Topic: One word to describe the state of the franchise.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

It seems those three sites I have mentioned only favor mainstream titles (Call of Duty, God of War, ect), and anything else is considered a crappy game.

Many of the castleroids/metroidvanias (the DS ones mostly) are actually ranked pretty highly on those sites and those are far from mainstream titles. If anything I'd say a decent amount of reviewers are sort of enamored with the castleroid formula (judging from the scores I generally see for them) and were thus less enthused with LoS' genre choice and were unwilling to give it a stellar score based on that. But that's probably thinking too much about it as well. Might be a bit too conspiratorial.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I think it's reviewer bias, really. They knew what they personally wanted, and they didn't get it. That creeps into even the best reviews, and sours the score.

They wanted a Castleroid. They didn't get one. Ragereview.

Of course, people will still argue whether or not they even got a Castlevania game, period.

I personally liked X-Play's review. I thought it's one of the fairest conclusions I've seen.

[GummiCandyful]

Many of the castleroids/metroidvanias (the DS ones mostly) are actually ranked pretty highly on those sites and those are far from mainstream titles. If anything I'd say a decent amount of reviewers are sort of enamored with the castleroid formula (judging from the scores I generally see for them) and were thus less enthused with LoS' genre choice and were unwilling to give it a stellar score based on that. But that's probably thinking too much about it as well. Might be a bit too conspiratorial.

I can understand a reviewer not being happy with the game's choices, because everyone seems to have a different view on how Castlevania should be, but like Lumi Rockets pointed, it was simply review bias. IGN's breakdown pretty much sums it up:

-"There is no castle"
-"There is no Dracula"
-"There is no old music"
- "Levels are in plain daylight"
-"It butches everything that CV has always been it doesn't have exploration and backtracking like SOTN"

In short, the game was given a low score for not meeting these expectations. I always thought game reviews were supposed to be free of personal biases and more about how good the game played, ect, but I guess I was wrong.

I personally liked X-Play's review. I thought it's one of the fairest conclusions I've seen.

These guys were pretty much fair in their review. My only complaint is how they griped about the areas being "too bright", which brings their knowledge of Castlevania into question, IMO.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

Well yeah that particular one from IGN is much more a definite show of bias. I was just not aiming to say it was bias across the board with the reviews, as that'd be a bit "too conspiratorial" as I mentioned.

About the best I can do at figuring out why that reviewer said those things even though some are blatantly wrong is that:

With the castle thing, it's possible he meant in a more traditional way, where you go into Dracula's castle and didn't spell out that peculiarity, not just any ol' castle. Or he didn't play through even half of the whole game.

With the Drac thing, it's possible he meant in the more traditional sense of "the final boss will be Dracula and you will fight him!" Or he didn't watch the very last scene.

(click to show/hide)

Also, like, for example, LoI, AoS, and DoS, you can say Dracula is in the game or you can say he's not, depending on whether you mean in the more traditional sense or a more technical sense.

With the music thing, it's possible he didn't recognize the couple of old songs due to the heavily different style and the fact that one is pretty obscure (Waterfalls). Or, with Vampire Killer, he meant the way they typically do it, which is a remix but still sorta close to the feel of the original rather than as a music box tune.

With the levels in plain daylight thing, he was probably going off general feel. It certainly isn't true that all levels are in daylight--although he didn't specifically complain that they -all- were from that quote--but since some are, it probably created a "bad" first impression for him (I recall that most of the daylight levels are early and more of the night levels are later) and he made a complaint based on the feel rather than a hard, numerical and logical counting of daylight levels vs night levels.

Did IGN end up pulling or rewriting that review btw? It seems like it, since I can't find one that meets those criteria but I remember Cox saying the review was totally off factually.

[JR]

In short, the game was given a low score for not meeting these expectations.

But they gave it a 7.5, didn't they?? That's not too bad of a score.

[Neobelmont]

I think it's reviewer bias, really. They knew what they personally wanted, and they didn't get it. That creeps into even the best reviews, and sours the score.

They wanted a Castleroid. They didn't get one. Ragereview.

Of course, people will still argue whether or not they even got a Castlevania game, period.

I personally liked X-Play's review. I thought it's one of the fairest conclusions I've seen.

But they gave it a 7.5, didn't they?? That's not too bad of a score.

It's a haters onesided review he does not like it all in all it was a douche review not much detail or anything just bs for the most part.

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow Video Review

Yeah and I have seen the x-play one and again I do not use reviews as an ulitimate say for my choice but rather to at least get an idea of what I want and sometimes get a good laugh like classic game room:

Classic Game Room - CASTLEVANIA: LORDS OF SHADOW review

[Omegasigma]

reincarnated : LoS (not that I cared for the game)

[thernz]

how is the ign review that much of a hateview? he praises the game half the time, and even when he points out flaws, they're either minor slights or he says action gamer people would like them anyway. the only times he doesn't is when talking about the story or acting. he still says it's a good game despite not being castlevania, so that isn't really quite a problem.

[Sindra]

Knew that "One Word" thing wouldn't stick.



Conflicted.

[Neobelmont]

how is the ign review that much of a hateview? he praises the game half the time, and even when he points out flaws, they're either minor slights or he says action gamer people would like them anyway. the only times he doesn't is when talking about the story or acting. he still says it's a good game despite not being castlevania, so that isn't really quite a problem.

There are a whole lot of reason as to why it is viewed down like lack of proper explanation like the story really it's just adventure time with gabriel and zobek too stop the los that's all nothing else what about the god mask , bullspit saying about certain things like how cv goes away from the normal by being linear and having level by level progression now come on that is a heap of bullcrap. Dull combat he does not even go through the combat yes he says light/dark yet that is it no detail. And the one major complaint that I think alot people got mad about and that is this obnoxious god of war "stigma" god of war this and that. Damn it is called hack n' slash or better yet an action game is it really that hard to call it an action game the genre crap like that.
You say he praises the game but for every praise I think alot felt that those downsides was seen as a haters view or even an obnoxious view. Overall it was not what he wanted he is a metroidvania fan and I think it really shows lack of items really it is things like that it was to be different from the start to be closer to the classics but most of all it's the fact that he says that this game had nothing at all to do with cv at all period which alot of people got mad about as well and that he wanted a more traditional game yeah he says it's a good change of pace but with everything that was said and done people were just mad heck I do not know how linear and level progression is not cv but I guess it is not    . I got alot more info from someone who does not even play alot of cv games that this "fan". Yes he says GoW as well but I just got more info from somebody who's not even a fan:


Castlevania: Lords of Shadow Review


Overall there are alot of reasons as to why it's hated upon take it for what it is. It is done now but it's just really disliked because it felt bad it just felt really bad even the written review was at least edited once I think.

[The Silverlord]

Interesting that the IGN UK review (http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/112/1126397p1.html) was much more balanced and they gave it an 8.5.  They also may be having a little nudge at the US review:

"If you've been getting your Belmont on since Castlevania's original outing on NES almost a quarter of a century ago now, Lords of Shadow - Konami's reimagining of the classic series - won't be quite the calamitous case of sacrilege some quarters might have you believe."

"It's the addition of Lords of Shadow's ingenious magic system that makes an otherwise solid, frequently satisfying combat engine into something a little bit special."

"Each distinctive area is largely linear in design ... it all feels disappointingly restrictive"

"Lords of Shadow employs an automatic camera system which ... occasionally falters during frantic combat or fiddly platform sections"

"Finally, and perhaps most frustrating, is the game's inability to explain itself properly"

"It’s unavoidable that, by shirking the labyrinthine puzzling the series has become known for in recent years, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow will have its detractors."

"It's the confidence and quality of the game’s design that give this latest series outing its own identity ... is a beautifully atmospheric, undeniably entertaining experience"

I think the review is pretty much bang on.

[GummiCandyful]

But they gave it a 7.5, didn't they?? That's not too bad of a score.

While not necessarily a bad score per say, a 7.5 is considered rather decent or "meh" at best. Besides, that score can be pretty much equivalent to some of LoI and CoD's ratings, which is nonsensical considering that LoS was far better executed than those two games.

I should also mention that according to Wikipedia, the former did well with the ratings, despite the fact that the fanbase says otherwise:

GameRankings   78.72%
Metacritic   79 / 100
GameStats   8.0 / 10
1UP.com   B+
Computer and Video Games   8 / 10
Edge   8 / 10
Eurogamer   7 / 10
Game Informer   8 / 10
GamePro 5/5
GamesMaster  83%
GameSpot   7.7 / 10
GameSpy   3/5
GameZone   9 / 10
IGN   9.0 / 10
Official PlayStation Magazine (US)   4/5
Play Magazine   B+
PSM   9 / 10
X-Play 3/5
Awards
Entity   Award
IGN   Editors' Choice

Whereas, in contrast, CoD was pretty much a mixed bag:

GameRankings   72.48%
Metacritic   74 / 100
GameStats   7.3 / 10
1UP.com   7.5 / 10
GamePro   4/5
GameSpot   6.8 / 10
GameTrailers   7.9 / 10
GameZone   7.8 / 10
IGN   7.8 / 10
Play Magazine   9 / 10
TeamXbox   7.6 / 10
X-Play   3/5
Gamers Hell   8.5 / 10
Hardcore Gamer   4.5/5
RPGFan   82 / 100

It sort of baffles me how a game like LoI could end up on the Editor's Choice list on IGN; it really makes no sense to me at all.

[RichterB]

Perhaps misguided would be best, but I'd like to say it sold out.

(And I'm not saying this because I wanted an IGAvania).

EDIT: Following up what has been said: I think Way Forward could easily make a very, very solid 2D Classicvania. It might end up overly familiar, but it would play and look like a dream. Think Contra 4 for DS, which went toe-to-toe with some of the best in that storied franchise, but didn't necessarily eclipse them. (To that point, when you're making a new 3D Castlevania, it's common sense to look at 3 and 4 as the most basic benchmarks, and build from there, IMO...but few if any have had the guts). When it comes to 3D, Platinum or Ninja Theory, despite their talents, would not be good choices. Too much action, too many combos. Castlevania's 3D format has been best realized by the 64 games, despite their flaws. But no one yet has had the guts to go back and try such an ambitious formula. Certainly not LoS. There isn't a modern game in the last few years I can think of that dares to give the player that much freedom in terms of platforming and terrain/level design, utilizing a camera that follows the character from behind. Probably the closest would be the Mario Galaxy titles. lol. Honestly, modern games are scared to move away from preset genre formulas in 3D.

[Maedhros]

Dead. Like Contra and Megaman.

[Kingshango]

Dead. Like Contra and Megaman.

Contra actually has two games in the works, one for the 3DS and another for consoles.

As for Megaman.....at least he's in Street Fighter X Tekken.......sorta, kinda.