The lights are on
Is it me or that game, even tough it deserves a perfect 10, should have not gotten it? After I read the review, where it clearly states that the story aspect of the game is not that perfect, I expected a 9.5 or 9.8. I can't wait to play it and finish what I started back in 2005, but come on, let's be realistic. Are you giving the game a perfect 10 because it's the last one on the "quadrilogy" or is it because it deserved a perfect 10 even tough, as it is stated on the review, that the story elements are lacking?
dude this will be epic the demo is better than most games out right now what I dont understand is U2 getting a 10 and GOTY from everyone yet this game is impressive on your first play through but no more so than plenty of others and has a lacking online mode. Dont get me wrong its a great game but honestly if MW2 is getting a 9.75 and BFBC2 a 9.5 uncharted gets a 10?
PSN ID: udontgetmyname
I have played every gow game up until this one.I played the demo and honestly can say Im just as stoked as ever to play it. Im sure it deserves a 10 but I wont give it that because games like these lack re-playability. I will buy it day one play it beat it and hopefully it comes with some option to keep the game fresh and worthy of another play through. Im thinking 9.75 because of the story and replay value.
Yeah but what constitue a "PERFECT" denomination on a game? I know it will be a great game, and I am going to have a lot of fun with it, but realistically speaking (or in this case, "speculating") is a game perfect? Doesn't that mean that you can't improve it?
I read Dante's Inferno's review and something jumped out at me. In the review they COMPLAINED that you get to fight against the same type of "undead". That even though you get your different "classes" of enemies, you will be fighting these types of enemies trough out the whole game.
So for God of War III to get a perfect score the enemies should be different, EACH and EVERYONE of them. And playing the demo I noticed that this is not true. I beleive that the experience has more to do in this review that the acttual gameplay.
In my opinion there has only being two games that deserve the "perfect" treatment (at least on the "not that old" consoles), and those two are Super Mario 64 and Goldeneye. Two games that raised the bar so high that even subsequent sequels could not topple it.
Dude it still has flaws if all games had to be perfect to get a ten then their would be no ten.
I loved God of War and God of War 2 and think that God of War 3 looks amazing. but to give it a ten when games like Mass Effect 2 gets a 9.75 (ya a little nit-picky, but in all honesty) what in God of War has changed? The first two were great games but is 3 not just a prettier version of what has already been done over and over again? I can't wait to play it but to give it a perfect score seems a little strange.
I just finished reading/viewing the review for God of War III on IGN and they nailed it. The score is a little under what I would have tough they will give it but a great review and review score.
I've said this before and I will say it again, God Of War 3 will win game of the year this year! duh!
I can't say if the game is perfect...But I will tell you the finished version looks 5 times better than the demo version, I don't think you seen the recent video's on youtube. I do feel it's the best hack n' slash game out there, all GI is trying to say is that GOW3 is better than the other high scoring hack n' slash Bayonetta. They're just trying to maintain the consistancy of their reviews. Oh and IGN review sucks the best review might be at gamespot it made a lot of sense and when I was done reading I wasn't even mad at the 9.0 they gave the game. The dude who reviewed it at IGN doesn't even like GOW lol he was expecting something revolutionary....GTFOH
The PS3 is starting to get a bunch of better exclusives than the 360...
1. The demo was hardly representative of the game. You see more types of enemies [not including titans or gods] in the video reviews alone.
2. Different doesn't have to mean completely different enemies. Each of the grunts in God of War 3 are varied in the amount of decay seen on their body parts.
In Dante's Inferno, enemies were exactly the same and sometimes inappropriate for the circle of hell that you were supposed to be in. People expected Dante's Inferno to have completely different enemies in each circle because the circles of hell are completely different. Putting enemies from the lust level, for example, in later levels was just lazy on the developers part. I can understand why they did this [animating different creatures would take time and space and such] but they shouldn't have used grunts that specific to a circle of hell. And although the game informer review for the game may note that the ending for God of War may be not so good, most reviews including the game informer review noted that Dante's Inferno fell flat during the final third of the game! How is that comparable to only a single moment in God of War 3 that may or may not fall flat. And yes, God of War obviously took notes from Devil May Cry but the reason that people don't call it a DMC copycat is because it took the source material and made it its own. Can you honestly say that if you saw a move list, for example, without reference to God of War or Dante's Inferno, you could actually distinguish which came from God of War and which came from Dante's Inferno? If so, please give an example.
Well I was a little confused on that aspect too, at first, but then I re-read it and I started to get what he meant. He was basically saying that it met his expectations, which means it was still very good, but it didn't blow past his expectations like other aspects did. If they truly felt that it was under expectations of how great the story could be, then they would have given it a 9.5-9.75. Don't worry about it not being as great as you think it is, it's still as great as you think it is. I always trust GI's reviews, and they've never failed me, whether I bought a bad game, a mediocre game, or a fantastic game, they usually hit it dead-on with their scoring.
If its on PS3, and it's an exclusive, it must be a 10/10
nah, I'm sure its a great game, and i I can honestly say I will be buying a PS3 for this.
I know the demo is HARDLY representative of the game. And I did play Dante's Inferno (which I loved) and it did not fell flat at all. ALso one of the best final Bosses in this type of game. But when you review a game and say that there should have been different varieties of enemies (which I know it did have, maybe not relative to the circle, but there surely was variety) and then don't take that into consideration on God of War, where Kratos has been battling the same wingued creatures for 3 games straight, is a little bit too convenient.
And its not the ending that the game informer review state that is lacking but the whole story. And to me thats a big important part of a game. If we are going to say that a game is perfect then it should be. To me Perfect 10 scores should be really hard to get, that way people and developers strive to better themselves. When you have a game like God of War III, that is just the same gameplay but prettier and give it a 10, I think is lazy on their part.
To me the score it got is not representative of what was said.
I know that I am going to love it, and it's basically the reason why I bought a Ps3 (this game and Killzone 2). All I want is for reviewers to simply take into consideration everything they mention in the review when it comes time to put on a score.
1. A 10/10 game score is not perfect like a score on a test. A 10/10 means that the game's good qualities far out weigh the negative and that most people will like it. Some critics actually liked the ending but game informer didn't like it as much but they didn't allow it to affect the score [from the sound of it, whether or not you like the story will be less about its quality then it will be about your expectations]. Most critics though thought the final third of Dante's Inferno fell through in quality and diversity of enemies and the score reflects that.
2. The game was called Dante's Inferno took place in and was pretty much about Dante's travels through the nine circles of hell which are all distinct. The earlier levels were unique but the developers seemed to have run out of steam or time for the final third and the uniqueness fell.
God of War is about Kratos' struggle against the gods, takes place in no specific setting beyond the Greek world and the undead minions that have appeared have all been minions of Hades [convenient yes, but at least that makes sense].
You still haven't addressed why I should see a lust grunt in the later levels of the game and why the enemies shouldn't have been somewhat specific to the circles in a game about the nine circles of hell [it certainly couldn't have hurt the game for me and probably a lot of critics].The developers had a huge field to work on in God of War [Greek world and mythology]. Dante's Inferno developers limited themselves to hell [no pun intended...if that even was a pun]. Also, although fun, I've read a funny comment that went something like this: if you took info about Greek mythology and culture from God of War even to a mythology class, you would fail epically. Dante's Inferno, as weird as it may sound, should have taken even more liberties with the source material then it did. God of War has and it's worked out well for them.
3. The review said the story did not stand out like in previous games and was much simpler: it didn't necessarily say it was "lacking"
4. All the reviews, even ones that didn't give God of War 3 a 10/10 [over 26 by my last count] agree that the combat is familiar but the best yet in the series and much improved from the previous games [though I hope they fix the camera issue with an update] which is also something to look at in game in a trilogy. You don't necessarily have to make huge changes to combat in a game to warrant a higher score: just make it better then before which again all the reviews proclaim. Why would they fix something that wasn't broken? Dante's Inferno gameplay was God of War with a different paint job. That's not a bad thing but if you're gonna do that, try to add your own spin to it like Darksiders did [it got 8.5/10 which it completely deserved]. If not, then don't expect to get above average.
5. Dante's Inferno tried to stand in the shadow of an epic poem and got lost [some reviews admittedly probably lampooned this game because it tried to imitate a greater literary work and did a so-so job] while God of War took Greek mythology and ran in a different direction.
6. I can say these things b/c I've played Dante and read the reviews. I liked Dante well enough [enjoyed the poem way more] but it was no where near a 10.
7. Not trying to say God of War 3 is perfect since I haven't played it yet. Just saying that the review seems spot on [its not the only perfect score God of War 3 has after all]. Last time I checked, it was 17 perfect reviews. Since I have played Dante's Inferno though, I can say it was about average and hardly near a 10.
8. Sorry for the long post. I meant to include some of this in the previous post.