The only advancement that really matters to me is in the campaign and co-op. Just saying, that's my stance.

Also, letting casuals review casual games....that's actually the way the review system should be worked, no?

Anyway, flaming 1up because you have a problem with this review, and then citing things they've done in the past as reasons, is damage control. Some people are controlling damage where there is none. B+ is great, and just because everyone doesn't think R2 is the best thing since sliced bread doesn't mean they're all idiots. Different reviewers work for some publications.

I highly doubt this is a "fanboy" review.

I haven't played the actual game, but I think it's a little low of what I would have expected [90+]

Ofcourse this isn;t a fanboy review

I mean LBP got a A+ from them people!

________________________________

But still I feel it should atleast be an A....now the average is 90

I am not damage controlling. I just do not understand how they can talk about it advancing past the original, including 8 player co-op campaign that is unique to the original campaign, feature 60 man multiplayer, new weapons, etc... and score lower than Resistance 1. It is clearly an all around better game than its predecessor.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

I do not think it is a fanboyish review, yes maybe it seemed that way because of the Gears comment, but as already stated in this thread, 1UP did give LBP an A+.

Gears 2 I would expect to receive equal to or better than Gears 1 because it does advance in terms of gameplay and online play, maybe not as much IMO, but advancements none the less. I just think it should have been the same here.

This would be like Fable II scoring lower than Fable I. I just can't understand it if it happened.

It is ok for people to disagree with a score. At least I am giving a reason as to why I disagree.

As far as the score goes I will say this. I think its simply due to the level of expectations changing with time.

Maybe 2 different people reviewed it?

Games change and evolve. While I certainly believe that R2 is much better than resistance, wasn't resistance like a launch title?

Gamespot gave Perfect Dark 0 a 9/10. Early games on next gen consoles are almost always over-rated. Could it not be that the original R:FOM review was too high?

Games, especially ones in the FPS genre, must be compared to other games released at the time. While 10 years ago, a halo clone like Haze might have been hailed as a creator of new ideas, and a perfect game, now it's just a ripoff. FPS is based off graphics, gameplay, immersion, story, and sound design. Those things averages have scaled up(except for immersion and story) since the PS3 was released. R2 scaled with them. You can't give a game a perfect score just because you gave the first inferior game a really good score. You have to check all the variables.

That said, I'm not defending this review, more like, defending 1up, because I feel some assumptions are being made about them, when there might be reasonable explainations for them.

I am not expecting a perfect score either. I think an 85 is a great score. It is just that in terms of FPS right now, what offers more, specially multiplayer wise than R2 is offering?

Some may be making assumptions of 1UP, I personally do not care, I just see it in a different way so of course opinions are going to be different. They loved LBP, so I have no beef with them.

I haven't liked 1UP since they gave an A- to Wii Music.
So, Wii Music is better than Resistance 2? Pfft.

This is a good review and a good score.

Do I really need to point out that an A- two years ago isn't an A- today in the eyes of most reviewers?

Yes. An alien shooter vs something that hasn't been done before? I would have thought the answer would be obvious. For the record I haven't played either yet. Can't wait to get my hands on both of them in the coming months though.