Metascore
68

Mixed or average reviews - based on 11 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 11
  2. Negative: 1 out of 11
  1. Oct 16, 2011
    40
    Nothing more than a brilliant idea gone horribly wrong. The chapters are relatively short, uninteresting, and the gameplay just isn't exciting enough to keep you coming back for more. Adding co-op for the sake of having a multiplayer component does not automatically make for a fun game. Harmony of Despair is proof of this. Konami's halfhearted effort does not deserve your money.
User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 21 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 9
  2. Negative: 0 out of 9
  1. Nov 4, 2011
    10
    the game is very good. But where the Leon Belmont, Trevor Belmont, Sypha belnundes, grant, juste belmont, Maxim, Hector, John Morris, Ericthe game is very good. But where the Leon Belmont, Trevor Belmont, Sypha belnundes, grant, juste belmont, Maxim, Hector, John Morris, Eric lecard, albus, hammer
    We would have eleven characters and new maps. the game would be bigger and better please konami more DLCs. after all my note is also positive
    Full Review »
  2. Aug 14, 2012
    6
    Why does it show 1 player? For the PS3 version, it's up to 6 players online and I 4 locally.

    The game is pretty fun, for awhile, and worth
    Why does it show 1 player? For the PS3 version, it's up to 6 players online and I 4 locally.

    The game is pretty fun, for awhile, and worth playing, but I don't believe it has good longevity due to poor design. The goals and methods are those of an MMO, where you grind tediously for item drops and try to do speed runs. But MMOs get expansions and new content, this game does not. It has a few DLCs, sure, but it does little to add anything to the game. In a game with very finite playability such a system makes little sense.

    There isn't much of an online community and there is very little variance in it. 75% of all players play the same character due to it being more fleshed out than the others and can be brokenly overpowered. One of the worst parts of the game is the requirement to get a low drop pair of boots that make you run much faster. If you don't have them, you'll be left behind everyone else with very little to do than pointless kill the odd monster that they avoided, and if you manage to catch up with them at the boss, you'll be more of a hindrance because the bosses are all designed purely around avoiding ultra powerful attacks, and being slower you have a much smaller margin for error.

    I really hope we see more complete, balanced Castlevania games based on this type of gameplay in the future, as it has promise were it to be more intelligently executed.

    So to recap, worth playing for awhile but it's cut off at the knees by it's short length and even worse balancing.
    Full Review »
  3. Nov 17, 2011
    5
    I am a long time Castlevania fan, but.... they missed the boat on this one. It is by and far not the worst game I have played, but the factI am a long time Castlevania fan, but.... they missed the boat on this one. It is by and far not the worst game I have played, but the fact that Castlevania is in the title adds an expectation of quality for me. The idea is a good one, and a very interesting twist on an aging but solid gameplay formula. Unfortunately, the content and length of the game doesn't quite satisfy, not even at a $15 price point. Will you have fun? Probably, especially if you're a Castlevania fan. Will you get sucked in? I would wager a majority of fans would not. At the very least, double the levels and the customization of the characters, and then you would start to see more of an appeal. Full Review »