I'm really suprised to see Last of Us (probably cause gameplay details and such are so vague) and Ni No Kuni so low (although 20's isn't something to scoff at I suppose) on the list. The fact that Call of Duty 9 (also doesn't seem to have solid details) is higher on the list is just pathetic laziness. Really? Call of Duty hasn't presented anything new except for the occasional tweak and weapon here and there since the first Modern Warfare and I think the series sucks horribly. Besides just my opinion, I can't honestly see how this could be legitimately defended.

Anyways, this list does get me more excited for this year than I realized, I think I'll have to skip the Vita unless say a few more Sony IPs come out like an InFamous game (that could take place between 1 and 2?) or something God of War comes out on it. Either way, I'm probably way more excited for Ni No Kuni (as a huge fan of level-5 and Studio Ghilbi as well) than I should be. That, and Resident Evil 6 looks promising. I'm not anticipating GTA 5, I think Rockstar should look into the Red Dead series and explore that route.

I'm going with Uncharted 3. Yeah, a little lacking in story, but it's a game. Gameplay as always was top notch and exciting, all the best moments of the series other than fighting a helicopter on a train, nothing tops that moment in gaming.

Also, has anyone else even played Resistance 3? I'm currently addicted. Good stuff, I'll need to buy my online pass sooner or later.

Although it's not my type of game (I love RPGs but too open world RPGS kind of suck and feel abstracted from any substantial story), I like Skyrim. I can see it being many people's game of the month and GOTY, but I gotta give it to Uncharted 3 so far. To hell with SR3, it looked alright but when you get down to it, it's a goofy version of GTA. So, just on the basis of my own taste, I'll grant Skyrim it's crown and say Uncharted 3 as #2. But then again, I haven't even played many of the big games out there to decide for sure, I still can't wait to get my hands on Battlefield 3 and Skyward Sword. Either it was last month, or I am suprised Arkham City didn't make the obvious Batman fanboy GR list. I think it was last month though. Alright, though, for once I'll lay off on GR and say good choice for GOTM. Seriously though, Saint's Row 3?


By the way, you gave Uncharted 3 a 9, I'm still not over that. Am I the only freaking person that liked it more than 2? Really? I wonder how many people actually think 2 is better than 3 and aren't just nodding their heads and saying 2>3 to fit the popular opinion. Most people, including GR can't say why they don't like it as much, they just give wishy washy non-answers.

I feel like GR has completely lost it's integrity. I guess I'm not overly irrate at them giving say, Skyrim a 10, I figured and I'm sure it's a great game (I still haven't really played Oblivion very much and I'm not overly in love with it or anything. I think it's over-rated in general and I like more focused gaming). However, giving this game a 9 and saying it's not as good as WW is weird, but I suppose that's opinion. I'm still peaved about the Uncharted 3 review, it's complete bogus, I think Uncharted 3 was even better than 2, screw what everyone else says. But MW3 getting a 9 just felt like an obligation, I knew it was going to be either a safe score like a 9 and I was even worried they would give it a 10 because they are such tools on here sometimes. I'm gonna rent Arkham City and see if the fuss is justified, I still don't see how anyone but a Batman fanboy could have thought Arkham Assylum was a GOTY game, but to each his or her own.

I'm just going to trust Game Informer for my reviews before I pick up a game from here on out. GR has some fun and cool articles and is still a great place to get cheats/help but as for reviews, screw em I think I can get a better opinion from even IGN or my own personal views from renting and for sure Game Informer, even though they can be weird sometimes too but not nearly as controversialy idiotic as GR has shown to be in the past year or two. Sorry GR, keep writing the great articles but you are no longer a good reviewing site. I'll play Skyward Sword and I'm willing to bet, from what I've heard at least it's going to be the best Zelda since OoT

Fair warning, if Modern Warfare 3 gets so much as a 9 or 10, I will never take GR's word on anything again. I know it's lame, but I don't have to play Modern Warfare 3 to know that it'll be the same exact thing that will only blow the minds of fanboys and make anyone else why they rehashed $60 for a small upgrade. You can say all you want, you can defend the sh*t out of yourselves, you can hide behind GR fanboys to make yourselves feel like you still have integrity, but if this even ousts Uncharted 3, your opinion is obviously moot. I say that as a fanboy of Uncharted 3 but also somebody who isn't dumb enough to ever believe that Modern Warfare is a legit franchise. It's okay, but it definitely doesn't deserve to be the top gaming franchise in history; unless you're a jacked up on testosterone, gun-loving, beef-headed, teenage boy that thinks explosions and gunfire galore, regardless of story or anything else, plus a chance to bro-down and pown noobs whilst stroking your pathetic, I'm not good at anything besides online fps games, ego qualifies as the best franchise ever. Besides, Battlefield does it better IMO.

So really GR, I don't really care what you think of gaming, I don't base my entire experience on your opinions, but I will say I've had my doubts as to your reviewer integrity in the past few months. I think a good indicator that you're all a bunch of batsh*t fanboys (irony from a fanboy rant?)will be how you even compare MW3 to Uncharted (and yes, I will be using your score as an indicator of what you think, even though it's just a number 10>9 so a game that gets a 10 is supposedly always better than a game that gets a 9 unless your scale is broken). That is all.

I think my main issue lies in it being put on the same level as games like Killzone 3 or hell, even InFamous 2 (which I loved) but to put it on the same score level (whether numbers say all that much) as those games when I'm sure it'll be so much better is riddiculous. Once again, I love God of War 3 but I believe GR gave it a 10 and Uncharted 3 is going to blow even that great game out of the water so where is the discrepancy? It cannot be solely in that games in 2009/2010 were just so much worse than nowadays that what qualified as a 10 then is like a 8 or 9 now? I won't believe that. I think Uncharted will probably one of those games that hits it's stride with the third entry (although it probably already did in 2) but it can make even better what it did amazingly in 2 so... why the drop in score? Really, why the drop in score? Because one or two scenes were anticipated? So f*&king what? That doesn't mean it's somehow worse than the last entry and that's a pitiful justification. I just expect more from professional reviewers/critics is all. If they've got nothing else, I'm calling bias, even if it makes me sound like an ass.

Thanks for your opinion as well, if you want to criticize everyone for stating their opinion go on youtube or somewhere else. He, you, and I all have a right to opinions and they are open to be scrutinized for what's being said but not for just stating an opinion. I'm sure that we'll all be better off at your calling his opinion out with your own as well.

Also, one more point. I know, I know, I'm raging over defending a game I haven't even played yet because I adore what the series has done in it's past. But look at it this way as for saying it didn't reach it's expectations. I heard one reviewer say it well in an analogy: when you go to your favorite restaurant and order your favorite meal, you don't expect it to change you expect it to be everything that you love. Uncharted 3 is the same, if it changed anything drastically about all the great things you love about it, then it would be highly disappointing (remember risks are great and fun but you don't really mess with a good recipie or you're just asking for trouble). When they have already done so much to move gaming forward, to change what it is that makes the game great is just a stupid as sin move. They've just improved the recipie which is what I'd expect as a fan: adding frosting to the delicioius cake. I once again fall on my Arkham City arguement, I gaurantee the exact same thing was done in Arkham city (the formula didn't change they just added more to an already good thing). So it's stupid to expect the game to revolutionize anything that it already has accomplished in revolutionizing. I'm expecting to enjoy Uncharted 3 as much as, if not more than Uncharted 2 for those exact reasons. It's the same game I know and love with a new story, new characters, new jaw-dropping moments and new situations to laugh at Nate's constant monologue and all of the brilliant dialogue and banter. It's everything great but re-done for a brand new and exciting adventure. It's like the ultimate DLC and I'll gladly pay $60 for a brand new 9 hour long improved quality DLC. That's how I think of it and if it delivers on all these fronts (as I think it will) than I'll be damned on how it could lose a point from Uncharted 2's perfect score until some other game does it better or revolutionizes the action game genre like Uncharted has that deserves to put it above the series. Arkham City overall will probably not be as fun as Uncharted 3 and it has no multiplayer to sweeten the deal. If Uncharted 3 is more fun, I don't care how much Rockstady improved it's formula, if Uncharted 3 is more fun than AC than it deserves at the very least the same score. So, although I know it's subjective, when I finnish playing both, I better damn well see how one could get a better rating than the other. It should be based off some objective reasoning that I can see in the game not from some bulls&^t bias. So if I can't see it I'll probably be back with some question for GR. I don't care what people say, because I'll be justified in wanting an explanation. After all, it is the reviewers job to explain why one game is better than another or what to look for/ what games to try and buy. Right?

Alright, but I'm pretty sure I'm justified in calling out GR in how they can say a game like, oh I don't know, Arkham City improved so much by making the same game, except bigger, is worthy of a 10 and being considered the best game of all time and yet, Uncharted 3 (although I can't know yet) probably does the exact same and not only gets called worse than the last but loses a point? The storytelling is lackluster? How so? I wouldn't be opposed to getting a spoiler just to find out where the game went oh so wrong in the storytelling department to justify it losing a point. If the game has a perfect 10 formula how can it lose a point with the same exact formula, except improved? Which, to my understanding is pretty much what Arkham City (to keep up with newer games because gamesradar says age determins their ratings; what got a 10 in 2009 isn't the same standard as what game will get a 10 in 2011) does? How does one so vastly improve it's already amazing formula to the point where it gets a blow-out perfect score and yet another does not? All I've heard yet from Arkham City (and maybe I'm not the only one who wasn't blown away buy Asylum?) only puts more scale, boss battles, enviroment size, and weapon selection into it. That doesn't mean that it qualifies as a huge, groundbreaking improvement that doesn't get tired from last year's prodcut if you hold the standard for improvement as such on other games. So, I'd really, really want to know what Arkham City does right to deserve to oust Uncharted 3 in terms of score? I'm all ears to the Batman fanboys, which brings up my other point... do I have to be a Batman fan to appreciate the game as worthy of all the perfect score praise or is the gameplay stand-alone worthy? Because Uncharted has no fan base (apart from that which it earned as a game not a anthology of comics) to build off of and add to it's quality, it can't be put lower on the scale because there is no 40 year old, loved it since I was 7, fan base to adore it's references (once again outside of the fan base it's made from previous titles) to fall back on to bolster it's adoration. Either way, I'm calling a fanboy bias towards the Batman series (as only a moderate fan of Batman, mostly the Christopher Nolan movies). I've played Asylum and I can say it got boring pretty fast, the gameplay was repetitive, the detective vision/puzzle solving was tediously dull and the combat felt restricted (at least to as far as I bothered to play). Once again, I feel like I'd have to be a hardcore Batman fan to enjoy the games and not just a gamer who enjoys the games for what they ultimately are, games. Just comparing GR's criterion shows a lame bias in that they can't objectively say how one improves so much and the other loses (something) in translation from the prequel. The reviewer never went in to depth with what was lacking (maybe it was the shortage of Chloe and Elena, maybe it was the predictablitity of Nate's foot falling through a shotty bridge during an escape scene, maybe it was that there was no helicopter in the campaign). Maybe isn't goint to cut it, and I want grounded, objective reasons for what is lacking, not wishy washy, beat around the bush, lame excuses to, how everyting improved from the last but it wasn't as good, BS. It's all I ask from a credible critic that doesn't develop games but reviews them and is supposed to unbiasedly, objectively look at the games strengths and weaknesses without being nit-picky d-bags just looking for a clever way to criticize a title just to stand out from other reviewers. This is probably going to be an amazing game and if it's better than the first, which in my opinon was the single best single-player game of all time, than it damn well deserves all the perfect scores it gets. Just because you know it's going to get a bunch of perfect scores doesn't mean you should purposefully look for small things to criticize to unobjectively give it anything lower than the standard score just to stand out and seem like you know something everybody else doesn't.

I may sound like a butt-hurt fanboy, but I don't care, because that's probably accurate and I wouldn't be the only one. But, c'mon! This review is bulls*#t. It just somehow falls flat? There's just something not as good about it, cause you know, we expected more. Those aren't objective complaints, they're just wishy washy excuses to be so deep and critical.... critics. I get a feeling GR reviewers get a high abut being nit-picky on big title releases like these because I've seen a few unjustified grade drops (InFamous anyone?) They're scale is so arbitrary because you get a game like Arkham Asylum (which maybe I'm the only one that wasn't blown away because it's one of those titles if you're not a fanboy you're just not going to enjoy enough to love) that get 10s and Arkham city that just revolutionizes the game by adding scale? Big f&*king deal, scale isn't sh@t without content. Anyways, I gaurantee this is just a matter of GR trying to be edgy and deep by knocking down Uncharted, Sony's biggest franchise, a peg or two to seem like reviewers with so much honesty and integrity that they can down-rate even the biggest titles of the year (we're so objective) by saying "Eh, just not as good as the second one because it just felt tired". Wow, good point, it's tired for what reasons though? "Eh, I could predict like 3 scenes." I'll have to play the game before I get real deep into calling BS on this review though. But I'm willing to bet they just had their expectations high and think it's so profound and anti-institutional to give it a 10 "just because" for no compelling reason. Gotta say though, I'm more than willing to bet Uncharted 3 has more mind-blowing, adrenaline fueled, fun and addicting moments than Arkham City. Just sayin, but I'll play them both first. If their prequels are any indicator Arkham City is gonna get it's sh^t blown out of the water by Uncharted 3 in my humble opinion. Get your sh!t together GR, I don't like a review that purposefully downrates games with no good reason. Uncharted 2 was groundbreaking and I'm sure that, although it might re-invent the series, it has improved on all fronts. Which I would imagine is the same case with Arkham City, improving an already award winning formula on all fronts. So how can you give one a 10 and not the other if they both accomplish the same things? But I digress, I'll play both and see (although I'm almost 100% sure this is the case). And if the original formula is any indicator of which will be better, I'd put my money on the Uncharted series in a heartbeat.

P.S. I can't say f&%k or sh!t? Where do you guys get off on the moral high ground? I've heard plenty of cussing in podcasts and video reviews? Either this site is grown-up enough for the F word or it's not. I'm getting mixed signals from this site. I'm not one to make threats and 95% of the time I agree with your reviews/articles. You've gotten a lot better from 2 years ago at not just trying to insult and criticize every game and everything that comes your way, but I'm getting concerned with the quality of this site.