This is Jazzking2001, owner of this site. I need to say something to the people that read this article. We do NOT have issues with the GT review score of 9.3 for Uncharted 2 at all. The issue is the reasoning BEHIND the scoring of the game.
It's official. I get it. GameTrailers never liked the PS3. But did they really need to try to hide it? First the comparison videos that have the word “controversy” skewed all over them, then the Dblock commentary (if you could call it that) about the 360 being better than the PS3 because of the controller (who, by the way, was a VIDEO EDITOR FOR THE SITE), and now a review for the upcoming Uncharted 2. Yes, we know, 9.3/10 is a far, FAR cry from a 3/10. Not many games get that high of a score. But many reviewers do this when defending their reviews when the score for the games they reviewed are brought into question.
It happened with Chris Buffa over his Metal Gear Solid 4 review over at GameDaily, and it happened here too. It's that many reviewers who see their scores being called out defend it in the pretense, whether it's intentional or not, that the doubters are those that are upset about the final score alone. It's clear that it's the context of the review is what is causing the uproar, and GT's Editor in Chief Shane Satterfield made the mistake, too.
And this time, he decided to bring a sword to a gun fight.
First, before people label me here, let me assure you that I know I've developed quite the reputation here with my last two articles, Tough Love for Microsoft
and my calling out of XBox 360 Rebate: Not All It's Cracked Up To Be
(both of which I still stand behind, by the way, despite fanboys trying to harass Jazzking about my “idiocy” about them). Not going to pretend that every word I say will be put under a microscope. And, in reality, I hope you people do that, because when people try to defend their reviews by bringing up games that did nothing creative to make your point that something else wasn't, then you hurt your credibility. In this case, the microscope will make you see that some people should not be reviewing games.
Such is the case with Shane Satterfield. I've watched his 10 minute video review (warning that there are some spoilers in the review, something that Satterfield also failed to apologize for in his "defense", and even Gamespot, another one of the media whores, had to apologize for in ITS review of UC2), and yes, he did give the game one of the better reviews that GT could give given the site's apparent bias against the system it is on. In fact, one of the only things that they said was negative were the controls (which we won't know about until we gamers get the game in our hands), a smack on the original Uncharted being too short (maybe if you don't count the trophies that were patched in after), and, of course, the “originality”. This is where Satterfield got some heat. How can a game that not much negative things were said of it got a 9.3?
That led to the defense on the Invisible Walls podcast, and one that the Examiner summed up perfectly. This is where my personal problem with his defense lies. First, the sword he brought to the fight: Gears of War. The guns that THEY brought? Sports games that are released every year. Or how about the Guitar Hero games or the upcoming Modern Warfare 2? Satterfield didn't exactly get what was being compared. As far as Gears goes, he didn't really go into detail about why he thought GoW was so original in comparison to Uncharted 2. Granted, he has his own opinions, but when you fail to support your opinions with some substance to make us believe that you actually thought that opinion through, you make us suspicious. I am not doubting that there was something he saw in those games that WAS original (the only thing that he brought up as being in GoW2 in the actual video review was the “Horde” mode), but he needed to bring that up to be more creditable.
Furthermore, he also brings up Super Mario Galaxy. It's an awesome game, I do agree. However, and I have to thank someone bringing this up to me, Rachet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal? came up with the upside down platforming concept before SMG did.
Finally, and I had some issues with this, he said the following things:
And again, I’ve said it a million times, the game is freaking incredible. The last line in the review says: ‘go buy the game. If you have a PS3, go freaking buy it.’ What more can I say? But at the same time I cannot sleight the other games that did go above and beyond and did take a risk.
And that’s what Uncharted 2 doesn’t do. There are no risks associated with that game at all. They played it completely safe. They took things that they knew were accepted and people loved and build it into one game. And that’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. But you can’t expect a score of a 9.8 or a 9.5 and higher if you’re doing something like that.
Now, take into consideration that he said in the original video review that Naughty Dog “took the concepts and made them better”. That's IS a form of originality. That's why people can get patents for inventions that actually improve on another's already patented idea. You make a new twist on an old concept. This is contradicting what he said in his response to something.
But what Satterfield failed to get is the whole concept of why people were mad. Opinions are opinions. Everyone's entitled to them. No one is saying he had no right to say that they were faults if he thought they were. This is a flaw with all reviewers when they have to defend their scores. They think it's just a bunch of fanboys wanting a 10/10 or else, regardless of what faults that reviewer may see. The 9.3 is fine as long as you're saying things to justify you giving such a score to any game. This is the same thing that Chris Buffa ran into, and what his defenders tried to say about his MGS4 review.
The detractors were, according to them, a bunch of PS3 fanboys ready to pounce on an imperfect score. I don't think I have to even say anything about his review (Google it), but his response to the controversy just made it worse, with him claiming that Kojima was given a “free pass” by reviewers. That's not how you get the fires put out. In fact, you just pour gas on them. The reviewers spend more time trying to row up the so-called “fanboys” that called them out instead of trying to explain their score further. While Satterfield was hardly as bad as Buffa was, you could tell he wasn't happy that he was called out.
That's the thing with being a reviewer: you need to take the criticisms like a gamer. Not everyone will agree (hell, even reviewers with disagree with each other). Those that are willing to stand behind their score are commended for their bravery, but at the same time, you need to be defending them for the RIGHT reasons, not just because you have a bone to pick with fanboys.
Though with Satterfield, it's a special case. There's another reason why gamers are suspicious of his score. It's what I made apparent at the beginning of this article: GameTrailers has a history of not being kind to the PS3. Take the switch up controversy surrounding the recent Wolverine game that came out. They showed a 360 clip on the PS3 side, and then when called on it, did a quick stealth edit of the video and then claim that they did nothing wrong.
That goes on top of the many other issues surrounding the side-by-side comparison videos. From the alleged sabotaging of the PS3 version side to not running the PS3 version at the same resolutions as they run the 360 side. This coupled with the Dblock issue is reason enough to see where the suspicions are rooted from. It would've been nice of Satterfield brought some of this stuff up, but sadly, he didn't. Maybe as little as some reassurance that no bias was shown here would've been enough.
But, of course, instead, we're left with the usual thought: the bias about Sony's console in the mainstream media is continuing to be though of by the gaming public. More and more are picking up on this, and there are less and less people ready to shout the label of “SDF” member to anyone who calls the MSM out on things like this. Maybe I was too hard on Satterfield in the beginning when I said that he shouldn't be allowed to review games. He needs to be educated more, I know that. But him assuring that he wasn't trying to tote a company line could've helped out, and if he really does have a 360 bias that he's flooding throughout the site, then people really do need to ask questions.
Take this as a lesson to any reviewer, though: be ready for people to disagree. Every gamer has their vices, and every gamer has their turn offs, and you will not know what they are until you actually see what they play. You're never going to have everyone disagree, and if you are just going to use a defense to piss off some fanboys that you got annoyed by, I got four words for you:
This is Jazzking2001, owner of this site. I need to say something to the people that read this article. We do NOT have issues with the GT review score of 9.3 for Uncharted 2 at all. The issue is the reasoning BEHIND the scoring of the game.
|
Directory
especially got me LMAO. You're as clueless about patents as a 16 years old girl, aren't you? People don't get patents for apeing other people's patent, they get their a*s sued for doing that. They only get a patent if their invention makes a NON TRIVIAL advancement over previous patents, but Uncharted 2 is as trivial as it gets.
Horde wasn't original. It's pretty much Rainbow Six: Vegas' Terrorist hunt. You shouldn't deduct or add originality points unless you do your research.
When entertainment becomes business it's the art and fans that lose. :/