So I have played 5 hours of this game over the last 2 days and I have got to say this thing is awsome. Usally I am not big on online games, I don't do much Motorstorm, PGR3, Halo 2, Resistance, and many others I have. Even with that said I decided I would go ahead and get this gameanyway just because of the whole PSN deal. To my surprise I am actually really getting into this thing, I think only GeoW and Resistance stand above it this gen so far as far as console exclusives go. One thing I have liked about it is that it takes a while to learn and everyday you figure out a new technique. At first I was very skeptical about the controls because of a lack of zoon and some differant handleing, but once I began to figure them out they felt right. This is probably the most rewarding gameplay I have experiamced in a game ever, and I would highly recomend this game as a first purchase for PS3, along with RFOM of course.

I've thought about it, and I am 100% definitely getting this.

 70% an A game? Jesus, this industry has changed...

Aren´t AAA games supposed to be "Killer apps"?  

The term "A game" comes from school grades - A is the best grade you can get in lots of countries. If a game that scored 70% is an A game that would mean 60% is a B-Game. But a game that scores 60% is crap, isn´t it?

Better this one:

85% = A

90% = AA

95% = AAA

95%+ = Killer App 

 Graphics are as important as sound, but nowhere near as a important as replay value.  If your impressed by graphics alone a second play wont give you the wow factor, but fun gameplay will keep you coming back.

a "killer app" is only based on sales and not on reviews in my opinion , like the super killer apps Braintraining and Nintendogs

A game that scores should be 50-60% is average (as described by 1up, IGN, EGM, etc.). Think movie games, you don't buy them for the score you buy them for the escapism or role playing (in the traditional sense) of the characters, theme or story. If you really like Transformers or Golf or Dragons a score like this can be acceptable to most (especially the traditional casual player - Generic or Themed Shooters, Mario Party, Madden, etc.) The game lacks precision, features, and presentation but that isn't the most important thing for the people thinking of buying these games in the first place.

Of course scores appear top heavy because there are tons of PC, Cell Phone, and Flash games that aren't reviewed.

A game that scores should be 50-60% is average (as described by 1up, IGN, EGM, etc.). Think movie games, you don't buy them for the score you buy them for the escapism or role playing (in the traditional sense) of the characters, theme or story. If you really like Transformers or Golf or Dragons a score like this can be acceptable to most (especially the traditional casual player - Generic or Themed Shooters, Mario Party, Madden, etc.) The game lacks precision, features, and presentation but that isn't the most important thing for the people thinking of buying these games in the first place.

Of course scores appear top heavy because there are tons of PC, Cell Phone, and Flash games that aren't reviewed.

I haven't gotten a chance to play it yet, so, eh. But here's how I see it: Given that the average review score for sites is not 5.0 but something in the 6.5-7.0 range, a 6.5-7.5 title is a C title, 7.5-8.5 is B range and 8.5-9.5 is A range, and "AAA" is 9.5+. (Derived approximately off of the same grade ranges - C=Average) That doesn't mean it has to AVERAGE above a 9.5, it means that if one reviewer gives it over a 9.5, that particular reviewer thinks it's AAA.

Metroid Prime III isn't a AAA game, if we're going by overall rankings. IGN thinks it's one, but Gamespot and 1up don't. Simple enough, eh? That review of Warhawk seemed pretty solid, but the AAA comment was, IMHO, misguided. Like I said, a AAA title should be one you're confident will be in the top 5 of the year crossplatform. Warhawk won't.