.

In other words, it's unprofessional.

The problems with Uncharted have been apparent for three games now. If you need a careful 2,000 word break down of why bullet sponge enemies or shoehorned set pieces still suck three games in, you should probably try re-writing the same review three times. I bet by the third iteration of the same exact game, you'll be pissed and not want to do it anymore. Uncharted has had the same flaws for the entire duration of its run. I can't think of another current-gen series that has so vehemently denied doing any real work on fixing gameplay this generation.

Wow, that's a pretty scary review.

@KingWilly said:

The problems with Uncharted have been apparent for three games now. If you need a careful 2,000 word break down of why bullet sponge enemies or shoehorned set pieces still suck three games in, you should probably try re-writing the same review three times. I bet by the third iteration of the same exact game, you'll be pissed and not want to do it anymore. Uncharted has had the same flaws for the entire duration of its run. I can't think of another current-gen series that has so vehemently denied doing any real work on fixing gameplay this generation.

That's not entirely true. The basic gameplay feels a lot better in Uncharted 2 and I strongly disagree that the set pieces are "shoehorned" in. You can't really be trying to argue that the games haven't improved since the original Uncharted.

I can't speak for UC3 since I haven't played it yet but UC2 delivered a strong shooter experience with varied, exciting locations that you can traverse with fluid climbing mechanics while also solving some puzzles. The game ran well, without any real problems and showcased some of the most beautiful visuals seen this generation and A-grade voice acting performances in a well-written story.

What is with this stance of video games being more of the same with Uncharted 3? Why pick this game out of the crop?

Sounds like the review is from some Xbox fanboy commenting on an IGN review.

Everyone reading this should know that The AV Club's reviews are short because that's the way they have decided do things in order to distribute them in print with The Onion. It is what it is.

I'm kind of surprised at the reaction to this. After rallying behind the Eurogamer review, people are slamming The AV Club for bringing up reservations and also giving out a pretty low score. Why isn't this guy allowed to dislike Uncharted 3? He did a good job of giving a sense of his criticisms with what little space he had to work with.

 @KingWilly said: 

The problems with Uncharted have been apparent for three games now. If you need a careful 2,000 word break down of why bullet sponge enemies or shoehorned set pieces still suck three games in, you should probably try re-writing the same review three times. I bet by the third iteration of the same exact game, you'll be pissed and not want to do it anymore. Uncharted has had the same flaws for the entire duration of its run. I can't think of another current-gen series that has so vehemently denied doing any real work on fixing gameplay this generation.

You couldn't think of one? Here, this should help:

What is with this stance of video games being more of the same with Uncharted 3? Why pick this game out of the crop?

@DeF said:

@KingWilly said:

The problems with Uncharted have been apparent for three games now. If you need a careful 2,000 word break down of why bullet sponge enemies or shoehorned set pieces still suck three games in, you should probably try re-writing the same review three times. I bet by the third iteration of the same exact game, you'll be pissed and not want to do it anymore. Uncharted has had the same flaws for the entire duration of its run. I can't think of another current-gen series that has so vehemently denied doing any real work on fixing gameplay this generation.

That's not entirely true. The basic gameplay feels a lot better in Uncharted 2 and I strongly disagree that the set pieces are "shoehorned" in. You can't really be trying to argue that the games haven't improved since the original Uncharted.

I can't speak for UC3 since I haven't played it yet but UC2 delivered a strong shooter experience with varied, exciting locations that you can traverse with fluid climbing mechanics while also solving some puzzles. The game ran well, without any real problems and showcased some of the most beautiful visuals seen this generation and A-grade voice acting performances in a well-written story.

No it really doesn't.

Third person shooters have been streamlined and improved by games like Resident Evil and Gears of War. Hell, even b-listers like Army of Two: 40th Day have better shooting mechanics than the Uncharted games. Uncharted feels far too loose, and no matter how high or low I move the sensitivity, it still feels wrong. Traversal is stilted in the same way that Enslaved: Odyssey to the West has stilted traversal. A button press and waiting for animations to complete. Whoopie. So much fun. Assassin's Creed has been showing everyone how traversal is done since 2007. They have improved the mechanics and made it even better with each outing. Climbing in Uncharted 2 felt exactly the same as it did in Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. I will agree that the characterization is top notch. I really like Nathan Drake and Sully. I really like that they have wild adventures, but the nature of the gameplay vis-a-vis story is jarring to say the least. Nathan Drake is a homicidal maniac, and that is normally swept under the rug in most games due to the protagonist either being a blank slate or put into a wartime scenario. It doesn't work for Uncharted because Drake is a modern treasure hunter just out in the world, doing his thing. Not to mention that he seems to value human life, and seemed positively crushed by a random camera man dying in Uncharted 2, it is a horrible juxtaposition against his horror movie, slaughterhouse nature in the gameplay arena. I cannot underscore enough how huge of a problem that is for the Uncharted games. Rather than have an action hero who doesn't kill people because he's not a bad guy, they decided to copy the modern TPS formula and offer no improvements to the genre. Naughty Dog has shown their lack of imagination for coming up with new gameplay conflict for a hero who does not kill. Indiana Jones was not a wanton murderer. I fail to see why Nathan Drake has to be one.

Story wise, Amy Hening and the voice cast do a spectacular job of bringing Uncharted characters to life, but at the end of the day, Naughty Dog as a studio has yet to live up to their end of the deal by delivering a quality gameplay experience that didn't involve quick time events. There's no sense of agency in Uncharted. None. Even in games like Call of Duty--both loved and lambasted for being entirely linear--you are tricked into believing that how you got the job done was entirely your idea. Uncharted is paced and scripted like a film, and to echo the Eurogamer review, it feels like Naughty Dog is annoyed you have to come in and spoil all of their work by playing it. I don't play games to be wowed by Michael Bay-inspired set pieces. I play games for a variety of reasons, but to participate in some college drop outs action film fantasy can be one of them, but not when they're looking at me cock-eyed the entire time, telling me they'd rather be making movies than games.

Edit to add: For the past five years or so, I've been keeping quiet about Uncharted and my dislike for it, because it really doesn't matter. Other people dig it, and that's fine. My issues with Uncharted 3 this time around is that we have people openly flaming a reviewer who dared to tip-toe out of line by giving Uncharted 3 an 8, a fucking EIGHT out of TEN. A score THQ games would kill for, mind. We also have people like the unprofessional Brad Shoemaker calling out this publication and talking some nasty shit about how anyone who doesn't think Uncharted is a great series has their heads stuck up their ass. This sycophantic behaviour is really what's pissing me off, not some half-baked third person shooter that has an indentity crisis worse than than John Cusack in that one terrible thriller from 2003.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

Oh wow. So according to Scott Jones, Uncharted 3 is as good as Burnout Crash, and worse than Red Steel 2. Oh and it's also as good as RE: The Mercenaries 3D on 3DS. I'm sure he is in a minority club with those views.

That is not how reviews work. His score represents his views of Uncharted 3 and Uncharted 3. Two different games with the same score do not mean they are equal in quality. It is all about the context, length, story, cost, fun, and all the other stuff that goes into a review.

His review seems fine, he just thinks the game has clunky gameplay

Bullet sponges were a problem of Uncharted 1. Whoever still complains about them now is probably still talking about "backtracking" in the Halo series. You want every guy to go down in one shot? Not even Modern Warfare 2 does that. Body armor is called armor for a reason. The set pieces are just that - set pieces. Every game uses them nowadays and they don´t always fit in a 100 percent. Without them the game would be something like Doom 1. A fucking corridor crawl.

And calling Uncharted´s gameplay "archaic"?? What game has that dude been playing? 1 and 2 played like a goddamn dream, with smooth cover mechanics and great firefights with a little traversal (that can feel a little simple sometimes). As far as third person shooting goes, I can´t think of many games that are as good as Uncharted.

Have not yet played Uncharted 3, but 2 was one of the best games I´ve ever played. What the fuck does this guy want? Probably a lot of views for his review.

@Superfriend: He clearly is trolling if he doesn't agree with everyone else...really?

Yeah, you're right this is not a good review. The Eurogamer review explained in great detail and very articulately what the reviewer did not like about Uncharted 3, this "review" does none of that. A review like this one is useless to any consumer still thinking whether or not to buy the game.

Just like how people who think this is a great game already decided before even playing it, the same is true for those that decided they don't enjoy it. It's just one of those things.

Also the guns aren't made the exact same way as other games and it leads me to believe anyone who has a complaint never actually took the time to learn how they work. For example, two shotgun blasts to the head is ineffective because the scattershot from the shells is a circular pattern that skews towards the outsides. It's much more effective to shoot from the hip or point at someone's torso. There are a ton of one/two hit kills especially in multiplayer, you just have to take the time to learn.

I don't understand why people say the enemies in Uncharted are bullet sponges. I'll grant that the first game they took a few too many bullets and danced around like insane people, but it's absurdly easy to kill guys in Uncharted 2. A headshot will kill any enemy instantly as long as he doesn't have a helmet on or is one of the big armored fellas/special enemies, and as long as you're not shooting them in the legs or arms they go down from, like, five pistol shots, one good shotgun blast, or a third of a clip of your average assault rifle. There's even the desert eagle esque pistol, which is pretty plentiful, which will kill your average enemy in one shot almost every single time. Dudes even get stunned when you shoot them so you can line up headshots easier. Compared to, say, Call of Duty it might seem like they're bullet sponges, but in comparison to other third person shooters I'd say the enemies in Uncharted are the easiest to take out.

@Dany said:

@Superfriend: He clearly is trolling if he doesn't agree with everyone else...really?

No, that´s not what I said. I said he probably wants attention for his site/blog/review. Trolling may be a way of achieving this, creating a controversy based on arguments brought up in a review may be another.

And I´ll say that he probably has no clue what makes a game great. I´m sorry, but even the most jaded piece of shit fanboy out there *has* to agree that Uncharted 2 is a phenomenal game. They may not like parts of it. But as they say- it´s better than the sum of its parts. That´s what makes a great game. Guess it all comes down to expectation management. Some of these reviewers apparently can´t do that. A guy like him will probably complain about the "lack of puzzles" in Halo 2 (really, a German reviewer did that). Some may call these guys "out of touch" critics. I call em delusional fucks.

I didn't think the review was that bad. I also think it's refreshing that the art of writing short reviwes has not been entirely forgotten.

it...doesnt matter

Ehhh...sure there is a lack of information there, but it seems fine for a little one off review to go into a magazine.

I agree.

Given that he hasn't the space to expand on his criticisms, there isn't a whole lot to say. I don't think he's trolling or simply being an outlier for the sake of it. It is possible to genuinely find fault with Uncharted. I find them it to be one of the most overrated franchises this generation for reasons already well stated in the thread.

That's probably the score I would have given Uncharted 2.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Dany: Yeh, I thought I'd get this reply. While I agree that each review is relative to that single game alone, if he then uses an arbitrary scoring system, the function of that system is to order games in a comparable list of quality. You cannot tell me that giving the same grade to two different games can allow for such a huge inequality in judgement. If you do, I'll tell you to stop using grades all together. But that won't happen.

Comparable list, yes. But direct this=this is wrong.

@Superfriend said:

Bullet sponges were a problem of Uncharted 1. Whoever still complains about them now is probably still talking about "backtracking" in the Halo series. You want every guy to go down in one shot? Not even Modern Warfare 2 does that. Body armor is called armor for a reason. The set pieces are just that - set pieces. Every game uses them nowadays and they don´t always fit in a 100 percent. Without them the game would be something like Doom 1. A fucking corridor crawl.

And calling Uncharted´s gameplay "archaic"?? What game has that dude been playing? 1 and 2 played like a goddamn dream, with smooth cover mechanics and great firefights with a little traversal (that can feel a little simple sometimes). As far as third person shooting goes, I can´t think of many games that are as good as Uncharted.

Have not yet played Uncharted 3, but 2 was one of the best games I´ve ever played. What the fuck does this guy want? Probably a lot of views for his review.

What? The shooting is the weakest part of Uncharted and has been since the first game.

I actually liked the review, I think it might have been a tad to harsh, but the writer seems to have the exact same opinions of the series that I do.

Uncharted for me is cool to show my relatives how impressive games can be, but the act of actually playing through the game-play in between the set piece sequences can become quite tedious.

Keep in mind though this entirely my personal opinion and should really have no bearing on your enjoyment of the game.

Describing other people's work as sad jokes on message boards, is significantly lamer than a having someone from your publication that didn't like a game review it.

@DeF said:

@KingWilly said:

The problems with Uncharted have been apparent for three games now. If you need a careful 2,000 word break down of why bullet sponge enemies or shoehorned set pieces still suck three games in, you should probably try re-writing the same review three times. I bet by the third iteration of the same exact game, you'll be pissed and not want to do it anymore. Uncharted has had the same flaws for the entire duration of its run. I can't think of another current-gen series that has so vehemently denied doing any real work on fixing gameplay this generation.

That's not entirely true. The basic gameplay feels a lot better in Uncharted 2 and I strongly disagree that the set pieces are "shoehorned" in. You can't really be trying to argue that the games haven't improved since the original Uncharted.

I can't speak for UC3 since I haven't played it yet but UC2 delivered a strong shooter experience with varied, exciting locations that you can traverse with fluid climbing mechanics while also solving some puzzles. The game ran well, without any real problems and showcased some of the most beautiful visuals seen this generation and A-grade voice acting performances in a well-written story.

No it really doesn't.

Third person shooters have been streamlined and improved by games like Resident Evil and Gears of War. Hell, even b-listers like Army of Two: 40th Day have better shooting mechanics than the Uncharted games. Uncharted feels far too loose, and no matter how high or low I move the sensitivity, it still feels wrong. Traversal is stilted in the same way that Enslaved: Odyssey to the West has stilted traversal. A button press and waiting for animations to complete. Whoopie. So much fun. Assassin's Creed has been showing everyone how traversal is done since 2007. They have improved the mechanics and made it even better with each outing. Climbing in Uncharted 2 felt exactly the same as it did in Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. I will agree that the characterization is top notch. I really like Nathan Drake and Sully. I really like that they have wild adventures, but the nature of the gameplay vis-a-vis story is jarring to say the least. Nathan Drake is a homicidal maniac, and that is normally swept under the rug in most games due to the protagonist either being a blank slate or put into a wartime scenario. It doesn't work for Uncharted because Drake is a modern treasure hunter just out in the world, doing his thing. Not to mention that he seems to value human life, and seemed positively crushed by a random camera man dying in Uncharted 2, it is a horrible juxtaposition against his horror movie, slaughterhouse nature in the gameplay arena. I cannot underscore enough how huge of a problem that is for the Uncharted games. Rather than have an action hero who doesn't kill people because he's not a bad guy, they decided to copy the modern TPS formula and offer no improvements to the genre. Naughty Dog has shown their lack of imagination for coming up with new gameplay conflict for a hero who does not kill. Indiana Jones was not a wanton murderer. I fail to see why Nathan Drake has to be one.

Story wise, Amy Hening and the voice cast do a spectacular job of bringing Uncharted characters to life, but at the end of the day, Naughty Dog as a studio has yet to live up to their end of the deal by delivering a quality gameplay experience that didn't involve quick time events. There's no sense of agency in Uncharted. None. Even in games like Call of Duty--both loved and lambasted for being entirely linear--you are tricked into believing that how you got the job done was entirely your idea. Uncharted is paced and scripted like a film, and to echo the Eurogamer review, it feels like Naughty Dog is annoyed you have to come in and spoil all of their work by playing it. I don't play games to be wowed by Michael Bay-inspired set pieces. I play games for a variety of reasons, but to participate in some college drop outs action film fantasy can be one of them, but not when they're looking at me cock-eyed the entire time, telling me they'd rather be making movies than games.

Edit to add: For the past five years or so, I've been keeping quiet about Uncharted and my dislike for it, because it really doesn't matter. Other people dig it, and that's fine. My issues with Uncharted 3 this time around is that we have people openly flaming a reviewer who dared to tip-toe out of line by giving Uncharted 3 an 8, a fucking EIGHT out of TEN. A score THQ games would kill for, mind. We also have people like the unprofessional Brad Shoemaker calling out this publication and talking some nasty shit about how anyone who doesn't think Uncharted is a great series has their heads stuck up their ass. This sycophantic behaviour is really what's pissing me off, not some half-baked third person shooter that has an indentity crisis worse than than John Cusack in that one terrible thriller from 2003.

I never really understood people's dislike for Uncharted's shooting mechanic. The first one definitely had bullet-sponge issues, but I thought they alleviated that problem for the most part in Uncharted 2. In the pantheon of third person shooters this generation, I can only think of a few games that best Uncharted 2 in terms of shooting.

I also completely disagree with the reviewers claim that Uncharted's combat system is archaic. It's the only game out there right now that interweaves shooting and climbing traversal in it's combat.

First I have always thought that the 50 for a C grade is kind of harsh from Metacritic but I believe I remember they weight their scores by importance of website so I doubt it has much of an effect.

Second I have never really thought of Uncharted as a shooter game. I have always thought of it as more of an Action Adventure game with stealth, platforming, and shooting elements. With none of the elements being great but none being bad enough to really take away from the experience.

Third I am glad that some critics feel comfortable enough to go against the scores that people think they should receive. I have loved games others have thought weren't very good and hated games that others have loved and every thing in between. I have a feeling that has happened to everybody here at least a time or two and it is unreasonable to assume that hasn't happened to a reviewer from time to time. As long as it is their true opinion and not a ploy to get traffic to their site as I sometimes feel like Jim Sterling does then I applaud them when they go against the grain.

Why isn't this guy allowed to dislike Uncharted 3? He did a good job of giving a sense of his criticisms with what little space he had to work with.

why are people still talking about this?

@A_Cute_Squirtle said:

@KingWilly said:

The problems with Uncharted have been apparent for three games now. If you need a careful 2,000 word break down of why bullet sponge enemies or shoehorned set pieces still suck three games in, you should probably try re-writing the same review three times. I bet by the third iteration of the same exact game, you'll be pissed and not want to do it anymore. Uncharted has had the same flaws for the entire duration of its run. I can't think of another current-gen series that has so vehemently denied doing any real work on fixing gameplay this generation.

You couldn't think of one? Here, this should help:

this

and so many other games

Sounds like he should be working for GameTrailers.

Outside the norm review scores are farming for hits, there's nothing intriguing about that. Well, not all, there are some legit sites that just disagree with everyone else but a vast majority are just trying to get more people to look at their site cus "ooooh they gave my favorite game franchise a low score.. grrr.... rage... RAWR!"

As for this review: I did read it. Never heard of the AV club, but seems to be fairly decent a site. The review is fine, all be it short (but maybe that's how they like it?)

I thought he made his points well enough, and gave his opinion on the matter. It's differing from popular opinion, and definitely fishing for hits, but its not as offensive as say gamebomb.ru reviewing games that aren't out yet haha

I never really understood people's dislike for Uncharted's shooting mechanic. The first one definitely had bullet-sponge issues, but I thought they alleviated that problem for the most part in Uncharted 2. In the pantheon of third person shooters this generation, I can only think of a few games that best Uncharted 2 in terms of shooting.

I also completely disagree with the reviewers claim that Uncharted's combat system is archaic. It's the only game out there right now that interweaves shooting and climbing traversal in it's combat.

@KingWilly: could you just explain how you dislike the fact that enemies are "bullet-sponges" in Uncharted series (which btw, I disagree with, 1 headshot 1 kill is usually how enemies work in Uncharted 2) but at the same time you quote Gears of war as being one of the games that streamlined TPS shooting? thus inferring that Uncharted series should look at Gears of War for shooting while in those games you need several headshots to take down one enemy.

I find it funny people get mad over someones opinion.

People on N4G went ape shit. Half the community on that site are PS3 fanboys

@Pr1mus said:

The same guy also reviewed Uncharted 2 years ago, also for the A.V. Club. He gave it A or 100 on metacritic.

http://origin.avclub.com/articles/uncharted-2-among-thieves,33912/

By the nature of that site's review the reviewer simply can't go in any sort of details making these reviews more or less useless, at least as purchasing advice anyway. What i understand from that is that this guy would probably be better at reviewing movies, not games. He reviews Uncharted 2 as if it was a movie and barely touch on the game itself. He liked the story, the acting, the writing and gave it 100, he didn't like the story of Uncharted 3 as much and gave it 50. Guess he forgot somewhere along the way that there's more to a game than its story.

But what is wrong with an entirely subjective review? I would prefer if more people worked on that principle to break up of the monotony of big release getting 90-100 across the board, and actually took the time to go beyond just does it look good/play good/mode variety form that most reviews seem to have. I often disagree with what the AV Club says about games, but at least I know what their perspective on all forms of media is.

After all, if you read a review that complained about a movie being too short, lacking modern modes like 3D, and poor resolution, how serious would you take that review?

Is this the same Scott Jones from Reviews on the Run?

I read the entire review and he has some good points. The enemies are bullet-sponges and Drake's movements are a little wonky at times. But the reviewer spends more time describing how he felt while playing the game then on why he felt that way. As a reader of the review, I don't exactly know why he truly dislikes the gameplay. For example, I don't know what 'twitchy' targeting means? I don't know why it is an issue that Drake can't crouch (I'm guessing he is referring to crouching while outside of cover as he can crouch fine while in cover). He claims the gameplay mechanics are outdated yet didn't explain the games the mechanics are apparently stolen from. I can imagine he meant Tomb Raider for the platforming yet that segment of the game is never touched. The shooting parallels Gears of War and other cover-based shooters but that gameplay is far from outdated.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't understand why he didn't like parts of the game because he doesn't explain his complaints. Further, the review doesn't seem up to the standard Metacritic is going for. It is short, feels hurried, and barely touched on what the meat of the gameplay is like for the player. He assumed that everyone reading the game already know everything there is to know about the game and, to me, that reads as unprofessional. It reads like a comment to another review.

@Pr1mus: Ok than that makes sense. Scott is the worst part of Reviews on the Run. Used to love the show back in the 90's and early 2000's but ever since Tommy Tallarico left Scott came on he's been giving games good and bad scores for stupid reasons. He gave Dead Rising 2 a 10 out of 10 because he felt the story was emotionally engaging and he was impressed that a Canadian developer made the game...

"A review for Uncharted 3 that doesn't call it the best game ever!? SURELY NOT NO!?"

@KingWilly: Oh okay senior Troll. Hablo Troll speak? Gtfo.

@msavo said:

What is with this stance of video games being more of the same with Uncharted 3? Why pick this game out of the crop?

It's the weakest link of the 3's (GoW3, BF3, MW3...) and therefore the easiest target. Statistically speaking, you will draw less ire slagging on U3 than any of the others.

I think a problem with highly scripted games is that the challenge of the game can actually be a hindrance to some people's enjoyment. In Megaman, the challenge is the reward. In Uncharted, the reward is seeing the next set-piece, and anything that get's in the way of that [like gameplay] can be annoying. I also feel that in game's that are heavily scripted like Uncharted, I often don't feel it is my fault when I fail. Most of the time, it's because I'm misunderstanding what I'm supposed to do. In Megaman, I know what I did wrong and how to fix it with practice. With a heavily scripted game, I have to go on gamefaqs or watch a "Let's Play". It's not a lack of skill but a problem of not recognizing where to go or what is wrong.

I still like to play games like Uncharted for the spectacle, but the problems with these sorts of games are pretty fundamental, and I understand why certain people don't like them; especially those with a disposition towards pure game mechanics.

Seemed like a fine review. I would have liked him to expand on his thoughts about Drake simply because no other reviews have any thoughts on the character. The guy is saying the same thing every other reviewer has been, that the gameplay is identical to Uncharted 2 and going through his other reviews he seems to dislike games sequels with identical game play as the original. I agree with KingWilly and most of his complaints with this series. My own opinion of these games is that they are fairly average third person shooters with good set pieces and ok plots. It's pathetic that people still get pissy about a review score. A guy had some thoughts, wrote a review and added a score to it, get over it and grow up.

@Pr1mus: Sorry, what I said was taken too literally. All I was getting at was that you don't see every movie/tv/book review making the same comparisons to other works (ie. Avatar supports 3D so why doesn't Movie X). And you're right about how their are other factors tha determine the overall appeal of things that go beyond the writng, acting, etc.

What my point was really trying to get to was that if we want to have video games accepted as a "art from" (as much as I hate the games as art debate) we need to let go of this idea that their is a right way and wrong way for reviewing them. Subjective interpretation doesn't mean that things we want or expect get ignored, but it also means that you can escape the standard games review formula.

But really, AV Club is a general media site that appeals to a very different audience than what we are. And all of their reviews follow a similar format so complaining about what they did or didn't mention is pointless since every one of there reviews is 2-3 paragraphs and a few hundred words. It's very much a get to the point style that avoids long windedness

@msavo said:

@Pr1mus: Ok than that makes sense. Scott is the worst part of Reviews on the Run. Used to love the show back in the 90's and early 2000's but ever since Tommy Tallarico left Scott came on he's been giving games good and bad scores for stupid reasons. He gave Dead Rising 2 a 10 out of 10 because he felt the story was emotionally engaging and he was impressed that a Canadian developer made the game...

To be fair, they probably just read off scripts and are more actors than game reviewers there. I doubt half the shit they say on there is actually their opinions.