Final Verdict - 5/10 Judgment's presentation suffers from one brutal flaw: the very characters it's trying to pay homage to don't even look like themselves, and the dialogue and voice acting is grating (and what's with Maria's obsession with boobs??). On top of all of this, the gameplay is generally too simple for its own good. Judgment is an adequate if simplistic fighter, taking a step in the wrong direction for each original and unique thing it attempts to do. It doesn't even pay good homage to its source material. There's really no reason to bother with it for very long unless you're a really big Castlevania fan and are interested in an extremely basic fighter you can play with a mate for a while. Latest Comments
Shin Illuminated February 16, 2009, 09:40 PM A bad review? How could this be?
Komodo_Zero February 16, 2009, 09:46 PM I'm still looking forward to this game, regardless of what the reviews say.
I suppose Judgement is a marmite game, you either love it or hate it. Eddy "D_S" Fettig February 16, 2009, 09:48 PM Because I really did not find much to like.
 This is my opinion. I'm a big fan of fighters and shallow ones disappoint me. Not to mention it doesn't even capture the right style of the Castlevania characters very well. I understand they needed to have a consistent design, but BLECK. Too much manga for my tastes. And seriously, one of the story mode sections is about Maria being jealous because her boobs aren't big enough. WTF? It might be funny once, but two or three times? The game's general presentation is good, but it frustrated me as often as it gave me reason to enjoy it. Don't look at this as a specifically BAD review so much as a mediocre one. Bear in mind: 5 lies right in the middle between 1-10. Don't forget that, because I try to take it that into account when I review games. 6 is not bad, it's simply not good. I'm sure some people will like this game more than I did -- I tried to give it credit for things I felt it did right, but I ultimately feel like time would be better spent on either the actual Castlevania games, or a better fighting game. Komodo_Zero February 16, 2009, 09:54 PM About Maria...
In Rondo of Blood (her debut game) it's said that she uses tortoise shells in her dress to "amplify" her chest. This backs up her jealousy of Sypha and Carmilla. From the videos I've seen, I've noticed a LOT of sly references to previous Castlevania games. link182 February 16, 2009, 10:12 PM Actually, five is not right in between 1 and 10.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It's in the lower half. 1-5 is 5 numbers, 6-10 is five numbers. 3 of 5 is right in between 1 and 5, though. 1 2 3 4 5 The main problem with ranking on a one to ten scale is that ten is always a "perfect" score, even though a perfect score should be unachievable unless a perfectly awful score of 0 were also able to be accomplished. Having a score of 1/2 isn't a problem, but the scoring idea when applied to opinions is a lackluster concept. Whereas math problems do have a right and a wrong answer, essentially everything else in our universe is a matter of opinion in some way or another.  D3stiny_Sm4sher February 17, 2009, 03:21 AM OK, first of all, a "perfect score" should NOT be unachievable because that debunks the whole bloody scale.
No game is perfect, but you can give a game a perfect SCORE to indicate ultimate satisfaction with it. If we only ranked from 1-9 and 10 existed but was never USED it'd be pointless. And yes, obviously, trying to take a number onto one's opinions is kind of silly in a regard, but I mean, so is grading papers. It's very similar -- grammar and puncuation, controls and lack of glitches...There are technical things that make both a game and a paper adequate, but ultimately, a lot of one's appreciation comes out in opinions of it. We grade papers, we grade art, we grade movies, we grade everything. Ours is a society of trying to assign measurable quantitative values to things that can't be quantified, like knowledge of a subject or artistic value. I kind of like scores, though, because they allow me to give a grade to something. It gives me satisfaction to give a game I didn't like a low grade and a game I loved a high grade, and it allows my readers to compare scores to get a feel of which games I like more than others. Also, the thing about Maria? That actually is interesting. And there are definitely a lot of subtle references, but I really dislike the character design overall. It's pathetic when I can't even recognize characters from games I LOVE. See, to me, a 5 is in the middle. I suppose technically that doesn't make sense since I'd never give a game a 0. What, do you suggest we move the scale to 1-9 or something? Then 9 would become "perfect" and 1 would become perfectly awful." Same problem. A perfect score shouldn't be looked at as "this game is perfect" it should be looked at "this reviewer enjoyed this game more than most every other game out there." A game can deliver maximum enjoyment, hence a 10, but it would make no sense for a game to be a 0 to me because I thin of 0 as non-existant, essentually unplayable or unable to be interactive. I'm not gonna argue semantics beyond that, though. I felt the game is mediocre, and for the things it did right I felt it screwed up other things -- or screwed up the very things it tried to do right. I think some people will derive great pleasure from this game, but I didn't, and don't think people who share my tastes will enjoy it much. It's too shallow for me to truly respect, it got WAY too repetitive, the item collecting elements felt stale to me, the art design bothered me, the 1-player modes bored me or annoyed me...I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it. *shrug* Just my thoughts on the matter. I am a fan of Castlevania AND the fighting genre, and I didn't derive much satisfaction from this game. The Naruto game I reviewed I probably felt about as mediocre toward, but at least that game captured the Naruto mythos well and had a couple of gameplay elements I liked a little more. So it got a 6 while this gets a 5. I think K_Z is probably right -- a love it or hate it thing. I disliked Rondo of Swords, I disliked Rune Factory, and others loved them. Just how it is with anything. If you want my opinion on this game, though, here it is. By all means, don't take it as an end-all-be-all thing. I'm simply learning to try and let myself be a bit more harsh on games if I genuinely don't enjoy them that much. I actually regret some of the more lenient scores I've given to some games in the past because I feel like it doesn't reflect the full scale as well as it could -- which is why I edited the scores for my reviews on my personal website and MyGameMug. A score is just that in the end, though. I hope some people enjoy this game because someone put work into it, but I am not one of those people who can enjoy it that much. link182 February 17, 2009, 04:12 AM OK, first of all, a "perfect score" should NOT be unachievable because that debunks the whole bloody scale.Nooo, I said, and I quote, "a perfect score should be unachievable unless a perfectly awful score of 0 were also able to be accomplished." If perfect scores of 100% awesome can be given out, then it must be counter-balanced by 0% awesome -- or just a 0 on a scale of (X) to 10. The scale can exist on its own with a perfect score represented, but as an abstract: the perfect score is never definitive in an ever-shifting frame. By definition, it can't be. No need to get your knickers in a twist because I disagree with society's norm of ranking things, Eddy. That's pretty much as aggressive and defensive (oxymoron but accurate) as my first few posts, assuming the worst about people while also assuming my own innate superiority to them. And what's worse, it's out of character for you. No game is perfect, but you can give a game a perfect SCORE to indicate ultimate satisfaction with it.No, it wouldn't. Does perfection exist in our universe? No. We can still acknowledge the abstract idea of perfection though, without ever using it. Pretty simple really. And yes, obviously, trying to take a number onto one's opinions is kind of silly in a regard, but I mean, so is grading papers.Not really... Papers are graded on accuracy of numbers. Right and wrong is a binary choice in mathematics: you're either right or you're wrong. 2+2=4 is either right or wrong, there is no gray area in between. But grading papers is using factual things, such as water being made up of 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule, or that the year Kennedy was assassinated in was 1963. Not the opinions of one person or a group of people, even graded on a scale for effort no perfect effort can be observed. It's very similar -- grammar and puncuation, controls and lack of glitches...There are technical things that make both a game and a paper adequate, but ultimately, a lot of one's appreciation comes out in opinions of it. We grade papers, we grade art, we grade movies, we grade everything.Controls are relative though, grammar and punctuation are not. What some consider a great control scheme, others consider dreadful. Each game you play will have at least one glitch; every game I've ever played has had at least that number, if not more. So if no glitches/bugs=100%, then 100% is still unattainable. Another thing needing to be taken into account is that just because we do it as a society, that does not make it right or accurate or an altogether good idea. We pollute as a society, we waste as a society, we make wars on countries as a society, we oppress others as a society. Is it right? No. When ranking things, subjectivity should play into it, yes, but then it should only play into the portions that truly are subjective. Graphics themselves are not subjective; whether you like the graphical style or shading style they used is. Some people like strategy games, others don't; some people like shooters, others think they're trash. Do you see what I'm trying to convey, that neither person is altogether wrong? I kind of like scores, though, because they allow me to give a grade to something. It gives me satisfaction to give a game I didn't like a low grade and a game I loved a high grade, and it allows my readers to compare scores to get a feel of which games I like more than others.I know, and I wasn't trying to impede your ability to do so. I was just pointing out how when you put an abstract idea amongst real things, it tends to become an inaccurate scale, especially if a perfect score is ever given. The abstract of perfection needs a counterweight at the other end; 0 is an abstract, the negative to perfection's positive. I won't say that you need to change your ranking system, I never did in fact. I merely pointed out that firstly, 5 is not in the middle of 1 and 10, and secondly, all ranking systems have an inherent flaw. Key word all, meaning that there is either no way to fix the problem, or no way to fix it in its entirety. See, to me, a 5 is in the middle. I suppose technically that doesn't make sense since I'd never give a game a 0. What, do you suggest we move the scale to 1-9 or something? Then 9 would become "perfect" and 1 would become perfectly awful."Only if you said so; 10 can exist just fine so long as it's never given to any game. I'm saying that 1-9, with 9 as close to perfect as possible since it is impossible to achieve perfection, and 1 as close to the antithesis of perfection as possible, would work better than a scale in which only 1 abstract, non-existent idea is present. Everything needs nothing at the other end in order to exist as an idea is what I'm saying, I guess. Same problem. A perfect score shouldn't be looked at as "this game is perfect" it should be looked at "this reviewer enjoyed this game more than most every other game out there."Yes, but 10 still represents perfection; it is the maximum on the scale. 9 should, therefore, be the maximum achievable score on the scale. 10 still needs to be put on the scale if you use fractions, so it can be a 9 out of 10 instead of a 9 out of 9. A game can deliver maximum enjoyment, hence a 10, but it would make no sense for a game to be a 0 to me because I thin of 0 as non-existant, essentually unplayable or unable to be interactive.Just as 0 is non-existent, so is perfection. Don't you get that? Don't you understand that they are both abstract concepts formed by our feeble human minds? I have no problem with you ranking it, it conveys your feelings for the game quite well. I have a problem with the system of ranking, not those who use it. Its users are accustomed to it, and that is not wrong for their part. But the "perfect score" in a ranking system based on opinion doesn't exist, that's all I was saying. In no way was anything I said an attack on you, just to be clear. It seemed plenty clear from my objective post earlier... D3stiny_Sm4sher February 17, 2009, 04:44 AM I was talking about English papers. You know, essays?
Numbers don't come into those, my friend. They're abstract ideas, sometimes based on reality and empirical research, other times more like poetry in narrative form. The grad is opinion of the professor based on how effective they think it is. I've had papers that my peers loved and my professor thought was meh, and vice versa. Likewise, I do concede that grammar can be correct and incorrect while controls are more abstract, but there are just some control mechanics that work well and others that don't, as a general rule. It's like how film can have certain angles of portraying a scene that are just, in general, more affective and appeal to the widest audience. I really do NOT understand your logic of a perfect score representing perfection. That's like saying a full glass of water is a perfect glass of water to me. I guess that's how I look at these scores when I review games -- my level of satisfaction. I can be entirely satisfied with an imperfect glass of water -- a perfect glass of water doesn't exist. Having a 1-10 scale where you never give anything a ten isn't REALLY a 1-10 scale, it's a 1-9 scale. But then, as you say, 9 becomes 10 in that case. I don't look at games as "perfectly good" or "perfectly awful" because I agree that neither exists. It doesn't seem clear to me why you think a 9/10 should be the best score a game can be given on a 1-10 scale. That defeats the point of the scale at all. If one end of a scale can never be reached, it's not a very good scale, in my opinion. I wouldn't rate a game as 0 because 0 doesn't exist on the 1-10 scale because I envision a 0 as "this game doesn't exist because it can't function as a game at all and can't be experienced." A 10 is not PERFECT, it's one of the best of the medium I've ever experienced. The only games I have officially reviewed as a 10/10 are Brawl, BioShock, and Mario Galaxy, all 3 of which I do not consider perfect but consider to be 3 of the very best games I ever played in my lifetime, they have all delivered to me as much satisfaction as I could expect or hope for from a video game, hence, they are awarded the maximum score. NOT because they're perfect but because I was satisfied with them on a level that can't really be surpassed. (I do of course have other games I WOULD give a 10/10 if/when I write a review of them) I think the problem is that you're thinking that just because the score is technically perfect that it implies the game is perfect. That never seems to be the case with any reviewer I've ever heard talk about it. You're right, it's dumb to label anything as perfect. I'm not doing that, as I just explained. I'd rather give games 10's and represent what I believe to be the best of the best than give things 9.8's and 9.6's and 9.4's like IGN does. What I'm trying to say is that score systems, when it comes to opinions, are simply scores meant to portray one's satisfaction with something -- for me, anyway. I guess some people in sporting events may give something a 10 because they think it's physically perfect, but that's why I give 10's to anything. Again, I agree that physically trying to measure something so abstract is silly. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm not measuring here, I'm rating. I feel there's a difference. It's like separating a batch of cookies of different flavors by their flavor based on which ones you like the most. The winner of an art contest gets 1st place, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're the best artist in the competition, because there isn't a best artist -- it just means that this specific artist impressed and satisfied the judges the most, so they rated her as their favorite. That's how it works in my mind, I suppose. I'm not meaning to act defensive, I know you're not saying anything about me, I'm just trying to explain to you why I think the notion of a scale whose edges can never be met is foolish. I will rate a game a 1 once I play something so god-awful that it begs me to do so, if such a game is ever put into my possession. I've played online flash games I would rate a 1/10. --- Just looked it up, I also have given Super Metroid and Elite Beat Agents a 10/10. Again, two more of the my most favorite games ever that I can continually go back to again and again and continue to derive enjoyment from. lefthandedlink February 17, 2009, 05:16 AM Perfection is obtainable. Due to perfection's being a human term, it's possible, then, to accomplish it since it's all relative. I may think that this one sculpture is perfect, because I am not knowledgeable in such arts. However, a professional might find certain flaws in it that I wouldn't.
That's why amateurs can think of so many more possibilities than people who do things for a living. Their mind is broader and more open-minded, instead of narrow and picky. With that said, perfection, like how all words are man-made, is obtainable. My perfection is never your perfection. It could be said therefore that religion is true--to some people. Because truth too is relative. I don't care whether science or religion or the human mind disproves it. There are certain aspects of everything that contain truth in them, just like there's fallacy in everything. Something perfect can also be something broken. That's why judges' scores are so varied. Each is looking for something different. Ever wonder why someone gets a 10 here and then a 7 there? Because the human mind is incredibly unique, while at the same time being extremely similar. There's always a balance. D3stiny_Sm4sher February 17, 2009, 05:40 AM I don't think amateurs are necessarily more open-minded than pros. Oftentimes what makes a pro IS their open-mindedness, willingness to take risks, etc. And sometimes the opposite is true for amateurs.
I think scores are useful for multiple purposes, but MAINLY because they give you the reviewer's general feeling of the game in a rating, a score, which can be compared with other reviewers. Games that are inherently designed effectively tend to get higher scores overall. Not always, of course. And the opposite can be true some times. I think personal perfection is obtainable -- Brawl is pretty much perfect for me as a game. Of course, I could always think of what more could be added to it to make me like it even more, but as it is, no other game gives me quite the same consistent and never-ending supply of enjoyment. Objective perfection, however, I'm not so sure that's possible.
Please login or register to post comments.
|
||||||||
