Heavenly Sword

[randay]

Every game from now on shall include a scantily clad heroine showing oh so much left leg, thigh and butt cheek.

Oddly enough I am having a bitch of a time with the sixaxis control of the aftertouch feature. The first taste of it was incredibly hard for me, I missed a lot. I find its much less intuitive then with the dragon in Lair, since its usually objects flying like cannonballs, arrows, bodies etc. Such objects don't really give any feedback in which direction and how much it is flying, where as a dragon pitches and yaws much like a plane. The aftertouch is supposed to be a really fun part of the game, I'll have to wait and see if I can get used to it. The combat is amazing as always, the graphics and cinema is incredible. Played this game for about an hour so far, got through the first chapter. It got some low reviews because it was short, but damn, I guess its short but good, real good. and damn sexy.

 

[RagingBITCH]

I'd buy a PS3 if she was nude in it.

 

[mlm]

My copy doesn't seem to be shipping any time soon :brokenheart:

 

[CKDragon]

I believe several reviews said that they preferred using the analog stick to guide the aftertouch.

 

[purbeast0]

I would like to try this game out but now way in hell i'm paying $60 for a 6 hour game.

 

[JRich]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
I would like to try this game out but now way in hell i'm paying $60 for a 6 hour game.

I was going to buy it, but then I read how short is was and decided to wait for a price drop.

 

[Beev]

Same here. I enjoyed the demo enough to warrant a purchase if it were ~20 hours. But 5? No thanks.

 

[Dacalo]

I just read from an article that this game is a trilogy. Still, 6-7 hour game is inexcusable.

 

[hans030390]

A lot of reviewers complained that it was too repetitive and the pacing was bad. What do you think about that? Any other issues that might lower your personal "review" of this game?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
I would like to try this game out but now way in hell i'm paying $60 for a 6 hour game.

Wow, that is a horrible value. You can get something like FFXII or DQ8 that you can easily put 100 hours into, or you've got this... it seems like fun, and probably nice to look at, but that doesn't seem like enough.

 

[Ackmed]

Not everyone wants 100 hours. I dont mind a good 6-8 hour game. Having a wife, two kids, and two jobs, I dont have a ton of time for games. I have to actually plan out when I can play, and generally only play a few hours each week, divided up between my PC and PS3. Not all of us can sit around all day and do nothing but play games. In contrast, its about the same ratio as going to a movie, hope none of you do that either.

6-8 hours sounds great to me, especially if its fun. Some of the best games have been short. You can beat SMB in less than 6 mins...

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

I've heard it is closer to 4 hours. Penny arcade guys said it could be beat twice in 10 hours and that you do the same shit over and over and over. If that is your thing though...more power to ya.

 

[Ackmed]

Yet reviews say 6-8 hours.

 

[randay]

I heard its so short, your penis falls off.

aaaaaaaaaaanyway, got my buttocks kicked by the boss last night, first try I couldnt find any openings, second try I beat him but there is a twitch button pressing scene afterwards, it happened way too quick and unfortunately if you dont press the buttons he gets back his life and you have to fight him again, then he kicked muh butt. will play more tonight.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Not everyone wants 100 hours. I dont mind a good 6-8 hour game. Having a wife, two kids, and two jobs, I dont have a ton of time for games. I have to actually plan out when I can play, and generally only play a few hours each week, divided up between my PC and PS3. Not all of us can sit around all day and do nothing but play games. In contrast, its about the same ratio as going to a movie, hope none of you do that either.

6-8 hours sounds great to me, especially if its fun. Some of the best games have been short. You can beat SMB in less than 6 mins...

No, a short game is fine, but for $60? $15-20 would be more appropriate. I think that's about how much Second Sight was, and even then I got ten hours or so out of it.

 

[CKDragon]

6-8 hours is fine by me as long as there's decent multiplayer. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply here.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Not everyone wants 100 hours. I dont mind a good 6-8 hour game. Having a wife, two kids, and two jobs, I dont have a ton of time for games. I have to actually plan out when I can play, and generally only play a few hours each week, divided up between my PC and PS3. Not all of us can sit around all day and do nothing but play games. In contrast, its about the same ratio as going to a movie, hope none of you do that either.

6-8 hours sounds great to me, especially if its fun. Some of the best games have been short. You can beat SMB in less than 6 mins...

No, a short game is fine, but for $60? $15-20 would be more appropriate. I think that's about how much Second Sight was, and even then I got ten hours or so out of it.

Hope you dont go to any movies. Cause its about the same ratio for your money.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Not everyone wants 100 hours. I dont mind a good 6-8 hour game. Having a wife, two kids, and two jobs, I dont have a ton of time for games. I have to actually plan out when I can play, and generally only play a few hours each week, divided up between my PC and PS3. Not all of us can sit around all day and do nothing but play games. In contrast, its about the same ratio as going to a movie, hope none of you do that either.

6-8 hours sounds great to me, especially if its fun. Some of the best games have been short. You can beat SMB in less than 6 mins...

No, a short game is fine, but for $60? $15-20 would be more appropriate. I think that's about how much Second Sight was, and even then I got ten hours or so out of it.

Hope you dont go to any movies. Cause its about the same ratio for your money.

This analogy that you've posted twice now is faulty. If there's a movie coming out today that I want to see, I have no way of (legally) seeing it unless I spend $10 to go to the theater.

If I want to play Heavenly Sword, I can pay the full $60 or rent it for a very small fraction of the price. I haven't rented a game in forever, but they used to be about $5 for 3 days? 6-8 hours of gaming is easily accomplished within a weekend for most "hardcore" (I hate that term) gamers.

Even if you want to argue that you don't play 6-8 hours in a weekend. Hey, rent it two or three consecutive weekends in a row and pay $10-15. 6-8 hours for a single-player only game looks like a terrible value, especially next to Warhawk's apparently excellent longevity.

"Hope that people don't go to the movies"? No, I just hope that people are smart with their money.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Not everyone wants 100 hours. I dont mind a good 6-8 hour game. Having a wife, two kids, and two jobs, I dont have a ton of time for games. I have to actually plan out when I can play, and generally only play a few hours each week, divided up between my PC and PS3. Not all of us can sit around all day and do nothing but play games. In contrast, its about the same ratio as going to a movie, hope none of you do that either.

6-8 hours sounds great to me, especially if its fun. Some of the best games have been short. You can beat SMB in less than 6 mins...

No, a short game is fine, but for $60? $15-20 would be more appropriate. I think that's about how much Second Sight was, and even then I got ten hours or so out of it.

Hope you dont go to any movies. Cause its about the same ratio for your money.

This analogy that you've posted twice now is faulty. If there's a movie coming out today that I want to see, I have no way of (legally) seeing it unless I spend $10 to go to the theater.

If I want to play Heavenly Sword, I can pay the full $60 or rent it for a very small fraction of the price. I haven't rented a game in forever, but they used to be about $5 for 3 days? 6-8 hours of gaming is easily accomplished within a weekend for most "hardcore" (I hate that term) gamers.

Even if you want to argue that you don't play 6-8 hours in a weekend. Hey, rent it two or three consecutive weekends in a row and pay $10-15. 6-8 hours for a single-player only game looks like a terrible value, especially next to Warhawk's apparently excellent longevity.

"Hope that people don't go to the movies"? No, I just hope that people are smart with their money.

im stupid with my money? damn i wish i was smarter with money, i wish i was a money genius like you.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Not everyone wants 100 hours. I dont mind a good 6-8 hour game. Having a wife, two kids, and two jobs, I dont have a ton of time for games. I have to actually plan out when I can play, and generally only play a few hours each week, divided up between my PC and PS3. Not all of us can sit around all day and do nothing but play games. In contrast, its about the same ratio as going to a movie, hope none of you do that either.

6-8 hours sounds great to me, especially if its fun. Some of the best games have been short. You can beat SMB in less than 6 mins...

No, a short game is fine, but for $60? $15-20 would be more appropriate. I think that's about how much Second Sight was, and even then I got ten hours or so out of it.

Hope you dont go to any movies. Cause its about the same ratio for your money.

This analogy that you've posted twice now is faulty. If there's a movie coming out today that I want to see, I have no way of (legally) seeing it unless I spend $10 to go to the theater.

If I want to play Heavenly Sword, I can pay the full $60 or rent it for a very small fraction of the price. I haven't rented a game in forever, but they used to be about $5 for 3 days? 6-8 hours of gaming is easily accomplished within a weekend for most "hardcore" (I hate that term) gamers.

Even if you want to argue that you don't play 6-8 hours in a weekend. Hey, rent it two or three consecutive weekends in a row and pay $10-15. 6-8 hours for a single-player only game looks like a terrible value, especially next to Warhawk's apparently excellent longevity.

"Hope that people don't go to the movies"? No, I just hope that people are smart with their money.

im stupid with my money? damn i wish i were smarter with money, i wish i were a money genius like you.

Fixed. It's called the subjunctive mood.

</grammar nerd>

😛

This game sounds like a rental if I've ever seen one.

 

[destrekor]

it's not a rental if you require completion to 100%. which in this case means scoring enough during combos (and thus having to go long times without being hit to do so) to earn credits towards unlockables. Also, I think you get to unlock a harder difficulty, although I don't even remember seeing an option for difficulty (yet that could just be my absent mindedness).

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Not everyone wants 100 hours. I dont mind a good 6-8 hour game. Having a wife, two kids, and two jobs, I dont have a ton of time for games. I have to actually plan out when I can play, and generally only play a few hours each week, divided up between my PC and PS3. Not all of us can sit around all day and do nothing but play games. In contrast, its about the same ratio as going to a movie, hope none of you do that either.

6-8 hours sounds great to me, especially if its fun. Some of the best games have been short. You can beat SMB in less than 6 mins...

No, a short game is fine, but for $60? $15-20 would be more appropriate. I think that's about how much Second Sight was, and even then I got ten hours or so out of it.

Hope you dont go to any movies. Cause its about the same ratio for your money.

This analogy that you've posted twice now is faulty. If there's a movie coming out today that I want to see, I have no way of (legally) seeing it unless I spend $10 to go to the theater.

If I want to play Heavenly Sword, I can pay the full $60 or rent it for a very small fraction of the price. I haven't rented a game in forever, but they used to be about $5 for 3 days? 6-8 hours of gaming is easily accomplished within a weekend for most "hardcore" (I hate that term) gamers.

Even if you want to argue that you don't play 6-8 hours in a weekend. Hey, rent it two or three consecutive weekends in a row and pay $10-15. 6-8 hours for a single-player only game looks like a terrible value, especially next to Warhawk's apparently excellent longevity.

"Hope that people don't go to the movies"? No, I just hope that people are smart with their money.

im stupid with my money? damn i wish i was smarter with money, i wish i was a money genius like you.

Yes, the only interpretation of my last quote was that anyone who buys Heavenly Sword must be stupid. Go go straw man!

Being "smart with your money" works differently for different people. If you alloted enough money in your video game budget to outright buy both Heavenly Sword and Warhawk over the last few weeks, then go crazy.

If a 17 year old kid (because no one younger would ever play an M-rated game 😉) had a $60 budget for this month and was interested in both, would you tell him to buy HS or Warhawk? I'd advise buying Warhawk for $40 and renting HS for a weekend or two. You may disagree, but I think that's the ideal situation for gamers on a budget due to the longevity of the play experience of each.

I'm neither on a terribly strict budget nor an owner of a PS3, that's just how I'd approach it to save money, regardless.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Not everyone wants 100 hours. I dont mind a good 6-8 hour game. Having a wife, two kids, and two jobs, I dont have a ton of time for games. I have to actually plan out when I can play, and generally only play a few hours each week, divided up between my PC and PS3. Not all of us can sit around all day and do nothing but play games. In contrast, its about the same ratio as going to a movie, hope none of you do that either.

6-8 hours sounds great to me, especially if its fun. Some of the best games have been short. You can beat SMB in less than 6 mins...

No, a short game is fine, but for $60? $15-20 would be more appropriate. I think that's about how much Second Sight was, and even then I got ten hours or so out of it.

Hope you dont go to any movies. Cause its about the same ratio for your money.

This analogy that you've posted twice now is faulty. If there's a movie coming out today that I want to see, I have no way of (legally) seeing it unless I spend $10 to go to the theater.

If I want to play Heavenly Sword, I can pay the full $60 or rent it for a very small fraction of the price. I haven't rented a game in forever, but they used to be about $5 for 3 days? 6-8 hours of gaming is easily accomplished within a weekend for most "hardcore" (I hate that term) gamers.

Even if you want to argue that you don't play 6-8 hours in a weekend. Hey, rent it two or three consecutive weekends in a row and pay $10-15. 6-8 hours for a single-player only game looks like a terrible value, especially next to Warhawk's apparently excellent longevity.

"Hope that people don't go to the movies"? No, I just hope that people are smart with their money.

im stupid with my money? damn i wish i was smarter with money, i wish i was a money genius like you.

Yes, the only interpretation of my last quote was that anyone who buys Heavenly Sword must be stupid. Go go straw man!

Being "smart with your money" works differently for different people. If you alloted enough money in your video game budget to outright buy both Heavenly Sword and Warhawk over the last few weeks, then go crazy.

If a 17 year old kid (because no one younger would ever play an M-rated game 😉) had a $60 budget for this month and was interested in both, would you tell him to buy HS or Warhawk? I'd advise buying Warhawk for $40 and renting HS for a weekend or two. You may disagree, but I think that's the ideal situation for gamers on a budget due to the longevity of the play experience of each.

I'm neither on a terribly strict budget nor an owner of a PS3, that's just how I'd approach it to save money, regardless.

both are rated T for Teen. 😉
:laugh:

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: destrekor
both are rated T for Teen. 😉
:laugh:

Eh, figures. Judging by the "How old are you?" thread, not many of us haven't had to think twice about that for quite a while.

Most 13 year olds would have an even tighter budget, so my ignorance only managed to weaken my example. It's funny, I'm 25 now and I'm blessed enough that my gaming budget is pretty boundless. When I was a young teen I have no idea how I survived wanting a July-released game and just keeping it on my Christmas list for five months. I've become less patient with age, I guess.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: destrekor
both are rated T for Teen. 😉
:laugh:

Eh, figures. Judging by the "How old are you?" thread, not many of us haven't had to think twice about that for quite a while.

Most 13 year olds would have an even tighter budget, so my ignorance only managed to weaken my example. It's funny, I'm 25 now and I'm blessed enough that my gaming budget is pretty boundless. When I was a young teen I have no idea how I survived wanting a July-released game and just keeping it on my Christmas list for five months. I've become less patient with age, I guess.

same here. without worrying about age limits, I seem to also care less. I always wanted M rated games when 15 and 16 because it meant they were hardcore. But now, I really don't care if a game is T rated or M rated, as long as it is enjoyable.. although I don't really enjoy tasteless M-rated games.