Zero Punctuation: Castlevania: Lords of Shadow
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, they were mythological originals. That's not the point at all. We're talking about video games. In the context of this medium, God of War originated its particular breed of gameplay - fluid, whip-based, third-person action in a polygonal, mythological setting with QTEs and occasional puzzles.CynicalMarcus said:
Castlevania originated 2D, side-scrolling, whip-based action with a mythological setting. That's why games of that ilk, when they pop up on XBLA or PSN or whatever, get hit with the "Like Castlevania, But" stamp. Meanwhile, games that copy, wholesale, the experience of God of War are very appropriately compared to GoW.
You're confusing thematic or conceptual originality with originality of execution. At best, we're talking about different things. Of course, I thought it was pretty obvious that Castlevania had whips and monsters before God of War, so I figured you wouldn't assume I'd be talking about concepts/themes.
Edit: because more people are defending this game as anything but a GoW clone... I don't get it. We've seen a ton of third person action games the last year or so, and some of them have been hit with the GoW stamp when they probably didn't deserve it. Darksiders isn't much like GoW. Bayonetta isn't much like GoW. Dante's Inferno definitely is. But this Castlevania game? It feels more like a GoW clone than just about anything I've played. I understand the tendency of some folks to decry standardized criticism as an institution worthy of reconsideration or even destruction, but that doesn't really apply in this case. Lords of Shadow deserves every "Like God of War, But" stamp it gets.
let them keep trying. We all know there's about 15-30% chance of success with Castlevania. Sooner or later, there will be an awesome Castlevania, in 3D, that they didn't skimp on with the music, or the camera, or they cut it from continuity....
bah, SoNdd it, they always fuck up something, don't they.
bah, SoNdd it, they always fuck up something, don't they.
Know why it doesn't feel like a Castlevania game? Because it isn't! It was originally just "Lords Of Shadow". It wasn't until the game was well under development that they changed the name to Castlevania. Does nobody remember reading the E3 interview with Mercury Steam? I need to find that article again and post it all over the internet. Every single review of LoS says the same thing, it doesn't feel like a Castlevania game. Ahhh. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I really remember reading that.
[]
Thats the thing though. It can still be the same genere but still play completely different. DmC and Bayonetta are completely different from god of war, But LoS and Dante's Inferno are exactly the same. You mention FPS, Mirrors Edge, Halo and CoD are all FPS's but the play completely different!Gamurga said:
there is nothing in this game that has not been done before, and i really don't get why people are supposedly saying good things about it
No, it did not. Action platformer where you're facing down legions of creatures of myth using a whip based weapon? Castlevania did that in 1983. God of War was the first game to take the ideas that Castlevania brought forth years upon years beforehand and successfully bring it into 3D.FieryTrainwreck said:
Even so, it only perfected it. Lament of Innocence came out two years prior, utilizing similar gameplay. I'm guessing that you've only been playing games for about six years now?
I've actually played this game, and it truly is the shambling frankenstein of all the most cliche parts of the modern AAA gaming action world.
There is not a single point in this game that I have not seen done elsewhere before (and done better).
However...despite all of that it's still at least technically functional.
Though it had better be seeing how everything it ripped off was already tweaked and repeated to near-(im)perfection.
There is not a single point in this game that I have not seen done elsewhere before (and done better).
However...despite all of that it's still at least technically functional.
Though it had better be seeing how everything it ripped off was already tweaked and repeated to near-(im)perfection.
How about another Metroidvania game getting a handheld rather than another Other M (or maybe in fact it will be Another M) namely a sequel to Fusion.JustaGigolo said:
You had a point until you butchered the english language and pissed on Shadow of the Colossus.ninjaman87 said:
The first reason is self explanatory, but the second is not because you attacked a great game, but because you became a hypocrite.
See, you missed the main "poitn" of SotC. It was a game that used the travelling time to have you take in everything you did, and construct your own character from the actions. Each person has a different Wanderer at the end, BECAUSE of a vague story that handed you all the tools. It decided to use it's sceneic yet empty world to properly play with immersion. When the action picked up for the battles (all of which were with clearly different enemies that were each defeated in a different way, making each of the fights in the game memorable, a feat most other games with a lot more action will never accomplish), you suddenly jumped into the character, and became him. You couldn't blame him for killing the colossus after you suddenly feel bad as you watch it fall, because YOU were the one doing it. The action itself was also made all the better because your character was a normal village kid. He knew how to climb, ride, and shoot, but try swinging the sword and you'll see just how average he is. That meant he had to utilize all of his normal skills while most other games have you be a badass, which makes the giants much less imposing than those in Shadow (I'd like to point out that this was just one of many examples in that game was able to elicit emotion. Having one moment like that is normally enought to make it a good game, and SotC was able to do this at least 16 times).
As I've already said, all of what the game was comprised of was open to interpretation. Who the girl was the the Wanderer, who was the villain (of the three characters at the end), what the world was, what the colossi really were like (very few of them were actually violent, so were they just simple creatures acting off survival instincts, or intelligent beings just trying to find peace), how they were constructed, what happened after the end, did Dormin keep his deal or was it something else, did Emon mean to do that, etc. were all left up for the player to decide, but unlike most "open to interpretation" games, it made it so that you didn't have to stretch your imagination to do so. You automatically filled in the blanks.
Of course, this is assuming that you didn't just mindlessly run through the game, expecting the game to lead you through the story by the nose (given that it didn't even really lead you to the colossi but let you find your way there with the equivalent of a fancy compass pointing "in that direction" but not showing the path, you shouldn't have expected this). If you decide to judge it as only what it contained, rather than the experience, than you've missed the point of the game.
ANYWAYS, OP: While Yahtzee doesn't seem to like it, everything I've seen about the game says it could at least be good. It'll probably help that I never played Castlevania before (never really felt the need to. My sidescrolling game needs were met by Metroid and Megaman), so I won't feel like it "isn't a Castlevania game!" (but given the fact that just from what I've seen of Castlevania, maybe the formula needed to be mixed up). I guess the only problem I'd really have is the lack of Drac, since even as someone outside the series' audience, I still know him as the iconic figure of the games that he is (and of course the "What is a man?" line).
lol its not his joke, he just reports it. Tell THEM to stop doing it.ranyilliams said:
Yknow, i honestly cant tell if Lord of Shadows is a good game without playing it (duh, you say, but cmon, we all choose what were going to get....) People say its good, people say its bad. I play the demo, it seems beautiful and it might be going somewhere deep, it also seems simplistic and youre going to be killing Modokons for hours.
The characters in the preview seem deep and meaningful, trying to tell our James Sunderland with whip hes foolish.....and at the same time, ive ALREADY SEEN THE ENDING....and they seem childish and bland.
Even yahtzee seemed to be thinking deeply on whether its bad or not....
THEY COMPLAIN THAT YOU USE A CHAIN WHIP, like in god of war...but the series ALWAYS had chain whips, what else is it supposed to look like? If it doesnt have chain whips, people complain......and say its the best castlevania EVER (symphony of the night)........so..huh....(wait, what?....)
plus Gabriel has a really tiny head. Really tiny, head
As are games that are "like god of war but". At first I was thinking about renting but the idea of it having a portal reference turns me off even that.ranyilliams said:
I don't think the new "Castlevania" game or any of the other more recent games have enough medusa heads knocking the player off of small platforms and into bottomless death-pits. That was about 75% of the first game.
You know, he might be right about all that stuff but I'm still going to buy it at some point and give it a chance. Though I kinda hope they keep making sidescrolling ones for the DS since that's how I really came to know the series personally.
Hi, I had to create an account just so I could tell you that the "One miserable little secret, two...." gag at the end had me in fits for about five minutes. Thank you, I haven't laughed like that in a while.
BTW why Didn't Yahtzee say that you could re-play the game with everyone's favorite senior citizen Solid Snake?