Topic: Lords of Shadow Sequel Ideas (spoilers...a lot of them)

[Tobias]

Assuming that you mean people say this game doesn't feel like a Castlevania because of personal dislikes then it seems more like the other way around. People love to triumphantly exclaim—"This game Castlevania references! The main character is a Belmont, he fights with a whip, obscure reference this, tagged on names that etc etc." Though pretty much all of these points are superficial or aesthetics the game happend to share in common with other titles in the franchise. Just because the main character happens to wield a whip-like weapon which he uses in a manner completely alien from how it was handled in say SCVIV doesn't mean it is a similarity of any relevance. People are making excuses like that up because they like the direction Mercury Steam has taken with the series but just don't want to admit it isn't much like the series they are a fan of in the first place. I really can't stand such kind off retarted fanboyism. It the most dumbest and annoying thing ever.

Actually, it comes down to defining what Castlevania is.  Is it having Dracula as the final boss?  Well, there goes Lament of Innocence and Dawn of Sorrow and Aria of Sorrow.

Is it spending most of the game in Castle Dracula?  Well there goes a bunch of gameboy titles, Curse of Darkness, Simon's Quest and bunch of others.

Maybe it's playing a Belmont?  So that takes out most of the games after SotN.

Maybe it's about being able to double back and explore the castle and it's surroundings like a Metroidvania?  Well now the original games aren't Castlevania enough to be included

My point is that what makes a game "Castlevania" is mostly a matter of taste.  This game is a reboot and uses older references to help get the story going and shape itself.  Does it do things differently?  Yes.  But it isn't any less Castlevania than any other games that have come before it.

After all, while Gabriel uses a whip-like weapon in ways we've never seen before (which can be put down to technological reasons in all cases if we're honest), using it as an example means that every game that included the ability for a character to hold their whip out and flick it around to try and get rid of projectiles is not a Castlevania game.

The game changes as technology advances.  The series is no longer a 6 stage, timed 8-bit platformer, and I doubt that we want it to be that.  What we love about the series has developed over time, and we're willing to accept games that have absolutely nothing to do with the Belmonts, who are supposed to be the main heroes, as Castlevania.

This is the first game where there was real care taken in crafting it and the story, and where serious design was done on three-dimensional levels.  It is different.  As different as Symphony of the Night was from Castlevania 3, and as Castlevania 3 was for Castlevania 1, and Simon's Quest from the original, and so on and so forth.

So the question comes back to this.  What is it that this game lacks that all other games have that defines them as "Castlevania" games?

[Tobias]

double post

[Ahasverus]

I agree, Castlevania feel is very subjectivbe.
Castlevania in its more "naked" form is christian imagery, mythological creatures and platfforming, everything else is author's interpretation. Not even Dracula or Belmonts are neccessary, any troubled protagonist is fine for me.

[Nagumo]

The point I was trying to make clear is that people who have liked the direction this game is taking the series are argueing that this game  is very reminiscent of the older games while that is not true at all. This game puts Castlevania in a new light but although that might be the case you can't argue that Lords is "going back to the roots" because of lack of elements that define the series. I also don't agree with you on that point for several reasons but that is besides the point.               

[Alutwon]

The point I was trying to make clear is that people who have liked the direction this game is taking the series are argueing that this game  is very reminiscent of the older games while that is not true at all. This game puts Castlevania in a new light but although that might be the case you can't argue that Lords is "going back to the roots" because of lack of elements that define the series. I also don't agree with you on that point for several reasons but that is besides the point.               

What are the "elements" that define the series?

[Nagumo]

Oh I get this, now I'm supposed to give you list of traits that Castlevania games share in common and then you are going to nitpick on hearts being not important because in Bloodlines it were crystals.     

[Harrycombs]

What are the "elements" that define the series?

Seeing that the series is called Demon Castle Dracula, you would expect Dracula to be in it. And his Demon castle. You have to admit Dracula's appearance at the end felt tacked on.

While I enjoyed Lords, I have to agree with Nagumo on this. It didn't feel like a classicvania, it was its own thing. It really lacked the atmosphere that the older games had (which the metroidvanias as of late have been struggling with too).

[Tobias]

The point I was trying to make clear is that people who have liked the direction this game is taking the series are argueing that this game  is very reminiscent of the older games while that is not true at all. This game puts Castlevania in a new light but although that might be the case you can't argue that Lords is "going back to the roots" because of lack of elements that define the series. I also don't agree with you on that point for several reasons but that is besides the point.               

Ah, I see.  Now, I never argued that it was going back to Castlevania's roots.  I commented on it being a reboot, which does mean they're going to go in a different direction. It doesn't mean that they're going to do everything over, just take it in a different direction.  but that doesn't mean it is no longer Castlevania.

To use an example, they rebooted the He-man animated series around 2002.  They took the same basic concept and went from there. But they made changes.  Prince Adam was no longer He-man's pink wearing, less tanned double.  Skeletor became an actual threat. Relationships and characterizations changed.

It wasn't the same line as back in the 80's.  It was different, but it was still He-man.

Lords of Shadow is the beginning of a new take on Castlevania.  It takes a different road, but the core concept of the whip-wielding holy warrior seeking to destroy the forces of darkness.  Are all the elements there?  No.  But from how things are lined up, it isn't that they are forgotten, it's that getting them all in is part of the continuing story.

What makes Lords of Shadow really different is that it has a story from the beginning and tries to give the player a good understanding of who Dracula was before he became Dracula.  After all, he's simply the last boss in the games now.  He's a guy that gets drug out simply to get put down withing a few minutes of waking up.  The take Mercury Steam seems to be taking implies that he will be an actual character, instead of the characture that we fight at the end of every game.

After all, how many games is Dracula just a side bar or even an after-thought to the main plot because someone was trying to resurrect him and it turns out that killing them triggers the resurrection.

I really hope that they continue the 2d versions, but I'm looking forward to more from MercurySteam.  They both have different takes on the stories they are trying to tell, but that doesn't make one story less than the other.

[Tobias]

Oh I get this, now I'm supposed to give you list of traits that Castlevania games share in common and then you are going to nitpick on hearts being not important because in Bloodlines it were crystals.     

Not really about the nitpicking, but the basic point is that they're all different in some way.  People complain because it isn't inside the castle.  Well, neither was Bloodlines.  Again, that doesn't make it something that people claim is not Castlevania.

But no, it shouldn't be nitpicky stuff like crystals instead of Hearts.

But for an example, Let's say that the basic concept of Castlevania is "Whip-Wielding Hero fights his way through a castle filled with monsters to destroy Dracula".  That leaves out a LOT of games that are considered core to the series.

So if someone is saying that it isn't Castlevania, it would be nice to know just what it is that Lords of Shadow lacks that all other Castlevania's have.

[Alutwon]

Not really about the nitpicking, but the basic point is that they're all different in some way.  People complain because it isn't inside the castle.  Well, neither was Bloodlines.  Again, that doesn't make it something that people claim is not Castlevania.

But no, it shouldn't be nitpicky stuff like crystals instead of Hearts.

But for an example, Let's say that the basic concept of Castlevania is "Whip-Wielding Hero fights his way through a castle filled with monsters to destroy Dracula".  That leaves out a LOT of games that are considered core to the series.

So if someone is saying that it isn't Castlevania, it would be nice to know just what it is that Lords of Shadow lacks that all other Castlevania's have.

this

What I see in LoS is the same somber atmosphere we've had in all the games and idk about anyone else but that's enough for me.

[Tobias]

Seeing that the series is called Demon Castle Dracula, you would expect Dracula to be in it. And his Demon castle. You have to admit Dracula's appearance at the end felt tacked on.

While I enjoyed Lords, I have to agree with Nagumo on this. It didn't feel like a classicvania, it was its own thing. It really lacked the atmosphere that the older games had (which the metroidvanias as of late have been struggling with too).

Eh, Dracula has felt tacked on to the end of the games for a long time.  And at least we went through the Demon castle to fight the Vampire lord at the top, unlike Simon's Quest, Bloodlines and others.

I will agree that the atmosphere was different throughout the game.  Personally, I found the atmosphere was absolutely what I remembered the moment that I came through the mountain pass and saw Wygol with the castle looming over it.  But then again, I found that the atmosphere was superior from then on to the earlier games.  It is taste and subjective, though you'd probably have a lot of people who would challenge the idea that Curse of Dracula had more Atmosphere than Lords of Shadow.

[Nagumo]

Yes, but Lords is not just different in a way. It isn't anything like Castlevania. Or at least vastly different from it.  So I don't think you can use that as a proper defense for the game regardless.     

[Tobias]

Yes, but Lords is not just different in a way. It isn't anything like Castlevania. Or at least vastly different from it.  So I don't think you can use that as a proper defense for the game regardless.     

Again, it comes down to how is it so absolutely different?  It's been said that using the whip and dropping names isn't enough to bring it in line.  If you're saying that names, monsters and whips aren't enough, then you should be able to explain what makes the other games Castlevania games when you strip them of the exact same things.

How about this.  Look at Lament of Innocence and Lords of Shadow, since they are both supposed to be the "start" of the series.  What makes Lament of Innocence more Castlevania than Lords of Shadow?

[corneliab]

it has poorly implemented bone towers

[Tobias]

it has poorly implemented bone towers

Ah... So bone towers are the defining factor of a Castlevania game.

Really? That's what people will agree Makes a Castlevania game?  The Bone Towers?