The graphics are pretty good, but like most say, yes Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 look much better.

10 for graphics is just pure lunacy, the game looks very dated and there is nothing special about the graphics. The story mode only took me 4 hours my first play through, so its shorter then CoD4, and the story mode is worse as well. But the sound of the weapons is much better then CoD4.

My personal feelings with any FPS is that none of them deserve a score of a 9.0 or higher anymore. Exactly what do all these FPS do that is so revolutionary to deserve continually high scores? How much different is MW2 from the original? Or from WOW for that matter? Why does it deserve a 9.5 for when all you get is a 5+ hour campaign of original content, then play multiplayer with the same idiots you played multiplayer with in MW and WOW? (Then charge you extra for downloadable content, which in essence is new skins to play the SAME EXACT MULTIPLAYER?) I will never get the FPS love fest.

lol, IGN was most certainly moneyhatted, or theatened or someting.

10 for graphis that apparantly has flaws.

What, single player is even worse than a first one, and I didn't like the first one's all that much, expect sniper level, which i thought was amazing. I hated whole linear gameplay, and scripted events of the first one. At least multiplayer is still great. I can't comment on graphics since, it's hard to judge the game on from you tube videos.

To be perfectly honest, this is what happens when you let Mark Bozon who's not on the team for either one of the consoles this game is on, review the game. I mean seriously, nobody else wanted to, so they drew Bozon out of a hat to review it? I always thought it was stupid that they had him on this game from the getgo.

Look at this EPIC knife throw:

Skipping all the arguing, that throw was pretty epic

Nobody hated on Uncharted 2.

I wouldn't call Uncharted 2 mega popular.