sounds like a reasonable score. Sure the graphics, environment, story or what else you might want to say are great for this game.

But as this review said no co-op, and nothing really new or anything brought to the genre just makes this game prettier than others, but missing co-op and who knows what else some games have brought.

I mean heck weren't reviewers praising Halo 3 for having that level editor (very minimal in my opinion) and sending videos and stuff to each other. How many console games have had that since?

I just don't see how you can give this game a perfect 10. Just missing co-op right there should be a dock for the game in points. It seems most all FPS these days come with a co-op of some sort, and now even having like 5 players co-op. (wasn't there some game recently said to have that?)

Good early sign.

A solid shooter, even if not AAA.

It's my personal opinion, in Poland the PS mags are a total screw up. All the mags are screw ups here when i think about it...

Anywho, it's just a given for me to take the NP, OPM and XM mags score reviews with a huge grain of salt, no matter what game is currently under review.

Yea, Bioshock completely sucked because it didn't have co-op, or hell, any multi-player component at all.  And it didn't bring much new to the genre (ever played System Shock 1/2 or Deus Ex?) so all those high review scores were totally off base.

The developers said they will support the game even after release. Giving DLC, patches, and stuff.

One of those mentions that co-op will be a downloadable patch or something.

I personally regard a 4/5 much higher than a 9/10.
So I would take this review as a positive for the game.

Same. Except I can't take the parallel sticks. It just feels wrong.

I think it will settle in with late-80's or early 90 scores typically. 

I think the swedish site sounds reasonable.  Everyone has different criteria and they like to see co-op.  Some sites knocked BioShock the same way (Edge didn't like the lack of online).

Well i find games like bioshock and metroid and maybe others as the story is based around ONE person going around.  

While Killzone, and others are military based games where you have allies running with you all the time so its different.  You can't just make every game 2 player or more becuase it can ruin the story.  But a military game they can have the other people be random military buddies.  

And i have always thought all FPS lately have been over rated big.  It seems most games all are getting 90's or higher in rating, or else they majorly flop.  we aren't getting any middle 75-85 scores ever.  Except on the wii, cause reviewers notice it is a good game but not their type so they god forbid wouldn't give it a 90 becuase its casual, so they throw in some 75-85 not to sound supe rbiased.

Killzone 2 > R2 confirmed.