Almost every big title is a little too overrated to some. I like Halo but have always found it overrated, others with feel same for GTA, or Gears, or God of War.

I know its great the internet lets everyone put forward opinions, but I'd love to see more people remember their opinion doesn't translate to having discovered something everyone else has missed - i.e. hey, haven't you lot realized this about that game?

And for the love of gaming can people stop posting the controls don't feel like CoD? They aren't supposed to. They are supposed to feel very different. Feel free to express your preference (which you do sort of, but stop couching it in terms its the games fault or some kind of flaw - all it means is the design of the movement isn't to your personal liking).

I grow so tired of the 'lack of innovation'  or whatever lame reasoning that is.  What did Halo do that was NEVER before seen? What did COD do that was NEVER before seen?    It just gets tiresome to hear.   The truth is, very few games have really defined the genre and most games are just running some varied, improved version of that.

Kill Zone 2 is an excellent AAA game.  It's not Jesus re-incarnated.   It's all about expectations.  If you want to play a good game?  Kill Zone 2 is exactly that.  Just as advertised.   If you thought Kill Zone 2 was going to redefine every element of First Person Shooters and just blow your mind on every possible level,  you were setting yourself up for failure.   Since almost no games ever do that.

C'mon, almost no games are inovative - and in fact staying tried and true is a surer way to big sales than inovation.  Halo 3 and CoD4 were hardly inovative, they simply refined.  And I'd note with console FPS refine normally means bring something from PC FPS to consoles.

Inovation is rare - Portal and Flower are two games I think showed inovation and risk, most big titles will rarely try it.  Mirror's Edge was inovative, and I love it - but it showed the rough edges of trying to get something new right.

KZ2 adds a couple of refinements such as cover in first person but like Halo etc its about refinement and polish - it achieves that nicely.

People overrate games by thinking they are more than intended.  True criticism and review is based on considering how well the game achieved its own design goals.  Halo, Gears and now KZ2 are good examples of great success within the limits of their own design.

thats the point halo and cod are overrated aswell.. and if you have been playing fps since doom you can take the same concept only for so long .

the games are good but they are overrated because its the same concept in just another shallow empty shell

i got what i expected out of killzone 2. but take a look all those who advertise it as the best fps of this generation or a "masterpiece that is ahead of its time" you and me may say its a good game just like any other.. but they wont

thats also what pissed me off about the 9.0 score on gamespot there are games far more deserving of such scores

I've never been very good at FPS online, bad at Q3, average at CS (one death for one kill ratio), and I finish in the first four on every of the few online matchs I played in Killzone.

Now, I understand why... Others just suck at aiming!!!
Just train guys... The controls don't suck, you do.

(don't take this seriously, I'm just kidding)

It's fully deserving of that nine. A game doesn't need o be innovative to be good. If every game was like Flower, I would quit gaming. We need refinements. New ideas are great, but improved old ideas are better. We'd have nothing but a bunch of great concepts with poor execution.

GameSpot hands out 9s like pamphlets, anyway. Resistance 2 got a 9 (which it didn't deserve), LBP got a 9, KZ2 got a 9, CoD4 got a 9, Gears 2 got a 9, hell, Assassin's Creed got a 9 (cough overrated).

Assassin's Creed was pretty innovative. It was also quite a mess. Fun to play (most of the time), but a mess. If CoD4 warrants a 9/10, so does KZ2.

Unless you're saying that CoD4 doesn't deserve that score. I would have to say that you were wrong. It did nothing massively new with the genre, but what was there it did so incredibly well, that it didn't matter.

You can have an innovative game that deserves a 9, but if you think, say, Mirror's Edge deserves a 9, and KZ2 doesn't, I may have to ask you to step outside

I understand some of the complaints, it often annoys me when people take alot to die but I remember saying similar things in every FPS I've ever played. If it was easy to kill people you'd be complaining you got killed in 3 shots. The game's damage system works well, if you shoot people in the head, they go down, if you hit them in the feet, its gonna take a bit to kill them.

Also, I cant stand people complaining about the lack of auto aim. So, you got spoon fed your 10th level prestige on COD4 and you can't handle actually having to predict where your opponents are gonna be in order to kill them. It's called difficult, you ever hold a gun in real life? No, I havent either, but Im pretty sure it aint gonna track the person for me.

oh here we go again. let me put it this way... if a game gets a 9 ouf of 10 that should mean that this game is near perfect.. which none of those games are they are fun but they are far from perfect and thus should get the appriopriate score

lets say some new godly fps shows up that is better than even half life was and it gets a 10 ..the distinction to those other games is too slim because its "only" 1 digit better

you mention halo ,killzone ,cod and mirrors ege.. none of them are really that great you have to look beyond this generation . you will see how insignificant those games are to the genre

i cant say this oftem enough i donth think those games are bad im saying whoever is giving those games a 9 is either a philistine bastard or should simply play more fps games

as for that oversimplification that every game would be like flower if it was more innovative ...what im trying to say is if every shooter repeats the forumla over and over again that is one thing thats kinda part of the that particular genre... if it repeats the same stereotypic characters and story twists thats another  thing if wouldnt kill them to actually think of something new it that department   a game needs something to set it apart from the masses that should be the story an the enviroment  and not some gimmik as was the case in fracture for example

bottom line.. new gameplay mechanics in a shallow genre that is all about graphics that are top notch for 4 months..is hard to accomplish actually trying to make the game interesting is not it takes some effort and talent and thats what i expect of a game with a a 9

if you compare those games to say haflife  or the old medal of honour games for the psx you see how a 9er game should look like

wow, people in the clan I'm in complain that weapons are overpowered. You guys are nuts if you think the weapons are weak and that people take too many hits.

I loved counter-strike because people were killed easily, and Killzone 2 is about the same as far as that goes.

I'm sorry, but if you think people take too many hits that means you aren't hitting them...

KZ2 is so huge. People can't stand that it lived up to the hype, and GG did a complete turn-around from the previous Killzone.

Just eat crow and shut up people.