yeah but thats only because their the average reviews they got at that time when they were the pinnacle of gameplay and graphics. i mean if they were never heard of and released now but looked the same as they did then they wouldnt get those average review scores. I like the God Of War franchise and think the first 2 are great, but put them next to bayonetta now and i know which one i'd prefer to play.

Im not saying GOD3 wont be as good as the first two either because it almost certainly will, but it might not get a better metacritic score as games have came along since then you understand what im trying to say? But this is only my opinion and obviously i could easily be wrong, we'll only know in 2 months.

As for the bayonetta comment i put thats just basically my opinion aswell as bayonetta is one of the most fun and satisfying games ive played in a long while, and when i look at GOD3 gameplay trailers, although they look great i dont think they look as good as bayonetta does gameplaywise.

Game of the year contenders for 2010: (in no particular order btw)

mass effect 2
fallout:new vegas
super mario galaxy 2
the last guardian
Red Dead Redemption

personal opinion is that like final fantasy and god of war III will suffer from early release, mass effect 2 will still stay fresh tho, i see red dead redemption potentially winning most awards and smg2 will pick up a few, but then again there's like 5-6 megaton game TBA for this year that apperently we dont know about.

It will because of the wrong causes. I don't know what do you see in God of War: it the SAME THING since the first game, you just kill and kill, Madworld sound more fun than that. Just because people will say "OMG!!! Best graphics ever! Kratos rules! Blablabla" and critics will givve 100 just because of the graphics. Please, stop being like that... I admit: astonishing graphics, but besides that, what's the "GOTY" thing?

It could be but to early to tell.

i hate it when people say this about games in franchises, because you could say it about almost any franchise.

Halo= all you do is point shoot and kill

Uncharted= all you do is climb collect treasures and kill

Sonic the hedgehog= all you do is run across the screen and somersault on enemys heads

call of duty= all you do is point shoot kill

 of course the gameplay is going to stay the same in francises because its the same game except its just a sequel. the story will be different, the graphics will be better, there will be new characters, there'll be different items, new weapons, new moves to do. there just some of the things that'll change in franchises sequels. but the main template of the game will be the same.

Have you played God of War? I doubt it.

@StokedUP
so how do you explain God Of War Collection? it also scored higher than Bayonetta and it was released last year in november

2009 was very weak, thats the reason Uncharted 2 took so many plaudits.  This year there is real competition on all 3 consoles.

Ok, you may say that, but at least in some franchises, developers try to push it beyond what was seen before, not only a new story or weapons. For instance, Call of Duty is the same thing: shoot and kill, but they've gone beyond the same World War II space with the Modern Warfare series; another example: Sonic may be bad these days, but the latest instalments tried to do something new, as for Sonic Heroes (that trio combo wasn't something that innovative, but wasn't that bad at all) and Sonic Unleashed (ok, the Werehog sucked, but at least they tried...); Mario is always renewing our way to play it (Super Mario Galaxy changed everything we knew about 3D Mario) and Zelda is always trying to implement new features that makes the game different from the previous ones (boat in Wind Waker, Wolf Link in Twilight Princess and, perhaps, the Master Sword girl in the next game).

What I'm trying to say is that, in gameplay, God of War seems the same as it was in the first game. That's why I hate when critics and most of players say it's the best thing they've ever played, because I think we must think that a game is good when it shows something we've never played like before, and God of War surely doesn't seem like this. If it innovated besides storyline in the previous games, I wouldn't be complaining about it.

To be honest, I've never played, I just watched people playing. Ok, may be a wrong point of view by just watching and not playing, but, to me, it just looks like any other beat'em up. Yeah, it's cool to see Kratos doing like Zidane in an enemy, as well it's cool to see Jack cutting someone in half with his chainsaw. There's no essence in the game: it just shows a dark character trying to kill some people (maybe not, they're gods anyway...), I mean, what kind of legacy does it really bring to the video game industry? Ok, in about 50 years, people will remember how the franchise was acclaimed during our time, but, besides that, what remains from it on that day? It's just like Pokémon (which appears to be my favourite franchise from Nintendo, until this crappy V Generation): if, someday, it dies, I'm quite sure it'll be remembered for being a fever during some time, but it really didn't bring anything to the RPG genre, it's been the same thing since 1996...

Sorry if I upset you with the comment, but I'm trying to show (at least now) that we must see beyond the fatal headbutts and the new monsters. However, if I'm talking crap, and there's really something God of War changed in the genre, please let me know, so I could correct myself.

i hate this "game isn't very innovative so its not good crap".