So what your saying is the reviewer claimed one thing in the review everyone will read. And something entirely different in a forum. Seems the reviewer has a split personality.

He wasn't claimed that in his review.

His words in his review:

"  The amount of detail is insane, and the effects are incredible. The console versions are, of course, not as fancy as on the PC, but they are still fighting for the top spots when it comes to being the graphical kings for their respective formats."

http://www.gamereactor.eu/reviews/6760/Crysis 2/?amp

Hey, Assassins Creed 2 and brotherhood both look better than Halo Reach, and they are both more open than Halo Reach so its not their fault either.

Well if you read the review, you'd see the facts they provide on the techniqual part.

Fighting for the top spot is not the same as claiming the top spot. He answered a fanmail with a statement and a clear one, that Uncharted 2 remains on top and the fact that he won't answer whether its better than Gears 2 or not, makes it pretty clear that the console version is NOT the new .."graphics king" if you will. He did however claim Killzone 3 to be on par with Uncharted 2, and not worse.

He's already said it, its there. If you decide to ignore his own words, then theres really no point in talking to you. Im not saying the game isn't good looking at all, im just stating that Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 are better looking according to the cheif editor of Sweden which also appears to be so highly regarded that they translated his review to the EU mag ^^.

That's the case - Just Cause 2 > eveything

Just cause 2 doesn't look as good as Assassins Creed 2 though. I have played both Just cause is just a lot more open that's all, and has some fun gameplay elements.

I was'nt amazed with the ps3 demo. I'm not going to go over the issue's that people have already stated.

Seems to me some reviewers are after hits. Hmmm.