By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - So yesterday I picked up Castlevania: Judgment... I was shocked!

I've been a bit excited for this game ever since it got announced. But after it got such a shitty reception, I thought it might not be as good as I'd hoped. I generally don't listen to reviews, but when pretty much everyone says it's bad it's hard to ignore it.

Then I played the game. And it is beyond my understanding how anyone who enjoys Castlevania could not like this game. The only thing I can think of that people are being overly critical of is the character design. Because I can honestly not find anything else to justify the terrible scores the game has gotten. Granted, I haven't played for extreme lengths of time, so I might have missed something, but so far I find the game to be deeper than I expected and much more fun. There are a variety of game modes and options to keep you interested too.

I guess maybe the game is unbalanced? That might explain why so many people hate it? I haven't noticed anything yet, but as I said, I haven't played that much. So, please, enlighten me, how can so many people be hating this game? I simply cannot understand it.



Around the Network

People these day trust reviewers too much.More need to rely on themself.

When i was 10 years old i never have to care about reviews even a bit.Even these day it still be the same. :D



I was always a little curious about this game. I haven't seen much about it but I saw an commercial for it while at a Six Flags amusement park and it almost looked HD quality. Now what they were showing may have just been cut scenes or something and that would explain it.

Maybe I'll rent it one day. I do think some of the hate for the game had to do with the fact that most gamers would've rather have seen a traditional CastleVania game.



I'll come up with something better eventually...

I remember a lot of people on this site liking it when the game came out despite the relatively poor reviews. I haven't tried it myself yet.



If the game was an original IP, I think it would have been accepted better, even if it was otherwise exactly the same. It's that people, as they usually do, judged it on preconceived notions, not what is actually there.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight said:
If the game was an original IP, I think it would have been accepted better, even if it was otherwise exactly the same. It's that people, as they usually do, judged it on preconceived notions, not what is actually there.

 

 

Too bad they did. I'm having a blast with it! This game is really fun.



Most reviewers hated it because of the artstyle (Death Note? Never even heard of that before Castlevania Judgment)

Also, it wasn't a traditional 3D Castlevania, which so many wanted (although history has shown only one has been good - Castlevania 64)


So, because they didn't get what they want, they bashed the game with no end. They complained about how difficult it was to face someone online, but when you have an advanced review copy before the game is released, facing someone online is impossible, but they won't mention that.......


This game was doomed from the start, no matter how good it was.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

SaviorX said:
Most reviewers hated it because of the artstyle (Death Note? Never even heard of that before Castlevania Judgment)

Also, it wasn't a traditional 3D Castlevania, which so many wanted (although history has shown only one has been good - Castlevania 64)


So, because they didn't get what they want, they bashed the game with no end. They complained about how difficult it was to face someone online, but when you have an advanced review copy before the game is released, facing someone online is impossible, but they won't mention that.......


This game was doomed from the start, no matter how good it was.

 

On that online note, that does give a good reason why Bungie got reviewers together when trying out the multiplayer reveiwe copies of Halo 3. They likely wanted to ensure everyone would actually have someone to play against.

But as for this game, you're right. Preconcieved notions are like the same logic as racism. No sense, refuses to bow in the face of contradictory facts, and total BS either way.

I also know that, even if I get flamed for this, Dead Rising CTYD would have gotten a better reception if it had been exactly the same, but the 360 version hadn't come out, simply because we wouldn't have preconcieved notions of what the game was supposed to be like. Before you go "well isn't that the point?", I say that conversely the PS2 GTA games would not have been recieved so well if IV had come out first, even though it would be clear the PS2 could not pull off better graphics with games of that scale. We would still have an unfair comparison built into our heads.

On another note, I still find it terribly ironic that IGA made this a fighting game because he knew that extended waggle wouldn't work so well, while Soul Calibur Legends was not a fighting game, and suffered for that very reason. I just want to smack people upside the head at Namco for that. Give the Wii a damn port of SCIII and do it right.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

I don't think it's so much the character designs.. I think it's more or less the camera angles, repetitive combos, intense amounts of arm flailing, and lack of depth in the story mode that makes reviewers dislike this game.



Pixel Art can be fun.

you cant trust reviewers all the time



You should be beaten, burned to ashes then someone should throw your ashes from a plane