Picked this up today along with Dead Space, before seeing any reviews. Came home and saw that IGN game it a 3.2...

After playing for a couple of hours, I've come to the conclusion that it's NOT a 3.2. It isn't "great", but it isn't that bad either. Everything about it, from the level design to the story to the animations, character models, sound effects and cutscenes are mediocre, but it's playable. 3.2, to me, sounds like a broken game, and as far as I've played there's nothing broken about it. That reviewer must have been having a really f'd up day.

Mediocre and unremarkable as a whole? Yes. Terrible? No. I want to continue playing, so that's saying something at least. I gave up on both Dark Kingdom and Genji after about 15 minutes, so I'd say this game is better than both of those, though that may not be saying much. I finished Conan and enjoyed it for what it was, but I don't see how it was so much better than this game. Maybe I'm not being as hard on its flaws as I should be, but I really think this reviewer is blowing them out of proportion.

Make no mistake, I'm not recommending this game at $60, but if you're a hack and slash fiend, like me, and if you go in not expecting much, you may get a kick out of it. Give it a rent or wait until it hits the bargain bins(shouldn't take long). I'm disappointed that we couldn't get a better game with the Golden Axe name, but what can you do.