Topic: Konami Facebook team responding to Operation: Akumajo

[cecil-kain]

No need to generalize. I more or less support this idea of what Castlevania is.
While Dracula is a big part of the mythos I always felt that the series could become much more if it threw away its old formula where the Dracula is a centerpiece villain. There is many other dark monsters in the world for Belmonts to fight to, and besides in later years Dracula value as main villain was really cheapened by the fact that practically everyone and they mother defeated "the most powerfull dark creature in the world that could bring an End of the World and plunge it into darkness". His cheap ressurection almost every 15 minutes didn't help either. He should be a formidable powerfull monster, not a scarecrow of a final boss for every game.

Belmonts fight monsters in the world. Dracula is an ultimate powerfull villain who's presence is not mandatory in a every single instance of conflict.

He should be like a supervisor for forces of darkness. He controls them, but not present every time, when Belmonts bash his forces or attacks one of his strongholds. And he must have many charismatic liutenants like Carmilla, Orlox, Bartley, Reaper who could take mantle of the final boss in some instances. And maybe some rivals who fight him for dominance (Galamoth).

Lots of good points here, but you can just as easily fault Konami for over-milking the cow.  The original Castlevania was remade what, 4 times?  Granted SCV4 and Chrociles were fantastic, but both of those games could have explored new narratives instead of recycling the Simon story constantly.  More recently, some of the portable games really could have used more time in development --PoR immediately comes to mind with its cheaply remixed portraits...  Although DoS had some excellent features (like Julius Mode) most of those innovations should have been developed for its immediate predecessor.  If only Konami had given AoS more time in development, it could have been that much more amazing --and DoS wouldn't have even been necessary.  Sadly, these are the sort of things that happen when businessmen dominate the arts --because unlike artists, businessmen really don't mind cutting corners for a quick profit.

He is a new developer - he has right to do with the series what he want to do. Not everyone like it, but I don't want to bash him for having his own perception of the series. Especially if his games take place in different continuty alltogether. Such approach doesn't bother me at all.

Cox can design whatever game he wants, but when you invoke a brand like Castlevania --then you're wandering into the murky realm of expectations.  Fortunately for Cox, Castlevania is the just about the only video game series with whip-centric monster-combat gameplay --otherwise there's no way he could have possibly gotten away with a statement like that.  Imagine if he tried to reboot Metroid and said "it's about a space warrior who likes to run around and shoot things."  Either way --Lords of Shadow is here to stay.  The real issue right now is the future of Akumajo Dracula.

Considering how much interpretations Batman had in the past I don't think that is a good example.

Why not?  Multiple reboots shouldn't make a difference --they all respect the same source material.  "Wealthy man uses his millions to dress up like a bat and fight crime"  But if you prefer, we can certainly narrow it down.  Take your pick.



No pretenders here --both are Batman.  Obviously a couple generations apart...

[KaZudra]

As for Batman, Nolan's Batman Flicks suffer to sloppy writing particularly with Batman himself.
as for example, he broods on for most of the first movie about being a symbol that is uncorruptible yet in the next movie try to pass the torch to Harvey Dent (I might add who has very, very little in common with the original) who predictably and foolishly corrupts.

As for Castlevania, the mythos is actually pretty retarded when you think about it enough. Dracula rises every time he's got a chance just to be struck down by the belmont clan and thier mystic weapon that's origin is just as ridiculous as Bionic Commando's Wife Arm.
Why do we enjoy them? Simple. The Gameplay, the setting, the lone warrior who kills horror movie icons and mythological and Middle Earth creatures, sometimes we enjoy the cheesy story, but how many times can they repeat themselves?
Did you know they did the Cv2 scenario 3 times already?
As enjoyable the games are and the characters are too, even I admit the story is incredibly redundant.

As for Reboot, a Reboot is a Re imagining of a story as a whole, taking the parts seen as good and discarding the rest.
In castlevania terms, The setting, the gameplay, and characters were kept.

The Story and Mythos were discarded for reasons I understand.

As individual games, Castlevania is great. but as a whole, the story and mythos gets broken and much more confusing, especially as of late with IGA's team. Some games actually amount to nothing, while others are shitty direct sequels.
Some where great, some were not so great. but the broken, confusing mythos can be appreciated as is...

As much as I love the classic games, I really want LoS to be as Distant to the original in terms of story, I love castlevania, but I really want to see something new.

but the real point is this:
Most fan will not accept LoS simply because they cannot let go of thier classic Characters, I say this; Let the classic games be, If you wanna see them again... GO play that game!

I love the old timeline with its nonsensical values and events, but Que Sera Sera.
I'm moving on, but I'm not gonna forget the old Games, and no-one is telling anyone to forget them either. 

[A-Yty]

Most fan will not accept LoS simply because they cannot let go of thier classic Characters,

1. What exactly proves this? Most of the criticism towards LoS hardly ever mentions characters as its weak point (mostly, it's about the name-dropping).

2. Even if that were true, so what? What's the point of getting rid of those characters? A random guy doesn't know a thing about "Gabriel Belmont", but "Simon Belmont" might ring a bell.

If "most fans" want to have the characters be reborn in a reboot, trying to make them feel silly for it is trolly logic. If you're fine with not recreating the characters to prove yourself that you're not fixated on the past, good for you. Some people don't see it the same way, but it doesn't mean they're not ready to get something fresh. That's lazy generalizing, IMO.

And yeah, a reboot is about keeping the important things. Which is why I hope LoS is just an alternate universe instead of a reboot.

[Sumac]

Lots of good points here, but you can just as easily fault Konami for over-milking the cow. Sadly, these are the sort of things that happen when businessmen dominate the arts --because unlike artists, businessmen really don't mind cutting corners for a quick profit.

I agree with this.
And I understand that in many ways it's a Konami fault that series become what it is now. For example if not for their interference CV64 could be much more awesome and push general series into 3D instead of alienating many people about this idea.

However there is one aspect that I think didn't entirely depend on money - it was storytelling. I mean was it that hard for IGA to write something more competent about Belmont's struggle with Dracula? He could consult with some other people or at least make his storylines simplier, instead trying to apply "twist-after-twist" approach. In many ways his attempt at making "rich" storyline for the games ruined some of them. Some of them failed because he didn't have resources to pull quality execution of his ideas, others because the plot was bad by default. In the worst case scenario those two problems overlapped with each other.

Cox can design whatever game he wants, but when you invoke a brand like Castlevania --then you're wandering into the murky realm of expectations.

I once again agree, but still in some cases there are reasonable expectations and unreasonable ones.

After LOS was given to the completely different developer it was only natural to wait some (radically) different approach to the series. After first materials about the game were shown I don't think that there were any reasons to wait for this Castlevania to be in vain of the previous games. And even if someone still had any illusions about this - they should've been canceled when it was said that this game will be a reboot.
I undersatnd that some people didn't want to believe that they favorite series will be (could be) changed in this insatllment so much, but waiting for the game to be "like the previous ones", when everything points to the contrary is even less reasonable.

I have another example of this - recently MK9 was released - this game was a reboot of the series / remake of MK1-MK3 and continuation of the series at the same time. Some people firmly believed that the story of the MK1, MK2 and MK3 will be completely recreated in MK9 to a "T". However all recent examples, when developers revisited that era (in MK Shaolin Monks and MK vs DC Universe) told about contrary - that they will not hesitate to change things even if some of them didn't need any changing in mind of the many fans.
In this case it was tottally reasonable to wait that some elements of the old storyline will be changed, simply because developers did it in the past with even less reasons to do so and because this game was a "reboot" (hence bound to have some changes by default).
Seems some people didn't take all this information to a heart and, when story was unveiled and the fact that there were some major changes was discovered those people were SHOCKED that it happened (commencing unholy amount of shitstorm in the process), when everything pointed that it WILL happen.
Fans want to believe in something, but sometimes they need to be reasonable with their expectations.

Why not?  Multiple reboots shouldn't make a difference --they all respect the same source material. "Wealthy man uses his millions to dress up like a bat and fight crime"

It's practically as vague (if not even more so) as "Lonely warrior fights monsters with the whip". With such description you can make practically everything - from absurd comedy to the grim dark action, gothic fairy tale or even high school comedy-action.
And I believe opinion of how much new work respects source material would differ from fan to fan (basically open-minded vs close-minded). Especially in extreme cases.

[DragonSlayr81]

However Operation: Akumajo goes on, there IS hope(even if it's slim). I'm really estatic today because I just found out Nintendo of America is releasing Xenoblade!!! The rumor was posted by Gamestop and Nintendo of America's twitter confirmed it. Operation: Rainfall was a success. So, the hope is there. Let's just see how we can unite to achieve similar results. It might be harder, as Xenoblade was already in existence. We're asking for things that don't exist(yet). Oh well, callooh! Callay! What a frabjous day!

[cecil-kain]

As for Castlevania, the mythos is actually pretty retarded when you think about it enough. Dracula rises every time he's got a chance just to be struck down by the belmont clan and thier mystic weapon that's origin is just as ridiculous as Bionic Commando's Wife Arm.

Why do we enjoy them? Simple. The Gameplay, the setting, the lone warrior who kills horror movie icons and mythological and Middle Earth creatures, sometimes we enjoy the cheesy story, but how many times can they repeat themselves?

Did you know they did the Cv2 scenario 3 times already?
As enjoyable the games are and the characters are too, even I admit the story is incredibly redundant.

This has much to to with over-milking the cow, like I mentioned earlier.  The premise of the mythos was always the Belmont vs Dracula rivalry, but each game built on that premise in their own unique ways --and not always too constructively I might add...  Instead of the instant gratification of fighting Dracula in almost every single game, it might have been a good idea to see a Castlevania explore more "cat and mouse" styles of storytelling.  Imagine for example, if Dracula's Curse were expanded to cover to 2 or 3 games --where Dracula's character is present in the story menacing and taunting the player, but sending his undead lieutenants to destroy you...  A cliffhanger ending or 2 --then you get treated to a satisfying epic battle in a later game.  Oh well, just a thought...

As for Reboot, a Reboot is a Re imagining of a story as a whole, taking the parts seen as good and discarding the rest.  In castlevania terms, The setting, the gameplay, and characters were kept.

These points are highly debatable --most notably due to the many obvious non-Castlevania influences.  God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Dante's Inferno (to name a few) had just as much influence (if not more) than Akumajo Dracula on Lords of Shadow's development.  The fundamental question that needs to be answered is "just how much liberty can be taken reimagining a mythology before it becomes something else entirely?"  Reimagining without any limits can be used as excuse to sell anything --and we believe it has.

As much as I love the classic games, I really want LoS to be as Distant to the original in terms of story, I love castlevania, but I really want to see something new.

It's a big world out there with plenty of other fantastic games to chose from.  Lords of Shadow is the only one that's deliberately trying to bury Akumajo Dracula.  Hopefully that changes...

The Story and Mythos were discarded for reasons I understand.

As individual games, Castlevania is great. but as a whole, the story and mythos gets broken and much more confusing, especially as of late with IGA's team. Some games actually amount to nothing, while others are shitty direct sequels.
Some where great, some were not so great. but the broken, confusing mythos can be appreciated as is...

I think we can agree that Castlevania needed a reboot.  There's generation gap that never grew up with Simon Belmont and Konami needs to tap that market.  In fact reboots were first conceived by the comic book industry to sell classic characters and stories to new generations --not to entirely reimagine and reinvent everything (at the risk of alienating older fans).  After almost 75 years, Superman is still Superman.  If Lords of Shadow can throw the Belmont/Dracula rivalry under the bus, what do you think Castlevania might look like 50 years from now --after a couple more of these "reimaginings"?  Twilight, anyone?

but the real point is this:
Most fan will not accept LoS simply because they cannot let go of thier classic Characters, I say this; Let the classic games be, If you wanna see them again... GO play that game!

I love the old timeline with its nonsensical values and events, but Que Sera Sera.

I'm moving on, but I'm not gonna forget the old Games, and no-one is telling anyone to forget them either.

Perhaps not, but we *are* being told to forget about the 1999 Demon Castle War.

1. What exactly proves this? Most of the criticism towards LoS hardly ever mentions characters as its weak point (mostly, it's about the name-dropping).

2. Even if that were true, so what? What's the point of getting rid of those characters? A random guy doesn't know a thing about "Gabriel Belmont", but "Simon Belmont" might ring a bell.

If "most fans" want to have the characters be reborn in a reboot, trying to make them feel silly for it is trolly logic. If you're fine with not recreating the characters to prove yourself that you're not fixated on the past, good for you. Some people don't see it the same way, but it doesn't mean they're not ready to get something fresh. That's lazy generalizing, IMO.

And yeah, a reboot is about keeping the important things. Which is why I hope LoS is just an alternate universe instead of a reboot.

Well said.

However there is one aspect that I think didn't entirely depend on money - it was storytelling. I mean was it that hard for IGA to write something more competent about Belmont's struggle with Dracula? He could consult with some other people or at least make his storylines simplier, instead trying to apply "twist-after-twist" approach. In many ways his attempt at making "rich" storyline for the games ruined some of them. Some of them failed because he didn't have resources to pull quality execution of his ideas, others because the plot was bad by default. In the worst case scenario those two problems overlapped with each other.

Igarashi clearly had some story-telling ideas that didn't fit very well, but there were some problems before he took over the series...  First off Castlevania had written itself into a corner with Dracula rising once every 100 years, so Igarashi was out to create some fluff to explain what was happening between resurrections.  And there was one other pre-IGA problem I've mentioned a couple time before --the story of Castlevania Bloodlines.  Without Bloodlines desperately trying to make its connection to Bram Stoker's novel, we wouldn't have had PoR or OoE giving us all this nonsense about Belmonts disappearing, not being able to touch the whip and so on...  Then you have other fluff stories CoD and DoS --both of which were disappointing sequels to 2 of the best games in the series...  Still I'm not sure how anyone else could have done much better with the limitations he was working under.  These problems highlight the need for a real reboot --after Demon Castle War, of course.

I once again agree, but still in some cases there are reasonable expectations and unreasonable ones.

Nothing unreasonable about a Belmont vs Dracula story, is there?

After LOS was given to the completely different developer it was only natural to wait some (radically) different approach to the series. After first materials about the game were shown I don't think that there were any reasons to wait for this Castlevania to be in vain of the previous games. And even if someone still had any illusions about this - they should've been canceled when it was said that this game will be a reboot.
I undersatnd that some people didn't want to believe that they favorite series will be (could be) changed in this insatllment so much, but waiting for the game to be "like the previous ones", when everything points to the contrary is even less reasonable.

I think most of the fans may have played LoS regardless --most of us do enjoy playing other games besides Castlevania.  LoS was actually strong enough to stand on its own as a separate IP, without capitalizing on the Castlevania brand.  Still I'm sure there were some mainstream players that bought LoS, expecting a legitimate Akumajo Dracula experience, and got hit with some massive buyers remorse when they found out what it really was.

I have another example of this - recently MK9 was released - this game was a reboot of the series / remake of MK1-MK3 and continuation of the series at the same time. Some people firmly believed that the story of the MK1, MK2 and MK3 will be completely recreated in MK9 to a "T". However all recent examples, when developers revisited that era (in MK Shaolin Monks and MK vs DC Universe) told about contrary - that they will not hesitate to change things even if some of them didn't need any changing in mind of the many fans.
In this case it was tottally reasonable to wait that some elements of the old storyline will be changed, simply because developers did it in the past with even less reasons to do so and because this game was a "reboot" (hence bound to have some changes by default).
Seems some people didn't take all this information to a heart and, when story was unveiled and the fact that there were some major changes was discovered those people were SHOCKED that it happened (commencing unholy amount of shitstorm in the process), when everything pointed that it WILL happen.
Fans want to believe in something, but sometimes they need to be reasonable with their expectations.

Ironically, Mortal Kombat did almost exactly the same thing Star Trek did for its big reboot.  The characters and relationships were remarkably faithful to their origins --but still the story is completely fresh...  Worlds different from what we see happening in LoS.

It's practically as vague (if not even more so) as "Lonely warrior fights monsters with the whip". With such description you can make practically everything - from absurd comedy to the grim dark action, gothic fairy tale or even high school comedy-action.
And I believe opinion of how much new work respects source material would differ from fan to fan (basically open-minded vs close-minded). Especially in extreme cases.

This gets back to the question I posed earlier "just how much liberty can be taken reimagining a mythology before it becomes something else entirely?"  I've also been thinking about how Cox said ”For me, Castlevania was always about a lone warrior battling supernatural creatures with a whip.” and I realized something rather shocking.  I already mentioned how that comment has nothing to do with the storytelling or mythology, but there's something else...  I realized that's exactly how my wife would describe Castlevania.  Either Cox has a very narrow view --defining the entire Akumajo Dracula series by just one of its many, many gameplay elements --or he's actually played it about as much as my wife.  Go figure.

[Sumac]

The fundamental question that needs to be answered is "just how much liberty can be taken reimagining a mythology before it becomes something else entirely?"

I stand that if authors have they own vision of the subject nothing should limit them in their creativity. Experiments could have interesting consequences and open possibilities that no-one have ever thought about before.
Of course a win-win situation is when you have two teams - one working on experimental approach, another on the traditional one.

Lords of Shadow is the only one that's deliberately trying to bury Akumajo Dracula.

I don't think that was the intention. They wanted create a modern blockbuster. The fact that it "blocked" the way to the older approach is not an evil intent by Konami or Cox. It just desire of Konami to make money and give series a much needed new blood.

If Lords of Shadow can throw the Belmont/Dracula rivalry under the bus, what do you think Castlevania might look like 50 years from now --after a couple more of these "reimaginings"?

AOS / DOS, - those games wasn't that close related to the source material and took plenty of freedom with the mythos. And Dracula wasn't in them, so LOS didn't invent that.
And as I that before there is plenty of stuff to explore in the series besides Dracula. Let's give  the old count some rest.

Still I'm not sure how anyone else could have done much better with the limitations he was working under.

I think there could be a way to make them good. POR for example had an excellent premise, but it's execution killed it without any mercy.
And I'm agree about Bloodlines - though if IGA really wanted to solve this problem he could retconned it - like he did with CV64 and Legends.

Still I'm sure there were some mainstream players that bought LoS, expecting a legitimate Akumajo Dracula experience, and got hit with some massive buyers remorse when they found out what it really was.

In the age when there is internet and tonnes of gaming magazines one could blame only himself for such..."unexpected" turn of events.

Nothing unreasonable about a Belmont vs Dracula story, is there?

I meant that expecting presentation and traditional approach from LOS, when everything pointed out to the contrary was unreasonable.

The characters and relationships were remarkably faithful to their origins

Nope.
Kitana was victimized, instead of being amazon warrior princess, Raiden become human-like unlike any of his previous versions in the games, Liu become less goody-goody-two shoes and comes of as living human instead of archetype, Mileena became insane monster with a body of porn actress and mind of 5 year old, insted of cunning and treacherous strategist like in the past games. I think if I count how many small and big changes characters had in this game, then it would be easier to point out who wasn't changed in any way at all.

Either Cox has a very narrow view --defining the entire Akumajo Dracula series by just one of its many

Or maybe it's just his general perception of the series because he deliberately don't want to use pre-existing mythology and want create something of his own.

[cecil-kain]

I stand that if authors have they own vision of the subject nothing should limit them in their creativity. Experiments could have interesting consequences and open possibilities that no-one have ever thought about before.
Of course a win-win situation is when you have two teams - one working on experimental approach, another on the traditional one.

There's a significant difference between the author that's writing his own original story, and the author that's been invited to reboot someone else's story.  The reboot author has a much harder job appealing to a new generation of fans, without alienating the old guard.  As for the win-win scenario, we are agreed.  The multiversal approach is the very best solution for the gap that's been created --so we've officially endorsed the idea by incorporating it into our Mission Statement.

I don't think that was the intention. They wanted create a modern blockbuster. The fact that it "blocked" the way to the older approach is not an evil intent by Konami or Cox. It just desire of Konami to make money and give series a much needed new blood.

A clear example of businessmen dominating the art --but in this case, you also have artists that were more interested in making their own game, than respecting their predecessors' work.

AOS / DOS, - those games wasn't that close related to the source material and took plenty of freedom with the mythos. And Dracula wasn't in them, so LOS didn't invent that.

This is fundamentally true, but you can't deny that AoS/DoS were still building on the Belmont vs Dracula mythology.  Aria's whole premise was the epilogue for Dracula's destruction --it would have been the perfect way to end the series.  While Dawn was very nicely executed, it ultimately came off as redundant and unnecessary.  If only Aria had spent more time in development, Dawn's best features (like its Julius Mode) could have been implemented to make an amazing game that much more godly.

In the age when there is internet and tonnes of gaming magazines one could blame only himself for such..."unexpected" turn of events.
I meant that expecting presentation and traditional approach from LOS, when everything pointed out to the contrary was unreasonable.

In terms of the LoS' atmosphere and gameplay, you are certainly correct.  But in terms of the story --Gabriel's descent, Dracula's role, and the Final Boss were all closely guarded secrets.  Some of the trailers were also a tad misleading in these regards --the TGS trailer in particular...
 

Nope.
Kitana was victimized, instead of being amazon warrior princess, Raiden become human-like unlike any of his previous versions in the games, Liu become less goody-goody-two shoes and comes of as living human instead of archetype, Mileena became insane monster with a body of porn actress and mind of 5 year old, insted of cunning and treacherous strategist like in the past games. I think if I count how many small and big changes characters had in this game, then it would be easier to point out who wasn't changed in any way at all.

And Kirk was born in outer space instead of Iowa.

Look, I get what you're saying here, I really do.  What I'm pointing out is that the tournament, the characters, the alliances, and the motivations are faithful and familiar --even if some of the finer details don't match up 100%.

Or maybe it's just his general perception of the series because he deliberately don't want to use pre-existing mythology and want create something of his own.

Exactly.  He wanted to do his own thing.

[meanguyjones]

I honestly have no idea why you're still using New Super Mario Bros Wii as a reason why Konami should make a 2D Castlevania. If you showed that banner to anyone working in the game industry as to why 2D games are still viable or can still sell well (not saying they can't) you'd get laughed at so hard.

Theres a huge difference between Nintendo doing a 2D game and other companies doing one. If you want this to be successful you're going to have to be a bit more realistic in your approach.

[Flame]

I don't know how many times I've said it. At least twice. Nintendo is made of money and has former game devs in the upper management. The difference between Nintendo making a 2D game and Konami making a 2D game, is that Nintendo can afford a bomb. It doesn't matter if it succeeds or fails, they can afford it.

Capcom Made Mega Man Legends. It bombed. Still, they greenlit Legends 2, and it in fact had higher production values. It still did not do well.

Both games actually ended up putting Capcom in the red.

The difference between Nintendo and Capcom, for example, is Nintendo would not have gone in the red because of 2 bombed 3D games.

(Theres my trademark Capcom/Megaman example XD )

Do you understand what I mean?  Nintendo can make a 2.5D Mario game. Konami cant afford to take the financial risk.

[cecil-kain]

I honestly have no idea why you're still using New Super Mario Bros Wii as a reason why Konami should make a 2D Castlevania. If you showed that banner to anyone working in the game industry as to why 2D games are still viable or can still sell well (not saying they can't) you'd get laughed at so hard.

Theres a huge difference between Nintendo doing a 2D game and other companies doing one. If you want this to be successful you're going to have to be a bit more realistic in your approach.

As noted earlier, New Super Mario Bros Wii is particularly relevant, because Super Mario 64 practically invented 3-D platforming as we know it.  Moreover, the Super Mario Galaxy Games were absolutely AMAZING!  If I had predicted that a 2-D Mario game could outsell Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 combined, sure I would have been laughed at.  But that wouldn't have made them any less wrong, would it?  Makes we wish I could go back and bet my life savings to take advantage of all that 3-D bias --I'd be able to retire. lol

As for Nintendo being Nintendo, that was discussed ad Nauseum a couple pages back if you want to read up.  The bottom line is that Nintendo is successful because they they invest in ideas, and more importantly --they invest in quality.  If the rest of the industry had the ambition to be like Nintendo, there would be a lot less shovelware --and choosing the right games might actually be difficult.

I don't know how many times I've said it. At least twice. Nintendo is made of money and has former game devs in the upper management. The difference between Nintendo making a 2D game and Konami making a 2D game, is that Nintendo can afford a bomb. It doesn't matter if it succeeds or fails, they can afford it.

Capcom Made Mega Man Legends. It bombed. Still, they greenlit Legends 2, and it in fact had higher production values. It still did not do well.

Both games actually ended up putting Capcom in the red.

The difference between Nintendo and Capcom, for example, is Nintendo would not have gone in the red because of 2 bombed 3D games.

(Theres my trademark Capcom/Megaman example XD )

Do you understand what I mean?  Nintendo can make a 2.5D Mario game. Konami cant afford to take the financial risk.

I get it.  What you're trying to say is that Nintendo has more venture capital.  Point taken.  But what I was saying a few pages back was that Nintendo wasn't always the all-powerful company it is today.  Nintendo suffered with the rest of the industry when everything crashed back in the early 80's --and Nintendo's response was to gamble their entire future on the Famicom/NES --and force high quality standards on themselves and all of their licensees.  Talk about taking a risk --for Konami to take a 2-D Castlevania seriously is risking nothing in comparison.

[Dremn]

Man you are a spoiled shit. This constant ego trip you have like you own some part of the franchise is extremely immature, I bet Konami's PR hates you.

[cecil-kain]

Man you are a spoiled shit. This constant ego trip you have like you own some part of the franchise is extremely immature, I bet Konami's PR hates you.

Flamebait.

[crisis]

Made Mega Man Legends. It bombed. Still, they greenlit Legends 2, and it in fact had higher production values. It still did not do well.

The Legends series isn't the only Capcom license that bombed, they have quite a few *coughLostPlanet2cough*

[Flame]

We aren't talking about then, Cecil. We are talking about NOW.

Back then, 2D games were the norm.

Nowadays, 2D games are a bigger risk. Why? Because they are not quite the norm they used to be. Technology has evolved way past that. And therefore, making a game like that, is a financial risk. They cannot be sure that people will buy it. People might not go for a "lower tech" game, a 2D game, in a world of 3D games.

There are a ton of different factors, but the main fact is it is a financial risk. it deviates from the current norm, and therefore, is a risk.