Topic: Lords of Shadow Sequel Ideas (spoilers...a lot of them)

[bobby digital]

I guess my 2 main complaints:
-Rebalance the subweapons to play a greater part in battle.  No problem with the 4 choices given, but you simply didn't have enough to be able to use them a fair amount in combat at the beginning of the game.  This can also tie into Jorge's complaint about there not being anything dropping when you whip most of the breakable objects.  Doesn't need to be hearts, but they need to retool them to make the weapons a good alternative to whip combat without being overpowered or too limited.

-There were some good songs in the soundtrack, and the slower themes were great for the exploration/non-fighting phases but there really needs to be more music.  If it's too hard to make specific themes for each stage, at least give each phase of the game its own specific soundtrack/feel;I should not be hearing the agharta waterfall song anywhere but a level in the land of the lycans.  There also is a serious need of some darker and more aggressive music to back the game.  I think it was Kurt that mentioned that even the most bland of stages in the previous games could be made identifyable by their music themes and I agree.  It would be very hard and unnecessary to make a song for each stage, but I believe each chapter/area should have its own musical themes.

I thoroughly enjoyed the game and it was definitely more than Konami has done to the series in a long time.  I respect anyone's opinion that didn't enjoy it or felt that it was too detached from the previous games, but as someone who has been enjoying the games for 16 years now,  I liked their take on castlevania even if not exactly as I would've done it.  It's been a long time since I've played a castlevania that gave the feeling of an epic adventure.

[Mr.Bushido]

I just wish that the game it´s not so divided in segments, like combat areas>>platforming>exploration and it doesn´t feel like a whole, it will be cool that have exploration with some enemies always around.
For example, in Ninja Gaiden you go forward and kill enemies quickly, so will give achieving a better and more fast pace, when you proceed  you always have some enemies, not only combat arenas,  that make the game more like the classics and more fun to play.

[bobby digital]

I just wish that the game it´s not so divided in segments, like combat areas>>platforming>exploration and it doesn´t feel like a whole, it will be cool that have exploration with some enemies always around.
For example, in Ninja Gaiden you go forward and kill enemies quickly, so will give achieving a better and more fast pace, when you proceed  you always have some enemies, not only combat arenas,  that make the game more like the classics and more fun to play.

While I didn't like how jarring the "Mission Complete!" parts were, I think splitting everything up like that helped a lot as far as helping keep levels varied and load times short, as well as keeping levels from dragging on forever.  It would've been nice to have a mode where you just went through level by level without having to see the screens, but unless they kept the world map accessible that would make it hard to backtrack and get upgrades, as well as prevent them from placing abilities in levels that required later skills to get.

I have only played through the game once but I recall that not all the portions required that you had to kill all enemies to pass.  There were obviously some spots where the camera forced you to kill everything, but they mixed it up more than IGA's 3D games did at least.

[Valtiel]

None of those games had freaking AZTEC RUINS!

I have played all the games you have mentioned, and I love Super Castlevania 4. But it feels entirely different from them. The levels still feel European, they still have an atmosphere of tension and are gloomy. Look how dark the environments are in the forest level in SCV4 (and I don't just mean lighting, I mean the atmosphere). It is completely different from the first 3 levels of Lords.

All of Nagumo's views are completely founded. You are blinding yourself to the problems with this game. I was looking forward to this game and went into it with an open mind, and most of the problems that people had with it early on were still in the final game. Until chapter 6 the atmosphere and levels are nothing like any of the previous Castlevania games. Its okay if you like it, but please don't delude yourself into thinking it is similar to the first 4 Castlevania games. Its not, its unique (and it is a good game, but its different).

The point is that we may disagree on them being problems at all.

Your core argument is something along the lines of "Castlevania is THIS. LoS did THIS, but before doing THIS it also did THAT and THAT and since THAT isn't what Castlevania has been till now, then it's a problem". But with such a mindset, how does the game even improve? How can we expand and continue the franchise if nothing new can be done?

People were making your exact same arguments when SotN was released. People were bitching about Alucard not using a whip-like weapon. People were bitching about Alucard not being a Belmont. People were bitching about the music. People were bitching about it borrowing from Metroid.

The exact. Same. Arguments.

It's odd how most franchises benefit from seeing their developers trying new things; yet Castlevania does not. Instead of going "wow, this game brought us something new!", fans are often "why the hell this game isn't like every other?". Then people wonder why Castlevania is possibly the least successfull popular saga in videogame history. Sure, for us fans the "core elements" are enough to be happy of almost every release (the last few years of IGA have been more than "meh" to me, but that doesn't change the fact that I liked basically every game with the Castlevania name on it), but for a new fan? For a neutral observer? The only observation they can make is that the series is stale in the games that follow its original form, and very close to terrible in the games that divert from that formula (hello, Judgement).

Sure, let's have 120406070000990 games set in Transilvania where you got to kill Dracula with a Belmont or Alucard and fully take place in a castle. Don't be surprised if Castlevania goes extinct.

There is positively no problem with the first stages of LoS. In past Castlevania games, games that lasted 2 to 5 hours, you spent a couple minutes in the wild to get to the castle. In LoS you spend 3 hours in the wild, but the game is 20 hours long. They didn't take ANYTHING that is Castlevania out of the game. They added something more. They experimented. They tried to expand the mythos. They set the game in a very different age (CV's "core" gothic horror works best in the 1400-1800 period, this is a medieval episode, no wonder it has a somewhat fantasy feel).
If it is a problem that the game tried to be faithful and yet attempt to bring something new to the saga, then we may as well start begging for HD remakes of the old games on PSN and be done with it. I respect your perspective, but it's the same kind of formulaic approach to the saga that has been suffocating it for 15 years. Castlevania has a lot of potential. Its scope and lore and dept and legacy vastly overshadow games like God of War or even Resident Evil and Devil May Cry, and YET Castlevania has a tiny fraction of the popularity of those games. Stop to ask yourself why. Is Castlevania worse or less appealing than those games? Or was it held down for too long by conservative design? Once again, one could see IGA as the guy who kept CV on life support (and as someone who likes the handheld games, the temptation would be strong), but you need to ask yourself if the games could have been more than that if someone dared a bit more.
And the fact that you consider it problematic that LoS has outdoor areas, and feel that that is a betrayal to the saga, while you're perfectly fine about the 2035 games simply tell us that you have different priorities in what makes a Castlevania game. But once again, if 3 hours of woods and ruins disconnect you more from the lore of the saga than an episode set 30 years in the future where Dracula reincarnates in a college student who fights enemies that would be at home in something like One Piece, then you need to accept that I can't credit your judgement of objectiveness. You have your preferences, and I massively disagree with them, and neither of us can claim to be closer to the true essence of the saga.

But until our mentality is to dismiss anything that isn't a reskin of the same game we've been playing for 20 years, we're always gonna get that, and eventually the fanbase will be so small that we will be knowing each other by name. Personally I'm done with being conservative. If tomorrow we get a phenomenal game set in 500 A.D. where a Belmont ancestor travels to the Middle East to investigate the origins of a plague that is decimating Europe and eventually finding out the undead are behind it, I'll be fine with it being Castlevania. I'll be fine if it deals with fighting mummies in a pyramid instead of vampires in a castle, as long as the horror elements are conserved, as long as it ties to the overarching story - maybe by telling us how vampires came to be, or foreshadowing Dracula, or setting up the Belmont legacy, or whatever as long as it does bring something new to the saga - and as long as it plays like a Castlevania game, I'll be fine.

[OmegaDL50]

I agree with Valtiel here.

Change is something that cannot be avoided sometimes. In order to promote growth and improvement, one must try different things. To do the same thing over and over does not lead to evolution but more often then not stagnation and decay. To not promote some form of change is basically embracing the death of this series.

In regards to change however there is also the opposite end of the spectrum in which I do happen to have an issue with. Changing so much and at such a drastic degree that the game itself becomes something completely unrecognizable and completely abandoning all aspects to it's predecessors.

A balance should be maintained. Steady progression and evolution but not such massive scale changes to an extreme. This is where I feel Lords of Shadow fits in this balanced neutral ground. It adds enough new conventions and unused concepts in the series before, but does not go so far to entirely alienate the existing concepts, It's a blend between the older Castlevania and as well the new aspects that are introduced in this reboot.

[Vampire Killer]

The point is that we may disagree on them being problems at all.

Your core argument is something along the lines of "Castlevania is THIS. LoS did THIS, but before doing THIS it also did THAT and THAT and since THAT isn't what Castlevania has been till now, then it's a problem". But with such a mindset, how does the game even improve? How can we expand and continue the franchise if nothing new can be done?

People were making your exact same arguments when SotN was released. People were bitching about Alucard not using a whip-like weapon. People were bitching about Alucard not being a Belmont. People were bitching about the music. People were bitching about it borrowing from Metroid.

The exact. Same. Arguments.

It's odd how most franchises benefit from seeing their developers trying new things; yet Castlevania does not. Instead of going "wow, this game brought us something new!", fans are often "why the hell this game isn't like every other?". Then people wonder why Castlevania is possibly the least successfull popular saga in videogame history. Sure, for us fans the "core elements" are enough to be happy of almost every release (the last few years of IGA have been more than "meh" to me, but that doesn't change the fact that I liked basically every game with the Castlevania name on it), but for a new fan? For a neutral observer? The only observation they can make is that the series is stale in the games that follow its original form, and very close to terrible in the games that divert from that formula (hello, Judgement).

Sure, let's have 120406070000990 games set in Transilvania where you got to kill Dracula with a Belmont or Alucard and fully take place in a castle. Don't be surprised if Castlevania goes extinct.

There is positively no problem with the first stages of LoS. In past Castlevania games, games that lasted 2 to 5 hours, you spent a couple minutes in the wild to get to the castle. In LoS you spend 3 hours in the wild, but the game is 20 hours long. They didn't take ANYTHING that is Castlevania out of the game. They added something more. They experimented. They tried to expand the mythos. They set the game in a very different age (CV's "core" gothic horror works best in the 1400-1800 period, this is a medieval episode, no wonder it has a somewhat fantasy feel).
If it is a problem that the game tried to be faithful and yet attempt to bring something new to the saga, then we may as well start begging for HD remakes of the old games on PSN and be done with it. I respect your perspective, but it's the same kind of formulaic approach to the saga that has been suffocating it for 15 years. Castlevania has a lot of potential. Its scope and lore and dept and legacy vastly overshadow games like God of War or even Resident Evil and Devil May Cry, and YET Castlevania has a tiny fraction of the popularity of those games. Stop to ask yourself why. Is Castlevania worse or less appealing than those games? Or was it held down for too long by conservative design? Once again, one could see IGA as the guy who kept CV on life support (and as someone who likes the handheld games, the temptation would be strong), but you need to ask yourself if the games could have been more than that if someone dared a bit more.
And the fact that you consider it problematic that LoS has outdoor areas, and feel that that is a betrayal to the saga, while you're perfectly fine about the 2035 games simply tell us that you have different priorities in what makes a Castlevania game. But once again, if 3 hours of woods and ruins disconnect you more from the lore of the saga than an episode set 30 years in the future where Dracula reincarnates in a college student who fights enemies that would be at home in something like One Piece, then you need to accept that I can't credit your judgement of objectiveness. You have your preferences, and I massively disagree with them, and neither of us can claim to be closer to the true essence of the saga.

But until our mentality is to dismiss anything that isn't a reskin of the same game we've been playing for 20 years, we're always gonna get that, and eventually the fanbase will be so small that we will be knowing each other by name. Personally I'm done with being conservative. If tomorrow we get a phenomenal game set in 500 A.D. where a Belmont ancestor travels to the Middle East to investigate the origins of a plague that is decimating Europe and eventually finding out the undead are behind it, I'll be fine with it being Castlevania. I'll be fine if it deals with fighting mummies in a pyramid instead of vampires in a castle, as long as the horror elements are conserved, as long as it ties to the overarching story - maybe by telling us how vampires came to be, or foreshadowing Dracula, or setting up the Belmont legacy, or whatever as long as it does bring something new to the saga - and as long as it plays like a Castlevania game, I'll be fine.

Seriously! I don't know how some people can say that LoS isn't "Castlevania enough", but then in the next breath claim that something like AoS, DoS, PoR, SotN is. Personally, I think they all are. It just irks me that for years I've been seeing people on this forum complain that they're tired of the metroidvania formula and want a more linear oldschool stage-by-stage progession, and when someone finally delivers, they still bitch and moan. Just no satisfying some folks I suppose.  LoS is so damn "Castlevania" it's oozing holy-water and chain-whips out it's freakin' ears.  It's as if some people have no ability to enjoy or wrap their minds around the oldschool aspects of LoS, simply because their minds can't compute something new into the CV experience.

Playing through LoS again, and the stage progression, especially for the first few chapters, progresses very similarly to CV4. Hell, MS even said that CV4 was their main inspiration. I wouldn't be surprised if the idea for the ancient ruins and the society which built them in LoS came as a direct result of just playing CV4 over the years and simply imagining where all the ruins and whatnot came from.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

we'll i finally got to play LOS 2 days ago and i must say i was disapointed as a CV fan 
i honestly think i would have enjoyed it more if it didn't have the CV name tagged on to it because IMO it wasn't really a CV game for me.
like some have said before in later chapters it starts to get a CV feeling but a CV game is supposed to feel like CV games FROM THE START IMO.
that being said some things i would do for CVLOS sequel is

1.better music
as many have pointed out this game really failed to capture the excellent catchy music we CV fans have grown to love over the years.
if your a xbox 360 owner like myself your lucky enough to be able to play your own CV music (i actually have a whole CV playlist on my hardrive ) but i would have to bring back Michiru Yamane to compose this time around.

2.less high fantasy stages
sure daytime stages have been in CV games before but LOS IMO took it a little to far.
i like my CV games dark,gothic,and grim and NOT with a lord of the rings feel to it.


3.better story.
i really disliked the story twist in this game a(most notably gabriel becomeing Dracula) so i would like for the sequel to have a more captivating story instead of lame story twist.

4.BRING BACK A REAL BELMONT!

and thats my take on making a sequel

[Profbeanburrito]

I'm looking forward to a sequel, I just want to see somethings that are actually from Castlevania this time, like enemies and music. Also, I hope there's actually a Slogra fihght next time around. That was such a major disappointment to me

[thernz]

The Slogra was probably one of the best creature/enemy designs in LoS too. ]:

[Munchy]

Bring back the Chupacabra. He was great.

[crisis]

The point is that we may disagree on them being problems at all.

Your core argument is something along the lines of "Castlevania is THIS. LoS did THIS, but before doing THIS it also did THAT and THAT and since THAT isn't what Castlevania has been till now, then it's a problem". But with such a mindset, how does the game even improve? How can we expand and continue the franchise if nothing new can be done?

People were making your exact same arguments when SotN was released. People were bitching about Alucard not using a whip-like weapon. People were bitching about Alucard not being a Belmont. People were bitching about the music. People were bitching about it borrowing from Metroid.

The exact. Same. Arguments.

It's odd how most franchises benefit from seeing their developers trying new things; yet Castlevania does not. Instead of going "wow, this game brought us something new!", fans are often "why the hell this game isn't like every other?". Then people wonder why Castlevania is possibly the least successfull popular saga in videogame history. Sure, for us fans the "core elements" are enough to be happy of almost every release (the last few years of IGA have been more than "meh" to me, but that doesn't change the fact that I liked basically every game with the Castlevania name on it), but for a new fan? For a neutral observer? The only observation they can make is that the series is stale in the games that follow its original form, and very close to terrible in the games that divert from that formula (hello, Judgement).

Sure, let's have 120406070000990 games set in Transilvania where you got to kill Dracula with a Belmont or Alucard and fully take place in a castle. Don't be surprised if Castlevania goes extinct.

There is positively no problem with the first stages of LoS. In past Castlevania games, games that lasted 2 to 5 hours, you spent a couple minutes in the wild to get to the castle. In LoS you spend 3 hours in the wild, but the game is 20 hours long. They didn't take ANYTHING that is Castlevania out of the game. They added something more. They experimented. They tried to expand the mythos. They set the game in a very different age (CV's "core" gothic horror works best in the 1400-1800 period, this is a medieval episode, no wonder it has a somewhat fantasy feel).
If it is a problem that the game tried to be faithful and yet attempt to bring something new to the saga, then we may as well start begging for HD remakes of the old games on PSN and be done with it. I respect your perspective, but it's the same kind of formulaic approach to the saga that has been suffocating it for 15 years. Castlevania has a lot of potential. Its scope and lore and dept and legacy vastly overshadow games like God of War or even Resident Evil and Devil May Cry, and YET Castlevania has a tiny fraction of the popularity of those games. Stop to ask yourself why. Is Castlevania worse or less appealing than those games? Or was it held down for too long by conservative design? Once again, one could see IGA as the guy who kept CV on life support (and as someone who likes the handheld games, the temptation would be strong), but you need to ask yourself if the games could have been more than that if someone dared a bit more.
And the fact that you consider it problematic that LoS has outdoor areas, and feel that that is a betrayal to the saga, while you're perfectly fine about the 2035 games simply tell us that you have different priorities in what makes a Castlevania game. But once again, if 3 hours of woods and ruins disconnect you more from the lore of the saga than an episode set 30 years in the future where Dracula reincarnates in a college student who fights enemies that would be at home in something like One Piece, then you need to accept that I can't credit your judgement of objectiveness. You have your preferences, and I massively disagree with them, and neither of us can claim to be closer to the true essence of the saga.

But until our mentality is to dismiss anything that isn't a reskin of the same game we've been playing for 20 years, we're always gonna get that, and eventually the fanbase will be so small that we will be knowing each other by name. Personally I'm done with being conservative. If tomorrow we get a phenomenal game set in 500 A.D. where a Belmont ancestor travels to the Middle East to investigate the origins of a plague that is decimating Europe and eventually finding out the undead are behind it, I'll be fine with it being Castlevania. I'll be fine if it deals with fighting mummies in a pyramid instead of vampires in a castle, as long as the horror elements are conserved, as long as it ties to the overarching story - maybe by telling us how vampires came to be, or foreshadowing Dracula, or setting up the Belmont legacy, or whatever as long as it does bring something new to the saga - and as long as it plays like a Castlevania game, I'll be fine.

What? I'm not even gonna read that word salad you dropped on us. Try to be more concise next time.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Eh, it's not that bad, Crisis.
You've read worse, there was no need to post a post about how you're not gonna read something.

[Valtiel]

Eh, it's not that bad, Crisis.
You've read worse, there was no need to post a post about how you're not gonna read something.

I can stand some trolling, don't worry. I'm quite used to wall of text accusations, and heck, I probably deserve them to a point  .

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Alright then.
I'm finding myself on 'moderator' mode more these days, what with the influx of threads and info.

[Dracgou]

my list new characters for the sequel ( not the characters i am going to listed come from fictional Gothic horror novels)

1. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (  Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde)

2   Lord Ruthven  ( The Vampyre)

3 Clarimonde ( La Morte Amoureuse)

4 Sir Francis Varney  ( Feast of Blood)

5 Lord Oakendale  ( The Horrors of Oakendale Abbey)

6 Manfred ( The Castle of Otranto)

7 Count Wolfenbach ( The Castle of Wolfenbach)