HS only 6 1/2 hrs WTF is that?

Bioshock took me 7 hours to complete and Quake 4 took me 4 hours to complete Oblivions main story took me about 6 hours to complete aswel and alot of games for me have been under 10 hours.Grantelicious

wow do u try to beat games as fast as u can?

[QUOTE="Grantelicious"]Bioshock took me 7 hours to complete and Quake 4 took me 4 hours to complete Oblivions main story took me about 6 hours to complete aswel and alot of games for me have been under 10 hours.Soul_to_Squeeze

wow do u try to beat games as fast as u can?

yeh if u take ur time bioosock is about 10hrs long, so i dont know why peole are making such a big deal about HS

[QUOTE="Soul_to_Squeeze"]

[QUOTE="Grantelicious"]Bioshock took me 7 hours to complete and Quake 4 took me 4 hours to complete Oblivions main story took me about 6 hours to complete aswel and alot of games for me have been under 10 hours.mobius1979

wow do u try to beat games as fast as u can?

yeh if u take ur time bioosock is about 10hrs long, so i dont know why peole are making such a big deal about HS

no if u take ur time, and dont play on easy difficulty u could get up to 20 hours in the game. ive probly got around 20 hours into it playing it on hard. but ive explored every room and checked pretty much every safe, desk, etc.

[QUOTE="mobius1979"][QUOTE="Soul_to_Squeeze"]

[QUOTE="Grantelicious"]Bioshock took me 7 hours to complete and Quake 4 took me 4 hours to complete Oblivions main story took me about 6 hours to complete aswel and alot of games for me have been under 10 hours.Soul_to_Squeeze

wow do u try to beat games as fast as u can?

yeh if u take ur time bioosock is about 10hrs long, so i dont know why peole are making such a big deal about HS

no if u take ur time, and dont play on easy difficulty u could get up to 20 hours in the game. ive probly got around 20 hours into it playing it on hard. but ive explored every room and checked pretty much every safe, desk, etc.

I alwyas play on the default setting unless it's too easy and with Bioshock you can die as many times as you want and it doens't matter which just makes the gametooo easy.

lol i've noticed people keep shortening the hours, first it was like 10, then 8, then 7, now 6 and a half?

i'd only judge it myself if i played it, im not gonna get it because i dont like button mashers, but even if it was 7-8 hours, thats not bad, yea its not long like san andreas or something, MGS2 i beat in like 7 hours after i already knew everything about the game, the first time you play through it its gonna be a lot longer then that, and MGS2 was a pretty decent length for me, so i dont know why people complain

i think everyone's just been spoiled by san andreas and oblivion or something

shadyd1717

Gears also had a co-op mode and online play.

I unlocked most everything, except some of the last few pieces of artwork. Some people will get some replay value out of playing it again, but there's not a whole lot to be gained by doing so. I personally wouldn't drop $60 on it, but I'm picky about what I spend my money on. I'd totally rent the game and have an awesome time though.

AaronThomas

so a large part of your review for the game is based on whether or not its worth its retail price? because u gave it a stingy 8 eventhough you had a blast.

Well, that's nice and all, but I was force fed a blue-ray player I didn't need. I was also promised longer games because of the added storage space, and the best they can do is 6 hours for this game? I will rent it...BreakingPoint8

ummm, no one force fed you anything. You CHOSE to buy a PS3, and knew blue ray was included. you could have very easily chose not to buy one. Whining about it after the fact isn't helping. You should have known the game line up for launch, and through this year. It was very easily seen on this very site. Perhaps you should do more research before you spend 600 dollars, or make your parents spend 600 dollars as the case may be, on a game system. If your parents bought it for you, you really have nothing to complain about. If you are that disappointed, sell your PS3, and buy a 360. that will solve your problems now won't it?

All of the arguments I see about Blue ray not being needed reminds me of way back in the Dreamcast/PS2 days. People were saying the same exact thing about DVD not being needed, and how CD was enough. Well, see, short sighted people would actually believe this to be true, but in the long run, more space is always better. DVD proved to be an excellent choice for the PS2, even though at first it didn't seem like it. Games are growing in size very quickly. There is only so much compressing you can do. Mass Effect almost doesn't fit on a DVD. If it weren't for MS excellent compression tools, it wouldn't fit. now think 2 years from now. I think Blue-ray will prove itself in the long run. And no, multiple disks are not ok. Games have become more about seamless transitions to keep the player emersed in the world, and changing disks will disruptgames like this. We are heading into 2008, Games should all fit on one disk.

I paid 40 Euros for Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone on PS1 and it lasted about 2 hours ... I've bought many games full price and found them boring/unplayable and didn't last more than 2 hours too. If a game is rich in gameplay, cinematic, fun and lasts 6-8 hours, it can be better because you know you can do it all over again and not take too much time for it (I finished X-men legends 3 times : 40 hours + 35 hours + 30 hours).

And don't forget that many games now have supplemental adds you can download on PS store, why not a coop mode with you playing Nariko and a friend playing Kai?

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]Well, that's nice and all, but I was force fed a blue-ray player I didn't need. I was also promised longer games because of the added storage space, and the best they can do is 6 hours for this game? I will rent it...mazdero

ummm, no one force fed you anything. You CHOSE to buy a PS3, and knew blue ray was included. you could have very easily chose not to buy one. Whining about it after the fact isn't helping. You should have known the game line up for launch, and through this year. It was very easily seen on this very site. Perhaps you should do more research before you spend 600 dollars, or make your parents spend 600 dollars as the case may be, on a game system. If your parents bought it for you, you really have nothing to complain about. If you are that disappointed, sell your PS3, and buy a 360. that will solve your problems now won't it?

All of the arguments I see about Blue ray not being needed reminds me of way back in the Dreamcast/PS2 days. People were saying the same exact thing about DVD not being needed, and how CD was enough. Well, see, short sighted people would actually believe this to be true, but in the long run, more space is always better. DVD proved to be an excellent choice for the PS2, even though at first it didn't seem like it. Games are growing in size very quickly. There is only so much compressing you can do. Mass Effect almost doesn't fit on a DVD. If it weren't for MS excellent compression tools, it wouldn't fit. now think 2 years from now. I think Blue-ray will prove itself in the long run. And no, multiple disks are not ok. Games have become more about seamless transitions to keep the player emersed in the world, and changing disks will disruptgames like this. We are heading into 2008, Games should all fit on one disk.

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]Well, that's nice and all, but I was force fed a blue-ray player I didn't need. I was also promised longer games because of the added storage space, and the best they can do is 6 hours for this game? I will rent it...mazdero

ummm, no one force fed you anything. You CHOSE to buy a PS3, and knew blue ray was included. you could have very easily chose not to buy one. Whining about it after the fact isn't helping. You should have known the game line up for launch, and through this year. It was very easily seen on this very site. Perhaps you should do more research before you spend 600 dollars, or make your parents spend 600 dollars as the case may be, on a game system. If your parents bought it for you, you really have nothing to complain about. If you are that disappointed, sell your PS3, and buy a 360. that will solve your problems now won't it?

All of the arguments I see about Blue ray not being needed reminds me of way back in the Dreamcast/PS2 days. People were saying the same exact thing about DVD not being needed, and how CD was enough. Well, see, short sighted people would actually believe this to be true, but in the long run, more space is always better. DVD proved to be an excellent choice for the PS2, even though at first it didn't seem like it. Games are growing in size very quickly. There is only so much compressing you can do. Mass Effect almost doesn't fit on a DVD. If it weren't for MS excellent compression tools, it wouldn't fit. now think 2 years from now. I think Blue-ray will prove itself in the long run. And no, multiple disks are not ok. Games have become more about seamless transitions to keep the player emersed in the world, and changing disks will disruptgames like this. We are heading into 2008, Games should all fit on one disk.

[QUOTE="mazdero"]

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]Well, that's nice and all, but I was force fed a blue-ray player I didn't need. I was also promised longer games because of the added storage space, and the best they can do is 6 hours for this game? I will rent it...BreakingPoint8

ummm, no one force fed you anything. You CHOSE to buy a PS3, and knew blue ray was included. you could have very easily chose not to buy one. Whining about it after the fact isn't helping. You should have known the game line up for launch, and through this year. It was very easily seen on this very site. Perhaps you should do more research before you spend 600 dollars, or make your parents spend 600 dollars as the case may be, on a game system. If your parents bought it for you, you really have nothing to complain about. If you are that disappointed, sell your PS3, and buy a 360. that will solve your problems now won't it?

All of the arguments I see about Blue ray not being needed reminds me of way back in the Dreamcast/PS2 days. People were saying the same exact thing about DVD not being needed, and how CD was enough. Well, see, short sighted people would actually believe this to be true, but in the long run, more space is always better. DVD proved to be an excellent choice for the PS2, even though at first it didn't seem like it. Games are growing in size very quickly. There is only so much compressing you can do. Mass Effect almost doesn't fit on a DVD. If it weren't for MS excellent compression tools, it wouldn't fit. now think 2 years from now. I think Blue-ray will prove itself in the long run. And no, multiple disks are not ok. Games have become more about seamless transitions to keep the player emersed in the world, and changing disks will disruptgames like this. We are heading into 2008, Games should all fit on one disk.

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]Well, that's nice and all, but I was force fed a blue-ray player I didn't need. I was also promised longer games because of the added storage space, and the best they can do is 6 hours for this game? I will rent it...mazdero

ummm, no one force fed you anything. You CHOSE to buy a PS3, and knew blue ray was included. you could have very easily chose not to buy one. Whining about it after the fact isn't helping. You should have known the game line up for launch, and through this year. It was very easily seen on this very site. Perhaps you should do more research before you spend 600 dollars, or make your parents spend 600 dollars as the case may be, on a game system. If your parents bought it for you, you really have nothing to complain about. If you are that disappointed, sell your PS3, and buy a 360. that will solve your problems now won't it?

All of the arguments I see about Blue ray not being needed reminds me of way back in the Dreamcast/PS2 days. People were saying the same exact thing about DVD not being needed, and how CD was enough. Well, see, short sighted people would actually believe this to be true, but in the long run, more space is always better. DVD proved to be an excellent choice for the PS2, even though at first it didn't seem like it. Games are growing in size very quickly. There is only so much compressing you can do. Mass Effect almost doesn't fit on a DVD. If it weren't for MS excellent compression tools, it wouldn't fit. now think 2 years from now. I think Blue-ray will prove itself in the long run. And no, multiple disks are not ok. Games have become more about seamless transitions to keep the player emersed in the world, and changing disks will disruptgames like this. We are heading into 2008, Games should all fit on one disk.

ok, I can see you are not worth my time, as you have resorted to petty insults. You must either be very young and don't know any better, or just very ignorant. No one is butt hurt but YOU. I own both 360 and PS3, so I have nothing to get butt hurt over.

oh, and before you go insulting people, please stop assuming. I don't see where I said the Dreamcast used CD-ROM. I was merely using that to indicate the time period. I am well aware that the Dreamcast used GD-ROMS.Now if I were you, I would edit the insults out of your juvenile post before you are moderated.

Well I wasn't fond with the demo, so I'm not fond of the game anyways. So it won't bother me. But 6 1/2 hours is a little short. First time I beat GOW I played for a little over 10. Games like Metal Gear if I play seriously, I like to take my time with. I could only zip through Metal Gear in like 6 or 7 hours if I didn't care and just fooling around. Playing seriously I've cleared it around the 17 mark cause I like to take my time. Then again, I sometimes miss the old days of Genesis and NES/SNES where I can beat an entire game in under an hour lol

EDIT: I'd like to add to the topic above me. I miss GD-ROM! At the time it seemed so promising. Poor Dreamcast:cry:

Gears of War is half of that!!!RahKayne

Gears also had a co-op mode and online play.

I unlocked most everything, except some of the last few pieces of artwork. Some people will get some replay value out of playing it again, but there's not a whole lot to be gained by doing so. I personally wouldn't drop $60 on it, but I'm picky about what I spend my money on. I'd totally rent the game and have an awesome time though.

AaronThomas

you guys should do it more..

i'd stay away from system wars though..hehe

Gears of War is half of that!!!RahKayne

i passed gow somewhere around that time, and all of the mgs games, and dmc... i don't mindRakuho

I don't believe you unless you're some kind of game genius.

To AaronThomas :

Your posts here only discredit the game and can stop potential buyers from getting it. It would be nice to delete these posts, as they're really saying "hey guys, don't buy it, it's not worth it", thus not even letting consumers make their own opinion