not too bad, 7.8.

IGN's review seems to sum the game up pretty well. If you like loot based action RPG's you'll like this game.

If you don't then don't get it.

I have to say it was nice to see someone actually spend a little time with the game unlike some of the other reviewers (1up's review was half a page, and half of that was a screen image). IGN's also seemed to have a better understanding of where the game was coming from. IGN actually complimented the use of right analog stick for combat as an improvement over the point and click system of old, and was thoughful enough to point out it's shortcomings within that system, instead of comparing it to hack and slash games like DMC4 or NG2.

Very good points.  Actually, IGN's review mimics my own thoughts about my play time with the demo.

Why the hell do we have a thread for every review of the game?

@ Bitmap this is (or was) a highly anticpitated title .

I know that the 360 version wasn't in development for 10 years but at least the too human concept was , I think for that much time in development the game should at least have an sweet story line.

I guess that leaves Gears Of War 2.

@ bitmap

because it was incredibly hyped, ive seen it hyped AAA in places like gamespot

IGN's review is awesome.

They will always review a game extremely fair.

A 7.8ish is what it deserves.

Along with Gamepro's 8/10. Only two good scores for Too Human. 6 reviews on metacritic for an average review score of around 68%, fairly ordinary effort but early days. It could crawl to a low 70's average.

i think Too Human would have been a better game if they freakin released it during the N64/PS1 era. It probably would have been fresh back then. Now we've seen like 12 Dynasty Warriors games and so this sort of game has sort have been done already.

not a bad sore could be worth playing.

mabey this will shut them people up when ever a ps3 game gets a similar score or even higher they scream "but b b but its not AAA"

the best review is your own review if you like the game or not.