We all followed E3 and the recent yet to be released sequels of some highly successful games,but are they a worthy sequel to their groundbreaking originals.Are they rushing through in quest for quick money.

Modern Warfare 2: a sequel to one of the best shooters ever Call of Duty 4.But is it adding something to original?We have the same radio chatter and orders of a Superior,Same climatic scripted sequences.I have been riding scooters sice NOLF 2 days.All we have new is some very cool weather wffects for which we gonna again need to put $400 into my recently baught pc

Bioshock 2: This game is certainly gonna dissapoint everybody.Same rapture,same adam n eve,same little sisters,same "adopt" or "harvest" same weak guns n costly plasmids,same powers,same big daddy   fights.Man its the same game with change of suits.

Left 4 Dead 2:Valve has dissapionted with releasing the same game with a suffix 2.

Similarly F.E.A.R 2,Chronicles of Riddick :AODA dissapointed and were a poor sequel to their never seen before original.

Similarly Crysis 2,Painkiller Ressurrection,Operation Flashpoint 2 are just recycled , rebooted products,nothing new. Remember Half-Life 2,its a great sequel to a great game.6 years of labor and u have a winner.The g-gun changed shootinmg experience.This genre has lost its creativity n ingenuity.Same old recycled products...but bigger price tags and system requirements

Why would they make radical changes to games which were great in the case of Bioshock and Modern Warfare?

What about MAG, have you seen 256 players in a game before?

I'm speaking for the Single player campaign.

And yeah 5 years since 2004 and we have co-op play,what else?

Better games, better storytelling, more intense games, tell me, what was wrong with CoD 4? I saw pretty much nothing wrong with the single player mode at all apart from the respawning enemies

What's a big brother? You mean big daddy. Also, Bioshock was a good game. Why would they change the core experience (Adam, Eve, Little Sisters..all that) when it worked well. MW2 will be good...you can't assume you know everything about it. Crysis 2 hasn't revealed much yet. It might be the FPS of the year....Painkiller was never good when it came to polish...it was like a Serious Sam with Zombies and rotating blade.....Lightning Shuriken Gun. So yeah...FPS are still big...look at COD:WAW...that sold a lot...even though it's back in WW2. So you can't assume it has lost steam just because you think it isn't original.

Compare the difference between a FPS title of 1999 and a Fps title of 2004( Farcry,HL2,COR: EBB)
and copare a FPs game of 2004-05 and to a game of 2009.U have just snailish advancement interms of graphics for which u need a heavier computer evryday.

Nothing will top Killzone this gen... until MAG comes out. roll on 256 multi-player WAR! I love the fact you can be promoted and command the entire battle.

The FPS genre hit a wall a LONG time ago, I've only seen minor innovation in the past 8 odd years. Exception to the matter is portal, Metroid FPS(which is usually classified as an adventure) and possibly Eldar scrolls(not sure what the first real RPGFPS is), but overall the genre is played out. All you can do is put new skins on the same old formula. MAG might have something going for it, we will have to see how it plays out. I really wish the genre would just have like 5-10 FPS's released a year rather than the regular 52 a year.

Killzone, Halo 3, Resistance(Ive only played 1), The Darkness, Prey, Bioshock are all games that could be done 10 years ago(obviously not HD graphics wise). Their true merit is in their multiplayer experience, which the first 3 I have mentioned have rich communities.

I've seen about 5 minutes of each of those games. Bit to early to demolish the hype train.

Now, lack of marginal gains is not a good reason to say that a genre has lost its legs.

You can say that when sales of those games drop significantly.