I've always thought that Gametrailers was fair (for the most part) on their scores. I agree, a great game with little innovation (read most PS3 games, most 360 games and most Wii games without the motion controls) doesn't deserve a truly great score.
The difference here is how well people mask their lack of innovation. This is what differentiate PS3, 360 and Wii games. Uncharted and Uncharted 2 from what I've seen and read, is a blatant(ly good) copy of many other games. I don't see a game with little innovation getting the perfect score. The same can apply to many many many many amazing games.
How is this different from gears? Epic may not have imagined the post-apocalyptic world originally, but they were one of the first to fully realise one in gaming (or at least console gaming). Also, they were the first mainstream game to use a (good) cover system. They were the first to popularise the "horde" mode system, they may not have been the first to have it. That's probably why Halo 3 scored well, because of forge (a system so easily used on PC but never really done on consoles).
Also, I'm fairly certain (and it's fair that they do this), a sequel that doesn't differentiate itself from the original deserves a higher score IF the original (and therefore the series) are "innovators" (in the sense of making things popular) then one that doesn't.
I'm not sure why they felt they needed to explain their reviews, they are one of the few sites that don't exaggerate scores in order to show how they feel about a game (which IGN is now doing). A game doesn't need to be a 9.5+ to be an amazing game, but it's websites like IGN that make it so, and those darn fanboys that just want Uncharted 2 to be in the Top 10 on gamerankings or metacritic.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
