It does seem that when someone shows ignorance, they show it quite often. We usually don’t have any problem with one’s opinion as long as that opinion is based on facts about what they are forming such an opinion on. When they don’t do that, they end up looking like damn fools. Either that or laying for a team that depends on them to bend the rules to the other team look vacillating and impotent, and the one they are playing for seem like the only option. GameDaily has been accused of either-slash-both in recent months (not to mention the already numerous criticisms about the AOL-maintained site), with the Metal Gear Solid 4 debacle in which Chris Buffa first wrote a review that was full of errors about the game, and then when called on it, complained that it was the score he gave MGS4 that they was mad about, not what he tried to pass off as facts that he based his opinion on. While it’s not Chris Buffa, it’s the site, as once again, GameDaily gives an erroneous review of Socom: Confrontation. No, the game is not perfect, but neither is the review they gave, and we have a contributor to GG that can prove it.

Of course, we’re not going to sit here and say that they never gave a erroneous review to a 360 or Wii game (there’s already some controversy around the Fable 2 review they gave), but this is one that one of our newer contributors, who goes by the name of “Sonarus” on the N4G.com game news webportal as well as everywhere else, has given us permission to use (thanks, by the way). He had posted on the message board several key areas in which they did not tell the truth, blatantly or otherwise.

The first is where the reviewer, Robert Workman, said, “Despite these modes, glitches ruin the fun. Constant freeze-ups force you to reset your PlayStation 3, there’s no time limit on your matches and no ability to simply drop out if you’re frustrated or tired of losing.”

According to Sonarus, who has played the game several times since the release last week, that is simply inaccurate. “He claims games have no time limit but that is just false. You can set the time for each round and you can also set the amount of rounds you want to play. On average each round is about 10 minutes but i have seen shorter.”

Another erroneous point says, “Developer Slant Six made some changes for the better, including a bigger emphasis on team play (you can’t win a match by yourself) and removing vehicles. However, manual weapon switching often leads to an early death in the heat of combat. For instance, if you have a rifle and need to throw a grenade, you’ll need to take the time to actually pull out the grenade, rather than just tossing it. This small delay takes just enough time to turn the tide in a battle, leaving you vulnerable to enemy attack.”

Wrong again, according to Sonarus. “You can push L1 to switch to your previous weapon,” he said.

This is nothing new to GameDaily. They have been severly wrong before about the games they reveiw. Ripten had called them out before on Chris Buffa saying that LittleBigPlanet looked like a Powerpoint Presentation.

Let’s not forget, either, the same Chris Buffa’s Metal Gear Solid review. In that, he had made erroneous point after erroneous point about the game that was supposed to provide the base for his 8/10 score about the game. However, when some people called him out on it, he, instead of admitting his own errors, blamed the media for giving Kojima a free pass and completely missing the point of the anger (he said he even game MGS4 a half-free-pass of his own, saying he could’ve docked off for even MORE ridiculous points). He still refuses to take the hint about that, even when other sites called him out on what he said to Games Rush.

The fact of the matter is that it’s not the score that someone gives a game, it’s what they provide as the basis FOR that score. You can give a game a 5/10 or a 10/10 all you want, but if you’re not prepared to say what made you believe that the game deserved the score, or if you provide false facts about the game (such as telling someone that there is no options to turn something off when there clearly is) that may in a sense change someone else’s mind about the game, or fail to provide key gameplay points that could sway decisions, then you shouldn’t really be talking about the game.

According to Sonarus about the Socom issue, “From the review its clear the guy didn’t really play the game. I mean there are other game modes that could have been mentioned but he didn’t he just spat false crap. But the servers really suck so its hard to get a game…maybe thats why he didn’t play much.” He added, “He should have gone in depth and explained the different game modes and all that. Instead he just played it a few times, hated it, said why he hated it, and moved on.” This was the main thought concerning the Chris Buffa thing, too. However, even though we’re not trying to make this seem like a bias situation, let’s not forget which system they declared, “The Greatest Console Of All Time.”

Let this be a lesson to anyone who writes a review about something: Give us all the facts and don’t let us assume anything about you, that you don’t really play the games you review, or think that you’re running some kind of agenda. Someone really needs to tell GameDaily that, because they seem to have forgotten such.

UPDATE AND CORRECTION: We have learned from “Sonarus” that the review of Fable 2 was made by “Daily Game”, not “Game Daily”. We apologize for the error.