Topic: Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Mirror of Fate 3DS (Discussion Thread)

[Akuma]

Stop jumping to conclusions.  Take a chill pill people.

[Vrakanox]

New spanish article here give more details
http://www.revogamers.net/articulos/bajamos-al-infierno-castlevania-mirror-of-fate-1032/1.html
The final playable character is

(click to show/hide)

Gabriel

Totally called Gabriel being the 4th character. Where the heck is my cookie!?

[Inccubus]

Once again - we haven't seen HOW Simon, Trevor and Gabriel fight. We don't know nothing at all about how they will use their weapon, even if it the same sort of weapon. If / When they will show gameplay, where all three characters have the same / very similar gameplay - OK, hate for your heart content. I, most likely, will be disagree with that, but at least you would have a actual complaint instead of knee-jerk overreaction based on nothing, but rumors. But until we haven't seen anything, making statements like that is lame.

We have already seen the basics of how Trevor plays, so far he's just about a carbon copy of Gabriel in LoS1 with adjustments for the 2D environment and no improvements to the things that annoyed me in LoS. Not to mention that, unless I misread/misheard, Cox already stated that the three Belmonts will all use similar combat but different sub-weapons.That said, my opinion on the rumor is not lame. If this game is supposed to be about the Belmont's fighting Dracula, then Gabriel shouldn't be the 3rd Belmont. Hopefully the rumor is mistaken and the flashback part with Gabriel doesn't count as the third pc because after building the suspense of the third pc it would be a lame cop out on MS's part and pure spin doctoring on Cox's part. That's my opinion, and if you don't like it, too bad. I'm entitled to it as much as you are to your own.

[DragonSlayr81]

Hive mind thriving on the past - is the horrible thing.

Hive-mind thriving on everything "new" is just as bad. The point being, just because something's old doesn't make it bad, and just because something's new doesn't make it good. There's good change and bad change, and just like their's good aspects of nostalgia as well as bad aspects of nostalgia. Having an open mind means you can be open to the best of both worlds, though don't have to be afraid of you don't agree with "change" nor negative aspects of nostalgia. Not everybody's going to like "new things", and not everybody should. To blindly accepted everything new because it's "new" is just as bad as holding on to the past and refusing everything new because it's "different". People accept what they want out of preference and individuality, and have that right to. Hell, I doubt you'd be open to all change, Sumac. You seem to have a particular taste. What if, after this, the CV series headed back to Japan. Not IGA, but nonetheless, went a more anime-esque route, somewhat different than IGA's "urk worthy anime-type CVs), but still carried various anime tropes. I've seen your contemptment towards that style. It would be a change from LoS, but not a change worthy of your approval. There are many here that hate it. But, what if, by some strange and freak way, that became popular. It did something, gameplay wise and story wise that resonated with a majority of gamers, and brought in new gamers that couldn't give a fuck about the old CVs, IGA CVs or Cox/MS Cvs. This NEW CV is the definitive version of the series to them. They've got their right, correct? Would you be spouting off how wrong these games are, only to be put down by some new upstart claiming that you "fear change"? It's all a cycle. It happens with everything, it's only a matter of time.

[Sumac]

Hell, I doubt you'd be open to all change, Sumac.

If there would be something that I don't like, I'll accept that I dislike that and won't yap about it on every single occasion. Quite simple really.
As I am not mentioning on every occasion how much I hate HOD or how much I dislike "metroidvania" formula as a whole, unlike some people who basically made it their duty to mention in every single post how they hate LOS, no matter how relevant it to the topic at hand.

They've got their right, correct?

As a new generation of the gamers, who is not obligated by anything to give a single damn about past iterations of the franchise - absolutely. They can consider definitive Castlevania whatever they wanted. I am not in the right to tell them that they are wrong, since I am belong to the entirely different gamer generation and adhere to different values when it comes to games. Just like with modern games in general - I dislike them, I don't undersatnd them - all this boring FPSs, crazy WRPGs, online RPGs. I don't see absolutely nothing interesting about them, but I do understand that this is a new time that set new standarts and new definition of what games is. My dislike and disinterest is not a reason to be a crazy hater.
Whining like an idiot "why they don't make games like in 1995" will make me look stupid. This time have gone and new people, new technologies come into play. Better to accept it and move on, rather than wildly barking at newcomers that they don't unerstand "what games truly are". They maybe don't understand what games were in your time, but it just proves that you don't understand what games are today as well.
In the end, if Castlevania will turn into something that I dislike, I'll try to make the best of the worst and like new games for what they are, or simply abandon franchise for a time being. It's not a matter of life and death to be worshipped as sacred idol or something, like some people seemingly make it to be.

[e105beta]

Except that I'm saying the concept of the third character being Gabriel in light of all the hype of there being 3 Belmonts to play as who all have been stated to use the same sort of weapon is lame. I haven't spoken about the execution of it at all since all we have to far is game play of Trevor.

And...

This makes it even more lame. Now Cox looks like more of a Spin Doctor getting us excited for a 3rd playable character that is little more than a tease.

I hope that Gabriel is just the completion of the previous DLC plans as stated and not the actual third character... but I doubt it.

You use this phrase "Spin Doctor" without acknowledging the fact that some people actually want to play as Dracula, and actually feel excitement at the realization that it is going to be possible.

I mean Cox did say we were going to get three Belmonts, and I'd rather the third one be Dracula, a character with some potential play style variety, than Richter, for example, who really would play like just another Belmont

[Maedhros]

You use this phrase "Spin Doctor" without acknowledging the fact that some people actually want to play as Dracula, and actually feel excitement at the realization that it is going to be possible.

I mean Cox did say we were going to get three Belmonts, and I'd rather the third one be Dracula, a character with some potential play style variety, than Richter, for example, who really would play like just another Belmont

Everything Gabriel did on the trailer is pretty much what we've saw in LoS. I hope Dracula is more powerfull and have more variation for his attacks than just a blood whip... because that wouldn't be different from Gabriel at all.

[flyingchai]

Everything Gabriel did on the trailer is pretty much what we've saw in LoS.

I don't recall Gabriel being able to turn into a black smoke dragon or suck the life out of an enemy...

[Kamirine]

I'm not sure if anyone has read this, but here's an interview on Gamespot about this game. 
http://www.gamespot.com/features/konami-and-mercury-steam-redefine-castlevanias-traditional-formula-6382500/?tag=Topslot%3bEspionageAndVampireHunters%3bMercurySteamAndKonami

[Inccubus]

... a character with some potential play style variety, than Richter, for example, who really would play like just another Belmont

You don't know that.

[thernz]

but richter has spinkicks and spinning jumps and he is p. much a complete doofus in hodespair

[e105beta]

Everything Gabriel did on the trailer is pretty much what we've saw in LoS. I hope Dracula is more powerfull and have more variation for his attacks than just a blood whip... because that wouldn't be different from Gabriel at all.

I must have missed the part in LoS where Gabriel turns into fireballs, teleports, sucks people's blood, and turns into a giant smoke dragon.

You don't know that.

Well that's your argument for Gabriel, so why would it be any less true for Richter? At least the former is, you know, Dracula.

[Inccubus]

I'm not sure if anyone has read this, but here's an interview on Gamespot about this game. 
http://www.gamespot.com/features/konami-and-mercury-steam-redefine-castlevanias-traditional-formula-6382500/?tag=Topslot%3bEspionageAndVampireHunters%3bMercurySteamAndKonami

Interesting.

What's important to me now is that we address the fans of Lords of Shadow. The fans that bought the first game, you know, what do they want? They want more of the same; they want to know about the Belmonts, they want to know about Dracula, they want more of the cool combat that they've had. I want to give them something that they're going to be attracted to. At the same time, I want to bring over some of the fans that might not have liked it. I want to bring them in too.

Cox, for all intents and purposes said he only cares what the new fans of LoS want more of. So... what the older fans think and want is irrelevant? Not cool, Mr. Cox. Not cool at all.

Well that's your argument for Gabriel, so why would it be any less true for Richter? At least the former is, you know, Dracula.

My argument against Gabriel is the fact that Cox makes it sound like we're getting another new character, not the same one again who is supposed to be the antagonist already. I honestly was even hoping that he wasn't going to be playable in LoS2, but given that it's officially the last game I never mentioned it. And also it probably wouldn't be true for Richter since he hasn't ever been in LoS. Gabriel, on the other hand has been, and in the one scene we have for LoS2 his basic hand to hand tactics seem identical, but just on a grander scale. So, yes, there is a difference between a character we know something about and one that we don't know anything about at all.

[e105beta]

No. My argument isn't directly with Gabriel's game play, yet. It's the fact that Cox makes it sound like we're getting another new character, not the same one again who is supposed to be the antagonist already. I honestly was even hoping that he wasn't going to be playable in LoS2, but given that it's officially the last game I never mentioned it.

Cox made it sound like there was going to be a fourth playable character. Don't remember him ever saying anything about new.

And since you read the interview, you'll know that MercurySteam is trying to make Castlevania: The Dracula Story with Lords of Shadow, so it makes perfect sense to make Dracula playable as the prologue to Mirror of Fate.

[Inccubus]

Cox made it sound like there was going to be a fourth playable character. Don't remember him ever saying anything about new.

And since you read the interview, you'll know that MercurySteam is trying to make Castlevania: The Dracula Story with Lords of Shadow, so it makes perfect sense to make Dracula playable as the prologue to Mirror of Fate.

He said there were 4 playable characters and ONE was a fan favorite. To me that sounds like the other three may not be favorites or even well known. What people say is just as important as what they don't say. The problem with interpreting what people don't say in relation to what was said is that it leaves comfortable room for assumptions. I admit that. But if you are going to bother to keep it under wraps until all the other characters have been revealed, you have to admit that a character that was already playable and is the supposed "main character" of the overall narrative is a little anti-climactic. It's almost like making a Megaman game and then waiting to reveal he's playable until after you announce Protoman, Roll, and Bass.

Making Gabriel playable in the prologue in the one game he isn't the focal point of doesn't make perfect sense necessarily. "Perfect sense" is subjective and to another person it might make perfect sense for Trevor to be the playable character in the prologue or any other character for that matter.