Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: DoctaMario on March 27, 2012, 11:15:25 AM
-
As some of you know, I've always felt like Simon's Quest has been something of a misunderstood title in the Castlevania series. But while reading a Castlevania topic over at fantasystrike.com, Obscura, one of the more vocal members over there made a post regarding the game that I found completely interesting. It was in response to the Sequelitis video which you can watch Sequelitis - Castlevania 1 vs. Castlevania 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aip2aIt0ROM#)
Obscura had this to say:
His analysis of the game was really far off, because he misunderstood it at a very fundamental level.
A minor nitpick before getting to the big issue: contrary to popular belief (and what this review states), the odd and misleading dialogue is not at all because of translation issues. The Castlevania fandom found out a loooong time ago that the Japanese version is just as insane. Yes, it even has the famous "graveyard duck". I don't know why this is such an issue with people, though, given that the manual even warns you that the townspeople are crazy and you shouldn't fully trust what they say.
As for the main issue: he's judging the game by platformer standards. Why anyone would do this, I have no idea. Simon's Quest is a game where the final level has no enemies and no hazards. You just walk through a creepy mausoleum. The game is trying to be a good platformer as much as Silent Hill is trying to be a good third-person action game.
I'll say this again for emphasis.
Castlevania II: Simon's Quest is not attempting to be a good platformer!
Just like Silent Hill used the trappings of a 3D action game to create an experience designed to push the player's buttons, Simon's Quest uses the trappings of a platformer to push the player's buttons. With this in mind, none of the criticisms in that video make any sense. Yes, it's at best frustrating and at worst infuriating when you lose all of your hearts when you were saving up for an item. Guess what? That was completely intentional! So is the irritation of waiting for night to end so you can actually buy that item in town. The game got under your skin; it worked perfectly!
The mansion layouts are the most obvious example of the game's aims: the first one has invisible pits that drop you at the start of a looooong path that forces you back to the beginning of the dungeon every few feet, and more towards the end; the later ones are even more devious (the fifth one is particularly evil). This isn't a game that wants you to have fun playing it; CVII is more akin to a survival horror game than it is a normal platformer.
Another example: in the town where you get the blue crystal, someone right by the entrance you'll approach from warns you that there's a criminal forcing people into bad deals. Then you talk to some random guy... and he says "I would like to trade a blue crystal for your white crystal", and the game gives you no option; the crystal swap is done instantly! When I was a kid and played this for the first time, before the dawn of the internet and before I knew this was a necessary step for finishing the game, I freaked the fuck out! Holy shit, I just got an item I already knew was crucial stolen from me! And yet, despite this, the game is still leading the player down the correct path with the misinformation, because it's already been framed as important!. I know that the blue crystal is different in some important way than the white one! I can go back to the first mansion and see that the blue crystal does everything the white crystal does, so it becomes obvious that it was a mindfuck, but it focuses me in the right place.
Likewise, the "clue" regarding Deborah's Cliff, where the guy tells you to bang your head into it to create a hole to crawl through. The video review complained about this, saying it had nothing to do with the real solution. Well, no shit, Sherlock. Did you seriously think that banging your goddamn head through a fucking cliff was a viable solution, and not something fucking crazy that some random guy said?!?! At the same time, it DOES clue you in that there's more to the world beyond that cliff, and you should try to get past it. The game pulls this kind of weird shit all the time, mixing lies with half-truths, in an attempt to fuck with the player's head.
The bit where he shows off the "fixed" version of the game is goddamn hilarious. A townsperson straight up tells him what he should do with the white crystal! LOL! Yeah, that "fixes" the game alright; it turns it from a weird mindfuck game into a kinda sub-par platformer. What a great mod!
The above isn't to say that the game is perfect by any means. I can't really even give it a star rating as you'd like. You probably noticed that it's at the bottom of my list of Classicvanias, and there's a reason for that. The fact is, I have literally no desire to ever play it again. At the same time, I haven't had many more memorable gaming experiences than the years I spent hacking away at that mindfuck in my youth.
So what do you guys think? Is he on point? Is Simon's Quest more of an unintentional survival horror than a platformer or is Obscura (who makes some brilliant posts over there btw) full of shit?
-
I can agree with that to an extent. The manual says not to trust the townspeople, and they do indeed give you, at best, half-truths. The only veritable sources of information are Dracula's Clues. The villagers do NOT LIE about those. I guess that's the only thing they can safely tell you.
Of course, the clues are also cryptic.
"Wait for a soul with a red crystal on Deborah Cliff"... it never says "Crouch".
However, the previous clue about the blue crystal DOES say so "Kneel by the lake with the blue crystal".
So, essentially one clue is a clue to the next clue.
Some clues are only story-based, though:
"Destroy the curse and you'll rule Brahm's Mansion" and "Destroy the Curse with Dracula' Heart" are strictly based on the "Curse" of the river that prevents the ferryman from taking you to the mansion.
-
It sounds like a load of blind justifications to me.
Even if things were intended to be the way they were, it didn't make them any less poorly designed, poorly implemented, and frustrating.
I also don't buy that they were intending it to be an early 2D equivalent of a 'Silent Hill' type game. If any thing, they were experimenting with an action orientated game, while including RPG elements such as leveling up, money, upgrades, and open worlds.
-
I can agree with that to an extent. The manual says not to trust the townspeople, and they do indeed give you, at best, half-truths. The only veritable sources of information are Dracula's Clues. The villagers do NOT LIE about those. I guess that's the only thing they can safely tell you.
Of course, the clues are also cryptic.
"Wait for a soul with a red crystal on Deborah Cliff"... it never says "Crouch".
However, the previous clue about the blue crystal DOES say so "Kneel by the lake with the blue crystal".
So, essentially one clue is a clue to the next clue.
Some clues are only story-based, though:
"Destroy the curse and you'll rule Brahm's Mansion" and "Destroy the Curse with Dracula' Heart" are strictly based on the "Curse" of the river that prevents the ferryman from taking you to the mansion.
I agree. I do like the story based clues though. They flesh out the tale a bit and make Simon's Quest the first CV game to have something of a story beyond, "Dude with whip goes to kill Dracula."
It sounds like a load of blind justifications to me.
Even if things were intended to be the way they were, it didn't make them any less poorly designed, poorly implemented, and frustrating.
I also don't buy that they were intending it to be an early 2D equivalent of a 'Silent Hill' type game. If any thing, they were experimenting with an action orientated game, while including RPG elements such as leveling up, money, upgrades, and open worlds.
His argument wasn't that the game was INTENDED to be a 2D Silent Hill (which was years from even being thought of at that point) but that the blend of elements used and the attempt at immersing the player in the environment unintentionally created this.
I agree, not everything was as well implemented as it would have been had the game come out today (and who's to say it would have been much different were that the case), but I really think people play Simon's Quest thinking it's going to be like either the level-based classic games or a Castleroid, of which it is like neither. There really isn't another game in the series that's like SQ if you sit back and think about it.
-
I didn't say explicitly 2D Silent Hill. I used the word style in there. It makes all the difference.
Of course it cannot be intended to be a game from the future. The hell do you take me for?
-
A time traveler.
-
The dark palette was cool. It added to SQ's eerie atmosphere (which I believe was totally intentional) and I like it. Simon's an orange, brownish gingerbread man in the original, so criticizing his SQ sprite feels forced, IMO.
What is there left that hasn't already been said about this game? Lots of people think SQ was, at best, an auspicious experiment that ended up crappy, but there is still a lot of interest in these reviews that repeat many of the same points.
I'm not sure I'd call it a prototype survival horror game. Heck, CV1 was more survival horror than SQ2. The only real horror to survive in SQ that comes to mind is buying what you need before you suffer enough frustrating deaths to lose your hearts.
-
Perhaps the programmers were high on that green stuff whilst making it o.o;
-
I didn't say explicitly 2D Silent Hill. I used the word style in there. It makes all the difference.
Of course it cannot be intended to be a game from the future. The hell do you take me for?
You're arguing semantics at this point. We've both agreed they weren't intending on making it a "Silent Hill style" game. Calm down, have some dip.
The dark palette was cool. It added to SQ's eerie atmosphere (which I believe was totally intentional) and I like it. Simon's an orange, brownish gingerbread man in the original, so criticizing his SQ sprite feels forced, IMO.
What is there left that hasn't already been said about this game? Lots of people think SQ was, at best, an auspicious experiment that ended up crappy, but there is still a lot of interest in these reviews that repeat many of the same points.
I'm not sure I'd call it a prototype survival horror game. Heck, CV1 was more survival horror than SQ2. The only real horror to survive in SQ that comes to mind is buying what you need before you suffer enough frustrating deaths to lose your hearts.
I think in a way it IS an unintentional prototype of the survival horror genre because some of the qualities of survival horror are present here albeit in embryonic states. i agree with you about the palette too. In a way it kind of reflects the story of the game too which is a pretty tragic one.
I don't really get the gripes about losing hearts though. If you die in ANY CV game, you lose your hearts. I don't get why people rage hard about that in SQ when they're just as plentiful there as they are in ANY CV game that has them.
-
Because, unlike other Vanias, you need hearts to buy weapons, items and upgrades.
-
It sounds like a load of blind justifications to me.
Even if things were intended to be the way they were, it didn't make them any less poorly designed, poorly implemented, and frustrating.
I also don't buy that they were intending it to be an early 2D equivalent of a 'Silent Hill' type game. If any thing, they were experimenting with an action orientated game, while including RPG elements such as leveling up, money, upgrades, and open worlds.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
-
Because, unlike other Vanias, you need hearts to buy weapons, items and upgrades.
Understood, but in any of the more arcade-type vanias, I'd almost say not having hearts is even MORE detrimental because it may mean the difference between beating a level and not beating a level.
All one needs to do in Simon's Quest to keep their hearts is merely stay alive (Simon's Quest isn't a super tough game by any stretch) and I'd say you're more likely to die because of a missed jump and a loss of energy.
-
All I have to say is Zelda II and Battle of Olympus. Simon's Quest is not a bad game, you're not a bad game you've just gotten in with bad company, people. But Simon's Quest is not all it could be. You could have all those elements in the game that you mentioned and still have a great platform title. Although there are some good spots; the backgrounds are mostly redundant and lifeless i.e. look at the mansions. The platforming feels clunky & the enemies do not impede your path. Are you saying that weak enemies add to the mind fuckerishness and that Link and/or Olympus don't try to impede your path with fearsome and cunning lesser enemies? Also their bosses & final bosses are tough and something to be reckoned with sir. Dracula? No. When a game makes it big you don't expect the makers to low ball it's sequel and make it a lesser version than the original title. Despite the fact that it does give you a feeling of classic horror noir the lack of epic battles makes it a lesser game. The issue with hearts can be fixed by roaming mansions (where time stops) and gaining them up quick by fighting Gargoyles. It's a fair frustration that one should suffer for dying just like losing exp in Link or Olives in BOO.
-
All I have to say is Zelda II and Battle of Olympus.
Haven't played the latter but I love the former. Zelda 2 is incredibly underrated, maintaining the labyrinth-like dungeon feel in side-scrolling segments while discarding the ridiculous need to lay a bomb on every single wall, push every single block, and use every single item on every single screen from the first game. Unlike Zelda 1, you actually have a small amount of direction to help you. Not to mention that Zelda 2 has some awesome bosses, especially when compared to Zelda 1 which had some really crappy bosses.
But Simon's Quest is not all it could be. You could have all those elements in the game that you mentioned and still have a great platform title. Although there are some good spots; the backgrounds are mostly redundant and lifeless i.e. look at the mansions. The platforming feels clunky & the enemies do not impede your path....
... Despite the fact that it does give you a feeling of classic horror noir the lack of epic battles makes it a lesser game. The issue with hearts can be fixed by roaming mansions (where time stops) and gaining them up quick by fighting Gargoyles.
I agree. I think that Simon's Quest could actually be remade in such a way that it both achieves what it initially set out to do AND have good bosses, platforming, some way to tell which villagers are lying or some way to make them tell the truth, and better leveling and item systems.
-
All I have to say is Zelda II and Battle of Olympus. Simon's Quest is not a bad game, you're not a bad game you've just gotten in with bad company, people. But Simon's Quest is not all it could be. You could have all those elements in the game that you mentioned and still have a great platform title. Although there are some good spots; the backgrounds are mostly redundant and lifeless i.e. look at the mansions. The platforming feels clunky & the enemies do not impede your path. Are you saying that weak enemies add to the mind fuckerishness and that Link and/or Olympus don't try to impede your path with fearsome and cunning lesser enemies? Also their bosses & final bosses are tough and something to be reckoned with sir. Dracula? No. When a game makes it big you don't expect the makers to low ball it's sequel and make it a lesser version than the original title. Despite the fact that it does give you a feeling of classic horror noir the lack of epic battles makes it a lesser game. The issue with hearts can be fixed by roaming mansions (where time stops) and gaining them up quick by fighting Gargoyles. It's a fair frustration that one should suffer for dying just like losing exp in Link or Olives in BOO.
Many of those complaints are things that could be said about CVs 1 and 3 as well though. I'd say the balance between enemy strength and player strength started to get out of whack around CV4, and got WAY Out of hand once the Castleroid formula took hold, but the NES CV games kept it fairly well in check. And if you're looking for platforming, there's plenty of it, especially in the mansions, though it's not the focus of the game this time around.
I don't think Konami low-balled this one, I think they were trying to figure out how to make the transition from the arcade to the home market. And in doing so, they made a game that was (and I'd say still is) misunderstood because people get wrapped up in comparing it to its predecessor and because it utilizes things that were considered acceptable design elements back when it was created that may not be now.
I agree. I think that Simon's Quest could actually be remade in such a way that it both achieves what it initially set out to do AND have good bosses, platforming, some way to tell which villagers are lying or some way to make them tell the truth, and better leveling and item systems.
What you're talking about sounds as though you're trying to make it into a Castleroid. Leveling isn't really the point of the game, as it really only happens twice (and that's if you REALLY do some grinding.) I don't see any problems with the item system, but what would you change about it?
I agree about the bosses, it might have been cool to have been locked into the boss room until you defeat them. If they'd had better AI those could have been pretty cool fights, but they basically boiled down to *mash B until dead.*
As far as the villager thing is concerned, refer to the quote in the first post. The MANUAL even tells you not all the villagers' clues can be trusted and part of the game is sussing out the clues. If you could tell which clues were useful and which ones weren't, I think it would take a level of puzzle solving out of the game.
-
It sounds like a load of blind justifications to me.
Even if things were intended to be the way they were, it didn't make them any less poorly designed, poorly implemented, and frustrating.
I also don't buy that they were intending it to be an early 2D equivalent of a 'Silent Hill' type game. If any thing, they were experimenting with an action orientated game, while including RPG elements such as leveling up, money, upgrades, and open worlds.
This is pretty much how I feel about it too. And this...
This isn't a game that wants you to have fun playing it; CVII is more akin to a survival horror game than it is a normal platformer.
...is patently absurd. No game is intentionally designed to not be fun to play. That defeats the purpose of it being a game in the first place. Not to mention it kills replay value which is obviously the entire point of the experiment that is CV2.
And if you're looking for platforming, there's plenty of it, especially in the mansions, though it's not the focus of the game this time around.
This is false. First off, the platforming is largely repetitive and unnecessarily frustrating. And if platforming wasn't partially the focus then the game wouldn't have been presented as a side-scrolling platformer. It would have had a different format. CV2 was intended to be an experiment in combining the platform action of CV1 with rpg elements. There's nothing inCV2 that makes it a survival game any more than any other CV title or any action game for that matter. It does have a slightly darker atmosphere than CV1, but not nearly as much mas many of it's descendants.
I don't think Konami low-balled this one, I think they were trying to figure out how to make the transition from the arcade to the home market.
No. Konami had already been involved in the home market for several years. And more over, CV was never an arcade series. It was always a home series with a single arcade iteration.
As far as the villager thing is concerned, refer to the quote in the first post. The MANUAL even tells you not all the villagers' clues can be trusted and part of the game is sussing out the clues. If you could tell which clues were useful and which ones weren't, I think it would take a level of puzzle solving out of the game.
Just because they mentioned it in the manual doesn't make it functionally better. They way over did it. This too was an experiment, but one that was taken too far. The idea itself wasn't bad, but the execution was less than condusive to a pleasurable gaming experience.
-
Leveling isn't really the point of the game, as it really only happens twice (and that's if you REALLY do some grinding.)
You can get higher levels then just lv. 2 in CV 2. I tried it myself and got a total of six, perhaps seven levels. Getting the levels also depends on what part of the game you are at as well. The different colored skeletons are a good indicator for this. the only problem with leveling up to the max is that it wastes time. Time that is essential for getting the best ending. all in all, the level up system in CV 2 isn't really necessary as I have never really needed it. But it is convenient at times when your health is low, your dealing with though, multiple enemies and you know that you won't make it to the next town to save all the hearts you just collected. Then suddenly; BAM! You get a level up and your life skyrockets! Saved!
-
Konami's home console gaming history (or most of it):
http://www.jap-sai.com/Games/Konami/Konami.htm (http://www.jap-sai.com/Games/Konami/Konami.htm)
Nintendo, Taito and Namco were the arcade giants, then Capcom and SNK. Konami has always been one of the console gaming and slots/pachinko giants.
-
This is pretty much how I feel about it too. And this......is patently absurd. No game is intentionally designed to not be fun to play. That defeats the purpose of it being a game in the first place. Not to mention it kills replay value which is obviously the entire point of the experiment that is CV2.
I can think of plenty of games that are good but not necessarily fun, and likewise, many games that are fun, but not necessarily good. SSB64 is a fun game, but I wouldn't call it a good game and God of War is a good game, but not necessarily fun to me. While I think he goes a bit overboard with that comment, I think you should re-read the rest of the paragraph because I'm not sure you got his point.
This is false. First off, the platforming is largely repetitive and unnecessarily frustrating. And if platforming wasn't partially the focus then the game wouldn't have been presented as a side-scrolling platformer. It would have had a different format. CV2 was intended to be an experiment in combining the platform action of CV1 with rpg elements. There's nothing inCV2 that makes it a survival game any more than any other CV title or any action game for that matter. It does have a slightly darker atmosphere than CV1, but not nearly as much mas many of it's descendants.
Presenting the game as anything but a 2d sidescroller would have been all but impossible if they wanted to hold any ties at all to the first game. So platforming was necessary, but again, it isn't the focus of the game. Combat and exploration are the main focuses of it, platforming only serves these. I don't see what makes the platforming any more frustrating than it is in the first game. Simon controls a bit better in CV2 than he does in CV1.
There are more non-cartoony horror elements in CV2 than in 1, which is part of the assertion that it could be taken as more akin to survival horror. I'd say the feeling of needing to survive through one of the night sequences just so you can keep your hearts or just so you can get to a church in time when you're low on life reminds me more of survival horror than of an arcade-platformer like CV1.
But let's get one thing straight, because I know you or SOMEONE will put these words in my mouth: I"M NOT CALLING CV2 A SURVIVAL HORROR GAME AND NEITHER IS THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST POST. Merely positing that the game contains elements that would go on one day to be a part of that genre.
No. Konami had already been involved in the home market for several years. And more over, CV was never an arcade series. It was always a home series with a single arcade iteration.
Castlevania wasn't even a SERIES at that point. It was one game. And Vs. Castlevania (the arcade version) came out the same year CV1 on the NES did. So it WAS an arcade game and Konami designed it with the arcade in mind, otherwise, it probably would have been longer.
And while we're talking about arcade Castlevania, don't leave out Haunted Castle.
Just because they mentioned it in the manual doesn't make it functionally better. They way over did it. This too was an experiment, but one that was taken too far. The idea itself wasn't bad, but the execution was less than condusive to a pleasurable gaming experience.
If you think the execution of the hints in Simon's Quest was bad, you should be glad you weren't a PC gamer back in those days. Try playing a game like King's Quest or Dark Seed and see how far you get. Comparatively SQ lets you off easy.
As I've said before, things like that were acceptable back when it was made. People didn't spend gobs of money on games like they do now, so making a game that someone could sit down and finish in a single sitting wasn't the best way to get repeat business.
You can get higher levels then just lv. 2 in CV 2. I tried it myself and got a total of six, perhaps seven levels. Getting the levels also depends on what part of the game you are at as well. The different colored skeletons are a good indicator for this. the only problem with leveling up to the max is that it wastes time. Time that is essential for getting the best ending. all in all, the level up system in CV 2 isn't really necessary as I have never really needed it. But it is convenient at times when your health is low, your dealing with though, multiple enemies and you know that you won't make it to the next town to save all the hearts you just collected. Then suddenly; BAM! You get a level up and your life skyrockets! Saved!
I agree it wasn't necessary. It's actually one of the things I always wondered why they put it in the game.
But I love those moments when you're about to die and all of the sudden you level up and get your health refilled! ;D
Konami's home console gaming history (or most of it):
http://www.jap-sai.com/Games/Konami/Konami.htm (http://www.jap-sai.com/Games/Konami/Konami.htm)
Nintendo, Taito and Namco were the arcade giants, then Capcom and SNK. Konami has always been one of the console gaming and slots/pachinko giants.
To be fair, that link you posted didn't include ANY of Konami's arcade games and I know they had SOME. I'm not saying they were as big into it as some of the others, but it wasn't like they didn't ever publish ANY arcade games. That was an interesting read though, thanks for [posting that!
-
I dunno, good Docta, a lot of NES games were ported into "Vs." versions. I think it was just a way to make more money by hastily converting existing console titles into arcade games, rather than indictating those games were made from the beginning to be quarter-munchers.
It was only a few years ago that I saw Super Mario Bros. Vs at an arcade, or at least one that had been jerry-rigged into an arcade game. D:
-
I dunno, good Docta, a lot of NES games were ported into "Vs." versions. I think it was just a way to make more money by hastily converting existing console titles into arcade games, rather than indictating those games were made from the beginning to be quarter-munchers.
It was only a few years ago that I saw Super Mario Bros. Vs at an arcade, or at least one that had been jerry-rigged into an arcade game. D:
You ARE right, my dear Hero, but look at all the other ports of Cv1. Most of them have more than 6 levels (as far as I can tell and I've been drinking so don't hold me to it!) which leads me to believe that Konami realized that this game was intended for arcade play. The PlayChoice 10 machines gave you a certain amount of time to play before the machine quit and I'm sure Konami was trying to give their patrons their quarter's worth.
Vs. Castlevania is awesome though. I can get to the Mummies without continuing and I usually only play the game when I'm drunk haha!
And "Duke Of New York?" Are you living in NYC now??
-
I can think of plenty of games that are good but not necessarily fun, and likewise, many games that are fun, but not necessarily good. SSB64 is a fun game, but I wouldn't call it a good game and God of War is a good game, but not necessarily fun to me. While I think he goes a bit overboard with that comment, I think you should re-read the rest of the paragraph because I'm not sure you got his point.
I get his point just fine. I simply disagree. Plus there is no logical reason for the idea that the game's focus isn't to be fun to play. All of your examples are also a matter of opinion. For example, SSB is a game that I wouldn't call bad, but I don't find it particularly fun. That doesn't mean that it was intended to be good and fun.
Presenting the game as anything but a 2d sidescroller would have been all but impossible if they wanted to hold any ties at all to the first game. So platforming was necessary, but again, it isn't the focus of the game. Combat and exploration are the main focuses of it, platforming only serves these. I don't see what makes the platforming any more frustrating than it is in the first game. Simon controls a bit better in CV2 than he does in CV1.
They could just as easily have given the game a different presentation and still keep the ties to the previous games just as Nintendo did with Zelda 2. The level design is what makes it more frustrating. Like I said it is repetitive and many of the jumps are frustrating for no good reason other than they didn't want to use stairs or they wanted to use single floating blocks in long succession. The controls are virtually identical to the first game.
Combat is obviously not a focus of the game or else they wouldn't have nerfed it from what they had in the first two games. Without the inclusion of the flexible sub-weapon system that the first game had combat is actually less dynamic than either of them.
However, I will agree that exploration has a much larger focus in CV2 as it did in Vampire Killer for the MSX.
There are more non-cartoony horror elements in CV2 than in 1, which is part of the assertion that it could be taken as more akin to survival horror. I'd say the feeling of needing to survive through one of the night sequences just so you can keep your hearts or just so you can get to a church in time when you're low on life reminds me more of survival horror than of an arcade-platformer like CV1.
Not really, the graphics are no more or less cartoony than in CV1 and VK. The only real difference is a palette that is more drab. Alot of the graphics are even nearly identical to the previous games. And again, getting through a night scene is only superficially similar to modern survival horror games. It's not even necessarily a feature of all survival horror games. It's no different that surviving through a combat scene in any other game, arcade or not. The things that make a survival horror game are the disturbing atmosphere and the lack of resources, not the fear of loosing money which many games in many genres share.
But let's get one thing straight, because I know you or SOMEONE will put these words in my mouth: I"M NOT CALLING CV2 A SURVIVAL HORROR GAME AND NEITHER IS THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST POST. Merely positing that the game contains elements that would go on one day to be a part of that genre.
I never put words into anyone's mouth. I know that no one is saying that it's a survival horror game. My argument is that the aspects that are picked out in the article are no more owned by the survival horror genre than any other. Also, that excusing the game's many short comings by viewing them as akin to the modern survival horror genre is simply not an objective argument.
Castlevania wasn't even a SERIES at that point. It was one game. And Vs. Castlevania (the arcade version) came out the same year CV1 on the NES did. So it WAS an arcade game and Konami designed it with the arcade in mind, otherwise, it probably would have been longer.
And while we're talking about arcade Castlevania, don't leave out Haunted Castle.
This is factually wrong.
Akumajou Dracula came out for the Famicom Disk System in 1986.
Akumajou Dracula came out for the MSX computer later in 1986 and is a fundamentally different iteration game that could easily have been used as a sequel had they not decided to recycle the existing story.
Dracula II came out for the Famicom Disk System in 1987, making this the 3rd game in the SERIES.
Castlevania for NES and Vs. Castlevania for arcade were released in 1987. I should like to point out now that the Vs machine was produced by Nintendo and NOT by Konami.
Akumajou Dracula / Haunted Castle was released for arcades in 1988 and was the first game in the seires actually produced by Konami specifically for the arcades.
And also keep in mind that all these games were produced in an era in the industry where a production time of more than a few months was nearly unheard of.
If you think the execution of the hints in Simon's Quest was bad, you should be glad you weren't a PC gamer back in those days. Try playing a game like King's Quest or Dark Seed and see how far you get. Comparatively SQ lets you off easy.
As I've said before, things like that were acceptable back when it was made. People didn't spend gobs of money on games like they do now, so making a game that someone could sit down and finish in a single sitting wasn't the best way to get repeat business.
While the comparison to the PC games of the time is true, it's also largely irrelevant since it's a console exclusive game that would have been and should still be compared to other console games of it's time.
It wasn't acceptable and it was probably reflected ion their sales numbers. That's why the never repeated this aspect of the game like ever. Not having a game that could be beaten in a single sitting IS the true purpose of this experiment. At this point in the life of the NES replayablility was starting to become an issue for console developers.
To be fair, that link you posted didn't include ANY of Konami's arcade games and I know they had SOME. I'm not saying they were as big into it as some of the others, but it wasn't like they didn't ever publish ANY arcade games.
It's largely irrelevant here as what is being argued is whether Castlevania itself was designed to be an arcade game.
-
Not really, the graphics are no more or less cartoony than in CV1 and VK. The only real difference is a palette that is more drab.
I beg to differ. The religious elements; the password screen is "seriously" scary with a cross and a pretty haunting theme, there are churches and graveyards. The enemies are less silly; gargoyles and the evil angel-looking things and such. There's gory stuff like the hanged bodies in the mansions, etc. It definitely had a darker tone, even if it wasn't a "real" horror game.
-
I get his point just fine. I simply disagree. Plus there is no logical reason for the idea that the game's focus isn't to be fun to play. All of your examples are also a matter of opinion. For example, SSB is a game that I wouldn't call bad, but I don't find it particularly fun. That doesn't mean that it was intended to be good and fun.
Maybe, but I don't think you can argue that EVERY game is intended to be fun. Being designed to entertain and being designed to be fun are two separate things I think. Either way, at this point, we're trying to second guess the devs intentions, which is pointless.
They could just as easily have given the game a different presentation and still keep the ties to the previous games just as Nintendo did with Zelda 2. The level design is what makes it more frustrating. Like I said it is repetitive and many of the jumps are frustrating for no good reason other than they didn't want to use stairs or they wanted to use single floating blocks in long succession. The controls are virtually identical to the first game.
They were already making huge changes to the way the game was played, I doubt they really wanted to make the game completely unrecognizable as a CV game.
I find the game to be laid out quite well actually, much more logically than many of the games that came after it. What do you find frustrating about the level design? Would you have preferred the game be one long straight line like the PS2 games? Would you prefer the game have no platforming at all? I feel like they used stairs to denote branching pathways in the game when they were used in forests or places outside of towns and mansions. But other than that, why would they have a stairway in the middle of a forest?
Combat is obviously not a focus of the game or else they wouldn't have nerfed it from what they had in the first two games. Without the inclusion of the flexible sub-weapon system that the first game had combat is actually less dynamic than either of them.
However, I will agree that exploration has a much larger focus in CV2 as it did in Vampire Killer for the MSX.
So you're saying that less weapons is better? I'm not saying more is better, but you definitely have more you can do with the combat system in CV2 than in CV1. But then again, they're different games with different focuses. Combat is not the supreme focus of CV2 (exploration is), but it's #2 with a bullet I think.
Not really, the graphics are no more or less cartoony than in CV1 and VK. The only real difference is a palette that is more drab. Alot of the graphics are even nearly identical to the previous games. And again, getting through a night scene is only superficially similar to modern survival horror games. It's not even necessarily a feature of all survival horror games. It's no different that surviving through a combat scene in any other game, arcade or not. The things that make a survival horror game are the disturbing atmosphere and the lack of resources, not the fear of loosing money which many games in many genres share.
Well, A-Yty answered this already as far as the graphics go. I think surviving the night scenes is akin to survival horror because it's a horror game we're talking about. If Simon's Quest were set in space, no one would make the comparison. I always found the atmosphere and story of Simon's quest disturbing myself (especially towards the end where things get a lot more lonely) and I think the survival element is still there when you're low on life and you've got to get to a church or when you're not sure how much longer night will last. I also think that Dracula's Castle in SQ was one of the most chilling final stages in any CV game because it builds tension REALLY well. You're walking through this empty mausoleum with that creepy music going on.... Instead of fighting off a bunch of enemies, you're alone with your thoughts, knowing you're headed towards the inevitable battle with Dracula.
I never put words into anyone's mouth. I know that no one is saying that it's a survival horror game. My argument is that the aspects that are picked out in the article are no more owned by the survival horror genre than any other. Also, that excusing the game's many short comings by viewing them as akin to the modern survival horror genre is simply not an objective argument.
No, they aren't owned by SH (survival horror) but they are elements that make it up. I think Obscura's point was that people were playing the game as if it were CV1 rather than allowing it to be a different game with the same namesake, and I've always agreed. Maybe it's because I played CV2 before CV1, but I never had any preconceived notions of what the game was "supposed" to be, I just knew i liked it and it affected me in a profound way back when I got my first NES (even before that actually playing it at friends' houses!)
And I didn't think you would put words in my mouth, but you gotta cover your bases on these (and most) forums I guess.
While the comparison to the PC games of the time is true, it's also largely irrelevant since it's a console exclusive game that would have been and should still be compared to other console games of it's time.
It wasn't acceptable and it was probably reflected ion their sales numbers. That's why the never repeated this aspect of the game like ever. Not having a game that could be beaten in a single sitting IS the true purpose of this experiment. At this point in the life of the NES replayablility was starting to become an issue for console developers.
It's largely irrelevant here as what is being argued is whether Castlevania itself was designed to be an arcade game.
I don't think it's irrelevant. Games were games back then. I don't think it makes any sense to compartmentalize games just because they were on a computer vs. a console, especially when talking about design. The fact is, MANY companies were doing this type of thing at that time and a lot of those games sold well. I don't know what Simon's Quest's sales figures looked like, but we can also surmise that it didn't have as high a profile as CV1 due to only being released on one system and not being in the arcades at all either. I don't know that it was all that well received, but it was the beginning of what would become the Castleroid formula.
I think too, that many games were designed with the arcade in mind regardless of whether they were destined for the arcade or not because that's just how certain games were made. It was either a sprawling PC game or an arcade game because those were the places where people played games the most. And if it was an arcade-style game, it was designed to be a quick, fun experience that you didn't have to think too much about. It wasn't until the NES started to sell really well that devs had to think about giving the player more than just an arcade style experience. And while I think CV1 is a great game, it doesn't get under your skin the way CV2 does BECAUSE it's designed with the . You can play it and leave it behind without giving much thought to it.
Simon's Quest isn't designed that way at all. It's MEANT to get into your head and under your skin. You're much more invested in Simon and his well being in this game than you are in CV1 because there's a bit more of a story going on, because you get to hear some of his utterances ("What a horrible night to have a curse" etc.) and because you spend three times as much time playing the game (even more if you collect all the items.)
-
And "Duke Of New York?" Are you living in NYC now??
Nah, I just use that title out of love for the movie Escape From New York. I'll be starting a new job in Baltimore, soon, which is like the other NYC kind of.
-
Maybe, but I don't think you can argue that EVERY game is intended to be fun. Being designed to entertain and being designed to be fun are two separate things I think. Either way, at this point, we're trying to second guess the devs intentions, which is pointless.
Actually, I can make that argument. All games ARE designed to be fun on some level. Even scary entertainment is fun to those that enjoy it. And to be clear I take the word as in a thing or activity that one derives enjoyment from.
They were already making huge changes to the way the game was played, I doubt they really wanted to make the game completely unrecognizable as a CV game.
That may be so but it doesn't change the fact that they could have if they had wanted to like so many other series have done before and since.
I find the game to be laid out quite well actually, much more logically than many of the games that came after it. What do you find frustrating about the level design? Would you have preferred the game be one long straight line like the PS2 games? Would you prefer the game have no platforming at all? I feel like they used stairs to denote branching pathways in the game when they were used in forests or places outside of towns and mansions. But other than that, why would they have a stairway in the middle of a forest?
It's a game, the layouts don't have to be laid out logically. Doing that makes things less interesting, which is exactly what you have throughout most of the overworld. It's pretty much like the PS2 games with long stretches of mostly flat boring areas. And the only areas that aren't flat have annoying gimmicks in play like the ridiculous poison swamps and the frustrating chains of floating blocks. The towns are all boring with basically the same 3 designs for all of them. The mansions are much better as far as platforming is concerned except that they often ruin what would be very interesting layouts with frustrating gimmicks that they always manage to take too far. The invisible floors are a prime example as well as many of the jumps that seem like they are intentionally trying to piss you off in a way that screams laziness rather than challenging design. They did use stairs to denote cross roads in the overworld, which is itself illogical, but I appreciate that. I'm saying that they should have made the terrain more interesting since you have to go over it over and over. And, BTW, there are several spats in the game's forests that have stare in illogical places.
So you're saying that less weapons is better? I'm not saying more is better, but you definitely have more you can do with the combat system in CV2 than in CV1. But then again, they're different games with different focuses. Combat is not the supreme focus of CV2 (exploration is), but it's #2 with a bullet I think.
Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying what I said. That a more flexible sub-weapon system is better. One of the fundamental things game design students are taught is to always reduce the number of screens and menus the player has to go through to access things. CV2 did the opposite. Now you have to buy your weapons and you have to use a menu to change them. That is not as dynamic as finding them throughout the game. There is basically only one new weapon, they removed the more interesting ones from the previous games, and the rest are derivatives of the least interesting ones. And they're incredible unbalanced to boot. So I fail to see how there is more you can do with CV2 over CV1 or VK.
Well, A-Yty answered this already as far as the graphics go.
I disagree, despite slightly darker content, the graphics are still cartoony like the previous games and that detracts from any true horror it could have effected n the player. And I think many ROM hackers have proven over and over that all the NES CV games could have had much darker, much more genuinely disturbing graphics.
I think surviving the night scenes is akin to survival horror because it's a horror game we're talking about.
How so? Other than a comparison to Silent Hill I don't see this as necessarily akin to the Survival-Horror genre. Personally I never feared those night scenes other than being lightly annoyed that I had to wait for it to be day again. Hell, I often happily greeted those scenes as an opportunity to farm more hearts quickly. I felt more horror every time I had to jump over those long strings of floating blocks over the river.
If Simon's Quest were set in space, no one would make the comparison.
1) Metroid is CV2 set in space and with good level design. Plus it is often quoted by many old-school players as having been much more horrifying than any of the CV games.
2) Dead Space is a Survival Horror game set in space. And it is an actual survival horror game with the primary elements of a disturbing setting and resource management.
The setting alone does not make a survival horror game, what sets them apart is the fear created by having to worry about surviving against enemies with very little resources. CV2 does not have this. What it IS is a platform game with light RPG elements and a horror setting with very little horror in and of itself.
... I think the survival element is still there when you're low on life and you've got to get to a church or when you're not sure how much longer night will last.
No it's not. That's like saying that when you're playing Zelda 2 and you're low on health and out of MP and potions and you need to get back to a town gives it a survival element akin to the survival horror genre. No it doesn't. That is not a situation a player will necessarily get into and the game isn't designed to specifically put you into it. In Resident Evil, for example, when you're low on health and you've used up all your weed you're fucked .There is nowhere for you to go. That is a position that will inevitably get into in that game because it's designed to. There in lies the true horror of the genre. Finding yourself in a situation that you have little to no hope to get out of. Why do you think survival horror games don't have a level up system to make you stronger over time or refill your health? Because that would completely destroy the sense of fight or flight that is essential to survival horror games.
I also think that Dracula's Castle in SQ was one of the most chilling final stages in any CV game because it builds tension REALLY well. You're walking through this empty mausoleum with that creepy music going on.... Instead of fighting off a bunch of enemies, you're alone with your thoughts, knowing you're headed towards the inevitable battle with Dracula.
This is neither here nor there, but that is one of my favorite songs in the series. Also, I don't think it's supposed to be a proper mausoleum, just the castle's ruins, but I digress.
The effect of that last area would indeed have had a really good tension building effect, but it is completely ruined by what is without a doubt one of the most lame final bosses ever. Part of what makes a set up like this effective is the fear that you'll encounter an overwhelming enemy at the end. They really fucked it up here. I was more afraid of the gargoyle/demon enemy in the mansions than any of the pathetic excuses for bosses in CV2. I had the same problem with Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. That game does an excellent job of building tension throughout the game, but it's ruined by there mostly being nothing that can even harm you, let alone kill you.
No, they aren't owned by SH (survival horror) but they are elements that make it up. I think Obscura's point was that people were playing the game as if it were CV1 rather than allowing it to be a different game with the same namesake, and I've always agreed. Maybe it's because I played CV2 before CV1, but I never had any preconceived notions of what the game was "supposed" to be, I just knew i liked it and it affected me in a profound way back when I got my first NES (even before that actually playing it at friends' houses!)
That may be true for some people. I also happen to have played CV2 before I played CV1 and I like the game, too. But it's flaws are there and they don't go away just because you don't compare it to it's siblings. Compared to other similar games it still falls short. And making the argument that viewing at from the point of view of a genre that not only didn't exist yet, but that it also has very little in common with is little more than an excuse.
And I didn't think you would put words in my mouth, but you gotta cover your bases on these (and most) forums I guess.
Fair enough.
I don't think it's irrelevant. Games were games back then. I don't think it makes any sense to compartmentalize games just because they were on a computer vs. a console, especially when talking about design.
I don't agree. The vast majority of players and developers back then in the US either made games specifically for home consoles and made ports of the most popular games for computers or they made games for computers and licensed other companies to produce ports for console and those were very rare in the grand scheme of things. And more importantly the capabilities of consoles compared to computers were vastly different; more so back then than now. Hell when CV2 came out joypads for pc were unheard of. This meant that the basic design philosophies of console game designers and PC game designers were fundamentally different more often than not. I knew lots of people back then that didn't like to play games for consoles or didn't really like games for pc. The reason for this is that they were fundamentally different experiences back then. And more over many of the genres that were born in the arcades and home consoles simply didn't exist on home computer platforms.
The fact is, MANY companies were doing this type of thing at that time and a lot of those games sold well.
There is still no real way to compare here. The two markets were fundamentally different with very different audiences. it's like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Sure their both fruit, but they are still very different.
I don't know what Simon's Quest's sales figures looked like, but we can also surmise that it didn't have as high a profile as CV1 due to only being released on one system and not being in the arcades at all either.
CV1 was only released on one system and it wasn't technically an arcade game. It was modded a little and placed in a cabinet the year after it's release so that should have no impact on it's initial sales. And VK doesn't count because it's a very different game and wasn't released on the same market or even the same region.
I don't know that it was all that well received, but it was the beginning of what would become the Castleroid formula.
True enough, but then again it was basically trying to be more like Metroid which was a very successful game.
I think too, that many games were designed with the arcade in mind regardless of whether they were destined for the arcade or not because that's just how certain games were made.
No they didn't. This is not how games were designed at all. Companies back then mostly stuck to one console and games were ported from arcade to console never the other way around, and they were never released on multiple platforms at the same time. There was always a gap between releases to give the dev team time to make the port if there was one at all.
It was either a sprawling PC game or an arcade game because those were the places where people played games the most. And if it was an arcade-style game, it was designed to be a quick, fun experience that you didn't have to think too much about. It wasn't until the NES started to sell really well that devs had to think about giving the player more than just an arcade style experience.
This may have been true here in the US, but it was a very different situation in Japan where Konami was making CV.
And while I think CV1 is a great game, it doesn't get under your skin the way CV2 does BECAUSE it's designed with the . You can play it and leave it behind without giving much thought to it.
Simon's Quest isn't designed that way at all. It's MEANT to get into your head and under your skin. You're much more invested in Simon and his well being in this game than you are in CV1 because there's a bit more of a story going on, because you get to hear some of his utterances ("What a horrible night to have a curse" etc.) and because you spend three times as much time playing the game (even more if you collect all the items.)
While it's true that CV1 is an action game, I think you are seriously reading way too much into it. There is more story going on, but there's nothing to indicate that the day & night messages are being spoken by Simon. As a matter of fact your ability to sympathize with Simon is severely diminished because he never speaks a single word during the entire game. You have no idea what his thoughts and feelings about the situation are. You have no more of an emotional link to him in CV2 than you do in CV1 except for a slightly more robust story, that I might add is never even really mentioned much in-game. I will give them props for trying harder on the story and having actual endings.
-
A couple of points about the game. One leveling up happens only once between each town and the adjacent mansion. You level up one time between Jova and Berkley and then you can not do it again until you get between Veros and Rover etc. That actually is smart area design and something that Link didn't do albeit that game crazy fuck hard. As for the lying villagers they could have stated in the game that the villagers sometimes lie and try to shtoop you literally and figuratively (women love Simon even though he tested positive for VDC). I suppose you could say that taking caution is implied by the old man that tells you there is a crooked trader rolling every mother fucker in the hood and for that matter the fact that Castlevania is according to Egoraptor about being careful and planning things out. What SQ did equally as good as it's predecessor was set mood as did CV 3 and 4 but it's been downhill ever since. The music was perfect the sky tones were right and the fade out on the music set the mood into an instant classic. But I just wanted those zombies to come after the player a little faster maybe follow him up the stairs. I wanted the mummies to throw wrappings or dust or fall out of coffins. I wanted the reaper to have a multitude of scythes surrounding him when you fight him. There are so many things I could think of that would make the game so much more engaging that you get sucked into it. But then again selling products is the name of the game not selling quality. Rip the Nintendo seal off the Accursed Seal, seal it's fate, club a baby seal and join a forum to talk about how you are pissed off with this game.
-
I always thought Vampire Killer was actually quite close in mood to Simon's Quest. CVII feels more like a sequel to that game than CV1. D:
-
But then again selling products is the name of the game not selling quality. Rip the Nintendo seal off the Accursed Seal, seal it's fate, club a baby seal and join a forum to talk about how you are pissed off with this game.
LOL!
-
Seems I was a bit late in contributing to this topic. Regardless, I agree with uzo in that the majority of the points brought up in the OP were just attempts to justify whatever was wrong with the game. The fact that some villagers lie does not excuse the poor translation. I can get behind the fact that CV2 was never intended to be a platformer, but a survival horror game? More like a horror-themed adventure game. CV2's gameplay has more in common with Zelda 2 and even Maniac Mansion than it does CV1. It was an interesting experiment that came out flawed, nothing more. I still love the game though.
-
Seems I was a bit late in contributing to this topic. Regardless, I agree with uzo in that the majority of the points brought up in the OP were just attempts to justify whatever was wrong with the game. The fact that some villagers lie does not excuse the poor translation. I can get behind the fact that CV2 was never intended to be a platformer, but a survival horror game? More like a horror-themed adventure game. CV2's gameplay has more in common with Zelda 2 and even Maniac Mansion than it does CV1. It was an interesting experiment that came out flawed, nothing more. I still love the game though.
Maniac Mansion was crazy fuck scary when I first played it ages ago.
And Inccubus, I agree with you on pretty much every point you made.
Note that Vampire Killer was a much better attempt at combining RPG elements to Castlevania.
And what's this crap about "The game is not intended to be fun, it's intended to mindfuck you."?
That's a load of BS. Breakdown for the Xbox, despite having a complicated control scheme and unforgiving difficulty, mindfucked me and I had ridiculous fun with it.
Having a game that entertains you and having a game you have fun with sound like the exact same thing, but that's just me. >.>
-
Oy. I'm gonna edit this down because we're starting to get off topic with certain things.
Actually, I can make that argument. All games ARE designed to be fun on some level. Even scary entertainment is fun to those that enjoy it. And to be clear I take the word as in a thing or activity that one derives enjoyment from.
I agree with you on that, but I think that to a certain degree, the designers in some games (the Silent Hill series for instance) do certain things to make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe that's fun but it's designed to bring up feelings of dread, but again, I don't see entertainment and fun as the same thing. Movies entertain you but are they fun?
It's a game, the layouts don't have to be laid out logically. Doing that makes things less interesting, which is exactly what you have throughout most of the overworld. It's pretty much like the PS2 games with long stretches of mostly flat boring areas. And the only areas that aren't flat have annoying gimmicks in play like the ridiculous poison swamps and the frustrating chains of floating blocks. The towns are all boring with basically the same 3 designs for all of them. The mansions are much better as far as platforming is concerned except that they often ruin what would be very interesting layouts with frustrating gimmicks that they always manage to take too far. The invisible floors are a prime example as well as many of the jumps that seem like they are intentionally trying to piss you off in a way that screams laziness rather than challenging design. They did use stairs to denote cross roads in the overworld, which is itself illogical, but I appreciate that. I'm saying that they should have made the terrain more interesting since you have to go over it over and over. And, BTW, there are several spats in the game's forests that have stare in illogical places.
Illogical layouts are usually the mark of lazy design. Dracula X on the SNES is a case in point. At one point of, i think it's the 3rd level, you're climbing all these platforms with Medusa heads and Bone Cannons coming at you. Then suddenly, you're inside some part of the castle with knights accosting you. Simon's Quest at least tried to make things flow well with its design. Other than the stairs in the middle of the woods, and suddenly being in Dracula's castle after crossing the long bridge (which it would have been really cool if they had had a frontal shot of the Castle like the Mansions), the design is sensible and smart much like it was in CV1. It's sprawling, but almost never nonsensical.
Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying what I said. That a more flexible sub-weapon system is better. One of the fundamental things game design students are taught is to always reduce the number of screens and menus the player has to go through to access things. CV2 did the opposite. Now you have to buy your weapons and you have to use a menu to change them. That is not as dynamic as finding them throughout the game. There is basically only one new weapon, they removed the more interesting ones from the previous games, and the rest are derivatives of the least interesting ones. And they're incredible unbalanced to boot. So I fail to see how there is more you can do with CV2 over CV1 or VK.
With the exception of the Dagger, whips, and Holy water, you don't have to buy ANY of the subweapons, they're all found in game. You can also buy Garlic and Laurels, but these too can be found in-game.
I disagree, despite slightly darker content, the graphics are still cartoony like the previous games and that detracts from any true horror it could have effected n the player. And I think many ROM hackers have proven over and over that all the NES CV games could have had much darker, much more genuinely disturbing graphics.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. NES game could only handle so many colors. If Simon's Quest could have had a similar palette to CV4, it would have been even better, but as it is, the NES couldn't handle that. They did the best they could with the limitations they had.
No it's not. That's like saying that when you're playing Zelda 2 and you're low on health and out of MP and potions and you need to get back to a town gives it a survival element akin to the survival horror genre. No it doesn't. That is not a situation a player will necessarily get into and the game isn't designed to specifically put you into it. In Resident Evil, for example, when you're low on health and you've used up all your weed you're fucked .There is nowhere for you to go. That is a position that will inevitably get into in that game because it's designed to. There in lies the true horror of the genre. Finding yourself in a situation that you have little to no hope to get out of. Why do you think survival horror games don't have a level up system to make you stronger over time or refill your health? Because that would completely destroy the sense of fight or flight that is essential to survival horror games.
Again, by comparing Simon's Quest to a game like RE, you're making the mistake of thinking that someone has said it's a pure survival horror game where no one has said that. Elements, sure. But pure SH? Not at all. And the key word here is ELEMENTS. Just because a game has a shooting scene doesn't make it a shooter.
That may be true for some people. I also happen to have played CV2 before I played CV1 and I like the game, too. But it's flaws are there and they don't go away just because you don't compare it to it's siblings. Compared to other similar games it still falls short. And making the argument that viewing at from the point of view of a genre that not only didn't exist yet, but that it also has very little in common with is little more than an excuse.
I don't think anyone is trying to make the case that it doesn't have flaws, but I think the OP advises looking at it from a different perspective. Sometimes the coolest stuff is created unintentionally. I don't think it's a perfect game, and if I did, it would be partially nostalgia talking there, but I think the CV community hasn't really given the game a fair shot because they end up comparing it to Castleroid games, or the other NES games, which were created with, I can only assume, a completely different intent.
While it's true that CV1 is an action game, I think you are seriously reading way too much into it. There is more story going on, but there's nothing to indicate that the day & night messages are being spoken by Simon. As a matter of fact your ability to sympathize with Simon is severely diminished because he never speaks a single word during the entire game. You have no idea what his thoughts and feelings about the situation are. You have no more of an emotional link to him in CV2 than you do in CV1 except for a slightly more robust story, that I might add is never even really mentioned much in-game. I will give them props for trying harder on the story and having actual endings.
Maybe I am, though he does speak when the crystal exchanges take place. I can only assume the day/night sequences are capped off with a remark by him because he's the one with the curse. I think it's possible to empathize with a character based on what they have to deal with in the game, but maybe that's just me, though I have to say the endings were part of it for me as well.
-
Seems I was a bit late in contributing to this topic. Regardless, I agree with uzo in that the majority of the points brought up in the OP were just attempts to justify whatever was wrong with the game. The fact that some villagers lie does not excuse the poor translation. I can get behind the fact that CV2 was never intended to be a platformer, but a survival horror game? More like a horror-themed adventure game. CV2's gameplay has more in common with Zelda 2 and even Maniac Mansion than it does CV1. It was an interesting experiment that came out flawed, nothing more. I still love the game though.
I don't know that Obscura would have any reason to justify the flaws of a 20+ year old game on a dead system. He's a designer himself, and maybe that has something to do with it, but I can't see what would be gained from making the arguments he has. And again, he wasn't positing it was a pure survival-horror game, merely that it contains elements of survival horror in their embryonic form.
I think the style of the game still has enough in common with the first game that you'd recognize it if you saw it and didn't know it was a CV game, but maybe that's just me, though I agree that it has a bit more in common with Zelda 2 than CV1 does.
-
About Dracula XX, I like how in the first level you climb a tower only to appear on a street. Even I was all "what..."
-
Someone has never lived on/near a mountain.
Not that they can really draw 'uphill' stages (although CV4 did it).
-
I don't think the village was on a mountain, though. :X
-
Dracula XX had a few oddly designed levels. I remember Peklo once bringing up how you're walking up the stairs in the last level....only to see the Castle itself in the background under the moon. It looked cool, but if you thought about it for a second, it was kinda like, O_o
-
Dracula XX had a few oddly designed levels. I remember Peklo once bringing up how you're walking up the stairs in the last level....only to see the Castle itself in the background under the moon. It looked cool, but if you thought about it for a second, it was kinda like, O_o
Yeah the castle was like a citadel then. Poor cleaning maid.
-
@DoctaMario: My final word on this is that I don't agree that thinking of certain aspects of CV2, that it incidentally shares with innumerable other games of various genres, as being similar to equally common aspects of survival horror games, that are in and of themselves not definitive of said genre, is not a valid comparison. It's tantamount to comparing the day/night cycle in the game to Ocarina of Time and saying that must make the game a proto-RPG. It assumes too many things about the designer's intentions and doesn't change any of the games short comings.
On a side note, I really don't remember Simon ever having any lines in the game at all. Can someone confirm?
-
What a horrible night to have a curse?
-
What a horrible night to have a curse?
This is nothing more then game dialog to let the player know that night has come. Simon doesn't say a word.
-
Iunno. He could just have a really limited repertoire of phrases, like those guys who talk only in ragefaces? /totallynotserious
-
@DoctaMario: My final word on this is that I don't agree that thinking of certain aspects of CV2, that it incidentally shares with innumerable other games of various genres, as being similar to equally common aspects of survival horror games, that are in and of themselves not definitive of said genre, is not a valid comparison. It's tantamount to comparing the day/night cycle in the game to Ocarina of Time and saying that must make the game a proto-RPG. It assumes too many things about the designer's intentions and doesn't change any of the games short comings.
On a side note, I really don't remember Simon ever having any lines in the game at all. Can someone confirm?
Well, Obscura's point was that the game was "more AKIN to a survival horror game than a platformer" not that it WAS a survival horror game. But I get where you're coming from. Good talk!
The only lines I know of that Simon has are the ones where he exchanges crystals ("I'd like to exchange a White crystal for a Blue one") and then the assumption that the day/night change-over messages are his words as well. I guess we'll never know for sure and that's one of the best things about artistic stuff is that everyone has their own opinion of what something is/means. :)
-
Well, Obscura's point was that the game was "more AKIN to a survival horror game than a platformer" not that it WAS a survival horror game. But I get where you're coming from. Good talk!
The only lines I know of that Simon has are the ones where he exchanges crystals ("I'd like to exchange a White crystal for a Blue one") and then the assumption that the day/night change-over messages are his words as well. I guess we'll never know for sure and that's one of the best things about artistic stuff is that everyone has their own opinion of what something is/means. :)
"I'd like to exchange... blah blah" is said by the one you're exchanging it with.
"What a horrible night to have a curse" and such are merely prompts to let you know that the time of day is switching. Unless there's some way to confirm otherwise, that's the way they are.
Simon has never spoken until Judgment (not counting Captain N).
-
"I'd like to exchange... blah blah" is said by the one you're exchanging it with.
"What a horrible night to have a curse" and such are merely prompts to let you know that the time of day is switching. Unless there's some way to confirm otherwise, that's the way they are.
Simon has never spoken until Judgment (not counting Captain N).
I'm pretty sure (at least from the game scripts I've read) that Simon's the one talking in the crystal exchanges because when you make the trade he says "I'd like to exchange a (color of the crystal you already have) crystal for (color of crystal you need) crystal." So I'm pretty sure that unless they got the colors backwards, Simon is the one saying those words.
The other stuff is conjecture. We'll never know for sure whether it's him saying the day/night phrases or not. I always thought he did, but I realize there's no way to know for sure.
-
Technically, that dialogue should be the Crystal Knight's, not Simon's.
After all, Simon does not have the power of Clairvoyance, so it's not like he knows exactly what crystal he should be exchanging for which.
"I'd like to exchange a white crystal for a blue one".
-
Technically, that dialogue should be the Crystal Knight's, not Simon's.
After all, Simon does not have the power of Clairvoyance, so it's not like he knows exactly what crystal he should be exchanging for which.
"I'd like to exchange a white crystal for a blue one".
Yup, this. In the NES days, the main character in which you used never really spoke. The ones that did, did so rarely.
Characters that don't speak for example:
Simon Belmont
Trevor Belmont
Link
Mario
Billy Lee
Jimmy Lee
Getsu Fuma
Samus Aran (at least as far as I know)
Kid Icarus (same as Samus)
etc.
-
I always just assumed there was an offer made by the crystal knight and the dialogue was just Simon's response because they don't really give you a choice of whether or not you want to exchange them.
-
Yup, this. In the NES days, the main character in which you used never really spoke. The ones that did, did so rarely.
Characters that don't speak for example:
Simon Belmont
Trevor Belmont
Link
Mario
Billy Lee
Jimmy Lee
Getsu Fuma
Samus Aran (at least as far as I know)
Kid Icarus (same as Samus)
etc.
You make mention of an excellent point that should be looked at closer. Not only does Simon not speak but neither do the bosses i.e. death, dracula, medusa etc. The fact that there is no talking other than the villagers and the narrator telling you what items you picked up (who is that guy anyway?) there is little to no chit chat in SQ like it's prequel. Silence makes for a good mood setting device. Old school gaming will always have certain quirks that high tech can not make up for.
-
Well, Obscura's point was that the game was "more AKIN to a survival horror game than a platformer" not that it WAS a survival horror game. But I get where you're coming from. Good talk!
Very good talk! :)