Topic: A REALLY interesting take on Simon's Quest

[Inccubus]

It sounds like a load of blind justifications to me.

Even if things were intended to be the way they were, it didn't make them any less poorly designed, poorly implemented, and frustrating.

I also don't buy that they were intending it to be an early 2D equivalent of a 'Silent Hill' type game. If any thing, they were experimenting with an action orientated game, while including RPG elements such as leveling up, money, upgrades, and open worlds.

This is pretty much how I feel about it too. And this...

This isn't a game that wants you to have fun playing it; CVII is more akin to a survival horror game than it is a normal platformer.

...is patently absurd. No game is intentionally designed to not be fun to play. That defeats the purpose of it being a game in the first place. Not to mention it kills replay value which is obviously the entire point of the experiment that is CV2.

And if you're looking for platforming, there's plenty of it, especially in the mansions, though it's not the focus of the game this time around.

This is false. First off, the platforming is largely repetitive and unnecessarily frustrating. And if platforming wasn't partially the focus then the game wouldn't have been presented as a side-scrolling platformer. It would have had a different format. CV2 was intended to be an experiment in combining the platform action of CV1 with rpg elements. There's nothing inCV2 that makes it a survival game any more than any other CV title or any action game for that matter. It does have a slightly darker atmosphere than CV1, but not nearly as much mas many of it's descendants.

I don't think Konami low-balled this one, I think they were trying to figure out how to make the transition from the arcade to the home market.

No. Konami had already been involved in the home market for several years. And more over, CV was never an arcade series. It was always a home series with a single arcade iteration.

As far as the villager thing is concerned, refer to the quote in the first post. The MANUAL even tells you not all the villagers' clues can be trusted and part of the game is sussing out the clues. If you could tell which clues were useful and which ones weren't, I think it would take a level of puzzle solving out of the game.

Just because they mentioned it in the manual doesn't make it functionally better. They way over did it. This too was an experiment, but one that was taken too far. The idea itself wasn't bad, but the execution was less than condusive to a pleasurable gaming experience.

[X]

Leveling isn't really the point of the game, as it really only happens twice (and that's if you REALLY do some grinding.)

You can get higher levels then just lv. 2 in CV 2. I tried it myself and got a total of six, perhaps seven levels. Getting the levels also depends on what part of the game you are at as well. The different colored skeletons are a good indicator for this. the only problem with leveling up to the max is that it wastes time. Time that is essential for getting the best ending. all in all, the level up system in CV 2 isn't really necessary as I have never really needed it. But it is convenient at times when your health is low, your dealing with though, multiple enemies and you know that you won't make it to the next town to save all the hearts you just collected. Then suddenly; BAM! You get a level up and your life skyrockets! Saved!

[TheouAegis]

Konami's home console gaming history (or most of it):
http://www.jap-sai.com/Games/Konami/Konami.htm

Nintendo, Taito and Namco were the arcade giants, then Capcom and SNK. Konami has always been one of the console gaming and slots/pachinko giants.

[DoctaMario]

This is pretty much how I feel about it too. And this......is patently absurd. No game is intentionally designed to not be fun to play. That defeats the purpose of it being a game in the first place. Not to mention it kills replay value which is obviously the entire point of the experiment that is CV2.

I can think of plenty of games that are good but not necessarily fun, and likewise, many games that are fun, but not necessarily good. SSB64 is a fun game, but I wouldn't call it a good game and God of War is a good game, but not necessarily fun to me. While I think he goes a bit overboard with that comment, I think you should re-read the rest of the paragraph because I'm not sure you got his point.

This is false. First off, the platforming is largely repetitive and unnecessarily frustrating. And if platforming wasn't partially the focus then the game wouldn't have been presented as a side-scrolling platformer. It would have had a different format. CV2 was intended to be an experiment in combining the platform action of CV1 with rpg elements. There's nothing inCV2 that makes it a survival game any more than any other CV title or any action game for that matter. It does have a slightly darker atmosphere than CV1, but not nearly as much mas many of it's descendants.

Presenting the game as anything but a 2d sidescroller would have been all but impossible if they wanted to hold any ties at all to the first game. So platforming was necessary, but again, it isn't the focus of the game. Combat and exploration are the main focuses of it, platforming only serves these.  I don't see what makes the platforming any more frustrating than it is in the first game. Simon controls a bit better in CV2 than he does in CV1.

There are more non-cartoony horror elements in CV2 than in 1, which is part of the assertion that it could be taken as more akin to survival horror. I'd say the feeling of needing to survive through one of the night sequences just so you can keep your hearts or just so you can get to a church in time when you're low on life reminds me more of survival horror than of an arcade-platformer like CV1.

But let's get one thing straight, because I know you or SOMEONE will put these words in my mouth: I"M NOT CALLING CV2 A SURVIVAL HORROR GAME AND NEITHER IS THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST POST. Merely positing that the game contains elements that would go on one day to be a part of that genre.

No. Konami had already been involved in the home market for several years. And more over, CV was never an arcade series. It was always a home series with a single arcade iteration.

Castlevania wasn't even a SERIES at that point. It was one game. And Vs. Castlevania (the arcade version) came out the same year CV1 on the NES did. So it WAS an arcade game and Konami designed it with the arcade in mind, otherwise, it probably would have been longer.

And while we're talking about arcade Castlevania, don't leave out Haunted Castle.

Just because they mentioned it in the manual doesn't make it functionally better. They way over did it. This too was an experiment, but one that was taken too far. The idea itself wasn't bad, but the execution was less than condusive to a pleasurable gaming experience.

If you think the execution of the hints in Simon's Quest was bad, you should be glad you weren't a PC gamer back in those days. Try playing a game like King's Quest or Dark Seed and see how far you get. Comparatively SQ lets you off easy.

As I've said before, things like that were acceptable back when it was made. People didn't spend gobs of money on games like they do now, so making a game that someone could sit down and finish in a single sitting wasn't the best way to get repeat business.

You can get higher levels then just lv. 2 in CV 2. I tried it myself and got a total of six, perhaps seven levels. Getting the levels also depends on what part of the game you are at as well. The different colored skeletons are a good indicator for this. the only problem with leveling up to the max is that it wastes time. Time that is essential for getting the best ending. all in all, the level up system in CV 2 isn't really necessary as I have never really needed it. But it is convenient at times when your health is low, your dealing with though, multiple enemies and you know that you won't make it to the next town to save all the hearts you just collected. Then suddenly; BAM! You get a level up and your life skyrockets! Saved!

I agree it wasn't necessary. It's actually one of the things I always wondered why they put it in the game.

But I love those moments when you're about to die and all of the sudden you level up and get your health refilled! 

Konami's home console gaming history (or most of it):
http://www.jap-sai.com/Games/Konami/Konami.htm

Nintendo, Taito and Namco were the arcade giants, then Capcom and SNK. Konami has always been one of the console gaming and slots/pachinko giants.

To be fair, that link you posted didn't include ANY of Konami's arcade games and I know they had SOME. I'm not saying they were as big into it as some of the others, but it wasn't like they didn't ever publish ANY arcade games. That was an interesting read though, thanks for [posting that!

 

[beingthehero]

I dunno, good Docta, a lot of NES games were ported into "Vs." versions. I think it was just a way to make more money by hastily converting existing console titles into arcade games, rather than indictating those games were made from the beginning to be quarter-munchers.

It was only a few years ago that I saw Super Mario Bros. Vs at an arcade, or at least one that had been jerry-rigged into an arcade game. D:

[DoctaMario]

I dunno, good Docta, a lot of NES games were ported into "Vs." versions. I think it was just a way to make more money by hastily converting existing console titles into arcade games, rather than indictating those games were made from the beginning to be quarter-munchers.

It was only a few years ago that I saw Super Mario Bros. Vs at an arcade, or at least one that had been jerry-rigged into an arcade game. D:

You ARE right, my dear Hero, but look at all the other ports of Cv1. Most of them have more than 6 levels (as far as I can tell and I've been drinking so don't hold me to it!) which leads me to believe that Konami realized that this game was intended for arcade play. The PlayChoice 10 machines gave you a certain amount of time to play before the machine quit and I'm sure Konami was trying to give their patrons their quarter's worth.

Vs. Castlevania is awesome though. I can get to the Mummies without continuing and I usually only play the game when I'm drunk haha!

And "Duke Of New York?" Are you living in NYC now??

[Inccubus]

I can think of plenty of games that are good but not necessarily fun, and likewise, many games that are fun, but not necessarily good. SSB64 is a fun game, but I wouldn't call it a good game and God of War is a good game, but not necessarily fun to me. While I think he goes a bit overboard with that comment, I think you should re-read the rest of the paragraph because I'm not sure you got his point.

I get his point just fine. I simply disagree. Plus there is no logical reason for the idea that the game's focus isn't to be fun to play. All of your examples are also a matter of opinion. For example, SSB is a game that I wouldn't call bad, but I don't find it particularly fun. That doesn't mean that it was intended to be good and fun.

Presenting the game as anything but a 2d sidescroller would have been all but impossible if they wanted to hold any ties at all to the first game. So platforming was necessary, but again, it isn't the focus of the game. Combat and exploration are the main focuses of it, platforming only serves these.  I don't see what makes the platforming any more frustrating than it is in the first game. Simon controls a bit better in CV2 than he does in CV1.

They could just as easily have given the game a different presentation and still keep the ties to the previous games just as Nintendo did with Zelda 2. The level design is what makes it more frustrating. Like I said it is repetitive and many of the jumps are frustrating for no good reason other than they didn't want to use stairs or they wanted to use single floating blocks in long succession. The controls are virtually identical to the first game.

Combat is obviously not a focus of the game or else they wouldn't have nerfed it from what they had in the first two games. Without the inclusion of the flexible sub-weapon system that the first game had combat is actually less dynamic than either of them.
 
However, I will agree that exploration has a much larger focus in CV2 as it did in Vampire Killer for the MSX.

There are more non-cartoony horror elements in CV2 than in 1, which is part of the assertion that it could be taken as more akin to survival horror. I'd say the feeling of needing to survive through one of the night sequences just so you can keep your hearts or just so you can get to a church in time when you're low on life reminds me more of survival horror than of an arcade-platformer like CV1.

Not really, the graphics are no more or less cartoony than in CV1 and VK. The only real difference is a palette that is more drab. Alot of the graphics are even nearly identical to the previous games. And again, getting through a night scene is only superficially similar to modern survival horror games. It's not even necessarily a feature of all survival horror games. It's no different that surviving through a combat scene in any other game, arcade or not. The things that make a survival horror game are the disturbing atmosphere and the lack of resources, not the fear of loosing money which many games in many genres share.

But let's get one thing straight, because I know you or SOMEONE will put these words in my mouth: I"M NOT CALLING CV2 A SURVIVAL HORROR GAME AND NEITHER IS THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST POST. Merely positing that the game contains elements that would go on one day to be a part of that genre.

I never put words into anyone's mouth. I know that no one is saying that it's a survival horror game. My argument is that the aspects that are picked out in the article are no more owned by the survival horror genre than any other. Also, that excusing the game's many short comings by viewing them as akin to the modern survival horror genre is simply not an objective argument.

Castlevania wasn't even a SERIES at that point. It was one game. And Vs. Castlevania (the arcade version) came out the same year CV1 on the NES did. So it WAS an arcade game and Konami designed it with the arcade in mind, otherwise, it probably would have been longer.

And while we're talking about arcade Castlevania, don't leave out Haunted Castle.

This is factually wrong.
Akumajou Dracula came out for the Famicom Disk System in 1986.
Akumajou Dracula came out for the MSX computer later in 1986 and is a fundamentally different iteration game that could easily have been used as a sequel had they not decided to recycle the existing story.
Dracula II came out for the Famicom Disk System in 1987, making this the 3rd game in the SERIES.
Castlevania for NES and Vs. Castlevania for arcade were released in 1987. I should like to point out now that the Vs machine was produced by Nintendo and NOT by Konami.
Akumajou Dracula / Haunted Castle was released for arcades in 1988 and was the first game in the seires actually produced by Konami specifically for the arcades.
And also keep in mind that all these games were produced in an era in the industry where a production time of more than a few months was nearly unheard of.

If you think the execution of the hints in Simon's Quest was bad, you should be glad you weren't a PC gamer back in those days. Try playing a game like King's Quest or Dark Seed and see how far you get. Comparatively SQ lets you off easy.

As I've said before, things like that were acceptable back when it was made. People didn't spend gobs of money on games like they do now, so making a game that someone could sit down and finish in a single sitting wasn't the best way to get repeat business.

While the comparison to the PC games of the time is true, it's also largely irrelevant since it's a console exclusive game that would have been and should still be compared to other console games of it's time.
It wasn't acceptable and it was probably reflected ion their sales numbers. That's why the never repeated this aspect of the game like ever. Not having a game that could be beaten in a single sitting IS the true purpose of this experiment. At this point in the life of the NES replayablility was starting to become an issue for console developers.

To be fair, that link you posted didn't include ANY of Konami's arcade games and I know they had SOME. I'm not saying they were as big into it as some of the others, but it wasn't like they didn't ever publish ANY arcade games.

It's largely irrelevant here as what is being argued is whether Castlevania itself was designed to be an arcade game.

[A-Yty]

Not really, the graphics are no more or less cartoony than in CV1 and VK. The only real difference is a palette that is more drab.

I beg to differ. The religious elements; the password screen is "seriously" scary with a cross and a pretty haunting theme, there are churches and graveyards. The enemies are less silly; gargoyles and the evil angel-looking things and such. There's gory stuff like the hanged bodies in the mansions, etc. It definitely had a darker tone, even if it wasn't a "real" horror game.

[DoctaMario]

I get his point just fine. I simply disagree. Plus there is no logical reason for the idea that the game's focus isn't to be fun to play. All of your examples are also a matter of opinion. For example, SSB is a game that I wouldn't call bad, but I don't find it particularly fun. That doesn't mean that it was intended to be good and fun.

Maybe, but I don't think you can argue that EVERY game is intended to be fun. Being designed to entertain and being designed to be fun are two separate things I think. Either way, at this point, we're trying to second guess the devs intentions, which is pointless.

They could just as easily have given the game a different presentation and still keep the ties to the previous games just as Nintendo did with Zelda 2. The level design is what makes it more frustrating. Like I said it is repetitive and many of the jumps are frustrating for no good reason other than they didn't want to use stairs or they wanted to use single floating blocks in long succession. The controls are virtually identical to the first game.

They were already making huge changes to the way the game was played, I doubt they really wanted to make the game completely unrecognizable as a CV game.

I find the game to be laid out quite well actually, much more logically than many of the games that came after it. What do you find frustrating about the level design? Would you have preferred the game be one long straight line like the PS2 games? Would you prefer the game have no platforming at all? I feel like they used stairs to denote branching pathways in the game when they were used in forests or places outside of towns and mansions. But other than that, why would they have a stairway in the middle of a forest?

Combat is obviously not a focus of the game or else they wouldn't have nerfed it from what they had in the first two games. Without the inclusion of the flexible sub-weapon system that the first game had combat is actually less dynamic than either of them.
 
However, I will agree that exploration has a much larger focus in CV2 as it did in Vampire Killer for the MSX.

So you're saying that less weapons is better? I'm not saying more is better, but you definitely have more you can do with the combat system in CV2 than in CV1. But then again, they're different games with different focuses. Combat is not the supreme focus of CV2 (exploration is), but it's #2 with a bullet I think.

Not really, the graphics are no more or less cartoony than in CV1 and VK. The only real difference is a palette that is more drab. Alot of the graphics are even nearly identical to the previous games. And again, getting through a night scene is only superficially similar to modern survival horror games. It's not even necessarily a feature of all survival horror games. It's no different that surviving through a combat scene in any other game, arcade or not. The things that make a survival horror game are the disturbing atmosphere and the lack of resources, not the fear of loosing money which many games in many genres share.

Well, A-Yty answered this already as far as the graphics go. I think surviving the night scenes is akin to survival horror because it's a horror game we're talking about. If Simon's Quest were set in space, no one would make the comparison. I always found the atmosphere and story of Simon's quest disturbing myself (especially towards the end where things get a lot more lonely) and I think the survival element is still there when you're low on life and you've got to get to a church or when you're not sure how much longer night will last. I also think that Dracula's Castle in SQ was one of the most chilling final stages in any CV game because it builds tension REALLY well. You're walking through this empty mausoleum with that creepy music going on.... Instead of fighting off a bunch of enemies, you're alone with your thoughts, knowing you're headed towards the inevitable battle with Dracula.

I never put words into anyone's mouth. I know that no one is saying that it's a survival horror game. My argument is that the aspects that are picked out in the article are no more owned by the survival horror genre than any other. Also, that excusing the game's many short comings by viewing them as akin to the modern survival horror genre is simply not an objective argument.

No, they aren't owned by SH (survival horror) but they are elements that make it up. I think Obscura's point was that people were playing the game as if it were CV1 rather than allowing it to be a different game with the same namesake, and I've always agreed. Maybe it's because I played CV2 before CV1, but I never had any preconceived notions of what the game was "supposed" to be, I just knew i liked it and it affected me in a profound way back when I got my first NES (even before that actually playing it at friends' houses!)

And I didn't think you would put words in my mouth, but you gotta cover your bases on these (and most) forums I guess.

While the comparison to the PC games of the time is true, it's also largely irrelevant since it's a console exclusive game that would have been and should still be compared to other console games of it's time.
It wasn't acceptable and it was probably reflected ion their sales numbers. That's why the never repeated this aspect of the game like ever. Not having a game that could be beaten in a single sitting IS the true purpose of this experiment. At this point in the life of the NES replayablility was starting to become an issue for console developers.


It's largely irrelevant here as what is being argued is whether Castlevania itself was designed to be an arcade game.

I don't think it's irrelevant. Games were games back then. I don't think it makes any sense to compartmentalize games just because they were on a computer vs. a console, especially when talking about design. The fact is, MANY companies were doing this type of thing at that time and a lot of those games sold well. I don't know what Simon's Quest's sales figures looked like, but we can also surmise that it didn't have as high a profile as CV1 due to only being released on one system and not being in the arcades at all either. I don't know that it was all that well received, but it was the beginning of what would become the Castleroid formula.

I think too, that many games were designed with the arcade in mind regardless of whether they were destined for the arcade or not because that's just how certain games were made. It was either a sprawling PC game or an arcade game because those were the places where people played games the most. And if it was an arcade-style game, it was designed to be a quick, fun experience that you didn't have to think too much about. It wasn't until the NES started to sell really well that devs had to think about giving the player more than just an arcade style experience. And while I think CV1 is a great game, it doesn't get under your skin the way CV2 does BECAUSE it's designed with the . You can play it and leave it behind without giving much thought to it.

Simon's Quest isn't designed that way at all. It's MEANT to get into your head and under your skin. You're much more invested in Simon and his well being in this game than you are in CV1 because there's a bit more of a story going on, because you get to hear some of his utterances ("What a horrible night to have a curse" etc.) and because you spend three times as much time playing the game (even more if you collect all the items.)

[beingthehero]

And "Duke Of New York?" Are you living in NYC now??

Nah, I just use that title out of love for the movie Escape From New York. I'll be starting a new job in Baltimore, soon, which is like the other NYC kind of.

[Inccubus]

Maybe, but I don't think you can argue that EVERY game is intended to be fun. Being designed to entertain and being designed to be fun are two separate things I think. Either way, at this point, we're trying to second guess the devs intentions, which is pointless.

Actually, I can make that argument. All games ARE designed to be fun on some level. Even scary entertainment is fun to those that enjoy it. And to be clear I take the word as in a thing or activity that one derives enjoyment from.

They were already making huge changes to the way the game was played, I doubt they really wanted to make the game completely unrecognizable as a CV game.

That may be so but it doesn't change the fact that they could have if they had wanted to like so many other series have done before and since.

I find the game to be laid out quite well actually, much more logically than many of the games that came after it. What do you find frustrating about the level design? Would you have preferred the game be one long straight line like the PS2 games? Would you prefer the game have no platforming at all? I feel like they used stairs to denote branching pathways in the game when they were used in forests or places outside of towns and mansions. But other than that, why would they have a stairway in the middle of a forest?

It's a game, the layouts don't have to be laid out logically. Doing that makes things less interesting, which is exactly what you have throughout most of the overworld. It's pretty much like the PS2 games with long stretches of mostly flat boring areas. And the only areas that aren't flat have annoying gimmicks in play like the ridiculous poison swamps and the frustrating chains of floating blocks. The towns are all boring with basically the same 3 designs for all of them. The mansions are much better as far as platforming is concerned except that they often ruin what would be very interesting layouts with frustrating gimmicks that they always manage to take too far. The invisible floors are a prime example as well as many of the jumps that seem like they are intentionally trying to piss you off in a way that screams laziness rather than challenging design. They did use stairs to denote cross roads in the overworld, which is itself illogical, but I appreciate that. I'm saying that they should have made the terrain more interesting since you have to go over it over and over. And, BTW, there are several spats in the game's forests that have stare in illogical places.

So you're saying that less weapons is better? I'm not saying more is better, but you definitely have more you can do with the combat system in CV2 than in CV1. But then again, they're different games with different focuses. Combat is not the supreme focus of CV2 (exploration is), but it's #2 with a bullet I think.

Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying what I said. That a more flexible sub-weapon system is better. One of the fundamental things game design students are taught is to always reduce the number of screens and menus the player has to go through to access things. CV2 did the opposite. Now you have to buy your weapons and you have to use a menu to change them. That is not as dynamic as finding them throughout the game. There is basically only one new weapon, they removed the more interesting ones from the previous games, and the rest are derivatives of the least interesting ones. And they're incredible unbalanced to boot. So I fail to see how there is more you can do with CV2 over CV1 or VK.

Well, A-Yty answered this already as far as the graphics go.

I disagree, despite slightly darker content, the graphics are still cartoony like the previous games and that detracts from any true horror it could have effected n the player. And I think many ROM hackers have proven over and over that all the NES CV games could have had much darker, much more genuinely disturbing graphics.

I think surviving the night scenes is akin to survival horror because it's a horror game we're talking about.

How so? Other than a comparison to Silent Hill I don't see this as necessarily akin to the Survival-Horror genre. Personally I never feared those night scenes other than being lightly annoyed that I had to wait for it to be day again. Hell, I often happily greeted those scenes as an opportunity to farm more hearts quickly. I felt more horror every time I had to jump over those long strings of floating blocks over the river.

If Simon's Quest were set in space, no one would make the comparison.

1) Metroid is CV2 set in space and with good level design. Plus it is often quoted by many old-school players as having been much more horrifying than any of the CV games.
2) Dead Space is a Survival Horror game set in space. And it is an actual survival horror game with the primary elements of a disturbing setting and resource management.
The setting alone does not make a survival horror game, what sets them apart is the fear created by having to worry about surviving against enemies with very little resources. CV2 does not have this. What it IS is a platform game with light RPG elements and a horror setting with very little horror in and of itself.

... I think the survival element is still there when you're low on life and you've got to get to a church or when you're not sure how much longer night will last.

No it's not. That's like saying that when you're playing Zelda 2 and you're low on health and out of MP and potions and you need to get back to a town gives it a survival element akin to the survival horror genre. No it doesn't. That is not a situation a player will necessarily get into and the game isn't designed to specifically put you into it. In Resident Evil, for example, when you're low on health and you've used up all your weed you're fucked .There is nowhere for you to go. That is a position that will inevitably get into in that game because it's designed to. There in lies the true horror of the genre. Finding yourself in a situation that you have little to no hope to get out of. Why do you think survival horror games don't have a level up system to make you stronger over time or refill your health? Because that would completely destroy the sense of fight or flight that is essential to survival horror games.

I also think that Dracula's Castle in SQ was one of the most chilling final stages in any CV game because it builds tension REALLY well. You're walking through this empty mausoleum with that creepy music going on.... Instead of fighting off a bunch of enemies, you're alone with your thoughts, knowing you're headed towards the inevitable battle with Dracula.

This is neither here nor there, but that is one of my favorite songs in the series. Also, I don't think it's supposed to be a proper mausoleum, just the castle's ruins, but I digress.
The effect of that last area would indeed have had a really good tension building effect, but it is completely ruined by what is without a doubt one of the most lame final bosses ever. Part of what makes a set up like this effective is the fear that you'll encounter an overwhelming enemy at the end. They really fucked it up here. I was more afraid of the gargoyle/demon enemy in the mansions than any of the pathetic excuses for bosses in CV2. I had the same problem with Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. That game does an excellent job of building tension throughout the game, but it's ruined by there mostly being nothing that can even harm you, let alone kill you.

No, they aren't owned by SH (survival horror) but they are elements that make it up. I think Obscura's point was that people were playing the game as if it were CV1 rather than allowing it to be a different game with the same namesake, and I've always agreed. Maybe it's because I played CV2 before CV1, but I never had any preconceived notions of what the game was "supposed" to be, I just knew i liked it and it affected me in a profound way back when I got my first NES (even before that actually playing it at friends' houses!)

That may be true for some people. I also happen to have played CV2 before I played CV1 and I like the game, too. But it's flaws are there and they don't go away just because you don't compare it to it's siblings. Compared to other similar games it still falls short. And making the argument that viewing at from the point of view of a genre that not only didn't exist yet, but that it also has very little in common with is little more than an excuse.

And I didn't think you would put words in my mouth, but you gotta cover your bases on these (and most) forums I guess.

Fair enough.

I don't think it's irrelevant. Games were games back then. I don't think it makes any sense to compartmentalize games just because they were on a computer vs. a console, especially when talking about design.

I don't agree. The vast majority of players and developers back then in the US either made games specifically for home consoles and made ports of the most popular games for computers or they made games for computers and licensed other companies to produce ports for console and those were very rare in the grand scheme of things. And more importantly the capabilities of consoles compared to computers were vastly different; more so back then than now. Hell when CV2 came out joypads for pc were unheard of. This meant that the basic design philosophies of console game designers and PC game designers were fundamentally different more often than not. I knew lots of people back then that didn't like to play games for consoles or didn't really like games for pc. The reason for this is that they were fundamentally different experiences back then. And more over many of the genres that were born in the arcades and home consoles simply didn't exist on home computer platforms.

The fact is, MANY companies were doing this type of thing at that time and a lot of those games sold well.

There is still no real way to compare here. The two markets were fundamentally different with very different audiences. it's like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Sure their both fruit, but they are still very different.

I don't know what Simon's Quest's sales figures looked like, but we can also surmise that it didn't have as high a profile as CV1 due to only being released on one system and not being in the arcades at all either.

CV1 was only released on one system and it wasn't technically an arcade game. It was modded a little and placed in a cabinet the year after it's release so that should have no impact on it's initial sales. And VK doesn't count because it's a very different game and wasn't released on the same market or even the same region.

I don't know that it was all that well received, but it was the beginning of what would become the Castleroid formula.

True enough, but then again it was basically trying to be more like Metroid which was a very successful game.

I think too, that many games were designed with the arcade in mind regardless of whether they were destined for the arcade or not because that's just how certain games were made.

No they didn't. This is not how games were designed at all. Companies back then mostly stuck to one console and games were ported from arcade to console never the other way around, and they were never released on multiple platforms at the same time. There was always a gap between releases to give the dev team time to make the port if there was one at all.

It was either a sprawling PC game or an arcade game because those were the places where people played games the most. And if it was an arcade-style game, it was designed to be a quick, fun experience that you didn't have to think too much about. It wasn't until the NES started to sell really well that devs had to think about giving the player more than just an arcade style experience.

This may have been true here in the US, but it was a very different situation in Japan where Konami was making CV.

And while I think CV1 is a great game, it doesn't get under your skin the way CV2 does BECAUSE it's designed with the . You can play it and leave it behind without giving much thought to it.

Simon's Quest isn't designed that way at all. It's MEANT to get into your head and under your skin. You're much more invested in Simon and his well being in this game than you are in CV1 because there's a bit more of a story going on, because you get to hear some of his utterances ("What a horrible night to have a curse" etc.) and because you spend three times as much time playing the game (even more if you collect all the items.)

While it's true that CV1 is an action game, I think you are seriously reading way too much into it. There is more story going on, but there's nothing to indicate that the day & night messages are being spoken by Simon. As a matter of fact your ability to sympathize with Simon is severely diminished because he never speaks a single word during the entire game. You have no idea what his thoughts and feelings about the situation are. You have no more of an emotional link to him in CV2 than you do in CV1 except for a slightly more robust story, that I might add is never even really mentioned much in-game. I will give them props for trying harder on the story and having actual endings.

[Belmont Stakes]

A couple of points about the game. One leveling up happens only once between each town and the adjacent mansion. You level up one time between Jova and Berkley and then you can not do it again until you get between Veros and Rover etc. That actually is smart area design and something that Link didn't do albeit that game crazy fuck hard. As for the lying villagers they could have stated in the game that the villagers sometimes lie and try to shtoop you literally and figuratively (women love Simon even though he tested positive for VDC). I suppose you could say that taking caution is implied by the old man that tells you there is a crooked trader rolling every mother fucker in the hood and for that matter the fact that Castlevania is according to Egoraptor about being careful and planning things out. What SQ did equally as good as it's predecessor was set mood as did CV 3 and 4 but it's been downhill ever since. The music was perfect the sky tones were right and the fade out on the music set the mood into an instant classic. But I just wanted those zombies to come after the player a little faster maybe follow him up the stairs. I wanted the mummies to throw wrappings or dust or fall out of coffins. I wanted the reaper to have a multitude of scythes surrounding him when you fight him. There are so many things I could think of that would make the game so much more engaging that you get sucked into it. But then again selling products is the name of the game not selling quality. Rip the Nintendo seal off the Accursed Seal, seal it's fate, club a baby seal and join a forum to talk about how you are pissed off with this game.

[beingthehero]

I always thought Vampire Killer was actually quite close in mood to Simon's Quest. CVII feels more like a sequel to that game than CV1. D:

[X]

But then again selling products is the name of the game not selling quality. Rip the Nintendo seal off the Accursed Seal, seal it's fate, club a baby seal and join a forum to talk about how you are pissed off with this game.

LOL!

[Tanatra]

Seems I was a bit late in contributing to this topic. Regardless, I agree with uzo in that the majority of the points brought up in the OP were just attempts to justify whatever was wrong with the game. The fact that some villagers lie does not excuse the poor translation. I can get behind the fact that CV2 was never intended to be a platformer, but a survival horror game? More like a horror-themed adventure game. CV2's gameplay has more in common with Zelda 2 and even Maniac Mansion than it does CV1. It was an interesting experiment that came out flawed, nothing more. I still love the game though.