Topic: Castlevania Anniversary Collection Incoming?

[Nagumo]

When I said the metroidvanias have a specific formula, I was talking about how IGA always tends to stick to very specific set of elements when designing metroidvanias.  You can clearly see this with Bloodstained. For example, a clear "rule" in SotN and its counterparts is that you always get rewarded for exploration, no matter which path you take (equipment, relics, stat-boosting items, food items, etc). You can spend hours wandering around in Simon's Quest without any kind of reward. Another example is branching paths being placed in really memorable locations. In SotN, when you get the ability to change into a bat, you most likely go back to the Castle Keep and try flying around there. In Simon's Quest, you're supposed to figure out you should kneel in front a cliff with a Red Crystal equipped for several seconds. Progression in Simon's Quest is a lot more trial and error based. Yet another example is the "false ending" which has become part of IGA's formula for better or worse. The bottom line is that there's a specific "recipe" that all IGAvanias tend to follow that goes deeper than just "nonlinear game with obstacles you need to bypass".           

[Guy Belmont]

When I said the metroidvanias have a specific formula, I was talking about how IGA always tends to stick to very specific set of elements when designing metroidvanias.  You can clearly see this with Bloodstained. For example, a clear "rule" in SotN and its counterparts is that you always get rewarded for exploration, no matter which path you take (equipment, relics, stat-boosting items, food items, etc). You can spend hours wandering around in Simon's Quest without any kind of reward. Another example is branching paths being placed in really memorable locations. In SotN, when you get the ability to change into a bat, you most likely go back to the Castle Keep and try flying around there. In Simon's Quest, you're supposed to figure out you should kneel in front a cliff with a Red Crystal equipped for several seconds. Progression in Simon's Quest is a lot more trial and error based. Yet another example is the "false ending" which has become part of IGA's formula for better or worse. The bottom line is that there's a specific "recipe" that all IGAvanias tend to follow that goes deeper than just "nonlinear game with obstacles you need to bypass".           

Again I disagree
 As SOTN has had its trial and error moments. and in SQ you where also reward for exploration as finding the shop keepers, and items, you don't need all of them but you still find them.
there where a few branching paths in SQ not great ones but then its an old game.
and SOTN has a false ending,  and the game also encourage to go and explore, as the more you look round the more you level up and find Items. and you say what ever path you pick. Welll SQ did have other paths not much and those did give you items
not all paths, but then it only had a so much space on the cart. but you are  rewarded for exploration, also again thats your view saying 

"that all IGAvanias tend to follow that goes deeper than just "nonlinear game with obstacles you need to bypass"   
But as another player, those games are great, but theres no diff from the back tracking in SQ and IGAs games.       

i agree SOTN did it Smoother, but then it was made Years later on better hard hardware so no shocker there
But the core things that you said about SOTN SQ also did, in an 8 bit way but still.

So It fits perfectly in the set as an MV

[Nagumo]

I never said Simon's Quest doesn't reward you for exploring. The density of items in SotN is such that the player is constantly being rewarded. The way this works is different in Simon's Quest. Rewards aren't nearly as prevalent and there are lots of empy space in the game with nothing in it. This is a clear difference in design philosophy. 

Again, I never said there weren't branching paths in Simon's Quest, just that it and SotN approach that concept in different ways.

And the way Simon's Quest and SotN approaches its endings is clearly different. I don't have to spell that out, do I?

Look, if you honestly believe that if you would show gameplay footage of all the IGA games and Simon's Quest to various people, then ask "which of these doesn't belong?" and don't expect everybody pointing to the latter, then I don't know what to tell you.   

[Guy Belmont]

I never said Simon's Quest doesn't reward you for exploring. The density of items in SotN is such that the player is constantly being rewarded. The way this works is different in Simon's Quest. Rewards aren't nearly as prevalent and there are lots of empy space in the game with nothing in it. This is a clear difference in design philosophy. 


Again, I never said there weren't branching paths in Simon's Quest, just that it and SotN approach that concept in different ways.

And the way Simon's Quest and SotN approaches its endings is clearly different. I don't have to spell that out, do I?

Look, if you honestly believe that if you would show gameplay footage of all the IGA games and Simon's Quest to various people, then ask "which of these doesn't belong?" and don't expect everybody pointing to the latter, then I don't know
 what to tell you.

Well of course the  Rewards aren't nearly as prevalent  it was made in 8 bit,  there wasn't a lot of space left,  it has nothing to do design philosophy, it was about limitations. but in the context of time the game came out there where a ton of items to  find.
 
and as for the endings, a Fake ending is a fake ending,

 both give the player more  for there money and more replay value  , IGA  philosophy, as well as SQ  it seems.

and again you say SotN approach that concept in different ways. but again no. again you have to look at the context, SoTN  has far more to play around with, but SQ didn't so I again I don't see it as  "concept "  but again  all about space.


But TBH and this is just my view  but both of there branching paths are same, they both lead other places, just one game had more space to add more stuff to it, the other didn't.

I have to say I think your you love of IGA is not letting you look at this objectively

and I mean this in the nicest way, as sometimes we love something we tend  put it on a pedestal, I've done many times.

does it fit
in terms of Graphics no, but in terms of gameplay no

[Nagumo]

I actually like 8-bit action RPGs a lot, moreso than the average person actually. I still disagree Simon's Quest is anything like SotN except in a very general sense.

Simon's Quest has very few rewards, even for it's time. Vampire Killer has a higher density of equipment (but it isn't permanent, so it's different from SotN as well). There are also plenty of examples from outside the series. Just compare Simon's Quest to a game like Deadly Towers, where upgrades are very prevalent. So the claim that the developers of Simon's Quest actually wanted to fill every nook and cranny with items but couldn't isn't true. It was a conscious design decision.

And no, Simon's Quest doesn't have a fake ending. The ending is determined based on the amount of time you take. All the metroidvanias (except Cotm) have you to fulfill some special requirement to unlock the true ending. It isn't time-based like Simon' Quest. It's clearly different.

There are lots of other specific traits that all the metroidvanias share and Simon's Quest doesn't. But whatever, I have the feeling we're just talking past each other.

[Foffy]

There might be a snaffu in all of our wishes.

Castlevania Bloodlines is being re-released in the MegaDrive/Genesis Mini, so if there's a rule in place that recent re-releases prevent a game from being part of this series of collections, Rondo, Symphony, and now Bloodlines are big question marks.

[Succubus]

  Both have a large interconnected map, Not all parts of the map are available.  so the player needs to hunt down the needed items to pass the area that is blocked off and move on this will require back tracking till said item is found, often the boss will be guarding this item.

My point is that's such a broad description that it applies to practically all action adventure games, including ones that most people would never refer to as a "Metroidvania". An adventure game wouldn't really be an adventure game if it were totally linear. It's common for games to involve backtracking, and it's common to do so when you've acquired some item or ability that will allow you to access something you couldn't access before. I mean, all this could just as well describe the Zelda series.

So I think it takes more for a game to be in the style of Metroid, and I don't see it in Castlevania 2. They have some similarities, but not to the extent of, say, Super Metroid and SotN.

[Abnormal Freak]

The smartest thing Konami could have done is release a chronological collection or series, including Rondo and SOTN. But, Konami...

Also would be smart to have the PSX version of SOTN because that re-dub is pure ass.

[Dremn]

I hope an early Summer release means late May/early June.

[Guy Belmont]

I actually like 8-bit action RPGs a lot, moreso than the average person actually. I still disagree Simon's Quest is anything like SotN except in a very general sense.

Simon's Quest has very few rewards, even for it's time. Vampire Killer has a higher density of equipment (but it isn't permanent, so it's different from SotN as well). There are also plenty of examples from outside the series. Just compare Simon's Quest to a game like Deadly Towers, where upgrades are very prevalent. So the claim that the developers of Simon's Quest actually wanted to fill every nook and cranny with items but couldn't isn't true. It was a conscious design decision.

And no, Simon's Quest doesn't have a fake ending. The ending is determined based on the amount of time you take. All the metroidvanias (except Cotm) have you to fulfill some special requirement to unlock the true ending. It isn't time-based like Simon' Quest. It's clearly different.

There are lots of other specific traits that all the metroidvanias share and Simon's Quest doesn't. But whatever, I have the feeling we're just talking past each other.

well again no, you can't just say this a  conscious design decision, just cos one game has been made with more space,

1 the coders  may have had abetter way of doing it, this has happen,  some games that come out after older games sometimes seem almost like a backstep, due to the fact that the guys working on knew how get the most out of nes

 
2 time.  we have no idea how much time they had, if there was a rush on, and they had to cut content this would mean they had no other way but to leave stuff out.

3 we have no idea how much space things took up in SQ, it came out later, there for the world is expecting  bigger contect, better graphics, all these things take time.  and that goes back up to my second point. and all that takes up space.

4 vampire Killer is an MSX2 game and if I'm right... the MSX 2 has more space. I know it can't scroll like the nes, but as far as I know it has more space for stuff like items and affects, hinta why Metal gear. was so different on the Nes. So again you can't really use Vampire Killer.

again your baseing the rewards from SoTn from a game that was made in the 80s.


also a few lines up you juist said SQ has a false ending, you can't now turn aorund and say no, just so it can  fit in wth your point.

 getting there by the right time is still meating the special requirement, as you are l required to get there by a time to unlock the true ending.


but you raise   a good point with Cotm. that game would also fit perfectly  in the set and by your own words  its and MV and that  to get the true ending there no  special requirement so CoTM can miss things out  brake the formula you say games need to stick too get seen as a MV. And you still counted it but SQ even after all thats been pointed out still gets your tumbs down. i find that a bit odd

lets say for a sec and say Konami did leave items out  by conscious design decision.
But SQ still follows the formula as i've pointed out just like CotM, but like CoTM it brakes away, but still gets counted.  i find that odd


Soo... this tells me  its not so much its not a MV That you don't see it as one, and thats fine, but i really don't think you can just flat out say no its not, after all this with CoTM.

[Nagumo]

Completing games during the NES, especially action-adventure games with lots of mapping required more effort than it did in SotN's time. There's a reason some developers handed out certificates for completing a game. Simon's Quest is more difficult to complete than SotN because it doesn't hold your hand as much as the latter does. This attitude towards the player manifests in both games in various ways. Simon's Quest doesn't scatter items anywhere because that would have made the game too easy. Symphony does this in order to be helpful towards the player. Both these design decision reflect the era in which these games are made. They're both differences ways of approaching a open-world game. Or are you seriously arguing NES games were harder because the developers lacked "space" to place helpful everywhere?

Both endings require you to press buttons on your controller, too. Do you think that's a useful way of comparing the two? You can make anything fit in the same category by deliberately being as vague as possible.

There are less differences between CotM and the other IGAvanias than between all of the metroidvanias and Simon's That's the point I'm trying to make. Besides, I never said all of the metroidvanias were 100% identical. Simon's Quest is still the most different out of all of them.

[Guy Belmont]

Completing games during the NES, especially action-adventure games with lots of mapping required more effort than it did in SotN's time. There's a reason some developers handed out certificates for completing a game. Simon's Quest is more difficult to complete than SotN because it doesn't hold your hand as much as the latter does. This attitude towards the player manifests in both games in various ways. Simon's Quest doesn't scatter items anywhere because that would have made the game too easy. Symphony does this in order to be helpful towards the player. Both these design decision reflect the era in which these games are made. They're both differences ways of approaching a open-world game. Or are you seriously arguing NES games were harder because the developers lacked "space" to place helpful everywhere?

Both endings require you to press buttons on your controller, too. Do you think that's a useful way of comparing the two? You can make anything fit in the same category by deliberately being as vague as possible.

There are less differences between CotM and the other IGAvanias than between all of the metroidvanias and Simon's That's the point I'm trying to make. Besides, I never said all of the metroidvanias were 100% identical. Simon's Quest is still the most different out of all of them.

are you joking? come on your clutching at straws here and back peddling like no tomorrow ,  as i see you didn't anaswer the fact that you first said SQ did have false ending, then didn't so how does that work?

  the clues in the JP SQ where far more helpful, so here are just a few
Jp clues
Hold a red crystal in front of Deborah cliff and wait for a wind.

A person without living laurels will perish on the cursed swamp.


I mean thise clues would have anyone stumped huh, so.. more llike being spoon fed
and  to be fair there are a ton of items pretty close by? sooo again no.





 yes... a game can be hard  for lack of space, I'll spell it out, as you seem to have no grasp on how this thing works The highers ups say
"Hey we want the game to be as flashy as pos" so then the devs work as hard as they can to cram as much in and sometimes they have to trade items  for better graphics, and more rich and real  wolrd in look and feel, don't forget the day and night that must have taken up a bit space and sometimes things get left out for  time constraints, happens a lot in the gaming word.

and again you seem to fitting things in to help your points.  so come on, lets stop kidding here, both games need a special  recrements  to get the best ending, as both have  trick ending to fool the player. Giving more replay. thats why tons of game mags and blogs count time based endings a secrets.



 "all the 2D metroidvanias have a very specific formula that they all follow (with the occasional gimmick to prevent them from becoming stale), so it makes sense to have them all together."


So let me see if i have this right, both CoTm and SQ have the same core gameplay, both don't follow your formula
But... CoTM is an MV and SQ isn't
 I find your logic  flawed here
do you not see this weakens your points so badly.
i mean  you say there less differences but how so, You need to explore, back track, level up. collect items, again both classic ideas if a MV i mean
 IGA said himself that the Dual Set-up System did not match with the world Castlevania.
so that part was very different but you seem stil think its a MV
you seem to be picking the ones you count as MV but seem to leaveing the facts behind in order to fit in with you points.
































 



 

[Reinhart77]

Hmm, in the event that these collections have multiple versions of the same game like many collections do (different regions or platforms), I wonder if there’s any chance we could see the Saturn version of symphony...

[Abnormal Freak]

I'll spell it out, as you seem to have no grasp on how this thing works

Don't pick on Nagumo, she's cool.

[AlexCalvo]

Iga has very recently stated that Simon's Quest was a huge influence on SoTN.  So I think it would be a fair inclusion.  It just might be kind of jarring to jump straight from SQ to SoTN, as there is no graphical middle ground game to bridge the gap as there is with the classic games.

That said... I do think it is perfectly reasonable to call SQ and VK 8-bit equivalents to a Metroidvania.  If not actually in the genre they were the closest 8-bit tech could get.  I would be fine with it, and I think most gamers would too.

Now I think Guy is going a little far, but I know arguing with Nagumo can be... frustrating, even if she doesn't lose her cool.  I recommend just listening to her suggestion to agree to disagree.  I have never seen her acquiesce to anyone else once she has her mind set on an idea.