Theres also some PSw uk mag that gave it a 8, they also gave Lair and Graw2 an 8 so i wonder wtf do they review games based on.

I think a game being less than 10 hours merits more than a 1 point penalty imo, maybe it has lots of replay value?

I also can't see this being as important to PS3 as Gears was for 360 & think it will struggle to hit even half the sales, not to say it might not be the better game though.

Overall though I'd say it sounds like a good addition to the PS3 library.

Yeah but its like 360-gamer in the UK. Not directly associated with the company, but still heavily biased towards the PS3. In any case its now a yr since the PS3 came out and its no more excuses time. I think this will be a good game, but not brilliant. And the whole point of blu-ray was meant to be massive, long games. Less than 10 hours? WTF? Poor variety levels in enemies and failing physics in collision detection? WTF? Less time on extras more time on length and depth

10 hours? I hope it wasn't that short. Of course Gears was short, too, and that didn't seem to bother many. Maybe this will be a trend. Definitely adds replay value if it doesn't take 25 hrs to beat.

Nope. This mag is multiplatform and totally unbiased. Some reviews of this isssue:

Blue Dragon : 7+

Shadowrun : 7

Guitar Hero : 7

Tenchu Z : 6- 

Fantastic Four : 5 

You know, what I don´t like about the review (and reviews in general in the last few years), they are impressed by graphics, animations, FMV, Sound.

Did you notice what they critizise is the game itself? Too short, not enough boss battles, few enemys, lack of secrets - the game lacks exactly what makes a good game for me.

It is like the Twilight Princess discussion: It is bigger, prettier, more epic but what it lacks (compared to previous Zelda games) is content.

This whole graphic craziness is exactly the reason why I liked GTA Vice City but didn´t like San Andres. Mario Sunshine looked better than Mario 64, still Mario 64 was a better game. And take a deep breath: For me, Halo is a better game than Halo 2 (single player-wise). Just everyone compares their graphics and says: "Hey Halo 2 looks better, Master Chiefs right arm looks prettier than in the first game, so Halo 2 has to be better!"

I´m really getting crazy about those graphic junkies all around the world. (And believe me, this counts for every console - Mario Galaxy can look as good as the best looking PS3 game, if it isn´t fun I´ll be the first to call it rubbish.)

I´m pretty sure Heavenly Sword is a good game. I´m sure it´s content deserves at least 8/10. I just want people to TALK about it. Why do they have to say "Heavenly Swords looks great!", why can´t they say "Heavenly Sword plays great!"? Why can´t Sony say that? I´m sure it does. How do the developers feel when they hear Sony talking about the games graphics? I´m sure they put more than just graphics into it. Every game contains a little bit of the developers heart-blood. I´m sure they want people to talk about the game, not about it´s graphics.

(This wasn´t a comment to this review only. It describes a trend I noticed during the last five years, and it was the trend why I nearly quit gaming. It doesn´t refer to a single console. I think the game is good. But I´m not interested in it´s graphics. I want to play the game, not it´s visuals.)

@Louie

Yeah i didnt notice that. All the "positives" are graphics and sounds and all the detractors are gameplay affectors. Also unlike gears which had a VERY strong multiplayer to supplement its short single-player, i dont think HS has a single-player

9+=9.5? Nice review for heavenly sword, 10 hours is not that short(god of war was shorter).

 You mean multiplayer :).