Holy crap, there needs to be a tl;dr version.Sorry about that, but I cannot summarize it into a tl;dr. This is something that needs some expression in order to get the point across, and any shortened version of the letter won't do it justice.
I don't know if I really want to spend a lot of time reading this, because of the title... Sounds like a iga sucks, it's all cox now. Hehe, cox.
Okay, I'm done.
The tl;dr is simply;Man,thanks for summarizing it. :)
"SotN ruined my Castlevania, like LoS 'ruined' the IGA timeline. LoS series is a return to the ClassicVania's and I love them for it. I dread when MercurySteam is done and it returns to the MetroidVanias."
I do find it funny that he calls it the 'IGA' timeline specifically, since games in the timeline existed before IGA came along.
Oh also he's rage quitting the series when MercurySteam stops making LoS games.
The tl;dr is simply;:D Oh, rage quitting sounds so angry though. I don't really dread when MercurySteam finishes their Castlevania games, I'm openly anticipating it. That's where the franchise closes for me, and I'll be happy with a shorter, emotional story which has an ending than the ongoing Iga series.
"SotN ruined my Castlevania, like LoS 'ruined' the IGA timeline. LoS series is a return to the ClassicVania's and I love them for it. I dread when MercurySteam is done and it returns to the MetroidVanias."
I do find it funny that he calls it the 'IGA' timeline specifically, since games in the timeline existed before IGA came along.
Oh also he's rage quitting the series when MercurySteam stops making LoS games.
You've got a very thoughtful and obviously emotionally-charged argument there, and I commend you for sticking to your guns. Very few people who defend Lords of Shadow put in the time or effort to explain the details of why.
Here's where I will argue:
1.) There is nothing to say that Castlevania will return to a Metroidvania-style of gameplay ala:SotN after the Lords of Shadow universe has come to a close. There's nothing to say that the next person who takes of the reigns of the series might do something completely different from what we've already seen. You're assuming it's going back to how it was when IGA took the reigns, and you simply don't know that for certain.
2.) The "Castlevania Prime" universe and it's timeline was well established well before IGA took over. He's just the person who had reign over a stretched period of time and several games & added onto it and futzed around. It will probably be added onto after someone else takes over who could fiddle with things even more. You're kind of undermining the grand universe the franchise had already created by several different people before he came along by crowning him the "Black King IGA of Castlevania" whose corruption damned the CV Prime universe for all time.
3.) I too am a Castlevania fan from the NES era and therefore a "Retro Fan" as you put it. I grew up with Bloodlines and CV1 as my first introductions to the series and grew from there on. However, I did not see Lords of Shadow as a return to the Classicvania style on several levels - my biggest gripes being the mundane music and a lean more towards high-fantasy action rather than gothic adventure that was Castlevania's building blocks. Does this make either of our arguments baseless or untrue? No, because each person's perspective is different. I just got the impression from your words that you seemed to be speaking *for* us retro fans. Not all classic CV fans hated Symphony, and not all of us love Lords of Shadow. Just food for thought.
So yeah. My two cents.
Just give me the damn Battle of 1999.Oh, I hear ya. I know this may sound wrong for me to say, given the nature of this thread and all, but I feel the same with Contra. The last console game that was awesome was Shattered Soldier, and since then it has become a sort-a niche game. I really want an amazing side-scrolling, 2.5D Contra game that delivers punches like SS did on the PS2, and surprisingly, MercurySteam has gone on record for saying they'd like to do Contra. Now, I'm not one to leap to conclusion; I'm not giving MS immediate wins for this. As much as I love the 3D Castlevania that MS made, I don't think a 3rd Person Contra game would work. You can't jump over bullets like you can in Super C if the game played like Gears of War or Lost Planet.
Give me that in the form of a huge 2D sidescroller and make it captivating enough to make me want to spend 30+ hours on my first playthrough enjoying the gameplay and ambiance. The Castlevania Prime universe can be settled after that as far as I'm concerned. Wrap this shyte up, but goddamit do it RIGHT. (and for Vlad's sake, don't make it a handheld; console that shit up in Hi-Def and go Odin Sphere on us)
Kyle, I too grew up with the series before the SotN era. I started with CV1 in the late 80s and moved on to CV2 and SCV4, one of the greatest games ever made IMO. I've ranked both CV1 and SCV4 near the top of the list of games on their consoles ever since then. But I embraced SotN when I first played it (around 1999), and I adore most of the Iga titles. They gave the series a much-needed evolution, and elevated it to an even higher esteem than what the 8-bit and 16-bit titles were able to accomplish. I wished for the series to return to its roots the whole time, but I appreciated those Iga titles and thoroughly enjoyed them, even when I thought they could use some work (like PoR).I deserve that. You are free to pursue your likes and whatnot. As I mentioned to Sindra, I went a bit overboard with claiming to speak for the other retro fans, and I apologize for making us sound a bit ill over the transition from ClassicVania to MetroidVania, and I know that not every fan of the classics thought positively towards Lords of Shadow as a Castlevania game, James Rolfe included. So yeah, sorry for that.
But I really don't care for LoS. I respect it highly as a game, for all the care and polish that MS put into it. However, I feel like it trampled all over my CV series. The soundtrack was boring and had almost nothing in common with (or reminiscent of) the old games, neither Classicvanias nor Castleroids. Half of the creatures and even more of the settings were foreign to the series. The gameplay was completely new, especially when compared to the pre-SotN titles. And there was no Dracula. In a Castlevania title, no Dracula. Absolutely unforgiveable when combined with all the other liberties taken. At least LoI and AoS had Dracula-esque bosses, and they had an entirely CV-ish backdrop to compensate.
Oh, and for the record, Chronicles isn't a combination of CV1 and SCV4. It's just a port of the old X68k game which is just about as old as CV1 and SCV4, plus a few enhancements.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not all Classicvania fans feel that way.
I'm just trying to figure out why CV1's cover was posted randomly among the text.Because I wanted to use the two images, the CV1 cover and LoS's Official Art (Which looks like a homage to the CV1 cover due to similar postures of their heroes and the way the whip sways towards the viewer), to illustrate that they have more similarities with each other than people seem to believe.
Because I wanted to use the two images, the CV1 cover and LoS's Official Art (Which looks like a homage to the CV1 cover due to similar postures of their heroes and the way the whip sways towards the viewer), to illustrate that they have more similarities with each other than people seem to believe.Does that mean Harmony of Dissonance (and Despair too I guess, heh) is the closest we have to CV1 in the POST-DRACX ERA since they both have an actual CV1 Simon sprite complete with similar physics?
Does that mean Harmony of Dissonance (and Despair too I guess, heh) is the closest we have to CV1 in the POST-DRACX ERA since they both have an actual CV1 Simon sprite complete with similar physics?No, because those were nice little tidbits that they included in the game, while I only used the CV1 cover to add a more visual interpretation of my own attachment to LoS. Wouldn't CV: Dracula X Chronicles (PSP) be the closest thing we've gotten to CV1 since Rondo of Blood due to the linear stages, Belmont-with-a-whip lead role, and traditional platforming with bottomless pits? Yeah, it's a remake, but should it still count?
OP, I like you already for "Suffering like G did".I'm not sure it's fair to use comparisons as a negative aspect of a game these days. You could find many similarities with anything as long as you look hard enough. Take the post above mine as the perfect example! Comparing the God Mask with an engraved face in a sword. Why not compare the Dark Crystal to using Summons in Final Fantasy? It's not very difficult. That being said, if you don't see the connections between the classic CV titles, then there's nothing I can do about it. I see them. I guess it's like a magic eye. Some people see the sailboat. Others see scooters.
For what it's worth, LoS is a game I hated at first, and gradually came to like after spending time with it. But it's kind of a misnomer to call it a 3D Classicvania. It shares three things with the classic games: a dude with a whip, mythological stuff, and linear, ruins-y stages to trek through. Otherwise, it's not much at all like the older games, and seems content to do its own thing, which is kind of jarring. It's the strict dichotomy of classicvania vs. metroidvania that put me off the game at first, because it really doesn't do either very strictly outside of a scant few cosmetic nods. When you get down to it, it's Uncharted, God of War, and a tiny bit of Shadow of the Colossus thrown in a blender. And while I do enjoy the game, I'm still waiting for a magical Metroidvania with loot-gathering elements as well as interesting and challenging level design.
That being said, I'm okay with what LoS does for the most part. I see it as "Castlevania: The Game of the Movie" (meant both as a compliment and a gentle ribbing). It isn't my favorite of the series, but it follows the tradition of Castlevania as a series not always having a single director, and I highly appreciate what it's done to bring Castlevania back into at least something of a spotlight.
You probably should have just linked the images, since randomly adding them in the middle of your textBut a block of text is so uninteresting! :(
is kind of distracting and sort of makes people look at them
instead of your text.
No, because those were nice little tidbits that they included in the game, while I only used the CV1 cover to add a more visual interpretation of my own attachment to LoS. Wouldn't CV: Dracula X Chronicles (PSP) be the closest thing we've gotten to CV1 since Rondo of Blood due to the linear stages, Belmont-with-a-whip lead role, and traditional platforming with bottomless pits? Yeah, it's a remake, but should it still count?No, it'd be Castlevania: The Adventure Rebirth.
No, it'd be Castlevania: The Adventure Rebirth.Oh, darn. I forgot about that! Aww, thanks. I feel so embarrassed now. :-\ As for the rest of your post. Egh..... yeah. The original Rondo of Blood does have the "honor" of being the first CV game with anime inspired characters, but I can't say it's the first CV game that had a main playable character who wasn't a Belmont. CV3 did that; but at least RoB's stages were not like Metroid. It was more like CV3, only you really couldn't decide which path to take by choice. I dunno.
Rondo's design was trying to do away with bottomless pits a lot of the time to incorporate filthy exploration. It had a little magical girl as another playable character. A girl in a pink dress who attacks with birds is far more offensive than pretty boys. It had more guitars than ever before. And it had all this pop, and hardly anything orchestral. The color palette was even worse! Everything was so saturated. Look at that blue on Richter's garb. It was drenched in 90's anime.
It is the distinctively smelly father of Symphony of the Night. It's obvious to see where Symphony even got the idea to be more exploration-based. Rondo was the foundation of that curse. Without Rondo, Castlevania probably would have stayed the same, delicate manflower, whispering in the winds, "Let me show you my Conan-Dracula fan-fiction."
REST IN PEACE, CASTLEVANIA 1986-1993
Also my first Castlevania was CV2 and I'm totally chill with everything past 1997, so I agree with uzo in that you are acting a tad melodramatic.Well, I actually do feel a bit of sentimental attachment to Lords of Shadow. I'll admit to being biased towards it, and that's mostly because LoS dropped the anime inspirations and awful character designs, and instead focused more on the environments and presentation. I know it's a bit rough to believe, but I actually do have some feelings for the damn game. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant to a couple flaws, like the music not being properly looped during combat sequences, and the grunting sounds of Gabriel being a bit too grouchy. I still love the game though, despite the flaws.
I do find it funny that he calls it the 'IGA' timeline specifically, since games in the timeline existed before IGA came along.Legends was Canon, leaving Worlds of possibilities
the N64 titles are only canon because they kissed ass to IGA despite 1 being completely horrible (Cv64)
Legends was Canon, leaving Worlds of possibilities
the N64 titles are only canon because they kissed ass to IGA despite 1 being completely horrible (Cv64)
It's obvious to see where Symphony even got the idea to be more exploration-based. Rondo was the foundation of that curse.
Vampire Killer/Simon's Quest are the roots of the exploration-based 'vanias, not Rondo. And Rondo's layout was obviously based off of Dracula's Curse, what with the branching pathways.Nah, in the Game Center CX interview with IGA, it's pretty clear he doesn't hold Simon's Quest in that high regard. I'm not sure about Vampire Killer, but I'm assuming Rondo was the main influence, besides Super Metroid ofc, because Symphony is a direct sequel.
Nah, in the Game Center CX interview with IGA, it's pretty clear he doesn't hold Simon's Quest in that high regard. I'm not sure about Vampire Killer, but I'm assuming
But furthermore, Rondo is pretty much a little trove for secrets, what with unlocking Maria, the switches in the Clock Tower, the way you can lengthen the whip, and etc, and it all seems to vibe with Symphony's own particular brand what with its Richter, numerous instances of environment interaction like the bookcase, and its own special attacks.
Simply by saying that you hate LoS could have sufficed. Saying it like this makes you seem a bit spiteful.
I don't see how the LoS story is made up of rehashing old plotlines.
X is out trying to save love interest. X has another guy, Y, that he trusts following him around/helping/encouraging him. X actually killed his love interest because of Y, who then turns on X.
I think Nagumo or someone mentioned that it was probably intended as canon from the start, but then IGA felt offended by it and kicked it down a pit. Probably because it undermined CVIII or seemed to be riding off of SoTN. Or because Sonia was a woman.
It makes sense for it to have been intended for canon, considering it has Alucard and foreshadows Trevor. CV64 and CoTM pretty much make no direct references to the past games. There's also a quip by Dracula that basically assumes Rondo and SoTN never happened. But then again, Dracula is kinda an idiot.
While I thought IGA's reins on the series had led it a little too far off the path, LoS was not the answer. Sure, we have whips and Belmonts back, but at what cost? God of War meets Lord of the Rings meets Shadow of the Colossus meets Uncharted.
While I thought IGA's reins on the series had led it a little too far off the path, LoS was not the answer. Sure, we have whips and Belmonts back, but at what cost? God of War meets Lord of the Rings meets Shadow of the Colossus meets Uncharted. Didn't anyone consider looking at the meat-and-patatoes gameplay of the N64 games to see what was working and just needed more polish and tech?Did you really say that C:LoS, being the result of a mixture of three of the best games and one of the best trilogies in this generation, was a bad thing? What has the community become when an amazing game is released, only to be picked apart by hating vultures claiming that "Oooh, it's nothing original! Oooh, one little aspect of the game justifies it being a rip-off". Are you telling me that inspiration and influence is a game-breaking criticism? I can respect that you feel disappointed in the game for personal reasons, but never use the unfair comparison card. Ever.
You also forgot to mention Pan's Labyrinth, Van Helsing, and, oh right, Castlevania. You can only throw in so many ingredients before it becomes a salad.
You also forgot to mention Pan's Labyrinth, Van Helsing, and, oh right, Castlevania. You can only throw in so many ingredients before it becomes a salad.
Did you really say that C:LoS, being the result of a mixture of three of the best games and one of the best trilogies in this generation, was a bad thing? What has the community become when an amazing game is released, only to be picked apart by hating vultures claiming that "Oooh, it's nothing original! Oooh, one little aspect of the game justifies it being a rip-off". Are you telling me that inspiration and influence is a game-breaking criticism? I can respect that you feel disappointed in the game for personal reasons, but never use the unfair comparison card. Ever.
Instead of saying "Shadow of the Colossus Ripoff", how about you say something more like: "The Titan Bossfights were reminiscent of earlier, massive battles like the ones featured in Shadow of the Colossus, but the lack of open maneuverability during these sequences in C:LoS is disappointing because of the potential it could have on a current-gen console. While we all want a SotC sequel, Lords of Shadow is not a proper successor in that sense, but these moments are few, and only occur within the first few hours and final bit of the game."
Instead of saying "God of War Ripoff", how about something like: "The gameplay mechanics in Lords of Shadow utilizes present-day techniques and control schemes that were made famous by other 3rd Person action beat-em-ups like God of War and Devil May Cry. C:LoS doesn't outright take their design choices and works with it, like Heavenly Sword and the Wolverine game. The emphasis on offensive strategy with the Light and Shadow magic gives the player a new twist on engagement, especially on the harder difficulties when chains of combos and avoiding hits in order to replenish health is essential to success."
Oh, yeah...And don't forget the Underworld franchise, too. ;)
*Multiple unique characters (up to four in LoD, two in CV64) with alternate levels/bosses
*Full 3D gameplay (ala Mario 64, so it's not "on-rails")
*Multiple endings based on performance
*Level Design features spatial depth (vertical and horizontal--not flat hallways)
*day-and-night cycles with time-sensitive events (like Simon's Quest)
*Weather effects (rain, lightning, moving clouds, and "fog"--the last one likely being a graphical shortcoming that actually helped)
*Dynamic, real-time lighting (next to candles, for instance)
*spot-on atmosphere
*death-defying platforming of all sorts (including ledge grabbing).
*environmental/enemy hazards (medusa heads, spikes, guillotines, buzz-saws, cannons).
*innovative survival-horror/suspense elements
*Vampires that pretend to be human and vampires as regular enemies besides bosses
*status changes, including poison and vampirism
*manageable questing with inventory items (meat, keys, cards, cure ampules, etc)
*interesting, involving plot (characters like Rosa, Vincent, Renon, Malice, Henry, etc)
*3D in-game cinemas
*Some voicing
*Unlockable alternate costumes
*Long and short-ranged attacks (IE: whip + sword)
*upgradable sub-weapons (in LoD)
*There is a useful slide and duck/crawl play mechanic
*Diverse mix of old and new enemies in 3D
*Beta/test version teased grapple-swinging points, showing the idea if not final execution
Just...no.
I'm not sure what you're trying to point out with this list. There's a handful of things that are genuine advancements, but most of it is either opinion of improvement, things CV64-LoD didn't add to the series, and things CV64-LoD didn't even come up with in general.
Additionally, some of the points are just graphical, which are kind of moot seeing how Lords of Shadow is one of the most graphically impressive games this gen. And if we're comparing "achievements" so-to-speak, then how does 3D count for CV64-LoD? I didn't realize they had developed 4D gaming yet.
I give you credit for the analysis, but it's "objectivity" is tainted with a lot of subjective reasoning. Just to name one overarching example, if you're going to argue that LoS should be more like CV64, then you can't make that argument that LoS "not adding anything" (which I utterly disagree with) is a bad thing because you're just looking for it to not add anything, but in a direction you prefer (i.e. CV64-LoD)
And yet Legacy of Darkness (and by relation, CV64) failed completely in the one category that actually matters the most; GAMEPLAY. Funny enough, something Lords of Shadow has done better than any other 3D Castlevania.
Sorry, I can't help it if the Underworld is in there, and didn't need to be.
I'm passionate, but that's as objective an analysis as I can muster. And I say this to the objective fellow with the new Simon Belmont on his signature :P --all in good humor, mind you).
I totally forgot about cox-kun talking about how masks were always a part of Castlevania. As I posted earlier in this thread, the God/Devil/GodHand masks were just reused from an older game of MercurySteam's, when they were Rebel Studios. It was such a strange attempt to reconcile that plot device with older Castlevanias when it wasn't even necessary.I remember in a video interview a couple years ago how Cox was saying he always thought Dracula wore a mask in CV1, & Simon was whipping it off. He said that was just his opinion, but I never thought of Dracula wearing a mask before he said this. and im sure some1 is gonna bring up that 1 guidebook wit simon y dracula taking off what appears 2 be a mask
I remember in a video interview a couple years ago how Cox was saying he always thought Dracula wore a mask in CV1, & Simon was whipping it off.
Huh. It's pretty clear that Dracula's head gets whipped off.It's also obvious what the guidebook represents. It's not literal. Dracula's pulling off his human face like a mask, exposing the demon inside. Pretty self-explanatory, there's more than meets the eye, and Dracula's not JUST some vampire, but a monsterous demon.
Cox is an odd one.
I remember in a video interview a couple years ago how Cox was saying he always thought Dracula wore a mask in CV1, & Simon was whipping it off.
I guess he has yet to recognize the difference between a mask and a head. And in terms of masks being a part of CV since the beginning, the only mask ever in CV was Vampira; Carmilla's mask.Well, I must admit it could be considered as a mask by people, as Dracula reveals his true form after getting his head/mask whipped out.
Well, I must admit it could be considered as a mask by people, as Dracula reveals his true form after getting his head/mask whipped out.Yes, but what could be considered/believed is not always right, it's a mistake nonetheless. A lot of people believed when Walter said "You betrayed me!", he was talking to Death, but he was really talking to Mathias. It's the equivalent of mishearing orders. Just because you think your superior said one thing when they said something else doesn't mean what you THINK it was is right.
But yeah, in traditional CV's, mask = Carmilla.
You probably should have just linked the images, since randomly adding them in the middle of your text
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee35/beingthehero/mask-03.jpg)
is kind of distracting and sort of makes people look at them
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee35/beingthehero/abcae01e601a11dfb527000b2f3ed30f.jpg?t=1306535964)
instead of your text.
To be fair, while it seems really likely, Trevorcard isnt exactly confirmed. And even if it is, Vampire is a bit sketchy. He casts a reflection.
But Alucard is originally half human, so it is plausible that he could have a reflection. Has there been any scenario where Alucard has been in front of a mirror so that we can speculate on that more?
2.) No enemies like Medusa heads, Bone Pillars, or bone-throwing Skeletons that hinder platforming and make it strategic. (AKA Castlevania 101).
But it's not.
And my avatar is fan-art based off of old-school Richter designs, which in tandem with my signature probably demonstrates my attitude towards the series. Regardless, though, I'm not the one making absolute claims describing specific framework in which Castlevania should advance, and needs to advance, to be considered authentically Castlevania in design.
I'm not going to get in a big drawn out debate where I debate each and every one of your points, because factually, you're 100% correct. LoS indeed focuses more on combat, and LoD definitely focuses more on platforming. I respect the amount of time and thought you have put into the subject. However, I do disagree with your analysis because of the conclusions that you draw, and do want to note a few key things.
For example, I don't believe a fully 3D camera is at all a requirement to maintain the old-school Castlevania feel in a 3D game. If anything it's a hindrance. The Classicvanias focused on designed, obstacle course style gameplay, in which, by design, there were a set number of optimal ways to approach a situation, and the skill came from executing one of these few methods. A 3D environment, however, adds a whole new level of complexity where certain gameplay elements can no longer function the way they would have in a 2D environment, no matter how intuitive the design, because you've added an exponentially larger amount of ways to come at the challenge. Take Medusa heads. There is no way to effectively replicate the original challenge of the medusa heads in 3D, since a sin/cos brought into a 3D plane becomes a wholly different beast, and even with the added complexity remains a much more easily conquerable one.
Like this:
(http://functions.wolfram.com/ElementaryFunctions/Sin/visualizations/5/02/imagetext/0013/text13.gif)
What was one of the most challenging, engaging obstacles in 2D Castlevanias becomes incomprehensible in 3D. To surmount this, most of the enemies in CV64-LoD followed the AI of "lock on to the main hero and run towards him", which isn't exactly reminiscent of 2D Castlevania, and most of the fighting took place in flat, open areas where players could focus on aiming their hits. Cornell was even given a nice auto-aim long range attack. Additionally, the platforming was largely devoid of intelligent life. Any enemy placement that did coincide with platforming, save for a select few situations, gave you ample time to arrive at your jumping destination BEFORE dealing with the enemy, or put you in a position to kill it before attempting a jump of any kind.
This made the games very slow, with lots of downtime, but necessarily slow. 3D platforming requires extra thought and planning, at least when not reverted to a 2D view (effectively killing the point) and interfering with that focus creates situations that tend to be more frustrating than rewarding. I encourage you to pull up a let's play of CV:LoD, or something of the like, because a lot of things you criticize CV:LoS for having, the N64 games actually had a lot of.
I don't think MercurySteam's vision of Castlevania is an invalid evolution. I simply think it takes the Classicvania focus on whip swinging to heart, rather than the focus on jumping like LoD did. It replaced the rhythm of jumping with the rhythm of of combat. It's different, sure, and I'm hoping MercurySteam adds more platforming ala the Clocktower to MoF and LoS2, but LoI came up with a solid system, and God of War made it even better. IMO, LoS is even better than that, for reasons I can list if you want me to, but it would be stupid for future developers to ignore these advancements, and fumble around in the dark just so that they can be different. Not everything needs to forge a new path, and Castlevania hasn't done so in awhile.
Kyle, personally, I've been playing Castlevania since my early days as a gamer, being Vampire Killer on MSX my 1st castlevania. I've seen how the series evolved from a side scroller, to a rpg "metroidvania". I have a love for both types of Castlevanias. I've played most of the CVs, save for judgement, haunted castle, that cv arcade(wish they import it to the states). I honestly did give LoS a try. From beginning to end. My personal opinion, I found nothing that made me feel like it's a CV, or a classic CV at that. Sure, there's elements of CV in the game. But it didn't feel like CV to me, not once. The atmosphere, the music (a definite problem for me), that DBZ moment that occured at the end of the game, are just a few things I point out. As a game, it's alright. As a CV, it's terrible in my opinion. The game left me very skeptical on the LoS series.If you didn't think LoS was "Castlevania" enough, in your own perspective, that's okay with me. I guess it's kinda like a magic eye, eh? Some see the sailboat, others see scooters. Some see Castlevania within LoS, others don't. To respond to your grievances on Mirrors of Fate though, I have to disagree on Belmont=Vampire being a gimmick here. If you think about it, having Trevor become Alucard is completely accurate to both source materials due to the plot twist at the end of the first LoS. To stay true to the original characters, Trevor needs to be a descendent of Gabriel, and Alucard needs to be the son of Dracula. Since Gabriel is also Dracula, it's totally logical for Trevor to be Alucard. Could you imagine if they attempted to include both Alucard and Trevor as separate characters? They'd have to either be brothers, or one of them would have to lose their namesake.
To this day, I'm still very indecisive in the next two installments to the LoS series. My biggest gripe on MoF, they used that same gimmick on turning another Belmont onto a vampire. I think it's common knowledge by now, since new screenshots more or less confirm it, but Trevor becomes Alucard. I can't seem to explain it why in words, but it bothers me greatly. I really don't know why. I rather it didn't occur, since a Belmont turning into a vampire, let alone Dracula, already happened once. That idea irked me a bit throughout LoS already.
I don't honestly know if I want to try MoF at this point. I'm stuck in a pond with now oar to row the boat on this.
If you didn't think LoS was "Castlevania" enough, in your own perspective, that's okay with me. I guess it's kinda like a magic eye, eh? Some see the sailboat, others see scooters. Some see Castlevania within LoS, others don't. To respond to your grievances on Mirrors of Fate though, I have to disagree on Belmont=Vampire being a gimmick here. If you think about it, having Trevor become Alucard is completely accurate to both source materials due to the plot twist at the end of the first LoS. To stay true to the original characters, Trevor needs to be a descendent of Gabriel, and Alucard needs to be the son of Dracula. Since Gabriel is also Dracula, it's totally logical for Trevor to be Alucard. Could you imagine if they attempted to include both Alucard and Trevor as separate characters? They'd have to either be brothers, or one of them would have to lose their namesake.
To put it simply: Gabriel Belmont = Dracula; therefor Trevor Belmont = Alucard.
It isn't being used as a gimmick, it's the only way for Trevor and Alucard to make sense in the LoS universe; but if you don't want to give it a shot despite that, I won't try to convince you otherwise.
I just love how if you do not like LOS than you are most likely a "IGAvania" fan lol.
And also how if you like IGAvanias than you are automatically somehow kicked out of the "Retro Fan" club even if you happen to be a big fan of the classicvanias as well. :D
What is an Igavania?
That's a needless distinction.IGA was a producer of the series for almost a decade. So, far he is the only one who was in charge of this series for such long time. Like it or not, but in the end the series was shaped by him in many ways and it's him that people will remember as the mastermind behind "metroidvania" rise for glory and fall from grace. So, I think it's correct to call SOTN-OOE period of the series history as "IGA's Era" and the games that were produced by him as "IGAvanias". It's not a negative term in any case.
It's certainly not negative, but "Metroidvania" already did the trick with encompassing 1997 - 2008. CotM was the only Metroidvania not produced by him, so I'm legitimately confused why the past two months everyone wants to call everything not made prior to 1997 an "Igavania", because...Lets call the old megaman games "Inafking man" and when Miyamoto stop producing games "Super Miya Bros.". Its sounds strange to you? Thats how I feels about IgaVania and CoxVania, to me its Castlevania/Vampire Killer/Akumajou Dracula/Akumajou Densetsu/Akumajo Whatahell. lol
...the producer doesn't matter as much as we think. The directors are the ones that matter most for the final product, hence why Takeda Takashi was the one who said he made all the decisions for Harmony of Dissonance.
Lets call the old megaman games "Inafking man" and when Miyamoto stop producing games "Super Miya Bros.". Its sounds strange to you? Thats how I feels about IgaVania and CoxVania, to me its Castlevania/Vampire Killer/Akumajou Dracula/Akumajou Densetsu/Akumajo Whatahell. lol
It's certainly not negative, but "Metroidvania" already did the trick with encompassing 1997 - 2008.Not exactly - LOI, COD and Judgement weren't "metroidvanias", but the first two had a distinct IGA's approach to them.
Not exactly - LOI, COD and Judgement weren't "metroidvanias", but the first two had a distinct IGA's approach to them.LOI and COD theorically were MetroidVania, you need to explore a map, have a inventory and collect items/abilities.
Well, since I only played LoI until a bit after the first boss (Medusa) and CoD until after the third one (I remember that I killed the Wyvern and the skeleton with a giant fish, but I cant remember which one is the second/third lol) I cant argue much about that. :-[
The Wyvern was the second boss and the fish-riding skeleton was the third ;)Thanks :p
I adore that these words were stripped right from my mouth!
Honestly, I get it ok? There seems to be two sides of the fan coin or whatever. But to write that large ranting post, then claim to 'rage quit' seems silly to me. (not that I truly care ^^) If you are THIS passionate about the series then quitting would not be an option. Heck, even I have my rants and boo hoos some times about certain things, but guess what...I get over them or find alternatives then ranting and rage whatever-ing. Lets face it, the series has had a few up and downs. That is going to happen! You cannot nail a fan to the cross because of what they follow. The only thing we can do it sit here and hope and pray and whatever else (Rub a lucky bat?) that things can carry on and we all get what we want so that we can live happily ever after in a castle made of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows! :o
Until then, stop with the rage quitting. :P