I can't imagine it deserving higher than a 7.5 unless it is just a completely different game than the first one. inFamous was one of the most bland, least enjoyable, most derivative things I have ever played in my life, and I can't imagine that they are going to turn it into a world-beater.

All I can say is all eyes on Prototype 2. Wait until reviews come in for that game and it will prove what I've been saying for months. Multiplats get a pass on everything.

That is true, but reviews are a necassary evil for me because I have a limited gamng budget, so I must ensure every purchase is good, or I will be stuck with a crappy game for awhile.

Eh, Sony is partly to blame, they released the game during E3 week and that means that all the left over reviewers are left back at base to review all the games. Just look at the reviewer list, Colin Moriaty, Tom McShea and Christopher Donlan (the famous reviewer of games such as Islands of Wakfu, Ghost Recon 3DS and The Tomb Raider Trilogy). The sites let their C teams and grievers (Tom McShea, read his bog) handle the game. You'll notice that the more respectable sites like Giant Bomb, Gamespy and SixAxis are willing to wait until after E3 before they put up a review of the game, but you can't always rely on a site being good, especially when business is involved.

Anyway, read through the review, his a better writer than Colin Moriaty, but he also makes several flaws in his review and his also contradicted himself a few times.

-Claims that the damage screen is annoying and takes up way too much time on screen, it was also in the first game (which he reviewed) and he didn't find an issue with it then. It's also a limited feature that disappears as soon as you get health by sucking lighting out of the hundred or so electrical items within ten metres of you. He seemed to have not realised that the screen is only temporary and it can be negated completely by just finding health from the many sources within your grasp.

- Complains that your travel power comes later in the game instead of being there in the beginning, which is odd when you consider all the other travel options they offer and how it's exactly like how it was in the last game, which is another thing he didn't find fault with before, but he now does.

- Complains that Infamous 2 does nothing drastically different from a gameplay perspective compared to the first game (which is odd when Infamous is the only game that has the gameplay it does, it is unique and yet he thinks it's already stagnated, but then he doesn't), but then goes on to say that the combat and overall gameplay is fantastic, but it just wasn't something completely 'new'. Infamous 2 is not a new IP, Dead Space 2, Gears of War 2, Killzone 3, Portal 2 and Halo: Reach all play exactly like their predecessors and yet no one finds fault in that and that's because a normal person realises that turning a sequel into a completely different game from the first is something a crazy person does (basically Volition).

- He complains about how uneven the pacing is in comparison to the first game, he mentions how Infamous had a simple formula of mission, bash bad guys, sewer, power, bash bad guys and then rinse and repeat, but then punishes Infamous 2 for breaking out of that repetitive mould and changing up the pace.

I could go on, but the conclusion is simple. Tom wants Infamous 2 to be the exact same game as Infamous, but then he wants it to be completely different at the same time. He wants it's faults to stay the same (melee, repetitive mission structure, powers) but then he goes against any new improvements it makes. He most likely got frustrated with the game, mainly because (based on the podcast and his review history) he doesn't like playing the majority of games or writing reviews and would rather stick to Rare and I-Phone games and continue grieving on his blog.


Once again, most reviewers are silly, there are only a handful of legitimately good game reviewers and Gamespot only have one of them and his name is Kevin Vanord. I've even noticed that VGChartz has been getting much better as of lately, which hopefully only means that the future isn't going to be all bad when it comes to reviewers.

Still sounds like it was worth waiting for. I was not expecting a leap like U1 to U2 for infamous 2. It sounds like SP just wanted to deliver a great story with ok sand box gameplay, nothing extraordinary.

The 7.5 score is a little too low for the issues the reviewer had with the game, gamespot might be exaggerating a little here on the numeric score. Iv player the demo and it feels like infamous should feel, not sure why this reviewer had a stick up his censored remark......

you forgot "Reviewer doesn't give a very high a score to game that wins GOTY = reviewer's a retard."

Who cares,I'm still going to get the game eventually.

Bullshit.

You can't just the morality system from the demo.
You can't judge the pacing of a game from a demo.
You can't judge just how balanced a 20 hour game's combat will be from a the length offered int he demo.

The reviewer who reviewed InFamous 2 (7.5/10) is the same one who reviewed the first InFamous (9.0/10).
Just thought all of you should know that before bashing him.