Explain to me this! (Heavenly Sword length related)

If Heavenly Sword's 6-7 hours of length is so bad, why isn't Gears of War's or Lost Planet's lengths considered to be such a negative? I played and beat both games and I honestly think Gears took just a little over 5 hours while Lost Planet clocked in at 7 1/2 when I beat it.

Now don't go off saying multiplayer here, cause not every gamer plays games for multiplayer. Plus, not every gamer has access to XBOX Live cause either a) they have no internet connection, or, more likely, b) they just don't want to pay the fee.

And as for a counter to ensure things are fair in regards to the multiplayer portion, not every gamer is going to play Heavenly Sword for all the unlockables and extra difficulty modes that make beat em' ups so fun to jump back into. Just consider that.

With this said, isn't it a good thing to keep a beat em' up short to prevent repetition? Not too mention, isn't this the joining of two mediums, film and gaming? If they REALLY wanted to capture the film end of things, keeping it possible to enjoy a great film while playing a great game in one sittin of 7 hours or so makes sense right?

Anyways, just wondering why it's such a big deal? I personally can't wait to get my hands on this game!

Isn't this like the 3rd time you've brought this up? Man, I haven't seen that much forgetfullness since the movie Momento (watch it!)maabus99

Not as an actual thread. I think I've hyped this game through the roof but seeing as though so many of you have a problem with length that you really don't ever seem to explain, I just thought I'd throw out my two-cents and see what the big deal is.

Who doesn't have internet access?TrailorParkBoy

i don't

Who doesn't have internet access?TrailorParkBoy

I don't want to point out anywhere specific in the United States, but fortunate people aren't the only ones playing XBOX 360 or PS3. There are those who probably can't afford but still play games.

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"]Who doesn't have internet access?Greg_Left_MeSad

i don't

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"]Who doesn't have internet access?SkyCastleDan

I don't want to point out anywhere specific in the United States, but fortunate people aren't the only ones playing XBOX 360 or PS3. There are those who probably can't afford but still play games.

6 Hours is fine...

God of War 1 was 6 hours and i dont remember hating that game...

heavenly Sword is going to be purchased by me the second i am able to get my hands on it, i dont give a crap

R-Dot-Yung

Pre-Ordered in full and picking it up either tomorrow or thursday (whenever EB gets their shipment!)

It's true that not every gamer plays for multiplayer, but you can't expect GameSpot to run their reviews in a minimalist mode (ie, they don't allow extras like multiplayer to improve the value score).

And again, shortness wasn't the only criticism levelled at Heavenly Sword, GameSpot also said it's enemies became extremely repetitive (unlike Gears of War which played enough variation on enemies) and "difficulty could have used some slight tuning". Again, not a problem with Gears of War.

So on one hand, you've got a game that's 7 hours with repetitive enemies, problems with difficulty and no MP being labelled 'great', and on the other, a game thats about the same length, longer on higher settings (your not going to finish Gears of War in 5 hours on your first play through) that has varied enemies, no problems with difficulty and MP being labelled 'superb'.

Sounds like the review system is working fine to me.

How can anyone explain it better than you already have: not only is Gears apparently longer (reviews said 12 hours, while you said HS is 6-7), it has multiplayer. That is why it scored higher.

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"]Who doesn't have internet access?TrailorParkBoy

I don't want to point out anywhere specific in the United States, but fortunate people aren't the only ones playing XBOX 360 or PS3. There are those who probably can't afford but still play games.

I actually have a friend who saved up to buy a 360 and doesn't have internet at home. He works and all, but his parents don't care for it and he's going to school with me full time, so he has little cash to just throw around (textbooks kill in college man!). There's on example, now get back to the point of the thread.

6 Hours is fine...

God of War 1 was 6 hours and i dont remember hating that game...

heavenly Sword is going to be purchased by me the second i am able to get my hands on it, i dont give a crap

R-Dot-Yung

It's not the total time. But it's the time that was fun or good.

By GS reviewer standards, Gears approaches ten hours single player. So does lost planet. That's pretty much it. Both games are considerably longer.

Oh, and multiplayer. It DOES matter: It's more play value. That you don't enjoy it it's your fault, not the game's.

Your multiplayer argument is akin to a vegan going to Morton's, asking for the 48oz porterhouse, then complaining there was too little on the place, only some lettuce leaves.

And how can you take a game feature, such as multiplayer, and just say that it cannot be used since not everyone can use it?

That would mean that HD for systems does not matter, that no XBL or PSN games should be judged, etc.

Not everyone uses speakers, should audio be left out? What if you game on a B/W TV? Should color be ignored? Its ridiculous.

If Heavenly Sword's 6-7 hours of length is so bad, why isn't Gears of War's or Lost Planet's lengths considered to be such a negative? I played and beat both games and I honestly think Gears took just a little over 5 hours while Lost Planet clocked in at 7 1/2 when I beat it.

Now don't go off saying multiplayer here, cause not every gamer plays games for multiplayer. Plus, not every gamer has access to XBOX Live cause either a) they have no internet connection, or, more likely, b) they just don't want to pay the fee.

And as for a counter to ensure things are fair in regards to the multiplayer portion, not every gamer is going to play Heavenly Sword for all the unlockables and extra difficulty modes that make beat em' ups so fun to jump back into. Just consider that.

With this said, isn't it a good thing to keep a beat em' up short to prevent repetition? Not too mention, isn't this the joining of two mediums, film and gaming? If they REALLY wanted to capture the film end of things, keeping it possible to enjoy a great film while playing a great game in one sittin of 7 hours or so makes sense right?

Anyways, just wondering why it's such a big deal? I personally can't wait to get my hands on this game!

SkyCastleDan

Uh, no. Gears easily takes 10 hours at least on your first play through. Contrary to belief, not as many people are having issues with money so as to get giddy over a $50/1 year of play fee. Most Xbox 360 owners have Live...not all (and by no means is it anywhere near required), but most. Multiplayer is factored in whether you like it or not. Gears of War's multiplayer is phenomenal and Heavenly Sword has none. If it had had multiplayer (it would be interesting to see how they would do it) it probably wouldn't scored higher provided it was done at least decently.

In short, games are too short these days. Bioshock was a huge breath of fresh air as Mass Effect is shaping up to be as well...but beat em ups don't escape this trap. Length is always something that is considered especially if there is no multiplayer.

And also, it's a question of replay value and repetition. Gears of War has a good amount of replay value (especially for achievements and playing on insane mode) and a little bit of repetition, although it's very mild. Heavenly Sword has virtually no replay value but a decent amount of repetition just due to the game being an endless amount of guys being sent at you to kill. I mean, the end sequence reminds me of Dynasty Warriors...and that's easily one of the most repetive games i've ever player (although still quite fun).

Well reviews said that Heavenly Sword was repetitive, even tho it was short. at least gears didnt get repititivebatistafan99

Reviews say enemies become repetitive but, quote gamespot video review, "that really doesn't matter when you have 1000 enemies on the screen. That's impressive."

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

If Heavenly Sword's 6-7 hours of length is so bad, why isn't Gears of War's or Lost Planet's lengths considered to be such a negative? I played and beat both games and I honestly think Gears took just a little over 5 hours while Lost Planet clocked in at 7 1/2 when I beat it.

Now don't go off saying multiplayer here, cause not every gamer plays games for multiplayer. Plus, not every gamer has access to XBOX Live cause either a) they have no internet connection, or, more likely, b) they just don't want to pay the fee.

And as for a counter to ensure things are fair in regards to the multiplayer portion, not every gamer is going to play Heavenly Sword for all the unlockables and extra difficulty modes that make beat em' ups so fun to jump back into. Just consider that.

With this said, isn't it a good thing to keep a beat em' up short to prevent repetition? Not too mention, isn't this the joining of two mediums, film and gaming? If they REALLY wanted to capture the film end of things, keeping it possible to enjoy a great film while playing a great game in one sittin of 7 hours or so makes sense right?

Anyways, just wondering why it's such a big deal? I personally can't wait to get my hands on this game!

Puckhog04

Uh, no. Gears easily takes 10 hours at least on your first play through. Contrary to belief, not as many people are having issues with money so as to get giddy over a $50/1 year of play fee. Most Xbox 360 owners have Live...not all (and by no means is it anywhere near required), but most. Multiplayer is factored in whether you like it or not. Gears of War's multiplayer is phenomenal and Heavenly Sword has none. If it had had multiplayer (it would be interesting to see how they would do it) it probably wouldn't scored higher provided it was done at least decently.

In short, games are too short these days. Bioshock was a huge breath of fresh air as Mass Effect is shaping up to be as well...but beat em ups don't escape this trap. Length is always something that is considered especially if there is no multiplayer.

Dude....seriously, I'm not kidding. Though I did die a bit, first time through on Hardcore (not casual) was about 5 1/2 hours. The game is short and easy to navigate, don't give me 10 hours unless you had trouble with it and all, which is one of those to each their own experience examples.

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"]Who doesn't have internet access?SkyCastleDan

I don't want to point out anywhere specific in the United States, but fortunate people aren't the only ones playing XBOX 360 or PS3. There are those who probably can't afford but still play games.

I actually have a friend who saved up to buy a 360 and doesn't have internet at home. He works and all, but his parents don't care for it and he's going to school with me full time, so he has little cash to just throw around (textbooks kill in college man!). There's on example, now get back to the point of the thread.

[QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]

6 Hours is fine...

God of War 1 was 6 hours and i dont remember hating that game...

heavenly Sword is going to be purchased by me the second i am able to get my hands on it, i dont give a crap

waynehead895

It's not the total time. But it's the time that was fun or good.

Well said.

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

If Heavenly Sword's 6-7 hours of length is so bad, why isn't Gears of War's or Lost Planet's lengths considered to be such a negative? I played and beat both games and I honestly think Gears took just a little over 5 hours while Lost Planet clocked in at 7 1/2 when I beat it.

Now don't go off saying multiplayer here, cause not every gamer plays games for multiplayer. Plus, not every gamer has access to XBOX Live cause either a) they have no internet connection, or, more likely, b) they just don't want to pay the fee.

And as for a counter to ensure things are fair in regards to the multiplayer portion, not every gamer is going to play Heavenly Sword for all the unlockables and extra difficulty modes that make beat em' ups so fun to jump back into. Just consider that.

With this said, isn't it a good thing to keep a beat em' up short to prevent repetition? Not too mention, isn't this the joining of two mediums, film and gaming? If they REALLY wanted to capture the film end of things, keeping it possible to enjoy a great film while playing a great game in one sittin of 7 hours or so makes sense right?

Anyways, just wondering why it's such a big deal? I personally can't wait to get my hands on this game!

SkyCastleDan

Uh, no. Gears easily takes 10 hours at least on your first play through. Contrary to belief, not as many people are having issues with money so as to get giddy over a $50/1 year of play fee. Most Xbox 360 owners have Live...not all (and by no means is it anywhere near required), but most. Multiplayer is factored in whether you like it or not. Gears of War's multiplayer is phenomenal and Heavenly Sword has none. If it had had multiplayer (it would be interesting to see how they would do it) it probably wouldn't scored higher provided it was done at least decently.

In short, games are too short these days. Bioshock was a huge breath of fresh air as Mass Effect is shaping up to be as well...but beat em ups don't escape this trap. Length is always something that is considered especially if there is no multiplayer.

Dude....seriously, I'm not kidding. Though I did die a bit, first time through on Hardcore (not casual) was about 5 1/2 hours. The game is short and easy to navigate, don't give me 10 hours unless you had trouble with it and all, which is one of those to each their own experience examples.

Gamespot themselves said 10 hours...i can get the review if you wish. Gears doesn't get repetive either and according to reviewers, Heavenly Sword does.

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

If Heavenly Sword's 6-7 hours of length is so bad, why isn't Gears of War's or Lost Planet's lengths considered to be such a negative? I played and beat both games and I honestly think Gears took just a little over 5 hours while Lost Planet clocked in at 7 1/2 when I beat it.

Now don't go off saying multiplayer here, cause not every gamer plays games for multiplayer. Plus, not every gamer has access to XBOX Live cause either a) they have no internet connection, or, more likely, b) they just don't want to pay the fee.

And as for a counter to ensure things are fair in regards to the multiplayer portion, not every gamer is going to play Heavenly Sword for all the unlockables and extra difficulty modes that make beat em' ups so fun to jump back into. Just consider that.

With this said, isn't it a good thing to keep a beat em' up short to prevent repetition? Not too mention, isn't this the joining of two mediums, film and gaming? If they REALLY wanted to capture the film end of things, keeping it possible to enjoy a great film while playing a great game in one sittin of 7 hours or so makes sense right?

Anyways, just wondering why it's such a big deal? I personally can't wait to get my hands on this game!

SkyCastleDan

Uh, no. Gears easily takes 10 hours at least on your first play through. Contrary to belief, not as many people are having issues with money so as to get giddy over a $50/1 year of play fee. Most Xbox 360 owners have Live...not all (and by no means is it anywhere near required), but most. Multiplayer is factored in whether you like it or not. Gears of War's multiplayer is phenomenal and Heavenly Sword has none. If it had had multiplayer (it would be interesting to see how they would do it) it probably wouldn't scored higher provided it was done at least decently.

In short, games are too short these days. Bioshock was a huge breath of fresh air as Mass Effect is shaping up to be as well...but beat em ups don't escape this trap. Length is always something that is considered especially if there is no multiplayer.

Dude....seriously, I'm not kidding. Though I did die a bit, first time through on Hardcore (not casual) was about 5 1/2 hours. The game is short and easy to navigate, don't give me 10 hours unless you had trouble with it and all, which is one of those to each their own experience examples.

First play through set to hardcore in 5 hours? I'm sorry, I call BS.

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"]Who doesn't have internet access?TrailorParkBoy

I don't want to point out anywhere specific in the United States, but fortunate people aren't the only ones playing XBOX 360 or PS3. There are those who probably can't afford but still play games.

I actually have a friend who saved up to buy a 360 and doesn't have internet at home. He works and all, but his parents don't care for it and he's going to school with me full time, so he has little cash to just throw around (textbooks kill in college man!). There's on example, now get back to the point of the thread.

THe blind eye fanboys turn to the entire world when defending their consoles.....anyone take notice of what we now know New Orleans was BEFORE katrina? Yeah, it was quite the slum now wasn't it? That's exposed, people struggled getting by. So we lol at them for not getting internet access? Just throwing that out there as another example.

Well reviews said that Heavenly Sword was repetitive, even tho it was short. at least gears didnt get repititivebatistafan99

reviews say that only the enimies get repetive not the gameplay.

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"][QUOTE="Puckhog04"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

If Heavenly Sword's 6-7 hours of length is so bad, why isn't Gears of War's or Lost Planet's lengths considered to be such a negative? I played and beat both games and I honestly think Gears took just a little over 5 hours while Lost Planet clocked in at 7 1/2 when I beat it.

Now don't go off saying multiplayer here, cause not every gamer plays games for multiplayer. Plus, not every gamer has access to XBOX Live cause either a) they have no internet connection, or, more likely, b) they just don't want to pay the fee.

And as for a counter to ensure things are fair in regards to the multiplayer portion, not every gamer is going to play Heavenly Sword for all the unlockables and extra difficulty modes that make beat em' ups so fun to jump back into. Just consider that.

With this said, isn't it a good thing to keep a beat em' up short to prevent repetition? Not too mention, isn't this the joining of two mediums, film and gaming? If they REALLY wanted to capture the film end of things, keeping it possible to enjoy a great film while playing a great game in one sittin of 7 hours or so makes sense right?

Anyways, just wondering why it's such a big deal? I personally can't wait to get my hands on this game!

Danm_999

Uh, no. Gears easily takes 10 hours at least on your first play through. Contrary to belief, not as many people are having issues with money so as to get giddy over a $50/1 year of play fee. Most Xbox 360 owners have Live...not all (and by no means is it anywhere near required), but most. Multiplayer is factored in whether you like it or not. Gears of War's multiplayer is phenomenal and Heavenly Sword has none. If it had had multiplayer (it would be interesting to see how they would do it) it probably wouldn't scored higher provided it was done at least decently.

In short, games are too short these days. Bioshock was a huge breath of fresh air as Mass Effect is shaping up to be as well...but beat em ups don't escape this trap. Length is always something that is considered especially if there is no multiplayer.

Dude....seriously, I'm not kidding. Though I did die a bit, first time through on Hardcore (not casual) was about 5 1/2 hours. The game is short and easy to navigate, don't give me 10 hours unless you had trouble with it and all, which is one of those to each their own experience examples.

First play through set to hardcore in 5 hours? I'm sorry, I call BS.

I don't blame you. Just facts I can never prove I guess.

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"][QUOTE="Puckhog04"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

If Heavenly Sword's 6-7 hours of length is so bad, why isn't Gears of War's or Lost Planet's lengths considered to be such a negative? I played and beat both games and I honestly think Gears took just a little over 5 hours while Lost Planet clocked in at 7 1/2 when I beat it.

Now don't go off saying multiplayer here, cause not every gamer plays games for multiplayer. Plus, not every gamer has access to XBOX Live cause either a) they have no internet connection, or, more likely, b) they just don't want to pay the fee.

And as for a counter to ensure things are fair in regards to the multiplayer portion, not every gamer is going to play Heavenly Sword for all the unlockables and extra difficulty modes that make beat em' ups so fun to jump back into. Just consider that.

With this said, isn't it a good thing to keep a beat em' up short to prevent repetition? Not too mention, isn't this the joining of two mediums, film and gaming? If they REALLY wanted to capture the film end of things, keeping it possible to enjoy a great film while playing a great game in one sittin of 7 hours or so makes sense right?

Anyways, just wondering why it's such a big deal? I personally can't wait to get my hands on this game!

Danm_999

Uh, no. Gears easily takes 10 hours at least on your first play through. Contrary to belief, not as many people are having issues with money so as to get giddy over a $50/1 year of play fee. Most Xbox 360 owners have Live...not all (and by no means is it anywhere near required), but most. Multiplayer is factored in whether you like it or not. Gears of War's multiplayer is phenomenal and Heavenly Sword has none. If it had had multiplayer (it would be interesting to see how they would do it) it probably wouldn't scored higher provided it was done at least decently.

In short, games are too short these days. Bioshock was a huge breath of fresh air as Mass Effect is shaping up to be as well...but beat em ups don't escape this trap. Length is always something that is considered especially if there is no multiplayer.

Dude....seriously, I'm not kidding. Though I did die a bit, first time through on Hardcore (not casual) was about 5 1/2 hours. The game is short and easy to navigate, don't give me 10 hours unless you had trouble with it and all, which is one of those to each their own experience examples.

First play through set to hardcore in 5 hours? I'm sorry, I call BS.

Pretty much my sentiments. I'd believe 8 hours...barely. But, 5? Definitely not.

I don't blame you. Just facts I can never prove I guess.

SkyCastleDan

Professional review sites are playing through on their first time on lower difficulty settings in over twice that amount of time.

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"]Who doesn't have internet access?SkyCastleDan

I don't want to point out anywhere specific in the United States, but fortunate people aren't the only ones playing XBOX 360 or PS3. There are those who probably can't afford but still play games.

I actually have a friend who saved up to buy a 360 and doesn't have internet at home. He works and all, but his parents don't care for it and he's going to school with me full time, so he has little cash to just throw around (textbooks kill in college man!). There's on example, now get back to the point of the thread.

THe blind eye fanboys turn to the entire world when defending their consoles.....anyone take notice of what we now know New Orleans was BEFORE katrina? Yeah, it was quite the slum now wasn't it? That's exposed, people struggled getting by. So we lol at them for not getting internet access? Just throwing that out there as another example.

I've been waiting for you to respond to this point that so many users have made, and now that you have, I have to laugh at the reply. :lol: You're completely ignoring the point.

i think you should play the game before you pass judgement if HS deserved the score it got.

Come on, I know there's somebody on this board that it didn't take 10 hours to beat Gears of War for them right? Maybe if people actually PLAYED the game rather than going by Gamespot's word to defend their precious 360s....SkyCastleDan

I didn't time myself, but I know I didn't do it in 5 hours.

The problem is, you must consider the value of the mighty dollar for what comes in content with the game. It doesn't matter if everyone doesn't have access to Multiplayer ONLINE for the game. Tehre's still split-screen options availible for those games. Except Lost Planet, but it just scored .1 more than HS, then again that's on the old review system.

HS is docked, because, while great to play, it just doesn't offer enough. There's no split-screen stuff. Though understandable, there's not enough reasons to warrant a playthrough it seems. Despite a harder difficulty, it just doesn't make any changes, and the game's short length means, even on a hard difficulty... you'll likely extend the length of the game by at least 2-4 hours maybe more depending on your skill.

THe blind eye fanboys turn to the entire world when defending their consoles.....anyone take notice of what we now know New Orleans was BEFORE katrina? Yeah, it was quite the slum now wasn't it? That's exposed, people struggled getting by. So we lol at them for not getting internet access? Just throwing that out there as another example.

SkyCastleDan

You are ignoring logic. Multiplayer was included in Gears, and not in Heavely Sword. That is not the games fault if you cannot utilize it, its still included.

Heavenly Sword got an 8.0, which is a really good score. Just get over yourself already and enjoy some games...

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"]Who doesn't have internet access?-Tretiak

I don't want to point out anywhere specific in the United States, but fortunate people aren't the only ones playing XBOX 360 or PS3. There are those who probably can't afford but still play games.

I actually have a friend who saved up to buy a 360 and doesn't have internet at home. He works and all, but his parents don't care for it and he's going to school with me full time, so he has little cash to just throw around (textbooks kill in college man!). There's on example, now get back to the point of the thread.

THe blind eye fanboys turn to the entire world when defending their consoles.....anyone take notice of what we now know New Orleans was BEFORE katrina? Yeah, it was quite the slum now wasn't it? That's exposed, people struggled getting by. So we lol at them for not getting internet access? Just throwing that out there as another example.

I've been waiting for you to respond to this point that so many users have made, and now that you have, I have to laugh at the reply. :lol: You're completely ignoring the point.

I'll accept the point. Granted, it's there. And that's saying something for sure. But that's a whole other arguement you could get into for value and originality purposes I really don't want to get into cause that's all about perception. I just focused on making some fanny's aware that there are some people out there who can't play online. NOt everybody has mommy and daddy paying the bills so easily....

Come on, I know there's somebody on this board that it didn't take 10 hours to beat Gears of War for them right? Maybe if people actually PLAYED the game rather than going by Gamespot's word to defend their precious 360s....SkyCastleDan

Yeah, not a single lemming on here has ever played Gears. :roll:

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]Come on, I know there's somebody on this board that it didn't take 10 hours to beat Gears of War for them right? Maybe if people actually PLAYED the game rather than going by Gamespot's word to defend their precious 360s....Danm_999

I didn't time myself, but I know I didn't do it in 5 hours.

Mine was closer to 12 hours, but I took my time enjoying the game, not roadie running through the whole thing.

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]Come on, I know there's somebody on this board that it didn't take 10 hours to beat Gears of War for them right? Maybe if people actually PLAYED the game rather than going by Gamespot's word to defend their precious 360s....Vyse_The_Daring

Yeah, not a single lemming on here has ever played Gears. :roll:

lol, not the ones responding it seems. Most aren't able to talk personal experience, just what gamespot says. I'm just asking what it took YOU all to beat the game. That's all.

I'll accept the point. Granted, it's there. And that's saying something for sure. But that's a whole other arguement you could get into for value and originality purposes I really don't want to get into cause that's all about perception. I just focused on making some fanny's aware that there are some people out there who can't play online. NOt everybody has mommy and daddy paying the bills so easily....

SkyCastleDan

You're still arguing that a game should be judged based on its lowest common denominator. It's ludicrous to think that way.

Oh, and for the record, I pay my own rent for my own apartment. I don't need "mommy and daddy" to pay for a $4/month subscription to Live.

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]Come on, I know there's somebody on this board that it didn't take 10 hours to beat Gears of War for them right? Maybe if people actually PLAYED the game rather than going by Gamespot's word to defend their precious 360s....SkyCastleDan

Yeah, not a single lemming on here has ever played Gears. :roll:

lol, not the ones responding it seems. Most aren't able to talk personal experience, just what gamespot says. I'm just asking what it took YOU all to beat the game. That's all.

I just told you. You seem to be ignoring all my posts...

Come on, I know there's somebody on this board that it didn't take 10 hours to beat Gears of War for them right? Maybe if people actually PLAYED the game rather than going by Gamespot's word to defend their precious 360s....SkyCastleDan

I played the game and i beat it (the first time through on hardcore) in about 11 hours. Maybe ifyou would actually play the game and not just pull numbers out of the air that are, ironically enough, just a 1/2 hour below the Heavenly Sword finishing time based on the *gasp* GS review of Heavenly Sword. You call the GS review's quoted length of Heavenly Sword but for some reason, their length of Gears isn't correct? Perhaps if you focus on the game rather than your "precious" PS3 and the console wars you'd come up with better results in these debates.

NOt everybody has mommy and daddy paying the bills so easily....

SkyCastleDan

You are right. I am a college student living on my own. I pay my bills, including textbooks, and my girlfriend and I struggle every month to pay bills. But I still have high speed Internet and a 360 with Live and a Wii. When you love something (such as gaming or the Internet) you are willing to work for it.

Don't assume you know what goes on with everyone's lives. Its arrogant.

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]Come on, I know there's somebody on this board that it didn't take 10 hours to beat Gears of War for them right? Maybe if people actually PLAYED the game rather than going by Gamespot's word to defend their precious 360s....Puckhog04

I played the game and i beat it (the first time through on hardcore) in about 11 hours. Maybe ifyou would actually play the game and not just pull numbers out of the air that are, ironically enough, just a 1/2 hour below the Heavenly Sword finishing time based on the *gasp* GS review of Heavenly Sword. You call the GS review's quoted length of Heavenly Sword but for some reason, their length of Gears isn't correct? Perhaps if you focus on the game rather than your "precious" PS3 and the console wars you'd come up with better results in these debates.

1/2 less than the Heavenly Sword numbers....doesn't that prove my point? That's not disproving what I said ya know, only restating it. Gears got AAA,,,,for the same time span. Regardless, I seem to have beaten the game too quickly. Did I miss something? Now granted, only got about half the cogs....

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"]Who doesn't have internet access?SkyCastleDan

I don't want to point out anywhere specific in the United States, but fortunate people aren't the only ones playing XBOX 360 or PS3. There are those who probably can't afford but still play games.

So your trying to tell us some one can scrounge up enough money to buy the 360, and a 60.00 game, HD TV, andsurround soundsystem. But cannot afford to pay$40 for internet, and Live for 1 month. Yeah your argument fails..

So there is more value to GOW, than the Heavanly Sword. Plus HS got a 8.0.

[QUOTE="SkyCastleDan"]

NOt everybody has mommy and daddy paying the bills so easily....

SpruceCaboose

You are right. I am a college student living on my own. I pay my bills, including textbooks, and my girlfriend and I struggle every month to pay bills. But I still have high speed Internet and a 360 with Live and a Wii. When you love something (such as gaming or the Internet) you are willing to work for it.

Don't assume you know what goes on with everyone's lives. Its arrogant.

Please, what possible use could a college student have for the internet in any field of their life? It's useless academically, socially, recreationally, it's much more likely their going to have a $400-$600 piece of niche recreational hardware, and GS scores should change how they function to represent that.

Come on, I know there's somebody on this board that it didn't take 10 hours to beat Gears of War for them right? Maybe if people actually PLAYED the game rather than going by Gamespot's word to defend their precious 360s....SkyCastleDan

i played it couple of times single and co-op along with diff modes. hard for me to believe you were able to beat it in 5 hours on hardcore or insane first time though. i would believe u if you said casual mode.

i dont remember for lost planet i have to go back and check but it took me way over 6 hours to beat the game first time through on normal.