Metareview: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
by David Hinkle 
{ Sep 29th 2009 at 7:00PM } 
- Eurogamer (100/100): "Whether or not the multiplayer sticks, however, is arguably a footnote, because at the core of Uncharted 2 is an action-adventure masterpiece whose minor flaws are washed away on a tide of rhythm and spectacle -- one that would still be an essential experience even without the option to pull your friends off cliffs and play capture-the-heirloom."
- GamePro (100/100): "The A.I. is a little suspect, the camera can be stubborn, and you will die your fair share of cheap deaths. But it's still a fantastic effort and Naughty Dog deserves full credit for building upon the momentum of the first installment. PS3 owners should definitely experience it, especially if they liked the original."
- 1UP (A+): "Uncharted 2 is simply a vast improvement over its predecessor, and it's a damn great PS3 game. Let's leave the "are games art?" question for another time; what Uncharted 2 proves is that games are, at the very least, craft. Just as Raiders is Spielberg at the top of his game, Uncharted 2 is Naughty Dog at the top of theirs, and further proof that they are masters of their craft."
- IGN (95/100): "It's very, very good. It's easily one of the best games on the system, blending fantastic presentation and visuals with gameplay that is practically second to none. And then there's the stellar multiplayer which you'll probably be playing until Uncharted 3 ships. No, Uncharted 2 is not perfect, but it's closer than pretty much any other game out there these days."
- Videogamer (90/100): "Uncharted 2 does so many things right, that its problems (a less than perfect cover system, some frustrating combat and unfortunate glitches) are easy to overlook. The single-player adventure packs in so many incredible moments that you'll be talking about it with friends for months, the multiplayer functionality is superb and rammed with content, and the whole game looks beyond anything you'll have seen before."
Gallery: Uncharted 2
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Captain Planet [Planeteer | Power of Captain Planet] @ Sep 29th 2009 7:01PM
Nathan is just so fucking dreamy.
LegendaryRedass @ Sep 29th 2009 7:05PM
He's no Shamwow Vince
googleadam @ Sep 29th 2009 7:06PM
hes so rugged and witty, im right with you :)
[ArchiGamer] [Live from Omicron Persei 8] @ Sep 29th 2009 7:09PM
One can get lost in those eyes, especially dangling from a cliff.
Captain Planet [Planeteer | Power of Captain Planet] @ Sep 29th 2009 7:11PM
Nathan Drake will NEVER quit on you.
Durden @ Sep 29th 2009 7:15PM
I try to always climb mountains and cliffs behind him so I can take in all of that musk pouring out of the untucked part of his shirt.
phinnvr6 @ Sep 29th 2009 7:53PM
Wow, can't wait to get this game... Multiplayer demo tonight!
Autobot @ Sep 29th 2009 7:52PM
10/5
Metal Beard Solid @ Sep 29th 2009 9:51PM
I looked like that back in the day...
Autobot @ Sep 30th 2009 8:24AM
You sure did, snake, you sure did.
the_pop @ Sep 30th 2009 12:15PM
PS3 HAS NO GAME
Justin F @ Sep 29th 2009 7:02PM
I don't see how a game with flaws can have 100/100. Nice review GamePro.
SharpShooter @ Sep 29th 2009 7:06PM
100 ≠ Perfect. It just means it's amazing. No game could ever be perfect.
copa @ Sep 29th 2009 7:05PM
I don't see how a movie that isn't perfect can get the maximum rating of "Thumbs Up". Nice job, Roger Ebert.
dTondro @ Sep 29th 2009 7:06PM
Think of it like an amp that goes to 11.
Neuro @ Sep 29th 2009 7:08PM
Just goes to show that ratings systems need a serious overhaul. Last time I checked, perfect means perfect.
Lone Starr @ Sep 29th 2009 7:09PM
Giving it a 100/100 doesn't indicate perfection but quality in terms of other games. It's a benchmark.
After all, if 100/100 was a perfect game, would 90/100 be 90% of a perfect game? That's a much more ridiculous alternative.
WiredKnight: Keeper of Threads @ Sep 29th 2009 7:12PM
So you guys are saying that the next generation of games are going to see ratings of like 105/100, so that everything stays relative to your "benchmark?"
It makes way more sense to me to say that 95/100 is 5 points away from a perfect game. It's kind of ruined though when people are giving actual 100/100s.
WiredKnight: Keeper of Threads @ Sep 29th 2009 7:16PM
Also:
"No game could ever be perfect."
sooooooo why give it a perfect score? If 100/100 "just means its amazing," ~97/100 doesn't?
McWilly @ Sep 29th 2009 7:16PM
100/100 = perfection. Minor flaws ≠ perfection.
SharpShooter @ Sep 29th 2009 7:20PM
@ WiredKnight: Keeper of Threads
Do 2 thumbs up mean perfection? Do 4/4 star or 5/5 stars mean perfection? So why does 100/100 mean perfection?
WiredKnight: Keeper of Threads @ Sep 29th 2009 7:24PM
There's a huge difference between 4 and 5 stars versus 99/100 and 100/100.
I agree that 100/100 doesn't necessarily mean "perfect" but it should at least mean there's nothing that could arguably be improved upon.
And like I said before, if this one deserves a 100/100, what happens when the next one is even better?
HeXeN {KevinConroyDefeatsBatman} @ Sep 29th 2009 7:29PM
@WiredKnight
Well... they could pull a PSM3 and give it a 101/100.
Lone Starr @ Sep 29th 2009 7:30PM
No, next gen would not get 105/100, a really really good game would still get 100/100. It's all relative; it allows for comparisons *across* generations. So if Uncharted 2 gets 100/100, a game 10 years ago and a game 10 years from get 100/100 as well, all three games are excellent, but each is excellent within the technical limitations of the generation.
In support of this, I would argue truly great games break technological bounds.
WiredKnight: Keeper of Threads @ Sep 29th 2009 7:30PM
I can see it now, when Uncharted 14 comes out on the PS9, it will get a score of 703/100!
WiredKnight: Keeper of Threads @ Sep 29th 2009 7:32PM
@Lone Starr
But you're missing the point. What do you do when a game comes along that is genuinely better than a previous game that scored 100/100?
Ashitaka @ Sep 29th 2009 7:34PM
WiredKnight please shut up.
Lone Starr said it all.
Eh @ Sep 29th 2009 7:37PM
"And like I said before, if this one deserves a 100/100, what happens when the next one is even better?"
That is the whole problem with reviews today, too many games have gotten very high scores, leaving the better games nowhere to go besides 99 or 100. Your solution of giving it a 95 is the whole reason why games are getting 100's, too many games have already gotten 95.
A percentage based review is flawed and theres no solution to fix it. It would be good if all reviewers followed some standard where they "reset" the scale with each generation so no current generation scores are comparable to last generation scores.
WiredKnight: Keeper of Threads @ Sep 29th 2009 7:38PM
Wow, looks like some people don't like me poking holes in faulty logic.
Viney @ Sep 29th 2009 7:40PM
Well it's a good thing people didn't accept Pong as the pinnacle of perfection when it was getting it's thumbs up back in the day.
Seriously though, man, it's a rating. It's not scientific data. And it's not worth arguing about.
WiredKnight: Keeper of Threads @ Sep 29th 2009 7:40PM
@Eh
Thank you! At least someone understands what's going on here.
creyes4182 @ Sep 29th 2009 7:51PM
To all you guys complaining about 100/100 means perfect thats bull. I've played plenty of 100/100 games that I would rate 8/10. Besides no amount of spinning the numbers will change the fact that the game is good. Go get it.
Filthy Assistant @ Sep 29th 2009 7:53PM
I love how all these people don't understand how reviews work.
Also I'm pretty sure gamepro reviews out of 5, at least they did back when I still read it, so the 100/100 is probably 5/5 changed to the metacritic equivalent. Same with Eurogamer, they rate out of 10. You guys seem to have problems with 100/100 but not 5/5 or 10/10 so I don't really get why you have your panties in a bunch about this.
Lone Starr @ Sep 29th 2009 8:42PM
Wired,
I already addressed that scenario. Please go back and reread my posts.
FrodoT-Baggins @ Sep 29th 2009 8:49PM
No one really knows unless they play it. It might just be that good, and if GTAIV was given perfect scores by a lot of gaming sites surely this one should be allowed the it's time in the spotlight.
S. Tiger @ Sep 29th 2009 8:59PM
Hey look, a bunch of people don't know how Metareviews work...
johnnynumber5 @ Sep 29th 2009 9:00PM
:Puts on hater blockers:
Mr Khan @ Sep 29th 2009 9:08PM
why do i feel like we go through this discussion every time a metareview comes up?
BananaBoat @ Sep 29th 2009 9:13PM
I may catch some flak, but I'm also in the "It shouldn't get a 100 if there are any flaws" camp. Having said that, most places don't grade on a 1 to 100 scale, and a lot of places never meant for their star ratings, or letter ratings, to translate to that 1 to 100 scale (1up has talked about this, as has Xplay I believe, and various other reviewers).
It's certainly nitpicky, but I much preferred the days when a perfect score was the holy grail of video gamedom, and absolutely no games received it (until Ocarina of Time came around).
Having said all of that, I'm of the opinion that review aggregation is bullshit, and that actually playing the game is worth a lot more than seeing a hastily crammed together aggregate of all of the review scores. I love reading reviews, but a score out of 100 that may have been converted from a star rating, a letter rating, or something in-between is of absolutely no help to me. One review from one person I trust and respect is worth 100 reviews from sites I've never heard of, written by writers I've never heard of.
(I can't wait to play)
Vidikron @ Sep 29th 2009 9:30PM
Why do some of you insist on looking at ratings like the score of a math quiz? That's utterly stupid. There is no absolute right or wrong answers. This is more like assigning a grade to an art project or an English paper. Just because you get full credit doesn't mean there can't be something better. This debates come up over and over and the people arguing that 10/10 = perfect are wrong each and ever time. Give it the fuck up.
offday @ Sep 29th 2009 9:31PM
Downvote all you want fanboys, but a 100/100 is PERFECT, which the game clearly is not from the review. Does anyone even read GamePro anymore anyway? Gez, I didn't think that magazine was even around anymore.
BananaBoat @ Sep 29th 2009 10:22PM
@Vidikron
It's not that we are unequivocally wrong, rather that the review industry is still split between the old ways (where a 100 was a mythical score that simply didn't exist) and the new, metacritic way (where 5 stars equates to a 100/100 score, and where anything less than an 80 means the game is freaking awful).
Personally, I prefer the old way. You clearly prefer the new way. That doesn't make either one of us more correct than the other.
The industry badly needs to come together and normalize the way that games are scored. If that means that everyone switches to a 1/100 scale, then so be it. Whether or not 100's would ever be given out on that new scale would completely be up to the reviewers themselves.
Vidikron @ Sep 29th 2009 11:07PM
I don't think there's ever been an old way. Different sites have always had different philosophies on rating. But you are absolutely wrong to think 10/10 = perfect. Again, using that logic you should never be able to get a perfect score on any English paper, or art project, or science project, etc... anything that is subjective or could possibly be improved would never get the top score. Ever.
But let's say I buy into this idea that a top score means "perfect". What then is the top score? 9? 9.1? 9.5? 9.9? 9.91? 9.95? 9.99? You see where I'm going with that? How do you choose the cap on the scores and what do you do if something comes along that is better? It's a pointless endeavor to try and keep 10/10 as some mythical and unobtainable score. It's just as flawed as you think the other method is. Games are subjective. There are too many variables to try and grade them like a math quiz where absolute answers are expected.
And at the end of the day does it matter? Why get hung up on a reviewer giving a game a 100/100 vs a 95/100? Either way the reviewer clearly likes the game and your best bet is still to read some of the reviewers to help you decide if it sounds like a game you want to play. I'm sure everyone here has played a highly rated game they didn't like or a game with average rating they loved. I just don't see why this debate has to rehashed everytime a game is handed a "perfect" score.
BananaBoat @ Sep 29th 2009 11:33PM
@Vid
I don't know why people bring it up. I've never brought it up myself, but I'm willing to debate the system as it currently exists whenever someone brings it up.
I'm certainly not going to lose sleep because someone handed out a 100/100, all I'm saying is that people handing out 100/100's all the time makes it less special, and less of an event when a game finally gets that score (when Ocarina of Time received it from Famitsu, the internet imploded under the weight of the celebration).
I don't know why I bother. For all my attempts to show both sides of an argument, there is always someone that disagrees so vehemently that trying to reason is pointles...An UC2 multiplayer demo?! HELL YEAH! LET'S DO THIS THING!
Vidikron @ Sep 30th 2009 12:03AM
The only thing I'll add to that is that even OoT isn't perfect, not even close. That's why I think avoiding perfect scores on the basis that it means a perfect game is a pointless system. Because 9 because your new cap and what do you do when you give out a 9 and then another game comes along that is better? You're in the same situation. Now, if you want to argue that perfect scores are given out too freely, that's an entirely different debate that IMO has no direct relation to this one.
Imran @ Sep 30th 2009 1:11AM
Retarded. Yes, there is such a thing as perfect as you are asking and it will never exist in this dimension of existence. Is there a game that everyone likes and no one hates? If not then perfect does not exist. "Perfect" is subjective. Now, if you go back and look at Castlevania on NES, was that considered perfect? MAybe at the time, but now it is far from perfect. See??? Perfection changes with time and in fact degrades.
BananaBoat @ Sep 30th 2009 1:21AM
@Vid
I'm English, but I didn't come here for an argument. I've stated my position ("they give out too many 100/100's! Get offa my lawn you stinkin kids!") and you've given yours. We clearly don't agree. I'm fine with that. I'm very mellow when I've got cold liquor and a new demo of a game I couldn't get into the beta of.
I think we can all agree though that this damn, freaking AK sprays as if Nathan Drake was hopped up on caffeine. I have never had this much trouble hitting anything in any third person game ever.
The Baron @ Sep 30th 2009 7:26AM
I agree that 100% should mean a game is absolutely perfect. I can't begin to grasp why people would argue the opposite... are you guys just used to it or something?
Orion @ Sep 30th 2009 9:20AM
I've never seen so many people bitch about a game getting such good reviews, and saying that it doesn't deserve a score because it has flaws. No fucking shit it has flaws, every game has flaws.
Bottom line, it's a masterpiece of a game. Zelda OoT had flaws, and it's considered a God send to Zelda fans. Same with this. 10/10 or 9/10, this is a game that should be in your library. That's the ONLY FUCKING POINT the people reviewing this game were trying to make by giving it a VERY high score is "PLEASE DON'T PASS THIS UP LIKE THE LAST ONE. YOU NEED TO BUY IT".
If you can't understand that, you people are daft.
Jimbotron @ Sep 30th 2009 10:09AM
@offday: I still read GamePro, asswipe. Some people don't like relying on one source (the web) for all their info/amusement.