New Heavenly Sword Info (screens included)

[Daozang]

You do realise by using the fast and strong stances you are already using more than one button don't you.

Ahem... I'm guessing I'm not that good in English as I thought I was:smile:
Basically I agree with you…
What I’m saying is that you can use the same technique (parry - counter) on the tougher enemy (if it’s not more than one I assume) but you can’t just do it by pressing only triangle. You have to change stances and evade for it to work.
I think that the fight with the axe type enemy is as hard as it should be for the games first level.

 

[cthellis42]

What I was trying to say is, that perhaps you can parry and counter your way out of the first level but I highly doubt you'll be able to do the same in the next one.
And even if you can, it will require some skill (at least timing your buton presses) and later on good evasive techniques.

I got that. I was replying more to the "in other than the developers intended" comment. Timing can ALWAYS win out in any game, and it's questionable what people ascribe real values like "skillful" to it.

It may take forever, but so long as you don't take blocking damage and the like, you can always wait for an opening and snap off an attack while the AI is vulnerable, rinse, and repeat.

All part of my saying "so what?" to that linked video. Heh...

 

[tanksrule]

Seems to be many different scores floating around which isn't too helpful to people who haven't played the demo much, but I've played it over quite a few times and I'm sure the game on hard will take over 9/10 hours so thats plenty for me to buy it.

Another guy posted the video's to the 4th animation and making of on the last page but the large versions on the web are on the main site here!

I'm still loving the pre-release extra content as the animations are pretty cool, but I really want the game to be out now!

 

[patsu]

Fourth (out of 5) animation video for Heavenly Sword

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/08/30/heavenly-sword-prequel-episode-iv-the-divine-birth/

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Ahm....You could beat enemies in DMC1 with one button as well at the beginning....but playing the game more it showed a totally different self.

Also I although I didnt play HS, beating the demo with one button may not mean much. You could do the same with one button in DMC but one button actually could perform different combinations depending on the timing and direction of the analog stick. No button mashing, no random stuff. It needed strategy and skill

Same counts for DMC3 as well which is considered as one of the most difficult games of its type

You could beat lots of enemies without much effort with just one button. But believe me after progressing you wished you shouldnt have wasted your health like that even if you did kill them with one button earlier

edit: Btw I finished watching the video and although he did progress with one button they certaintly beat his ass

You could come quite far with just using the square combo in GoW aswell

 

[PiNkY]

Eurogamer(.net) review

Not as harsh as I expected after the demo. I'll probably try to snag it off ebay once prices come down a bit.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Perhaps this game will be a precedent setting one for production values versus gameplay? Lots of developers have tooted video games as a rival to movies, but some of us question if gamers really want that. Here we have what sounds like an okay game as more as a skeleton for the story and cinematic experience than the defining aspect of the game. The top-end production values and techniques have taken over as priorities. So will gamers be lining to buy this for an okay game and it's awesome production qualities, lush graphics, cool story, and cinematography? Or will they shy away as what they really want from a game is all gameplay and the cutscenes don't matter much?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Perhaps this game will be a precedent setting one for production values versus gameplay?

God of War showed that those two can coexist and THAT'S what we want. I myself prefer good story over gameplay in most cases. Legacy of Kain series are one of my favourite games of all time despite mediocre gameplay, on the other hand so is Ninja Gaiden which is the exact opposite...

 

[dantruon]

Perhaps this game will be a precedent setting one for production values versus gameplay? Lots of developers have tooted video games as a rival to movies, but some of us question if gamers really want that. Here we have what sounds like an okay game as more as a skeleton for the story and cinematic experience than the defining aspect of the game. The top-end production values and techniques have taken over as priorities. So will gamers be lining to buy this for an okay game and it's awesome production qualities, lush graphics, cool story, and cinematography? Or will they shy away as what they really want from a game is all gameplay and the cutscenes don't matter much?

well this game is certainly bring something new to the table, so we must give credit to the developers for that.

 

[Daozang]

I got that. I was replying more to the "in other than the developers intended" comment. Timing can ALWAYS win out in any game, and it's questionable what people ascribe real values like "skillful" to it.

It may take forever, but so long as you don't take blocking damage and the like, you can always wait for an opening and snap off an attack while the AI is vulnerable, rinse, and repeat.

All part of my saying "so what?" to that linked video. Heh...

Agreed!
I think I have almost mastered the counter attacks in fast stance. But in strong stance, in order to counter the orange haze attacks, it's quite difficult. You have to be very precise to your timings in order to do something more than a throw.

To me the games combat engine is very deep. In fact I find it deeper than NGs.

 

[DJ12]

Jaffe and his posse have worked on several A+ games in their time (before god of war and obviously since too) and this is Ninja Theory's second ever game. Bearing that in mind I think they have done great.

It's not like it's a bad game, it just has it's faults like almost all other games ever made

 

[Nesh]

Personally I feel that the game is suspiciously underrated by some sites.
So far the lowest scores are from IGN, EDGE and Eurogamer

Anyways here are some other new reviews

Game Informer 8.75/10
GameDaily 4 /5

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The Eurogamer review seems a bit odd to me. They mention combat is button mashing, but that's all I did in GOW. I found a few techniques that could be repeated ad infinitum on the whole. Now that's a complaint that fans of GOW retaliate against with 'but try playing it on Hard mode'...but then by those standards, shouldn't HS be rated o hard mode? And according to the one line in that review, you have to know what you're doing then.

So it seems to me this game is much like many others. The default settings aren't too hard for most gamers, but the hard mode needs to really care to learn how to play the game properly. I haven't played it, but i don't know. As for upgrades, in my limited experience these are mostly superficial. You can unlock different weapons and upgrade however you want...but they do pretty much the same thing. There were different swords in GOW, but in my experience in the normal difficulty, you just picked one and bashed away.

Perhaps HS is worth a 7/10 if it's normal mode isn't challenging, but that's the score I'd give GOW too. Well, I'd give both more an 8/10 if gameplay's okay but production is through the roof.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Personally I feel that the game is suspiciously underrated by some sites.
So far the lowest scores are from IGN, EDGE and Eurogamer

Anyways here are some other new reviews

Game Informer 8.75/10
GameDaily 4 /5

Um, Eurogamer is rather strict with their reviews, all around. A 7\10 which HS got, is about the same as an 8.5\10 on any other site. Nothing suspicious about it.

 

[Crayon]

This modernized beat-em-up gameplay is hard to nail down.

Ever since DMC created it, basically doing for action what SM64 did for platforming, many have been confused over the actual gameplay.

The challenge is that you have to take a fundamentally repetitive play loop and give it legs.

The wrong way to do this is by piling on verbs (verbs as in "moves") that don't carry alot of weight. You end up with alot of fluff that will get old when the novelty of nice animations and bonebreaking sounds and sparks wears off.

The correct way to do this is to add as much heft and versatility to the fewest amount to verbs possible, and only adding new ones when a)the current set becomes limiting and b)any new verbs can be developed to the point where they present the player with a sufficiently interesting choice. ie; "should I push this button or that button"

When you don't care which button you press and when - it's most likely because the choice (or more accureatly, the consequence) is not sufficiently interesting. Now you've got yourself a button masher.

If you press X the combo branches into a kick thingie and if you press triangle it does an nunchuck trick.... in both the enemies fly back and lose health. Once I've seen the pretty animations a million times, and assuming I have nobody there to show the game off to, the choice is pretty hollow. Sometimes it is even artificially weighted by bonuses for variety....yawn.

Bottom line is that it's a very delicate genre and one has to be careful of how they layer on the novel aspects of their origional design.

Kudos NT guys for getting this huge, gorgeous and in my opinion successful project out the door. They gameplay is may not be a timeless masterpiece but it's good fun and it's at the right time because I need a PS3 game!

 

[betan]

The Eurogamer review seems a bit odd to me. They mention combat is button mashing, but that's all I did in GOW. I found a few techniques that could be repeated ad infinitum on the whole. Now that's a complaint that fans of GOW retaliate against with 'but try playing it on Hard mode'...but then by those standards, shouldn't HS be rated o hard mode? And according to the one line in that review, you have to know what you're doing then.

So it seems to me this game is much like many others. The default settings aren't too hard for most gamers, but the hard mode needs to really care to learn how to play the game properly. I haven't played it, but i don't know. As for upgrades, in my limited experience these are mostly superficial. You can unlock different weapons and upgrade however you want...but they do pretty much the same thing. There were different swords in GOW, but in my experience in the normal difficulty, you just picked one and bashed away.

Well, in GOW one of the gods told me I'll need that sword . I forgot her name but she said she used it, so she should know. I upgraded the damn thing one or two times although it was expensive. Butchering body parts was fun but not much useful so I gave up. In my hard mode run and for GoW II, I directly went for chains only, it was much easier in the end. But that's just for the weapons, I like RPGs levelups for magic stuff. They do work.

I think this review is well written overall, but I wish people stop comparing HS to GoW. I doubt anybody finds GoW's combat anything special. It's evade, block and square square triangle for me. Although I understand why some feel loss of control especially during combos, HS still feels deeper and more satisfactory.

But GoW is much more than combat, it has epic boss battles, decent platforming and reasonable complex puzzles. Overall the experience is one of best, very well executed, never boring, nothing difficult but not child's play either.

I don't think that's the package HS is trying to be. I'm not even sure HS is trying to attract hardcore gamers.

One last thing, at one point reviewer mentions camera in GoW not being a problem due to smart level design. That's not totally accurate though. GoW has very well scripted camera but more importantly enemies are polite enough not to attack out of screen.

 

[cthellis42]

Um, Eurogamer is rather strict with their reviews, all around. A 7\10 which HS got, is about the same as an 8.5\10 on any other site. Nothing suspicious about it.

Considering how the structure of his post was comparing it to God of War, I do believe he's internally comparing their review of HS to that of the GoW's--both of which they gave 9's.


[Edit: Sorry. Tired. But combine Nesh's and Shifty's posts and you still get the picture. ]

 

[psorcerer]

Um, Eurogamer is rather strict with their reviews, all around. A 7\10 which HS got, is about the same as an 8.5\10 on any other site. Nothing suspicious about it.

Yeah, yeah, after 10/10 to Oblivion and Bioshock it's hard to argue that Eurogamer completely lost any possible credibility.

 

[Acert93]

Yeah, yeah, after 10/10 to Oblivion and Bioshock it's hard to argue that Eurogamer completely lost any possible credibility.

Dudes, you guys are looking pretty pathetic right now. So please, stop.

First, I find it laughable that reviews are selectively used. What, they are only valid when you agree?

Second, read the text of the review itself. Every system's numbers are different. Consider the merits of what they say on specifics and stop getting hung up on numbers.

Finally, y'all look like jerks. I don't like all review systems. I don't like all review sites. I don't agree with all reviewers. I don't always have the same tastes or gaming criteria. But this doesn't invalidate their *critical opinion*.

Sure, review systems have flaws. All do to various degrees. And we have seen, at times, reviewers and/or sites have suspects methodologies (e.g. reviewing a game's MP and SP aspects separately; a system where a game can get a lower score in a genre from a reviewer but win GotY in the genre from the company; etc...) I am not argueing that these companies are perfect.

But you guys are all coming across like, "I want this game XYZ... ABC gave it a bad review... I find issue with this element of one of ABC's reviews... therefor ABC lacks all credibility... hence game XYZ rules!" Spilled milk and sour grapes and all.

I am not argueing that sites don't drop the ball at times. That is why a) you should read the text and b) Gamerankings gives you a nice summation of general consensus to see the oddball reviews.

But come on, when more than one major/reliable review site arrives at the same conclusion, to run around saying, "They have no credibility" (and because of Oblivion? A universally praised game?!) makes people look like totally...

Totally childish guys (and I am not just talking about psorcerer). And it doesn't even matter -- you can enjoy the game even if it gets "good, but not great or outstanding" average reviews. If the game's flaws don't both you -- all games have flaws, if they matter is subjective many times -- go an enjoy it. Some reviewers, flaws and all, really dig the game.

So stop whining and go have fun. And stop this fan*** junk of, "Everyone is against us! It is a conspiracy! The reviewers are biased against us for alterior motives! They have no credibility, only read the reviews I agree with!"

Now back to talking about HS's great graphics and stellar production values...

 

[psorcerer]

First, I find it laughable that reviews are selectively used. What, they are only valid when you agree?

It depends on audience, I think I was in the Eurogamer one.

Finally, y'all look like jerks. I don't like all review systems. I don't like all review sites. I don't agree with all reviewers. I don't always have the same tastes or gaming criteria. But this doesn't invalidate their *critical opinion*.

It clearly does, because not everybody can have this opinion.

But you guys are all coming across like, "I want this game XYZ... ABC gave it a bad review... I find issue with this element of one of ABC's reviews... therefor ABC lacks all credibility... hence game XYZ rules!" Spilled milk and sour grapes and all.

The whole review system is there to give the intended audience the review that they'd like to read. That's the case for any mass media outlet out there.

But come on, when more than one major/reliable review site arrives at the same conclusion, to run around saying, "They have no credibility" (and because of Oblivion? A universally praised game?!) makes people look like totally...

People are social beings so they like to find other people who think alike, then these other people make unusual statements it's disturbing.

So stop whining and go have fun. And stop this fan*** junk of, "Everyone is against us! It is a conspiracy! The reviewers are biased against us for alterior motives! They have no credibility, only read the reviews I agree with!"

For some reason you give good arguments but can not go one step further: review is there not to give some universal truth about a game (because there is no such truth, as you stated), reviews are about: "make people who read us happy", and I'm not so happy with these reviews.