You're exaggerating the issue quite a bit. HS hasn't flopped after one bad review... especially one that still praises the combat action and visuals of the game among the best they've seen so far. Point is, every review still points to Heavenly Sword being great.

Sgt_Hale

I'm sorry, are you in denial or something? The only thing good IGN UK had to say about Heavenly Sword was the presentation and visuals, sound still being good. They said the gameplay was repetative, uninspired, and the game itself was so short that an entire act being devoted to ranged (tedius) gameplay took far too long. Hell, they even said it had hardly any replayability due to any unlockables lacking motivation to achieve them due to the repetative combat. Did we read a different review?

haha, I beat you to it by 2 thread postings!

ANyways, 7/10 and up is pretty much my standard and this now goes along with Play's 10/10, and PSX/PSW's 9 and 8 respectively. AA status for now isn't bad at all.

ISA_Scum

I'm sorry but I cannot take any review seriously that not only has a scale of 0-10 (not 0.0-10.0, meaning you can score a 9.6), but gives a game a perfect score.

And aren't PSX and PSW Sony/Playstation websites? I'm not trying to say their reviews amount to nothing, but I am implying that perhaps you should take them with a grain of salt until another big review (like Gamespot) comes out.

[QUOTE="Poop_Slash"]

Yeah Everything that Cows hypes, it flops.:lol:

SpruceCaboose

Lost Planet was flopped here, as was Crackdown. There have been plenty more, and there will be tons on all three systems and PC before the generation is over.

For a game to flop, it had to have potential. You sir, are forgetting that Crackdown had 0 potential to begin with.

It depends entirely on the developer. Epic for example, go all out on visual quality as they go. They dont make a crappy build which looks really poor just to get the gameplay right, then go back over it and bump up the visual quality. They make it as nice as possible, as they make it. So an alpha build for an Unreal game will look pretty much the same as the final version.

Some developers, like BioWare and the Lair developers, actually go way out on graphical quality on the earlier builds. Lair used to look amazing, but the build only had two or three dragons. In the final game, the graphics weren't really as good as there are more things on screen. Still awesome though. Same with Mass Effect. It still looks incredible, but that original alpha build looked even better, mostly because it only involved two characters.

Killzone is another. The original alpha demo looked incredible, but the final game didn't. I think that contributed to it's score.

Then there are developers like bungie, who always build their own engine for each game rather than license another one. They pretty much make the whole game, then go back over the whole thing making it look shexy. Most of their visual stuff is done towards the end, so the final product is often much nicer than the alpha or beta builds.

I hope that answers your question. It's entirely dependent on the developer. Not eveyone makes their games in the same way.

Ninja-Vox

I'm quoting this for emphasis.

This is not his opinion, but how the game business actually works. A game like Killzone 2 needed to be graphically powerful by the time they showed it due to the CGI Trailer they released in 2005. If it wasn't up to par, a standard they set themselves, it would get horrible press. That is why people are wrong when they go "AND THIS IS ONLY PRE-ALPHA! IMAGINE THE FINAL BUILD!" because that is, more or less,

[QUOTE="Apathetic-Irony"]

[QUOTE="vashkey"]I wouldn't know. Theres nothing on the PS3 for me to even want to try using the controller. Fist I saw a pic of one to. I think it's hilarious how they added a logo button like the 360. mistervengeance

And? The logo button was a good idea. Too bad it's much better implimented on the 360, but none the less, Sony would get critism for not adding a feature that was similar to the 360 Guide Button. I would bet if they didn't have it, you would mock them for charging $600 for a console yet lack a feature that's standard for a $400 console.

much better implemented? it's laggy as freaking four monkeys carrying a log up a hill. a really big hill.

i admit the ps button's menu is not as integrated as live's and the blades' are, but still, at least they provide no lag, freezing, or other issues.

and copying things is second nature now to huge corporations.

if you want to get that hardcore, i will sue microsoft TOMOROW.

after all, they copied the "a" button off of nintendo.

I have a feeling you're a PS3 fanboy, so I will try and keep this clean:

The 360 guide button is a bit laggy, I agree. Yet, the 2 second delay before it fully comes out is manageable and its features are much superior to that of the PS3's menu. It's like praising a TV dinner steak over the real thing because you can cook it in 4 minutes.

And if you didn't notice, buddy, I was disagreeing with the "hilarity of Sony adding the logo like the 360". You're arguing with somebody who already agrees with your point. Though I do disagree with a part of your point: Copying things isn't second nature to huge corperations. When innovation occures, you don't backtrack and ignore its occurence, do you? Of course not. The guide button was an innovation, and as such, to ignore it would be asinine.

EDIT: To clarify, for the second paragraph, I was getting that in general that's how things work. It's not just with big corperations.

Hey pal... The psp had a "Home" button that did the same thing as the logo buttons on the 2 consoles... too bad psp came first huh? Totally ruined your fanboy argument.D3monchicken

Too bad the PSP isn't a controller, eh? The 360 Guide button is also not the same thing -- the guide button is an improvement over the PSP "Home" button.

I wouldn't know. Theres nothing on the PS3 for me to even want to try using the controller. Fist I saw a pic of one to. I think it's hilarious how they added a logo button like the 360. vashkey

And? The logo button was a good idea. Too bad it's much better implimented on the 360, but none the less, Sony would get critism for not adding a feature that was similar to the 360 Guide Button. I would bet if they didn't have it, you would mock them for charging $600 for a console yet lack a feature that's standard for a $400 console.

OP: Pack up now and take your losses with you. While it is a good thing Sony is no longer the market leader (for various reasons that would end up derailing what little topic this thread had to start with), by no means was it because PS2's library was plagued with mediocrity.

Having bad titles in a lineup is rendered irrelevent when there are still A-AAA titles spread throughout. And you claim it's impossible to not have a mediocre title? Here is my PS2 game collection, all would still be played if my PS2 worked:
- Zone of the Enders
- Zone of the Enders 2
- Kingdom Hearts
- Kingdom Hearts II
- Shadow of the Colossus
- Okami
- Ico
- Resident Evil 4
- God of War
- God of War II
- Metal Gear Solid 2

While some may argue the value of a few of my titles (Zone of the Enders 1 & 2), I consider them some of my favorite fast paced action games ever. Compare this to my (current) XBOX 360 title list:

- Gears of War
- Guitar Hero II

And you see a drastic difference. Now I am by no means claiming the 360 lacks in great titles, but what I am saying is that the PS2 had an incredible library that cannot be looked down upon, and shouldn't be considered weak due to the bad filler titles spread inbetween the gems.

The Wiimote is not gimmicky, but what is poor is how Nintendo releases Zelda and then has a draught of games that cator to the "Hardcore" crowd (Read: Not women or technology-ignorant adults).

The crappy part of the Wiimote is how it takes 5 hours to get four controllers connected to the console. My friends and I just end up popping in Wii Sports just because it connects the controllers easier. I don't even want to go into how I spent an hour trying to get my controller to connect just to play Zelda.

The Wii is overrated, and I don't even have to go into its online features to back it up. There, I said it. People I know who have it, play it every once in a while... and even then, only for party games. After a month of Wii Sports the system loses its flare until 8 months later. If it weren't for Corruption, Brawl, and Galaxy I'd have sold the Wii on eBay and bid my farewell to Nintendo.

[QUOTE="Star67"]looks good, but for some reason around the guns it looks fuzzy.AcidTWister

Hold a gun up as if you were going to shoot it, and focus on an object 2 feet away from you. Now tell me whether or not the gun is in focus or not. Because it won't be.

Thank you. Now somebody please quote this again, as it hasn't been answered 5 times already. Seriously, it takes at least 12 times of repeating to get any point across. Thank you.

Killzone 2 looks great in stills (though it does lack color -- and for the record, that Iraq picture is much more vibrant and actually does have color (the skin). All of the Killzone shots are dark, gray, and murky with a hint of red every so often), but the question is how is the animation? And if that's great too, how does the gameplay suffer? Can you only get 4 people on screen without having slowdown? Does the FPS drop when you have multiple explosions going on? Will multiplayer be laggy?

Gears of War had great graphics, but what made the game so great was that the great graphics worked for it. Nothing had to be sacrificed, as the style of the game makes massive battles impractical. Killzone 2 is not of the same style, and will suffer, heavily, if it goes the Gears of War route: Groups of 3-6 enemies, but never really anything more. Gears of War was a slow paced style (peak and pop, or whatever Cliffy was touting the style as), Killzone 2 won't be the same way. I hope the developers realize this, or else I will feel sorry that I recommended the PS3 to my brother so we wouldn't have two XBOX 360s.