Interesting. I think Gamespot has gone too big score friendly. If you get an 8 on Gamespot people think the game has failed. Where as if its a high profile game i.e say a big franchise game it will do better then it maybe should. They give out high scores for good looking games while ignore the actual important things such as simply having fun. Take Saints Row 2 for example. Not the best game ever made but me and my mates have had more fun playing that then we ever did playing GTA4. Eurogamer pick up on things like that and forgive the less technical. Also IGN gave Football Manager 09 something like a 2/10 score which to me just shows lack of understanding the genres. FM is one of if not thee biggest selling franchises in europe, the guy reviewing it should know what it is about, comparing it to say something like Half Life 2 like they did is just laughable.

But that is the beauty of reviews isn't it, some we will agree on and some we won't :)

No, Future is not just a bindery/printer, they own and develop the content too. They have hundreds on staff in offices from San Fran to NYC working on media to distribute to all their sites. If you visit 10 games sites a day for three different consoles, I'd bet cash-money that MORE THAN HALF of those 10 sites got their content AND advertising from Future, with the remainder getting their info thought partnerships arranged by Fox. Before the UK's Future plc bought Imagine (now renamed Future US) Jon Simpson-Bint was editor-in-chief for the launches of Next Generation, PSM, IGN, AND GamesRadar (IGN was named for Imagine Games Network, though that acronymn was dropped after IGN was spun off from Future in the wake of the dot-com collapse). Jon Phillips, another well-respected editor with Imagine/Future's publications, was simultaneously the EIC at boot (later renamed Maximum PC) AND MacAddict back in the mid 90s. Gamers are just doing what Mac and PC users were doing 15 years ago, arguing back and forth over who owns the superior equipment, citing their magazines and reviews as evidence, despite the fact both mags were run by the same editor!

The "official" in the Xbox, Sony, and Nintendo Magazines is just licensed, Future does write all the editorial for all their properties.

http://www.futureus-inc.com/aboutus/FUT_portfolio_FINAL_singlepages.pdf

I'll wait for reviews from other mags. So far out of the 4 reviews 3/4 are from official PS mags. Also, the MEgamers review is a fake the review is not up on there site.

I'll wait for IGN, and others.

A lot of assumption there. I work for a media company and i know Future are one of the main publishing magazine companies. They publish lots of magazines. Ranging from Stitch and craft all the way to Simply Knitting. They publish around 200 magazines every month. As i mentioned the editor decides the format of each magazine.

The next part is quite funny where you say "their scores on the whole are unbiased and you really know little of the magazine". Which is laughable because i know that Atari paid OPM and PSM2 money to gain 10/10 reviews for Driver 3. Eidos had also admitted to having a deal with the magazines for good scores to the Tomb Raider series. Add on to that they game Star Wars Phantom Menace a 9/10 when it is the 2nd worst Star Wars game of all time. So again that is quite humerous :) 

They were not allowed to publish until the NDA runs out, and so they took it down again.

The NDA is also why other online reviewers don't have a review of Killzone 2 up yet.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

@ hyruken: want to know something else "weird"? The fact that two other people are automatically wrong and your opinion is apparently automatically correct.

Because that is how you are talking at this point.

I expect it to average 88-92 when it's all said and done.

Well that would be the case wouldn't it. They claim the magazines can be trusted for being non biased when in fact there is known history of the magazines taking bribes for scores. So that makes my questioning of the legitimacy valid does it not?

It is like saying a criminal who admits to a crime didn't actually commit a crime.

So seeing as it is a discussion board we are discussing it. I gave my view based on history/facts they gave theirs based on their own opinion. That doesn't make me automatically correct, far from it. Just means as i stated in my 1st post when we get reviews from the other websites/magazines were have a more clear indication of how it will do. I already said i expect it to do very well.

So i think its "more wierd" that you posted something that has nothing to do with anything other then trying to attack me....

The first claim you made was that they were made by sony. When that was retorted, then you said they didn't make the content, and then you switched it to accepting bribes.

So you're just sticking to your guns ("these magazines are not trustworthy" basically), based on other accusations. It may be perfectly true that they have accepted bribes, but since you were wrong that they were made by Sony, who's to say that you are right about the other part.