Acoccording to IGN's users:
"It doesn't have blood, so it isn't realistic"
"It isn't a HD game"
"It isn't M rated"
"It got a better score than Red Dead: Redemption"

"It doesn't have blood, so it isn't realistic" -  Games have to have blood nowadays?
"It isn't a HD game" - How can they tell? SMG2 graphics is amazing still.
"It isn't M rated" - so does that mean the game isn't fun?
"It got a better score than Red Dead: Redemption" - Oh dear me, my game is better than yours argument again :(.

I've played it and I love it, but to be honest, games like God of War 3 get smashed for being "the same ol', same ol'" when they do try to improve on the basis they are known for.

SMG 2 is also basing itself on the previous one and improves here and there (and is an utterly enjoyable game all around), but with SMG 2 it's considered good that it's more of the same with touches here and there.

With God of War 3 (and other games), that usually means (or meant) they would be tackled because of "more of the same".

That's the only somewhat logical anger I can get with SMG 2 scores (not that it doesn't deserve a high score)

Why does so many tires speak for others? First ; Anyone here is mad that it got a 10? anyone?

I'm pleased that it got a 10/10 :D

Galaxy 2's improvements and additions have a deeper impact on the core gameplay mechanics than GoW3's, which were largely presentational.

i dont even own the game, and im not mad it got a ten. Mario is the Mickey Mouse of games, he can do no wrong. His games will always have high scores. IMO i think Mario Kart DS and NSMBWII scores were to high

It might just be that I'm not paying that much attention to it, but I haven't seen anyone complain about it. And I don't like being left out

Many reviewers state that Galaxy 2 continues the revolution of the first game by fulfilling it's untapped potential.

The only review i've really seen people get upset over was the EDGE review.

And that was basically centered around people mistaking progress and innovation!