I was just curious... I watched the trailer for Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and see something very similar to some other games available. This game, although I am a big Castlevania fan, kinda looks like or similar in game play to Conan, Dante's Inferno and God of War. But here is the kicker... will it get the same score or rating?

We all know that GS and other ratig systems always will give certain games higher scores than others just based on production companies or good marketing. (GOW 3 got good marks when Dante's didn't. Uncharted got good marks when Tomb Raider doesn't.) How will they judge Castlevania? Which game will they base it on? The story is not new... how can it be? A Belmont will fight Dracula or some other Vampire, we all know this. But we also knew what Kratos was fighting for and Zeus was his enemy. GOW 3 was the third game of the same gameplay in the series... the same thing 3 times, but each with better graphics than the previous. so that means higher scores right? It would have to be because 9.5 was the final score with a game that had the same storyline 3 different times. If the graphics of Castlevania are great... will it also get a 9.5 because of a story that has been repeated over a dozen times?

Conan, Viking and other similar games get really low score because they are compared to GOW. Why? I happen to think Conan and Dante were great games with excellent gameplay.

Here is my point... Every single action game will be compared to GOW3 from now until the end of time. But how can they be better? How is this fair? GOW3 got a 9.5, so the next game has to be a perfect 10.0 to even be considered any good. How is that possible? Can anyone create a perfect action game? Why should any other companies make more games with similar gameplay? They obviously can't be perfect... can they? In order to be fair to each game... we have to look at each game as an individuality. We cannot constantly compare to previous games or we will never be satisfied as gamers. In my opinion, GOW3 wasn't worth such a high score. It was not an original game or story.

What I truely think is that the numbers 8-10 in the rating system themselves are overrated. People will avoid games rated lower than 7 becuase they feel the game isn't worth playing. However, I personally have play some games rated 6 or lower and found them to be very enjoyable. Yeah they weren't "up to par" with other games but did they deserve to be thrown in the gutter by the rating system? Absolutely not!

PLus, did anyon ever read through the entire review? I did with some similar games and found a lot of discrepancies. Some games were reviewd as great fun and lots of fun and worth playing, and got a 8.5. then I saw some games reviewed as: been there done that, old story, good to play until something better comes along, and got a 8.5. Wait... did I miss something? How can both games be reviewed so different but get the exact same score?

Oh well... guess I'm done ranting for a while. Until i see the review and score of Castlevania and start up complaining again. (: