In don't think this game deserve a 9.5. It's not a bad game at all- in fact, it is pretty fun, but there are so many flaws with it, I just can't give it anything more than an 8.5. It reminds me a lot of Grand Theft Auto for PS2- unfortunately, that includes the graphics, as well. The graphics aren't very good at all. The game is fun, but only for a little while. It becomes extremely repetitive. WAY too many zombies. Take away about 15% of them, and I can deal with it. The problem with so many, is that you can't even take a second to eat something or explore without one grabbing you (so aggravating). You lose a life just about every time one grabs you. You don't have enough time to get the side missions done because there are 3 of them at once with the same time limit. Not to mention every person you have to fight is incredibly difficult and almost always has a gun. I found lots of "THAT'S SO CHEAP!" moments in this game. Why is Chuck so slow? Why does he have so much trouble jumping over stuff? Why can't Chuck swing a bat and run at the same time? Why is there not a "sprint" button? Does it really need to take him 25 minutes to eat a bag of chips? Give me some good weapons to fight with. So far, I'm not too impressed with the weapons you can create. Some are pretty cool, but a lot are just a waste of time. I keep trying to tell myself this isn't Left 4 Dead- the best zombie games ever made. And yet this game gets the same score as Left 4 Dead2 and got a better score than Left 4 Dead 1? Are you kidding me, Game Informer? Wow.

I don't know, but I think they could have made this game a lot better. Not worth $60, but if you can get it when the price lowers, it's still a good game and worth it. Does Capcom pay Game Informer to give their games good reviews? (*cough* Resident Evil 5 *cough*)

Not a bad game at all, but needs a ton of work.