lol the PS3 version is at 98 with 10 reviews. It will go down but seriously 94-95 isn't out of the question.

95 if we're lucky
93-94 is likely
92 if we're unlucky

pezus said: Is this GTAIV all over again? Guess we'll find out in a few days

No the marketing budget is not even half of what GTA IVs was, and the standards/expectations for games has risen a lot since then. 

pezus said: zarx said: pezus said: Is this GTAIV all over again? Guess we'll find out in a few days No the marketing budget is not even half of what GTA IVs was, and the standards/expectations for games has risen a lot since then.  Nah, I just think this is pretty usual for the second game in a series (UC2, KZ2, Portal 2, Batman:AC, ACII, Witcher 2 etc. etc.)

All those games were massively improved over the original games in the series what is your point again?

pezus said: zarx said: pezus said: zarx said: pezus said: Is this GTAIV all over again? Guess we'll find out in a few days No the marketing budget is not even half of what GTA IVs was, and the standards/expectations for games has risen a lot since then.  Nah, I just think this is pretty usual for the second game in a series (UC2, KZ2, Portal 2, Batman:AC, ACII, Witcher 2 etc. etc.) All those games were massively improved over the original games in the series what is your point again? That standards have not risen

So you are saying that Gears of War 3 (91 on meta critic) is wrse than 2 (93) which was worse than 1 (94)? because if standards for games hadn't risen since the start of this generation as you claim the declining meta score for the series would suggest that each game has been worse than the last. How about InFamous 2 (83) is that a worse game than the first (85)? How about Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition (80) vs Super Street Fighter IV (92) surely if standards were the same a cheaper version of the game with added content would rate higher? Is Halo 3 (94) a better game than Halo: reach (91) and both are nothing compaired to Halo Combat evolved (97) right? 

pezus said: zarx said: pezus said: zarx said: pezus said: zarx said: pezus said: Is this GTAIV all over again? Guess we'll find out in a few days No the marketing budget is not even half of what GTA IVs was, and the standards/expectations for games has risen a lot since then.  Nah, I just think this is pretty usual for the second game in a series (UC2, KZ2, Portal 2, Batman:AC, ACII, Witcher 2 etc. etc.) All those games were massively improved over the original games in the series what is your point again? That standards have not risen So you are saying that Gears of War 3 (91 on meta critic) is wrse than 2 (93) which was worse than 1 (94)? because if standards for games hadn't risen since the start of this generation as you claim the declining meta score for the series would suggest that each game has been worse than the last. How about InFamous 2 (83) is that a worse game than the first (85)? How about Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition (80) vs Super Street Fighter IV (92) surely if standards were the same a cheaper version of the game with added content would rate higher? Is Halo 3 (94) a better game than Halo: reach (91) and both are nothing compaired to Halo Combat evolved (97) right?  Wait why are you bringing Halo 3 and Halo 1 into this? Halo 1 didn't even come out this gen. I just think that freshness of franchises wears off with more releases, not that the standards are much higher.  The reason SSFIV:AE recieved much lower scores than SSFIV is that reviewers felt Capcom was overly milking it, the SF gameplay is pretty much timeless so I don't think that works for your argument. If the sequel doesn't offer enough to differentiate itself from the previous release reviewers will rate it down, not because it's a worse game but because they're too similar and therefore the sequel doesn't offer the same wow-factor as the previous game. Edit: And really, I wasn't being all that serious about my GTAIV comment. I fully expect this to be an awesome game and I actually mostly agreed with the GTAIV reviews (they were maybe a bit high - should have been more like 93-96)

Why did you mention KZ2 in you list of higher rated sequels?

And as freshness wears off a sequel has to be improved and offer new things to get the same or higher score, in other words they are held to a higher standard. Why do you say one thing and argue another?

Right now, it's sitting at an amazing 95% on Metacritic.

I just finished a playthrough of Arkham Asylum and I have to say, that game set the bar incredibly high. It seems like it did everything right. I can only imagine how Arkham City has improved upon the first game....until tomorrow. Then, I'll be playing it.

Game of the year? I'm starting to think so.