Say whatever you like about Eurogamer's Uncharted 3 review, in which they reward Drake's next adventure with an 8/10, David Jaffe thinks that's a fine score and he's up for explaining why.
"Eurogamer's conclusion/criticism about games that are super heavy on the 'experience' at the expense of the 'play' (…) is wonderfully thought out and presented and the only reason it's been labeled 'controversial' has nothing to do with the review itself and everything to do with the sad state of game consumers who have been so effectively conditioned by a number of the gaming press/gaming PR machines that these gamers leap to a title's defense- not that this gem of a game needs defending – without even being open to the reviewer's criticism (be it valid or not)."
He continues:
"How refreshing that a great, hyped, and soon-to-be much loved game can be praised while at the same time intelligently and non mean-spiritedly criticized for what a reviewer thinks (agree or not) are genuine issues. Wow, that's just like big boy writing! And I love it! :)"
I agree that the press should be able to reward scores based on what they think of a game without 6-18 months worth of hype guaranteeing a 10 before the game is even put into a public console. But I also think that a game should be rewarded on its own merits. If it's a cinematic experience, something Uncharted is definitely 'guilty' of, but it contains enough entertainment to be worth your time, why would you knock it down based on something it isn't? Would you complain that LIMBO, a game that Eurogamer gave 9/10, had enough gameplay to go almost entirely without story progression?
