Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Lelygax on July 26, 2017, 01:41:11 AM
-
So what do you think if there was more game length in Castlevania games?
Imagine for example a classicvania with more stages and a save system with some cutscenes between stages like in Ninja Gaiden, or a Metroidvania with more characters, story and side quests. Would you like it? What would be the perfect balance and play time for you, considering it have a save system and you can return later. Take in account that this time in the poll is not for speed running, but trying to get to the real/best ending blindly, so I mean on your first try, no "new game+" unless its unlock real new content, not just a skin or weapon, but maybe a character or even story/ending. Take the time as game time, like it shows when you save a game or in the menu, not how many days it took to finish with breaks, since you eat/sleep/etc and this time doesnt count.
A lot of times I play a metroidvania game and when I reach the end I'm like "wait, already?". The game have so many items, weapons and skilss that you hardly will use all of them in a single playthrough or find everything before clearing the game, yet the story feels short and character interaction is very rare (Order of Ecclesia expanded on that).
While a lot of fans will return and play it again and again, nothing new will happen and if you get a new item, you wouldn't be using it in a new boss.
But if we look at games like Final Fantasy (sure its a RPG and RPG games tends to be long) you can easily take more than 30 hours in your first playthrough, while finding new things all the time, discovering new places and new story elements. Sometimes you don't even find something really great in item department but you still play it because there is something new.
So imagine for example a Castlevania game with like 5 castles (not like in Belmon't Revenge, I mean 5 castles with SotN size or more) where you can drop items from enemies, buy and sell things in a shop, not use repetitive music like in most of SotN's inverted areas and a lot of hidden items, secrets and events, different endings, etc. Would you play it?
Some franchises had games that even came in multiple discs, sure there is no need nowadays with blu-ray and PC gaming, but imagine a 3 disk Castlevania game back at PS1 era.
Please everyone, share your thoughts and if possible explain why.
Also lets forget about development time and money here in this thread since they are one of the great problems that hinders game length.
I wouldn't lie, if a game is good enough to be enjoyed for more than 4 hours I wouldn't mind if it was a lot longer than that or even if it lasts for all eternity! 8)
Sure if you use artificial lenghtening methods like MMO usually does (kill this monster 10 times) it can become boring, but even with that in mind MMO games usually gets the player attention for more than 100 hours easily, even if playing alone without chatting with anyone (PoR used quests like that). Now imagine if a game had a lot of content but didn't resorted to this (atleast not as main focus), it would be awesome.
-
I play metroidvania games with collection in mind, thus, I tend to exceed all the hours necessary to finish the game blindly, so a 50 hour game time is good for me. With the prices of games these days, I want more bang for my buck.
And I agree with more castles!
I don't mind if a single player game has MMO aspects, FFXV made those weekly timed quests with leader boards and I still enjoy those even if they are repetitive.
-
Something like Bloodlines, many different stages set in different parts of the world, but all stages are as big as entire SoTN.
-
I think if you play non stop with 100% completion it should be 30 - 35 hrs
-
Hmmm. Tough call. I like playing CV games but I don't want them to go on and on till I get bored. I find SCV4 was a good length for a classicvania. SotN was a good length for its type of gameplay too. I guess depending on the game-style in question will determine the length of time.
-
Hmmm. Tough call. I like playing CV games but I don't want them to go on and on till I get bored. I find SCV4 was a good length for a classicvania. SotN was a good length for its type of gameplay too. I guess depending on the game-style in question will determine the length of time.
Can I ask what could make you play for more time and yet not feel bored? Don't take me badly please, its a legit question.
-
Wouldn't wanna go too long with a linear CV- it'd be easy to pad out levels and it could get boring. I always prefer short but extremely polished over padded out lazily for the sake of game length.
I think Rondo did it best- straight shot from beginning to end but the multiple paths, women to find and Maria keep the replay value extremely high, and it'll take a long time if you don't know how to find everything. I'd even say the non-system card mini game adds to the length. 3 also did it superbly with the branching paths and character options. For classic I'd say 4-8 hours. Metroidvania and 3D, 10-24.
-
A Metroidvania style game with 60~90 hours length. Or A linear CV with the length in between Castlevania X68000/SNES Dracula X and CV4 but with more divided paths/alternate stages and multiple playable characters
-
No offence to any one person, but a 90 hour 2d castlevania is ridiculous. The first time I ever played Twilight Princess (doing a lot of exploration and questing etc) I played for around that long, there was well more than enough content for 2 home console titles.
I feel to make a cv game that long without it getting repetitive or stale wouldn't be feasible, financially or cohesively - as one experience.
-
Can I ask what could make you play for more time and yet not feel bored? Don't take me badly please, its a legit question.
lol. No worries dude. I can't exactly give you an accurate time count of when I'd start to feel bored after playing a game from one point to the next. Maybe it's because I'm a casual gamer. I'm not hardcore enough to sit in front of my TV playing games night and day, non-stop. Maybe when I was much younger I could make the attempt, but not now. SCV4 was a good length for a classic CV game. Lots of interesting stages, great music, graphics, etc. But if it went on for any longer then that I'd start to wonder when the game would actually end. Since SotN has a save feature then I don't have to worry too much, but eventually I would start to wonder when that game would end if it went on for far longer then we know it currently. I think zangetsu468 summed it up nicely though:
I feel to make a cv game that long without it getting repetitive or stale wouldn't be feasible, financially or cohesively - as one experience.
-
I'm a bigger fan of the originals, about as long and content filled as Castlevania 3 or Rondo of Blood is enough for me.
CV1 and Rebirth are only a few stages long and can be completed in roughly an hour or less so quantity isn't always a necessity, level design and replayability also play big roles.
-
i'd like something which scratches the obsessive-compulsive itch of collection/completion without bursting the balloon with too many things going on at once. i had to put down skyward sword because there was just too much shit to collect, it began to boggle my brain and seemed like one giant fetch quest after another. designers are always looking for ways to artificially extend play time, evident in long winding maps that lead to an otherwise simple destination, or other modes of gameplay that are essentially the same as the main game (lookin at you, hard mode, time attack, boss rush, etc...)
surely i can't speak for everyone, but we want more characters. we want more moves, spells, other cool things they can do. give us more story if you wish, but i never paid much attention to that anyway. for me it's all about the gameplay.
that idea of multiple castles does sound cool, but it'd be YEARS between games...
-
I seriously think 48 hours is good enough.
Most of the time when it comes to these games, I keep wanting a bit more.
But they have good quality, so I'm fine with them like this.
But if they could expand the game a little more, it would always be great.
I don't know if Metroidvanias could get that long and still work well, I can imagine it happening, but at the same time, not really.
Classic style Castlevanias are a different case, you mentioned Ninja Gaiden, and I can say that I don't imagine a game in that style to be so long, even with save features and all. Maybe if there's more of those branching paths, it can be worked on, but as a linear game, it sure as hell would feel like a marathon if it gets too long.
But I think if they can make a 2D Castlevania and make it longer, they could make some kind of open-world Metroidvania style.
I know most people think of 3D huge games when someone says open world.
But some open world games technically existed even in the 8-bit era, if you can go almost anywhere freely in a world map, it could be considered that, or at least a prototype.
Regardless, I think a game in the style of Simon's Quest (but with a modern Metroidvania gameplay), in which you go in various towns, and you can also unlock a world map for easier travel and go to places you have been before (like in many games that already exist), while it would be pretty similar to Simon's Quest in these aspects, I think that you could find certain castles and places that would use a more Metroidvania layout of exploration.
I think that with this style of game, it would be easier to make a longer game that's still enjoyable.
-
Classic style Castlevanias are a different case, you mentioned Ninja Gaiden, and I can say that I don't imagine a game in that style to be so long, even with save features and all. Maybe if there's more of those branching paths, it can be worked on, but as a linear game, it sure as hell would feel like a marathon if it gets too long.
I did mention Ninja Gaiden, as an example for cutscenes between stages only. I really don't see how a game where you only change stages and nothing more from the game mechanics change would stand out for a long play time too, you need more than that, new things need to happen or appear, not only story.
I liked you Simon's Quest example.
i'd like something which scratches the obsessive-compulsive itch of collection/completion without bursting the balloon with too many things going on at once. i had to put down skyward sword because there was just too much shit to collect, it began to boggle my brain and seemed like one giant fetch quest after another. designers are always looking for ways to artificially extend play time, evident in long winding maps that lead to an otherwise simple destination, or other modes of gameplay that are essentially the same as the main game (lookin at you, hard mode, time attack, boss rush, etc...)
surely i can't speak for everyone, but we want more characters. we want more moves, spells, other cool things they can do. give us more story if you wish, but i never paid much attention to that anyway. for me it's all about the gameplay.
that idea of multiple castles does sound cool, but it'd be YEARS between games...
Like multiple stories in one game? Like N64's Castlevania titles?
About other aspects, I also think that things like places or spells shouldn't be there only as filler, they need to have an purpose (even if the purpose is to give a item or show something cool. If you start noticing that places are too similar or that you're seeing the same enemy placement or enemy type too often, something is wrong, IMO even if something like this happens in a good game, people wouldn't be having time to notice these little things, they'll be too distracted enjoying the rest, unless they are really looking for flaws.
No offence to any one person, but a 90 hour 2d castlevania is ridiculous. The first time I ever played Twilight Princess (doing a lot of exploration and questing etc) I played for around that long, there was well more than enough content for 2 home console titles.
I feel to make a cv game that long without it getting repetitive or stale wouldn't be feasible, financially or cohesively - as one experience.
Didn't played this one yet. These quests and exploration that took you 90 hours were mandatory or side quests? The way you put it sounds like artificial lengthening and while I understand this could happen, I suggested too a good scenario where this wouldn't happen. I would be totally with you if the game gets boring because there isn't enough real content.
lol. No worries dude. I can't exactly give you an accurate time count of when I'd start to feel bored after playing a game from one point to the next. Maybe it's because I'm a casual gamer. I'm not hardcore enough to sit in front of my TV playing games night and day, non-stop. Maybe when I was much younger I could make the attempt, but not now. SCV4 was a good length for a classic CV game. Lots of interesting stages, great music, graphics, etc. But if it went on for any longer then that I'd start to wonder when the game would actually end. Since SotN has a save feature then I don't have to worry too much, but eventually I would start to wonder when that game would end if it went on for far longer then we know it currently. I think zangetsu468 summed it up nicely though:
Yeah, sure, a long game needs a save feature otherwise it would be a pain to play. Thanks, I think I got what you two meant.
I'm trying to distinguish the line between "fun" and "too loong" here. Like, not make a game huge for the sake of being huge, but more like have a large amount of content originally for a game. I always see people talking about how "X or Y unused content" would be cool and "why they cut it from the game, I want to play it". While I understand that some times material is removed for a good reason, a lot of times it would be good to have it, but a time constraint happened. So I'm trying to say more like content planned since the beggining than half-assed things added only to make the game longer.
I'm not trying to change no one opinion, only trying to be clear of what I meant. :P
-
@Lelygax I meant exactly what I wrote. Side quests and exploration(secrets) were included - for example, there were very few heart pieces I didn't acquire. If I rushed through everything I did and never paused the game, it would've been 65-70 hours, no side quests.
I don't see how you can artificially lengthen a game which you don't level up in unless you're leaving it paused to let the counter keep ticking. I personally find games always take noticeably longer on the first playthrough, but this is still considered a lengthy game.
I would recommend watching some TP reviews, I'm not the only person who believes there's enough content for more than 1 game here.
-
@Lelygax I meant exactly what I wrote. Side quests and exploration(secrets) were included - for example, there were very few heart pieces I didn't acquire. If I rushed through everything I did and never paused the game, it would've been 65-70 hours, no side quests.
I don't see how you can artificially lengthen a game which you don't level up in unless you're leaving it paused to let the counter keep ticking. I personally find games always take noticeably longer on the first playthrough, but this is still considered a lengthy game.
I would recommend watching some TP reviews, I'm not the only person who believes there's enough content for more than 1 game here.
I was sleepy at the time and thought you said Skyward Sword (yeah, THAT sleepy). I've played Twilight Princess on Wii and finished it without getting all hearts too, because it was getting boring too.
Maybe its the "feel" or "aura" of this game where they tried to make it feel like a desolate world, but I really felt a lot of areas boring or as if missing things (even if they don't, it was on purpose). This feels even worse than artificial lengthening to me because its made on purpose, so its big for the sake of being big, feels empty and they know it feel empty (not all areas, but a lot of them). When I saw Breath of Wild being a complete open-world game it even worried me it would suffer from the same things, but since I didn't played it I don't know, hopefully not.
To answer it for you, to aritificially lenghten a game it doesn't need RPG elements nor be exploration based. If you get Super Mario Bros 1, double the size of the first level and doesn't adjust the enemy number and placement to it feel good (aka, its not planned from the beggining and you only wanted a bigger level) IMO you artificially expanded the game. The player will take more time to beat this level, it will feel wrong and yet not funny as if it had the original size. Now if lets say, you get a level that was thought to have the double size since the start, or if you adapt the level correctly, it won't feel artificial, there will be things to keep you interested until the end.
Only to be clear I also think that TP is really big, maybe even as big as two games, not only because of the alternate versions of most areas. But the problem is that it doesnt felt as if it had content for 2 games, but had the size, so it became a chore to me sometimes when I needed to backtrack and nothing interesting was happening.
Your post made me re-think some things and remember another, so I thank you for that. The different opinions in this thread are very interesting and enlightening.
-
I'm still not agreeing with the term "artificial lengthening", because it's too subjective in my mind. Sotn had those extra halls for loading and an inverted Castle, some could call those artificial ways to lengthen the game. Super Mario 64 probably had less enemies to surface area ratio than the older games making it feel "more empty" - some could call this artificial. Then there's games that reuse or recycle areas or involve back tracking.. Etc.
I think the fact that an individual believes a game has been lengthened or vice versa by means of "being cheap" is too subjective to measure accurately. In the case of TP, one can argue that's what they believe, on the other hand the argument can be made that in terms of narrative in a Zelda game it probably easily has one of the most (if not the most) amount of narrative throughout the game in relative terms. Compared to a more traditional Zelda like ALTTP where you get story at the beginning, end and maybe a snippet in the middle.
Back onto the main topic I think there's only so long you can play a game and explore a world in through one continuous narrative without it getting stale.
-
i'd like something which scratches the obsessive-compulsive itch of collection/completion without bursting the balloon with too many things going on at once. i had to put down skyward sword because there was just too much shit to collect, it began to boggle my brain and seemed like one giant fetch quest after another. designers are always looking for ways to artificially extend play time, evident in long winding maps that lead to an otherwise simple destination, or other modes of gameplay that are essentially the same as the main game (lookin at you, hard mode, time attack, boss rush, etc...)
This happened to me with Far Cry 4 just recently. It made me feel like, "WHAT THE FU...okay, fine, I'll do all of it. YES, all of it. Goddammit."
Length of game for a CV really would depend on what kind of game it is. Like already mentioned, a side-scrolling platformer could get tedious if stretched out too long. An exploration-based game would be a different story for me, though. If something could hold my interest as well as Dark Souls does, I could play it for ages. Just depends on the amount of real depth put into the game, and whether or not it's fun.
-
I would love a long Classicvania style game. In a classic style, you don't return to previous areas as you would in a Metroidvania (obviously we know this) and so in order to have around 50 hours of game play you would need a lot more areas and content. Of course, you could have several branching paths and whatnot. I know I would be down for this type of game.
-
I feel like LoD had some enjoyable features to draw out play time what with the four different playable characters. CotM had 5, but they were all the same-ish. I think that's what I generally hope for games to do (especially CV games it seems)...throw in one or a few extra characters with different play styles at the least. Alternate paths or storylines to go along with them is icing on the cake.
I don't mind things like achievements or collectibles or whatever. I always thought the SotN reverse castle was kinda cool and lame, depending on different parts of it.
-
as much as i love COTM (probably the CV i've played the most of), i've gotta say that the different modes, or really builds, was kinda cheap jab at replay. things like the homing knives were cool, but the item drop %age was so busted that the thief mode basically felt like it was just evening things out...
i like the idea of playing as previous characters in the series on a different maps (ala Harmony of Despair), but in more of a general game form... make it like Julius mode in AOS where get stronger after beating each boss, but give us more options as far as characters (and abilities) are concerned. it would be fun to utilize each of the different strengths each character has to progress through the maps.
-
make it like Julius mode in AOS where get stronger after beating each boss,
SotN also did this with the Richter mode. Took me a while before I noticed that Richter's health was recovering more slower with every life-up item I collected, as well as take more damage then before.
-
SotN also did this with the Richter mode. Took me a while before I noticed that Richter's health was recovering more slower with every life-up item I collected, as well as take more damage then before.
I actually noticed this on my first Richter playthrough when Sotn first came out and wondered whether anyone else would, because it doesn't exactly make it apparent.
-
SotN also did this with the Richter mode. Took me a while before I noticed that Richter's health was recovering more slower with every life-up item I collected, as well as take more damage then before.
wow, it must be a really gradual increase. after all the times i've played it i've hardly noticed but sort of figured it was the case.
-
wow, it must be a really gradual increase. after all the times i've played it i've hardly noticed but sort of figured it was the case.
It is. If you increase your health a lot, enemies on the inverted castle wouldn't munch away almost your entire lifebar with an attack anymore.
In AoS it took some years to discover that. It was really bad to reach Graham and only do 8 damage for each hit.
-
I want a CV game with a layout like Dark Souls.
-
I want a CV game with a layout like Dark Souls.
dead cells actually seems really close to that in more than one way.
-
For a classicvania, I think something close to Dracula's Curse or Super Castlevania IV's length wise is perfect.
Branching paths and secret areas could be a good way to increase the lenght without making it too long
Maybe adding some RPG elements like those in Vampire Killer could work too, but always keeping them on the lighter side to avoid overdoing it or turning it into a Metroidvania.
cutscenes between stages like in Ninja Gaiden
This is something I would love to see. I know that Konami didn't take Castlevania's lore seriously on the first game, but for Simon's Quest and Dracula's Curse cutscenes like those would have been something really amazing.
-
Welcome to the Dungeon TOMOYA :)
-
Thanks, X! I just noticed I have ridiculously bad manners and jumped into the conversation without even introducing myself first, but the talk was too interesting for me to resist.
-
Don't worry too much about it. You aren't the first ;)