This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Yellow_Rose"]Game Informer gave it 8.75 and EGM gave it 8,8,9.IGN = 7.0
You may wanna keep silent on this one.
kage_53
Well, since we are cherry picking review scores, lets see.
Edge Magazine gave it a 60%
EuroGamer gave it a 70%
So, what's your point???
Lets just remember that right now the game is averaging AA (which I believe has been the hype) on Gamerankings. On the otherhand it was either an article I read or a dream I had (I get dreams and see the things weeks or months later that i dreamt of) but I remember seeing somewhere "Heavenly it is not" in regards to the game.Runningflame570
Actually the official hype for HS is AAA
Actually the official hype for HS is AAA
books83
Well I never personally participated in the official hype thread so I wasn't sure..*goes off to look for that*
EDIT: Having gone through the thread its pretty evenly split between AAA and AA.
cool..something to remember if this game flops :roll:
seriously..i remember hearing the same thing about lair.
lawlessx
Well, in Ps3s defense Lair looks amazing. Visually speaking of course.
I just hope sony focuses on showcasing thier worldwide studios development talent, as well as thier ability to maximize the PS3s technology.
All the 1st party PS3 games this year are sort of side-games for me that will, hopefully, tide me over until the orgasm of games in 2008.
HS might have great animation and nice production values but when compared to a recent outstanding action title on the PS3 (NG: Sigma), the gameplay most likely will be severely lacking. What makes NG an awesome game is it's smart and brutal AI; you're not fighting punching bags, these guys are set out to kill you; along with a deep combat system that is truly inspired from a fighting game (it's the DOA team), and great platforming elements. From what I've gathered from HS, the AI is lacking in comparison and the combat gets repetitive. It's a shame really, when NG is actually a last gen game.
[QUOTE="Yellow_Rose"]IGN = 7.0
You may wanna keep silent on this one.
ff7isnumbaone
a rating is just a number.
a number that represents value
[QUOTE="Yellow_Rose"]IGN = 7.0
You may wanna keep silent on this one.
ff7isnumbaone
a rating is just a number.
then i'm glad that i have a 360,tho i dont't belive ps3 or 360 are nearly to there limits
maybe 60-65 percent(in some games)of there total power no more.and as someone before posted
this is what all exclusive devs say for there games.
[QUOTE="Yellow_Rose"]IGN = 7.0
You may wanna keep silent on this one.
ff7isnumbaone
a rating is just a number.
yes its just a number, but the numbers are not good, so anyone who listens to reviews will probably stay away from the game. Don't underestimate the power of the pen or the keyboard, hehe.
[QUOTE="bigLLL"][QUOTE="Yellow_Rose"][QUOTE="-Renegade"]it has been getting mixed reviews but that still doesn't mean it can't show what the ps3 can do.
Yellow_Rose
It's 6 hours long. What happened to "bigger, longer games" thanks to Blu-Ray?
1up review says it's 10 hours longAnd IGN says it's 6 hours.
Average = 8 hours
Still not a very long game.
Here's where I'm confused....Gears of War was only 8-9 hours long yet it almost got perfect scores. Bioshock is about 12 hrs long (less if you just fly through it) and I don't hear any complaints about it either.
Is it just higher expectations for PS3 games and that's why it's a big deal when the game is as long as X360's? The IGN review basically killed the game because it was too short yet if you look at their reviews of games that have similar gameplay times....they score high. Whether it's fair or not it seems PS3 games are being held to a higher standard on everything.....which is probably Sony's fault for their years of talking up how PS3 BluRay is going to make games bigger and better looking. In the end it seems the graphics and gameplay time is similar to X360.
[QUOTE="Yellow_Rose"][QUOTE="bigLLL"][QUOTE="Yellow_Rose"][QUOTE="-Renegade"]it has been getting mixed reviews but that still doesn't mean it can't show what the ps3 can do.
darthogre
It's 6 hours long. What happened to "bigger, longer games" thanks to Blu-Ray?
1up review says it's 10 hours longAnd IGN says it's 6 hours.
Average = 8 hours
Still not a very long game.
Here's where I'm confused....Gears of War was only 8-9 hours long yet it almost got perfect scores. Bioshock is about 12 hrs long (less if you just fly through it) and I don't hear any complaints about it either.
Is it just higher expectations for PS3 games and that's why it's a big deal when the game is as long as X360's? The IGN review basically killed the game because it was too short yet if you look at their reviews of games that have similar gameplay times....they score high. Whether it's fair or not it seems PS3 games are being held to a higher standard on everything.....which is probably Sony's fault for their years of talking up how PS3 BluRay is going to make games bigger and better looking. In the end it seems the graphics and gameplay time is similar to X360.
Gears has a mp, that changes everything and Bioshock is 2x longer the the short repetive HS. I may still buy HS just because of the music and cutscenes but im very dissapointed that it's so short and repetive:(
[QUOTE="anotherhaloguy1"]If Heavenly Sword will showcase the power of PS3 then I'm a little worried??:?GARRYTHread ign review it does have great graphics. it did not get a nine for nothing. there is no game out that has animations like heavily sword.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment