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

[Puwexil]

As the same issues are being discussed here, with even some of the same people repeating the same old points, I might as well link to a few posts I made pertaining to Dracula X a year ago. I haven't changed my assessment of either it or Rondo; one continues to amaze me with its thoughtless dime-a-dozen design while the other remains stunning in how effortless it makes it all seem. Guess which is which.

One particular thing that needs to be addressed is how Rondo is being treated as "casual" and toned-down in difficulty in the eyes of some, to its detriment. This is a fallacy more than anything. The game is able to create an illusion of a low difficulty level because it's simply the high point of the entire series in terms of the player's capabilities versus what the enemies are able to do to match it. Traditionally, stage-based Castlevania had stacked the odds against the player from the outset, and a slight advantage remained for the game even after fully powering up with whip enhancements and the like. The other extreme is of course the feeling of ultimate player empowerment the exploration-based games utilize, where enemies in the worst cases are lucky to even be able to move before being summarily dispatched by the superhuman, nimble protagonist. Neither approach does a game any good when taken too far.

This is, then, at the crux of Rondo's success in terms of mechanics, where the relationship between Richter and his foes is carefully maintained to be as balanced as possible, divergent from what came before and after. He occupies a middle-ground in terms of mobility, being able to hop across stairs and utilize maneuvers designed to help him out of tight spots and cover for player error, like the subtle whip-lengthening strike, backflipping, turning and whipping backwards in mid-air, and walking backwards. Yet Richter's still confined to exclusively horizontal attacks with the whip, and he's not fully able to control his momentum while jumping like later protagonists. He represents a character that is exactly as agile and maneuverable as he needs to be to take on the enemies on even terms, neither being overmatched or overpowering them himself.

None of this would matter if the enemies weren't designed to counter accordingly, but that's where Rondo's beauty lies. The creatures faced in the game are proactive and aggressive, tailored to hound Richter relentlessly. There is much more focus on personal duels between similarly-abled opponents, usually some form of humanoids. This brings the best out of the game's mechanics, effortlessly making even flat planes exciting to traverse simply because the enemies that inhabit the stages are fun to take on. They are not beefy stonewalls taking hits until they simply expire, but reactive, intelligent combatants. Gargoyles are dodge-prone, the gravekeepers and sword lords teach you to maintain space between zoning enemies, while enemies that come at you from odd angles are combined for effect, like the merman pit with peeping eyes in the second stage. This is a game designed to keep you on your toes through a constantly shifting and evolving cast of foes, placed in the levels with consideration and most importantly, sparingly. The shielded knights are memorable as much because there are only a scant few of them in the game as they are because they are fun to battle.

That was a preamble to examining how Dracula X approaches things, naturally. To summarize, it misuses Rondo's brilliant cast to a great degree. For one thing, it only utilizes a fraction of the enemies, and the more stale, usual ones at that. This robs the game of the strength Rondo displayed in handling humanoid enemies, with nothing to replace it. Secondly, it's extremely in love with certain enemy types, namely medusa heads and spear guards, with which it oversaturates the levels simply because it has no idea what else to do with them. The result is a slog through a monotonous setting filled with monotonous opposition. The lack of memorable uniques hurts the game on a mechanical and atmospheric level. It's as bad about repeating a pattern as the worst-derided exploration games, which is just baffling considering the source material they worked with.

In short, Rondo is a terrific exhibit of balancing the game around the mutual abilities of the player and his enemies, while Dracula X showcases a mismanagement of the same basic building blocks that results in a game that leans on the difficult side, for all the wrong reasons. It's not well-considered at all in design, and championing it for that is empty praise at best.

[Sinful]

I already mentioned that XX has half the levels then Rondo, thus having half the enemies is just about right. And it shouldn't feel like there aren't enough enemies. It only feels like that because you played Rondo know that that game had more enemies. Go play all the other 2D classic vania games and you'll see XX has just about the right amount of enemies.

An yeah, thanks for reminding me of this other problem with Rondo and how XX fixes them. You fight too many enemies solo in Rondo. Boring. ... How so you ask? OK, let's at the last level. It starts out beautifully with one of the best designed Castlevania levels ever, the bridge. This bridge is genius because it's unpredictable and thus you have to use more then one tactic to succeed flawlessly + this scene is nice enough to toss more then one enemy at you + they can pile up too. From here on things start to get boring. Inside you can just quickly climb up the stair and be done with it. The next area you quickly climb down and deal with two enemies total separately and be done with it (you can grab the hidden health too, and deal with one stupid water thing too if you want). Next you climb up almost top the top and deal with zero challenge from them stupid water things, and come up with the only somewhat genius part here. The climbing of this platform that raises yet spins forcing you to keep jumping with the game tossing one medusa head at you at a time. Too bad this this only happens once and for only a brief moment, thus can be easily maneuvered despite it's genius. Next! Boring Alert! Boring Alert! (Plus what you seem to find is this games strength ) You fight a ton of these boring sword guys solo one at a time back to back. Same boring tactic over and over and over and over and over. Sigh. (oou, but you can backflip!) What where they thinking? And what were you thinking for calling this genius? It's boring and very repetitive. ... oh, and don't even mention them bone dogs as being paired with then sword guys, because it's like they aren't even there (plus you deal with them separate anyways).

You see, this is where XX improves things. They start pairing enemies and situations again like the old Castlevania game instead of fighting and handling everything one at a time. I don't care if that stupid gargoyle thing can dodge, eventually I'll hit him if he somehow eludes me. If I want a one on one fighting game, I'll play a fighting game with much better AI. Not Castlevania game with dirt stupid AI.

And yes, this post may sound harsh, but it's because it's so obvious is why it sounds harsh & I had to make it as obvious as possible in hopes that it would sink in for once. How can this not be seen? Are the only people defending it fans of the Castleroid games? Yes, I can see how these guys wouldn't understand classic vania games, but for fans of classic vania game not to recognize their own kind? Well, that pretty baffling.

[thernz]

At the very least, Rondo's AI isn't undermined by the level design. Whereas in Dracula XX, there's an instance where you can exploit the red axe armor just by normal gameplay,



Because of the way the armor was coded, he will never hurl axes at you in this range. Because of the wall, he'll never reach you. He'll just keep on wailing his axe while you idle about.

Dracula XX also has this strange design choice. You can't kill bats until they're in flight. That means you can't take out bats while they're hanging. They're invincible. I'm not sure how anyone could justify that. It's completely dissonant from the rest of the game. Why can't you hit an enemy until they're in a certain state when you're in range and all that jazz?



That particular bat doesn't even activate by the player's distance. It gets triggered by the player jumping, which is pretty cheap in Castlevania considering the amount of commitment a player has when they jump. That combined with the illogicality of not being able to attack the bat just screams bad and cheap design to me.

Gotta also adore the random pillars in the cavern. Just there. Not supporting anything. Not serving any use as a pillar. Just there, because hey, let's put pillars.

[Puwexil]

I already mentioned that XX has half the levels then Rondo, thus having half the enemies is just about right. And it shouldn't feel like there aren't enough enemies. It only feels like that because you played Rondo know that that game had more enemies. Go play all the other 2D classic vania games and you'll see XX has just about the right amount of enemies.

What does the number of stages in the game have to do with anything in relation to the enemies featured therein and how they're utilized? The point, here, is that Dracula X uses a truncated Rondo cast, to supremely routine, workmanlike results, without an ounce of imagination or creativity. They had such good reference material in creating an alternate take on the game for a different platform, but chose to go about it in the most boring way possible, leaving out much of what gave the original its identity. Had they replaced the omissions with something else that worked, it would've been alright, but they didn't. Dracula X has next to no original ideas to call its own, and the scant few it does are usually misguided in practice.

[RichterB]

I'm going to treat this as a dialogue rather than an argument, if possible. Yes, this conversation has been held before in other manifestations. I don't intend to "win" anything, I just am going to throw out some thoughts to chew on.

WARNING: Wall of text, incoming [As is popular to say these days]

I played Rondo last night: the pirate ship level, level 1, level 2', and the swamp. I wanted a quick Castlevania play and I wanted to see if I've judged the game wrong. Unfortunately, I came up with that same disappointment, wanting to love it and have a lot of fun with its scope, but coming up feeling somehow bored. First thing I noticed was there is a good deal of one-on-one, like a fighter, like Sinful said. For the first time, I realized one of my issues with Rondo--it has some of that halt-the-pace "arena fighting" that the post-N64 3D Castlevanias are so fond of. Rather than having a lot of traps and death pits in a forward-moving, thinking-on-your-feet rhythm, you end up walking into a corridor/room, stopping, and going one-on-one; and often, the AI isn't even interesting enough to warrant it. You can kind of muscle your way through. Now, level specific...

Level 1: To be frank, you walk forward a short distance, go up a one-screen staircase, walk forward a short distance, go down a one-screen staircase. During this, you will run into, what, 5 bone apes that are sitting ducks, and two skeleton ninja-types who don't offer much more in their environment. From here, you can choose to go forward and go on a one-one-one fighter battle with golems in what is essentially a long, repeating corridor. Or, you can go left to the secret passage. That secret passage, after one poltergeist, drops you down into a basement (?) that lets you choose left or right. Given stage progression, it's pretty obvious to go right; but if you go left, you can have a pointless battle with a plant. And the statues, who point which way to go, have a nice laugh at you. That's pretty random, and not much of a punishment if it was supposed to be. Meanwhile, you go right, and the stage is over. You're suddenly on a water-bucket ride to the boss. Maybe that basement was an underground aqueduct? The level is short and essentially disposable, even for an intro stage, and the short cut makes it even shorter and easier.

The whole idea of the first official level having a split path seems confused game design, as they've given you a choice before they've even established a rhythm to the core level design. The intro cut-scene level where you have a chat with Death already established whipping and jumping to an extent, but a linear chariot doesn't exactly set up the core level design of the game, before it can introduce its multi-path hook. So, rather than a complete surprise, the option of an extra path, which is easy enough to stumble upon, becomes less significant as a change-up/curve ball. The stage design of Dracula XX takes more advantage of showing you the ropes while not holding you by the hand, establishing a core rhythm. And, it takes advantage of the brilliant setting originally presented in Rondo, by having you interact with more burned-out buildings and structures. It feels like this town has been totally besieged. Again with the core design, the enemies take full advantage of their environment to try to knock you in precarious spots, making you think fast and ahead to strategically survive.

Level 2': This has been one of my favorite stages in the past (daylight near Drac's entrance!), but I noticed a few things when I step back. First, we have air-floating candles. Rondo is not guiltless! (As for those Dracula XX pillars in the cave--I thought it was a creative (if convenient) atmosphere where Dracula's Castle has its foundations build into the earth…or maybe it’s part of an ancient ruin site. It plays with the imagination). Anyway, once again, the split path comes very early, and it's almost forced upon you when the floor breaks if you're not paying attention, because it has you eying your enemy so much in a one-on-one battle.

It hit me that this stage may have been the inspiration for the infamous stage 3 of Dracula XX with the medusa pillars. Here's why that is better, IMO, though. Here, when you fall, if you die on the moat ride, you return to before you fell, erasing the consequence of your inexperience. In Dracula XX, the consequence is you fail to save the girls, and you have to fight Annette herself on the clock tower. You have the curiosity to continue forward, and then later realize your mistake and start again on a new code or with a password. And speaking of the medusa pillars, as tricky as they are, they feel both more fair and more interesting of a problem to solve to me in their patterns than the merman that start popping up in droves, and you basically have to stay on the front of the boat and whip quickly, and hope they don't get you in a chain of knockbacks. Both scenarios can be considered cheap, but to not acknowledge they are of the same basic ilk would be unfair.

By the way, speaking of consequences, the reward for surviving the medusa heads gives you a chance to rescue both girls by holding onto that key, which allows you to succeed in the game in one true path you work to discover and overcome.

Swamp level: Like I said before, I don't like the abrupt ending of the Dogether path, even though it's a fascinating gameplay mechanic in theory. And what's with the mid-boss on, like, the second screen of the level, and the secret passage before that, which gives you the power to annihilate it. It makes a pretty sight, but even without the secret bonus equipment, this purple skull thing goes down way too easily.

Pirate ship/ghost ship: The introduction is classic in nature, but seems a bit off somehow in the way you can muscle through it. The skull heads from the water are neat, but don't match the motif as well as the water skulls used in XX's Sunken Temple, which were put instead in Rondo's Clocktower to, IMO, lesser effect. This level's shortcut doesn't give you much difference, except a chance at an extra life by whacking what appears to be a mechanical engine(?!) That seems out of place and very quirky--more than needed. The duels with the skeleton archers and such a just little tired—padding-like. And then we get that "cheap, cheap, cheap" painting enemy. Really funny, ripping me up like that. An item crash has something to say about that. The whole thing doesn't seem fair either way to me. That part irks me.

Dracula XX may not have all the enemies or bosses of Rondo, but it does have some new ones of its own that are pretty nice. The Cerberus is a nice change-up for an opening boss; the underground swamp cave Necromancer is totally cool with its ability to slow you down, summon skeletons, and toss graves around (or use them as shields); and the tragic Annette boss is more involved than Rondo's Carmilla with its mobile magic eyes, and even inspired a turn of events for the PSP revision of Rondo.

Now, Sinful, as far as Adventure Rebirth and the Nintendo 64 games...

Adventure Rebirth has probably been the only recent Castlevania game that really lived up to the name (as I see it) and made me hopeful for the series. That said, while it does a lot with what little resources were likely allocated toward it, and is very clever in its own right, it's not necessarily as impactful as its 16-bit brethren. You can play it whenever you want, but I don't know that there's a rush, considering it was the last Classicvania-style game released. As I said, I think the game's genius really shows in Hard Mode--where it is really a struggle for survival the way the enemies are placed and the obstacles are designed, and you have to use every resource available

(click to show/hide)

(such as keys, secret passages, extra lives, and sub-weapons)

--whereas the other modes are just average, maybe even casual CV romps. (Thanks for the Gradius history lesson. I wasn't aware of that, as I have only casually followed that Konami series for some reason).

The Nintendo 64 games are basically a case of games that came around at the wrong time. People wanted SotN on N64, or a 3D equivalent. The Nintendo 64 games are instead a 3D blend of Castlevania IV and II with late 90's survival horror-ish and/or Tomb Raider-ish elements. (And given that those latter two have things in common with Castlevanias of the past, it's a clever mix to move the series forward while still being true to it). It's especially nice that these are the only two 3D Castlevanias that don't rely on the fixed camera, hack-n-slash arena fighter formula for primary level design.

Castlevania 64 or CV64 (just called Castlevania on the box) was first, followed shortly after by Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness (LoD). Basically, the creators (no longer major forces behind Castlevania these days) had a big vision--bigger than either of these games based on interviews and beta versions. However, the time crunch caught them. CV64 was a complete game, but only roughly half of what their vision was actually made it into the product. So, through one means or another, they were allowed a few more months after CV64 was released to continue working on the game--for a revised expansion of CV64, if you will. Even then, the final result was seemingly only maybe 85-90% of what they wanted based those on earlier interviews/betas (swinging across gaps like IV and Bloodlines, shown in a pilot-promo video, was still left on the cutting room floor, for example, even though some of the latches to connect to were left "visually" in the game on some areas).
 
The released results, however, remain rather compelling despite being a bit rough around the edges, and each gives a distinctive, engaging experience dripping with CV “mood.” I haven't played LoD since it came out and I beat its first character's quest on a rental, but I still own and play CV64, so I'm going to give you a limited assessment partially from memory and recent research. I'll just spell out the basic contrasts of these games, similar to what you'd find on the back of a box, but not give away specific spoilers. (BTW, I still plan to track down a copy of LoD in the future, unless it’s released in some sort of collection or as an official download).

Now, CV64 and LoD share some levels, but like Rondo and Dracula XX, they have completely different layouts, goals, and/or enemies/bosses. For those levels they share, the differences become a personal preference, as the freshness of the alterations are welcome, but the differences often make you miss one game's level layout or the other. On the other hand, each game, depending on the character you use, gives you new levels/routes with totally unique themes/locations. That gives it a bit of a CVIII feel at times. (So, in essence, this variety makes you want to play both games for the full experience. LoD is more than a simple remake of CV64, and vice-versa).

Other differences include the cast of characters [and their outfits] and the story. CV64 has 2 characters, LoD has 4. LoD's main [starter] werewolf-ish character serves as a prequel chapter to the story of CV64, and manages to fit well into the CV world. LoD worked to hone the camera a bit more, and it added more power-ups and such for game balance--it skews the game a bit easier, though, IIRC.

As you noted, the main whip character, a personal favorite, has to be unlocked in LoD, whereas you can choose him from the start in CV64. It's my opinion that CV64 should be played first; although, keep in mind that it's a little rougher around the edges than LoD. I think you'd like CV64 to start with given your tastes here so far, as it's a little harder, it has a whip character to start with, and some of its levels are superior to their remade versions in terms of old-school philosophy. ***Level 2 of CV64 is a near-perfect translation of 2D Classicvania in 3D, which no other game post-N64 era has gotten close to, IMO.*** It's followed up by a 3rd level that is a fan favorite, showing off the potential for growth/depth for CV in 3D.

Honestly, these games were way ahead of their time (if I gave my list of "why," it'd have some spoilers, so I won't). But maybe they were a bit too ambitious for their platform. I don't know that they're better than the best of the 2D games, but they show the amazing potential that Castlevania in 3D could possibly equal or surpass those if built from these games as a starting point. Unfortunately, because they have such a controversial history, Konami has all but buried them, and each of the succeeding 3D games tried to build off of other combo-based formulas like Devil May Cry and God of War to far more mixed, and dare I say, series-compromising results.

The reason I'm not around here much is that the recent turn of events in the series has pretty much alienated me, and the lack of good news upsets me. The series ultimately hit a dead end with the repetitive Castleroids (some of which were better than others and deserve some credit), and then the 3D series was so mismanaged post-N64 that it ended in a reboot, Lords of Shadow, that re-imagines Castlevania so much, and uses 3D in such an amorphous, trend-heavy way, that it's like the series doesn't believe in itself anymore. It’s like it feels it has to keep the barest surface elements and largely follow popular design trends to be like other popular games to make Castlevania relevant. Mixing games like God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Uncharted, and movies like Lord of the Rings, Van Helsing, and Underworld doesn’t add up to Castlevania, IMO.
 
In general summation: CV64 and LoD=huge strides in right direction; PS2 Lament of Innocence = one step forward, three steps backward; PS2/XBOX Curse of Darkness equals one step forward, one step to the side, and three steps backward; Wii's Judgment equals three steps to the side; PS3/XBOX360 Lords of Shadow equals one step forward, three steps to the side, three steps backward. Any improvements in the recent 3D games always seem to come at the cost of the series' identity and/or gameplay; it's just sad to me. And because it sold decently, Lords of Shadow is the series’ near-future identity now. (Maybe they'll totally rework the sequel's art direction, gameplay, level design, and story...but I doubt it'll be able to change significantly enough. I bought LoS at full price, even though I had very, very shaky feelings about it, and while amusing in its own right, it confirmed my greatest fears for the franchise).

Right now, in the least, I'm hoping that Bloodlines, Dracula XX, and the two N64 games come to Wii Virtual Console (along with Contra: Hard Corps, since we mentioned Contra). But even all of that is questionable.

PS: Sinful, which Castlevanias have you played?

PPS: Yeah, I have "no respect." Ha-ha! I just realized what you meant by that a page back. (This Respect Option--however it works--is new since I was last really active here. But, hey, anybody who gives XX any credit over Rondo isn't going to be super popular). Regardless, thank you.

[Sinful]

At the very least, Rondo's AI isn't undermined by the level design. Whereas in Dracula XX, there's an instance where you can exploit the red axe armor just by normal gameplay,



Because of the way the armor was coded, he will never hurl axes at you in this range. Because of the wall, he'll never reach you. He'll just keep on wailing his axe while you idle about.

Dracula XX also has this strange design choice. You can't kill bats until they're in flight. That means you can't take out bats while they're hanging. They're invincible. I'm not sure how anyone could justify that. It's completely dissonant from the rest of the game. Why can't you hit an enemy until they're in a certain state when you're in range and all that jazz?

First you complain for being able to use cheap tactics, then you complain because you can't? Are you for real?

And in regards to finding cheap tactics, this is something that applies to all video games. You want me to go on a field day listing you all the ones for Rondo? How about me telling Ritchier B how to more easily defeat the very cheap for one shot killing you painting for starter? (Funny, they complain about XX being cheap and not this and other examples in Rondo? Yeah, it all comes down to favoritism bias these days sadly ); to easily kill this enemy without using item crash, just go to the very right before climbing that slight platform rise, turn around, and each time he comes just jump and whip. He's defenseless. As he won't come nearer, as he'll just come and leaver, and repeat his pathetic attack again & again to no avail. 


Anywho, I read Ritcher B reply first, then this one (haven't even read the last paragraph thernz wrote) which made me hurry to put in a very quick reply. But I'm in a hurry, to leave this morning. When I come back I'll reply to Ritcher B (who I must keep in touch with this guy at all costs, lol) and then read & finish the other guys' posts.

[Puwexil]

For some reason there's this willful ignorance going on about the merit of atmosphere, ambiance, and worldbuilding in regards to the design of both Rondo and Dracula X. Take that whole critique about Rondo's opening stage, for instance. You want to know why it's good? I'll tell you why: because it creates a convincing setting that it reinforces through intelligent enemy placement and a sensible layout, lending it a tremendous sense of place. You'll note how the street level stays consistent throughout to the very end as it would in a settled city area, how the theme of a town being razed is strengthened by enemies crashing through windows of the houses they've pillaged, how the water seen on the upper levels flows into an underground pool where an oversized plant makes its dwelling (this is especially fantastic), how the platforms you use to reach the alternate boss are actually buckets part of a water-drawing system, working in unison with the aqueduct connecting to the lake (said aqueduct being the setting of the following stage). A lone poltergeist occupies an abandoned house, signifying the flight and demise of the townspeople.

This relatively brief length of the game practically constitutes a whole world unto itself, and is so satisfying to experience every time that it's kind of impossible for me to undermine its worth in terms of mechanics (which are sound; see for example the pleasant rhythmical flow of the section in the upper levels where you react to surprise enemy attacks while counteracting thrown barrels with axes). It's very inventive, and very interesting.

Dracula X's counterpart stage takes the same basic concept and proceeds to do nothing with it. There are no eyecatches, nothing going on in the level design or enemy selection to suggest that this is more than a rudimentary stage in a video game. Its internal logic is wonky to the point of being distracting, in how after climbing up an extended indoor section, and some hop-and-skip on rooftops (I guess? Not much to go on there, visually), it follows that up with solid ground, on street level again. I don't think towns work like that! The proper stage section is then concluded with the Behemoth chase, lifted from Rondo, in which it was foreshadowed by showing its menacing eyes lurking about in the darkness, and then having it crash through a wall with great impact. In Dracula X, it materializes out of thin air, and is hilariously beheaded at the end for no real reason, other than that's what happened in Rondo. Only there, its head fell off because its rotting carcass slammed against a solid brick wall. That was wonderfully morbid and made sense, yet Dracula X somehow manages to waste the effect. That's really the underlying relationship it has with Rondo: imitation without purpose or logic.

[Sinful]

That particular bat doesn't even activate by the player's distance. It gets triggered by the player jumping, which is pretty cheap in Castlevania considering the amount of commitment a player has when they jump. That combined with the illogicality of not being able to attack the bat just screams bad and cheap design to me.

You don't see that this is well design? Well, that's why you have no understanding on this topic.

You want cheap, look at that painting in Rondo. It's only there to one shot first timers. Afterwards it's waste of time because it's too poorly designed to do anything afterwards. Why do you think I came up with that tactic? Because that enemy seemed to me to have a limit in it's range, meaning he can't reach you if you are on the right side of the screen.  So all that is left is for you to  get just within reach and keeping kitting him.

To me it seems you don't want good game design that challenges you, you want game design that pretends to be challenging and yet is easy to defeat.

Gotta also adore the random pillars in the cavern. Just there. Not supporting anything. Not serving any use as a pillar. Just there, because hey, let's put pillars.

What I see here is substance over style. Something that has been forgotten about in Castlevania and in gaming in general. The cure is to go back to NES gaming.

What does the number of stages in the game have to do with anything in relation to the enemies featured therein and how they're utilized? The point, here, is that Dracula X uses a truncated Rondo cast, to supremely routine, workmanlike results, without an ounce of imagination or creativity. They had such good reference material in creating an alternate take on the game for a different platform, but chose to go about it in the most boring way possible, leaving out much of what gave the original its identity. Had they replaced the omissions with something else that worked, it would've been alright, but they didn't. Dracula X has next to no original ideas to call its own, and the scant few it does are usually misguided in practice.

Well, the less level space you have, you'd figure the less enemies you'd need... no?

You know it's weird, when you add both Rondo's and XX's maps together, in my mind it would seem that Rondo doubles XX. Yet when you play through both of them, it feels like XX doubles Rondo in length. Especially if you stick only to the second route and for your first playthrough, because of the warp world method Richter B was talking about that drastically cuts the length of the levels. Yet among one of Rondo's most praise comes from these multiple routes, but most of them are shortcuts. I can only think of 3 levels that have a true second paths through (3,4,5').

The proper stage section is then concluded with the Behemoth chase, lifted from Rondo, in which it was foreshadowed by showing its menacing eyes lurking about in the darkness, and then having it crash through a wall with great impact. In Dracula X, it materializes out of thin air, and is hilariously beheaded at the end for no real reason, other than that's what happened in Rondo. Only there, its head fell off because its rotting carcass slammed against a solid brick wall. That was wonderfully morbid and made sense,

lol, the bull hits a wall and explodes. Yeah, that makes sense.

it follows that up with solid ground, on street level again. I don't think towns work like that!

Look, each time the scene's change in XX, it doesn't mean the next scene it right next to the last one. You know that, right?... Besides, this just shows the XX team concentrated on substance over style by worrying of design more then how it all fit together. The Rondo team concentrated on style first and tried to make substance work somehow in the end... and failed.

(Thanks for the Gradius history lesson. I wasn't aware of that, as I have only casually followed that Konami series for some reason).

Yeah, at first the Gradius series  and Konami shmups in general I didn't get what all the fuss was about? But I pushed myself to give these games at least enough playtime/chance, and then all of a sudden it clicked with me and everything made sense. It's so far my fav shooter series by far until I discover something better... I most prefer part 2,3, 4 for the Arcade, and Gradius Gaiden for PS1... I think they dumbed down the Gradius 3 port for SNES big time. So because of this the fun doesn't last forever, unlike the other games I mentioned in the series.

The Nintendo 64 games...

Wow, what you wrote from here and onwards blew me away in amasemnet. Plus shows that you really know your games & Castlevania series very well. And why I hope you don't leave this place forever and to be sure you drop in every now and then.

PS: Sinful, which Castlevanias have you played?

Well, I have access to all the Castlevania thanks to emulation until I get the rest that I don't have. So I've at least played all the classic Castlevania games. But only beat part 4, Rondo, and XX. Bloodlines I played the most so far but still haven't beat, lol. But that's also because I've been switching between 3 versions and messing around with the difficulty too between all to and not using any passwords. But I'm in no rush to beat it. I'm having to much fun playing it over and over as is... but now I'm gonna stick with the more balanced/tuned/harder US version of this game... same with Castlevania III, which I played the US version for the first time yesterday (played a translated rom before), and found out that I much prefer the extra game balance added. The tunes as fine as is for this one too. And besides, I love seeing big differences between different versions... too bad Super Castlevania doesn't have any differences game balance wise between regions or that Rondo had a US release with fixed up difficulty.



And yeah, I'm not one for following the major crowds either. I always seem to find I like stuff many others don't, and I don't mind it at all this way.ie. instead of liking Metalica, I absolutely love Megadeth. And though I sometimes feel that Megadeth deserves much more fame, I fell that if they do get it, their music may suffer much more? So I'm happy the way things are for them... only for gaming it doesn't work so well, because games have taken such a wrong direction these days because people support so much crap. And with how much games cost to make today, companies will not take any risks anymore, and like you said, why Castlevania it following what's hip instead of doing it's own thing. ... Man, the majority are always wrong. Notice any relation?



... I'm just remembering a friend of mine who like Castlevania told me that he loves the PS2 versions, especially the second PS2 game, way better then the classic games. Tries to convince me by showing me YouTube videos and what not, but man, them game don't interest me at all, lol.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

I'll chime in with Stage 1 'cuz people seem to be missing the obvious:

Rondo of Blood's Stage 1 is layed out practically identically to Simon's Quest's (CVII) town stages.  The reason the enemies are placed in those locations makes perfect sense and gives the player a sense of nostalgia if they're a fan and have played Simon's Quest.  The new touches show the modern stuff done in between Simon's Time and Richter's time (the newer building in the 'park' street where the stone warriors are, the water-bucket well system that ties to the aqueduct, etc.).  Also, in an odd twist of events, the entrance to Dracula's Castle is right outside of this town, even though the sign says "Aljiba" (CV2's Aljiba was not really near the castle, maybe the castle was raised on top of Laruba Mansion and the graveyard and swamp were remodeled into a street and entrance?).  Also, the entrance is the same as the entrance from Super Castlevania IV, though in the SNES, Simon had no enemies at all near there, haha.

One of the reasons Rondo seems to win here is the huge chunk of nostalgia being thrown at you in a lot of its stages.

DraculaXX's Stage 1 is layed out practically identically to Dracula's Curse's (CVIII) stage.  They even put the same rotoblock platforms with medusaheads and the same bats on the building wall (only the building is just 'building on fire' instead of the inside of the church).  Only instead of a lonely graveyard, you've got a developed street (same as Rondo's park and buildings) on fire, and you're chased by Behemos (who chases you in a completely different area in Rondo).

If there are people out there judging gameplay based on either of these stages, I encourage you to take a step back and consider why these stages are designed the way they are: It's quite possible that the developers are giving you as a player a sense of familiarity.  The minute I was trudging through DraculaXX I'm like "Hah, CVIII comes back yay!" and in Rondo "Wow Aljiba is being ransacked by evil!", etc.

They built the stage, then populated it with enemies they thought would fit.  It's like two artists drawing inspiration from two different sources but using the same set of paints.

Gameplay-wise, I wish the DXX Backflip had more usage and that it was activated in the same gameplay manner as Rondo (in DraculaXX it's considerably slower and doesn't seem to be as high, and Richter 'slips' more after it), that Richter's invincibility window after damage wasn't so unforgiving, and that some enemy placements would have been a little bit more intelligent.  I like the gameplay for Rondo more, but only for Richter's movement.  Hell you can't even moonwalk in DraculaXX (even though there were very few instances where one would use that move).

[Puwexil]

You know it's weird, when you add both Rondo's and XX's maps together, in my mind it would seem that Rondo doubles XX. Yet when you play through both of them, it feels like XX doubles Rondo in length.

Dracula X feels longer than Rondo with less stages because its stages are much longer. Most of Rondo's content is spread out over multiple paths, and divergent routes; a single playthrough does not encapsulate the entirety of it. This leads to a brisk pace, with the game never overstaying its welcome while whisking you from one setpiece to the next. Dracula X drags its non-eventful stages for too long and never deviates from a set pattern. Stages just come to screeching halt, and boredom is imminent in the interim.

lol, the bull hits a wall and explodes. Yeah, that makes sense.

Everything explodes in these games. It's a visual effect. Do you expect literal realism? The point is that Rondo's Behemoth follows an internal logic, maintaining reasonable cause-and-effect. It grants the moment visceral feedback that is not present in the Dracula X incarnation.

Look, each time the scene's change in XX, it doesn't mean the next scene it right next to the last one. You know that, right?... Besides, this just shows the XX team concentrated on substance over style by worrying of design more then how it all fit together. The Rondo team concentrated on style first and tried to make substance work somehow in the end... and failed.

Patently untrue. Omissions of flow can be overlooked inbetween stages (though Rondo usually goes the extra mile and makes even these transitions work), but within a singular level, I expect things to occupy space and lead to each other in a way that does not contradict itself. It wrecks the believability of the world on a base level that directly affects enjoyment of the setting - a very important part of these games. If thought is not put into the level design, you might as well roll out honest props instead of a pretend-world.

You know, this is a really interesting topic to discuss, but it could probably do without all the snide insinuations and casual rudeness.

[thernz]

First you complain for being able to use cheap tactics, then you complain because you can't? Are you for real?

I can't see why a game can't have both cheap and exploitable spots. Both are flaws of design. It's not like it's the same level design over and over again. Each segment should be individual valued on its own.

I'm not sure how using an axe is cheap either.

You don't see that this is well design? Well, that's why you have no understanding on this topic.

You want cheap, look at that painting in Rondo. It's only there to one shot first timers. Afterwards it's waste of time because it's too poorly designed to do anything afterwards. Why do you think I came up with that tactic? Because that enemy seemed to me to have a limit in it's range, meaning he can't reach you if you are on the right side of the screen.  So all that is left is for you to  get just within reach and keeping kitting him.

To me it seems you don't want good game design that challenges you, you want game design that pretends to be challenging and yet is easy to defeat.

It's a design paradigm in Castlevania for the bats to activate by distance. By having the bat activated by a jump, the bat becomes both cheap and exploitable. For first time players, they'll have no idea how to hit the bat, because axes will go right through it (Which how is that good design? I think you should let the player kill enemies if they're in range. You can defeat bats  that way in every other Castlevania).

So with that narrow spacing, the player is unable to react properly This is the same kind of cheap you say the painting purports, because it demands the player be familiar with this particular scenario before they can tackle it the right way. But then, you can also just keep walking left, go out of the intended flow, and the bat never activates. I'm not sure how it's challenge rather than simple memorization. This is more of a general complaint about the bat's invincibility though.

The painting isn't really that cheap. Its start up gives you ample time to prepare, and it gives appropriate feedback. It's pretty obvious that with each recoil it's going faster.

What I see here is substance over style. Something that has been forgotten about in Castlevania and in gaming in general. The cure is to go back to NES gaming.

Didn't you riff on Rondo for having a less stylistic map than Dracula XX? I don't see why you're calling me out on style over substance, when it was a side remark, when the rest of my arguments were about enemy placement and AI. You yourself said, "Super Mario World 2 to me sucks because of it's stupid, very stupid, attempt at a map."

[Flame]

The cure is to go back to NES gaming.

Oh I see how it is. You're one of THOSE people.

[Soulsteal]

Well, in Classicvania's use sub-weapons, you need to plan your attacks, Holy Water lingers and can take care of Fleamen, Axe is helpful for those annoying Crows in level 3 of CV1, the Cross is helpful for most bosses and Bone Towers, and the throwing knife, USELESS. The game was "Realistic", you dont jump incredibly high, you jump at a normal human height, Humans cannot control jumps, you cannot whip incredibly fast IRL, it takes a second to fire up, if you got punched in the face by a demon, you would be sent flying, Konami tried to make the game challenging, but only if you didnt pay attention to the games limits, taking alot of damage is something you should get used to, again, if you got punched in the face by a Demon, it would leave you with a broken skulll, brain damage, a numb face and 2 black eyes.

So that is why Classicvanias are usually turned down by people just getting into the series.

[Sinful]

Oh I see how it is. You're one of THOSE people.

What people?

You want to know why this is a cure? Because games now a days give players too much freedom and abilities to much more easily dispose of enemies. And because this everybody now expects every game their hero posses all kinds of powers and controls to dispose of their enemies. ie. People complain that Metal Slug could have been better if he could aim shots in every direction like in the Contra series (Videogame Nerd made this comment about Terminator CD too). So now every game has to be like Contra? What's next? Bionic Commando sucks because the control suck due to not having a jump ability? This is why people say classic Castlevania games have bad controls, because it has knock backs and no control over jumps. These aren't bad controls, they are just fine, because the game was designed with these controls in mind. You don't think the developers know that if a Medusa head hits you on a platform that you'll plunge to your death? Yes they do, and it's not a game flaw.

Another thing is keeping things simple equals much tighter game design. The more variables you throw in, the harder it becomes to balance the game. Look at Final Fantasy Tactics and what a balance mess it is because of all the abilities that game showers you with. There is no way in hell that game could have ever been properly balanced from the mess it is. So yeah, next time you think the classic Castlevania games have bad controls for being too simple, remember that the game and gaming is much better for it.

Thus, people need to go back to NES gaming to have a better understanding of what makes games good. Because everybody it blind to style over substance only nowadays, and back then it wasn't as one sided as it is now + limited technology forced developers to help keep things simple too.

[Sinful]

You know, this is a really interesting topic to discuss, but it could probably do without all the snide insinuations and casual rudeness.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about this mention (just came back to me while I was offline). And yeah, if I upset anyone in anyway, I truly apologize. ... I think I should lay of this topic for a bit and let others see where they take it for a change?... I'll go punish myself by playing some Ron... er, Dracula XX SNES. ... Then sometime later I should eventually look into punishing myself further with some Castlevania 64. Woohoo!!!... er, I mean, boohoo.




To the person that quoted my Mario World 2 world map thingy; Yes, all substance and no style greatly upsets me too. I already mentioned this... and if it wasn't for Rondo's style, I don't think I'd be  playing it anymore? Nor anyone else for that matter.