Topic: We voted for the wrong guy? IGA

[Sinful]

I love it when people call me an "IGA fanboy" when the truth is that I enjoy both classicvanias and IGAvanias. You don't have to choose sides, you know. But maybe I'm the only one?

Hmm, so is this what the topic turned out to be like?... While I do admit to not be in the mood for the IGA games right now, since I'm discovering for the first time and much more enjoying the classics at the moment over IGA stuff, I did however first fell in love with the series due to the first 3 Metroidvania games (because the first game I beat just before SotN, Super Castlevania 4, didn't quite do it for me back then).

What I wanted this topic to be about and why I started it is to question wether IGA or KCET would of or did the best with the series? (Or any other team besides IGA, like it going back to random/different Kanomi folks always doing the next game in line like it's always been before IGA took over).

The second one is a lot worse. Its level design is an exaggeration of the first. It's longer, duller, and has even less platforming. Just look at Dracula's Castle in Curse of Darkness. Basically the same hallways over and over for a dozen floors. They only swap out the textures used every few floors. The combat itself is a lot more stiff.

Though its dullness is probably the thing that makes it such a time waster. You turn into a catatonic state while playing it and somehow waste the most hours on it, grinding endlessly for the meaning of life.

I'll be sure to mention this and what Richter B said about these games to my friend.

Ahh, I didn't mean for you to watch those clips yet! Oh, well. Sorry for the spoilers... (But did you notice the N64 games went with Bloodlines' red crystals over hearts, which the Gametrailers narrator mistakenly thought was entirely new to the series?).

Yeah, when I noticed this my mind right away though about if some members from that game were or had some influence of the N64 games? For me, the team that did Bloodlines I probably have themost respect for out of all the Castlevania teams... well, I do like Castlevania 3 too, so that as well, but man, if only Bloodlines had at least one or more levels it would without a doubt of been my fav game... as the only thing holding it back is it's lenght and replay in the long run...

This becomes a preference of 3D game design. This became a popular custom, but it doesn't mean it's right. There are ways to get around it and make things more interesting if the levels are designed more dynamically. Capcom's Maximo series proved this, and the N64 CV titles did beforehand, as well. At some point, particularly after the N64 era, it became more and more popular to design 3D games as a box that has carved corridors, rather than an open box with guiding obstacles and landmarks. The former feels like its more on rails and less organic to me.

Yes! This is exactly it! This is what can't stand about PS2 games! Richter B, you always amaze me in how much you know and how I can relate with yout thinking.

I think the reason why this is for the PS2 era, is because of game development costs going way up. Think about it. Putting in a ton of detail in a open world in comparison to just simple boxed rooms is much more expensive. And since the vania series never pulled in that much cash, maybe it's budget wasn't that bigs as well (after all, people here say for a PS2 game it could have looked much better, and last I checked, Konami does have the talent, no?). So in short, I really blame the way the game industry is right now and why so many games aren't what they could have and should of been. It's pretty much as bad as how Hollywood is right now.

Anyways, I, of course, don't think you're crazy one bit.

Alright! I can stop cutting myelf then. >_>;

Combat: LoI and CoD favor a frenetic combo/counter-based smack-down with lots of supplementary super powers. In nuances, LoI's combat has a smoother, more graceful flow, while CoD has a somewhat clunkier but more strategic combat system with its Pokemon-like helpers. The N64 games basically have a generic combat system (much like the series' roots) that relies completely on player interpretation. Any combos are derived from the player--such as, you can choose to slide into a skeleton, then as you're coming up, you hit him with your short sword secondary melee weapon, and finish him off with your main whip weapon. Or, mix in some sub-weapons or jumps. It's workman-like, weighed by physics more often than not.

So basically no dial a combo in the N64 games. Excellent! I can't stand them type combos.

Overall: I favor the N64 titles over the PS2 titles, as they seem like more complete "games," but would definitely rank the first PS2 game, LoI, higher than CoD, the second PS2 entry. Depending on perspective, there are only two things you might say CoD did better than LoI: 1.) It made all the areas interconnected exactly like a Castleroid for fans of that style. 2.) It had a full 3D camera. Outside of those things, while keeping solid bosses and such, it took all of the bad things from LoI's game design and exacerbated them.

Man, them last good points about CoD look mighty good! Makes me want to play the game now!

[RichterB]

Man, them last good points about CoD look mighty good! Makes me want to play the game now!

Eh, don't get too excited. No offense, but these potentially positive elements are squandered by dull level designs that go on forever. There are a handful of moments and boss encounters that are nice, but most of the game is an RPG dungeon crawler grind-fest. Also, there's less platforming than even LoI--like, there is less than 1% in the whole CoD game, IIRC--so the stick-controlled 3D camera isn't as useful as it could be by any means. You're more often than not just trotting from flat Point A to flat Point B, since the main character can't run--making backtracking a pain to boot. Its music is one of its best points, and the basic atmosphere is pretty nice, too. I don't think its story is carried out as well as LoI, though, which also had good music and atmosphere. CoD's the kind of game that's more interesting to look at in spurts than it is to play.

The N64 games, while they can have a feeling of "isolation" at times (partially due to memory constraints), are more deliberate in giving a level "purpose" in its design. They don't tend to sprawl out/pad their levels any more than they need to.

While these are only partial stage views, you won't see designs as open and/or three-dimensional as these in the PS2 entries (instead, in PS2, after a stretch, you'll hit a flat door with a glowing arrow that doesn't even animate open, and you just spawn/load into the next room/area). Here, there's a sense of depth and structural continuity, which is more important in 3D games than in 2D ones. And it's worth noting that a sign of the "depth" is the fact that the N64 games have genuine "death pits"--allowing a consequential sense of "height" or vertical as well as horizontal:

http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guideus-077.jpg
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidefog_066-067.jpg
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidefog_060-061.jpg
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidesog_050-051.jpg

[Neobelmont]

Eh, don't get too excited. No offense, but these potentially positive elements are squandered by dull level designs that go on forever. There are a handful of moments and boss encounters that are nice, but most of the game is an RPG dungeon crawler grind-fest. Also, there's less platforming than even LoI--like, there is less than 1% in the whole CoD game, IIRC--so the stick-controlled 3D camera isn't as useful as it could be by any means. You're more often than not just trotting from flat Point A to flat Point B, since the main character can't run--making backtracking a pain to boot. Its music is one of its best points, and the basic atmosphere is pretty nice, too. I don't think its story is carried out as well as LoI, though, which also had good music and atmosphere. CoD's the kind of game that's more interesting to look at in spurts than it is to play.

The N64 games, while they can have a feeling of "isolation" at times (partially due to memory constraints), are more deliberate in giving a level "purpose" in its design. They don't tend to sprawl out/pad their levels any more than they need to.

While these are only partial stage views, you won't see designs as open and/or three-dimensional as these in the PS2 entries (instead, in PS2, after a stretch, you'll hit a flat door with a glowing arrow that doesn't even animate open, and you just spawn/load into the next room/area). Here, there's a sense of depth and structural continuity, which is more important in 3D games than in 2D ones. And it's worth noting that a sign of the "depth" is the fact that the N64 games have genuine "death pits"--allowing a consequential sense of "height" or vertical as well as horizontal:

http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guideus-077.jpg
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidefog_066-067.jpg
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidefog_060-061.jpg
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidesog_050-051.jpg

 no hotlinking allowed

[DragonSlayr81]

The second one is a lot worse. Its level design is an exaggeration of the first. It's longer, duller, and has even less platforming. Just look at Dracula's Castle in Curse of Darkness. Basically the same hallways over and over for a dozen floors. They only swap out the textures used every few floors.

You forgot to mention one other tidbit about Dracula's Castle in CoD, for being as big as it is, you only encounter monsters in about 25% of it. The rest are just EMPTY long corridors that take forever to RUN down(I'm sure walking would take LONGER).

I've said this before, but the areas are so big in that game, you could actually make 2-3 smaller(but actually more tolerable, as they'd probably be more along the size of the areas in LoI, which were alright as far as size was concerned) areas from them. Hell, why they didn't do that with Dracula's Castle is beyond me. In every CV game, Konami makes it a point that Dracula's Castle is made up of different areas. Entrance Hall, Marble Gallery, Outer Wall, Dungeon, Chapel, each with their own unique look and bosses. They SHOULD'VE did THAT in CoD(Dracula's Castle was BIG enough to). Maybe encounter some classic bosses(Medusa, Phantom Bat, Frankenstein, Mummy) which weren't bosses that appeared in CoD.

Yes! This is exactly it! This is what can't stand about PS2 games! Richter B, you always amaze me in how much you know and how I can relate with yout thinking.

I think the reason why this is for the PS2 era, is because of game development costs going way up. Think about it. Putting in a ton of detail in a open world in comparison to just simple boxed rooms is much more expensive. And since the vania series never pulled in that much cash, maybe it's budget wasn't that bigs as well (after all, people here say for a PS2 game it could have looked much better, and last I checked, Konami does have the talent, no?). So in short, I really blame the way the game industry is right now and why so many games aren't what they could have and should of been. It's pretty much as bad as how Hollywood is right now.

It's sickenly become the status quo of our time. People have accepted that as an inevitablity, and even justify it. It shouldn't be justified. It's sickening when people settle for "just enough" because they don't want to rock the boat.

And yes, Hollywood is facing a similar problem.

And I don't mean to sound old by stating this, but it IS sad that lots of ideas get shut down because companies lack the balls to take a chance. Say what you will about the 80s, there was so many damn ideas being tossed out there, so companies could see what would stick and what wouldn't, it was interesting to see this spirit of adventure. Companies were more daring, and you saw it in the variety of what was being released. While I'm not hoping for a return to the 80s, I am hoping that, one day, that spirit of adventure is reawakened in society. Variety becomes the standard, not just a few overpopular trends that rule society like a monopoly.

[thernz]

I really would've preferred if both PS2 games focused on very small but tightly designed rooms, like a Lament with only its more unique rooms.

But lol games need to be at least 5 hours long.

[Sinful]

RPG dungeon crawler grind-fest.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's sickenly become the status quo of our time. People have accepted that as an inevitablity, and even justify it. It shouldn't be justified. It's sickening when people settle for "just enough" because they don't want to rock the boat.

And yes, Hollywood is facing a similar problem.

And I don't mean to sound old by stating this, but it IS sad that lots of ideas get shut down because companies lack the balls to take a chance. Say what you will about the 80s, there was so many damn ideas being tossed out there, so companies could see what would stick and what wouldn't, it was interesting to see this spirit of adventure. Companies were more daring, and you saw it in the variety of what was being released. While I'm not hoping for a return to the 80s, I am hoping that, one day, that spirit of adventure is reawakened in society. Variety becomes the standard, not just a few overpopular trends that rule society like a monopoly.

Yup, I share your point of views on that. And why I miss the olden days...

I really would've preferred if both PS2 games focused on very small but tightly designed rooms, like a Lament with only its more unique rooms.

But lol games need to be at least 5 hours long.

Yeah, this really bothers me about todays games.

[Sinful]

You know it's very sad that Castlevania 64 and it's followup were bashed. Since this may have been a reason why Konami avoided everything about it for the next 3D games. If only more magazines back then and game media praised this game more ...

Interestingly, EGM gave the first Castlevania 64 very good scores (9, 9, 8, 9. This site has the review scan). And while they gave the second game lower scores (7.5, 7, 7, 7.5. This site don't have the review scan ) mostly due to the game not being new but more like a directors cut, what two reviewer had top say was pretty interesting;




EGM issue 127 Legacy of Darkness review; (the part in bold is bold in the magazine too)

Chris; I never played the first one, but this is exactly how a 3D Castlevania should play. Granted, the graphics aren't fantastic and the use of Expansion Pak makes it look worse rather then better (choppy in hi-res, smoother in low-res). The control and camera can be a little jerky, but it's got the same feel as the classic Castlevania games. Put this same kind of gameplay and depth into a prettier shell and clean up the control, and you've got a classic.

Shawn; Since I'm not going to get a new 2D Castlevania anytime soon, I'll have to settle with this new 3D installment. Thankfully, it's pretty good. Even more so than the last N64 Castlevania, Legacy of Darkness captures the basic feel of the old-school games (except in 3D), and offers a slightly more robust playing experience (with four different characters to play as... once you open them up). Note: The animation, and hi-res mode need some work.

[beingthehero]

I thought it was always taken for granted that Legacy of Darkness was a good game, precisely because it was the director's cut of sorts. The reason CV64 isn't so beloved is because Legacy was the game we should have gotten in the first place. There are still major gameplay issues with both games, however.

[X]

If everyone had seen what the 3D Castlevanias' would end up as, I do earnestly believe that CV 64/LoD would've received far greater praise then what they originally had. I feel they would have stuck to that 3D base-formula and we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. While it's not fact, I feel it's very plausible.

[Neobelmont]

If everyone had seen what the 3D Castlevanias' would end up as, I do earnestly believe that CV 64/LoD would've received far greater praise then what they originally had. I feel they would have stuck to that 3D base-formula and we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. While it's not fact, I feel it's very plausible.

Konami shot themselfs in the foot and because of that we are all here  Out  of all the 3dcv's LoD is the one I have beat the most concept wise everything is there. Cv 64 is like an essay just take your time and something great will come out of it, rush it and it will become lackluster. Just wish the teachers gave the team more time to write their essay. It's sad their web of thoughts were never put in their final draft or the revised one.

[RichterB]

Konami shot themselfs in the foot and because of that we are all here  Out  of all the 3dcv's LoD is the one I have beat the most concept wise everything is there. Cv 64 is like an essay just take your time and something great will come out of it, rush it and it will become lackluster. Just wish the teachers gave the team more time to write their essay. It's sad their web of thoughts were never put in their final draft or the revised one.

A good thesis. So, here's what puzzles me, then. If you, EGM, and a fair amount of people state that the nuts and bolts (and maybe a little more than that) were in place in the N64 versions that came out, why has no one--IGA or Mercury Steam, etc--tried to use their design framework? They had the freedom to do so, but didn't. Is the answer:

A.) They were such alleged commercial failures that it was decided the whole framework-design was unusable.

B.) Castlevania fans at Konami thought they didn't capture "Castlevania" at all, and so were worthless experiments.

C.) It's too much work to make a game with the design of CV64/LoD

D.) The vision of CV64/LoD was so specific to those working on it that future designers didn't know how to return to it.

A few thoughts to these points:

1A: I think it's come out that SotN wasn't exactly a money-making blockbuster, so that shouldn't be the biggest reason, right?

1B: IGA and Mercury Steam seemingly had there own visions of what Castlevania should be, and so perhaps, out of personal pride, didn't bother to take the N64 attempts seriously and just ignored that they existed. (IGA has stated as recently as 2008, I think, that the N64 entries have a very distinctive, unique atmosphere, but that he doesn't really count them as mainstream Castlevania).

1C: Honestly, very few games these days use the 3D philosophy of the N64 days, be it CV64 OR even Mario 64. It might be too many variables of level design and camera for the cost effectiveness of modern games, which like to focus more on being an interactive movie and steering your more overtly with fixed camera angles and such.

1D: Connected to the previous point, the vision of Castlevania 64/LoD was linked to a time period of experimentation with 3D game design. Designers didn't know any better than to try to create the calculated openness of Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, etc. That was usually the expected parameters of the 3D game on the N64 hardware (again, think Bomberman Hero, Glover, Banjo Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, etc). As time has gone on, people don't think of that as much. It's usually either fixed cinematic camera, or unwieldy "sandbox" that tries to strip out most of the parameters of 3D design.

So, what's the best answer? Or is there another theory? I'm very curious about this. It seems like you NEVER hear anyone "in charge" of Castlevania give much thought to revamping the N64 style of Castlevania, which really just needed a few technological tweaks to be stellar. There's no need to keep reinventing the wheel, right?

Final note: Graphics, camera, a desire for more enemies on the screen at once, it's not SotN, and Castlevania should always be 2D: these are the most frequent complaints I've heard about CV64/LoD over the years. Graphics and enemies have to do with console limitations and issues of memory. The designers even mentioned they were wrestling with the N64 specs in an IGN interview I've read, and they thought they made some progress with LoD despite this limitation, which they did. But this is EASILY fixed by new technology of modern consoles. Camera controls? They were getting better from CV64 to LoD, and weren't totally broken by any means to begin with (the R button was always there to help, too). A little more dev time, and this can be ironed out. It's not SotN? Well, we've seen that cloning SotN ad nauseum isn't a total solution, nor is its game structure perfect for 3D, as seen in CoD. CV64/LoD keep some of the RPG elements while also keeping the roots of CV and innovating a new format for 3D. What's wrong with that? Castlevania should always be 2D? Variety is the spice of life, and unless you keep trying, you'll never know just how amazing a 3D Castlevania can be in tandem with its 2D brethren. Personally, I think CV64/LoD gave strong hints of that, and I've come to rank them in the top 10 games in the franchise.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

All I have to say is... Xenoblade Chronicles.

I keep coming back to this game because it's pretty great, but it does a number of things that games in general haven't done for a while:
-proper interconnecting rooms with little to no load time
-incorporates basic platforming while being mostly battle oriented (it is an RPG after all, so the battles and the village-talking are what you'll be doing most of the time)
-has a proper camera and it's well-suited for both closed and open environments
-most of the rooms have a purpose.

And it's a Wii title.  So it looks like a very very beautiful PS2 title with great depth and scope (you can see far off into the distance using a technique somewhat similar to what was done in Wind Waker, only with a more realistic textured design).


Yes, you can actually make your way all the way down there