Have you ever felt the disappointment of finding out one of your heroes isn’t who you always thought they were? Wasn’t it a bummer to find out that Santa Claus didn’t exist, or that Superman isn’t really super at all, but instead just an actor who was as normal as the rest of us? You feel lost at first, and you question as to whether or not it’s real. And once you realize that you’re not dreaming, you immediately feel betrayed.
I just recently experienced this sort of troublesome realization with an editor of a gaming magazine who, for the longest time, I felt was one of my heroes. The guy can write articles with staggering truth, and the man knows the gaming industry better than most others I can even think of. Over the years, I’ve drawn a lot of my editorial experience through him, and many of my own ideas were inspired from his writing.
Then, one day, he writes an editorial for his magazine that is, quite frankly, one of the most biased writings I’ve ever seen in print; and it was coming from a man who claimed to love all games, and not partial to any one platform, game, genre, or game maker. But because a game that he obviously adores didn’t get the scores he was expecting across the board, he immediately begins trashing the competitors who, according to him, doesn’t know a great game when they see one.
I’m going to go over this with you, and I apologize in advance for the rant, but I promise, there is a point. I will begin to outline the author’s maniacal bitching in a second, but allow me to set the scene. The author of the article in which I’m about to cry about is concerning the score that the PS2 game Jak II received by two particular press sources: GameSpy and OPM (Official PlayStation Magazine). More specifically, the author’s rage is due to the fact that Jak II didn’t get the high marks the author expected by these two sources. For the record, GameSpy awarded Jak II a 2 out of 5-point rating (40%), and OPM rated the game with a 3.5 out of 5-point rating (70%). Now, check this out:
”The U.S. version of the Official PlayStation Magazine gave Jak II a 3.5 out of a possible 5-point rating. On the surface, that’s not as bad as GameSpy but, in reality, much more damaging and offensive. The reason for OPM’s existence is to PROMOTE the PlayStation brand. This doesn’t mean that they can’t have editorial credibility, but it does mean that they should have a staff that that can recognize a high-profile release when they see one, and that can tell the difference between the outhouse and the penthouse when it comes to software quality.”
The quote above clearly reveals tons of mistakes, and I’m going to go each and every one of them. First and foremost, the author of this believes that because OPM is a PlayStation-dedicated publication, and Jak II is a first party game, in essence, Jak II should receive high scores. And because it didn’t get the marks that the author expected, he goes on to trash the reviewer, claiming the individual basically doesn’t know what he’s doing. While this comes off as no more than a fanboy rant, there’s more.
The very same reviewer for OPM who evaluated Jak II also reviewed Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando -- another effort from one of Sony’s first party teams -- and awarded the game a 5 out of 5. He evidently knew what he was doing here. Eh? GamingWorld X had similar feelings toward both games, which means basically, the man is trashing us as well. For example, we awarded Jak II a very respectable 7.5. And we too, liked Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando better, giving it a 9.5. And just like in OPM, both games were reviewed by the same individual. So yes, I take it as a personal insult against GWX as much as it’s meant to flame OPM. Because we are honest and unbiased in our reviews, we “don’t know what we’re doing”.
Here’s more:
”I don’t care how much money they make or how big they are, it is simply wrong and poor journalism, in the process trivializing an epic effort that took many thousands of man and woman hours and many of millions of dollars to create. Hell, GameSpy gave one of those cheap-ass “Cabela’s Big Game Hunter” games for PS2 a 74/100 rating (under their old system). Can anybody on this planet rationalize how a game that should come free with a fill-up outscores Jak II?!?”
The gist of the argument that the author is so desperately trying (but failing) to make is that because Jak II is a game that took millions of dollars to make, and the developers worked very hard on it, the game should receive high scores. As far as we’re aware, the game scores well only if it’s good, no matter what kind of effort was put into it. The final product is what the consumer pays for, not the good intentions. The author even resorts to essentially making fun of another game (one that isn’t even a part of the same genre no less) in an attempt to prove his point. Well, I’ve got some news; if that Cabela game is a better hunting sim than Jak II is a platformer, isn’t it only fair that the game receives a score that reflects that? GamingWorld X sure thinks so.
The funniest thing about this whole sordid mess of an article is that the magazine that it came from voted the original Jak and Daxter as their Game of the Year over Grand Theft Auto 3 for that year, but the author has even admitted to contemplating giving Jak II a perfect score… a game that borrows very heavily from the Grand Theft Auto formula. If Grand Theft Auto 3 wasn’t good enough to win Game of the Year from the magazine, why does a very Grand Theft Auto-esque Jak II deserve the magazine’s highest rating (and obviously puts the game into position to be the mag’s Game of the Year)? Rationalize that.
The article goes on to basically refer to anyone who doesn’t score Jak II astronomically high as “hacks”. While I’m not one to normally knock the competition, this case deserves a well-placed kick to the nuts. Perhaps the editor who wrote this article should take a good look at the content that spreads before the pages of his very own magazine before calling other people hacks and downing their magazines and websites. For example, in the magazine’s review of Need for Speed Underground, the 452-word review spends the majority of it’s time accusing EA of jumping the bandwagon, rather than actually detailing any gameplay. In that very same issue, Tak & the Power of Juju scored a hearty 93% (per their rating system), and yet the reviewer claims the game is “worth checking out for fans of the genre.” Their 93% score is the equivalent of GamingWorld X’s 9.3, and yet the game is merely worth “checking out”, and then only by those who enjoy platformers. Well then, the game is certainly not worthy of a hefty 9.3, is it? To GWX, a score like this indicates the game deserves to be among the gaming elite, not merely “worth checking out”. There are inconsistencies abound, but the writer of the article insists that other magazines and websites “half-ass reviews“. They look to be one of the primary culprits of half-assing content.
(Note the beginning of shameless plug here) It’s accusations such as this that makes me appreciate working at GamingWorld X that much more. If there is one thing readers of our site can always count on, it’s the fact that our product evaluations are 100% honest. We don’t score a game based on who made it. We don’t score our games based on how much time it took to complete. We don’t score our games based on how much money was spent creating it. We don’t score our games based on how much the platform maker is hyping it. Games are about fun, and therefore, we base our review scores solely on how much fun the game is to play, and there is nothing that anyone can do to sway us from that. It’s a simple concept really, and yet it’s something that seems to be increasingly ignored. And seeing as how GWX has not deviated from that shows me something about the site that I haven’t taken notice to before. (End shameless plug)
The article in I just described isn’t the only example of blatant bias by those who claim to not be partial to any particular flavor, but it is one of the more belligerent ones, where one source directly attacks another. Though there may be some jokes spouted off about one from another, it’s rare when it gets this derogatory. Luckily, I believe that’s it’s eye for an eye, and as such, I just happen to know more than enough about the one pointing the finger to point a big, fat finger right back at them. You know that others have done it, but here, it’s all in print, and I believe it serves them right to be taken to task in print as well.
Perhaps what is most important here is that in the end, it’s all just an opinion from one person, or from one source, and it’s still left to you to draw your own conclusions. It is rare when someone’s word can successfully be spread as gospel; the gospel this author is trying to sell is simple: he wants the world to believe what he believes to be true, and instead of making an argument with facts, he chose to share his opinion as a fact, which are two different things entirely. And does the end justify the means? Hardly. It seems that every day, more game evaluators are losing that grasp that keeps them grounded, and they soon actually feel that their own opinion is the only one worth having. Suddenly, there is an over-inflated opinion of one’s own self-worth, and it takes a few sharp needles to pop that ego.
Luckily for GamingWorld X, we’ve always got plenty in stock.
