No one complained when Battlefield 1943 got a 9/10. That was not groundbreaking. It was a remake. It recieved a nine because it was such good fun to play and the price was right.

9/10 seems alot, but how are you to know its not worth it?
Noone has played it.

This debate is endless. Halo has the fanbase it has and the online support it has because its a great game. Of course people can say that its just fanboys, but ironicly it tends to be PS3 fanboys who say this in the first place.

Edge likes Halo. The 10/10 for the last installment should have cleared this up. If you dont like it, dont buy it. Simple.

TBH, the 6/10 Brothers in Arms Hells Highway recieved is more shocking than any Halo game scoring well.

Even though PC games are cheaper than their console equivelent, they are still far too expensive and as such, due to the ease of it, piracy will continue to be rampant on PC until it kills it.

I also think that games prices are now disguised by DLC and expansions. Srsly, how many Sims expansions are they? The whole lot must cost in excess of £200.

I think the 6/10 is being very nice to COD5.

Lets face it, COD5 is just COD2, again, only not as good, much like COD3. COD4 managed to disguise the fact its the exact same game as COD2 by being set in modern times, but by reverting the setting back to WW2, Treyarch have nothing to hide behind and the creaking mechanics of COD2 are there for all to see. Veteren is not difficult because its clever, its difficult in an oldschool way of no health and a frankly stupid amount of grenades landing on your feet at the same time. It may have been enough for COD2, back in what? 2005? But its now nearly 2009 and games have moved on from those days and COD hasnt.

And is it just me, or is the animation far superior in COD4?

COD is rapidly going to cash cow route as Medal of Honour where the yearly release sceduale is killing any chance the game might have of actually evolving, rather than cloning, its predecessors.

The reason people are so angry about this review is that everyone knows that Edge is a far more serious and proffesional magazine than any other gaming publication. Edge are proffessionals. They are the best. This is a fact. So when Edge give a poor score to a game, particularly a Failstation 3 game, the fanboys kneejerk into incoherant rants about Edge's bias.

If Edge genuinly thinks the 360 is better than the Failstation, why should they hide that?

If Edge loved Gears 2, but thought Resistance 2 was medicore, why should they say otherwise? To keep whining fanboys happy?

Edge have given their opinion on a game. They didnt think much of it. Big Deal. I can imagine that Millions of people around the world wont like Resistance 2. Are they going to recieve hatemail for thier views?

From experience, yes I think Gears 2 was overated by Edge, but thats just my opinion. It holds no weight beyond my self. I like Gears 2, but I dont think its great.

From my experience, I think Edge got it about right with Resistance 2. Its just another shooter. Its not as good as the Orange Box, which lets face it, is now 4 years old.

I dont understand the mentallity of attacking Edge because you dont agree with something they said. I have just spent about 50 hours in Fallout 3. I think it is outstanding on every level. Edge gave it 7/10. Am I angry? Of course not. I read the review and I agree with it 100% and I can see why they gave it the score they did. I am just prepared to overlook its failings because it is largely an enthralling game.

In closing, Resistance is an average game. Deal with it.