times about how everyone has their own opinion and that it's silly that anybody would take issue with another person's viewpoint just because it's contrary to their own, and from a logical standpoint I agree with that. But if that sentiment is so apparently widespread, why are there always arguments of this nature? It seems clear to me that there's something going on that's more complicated than people make it out to be.

@Captain_Felafel said:

Patrick, you continue to be the best thing to happen to this site since Luchadeer. God bless you and your terrific write ups of oft-ignored topics in the game industry. Great article.

I agree wholeheartedly. Giant Bomb can be as much about intellectual discussion and video game discourse as it is about just hanging out, being stupid, and making jokes. Some people just seem to think if you have one, it does away with the other.

I wish someone in the mainstream press did this with fucking Arkham City. That's a game that NEEDS to be taken down a notch.  
 
Also, I constantly shit on Klepek, but this was actually worth reading. Good on you, P.

@Cyrisaurus said:

So he knocked points off in the review because he's not that great at the game, fails sections, and has to do them again?

So in his opinion, Super Meat Boy must be the worst game of all time, right? Same with Dark Souls?

Congratulations on completely missing the point! You must be so proud.

I hate how much stock gamers put in reviews and scores and whatnot.

It's just one of those things that makes being a fan of video games kind of embarrassing

It always cracks me up when people get their panties in a bunch over a review for a video game. I just can't fathom it because review scores are so arbitrary and meaningless to me.

Some dude on the internet likes a game a little less than I do, time to rage!

Read the review, I felt the conclusion of his review just didn't match his score. Although his critiques stick out, on the whole I felt that it was a case of score not matching the opinion of the reviewer. If a score is assigned (a number) the score needs to represent the games quality in comparison to its contemporaries. I dont feel the review did this. The only point I can't agree with was

"As an expression of all that a video game could be, however, Uncharted 3 is narrow, focused and ultimately shallow."

I guess I am confused by what he means by "all that a video game could be." What can a video game be? For some reason this statement just confounds me. Is it a case of his expectations being too high coming in? Or does he feel the game lacked elements that no other video game has ever had and didn't reach the innovative height it could have been?

@Alexandruxx said:

@SonofSeth said:

Like you said, he focused on the negative, is it fair to score the whole game around that one negative out of the mountain of positive, I think not.

My thoughts exactly.

I suppose it depends how contributory you view that negative to be. The Eurogamer reviewer decided that it was enough to make it an eight, if the article backs that up then it's fine.

Good article. Don't pander to the "OMG you scored my favourite game half a point lower than this other site!"-crowd. We need more games journalists writing critically and intelligently.

It basically boils down to purchase justification. If consoles didn't cost $300 a-piece, console wars wouldn't exist. Because of the initial price, most people can only afford one, and once that decision is made, one continues to become further and further invested in their choice with every purchase toward it, i.e. games. The result is that people need to hear that they made the correct pick. When people hear that "PS3 HAS NO GAEMS!" they take it personally. That's their console you're talking about.

Same rule applies to individual games after that. Games are expensive as well. And the console competition doesn't help, especially with some games being exclusives. Eventually reviews are just a leaderboard of, "which game is best", despite some titles being absolutely incomparable.

Ultimately, if DVD/Bluray Players cost more and had exclusive movies depending on which brand you bought, we'd have the same problem in that field.

What I look for in a review is one person's honest opinion. And one person's opinion is only worth as much as you're willing to make of it. For me, its not much. For others, it seems to be a lot more. I've never understood why people care so much about reviews. If you are already savvy enough that you regularly visit niche enthusiast gaming websites then, with all the easily accessible media in this day and age, you really should be able to make up your own mind when it comes to investing time/money in a game.

Personally, I find a review is only interesting if the writer actually has something thoughtful (and perhaps entertaining) to say as oppose to a list of what features exist and which ones he liked or disliked. And to that effect, I mostly just look at reviews on games that I think warrant some level of discourse; likely a game that I've actually finished and have been thinking about, and therefore I'm interested to see what others thought of it.

There was a time that reviews meant slightly more to me. That was when I was young and still new to video games and the internet. But then I grew up.

"Down with the intellectual shit;" yeah, screw the writing, where are the big NUMBERS?! Great article; never thought I'd see an eight out of ten painted as iconoclastic.

This really all about tribalism. Putting ourselves in a tribe and defending that tribe is in our genes. Any attack on the tribe becomes a personal attack. So when a fanboy sees what he perceives to be an attack he can't help but return it with more ferocity.

Why do you think sports are so popular?

Next time you read a review that winds you up, take a deep breath, and think before you comment.

Or next time you read anything on the internet.

I didn't take issue with Uncharted 3 not getting a perfect score or a 9/10, or whatever. 8/10 is still a great score, and that's perfectly fine. What I took issue with was his actual complaints; his reasoning for why he disliked it.

"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"

This just feels like a really weak knock to make against a game; "If you don't like what the game is trying to do, then you won't like this game". It's like when people say they don't like the first two Gears of War games and then ask if they're going to like the third one; they're well made games, but not every game is going to be tailor made to your enjoyment. Knocking Uncharted 3 for being what it is just feels aimless and somewhat unjust; if the game executes really well on the premise that it presents, then shouldn't that be the focus of the review? It'd be like having someone who doesn't like racing or racing games to review Gran Turismo 5, and then having their review be solely based upon the point that racing games aren't for them.

I realize I've taken this to a bit of an extremity, but that part of his review really rubbed me the wrong way. Have I read delved too far into this particular comment of his?

Either way, I agree that most of the flack his review is receiving is pointless. It's the same kind of complaints most reviews get though. Rather than people waiting to actually play the game and see for themselves, or focus on the content of the review, they instead get upset when the game they're excited for doesn't get the number out of ten they want.