Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Sinful on May 06, 2012, 04:00:08 AM
-
So I decided to start a playthrough through Circle of the Moon (Aria of Sorrow isn't working out to well for me... made it all the way to Death... and SotN, after trying a bunch more times, is obviously not gonna work anytime soon still. Maybe another time and with a different mood?). And what I found as I made it to the second boss (and died >_>) shocked me. :o ... Did we vote in the wrong guy to spear head the Castlevania series?
So IGA started his directorial debut with the acclaimed SotN (it did blow me away too the first time I played... but I also wasn't really a vania fan then and too bad I was never able to once since then replay it without being bored to death :(), and after the failure of another team to do Castlevania in 3D and even redeem themselves with a 2D title for the GBA in the same successful mold as SotN (well, by critics opinion anyways, as both didn't sell too well from what I heard?), the helm was fully returned to IGA from here on, which was sealed with the more (much more?) popular second Castleroid outing from a critic standpoint at least.
Now I just started messing around with the Castleroid games, and only fully completed the first 3 of them back when they were new. And since back then I wasn't fully aware of what is really good or bad game design & balance + as well as classic vania fan, I have yet to analyze and compare these tiles properly. So I'm out of discussing these more accurately yet (if ever?). But I will just mention a few things about it, as maybe Castleroid fans would want to fully dissect this series in this area?
Basically from what I've seen, the gameplay in CotM is a lot more Castlevania from a game design and balance (and not just because of the whip). Everything seemed much better from what I just played in Aria, the so called best of the GBA games... well, this is all I know. ;D ... well, on an interesting note, when I played CotM first, I do recall being disappointed that I was plying with a whip guy at first (not sure about later?). And that I though is was pretty hard. And that I though that it didn't live up to SotN (though honestly this is more from a graphics perspective then anything. As that was the #1 thing that pleased me about SotN by far... now I'm a lot more interested in gameplay & balance, so that I may be able to replay these games again? ... As well as I much more enjoying and in the mood for well designed and balanced games too)
Oh, and since some of you guys like focus on other things, here's another thought. Ever since IGA did the Castleroid games, the main hero was always a sword wielding guy. Like IGA doesn't think the whip is fun enough? ... And believe it or not I do recall reading something about this in EGM along the lines of him asking his crew "What about this macho Belmont guy, and is it any fun to play with the whip?" (I can find the quote exactly if requested/not available as I still have my EGMs). This to me says that IGA really don't care about Castlevania that much and just wants to make his own game (and why not, most artists want to work on their own creation and not someone else's). And since his first game was a sequel to a sub-series, he was given a lot more creative freedom. I mean, if Richerd B is right in what he said about the N64 vania games seeming to be the best and proper evolution of Castlevania in 3D (especially if they got tweaked/perfected more), and not unlike the IGA ones that don't seem to be Castlevania games at all, then dang! We just let an outsider come in and put an end to out series as we know it for good! :o And for what? A Metriod game with Castlevania enemies, of course :D... Yeah, we aren't playing Castlevania anymore folks. Maybe we should merge the Castleroids games with a Metroid forum?... FLAME ON!!!
Ah, but you say IGA may not be at the helm anymore? Yeah, well the damage is done. And the next Castlevania game, the reboot, seems to have even less in common with Castlevania. :( ... See, this is just one reason why I've never been a fan of making too many changes to a solid series/franchise (Gradius V and Treasure anyone? >_>), because chances are that there is no fully going back anymore for the main series (MegaMan 9 is an exception... Castlevania Rebirth is more in the sub series category. That seems already long dead sadly :( .... Where is my Salamander Rebirth!!!! :'().
-
Igarashi didn't direct SOTN even if he did play a pretty significant part in its direction.
And COTM is possibly the second best Metroidvania after SOTN. Although honestly I may have to hand it to AOS.
The rest of your post: tl;dr :]
-
Hey, interesting read!
So you basically say every game made by IGA had a sword wielding hero? What about Harmony of Dissonance´s Juste? Or Lament´s Leon? OR Portrait´s Jonathan? Okay, you could use other weapons instead of the whip in PoR, but the whip (there were many of them, just like Simon´s Quest) but always are a good choice... at least for me.
About what you said that we aren´t playing Castlevania anymore.... well, I guess you are right to an extend. See, I loved every CV game thus far, with the exception of CotM. And while I enjoyed the slow paced games with the SotN stlye, I pretty much preferred the ones with the classic gameplay. As of late, I´ve noticed the same thing as you. CV kinda lost it´s way. You must understand: I like the games made by IGA, but ever since playing LoS, there´s always been this feeling that the series really wasted alot of potential. They are great games, yet they´re lacking something. But I can´t put my finger on it.
There´s much more I have to say, but I gotta go now. But one more thing: Your post, Sinful, made me consider replaying CotM. The last time I played it I was soooo dissapointed. But that was years ago.
-
IGA concentrates too much on different gameplay gimmicks for all his CV games.
Of course, the easiest to do, is the multiple weapon thing from SoTN.
-
CotM didn't sell well? I don't think this is accurate. That's not how I remember things.
Circle of the Moon was pretty close to being a launch title for the Gameboy Advance. Pretty much everyone I knew at the time who had a GBA had that game (and F-Zero Maximum Velocity :D).
And when Harmony of Dissonance came out, it was actually not very well received here from what I recall. Most people had issues with the slow jumps floaty controls that Juste had. People have warmed up to that game over time, but CotM was pretty well-liked from the start. About the only things that people complained about in CotM was the double-tap to run, and the difficulty in tracking down all the cards. Maaaaaaaaybe the small-ish characters (but at the time the game came out, they were OK in terms of screen size with the GBA, etc.) and the game was dark (so you needed a good light source to play it, like outside) but those were issues with the GBA itself more than the games.
Later when the GBA-SP came out (the one with the backlight) the "This game is too dark" issue became a non-issue.
-
From what I've heard, Circle of the Moon was one of the best-selling games in the series. It sold over a million copies, something not even the original NES games did (correct me if I'm wrong). Being a launch title for the successor to the MIGHTY popular original Game Boy surely helped there.
I dunno. I think the Metroidvania formula was right for Castlevania. There may have been too many similar games released, but they're all pretty great in their own right. Also, during the Metroidvania era, no other games played quite like them. Not even Metroid (except for those two GBA games). Looking back at 2000-2008, I will always remember these games fondly, especially now when Konami seem to have abandoned the formula (temporarily maybe, but I think we've seen the last of these games for a long while.)
And I like when things evolve. If Konami would've kept releasing games that played exactly like the NES/SNES games, Castlevania would've been dead and buried by now. The original Castlevania formula is - like it or not - pretty damn archaic. As depressing as it may sound, the series need to keep up with the times in order to survive, just like any other gaming franchise ever made.
-
Circle of the Moon IS the best selling title in the series also the 2nd best metoidvania and the one more faithful to the original games. I agree.. Konami picked the wrong guy (for that and many other reasons) luckily it's a thing from the past now (Here's hoping they didn't pickup the wrong guy again.. I believe in Mr Alvarez but let's see...)
-
IIRC Circle of the Moon is the only million selling Castlevania game, and it was the first Metroidvania since SOTN and it was on a new portable system so that helped sales greatly.
I dont thing IGA was a bad choice, I just feel that his time with Castlevania went on for.....too long? Again, not saying he was a bad choice, his games were good but I felt that his presence felt a little overstayed and it was starting to show.
-
I dont thing IGA was a bad choice, I just feel that his time with Castlevania went on for.....too long? Again, not saying he was a bad choice, his games were good but I felt that his presence felt a little overstayed and it was starting to show.
I agree with you and shelverton. Said it before and I will say it again: I had so much fun with IGAs games... don´t want to miss them. :) Maybe IGA directed these games for too long... but on the other side, I really liked Ecclesia...... I don´t know what to think right now :-\
-
Only thing I don't Like about Iga's games are the lack of lead Belmont roles. To be honest I don't like playing as non Belmont characters. I want whip action and I don't want to have to beat the entire game to play some half ass extra character mode.
-
Castlevania is up to cox now ... lets see what will he do next
Iga games was really good for me especially AOS , DOS and POR
believe me guys , if those games were a console release the performance will make him do more with the series , but iga is really really lazy guy
so all i should say is : no one can hold the series better than Toru Hagihara he both created the best two CVs rondo and sotn
-
IIRC Circle of the Moon is the only million selling Castlevania game
Until Lords yep it was
Castlevania is up to cox now ... lets see what will he do next
Nop it's Enric Alvarez. Check out LoS credits.
so all i should say is : no one can hold the series better than Toru Hagihara he both created the best two CVs rondo and sotn
Where's he now? It would be nice to have him back even has a support designer
-
making soccer games.
i'm assuming he had a relatively high position in konami too since he was promoted during sotn and left the project then. giantbomb lists him in the credits of metal slug 5 though which is a bit weird.
-
Ever since IGA did the Castleroid games, the main hero was always a sword wielding guy.
Patently false.
-
Castlevania Chronicles - Simon Belmont
HoD - Juste Belmont
LoI - Leon Belmont
PoR - Johnathan Morris
OoS - Desmond Belmont
Dracula X Chronicles - Richter Belmont
Adventure Rebirth - Christopher Belmont
7 of 12 IGA games have a Belmont main.
-
Castlevania Chronicles - Simon Belmont
HoD - Juste Belmont
LoI - Leon Belmont
PoR - Johnathan Morris
OoS - Desmond Belmont
Dracula X Chronicles - Richter Belmont
Adventure Rebirth - Christopher Belmont
7 of 12 IGA games have a Belmont main.
Is OoS an Iga game and did Iga help on the original CC for Sharp X68000? I know he helped on the PS version. Moreover, DXC is more of a remake than an original title. Also I think Jonathan is pushing it. He might be related to Belmonts but isn't actually a Belmont.
-
I think wielding a whip counts more toward being a Belmont-like character than sharing a last name.
-
Pretty sure KCET had nothing to do with OoS, outside of giving it a go-ahead nod.
Sinful's claim only asserted a total lack of whip-wielding protagonists. In this sense, Jonathan is still relevant.
-
IIRC Circle of the Moon is the only million selling Castlevania game, and it was the first Metroidvania since SOTN and it was on a new portable system so that helped sales greatly.
Circle of the moon 1 million 500,000 was sold alone in japan(wish castlevania sold that much in japan now adays wonder why it does not sell there anymore I want to say devil may cry took cv' power away from there :( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Circle_of_the_Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Circle_of_the_Moon)
lords of shadow sales combined xbox360 0.44/ps3 0.72 = 1.16 million
Symphony of the night 1.27 million http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_Konami_games (http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_Konami_games)
And my gut feeling tells me that supercv was a million seller as well just because it did not get that golden medal thing on the super nintendo box thing does not mean it was not a million seller. I just do not know why konami will not release the sales numbers on the old ones.
Also out of question, did lament of innocence ever had that "greatest hit's" thing?
Next thing I want to mention is that I think cv sales will be at their strongest at a launch of a systems life.
-
I think wielding a whip counts more toward being a Belmont-like character than sharing a last name.
He's also still of Belmont blood, since the Morrises are related to the Belmonts.
-
It is worth noting that Juste still retains the honor of being the sole 100% Belmont hero of a Castleroid (Jonathan Morris was from a more distantly related branch family).
-
This is an interesting thread. I can't say that IGA's games are totally without merit, and I enjoyed them a great deal when they were released, but he did overstay his welcome to the detriment of the franchise. I think, given what happened, he should have left after Lament of Innocence. (I'll explain later*). On the other hand, it seems like, for reasons unknown, he became the only person at Konami who gave a hoot about Castlevania. I'm not sure how this occurred.
For a few years it seemed as if Konami Computer Entertainment Kobe (KCEK) was pretty invested in Castlevania with the N64 titles and CotM. It seemed as if CotM was a response to people complaining about the N64 titles not being like SotN. In turn, Harmony of Dissonance was a response of IGA's to what he saw as the failures of CotM to live up to SotN. How that turn came about, and he was able to step in, despite CotM's success, must have been a corporate thing, with various studio mergers that were to occur (or had occurred?) Whatever the case, it seems like those invested in Castlevania from KCEK got shuffled about, and those that ended up with IGA were basically beholden to his vision of the franchise.
In 1999, Director Yuji Shibata and Game Designer Takeo Yakushiji (who worked on both N64 titles) had this to say about Castlevania in a Legacy of Darkness interview at IGN.com (excerpted below):
IGN64: As a designer, what strategic and/or product decisions do you take into consideration when continuing the Castlevania line?
TY: The Castlevania series has always had a theme of horror behind it. This does not mean bloody scenes or chilling torture, but a mood of darkness and absence of light, that still has cool beauty and elegance to it. Retaining this theme has been what I have been careful with while designing the game. In regards to the character design, I have tried to bring the former enemies to life in 3D and retaining their atmosphere, while keeping them appropriate and looking cool for this generation of game system.
IGN64: How does the technology of the N64 impact your design decisions?
YS: The limitation on the number of polygons that could be on screen and in the enemies. Also, with the lack of memory space, the number of enemies that could be running around on screen at one time.
TY: The anti-aliasing technology worked very well in this project. Even with a limitation of color, we were able to create stunning visuals, even in Hi-res mode. Also, with putting different shading on the texture giving the illusion of depth and distance, it was easier to create compelling levels.
IGN64: What was your most satisfying product to work on and why?
YS, TY: (In unison) : Castlevania Legacy of Darkness of course. (laughs)
TY: In the previous version, we learned how to use 3D. With the knowledge that we learned, we could take this version and refine the look as well as increasing what we did with the visual look and the feel of the game. With this, what we have especially made an emphasis on is creating stages that had a lot of action elements in fully detailed rich 3D environment.
IGN64: What did you learn from your experience of making Castlevania 64?
YS: How to program in 3D and make a 3D action game.
TY: When production first started, I looked upon it as a challenge to go from creating a 2D game to a 3D game. My past experience was all 2D, so working with a 3D world environment was a challenge, but was exciting. It was like being asked to make my own amusement park.
IGN64: What's the weirdest thing that happened during the making of Castlevania Legacy of Darkness?
TY: This is something that happened while we were making the former game. We wanted to get information on Dracula, so we went to an event that was celebrating the 100th anniversary of Bram Stoker's Dracula. What ended up happening was that we were put into a small theatre with no bathroom, and got stuck watching eight hours of minor Dracula movies that were not even sub-titled. Suffice to say, we didn't learn a whole lot from that process.
Say what you want about the N64 titles, but it seems like these guys were all in, learning on the fly and eager to maintain a strong Castlevania brand that was true to its roots, whatever that took. So what happened that they and/or KCEK were replaced by IGA? Was it all just a corporate thing?
*Regarding IGA's history, here's what I have to say:
-Whatever his true roles in Rondo and SotN, they were solid entries that mixed things up. Not my favorites, but not negative if taken by themselves by any means. The problem was that they set trends that were later set in stone as a new definition for Castlevania.
-Harmony of Dissonance was interesting, but felt somewhat less polished than CotM, which I bought with the GBA and enjoyed more.
-Aria of Sorrow is a solid entry that is most remarkable in its shock value (story/setting) and more polished visuals after HoD.
-Lament of Innocence was a game with good intentions and great atmosphere, but it ultimately fell very short, especially in retrospect. (Still, it's ironic that Lords of Shadow, while slightly more ambitious, contained many of the same pitfalls as LoI. If you play the two next to one another, graphics aside, you see that not a lot has been learned in the years between them. KCEK was really ahead of the curve, but all their design work was dropped).
Here's the problem, all of these IGA games were fine at the time, and they still have their perks (particularly with regard to music, some of the atmosphere, and some of the art choices), but none of them had the same staying power in game design as earlier entries for me. I lose interest in them quickly when I play them these days. Perhaps SotN and CotM (which isn't IGA's), came out the best in the long-term. Hard to say...
But my MAIN point is, IGA hit his apex for moving the series forward at LoI. I thought he might turn a corner there and really capitalize on everything. Instead, Curse of Darkness decided to expand on LoI's flaws and add new gimmicks to pad the experience. Dawn of Sorrow was essentially an updated AoS with better graphics and a worse story. Portrait of Ruin was a much more interesting attempt to meld Castleroid and Classicvania, but the Classicvania parts did not understand the game design of Classicvania, resulting in just mini-Castleroid design in a larger Castleroid castle. I never did get to play Order of Ecclesia. I was burned out on Castleroid-anything. But it didn't seem to out-and-out solve PoR's shortcomings, despite some baby steps in the right direction here and there.
Instead of getting Classicvania overload, we got Castleroid overload. Either could be detrimental to the series, but history had it on the Castleroid side. That IGA could not see where the fundamental improvements needed to be made after so many games, and just tried to cover them up with side-steps and gimmicks, sadly showed that he should no longer head the series (and no longer does). I appreciate his efforts, but he overstayed his welcome. Honestly, nothing really got fundamentally better in execution in game design post-AoS for his 2D games, and LoI for his 3D games. (Actually, you know, Judgment, its monster stages, while not great, were maybe a small step in the right direction at a tech demo level; but that was a side point to what was basically an amusing fan-service fighter. The wrong game at the wrong time).
However, I don't like what's happened with Lords of Shadow's Mercury Steam and co, either. I think they have the wrong idea in a whole different way than IGA. The only things they got fundamentally right, IMO, was a few set pieces, stage-by-stage structure, the need for a whip hero, and for said whip to be able to be used in a variety of ways in the gameplay. In terms of story, overall art direction, and especially gameplay/level design, it almost shoots just as wide as Curse of Darkness, though is maybe more inherently fun than CoD...
In short, I really wanted the KCEK team, especially the members of the N64 games, to get a shot at Castevania in 3D again. (They were setting the building blocks for a more diverse CV future). But now they won't. And I don't know if anyone has the vision to do Castlevania right in 3D, which would mean going against conventions set by "popular" modern franchises like God of War.
Regardless, outside of Castlevania Rebirth, which works more as a stopgap than a full solution, I agree with the sentiment that Castlevania has slowly lost its identity--it's "special something"--and Lords of Shadow was the culmination of that feeling for me. What IGA was doing was making me shake my head--it often felt like a increasingly silly, "fan-service-y" stage of development that it would eventually grow out of. What Mercury Steam has done has all but made me close my eyes and scream.
EDIT: At the risk of rambling, here's the thing. Mercury Steam may get it in its head that all it needs to do is make the game "look/sound" more like Castlevania in terms of villain set/music, etc. (And it'll probably get brownie points for that). But then, think about it, we'll just have a glorified LoI. The gameplay needs to be fundamentally changed to allow for true and distinctive "action-platforming," as I've noted in other threads. The design paradigm set for LoS does not allow for the maximum usage of the Castlevania property.
-
I personally wished that IGA had left before he brought about LoI. While I do like the game, it was fun to play and the music and atmosphere were interesting and entertaining, IGA messed up big-time when he brought about Dracula's backstory; completely skewing what had already been established by the earlier titles and fanbase. Rule one about a good thing: Never mess with it. Apparently he didn't obey it. While the N64 titles are 3D and that CotM isn't done by IGA either, both those games just seem to feel much more Castlevania to me. KCEK should regroup and try again with Castlevania. That is of course if Konami would ever let them.
-
Until Lords yep it wasNop it's Enric Alvarez. Check out LoS credits.Where's he now? It would be nice to have him back even has a support designer
I really don't know , but he was the best one to create CVs
wait is enric alvarez that very very veeeery short guy showed in E3 ?
So guys are you telling me that you haven't missed this team ?
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chapelofresonance.com%2Farticles%2Figa%2Fayami-michiru.jpg&hash=7c8f73215c0ff04723c5395758f46e5c)
-
Random thought. KCEK two 3d games first one(64) not good second(LoD) way better and both had action and platforming.
IGA's team: LoI had better action, but lack of platforming, CoD even less what the heck, yeah the weapon system was ok and the devil forging was again all right (I just like whipping),but it was just overall boring I have only beat this game twice with Hector and Trevor (who was the only reason I even played CoD), then afterwards we had judgement and we know how that ended.
Then mercurysteam made LoS and it is better than what IGA and his team were able to do in certain areas,
That is not to say that IGA's team did everything wrong,but compared to KCEK and MS, IGA's team really looks like a disappointment instead of getting better they got worst (IMO, also I heard that IGA hated Circle of the moon I wonder why. I recall something about IGA disliking the DSS system or something like it did not fit with the style of CV or something).
But back to the point that I was making. All three developers had their own vision with KCEK actually getting better after their first attempt with better stages, better camera angle, and a good mix of platforming and action, IGA's team actually got worse with the first game being good, second lackluster, and third horrible, and MS on their first try while not perfect at least had combat, a lot of "platforming",and the stages were very good if not one of the best looking in the action genre.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that out of the three if KCEK had an other chance. Something tells me their next would be 3d project would have been close to Maximo, as for MS if they listened to the actual complaints of the LoS then we can have something really special with the sequel, while IGA's team really have no excuse they just got worst over time and this team had three chances, and all of them were just not on par with other action games LoI could not hold a candle to devil may cry, CoD had no chance against DMC3 and GoW, and most people do not really care about judgement. Not all of them are perfect,but IGA's team had three times to create something awesome and we got nothing except for LoI.
Yes Cod and CVJ have their fans, but come on.
-
Random thought. KCEK two 3d games first one(64) not good second(LoD) way better and both had action and platforming.
IGA's team: LoI had better action, but lack of platforming, CoD even less what the heck, yeah the weapon system was ok and the devil forging was again all right (I just like whipping),but it was just overall boring I have only beat this game twice with Hector and Trevor (who was the only reason I even played CoD), then afterwards we had judgement and we know how that ended.
Then mercurysteam made LoS and it is better than what IGA and his team were able to do in certain areas,
That is not to say that IGA's team did everything wrong,but compared to KCEK and MS, IGA's team really looks like a disappointment instead of getting better they got worst (IMO, also I heard that IGA hated Circle of the moon I wonder why. I recall something about IGA disliking the DSS system or something like it did not fit with the style of CV or something).
But back to the point that I was making. All three developers had their own vision with KCEK actually getting better after their first attempt with better stages, better camera angle, and a good mix of platforming and action, IGA's team actually got worse with the first game being good, second lackluster, and third horrible, and MS on their first try while not perfect at least had combat, a lot of "platforming",and the stages were very good if not one of the best looking in the action genre.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that out of the three if KCEK had an other chance. Something tells me their next would be 3d project would have been close to Maximo, as for MS if they listened to the actual complaints of the LoS then we can have something really special with the sequel, while IGA's team really have no excuse they just got worst over time and this team had three chances, and all of them were just not on par with other action games LoI could not hold a candle to devil may cry, CoD had no chance against DMC3 and GoW, and most people do not really care about judgement. Not all of them are perfect,but IGA's team had three times to create something awesome and we got nothing except for LoI.
Yes Cod and CVJ have their fans, but come on.
ooe , por , cotm , dos and aos they were the only good projects came from iga so to make it better lets see what he can do with the next generation console "if he even has something"
if he will keep making games like : CVHD , CVJ and COD believe it , he will get kicked from konami xD
-
It is worth noting that Juste still retains the honor of being the sole 100% Belmont hero of a Castleroid (Jonathan Morris was from a more distantly related branch family).
Leon Belmont, Desmond Belmont (if he was actually involved with it, which wikipedia seems to claim)
from what ive seen of the n64 games, they do certainly have an undeniable atmosphere, though i would say they were held back by the system limitations.
They have that "90's 3d game" feel though, that's for sure.
-
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chapelofresonance.com%2Farticles%2Figa%2Fayami-michiru.jpg&hash=7c8f73215c0ff04723c5395758f46e5c)
Oh God please no :P
Give me Ochestral Yamane a la LoI (Not CoD) and Ayami Kojima as guest designer with one or two illustrations in the artbook and I'll be happy, but as the main team? Ehmm I don't think so. Yamane started to sound bored at the end (ecclesia was not a highlight at all) and Kojima.. ugh. IGA is of course better with a restriction order from the series.
if he will keep making games like : CVHD , CVJ and COD believe it , he will get kicked from konami xD
I don't doubt that this is what he'll do at all.
-
IGA, Yamane and Kojima should just be supervisors, or guest people in the development of a game. But not the main team anymore.
Like Dracula, we need fresh blood (and MS did quite well so far).
-
I don't think IGA hated CotM. In fact, I read somewhere that he feels "connected" with that particular game. I have no idea why.
Just give 3D Castlevania to the Demon's/Dark Souls team over at From Software. I would love to see what they'd do with it. This is a team that obviously couldn't care less about God of War or Devil May Cry. They know how to design game worlds that feels like WORLDS, not just stages. They know atmosphere. They know challenge. They know combat that could work really well for Castlevania. Just do it.
-
Oh look, another "lets bash IGA" thread.
The gaming public seemed fairly content with the GBA/IGA-era games sans LoI/CoD. Each game got good/better-than-average scores, and I don't recall a whole lot of people outside the forum actually scathing his games as "trash," constant comparisons to Super Metroid or whatnot.
Personally I think if it wasn't for IGA, Castlevania would've sank a long time ago along with Konami's many other series they forgot about. Some people may complain that he isn't a good story teller, but who cares. He's a humble guy, always has been and I respect that, and I'd love to get his autograph & a few photographs if I ever meet him (and ironically, I bet most of his haters would, too).
-
I don't think IGA hated CotM. In fact, I read somewhere that he feels "connected" with that particular game. I have no idea why.
Just give 3D Castlevania to the Demon's/Dark Souls team over at From Software. I would love to see what they'd do with it. This is a team that obviously couldn't care less about God of War or Devil May Cry. They know how to design game worlds that feels like WORLDS, not just stages. They know atmosphere. They know challenge. They know combat that could work really well for Castlevania. Just do it.
First, i'll agree with this one 100%.
Next, Castlevania wasn't about Ochestral music, Yamane did what she did with LoI, because she wanted to stay true in faith with the era that LoI was taking place and electric guitar and some other instruments, they didn't exist back then. I agree that Yamane's last work, wasn't that great, i prefer Miyazaki's work. IGA might be terribly at story telling and execution, but he was always trying to provide something original, along with the old stuffs, including game play.
For me SotN was something special, when it came out. CotM, is one of my favorites, mainly because of game play and difficulty. HoD is mediocre. AoS is one of my most favorites. DoS is just meh.......... PoR is mediocre and OoE was on the right side, but as many have stated before, it came to late and in a time where 2D gaming is dying or it is almost non existand. Oh yes, todays standars are flashy, shiny graphics, everything else comes second. Even if game play and story are sucking, if it has some half naked chick which is looking almost real, it will stil sell like crazy.
I wouldn't expect something less from todays gaming industry, when almost all new game players are cassual game players or they prefer mmorpg games.
-
I see it as a love/hate thing regarding IGA, his games were good, he seems like a nice guy and he kept Castlevania afloat for a long time but at the same time he's made some very odd choices that didn't sit well with some fans.
However, I can respect that he loved doing what he did and tried his best to make Castlevania relevant, but Konami felt that his time with Castlevania was up and decided wipe the slate right in his face.
Remember at e3 2010 when he presented HD? It was like watching a longtime heavyweight champion relinquish his belt, you can't help but feel sorry for the guy and that was the last time we've seen him.
-
I think IGA's game design skill started to deteriorate the minute he started growing facial hair and started putting on funny hats.
-
Incidentally Harmony of Despair also sold quite well, only the CVD seemed to hate it.
-
ooe , por , cotm , dos and aos they were the only good projects came from iga so to make it better lets see what he can do with the next generation console "if he even has something"
if he will keep making games like : CVHD , CVJ and COD believe it , he will get kicked from konami xD
COTM Was developed by KCE Kobe, not IGA.
Anyways, If Kobe was allowed to keeep making castlevanias after COTM, I feel all they would have made were the COTM Prequel, and a game based on Bram Stoker's Dracula. (The book, not the movie)
After that Konami would've given the reins to IGA anyways.
-
Anyways, If Kobe was allowed to keeep making castlevanias after COTM, I feel all they would have made were the COTM Prequel, and a game based on Bram Stoker's Dracula. (The book, not the movie)
After that Konami would've given the reins to IGA anyways.
Not necessarily. It would take a couple of years to produce the games you've mentioned and in that time IGA would've moved on to do other projects. And if that were the case then Konami would find another team to do Castlevania after KCE Kobe was retired.
-
Hmm, COTM Prequel (2003), then Bram Stoker's Dracula Castlevania (2005).
Yeah, you do have a point, but I think they would've given it to IGA, regardless. :rollseyes:
-
I don't think IGA hated CotM. In fact, I read somewhere that he feels "connected" with that particular game. I have no idea why.
Just give 3D Castlevania to the Demon's/Dark Souls team over at From Software. I would love to see what they'd do with it. This is a team that obviously couldn't care less about God of War or Devil May Cry. They know how to design game worlds that feels like WORLDS, not just stages. They know atmosphere. They know challenge. They know combat that could work really well for Castlevania. Just do it.
I will more agree if they will add the start button ...
-
I don't think IGA hated CotM. In fact, I read somewhere that he feels "connected" with that particular game. I have no idea why.
Yeah, it was from his OoE interview in Electronic Gaming Monthly. He said he thought of the game as his since that was around the time he came back with Castlevania Chronicles. Also KO-G (circle's producer) worked on OoE as well.
-
I think IGA's game design skill started to deteriorate the minute he started growing facial hair and started putting on funny hats.
I couldn't agree less........by the way, the last game he made with his old look, was Aria of Sorrow, coincidence? :P
-
Actually it was Lament. D:
But I believe the shortcomings of any of the games primarily have to do with the directors, and not the producers. There is a reason that Takeda Takashi was the one who talked about the direction of Harmony of Dissonance and apologized for its shortcomings.
-
Leon Belmont
was not the hero of a Castleroid any more than I am. I traverse huge sprawling buildings on foot (college campuses rather than Castles), and all my platforming is done at the gym with a springboard, but I think my quantities are roughly the same.
There just wasn't enough platforming in Lament to call it a proper Castleroid in my eyes. Add the fact that the map sprawls across the wrong plane.
Lament isn't really a Castleroid. It's some bizarre mutation of a Castleroid that has some physical similarities, but is fundamentally a different creature. And a worse one at that.
Harmony of Dissonance is basically what Symphony would have been like if Alucard and Richter's roles had been reversed, and Richter had been the hero.
As for Desmond, Order of Shadows strikes me as an absolute 100% Classicvania. All the stages are point A to point B linear, with a few goodies tucked in various corners.
In short: Juste is still king of the Castleroid.
-
A lot of the Kobe team was absorbed into KCET if I recall correctly too. So a lot of CoTM's members were involved in titles like Portrait and Order. I think Order even got a new director that pretty much popped out of nowhere.
-
Also KO-G (circle's producer) worked on OoE as well.
And that's, probably, why it was better than DOS and POR.
-
We just let an outsider come in and put an end to out series as we know it for good! :o And for what? A Metriod game with Castlevania enemies, of course :D... Yeah, we aren't playing Castlevania anymore folks. Maybe we should merge the Castleroids games with a Metroid forum?... FLAME ON!!!
how drastic. you sure have a knack for condescension. the formula is handled much differently and features a completely different style, aesthetic, and direction. the problem with the games came around the time of the ps2 and ds games which adopted a total kleptomania mentality and abandoned thoughts of engaging level design.
the simplest things like aria's discus knights above slopes work to an advantage. what do you mean by "design and balance" when talking about circle? much of the game involves column repetition while "classic" physics are taken into an irregular environment. it steeps into unfair territory, as silly as it sounds when you face bear and beast demon after bear and beast demon duo.
-
Wow, am I glad I brought this topic up. As it's much more popular then I though + the best part is I'm learning a lot of facts of great interest to me that I wasn't aware of before (remember, I new this this series and especially not familiar with the IGA directed games & Metroid vania games).
And who would of thunk that the last Metroid vania game I played back when it was new was with a whip wielding hero?! :o How did that fly over my head?... Maybe because my point still stands that them IGA Metroid vania games usually don't have a whip wielding hero? (Them PS2 games I knew about having a whip... but really, I think if them games didn't have a whip wielding hero then there'd be nothing to resemble a Castlevania game, no?). Do all the DS games have a non-whip wielding hero as well then I take it?
Oh, and to those that are upset that I may seem kinda harsh toward them Castleroid games, well don't be. As they just don't really seem to impress me nearly as much as the classic style games (which I'm much more in the mood for right now too)... Though I do always reserve the right to change my mind on these things, as I always like to start games with a fresh and open mind, just in case they may end up one of my all time fav games? Plus you never know what I may be in the mood for next?... Besides, if I'd start a game with a pickle up my butt, then chances are that I'd never see any of said particular game's good points?... You know, like how most videogame reviews are done :D... So yeah, I may have a totally different impression about them after I give them some serious playtime?... But in the end, it's still sad that they put a complete stop to the classic series.
I never knew about Castlevania series sales figures until very recently when I watched GTs Castlevania Retrospective; The Castlevania Retrospective Video Game | Reviews, Trailers & Interviews | GameTrailers.com (http://www.gametrailers.com/game/the-castlevania-retrospective/13944)
And though I only watched up to SotN, I was shocked to find out that none of the vania games were really big hits, or go over a million in sales. :o So yeah, that caught me totally off guard... I never watched past SotN since I don't want to run into any spoilers. Thus never knew that CotM was the first million seller (does the video even acknowledge this? How accurate do you guys think this source is?)... which is weird, because then why didn't KCE Kobe continue on with any more vania games at all? As I assumed that they failed to live up to the vania standards and why though they might of been pulled off the series because of that? (Still might be possible, as though it may of been the biggest seller, the press and fans still don't see it as impressive as SotN... but I don't really know, I'm just assuming... you guys here seem to know a lot more on this mater then me, and I'm enjoying what's being said here. Hope it continues...
-
Glad we could be of service :D But I'm like you in that I don't know a whole lot about the series either. Just enough to put in my 2 cents is all :)
-
The castlevania retrospective was the greatest thing ever.
also, PoR was on the DS and had Johnathan Morris, a whip wielder.
Too bad PoR was a failure as a sequel to bloodlines.
IGA always sucked at making sequels.
Also, only Lament of Innocence has a Belmont/whip user. Curse of Darkness had Hector, whos just another "use different weapons" kind of character.
-
there is more to a series than such basic components as whip wielders, otherwise ghosts'n goblins would might as well be castlevania and probotector would be too much like mega man.
-
Actually it was Lament. D:
But I believe the shortcomings of any of the games primarily have to do with the directors, and not the producers. There is a reason that Takeda Takashi was the one who talked about the direction of Harmony of Dissonance and apologized for its shortcomings.
My bad.....
-
To be honest, I actually liked the IGA era of games (I still play DoS, OoE, and HoD), though I'd be lying if I didn't admit that they could grow tiresome after a while, as it tended to be the same formula with a new 'gimmick' added.
As for Lords...to be honest, I'm not that fond of it. I suppose I'm in the column that like it as a game, but not as a Castlevania game so to speak.
We definitely needed something fresh from IGA, as I agree with other posters: he overstayed his welcome. But to be honest, I'm not really liking the tone/direction LoS took so I wouldn't mind seeing someone else take over the series and try something different.
-
Do all the DS games have a non-whip wielding hero as well then I take it?
www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
-
What saddens me the most about LoS is that I can't remember much of the music. It's never happened before with this series. Some people seem to judge games based on things like story or challenge. I hold the music above all that. And now it seems we're stuck with this Oscar person. He's probably extremely talented but he tried to fix the only thing that was NEVER broken in Castlevania. :( Oh well, maybe his next soundtrack actually has some memorable melodies.
The IGA era always had excellent music (almost), can't argue with that.
-
What saddens me the most about LoS is that I can't remember much of the music. It's never happened before with this series. Some people seem to judge games based on things like story or challenge. I hold the music above all that. And now it seems we're stuck with this Oscar person. He's probably extremely talented but he tried to fix the only thing that was NEVER broken in Castlevania. :( Oh well, maybe his next soundtrack actually has some memorable melodies.
The IGA era always had excellent music (almost), can't argue with that.
Now that I read this comment I ask myself is it really that IGA was the problem or rather the team. I mean when IGA joined konami he was pretty good working I think on twinbee then writing on tokimeki memorial just to be sure
check the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koji_Igarashi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koji_Igarashi)
and for fun gamecenter cx (really good show if no one has watched it remember retro game challenge for the ds, well it's based of this show as well as it's sequel which was never released out of japan)
Game Center CX - Koji Igarashi Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSZ8OhfDyDg#)
Maybe he just needs a competent team.
-
I remember plenty of the music from LoS. I liked it. for mood pieces, they were really good. I just wish there were stage specific themes.
-
Game Center CX - Koji Igarashi Interview[/url]
Can´t say why... but this video makes me so sad :-\
Edit:
Now I really miss IGA...
-
Oh yeah, GameCenter. I just stumbled upon this show about over a week ago?
Yeah, this interview was really good. Thanks for sharing.
What was sad about that interview was to find out that nobody was in charge of the vania series when he started. That really sucks, as it seemed anybody could have come in and rape the series as they please (Legends anyone?). So it's like all the guys that started this series just didn't care enough for it to continue it or oversee that no one screws it up. :'( No wonder the series is so darn messed up right now. >:( And IGA seems more concerned about making too many changes to the series as soon as he started with it. ie. the whip too boring? Why not make another game then?
And no wonder Rondo was so easy + no extra loop to fix it, his wife wanted a game he could handle. ;D
I also agree that a team behind a game can be more important then the director, big time. Too many directors now a days in whatever field really just don't know much of their jobs process outside of giving orders because they can. "Make it better!! How? I don't know or care, just do it or your fired!!! ...My career is at stake here for crying out loud. >_>" But there is still no doubt that the major changes to the vania series seems to be due to IGA. IGA gives his ideas (ie. no whip), and his team has to make it work... maybe this is why the series survived, due to his team alone?
-
correct me if i'm wrong but the only game that didn't have a whip was Order of Ecclesia
-
sinful, why is something so superficial as a whip so important to you?
-
I think he believes that the whip is supposed to be the biggest offense to Dracula and the forces of darkness in Castlevania and in IGA's games (LoI, PoR and HoD aside) the whip isn't much a focus.
Me personally, I don't think it matters what you kill Dracula with, if Dracula can die from a pie in the face and it works then it's a job well done.
-
And no wonder Rondo was so easy + no extra loop to fix it, his wife wanted a game he could handle. ;D
well idk about that since his favorite cv is 3
-
The issue with the whip is supposed to be that vampire killer is the one true bane of vampires. Their weakness. And therefore, the Belmonts are the ones cursed with eternally fighting Dracula.
But IGA has all these games where you play as random nobodies who are able to defeat Dracula. He's about as threatening as a squeaky toy when you can kill him with any kind of weapon.
Only one I could understand is Alucard, since well, he is about as strong as Dracula, even if not at the same exact level. he is his son after all, Id expect the son of the king of vampires to be able to defeat Dracula.
-
gamecenter cx
A DVD collection will be released in the States this September courtesy of Discotek Media.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=418518858177214&id=147168055312297 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=418518858177214&id=147168055312297)
-
sinful, why is something so superficial as a whip so important to you?
To me the whip is very far from superficial. It's the iconic weapon of cv the games are about whipping evil, not slashing evil with a sword or something per say. When I play a vania I want to whip and sure having a sword or someside arm is good,but when it comes down to it it's about whipping. Also my other gripe is the fact that metroidvania has all most little to no belmonts(Julius will not get the game that we would want,Leon's story seemed to be a one shot, and justes was boring). Now why would something such as playing a belmont mean so much to me. How about the fact that they are the main character. Imagine playing zelda without Link and him never using a sword and shield or mario with out stars and mushrooms for the most part it just does not feel right. You just cannot take away the main characters and iconic things away from the series.
A DVD collection will be released in the States this September courtesy of Discotek Media.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=418518858177214&id=147168055312297 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=418518858177214&id=147168055312297)
Edit: I hope the castlevania III episode is on there.
-
And no wonder Rondo was so easy + no extra loop to fix it, his wife wanted a game he could handle. ;D
This was the one thing that would have put Rondo from just "pretty good" to "godly" in my book. It's really a shame there were no difficulty options even in DXC.
-
To me the whip is very far from superficial. It's the iconic weapon of cv the games are about whipping evil, not slashing evil with a sword or something per say. When I play a vania I want to whip and sure having a sword or someside arm is good,but when it comes down to it it's about whipping. Also my other gripe is the fact that metroidvania has all most little to no belmonts(Julius will not get the game that we would want,Leon's story seemed to be a one shot, and justes was boring). Now why would something such as playing a belmont mean so much to me. How about the fact that they are the main character. Imagine playing zelda without Link and him never using a sword and shield or mario with out stars and mushrooms for the most part it just does not feel right. You just cannot take away the main characters and iconic things away from the series.
My thoughts exactly about Castlevania's iconic weapon of choice.
-
But IGA has all these games where you play as random nobodies who are able to defeat Dracula. He's about as threatening as a squeaky toy when you can kill him with any kind of weapon.
"Random nobodies" means Hector and Shanoa- one guy whom Death states is imbued with the power of Dracula and fights a possessed man, and a woman who uses Dracula's own power to destroy him. Not exactly what I'd call nobodies.
Then there is PoR where you play as Jonathan, who is part Belmont. Not exactly without precedent, given Bloodlines. Gasp, you can even beat Dracula in that game as Eric LeCarde. That means fuckin' Tomikatsu Kirita not only shoehorned not-real Belmonts into the game, he even made it so that Eric could kill Dracula. I knew that Tomikatsu was the Castlevania producer who had it out for the Belmonts!
Then there are the Sorrow games, where you...play as Dracula and fight cultists.
So that leaves Leon Belmont and Juste Belmont.
Basically, the whole 'IGA hates Belmonts/whips/MEEEEEEEE' is unfiltered dumb filtered through a ton of dumb.
-
If anything, IGA tried his hardest to expand the mythos and enable more games to be released. Call it shoe-horning if you will, but what else can you do? And since the 100 years rule would've made many of the games impossible, I think it was wise to find different ways of resurrecting Dracula, even if it meant that not all of the heroes could be Belmonts.
I mean, maybe they could've been, but in a series as expansive as Castlevania we needed more than just "This-protagonist-is-the-son-of-the-protagonist-from-the-last-game" type of stories. And IGA really tried. With varying results, admittedly. But still.
Now, about the whip. I like using a whip because it feels damn good, from a gameplay perspective :). But a sword wielder here and there is alright with me. I don't fully understand the story behind the Vampire Killer, and why it's only necessary sometimes and other times it isn't. Then again I hardly pay any attention to stuff like that. I prefer to ignore inconsistencies like that or I would probably not enjoy the games as much..
EDIT: Oh, and if you think about it, the vampire killer was never really necessary in any of the games. You can kill Dracula with holy water or knives or whatever you see fit. This goes for the original Castlevania as well.
-
To me the whip is very far from superficial. It's the iconic weapon of cv the games are about whipping evil, not slashing evil with a sword or something per say. When I play a vania I want to whip and sure having a sword or someside arm is good,but when it comes down to it it's about whipping. Also my other gripe is the fact that metroidvania has all most little to no belmonts(Julius will not get the game that we would want,Leon's story seemed to be a one shot, and justes was boring). Now why would something such as playing a belmont mean so much to me. How about the fact that they are the main character. Imagine playing zelda without Link and him never using a sword and shield or mario with out stars and mushrooms for the most part it just does not feel right. You just cannot take away the main characters and iconic things away from the series.
This is how I feel too. When I think of Castlevania I think Belmonts(or Morris in their respected games). I have no problem playing as other characters but I think of them as sidekicks. SotN, OoE, and Aos are the only times I think where the sidekicks should be the main heroes. While games like Dos and CoD should have Belmont as the main hero with Soma and Hector being sidekicks. I think some games should change the main heroes last name to Belmont like CV64 or CotM.
With this being said this is only my opinion. I just like Belmonts more than anyone else in this series.
-
"Random nobodies" means Hector and Shanoa- one guy whom Death states is imbued with the power of Dracula and fights a possessed man, and a woman who uses Dracula's own power to destroy him. Not exactly what I'd call nobodies.
Then there is PoR where you play as Jonathan, who is part Belmont. Not exactly without precedent, given Bloodlines. Gasp, you can even beat Dracula in that game as Eric LeCarde. That means fuckin' Tomikatsu Kirita not only shoehorned not-real Belmonts into the game, he even made it so that Eric could kill Dracula. I knew that Tomikatsu was the Castlevania producer who had it out for the Belmonts!
Then there are the Sorrow games, where you...play as Dracula and fight cultists.
So that leaves Leon Belmont and Juste Belmont.
Basically, the whole 'IGA hates Belmonts/whips/MEEEEEEEE' is unfiltered dumb filtered through a ton of dumb.
Bimmy Lee hit the nail on the head. Those that say IGA only created games w/o Belmonts, really have no idea what they're talking about & didn't pay attention to the plot of said games. +1 for you, sir!
edit: although to be fair i think eric/the lecardes were confirmed to be another offshoot of the Belmont family, so they're still related by blood
-
If anything, IGA tried his hardest to expand the mythos and enable more games to be released. Call it shoe-horning if you will, but what else can you do?
Create less games, but with good stories that could left a lasting impression, instead of infesting timeline with random characters and plots that would never lead to anything significant.
Quite simple really.
-
I mean, maybe they could've been, but in a series as expansive as Castlevania we needed more than just "This-protagonist-is-the-son-of-the-protagonist-from-the-last-game" type of stories. And IGA really tried. With varying results, admittedly. But still.
I personally think IGA would've been more successful if the none-Belmont protagonists did not go up against Dracula. The story's been set so that only a man or woman of Belmont lineage could destroy the Count. Needless to say that Alucard is an exception since he is the count's son. Everyone else would be cannon fodder if they confronted him. However IGA decided to throw this out the window in favor of his own ideas. Bad idea. Cause now it means that anyone can hand Dracula his @$$ which is just stupid.
-
I personally think IGA would've been more successful if the none-Belmont protagonists did not go up against Dracula. The story's been set so that only a man or woman of Belmont lineage could destroy the Count. Needless to say that Alucard is an exception since he is the count's son. Everyone else would be cannon fodder if they confronted him. However IGA decided to throw this out the window in favor of his own ideas. Bad idea. Cause now it means that anyone can hand Dracula his @$$ which is just stupid.
Hear's an idea. Call me crazy and someone please correct me if I am wrong but why not have castlevania's with different characters,yet not fight dracula. How do I explain my reasoning for this. I want to use Zelda as a reference. Has anyone noticed that Ganon has not appeared on a handheld zelda game for the most part. You cannot even fight him normally in seasons and ages, but for the most part he has not been in most handhelds not in Link's awakening, minish cap, four swords, not to sure about spirit tracks and phantom hourglass have never played them so again correct me if I am wrong, so what I am trying to get at is if you are going to have non belmont characters introduced into the world of castlevania then introduce other villains without the use of dracula altogether. Now this sounds dumb but all what I am saying no belmont no dracula.
I mean with what I have said then iga has already done in a way with that the MV's but in the end it leads up to dracula, and lords has done that too,yet who knows what I am trying to say maybe I am losing it at the moment it is late right so maybe I have not thought of what I am trying to get said clear enough yet :-\ Or to keep it simple and to the point consoles = Dracula/belmont, handheld = dracula/belmont or other side villian/story the story line will not be so messed up now.
-
I personally think IGA would've been more successful if the none-Belmont protagonists did not go up against Dracula. The story's been set so that only a man or woman of Belmont lineage could destroy the Count. Needless to say that Alucard is an exception since he is the count's son. Everyone else would be cannon fodder if they confronted him. However IGA decided to throw this out the window in favor of his own ideas. Bad idea. Cause now it means that anyone can hand Dracula his @$$ which is just stupid.
This is a really good idea. I always thought it was dumb how easy Dracula could be defeated. I also thought it took away from the power of the Vampire Killer. Non-Belmont characters could fight other vampires or other monsters.
-
OKay, now where is it stated that the vampire killer is the only thing that can kill dracula?
And about Hector. As someone else stated, he fought a possesed man, similar to Shanoa in OoE with Barlowe. Besides, why would he not be able to kill Dracula? He´s a devil forgemaster and learned under Dracula. And all the weapons you can buy in the game suck, so you have to create them through devil forging/alchemy. So what I am trying to say is, pretty much every weapon you use in Curse of Darkness is not just an ordinary one.... they are as special as the whip, which also was made through alchemy. Maybe they´re not as powerful, but I think you get my point.
-
sinful, why is something so superficial as a whip so important to you?
Because that's the main thing that separates Castlevania from the other games.
well idk about that since his favorite cv is 3
Mine too! But it doesn't mean I beat the game yet or that I prefer it's difficulty over the others?... But honestly, I think the main reason his games are easier is because I read someone quoting IGA saying something along the lines of; "People like easy and/or beatable games." So he may just be giving people what they want, especially considering how today's generation views classic difficulty. ie. "Classic difficulty?! F that!" (Man, it breaks my hear everytime I read a review that meantion a game could have been better if it weren't so hard... especially when the game really isn't. Just requires you put in some more time to adjust to it's learning curve... But no, games today's must be beat during one playthrough only, otherwise it's a waste of time :rollseyes:)
This was the one thing that would have put Rondo from just "pretty good" to "godly" in my book. It's really a shame there were no difficulty options even in DXC.
AHHHH!!! Tell me about it!!!! And since I'm putting some more time in the PSP version for once instead of the unlocked original (I used I guide to get to ASAP because the 3D was throwing me off :P), I'm finding that the the game balancing the 3D games adds is to make the game overall easier still?! :o This blows my mind at such a missed opportunity. :'( I mean, so many Konami games seem to have a hidden difficulty/extra loop that changed/added much more gaming goodness, as if they actually cared for replay & the gamers that stuck with the game. Even though very few would actually experience said extra difficulty, this showed that they really did care for just them very few that would play and love this extra mode... So again, I blame us gamers for getting spoiled by easier games due to silly stuff like being able to whip in every direction. :rollseyes: I mean I'm not hardcore about playing hard games or really that amazing at them, but to me, these are the gamers to be looked up too if you ask me.
Basically, the whole 'IGA hates Belmonts/whips/MEEEEEEEE' is unfiltered dumb filtered through a ton of dumb.
No. I don't think you know what your talking about and that's because you probably prefer the IGA no sword type games too, maybe? Whatever, you can stick by what you like, but to me I don't think this matter is that complicated; Castlevania to many, especially classic vania fans, is mostly about the whip. The whip defines the gameplay (it's extra reach, the wind up delay to take consideration of, etc) for the most part. Take this out of Castlevania, and you now have a game that doesn't play as Castlevania anymore. So you see, it's really that simple (I mean, you don't see a main Mario game without a jump now, do you?).
Man, when I found that whip sword in Aria, I was so happy... then the next weapon upgrade just landed in my lap almost immediately. :'( (That's another thing, why do games have to have SO MANY DARN WEAPON & EQUIPMENT UPGRADES + SHOWED DOWN YOUR THROAT EVERY FEW MINUTES!! I find this really upsetting. :(
Create less games, but with good stories that could left a lasting impression, instead of infesting timeline with random characters and plots that would never lead to anything significant.
Quite simple really.
Exactly. Besides, I'd rather they just come up with something simple as "This so and so figured out how to revive Dracula yet again, only earlier." What's wrong with that?... And if you want more story, you can still add it, but just don't mess with series standards so much as that just leads to totally different games.
-
No. I don't think you know what your talking about and that's because you probably prefer the IGA no sword type games too, maybe?
No it's probably because the whole 'IGA hates Belmonts/Whips/MEEEEEEEEE' is very dumb, maybe? The whole 'well maybe it's because you're a FRAUD OF A FAN WHO HATES THE CLASSICS' bullshit won't work here anymore than it worked on Puwexil in the Dracula X thread. It's the dumbest kind of strawman attack.
It's not like I ever did a run of Vampire Killer on one setting after all.
Vampire Killer Stage 1 by beingthehero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OmAPDNssy4#)
-
Okay, seriously, everyone in favor of dumping Sinful in their ignore list say "aye".
And in case you didn't get the hint the first time, Sinful: you're an annoying dick.
-
OKay, now where is it stated that the vampire killer is the only thing that can kill dracula?
It's supposed to be the one weapon that is truly effective against vampires, because it was forged through alchemy with a vampire's soul.
Vampire Killer is the symbolic weapon of the CV franchise, and the Belmonts are supposed to be the ones, who armed with their whip, defeat Dracula every century. They even left the whip to the Morrises for a long time. The whip has always been very important, and Belmonts have always been very important. Even in games like CV3, where you have allies, there is a Belmont present. but then you have people who defeat him without any Belmonts or Vampire Killers around. It cheapens the Belmonts importance to the story, and makes Dracula very nonthreatening when you dont need to be an experienced Vampire Hunter or the Son of Dracula to take him out.
-
OKay, now where is it stated that the vampire killer is the only thing that can kill dracula?
And about Hector. As someone else stated, he fought a possesed man, similar to Shanoa in OoE with Barlowe. Besides, why would he not be able to kill Dracula? He´s a devil forgemaster and learned under Dracula. And all the weapons you can buy in the game suck, so you have to create them through devil forging/alchemy. So what I am trying to say is, pretty much every weapon you use in Curse of Darkness is not just an ordinary one.... they are as special as the whip, which also was made through alchemy. Maybe they´re not as powerful, but I think you get my point.
What are you talking about? It was always insinuated that the Vampire Killer was the only weapon that could defeat Dracula. It was Castlevania's equivalent to Legend of Zelda's Magical/Master Sword. And it was always implied that only a Belmont could wield it. SotN was the first game that strayed from this formula and it was the sixth game in the series, not counting the Game Boy games.
But now, because of Iga, my neighbor across the street can kill Dracula with a frisbee.
Iga's a dick.
-
What are you talking about? It was always insinuated that the Vampire Killer was the only weapon that could defeat Dracula. It was Castlevania's equivalent to Legend of Zelda's Magical/Master Sword.
True whip of evil bane or something. Might play zelda later on now.
-
Hear's an idea. Call me crazy and someone please correct me if I am wrong but why not have castlevania's with different characters,yet not fight dracula. How do I explain my reasoning for this.
I believe, that is direction in which franchise should have went. Preferably using Bloodlines as template, sort of. This direction was on the surface since LOI, and POR and OOE skimmed it, somewhat. But in both cases developers chickened out and put mandatory Dracula battles in the end. POR particularly suffered from this, since its plot was quite solid even without Dracula's presence.
-
And about Hector. As someone else stated, he fought a possesed man, similar to Shanoa in OoE with Barlowe. Besides, why would he not be able to kill Dracula? He´s a devil forgemaster and learned under Dracula. And all the weapons you can buy in the game suck, so you have to create them through devil forging/alchemy. So what I am trying to say is, pretty much every weapon you use in Curse of Darkness is not just an ordinary one.... they are as special as the whip, which also was made through alchemy. Maybe they´re not as powerful, but I think you get my point.
As I recall (besides Hector being powerful), in the cutscene after Dracula's defeat, it was said that Dracula was defeated because his resurrection was incomplete, so he wasn't at his full power. There's one explanation for a defeat by a random nobody.
-
I believe, that is direction in which franchise should have went. Preferably using Bloodlines as template, sort of. This direction was on the surface since LOI, and POR and OOE skimmed it, somewhat. But in both cases developers chickened out and put mandatory Dracula battles in the end. POR particularly suffered from this, since its plot was quite solid even without Dracula's presence.
I agree with PoR, since Brauner was already kind of a bitchin' villain. Definitely the best non-Dracula villain the series had. But on the other hand, PoR's Dracula was the first Lugosi-type we had in quite some time, Chronicles notwithstanding. Even the KCEK games used SotN's Drac.
Also yeah, in every single case of so-called 'nobodies' fighting Dracula, he was never at his full power. IGA's games always outright stated that. Only when Dracula is resurrected at the 100-year-point is his power too great for anybody but a Belmont with the VK to kill. Alucard, Hector, Nathan et al. fought D-dawg before or after such time, and his power was never complete.
Speaking of Nathan, I'm surprised nobody brings him up or Reinhardt when they bitch about nobodies defeating Dracula, but bring up Jonathan. I guess because they have a whip, even if it's not even the vampire killer?
-
Speaking of Nathan, I'm surprised nobody brings him up or Reinhardt when they bitch about nobodies defeating Dracula, but bring up Jonathan. I guess because they have a whip, even if it's not even the vampire killer?
Nathan graves ok, but as for Reinhardt, At one point was he not going to be called reinhardt schneider belmont. Alot of things happened to the n64 version and I recall this being one of them, and as for the vampire killer Reinhardt did use it last time I checked.
-
Speaking of Nathan, I'm surprised nobody brings him up or Reinhardt when they bitch about nobodies defeating Dracula, but bring up Jonathan. I guess because they have a whip, even if it's not even the vampire killer?
Probably because most people don't consider their games canon.
-
I've read someplace that Reinhardt was suppose to have Belmont as a last name but they changed it for some reason.
-
I recall the IGA timeline stating that CoTM and the N64 games were not canon to the timeline.
Another Example of non Dracula was Aria and Dawn, and veeeery technically- the novel that came after.
None had Dracula as a villain, (except for Dawn but that's a much different story, ironically better than the main one)
the novel itself if I recall, has Olrox as the villain, trying to take over the void of power Dracula left behind.
-
What are you talking about? It was always insinuated that the Vampire Killer was the only weapon that could defeat Dracula. It was Castlevania's equivalent to Legend of Zelda's Magical/Master Sword. And it was always implied that only a Belmont could wield it. SotN was the first game that strayed from this formula and it was the sixth game in the series, not counting the Game Boy games.
But now, because of Iga, my neighbor across the street can kill Dracula with a frisbee.
Iga's a dick.
And yet the vampire killer was never necessary to defeat Dracula in any of the games. Why have a story about a whip that's the only weapon that could kill Dracula when in reality, you can kill him with axes, knives or whatever you see fit? If the vampire killer was that important to the creators of the original Castlevania games (Before IGA), surely they would've made Dracula invulnerable to everything but the whip, in-game too, not just in the story. At least in Zelda you NEEDED silver arrows.
And then we have people like Grant, Sypha and Eric Lecarde (Again, before IGA) - Were they Belmont descendants? They sure killed Drac on a number of my playthroughs though, and none of them used the vampire killer.
I don't know everything about the Castlevania storyline though. Maybe I got things wrong. Maybe IGA is guilty of everything. I, however, feel that the original games left the story-line wideopen for interpretations.
-
And then we have people like Grant, Sypha and Eric Lecarde (Again, before IGA) - Were they Belmont descendants? They sure killed Drac on a number of my playthroughs though, and none of them used the vampire killer.
Gameplay-wise Grant and Sypha can kill Dracula, but story-wise they only assisted Trevor as he killed Dracula. Eric Lecarde, like John Morris is a descendant of the house of Belmonts so the ability to kill Dracula flows within his veins. However Eric's interest in hunting the evil with his friend was not to kill Dracula, but to kill Elizabeth Bartly (Bathory) due to a personal tragedy involving his Love Gwendolen. So story-wise for Bloodlines Eric goes for the countess while John tackles Dracula.
-
Even if Dracula was only vulnerable to the Vampire Killer, he still would have been plummeted a dozen times.
So he's still pretty much a lame-o.
-
And yet the vampire killer was never necessary to defeat Dracula in any of the games. Why have a story about a whip that's the only weapon that could kill Dracula when in reality, you can kill him with axes, knives or whatever you see fit? If the vampire killer was that important to the creators of the original Castlevania games (Before IGA), surely they would've made Dracula invulnerable to everything but the whip, in-game too, not just in the story. At least in Zelda you NEEDED silver arrows.
And then we have people like Grant, Sypha and Eric Lecarde (Again, before IGA) - Were they Belmont descendants? They sure killed Drac on a number of my playthroughs though, and none of them used the vampire killer.
I don't know everything about the Castlevania storyline though. Maybe I got things wrong. Maybe IGA is guilty of everything. I, however, feel that the original games left the story-line wideopen for interpretations.
I still feel that it comes down to the whip story wise,but then again maybe it was just lazy game design to be able to beat drac.
-
while i cherish the vampire killer myself, the major concern for story here is tragic.
-
You know, I just realized; If IGA's fav vania game is CIII, why the heck hasn't he followed up on it by now already?! Something just don't add up?
No it's probably because the whole 'IGA hates Belmonts/Whips/MEEEEEEEEE' is very dumb, maybe?
I can say the same thing.
Regardless, it's not just the whip that IGA changed. He changed the series way too much. And too much is too much. I'm sorry if this upsets the IGA fanboys and all, but the classic vania fans aren't happy either.
But yeah, IGA went on to do the vania series, only instead of building upon the series, he totally took in in the wrong direction. If your gonna do this, at least make some classic vania games, alongside the spinoff Metroid style games, too. But no, it seem he wants nothing to do with what the vania series was about. He's only concerned about his baby. The SotN baby. If you adopted a bunch of kids, and then all of a sudden you had your own, you'd naturally favour your most. So yeah, I've already said this in my first post. And IGA is only human. But it's so not fair for those that have been with the series since the start (even the videogame nerd who is a massive vania fanboy, admits that why SotN is great and all, he still much more prefers the classics. And why not, that's what got him into the series).
Okay, seriously, everyone in favor of dumping Sinful in their ignore list say "aye".
And in case you didn't get the hint the first time, Sinful: you're an annoying dick.
Hey, call it a skill. No need to get your feathers all ruffled up for. And besides, I've made very good points in many of my posts... Too bad most will never get them do to blind hate towards me & what I like. But whatever, that's life (some are for me, most are against me).
But I say grow up and quit being such a baby. "Oh Sinful is hurting my feelings. Oh let's gang up on him and pretend like it's grade/high school all over again." Wow, and you say I'm a dick?
And so what what if I put the blame on blind fanboy-ism? It's usually the case. You mean you can't see this?
-
sotn comes out and is critically acclaimed. afterwards, chronicles and legends are both released and both relatively tank.
then cotm comes out and sells a million.
konami probably saw those exploration games as the life of the party and green-lit those instead.
eventually, iga and his team were able to convince konami to create the dracula x chronicles (he had been wanting to release rondo in the states since forever). and it probably was intended as a way to prove that the older mold was still fashionable.
and later down the line, rebirth comes out due to the very fashionable trend of pumping out retro coolies. seems pretty clear to me, there was an effort to release those older types of games.
meanwhile, the exploration titles became to slowly sell less and less. and with judgment's abysmal performance, gabriel belmont punches through a wall and claims the throne of castlevania while harmony of despair becomes a little project for iga to sing his swan song...
rip
I doubt it's entirely IGA's fault. He doesn't green-light his own projects, the suits at top do. A lot of the time in interviews, he liked to say how he'd like to do this or that, such as release Rondo in the states which he eventually did after a REALLY LONG TIME. He might be the one who's procuring the budget and doing the pitching, but look.
If he did pitch mostly the exploration titles, it's because, it was reasonable and safe. Yet even then it's evident he wasn't content to make the series stagnant. He actually pitched more daring things, ignoring their final products were all of flimsy quality. Lament of Innocence, for instance, wasn't even supposed to have exploration elements. Those were only put in after pressure from the suits. The guy even wanted to do Gradius and Contra, but that never happened either. Well, heh, he got into Otomedius.
Hell, in all these games, IGA's just been a producer who at most can offer suggestions and what to change when it comes to the game's actual development, which the team can actually ignore at times. Go blame the directors or designers. It's pretty evident that by the DS titles, he had to start asking for lower and lower budgets even with the exploration titles, citing the sprite and background reuse. He was pretty much already digging at the bottom of the barrel to get his babies made.
It's doubtful that he has as much control as you think he does. He's just a leaf blown in the wind like Gabriel...
You might not have liked how much he distilled the franchise, but that's pretty much why the series had any sort of presence in the 2000's. The series had already lost its intrigue before SoTN. It was SoTN and his and KCEK's later releases that kept the series afloat.
-
Lament of Innocence, for instance, wasn't even supposed to have exploration elements. Those were only put in after pressure from the suits
that would explain a lot actually.
-
But on the other hand, PoR's Dracula was the first Lugosi-type we had in quite some time, Chronicles notwithstanding. Even the KCEK games used SotN's Drac.
Well, still, in game he looked like a colourfull SOTN edit. :)
Speaking of Nathan, I'm surprised nobody brings him up or Reinhardt when they bitch about nobodies defeating Dracula, but bring up Jonathan. I guess because they have a whip, even if it's not even the vampire killer?
I think its because COTM is not regarded as canon and Reinchardt was supposed to be Belmont in the begining of development, so technically he could be counted as "would-be" Belmont. And CV64 / LOD doesn't counted as canon too.
the novel itself if I recall, has Olrox as the villain, trying to take over the void of power Dracula left behind.
I bet it would make a better plot for the game, then actual DOS story.
Lament of Innocence, for instance, wasn't even supposed to have exploration elements. Those were only put in after pressure from the suits
Well, if that was the case, then it sure makes some things quite clear.
-
Reinhardt was supposed to be Belmont in the begining of development, so technically he could be counted as "would-be" Belmont. And CV64 / LOD doesn't counted as canon too.
I remember hearing that the Schneider family was descended from the Belmonts, just as the Fernandez family was descended from the Belnades/Vernandes family.
-
"There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person," says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex.
-
Castlevania: homogenous or amorphous? And how much?
This is a historical point that has twisted the conversation over the years. Look at it this way: CVII: Simon's Quest was radically different than Castlevania 1, and it remains more or less by itself in the franchise in terms of game design. Despite its flaws, it stands out as something distinctive and interesting in the franchise. Now, SotN, when it was by itself as the only "Castleroid," really stood out as an interesting alternative presentation of Castlevania. It had some tangential roots in Simon's Quest, but was very different in how it was more overtly inspired by Super Metroid. Nevertheless, it worked as a one-off like Simon's Quest.
The reason this happened was because of the lack of an "overseer" in Castlevania. It didn't allow any one style to take root over the franchise's core identity established in CV1; rather, it allowed various rifs on the idea, sometimes very similar, sometimes very different, but always interesting. Super Castlevania IV, Bloodlines, and Rondo all share paternal DNA, but are vastly different creatures in visual style, level design, graphics, etc within a span of a few years. Each team gave their all to their particular vision. The same could be said for the N64 games, which were only made because the lack of an overseer, resulting in two games that pulled from various disparate elements of the series that were vastly different from the latter 3D games. (Despite their lack of recognition, they essentially were what Mario 64 was to Mario). We would have never known that style of a 3D Castlevania was possible if LoI had been the first 3D release. (Conversely, if Mario 64's changed but respectful game design had not been accepted because it wasn't identical to 2D Mario, we never would have had the Mario Galaxy games).
Anyway, IGA kept the series going, and tried to link it all up story-wise, but this resulted in a far more constrained view of Castlevania that began to look at SotN as the paternal DNA, when it was more like a recessive gene that was meant only to pop up from time to time. I read a Nintendo Power interview from circa 2005 where he talks about innovation in gameplay over improved graphics. He meant well, but his innovation came to mean gimmicks on top of a SotN base. On the one hand, even though budget was an issue, Castlevania: The Adventure Rebirth was an intriguing if limited entry made on a shoestring budget, I'd bet. So I can't fully use budget constraints as IGA's main issue. On the other hand, IGA lamented the loss of popularity for earlier Castlevanias, which is one of the reasons he put out Castlevania: Chronicles on PS1. It's confusing. But by and large, it doesn't usually work to keep one person in charge of something for too long. (As much as Hideo Kojima impressed with MGS 1 and 2--since then, it's been a mixed bag that's been more focused on early Cold War imagery rather than near-future stealth).
Whatever the case, Castlevania has hit a huge identity crisis. Many people, especially in the media, had decided nothing but the SotN style will do. In the meantime, the divisive over-saturation of that style led to a slow process of disinterest. Combined with multiple failures in 3D in a 3D-obsessed industry, and it was decided that Castlevania had to be drastically reimagined in a reboot. Rather than paternal DNA from CV1 or SotN, it was decided that a Chimera of popular or acclaimed modern action video games would do the trick: God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, and Uncharted. Now, where they got the idea that an aesthetic based on things like Lord of the Rings, Van Helsing, and Underworld was a solution to making the visuals relevant, I'm not so certain on that logic. But I digress. By my logic of a lack of an overseer being good, LoS, much as I hate to say it, can be accepted as a one-off. But to make it the new "paternal DNA" definition of Castlevania, is a danger that threatens the franchise's future. Because you're starting with a base product that is further and further away from Castlevania's identity.
-
IGA missed to me missed the whole point of what made Castlevania gaming good. Instead of keeping the gameplay, design, and difficulty balance simple and tight. He went the complete opposite. Tossed in way to many variables that made it impossible to salvage anything in that department.
I just watched the Videogame's Nerd Castlevania marathon, again. And due to this topic the ending of the final episode stuck out this time even more, and he said it best. (The part about "there's so many variables here" and up until the end of the video... but start with part 1 if you've never seen it)
AVGN CastleVania Part 4 - Cinemassacre.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSoQWmcr5mc#)
Course, I don't completely agree with the Nerd, as for me even Super Castlevania complicated things too much too with the whip everywhere idea (to me, Bloodlines was the best evolution of the 16-Bit vania games. Combining the best of bother worlds: Both the classic NES vania games and the SNES SCIV game.... Plus Bloodlines introduces enough new things while still feeling like the great classics of past).
Sigh. This series is so messed up now... I only hope more vania games like Rebirth (downloadable with aim to please retro vania fans) come out still... Course it would be nice for a real reboot that brings back the series to it's former glory, and by combining past games like CIII, Bloodlines, XX, and Rondo to make the ultimate linear mutipath vania game with a ton of levels too (and don't forget about extra difficulty levels & loops)... yes, I'm dreaming here. :(
-
Sigh. This series is so messed up now... I only hope more vania games like Rebirth (downloadable with aim to please retro vania fans) come out still... Course it would be nice for a real reboot that brings back the series to it's former glory, and by combining past games like CIII, Bloodlines, XX, and Rondo to make the ultimate linear mutipath vania game with a ton of levels too (and don't forget about extra difficulty levels & loops)... yes, I'm dreaming here. :(
As far as Rebirth goes, it would be amazing to see a Belmont's Revenge Rebirth that utilizes all the resources available, as I conceived in this thread: http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,2620.msg47278.html#msg47278 (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,2620.msg47278.html#msg47278)
But Sinful, I wonder what you'll think of KCEK's two N64 3D entries. There's a bit of a learning and pacing curve to them...but I'd say about 3 levels of each provide their basic flavor (with some of the latter levels building on the mixture of action-platforming and structured exploration of the earlier levels). The AVGN wasn't totally fair with them, IMO.
A much fairer review (albeit it spoils about half the levels and cut-scenes) is this one done in 2011: RetroSnow: Castlevania (Nintendo 64) Review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMtZUCqfmXE#) (Here, the reviewer, who ranks Rondo and Bloodlines as his favorites, says he ranks CV64 in his top 5 for the series, and thinks it is underrated).
As I look at other reviews about CV64 and its reimagining, Legacy of Darkness, even though I like some aspects of the former, I might have to give the latter the better position on my list in the future.
-
As far as Rebirth goes, it would be amazing to see a Belmont's Revenge Rebirth that utilizes all the resources available, as I conceived in this thread: http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,2620.msg47278.html#msg47278 (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,2620.msg47278.html#msg47278)
But Sinful, I wonder what you'll think of KCEK's two N64 3D entries. There's a bit of a learning and pacing curve to them...but I'd say about 3 levels of each provide their basic flavor (with some of the latter levels building on the mixture of action-platforming and structured exploration of the earlier levels). The AVGN wasn't totally fair with them, IMO.
A much fairer review (albeit it spoils about half the levels and cut-scenes) is this one done in 2011: RetroSnow: Castlevania (Nintendo 64) Review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMtZUCqfmXE#) (Here, the reviewer, who ranks Rondo and Bloodlines as his favorites, says he ranks CV64 in his top 5 for the series, and thinks it is underrated).
Way too funny I watched that review a couple of days ago, but you forgot too mention one review Richter b and that was k-wings review
Season 3 Playback Castlevania: Legacy Of Darkness Review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkgRvxUphK0#ws)
-
Way too funny I watched that review a couple of days ago, but you forgot too mention one review Richter b and that was k-wings review
Season 3 Playback Castlevania: Legacy Of Darkness Review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkgRvxUphK0#ws)
Ha-ha! Yes! I just saw this one, too! And while I wish it showed a few more levels (and had better brightness/contrast settings), it does one of the best jobs in video form of showing the full extent of what KCEK did and planned (as it talks in depth about the beta version and dropped design ideas, like whip swinging over gaps and an even bigger game world). I guess one thing it fails to mention is that the CV64 levels have been remixed in design, so you're not truly getting CV64 and LoD in one game, as the reviewer says. But yeah, beware of spoilers, anyone who hasn't played these games. And WOW, I am reminded of how epic the multiple Dracula battles are.
-
Yeah, I pretty much know when the Nerd (or anyone else) is totally unfair for the most part, so no worries. (And he does so many unfair things too) Basically when the Nerd does his videos, he only focuses on then negative aspects, even if they aren't flaws. As long as he can make people laugh with it, it goes in.
Oh, and I won't watch or read any reviews on the other vania games I haven't played most of yet (most of my review I read or watch after I finish a game... works best this way as most reviewers as so wrong and just don't get so many things about game design and difficulty anyways... I mean, come on, who basically even does know about these things?).
But Sinful, I wonder what you'll think of KCEK's two N64 3D entries. There's a bit of a learning and pacing curve to them...but I'd say about 3 levels of each provide their basic flavor (with some of the latter levels building on the mixture of action-platforming and structured exploration of the earlier levels). The AVGN wasn't totally fair with them, IMO.
Yeah me too? This game really has me interested. The only thing stopping me now or slowing things down is my interest in the 2D classic vania games is still at an all time high. Like right now I'm really giving Castlevania III some series playtime, as it's really got my full out attention at the moment. Especially after I found an NES emulator with Blargg's NTSC TV filter.
From what you said in this quote about the learning and pacing curve really makes me think I'll like it. This is what I look for in my games these days, a nice and long learning curve. ... It shouldn't be long until I play & dedicate a lot of time for the two N64 games. And will let you know my thoughts on them + it's the perfect reason to play some N64 again.
-
Oh, and I won't watch or read any reviews on the other vania games I haven't played most of yet (most of my review I read or watch after I finish a game... works best this way as most reviewers as so wrong and just don't get so many things about game design and difficulty anyways... I mean, come on, who basically even does know about these things?).
Yeah me too? This game really has me interested. The only thing stopping me now or slowing things down is my interest in the 2D classic vania games is still at an all time high. Like right now I'm really giving Castlevania III some series playtime, as it's really got my full out attention at the moment. Especially after I found an NES emulator with Blargg's NTSC TV filter.
From what you said in this quote about the learning and pacing curve really makes me think I'll like it. This is what I look for in my games these days, a nice and long learning curve. ... It shouldn't be long until I play & dedicate a lot of time for the two N64 games. And will let you know my thoughts on them + it's the perfect reason to play some N64 again.
Oh, yeah, you really should enjoy each Castlevania and give each their due. So many of them have such great replay value, especially III. No need to rush or anything. And it's definitely good to avoid spoilers. Regardless, between some of the tricky platforming, the use of three-dimensional space for some of its puzzles, and the staggered save system where you can only save at specific spots/intervals in a level, the N64 games take some effort to figure out and master. It's a deliberate design that requires some investment. (An important part of that is knowing you can use the "R" button to center the camera if you get in a spot where you're measuring an extra precarious jump, as the first entry has more camera quirks than its follow-up. The R Button also can be used to lock onto the nearest enemy, and if you hold it, as I recall, you can perform certain side-steps while holding the analog stick in a specific direction and pushing the jump button, sort of like Richter's backflip).
More generally, I want to note three quick things:
1.) Gametrailers' Castlevania Retrospective has the best visual presentation of the N64 games I've seen, capturing a lot of their appeal in a short space of film (spoilers!): (00:48-6:20) Part III: Realm of Horror - The Castlevania Retrospective (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/part-iii-the-castlevania/705741)
2.) As some retrospectives admit, the Castlevanias on the N64 were rather impressive given they were the first 3D games made by these particular members of KCEK. You can find flaws, sure, but given the hardware limitations and the pressure of the deadlines, I am continually amazed that they more or less captured Dracula's castle in 3D in their first attempt at it. From what interviews/articles I have read, they basically looked at the Castlevania franchise, looked at the lore that influenced its creation, and just went all-out to make Castlevania in 3D. From what I gather, it's my impression that they didn't have any doubt they were doing a faithful translation, it was just a matter of the learning curve for them to execute it.
3.) One among many of the under-appreciated aspects of the N64 games: Their stories. At the end of the the day, if the game is great, I don't need much of a story. A lone man/woman fighting Dracula does just fine if the journey is exciting. But when you give an above-average story in a solid game, it can make the experience even better (particularly for 3D games, I think). It's done in a minimalist way, too, where none of the cut-scenes get so out of hand that they dominate the game. Often they lead right into pivotal gameplay or game mechanics. These game's stories, while still relatively simple, are pretty haunting in their execution. And to get that correct right off the bat, is another impressive accomplishment. I'm amazed that these people stepped away from Castlevania.
PS: Ha-ha--I just noticed in the CV Dungeon's Features section: "Top 20 Reasons Why The N64 Castlevanias Kicked Ass" by the webmaster.
-
So I was tempted to watch that GT Castlevania retrospective for the 3D vania games video. And man, am the only one that thinks the PS2 game look much worse the N64 games? Is this crazy thinking?
And wow, in the PS2 game when you clear all the enemies is when the door open?! :o Wow, this game really is in pure beat 'em up territory. Sad, sad, sad. :(
Oh, yeah, you really should enjoy each Castlevania and give each their due. So many of them have such great replay value, especially III. No need to rush or anything. And it's definitely good to avoid spoilers. Regardless, between some of the tricky platforming, the use of three-dimensional space for some of its puzzles, and the staggered save system where you can only save at specific spots/intervals in a level, the N64 games take some effort to figure out and master. It's a deliberate design that requires some investment. (An important part of that is knowing you can use the "R" button to center the camera if you get in a spot where you're measuring an extra precarious jump, as the first entry has more camera quirks than its follow-up. The R Button also can be used to lock onto the nearest enemy, and if you hold it, as I recall, you can perform certain side-steps while holding the analog stick in a specific direction and pushing the jump button, sort of like Richter's backflip).
Yeah, I knew about the camera thing right away. It's something I look for in 3D games ASAP + make sure I get very familiar with the camera right away. Doing this almost always eliminates camera problems for me in 3D games... Yet it's sad to hear that most people, including the Nerd (who may of done it intentionally, as he sometimes does in search for humor) never get comfortable with camera in 3D games at all. (Lol, this reminds me of a very professional Shining Force 3 playthrough where the player did a bonus live show. In it, as I watched him struggle so much with the camera made me want to slap him hardcore, even though I love the guy, as there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. Be at one with the shoulder buttons, don't be afraid to use the camera controls at all times until you don't even think about it). But yeah, this falls in the category of most people not learning how to properly play a game before doing a review. And it happens all the freaking time. Sad, sad, sad. :(
Oh, thanks for some of them extra moves like the slide and related moves. Had no idea about that at all.
-
And wow, in the PS2 game when you clear all the enemies is when the door open?! :o Wow, this game really is in pure beat 'em up territory. Sad, sad, sad. :(
Wow, you don´t seem to know anything about these kind of games. It is the custom ever since the first Devil May Cry. Otherwise you could just outrun every enemy.
-
am the only one that thinks the PS2 game look much worse the N64 games? Is this crazy thinking?
as far as literally looking better?
yes, yes it is crazy.
The LoI models are far less polygonal, and more smoother and better looking than the N64 ones. same for the areas and their textures, which look more stretched out in CV64.
THAT SAID- LoI is pretty visually underwhelming for a PS2 game, and really isnt up to par with what it can do visually.
As far as looking better atmospherically- well, they both have very distinct, different atmospheres and feels. LoI follows the Ayami Kojima gothic feel, while the CV64 games have that N64/early PS1 adventure game feel while still retaining a dark castlevania atmosphere.
-
LoI is probably my favorite of the 3D games in terms of aesthetics. I don't think it's underwhelming. The enemies may be oddly shiny, and the character faces pretty atrocious, but I think it holds up in strong color and visual design in the areas. The only problem is that it repeats itself so much that their effect is lost. But there are tons of little details, the sort of thing that is even absent in something like Lords: original paintings, the hanging globes in the lab, etc. I also just find its architecture much more interesting, especially since it completely subverts its own setting and has each area represent a different time period, even if they're all from the future.
Castlevania 64 was kinda just boring. Very standard and typical. I honestly didn't find much atmosphere in it, and I can't see the fog as helping that. It was just very muddy and plain in general.
In terms of gameplay, they all under-perform. CV64 just has a weird camera, pretty clunky controls, and is pretty slow and not in a methodical way like CV1 and its kin. But in addition to that, I never found the level design that enticing. It's better than the other 3D titles, but it still feels empty at times.
Lament and Curse are pretty much worse though with their repeating box rooms. And Lords just has no sense of flow or cohesiveness, and actually repeats the stigmata of hallways and flat arenas; it's just better disguised.
-
The only thing I would give CV64 over LOI is
1.Platforming was WAY better
and
2.The horror elements where MUCH better ( I still remember being scared as hell running from the Gardener).
Other than that, I think LOI just about tops CV64 in every other aspect such as gameplay,graphics,and replay value.
-
A LOT OF THE PEOPLE HERE: "All of these games are bad, and it is most definitely IGA's fault."
Didn't Uzo say sometime back it's the director who makes the decisions and that the producer is only the "Come on guys, we can do it!" type of person?
And regardless of that above, you can't cast all of the blame onto IGA's head, when clearly there was a team of over 40 or 50 other people that had to do with the game too, ya know (as BingleGod alluded to).
I will agree though, that the IGA-era games got boring after a while. Symphony of the Night is literally the only Metroidvania I can play over and over again. The N64 titles were actually some of my favorite, and I think a remake of Legacy of Darkness would be the greatest thing ever (simply because I want Cornell's and Henry's stories on top of Reinhardt's and Carrie's.)
inb4 omg why does everybody want remakes rather than new games
-
I don't think it's underwhelming.
Underwhelming as far as a PS2 game goes, yes it is. It just doesnt utilize the PS2's full potential.
-
why would i care about that
-
Wow, you don't seem to know anything about these kind of games. It is the custom ever since the first Devil May Cry. Otherwise you could just outrun every enemy.
It seems on of my replies for here got lost or something?... Anywho, like I'll just say it again; Yes, I don't know nothing about the PS2 games. I haven't played them yet, so how would I? I can only assume. But fear not, as I never rule games 100% until I've come very close to mastering them (I don't believe beating games once is enough to fully understand a game most of the time too). So cheer up, chums, my negativity toward these games should mean nothing without having even played them. They're just empty first impressions before even touching these games (so the worst type of impressions).
And to cheer fans of these PS2 games even more. A very close friend of mine says these are his fave vania games (though he hasn't played many of them, at least he played and beat part 3 & Bloodlines. My most fave vania games). The second PS2 game he likes much more then the first saying "It's a massive improvement!" (What do you guys think? Right or wrong?) Saying it even "Blows away SotN" (Another vania game he owned and beat... I think that's all the previous vania games he played? Maybe the first NES one too?)... And though he tells me to play these games because he thinks they're the best vania games, to me I'm very hesitant because they really don't seem like vania games at all to me (totally different and I don't yet have to mood to try something like this)... and the graphics really don't impress me... most PS2 3D graphics don't (you know, the big massive empty boxed rooms with one massive simple & flat texture map covering an entire wall... well, technically more, but you get the idea... and the only effort to put a ton of polygons on are the characters models themselves... I really hate this style beyond belief, and I see it on PS2 game the most... basically that era, starting with the Dreamcast, is the era I got out of gaming... only recently to recover again, mostly thanks to retro goodness and getting back into retro games again.
-
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?
-
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?
Your not the only one.
As you can see in my Game likes I actually like Super Castlevania 4.
It is actually my second favorite castlevania game of all time next to symphony.
I pretty much enjoy classicvania just as much as metroidvania and I'm a fan of both.
Its just that if you even defend IGA or his game in the slightest around here SOME people will automatically label you a "IGA fanboy".
-
And to cheer fans of these PS2 games even more. A very close friend of mine says these are his fave vania games (though he hasn't played many of them, at least he played and beat part 3 & Bloodlines. My most fave vania games). The second PS2 game he likes much more then the first saying "It's a massive improvement!" (What do you guys think? Right or wrong?) Saying it even "Blows away SotN" (Another vania game he owned and beat... I think that's all the previous vania games he played? Maybe the first NES one too?)... And though he tells me to play these games because he thinks they're the best vania games, to me I'm very hesitant because they really don't seem like vania games at all to me (totally different and I don't yet have to mood to try something like this)... and the graphics really don't impress me... most PS2 3D graphics don't (you know, the big massive empty boxed rooms with one massive simple & flat texture map covering an entire wall... well, technically more, but you get the idea... and the only effort to put a ton of polygons on are the characters models themselves... I really hate this style beyond belief, and I see it on PS2 game the most... basically that era, starting with the Dreamcast, is the era I got out of gaming... only recently to recover again, mostly thanks to retro goodness and getting back into retro games again.
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.
-
So I was tempted to watch that GT Castlevania retrospective for the 3D vania games video. And man, am the only one that thinks the PS2 game look much worse the N64 games? Is this crazy thinking?
And wow, in the PS2 game when you clear all the enemies is when the door open?! :o Wow, this game really is in pure beat 'em up territory. Sad, sad, sad. :(
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?).
Anyway, I, of course, don't think you're crazy one bit. I won't say that the PS2 entries were total garbage, though, and Gametrailers did a good job of making those games look more varied in level design than they generally are. It reminds me more clearly why LoI was superior to CoD. (The first time I played LoI, I loved it; and I still admire aspects of it, though now find it pretty boring on the whole. On the other hand, CoD basically became a monotonous experience I had to force myself through). Really, it comes down to tastes, and you can like aspects of both teams' attempts.
Atmosphere: Lament of Innocence aims for the elegance of SotN, and Curse of Darkness is a muddier variation of that, while CV64 and Legacy of Darkness aim for the gritty Gothic horror feeling of Castlevania IV and Simon's Quest, IMO, with a touch of the "Industrial" feel found in some of Bloodlines.
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.
Level Design: LoI has essentially miniature Castleroid levels linked by a central stage select hub. The levels have some occasional obstacles or minor platforming to add variety, but mostly involve trudging boxed area to boxed area, beating up foes and finding hidden power-ups. CoD truly is a boxy, super-repetitive Castleroid in 3D, but if you had it take place across the countryside, and if you stripped out 99% of any platforming. The N64 games are more like Mario 64: They're obstacle courses that feel more open. Some are based more around exploration and puzzles, others action-platforming. Variety and layering of level design is what sets the N64 games apart.
Music: Honestly, all four of these games have excellent music. The N64 games lean more toward "subtle" and "ambient," while the PS2 games are more in line with SotN.
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.
Wow, you don´t seem to know anything about these kind of games. It is the custom ever since the first Devil May Cry. Otherwise you could just outrun every enemy.
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.
-
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. ;D
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! :D 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. :P
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! :o
-
Man, them last good points about CoD look mighty good! Makes me want to play the game now! :o
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/guideus-077.jpg)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidefog_066-067.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/guidefog_060-061.jpg)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidesog_050-051.jpg (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidesog_050-051.jpg)
-
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/guideus-077.jpg)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidefog_066-067.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/guidefog_060-061.jpg)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidesog_050-051.jpg (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv64/packing/guidesog_050-051.jpg)
no hotlinking allowed
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nintendojo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FXenoblade-Chronicles-Colony-9-640x360.jpg&hash=441c879280aa80a411e35abdfeaa9716)
Yes, you can actually make your way all the way down there