That's a pretty funny comment - and highlights the inconsistency of Edge's reviews. KZ2 is a more accomplished game than CoD:BO by some margin (and almost two years older, without the iterative base the CoD games have).

Not sure how much time the reviewer put into the multiplayer, but the subtle changes, for me, pushed the online game over the edge from atrocious (MW2 was great for teens who turned their brain off at the door, but for anyone looking for an experience with an ounce of depth it was a complete waste) to solid. Sure, it's not great, but it's a far cry from IW's last flawed outing. The slightly slower pace of play, the removal of Commando and the structure of the Perks (which perk is in which slot).

Pretty solid review of the single-player campaign though - much better quality than I'm used to around here - there's hope for you yet. Like many Edge reviews though, you've completely missed one feature of the game - the Zombies mode. Sure, it's not huge, but it's significant, and quite a bit of fun. I don't drop by here that often, but it looks like your reviews are still more aimed at editorial and drawing hits than providing a balanced view of games (as leaving out whole game features is hardly helping buyers make an informed choice).

I'd be cautious before assuming that defenders of R2 are justifying their purchase. As a gamer, if I'm not enjoying a game (no matter how big or hyped - I did this to Metroid Prime when it was my main GC game, and Ninja Gaiden, which in my opinion was rubbish), I'll stop playing it and trade it in - there are too many great games out there to waste time on the bad ones. Now, in this context, I started playing R2 yesterday and I'm having a blast - online coop that's more fun than online CoD4 (in fact, my best online experience ever, and as I'm getting into it, something that seems surprisingly deep as well - maybe Edge didn't have time to get more than it's feet wet, so didn't appreciate the depth available), and a campaign that is more than competent and (at least for the first couple of hours - haven't got further yet) well above a '6', even on Edge's (granted, sketchy and inconsistent) standards.

When I read the '6' for the review, I get the same feeling I have when I've read _many_ Edge reviews, which is that Edge is trying to be 'Edgy' to get people to pic up the mag, rather than present a clear picture of what's going on. This is also the best possible explanation of the inconsistency in Edge's reviews - an inconsistency that on many occasions has been the difference between me purchasing and not purchasing the hardcopy mag. I've played a lot of games where Edge's reviews have seemed to have been of another game, while other games that Edge have lauded have been 'meh' - an issue I rarely get with other mags and gaming sites. So before you think gamers are knee-jerking to a justifiably poor review, I'd take a long, hard look at the inconsistency in Edge's work going back a number of years, and check the source of the issue isn't there. I would definitely not go sledging readers who have to endure a very inconsistent approach to game reviews - I'm within a hair's width of abandoning Edge to the list of 'too rubbish to be worth bothering reading' gaming sites, and it's not because I think you have a bias towards one publisher/console/genre over another, it's because I think you don't consistently provide a quality product, and there's better and more consistent material out there. I absolutely wouldn't recommend any of my friends purchase a game based on an Edge review - they're just too inconsistent and, at times, plain misleading.

As a long-time fan of FPS games (as in Wolfenstein and Doom - the originals), and someone who's played CoD4 (and 3), both R6Vs, GRAW2 and a slew of others, I found Resistance1 to be both a good game and refreshingly different but in a subtle way that perhaps some folk didn't quite get. I suspect that this reviewer of R2 suffers the same fate - I'm an Aussie, and the game only came out yesterday, so have only been able to put two hours into the game so far, so these comments should be taken with a grain of salt, but I found the first hour of the campaign enjoyable - not mind-blowing, but no-where near a 6, mind - and the online coop was literally the most fun I have had online other than when I'm playing my brother at something. Assuming the competitive stuff is simply derivative of CoD4, then it is very hard to see how anyone who has played the game can give this a 6, given what edge gives other games (I think MSPRs 7 is harsh by 1 as well, but a 6 for R2 given the logic presented in MSPRs review is just plain inconsistent). In some cases, a 6 may be appropriate, _but_, on its own standards Edge has been inconsistent (and hasn't 'got it', either). Given this, how can it not expect a slew of angry readers!