Topic: Game Informer Reviews DXC

[Death]

They should've got someone who doesn't suck review the game. The guy's probably never played anything before SOTN. If he did then he'd know what to expect from an old school Castlevania. This game's gonna ROCK! Screw what any reviewer's have to say.

[le052383]

Unforunately, this seems common in magazines where they get a reviewer who is bias review a genre he/she doesn't ever like or is unfamilar with.

I recall a reviewer for computer gaming gave the pc port of Grandia 2 a 2 out of 10 just because one couldn't create their own character, add stat points, and roll dice-basically stuff that western pc rpg games has.

I seen the opposite occured when someone in EGM? reviewed on the ps2 gta games.  You can tell the person was a fanboy since he said the graphics for the first GTA ps2 game were the best the ps2 had to offer.  I mean, this was when FF10 just came out.  Not to offend anyone, but the GTA games (never played GTA sa for the ps2, so I cannot say) for the ps2 had grainy polygon graphics that can be compared to a good ps 1 game  I can understand why the graphics weren't as good in GTA- I am sure the graphics were sacrificed for the large maps in the game.  However, the graphics weren't 9s and 10s at the time the game was released.

I find it funny how the game informer guy gave DXC a low score.  I mean, when DX was new, magazines were giving it a high score and was disappointed it never came out in the US.  Also, I remember another official review on another site for another CV game was disappointed in how the CV are no longer hard like they were in the past.

[Ed Oscuro]

In Reply To #1

"Looks quite nice on the PSP's sharp display" right next to a horrid screenshot of green shapes vaguely reminiscent of a first-gen polygon hardware game. What's with that first shot anyway?

That said, the reviewer should prove to be pretty much spot-on. 7/10 isn't too harsh, but people need to open their eyes a bit - "classic" doesn't mean "best" in all cases.

[shelverton.]

Why is everyone complaining about this review?
Since when is 7/10 a low score?

I prefer reviews that don't have scores at all, because it seems some people are too stupid to even read the text it comes with. If you read it you'll see why he isn't blown away by the game, and the reasons should make just about any CV fan crap their pants with joy and anticipation. A CV that is challenging!

[Kamirine]

Why is everyone complaining about this review?
Since when is 7/10 a low score?

I prefer reviews that don't have scores at all, because it seems some people are too stupid to even read the text it comes with. If you read it you'll see why he isn't blown away by the game, and the reasons should make just about any CV fan crap their pants with joy and anticipation. A CV that is challenging!

I think that's exactly why people are complaining about the review: because of the content = the score.  I never believed a game should get a lower score because it's hard--and I'm actually excited that Rondo is exactly as hard as the original was (Shaft's Ghost still = frustration...at least for me).  Yet apparently if a game is easier or even too easy, it still gets a high score.  Too hard = low score, too easy = high score.  And I never believed Rondo was THAT hard to begin with. (Just stupid Shaft.  And his ghost...)

And since all he complained about was the game essentially being 'too hard' and Ritcher walking 'too slow'...that actually should earn a seven? And for some reason, even though in most games they do, he didn't even try to count the extra content (Dawn comes to mind quicklky cause I remember them raving about Julius mode...). 

If the game deserved a seven, then fine, it does (not to me, somewhere in the 8's would do it justice for me) but give a better reason other than "Omg, I can't play old school games because they're like, too hard!".  It's sad to think that's what we've come done to: a generation where the games are so easy that old school Castlevania is considered (from the way he made it sound) Ninja Gaiden hard. (Arguable, some of them might be...)

I agree though: I think he'll give a lot of fans more reason to actually play the game, lmao.

[shelverton.]

If the game deserved a seven, then fine, it does (not to me, somewhere in the 8's would do it justice for me) but give a better reason other than "Omg, I can't play old school games because they're like, too hard!".

Well, yeah.. But at the same time, it's his personal opinion. His "noob", inexperienced opinions are important cause there are many gamers out there who discovered Castlevania only recently, and they will most likely be very disappointed and turned off by DXC because of the difficulty. Let's face it, Castlevania is a split personality franchise, and the old scool games are not for everyone. I guess the reasonable thing to do is to have two rewievers give their opinions, one noob and one hardcore gamer. People who loved Dawn of Sorrow may very well end up hating DXC, and vice versa.

I do agree that the review completely ignores all the unlockable extras, which is odd indeed.

[Kamirine]

Well, yeah.. But at the same time, it's his personal opinion. His "noob", inexperienced opinions are important cause there are many gamers out there who discovered Castlevania only recently, and they will most likely be very disappointed and turned off by DXC because of the difficulty. Let's face it, Castlevania is a split personality franchise, and the old scool games are not for everyone. I guess the reasonable thing to do is to have two rewievers give their opinions, one noob and one hardcore gamer. People who loved Dawn of Sorrow may very well end up hating DXC, and vice versa.

I do agree that the review completely ignores all the unlockable extras, which is odd indeed.

Ah, your right.  I sometimes forget that some gamers didn't come into the series until SOTN or way later (like apparently this guy who reviewed it).  A good point is that PSM reviewed the game and gave it a 9.5, but by the way the reviewer sounded, he's been playing long before even Rondo (or at least played Rondo) so he 'understood' I suppose. (That and he counted the extras.)

Meh, I still don't like his review but you made a good point.

[thernz]

Funny little thing. It says that this game is one of his current favorite games that month.

[Azmodan]

The only worrisome thing with the Game Informer review is that DXC was awarded the same score as they gave Curse of Darkness. Now, I like CoD, but many do not, and...I think DXC is better than that.

[Successor The Cruel]

Hmm, well, I thought Rondo was pretty approachable as far as difficulty goes.  It wasn't as hard as Castlevania 1 or 3 for example.  But who knows, maybe this game is more difficult than the original.

[crisis]

In Reply To #24
I traded in my copy of CoD.. but I might buy it again for collection purposes.  :

[A n t r a x x]

ROFL, he bitched about -Rondo- difficulty? Holy Christ... he'd have a heart attack on CV1/CV3.

Yeah, ROB was easy.

What a pussy.

[Profbeanburrito]

Well, on the plus side, EGM (the superior magazine) Gave it two 8.0's and a 9.0 which is great. Sadly, they say the voice acting in SotN still sucks.

I just can't wait to see how they changed the "Die Monster" speech. I loved that, it's been the butt of many jokes

[Azmodan]

In Reply To #28

Interesting. Did they say anything about the arranged Rondo's voice acting?

[Profbeanburrito]

In Reply To #29

No, but I'm sure its the same company of VA's so it's probably similar. Regardless, it'll be amazing