Six years ago, SOCOM US Navy Seal was released on the PS2. It was met with overall positive reviews with some negative reviews here and there. One such negative review was some www.ign.com. The reviewer critiqued the game for being too much like Counterstrike (which it is) and that if you want a proper tactical shooter gaming experience, you should check out Counterstrike on the PC. The problem is that people who were looking to learn about SOCOM weren't PC gamers. If they were, they would probably being playing Counterstrike already. No, these gamers were console gamers not really playing much on the PC. It didn't take long for the outcry of console gamers about the review to take effect and IGN redid the review from a proper "console" perspective. It was at this time that I truly realized that some gaming sites just don't get "it".
On Oct. 14, SOCOM: Confrontation is released on the PS3. While some fans immediately fell in love with the game going back to the feel of SOCOM 1 and 2, others were pissed about the servers. Like Call of Duty 4, it's obvious that whoever controls the servers has a set amount of bandwidth allocated to those servers. In some cases, games come out with huge fanfare to where the servers are just not adequate. This is what happened to SOCOM: Confrontation. Yes there are some features missing but that didn't piss people off. The inability to play an actual game, since SOCOM: Confrontation is online only, did upset people. As expected, the problem has been somewhat fixed and players have been playing long sessions with little to no problems.
Yet again, like six years ago, certain gaming sites have proven that they just don't get "it". Both www.ign.com and www.gamespot.com have given poor reviews to SOCOM: Confrontation while others have given much more favorable reviews. Now of course there are varying opinions on games and I'm sure they will not be alone with the bad reviews. The difference is that the problems with the servers during a short period of time have caused a game that the reviewers admit as being fun and great looking to a game that received well below average scores. Gamespot with it's score of 6.5 is stating that games like Spider Man 3 and Blazing Angels are better while Lost: Via Domus and Timeshift are on the same level(for those that read my Lost Review of Lost: Via Domus, you'll see how I loathe that game). With IGN, its score of 4.5, is saying that Pirates of the Caribbean, FaceBreaker, Ratatouille, Monster Madness, and again, Lost: Via Domus are better than SOCOM: Confrontation.
Now you may say "Well O.G., it's their opinion so they can't be wrong," well I say to you that opinions can be wrong. In this case, these two sites ignored what anyone who's played games for a while knows. That being, sometimes the servers just suck. If you realize this, then you also know that playing during off peak hours and waiting for patches and server fixes is the answer. Does this suck? Of course it does but with the price of bandwidth and the cost of companies supplying servers to games sparingly, this is the reality us gamers have to deal with from now on. Again, a gamer who's played games long enough knows this. Other sites have mentioned the problem but realized that the problem is temporary thus not hindering the overall scores of the game. Yet IGN and Gamespot didn't because they just don't get "it".
So what's the point of this blog post? It's to show that these guys reviewing the games are not always the gamers that most people think they are. They're not up all night playing games, doing clan matches, competing in tournaments, or taking gaming to another level. They're your standard journalists who just happen to be reviewing games instead of other forms of media. They may like games but they're not on a level that truly speaks volumes to their gaming expertise. These are not game experts reviewing the games and it shows time and time again. And it's just a damn shame because these are the two sites that are looked upon by not just the gaming public, but the public in general. These are the two sites that have their scores and comments posted on the back of games and on TV commercials. In the end, these two sites have show their true colors and should have their reviews taken with a grain of salt.