I'll quote what IGN said. It's the same thing I feel:

 "What I found truly puzzling was the player's inability to skip cutscenes. Even the long ones. You can pause at any time which is helpful if you're interrupted while playing, but there's no way to skip past something. This can be a particular annoyance when you die right after a long series of scenes and are forced to watch them over"

It will be annoying if I die and then I have to sit through the long cutscenes. It will be even worse if I die 3 or more times and have to see that same scene over and over again. I haven't seen any of the cutscenes, just gameplay footage. I don't want to spoil the game.

 If i had to guess.  I'd have to say that Graphics don't equal how hard a system is being pushed.  There are other factors like Art Direction.

now.. I'm by no mean an expert player. Frankly, I haven't really figure out the whole magic of mixing your own materia. But I've NEVER died after a cutscene.

Not because i'm lucky, but most of the cutscenes don't end with you battling anybody. And the mosters in that game aren't as vicious as DMC to begin with.

With the possible exception of some dedicated RPG sites like RPGamer, I've given up reading reviews of JRPGs. The majority of western game reviewers just don't seem to get JRPGs. The FF series has faired pretty well with reviewers, but even then, as illustrated here, they tend to complain about the same things over and over when what they are complaining about is often a core element of the genre and/or what attracts people to the game(s) in the first place.

Too much grinding, too linear, battle system isn't "innovative" enough, cliche graphics, too many cut scenes, cut scenes are too long, battles are too long/slow... reviewers pull out the same tired complaints all the time, or just randomly give low scores when it's clear they simply just aren't fans of the genre. It's like reviewing an FPS and saying there's too much violence and the first person view is disorienting--it's just stupid.

Anyway, I say just ignore reviews of JRPGs till people start hiring reviewers that actually like JRPGs.

Well EGM did say that battles were easy. If I don't end up battling someone after a long cutscene, then I'm alright with that. I'll save so that I don't have to be forced to watch it again, but it will suck if you die and have to watch them over and over.

I think with RPG's the score for lasting appeal is held to a higher standard than certain other genres. 20 hours is kind of trim for an FF game I guess.

FF III on the ds was 60 hours+.

 The only time you die is when you have no idea what you are doing... ie: equip with fire-materia going into a boss battle whom uses ice, or going into a battle with a monster who can't be harmed with normal attack and you forgot to buy MP refill so you have to pray you get a boost via rollers. It happened to me a few times because I have no idea what they are talking about (playign Japanese version)

 more like 20-40 hours. I have NO idea what you did in there to last you 60 hours, Unless you go and talk to everyone twice and then some.

I wonder if they just don't bother having anyone experienced covering PSP anymore, 'cause that review was very oddly written and poorly broken down. I hate it when scores don't match the descriptions.

Actually, never played it. I just looked at the IGN review :P

Still, FFIII only scored an 8.5 for lasting appeal, despite being twice (or thrice, according to IGN) as long as CC, so 8.0 seems pretty fair to me.

It makes no sense to compare its length to GOW.