Topic: Konami Facebook team responding to Operation: Akumajo

[meanguyjones]

New Super Mario Bros Wii didn't sell that many copies because it was 2D, it sold that well because FOUR PLAYER MARIO.


It outsold Galaxy 1 and 2 because OH MY GOD FOUR PLAYER MARIO WITH AGGRESSIVE AD CAMPAIGN. I'm pretty sure it would have sold the same amount if it was a 3D game.

Using it as an example for Operation Akumajo is silly. Why not use Little Big Planet as an example instead?

[TheouAegis]

People might not go for a "lower tech" game, a 2D game, in a world of 3D games.

*looks at the last three games he played on his brand new Nintendo 3DS*
(Advance Wars Dual Strike)
(Order of Ecclesia)
(The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords)

What is this "3D" that you kids speak of?

[C Belmont]

There are a ton of different factors, but the main fact is it is a financial risk. it deviates from the current norm, and therefore, is a risk

You do realise that Rebooting a long running franchise is a pretty risky move as well right?
and besides it's not like Konami hasn't created a modern 2D game before, I suspect that their reason for not making another probably has more to do with greed than it being such a huge financial risk to them.

Also we've had quite a few 2D games released lately and Konami seemed relatively content to continue creating 2D Castlevania games when this was an even less common occurrence.

[Ghetto-blasteR]

New Super Mario Bros Wii didn't sell that many copies because it was 2D, it sold that well because FOUR PLAYER MARIO.

this.

sorry, but i don't think that the success of new super mario bros wii is indicative of anything for 2d games in general.

[C Belmont]

seriously?
you really think that people bought the game just because more than one person can play it at the same time?
Gee maybe they should have just made castlevania a 4 player game instead of rebooting it then or better yet a 1000 player game then it would sell like hotcakes right?!

I certainly didn't buy Super Mario Bros Wii just because of it's multiplayer options, and even if people did buy it for it's multiplayer options it's sucess would still indicate that the genre is not entirely outdated yet.

[A-Yty]

Something that shifts between 2.5D and 3D might be the way to go for CV.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

Something that shifts between 2.5D and 3D might be the way to go for CV.

You mean like Megaman X7?

But better?

[A-Yty]

I can't name any examples of that style right away, but I'm sure all you guys can

All in all, MM might not be a bad example, as it's another 20+ old series that seems to have trouble moving beyond 2D.

[Sumac]

There's a significant difference between the author that's writing his own original story, and the author that's been invited to reboot someone else's story.

I agree somewhat.
Though there is thin line between what defines reboot and original work sometimes. As for me LOS is on the fine line between being based on past CV's and being new.

This is fundamentally true, but you can't deny that AoS/DoS were still building on the Belmont vs Dracula mythology.

I agree that it was based on the Castlevania mythos. However, in my opinion, AOS did it in a very wrong way, turning plot into typical anime ripoff and shifting the tone of the story very far from what I expected from Castlevania.
It's practically the same thing that was done with LOS, aside from being continuation of the original story.

But in terms of the story --Gabriel's descent, Dracula's role, and the Final Boss were all closely guarded secrets.  Some of the trailers were also a tad misleading in these regards --the TGS trailer in particular...

It should have been this way - what interest in playing the game when you know the whole story beforehand?
It was not obvious that story would be so different from previous games, however that could've been expected.

What I'm pointing out is that the tournament, the characters, the alliances, and the motivations are faithful and familiar --even if some of the finer details don't match up 100%.

Still it pissed of many fans who considered that any changes in the story were horrible and ruined series forever. Some even declined to buy any MK games until there would be another reboot with a new story. Doesn't it remind you about anything? 

Gee maybe they should have just made castlevania a 4 player game instead of rebooting it then or better yet a 1000 player game then it would sell like hotcakes right?!

Harmony of Despair?

[Ghetto-blasteR]

seriously?
you really think that people bought the game just because more than one person can play it at the same time?

yes. are you denying that the multiplayer component contributed to its sales? not only that, but it's multiplayer MARIO.

Gee maybe they should have just made castlevania a 4 player game instead of rebooting it then or better yet a 1000 player game then it would sell like hotcakes right?!

where did anyone say or even suggest this?

I certainly didn't buy Super Mario Bros Wii just because of it's multiplayer options, and even if people did buy it for it's multiplayer options it's sucess would still indicate that the genre is not entirely outdated yet.

i don't buy this. everyone citing the mario example needs to remember that it's mario. it's always been a household name.

again, i maintain that the success of new super mario bros wii is not indicative of anything for 2d games in general.

[Flame]

You mean like Megaman X7?

But better?

Or... Sonic Unleashed/Colors/Generations.

Which switches between 2D and 3D.

[cecil-kain]

We aren't talking about then, Cecil. We are talking about NOW.

I understand that.  You made a point about how Nintendo has massive amounts of venture capital to risk --I was trying to explain how they arrived in that position.  And more importantly, how Nintendo was much worse off then than Konami is now --but still managed to claw their way out of the abyss with the entire industry riding on their back.  Quality mitigates risk.

If a company has a good idea, and they invest in quality to help that idea reach its fullest potential --they will not only be successful, they will be the envy of their industry --much like Nintendo is today.

Back then, 2D games were the norm.

Nowadays, 2D games are a bigger risk. Why? Because they are not quite the norm they used to be. Technology has evolved way past that. And therefore, making a game like that, is a financial risk. They cannot be sure that people will buy it. People might not go for a "lower tech" game, a 2D game, in a world of 3D games.

There are a ton of different factors, but the main fact is it is a financial risk. it deviates from the current norm, and therefore, is a risk.

The only real risk for the 2-D artform is the 3-D bias that still exists in some corners of the marketplace.  Like I've been saying, this is a trendy industry.  3-D games have been around for 15 years and the market is fully saturated --they just don't have the *wow* factor they did back in the 90's.  Now that we have machines that are powerful enough to render every blade of grass and every grain of dirt, the quality of a game's content is far more relevant than flashy graphics or even this 2-D vs 3-D paradigm.  Overpriced shovelware won't sell anymore just because it has flashy 3-D graphics.

As for the technology evolving past 2-D...  Let me put this a different way...  The Dracula X Chronicles could NOT have been ported over to the DS --or the GBA, the SNES, or the NES.  Why?  Because it was made for the PSP and actually *USED* the power of technology that was available to reach its full potential for that system.  If it had been made for the PS3 or Xbox 360, it could have used the power of those technologies for even more impressive results.  We talked about Rebirth earlier.  Rebirth is an example of NOT using the power of the available technology and failing to reach its full potential.

New Super Mario Bros Wii didn't sell that many copies because it was 2D, it sold that well because FOUR PLAYER MARIO.

It outsold Galaxy 1 and 2 because OH MY GOD FOUR PLAYER MARIO WITH AGGRESSIVE AD CAMPAIGN. I'm pretty sure it would have sold the same amount if it was a 3D game.

New Super Mario Bros Wii didn't sell just because it was 2-D, it sold because it was a very high-quality product that just happened to be executed in 2-D.  Moreover, it outsold both Super Mario Galaxy games because it was far more committed to tickling the nostalgia of mature gamers --many of whom now have families.  The simultaneous multiplayer is a selling point for parents sharing Mario with the kids, but excluding it wouldn't have damaged the sales as much as you're probably thinking.  Just look at where the inspiration came from --New Super Mario Bros for the DS has 26 Million sold, and that was strictly a single player experience.

Using it as an example for Operation Akumajo is silly. Why not use Little Big Planet as an example instead?

Little Big Planet is just a more complicated comparison.  Unlike Mario and Castlevania, LBP is a new IP with no 3-D counterpart to compare it to --so the only real talking point would be the sales data.  Although I have good sources for hard copy sales, I can't find any reliable sources for digital distribution.  This game was also available free of charge for 30 days to anyone that signed into the PSN as part of Sony's "Welcome Back" program --I suspect that alone made quite an impact on LBP's exposure.  And if that weren't enough, there's a major genre gap due to the game's world builder features.  Like I said, a more complicated comparison.

yes. are you denying that the multiplayer component contributed to its sales? not only that, but it's multiplayer MARIO.

i don't buy this. everyone citing the mario example needs to remember that it's mario. it's always been a household name.

again, i maintain that the success of new super mario bros wii is not indicative of anything for 2d games in general.

The concept here is 2-D Mario outselling 3-D Mario to the point of humiliation --and you're struggling to explain it.  Multiplayer is a nice feature, but its absence would hardly break the game.  Again I would point to the DS version sales to support that view.

[Ghetto-blasteR]

The concept here is 2-D Mario outselling 3-D Mario to the point of humiliation --and your 3-D bias can't explain it.  Multiplayer is a nice feature, but its absence would hardly break the game.  Again I would point to the DS version sales to support that view.

i don't actually disagree that certain games are better in 2d. in fact i haven't commented on this. but notice how you had to rely on the DS mario to demonstrate your point. which leads me back into saying, again, that the wii mario doesn't say anything for 2d games in general. it confounds way too many variables. i realize this point may seem relatively trivial; fine. but that's why the banner in your sig isn't very convincing to me, when it shows four players reliving one of the most classic videogames of all time. (i think that's how this topic got brought up.)

also, i don't think people appreciate being told they apparently have a "3d bias". why would you go and assume that, cecil?

[cecil-kain]

i don't actually disagree that certain games are better in 2d. in fact i haven't commented on this. but notice how you had to rely on the DS mario to demonstrate your point. which leads me back into saying, again, that the wii mario doesn't say anything for 2d games in general. it confounds way too many variables. i realize this point may seem relatively trivial; fine. but that's why the banner in your sig isn't very convincing to me, when it shows four players reliving one of the most classic videogames of all time. (i think that's how this topic got brought up.)

You're certainly correct about all the variables --and discerning which ones are most relevant certainly widens the debate.  Bringing up New Super Mario Bros for DS gives the multiplayer issue some extra context, but it also muddies the water by comparing a portable game to a console game.

also, i don't think people appreciate being told they apparently have a "3d bias". why would you go and assume that, cecil?

Sorry Ghetto, that's my mistake.     I got lazy and wasn't paying close attention to who's comment I was responding to --that's what I get for responding to so many at once.  I called out Flame for 3-D bias earlier in the topic and you had nothing to do with that part of the discussion.  I'll correct my last post.  Please accept my apology.   

[Sindra]

Alright Cecil.....you asked for any aid in the cause of relying fans to your plight, and I am here to deliver.

However, I think Operation: Akumajou has received too negative a light. Perhaps I can suggest something else:



OCCUPY: CASTLEVANIA

Just as O:A has banked on the success of Operation Rainfall, Occupy Castlevania can bank on the...errr....well, popularity of Occupy Wallstreet.

With Occupy: Castlevania, you can easily simplify your goals, while not making them unattainable or outrageous.

• Consideration from Konami to wrap up the original timeline (presumably with the Demon Castle War) if they plan on going ahead with the new timeline exclusively
• If the Demon Castle War game is made, the request to make it 2D or 2.5D in the vein of the older games
• Suggestions that compilations be released, such as a Castlevania Classic Collection of the old games (NES-->Rondo/Bloodlines)
• Request that more common ground be found between the Lords of Shadow games and the original games (ie: catchier music, deeper connection between vampire lore, slightly less high-fantasy and more gothic creepy adventure, etc.)

Notice how these are all fan-based appeals to Konami, that are both polite and not overreaching. They ostracize neither the new games or the old games, and simply make suggestions for compromise between the two types of fans of the series. There are no demands. There is no begging. There is only invitation to Konami and all those involved in the current development of the Castlevania series to consider these ideas from long-time devoted fans of the series. You use this polite, concise type of request, and BASH THEM OVER THE HEAD with it, over and over again. Every week, a new tweet or poke to their social media pages about it. Kill them with steadfast kindness and considerate determination.....and you can be surprised what it gets you.

(that 85% thing is a estimation of how many oldschool fans there are compared to new-school fans who'd be up for this....if anyone has more realistic numbers, please let me know and I'll change it. It's probably closer to 60% or less)

If you don't feel this is your type of thing...I'll see if one of the other organizations will handle the idea. Simply a suggestion.