| ckmlb said: First of all Heavenly Sword is not 6 hours, the first got of war was like 9 hours this is 8, that got game of the year the year it was released. Your point? Would you rather have a 50 hour game that sucks or an 8 hour game that's good? Even if Gears of War had zero multiplayer and was single player only it would have gotten great reviews, maybe lower than it got but it would have gotten in the 8s. |
Heavenly sword got in the 8's as well. So what's your point. It's king of the hill for now... and deserves an 8 verse the catologue of PS3 games out now and the ones that are coming out soon.
However when it comes to games that come out later on in the PS3's life i'd bet this game won't hold up. Hence why i think it'll sell more then it should. If the same game was released a year or two from now i'd be shocked if it rated or sold anywhere near as well.
That's my point, reviewers have complained that it's both too short and too repetitive. If i remember the review right there are 4 differnt types of non boss enemies. That's just horrendus even in a 6-8 hour game. (The Penny Arcade guys said 6 hours for them, watching cutscenes and breaks i believe, and they talked about goofing off throwing dead bodies around.)
Also, I've probably put over 50 hours into "Collsiuem: Road to Freedom", which has a Metacritic review of 56. Games that "suck" don't suck for everyone, hence why having more to do is always a plus.
Here's another qustion. Would you rather have Heavenly Sword or a game just like Heavenly Sword that has 3 more hours of conent. Do they deserve to get the same reveiw scores?
