Lords of Shadow 2 Studio Boss: "One Must Be Blind or Stupid" to Give It a 4/10

LastDarkness

New member
Jul 9, 2010
51
0
0
Well I beat the game and Im not a Castlevania fan/platforming fan. I enjoyed the game very much, though the combat was good. The Puzzles made you think and the story was intresting. My only complaint was I didnt like the first ending I got so much.

I was more shocked at the video reviews showing "reviewers" playing the game like they were having a stroke. Button mashing, not using items or switching weapons or taking a second to not just try to rush past the stealth sections in the open.
 

saruman31

New member
Sep 30, 2010
309
0
0
I liked the game. My biggest complain was with the human knights animation as it was so wrong. Also, the blood whip has not been fully explained or ever used in cutscenes. They should have had something else. Even if the whip is castelvenia it should have not been in this game. I think the part with the toymaker was the game`s best moment. And i really liked the artstyle.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
21
Five and below are for something that is fundamentally broken. For example the PS3 version of Skyrim is fundamentally broken, and is why it has a radically low score compared to all other versions on metacritic. I can see the game getting a 6 for most things. A 4 seems more like the critics didn't finish the game, hit a few stealth sections, and then gave their review mad about stealth. Hardly a review of the game, and more a review about a small annoying section of the game.

Regardless of what an individual wants to argue about, Americans, and most others, view a 10 point scale the same way they view Letter Grades. A 6 is a D and is failing quality, but not technically failing. Any time you give a 5 and below you're saying this is an F grade. LOS2 isn't F quality material and giving it such a grade does a disservice to those that truly deserve an F. Namely buggy, and incomplete work.

I could see the possibility of giving a game an F souly based on the story, but it requires an epic fail. Something that truly angers the fans, and not just disappointing. An example would be Promising you wont do one ending, but then Trolling the fans by giving that ending anyways. LOS2 doesn't qualify. Disappointing to some, but not wholly unexpected.

It's D to C work for those disappointed by the stealth, and the ending. It is B to A work for those who were satisfied. Giving it an F when it's not really buggy, or incomplete is just wrong.
 

Steve2911

New member
May 3, 2010
79
0
0
medv4380 said:
Five and below are for something that is fundamentally broken.
No, a five or below means a game is either average or below average. Why the hell would something that's fundamentally broken deserve almost half marks? If a game is barely playable, that's 2/10 territory at the most. If it's just a bit rubbish, or doesn't meet a certain standard of 'average', that's a solid 4 right there.

I've not played the game so wont comment on that, but some people (this twat of a studio boss in particular) seem to have a real problem with grasping a simple 1-10 numbering system.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I read Edge's review. Based on what they said, the score they gave was fair.

I will note that Edge's scores trend a little lower than is often industry standard; mediocre games frequently get 5s or 6s, good games get 7s and 8s, and games that rate 10s are extremely few and far between. This puts it somewhat out of sync with many of the reviewers in Metacritic.

...And then I would say, "Tough shit, Alvarez; it's not Edge's obligation to rate in tune with Metacritic." There was nothing unprofessional about that review in the slightest. It spelled out its arguments for the rating in very clear language: The battle system had problems, the camera had problems, it spent long periods of time in stealth sequences that were unenjoyable and thematically out-of-touch, it dragged on longer than it had new material to fill, the script was poor, the actors disinterested, and the graphics used depth-of-field poorly to try to cloak last-gen quality texturing.

If a producer wants reviewers to just give a franchise entry a stamp of approval for doing more of the same, there are certainly outlets out there which seem to do that; those are the ones who deserve labels like "unprofessional" in my mind. Edge made a convincing case that LoS2 significantly under-performed its own predecessor, and to my mind, that means they did their job for the consumers who buy the games, even if the creators decide to sulk about it.
 

ThunderCavalier

New member
Nov 21, 2009
1,475
0
0
Condemning the reviewer for having an opinion contrary to your own? How scandalous!

OK, this one guy's words perfectly embody my viewpoint on this. I know that a lot, and I mean A LOT of people can't stand him, but for those that can take Total Biscuit's opinion, here's his opinion on review scores, or "Why the reviewer matters even if you don't like his opinion." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpmeOB0Zyu0]

Now, to those who DON'T like him, either because you disagree vehemently with his opinions or because you can't stand that sexy British accent, let me paraphrase him. Basically, while there are many objective things in a game you can say are broken (Framerate is awful, textures are poor, the game handles like it was coded by a two-year-old dry biscuit), there are aspects in gameplay, story, sound design, and graphical design that people enjoy differently from others, and while people try their hardest to be objective in reviews (some more than others), ultimately there will ALWAYS be a bit of bias from that reviewer.

Thus, scores should not be taken at face value, but rather should be gauged in accordance to the reviewer's preferences and whether they match up to your own. For instance, Total Biscuit flat out admits that he puts graphical and gameplay competence over story and that he dislikes puzzles in games where they can be otherwise removed without detracting from the game, and he says that people that like puzzles or deep stories should take any games that he positively reviews with a grain of salt, because the fact that HE likes them might mean that YOU don't like them.

The numbers alone are a poor judge. Reviewer's opinions are more weighted on their tastes and preferences than their numbers themselves, because their tastes and preferences WILL color their perspective on the game in some fashion, meaning that they will enjoy parts of a game that people didn't like and vice versa.

But on topic, why this matters to the topic? Well, quite simply... this guy is an idiot, and he can't see where the 4/10 reviewers are coming. Maybe they see some glaring flaws that he refuses to acknowledge, or maybe they don't like choices in the design for the game that he thinks were brilliant, or MAYBE he's just an asshat that can't take criticism.
 

CelestDaer

New member
Mar 25, 2013
245
0
0
CaptainMarvelous said:
Currently reviewers are ranking Lords of Shadow 2 under Sonic 06.
Does that sound right?
I don't know, as I have never and plan never to play either game...
Why the hell is my Captcha suddenly Spanish?
 

rasputin0009

New member
Feb 12, 2013
560
0
0
suitepee7 said:
4/10 means it is slightly below average, but considering most people consider 7 to be the middle (because reasons) i can see why he's upset. i would consider 1 point below average to be a mediocre experience, but with a few issues that genuinely annoy me, but three points below average would indicate it is shite, with loads of bugs that make it barely playable. .
I blame IGN reviews. You know a game is shit when they give it 7/10 instead of the average 9/10. Even Battlefield 4 got an 8.5/10 and that game was broken for more than 3 months (still fixing). Its single player was absolute garbage and the mulitplayer was literally unplayable. I'm a big fan of BF4 (120 hours lol) and the series, but it didn't deserve an 8.5.

OT: I can kinda see him making out a couple decent points here about the games media, but it mostly sounds like he's really butt-hurt over the number 4.
 

Dandark

New member
Sep 2, 2011
1,706
0
0
I don't know anything about his game but I think he makes some decent points. I don't even bother looking at "professional" game journalism sites for reviews anymore because they often seem pretty terrible.

If it's a big name mainstream title then it will do fine but if its not Call of duty, Elder scrolls or GTA then there is a good chance it will get screwed. I have seen reviews on IGN for example where the reviewer openly admits in the review to not actually having played the game.

Likewise people who have only played FPS games and never touched a racing game will end up being the ones to review new racing games etc.


Im glad that youtubers like Angryjoe and Total biscuit exist as they are the only place I get my reviews from now, professional game reviews have been a joke for a long time now.
 

Snowbell

New member
Apr 13, 2012
419
0
0
Question; is this new game in the 2D platform vein? When was the last Castlevania that was? I really want to play another CV but I haven't seen any recently :(
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
This is a dicey issue, honestly. Some reviewers do have a bias towards certain game styles and can be expected to view certain games with rose-tinted glasses. Objectivity is, after all, a myth. There's always some amount of subjectivity that's going to color your review.

On the other hand, hating a game style or not being predisposed to it might make you a bit more critical than you would normally be. I more or less understand what Alvarez is criticizing, but I haven't played the game. I have no way of knowing if LoS2 is as bad as it's been made out to be, or if there's some worth to it all.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Snowbell said:
When was the last Castlevania that was? I really want to play another CV but I haven't seen any recently :(
Not counting Harmony of Despair, the last Metroidvania was back in 2009 with Order of Ecclessia on the DS. Considering how the game has flopped critically, I don't think we're going to see any new entries in Lords of Shadow anytime soon. I would say this is probably a good time to bring back Metroidvania, though we'll see.
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
While I certainly agree that it's a decent game worth more than a 4 (its definitely better than the first Lords of Shadow game, that game was fucking shit imo) but I have just one thing to say to him..."oh fuck off, dude" All you are doing is coming off like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum because someone didn't like your game as much.

If there is one thing to learn it's that life ISN'T fair, LoS2 may indeed be better and not deserve that low a score but them's the breaks kiddo. The best you can do is enjoy the praise, learn from the criticisms, and try to do better next time.
 

vagabondwillsmile

New member
Aug 20, 2013
221
0
0
Ninmecu said:
How do I exist in a world where 4/10 or (Just slightly below average) is considered an insult or a huge failure. Seriously, why have game "scores" if getting below a 7 or 8 automatically makes it "bad" and why bother having any numbers between 1-7 if almost all games score within 7-10, meaning that 7 becomes the new "shit" 8 is "Average" 9 is "reviewers were paid off" and 10 is "CoD LOL or GTA LOL". Also, granted it's just his opinion, but is he seriously going to start throwing around insults like an immature kindergardner over his game getting "slightly less than average" a review score? A thing that's purely and entirely SUBJECTIVE? God damn I hate people.
Yeah, this is why I hate the traditional - for video games - x/10 scoring system. Film gets x/5 stars (Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes not included!). Literature gets x/5 stars. Restaurants and hotels get x/5 stars. It's cleaner, more elegant in its simplicity, and easier to interpret. In the x/10 system for video games, with some reviews even going into decimals, ex.6.75/10; they expect the consumer to trust them to accurately judge out of a hundred? What element of a game can be picked apart THAT much? It's rediculous. I get that this often happens in review-by-commtittee, but even that doesn't change that it is of no additional benefit to the audience. Rather, as past such reviews would indicate, it increases the likelyhood of confusion in the audience.

The best thing about the x/5 star system (no half-star garbage either becuase other wise it's just back to x/10 and everyone knows it), is that you can't break in half - no mid-point. Between 3/5 and 4/5 the consumer can rely on the review indicating it could be worthwhile - buy it if you want, and expect to enjoy it. 5/5 tells you to absolutely get it if you can, it's a must have if you enjoy the genre it's in. And between 2/5 and 1/5, the consumer can expect an unsatisfactory experience or that the game is broken.

It's simple, clean, easy to understand, we've already been trained to think in those terms by other forms of entertainment and services, and the devision between good and bad is abundantly clear. Such a system is also less prone this nit picking, "Come on, just a 7.48? it deserves at least a 7.75!!!" nonsense.

Every other entertainment avenue or service of rate that I can think of has generally adopted the x/5 system for a reason. It works very well. Why the gaming and game journalism industries can't universally grasp this concept baffles me.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
21
Steve2911 said:
medv4380 said:
Five and below are for something that is fundamentally broken.
No, a five or below means a game is either average or below average. Why the hell would something that's fundamentally broken deserve almost half marks? If a game is barely playable, that's 2/10 territory at the most. If it's just a bit rubbish, or doesn't meet a certain standard of 'average', that's a solid 4 right there.

I've not played the game so wont comment on that, but some people (this twat of a studio boss in particular) seem to have a real problem with grasping a simple 1-10 numbering system.
5 is not the definition of Average.
Average said:
the result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities; the mean.
Everyone who is foolish enough to think that Average means middle deserves the F grade they earned.

The average video game score is 7-7.5 which just happens to be what a C Average is on a 10 point scale.
 

Ieyke

New member
Jul 24, 2008
1,402
0
0
He's right. Even if it's not well written and the setting is confused, LoS2 is AT WORST a 6/10 game...as reflected by Metacritic.
Anything lower than that is reserved for games that are truly broken, are plagued by glitches, have extremely sub-par game mechanics or graphics.

An average, unspecial game is a 7/10 on a normal review scale, and that's honestly what LoS2 should probably get.

It's possible, however, that the guys who give it a 4/10 use the less standard "5/10 is average" scale. A logical scale, but one that NOBODY uses or recognizes.
If that's the case, then yea, 4/10 is probably right, because that translates to about a 6/10 on a "normal" 1-10 scale.


*shrug*

Plus, Edge isn't even important.

That said, name-calling is probably a bad choice.
 

Extragorey

New member
Dec 24, 2010
566
0
0
I've never played or heard of LoS (either of them), but I can affirm that this point rings true for many other so-called reviews:
Any game is a complex work, and sometimes I think there's a lack of professionalism in the game press, who should judge things for what they are and not what they want them to be...I agree that, in the end, it's an opinion, and an opinion is totally respectable, but let's not confuse an opinion and a review.
I've seen so many critics give a game a shoddy score just because it doesn't live up to their personal expectations or because they believed it had greater potential. As Alvarez says, that's not a review, it's an opinion.