Well I do for the most part agree it probably doesn't deserve 10s, because I really don't think many games at all don't deserve 10s. But these kind of complaints for a sequel is seriously something you could use for almost any sequel ever created outside of ones that aren't your direct sequel kinda things. I mean I could look at almost any sequel and say "ah you have the same main character in there" or "the same guns and a similar environment to where the first one took place" or "similar mechanics". I mean that is really being nitpicky.
I'm not going to say with a sequel you shouldn't have things new. That's the point of having a sequel. Not just to continue a story, but to improve and innovate the formula you have created. But I think Nintendo did that exceptionally well with Galaxy 2, better than most do with sequels. I've played a lot of sequels this generation, and Galaxy 2 doesn't feel like the usual sequel. Easily could be a game in its own right and that's the point. I don't like how critics do things nowadays, but I can see why they like it enough to get 10s even though I rarely think any should get 10s.
As for this guy who writes this, I think it is pretty apparent he has to make a lot of stretches to get a lot points against Galaxy 2 which is why he doesn't come off too strong and why he doesn't make any truth claims in there. So it's a pretty decent article that is fair.
