Mario64 was not short. On the ds it took me 4 days to beat it!!!

Cause you cross me as someone who knows his mario games.

The funniest thing about this is, his logic.

One person beat the game (not 100%) in 7 hours
Another one person beat it in 15 hours (not 100%)
Therefore, the game is 7-15 hours long.

Someone beat Mario64 (not 100%) in 20 minutes,
Someone else beat Mario64 (not 100%) in 21 minutes,
Therefore, the game is 20-21 minutes long.

*Throws up over thread*

Commenting about Super Mario Galaxy's length = You will be flamed.
Commenting about Heavenly Sword's length = Typical topic, talk about the game, yadda yadda yadda.

Hypocrisy.

This game was probably delayed so they could give it a graphical touchup, like Metroid Prime 3. I bet everybody's going to accuse me of being a fake female again because I said something bad about Nintendo.

What the original poster doesn't understand is that collecting stars is not like collecting skulls on Halo. You don't mindlessly search every square foot of land for the things. Collecting stars just means doing extra FULL MISSIONS. The thing about Mario games is that you can choose what worlds you play, so you might have completed the game without even exploring one world. Therefore, going back and playing that world is proper gameplay, and not mindless achievement scurrying nonsense.

End of. 

Cadence, Legend11 was going out of his way to create a flame topic and egg on the nintendo crowd, its hardly such a simple matter of one game gets dissed on and another is held sacred. When people complained about Heavenly Sword's Length it was with reviewers and other reputable sources backing up the claim of a 5-7 hour game, Legend has only provided us the accounts of two individuals on Neo-gaf. People are attacking the basis of his accusations, which are justly in question, not the fact that SMG is being "attacked" regardless the issue.

Heavenly Sword wasn't just shorter than expected either as is the claim of SMG here, it was exceptionally short for any game which earned it the criticism of many gamers and reviewers alike. While it did become popular to rag on the game, it in many ways set itself up to be the whipping boy it was.

 Well that is because, unlike people that actually played the game, he could not know the game average lenght (aside from looking at reviews). I even said it took me 9 hours on the hardest difficult avaible.

Bias, fanboyism is alright with me. What pisses me off is flawed logic, contradictions, double standards and flip flops. If you say graphics, game lenght and scores matter then mantain your opinion. It is not only him that is full of bull. There is the Disgaea 3 thread saying that gameplay is more important than graphics, COD 4 thread where guys that bashed HL are defending COD, the RC ToD gamespot review where Nintendo fanboysare saying that 7.5 is ok (come on did you forget the Zelda TP and MP3 already?).

i heard its over 20 hours

Wow,

I haven't had a chance to read this entire thread yet, but I would like to say I hope Legend understands the vast difference between achievements which are essentially the game's way of saying "do this thing you've already done some more" or "go search the places you have been better". Is different from entirely new levels and entirely new content.

And for the record I like achievements, and I enjoy working on them. But they just don't even hold a candle to extra levels and stars. You can claim they are both "additional unnecessary gameplay" but that doesn't mean they are the same thing or even close to it.

People are missing the point of this thread, it isn't to bash Super Mario Galaxy, it's to bash the people who define a game by a set number of hours and then bash it if the number of hours is low. In the case of some of the games I've mentioned it's obvious that the people who define the game as being under 10 hours haven't completed all the challenges in them.

For example take a game like Halo 3, some of the people who bash the game talk about the single player component of the game as being under 10 hours, yet anyone who has tried to find all of the skulls for example knows that without cheating it definitely takes a lot longer than 10 hours to find them all. One skull in particular is notoriously hard to find, with many people having spent 20 or more hours just trying to find it.

I guess I won't be able to get through to some of the people who judge games like I've mentioned, since they apparently just come up with new excuses to justify their views and don't see what they're doing is wrong. If you want to believe the challenges in SMG are somehow more worthy than those in some other games that's your choice but at the end of the day it's time that completists are putting into a game to get as much as they possibly can out of it and I really don't agree that an hour in one game should be considered any less worthy than an hour in another.