Topic: Konami Facebook team responding to Operation: Akumajo

[thernz]

It is precisely because it never cared, that people do care.  It's something which it's lacking, because that which it has, it has lackluster of.
Like any aspect of the game, it's a good idea if it's improved and it certainly wouldn't take away from the game if it did.

i personally never saw the absence of story in the games as a big detriment, because there was nothing to rely on that story. so i see the story complaint about not fixing a problem, but a necessarily big expansion when in the recent years, the gameplay has started to suffer. this is why i think we should still be emphasizing gameplay over story.

though concerning story:

i think the problem herein lies in the fact that castlevania is more about a lone warrior taking on a castle of monsters, which doesn't provide much narrative freedom, besides more subtle things like item descriptions or action like super metroid. because of that, i don't think a "good" story is really something castlevania needs, but rather a better incorporation of story or storytelling into the game. a well-written story is superfluous in the context of castlevania.

for example, in something like demon's souls, things are rather implied by names, descriptions, and casual npc dialogue while lords depends on large amounts of narration and cutscenes. despite souls' more simplistic story, it still has the better one by virtue of combining storytelling and gameplay. plus souls still creates an uneasiness and distrust that's a tangent to the isolation felt in castlevania.

that and i don't trust people's standards for what good stories are. a lot of game stories are pretty stupid!

[Kusanagi]

i personally never saw the absence of story in the games as a big detriment, because there was nothing to rely on that story. so i see the story complaint about not fixing a problem, but a necessarily big expansion when in the recent years, the gameplay has started to suffer. this is why i think we should still be emphasizing gameplay over story.

though concerning story:

i think the problem herein lies in the fact that castlevania is more about a lone warrior taking on a castle of monsters, which doesn't provide much narrative freedom, besides more subtle things like item descriptions or action like super metroid. because of that, i don't think a "good" story is really something castlevania needs, but rather a better incorporation of story or storytelling into the game. a well-written story is superfluous in the context of castlevania.

for example, in something like demon's souls, things are rather implied by names, descriptions, and casual npc dialogue while lords depends on large amounts of narration and cutscenes. despite souls' more simplistic story, it still has the better one by virtue of combining storytelling and gameplay. plus souls still creates an uneasiness and distrust that's a tangent to the isolation felt in castlevania.

that and i don't trust people's standards for what good stories are. a lot of game stories are pretty stupid!

I can much agree that the gameplay should be prioritized over the story, though as Jorge said the story telling could be better built upon. Certainly wouldn't hurt, but even if the story was bad, as long as the gameplay doesn't suffer I'd say the game would still be alright. Unless the cutscenes are unskippable and a whole bunch of loading times, then that would be bad.

It is precisely because it never cared, that people do care.  It's something which it's lacking, because that which it has, it has lackluster of.

Oh right, this quote right here is Alucard worthy. I can already imagine the cheesy voice actor of the original Symphony of the Night reading this line  (though that may be in part because of Jorge's avatar, but anyways).

Edit: Although, Alucard's original voice actor is a whole lot better than the PSP remake version. And personally Alucard's original voice is just as epic as it could get; the voice actor just fit him very well.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

The Sonic Fanbase is notorious for hating it's source almost as much as Star Wars fans. Bitching nonstop since Heroes, and generally never agreeing over anything.

Until Colors. And now Generations.

Hence the reasons why I said FORMER situation.

You guys are talking as if the Sonic fanbase is still the majorly bitchy fanbase it ONCE was which is not true.

Its not 100% perfect now by any means but it has calmed down quite bit and is pretty pleased with the current product (Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations).

And you know why?

Because Sega actually LISTENED to what the fanbase wanted.

If Konami actually LISTENED to the fans we would have had the battle of 1999 AGES ago.

[Flame]

I'm really just tired of this discussion... I wont go any further. Ive said what I had to say, I'm gonna withdraw from this now.

[KaZudra]

Just got done playing Mario 3d Land, and I have to say....

Super Mario Land 3d was a 3d game developed like a 2D game, the end result?

An amazing 3D game that uses a fixed camera to it's full potential.

Why is this relevent? Just Swap Mario with Castlevania and you'll have the BEST AROUND! NOTHING'S EVER GONNA TAKE IT DOWN!

[Kusanagi]

Just got done playing Mario 3d Land, and I have to say....

Super Mario Land 3d was a 3d game developed like a 2D game, the end result?

An amazing 3D game that uses a fixed camera to it's full potential.

Why is this relevent? Just Swap Mario with Castlevania and you'll have the BEST AROUND! NOTHING'S EVER GONNA TAKE IT DOWN!

Yeah, 2.5 graphics for the win 

Although, I hope for the next castlevania game to follow this trend, that they make it run a little faster. The rondo of blood remake I found was slower than the original, and because of that I preferred the original (among other reasons)

[Maedhros]

Have you seen any quality high end mega man or Castlevania games in the vein of what fans want? (LoS aside) Have you seen anything better than 2D games? anything wiyh higher quality? have yo seen how unprofitable the brands have become?

Thats why. This isnt 1991. It's 2011. Soon to be 2012. The technology is there. Technology has EVOLVED past 2D. It has evolved past the "bit" wars. There is amazing Technology available for games, to do things that was never possible before. We have to embrace that. Metroid embraced the third dimension with Metroid Prime, and for it's time it was amazing.

I find Metroid Prime pretty fucking boring. I can't even finish the game because I get bored after some time. The DS one just cemented my oppinion.

I want 2D Metroid back. Some series just don't translate well for 3D without changing a lot of what made them good in the first place. I think Castlevania is a good example of this.

2D isn't dead. With the same technology you're talking about, they could make a 2D game with 3D/Stylized assets (what you guys call 2.5D). We have a LOT of examples like this, just this year.

[DragonSlayr81]

Just got done playing Mario 3d Land, and I have to say....

Super Mario Land 3d was a 3d game developed like a 2D game, the end result?

An amazing 3D game that uses a fixed camera to it's full potential.

Why is this relevent? Just Swap Mario with Castlevania and you'll have the BEST AROUND! NOTHING'S EVER GONNA TAKE IT DOWN!

I think Mario is a great example that you dont' need to abandon "what's good" or iconic about a classic series just to appeal to a new fanbase. Sure, there IS a difference between 2D and 3D gameplay, but with Mario, Nintendo basically goes the route I, personally, believe is the best way to approach new games: "Take everything good about the older games, keep it, don't fix what isn't broke, fix what IS and introduce new things to keep it fresh!". Even if you soley pick a side, like, say, music, the style of music in the Mario games haven't really changed much either. You still have that very light-hearted styled music, mixed with some ragtime-inspired and early 20th century styled music. When I think of Mario, musically, I think of THAT "type" of music, and it's stood the test of time(despite being, even in the 80s, our of pop cultural relevance for MANY decades). With Mario, he doesn't approach things like other games. It's almost like the whole, "Be true to yourself" mantra, which we are taught as kids, that you should always be who you are, even if other people don't think you'r cool, and you shouldn't try to be who you aren't just to be accepted(and they hand a mess load of afterschool specials about that type of thing). That's Mario, doing what he's been doing since the 80s, and people LOVE him for that. Other franchises are basically the opposite. They are trying to appeal to new tastes by addopting new styles. Sometimes it works, but in a lot of cases, it just doesn't feel right. It's almost pathetic in the way it would be if you saw Wayne Newton trying to appeal to Lady Gaga fans, or your grandpa trying to force his way into a mosh pit. It's like those old people trying to hold on to their strands of youth by showing kids that they are hip and cool(like mothers who try to be friends with their daughters and friends, and go out to malls, listen to Justin Beiber and read every Twilight book). Sometimes it just looks pathetic. It's the case of, "We like you for who you are, not who you try to be!". 

[Dark Nemesis]

I think Mario is a great example that you dont' need to abandon "what's good" or iconic about a classic series just to appeal to a new fanbase. Sure, there IS a difference between 2D and 3D gameplay, but with Mario, Nintendo basically goes the route I, personally, believe is the best way to approach new games: "Take everything good about the older games, keep it, don't fix what isn't broke, fix what IS and introduce new things to keep it fresh!". Even if you soley pick a side, like, say, music, the style of music in the Mario games haven't really changed much either. You still have that very light-hearted styled music, mixed with some ragtime-inspired and early 20th century styled music. When I think of Mario, musically, I think of THAT "type" of music, and it's stood the test of time(despite being, even in the 80s, our of pop cultural relevance for MANY decades). With Mario, he doesn't approach things like other games. It's almost like the whole, "Be true to yourself" mantra, which we are taught as kids, that you should always be who you are, even if other people don't think you'r cool, and you shouldn't try to be who you aren't just to be accepted(and they hand a mess load of afterschool specials about that type of thing). That's Mario, doing what he's been doing since the 80s, and people LOVE him for that. Other franchises are basically the opposite. They are trying to appeal to new tastes by addopting new styles. Sometimes it works, but in a lot of cases, it just doesn't feel right. It's almost pathetic in the way it would be if you saw Wayne Newton trying to appeal to Lady Gaga fans, or your grandpa trying to force his way into a mosh pit. It's like those old people trying to hold on to their strands of youth by showing kids that they are hip and cool(like mothers who try to be friends with their daughters and friends, and go out to malls, listen to Justin Beiber and read every Twilight book). Sometimes it just looks pathetic. It's the case of, "We like you for who you are, not who you try to be!". 

You have a strong point here mate. I too believe in most of what you are saying, but casual gamers, won't agree with what you, me and everyone else old school gamers think..........

[Flame]

You people keep forgetting how much money Nintendo has, and that they can pretty much allot as much as they need to their projects.

[C Belmont]

You people keep forgetting how much money Nintendo has, and that they can pretty much allot as much as they need to their projects.

Money has very little to do with with a video games appeal, nobody is paying Nintendo customers to buy each new Mario game that they release & you could add the shiniest new graphics & latest innovations to any game and still have nobody care.

Also how come you don't seem to apply this kind of thinking to Capcom?

[Flame]

Because Capcom isnt Nintendo. Nintendo is as rich as they are because they are good at what they do. They stick with the likes of Mario, Metroid, LoZ, and usually do interesting things with them.

But they also make consoles. They make consoles and have made famous best selling consoles since back in the day. That has made them rich. They used to have the monopoly on the games market too. it was NES or bust. And people who had the NES, would usually go for the nintendo console over say, the Sega Console. NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube Wii, Gameboy, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance, DS... all of those made Nintendo fucktons of money. And Since its their console, theres no licensing fees involved in putting games out on their own systems. And they have release a bunch of games on those consoles.

No other Gaming company today, has had the ridiculous success that Nintendo has had. That success has left Nintendo filthy rich.

Also, Capcom? All theyve been doing lately is releasing new versions of Street fighter, or mucking up their other franchises and pissing off their fanbase.

Nintendo on the other hand, knows how to appease their fanbase. mainly because they know that they will make money by doing what they do. They dont really have to worry too much about if  agame might not be profitable. They KNOW if it has Mario, Link, Pokeymanz, or Samus, or any other of their more profitable characters, it will sell. And therefore, they arent afraid to do different things. To make that Super Mario Galaxy, to make that Skyward Sword.

[crisis]

There is also nintendogs+cats

[cecil-kain]

Because Capcom isnt Nintendo. Nintendo is as rich as they are because they are good at what they do. They stick with the likes of Mario, Metroid, LoZ, and usually do interesting things with them.

But they also make consoles. They make consoles and have made famous best selling consoles since back in the day. That has made them rich. They used to have the monopoly on the games market too. it was NES or bust. And people who had the NES, would usually go for the nintendo console over say, the Sega Console. NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube Wii, Gameboy, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance, DS... all of those made Nintendo fucktons of money. And Since its their console, theres no licensing fees involved in putting games out on their own systems. And they have release a bunch of games on those consoles.

No other Gaming company today, has had the ridiculous success that Nintendo has had. That success has left Nintendo filthy rich.

Also, Capcom? All theyve been doing lately is releasing new versions of Street fighter, or mucking up their other franchises and pissing off their fanbase.

Nintendo on the other hand, knows how to appease their fanbase. mainly because they know that they will make money by doing what they do. They dont really have to worry too much about if  agame might not be profitable. They KNOW if it has Mario, Link, Pokeymanz, or Samus, or any other of their more profitable characters, it will sell. And therefore, they arent afraid to do different things. To make that Super Mario Galaxy, to make that Skyward Sword.

Nobody here is challenging your points about Nintendo being wealthy and advantaged, but you need to remember that even the Big N had to start somewhere.  There was a time during the Atari era, when the market became so saturated with shovelware --that the entire industry came crashing down.  Nintendo was one of the few companies to survive, and it wasn't because the were wealthy or advantaged at that time --it was because they never stopped investing in quality.  Experts and analyists were saying it was Game Over.  But when the NES launched, Nintendo enforced extremely high quality standards on their licensees to help repair the damage.  Anyone remember this?



Nintendo saved the whole industry --and they did by holding themselves and their business partners to a higher standard.  The resulting renaissance not only gave birth to Super Mario, Zelda, and Metroid --but also Megaman and Castlevania itself...  Money isn't everything --enforcing quality mitigates risk --and that's a lesson both Capcom and Konami need to study.

[crisis]

I can't believe Nintendo started off as a playing card company in 1889...


It
s almost as if they were preordained "by a higher power" to rule.. hence their company name. kind of weird if you think about it..