Well first of all 9.3 is a great score for a game. Let's not forget that.
Secondly, I think GT has just openly stated what all reviewers do but don't openly talk about... reviewing games based on things other than the game itself. Now let's get it straight... when thinking up a score there needs to be a conscience of how original and innovative it is compared to others in the same genre and the series. BUT if this is the whole of the review then you are simply comparing it rather than actually reviewing it. Now from the comment we can't tell if that is the entirety of the case but the way he presents his argument is not a good one.
The problem with the argument is you are making a contradiction. If you state that a game can't be better than the original if it is the same thing, then doesn't that relate the same way to where Uncharted got its ideas from. Without making that clear you are stating that it is the case there and not the case then. That is a logical contradiction.
I think bringing up the whole GTA IV thing is simply a hasty generalization fallacy. What if he did think it was better than the first and innovative? Wouldn't that still constitute his original argument and not make it a contradiction. You are reaching out of your own opinions to unjustify his which is illogical.
The point is the problem with his argument is that it makes a contradiction between how far you go when you relate a game to another to determine score and the depth of how much the rating should changed compared to others. Personally this is one of the issues I have with a lot of reviews is they don't base the majority of the review on the merits of the game itself. Sure if it is an exact copy of the original, take points off. In a way he kinda states this but not well. Point being, the whole of your review shouldn't be based on how it relates to other games becuase that is not reviewing the game but reviewing it's position in the industry as a whole.
