GameLight Review - Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Mirror of Fate

Official Site?: http://www.konami-castlevania.com/mof/
Source: Youtube Channel IGN

Developer: Mercury Steam
Publisher: Konami
Platforms: Nintendo 3DS
Release Date: March 5, 2013
Genre: Action-Adventure

Pros:
+ Although on 3DS, the combat is similar to the Lords of Shadow on console
+ Fluid animation and combat mechanics
+ The 3D effects are pretty cool on some parts of the game

Cons:
- Much like the first Lords of Shadow, Mirror of Fate has an identity crisis
- The majority of the game felt kind of empty
- Although the game is open-world, the game still feels linear
- Fans of the Castlevania series may cringe at Mercury Steam's take on the story

Recommended: No?  Maybe?  Although I had fun with the game, it's not exactly a game I'd recommend to my friends.

I was well prepared to be conflicted in thoughts on this game after completing Castlevania: Lords of Shadow on the PS3.  To be straight-forward about it, I did have some fun playing Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Mirror of Fate; however, it didn't live up to the quality, experience, or entertainment value I got out of previous installments within the series.  The game promised players a return to its roots of classic Castlevania games while still retaining the open-world of exploration of the Metroidvania era.  Rather than finding the balance between the two, the game felt like a struggle between the two while playing very similar to the console version of Lords of Shadow.  Battles against certain enemies are a bit tougher and require patience to defeat, much like classic Castlevania games.  And since the combat is similar to the first Lords of Shadow, the player has many skills and abilities to utilize against enemies.  There are problems with these concepts.  Classic Castlevania games were linear, side-scrolling experiences where the player keeps moving forward.  With the utilization of free-exploration within the castle, you're going to have to run into those tougher enemies more than once.  After a while, you start to lose interest in fighting them and learn to run past them.  Then there's the many combo abilities the player has: most of them are ineffective.  Despite having so many different variations of attacks, a lot of them do not flinch the enemy or stop them in time before they attack you.  Because of this, you will end up using the same 2-3 combos throughout the entire game to fight effectively without getting killed.  There's no point in having so many different attacks, skills and items when they aren't useful.  There's also the matter of an open-world exploration: there isn't much to explore.  There will be a few places here and there along the way where you can't reach an item until a certain ability or item is acquired.  Once that said ability or item is in possession, it is a simple walk back to those few spots to get more items.  What made the Metroidvania formula work was the constant flow of action and fast-paced gratification received from fighting your way across the castle while exploring up and down the castle rather than going forward and occasionally backwards to gather extra items.  This was mechanic was like "yang" to the classic Castlevania's "yin" as the originals were linear and required a slower approach to fights with more patience.  Each Castlevania game before knew it had to be one or the other and couldn't be both at the same time and needed to find that balance.  Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia was actually the closest to achieving that balance of both mechanics.  But in Mirror of Fate, battles weren't particularly difficult as much as they were tedious, exploration was shallow, and because of that it made the entire castle feel very empty.  And much of the music was similar to Lords of Shadow on console, so it just made the game feel more like Lords of Shadow than any of the other Castlevania games before it.  In fact, I think a lot of the songs used in Mirror of Fate are the same exact ones in Lords of Shadow.  There is still much I can go on about, but I suppose I should just get straight to the points of each aspect of the game.

Aesthetics
Art-Style: 3D Cel-shaded Medieval Fantasy within 2D environment gameplay
+ There are some really nice 3D effects on some parts of the game
+ Animations and movement are still quick and fluid despite the 3D graphics
+ Some of the bosses have really nice designs to them
+ Interesting way of telling the story through semi-moving cinematics
+ Impressive backdrops in various parts of the castle

- Why does every character have different accents within the same family lineage?
- Music is as high quality as the console game, but is still generic and forgettable
- Although the graphics were nice, all the levels were kind of the same: dark
Aesthetics: 7/10

Buttons
Controller: 3DS buttons, no need for touch-screen as far as I remember
+ Familiar controls to Castlevania: Lords of Shadow/other 3D Action games
+ Blocking and dodging react pretty quickly in the middle of an attack
+ Auto-aim grappling ensures you don't miss and fall down
+ Fairly well laid out controls for the game

- Why are there quick-time events in a hand-held Castlevania game???
Buttons: 8/10

Concept & Content
Core Concept: Progress through fighting, solving puzzles, and exploring
+ It's really fancy seeing long combos and console quality combat on a handheld
+ Some of the boss fights were pretty fun
+ Having the ability to heal by attacking makes up for having no potions
+ There's a decent amount of unlockable abilities
+ You can change the difficulty at any time throughout the game
+ Sub-weapons are actually really useful in combat and compliment the whip
+ Dying is a minor setback so you never have to restart back too far
+ There are some tricky and challenging platforming involved

- Quick-time events don't add that much to the entertainment
- Near the end of the game, I didn't feel like fighting most of the enemies
- The castle felt so empty without all that music and colorful levels and enemies
- MercurySteam made their own take on the story, but it still makes me cringe
- A lot of the longer attack combos and abilities are useless
- Exploration was shallow and boring
- No end-game content other than an extra difficulty level
Concept & Content: 6/10

Duration

+ A decent amount of gameplay time for one playthrough
+ The flow of battle comes at a nice steady rate
+ Time is never wasted when you die, you lose 3 minutes at most

- Other than playing on a harder difficulty, practically no replay value
- Each new chapter felt like starting the game over again
- When you're not fighting, the game felt slow and boring
Duration: 5/10

Fun
+ I thought it was nice having console quality combat mechanics on a handheld
+ It did feel good fighting tough enemies and bosses and landing perfect blocks
+ The platforming and jumping parts of the game were semi-entertaining
+ Puzzles weren't too difficult, but they did provide a decent challenge

- Going back to get the few items I couldn't before killed the flow of the game
- The game never got past "it was kinda fun"
Fun: 7/10

Overall
My expectations were already pretty low for the game, so I was able to judge it for what it was.  I know Mercury Steam wanted to please fans of the series and still innovate something out of it, but it just didn't really work out.  What came out of it was a decent Action-Adventure game that was mildy entertaining but doesn't boast any merits or be considered that memorable of a game.  I did have my fun out of playing it, but I didn't feel like it was a "great" experience.  When I reviewed Lords of Shadow, I had a lot of conflicts with the game, but was able to look past all that and say that it was a pretty solid Action-Adventure game.  Even when doing that for Mirror of Fate, it is still a mediocre game under unbiased eyes.  Overall: 6.6/10