most gamers have a familiy nowadays, they have less holiday and more hours to work than 10 years ago (maybe not everywhere but here where i live) and no time for 20 hour games so a 7-10 hours game is normal and yes, 20 hours is incredibly long for a game...

sometimes long games are good but im happy with a 10 hours game and i think most adult gamers are happy with a 10 hours game who just like to play a game sometimes if the family is anywhere else :)

ITs not the score, its the quote that makes me not want to play it...see avatar for reason why. :)

what? I was gonna watch the video review but IGN just won't allow me? bs

I still don't care. I will get it

http://www.gamerzines.com/xbox-360/news/castlevania-framerate-issues.html

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow frame rate issues only affect review code Retail copies remain unnaffected

Written by Alex Seedhouse, 30 September 2010

The release of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow is soon to be upon us, and Producer David Cox has clarified a few comments made within initial reviews regarding frame rate issues.

Responding to a query as to whether either the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 versions are superior to each other, Cox writes "The games are identical," before explaining "The 360 review code had some issues with frame rates but not major and they are not in the final."

So, fans can at least rest easy knowing that they are safe to pick up either version as the retail copies remain unaffected.

Most gamers are still young. While there is an aging population of people who grew up on games that is still no where near the rate that new kids are introduced to the hobby. As one of those adult gamers with a family though I still don't want a ten hour game as average.

A shorter game does nothing to help me squeeze in time. If the little one wakes up in the middle of the night I have to stop for a while and it doesn't matter whether or not I have to play another 5,10, or 1,000 hours to finish the game. The problem is not over-all game length but ability to stop in the middle of it. Most of my RPG time is on the DS because I can pop it out whenever there is a quiet moment, and clam shell it when something interrupts unexpectedly.

You want to appeal gamers with a family then let it be saved at anytime. Save, quit, and pick it back up when you have some spare time. Lowering the over-all time just gives me less value for my dollar. I can not think of a single way in which it helps anyone other than people who just want to beat as many games as possible just to say they beat it.

I would think that your avatar would be a reason to have confidence in it.

After all, Symphony of the Night was a pretty serious departure from the series norm. It wasn't a true Castlevania, remember - it was a lot closer to Metroid.

I wouldn't even call that a review. More of just a whining post as to how Castlevania isn't up to his standards. Boo hoo.

I however will pick this up because I support devs who create longer games (20 hours, which is still flippin short) and I really enjoy this style of game.

The game is fuckin awesome. I am at the beginning of it and ..wow , it's great and has a very interesting graphical style (a cross between "realistic" graphics and a touch of cell-shading in the backgrounds) .

A 20 hour epic God of War clone with werewolves and Dracula is just what the doctor ordered !!!!

Man, are you kidding me?  Snes games took anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours.  Even megahits like Like Link to the Past and Super Metroid were only a couple of hours long if you knew where to go.  Battletoads, Bayou Billy, Castlevania 3, all of these games were tough as hell but could be beaten in about an hour and a half!  Resident Evil, Double Dragon, Brawl Bros., Metal Gear Solid, Starfox --I actually think games are longer than they were in the 8-Bit/16-bit eras and about the same as they ever were during the PS1-PS2 eras!!