7 hours isn't worth $60 no mtter how fun the game is. I'll wait for a price drop.
Kook18
yeah right....even if HALO 3 had a 3 hour campaign mode you know those fanboys are guna be saying it was worth the $129.99 legendary edition. like the man said....as long as the game is fun then its all good. make it even better when you can beat the game in multiple path, different endings, crap load of unlockables and when they start doing the add-ons that you can download later down the road.
Thenumber of peoplenow defending a 6 hour game now is unbelievable...when Gears came out all you heard was the game sucked for being so short. Now that the PS3 has a game that is even shorter, length does not matter and in fact shorter is better according to some.
I could care less what console you prefer or even how fanatically you support such console, just don't make yourself look bad in the process.
jdp0412
And atleast gears had multiplayer to keep you going, so you could say Gears was much more than 10 hourse.
Why buy a 7 hour game for $60 when you can just rent it? I'm sorry but I can't justify that price. I'd either get the game when the price goes down or rent it and beat it. This is of course assuming that there is no mulitplayer component.
It's acceptable to me if the gameplay is just that good. Like, God of War good. But it's not God of War good, and the review scores reflect that truth. I think it is, however, a must-play for PS3 owners. Just to have played it once. But it's not a must own. Take that as you will.
I'm renting. If it's better to me than they're saying, I will buy.
7 hours isn't worth $60 no mtter how fun the game is. I'll wait for a price drop.
djxaquaxblue
yeah right....even if HALO 3 had a 3 hour campaign mode you know those fanboys are guna be saying it was worth the $129.99 legendary edition. like the man said....as long as the game is fun then its all good. make it even better when you can beat the game in multiple path, different endings, crap load of unlockables and when they start doing the add-ons that you can download later down the road.
Halo 3 is going to have a robust multiplayer suite- something HS doesn' thave. Though I will honestly tell you, if Halo 3 only had a 3 hour campaign, I'd be gravely disappointed in Bungie.
Why buy a 7 hour game for $60 when you can just rent it? I'm sorry but I can't justify that price. I'd either get the game when the price goes down or rent it and beat it. This is of course assuming that there is no mulitplayer component.Blackbond
This is why I rented Kameo. I could beat it in a weekend. The Co-op multi wasn't appealing enough to me to justify a purchase.
I wonder how long Warioware lasts and that crap got a 9.0.
Bread_or_Decide
Replayability. Some reviews have questioned HS' replayability. That's a great concern for a game that only has 7 or 8 hours of gameplay in it to start with.
[QUOTE="Blackbond"]Why buy a 7 hour game for $60 when you can just rent it? I'm sorry but I can't justify that price. I'd either get the game when the price goes down or rent it and beat it. This is of course assuming that there is no mulitplayer component.musicalmac
This is why I rented Kameo. I could beat it in a weekend. The Co-op multi wasn't appealing enough to me to justify a purchase.
Excellent example. I was able to get my $50 out of Kameo, as I went though and collected all the easter eggs and went for the achievements. That extended the live for me easily. But it's certainly easy to see how some would not get their money's worth.
ok heavenly sword's 7 hours aint that long, but by the looks of thing it looks like a dam great 7 hour experiance. i would personly have a intense 7 hour action fest over a 100 hour rpg yawnathon.
doobie1975
i think the problem is the price you have to pay for those 7 hours
it took me 6-8 hours to be gears..i dont see why fanboys are complainingstereointegrity
Because Gears hasMP that millions of people are still playing right now, and will be playing until the sequel comes out. That equates to much more than 6-8 hrs. of gameplay, much more. Gears is easily worth $60. Heavenly Sword, not so much.
But when your system is the ps3 and "blue-ray" is supposed to enhance gameing :roll: a 7 hour game dosent cut it plain and simple plus the game only has a single player mode the game deserved a 8.
eh true....but we werent talking about mp haha..i though this thread was about 1 player experience?stereointegrity
No, we are talking about a game that has only 7 hours of game play. I am sure that if Gears was only graded on the merits ofits single player it would have only recived a 8 like HS but when you spend $60 on a game you want more than a few hours of GP you want more features and HS does not feature any more.
7 hours isn't worth $60 no mtter how fun the game is. I'll wait for a price drop.
_AsasN_
In your opinion.
As for me, I don't mind spending $70 on a quality game.
Not really a opinion. why spend $70 on a game, good or not, that can be rented, played and finished for like $4 or $5. Now if it had multipalyer (I know, i keep on about mulitplayer, but it is a important feature IMO) now you are talking about something worth buying. Heck I bought Rainbow 6 around Christmas and beat it in around a couple of days on SP, but I still player the MP all the time to this day. Now that is money well spent. So it is not a opinion it is just bad financial management.
All I know, is that the critics of Gears of war's length have suddenly disappeared. I guess it just depends on replay. Some games may be short, but are designed for you to repaly through certain levels or parts of the game over and over.
A 1 player game should be at least 12 hours. Gears was too short also.
casey7672
True, but the problem I see is Gears was attacked not only because it was short but because most cows said "See, you need blu ray. DVD is not enough space for a game". And now that a PS3 game is even shorter they are defending it. you can't have it both ways.
7 hours isn't worth $60 no mtter how fun the game is. I'll wait for a price drop.
djxaquaxblue
yeah right....even if HALO 3 had a 3 hour campaign mode you know those fanboys are guna be saying it was worth the $129.99 legendary edition. like the man said....as long as the game is fun then its all good. make it even better when you can beat the game in multiple path, different endings, crap load of unlockables and when they start doing the add-ons that you can download later down the road.
comparing havenly sword. a game that is single player only to a shooter that has co-op, multiplatyer, etc. isn't helping your argument. especially throwing around 'what ifs' the halo fanbase would be disbanded immediately if they found out their game was SP only, no co op, no online, and very short. I guarantee it.
ok heavenly sword's 7 hours aint that long, but by the looks of thing it looks like a dam great 7 hour experiance. i would personly have a intense 7 hour action fest over a 100 hour rpg yawnathon.
doobie1975
It does all come down to opinion and preference.
However, it is difficult to convince people to buy a $550 (cad)console plus $60 (cad) for a 6-7 hour gaming experience. There appears to be little to no replay value to the game and no added incentive to play more than once. Even the RE or SH games offer unlockables or alternate endings to encourage replay for those who are interested...and they are maybe 10 hour games.
Most games can probably be beaten in a rental weekend. But people aren't going to spend all that money JUST to play a 7 hour game.
It really wouldn't be an issue if cows would have kept their mouths shut when Gears came out. I still remember those threads, "see! blu ray is needed! gears is too short!". Now they are fine with their 7 hour single player game.
Hypocrites.
And I don't believe anyone who says they went through Gears on Insane by themselves in 6 hours the first time through.
Log in to comment