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

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

Maybe but at least in this case this game is a HUGE step up from the old 3d castlevania games.

[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.

Espada12

Maybe but at least in this case this game is a HUGE step up from the old 3d castlevania games.

I agree completely. The production value is like that of a top shelf exclusive. Also, if anyone has played the demo, the combat is NOT exactly like GOW. The move-sets are entirely different and there are over 40 combos to unlock during the game. It definitely has it's own feel about it, despite some similarities to GOW. I prefer rolling with L2 and the left analog stick as well. At any rate, Castlevania is in part about whip cracking gameplay-wise, what is the gameplay supposed to look like in a 3D game?

As far as Lament of Innocence goes, the game just felt bland and completely uninspired to me. Way too repetitive, too many respawning enemies every time you went back into a room you just cleared, etc. I never even finished the game because I hated it so much. I may give Curse of Darkness a try one day, though. I am willing to give it a go.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Igarashi's 2008 TGS project that features AlucardWanderer5

Here the teaser that was shown.

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

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

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/

ironcreed

i havent played castlevania yet, so im not going to judge it until i play it, but the last paragraph kinda destorys it for me. If its doing the same approach as darksiders it really isnt worth it.

What makes darksiders worth playing? Dose it have something special that you will only get there?

It might be a fun game for some, but i dont see why i would want to play a lower quality version of a title i allready have.

This is just me of course, but i play games for the feeling, i dont play them to simply kill time.

So why would i choose a bad clone when i can get something better with its own identity.

Darksiders steals to much without giving anything back to the player.

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?

Frozzik

Couldn't say better.

On topic, GS review hardly complained about what it isn't, since Giancarlo heavily criticized the adventure elements and some frustrating puzzles, now, that's not about older Castlevanias, that's about game mechanics bad implemented, so yeah, not agree with that GB article, i think the reviewer justified well enough this "low" score.

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

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/

Half-Way

i havent played castlevania yet, so im not going to judge it until i play it, but the last paragraph kinda destorys it for me. If its doing the same approach as darksiders it really isnt worth it.

What makes darksiders worth playing? Dose it have something special that you will only get there?

It might be a fun game for some, but i dont see why i would want to play a lower quality version of a title i allready have.

This is just me of course, but i play games for the feeling, i dont play them to simply kill time.

So why would i choose a bad clone when i can get something better with its own identity.

Darksiders steals to much without giving anything back to the player.

That is all a matter of perspective, of course. Some (like myself) will love the variety, as it tends to keep things fresh. Others will view it as a mish-mash of various gameplay formulas that strips the game of an identity of it's own. This actually is a perfect illustration of why think this is going to be such a polarizing game.

So Giantbomb reviews reviews now. Anyway, I guess I agree to an extent, you should talk about what's there not what isn't. rolo107

It is not written by a Giantbomb writer. It is just a posting on Giantbomb that I think brings up some interesting points and figured it would make a good discussion. I actually thought it was an article at first, myself.

Castlevania: LOS did not meet the hype on GS, don't take it too seriously though. GS scores only matter here in SW for ownage, nothing more.Im_single

Indeed, it is going to be a fun 'flop' for me.:P

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

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/

ironcreed

i havent played castlevania yet, so im not going to judge it until i play it, but the last paragraph kinda destorys it for me. If its doing the same approach as darksiders it really isnt worth it.

What makes darksiders worth playing? Dose it have something special that you will only get there?

It might be a fun game for some, but i dont see why i would want to play a lower quality version of a title i allready have.

This is just me of course, but i play games for the feeling, i dont play them to simply kill time.

So why would i choose a bad clone when i can get something better with its own identity.

Darksiders steals to much without giving anything back to the player.

That is all a matter of perspective, of course. Some (like myself) will love the variety, as it tends to keep things fresh. Others will view it as a mish-mash of various gameplay formulas that strips the game of an identity of it's own. This actually is a perfect illustration of why think this is going to be such a polarizing game.

well there are some clones who actually mange to be really good games on their own, with lots of charm despite the fact that they rip-off a popular title

Okami is the perfect example of this, It took zelda gameplay, but gave it its own feel with the gameplay mechanics and the graphics that went well with the overall feel of the game,

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

[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.

Just don't place so much value in reviewers opinions in the first place and just enjoy the game on a personal level.

The thing that made ign review look poor was the fact ithe saidhe rather be playing a 2d game also the fact that this game has zero in common with CV. Well last time i checked SCV4 was whiping monster from point a-b level by level with some platforming. Which seems like LOS has more in common with that. The reviewer I guess only knew SOTN and games after only existed.

Well they did mention that it does have a crappy frame rate, so that's what it is.

And if what the game is isn't as good as the games it's trying to be like, it should get a lower score.

I dont care what it got its a day one buy for me.