So, I deviated from the mean today and didn't purchase Uncahrted 2. No, I didn't run out of money, and no, I didn't get my legs severed in a brutal, legendary car crash. I just chose against buying the game, despite its Metacritic average being in the low 90's and despite my trusted friend and colleague Nick Chester's assurance that everyone who likes action games will enjoy it. Yes, despite all that, I still don't believe that Uncharted 2 would be worth $60 of my dollars.

How can this be, you ask? Doubtful of my logic, are you? Well, feast your doubting, skeptical eyes on this question; does the fact that the majority of the reviewers who chose to review Uncharted 2 later went on to enjoy the game mean that, in fact, scientifically, statistically speaking that I have a "very good" chance of enjoying the game as well? Is that how reviews work for you the majority of the time?

In my experience, the answer is generally "no". For example, most film reviewers have rated Raiders of the Lost Ark as the best Indiana Jones movie ever made. I happen to feel (oh wait, sorry) think that Raiders is in truth and fact, the most creatively dry and poorly crafted film in bunch. My personal favorites are Temple of Doom (specifically, Shortround kicking the crap of multiple crazed cultists, and a heart being magically ripped from a man's chest) and the fourth one (for the aliens, tribesmen that live inside solid rock, and the psychic Russians).

So, what does this mean? Does this deviation from the majority of "professional, Hollywood movie reviewing journalists" mean I have "bad taste" in movies? Maybe it does. Could it also mean that, from my perspective, to make a ridiculous, totally unbelievable Indiana Jones movie that still causes you to care about the characters is a greater sign of skill than to make a safer, more crowd pleasing period piece about World War II, Bible stuff and "father/son banter"? Could it be that Hollywood action movies, like videogames, are sometimes liked, and sometimes not liked, depending on people's "tastes", and that these tastes are forever tied to one's perception of "quality"?

I know, I know, it's bold theory. Like nothing you've ever heard before, I'm sure. But wait, I'm not done. Answer me this; what if the quality of a videogame, like Hollywood movie, may be impossible to measure in a quantitative way? Like, let's sat that one film reviewer gives the movie Citizen Kane four stars in an honest, totally and unequivocally unbiased review, while another equally unbiased reviewer gives the same film only two stars. Does this mean that the second reviewer is exactly two stars less accurate, and therefore, less qualitatively skilled at reviewing films as the first reviewer?

Maybe.

Could it also mean that many, many film reviewers are afraid that other people would perceive them as bad reviewers if they gave Citizen Kane two stars, ruining their careers in film critique masters forever? Could such stakes lead them all to claim to recognize the brilliance of Citizen Kane, while secretly, even subconsciously not believing that the movie is particularly well made at all?

Could the Emperor, in fact, be a naked man, and could the simple child indeed be the best videogame reviewer of them all?

PERHAPS




So yeah, I didn't buy Uncahrted 2. What did I buy then? Well, for $30, I bought The Grudge game on the Wii. So far, it has impressed me, but not totally. I got genuinely more skeebed out from the first levelthan I did from either American Grudge movie. That's at its best. At it's worst, it's just plain silly, but on the whole, it's good stuff so far.

Here's some highlights.

* All controls are done with the Wii remote; point to aim the flashlight and turn your character, press A for actions, B to move forward, and down on the C-pad to move backwards.

* Player 2 can activate new scares for player one to deal with, but only every fifteen seconds. These scares range from the totally lame (badly rendered cockroaches covering the screen for two seconds) to the unsettling (bloody paper suddenly flies at the player, a ghost's face half-appears in the lower corner of the screen) to the genuinely creepy (dead croaking girl suddenly flies upside down from the top of the screen to the bottom, or her face flies at you from out of nowhere, filling the screen as she screams)

* Scripted scares are more generally frightening than Player 2 controlled scares. For example,sometimes you'll see the little Grudge ghost boy run just into sight then disappear in seconds. One time you'll get the patterned Grudge croaky cell phone call. It may all sound old, but this stuff works just as well here, if not better, than it did in the movies.

* The graphics are really good for a budget game. The environments so far are better than those in the relatively impressive Dead Space: Extraction. It's cheating a bit because the lighting obscures so much, but on the whole the setting has been more convincing and unsettling in The Grudge.

* Sound effects, such a bangs, bug buzzing, screams, and Grudge croaking all work extremely well, at least, on a Stereo TV. I imagine on a surround sound set, it would work even better.

* Two ways to die so far- one is by running into Grudge girl and failing a to escape her (semi-QTE style), the other is by running out of batteries for your flashlight. You are constantly running out of battery life, and therefore, are always are pressured to move forward.

* The character moves really slowly and clumsily. This might frustrate people with low attention spans.

* There are secret items in every level, find them all and unlock a new stage.

* The game is scary to watch, but it's definitely more scary to play..

In conclusion, I'll be really surprised if I don't get my $30 worth from the game. They'd really have to screw up the rest of the levels for this game to be a total failure.



I also bought A Boy and his Blob today for $40. Great game so far, much harder than I thought it would be. I've only beaten the first two levels and two unlockable bonus levels, so I don't have much to go on yet.

Here are my thoughts (beware of first half-hour spoilers)-

* The premise is way stranger than I thought it would be. The boy in the game has no identifiable family. He lives alone in a giant, kick-ass tree fort. After the multiple blobs (many black and evil, one nice and white) crash land nearby, the boy goes out to investigate. He seems to instinctively know that the white blob is awesome, and trusts him %100, even after the black blobs tried to kill him on the way to the crash site. On the other had, the white blob isn't so sure about the boy . After some coaxing (meaning, after the boy says "C'MERE" a few times), they become friends, and the game begins in earnest. All this transpires in playable segments; no cut-scenes to speak of.

* The controls take a little getting used to, and its weird that you can't aim with the IR pointer where you want the boy to throw jellybeans, but otherwise, everything is smooth playing.

* I died quite a few times on bonus level 2. You have to think quick, pre-plan, and have good reflexes to survive.

* Beating bonus levels unlocks behind the scenes production art, which you view directly while playing the game. This goes a long with the seamless, menu-free, cut scene-free nature of the game. It's very effortless and classy.

* The game looks beautiful, and definitely feels retail quality. In some respects, it looks even better than Muramasa.

* The new voice for the boy is well done, with a lot of variety. It's rare to hear him say "BLOB!" or "C'MERE!" in the exact same way twice.

So yeah, loving both games thus far. Maybe when I'm done with them, I'll borrow Uncharted 2 from somebody and see if my opinion and Nick's are at all similar in this case. I hope they are, because he clearly had a great time with the game.

I should be so lucky.