^^ I think if you have a great formula you shouldn´t tinker around with it to much... remember "new coke"... see where Im going... bigger co-op could be very good but 64 multiplayer is way to much IMO... I hate it when shootouts get to chaotic... makes it impossible to get a clear view of the battlefield and ramdom grenades fly around everywhere... smaller groups make teamwork easier and more necessary...

BTW, do you have a PS3 yet Dmeister ???

And I agree with using Gamerankings. Screw IGN or Gamespot or any 1 site. Lets get the final tally once each game has over 25 reviews from different sites and is ranked on Gamerankings or Metacritic. Anyone down for that?

Isn't resistance 2 60 player not 64? I also get confused cuz 64 players seems like a more logical number (32 vs 32, 4 8-player squads in each team)

i'd prefer res2 to win because i enjoyed the online mode so much. but i'd have to be a tad optimistic to think res2 would rate higher than gears 2. so i'm down for gears 2

My brain is saying Gears 2, but Resistance looks to be a bigger improvement from the first.
Meh, put me down for Gears!

I'll place my bet if and only if we use a score aggregate site like Gamerankings, Gamestats, or Metacritic. Any of them would be acceptable.

Using one site seriously narrows the perspective of what should be taken as an overall impression of the game in question.

Again: aggregate score, then I'll put my bet.

resistance 2 will score higher

... with the reviews I see today..... i don't really like the way the battle will most likely sway. But none the less, put me down for Resistance!!!

Gears 2......without even blinking!

Resistance 2
btw, metacritic is a joke to everyone except 360 fans