This is very confusing (Heavenly Sword)

Aside from the complaints of length (one that is just as easily applied to the Darkness, which received an 8.5), the HS review by Gamespot was absolutely glowing with praise. Are they trying to say that 6-8 hour gameplay automatically decrements the score by 20 points?

If such is the case, then why didn't Gears of War get a AA score? It's single-player mode is even shorter.

I call BS on that score.

it got the score because it deserved it, u even said it, aside from the length its a very decent game

and gears got such a high score because it was very hyped and lived to it, besides it had online MP

Ughh, the review system doesn't work that way.

But I'm guessing you already knew that.

it's not like the game was PERFECT... it's a GREAT rental IMO

BS? They gave it a score that translates to great. Whats the problem? Thats how the scale works now get used to it. It didnt offer anything over any other great game so it doesnt get a 9 or 10.

Get ready for a lot of this (Halo 3, MGS 4, SMG even)

Aside from the complaints of length (one that is just as easily applied to the Darkness, which received an 8.5), the HS review by Gamespot was absolutely glowing with praise. Are they trying to say that 6-8 hour gameplay automatically decrements the score by 20 points?

If such is the case, then why didn't Gears of War get a AA score? It's single-player mode is even shorter.

I call BS on that score.

Pariah_001

after reading your post. Youre right. i agree.

I call damage control. Heavenly Sword flopped. End of story.BioShockOwnz

No, not the end of the story. There;s more too it than that. He's right, GeOW was shorter, so what if it has MP, Single Player is more important, and HS had a longer SP. There are rewards if you play it through again, making it doubly long, and if you don't want to spend £40 on it, then rent it! It's still a great AA title to add to the PS3's library...

And it didn't flop as badly as blue dragon...

Here. You dropped these bulleted comments on the way to your damage control:

Not enough variety to the bad guys' design and attacks

Some bosses feel a little cheap.

And if you read the review, when he discusses the enemy's in general:

"This is an impressive feat considering how shallow the game's enemy artificial intelligence is. "

Aside from the complaints of length (one that is just as easily applied to the Darkness, which received an 8.5), the HS review by Gamespot was absolutely glowing with praise. Are they trying to say that 6-8 hour gameplay automatically decrements the score by 20 points?

If such is the case, then why didn't Gears of War get a AA score? It's single-player mode is even shorter.

I call BS on that score.

Pariah_001

gears had multiplayer
HS doesnt

Gears was GOTY
HS is a flop

Gears of War had multiplayer which made it longer.Glitch321

rfom has better multiplayer than gears yet got a low 8.

Okay, seven posts worth of...

it got the score because it deserved itKaosed

Which doesn't answer my question in the least.

I get the feeling that a lot of you are purposfully avoiding the scrutiny.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]I call damage control. Heavenly Sword flopped. End of story.ShmenonPie

No, not the end of the story. There;s more too it than that. He's right, GeOW was shorter, so what if it has MP, Single Player is more important, and HS had a longer SP. There are rewards if you play it through again, making it doubly long, and if you don't want to spend £40 on it, then rent it! It's still a great AA title to add to the PS3's library...

And it didn't flop as badly as blue dragon...

So what if it has MP? Means the game lasts longer. Hence the value score is higher.

And Gears of War has replayability, a lot of the achievements work off you beating higher difficulties and collectables.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]I call damage control. Heavenly Sword flopped. End of story.ShmenonPie

No, not the end of the story. There;s more too it than that. He's right, GeOW was shorter, so what if it has MP, Single Player is more important, and HS had a longer SP. There are rewards if you play it through again, making it doubly long, and if you don't want to spend £40 on it, then rent it! It's still a great AA title to add to the PS3's library...

And it didn't flop as badly as blue dragon...

Um, multiplayer adds to the value of an overall package. This is common sense, my friend.

Lair flopped worse than Blue Dragon.

Now accept it for what it is (Great) and move along. There's no reason for damage control.

More sweeping comments from BioshockOWNZ. Hardly surprising.

Not enough variety to the bad guys' design and attacks

Some bosses feel a little cheap.

And if you read the review, when he discusses the enemy's in general:

"This is an impressive feat considering how shallow the game's enemy artificial intelligence is. "flazzle

Did you actually read the article instead of just pay attention to the "good/bad" bullets? The was barely a mention of those. The only thing that was pushed in the review itself was the length.

[QUOTE="Glitch321"]Gears of War had multiplayer which made it longer.Rangitahi

rfom has better multiplayer than gears yet got a low 8.

it got 8 cause its inferior

thats basic logic :|

If such is the case, then why didn't Gears of War get a AA score? It's single-player mode is even shorter.

8-10 hours for Geow is shorter than 6 hours for HS? :?

it got 8 cause its inferior

thats basic logic :|

Kaosed

"'Cuz GS told me so!!"

Okay, seven posts worth of...

[QUOTE="Kaosed"]it got the score because it deserved itPariah_001

Which doesn't answer my question in the least.

I get the feeling that a lot of you are purposfully avoiding the scrutiny.

Once again, you completely fail to understand how the review system works. You also fail to mention GameSpot calls the enemies repetitive, and some of the boss battles 'cheap'.

And to look at the wider context, Heavenly Sword is scoring around that point on most sites.

But whatever, keep feeling you've been wrong.

A 6 hour game with no multiplayer, is a 6 hour game. A six hour game with great multiplayer, is a six hour offline experience plus hundreds of hours of online play.

Look at a game like Warhawk, it doesn't EVEN HAVE a single player campaign, it still scored well. Online play is where the replay value comes from and makes you feel you got your moneys worth.

If you don't play online, don't cryabout reviews that bump games up for great online play, just read reviews carefully to see what lead to the score.

[QUOTE="Kaosed"]it got 8 cause its inferior

thats basic logic :|

Pariah_001

"'Cuz GS told me so!!"

Well, you're getting bent on their review, so Gamespot must mean quite a lot to you also. The bullet points clearly explained why it got the score it did. :|

8-10 hours for Geow is shorter than 5-6 hours for HS? :?Harbadakus

I got through Gears' single player mode in 4 1/2 hours. On top of that, it's flanking system, the cornerstone of the game, sucked.

If Heavenly Sword got an 8.0 for the reasons listed by GS, then games like Gears should have scored A by comparison.

It did not get an 8 for the sole reason it was too short.

Thats ONE reason. The others are:

Not enough variety to the bad guys' design and attacks

Some bosses feel a little cheap.

"This is an impressive feat considering how shallow the game's enemy artificial intelligence is. "

So now you have FOUR things messing up the perfect 10.

At 0.5 points a piece = 2.

10 - 2 = 8

[QUOTE="Kaosed"]it got 8 cause its inferior

thats basic logic :|

Pariah_001

"'Cuz GS told me so!!"

well we are in GS forums so yea pretty much

im not buying short Great SP + MP = extra points.

RFOM had a long great SP + the best MP on any console yet gets a 8.6??

Gears has great SP + ok MP and gets a whopping 9.6??

i aint buying it.

sure HS may not deserve a 9.6 but a low 8?

cmoooooon we want consistancy n fair play from the media.

[QUOTE="Harbadakus"]8-10 hours for Geow is shorter than 5-6 hours for HS? :?Pariah_001

I got through Gears' single player mode in 4 1/2 hours. On top of that, it's flanking system, the cornerstone of the game, sucked.

If Heavenly Sword got an 8.0 for the reasons listed by GS, then games like Gears should have scored A by comparison.

Proof or it didn't happen.

Oh you cows!

Teh lemmingspot and teh bias review!

Wait a few days check gamerrankings Im sure GS isnt the only one that gave it a similar score.

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="Harbadakus"]8-10 hours for Geow is shorter than 5-6 hours for HS? :?BioShockOwnz

I got through Gears' single player mode in 4 1/2 hours. On top of that, it's flanking system, the cornerstone of the game, sucked.

If Heavenly Sword got an 8.0 for the reasons listed by GS, then games like Gears should have scored A by comparison.

Proof or it didn't happen.

heres extra proof......i beat it in 6 n half hrs.

[QUOTE="Harbadakus"]8-10 hours for Geow is shorter than 5-6 hours for HS? :?Pariah_001

I got through Gears' single player mode in 4 1/2 hours. On top of that, it's flanking system, the cornerstone of the game, sucked.

If Heavenly Sword got an 8.0 for the reasons listed by GS, then games like Gears should have scored A by comparison.

cause u did t fast, if some1 speedruns though HS it could be done in much less time

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="Harbadakus"]8-10 hours for Geow is shorter than 5-6 hours for HS? :?Rangitahi

I got through Gears' single player mode in 4 1/2 hours. On top of that, it's flanking system, the cornerstone of the game, sucked.

If Heavenly Sword got an 8.0 for the reasons listed by GS, then games like Gears should have scored A by comparison.

Proof or it didn't happen.

heres extra proof......i beat it in 6 n half hrs.

You really think we're going to believe 2 Xbox 360 bashers?:roll: Come on now. Proof as in gamertags and pictures.

Once again, you completely fail to understand how the review system works. You also fail to mention GameSpot calls the enemies repetitive, and some of the boss battles 'cheap'.

And to look at the wider context, Heavenly Sword is scoring around that point on most sites.

But whatever, keep feeling you've been wrong.

Danm_999

Your (usual) pretentiousness aside, I don't bother reading those other reviews. With GS on the other hand, I do bother reading the articles, so trying to weigh in a majority when this board is dedicated to the rating system of the GS website is a straw grab. Like the posters before you, you've noted only the bullets without actually looking at the review itself and how inconsistent it is with the score. It makes the scores for previous games seem very fishy.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Once again, you completely fail to understand how the review system works. You also fail to mention GameSpot calls the enemies repetitive, and some of the boss battles 'cheap'.

And to look at the wider context, Heavenly Sword is scoring around that point on most sites.

But whatever, keep feeling you've been wrong.

Pariah_001

Your (usual) pretentiousness aside, I don't bother reading those other reviews. With GS on the other hand, I do bother reading the articles, so trying to weigh in a majority when this board is dedicated to the rating system of the GS website is a straw grab. Like the posters before you, you've noted only the bullets without actually looking at the review itself and how inconsistent it is with the score. It makes the scores for previous games seem very fishy.

keep telling urself that crap all you want, the score numbers wont change bud

Aside from the complaints of length (one that is just as easily applied to the Darkness, which received an 8.5), the HS review by Gamespot was absolutely glowing with praise. Are they trying to say that 6-8 hour gameplay automatically decrements the score by 20 points?

If such is the case, then why didn't Gears of War get a AA score? It's single-player mode is even shorter.

I call BS on that score.

Pariah_001

Of course you would, your exclusive flopped. HS got the score it deserved. Although its not a "Beautifull Disaster" like Lair... :shock:

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Once again, you completely fail to understand how the review system works. You also fail to mention GameSpot calls the enemies repetitive, and some of the boss battles 'cheap'.

And to look at the wider context, Heavenly Sword is scoring around that point on most sites.

But whatever, keep feeling you've been wrong.

Pariah_001

Your (usual) pretentiousness aside, I don't bother reading those other reviews. With GS on the other hand, I do bother reading the articles, so trying to weigh in a majority when this board is dedicated to the rating system of the GS website is a straw grab. Like the posters before you, you've noted only the bullets without actually looking at the review itself and how inconsistent it is with the score. It makes the scores for previous games seem very fishy.

(Anyone that thought Sheep were the biggest crybabies about MP3...take it back...)

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Once again, you completely fail to understand how the review system works. You also fail to mention GameSpot calls the enemies repetitive, and some of the boss battles 'cheap'.

And to look at the wider context, Heavenly Sword is scoring around that point on most sites.

But whatever, keep feeling you've been wrong.

Pariah_001

Your (usual) pretentiousness aside, I don't bother reading those other reviews. With GS on the other hand, I do bother reading the articles, so trying to weigh in a majority when this board is dedicated to the rating system of the GS website is a straw grab. Like the posters before you, you've noted only the bullets without actually looking at the review itself and how inconsistent it is with the score. It makes the scores for previous games seem very fishy.

QFT.

Well, you're getting bent on their review, so Gamespot must mean quite a lot to you also. The bullet points clearly explained why it got the score it did. :|BioShockOwnz

No, they don't. The entire review does.

And of course it means a lot to me. Why do you think I'm so critical of it? The point here is that the original poster tried to use the phrase "basic logic" in regards to a rating system that is applied by various fallible individuals. That's ridiculous.

I call damage control. Heavenly Sword flopped. End of story.BioShockOwnz

Proof or it didn't happen.BioShockOwnz

The last resort of a desperate Microsoft consumer.

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="Harbadakus"]8-10 hours for Geow is shorter than 5-6 hours for HS? :?BioShockOwnz

I got through Gears' single player mode in 4 1/2 hours. On top of that, it's flanking system, the cornerstone of the game, sucked.

If Heavenly Sword got an 8.0 for the reasons listed by GS, then games like Gears should have scored A by comparison.

Proof or it didn't happen.

He had it on casual or whatever the level is where 1 bullet from the Lancer kills a Locust drone... :shock:

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]Once again, you completely fail to understand how the review system works. You also fail to mention GameSpot calls the enemies repetitive, and some of the boss battles 'cheap'.

And to look at the wider context, Heavenly Sword is scoring around that point on most sites.

But whatever, keep feeling you've been wrong.

Kaosed

Your (usual) pretentiousness aside, I don't bother reading those other reviews. With GS on the other hand, I do bother reading the articles, so trying to weigh in a majority when this board is dedicated to the rating system of the GS website is a straw grab. Like the posters before you, you've noted only the bullets without actually looking at the review itself and how inconsistent it is with the score. It makes the scores for previous games seem very fishy.

keep telling urself that crap all you want, the score numbers wont change bud

they wont change but our trust n respect in them will.

Heavenly Sword got Heavenly floored!

(ugh, that was bad)

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]I call damage control. Heavenly Sword flopped. End of story.Heil68

Most definitely. This game looks awesome.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Proof or it didn't happen.Pariah_001

The last resort of a desperate Microsoft consumer.

Stop OWNING yourself. Everyone know Bioshockownz has aPS3, 360 AND a Wii. Obviously you didnt get the memo... :shock:

cause u did t fast, if some1 speedruns though HS it could be done in much less timeKaosed

Again, you didn't bother to actually read the review. Towards the end, it says skilled players would be able to get through HS in about 6 hours. That already implies speedrun.

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Proof or it didn't happen.Magical_Zebra

The last resort of a desperate Microsoft consumer.

Stop OWNING yourself. Everyone know Bioshockownz has aPS3, 360 AND a Wii. Obviously you didnt get the memo... :shock:

He just is mad because someone speaks truth from an unbiased perspective. I guess you're not allowed to do that in a place called System Wars. Dumb me....

Stop OWNING yourself. Everyone know Bioshockownz has aPS3, 360 AND a Wii. Obviously you didnt get the memo... :shock:Magical_Zebra

.....So what?

That doesn't mean he lacks bias.