To be fair these reviwers are very controlversial with some of their reatings so this might be one that you skip as you look through the list of reviews :)

I played the co-op beta, I was not impressed, those huge monsters are stupid, you only have to stand there shooting for 15 minutes, not fun.
But I will buy it later, when I finish with everything else.

When the general consensus of Reviewers (average) as well as members of this site, scream awesomeness, I usually go with that. But there will always be people who dont like a particular game, no matter how great it is.

I like people bashing 1up for their Wii Music review considering they have never even touched the game. And now they are offended their awesome hardcore game is getting a score lower than that. Boo Hoo, maybe if R2 wasn't another alien shooter like a dozen games out there with minimal innovations in gameplay it would have done better.

OT: Good review and I might enjoy this title once I finish the games that have been lining up quite fast, and will continue to line up even more. As to the question about improving over the predecessor, just because it improved it doesn't mean anything. I personally feel that anything above an A/90 should only be reserved for games that really stand out over the rest with new and innovative concepts/gameplay. Improvement is not enough. A+/100 should only be saved for genre re/defining games.

Good score but not great, when you lot finally play Killzone 2 MP though you will see why R2 fails in comparison.

Well, duh, they let the chick review Wii Music.  Of course its going to get a 9/10 from their casual reviewer.

^
Show me another alien shooter game that offers 8 player co-op in a unique campaign, the same scale of boss encounters, and 60 player squad/mission based multiplayer.

If that's considered "minimal innovation" I'd like to see your examples of "regular innovation". There will be (and has been) more games that have gotten higher reviews while being less innovative and offering virtually nothing new. Saying that R2 isn't your cup of tea is one thing, but saying that R2 offers minimal innnovations goes against fact.

A good score.

Well, I find the review / score out of sync with the text and I'm impressed that they gave RFOM2 a B+ and said it improved on its predecessor successfully - a game they rate as an A-

Maybe its me but if you advance from A- you don't get to B+

The lack of narrator does seem to be attracting a fair share of comments - again interesting as many same review sites complained about the narrator approach and funnily enough the highest rated FPS around like Half Life 2 also use the same approach where you only know as much as your protagonist and have to put together the clues of the plot yourself. It's almost like they think this requires too much brain input from a console player but not a PC player.

If I compare the review to others I've read it does seem to be the odd one out that leans lower for no obvious reasons (a bit like certain Ratchet & Clank reviews). Not suggesting any conspiracy BTW - just pointing out that sometimes games get a few reviews that dip lower than the average of the majority of the others.

Good score but I just have to wonder how a game clearly surpasses it's predecessor in every way and brings to the table new features not seen before in a console FPS yet gets a lower score.

I'll be the first to drop a bet saying they praise the 5 on 5 in Gears and award the game an A or A+ because it advanced from 4 on 4 to 5 on 5. It will be less advancement from it's predecessor (when comparing to R2 from R1) yet receive an equal or higher score.

*By the way, I do not hate Gears, I love it actually, it is just that I can honestly see this happening and it just doesn't seem fair.*