Topic: Castlevania from a game design & difficulty balance perspective.

[Sinful]

WARNING - Very long post.

OK, so it has become apparent that Catlevania fans don't much care for game design & difficulty balance. Because then Dracula XX SNES would be more popular then Rondo PC- Engine, Bloodlines more popular then Super Castlevania, Adventure more popular then Legends, and Classic vania games more popular then Metroid vania games.

So yeah, there is no reason why this topic should not be intelligently discussed and flame wars avoided. This is a very deep subject that will open many gamers eyes is they're willing to accept that their fav games have flaws (all of the do).


So what should we start with? First I'll start with something very obvious and that it should help others get an idea of what I mean. Super Castlevania looks like a very well designed game, except that the hit the whip in every direction breaks many of the well placed enemies/level design in the game since you can whip so many through walls & from every angle enemies come from. It's like the designers designed the game without muti-directional whipping, then added it in near the end without enough time to make suitable changes (but if they would of made these changes, I think it would of changed the series way too much, and for the worse). Add in the whip brandish move to make thing seven easier still (I thought Death was way too hard until I remembered this move. Then he was a total joke, lol... Also helped a lot on Dracula).

Now to me, what Bloodlines team did was very smart in many ways. It seems like that team were on fire when they made this game. Plus the fact that the game is somewhat shorter then normal may of helped them focus more on perfecting what little they had. In this game they give you the best of both worlds; Classic vania games and Super Castlevania 4 (which is surprising why it's not more popular? Oh yeah, most people are very bias against Genesis games graphics & sounds. It can never be as good or better then SNES ). Between the two characters you come pretty close to having enough of the whip angles from part 4. Though if you separate these characters, you get even less, yet a more tightly balanced and designed games as the result. (Man how I wish this game was more popular since fans could have added more unique characters focusing on some other angles, then more levels to make up for it's shorter length).

One thing I always hear Castlevania fans complaining about is what they call stiff controls due to no control over jumps and the flaw of knock backs. These aren't flaws. The game's controls are perfect. You can't overpower the main characters in videogames too much because it only makes tightly designing the games much harder (look at the Metroid vania games. They give you so many moves that it's virtually impossible for the designers to adjust every single thing in the game to every move. It's impossible. Impossible... If you can't accept this, then accept this, it will never be as tightly designed as if done otherwise). This is why some of the best classic are also the simplest. And why so many fan games fail, because their character has to be the ultimate childhood dream fighting machine, with weapons firing off in every direction at the same time & baddies way overpowered too to compensate (have fun balancing this mess). And vania games that don't have control jumps are properly designed with that in mind. Add control and it would break the game. Really wish more people would get stuff like this.

I guess I'll briefly explain briefly about Rondo. That games difficulty seems to be all over the place. That and it's not that hard outside of very few trial and error spots throughout the game. In comparison, Dracula XX is way tighter designed & with an increasing difficulty as the game progresses... Maybe because they didn't have as many levels & split paths to worry about, thus they received much more focus... Sadly most fans don't care about this as long as they have more content.

Also, another reason why people don't seem to like the better designed & balanced vania games is because most people like easy games. IGA knows this too apparently. And why all his games are pretty easy (the hardest metroid vania game wasn't done by him, apparently, + it's the least popular, no surprise). This liking easy games started with the 16-Bit era due to games getting more complex, and it exploded in full force during the 32-Bit era & especially afterwards. Games shouldn't be beatable from the start, and hard games have to be fun enough to stick with it... course it's hard to come up with a fun challenge, so...

Anywho, what I talked about here is also the reason why gaming industry is going downhill. Most gamers don't understand to support great game design & balance, thus all we get is poor game design & no challenge. As long as we have a ton of content & trinkets to keep us busy... yikes, is this why we have downloadable content abuse/scams!

So do you guys get what I mean? (I hope I explained things good enough, I suck at explaining) Can you figure out why Adventure is much better designed then Legends for the old Game Boy? And am I wrong with anything?

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

I'm gonna go ahead and move this back to Castlevania General Discussion.

[Ahasverus]

I agree. Castlevania I was so tightly designed it's mesmerizing today. The series became too much focused on style over substance over he years. not that it's bad otherwise we'd have probably a game similar to Ninja Gaiden (1-2.. I heard about a horrible third one but it was probably  bad dream). I think Castlevania fans are a strange beast. It's not that the pure gameplay is immaculated or intriguing per se I think we're more inmersed in theworld and how it all comes togheter techicalities aside. Still.. now that the aesthetics and stylish side of the series is strong enough I would like to come back to the technical side.

[Nagumo]

Though game design can make or break games (like Curse of Darkness) it certainly isn't everything. I think the reason why people don't really pay much attention to this is because overall the classic Castlevania games have the same level of design, except for a few that stand out but those are considered to be the awful ones most of the time. For example, I don't lose sleep over the original Castlevania probably having a better difficulty curve than Dracula's Curse despite the latter being one of my favorites.

Some fans already consider the level design to be sufficient and don't care too much about things like challenge and just want to emerge themselves into the game's world. Despite good game design should be celebrated when it appears, like how Ecclesia improved on the enemy placement and made it feel more satisfying to me to play through areas, it all depends on what we seek in games and what we consider to be good design. So I think it's a bit snobistic to say that "The older games are better because they have better balance and more challenge." while ignoring other qualites of the games you are comparing them to.
   

[Ahasverus]

So I think it's a bit snobistic to say that "The older games are better because they have better balance and more challenge." while ignoring other qualites of the games you are comparing them to.
 

But we're not saying that. It's just that this main core of Castlevania has faded with the years(ecclesia being a grat exception and lok howit seems to be the most beloved of the DSones). Also it's great to see that attention to detail in older games when everythin was designed around gameplay.

[thernz]

How does Dracula XX have better game design than Rondo when DXX has no thought put into its mechanics or level design?

[Sinful]

How does Dracula XX have better game design than Rondo when DXX has no thought put into its mechanics or level design?

I could ask you the very same thing.... you start first.

[Nagumo]

But we're not saying that. 

Also, another reason why people don't seem to like the better designed & balanced vania games is because most people like easy games. ... 

To be clear, I understand why one would want good design, I just wasn't agreeing how good design should always be X and X because people care about different things in games.     

[Dremn]

The only point I don't agree with in your argument is your stance on Dracula X:

In comparison, Dracula XX is way tighter designed & with an increasing difficulty as the game progresses... Maybe because they didn't have as many levels & split paths to worry about, thus they received much more focus... Sadly most fans don't care about this as long as they have more content.

There were far too many moments in Dracula X that made it more broken than Rondo. In most cases you had to be at the VERY edge of platforms in order to make jumps, and the broken collision with enemies guaranteed you taking twice the damage than you should. The overall feel of the gameplay felt "tighter," but there are still a lot of design decisions that hinder the overall flow of the game. It's not a BAD Castlevania game, but it's definitely not one of the better ones.

I think Castlevania 1, 3, Bloodlines, Belmont's Revenge, and ReBirth have some near perfect level design. IV was just a really fun game in general, everything about it felt good. It's understandable why people who appreciated the aforementioned games don't like it as much, but there hasn't been a Castlevania game that has felt that good since. That's just a personal feeling anyway. I would rather much have games that were more similar to Rondo, Bloodlines, and ReBirth. X68000/Chronicles gets a special mention too.

[thernz]

all of the mechanics in rondo that were transferred to dxx are completely moot in the context of dxx. the dxx richter moves too slowly for the enemies, and the collision is awful. the level design is completely haphazard with no regard for intelligent or engaging enemy placement. none of the setpieces are well-designed, especially for the later levels. if anything, the only interest in dxx are floating platforms, but those completely ruin the pace and slow down things even more. besides new enemies, there is nothing to drive the player forward because the environments largely offer nothing new or exciting for the level design. cv1 and rondo have obvious themes running in the level design. dxx on the other hand is completely superfluous and is more like a series of disconnected rooms than coherently designed levels. there is no coherency on a macro-level in regards to level structure.

[Sinful]

is nothing to drive the player forward because the environments largely offer nothing new or exciting for the level design. cv1 and rondo have obvious themes running in the level design. dxx on the other hand is completely superfluous and is more like a series of disconnected rooms than coherently designed levels. there is no coherency on a macro-level in regards to level structure.

I was waiting for this reply. Style over substance. Sorry, this is off topic. But it's the #1 reason why people are fooled into believing Rondo is the better designed game. I don't care what the game looks like for this topic. All I want to know is about enemy placement, level layout, and how they balance and interact with the character. And this is where Rondo seems to fail for me in comparison to XX.

Some examples now fro Rondo; My that river raft sure looks beautiful, too bad from a gameplay perspective it's totally useless; My that section with swinging skeletons sure looks genius, too bad you can just skip past that whole section and make em all disappear by touching the door out of there; The only thing challenging in the ship level is maybe them birds... not really, and that's level 6 of 8.  Not looking good. Though Death seemed pretty tuff until I figured it out (sure wish I had Super Simon's brandish move at first); Dracula is the last boss? You sure fooled me; and for the rest, just play the game and see how the difficulty bounces up and down like crazy, with all these uniques enemies just placed all over the place with not much rhyme or reason but just because they look kick but and unique. And in the end, when you find everything, I doubt this game will challenge you anymore... But oooou, look at them pretty graphics & CD quality sound... yeah, this is fine too for replay, but off topic.

Now some quick example of why XX is genius; to save both hostages requires more skill, not just finding them or by luck. ie. Having to have the key (why basically handed to you) on you makes the level harder since you can't use sub-weapons fro the first half, then the second half too if your clever enough to figure this out. Tell me this is not brilliant. If you think it's only annoying, you've got much to learn still + you also have to make sure you don't fall in a certain area to even stand a chance to rescue them + the alternate routes are harder too. Sure many will complain because this is too challenging & that they want to see the entire game right away, but it's great replay incentive, what's the rush & what's wrong with that? And back then many people didn't have many games on backlog like nowadays + if you like a game very much, don't you want it to give you more replay incentives?; why is Richter's speed brought into this conversation? Don't worry about it, the game is balanced around the speed set just fine (maybe they knocked it down because it made the game too easy or didn't fit well enough with what they designed?); Sure the levels don't go all crazy and on inclines like Rondo and what not, but they sure are tighter designed for a more controlled difficulty; enemies were balanced to be more of a treat then when they weren't much of or at all in Rondo + placed better of course; Now this game has a last boss worthy of being last boss; I didn't see any problems with hit detection when I played through this game, and if there is something that surprised you, remember it for next time, it's that simple (what, you want me to complain about why you can't duck over high axe tosses in Rondo too, even though it looks like I should be good? Come on, the hit-box was more then likely done this way intentionally + balanced the game according to what it is).


And sure, to me style in videogames is very important too. VG Maps and Spriters resource are probably the best websites in my view. There is nothing more the a well drawn map & sprite to make me more gaga... but let's not talk about this, please. Or how Super Castlevania 4 is still my fav or what not.  Yeah, yeah sure, whatever, I like Castlevania games too.

To be clear, I understand why one would want good design, I just wasn't agreeing how good design should always be X and X because people care about different things in games.     

I guess I'm not smart enough to fully figure this out as to what you might mean?... I think I brought this difficulty thing up because it has a great impact on game design. Sure there should be both hard and easy games to suit each mood (I know my moods changed from hard to easy games quite a few times already), but do all games have to be easy nowadays? Or better yet, do all Castlevania games have to be easy & broken nowadays? Why can't I wish for one more old school challenge style Castlevania in the very simple classic style with the same classic Konami genius design? (This means made in-house by Konami & no whip that has more angles then Bloodlines & no more then the classic sub-weapons for other weapons... though I could do without the knife and clock just like how Bloodlines was smart enough to say no too.. anybody use these things anyway?... oh, and no more backtracking. I find it kills the repaly big time + it's boring).

[Abnormal Freak]

Despite my enjoyment of DXX, the level designs and enemy placements are fuckin' sloppy and there's never really any good place but one to use the backflip—and the SNES team messed up the controls on that. In terms of level design, both aesthetically and functionally, there's not a whole lot interesting going on with the game.

Is it more difficult than Rondo? Yeah. Mostly because it plays so much differently you have to get used to the way it does things and not play it as you would Rondo (e.g., you can't whip the werewolf when he's spinning toward you to knock him back). Some of the jumps are kinda tricky. But the game is ugly (speaking the designs, not the art which is great) and the designs not exactly the most fun or intriguing.

Rondo, on the other hand, never feels that way. It feels like a complete game, and reaching secret areas and alternate paths is so much more thought-out and rewarding. There are several places which to use the backflip which come in handy. Take away all the nifty extras that enhance the gameplay in small ways and the core design structure is a million times better than DXX—but with all those extras and pretty graphics and great tunes, the game is made all the more fun, because presentation means A LOT.

So yeah, bro. I was kinda with you until you implied that DXX should be more liked than Rondo for "TRUE GAMING ENTHUSIASTS WHO LIKE A CHALLENGE," lol.

[Abnormal Freak]

Also, so many of the baddies in DXX can be killed by standing behind a block on the floor or throwing holy water from up above. These areas which ought to be tight pinches are easy as can be and you can just step back and attack. Real awesome designing there. :o Sure, IV has many such instances, but the game is just so much more satisfying and fun to play. I wish it did have classic mechanics, though, or it could have used a bit of an overhaul in game design to utilize the whip more, but it's still the most awesomest in da seriez.

[Sinful]

Look man, who said anything about being hardcore to beat XX? I'm pretty sure just about anybody can beat XX with just average skills. I assure my skills are average at best, and I'm not always in the mood to play the hardest games (why I'm leaving the x68000 version off for a bit longer).

But you also don't see how lame Rondo is designed? Well then whatever, I'm in my own little world until someone says otherwise.

So how about Adventure being far superior in game design & balance in comparison to Legends, which I consider typical portable trash of that era with no sign of Konami genius to be seen anywhere (wonder is this game was used to train new guys like how it happened with the second PS2 Contra game?). People agree with this or not?

[thernz]

I was waiting for this reply. Style over substance. Sorry, this is off topic. But it's the #1 reason why people are fooled into believing Rondo is the better designed game. I don't care what the game looks like for this topic. All I want to know is about enemy placement, level layout, and how they balance and interact with the character. And this is where Rondo seems to fail for me in comparison to XX.

You know, when I said consistent themes and all that jazz, I was referring to the flow and rhythm of those levels where, for instance, CVI's level layouts were largely permutations of an idea. Both CVI and Rondo are better paced as well. There's a lot more emphasis on creating rhythm and harmony in those games with their enemy placement than DXX ever tried.

DXX just ends up being confused. There are rarely any instances of enemy placement being used in unique ways such as enemies  interrelating with one another beyond the typical molds already used in previous Castlevanias. You're just going from one obstacle to another, with no build up or progression. Compare this with Rondo where if often sends out an enemy at you then mixes it up more and more, using the environment. Rondo just explores a lot of intriguing possibilities in how it uses enemy placement, and Dracula XX simply rarely does.

A lot of it just consists of this flatness from one enemy to the next in drab hallways.

Now, Rondo doesn't have the tightest design, but it supplants it with an environment that seems whole, with all its branches, secrets, and inter-connectivity that make exploring those places interesting in a way Castlevania never touched before.