Quantcast
(Probably) First Heavenly Sword review - This is next gen!

Forums - Sony Discussion - (Probably) First Heavenly Sword review - This is next gen!

You told someone they were making weird predictions, i think 9.5 million is a "weird" prediction.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

Around the Network

Some of the greatest games I have ever played were under 10 hours. I am they type of gamer that doesn't care about extra's nor multiplayer.

Gears of war, metal gear solid and metal gear solid 2 and shadows of the colossus are the few games off of the top of my head in which I finished very quickley but enjoyed them so much I honestly couldn't complain. All of them had great replay value because they were such good games.

Honestly, anyone who has been gaming as long as I have, really wouldn't be complaining about multiplayer or extra's in a video game. Now most of the extra's are just a time sink and multiplayer is viewed as a welcome addition instead of a requirement. Give me a polished game and ill be satisfied, look at bioshock. Single player and if you wanted to you can blow through the game.



Games make me happy! PSN ID: Staticneuron Gamertag: Staticneuron Wii Code: Static Wii - 3055 0871 5802 1723

carlos710 said:
kber81 said:
carlos710 said:

Anyway, i wouldn't say this is "next-gen" because it got 9+ ... gears of wars and zelda twilight princess got 9+ by most major publications months ago.

C'mon. It's not about score. It's about cinematic approach to gameplay. Did you even read review summary few posts above?


"Why not 10?

A bit too short - less than 10 hours
Enemies aren't differential enough - only few models
It would be nice to have more bosses
Lack of secrets
Some issues with collision detection"
The first and last ones are HUGE problems for me. And it should be for most people, specially the last one. When the collision detection doesn't works the game can become frustrating pretty easily.
I take 100 times out of 100 a game with a collision detection of 10.0 and graphics of 5.0 over a game with graphics of 10.0 and collisions of 5.0
Besides, this may not be a problem for a lot of people, but personally i wouldn't pay 50 or 60$ for any game that doesn't gives me at least 20+ hours of gameplay... doesn't matters if it is local or multiplayer but i have to get at least 20+ hours to justify my purchase.

Good lord.  They gave it a 9 despite those SMALL flaws.  It is clearly a great experience.

Gears was short, had no story, doesn't have the best multiplayer experience out of games that were released last winter, and yet had great graphics and good gameplay.

If you don't like the game, then fine, but I am very happy that the game is short because clearly it overcomes that "flaw" (games are too long now, imo) by offering up the best animation to date coupled with a great fighting system and story.   That's a great game:  story, gameplay, great looking.



carlos710 said:

Some issues with collision detection"
The first and last ones are HUGE problems for me. And it should be for most people, specially the last one. When the collision detection doesn't works the game can become frustrating pretty easily.

Problems with collision detection are really small - "really delicate problems with collision detection when you don't use aftertouch while shooting Kai's crossbow (only)" - it's almost a non-factor for reviewer. No crap a'la Madden. 



staticneuron said:
Some of the greatest games I have ever played were under 10 hours. I am they type of gamer that doesn't care about extra's nor multiplayer.

Gears of war, metal gear solid and metal gear solid 2 and shadows of the colossus are the few games off of the top of my head in which I finished very quickley but enjoyed them so much I honestly couldn't complain. All of them had great replay value because they were such good games.

Honestly, anyone who has been gaming as long as I have, really wouldn't be complaining about multiplayer or extra's in a video game. Now most of the extra's are just a time sink and multiplayer is viewed as a welcome addition instead of a requirement. Give me a polished game and ill be satisfied, look at bioshock. Single player and if you wanted to you can blow through the game.

 10- hours of game were good before 1997  for me. And yes, i have been playing for a long, long time.

 In gears of war, you can get easily 50+ hours of multiplayer action. 



carlos710 - Capitán Primero: Nintendo Defense Force

"Wii are legion, for Wii are many"

Around the Network
carlos710 said:
 

 In gears of war, you can get easily 50+ hours of multiplayer action. 


 If you can play online of course..






*sigh* What I said was SARCASM!

@leo-j

26 mil




dtewi said:
You told someone they were making weird predictions, i think 9.5 million is a "weird" prediction.

So saying the psp will only sell 25million by year's end is not a wierd prediction? Even though a new psp is coming out and in japan pre orders are exceeding exectations. You may think 9.5million is a wierd prediction but anything is possible especially with a ps console.



 

mM

^ Yup, PS3 destined to sell 10 trillion unita by year's end. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!




Well, to have comments like "No Secrets, few types of enemies" and still get a 9, the story must be very good (Hooray) or they must have found the same combat rather engrossing.

I found the demo shockingly easy. So the lack of enemy variation somewhat worries me, but a review is a review. I just look for too many different things to trust them.



See Ya George.

"He did not die - He passed Away"

At least following a comedians own jokes makes his death easier.