Topic: One word to describe the state of the franchise.

[Sumac]

Lords of Shadow is insulting and violating to the series.

SOTN-clone #10 would be even much more insulting to the series, that was one of the few  that differed with each installment.
I prefer something fresh.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

I don't really think clones of what came before could be insulting to the series just by that fact. Would you say CV1 clone #10 would be insulting to the series? I wouldn't. And they've made more than 10 classicvanias.

[Dark Nemesis]

Super Castlevania IV was one remake, clone of the first Castlevania. Is it insulting the series and the first Castlevania?

[Ahasverus]

Super Castlevania IV was one remake, clone of the first Castlevania. Is it insulting the series and the first Castlevania?

Clone? really?

[Flame]

Because Simon definitely had 8 way whipping in CVI.

CV4 is practically it's own game. Its not even a remake. It's a re imagining of CV1.

Meanwhile... All we have gotten for the past few years, are "re imaginings" of SoTN.

I love my IGAvanias, but cant deny, every single game after SoTN was trying to emulate SoTN's success. Specifically the games the came right after, such as Harmony of Dissonance, for example.

[thernz]

But in Portrait of Ruin, you can hop on your partner. That has never been seen before in Castlevania! Actually, Portrait of Ruin was the start of a lot of features: a more integrated partner character who you can swap control to, sub-weapon leveling, spell charging, and Metroidvania stages that aren't even connected to the main map. Portrait of Ruin is so much more original than any classicvania. Most of them didn't even have a quarter of the number of new features Portrait touted!

[Flame]

But it was a failure on the grounds that it was trying to be a sequel to Bloodlines, and failed terribly in that respect, since Travelling all across Europe =/= going into paintings to travel to those places. Not to mention the characters were not too interesting. it was well meaning, but IGA sucks at sequels, and instead plopped all those innovative new ideas hes famous for, into a dud.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

Because Simon definitely had 8 way whipping in CVI.

That's not really a genre-shattering change. CV4 is still the same genre as CV1, just as HoD or AoS are the same genre as SotN despite having a whip-wielding character or a soul system. If one wants to call those clones of SotN, one must also acknowledge the classicvanias as clones of CV1 (and I'm not including CV2 here), or else we are simply holding different eras of games to different standards.

Meanwhile... All we have gotten for the past few years, are "re imaginings" of SoTN.

You're kinda forgetting Adventure Rebirth and the Rondo remake. And if you wanna count non-mainline games, Judgment and CVHD. But generally besides classicvanias and Castleroids there's not much else left as an option (that will sell) besides the route LoS went down. Even in the industry as a whole there's not really many possibilities left in the way of innovation, so most things will end up being clones of what has come before or mash ups of elements that have come before (unless the game opts to go for the new motion control craze). I don't know what kind of entirely new innovation you're asking for from the CV series, but I doubt it can deliver while still also resembling the old games and also selling well.

I love my IGAvanias, but cant deny, every single game after SoTN was trying to emulate SoTN's success. Specifically the games the came right after, such as Harmony of Dissonance, for example.

But did every game after CV1 try to emulate its success? I'm not sure I would put it that way because I don't even know if CV1 was a success financially or critically at the time it was released since I was far too young to care or look into such things, but the formula is certainly the same throughout all the classicvanias. Obviously that doesn't include CV2 though, as I'm not really counting that in the same genre as the classicvanias.

[crisis]

Took the words right out of my mouth, Charlotte-nyom-nyoms:3

[Dark Nemesis]

Clone? really?

In a interview, i remember stated that Super Castlevania IV was a remake/reimagining of the first Castlevania and Simon's adventure. 8 way whipping doesn't change the core of the game. Also since it's a remake, it doesn't have to be strictly to the same game controls or else it wouldn't be called a remake, but a copy paste!!!

  Like it or no, Super Castlevania did in it's own time, what LoS failed to do. It took the same game controls and added the 8 way whipping, incredibly graphics/effects and a outstanding soundtrack with almost CD quality. Super Castlevania IV is one of the best old school Castlevania games!!!


  If LoS has made what has been promissed, things would have been different..........

[TheouAegis]

There have been a lot more than one word in these last few posts...

Dark Nemesis' point is valid, though.

First we had CV1. Then CV2 tried to build on that by adding free-roaming and somem RPG elements. But the game was pretty bad, so they went back to what they knew worked: CV1. So they took CV1 and built on it by adding swappable characters, branching paths, and some new enemies, incorporating the countryside from CV2. Then they decided to build on that in various ways. Some added 8-directional whipping and whip spinning. Some added kicking. Some added spears. Each added more traps, more enemies. Each made use of newer systems' hardware. But in the end, each built off of CV1, the tried and true. Then we entered the 3D realm and Konami tried a different approach. Rather than building off of the original, they took it to 3D and it flopped. They tried again (if at first you don't succeed, try again rightly so). And that flopped. So then they went back to their roots, to the tried and true. They built off CV1. They decided to further build off CV2. They did away with stair climbing and made the Castle even more open-ended, but scrapped the countryside. It was a success. But Konami, it can be argued, forgot its roots and forgot what made it a success. Rather than continuing to build off of CV1, they decided to build off of SOTN, even though it could be argued that SOTN's success wasn't inherent in itself but a simple consequence of not being a 3D flop like its recent predecessors. So Konami built off SOTN but the series lost steam because they were building off the wrong thing. Then they decided, "If at first you don't succeed, try again on a better system." So they made the PS2 games. And kinda flopped. They went back to SOTN and remakes and such. Then XBox 360 came out and they tried again.

And arguably (long, page after page of posts arguably) it was a failure too.

People clamor for a good 3D Castlevania. Konami's given them 5 or 6 and people weren't satisfied. The fact of the matter is, as history has shown, CV1 is the foundation all Castlevania games need to be built off of. You can modify F(x)=Ax^4+Bx^3+C(Dx-E)^2-F all you want, but ultimately it's a function of x.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

You can modify F(x)=Ax^4+Bx^3+C(Dx-E)^2-F all you want, but ultimately it's a function of x.

Stealing this. THAAAAANK YOOOOOOU. 

[Sumac]

If one wants to call those clones of SotN, one must also acknowledge the classicvanias as clones of CV1 (and I'm not including CV2 here), or else we are simply holding different eras of games to different standards.
But did every game after CV1 try to emulate its success?

Each game was different from the other in gameplay and art direction. Much more different then SOTN and its brethren. And CV1 was supposedly succesful. Not even back then, company would create a sequel to a failure.

CV4 is still the same genre as CV1

By that margin every action game could be count as clone.

Rather than building off of the original, they took it to 3D and it flopped. They tried again (if at first you don't succeed, try again rightly so). And that flopped. So then they went back to their roots, to the tried and true. They built off CV1. They decided to further build off CV2. They did away with stair climbing and made the Castle even more open-ended, but scrapped the countryside. It was a success. But Konami, it can be argued, forgot its roots and forgot what made it a success. Rather than continuing to build off of CV1, they decided to build off of SOTN, even though it could be argued that SOTN's success wasn't inherent in itself but a simple consequence of not being a 3D flop like its recent predecessors.

I am not sure, if I understood you right, but there were no 3D Castlevania games before SOTN. The first CV3D was CV64 and it was released 2 years after Symphony. So your scheme is kind of off.

[Successor The Cruel]

Each game was different from the other in gameplay and art direction. Much more different then SOTN and its brethren.

No. Castlevania 3 looks very similar to Castlevania 1 and 2, and it's artwork is very comparable. The gameplay of the action games didn't change up anymore than the metroidvania games changed. I will also note that the only Metroidvania games that look extremely similar to each other are the three DS games. Circle of the Moon has a different visual style than Symphony of the Night. Harmony of Dissonance has a different visual style than Aria of Sorrow. Aria of Sorrow has a different visual style than Circle of the Moon. If you can't perceive this, you're blind. There are similarities between them, but 2D Castlevania games have always had visual similarities to other Castlevania games.

So, in short, it is as someone else said. You've got convenient double standards going on.

[beingthehero]

Not to mention the fact that adding in the ability to select different levels isn't an astounding leap in terms of gameplay.