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

[Thunderbrand]

What hypocrites. You guys know you would be singing Jim Sterling's praises if he gave it a positive review. Everyone picks and chooses which reviews are "legitimate," based on whether they agree with them or not. Of course, I admit I also tend to do that, haha...

Bullshit! I appreciate honesty, and I could care less if he, or anyone else reviewed the game negatively. My (and probably many others') gripe with his review is that it was completely unresearched and inaccurate. It seems he only played through the first few chapters and his complaints were totally unwarranted. That's my problem with his review. If he reviewed the entire game and offered an unbiased, constructive, well-researched criticism, then fine. But he didn't.

[thernz]

I agree wholeheartedly, but since when has environment interaction ever been that big with Castlevania? It's kind of par for the course.

I think I would just consider it a general flaw with the series as a whole that needs to be fixed.
Though I personally would link the environment interaction with the platforming and breaking of blocks of the classic titles. I honestly can't think of any other way that you could implement environment interaction in those titles. I thought Simon's Quest was pretty ambitious in its environment interaction too. I think for those reviews, they're probably talking more about the areas where you fight enemies. Empty and flat with nothing in the environment to really alter the battle. You know, like how hallways in the DS Vanias are terrible. It's that type of interaction rather than say not having enough switches, pulleys, or etc.

...Then again, the whole flat arena thing is this horrible trend in all recent action games, and reviews of those probably didn't mention that I guess. Uguu.

[JR]

What hypocrites. You guys know you would be singing Jim Sterling's praises if he gave it a positive review. Everyone picks and chooses which reviews are "legitimate," based on whether they agree with them or not. Of course, I admit I also tend to do that, haha...

Eh, dunno about that. I've avoided Destructoid long before LoS came out, because I've always heard how excessively negative their reviews are, and how they really can't be taken seriously. I've heard "Destructoid" and "trolls" in the same sentence dozens of times.

[Valtiel]

No one's gonna read his review and decide not to buy a game they might be interested in, because they think you have to replay an entire level to collect a missed item. What matters are the things he said about the combat, climbing sections, narrative, unoriginality, camera - everything else in the review.

First, you need to consider this is the guy who gave FFXIII a 4 and rates every Dinasty Warrior game 9+. Should anyone take him seriously when he talks about quality combat or originality?

Then there's the small matter (good god how many times Patrick had to read that in LoS!  ) of the Enslaved situation. Sterling was involved by the Enslaved crew quite deeply, judging from his Twitter reports and the sponsoring of the game and competition. And surprise surprise, his review of Enslaved is enthusiastic, and he bashes Castlevania to the ground. I think you will be hard pressed to find someone who played both Enslaved and Castlevania and preferred Enslaved (it's not a bad game, it just isn't in the same league). However, I guess you could find one, Sterling being one apparently, but then again, how can you criticize Castlevania's level design, or combat, or originality so harshly and then praise Enslaved, whose combat is crap, whose platforming is a gigantic QTE that makes Prince of Cell-Shaded Persia sound challenging and whose narrative is all over the place?

We criticize Sterling not because of the bad score, but because of the bad review. Having a negative opinion is fine, listing stupid reasons for it will get you flamed.

[Kale]

What hypocrites. You guys know you would be singing Jim Sterling's praises if he gave it a positive review. Everyone picks and chooses which reviews are "legitimate," based on whether they agree with them or not. Of course, I admit I also tend to do that, haha...

Well, duh! If we don't agree with them, how would we think their legitimate? Do you think it all depends on who's saying them? Do you think lies are truth if someone you think better of said them?

[RegalX7]

...which are pretty fucking overblown and misleading.

Well, it's strikingly similar to what I said, when I first beat the game: http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php?topic=2855.15

completely unresearched and inaccurate.

As I've already said, the only inaccuracies are small things that don't matter. Can't we discuss what he said about the narrative, for instance, instead?

First, you need to consider this is the guy who gave FFXIII a 4 and rates every Dinasty Warrior game 9+. Should anyone take him seriously when he talks about quality combat or originality?

His Final Fantasy 13 review is what got me to start reading more of his stuff, since it summed up my thoughts on that game perfectly. I've never played a Dynasty Warriors game, so I can't comment on that. Regardless, maybe he just likes Dynasty Warriors games, and you don't?

Well, duh! If we don't agree with them, how would we think their legitimate? Do you think it all depends on who's saying them? Do you think lies are truth if someone you think better of said them?

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying? Is it sarcasm? Forgive me, but it's hard to tell over the internet, ha.

[Kale]

Not sarcasm. I mean that you would think something is legitimate because you believe the same thing. Which is why if Jim said somethign agreeable, they/I/You would agree.

[Valtiel]

1) As I've already said, the only inaccuracies are small things that don't matter. Can't we discuss what he said about the narrative, for instance, instead?

2) His Final Fantasy 13 review is what got me to start reading more of his stuff, since it summed up my thoughts on that game perfectly. I've never played a Dynasty Warriors game, so I can't comment on that. Regardless, maybe he just likes Dynasty Warriors games, and you don't?

1) However inaccuracies in journalism are unacceptable. He's payed to do what he does. He's payed to play games and give educated opinions on them in order to provide informations to the public about the quality and flaws of the game. His inaccuracies show that he didn't understand how the game worked, that he was pretty poor at playing it and that it's quite likely that he didn't even finish it. Once again, his opinion about the game is hampered by his inability to even understand how it worked, and his review isn't accurate, isn't informative and isn't in-dept. If he has the right to criticize MS's work, we have the right to criticize his work as a reviewer, and as a reviewer he's terrible, no matter what scores he awards. Would you listen to a Gran Turismo review from a guy who can't complete bronze licenses? That's more or less Sterling in a nutshell. He's making up facts to back up his guts feelings. We have thousands of GameFAQS posters for that.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but not every opinion is created equal. Sterling's opinions are particularly laughable, because 80% of the time he's trolling himself about not having understood the games he's playing.

2) Once again, everyone has the right to an opinion, but rating FFXIII (which is one of the FF games I least enjoyed, mind you) is beyond redicolous. You're free to have an opinion, but you can't complain if you're judged upon it.
Besides, consistency is the opposite of hypocrisy. You don't know Dinasty Warriors, good. Look it up. It's a saga that is strongly criticized because every game is basically the 1.0x version of the first. Repetitive, lacks innovation, linear, terrible storytelling, etc. but since Sterling LIKES it, those flaws don't matter. Once again, the mark of a shoddy reviewer. Would you listen closely to someone who says that Street Fighter is a terrible game because of the story and then rates Mortal Kombat a 9? Once again, Sterling in a nutshell.

[thernz]

Dynasty Warriors. ; - ;
I bet you guys don't know how to play them properly. BRRRR.

Repetitive, lacks innovation, linear, terrible storytelling, etc

Sounds like LOS. Ha! HMPH.

[RegalX7]

However inaccuracies in journalism are unacceptable. He's payed to do what he does. He's payed to play games and give educated opinions on them in order to provide informations to the public about the quality and flaws of the game. His inaccuracies show that he didn't understand how the game worked, that he was pretty poor at playing it and that it's quite likely that he didn't even finish it. Once again, his opinion about the game is hampered by his inability to even understand how it worked, and his review isn't accurate, isn't informative and isn't in-dept. If he has the right to criticize MS's work, we have the right to criticize his work as a reviewer, and as a reviewer he's terrible, no matter what scores he awards. Would you listen to a Gran Turismo review from a guy who can't complete bronze licenses? That's more or less Sterling in a nutshell. He's making up facts to back up his guts feelings. We have thousands of GameFAQS posters for that.

It's a review - he's supposed to give his opinion through his experience with the game... Isn't he?

Once again, everyone has the right to an opinion, but rating FFXIII (which is one of the FF games I least enjoyed, mind you) is beyond redicolous.

I don't get this part at all. I apologize if this sounds kinda smart-ass-y, but - and I know this has been said to death - is it really that hard to comprehend that someone didn't like something you did (or vice versa)? I would have been even harder on FF13 than he was, and I rank my love of FF up there with Castlevania.

I mean that you would think something is legitimate because you believe the same thing. Which is why if Jim said somethign agreeable, they/I/You would agree.

I suppose, but I still try not to do that. Often unsuccessfully, lol. I'd say I'm a bigger hypocrite than any ten people.

[Heuss]

Sterling = Troll 

 

[Valtiel]

It's a review - he's supposed to give his opinion through his experience with the game... Isn't he?

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.

In short, yes, he's supposed to give his opinion, but the quality of his opinion should be of some worth. There's an army of teenagers on GameFaqs more articulate than him and apparently possessing a deeper understanding of videogames.

I'll try to give you an example: I never finished Fallout 3. I hated it. It felt generic, bland, slow, empty, boring and generally terrible to me. One of the worst gaming experience I had in the last few years. As a consequence, I didn't finish it, I didn't bother learning the mechanics and so on.
Would you trust me to review the game? Sure, I have an opinion of the game, but is it an interesting one? A full-fledged one? Do I have anything more interesting than "this game didn't really click with me" to share on the topic?
Pretty much sums up Sterling's review, only that instead of refusing to review the game and letting someone who wanted to give it some attention do it, he went for his usual "let me rave about a game I didn't really bother playing" rant. Unprofessional to say the least - if you want to review a game on a professional site, you should dedicate enough attention to it to understand its mechanics (unless he's actually that stupid or can't read, but I doubt it).


On FFXIII, I bloody hated most of what it did to the franchise. If this is how FF will be in the future, it's as good as dead. As a fan, I consider it the biggest enemy FF has right now.
I can't think of rating it anything less than a 7. Because there's such thing as objectiveness, and while FFXIII isn't what I want, it's undeniable that for someone approaching the game without bias the game has a lot to offer. The production values are through the roof, the amount of content is huge, the combat system is genuinely well thought of, the writing is above the industry's average, the story is above average and so on. It's not what I would have wanted, it's not what FF is (in my opinion) supposed to be about but I cannot label it as a bad game, or else I would have to rate 99% of the current gaming production below 5. I simply didn't like it (for reasons I consider excellent) and I'm mature enough to understand it doesn't mean the game is a "4", and if Sterling had some understanding of what reviewing a product means, he would know it too.

[RegalX7]

I get what you're saying (my favorite game, and what I think is the "best" game, are two different games), but I'm just not evaluating it the same way as you are. I don't know what else to really tell you, other than I disagree with the notion that Lords Of Shadow is somehow "objectively good," and that he should give it a positive review because of that, and not base it more around his own opinion & experience.
Regarding FF13... I'm tired right now, and I don't even know where to begin with this, God... I could not disagree more that it has a good narrative (log books telling you how the characters feel, rather than showing it, is not good story telling), that the battle system is well thought out (consists mostly of Auto-Battle & Paradigm Shift), or that there is a lot of content (complete opposite. It has the nick-name "The Tube," after all. Only one sidequest repeated a million times, as well). Final Fantasy 13 shouldn't get special treatment for having a high production value - if it's designed as one long winding dungeon line with no break, and a story told through Wiki entries, that's bad game design.

[Ahasverus]

I think we pretty much can take as granted that Lords of Shadow is a good game at its very least (and godly epic at its rare but existing finest moments). It has it's share of bad decisions/budget constrains/just meh/ aspects but the game is more than the sum of its parts, it's a rounded package as few this generation and it's at its least an enjoyable experience. Saying it's not it's because you (not talking to someone here):

- Don't like the genre at ALL (Just as I hate FPS so much, however as much as I disliked them I can't say they are bad, I know there are great games in he genre, I just can't stand anything from that genre)

- Have some kind of pre-concieved hate for it (hardcore IGAvania, hardcore GOWfan that doesn't stand competition, hardcore oldschoool fan that needs CV 3D only hardcore linearity-hater as lotds of gamers ths gen that think all games should be GTA, or the simplest, just hater of some kind). These people are different to trolls because they are not guilty of trying to sabotage the game or things like that, just reject it because some preconceived notions but pass on the page. They simply don't like it and they can¡t see anything good on it however they accept it's completely personal and don't iterfere with others. They are differents to..

- Are a TROLL (Prime example: Jim Sterling): They know this game is good, they kinda like it (I bet they do) or haven't play it, just want to bash it, nitpick little (sometimes fake) minor gripes so dramatically they seem to be paid for trashing it (Oh wait, Jim Sterling has been paid for Enslaved Ads on his website...). Their main objective is to make people restraint of buying this game, They know it DOESN'T deserve to fail, but they would love seeing it doing so and will try their best to get that objective done.

[Heuss]

I get what you're saying (my favorite game, and what I think is the "best" game, are two different games), but I'm just not evaluating it the same way as you are. I don't know what else to really tell you, other than I disagree with the notion that Lords Of Shadow is somehow "objectively good," and that he should give it a positive review because of that, and not base it more around his own opinion & experience.

I don't like "Gone with the Wind", it's a slow movie and boring: 01/10

It's my opinion