Topic: I knew it! Castlevania: Lords of Shadow!(SPOILERS HERE, PLZ USE THE SPOILER TAG)

[Valtiel]

No, it obviously means they are purposely trying to attract attention and hits by publishing negative reviews. And the positive reviews(like the 9/10 for Enslaved) were obviously paid off from advertisements.

Obviously.

Having played Enslaved (and heck, I don't hate it) I think I would need quite a lot of effort to justify a 4 point difference between the two titles. Enslaved has an arms long list of issues, and I think I would have an hard time rating it anything more than "a terrible game with revolutionary production values".

I don't know if you played both, but making this short, Enslaved lasts 1/3 of LoS, has sensibly worse graphics, an absolutely bland combat system, buggy vehicle sections, on-rails platforming that doesn't allow you to fail (literally), much worse FPS issues than LoS, huge texture loading issues (thanks to the U3 engine), an atrocious lack of variety and a much more forgettable music score. It has Andy Serkis at the helm of the direction and voice acting, and that means the quality of those departments is amazing, and it does something with storytelling that feels fresh in the medium, and sort of redeems a story that falls apart in the last chapters. I consider it a game worth playing for these factors alone, but it's nowhere close to LoS in terms of "objective" gaming elements (challenge, combat system, performance stability, length, replay value etc); rating it a 9 when you rate LoS a 5 is pure hypocrisy.

[Munchy]

Having played Enslaved (and heck, I don't hate it) I think I would need quite a lot of effort to justify a 4 point difference between the two titles. Enslaved has an arms long list of issues, and I think I would have an hard time rating it anything more than "a terrible game with revolutionary production values".

I don't know if you played both, but making this short, Enslaved lasts 1/3 of LoS, has sensibly worse graphics, an absolutely bland combat system, buggy vehicle sections, on-rails platforming that doesn't allow you to fail (literally), much worse FPS issues than LoS, huge texture loading issues (thanks to the U3 engine), an atrocious lack of variety and a much more forgettable music score. It has Andy Serkis at the helm of the direction and voice acting, and that means the quality of those departments is amazing, and it does something with storytelling that feels fresh in the medium, and sort of redeems a story that falls apart in the last chapters. I consider it a game worth playing for these factors alone, but it's nowhere close to LoS in terms of "objective" gaming elements (challenge, combat system, performance stability, length, replay value etc); rating it a 9 when you rate LoS a 5 is pure hypocrisy.

Really? Well gee, now I feel even less bad about boycotting the new Devil May Cry!

[Valtiel]

Really? Well gee, now I feel even less bad about boycotting the new Devil May Cry!

In a way I really like Ninja Theory. They started with Heavenly Sword (again with Serkis) and they've been pushing the industry forward by trying to put actual quality in the storytelling and direction of their games. Rest assured, their DmC will be the best DmC yet (with the possible exception of 3, if they don't dare enough) in terms of story, cutscenes and storytelling. Their games are pretty much fantastic... until you actually get to play.

They're not a bad studio, actually they're rather unique and offer something few other studios can match, but they're a TERRIBLE choice for DmC. DMC is all about the gameplay, and all evidence is that Ninja Theory can't deliver that.

[Kale]

In a way I really like Ninja Theory. They started with Heavenly Sword (again with Serkis) and they've been pushing the industry forward by trying to put actual quality in the storytelling and direction of their games. Rest assured, their DmC will be the best DmC yet (with the possible exception of 3, if they don't dare enough) in terms of story, cutscenes and storytelling. Their games are pretty much fantastic... until you actually get to play.

They're not a bad studio, actually they're rather unique and offer something few other studios can match, but they're a TERRIBLE choice for DmC. DMC is all about the gameplay, and all evidence is that Ninja Theory can't deliver that.

Quality in story telling? >.> LoK has got them beat. Those games can thrive purely on story.

[Valtiel]

Quality in story telling? >.> LoK has got them beat. Those games can thrive purely on story.

Yes and no. LoK works because it's one of the most awesome stories videogames told yet, but in terms of technical values NT has no rivals.

[SomaCruz90]

The fact that it is. Or rather, that I can give you an argument for it being good and it's sound and makes sense. Is it responsive? It's complex? It's balanced? It remains fresh through the game? All these factors don't depend on opinion. You're still free to dislike the game, but it's good.

Just because a combat system "works" doesn't make it any good. Yes, you press the buttons and moves come out.

Or look at the graphics. Where others are wetting themselves over how amazing LoS looks, the game has abysmal image quality, jagged edges and nasty, noisy look that undermines all its art direction consistently, with a craptacular framerate to boot. Now, if I all point out all these facts(because they are, indeed, facts), does that make the graphics NOT good?

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

I don't think the jaggies are nearly as bad or as nasty as you are portraying them.  They are more opinionated than factual.

The framerate isn't 60, and it isn't locked, so it's constantly dropping between 30 and 60, with some spots clearly showing as such.  We have a track video showing that it's always at or above 29.7 or so (standard film).  That's a fact.

'craptacular' is an opinion.

[SomaCruz90]

Whether you choose to ignore things like the jaggies, the oddly compressed BINK videos, the uneven framerate, the constantly varying in quality textures(particularly the foliage, branches, etc which looks like 1 bit alpha mapping), that's your own preference or opinion. But the problems ARE there.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Perphaps, but that's not what you said.
You see, there's a difference between what you just said, and the opinions you posted earlier.

If you were a reviewer, the last post you put up would be factual and at least somewhat objective, while the post prior to that one isn't.  There's a difference between pointing out things which people would consider problems as you just have, and outright telling people they are abysmally bad and break the game (hint: they don't).

No one has mentioned the problems with the FMVs  but you, and as far as I know, no one's complained about them until you and until now.  How is this a problem, again?

Oh and I will need pics of the jaggies, if you're going to pick on that.

[Joachim]

He's a professional; he's supposed to write a review that isn't just him babbling about his preferences but giving an analysis of the game and THEN his opinion on it. At the very least, he shouldn't lie, he shouldn't spread misinformation, he should be expected to be an experienced gamer that understands mechanics and so on. Reading his review feels like reading a review of a dude trashing Ran because he thinks it's a rip-off of King Lear.

What inaccuracies were there? I saw none. The only things that strike me as potential inaccuracies are his references to confusing context sensitive performing the wrong actions, and there was another instance similar to that. But everything else seems fairly accurate, unfortunately; Stewarts horridly written narratives, the generic score, the uninteresting puzzles bordering on tedium, et cetera.

If you want to allude to specific things, its usually good to specify them!

[SomaCruz90]

No one has mentioned the problems with the FMVs  but you, and as far as I know, no one's complained about them until you and until now.  How is this a problem, again?

Oh and I will need pics of the jaggies, if you're going to pick on that.

Again, if your personal bias is to see pass these graphical problems, thats your own thing. I'm willing to bet a large portion of the Castlevania fanbase will do so. And just because everyone else choose to ignore the flaws in the compressed video doesn't mean it isn't there. I see it. Several members of Neo-Gaf's Lords of Shadow thread see it. One of my friends on my AIM friends list see it. It really doesn't matter how many people see it though, this isn't a popularity contest.

And if you really don't see any of the jaggies in Lords of Shadow, more power to you.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Just show them to us, is all I'm saying.

I'm not an apologist for the game.  It's not my ideal Castlevania game, nor do I claim the game to be perfection, but I will say that the 'problems' you're bringing up are not nearly as big as you're making them out to be.  There are far worse games out there, and it just seems like pointless nitpicking of things.  Unless there's something in the game that looks like it came out of the N64 era and was so obvious that many many people are seeing it, then I'm pretty sure it's a minor thing.  What is it, a column you didn't like on a building?  A tree that looked a bit too brown and didn't have enough texture?  Does one or a few of these really irk you so much as to make the game be seem like a graphical mess to you?

As I said, it's not  a perfect game, but graphically, it's not nearly as bad as it is described.

[SomaCruz90]

All I'm saying is going back to the original point of the argument, that Lords of Shadow(or any video game, for that matter) is not factually "good".

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

LOL but isn't 'good' subjective?

The faults you're presenting are so small in comparison to all the good things the game's got going for it, that it's difficult to really give them so much weight as to break the game (make it 'not good').

Usually it's a consensus of people, over a period of time, who can really give a game a score that is fair.  One random person who says "oh it's got jaggies here and there and some textures are blah blah OMG THE GAME IS NOT GOOD" will just come out foolish, as the game has many many other aspects that get rated.

[SomaCruz90]

The faults you're presenting are so small in comparison to all the good things the game's got going for it, that it's difficult to really give them so much weight as to break the game (make it 'not good').

There's that word again: "good" things. What you may find good, others might not.

And I know I'm not alone about my complaints about Lords of Shadow, I'm not just the guy who wants to be outside the majority opinion or whatever. People complain about things that I agree with, people complain about things I don't agree with. Its up to you, as a player, to decide whether you enjoy it or not, and not if something is inherently "good".