| leo-j said: I see so basicly heavenly sword (an 8 average game) has a better story than Halo 3. But was shot down because it didnt have multiplayer. Well that sucks. |
If you're basing this on the arstechnica article I posted, you're just wrong.
For them, Halo 3 is a 7 with its 8-10 hours of gameplay at normal difficulty (there are another 2 levels above that), counting only the single player campaign, and none of the extra single player features. They'll also review the full game as soon as they have access to it (ie., when it shows up in stores - this was all they were given privileged access to).
Heavenly Sword, on the other hand, was found not to be deserving of a full review, and got one of their short reviews, which turned out to be a "rent" score thanks to its no more than 6 hours of gameplay. So, I very much doubt that'd beat a 7 in their scale.
You can't get off comparing a score from a single review site to the gamerankings average (of which said site isn't even a part of, thanks to its scarce reviews) and make a statment like that. According to them, Halo 3's flawed single player mode seen in isolation beats Heavenly Sword easily.
You either trust their judgment, or you don't. And if you don't, don't use their words to spin stuff your way.
