so let's see here, i learned that you know who am since i'm apparently beligerent i should just tell you to F off, but since you say the same boring stuff everytime you post, i'll comply and give you the reasons on why the review is stupid, and why you need to get over yourself. The reviewer didn't like the fact that the multiplayer modes didn't really have any objectives. Co-Op has randomly generated objectives, Skirmish is basically defending a beacon or person. In skirmish, all you need to know is what to do i.e. defending beacon or person, you don't need a reason on why you're doing it. Who would honestly care when they are playing multiplayer, i doubt someone is going to sit there and ponder "Why am i doing this?" when they are asked to defend a person or beacon. Co-Op, i kind of understand that he didn't like the fact that there were no real objectives, but i don't it should have been marked down a lot for it. Since the objectives are randomly generated, nobody should be surprised that they're really not that complex or that detailed. The last four paragraphs of the review talked about how difficult the reviewer found the game, the game can be hard but not as frustratingly hard as the reviewer is making it out to be. The way he made it seems was that the game was Ninja Gaiden like hard, which is ridiculous. He didn't like the fact that you only get to carry two guns during the game, instead of all of them like in the last game, it makes you strategize more on which guns you should take into the next battle. Serously the game got a 6/10 because he didn't like the fact that the game didn't have any real objectives in MP, the SP was "hard", and he didn't like the fact that you could only carry two guns. Yep it definitely earned a 6/10. And your suspiscions are wrong, R2 is not mediocre or overhyped.

@ OmegaVader: yeah i don't care about LBP, it's a good game it did deserve the 10 out 10, and honestly i don't care if you ignored my opinion, but you read it anyways. I'm focusing on the fact that they gave a game a score of 6, citing "lack of innovation and improvement since the first one" as the reason. Yeah they are right in one way it didn't really do anything new, but you're an idiot if you can't see the many improvements they made to the game. I'm just saying that citing "lack of innovation" is a stupid reason since once again Gears 2 is basically the same game i played 2 years ago, and Halo 3 was the same game i played 4 or 5 years ago. They are good games, but they didn't do anything "innovating".

So you say that the game has not improved since the last one, yeah right sure it hasn't. Did Gears 2 or Halo 3 improve over Gears and Halo 2 respectively. No they didn't, i should know since i have Gears 2 and have played Halo 3 alot. Gears 2 beefed up the story mode, added horde mode, and bumped up the number up from 8 players to 10. While R2 had a pretty good sized story mode for a fps, 8 player co-op, and bumped up 40 player to 60. And from what i recall Halo 3's story mode was still as short as ever and it still kept the same amount of players. I am def. not biased since once again i've played all three and have R2 and Gears 2, but i would pick R2 over Gears 2 and Halo 3 anyday because it's more fun to play. I think that either you are taking favors from MS or you don't know how to review games.