Topic: Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Mirror of Fate 3DS (Discussion Thread)

[Neobelmont]

Why did we return to debating IGAvania vs Coxvania?
There is no need to do so. Each of those games have their good points and bad. We are here to accept variety and tolerate differences.
Plus in all aspects of our lives, we can never please everybody, cause if we do, then we would lose ourselves in the process.

So back to MoF, release the demo now... hehehe.

Yeah it's just that comment made me tingle abit hit a nerve.  As for tolerence well sometimes it bursts and I should know better.


Again I'm just happy to play a belmont that is all I wanted I'm sure others feel that way. 

Technically the Belmonts have always been a focus to some extent.(PoR has the Whip Ritual, OoE has the Belmont Blood Relatives, LoS series has the surname, AoS and DoS had Julius, most games have a or the VK whip involved in some form)

True some more important than others now that I think about. 

[Neobelmont]

I'll be a bit irritated if, once again, the demo comes out the same day as the game. We were promised the playable demo for the first Lords of Shadow before release, and it wasn't there until the day I had the game disc spinning in my Xbox. I'm still bitter about that, and the same promise has been made this time around.

Wait that happened? Does that not go against what a demo is for?

I do not think ps plus members had the same problem

[Flame]

Belmonts aren't really required to make a Castlevania.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait you're serious...

Variation IS a good thing. and the IGAvanias definitely gave us a few real good characters, Belmont or otherwise. (some better than others)

But Belmonts NOT being necessary? They are the staple characters of the series. Them and Dracula. or at least Belmont stand-ins, like the Morrises, or Nathan Graves from CotM. You can make a side game or two where they play little to no part, but saying they are not necessary to make a Castlevania game is like saying Samus is not necessary to make a Metroid game. (Or to an extent, Metroids themselves, which the plot of the entire franchise revolves around- Even other M and Fusion, which take place AFTER Metroids have been made extinct.)

Wait that happened? Does that not go against what a demo is for?

A little bit, but at the same time, nothing is stopping you from trying the demo before buying the game on the same day.

[Dark Nemesis]

Say what you will about combos, but LoI was really repetitive with it's LACK of them, while maintaining a sort of beat em up combat and a flat lifeless 3D Dungeon Crawler map

I wouldn't say that, since LoI is using a mechanism that unlocks combos, while you are progressing through the game and it has a satisfying amount of combos to try and use.

[Nagumo]

The major reason, I think, SotN is considered to be more faithful to the series is because the first LoS mostly abandoned gothic horrror in favor of high fantasy elements which SotN did not. I will go as far to argue that if you would apply the atmosphere/aesthetics or whatever you want to call it of the first LoS to SotN and vice versa, while letting the overall gameplay intact, people's opinions about it would be switched.             

[Ahasverus]

Nor Lords nor Symphony are similar to the classicvanias old visual style. SOTN was too aristocratic, and LoS was more, ehm, colorful.

[DoctaMario]

Not really.

Well at least you gave a well thought out argument as to why not. 

I completely disagree.

The N64 CV's did have bad combat, and this next detail is very important, for a 3D game. It failed to take the third dimension into account in a fluid and natural manner. It instead tried to shoe horn 2D combat into 3D space, adding tweaks to make it 'fit'. It, however, is exactly that; shoehorned. It wasn't birthed from 3D design thought.

You cannot blame the fanbase for disliking such a sloppy and poorly thought out combat system. Likewise, you cannot blame the fanbase for the developers failing to deliver a combat system that works much better than what we've been getting.

Lords of Shadow does have one thing right. The dynamic between direct, and area attacks. The balance is way off, and you might as well be hitting enemies with a plastic Halloween prop as it does so little damage, but the idea of splitting the attacks into two categories of use is exactly what is needed. 3D combat, with a whip type weapon, comes down to two main types of attack; single, and multi target.

A proper 3D Castlevania game needs to fill these two requirements at the base level. 2D Castlevania by default has a more limited targeting scope, without the ability for the enemy to be around you on all sides. Instead, only four directions need to be worried about. In a 3D game like Lords of Shadow, you have, and I'm guessing based on size of attack that I remember, about 16 directions a direct attack could strike in, that would hit a different opponent each time. This multiplication of available directions for the enemy, exponentially increases your need for additional abilities to cover more at once.

In the Classic games, the sub weapons usually covered the Up and Down gaps in your attacking options. In 3D, you need more than that, since your potential enemy locations, based on direction, grew to a much higher number.

This is why the N64 CV's felt flat in combat. They didn't account for the added directions, and situations caused by them. Your ability to strike multiple targets in your range was severely limited, to the point of impracticality. This led to difficulty dealing with multiple targets, especially at close range.

To be clear, you don't need combos to fulfill 3D combat. You just need enough diverse options to cover single, and multi target combat situations effectively.

3D gaming was in its infancy at the time so no one really had any idea what good combat for a 3d game meant beyond FPS. I mean, yeah, it's easy NOW to go and look at DMC3 or GoW and say that those are examples of 3d combat done well, but those weren't anywhere close to thought of at the time. I'd bet they were almost thinking more 2.5D which may or may not have been the right way to go.

The designers were trying to take the vibe of 2d Cv and give it w third dimension. Is it a bit wonky at times? Sure. But they captured the essence of the 2d games (characters that don't have an "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" arsenal of moves and weapons) and their combat.

I agree with you about needing to have options to cover multiple directions of attacks, but there were very few instances in the 64 games where you were fighting more than 2 or 3 enemies at once. The characters were also a lot more mobile than traditional 2d characters so getting to a better vantage point from which to fight wasn't as big of a deal. The Cross and Holy Water were good options for hitting multiple enemies at once. But Cornell's attack could hit multiple enemies as well.

I dunno. I liked the 64 games, and while I can agree they haven't necessarily aged well, I feel like they capture what 2d CV in 3d would be like.

The major reason, I think, SotN is considered to be more faithful to the series is because the first LoS mostly abandoned gothic horrror in favor of high fantasy elements which SotN did not. I will go as far to argue that if you would apply the atmosphere/aesthetics or whatever you want to call it of the first LoS to SotN and vice versa, while letting the overall gameplay intact, people's opinions about it would be switched.             

There's plenty of gothic horror in LoS, especially after Chapter 3. What's your impression of the vibe of MoF so far though? Do you think it seems more in line with the pre-LoS CV games or no?

[Nagumo]

Nor Lords nor Symphony are similar to the classicvanias old visual style. SOTN was too aristocratic, and LoS was more, ehm, colorful.

I was thinking more of the atmosphere that the game conceive moreso than the actual artwork. For example, Super Castlevania IV and Symphony of the Night despite differences in art style both have a similar gothic mood. LoS has a wonderful gothic middle part but that's only roughly 50% of the game. The rest is more heavy on the fantasy aspect and because of that the fantasy ends up being the dominant mood in the game rather than the gothicness.
 

What's your impression of the vibe of MoF so far though? Do you think it seems more in line with the pre-LoS CV games or no?

   

I think it's an improvement because I haven't seen any environments yet that made me scratch my head and wonder how anyone could think it's a good idea to put them in a Castlevania game, which happend several times with the first LoS. I probably shouldn't say that too loud, though. The execution of the atmosphere is different then that of any previous games in the series. However, judging from what I've seen so far I think the developers pulled it off well.         

[MelancholySpork12]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait you're serious...

Variation IS a good thing. and the IGAvanias definitely gave us a few real good characters, Belmont or otherwise. (some better than others)

But Belmonts NOT being necessary? They are the staple characters of the series. Them and Dracula. or at least Belmont stand-ins, like the Morrises, or Nathan Graves from CotM. You can make a side game or two where they play little to no part, but saying they are not necessary to make a Castlevania game is like saying Samus is not necessary to make a Metroid game. (Or to an extent, Metroids themselves, which the plot of the entire franchise revolves around- Even other M and Fusion, which take place AFTER Metroids have been made extinct.)

To have the argument you're having, you need to clearly distinguish what Castlevania is. Unfortunately, Castlevania is a bit harder to define than other franchises since it has evolved a lot during its lifetime.

I don't know about the rest of you, but this is what Castlevania is to me:

1. Gothic atmosphere
2. Melee combat system
3. Platforming elements
4. Involves Dracula and his Castle

All four of those things have been core to the franchise for ages. Yes there are a few exceptions, but they are few and far between.There are other things I could add (music, RPG elements, .etc) but for simplicity's sake lets stick with these four. LOS did not have gothic atmosphere, it barely had platforming, and I don't even think if involved Dracula that much. I really feel like LOS was a completely different game that had the Castlevania brand stomped on it to make it sell. It's not Castlevania to me.

SOTN, on the other hand, had all of these things and more. There's a reason why it's a series staple. It added new elements to the series while maintaining everything that gave the franchise its character. A true sequel.

MOF at least maintains all of these elements, even if it doesn't do it extraordinarily well. I don't see any reason why it isn't a "true" Castlevania game. I also don't see any reason why Castlevania has to involve the Belmonts. It's not like there's one iconic character that represents the franchise, like Samus does for Metroid. A Metroid game without Samus would be daft, but Castlevania introduces new characters all the time.

[Akuma]

Core Castlevania is a loose take on Bram Stoker's Dracula which further turned into a basic adventure to essentially stop the current Vampire Lord's Tyranny of mankind.

One of the core elements formed the Belmont Bloodline's artifact known as the Vampire Killer as a mystical weapon that is quite effective at defeating said Vampire Lord.

Of course there are other mystical weapons imbued with similar strength.

[crisis]

LOS did not have gothic atmosphere, it barely had platforming, and I don't even think if involved Dracula that much.

That's not entirely accurate. The gothic atmosphere doesn't present itself until after Chapter 4 (although it kinda goes away once you get to the Necromancer's Abyss). The platforming segments were there, but they were completely overshadowed by the excessive use of constant wall-shimmying & plank-walking. And one can argue Dracula was in the game from beginning to end, since Cox described the story as "Dracula Begins" (even though we don't really actually see Dracula until the epilogue. The game is more like "Dracula's life as a Belmont leading up to how he became Dracula")

[MelancholySpork12]

That's not entirely accurate. The gothic atmosphere doesn't present itself until after Chapter 4 (although it kinda goes away once you get to the Necromancer's Abyss). The platforming segments were there, but they were completely overshadowed by the excessive use of constant wall-shimmying & plank-walking. And one can argue Dracula was in the game from beginning to end, since Cox described the story as "Dracula Begins" (even though we don't really actually see Dracula until the epilogue. The game is more like "Dracula's life as a Belmont leading up to how he became Dracula")

Ehh... I suppose, but all of that stuff feels slapdash and extraneous on LOS. It's not core to the game.

I will definitely admit that the Castlevania series has changed so many times that it's very difficult to nail down what makes Castlevania, Castlevania. I'd be interested if anyone can manage to do it.

[Chernabogue]

I'm now looking forward to the end of LoS for one thing only: the end of the debate of "what is Castlevania".

 

[Akuma]

I'm now looking forward to the end of LoS for one thing only: the end of the debate of "what is Castlevania".

 

It's a Castle in Romania?

[Maedhros]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait you're serious...

Variation IS a good thing. and the IGAvanias definitely gave us a few real good characters, Belmont or otherwise. (some better than others)

But Belmonts NOT being necessary? They are the staple characters of the series. Them and Dracula. or at least Belmont stand-ins, like the Morrises, or Nathan Graves from CotM. You can make a side game or two where they play little to no part, but saying they are not necessary to make a Castlevania game is like saying Samus is not necessary to make a Metroid game. (Or to an extent, Metroids themselves, which the plot of the entire franchise revolves around- Even other M and Fusion, which take place AFTER Metroids have been made extinct.)

Talking about them being playable. Stop being stupid. Making every game with Belmonts being the only playable characters would be stupid as fuck. Good thing they made other characters and actually gave new playstyles for them.