Heavenly Sword - IGN review (UH OH INCOMING)

AltogetherAndrews said:
Just watch Ratchet get dogged on for sticking too close to the trodden path though. And it will probably get another few points cut for lacking competitive MP. I can already tell that Ratchet will be reviewed in a real strange and seldom used light.

Oh, it's gonna happen, no doubt...
 
david_caruso.gif
 
Mamesj said:
Godhand can have that title among the marginal weird folks on the internet, but Ninja Gaiden is and always will be the true supreme chinpoko royal crown champ.
An action game with more reliant on strings, with next to useless long ranged weapons, imbalance among melee weapons AND certain moves/abilties as well as other oddities like camera issues, no carry over stats and generally balance issue among enemies does not deserve "true supreme chinpoko royal crown champ" or whatever the fuck.

NG gets major props for making action gaming highly competitive via Mission mode and online ranking, and excellent use of agility, wall running, defensive manuevers and "ultimate" techniques. Rest of the game leaves much to be desired for, with lack of on the fly weapon switch (a feature found in a certain other game) this game could've been a lot better. Plus lack of solid cancelling system makes even Godhand better than it in that regard (not overall though of course).

King of Action is still DMC3SE.

Oh wait sorry... this thread is about Heavenly Sword. I read the review, seems closer to an 8 honestly. Phenomenal presentation values make it almost a reference title for the PS3. Gameplay being less than stellar is sort of disappointing as is the replay value but I guess that is sort of to be expected. Sony really kept low key with this game until the end and this is probably why. I will still play this game though, as I am a huge fan of action games in general. I have played much much worse than this.
 
IGN on Genji 2

80 Presentation
Everything from character animation and environments to the menu system benefits from a high degree of polish.

8.5 Graphics
Highly detailed character models and slick animation blends with spectacular locales and overall design.

8.0 Sound
While it sounds very good, the score is somewhat limited. Also, the voicework could use a tad of refinement.

6.0 Gameplay
The awesome presentation can't hide dying gameplay mechanics.

7.0 Lasting Appeal
It's a lengthy game, though gameplay gets repetetive after a while.
6.0
Passable OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)

Sounds a bit better (and shorter) then Genji 2, which doesn't exactly scream "must buy"
 
Dahbomb said:
An action game with more reliant on strings, with next to useless long ranged weapons, imbalance among melee weapons AND certain moves/abilties as well as other oddities like camera issues, no carry over stats and generally balance issue among enemies does not deserve "true supreme chinpoko royal crown champ" or whatever the fuck.


Strings? Strings???? Reliant on strings???! :lol :lol :lol the problem with these epic "I'm gonna attempt to point out what's wrong with the game" posts is that people throw in a shitload of subjective points and try and pass them as fact. "No on the fly weapon switching" as well as "useless long ranged weapons" are two prime examples.

please kids, don't even try.


back on topic, HS is going to be more significant for its story telling and realistic facial animations. what's that effect that game journalists drop to sound like they're smart...the one where past a certain point a facial animation can have a stronger emotional resonance...I forget.
 
J-Rzez said:
Though, they should be a lil more fair since Gears wasn't exactly a lengthy game either
Gears had online multi-play and co-op. People are still playing Gears and it's been out for ages. Halo games are the same way. If you're gonna have a short single player game, you've gotta have some sort of co-op and/or online play. Bang for your buck needs to be considered when games are going for $60 a pop.
 
ex0du5 said:
No way in hell does Ninja Gaiden Sigma deserve a 9.3, I must say. The game has incredibly good action, and an incredibly good combat system...but literally nothing beyond that.

DMC3 really blows it out of the water...in every way but the combat (which is different, but equally good...more of a freeform combat system).

Are you talking about the -real- DMC3 or the retarded "balls chopped off neutered DMC3:SE." It's always funny when people say they finished DMC3:SE on Hard, which is equivalent to the originals easy :lol

Anyway, threads are best when DMC and NG fanboys unite. Seriously speaking, away from the childish remarks -- in my book DMC and NG represent the two last hardcore franchises with a large budget. There are things like MGS4 but that shits not hardcore. You won't ever sweat it out trying to beat a boss. Isn't it sad that when anyone tells me company X is going to release a high budget 3 rd person action game I immediatly assume "easy as fuck button masher?"
 
C- Warrior said:
Are you talking about the -real- DMC3 or the retarded "balls chopped off neutered DMC3:SE." It's always funny when people say they finished DMC3:SE on Hard, which is equivalent to the originals easy :lol

Anyway, threads are best when DMC and NG fanboys unite. Seriously speaking, away from the childish remarks -- in my book DMC and NG represent the two last hardcore franchises with a large budget. There are things like MGS4 but that shits not hardcore. You won't ever sweat it out trying to beat a boss. Isn't it sad that when anyone tells me company X is going to release a high budget 3 rd person action game I immediatly assume "easy as fuck button masher?"

agreed on the second part. I tried to say that before, that I basically love both games but the DMC fans will be jumping on my posts for the next few pages I imagine. at least until the next Dante x Vergil yaoi comics come out.
 
castle007 said:
As I said before, I am not surprised with the reviews that the game is getting.



but considering their last game was Kung Fu Chaos, this appears to be a step up, which is nice :lol
 
I suspect 7.0 is an overreaction in the negative direction since the game didn't live up to its AAA billing. I mean, really... 7.0 puts the game behind a LOT of other titles, the overwhelming majority of them falling way short in the production values category.
 
I will admit that whenever I would see a review thread from like PS3GUY.com I would roll my eyes, but that was only because I figured at the very least stuff like Lair and Heavenly Sword would be good games and would get scores that reflect as such from the 'major' sites, so the desperate posting of all these smaller reviews was pointless. If it was good, the game would be justified at some point.

So yeah, it is a little surprising to see a 7.0 from friggin' IGN of all places.

In addition, listening to some of you guys talk about the demo makes me think of my experience with Lost Planet. I enjoyed the hell out of the demo but read up enough about the actual game to decide to wait for it to go budget.
 
ppl are probably spoiled by bioshock's great scores haha, i personally think HS deserves more than 7 though, the gameplay score was kinda meh, i found the demo to be challenging and fun; love the counters.
 
Vyer said:
I will admit that whenever I would see a review thread from like PS3GUY.com I would roll my eyes, but that was only because I figured at the very least stuff like Lair and Heavenly Sword would be good games and would get scores that reflect as such from the 'major' sites, so the desperate posting of all these smaller reviews was pointless. If it was good, the game would be justified at some point.

So yeah, it is a little surprising to see a 7.0 from friggin' IGN of all places.

In addition, listening to some of you guys talk about the demo makes me think of my experience with Lost Planet. I enjoyed the hell out of the demo but read up enough about the actual game to decide to wait for it to go budget.


There is always a clause for a score though. If a reviewer specifically gives a game a lower than expected score because it's too hard, and you like hard games -- well, even better for you. Unfortunately -- being short and having shallow bosses and enemies (as in HS's case) -- you can't spin that.

HS = Bouncer. I mean seriously, technical showcase, but really too short for the game to hit it's stride.
 
Mamesj said:
agreed on the second part. I tried to say that before, that I basically love both games but the DMC fans will be jumping on my posts for the next few pages I imagine. at least until the next Dante x Vergil yaoi comics come out.

You hardcore "ninjas or dantes" are starting to sound like... Comic book guy.

Sorry to say it but you guys need an intervention here.

Cut it out. Its good you have the skillz and love of the genre to achieve elite status but just remember:

Comic book guy is not appreciated for his "abilities".
Most people aren't in the same league of "knowledge or ability" and wonder what the heck you guys are talking about.

edited: "ninjas or dantes"
 
C- Warrior said:
HS = Bouncer. I mean seriously, technical showcase, but really too short for the game to hit it's stride.

the bouncer had 30 second action segments divided by a million lengthy cutscenes. the two minute heavenly sword demo had about as much gameplay as a level of the bouncer. there is nothing i'm aware of that can be legitimately compared to the bouncer. i'd expect someone with your username to be with me on that
 
C- Warrior said:
Are you talking about the -real- DMC3 or the retarded "balls chopped off neutered DMC3:SE." It's always funny when people say they finished DMC3:SE on Hard, which is equivalent to the originals easy :lol

EASY? I thought they lowered the difficulty one level - hard is equal to normal on the original edition.

And how could it be the "real" DMC when the original released in japan, by the japanese developers, was the "easy" edition that the special edition reverted to? And harder games = not necessarily better. The great majority of people don't have time or like the game enough to spend a hundred hours playing every difficulty and fighting the same boss 50 times. Why the hell stop with a set difficulty, anybody who hasn't' played DMC w/o getting hit once and obtaining the highest ranking for each mission hasn't really played DMC3! All of this pretentious obsession with difficulty sounds like some nerdy-elitist justification for the time wasted playing a game.
 
castle007 said:
As I said before, I am not surprised with the reviews that the game is getting.
same here. The game got hyped up too much and I always had a feeling that it was never going to live upto expectations.
 
It seems all PS3 only games get reveiwed by nitpicking most of the time. Also I dont see how a last gen game.. sigma gets a 9.5 in gameplay, thats just complete crazy because Heavenly Sword is clearly more fun and brings new elements to the game.
 
7 is a reasonable score since most reviewers have been saying it's to short and all. I was going to buy it before even when I knew it was short, but I have little money right now and $74 CAD with taxes included is a lot of money.

I wanted it so bad though. I'm just not sure now about this whole thing...I play mostly PS2 games and I know the system just came out and 360 went through something similar but it's just painful waiting.
 
Norml said:
It seems all PS3 only games get reveiwed by nitpicking most of the time. Also I dont see how a last gen game.. sigma gets a 9.5 in gameplay, thats just complete crazy because Heavenly Sword is clearly more fun and brings new elements to the game.

Just because a game came out last gen means it's the lesser of the two?

Fatal Inertia>F-ZeroGX ?
Saint's Row>GTA: San Andreas?

Sigma is the better game for namely one reason, better gameplay. Team Ninja is a better outfit than Heavenly Sword. People are too attached to this game. Just thank the reviewer for saving you some money.
 
Short games with no multi-player elements = doom for your review scores. I don't always agree with this deduction, but developers should've learned by now.

One thing I think HS really misses is some kind of meaningful extra content. A simple boss rush mode, new character skins or extra Kai missions would've gone a long way.

I'll still get it though. I like the combat system and don't mind the length.
 
thats just complete crazy because Heavenly Sword is clearly more fun and brings new elements to the game.

i`ve not played the final game, but what new elements does HS bring and what makes it clearly more fun?
 
Norml said:
It seems all PS3 only games get reveiwed by nitpicking most of the time.

It seems PS3 fans like to pretend everyone has some vendetta against the PS3.

PS3 games alone don't get reviewed by "nitpicking" most of the time. You just don't like that it got a 7.0.

Also I dont see how a last gen game.. sigma gets a 9.5 in gameplay, thats just complete crazy because Heavenly Sword is clearly more fun and brings new elements to the game.

So because it's last gen, that makes HS more fun.

Right, gotcha.




No.
 
DCharlie said:
i`ve not played the final game, but what new elements does HS bring and what makes it clearly more fun?

The physics part is awesome, just use the long range stance and you can fling everything in the air. Aftertouch alot of fun also, throwing the sheild and hanving it bounce and reflect then go out of control is just wow.Blocking is also better because you have to be in the right stance.
 
Linkzg said:
are you watching closely?




magically the review becomes useless!

I dont think Heavenly Sword will be a 10/10 game, but how can you really trust someone who insults the king of action games?

/thread.
 
titiklabingapat said:
The waterfall.
No offense Titi but you can't complain when people bitch in Wii threads if you(*were) all doing the same. The game has a very fun fighting mechanic and lots of other things that you can only get from playing the game.

No more shaking hands with grenades...everyone.
 
$60 for a 6 hour game with no online that can be completed by button mashing


Where do I sign?

Anything more than a 7 and then IGN would not have been doing right by their readers.
It seems to me the only reason it got what it did was because of the pretty graphics which probably encouraged the reviewer to preserver
 
mr_bishiuk said:
$60 for a 6 hour game with no online that can be completed by button mashing


Where do I sign?

Anything more than a 7 and then IGN would not have been doing right by their readers.
It seems to me the only reason it got what it did was because of the pretty graphics which probably encouraged the reviewer to preserver
You're right in a sense. The game looks nice and seemingly fun but the reviewers say it's to short and has some decent short comings. Because of that it's a justifiable score.

I was thinking a 5-6 personally.
 
iceberg187 said:
Sigma is the better game for namely one reason, better gameplay. Team Ninja is a better outfit than Heavenly Sword. People are too attached to this game. Just thank the reviewer for saving you some money.
let the people who really enjoyed the demo decide, will you?
 
see, this is why reviews are sometimes bad, people are choosing to NOT buy this game because of one sites review.

there is a demo for this game out, play that atleast and form your own opinions, then decide yourself.

downloadable demos are the best part about this gen, anyone with the console and online access can try out game demos instead of judging based on reviews.
 
Linkzg said:
there is a demo for this game out, play that atleast and form your own opinions, then decide yourself.

Your assumption here is that the people saying "will not buy because of IGN's review" actually own a PS3?
 
Mamesj said:
but considering their last game was Kung Fu Chaos, this appears to be a step up, which is nice :lol

And Kung fu chaos has an average of 76%. With quite a few 9s and 10s. And thats with a lower budget and much smaller team. Weird.
 
There's one thing I can't agree with and one thing that doesn't make sense.
The fighting and combo systems in HS are as deep as the gamer can make it. I didn't experience such long and great combos in any other action game. So maybe the guy who reviewed it just couldn't get a handle of it.

If the fights are growing tiring and boring, then the game should seem longer, right?
 
hteng said:
wait... how do you guys know the game is 6 hours? i dont recall seeing it in any reviews?

Impressions on the game from a Gaf'er who had played the review build.
I believe a Swedish magazine review also stated 6 hours of play.
 
Hm...well presentation and graphics should be 10's not 9's - especially when they say things like "the best ever" etc etc. I'd even say 10 for sound - I mean how can you get better? Plus lasting appeal should be at least a 6...not a 5. Who knows whether all the anime and making of videos will be on PSN? Plus....Home integration.

So (I know they are not averages...but this seems extreme) - the average already is 7.8 (no where near 7)....and with these updated scores....you get 8.6

Now i will say the IGN US def READS like a solid 8, not a 7...the UK IGN read like a 7. I think they are being overly harsh for no particular reason.
 
sionyboy said:
Impressions on the game from a Gaf'er who had played the review build.
I believe a Swedish magazine review also stated 6 hours of play.

He said it took 6 hours to get the final boss...so that's 7hours. Anyway I choose to believe Deano and his no less than 10hours statement.
 
Top Bottom