Excellent comment, Benny.

Just like you, I've been reading Edge for a long time. I've allways enjoyed the way they covered the videogame industry , articles of opinion and their profound respect and cellebration of videogames past.
On the other hand, I've allways found their reviews lacked the same quality of the rest of the magazine.

And, as you clearly state, I also believe Edge's reviews have become worse with the passing of time.

Indeed, many (not all) reviews look like they were written with absolutely no respect for the reader/gamer: The KZ2 you use as an example; the Resistance2 review, 50% of it was about the way non-scripted behaviour was odd on one level; the old (and absurd) God of War II review; among others.
Nothing is written about the game core mechanics. Criticism about details or irrelevant issues abounds.

Editorial consistency on reviews is also a problem.
Take Metal Gear Solid 3 (Snake Eater) review. Re-read it, if you have it on archive. Now compare it with the Killzone2 review...
Where is the editorial line? How can one crush the review of a FPS shooter due to lack of story and on the other hand not give a 10 to MGS3 due to its story (you may like it or not, but it HAS story, a bigger one than any other game).
Now pick KZ2 again and read it against Gears of War 2. Suddenly, story is irrelevant. Gears of War 2 is praised for... its action scenes and... stuff.

Consistency and respect... I think Edge lost some of this.
"The best game journalism in the world"... it states on the banner. No, it's not.

Edit: Just remembered this one... God Of War 2 also got a 6, if I do remember correctly, and a 1 page review, just like Resistance 2.
God of War 2, one of the greatest examples of videogame blockbusters to date (along with the Halo series and Gears of War, probably).
Edge score incoherence is nothing new.

Now having read the entire review and magazine (sorry, Edge takes a while to arrive at Portugal's stands), plus most of the comments, I futher insist on my point:

Edge editorial policy is in need of some reapreciation... specially on reviews and scoring criteria.

I don't oppose to "innovation" being a factor about the review and a game's score. But if so, this should be observed in all reviews.
I remember that Super Mario Galaxy got a 10. It's a great game, we all agree. But it's just Super Mario N64 polished (I fail to see how gravity and floor/ceiling puzzles are innovative... we've all seen that before).
If Edge insists on seeing games through a thicker lense, as a more mature media, I'm fine by that. But on that case, Gears of War2 couldn't be seen as Schindler's List. It's clearly Bruckheimer: a mere blockbuster.

PS: regarding this article, I fail to understand the mention about LBP's 10 score. "Fanboyism defense" should be backed by facts, not lame observations.

Yes Thom, all your facts are coherent and racional.

Yet, the point is, Edge gave a poor review to Resistance 2 mainly because it lacks innovation.

On the other hand, NGai writes an article about how "Co-operative games may turn out to have been the most important development of 2008."
Read it?
He explains how the innovative and massive Resistance 2 multiplayer really doesn't work well, but "if Insomniac can find a way to mix things up more it has the template for something both unique and special in the world of consoles".
Unique and special.

Opposed to the Gears of War 2 multiplayer, wich "is completely straightforward", writes NGai.
Straight. Tried and tested. Equal to others.

Conclusion:
Gears 2: Excellent review. A straightforward game. Nice blockbuster. More of the same, nothing new. Score lowered because lacks innovation? No.
Resistance 2: Average review. A straightforward game. Nice blockbuster. More of the same, innovative multiplayer. Score lowered because lacks innovation? Yes.

All glued together, I fail to see an editorial guideline.
Edge allways had one. Right now, I find it missing.

Edge is my magazine of choice (call me an Edgeboy!). And I believe you guys failed on this one.