There's nothing special about the Vampire Killer in the Metroidvanias,
The only MVs to compete with SotN on plot are AoS and OoE (if OoE can even be called a MV). OoE is closer to a classicvania in gameplay style than any of the others so you might as well try that one if anything.
In the Classicvanias, the whip had no background whatsoever, it didn't even have an official name. It was just a "mystic whip" and you didn't even know why they used it.
Portrait of Ruin is heavy on the "whip mythos," Juste can use no other weapon BUT the whip in Harmony, Hugh's jealousy of Nathan being the whip's successor is what caused his downfall, and Julius goes as far as to seal it in the castle itself in 1999. Vampire Killer even has it's own data entry in the encyclopedia in a couple Metroidvanias. So..
The only Metroidvania that doesn't have a whip is Ecclesia, and there's a reason for that.
Sorry for being predictable but... try Lords of Shadow? It's a ClassicVania on steroids, it's got whips, levels, platfforming and it needs no backstory
It sounds like you don't particularly care for one of the central tenets of this style of Castlevania design, so that certainly limits the potential enjoyment. If you still feel like trudging onward, you could try the games with less wandering about a mazelike map. Such games with more compact layouts and direct pacing would be Aria of Sorrow and Order of Ecclesia. Fortunately, they're among the best.
It feels like the games following in Symphony's footsteps have always suffered from a reactionary, damage control-esque design philosophy, which alleviated a problem or two but in the process introduced several new ones. It's kind of a monstrous cycle they can't break away from, and Symphony itself casts a long shadow. To illustrate (imminent facetiousness):
I personally think they get better in some ways. Though widely praised, Symphony of the Night is a game with many faults. This doesn't mean that I think it doesn't deserve the praise, but in the flood of accolades, people often skim over parts where I think it should be heavily criticized. The thing is, what Symphony does well, it does so well that it's easy to shrug off the bad points. At least it is for many people.
Lack of difficulty.
A story that doesn't make sense, or at least leaves way too many crucial things unexplained.
A tacked on, directionless, and in many ways uninspired second half of the game.
Recycled area themes galore.
I could really go on.
I would recommend giving Aria of Sorrow a try. Of the Metroidvania games, I think it's the most... um, practical of the lot. The others aren't as easily appreciated based on practicality and basic standards, like cool bosses, approachable music, tight levels, cool stories, and all that. The actual really good ones appeal to me on a bit of a higher plane than that, mostly due to moods, feelings, and atmospheres that the game worlds emit, but I wouldn't expect everyone to appreciate something so vague, at least not in the same way I do.
Actually Order of Ecclessia's exploration is more akin to Simon's Quest during the beginning parts (before you get to the castle).
But once you get to the Castle its strictly Metroidvania all the way.
So in a way, its more of a combination of Simon's quest and the Metroidvania formula.
What parts of SotN's plot did you think not made sense?
Off the top of my head, it doesn't explain where the Inverted Castle came from or why it came.
We can make assumptions, but it doesn't explain exactly why Alucard woke up from his slumber. I don't think there is any official media that states it is because a Belmont turned evil and became Lord of the Castle, though I could be wrong. In any case, that is never made clear in game if it is mentioned somewhere.
Why did Shaft come back? It's true he returned in Rondo of Blood as a ghost, but his ghost was vanquished. It just seems cheap to me that this guy can apparently return an indefinite amount of times. I suppose we can explain this away with some kind of black magic, but again, more assumptions on our part if we do.
The game doesn't explain why Dracula came back. We can assume it is because Alucard gathered his remains, but the game doesn't say anything about it. He's just there.
Why did the castle come back to begin with? It broke apart and dispersed when Richter destroyed Dracula. Does Richter Belmont have the power to raise Castlevania? We can make guesses I guess, but again, they'd just be guesses.
I think they wanted the "The castle is a creature of chaos" line to be the answer to that. Though that only makes if the Inverted Castle is merely the top half and not a whole separate castle.I
The manual just says that he's "now awake and aware of the evil once again at work in his homeland".Thogh this is probably even more vague.
Maybe since Shaft is an undead bastard, if he gathered up all of Dracula's parts and used them, he'd be consumed by Drac's power and he didn't want that. And the sum of Dracula's parts doesn't mean Dracula will be resurrected, it means there needs to be a sacrifice. Perhaps that was what Richter was for - Shaft could use Richter as the offering. The question of plot hole then falls retroactively on Simon's Quest, which doesn't explain why Simon was able to revive Dracula without any offering. Simon's Quest started the "gather Dracula's parts" method, but the Classicvanias otherwise never specified how Dracula kept coming around. Then Rondo showed a sacrifice had to be offered. Since SOTN is Rondo's sequel, there must be a sacrifice there too -- which for whatever reason was the undying dark priest.Maybe the sacrifice was only needed to restore Dracula's full power. As for Shaft being the sacrifice for some reason, Shaft's spirit was the only thing closest to a sacrifice that was available, and I think Shaft was willing to offer his soul anyway if need be, since his goal was to resurrect Dracula by any means necessary IIRC. Plus, the soul that gets consumed can free itself either when Dracula doesn't need it anymore and chooses to or if he gets killed again, or at least that's what PoR and Death's subsequent chronological appearances have led me to believe.
...
Ok, I'v egot nothing. I was trying.
So pretty much I should expect a polished version of Simon's Quest for the first part of the game?Ehhh, Order of Ecclesia's progression isn't at all like Simon's Quest. Ecclesia has a world map from which you explore areas in a very linear matter: you beat an area, and another area unlocks on the map. There's no inter-connectivity between them. Simon's Quest is more about an integrated, cohesive world where you bump your head into everything, using items to get to new places. While that has some relevance in Ecclesia, Ecclesia pretty much has the places you need to go and use new abilities right on the path, and this only occurs in the later part of the game. But even then, Ecclesia's castle has a lot less exploration in it than the other Castlevanias. The only thematic similarity is that both take place in the countryside and you can go back to places.
Ehhh, Order of Ecclesia's progression isn't at all like Simon's Quest.
But once you get to the Castle its strictly Metroidvania all the way.
I thought what the game wanted you to think happened to Richter was infinitely more interesting before Shaft shafted his way back into the plot.
I'd like to think just gathering Drac's remains together would summon Castlevania, but you're right. That's a guess/theory.
Maybe since Shaft is an undead bastard, if he gathered up all of Dracula's parts and used them, he'd be consumed by Drac's power and he didn't want that. And the sum of Dracula's parts doesn't mean Dracula will be resurrected, it means there needs to be a sacrifice. Perhaps that was what Richter was for - Shaft could use Richter as the offering. The question of plot hole then falls retroactively on Simon's Quest, which doesn't explain why Simon was able to revive Dracula without any offering. Simon's Quest started the "gather Dracula's parts" method, but the Classicvanias otherwise never specified how Dracula kept coming around. Then Rondo showed a sacrifice had to be offered. Since SOTN is Rondo's sequel, there must be a sacrifice there too -- which for whatever reason was the undying dark priest.
...
Ok, I'v egot nothing. I was trying.
That is likely actually true given another one of the Metroidvania's plots, but it'd probably be spoilers to say any more. How you thought of that without playing that particular MV is actually rather perplexing to me.
Yes, I know he was technically in the Inverted Castle, but so then where did the regular Castle... which would be the actual inverted castle if it's not Dracula's real castle... o_O come from?
Except maybe the castle didn't crumble because Drac held it together, but rather because the awesome destructive power of Drac's destruction was so great that it destroyed the castle. ... ... Yeah. Just saying, think of it like a bomb going off deep inside the castle. You might be able to outrun the bomb's blast, but the shockwave would reverberate through the walls, fracturing them and causing the structure to collapse in on itself. Just think of Drac's deaths as being like airplanes crashing into tall buildings. Otherwise, how would you explain the Castle appearing before Dracula's been revived? (Yes, I know he was technically in the Inverted Castle, but so then where did the regular Castle... which would be the actual inverted castle if it's not Dracula's real castle... o_O come from?)
...meaning just ignore all the Metroidvanias because IGA is a nutcase?
SOTN is a bore. It's tedious and loses entertainment value by the time you get to the inverted castle. ... SOTN drags.
Most people think SOTN is the best game in the series.
guh-hyuck
It does drag towards the end, but my biggest problem is that Konami keeps porting it to every system they can think of, and therefore I've played it so many times it's not fresh in the slightest.
I don't understand these people at all. It's easily my least favorite entry in the series from what I've played so far.
I don't understand these people at all. It's easily my least favorite entry in the series from what I've played so far.
I got a lot of shit a few weeks ago on Facebook for suggesting Richter's "Die monster! You don't belong in this world!" line was actually in reference to SotN itself, and that Dracula's lines was metaphorical for the state of the Castlevania series. :p
I suppose so.
It's funny though, because most of the time I can at least understand what other people like about games that I didn't enjoy, or why something I like may not appeal to them. I was really struggling though to see why anyone would enjoy SotN's gameplay, or even go as far as to put it on "Greatest Games of All Time" lists.
Do you enjoy any games with a lot of exploration? Metroid, anything like that? A lot of modern 3D games have an exploration element as well to save dev time and cost in creating tons of areas, so they make large interconnected areas which you have to sometimes backtrack through and such.As I said in the OP, not really. I find exploration just for the sake of filling in a map incredibly dull and tedious. It was especially bad in the Inverted Castle, which was filled with easy enemies and nothing really happening until you get to Shaft/Dracula.
It's funny though, because most of the time I can at least understand what other people like about games that I didn't enjoy, or why something I like may not appeal to them. I was really struggling though to see why anyone would enjoy SotN's gameplay, or even go as far as to put it on "Greatest Games of All Time" lists.
I find exploration just for the sake of filling in a map incredibly dull and tedious.Absolutely agree.
guh-hyuck
I assure you that they do not understand you either. Your neural pathways are just wired differently than theirs in obscure ways and there is nothing that can be done.LOL. And they call LOS fans overly zealous.
Because it is one of the greatest games of all time, over 10 years later & it is still the best "metroidvania." Shame that you're in the minority that thinks otherwiseYou should ashamed for telling someone, that he should be ashamed for having different opinion (from yours). :rollseyes:
You should ashamed for telling someone, that he should be ashamed for having different opinion (from yours).
I know people like that kind of stuff, but I just don't understand why.
There are a handful of secret walls, lite puzzles, secret abilities (not relics), and etc. There are also a handful of small touches and unique rooms. The game path of progression also tends to branch out so there's a sense of replay value of tackling different areas in different order (not really).It's only unique on the first playthrough sadly.
SotN has yet to be surpassed in visual quality and level design.If we talk about level design as in "how much details were put into the background", than yes it unsurpassed. If we talk about actual level design, than I'd say that AOS was on par with SOTN.
Also yeah, the music is still king in this game. Yamane actually got a little worse later on when she focused on more pop-ish songs and I believe she said that now she wouldn't put music like Dance of Pales in the game because it's not suitable for an action game.I think her absolute best soundtrack was LOI's one. SOTN was good, but there were too much of everything and ultimately it created a strange combination. It doesn't give that unified picture feeling, IMO.
yeah, you're still on ignore Sumac, but unfortunately I can still see your inane posts when I'm not logged in. You really need to stop taking shots at me already.Oh my!! You missed me so much that decided to read my "inane" posts? ;D
I agree that the tedium of the Inverted Castle weighs on me as well, but I do appreciate just how different the atmosphere feels for each area compared to the equivalent in Dracula's Castle. Some, like the Inverted Coliseum and the Inverted Library are completely and utterly different in terms of atmosphere from their original versions, and the respective music goes a long way in helping that.