@Sutton -- Well I certainly don't ask that everyone like the way I write. But these thoughts came from my own head; I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself, and needn't steal from others. This article was appropriated from my own blog with some minor changes, which appeared on the soapbox page, where much community content lives. Are you accusing me of plagiarizing... myself?

@kwanzudood -- Honestly, I wrote this shortly before I played Crysis 2 (it was appropriated from my blog). I can't say that Crysis 2 excels from a storytelling perspective, though it's not bad, and I liked the ending. But it's not a standard-bearer by any stretch; if you didn't know a known novelist helped pen the story, it wouldn't be something you'd guess just from playing.

@Dreamagus -- I think I make it pretty clear that not every game needs to have a great story to be a fantastic game. It all comes down to context. A game that takes its story seriously asks us to do the same--and it's then up to the game to deliver on that expectation. The game itself announces its intentions, and if the story doesn't excel, there might be other aspects of it that elevate it.

Vanquish is one of those games (to use a phrase I used in the article) that wears its story lightly. It is often over-the-top in a Devil May Cry sort of way, showing us impossible situations, all the while spoofing the grunting, gravel-voiced meatheads from other shooters. I don't think the story always succeeds at communicating that irony (and mentioned that in the review), but I think its tongue-in-cheek nature is clear. And as I mentioned in the article, it's more about each facet of the game coalescing into a single vision. I think Vanquish's story does what it needs to do, and sets a tone that matches the gameplay.

@awheaten -- We didn't give Uncharted 2 game of the year; it went to Demon's Souls in 2010. Actually, the only Xbox 360 exclusive that has earned Game of the Year was the original Gears of War. We didn't even nominate Gears of War 2 for the award--though we did nominate Killzone 2 the following year, and named it best shooter over Modern Warfare 2.

I've never understood where people get these ideas from. There's no fight. In fact, I would say that the PS3 has a better library of exclusives. For us, it's about the games. The system they run on is always secondary.

@h_cj -- A four-page interview is not journalism? Just because you are unhappy with what Mike Laidlaw might have to say, or are unhappy with the game, does not make an interview "not journalism." This is a post-mortem interview--a common type of article in journalism of all kinds.

@Vojkan80001 -- Because you don't see them here doesn't mean they weren't asked. Typically, developers only announce games when they are ready, and such questions 100% result in the following response: "We will announce that when we are ready." This is a Killzone post-mortem, so it makes sense that the questions are relating to the purpose of the article.

@Archeus47 -- The review goes into some detail about the parts of the game that have taken a step backwards. As for your claim that if it's the same game that it should get the same score, that would be a very poor way to approach game reviews, and GameSpot has long made our standards of reviewing public for all to read. You can find them by clicking the help link on every page. You may find these statements relevant:

We Take Time and Originality Into Account

We judge more critically as time goes by, because our expectations as game players are constantly increasing. When we review a game, we consider it at the exact point in time at which the evaluation is taking place (generally, the week of a game's release) and compare it to what we believe to be the current standards of quality at that time. In general, GameSpot does not favor highly derivative games, which mostly recycle elements from other, previous games.

We Do Not Inflate Our Scores

As the quality of gaming experiences naturally improves over time, we do not simply rate new games higher, even if they're technically better. Instead, we adjust our expectations and continually recalibrate our numeric rating scale accordingly. What this means in practice is that a high score awarded today by GameSpot is worth more than if we awarded the same score yesterday. In other words, a game that earns a high score today is probably superior in overall quality to a game that earned the same score on our scale several years ago.

@majormauser -- These shots were all taken in house using the same equipment with both games, and are as they appear in the game.

@jazilla -- I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I wrote about the games I'm most anticipating. Freely. Though for what it's worth, I could write 10 pages worth of stuff on the games I most want to see--I just didn't have 10 pages worth of space to do it in! No one should assume that if they don't see a game listed that we aren't giddy with excitement over it--I think all of us could go on and on and on if given the chance.

@Emerald_Warrior -- That's why Ricardo said "if" in his statement. There are several important moments to pinpoint on the game continuum prior to 1972, but Pong is largely considered to be the first commercially successful video game, and the one that ushered in video games as a mainstream form of entertainment--and an as an industry.