Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Super Waffle on January 19, 2021, 05:26:54 PM
-
Don't get me wrong. SotN is one of the greatest games in the history of forever on a technical level. I'm not questioning any of the praise it gets, but
- The prologue is an exact re-creation of the ending to a game that wouldn't exist in America for another decade
- Nobody REALLY knew who Richter was because the game was tailor-made for native Japanese audiences who played Rondo, and the closest the West got to RoB was the completely watered down Castlevania: Dracula X
- Nobody knew who Maria was and she just kept popping up as "Other girl randomly wandering around in the castle"
- If you haven't played Rondo, Shaft is just some ghostly other dude who comes out of nowhere halfway through the game
- The entire plot (and some of the level layout) is dependent on you knowing what Rondo of Blood is
- Even if you HAVE played Rondo, the depiction of Dracula doesn't match up. Rondo Dracula is, like, campy over the top early-90s Sailor Moon Villain Dracula reveling in how evil he is. SotN Dracula is sad lonely misunderstood Shakespearean Dracula with a deep backstory concerning his wife who's never been mentioned before. But this is supposed to be the same character from two games directly connected set only four years apart. So even if you're the "intended" audience, it creates a different set of problems.
What a weird formula for one of the greatest games ever made. I can't figure it out.
-
IT WAS RICHTER BELMONT, THE LEGENDARY VAMPIRE HUNTER WHO SUCCEEDED IN FINALLY ENDING THE MENACE OF COUNT DRACULA, LORD OF THE VAMPIRES WHO HAD BEEN BROUGHT BACK FROM THE GRAVE BY THE DARK PRIEST SHAFT.
HOWEVER, ONE NIGHT FOUR YEARS LATER, UNDER THE GLARE OF A FULL MOON, RICHTER MYSTERIOUSLY VANISHED.
WITH NO IDEA OF WHERE TO BEGIN HER SEARCH, MARIA RENARD SET OUT TO LOOK FOR HIM. IT WAS THEN THAT FATE INTERVENED.
CASTLEVANIA, THE CASTLE OF DRACULA, WHICH IS RUMORED TO APPEAR ONCE EVERY CENTURY, SUDDENLY MATERIALIZED IN THE MIST AS IF TO SHOW HER THE WAY.
I mean, that kinda says it all doesn't it? Dracula's portrayal can mostly be chalked up to differences in tone. SotN wanted to be a lot more serious as a story so it created a much more realistic personality for him.
-
Not to mention the games booklet literally told you in pretty decent detail who every important character was.
-
- The prologue is an exact re-creation of the ending to a game that wouldn't exist in America for another decade
Almost. It used a completely new set of sprites and background (3D) tiles.
- Nobody REALLY knew who Richter was because the game was tailor-made for native Japanese audiences who played Rondo, and the closest the West got to RoB was the completely watered down Castlevania: Dracula X
Oh I knew who Richter Belmont was. To me it was very obvious when I first booted up SotN and I played through the prologue stage. But to a lot of other people it wasn't as apparent. Others believed it to be connected to Bloodlines, which in my mind, make no lick of sense. How did they ever come to that conclusion?? The sprites don't match and the stories are way too different.
- Nobody knew who Maria was and she just kept popping up as "Other girl randomly wandering around in the castle"
I never had an issue with who Maria was either. When Dracula did beat me in the prologue stage Maria showed up and granted me her power, and it was there that I recognized her despite the difference in her hairstyle (Rondo Maria had long hair whereas Dracula XX Maria had short cropped hair). But I guess it would be true for some not to recognize her if they finished the prologue stage without dying.
- If you haven't played Rondo, Shaft is just some ghostly other dude who comes out of nowhere halfway through the game
This is true. He was a bit of an unknown until I started investigating Rondo.
- Even if you HAVE played Rondo, the depiction of Dracula doesn't match up. Rondo Dracula is, like, campy over the top early-90s Sailor Moon Villain Dracula reveling in how evil he is. SotN Dracula is sad lonely misunderstood Shakespearean Dracula with a deep backstory concerning his wife who's never been mentioned before. But this is supposed to be the same character from two games directly connected set only four years apart. So even if you're the "intended" audience, it creates a different set of problems.
Yup. :P
-
Actually, technically it wasn't a huge success immediately. Part of the reason why Konami went in a number of different directions afterwards -- Castlevania 64, Legends, and then Circle of the Moon -- was because they were trying to find a game that would be a huge success. SotN became a big seller over time, but it was Circle, not Symphony, that gave the company it's much desired "million seller".
-
Actually, technically it wasn't a huge success immediately. Part of the reason why Konami went in a number of different directions afterwards -- Castlevania 64, Legends, and then Circle of the Moon -- was because they were trying to find a game that would be a huge success. SotN became a big seller over time, but it was Circle, not Symphony, that gave the company it's much desired "million seller".
Yup. Came in to say the same thing.
And with the many times I've heard people in the fanbase say, "who cares about the story?" when talking about Castlevania in general, I really don't think any storyline issues were a factor either way here.
-
Most people in my country who is familiar with castlevania compares or connect it more with Castlevania 3 due to the fact that Alucard one of the playable characters from the game becomes the main playable character plus Ralph or Trevor was mentioned or referenced(Then later became a boss as a fake zombie) in SOTN.
-
- The prologue is an exact re-creation of the ending to a game that wouldn't exist in America for another decade
We all assumed it as Vampire's Kiss/ XX's final boss battle minus the minus'd platforms, for ease of storytelling.
- Nobody REALLY knew who Richter was because the game was tailor-made for native Japanese audiences who played Rondo, and the closest the West got to RoB was the completely watered down Castlevania: Dracula X
[/quote]
So many things wrong with this point, but I digress... Majority of CV fans are hardcore fans who bother to know things and anyone playing SOTN knew who Richter was either from VK/ XX or by playing the Prologue. We also knew about Rondo and some of us even found ways to play it... It's exactly the same way that people knew who Alucard was prior to buying the actual game (yeah, not thinking he was the black-haired dude from CVIII who looked NOTHING like this current incarnation...): Articles published in Gaming Magazines such as EGM and Nintendo Power, among various others stacked on shelves at the time (when paper wasn't just a thing that hip hop artists rapped about having..) For those who didn't want to splurge on mags, they read them and left them on the shelf.
It may surprise you to know that CVIII never received an NES PAL release, yet somehow in the 90's people in PAL regions knew about it
- Nobody knew who Maria was and she just kept popping up as "Other girl randomly wandering around in the castle"
Nah, we did. We also suspected that Maria was probably different from VK/XX, but nonetheless, we played on.
- If you haven't played Rondo, Shaft is just some ghostly other dude who comes out of nowhere halfway through the game
Pretty much........ "SHAFT!!!"
Seriously though, it's some other dude trying to resurrect Dracula, what is to know.
You know what would have been really handy to know, is the fact that Shaft's spirit entered Richter's body after the 1792 Dracula battle, explaining why he disappeared one night, why he opened the Infinity Corridor (thanks plottwist), why he became the Dark Lord of the 'fake Castlevania', Shaft's general nature in SOTN and why Richter felt so much guilt (noted in the Japan only talkee) afterwards. Yet the only piece of media I've seen mention this was Iga's timeline which came as a bonus with PoR back in the day... So yeah, story Shmory at this stage.
- The entire plot (and some of the level layout) is dependent on you knowing what Rondo of Blood is
Irrelevant. Rondo has one level in the castle, which has certain similarities even though the difference between them are both substantial and directly commented on by Maria and explained by Alucard (in-game).
- Even if you HAVE played Rondo, the depiction of Dracula doesn't match up. Rondo Dracula is, like, campy over the top early-90s Sailor Moon Villain Dracula reveling in how evil he is. SotN Dracula is sad lonely misunderstood Shakespearean Dracula with a deep backstory concerning his wife who's never been mentioned before. But this is supposed to be the same character from two games directly connected set only four years apart. So even if you're the "intended" audience, it creates a different set of problems.
Yes on the surface, no beneath it... i.e. Not really. Iga explained this by SOTN's incarnation being the final human incarnation of Dracula, which explains why OOE>PoR Dracula reverts back to his strange-flesh-toned and more sinister form who appears to be bereft of empathy and human emotions.
In context, as a previous poster mentioned re: Konami branching out and having the N64 games etc at the time, if you look at those stories, similary one finds a theme that the narratives and their methods of delivery in-game were becoming increasingly mature in the CVerse at the time. Dracula was being 'fleshed out' - excuse the #resurrectPun - to go beyond a final boss battle that had now happened several times, with a lack of dialogue for the most part until RoB. Games from the late 80's which were popular were becoming more mature, as well as most franchises transitioning from 2d>3d, successfully.
What a weird formula for one of the greatest games ever made. I can't figure it out.
Although it isn't my favourite CV, the game is a damn masterpiece. There will never be another CV that changes the blueprint as much as this game has. Nuff said.
-
So... why exactly was SotN such a huge runaway success in 1997?
With regards to this question specifically, I'd have to say the reason why it was such a runaway success was because it was a formula that had never been tried before. By the time Super Metroid had come out the Metroid formula had already perfected non-linear action/exploration gameplay. They simply combined this with Castlevania and we got SotN. We've never seen it before in CV and never saw it coming.
-
Except we had seen it from Castlevania games. Vampire Killer, Castlevania II, and the first Wai Wai game. Not to mention all the other Metroid-esque games that Konami produced over the years. Taken from the wide perspective of everything Konami had made up to that point, SotN feels more like an evolution of the idea instead of a revolution.
-
Darkmoon@
There are those exceptions, yes ;D
-
Getsu Fuma Den, Knightmare II, Goonies, Goonies II, I'm sure we can go on...
-
Except those titles, while touching upon the Metroid formulae aren't Castlevania. Yes they did come out of Konami, but again are not of said series.
-
Others believed it to be connected to Bloodlines, which in my mind, make no lick of sense. How did they ever come to that conclusion?? The sprites don't match and the stories are way too different.
-
^^^
If that's what it took to confuse multiple people into thinking SotN was the sequel to Bloodlines then I've obviously never gone on that train, lol!
You know what would have been really handy to know, is the fact that Shaft's spirit entered Richter's body after the 1792 Dracula battle
I'm not sure that this is the case. Remember seeing that floating orb controlling Richter if you wear the holy goggles? I'm pretty sure Shaft was contained in that till Alucard shattered it. Kinda like how Shaft's Ghost was using an orb when we fought him in Rondo.
-
As Darkmoon and others mentioned, it ... wasn't' a runaway success though?
SotN was very much a game that saw "success" over time. Even then, the sales were great, but not amazing by any means.
I remember when I first played it, the intro confused the crap out of me. Being familiar with Bloodlines, I had no idea what was going on. It was only later that I became familiar with Rondo of Blood, and didn't play it for years later through an emulator. Then it all clicked.
But regardless, the intro didn't hamper my enjoyment of the game. But I figure for many fans that didn't play or were familiar with Rondo, the intro was just as confusing. Though in the context of the story, it was an essential to setup the rest of the story.
-
Yeah, the game was successful in Japan but it didn't land well in the U.S. and Europe. Common consensus in the West was that the game was "old" and "boring" because it was 2D when "everyone wants 3D". Nevermind the fact that the game was brilliant.
Of course, within a year everyone realized their mistake and the sales of SotN steadily took off. But it wasn't a runaway success by any means.
It's part of why I attribute the success of Circle of the Moon (which was the Million Seller Konami wanted) to SotN: people wanted another shot at the Metroidvania formula and Circle was the first one to strike while the iron was hot.
-
A lot of games considered "classics" today were not initially successes, but became that way over time.
That said, if you want to look at why SotN was a success regardless of the fact it was not initially so- it was just a good game. But also a good game in that pre-reflectionist kind of way, if that makes sense. The franchise as a whole post SotN, sort of became self reflective once Konami started trying to replicate it's success. Everything up until it was a slow march of progress (for better or for worse) but also represented the old school way of making games. The sort of wild-west-ness of classic game design. Where everything was a lot more flexible and fast and loose, and you were never guaranteed to have the same people working between one game and the next, and thus tones and directions would be wildly different, and the approach was just to try things and see what sticks. (and the simpler development of sprite based games vs nowadays meant you had way more freedom to experiment- as a Mega Man fan, despite when interviews point out weird development and troubles for classic MM games, we still had a new mainline megaman game every single year between MM1 and 6 Can you imagine making what would be considered a "proper" game, from a big studio, 1 every year, with like 90% new assets every year?)
SotN was yet another differently toned castlevania. It was yet another new idea.
post SotN, or I guess post CotM when they saw that people actually liked that formula, it became *the* Castlevania formula. Basically every castlevania game from there up until LoS was looking *back* at SotN specifically. Whereas pre SotN, what castlevania looked to was the greater classic horror media. Universal Horror obviously always being the big core influence. But Simon's popular media design was clearly Conan the barbarian.
back to SotN itself though, it was elegant, which was somewhat new. Before this it was all mostly universal horror themed, and it had a certain roughness to it, considering you were the rough n tumble belmont on his way to brute force through Dracula's castle. (and other environments, of which the castle was merely one of) SotN though put way greater emphasis on the castle, and Alucard was not the typical Castlevania manly man protagonist. Nor was he the monstrous thin veneer of humanity over a monster archetype of classic horror vampires. He was less Christopher Lee, and more interview with the vampire.
the environment was also way more detailed than previous games. And had some real unique effects. SotN was unlike anything, even the cavalcade of IGAvanias that followed it- SotN is decidedly 90's in some of it's quirks and oddities. future games really dialed in to the gothic elements and anime elements more heavily, while discarding some of the fluff.
Some of that "decidedly 90's" stuff is for instance, the soundtrack. Future games, again, went heavy on the gothic and such, even for music- But for every Requiem for the Gods, or Dracula's own boss theme, you have a track like Wandering Ghosts. or Crystal Teardrops. Which are more jazzy.
I guess the TLDR is it was fresh in a way that you can argue the games haven't really been since, while at the same time, having a lot of content and replay-ability.
not sure if any of my rambling made sense or im just talking out of my ass, but that's my 2 cents as to why SotN was a success in general since it's release. Why it's stuck around so long. (the general gaming public remembers SotN way more than something like, say, Mega Man X4- it had broad appeal while MM was already starting to suffer from stagnation, where really only MM fans paid attention to MM games)
-
That is a well thought out argument, and very true. The one Metroidvania in the franchise (during IGA's tenure, anyway) that feels different from the batch is CotM, and once IGA came in he took the series back to the way he wanted to do it, shunning that game. But it tried different things and, even now, still feels different enough to be a fresh take.
Mind you, I think a number of the IGA-vanias are great, but he has a very different style and his games were minor evolutions on a theme, not revolutionary like SotN.
-
Absolutely. the observation that they are all derivative of SotN doesnt diminish them as fun games. But makes SotN stand out more. As that is the game that they all look back to. Which increases it's stature as "the" progenitor, "the" legendary game.
Arguably the only one that to me anyway- stands out, is Aria of Sorrow, where they tried *just enough* of a different idea to break the monotony of SotN derivation. And that example of "actually managing to recapture that lightning in a bottle" (somewhat) is evident in that after SotN, the soul mechanic from Aria has remained. Consider, Bloodstained is basically using the same mechanic. 18 years later. Not order of Ecclesia's mechanic, or PoR's mechanics, Bloodstained takes from SotN obviously- and Aria.
I should say that I was never really a castlevania fan growing up. I can't say I was even *aware* of the franchise at all, focusing mainly on Mega Man.
But I was aware of Aria when it came out, and I remember seeing it and having it stand out to me in the videogame section of stores.