Topic: An Extremely Detailed Review (with some defense!) of Portrait of Ruin

[Chernabogue]

I agree with you. Great analysis BTW.

I liked PoR, but it isn't the best CV, though it is not the worst.

[Puwexil]

There's entirely too much emphasis placed on the plotting of a game that clearly couldn't care less. This is a series where such things have never mattered to begin with. About all you can or should say of stories in Castlevania is that they're a-ok if they don't intrude upon or otherwise compromise their respective games, for it is a rare treat when they actually manage to elevate the rest. Portrait's characters, dialogue and presentation are so juvenile and milquetoast that it in fact does hurt the game, to the point you can't just ignore it, and therefore it is bad. That's about it.

It's not that it's anime art, it's that it's bad anime art.  THis is as bad as Rondo of Blood's artwork!  UGH!

Rondo's art works beautifully in context. Bright, vivid colours and simplified designs support the game's cinematics, as they do the more lighthearted feel permeating most things in the game, notably music. It's a concisely conveyed example of the game's universal anime aesthetic. Portrait's cheap, flat scribbles do nothing but serve to put the game under an unflattering light, which is especially worrisome considering what kind of alternatives they had on hand even in the project's so-called bonus artworks.

Portrait of Ruin has a lot of reused graphics.  But then, this was also the 20th Anniversary game, and reusing so much (more than the ones before or after) was an intentional tribute.  Why else do you think they went far enough back to add things like the Dogether?

Because they were running out of things to recycle. Igarashi wasn't even aware about the anniversary during development until someone pointed it out to him during an interview. It's how they do things.

What a great way to pay tribute to the glories of the past by shamelessly ransacking those achievements to the teeth and bone, too. I was so pleased to see all my old friends back, limper than ever, among new faces that number in the least impressive. A couple of strong showers like the dragon zombie do little to mask that yes, this was the height of the Castlevania team's creative incompetence, at least until the fabled HODESPAIR. It's disgraceful.

And of course, there's the Portrait system and "recycled backgrounds."  It recycles fewer backgrounds than Symphony of the Night merely by virtue of being less than 50%.  And just to counter, a lot of people say:
"But Portrait of Ruin's reuse (by remixing and rearranging basic area ideas) is a lot less creative than Symphony of the Night (flipping it in MSPaint) shows real creativity!"

No. Symphony of the Night does not show real creativity by flipping the castle upside-down. In fact, that part of the game is where just about ALL of its problems lie.

Then you don't seem able to grasp what makes the inverted castle more excusable and, perhaps, even genuinely enjoyable when compared to its peers. The issue doesn't lie in if its inclusion was made with the best of intents in mind, or if it can be classified as creative or not. What does matter is that the end result works in a way that alters your whole perception of the game's geography and means of traversal. Symphony's architecture is involved and complex to such a degree that a mere flip of the axis gives birth to nuances in the game world that simply just wouldn't exist if it resorted to just rearranging pre-existing room patterns, as Portrait does.

Furthermore, it serves as a free-form playground for all those gradually discovered abilities you've attained up until that point, and they are indeed instrumental in navigating the twisty passages and precarious ledges. More obvious differences are the addition of traps such as the CV1-reminiscent maze of crushing spike boards in the clock tower or the high-speed wheeled spikes hiding behind background elements in the Marble Gallery. An enemy exists in the inverted chapel who can only exist in that one room, in its upturned form (the Archer). Minute details hint at the oncoming change and duality of the game world, such as the mural of a face underneath the keep or the curiously flipped central throne room. The execution is too honed; beyond just mere bloat in search for easy new content.

Perhaps it was entirely accidental, but I just cannot see the inverted castle as something heartless or clinically put together, as so many things in this franchise can sometimes come across as.

So, yeah, I would have been happy with more new areas, but if you put it in the perspective of the other games... either it's okay, or EVERY METROIDVANIA SUCKS.

The problem is the context of the reuse. Brauner is supposed to be this supernatural painter, and after exploring four of his created worlds... we get to do it all over again? They literally had no restrictions of setting or imagination when constructing these environments that are by their very nature magical, yet we're fed recycled concepts as soon as the minimal quotient is reached. It's mind-boggling, especially considering how banal the source material is in places like the endless brown walls and stairways leading to nowhere in the Forest of Doom or the literal symmetry of the level design in the distorted circus areas. There are no good parts, and it takes up half the game. They could've excised the remixed portions completely and the game wouldn't have been any lesser for it - on the other hand, it probably would've ended stronger.

Harmony's means of reuse are instrumental to its "duality of the worlds" schtick, which like its forebearer, has elements that add pleasant flavour to the overall experience. Ecclesia's rehashes are more from the Portrait school of design, though them being laid out on a map and part of an actual geographical area makes it easier to digest there being two similar mountain areas and whatnot. Portrait just... can't match up to anything in the series. Maybe Harmony of Despair, heh.

--

There's a disturbing amount of talk in regards to grinding things up to MAX LEVELS and how things measure up at that point. I just can't fathom that, but as it is apparently some people's pleasure, I guess I can't judge.

[Ridureyu]

Well,if you mess around enough in the game, playground-style, you will hit a max level. Atthat point, you won't have the "I'm getting stronger!" incentive to play anymore, and it's just a matter of how fun that playground is.

[Puwexil]

I don't know. Even in the solid experience value Castlevanias like Portrait, hitting the limit seems like an occurrence born out of boredom more than anything. You can do absolutely anything you'd ever want to before even coming close. Maybe you just like numbers going up.

And in Symphony and Harmony, where diminishing returns are in effect, reaching the top tells of lunacy.

[Ridureyu]

Yeah, it's utter lunacy in Symphony and Harmony.  But then, SOTN lets you upgrade the blood sword and all...

...In Dawn of Sorrow, I hit 99 while maxing the souls.  In POR, I noticed that I was getting somewhat near, and Nest of Evil still earned me a ton of EXP, so I equipped that experience-increasing ring and went to town on the Nest for a few rounds.

In Ecclesia, there's just something perversely fun about Nitesco doing over 300 damage a pop.

[Vampire Killer]

loved the review dude! Can't wait for the others 

My dislike for PoR was simply these tid-bits: The WWII intro. It was not explored nor followed up in any real context. If this was a real WWII story then it would have Nazis out the wazoo. And they would be an integral part of the plot itself since Hitler is an obsessed fanatic when it comes to the occult. The Nazis themselves were a cult (Order of the Black Sun) before Hitler made them into a military force. The legend of Castlevania would be too irresistible a prize for the Reich to decline. IGA should've left the WWII intro out and instead had an intro giving us a brief summery about Brauner and his purpose.

Hmmm....good point. Hitler was indeed heavily into the occult (the SS symbol were actually nordic runes if i remember correctly). Still, I really think Brauner is a great villain.

Still, I can see why they wouldn't want to put Hilter as your main enemy (sans Drac). Too weird.

[Munchy]

Hmmm....good point. Hitler was indeed heavily into the occult (the SS symbol were actually nordic runes if i remember correctly). Still, I really think Brauner is a great villain.

Still, I can see why they wouldn't want to put Hilter as your main enemy (sans Drac). Too weird.

Yeah. As awesome as it would be to whip Hitler in the face, that plotline would A) make people bitch about comparisons with Bloodrayne, and B) make fans in Europe suffer with either an inferior port or no game at all.

Would've loved to fight Dr. Mengele with a wacky but obvious pseudonym, like they did with Bathory-Bartley and Corvinus-Cronqvist.

[Ridureyu]

I'd just love some new enemy types and variations, period.  Like the Flea Man - they're not so intimidating anymore. Rippers werea nice touch, but what about more?

Tommyknockers - like flea men, except they toss pickaxes in an arc, like the axe subweapon.

[Munchy]

I'd just love some new enemy types and variations, period.  Like the Flea Man - they're not so intimidating anymore. Rippers werea nice touch, but what about more?

Tommyknockers - like flea men, except they toss pickaxes in an arc, like the axe subweapon.

I loved Bloodlines' really stupid knights, like the one with wheels and the one with the 17-foot tall torso.

And the WWII plot was also a missed opportunity for the return of Motorcycle Skeletons.

[Vampire Killer]

And the WWII plot was also a missed opportunity for the return of Motorcycle Skeletons.

lol, I would've actually enjoyed seeing them in PoR, since they'd make sense.

[The Silverlord]

Portrait of Ruin can't be the easiest Castlevania game to try and defend, so credit for appreciating its merits, Ridureyu.  I voted it as worst Castlevania game in another thread here.  I haven't played every game in the series admittedly, and I think now I was voting my series' least favourite/biggest disappointment rather than technically out-and-out the worst.  Legends is pretty dire, actually.  Vampire Killer and Haunted Castle at least evoke a bit of mood in my opinion; they weren't completely shite at time they were released.  On your 'ONE LIFE!??!?' comment: see the Gradius series: games were tough back then (many non-mainstream still are).

As Joachim stated:

"Portrait... while the levels are technically totally different, the actual design therein is practically identical; the exact same concepts, the exact same flaccid series of rectangles and boxes. the differences in the levels for portrait of ruin are entirely superficial."

And that's the root of the problem.  There's no illusion, there's no fantasy, nothing more behind.  There's no immersion in the game.  There's no atmosphere.  It's dead.  Soulless.  The opposite of Castlevania IV and what I hold dear to the series.   I suppose that's what makes it the worst for me in my eyes.  Or I'm just getting too old.

To add: PoR was just one Castleroid too many for me, the straw that broke the camel's back (I am getting too old).  If I'd approached that game with a different outlook, or I'd missed Symphony or Aria of Sorrow (both of which are fantastic), I could have looked upon the game entirely differently.  It is still one of the better games on the DS.

[Ridureyu]

With the difficulty: There is such a thing as tooo muuuuch difficulty.  Haunted Castle's one-life thing just takes that and beats you over the head with it.  I mean, come on, I won't even complain about the old NES games, or Bloodlines' optical illusion rooms, or the other things that make people tear their hair out.  haunted Castle would have been fine if you had a little more margin for error.

[Vampire Killer]

With the difficulty: There is such a thing as tooo muuuuch difficulty.  Haunted Castle's one-life thing just takes that and beats you over the head with it.  I mean, come on, I won't even complain about the old NES games, or Bloodlines' optical illusion rooms, or the other things that make people tear their hair out.  haunted Castle would have been fine if you had a little more margin for error.

If i had played Haunted Castle as a kid, i first would've thought "this looks really cool", but then after dyeing once and having to put in another quarter I would've been like "funk dat!"

[DoctaMario]

Then you don't seem able to grasp what makes the inverted castle more excusable and, perhaps, even genuinely enjoyable when compared to its peers. The issue doesn't lie in if its inclusion was made with the best of intents in mind, or if it can be classified as creative or not. What does matter is that the end result works in a way that alters your whole perception of the game's geography and means of traversal. Symphony's architecture is involved and complex to such a degree that a mere flip of the axis gives birth to nuances in the game world that simply just wouldn't exist if it resorted to just rearranging pre-existing room patterns, as Portrait does.

Furthermore, it serves as a free-form playground for all those gradually discovered abilities you've attained up until that point, and they are indeed instrumental in navigating the twisty passages and precarious ledges. More obvious differences are the addition of traps such as the CV1-reminiscent maze of crushing spike boards in the clock tower or the high-speed wheeled spikes hiding behind background elements in the Marble Gallery. An enemy exists in the inverted chapel who can only exist in that one room, in its upturned form (the Archer). Minute details hint at the oncoming change and duality of the game world, such as the mural of a face underneath the keep or the curiously flipped central throne room. The execution is too honed; beyond just mere bloat in search for easy new content.

Perhaps it was entirely accidental, but I just cannot see the inverted castle as something heartless or clinically put together, as so many things in this franchise can sometimes come across as.

This is a good point. The Reverse Castle being good was entirely accidental as I seem to recall IGA saying they wanted to put something else in but they ran out of time and that was what they came up with. I think it ruins the pacing of the game a bit, but at that point the Castleroid formula was new so they were just shooting from the hip. I would have liked it better if it had been more of a grotesque mirror image of the first castle like Castle B was in HoD. Once I realized what was going on with all that castle jumping ish in HoD, I appreciated it a lot more. It was kind of a Silent Hill-esque thing but in Castlevania.

That said, I've been saying for years that PoR is the best of the DS games for many of the reasons Rid eloquently wrote about. Granted, I wouldn't call any of the DS games masterpieces, but PoR stands above the other two imo. OoE would have been a great game if not for the shitty characters. I wish someone would do a hack of that game and make it possible to play as a Belmont.

[Ridureyu]

The thing with the inverted castle's difficulty is that you can easily go in one of two directions from the start, so they curved the difficulty to scale itg "evenly" in both directions. The result is that half of the castle will be super-easy.  Also, Death is a COMPLETE WUSS, so pretty much the only challenge you get in the INverted Castle is:

-At the VERY BEGINNING (till you fight Creature or Medusa. the inverted bosses are mostly easy)

-Beelzebub (unless you know the wing smash trick)

-Galamoth


Compare this to the refular castle, which has many, many more difficulty spots.