They're not all bad, surely?
Eurogamer does reveal that, 'There are moments of real artistry - few games have splintered marble with such style or lit dripping pipework so indulgently - and Dracula's castle offers treats like a cathedral spire surrounded by loops of chains, set in the noble darkness of a cave.'
CVG lists ‘gorgeous art design’ as a positive.
Mind, Edge is scathing. Here's the very review that will probably go down in Castlevania history:
http://www.edge-online.com/review/castlevania-lords-of-shadow-2-review/
Speaking as a Brit myself, I think we can say that's bollocks.
Fair enough. I just noticed a trend that all of the graphics comments were coming out of British publications. It's nice to see that it's not an all encompassing opinion.
That Eurogamer review, while I might find the score harsh, was actually very fairly written. As I've said before, from what I'm reading I will most likely adore this game, but I can see where reviewers are taking issue with it.
I just think the 4s and 5s are extraordinarily harsh, given the standards most publications have set for reviews.
EDIT: Honestly, since I know I'm not going to get a Castlevania game with the same level of atmospheric artistry again anyway post-MercurySteam, I just hope this gets enough sales to justify that Victor DLC Bergeron was talking about, since I assume the Alucard DLC is still on the way.
Also, MoF currently has a higher Metascore than this. Wut?