Originally Posted by
kupomogli
I thought this most recent review sucked. This seems to just be a really quick one he pushed out. Though he was correct on the CV series really following the SotN formula afterwards, though OoE you did have different outside backgrounds as well as DoS(somewhat.)
Okay. First I'll talk about what I liked about the review most. The ending. How he displayed the ending of SCV4 with scenes of previous levels and then showed alot of parts on all the CV titles. It looked really nice how he did that. I also liked how he actually gave good information on SotN.
Here's what I didn't like about the review though. The Bloodlines review just wasn't there. It's like he mentioned it, said it wasn't as good as SCV4, then moved onto SotN. What? Why? If you gave detailed reasons on stuff you did and didn't like on CV, CV2, CV3, and CV4, why not do the same for Bloodlines?
There are plenty of things he could have said about Bloodlines as well. Other than the fact that there are two different characters, he failed to mention how these two characters differ. John Morris attacking diagonal but only in upward directions while jumping, where Eric Lecard could actually attack straight up as well as the upward directions if on the ground. Or that John could whip onto a ledge and swing across or that you could hold down with Eric to do a High Jump. Also each character throughout the game had branching areas depending on which one you played, meaning that only playing both characters you'd see the entire game. The final thing is how many unique ideas that there were in stages on Bloodlines, an example is on stage 5 with the mirrored room and the upside down room, none of which were given any recognition, yet he mentioned the mode 7 in stage 4 on Super Castlevania 4 which looked cool but didn't effect anything really. Last there was literally no mention on any of the great bosses on Bloodlines. So yeah, he did nothing more than mention the name, the reference to the movie Dracula, and that was it. There's so much more that he could have said but he just didn't really do any sort of a review than throwing this last video together quickly.
Then the review also gave false information and was misinformative for those who may have never seen the original copy of Dawn of Sorrow. He mentioned that "In Dawn of Sorrow, Dracula's castle returns in an eclipse above Japan" which isn't correct. Instead, he was thinking of Aria of Sorrow. In Dawn of Sorrow, Dracula's castle was a replication created by Celia so it actually wasn't even Dracula's castle at all but rather a base for the cult that Celia led. Also the Dawn of Sorrow copy he had was a rereleased copy and not the original, yet in his review how he talked it was like he was describing the cover as the original release.
The only other part that bothered me in the review was one part with SotN when he was talking about whenever you die you go right back to the start menu after having to wait to hear the game over. First off, SotN is easy as hell so you should never hear that more than once or twice even for some one new at the game, unless you're fighting Galamoth for the first time and don't know any of the tricks on the game. So it was pointless to even put that into the review when he could have been referencing stuff far more important, like, oh I don't know, actually saying something about Bloodlines? The only reason why I assume he's bitching about the game over screen is he sucks more at games than I previously thought. Right before he mentioned it, it showed him DYING AT SLOGRA AND GAIBON. The first boss in the game and one of the easiest bosses at that. That was just sad.
There was also the part when he mentioned Shaft. Being a fan of Castlevania and hearing Shaft jokes and references no less than a couple thousand times I assumed he would do the same in his video.