Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Lumi Kløvstad on January 15, 2012, 06:55:18 AM
-
NOTE: This was written very quickly due to time constraints, so apologies in advance if it doesn't quite "flow" the way a topic should.
*gets out a tower shield*
I'm going to get pummeled for this, I'm sure. But here goes anyway.
Every day I see a lot of filth hurled at Harmony of Despair.
I'll grant a lot of it is well deserved, especially where map design is concerned.
However, I honestly think that it doesn't deserve to be so riddled with the darts of hate. People criticize HD as if the game spells the end of Castlevania forever. While I'd be among those who argued that in fact Castlevania has been on life support for a very long time (since the DS came out, by my reckoning), that's not relevant here.
But here's my ultimate opinion of the game: Is it good? Not at all. Is it fun? Yes.
Guess which of those two I prefer as a casual gamer?
I prefer the fun factor.
Go ahead and call me part of the problem. It won't be the first time that's happened to me, and I honestly don't care about that angle. I never was interested in Castlevania from the Art Critic's perspective. I could care less about poor layouts, reused sprites and tiles, or a game being too easy or too hard.
My critique of a multiplayer game is based on the fun factor. Is it fun? Can me and a couple of mates just plop on the couch, gin it up, and then have fun killing whatever enemies the devs see fit to hurl in our general direction whilst a few beers are imbibed over pizzas with way too many toppings?
In the case of HD, absolutely yes. It's exactly that game. Granted, I'd have appreciated a more original title like the rest of you, but we make our choices from the products that are available, not the ones we wish were available.
Harmony of Despair was always meant as a budget aside game. It wasn't made to win awards or respect. It has no aspirations beyond getting a few friends together to have some stupid fun, nor does it need to have such.
And I respect that.
Contrast Lords of Shadow, which is so desperate to have people fall in love with it that it makes a Faustian deal with the Videogame Devil and forsakes it's heart and soul to achieve success and monetary gain.
So Harmony is a lazy, sloppy mess. I get it. But it's a lazy, sloppy mess with heart, replay value, and a gimmick that actually works for once.
Co-op done simply. Co-op done right.
Were HD a purely single player game, or a full priced major release, you'd better believe I'd be impaling it on glowing hot pikes of nerd justice alongside everyone else.
But as a co-op experience, it becomes a game that is more or less slightly more than the sum of it's parts.
And in this co-op experience, I meet dozens of players every night who just want to have a fun time. And we do. Regardless of the game's myriad and egregious faults.
I highly doubt there will be a Harmony of Despair 2, but if there is, I'd hope it had much more well thought out content and design.
But Harmony of Despair remains a cheap, fun way to waste a few hours with some friends.
It's not the enemy of the fans. In fact, it's COUNTING on the fans, unlike a certain reboot made by a certain Dave, which repeatedly gives the longtime fans of the series the finger.
David Cox and his pretender title Lords of Shadow are the true "enemies" of the franchise, and unlike Harmony of Despair, Lords is the game that should truly be cast into the fire.
And that's where I stand on Harmony of Despair.
-
Wow you can write a lot under time constraints. ;)
I agree with you. HD isn't the greatest Castlevania game, but it is definitely fun. I didn't think it would matter, but I truly enjoy playing with other CV fans.
The real downfall to HD is the lack of new content. Especially considering there's a nearly unending supply of enemies, bosses, areas, weapons and heroes to choose from. Konami could have released new downloadable content every month for the next couple of years. But instead they're going to let it languish as is.
This is actually a perfect example of what the fans, and groups like OA, should be focused on changing. It wouldn't be impossible to get Konami's attention here, it doesn't go against where they want to take the franchise with home consoles, and it would only require minimal resources on their end.
-
I am 100% on your side. I have spent many hours on HD. My real problem with it is once you get to a certain point you are damn near god like. The lack of exploration was pretty disappointing. I found the bosses fun, but as you said the lack of DLC was very disappointing. I deleted it from my PS3 the other day, but i do however eagerly await an improved version of the game.
-
Honestly, I'd love another set of maps based on more of the Classicvanias. Origins is probably my favorite map, and I think the same should be done with other classic titles, albeit more broken down as the games get longer.
Also, since they are obviously not above modifying sprite sheets for some characters (hello Julius and Simon), I'd like a ReBirth Christopher Belmont please. It ain't hard Konami.
But it's true that the content we have is probably the content we're stuck with.
And that's the true lazy part.
-
I notice HD gets a lot more hate on CV-specific sites like the dungeon than on more general gaming sites when it comes up, whatever that may mean. The reviews weren't that good either, but I can see how hard it'd be to actually rate the game highly given all the content reuse and the small batch of levels offered. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to any random gamer or someone who doesn't like the combat aspect of the Castleroid formula (and it doesn't really have the exploration aspect), but it can still have a lot of value to those who do like the combat in Castleroids.
I think that probably they felt they had to go conservative with it since it was such a weird idea and they had no idea whether it'd sell. Also, another weird idea, Judgment, bombed shortly before. So they went on the smallest budget possible, necessitating a lot of reuse of content. If they were to make an HD2, they'd probably better understand what kind of sales to expect and would be able to have less content recycling and perhaps more content overall as well to try to attract even more sales and better reviews.
-
HD's hatred mostly stems from the fact that it's recycled, whereas LOS wasn't. Just sayin'.
-
Lords was absolutely recycled garbage. Difference being that HD recycles from the Castlevania series, whilst Lords of Shadow recycled from outside the franchise.
Not a true Castlevania bone in Lords' body.
I'll take the game that hasn't forgotten which franchise it's in, please and thank you.
-
Going by that argument, most Metrovanias are very different from the original Castlevanias, especially with the absence of Belmonts as playable characters, and gameplay. So, with that being said, I'd rather play a solid game that copies other titles like LOS, than say a game which uses the same sprites/backgrounds.
-
Except why would you play a needlessly derivative game like Lords, when the games it's aping are readily available and so much better to begin with?
-
, especially with the absence of Belmonts as playable characters, and gameplay.
Wait.
MOST metroidvanias?
I can only think of 2 which do not feature a belmont as playable and thats Order of Ecclesia and Circle of the Moon.
Definitely not "MOST" by any means.
-
It is worth noting that Harmony of Dissonance is the only Castleroid that has a true Belmont as the game's primary playable character, however.
-
It is worth noting that Harmony of Dissonance is the only Castleroid that has a true Belmont as the game's primary playable character, however.
Yea, but he said "playable in gameplay" not "staring a belmont"...
-
I was actually trying to make my own point there. Since... well... Symphony's Richter mode, it's been pretty obvious that Belmonts can work in a Castleroid gameplay-wise. I'm not entirely certain why only Harmony of Dissonance deigned to make the Belmont clan central to the plot again, but it was fresh, and a departure that should not have been a departure at all.
Iga's games always veered away from the Belmonts, and I'm not sure why he didn't like them as main characters.
But alas, I have fallen off the topic of my own thread. Silly me.
Perhaps we should take up this conversation in another thread?
-
I can only think of 2 which do not feature a belmont as playable and thats Order of Ecclesia and Circle of the Moon.
Last time I checked CotM had a Belmont in it. Though not in name but in blood; Nathan Graves.
-
Last time I checked CotM had a Belmont in it. Though not in name but in blood; Nathan Graves.
Where did it say he was a Belmont by blood?
Its been a while since I played COTM so you will have to enlighten me.
And even if he is, at the most he is probably just a distinct relative similar to the Morris Clan which does not make him a Direct Descendant of the Belmont clan and thus not a Belmont. Just someone who is related to them.
-
Iga's games always veered away from the Belmonts, and I'm not sure why he didn't like them as main characters.
He probably likes having the more varied weaponry set--swords, knuckles, rods, etc rather than just the whip. PoR sort of got around that issue though (although with a Morris and not a Belmont). I don't really feel like there'd be anything wrong with them making a game with a Belmont who can use more than the Vampire Killer though.
-
I think IGA wanted to emphasize the RPG aspect. Having only a Belmont using his VK whip takes away the fact he could equip other weapons.
-
Where did it say he was a Belmont by blood?
Its been a while since I played COTM so you will have to enlighten me.
It doesn't. This is a conclusion that I've come to as he is the only one in the game to take down Dracula and he uses a whip. While they don't call it the vampirekiller in CotM (rather the "Hunter whip" as Hugh put it) I'm fairly confident that it is one and the same. -Hunter/Vampirekiller- both speak of slaying though one is more direct in meaning.
And even if he is, at the most he is probably just a distinct relative similar to the Morris Clan which does not make him a Direct Descendant of the Belmont clan and thus not a Belmont. Just someone who is related to them.
For me I can only assume that Nathan is either a direct descendant who's name was changed (like Reinhardt Schneider) or is a blood-relative like the Morris'. I feel that it is option one. Partially the year in which the game takes place which is in 1830 and SotN takes place in 1797. Not a whole lot of time between the two, but I'll try to elaborate my theory:
After SotN Richter goes back home with Anett. Instead of having a son he has a daughter. She is schooled as a hunter and uses the vampirekiller. once of age she falls in love with a man who's last name is Graves. They marry and have a son, Nathan Graves. They also are good friends with the Baldwins; another hunter family not related to the Belmonts (otherwise Hugh would be the hero in CotM and not Nathan). Both Nathan's parents are killed by Dracula and Morris Baldwin barely survives. He then raises up Nathan along with his son Hugh to be Vampire hunters. In the end, Morris names Nathan the successor and gives him back his family's heirloom weapon much to the dismay of Hugh who thought that it was his right to wield it (I'm quite certain that Hugh was never told about the true nature of the whip or that it belonged to Nathan's family). The only other fact on hand here is that only one of Belmont blood can slay the Count. So in order for Nathan to have a ghost of a chance at killing Dracula he would need the Belmont blood in him. Having the Hunter whip helps of course.
The story of CotM isn't really clear so through deductive reasoning I had to fill in the blanks.
-
It doesn't. This is a conclusion that I've come to as he is the only one in the game to take down Dracula and he uses a whip. While they don't call it the vampirekiller in CotM (rather the "Hunter whip" as Hugh put it) I'm fairly confident that it is one and the same. -Hunter/Vampirekiller- both speak of slaying though one is more direct in meaning.
For me I can only assume that Nathan is either a direct descendant who's name was changed (like Reinhardt Schneider) or is a blood-relative like the Morris'. I feel that it is option one. Partially the year in which the game takes place which is in 1830 and SotN takes place in 1797. Not a whole lot of time between the two, but I'll try to elaborate my theory:
After SotN Richter goes back home with Anett. Instead of having a son he has a daughter. She is schooled as a hunter and uses the vampirekiller. once of age she falls in love with a man who's last name is Graves. They marry and have a son, Nathan Graves. They also are good friends with the Baldwins; another hunter family not related to the Belmonts (otherwise Hugh would be the hero in CotM and not Nathan). Both Nathan's parents are killed by Dracula and Morris Baldwin barely survives. He then raises up Nathan along with his son Hugh to be Vampire hunters. In the end, Morris names Nathan the successor and gives him back his family's heirloom weapon much to the dismay of Hugh who thought that it was his right to wield it (I'm quite certain that Hugh was never told about the true nature of the whip or that it belonged to Nathan's family). The only other fact on hand here is that only one of Belmont blood can slay the Count. So in order for Nathan to have a ghost of a chance at killing Dracula he would need the Belmont blood in him. Having the Hunter whip helps of course.
The story of CotM isn't really clear so through deductive reasoning I had to fill in the blanks.
Oh....
So this is all just ASSUMPTIONS on your part and not cold hard facts?
Well thats a shame...
Its just that you replied to me as if you where stating a fact by saying that CITM did indeed have a belmont in it by Blood named Nathan Graves.
When really its all just a theory you produced yourself.
No matter how you try to reason it the fact remains that the whip in the game is not called the Vampire Killer but the Hunter Whip. Fact is that it never was said that he was a belmont or related to them despite the fact that he does posses skills similar to theirs.
Its all assumptions and theories on your part.
So my point stands that CITM and OOE are the only castlevania games to not feature a Belmont.
-
What is your point exactly? So just because it isn't stated in official documents, it MUST be thrown out, without question? That is absurd. And X's reasoning makes A LOT of sense. Especially the part about the names being entirely arbitrary (I don't know why people place SO much emphasis on names, anyway, a rose by any other name, and so on) and that only one of the Belmont blood could effectively wield and destroy Dracula using the whip. It's perfectly logical deduction, and is far more useful than just sitting on our hands and saying "IZT KNOT TROO CUZ IGZA SUD NAW!!!11!1shiftone!!!".
-
What is your point exactly?
My point.....
*looks at the letters AFTER I posted "my point"*
And here I thought I made my point clear lol.
But just to spell it out for you, my point is that COTM does not have a CONFIRMED belmont character in it.
Never said that X's theory was not plausible.
Never said that it was not reasonable.
Just told the truth, and the truth is its all THEORIES and not FACT.
Whats "absurd" is the fact that your defending something that does not need to be defended. He gave his "theories" and I pointed out the "facts".
I never dismissed his theory.
So lighten up and calm down next time before going off the handle as if I was attacking X or something.
I'm pretty sure he could defend himself if I was....
-
What I meant was, you're simply arguing it. No duh there's no official statement on CotM. Hell, it was previously retconned. The fact we will never get an official statement, we might as well look elsewhere. I don't really see any point in simply restating that "there's no official Belmont in CotM". It's a pointless, completely obvious and arbitrary statement.
-
What I meant was, you're simply arguing it. No duh there's no official statement on CotM. Hell, it was previously retconned. The fact we will never get an official statement, we might as well look elsewhere. I don't really see any point in simply restating that "there's no official Belmont in CotM". It's a pointless, completely obvious and arbitrary statement.
I didn't argue anything.
Someone posted earlier about IGA neglecting to add Belmonts to MOST of the metroidvania games.
I pointed out that only 2 left out Belmonts which is COTM and OOE.
It was X who came in and stated (as if it were fact) that a Belmont was indeed in COTM and is one by BLOOD. I myself only asked him to confirm this and he could not.
I pointed out the truth about him only bringing ASSUMPTIONS to the table and you are the one who decided to bring this back up by trying to defend him when really he did not need it. The discussion was over with and yet you make it seem as if I am throwing salt on X's theories.
His theories or indeed possible and logical.
But at the end of the day they are only THEORIES and not FACTS.
-
Okay I don't mean to interrupt you two, however...
All I presented was a theory about CotM. If it did indeed come off as sounding like fact then I apologize for the confusion. I did not intend for it to sound like fact rather then assumption but it was the only way I could explain it. I do thank you Sonic_Reaper for sticking up for me, however like DarkPrinceAlucard said it wasn't necessary. He didn't nail me to the wall or anything like that (which is a good thing considering my current mental/emotional health :P), he simply laid out the carpet. For me, my theory of CotM is alright in my mind and since it's not canon anymore then it's left up to everyone for their own interpretations.