"Hopefully some commenters will also stop to pass judgement on reviews of games they haven't even played themselves."

Cant wait to play the game and still find out you are full of BS

Also, please don't let someone that dislikes a game review the follow-up of that same game. Then you're looking for trouble, you should also think. You don't put someone that doesn't like Heavy Metal to review Heavy Metal albums.

as bordello wrote, let a reviewer that don´t dislike the PS3 console or the uncharted universe review it. How would a review of a car look like if the person dislike cars? He also said allot of cons against Uncharted 2 that can be found in his beloved Gears 2 but there he scored the game 10/10 and gears 2 9/10. Just makes his "journalism" yet again look like a joke.

The reviewer is know to prefer the xbox360 and has MANY times made shore everybody knows that. When question are asked about ps3 vs xbox360 he is always there and imply allot of negativity towards the ps3. just look for your self and see that he cant be objective for one bit.

I want a fair review that is not made by someone that cant be objective. Thats all I ask but apparently Gamereactor feel thats not a problem. As long as the get cash from advertisement you just don´t care. You just stand by him and his review that has more logical holes then a switch cease.

I signed up just to reply to this article and express my dissatisfaction with the way you handle criticism.

You are right when you say that game reviewing is serious business but then soon shoot yourself in the foot by proving that you do not understand what this means.

Serious business requires responsibility. Many people read reviews before buying a game, and I'm sure that throughout the years, you have attracted a loyal fanbase who have faith in what you say. So what your reviewer has to say ultimately affects the readers' decision on whether to buy a game or not.

A review should NOT be an opinion of a single person. It should be an extensive objective analysis of a game by one person or more, responsibly, to deliver the most accurate and informative results to the reader who trusts them. Therefore, a person's misguided opinion is more than just an opinion, it's depriving hardworking developers of their rightful income.

I haven't played Uncharted 2 apart from the online beta (which is excellent and doesn't get a fair treatment in the review), but I have played the original (Platinum Trophy) and if Uncharted 2 isn't even a big improvement over the first game, it merits at least 9/10.

Upon reading the review, I can't see a fault within the game except that the reviewer had hoped for more puzzles, and that he died several times in specific chapters/locations. Neither of these points is negative:
1. Uncharted is an action-adventure game, not a puzzle game, so even if it had no puzzles, you shouldn't criticise it because it didn't promise puzzles like, say, Professor Layton games.
2. It's usually a good idea to learn how to play a game before deciding to finish it in just a day or two to get your review done fast. The Uncharted review on GameTrailers shows that the reviewer(s) who plays the game doesn't know anything about the gameplay mechanics. This could well be the case here as well.

Somehow, the contents of the review and the final score do not match. I would look into it if I were you.

Lastly, if Mikael Sundberg enjoyed the game so much that he rated it 10/10, wouldn't many potential buyers possibly enjoy it just as much?
Instead of expressing your surprise at the response you got, why don't you re-review the game to see whether the angry fans have a point or not? Who knows, Petter could actually be off base this time.

Its the fact that all the UC2 reviews so far are 9.5 and above, with some being better than perfect (21/20). Even GR's second opinion gives it a 10/10 and awards it with Gamereactor's Honor. When Peter Hegeval gives it an 8/10, it brings down the game from "messiah" status to a "mortal" status, which in turn brings down the Metacritic score. People think Mikael Sundburg should have reviewed the game.

Fans think that the reviewer was a little too harsh on the game, even though they haven't played it themselves. But those that are in the closed Multiplayer demo think that the Multiplayer aspect (co-op and deathmatch) is a standalone feature and could very well take on the likes of Gears of War. NeoGAF users have called it the "best 3rd player mutliplayer of all time".

I bring no judgment to the matter, I merely bring the perspectives.

Connor - criticism is one thing, biased comments and name calling is something completely different. I see the new thread on n4g about this and once again the level of insanity is through the roof, while having good criticism mixed in.

We've always made sure to point out that our reviews are subjective to the reviewer (which the difference in scores between Petter and Micke should reveal). Our readers trust us to tell our opinion about the games we review, which we do. Over and over again. We do not give in to pressure from advertisers.

It is hard to be a game critic these days, especially when playing a game that has earned extensive hype. No matter what you give it, trolls will come crawling out of the woodworks and accuse us of "selling out" to one console manufacturer or another. Petter H is now under fire for being a Xbox fanboy, while he was called a PS3 fanboy when he gave Killzone 2 a 10/10. See the problem?

I published this to report on what happened yesterday when our review went online and to give a comment on the whole affair. Critisicm such as yours warrants to be at least listened to, while the name calling does not.

We are not the first website/magazine to go through this and we'll not be the last. There's always a few media outlets who think differently than the norm and comes under fire for it. And just like every serious publication would, we stand by our reviewers.

"Halo 3: ODST the same score as they gave Uncharted 2"

That would only further prove the claim that he is a fanboy. Uncharted 2 will be GOTY, ODST is just an overhyped expansion pack that will sell well because it has "Halo" in the title.

If you can't see the difference between these two games you should quit your day job.

I just find it strange that a guy that even didn´t like the first game reviewed the game. That´s all. But there´s really no need to lower yourself to name calling, that´s just disrespectful and plain stupid.

Petter//

Nu har inte jag spelat Uncharted 2 betan osv så kan inte uttala mej om spelets kvalite men har bara en liten synpunkt om Petter H:s rescension.

Han ger U2 en sjua i hållbarhet å gav tidigare KZ2 en tia i samma kriterie. Tycker det verkar konstigt med tanke på att U2 har 10 timmars singel spel tid plus en massiv multiplayer och att KZ2 har en kortare singelplayer men också en väl utbyggd multiplayer funktion. Sen så gav en annan rescensent U1 en 8 i hållbarhet som inte ens hade multiplayer men som sagt var olika personer som rescencerat. Det får mej att höja lite på ögonbrynen lite men det är ju bara ett nummer å min förhandboksning av U2 kommer stå kvar oavsett vilka betyg den får!

I am sorry but telling us that ODST got the same score as U2 and the same reviewer gave Killzone 2 a 10 actually further prove that a 8.0 for U2 is not justified.Just ask any gaming journalists or gamers about that,and I bet 95% of them(even xbox owners) will tell you that U2 is much better than both of them.And in the U2 review,a 7.0 for sound and a 7.0 for durability???Seriously???Did Peter just ignore the two types of co-op,addictive multiplayer,a SP that has tons of unlocks and lasts for at least 10 hours,amazing voice acting and a soundtrack that is done in skywalker,and go ahead and give these two categories both 7 based on his feeling???And his complaints about the game are not valid either.The combats are not repetitive.Each has different environments which offer various ways to approach the enemies.I saw this point in all U2 review,except Peter's.The enemy AI only seems stupid in easy difficulty,and in fact many sites have mentioned that U2 is not easy.Too few puzzles???this is an action adventure game.ND is not obligated to put in any puzzle at all.In conclusion,how can Peter review a game when he doesn't even understand it or know how to play it.

Added 2009-09-23 20:42:
Gamereactor,how can I even trust you anymore if you hire a guy like this to review a game?

Brutal_Toy: As the writer said "the opinion of one person" personally i cant wait for some money so i can buy this game, i loved the first one and i bet this one is even better. Perhaps Petter has a different view of durability and sound. I know that he is a real soundguy who loves good sound on his ultramega surround system, maybe it doesnt sound good on a surround sound system, who knows.

@Brutal_Toy
"And in the U2 review,a 7.0 for sound and a 7.0 for durability???Seriously???Did Peter just ignore the two types of co-op,addictive multiplayer,a SP that has tons of unlocks and lasts for at least 10 hours,amazing voice acting and a soundtrack that is done in skywalker,and go ahead and give these two categories both 7 based on his feeling??"

The reviewer probably did not have enough time to go through the multiplayer aspect of the game, in order to publish the early review. It happens a lot. He might have just fooled around with it for a little bit and decided on it's score. As for sound, I'm really lost. Reviewers said voice acting is more than good. In fact, ODST's voice acting is criticized by reviewers for being plain even though it has Nathan Fillion and other top TV actors.

And just because the reviewer gave 10/10 to Killzone 2 does not absolve him of criticism against UC2. Thats a very shaky logic. Maybe he only likes first person shooters?

Fact of the matter is, Gamereactor.eu itself is split on the matter of UC2. One reviewer gives it a flawed but good 8/10, whereas a second reviewer gives it a PERFECT 10/10. C'mon, what's the deal?

Its not GR who is full of bullshit, its you, the commenters. stop beign pissed off at every single review you dont like "omg halo3 10/10 no waay" "omg KZ2 10/10 no waay". If you disslikes peoples reviews it just shows that you are fanboys. You cant take it when the competitor gets a high score or when you get a low score.
I gotta say, I LOVED red faction 2 but GR gived it 3/10. so what, the game isnt getting worse if some site gives it bad reviews. You are making a way bigger deal about this than it rly is. Grow up.

I logged on just to reply to Connors comment and express my dissatisfaction with the way he handles reviews.

Connor: I believe the service you call upon, where the review score is scientificaly tested and analyzed through extensive research by the many Einsteins of this world, is called metacritic.
"A review should NOT be an opinion of a single person." Go to any other big publication in the world, be it IGN or Gamespot or whatever, and ask them what kind of reviews they put out. You may think it SHOULD be like that, but the truth is that it isn't. Deal with it.

Also, you say the game is an action-adventure game. Maybe you would like to define exactly what an action-adventure is? Is is just gun play? Or exploring? It can't possibly involve solving puzzles too can it?!? I guess if you put any puzzles into the game it would have been classified as an "Action-adventure/Puzzle game"??? Point of matter is that the reviewer ment the game would have benefitted from including more puzzles. It dont have to be f*in Professor Layton to have a puzzle or two?!

Every person comes to a game with a perspective and everybody look for different things in a game. This reflects your personality and forms an opinion. Who are you to come and tell a reviewer if his likes and dislikes about a game are wrong? Maybe the game includes insane graphics, but thats not what draws the reviewer in.. maybe its the gameplay, storytelling, audio or animations. What you like about a game does NOT translate into everybody else's opinion! If you think so, you are a petty fanboy.

@KhanFromChicago

If Peter doesn't even know these aspects of the game,it's very unprofessional of him reviewing the game pretending those don't exist,or he doesn't even pay attention to anything when playing this game.The fact that he played the game on easy difficulty and then go ahead and say the enemy AI is stupid has pactically proved my point.I feel it's shame for gamereactor to hire somebody who reviews a game based on his own degree of enthusiasm towards a game.People say that Peter didn't even play the game to review the game because every single minus point against U2 in his review is so weak that even a person who has been following U2 news but doesn't play it yet can tell why they are wrong.In fact,almost every single other U2 review that has come out has already said something that can easily counter the minus points that Peter has made to justify his 8.0.

Screw those pissy Pre-pubescent Nazi idiots! When Halo3 got a 7/10 no one called the reviewer a Sony Fan or a liar. They just thought he was mistaken judgement or didn't give it a good enough chance.

Shows the maturity of Fanboys, doesn't it?

You are full of shit. I just wanted to say that. There is *no* reason why ODST should be up to the same standards as Uncharted 2. I heard from a friend that ODST sucked and he beat it in four hours.

I don't know what Microsoft are paying you but the problem with YOUR review is that it's inconsistent with the overall game.

That's why fans are on your ass.

Figure it out.

To people upset about the review; get over it. If you are so sure that this guy is wrong and this game is more than only a B, then rent it or buy it and play it yourself.

To reviewers and those covering this like it's something important; get over it. There are always gonna be people annoyed by your reviews...just put your head down and try to be as honest as possible (oh, and just so you know, generally speaking a few more 8s or 7s for games is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction).

Fromage, how about you get the hell over the people who are complaining. Uncharted 2 deserves more than an 8. Their review was inconsistent with the score itself.

Typical 360 fanbrat defending this bullshit magazine.

@Petter Mårtensson

Thank you for your reply.

I just think that in the future, you probably have to handle big titles with more caution and make sure that the right guy (someone who isn't on either extreme) reviews it. It doesn't matter if it gets a 10 or just 5 as long as it is accurate.


@TeaRunner

- I didn't call for a "scientific" study of a game; therefore, your point is invalid.

- The point is not about whether action-adventure games should have puzzles or not. It's that Uncharted 2 didn't promise puzzles. Wouldn't you be foolish to criticise it for not having monstrous bosses or cyborgs?

- I'm okay with people having different opinions and looking at things from different perspectives so long as they keep it to themselves. If they go public with it, I think I have the right to point out the shortcomings of their points based on my own perspective. Or at least inform them that not everyone agrees with them.

- Finally, you talk as if being a "fanboy" is a bad thing. Yes, I am a fanboy. At least you got this one right.

QUOTE Petter Mårtensson / GR®


"We've always made sure to point out that our reviews are subjective to the reviewer (which the difference in scores between Petter and Micke should reveal). Our readers trust us to tell our opinion about the games we review, which we do"

That is a whole load of BS and you know it, im from the swedish site and have been banned there for expressing constructive criticism and asking the chief editor what his based his score on...

*He gave a 7 outta 10 in Lasting Appeal

without commenting why he gave it that score, and when asked he chose to ignore hundreds of readers that asked the same question over and over again.

*He gave a 7 out of 10 in SOUND

without commenting why he gave it that score, and when asked he chose to ignore hundreds of readers that asked the same question over and over again.

Furthermore he wouldnt even have dared not to give killzone 2 a perfect score, since he couldnt actually complaint much about the game ! and he needed to earn some points with sony fans....

That website always has favoured xbox 360 and IT IS A FACT !

From ps3/sony news coming out late to not coming out at all, or writing them first thing in the morning followed by 10 news about xbox so half the ppl miss them. To always always always choosing the sell charters that show that xbox did at least as well as ps3 if not better, choosing the one that shows that every week.To writing about the new PSN updates ( every week ) wrong or missing content or slagging it off !

His opinion is so biased that it has gotten to most of you in that work place, although there is still a couple that go against him and take a lot of shit for that.

Your opinions are so biased that you are even trying to convince ppl outside that website that this game is not good and doent deserve a better score.

It is so biased it can be ! You have not even reviewed the game yet and you are so afraid at taking as much BS as him for having to publish his lame as review.

Well a word of advice , Swedish ppl not often complaint, its a whole different world out there, and when you go against the stream and against reviews of publications with a lot better REP that gamereactor and without being able to at the very least say why you write what you write, then you are not gonna get far...

Good luck in the future, hope you replace him soon so i can go back to read some of your news...

And you will ban me from here and you will remove my post, that is what you do in this website.
But next time you do that to me i will be suing you for taking away my freedom of speech, since this is an open site and dont have to pay for it doing what you do is so wrong it can be ..... by international laws !!

So make my day and ban me , pls make my day

Gamereactor,stop giving out inaccurate U2 reviews just so you can defend Peter's U2 review.,will ya?You do realise that saying reviews are purely subjective opinions and releasing so many U2 reviews lately have already caused you to lose most of your credibility.Almost no review from other websites and some popular gaming journalists,some of which are more reputable than you,agreed with the criticism of any of your U2 reviews.Yes,your reviews are supposed to be subjective,but apparently,they are inaccurate and inconsistent.Just wait until U2 gets GOTY and you will wish you could time travel in order to stop this epic embarrassment from happening.

I can not understand why some people find it so hard to respect another persons opinion. What's the point of reviews if everything would be objective thoughts?

That website always has favoured xbox 360 and IT IS A FACT !

No, it is not a fact.

It is the last straw of hope you desperately cling to in order to avoid facing that maybe, just maybe, there is someone out there in the world who (gasp, the horror) acctually disagrees with you on whether Uncharted 2 is a "masterpiece" or a "great game".

Besides, you're still missing that they gave ODST the same score as Uncharted 2, and Killzone 2 top score.

Furthermore he wouldnt even have dared not to give killzone 2 a perfect score, since he couldnt actually complaint much about the game ! and he needed to earn some points with sony fans....

Eh?

You are contradicting yourself at a previously unprecendented level here.

No offence, but the backwards logic in your reasoning boggles the mind.

You claim that GR favours the 360 and try to explain the fact that Petter loved Killzone 2 because he "needed to earn some points with sony fans"?

If the magazine is indeed favouring the 360, why would the reviewer give a crap about Sony fans? And if giving a game a good score means you are simply trying to please a fanbase, then couldn't you argue that GR acctually hated - for example - Halo 3 and gave it a 10/10 in order to make Microsoft-fans happy?

And you also claim that Petters 10/10-rating for Killzone 2 was set because he couldn't find anything about the game to complain about? You havn't bothered trying to figure out WHY he couldn't find anything to complain about?

Hm, gee, I dunno, how about maybe because he liked it?

Which is the entire point. If Petter liked the game but was slanted against the PS3 he would have posted a negative review even if he loved the game. He didn't. He loved the game, and posted a positive review.

And ODST still got an 8, same as Uncharted 2.

And please, don't come dragging with a "my friend played odst and said it was crap lol"-comment. Why would your friend's opinion be more valid than a reviewer's? Why would your friend's opinion count as a fact sheet with which every other point of view has to be compared?

But next time you do that to me i will be suing you for taking away my freedom of speech, since this is an open site and dont have to pay for it doing what you do is so wrong it can be ..... by international laws !!

Private site => private rules. It's no more complicated than that, really.

And what a lot of you people havn't figured out yet is that an 8/10 is a great rating for a great game. Gamereactor is not IGN, where all big released get scores from 8.5 and up. An 8 is really good on the Gamereactor-scale...

I want a fair review that is not made by someone that cant be objective.

Ah, but that's a problem right there: reviews aren't supposed to be objective. A review is a summary and presentation of someone's thoughts and opinions on a game, and opinions are subjective to begin with. Asking for an objective review of a game is like asking for a hamburger made ot air. It defies the whole idea of what a review is.

----------------------------------------

(continued from last post)

Besides, I'm not sure why half of you people commenting here even read reviews to begin with. You are, obviously, not reading a review looking for advice on what to buy or simply to get an idea of someones elses perspective on a game - you are reading it to have your own opionion confirmed.

A review does not, contrary to what seems to be the popular belief, exist only to confirm your hopes and dreams of how great the next big title is going to be, it exists so the reviewer can share his/her opinion on a game. It's as simple as that. If you are going to insult and attack every reviewer who happens to disagree with you, then YOU are the one being biased. If a reviewer - according to you - can't do his/her job properly as long as he or she doesn't like/dislike a game the same way you do, the whole point of rating games is void in the first place.

Everyone CAN'T have the same opinion. You DON'T post a review to chime in and agree with every other reviewer and gamer in the world. You do it to offer your opinion.

If a reviewers opinion happens to coincide with your own, then that's great. If it doesn't, you can either:

Offer some constructive critisism that doesn't involve baseless accusations, pointless "ur full of bs"-posts or insults

or

get over it and move on. And avoid acting like and 8-year old Youtube-troll in the process.

And as a side note, the whole "U2 will get GOTY and then you will be proven wrong"-argument is utterly pointless.

A: "I don't like game x."

B: "I think game x is the game of the year!"

A: "Doesn't make any difference whatsoever. I still don't like it."

And as always, zwqase says it so well.

-------------------------------

With that said, I'm perfectly aware that Gamereactor's reviews are not perfect. No reviews are. Sometimes you can have complaints about how they explain a certain rating. Sometimes you can feel they could have mentioned more of a certain game element. Sometimes maybe you just nitpick on typos, whatever.

The bottomline is that if the only thing the reviewer can do to make you happy is to change the rating to the Metacritic average so everyone has exactly the same opinion - then you are missing the point. With a freaking mile.

And, as a final side note:

http://www.gamereactor.se/brev/91235/Ni+hatar+Playstation+3/