Something went wrong. Try again later


This user has not updated recently.

1516 626 7 37
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Reviewing a game for what it isn't rather than what it is.

So the reviews for Castlevania: Lords of Shadow are starting to come in.  The two I've read from the main online outlets (IGN and Gamespot) are both ironically the same in tone and score.  They rail against the fact that it's devoid of the identity the franchise has, and that it offers nothing fans of the series are expecting from a Castlevania game.  One even goes so far as stating that aside from werewolves, vampires, ghosts and a spooky atmosphere, it has nothing to do with Castlevania.  Then what, may I ask is left of Castlevania if you don't include those?  Isn't the series all about those things?  One review goes on and says that it has much more in common with God of War than Castlevania.  Isn't Castlevania about traversing huge environments while using your whip to occasionally swing from place to place, then fighting an unending legion of enemies, getting new weapons and abilities, gaining health and magic from destroyed objects, and fighting the occasional boss?  That sounds like God of War to me.  So basically because it's not 2D it's not Castlevania.
We all would love a new 2D Castlevania done in the style of Shadow Complex and BC: Rearmed, but hating on a game that isn't it "just because" isn't very professional, or fair to the game.  Leave your bias out of the review and stick to what you like and dislike about the game.  Feel free to blog or tweet or whatever about how you don't think it's a "real" Castlevania game.
This game reminds me of Darksiders, a game that borrowed aspects of other successful series and combined them into a fun game with it's own identity.  I just hope that people can look past the desire for a 2D game and accept it as the return of Castlevania as a modern action adventure game on current consoles.