Interesting take on IGN and Gamespot's reviews for Castlevania: LoS

I thought this was rather interesting. I found this posted over on Giant Bomb and I think it definitely causes pause for thought when considering what is supposed to be a professional review.

"Reviewing a Game for what it isn't rather than what it is"

"So the reviews for Castlevania: Lords of Shadow are starting to come in. The two I've read from the main online outlets (IGN and Gamespot) are both ironically the same in tone and score. They rail against the fact that it's devoid of the identity the franchise has, and that it offers nothing fans of the series are expecting from a Castlevania game. One even goes so far as stating that aside from werewolves, vampires, ghosts and a spooky atmosphere, it has nothing to do with Castlevania. Then what, may I ask is left of Castlevania if you don't include those? Isn't the series all about those things? One review goes on and says that it has much more in common with God of War than Castlevania. Isn't Castlevania about traversing huge environments while using your whip to occasionally swing from place to place, then fighting an unending legion of enemies, getting new weapons and abilities, gaining health and magic from destroyed objects, and fighting the occasional boss? That sounds like God of War to me. So basically because it's not 2D it's not Castlevania.

We all would love a new 2D Castlevania done in the same fashion as Shadow Complex and BC: Rearmed, but hating on a game that isn't it "just because" isn't very professional, or fair to the game. Leave your bias out of the review and stick to what you like and dislike about the game. Feel free to blog or tweet or whatever about how you don't think it's a "real" Castlevania game.

This game reminds me of Darksiders, a game that borrowed aspects of other successful series and combined them into a fun game with it's own identity. I just hope that people can look past the desire for a 2D game and accept it as the return of Castlevania as a modern action adventure game on current consoles."

Link to the article:

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/duketogo/reviewing-a-game-for-what-it-isnt-rather-than-what-it-is/30-66171/

+1 well said.

I never pay attention to review scores anyway :P Just the pros and cons.

I think people just need to accept it when this crap happens. A game scores low, so what, if you love the game for what it is who cares?

Although I agree a game should be reviewed for what it is and not for what someone thinks it should be I don't agree with Giantbomb saying that Castlevania is only about monsters and exploring large environments. The 2D platforming style IS what made Castlevania what it is along with all those things. The gameplay is probably the most important aspect of a game's identity.kuraimen

Point taken, but what he is getting at here is that this game was never intended to be like the 2D games. It is a reboot and is supposed to represent a new direction for the series, even though the 2D games are still not going anywhere. IGN in particular docked the game simply because the reviewer would rather play another 2D Castlevania, even though the whole point behind this game is a new direction. Therefore, it should be graded for what it is... not what it isn't or what you would prefer instead. It's called objectivity.

DukeTogo does not write for Giant Bomb. :|

Wait, who the hell is DukeTogo?

edit:

beaten

Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.Thunderdrone

Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.Thunderdrone

Except he brings up some rather valid points. Read the IGN review and tell me if you see any objectivity there at all. It is basically the guy docking the game because he would rather play a 2D Castlevania, when this is supposed to be a reboot. In essence, he reviewed the game based on his own personal preferences instead of reviewing the game for what it is. Hardly how you are supposed to professionally review a game, or anything for that matter.

They're opinions. And when did 7.5 become bad scores? Both IGN and Gamespot liked the game or they would not have given the game a good score.

I agree with him, is he a professional reviewer though? never heard of him.

so thats just someones blog then

I agree with him, is he a professional review though? never heard of him.FIipMode

DukeTogo does not write for Giant Bomb. :|

Cherokee_Jack

Ah, I just saw this posted over there and took it for granted that he did. My bad, but the point still stands.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Although I agree a game should be reviewed for what it is and not for what someone thinks it should be I don't agree with Giantbomb saying that Castlevania is only about monsters and exploring large environments. The 2D platforming style IS what made Castlevania what it is along with all those things. The gameplay is probably the most important aspect of a game's identity.ironcreed

Point taken, but what he is getting at here is that this game was never intended to be like the 2D games. It is a reboot and is supposed to represent a new direction for the series, even though the 2D games are still not going anywhere. IGN in particular docked the game simply because the reviewer would rather play another 2D Castlevania, even though the whole point behind this game is a new direction. Therefore, it should be graded for what it is... not what it isn't or what you would prefer instead. It's called objectivity.

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"]Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.ironcreed

Except he brings up some rather valid points. Read the IGN review and tell me if you see any objectivity there at all. It is basically the guy docking the game because he would rather play a 2D Castlevania, when this is supposed to be a reboot. In essence, he reviewed the game based on his own personal preferences instead of reviewing the game for what it is. Hardly how you are supposed to professionally review a game, or anything for that matter.

This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened, especially here on GS. It deffinately won't be the last. I bet there are many who totally agree with both GS and IGN and just as many that don't. That is the nature of reviews. Hell, GS have made some mighty blunders imo with reviews in the past. You just have to accept it im afraid.

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"]Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.mutenpika

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"]Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.ironcreed

Except he brings up some rather valid points. Read the IGN review and tell me if you see any objectivity there at all. It is basically the guy docking the game because he would rather play a 2D Castlevania, when this is supposed to be a reboot. In essence, he reviewed the game based on his own personal preferences instead of reviewing the game for what it is. Hardly how you are supposed to professionally review a game, or anything for that matter.

My apologies for mistaking this for a Giant Bomb article. I saw it linked over on GameFaqs and took it for granted at first glance. However, the point still stands and is a worthy argument.

Just look at fan reaction to Metroid: Other M and the new "DmC" portrayal. Many people value the established things they've come to expect from games they've played. Sometimes, they don't just want a new game in old skin, they want an old game, made like a new game (i.e. with the same conventions, just with more polished gameplay ideas that aren't stuck in the past). I think that sacrificing particular staples in order to bring in a new crowd is dishonoring the fans that have supported you so far. Especially when they've been doing it for more than a few iterations.

DukeTogo does not work for Giant Bomb. :|Cherokee_Jack

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"]Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.Thunderdrone

Except he brings up some rather valid points. Read the IGN review and tell me if you see any objectivity there at all. It is basically the guy docking the game because he would rather play a 2D Castlevania, when this is supposed to be a reboot. In essence, he reviewed the game based on his own personal preferences instead of reviewing the game for what it is. Hardly how you are supposed to professionally review a game, or anything for that matter.

Actually, I am not clinging to anything, I just thought he brought up an interesting point. Especially in reference to the IGN review, which did not contain an ounce of objectivity in it. I could care less about the score, as 7.5 is indeed 'good' in my book. I just hate to see this game being rated for what it isn't rather than what it is. That's all.

Just look at fan reaction to Metroid: Other M and the new "DmC" portrayal. Many people value the established things they've come to expect from games they've played. Sometimes, they don't just want a new game in old skin, they want an old game, made like a new game (i.e. with the same conventions, just with more polished gameplay ideas that aren't stuck in the past). I think that sacrificing particular staples in order to bring in a new crowd is dishonoring the fans that have supported you so far. Especially when they've been doing it for more than a few iterations.

foxhound_fox

That's the thing, though. The 2D games are not going anywhere. This is just a way to try and make the series modern as well. It was intended as a reboot, therefore, it should not be docked because it is not like the old games. That is not fair to the good qualities of the game itself.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

Just look at fan reaction to Metroid: Other M and the new "DmC" portrayal. Many people value the established things they've come to expect from games they've played. Sometimes, they don't just want a new game in old skin, they want an old game, made like a new game (i.e. with the same conventions, just with more polished gameplay ideas that aren't stuck in the past). I think that sacrificing particular staples in order to bring in a new crowd is dishonoring the fans that have supported you so far. Especially when they've been doing it for more than a few iterations.

ironcreed

That's the thing, though. The 2D games are not going anywhere. This is just a way to try and make the series modern as well. It was intended as a reboot, therefore, it should not be docked because it is not like the old games. That is not fair to the good qualities of the game itself.

Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.Thunderdrone

From what little I've played of previous Castlevania games, exploration seems to be a big thing that's absent in this one.

I liked Kane and Lynch, reviewers didnt. See if I care baby.

Actually, I am not clinging to anything, I just thought he brought up an interesting point. Especially in reference to the IGN review, which did not contain an ounce of objectivity in it. I could care less about the score, as 7.5 is indeed 'good' in my book. I just hate to see this game being rated for what it isn't rather than what it is. That's all.

ironcreed

Yeah i understand that. But they do have a point.

I've been very interested in this game. Even made a couple of threads about it myself, but right from the start i said that it didnt feel like CV. The art and monster designs were all over the place. It looked like Lord of the Rings on steroids with vampires. The creatures, the colours and enviroments were pretty but didnt quite fit the vampire mythos the IP is known for.

Regardless, it does look like a good game and i'm still getting it down the road. I'm just kinda disapointed that it copied a formula i'm personally getting tired of, the GoW one.

[QUOTE="FIipMode"]I agree with him, is he a professional review though? never heard of him.Cherokee_Jack

lol im reminded of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA7GK-48sR8

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"]Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.donalbane

Well said, sir.

On a side note. I edited the title and original post to reflect what this is. This was not written by a writer for Giant Bomb. I mistook that upon first glance, but it is the point which matters here. I happen to agree with this, Duke Togo... whoever he is, lol.

Just look at fan reaction to Metroid: Other M and the new "DmC" portrayal. Many people value the established things they've come to expect from games they've played. Sometimes, they don't just want a new game in old skin, they want an old game, made like a new game (i.e. with the same conventions, just with more polished gameplay ideas that aren't stuck in the past). I think that sacrificing particular staples in order to bring in a new crowd is dishonoring the fans that have supported you so far. Especially when they've been doing it for more than a few iterations.

foxhound_fox

Yeah i understand that. But they do have a point.

I've been very interested in this game. Even made a couple of threads about it myself, but right from the start i said that it didnt feel like CV. The art and monster designs were all over the place. It looked like Lord of the Rings on steroids with vampires. The creatures, the colours and enviroments were pretty but didnt quite fit the vampire mythos the IP is known for.

Regardless, it does look like a good game and i'm still getting it down the road. I'm just kinda disapointed that it copied a formula i'm personally getting tired of, the GoW one.

Thunderdrone

I can appreciate and respect where you are coming from. I think this is clearly boiling down to being one of those polarizing, love it/hate it sort of games that received generally great reviews for the most part. My only point here is that I would just like to see a bit more objectivity in reviews and personally think that the IGN review in particular is the perfect example of how not to review a game.

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="Thunderdrone"]Reviewers reviewing reviewers. We just reached a whole new level of stupidity here, guys.ironcreed

Well said, sir.

On a side note. I edited the title and original post to reflect what this is. This was not written by a writer for Giant Bomb. I mistook that upon first glance, but it is the point which matters here. I happen to agree with this, Duke Togo... whoever he is, lol.

GS are notorious for using different standards. One game is said to be an amazin experience because of the story even though it has little gameplay, another is slammed for having too much story and not enough gameplay etc. This is what gamespot has always done. They will continue to do it but it only bothers the people that like that particular game, too kme a while to realise it doesn't matter.

A blog reviewing a reviewers review. Wow :lol:Sp4rtan_3

LOL, yeah, I know. I saw it posted on GameFaqs and mistook it for an article at first glance. The point still stands, though, and that is what matters here.

People should stop crying over this. So the re-make of your beloved franchise doesn't appeal to everyone....so what? That's not going to stop you from enjoying it. Also, I can completely understand where GS and IGN are coming from- it's not like they pulled criticisms out of a hat. When I've been looking at the game, I have failed to notice it develop it's own unique identity whilst it takes the best bits from other games. It has no real focus- what does it want to be? Is it a titan fighting sim, is it an adventure game, is it a hack and slash? It just seems like it wants to be everything rather than it's own creation. Does that make it a bad game? No. Does it justify why it receives a range of scores? Yes.

That's the thing, though. The 2D games are not going anywhere. This is just a way to try and make the series modern as well. It was intended as a reboot, therefore, it should not be docked because it is not like the old games. That is not fair to the good qualities of the game itself.

ironcreed

People should stop crying over this. So the re-make of your beloved franchise doesn't appeal to anyone....so what? That's not going to stop you from enjoying it. Also, I can completely understand where GS and IGN are coming from- it's not like they pulled criticisms out of a hat. When I've been looking at the game, I have failed to notice it develop it's own unique identity whilst it takes the best bits from other games. It has no real focus- what does it want to be? Is it a titan fighting sim, is it an adventure game, is it a hack and slash? It just seems like it wants to be everything rather than it's own creation. Does that make it a bad game? No. Does it justify why it receives a range of scores? Yes. HellsAngel2c

Your right, it is not going to stop me from enjoying it. I just find the IGN review in particular to be rather questionable because it was mainly reviewed for what it isn't and for not being what the 'professional' reviewer would prefer. Reviews are just opinions, yes. But, they are supposed to be objective, and the IGN review was anything but that, in my opinion.

Regardless, it is what it is. I just thought this was an interesting point worth bringing up. I am not the only one in the gaming community who feels like this game is being weighed for what it isn't instead of for what it is. Yes, it uses time-proven gameplay formulas from other games, but it does so successfully. Does it have to reinvent the wheel just to be a good game? Why can't it have more than one type of gameplay formula? Hell, I think variety is a good thing. Keeps me from getting bored, but that is just me.

Igarashi's 2008 TGS project that features Alucardfoxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Igarashi's 2008 TGS project that features AlucardWilliamRLBaker

Here the teaser that was shown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3u3oFjjiFo

Think that it through. Not sure if there other info.

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

That's the thing, though. The 2D games are not going anywhere. This is just a way to try and make the series modern as well. It was intended as a reboot, therefore, it should not be docked because it is not like the old games. That is not fair to the good qualities of the game itself.

foxhound_fox

I played Lament of Innocence, but could not stand it, to be honest. I never played Curse of Darkness because of the bad taste that Lament left in my mouth, but I may pick it up one day to check it out.

Anyway, why can't this game co-exist with the original formula? The 2D games are not going anywhere. I realize we are on opposite sides of the fence on this, but I firmly believe that this series had grown so stale that a reboot and new direction was completely necessary. I respect the purists, but I happen to embrace the changes this game brings.

Beautiful and varied environments instead of being stuck in a castle, a new dark and epic tale that feels fresh, gorgeous visuals, great soundtrack, superb voice acting from the likes of Sir Patrick Stewart, among others, time-proven gameplay formulas that work well, etc. It is just a top notch production all around and deserves to be graded for the things that it does right, not docked because it is not like the old games. Because it was never intended to be like the old games to begin with.

The fact that it is the 'new' Castlevania is clearly going to be either good or bad, depending upon your perspective. As I said earlier, this is going to be a very polarizing game and it is understandable why. Some people don't want things to change, while others are more open and embrace change. As for myself, I was excited for this game since they first announced it, before we even knew that it was going to be the 'new' Castlevania. The game itself is what appeals to me, but I am not about to completely disregard it merely for being a new direction for Castlevania. I personally think it fits the bill, despite the fact that it is not old canon.