Well first of all, i have call of duty 4 and the game is excellent for me personally is a great game, but here we go again with Gamespot Reviews saying the game solo campaign is too short (and it is like 6 hours the most), and the replay value is what it counts, yes they are right, the graphics are amazing and the sound does stand out, but honestly people in the review of Call of Duty 4 it shows how almost all the reviewers in Gamespot only like first person shooters, because people compare the review in Call of Duty 4 and Heavenly Sword the similarity is almost the same, but they gave CoD 4 a 9 but Heavenly Sword the gave it 8, and i must say that although Heavenly Sword does lacks a litlle of the replay game value that CoD 4 has, and i say little because Heavenly Sword does has replay value not much but it has.

And its just my oppinion but Heavenly Sword has much better Graphics, Better Sound andBetter Storyline so i think that heavenly sword deserve a little more like a 8.9 or a 9.

And for all those saying that this thread has no reality because the two games are different genre, im not saying that heavenly sword is better, the only thing is that we the gamers, the client, the readers are knowladgeable people with minds of our own so please start reviewing with professionalism and dont go biased. So post your oppinion about this

Well man i have to praise in your story but man you could be the next Dan Brown, and hey i made a thread regarding your same thread and you know what the more the better, i totally think that microsoft has stocks in CNET and they pay a lot of publicity with CNET and hey, i only want that gamespot accept its error and made a statement where they say that maybe the review in Ratchet and Clank was wrong or something.

Hey i totally support you in your story knowing that it may be a little too out of this earth but hey at least we all agree that Gamespot need to have better reviews when you see that other major sites gave a AAA score

Engadget reports: "We'd been hearing that Sony's new 40GB PS3 featured a revised design with a 65nm Cell processor and improved cooling, but sadly it looks like those reports were in error.

"A Sony spokesperson has told Heise Online that the 40GB model continues to use 90mn processors, but does feature an updated design with a lower power consumption of just 120 to 140 watts, compared to 180 to 200 watts for the older models. Sony says its still planning on moving to 65nm processors in the near future, but for now, it looks like the PS3 is 90nm across the board."

This is taken from a n4g.com

well for everyone telling me that im a liar, i cant provide the link because mozilla doesnt let me, but you can see the article in

N4G.com and in BBC.com

and also i comunicate with a UK BBC worker from the electronic games department that keeps me in touch with everything that happens in Europe.

So dont try to bash, im just saying what i read it that sites and what my friend told me.

And please dont get personal with the threads please, because i respect people and i deserve the same, well thanks to anybody who thinks this is true or not.

Oh and mass effect 2 or 3 might be multiplat and maybe mass effect 1 could arrive at ps3.

Electronic Arts make a statement in UK at the BBC station, were the Greg Zeschuk CEO and Co-Owner of Bioware told that now the mass effect game will be a exclusive for the ps3 because of the effort that Microsoft put in the game, but the CEO of EA told whiting minutes of that statement that "Greg Zeschuk doesnt have the authority to claim in behalf of EA the future of this game, because microsoft lost all publishing rightwhen EA bought BioWare, and that now EA has plan to expand the games feotures in other consoles".

So for all those xbox360 fan, where you see what happens when big corporation do for their profits.

Maybe mass effect 1 will be a time exclusive for the xbox but you will clearly see a ps3 version like 6 months later.