Topic: The first sign rises with the full moon.

[affinity]

That would be so cool if Bloodstained II is a bit like Castlevania II with open world towns, with forests inbetween,
caves, dungeons, etc.   

Order of Ecclesia was a tiny bit similiar but I wouldn't call that open world really since the
fast travel map dumbed down and fragmented the world.  whereas CVII connected the whole world and even
had realtime day/night cycles that affected enemies. 

Also Bloodstained sequels should bring back the previous playable characters for a free mode version of the
campaign, that way as Bloodstained gets more sequels, it's selectable of playables expands as well for fans
that want their favorites playable in the new game as well, adding more incentives even after beating the stories
intended for the new character(s), without needing to resort to mods to do so.

Though yes it is great Bloodstained will be 100% castle and the largest IGAvania castle ever!!!!   

[Reinhart77]

I was thinking I'd want Bloodstained II to be more like Bloodlines.  Iga mentioned that he thought about having many different locations around the world and putting in enemies local to that area, but then he decided to keep it in the Castle.  For the second outing, I'd like to see his original idea.  I'm up for some monster filled field trips.

[CastleToastM]

Sometimes they just ask when the game is almost ready. So just wait, guys.

MN9 still haven't asked about the platforms we will want the keys, and it's coming soon.

Alright, good to know, I feel better about not getting a survey yet.

I'm now assuming it'll take two years to get it, and that's fine if that's how they want to do it.

[uzo]

MN9 still haven't asked about the platforms we will want the keys, and it's coming soon.

Sure about that? I was asked by MN9 ages ago which platform I wanted to choose.

[BLOOD MONKEY]

Sure about that? I was asked by MN9 ages ago which platform I wanted to choose.

MN9 is ded anyways.

[affinity]

I was thinking I'd want Bloodstained II to be more like Bloodlines.  Iga mentioned that he thought about having many different locations around the world and putting in enemies local to that area, but then he decided to keep it in the Castle.  For the second outing, I'd like to see his original idea.  I'm up for some monster filled field trips.

but wasn't Bloodlines stage based like the classics?   it was stage based, not open world/nonlinear like CVII.

 I think Bloodstained II could have the best of both worlds being more like CVII.  It really is messed up the CVII
formula wasn't explored in new CVs.  and it actually has more in common with IGAvanias than others, and some
cool gameplay features to learn from, with the most immersive towns in the genre, entirely better and more numerous than OoE's village and Ecclesia base itself.

Well anyways, in Bloodstained they should distribute useful whips evenly in the progression, so it doesn't favor
swords more than whips in the loot, and people can choose the style they want to main every step of the way and stuff.   

[Castle34hk]

NEWS guys very nice;)

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/247111/Koji_Igarashi_on_the_power_and_responsibility_of_being_Kickstarterfunded.php

[Gunlord]

Yeah, I was just about to link that, Castle-kun. Some highlights I liked:

"KI: First, I don't want people to get the wrong idea. It's very easy to vilify Konami and make it seem like they're this very evil corporation. But as far as myself, and my career as a producer at Konami, I had a lot of freedom there. And while there were, of course, budgetary limitations that were put on me, I still feel like I had a decent enough budget to make a good game. It wasn't like I was getting half of what I needed, or anything like that."

Man, this gives me more respect for IGA. He is a *really* classy guy. Even after everything that happened, he still has perspective on his own situation and his former employer's and realizes where they were coming from, and to be thankful rather than spiteful for what he had. Very much a class act. I might write a blog entry about this sort of thing, sometime.

[beingthehero]

KI: It doesn't fit this sort of gameplay, which is a much quicker-paced game. This game is more akin to: The enemy has a pattern, you dodge that pattern, it's got an opening, and even one or two hits can kill enemies in Castlevania games.

And that's to keep the tempo up, make it quick. If you have an enemy you need to do combos on, that instantly suggests the enemy is a "hard" enemy, insomuch as it's blocking high or low, or something like that, and it's totally going to slow down the gameplay for when you're fighting that enemy. And it's going to alter the whole key rhythm of what makes those games great.  So while it might be a modern style that a lot of people are using in their games, it probably doesn't fit into this sort of a game.

At least he's not going to repeat MoF's mistakes.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

I love the response to the combo question. It fits with why I don't really like combos in these kind of games. It works better for 3D action games as in something like the DMC series, where there is less of a focus on platforming and exploring with instead more of a focus on combat. IGA's Metroidvania games have always seemed to really go somewhere down the middle road between combat focus and platforming focus with a bit of each but neither really totally dominating. Meanwhile, 3D games like Lament and CoD were much closer to the combat end of the spectrum.

[RichterB]

I love the response to the combo question. It fits with why I don't really like combos in these kind of games. It works better for 3D action games as in something like the DMC series, where there is less of a focus on platforming and exploring with instead more of a focus on combat. IGA's Metroidvania games have always seemed to really go somewhere down the middle road between combat focus and platforming focus with a bit of each but neither really totally dominating. Meanwhile, 3D games like Lament and CoD were much closer to the combat end of the spectrum.

This is good news. But the combo stuff in the post-N64 3D games was also a detriment to their overall design. As soon as you start creating chains of attacks, it forces the player's character model forward, which means there isn't a free-flowing platforming situation where you can attack on narrow platforms. The N64 3D games, for their weaknesses, didn't have this issue.

[affinity]

Maybe one or two of the modes, not a lot of people play. And we'll take that feedback and that'll be a mode that you wouldn't necessarily put in the second one, and maybe put more emphasis on the modes people like.

don't agree with this, just because a mode is unpopular is no reason to considering removing it in the next game.
Have they ever thought that if even ONE person in the world likes that mode, they deserve to have that mode
available in the next game and the next game after that?

the popular modes can still be taken care of without cutting modes that aren't getting a loud praise.

this is a problem that plagues even WWE games, they cut modes that were added before, assuming they
aren't popular, and that is just taking steps backwards.

lets take Street Fighter II for example.  during the 16 bit days, the console version (Special Championship Edition for example), included a Tournament mode (this was generations before smash bros with its 32/64 sized tournament options), and I think SuperSFII might of had it too, but afterwards, console versions of Street Fighter games, including the new Street Fighter games, don't include that mode.   There the developers included a mode at least some fans
made use of, and now capcom is like "oh it's not popular nor demanded enough".

cutting modes previous games had is wasteful.   that causes one less mode to choose from. 
well it can be debated depending on the mode and players interests, but still a mode shouldn't be underrated,
there could be people that actually make use of that mode.  and to this day, there hasn't been a single mode
IGAvania had that wasn't useful, it can be useful to some people out there, so it does have values.

Are you creating a situation where the first game is too big, in a way?

too big? oh please.  it's like they said, they already planned these things so they are able to do all the modes
they offer, they aren't some Peter Moore that claims they will do more than they actually do.

BJ: To be 100 percent honest, you're right -- there's a lot of stuff that we're going to shove into this first game, and that means, so where do you go from here? Where's your bigger, badder, better for the second game or the third game?

don't like BJ's perspective on this.  the sequel could be the same size and still surpass its predecessor with plenty
of incentives to get the sequel.

BJ's mentality has caused a lot of companies to intentionally do less each game, with the stupid idea that "there is more room to add more incentives to buy the sequel if we keep our efforts at a minimum, and do a little better in the next one".

the stupid developers that created Golden Axe Beast Rider thought that.


They were like,
 "hahaha, we have the Golden Axe franchise!  Co-op? more playable characters? long hair? WHO CARES!
we'll save those for the sequel and just make a single player action game with expensive cinematics,
we'll give more people reasons to buy the sequel instead of making a complete masterpiece.
Then we'll strive to easily match and surpass that in the sequel with minimum effort. "

and then what happened.  their "Golden Axe' games was barebones with too little incentives to play it,
no co-op, only one fan favorite (whose character design pales in comparison with the original),
tame level design and systems, and got really underwhelming reception. 


and a similiar case with Resident Evil Outbreak.  the original creators planned to make RE Outbreak fully realized
with 20+ scenarios, but then greedy Capcom thought it was "too good", wanted to milk the content in 3+ separate games, and forced them to cut it up and release the firstgame with only 5 of the scenarios and only 1/3 of the playable characters and modes (said characters playable with a cheat device,  people accessed "OUtbreak 3" characters using the Outbreak 1 data. )  AND ON TOP OF THAT, what did Capcom do to screw Resident Evil Outbreak File 2 after
Outbreak 1's success (which despite being only 1/3 a game earned a fanbase and greenlight for a sequel)?
Announce Resident Evil 4, which ate up ALL the attention and hype Outbreak 2 would have received on PS2,  and caused more people to buy Gamecubes instead of Outbreak 2.   
Then capcom went on to milk RE4 formula instead of Outbreak.
it was also Mikami's fault, who at the time, made the mistake choosing gamecube for main series Resident Evil games, then assuming no one cared about classic REs, when RE Remake sold terribly on a nintendo platform (where obviously the majority  of the RE fanbase doesn't care for).  And then look now, generations later, Resident Evil Remake breaks sales records on modern playstation consoles, proving Mikami wrong about assuming classic RE was unwanted;  using that excuse to make the abomination known as RE4, which RE5 and RE6 shamefully copied. 
Outbreak was the better direction for the series.   

[Claimh Solais]

don't agree with this, just because a mode is unpopular is no reason to considering removing it in the next game.
Have they ever thought that if even ONE person in the world likes that mode, they deserve to have that mode
available in the next game and the next game after that?

Not a good mentality to have here. If barely anyone likes that mode or feature at all, then it's something not worth keeping, since resources are put toward that. Those resources could be better spent toward making the things that everyone likes better, or even making something else that could potentially be liked instead.

It'd be like, for example, let's say for argument's sake, LoS3 was being developed. People hate the stealth segments in LoS2. But ol' Johnny over there and a few of his friends actually really like them. Should they keep them in LoS2 just because Johnny and friends like them, but everybody else who played the game hated them? Absolutely not.

A good majority of Dynasty Warriors' fanbase hated the gameplay style of Dynasty Warriors 6, but I'm among the few that actually quite liked it. But Omega Force shouldn't keep developing the games like that on my account.

And your point here:

it can be useful to some people out there, so it does have values.

is a good one to use for what I just pointed out. It does have its values to some people. But to the overall game, it'd have very little value.

I know you're talking about modes, but the same thing applies there.

Please note, I'm talking about the "if even one person likes it, it should stay" mentality. If it's just one or very few that like a mode or a feature, etc., it doesn't have much worth to the whole community that plays the game, so keeping it around is actually quite a waste when the resources put to that mode could be put toward something else.

and a similiar case with Resident Evil Outbreak.  the original creators planned to make RE Outbreak fully realized
with 20+ scenarios, but then greedy Capcom thought it was "too good", wanted to milk the content in 3+ separate games, and forced them to cut it up and release the firstgame with only 5 of the scenarios and only 1/3 of the playable characters and modes (said characters playable with a cheat device,  people accessed "OUtbreak 3" characters using the Outbreak 1 data. )  AND ON TOP OF THAT, what did Capcom do to screw Resident Evil Outbreak File 2 after
Outbreak 1's success (which despite being only 1/3 a game earned a fanbase and greenlight for a sequel)?
Announce Resident Evil 4, which ate up ALL the attention and hype Outbreak 2 would have received on PS2,  and caused more people to buy Gamecubes instead of Outbreak 2.   
Then capcom went on to milk RE4 formula instead of Outbreak.
it was also Mikami's fault, who at the time, made the mistake choosing gamecube for main series Resident Evil games, then assuming no one cared about classic REs, when RE Remake sold terribly on a nintendo platform (where obviously the majority  of the RE fanbase doesn't care for).  And then look now, generations later, Resident Evil Remake breaks sales records on modern playstation consoles, proving Mikami wrong about assuming classic RE was unwanted;  using that excuse to make the abomination known as RE4, which RE5 and RE6 shamefully copied. 
Outbreak was the better direction for the series.

Oh boy. Talking about Resident Evil here. I'm quite passionate about the series so I'm gonna have a lot to say.

Firstly, about Outbreak, the reasons scenarios were cut was not because Capcom was "greedy" and wanted to milk the Outbreak franchise. The game was running severely behind schedule and they couldn't complete all 18 scenarios and several playable characters in time for the release of the first Outbreak. So they had to cut it.

On top of that, Outbreak wasn't necessarily a "success". The game received pretty mild reviews here in America, and was widely regarded as "another typical entry into Resident Evil franchise". As well, the game itself already had several questionable choices that made online play more of a hassle, such as the lack of keyboard or voice support, instead relying on the terrible ad-lib system.

Secondly, they didn't suddenly announce Resident Evil 4 after Outbreak. The game was in development for 6 years before release, going through several iterations (two of which spawned the Devil May Cry and Onimusha franchises). Resident Evil 4 was in development long before Outbreak was even conceived. And of course the game was going to take all the attention away from Outbreak 2. RE4 is a main series title that's been eating up Capcom's resources for 6 years. They needed to get that money back.

Next, Mikami didn't say no one cared about classic REs. In fact, a lot of people agreed by the time Resident Evil Zero came out that Resident Evil was starting to become extremely stale, which is why the series needed to be given a serious overhaul to stay alive. Had it stayed the way it was, it would have faded off into obscurity with the other niche horror titles like Haunting Ground, Rule of Rose, and (pun totally intended) Obscure.

Also, Mikami said he was frustrated with the PlayStation 2, as he found it was a tough system to work with. In fact, Mikami was planning on the game being an Xbox exclusive, but by the time Microsoft was willing to work out a deal with Capcom, they had already signed an exclusivity agreement with Nintendo.

[affinity]

It would be cool if Bloodstained castle starts more open.  Since it's side view, I think the first location would
take place in the center 1st floor of the castle instead of on the side, because SOTN for example, approaching
the "front" of the castle was from the side, so typically, 2D castles are mapped out from a side view.
but I think Bloodstained could take a "front" approach to the castle perspective.

like you know how in Castlevania II, you are in the "front" of a mansion, and you enter pressing up, though
of course your tend to start in the left side of the map's interior, but I think for Bloodstained, the first room
could take place in the 1st floor center of the castle, which level design would give players the freedom to explore
and unlock more parts of the castle in a more non linear fashion (the east wing, the west wing, upper floors, etc.)

with SOTN, it was like after the forest, it's the entrance, and then the hallway, and it's pretty linear all the way
until you each the marble gallery pretty much, which winds back around to the starting areas, and the standard
path leads to the outer wall on the east side of the castle, which branches into other areas like the Library and
clocktower, which there's no means to enter without getting later power ups.

Overall, they could explore making Bloodstained more nonlinear from the start, so it enhances exploration better,
and can still design things so players can progress in more ways than one.   Though it also depends how the
story is connected to the playthrough, because if they script certain scenes to take place in a certain order,
then that can cause linearity to be forced on how progression and accessing different parts of the castle are
mapped out.

hey do you think they will use portraits for the characters text chat/voice interactions?
 Bloodstained has great character art and Miriam expressions.

Though back to Bloodstained openness, yea it would be cool to take some lessons from Resident Evil 1
instead of RE Remake.  RE1 veterans know how the original mansion starts less linear than the Remake version, which
makes it more routine and strict how you access areas.

And overall, general boss difficulty for the first boss fights could be balanced, so players can explore and beat
the first bosses in any order, so that does help the level design so the developers don't think "well the 3nd boss
might be too challenging if the player fights it first",  but still it's nice to give players that freedom and more
options to explore than drawing a line to follow. 

And of course whatever they do, don't design the castle like LOI, which has teleportation/elevator platforms
that leads to different parts of the castle, LOI really has one of the most fragmented, lopsided, and terrible castle designs. it didn't feel like a organically connected castle.  it felt like a Demon's Souls or something and Bloodstained shouldn't take a segmented HUB/fast travel approach to castle design.   

but being 2.5d and IGAvania, they could keep the castle whole.   

. The game received pretty mild reviews here in America, and was widely regarded as "another typical entry into Resident Evil franchise". As well, the game itself already had several questionable choices that made online play more of a hassle, such as the lack of keyboard or voice support, instead relying on the terrible ad-lib system.

the ad lib system is awesome, it's not flawless, but it kept the players in character using the character voices,
and had its uses which a lot of groups benefitted from.  eventually, players understood the scenarios enough
that communication really isn't required to succeed. 

Outbreak was ahead of its time (HDD made loading 100% faster)
if those games released on PS3 or especially PS4, there would be a huge fanbase and demand for its own series.
not sure but don't think even capcom unity was around when Outbreak released, most people just had REfan
to talk about it, so it only reached cult classic status.

 Also Outbreak did support keyboard for the lobbies, I used usb keyboard for the lobby text chat window, so people
can actually plan things beforehand and let teammates know what they will do in the session (this did make things
like Decisions, Decisions more organized.)

lol "another typical entry into Resident Evil franchise" my arse.   it just goes to show how clueless industry analysts out there really are.   Just as Phantasy Star Online revolutionized Phantasy Star and console ORPGs, Resident Evil Outbreak revolutionized survival horror and RE games in the best ways. 

Way more hardcore, more variety, more depth, and simulates zombie outbreak much more than action hero the direction RE4 went.    And Outbreak 2 introduced move and aim/shoot to the series long before Operation Raccoon City and RE6 did.

[CastleDan]

New official artwork courtesy of Destructoid who has an exclusive interview with IGA in their first issue -



Yup, that's duel wielding whips... O_o