+ million seller fo so!!



Any body know at what difficulty they play when they review the game, wild guess but i'am sure on hard it would take longer.

Videogirl said: Yeah right I made that up... For your information, a site or a mag is not more reliable than another just because it is written in english, they are lots of people all over the world speaking different languages who are fully well-able of reviewing games. "Because IGN gets it closest to right more often then anybody else" The closest to what ? to your way of thinking ? well it doesn't even come close to mine. That said I won't waste my time arguing with you. Go check for yourself.   this is the review from Doupè : http://www.doupe.cz/h/Konzole/AR.asp?ARI=117387  and before you call this site biaised I just want to let you know that Gear of War got a 9.3 and Mario Strikers Chared Football a 8.5   PSX Extreme is one of the most important polish mag on VG : http://www.psxextreme.pl/index01.htm

It's closest because it's the closest statistically as you can see by checking the site rankings on gamerankings.com. 

The two sites you post arn't credible because their stats arn't in a big databases like IGNs where you can sort out bias and just in general how they rank other games vs the average reviewer.  Not because they arn't in english.

Quoteing a couple review scores does nothing to prove a site is bias or not, anyone will get a few some games right, and anyone will get some wrong.  The average that covers nearly all the games they've reveiwed per console matched against a large amount of other magazines out theres averages are what decide credibility and bias.

Once it's in a database like that, and the entire width of it's reviews can be put up to statistically scruitny then you can call a site credible in my mind.   Otherwise there is no point.

Lol, I came here as soon as I saw the IGN review.

Sure enough, just as I expected this thread has turned into hell.

I bet many people are delighted that this game got a ''bad'' review. How pathetic. Don't call Heavenly Sword a flop just yet, and please refrain from using this as an excuse to slam the PS3. Although I suppose that is asking for too much, I guess nothing will stop some people from gleefully rubbing this in.

Anyway, I for one am still looking forward to Heavenly Sword. Although I am worried about the game length, eight hours is usually the minimum for an action game. I think did read some kind of review/preview or something which mentions that it took them 10 hours to complete the game. I can't remember where it is though so if anyone else knows what I'm taking about can you please link to it? I hope I haven't imagined it. Lol. 

Im still going to buy it. No matter what score it receives!!

leo-j said: Im still going to buy it. No matter what score it receives!!

Same here. When I read the IGN reviews I didn't agree with most of their negative comments about the game. When playing the demo at my friends house (my PS3 isn't online yet) I really liked the combat. Once I knew what stance I needed to be in to block the ememies attacks I had no problem. Although as a big Tekken fan I am quite used to neutral block.

I'm going to SO buy this game. The only reason I'm not playing the demo right now is because I can beat it in like a minute and a half. Also, I don't see why game length is such an issue. Or this supposed "replayability". Replayability to me, at least with this kind of a game, constitutes the combat system being fun to the point where you enjoy yourself slaughtering the enemies. Which I totally do with this combat system. If you took a bunch of the less fun puzzles out of God of War 1 and 2, I bet those games would be shorter, and frankly, I did not buy either of those games so I could push big rocks around in a room with no enemies in it. I got them to wail on people until they died in cool ways. The same exact reason I bought Devil May Cry 1 and 3, which I still play due to the fact that killing the enemies in cool ways is fun. Also, I didn't see anyone bashing God of War for not having online multiplayer, or any multiplayer, because I didn't buy the game because it was long, and I didn't buy it because I wanted to play it like 20 times. I got it to chop enemies. Same reason I'm going to enjoy Heavenly Sword.
Can't wait for Devil May Cry 4.

People should just stop rating games based on their length... when you go to the movies you don't question the fact you pay exactly the same price for 1h30 or 3h00 of entertainment, and the 3h00 long movie isn't necessarily the best of the two.  Same with books.

So length cannot be considered by any means a criteria of quality.

Why should Gameplay score be prevalant upon story ? If some people like to play games with lack of storyline and dull characters it's their choice, but how many people like story driven games ? FF Anyone ? FF are the most frustrating and repetitive games out there but people love to play them 'cause they are thrilled every time they get to see another cinematic or get to learn a little more about the story and the characters. A game it's not all about gameplay and length, it's also about immersion and entertainment.  

Maybe all the Sony fans will stop harassing all the Wii fans over every game that gets ~7 now. Nahhhh...

The length of a game is important. If you spend 60 dollars on a game you can beat in less than 8 hours you really don't feel like you got your moneys worth. On the other hand, if you buy a game that takes 15+ hours and has an online multiplayer option you feel like that 60 dollars was well spent. The reviews are just warning you of the short length of the game, so when you buy it in the morning and beat it by lunch that you're not surprised. They're just giving us the heads up