Dark Souls. I can't be bothered to explain cause a select people will understand and the rest won't. I just know it's the way to go. FromSoft knows.
I would like a vanillaware Styled castlevania gameThis.
All I want is a Belmont wielding a whip and tossing sub weapons to make his way through a castle that's impossibly huge while killing monsters and finally having a showdown with Dracula himself. Obviously I want things like The Grim Reaper, candles, hearts, wallmeat, The Belmont Pimp Strut, etc. Honestly they could keep crapping out games like what I've described and I wouldn't get bored of them. All in all I just want some Classicvania.
Maybe I'm just agreeable, but I like what all of you are saying...maybe just because I could wholeheartedly agree with this guy:Depends on your PC, If its mid to high end, get the PC version with DSfix (only way to play it), playing it in 60fps makes the game feel more smooth
...although, I still really wanna see "the trio" (Belmont, Belnades, Alucard) together in a heavily detailed, thoroughly fleshed out, phenomenally written main-game. All this wishing and dreaming and thinking is what I tend to do between games.
The vanillaware and Dark Souls ideas were neat. I'd never heard of Dark Souls before, but it looked and sounded interesting. If I were to pick it up, is there a particular console version that is "best"? I have a PC, and hope to get a PS3 or 4. Never really found much to interest me in the XBox, though I could borrow my sister's I'm sure.
Crap, I started a rant and didnt even make a point :-[Well, at least you've figured it out yourself. ;D
God, Its not even relevant to what we're talking about, whoops.... LOS fanboy over here.
I would like a vanillaware Styled castlevania game
...Of course there is such a thing as "true Castlevania" -- it's the very reason why the franchise is still around. Konami certainly wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it tried to reboot the series with every title; you move a series forward by evolving it, not by rupturing it. Every series needs a breath of fresh air from time to time, but remember that Castlevania has its very own soul that every game must carry...
...Los might not be the ideal Castlevania... but its the what the series need at the moment....I can't disagree with this at all though. As Intersection said, a fresh breath (like LoS) is healthy every now and then. It may upset a few fans or purists, but it probably won't drive them away. It will just bring in a wider fan base, which is probably good for business. And by business, I mean "Castlevania" business -- new games down the road business, not "making money" business, but I'm sure it's that too! More fans means more reason to make another game in the series...maybe crappy, maybe not.
First off... Bring back Ayami, for main character designs and promotional artwork.
Exactly. And also not all steroid barbarians. Los might not be the ideal Castlevania... but its the what the series need at the moment. Something new after Los would be awesome. I just hope its not Iga...Certainly not. Lords of Shadow never was what Castlevania needed -- it wasn't then, and it isn't now.
Pachislot 1
Pachislot 2
You know what they all had in common? They were all shit.
And how could the Pachislots be considered poor in anyway? They're slotmachines with lots of effort put into them. Aside from that, they're just spin-offs. There are indicative of the series' popularity, and not relevant at all to the question if the series needs fixing or not. I mean, just be glad that they were made in the first place and the series could branch out a bit.
You know what they all had in common? They were all shit. Those games made even fans like me give up on the series for a bit. But lords of shadow is at least making the series still relevant in modern gaming. It might not have been the game we wanted but we sure as fuck needed it. We need more fans if we want the series to continue existing. The next team hopefully will do better than Mercurysteam.Most of the games you're citing are minor spin-offs, and these are usually indicative, if anything, of a series' popularity -- they don't have anything to do with general gaming quality.
Games that stick to the same thing for 25+ years die out.Mario: Run through colorful stages, get powerups, go into pipes, and jump on shit.
Maybe that's the problem? Seeing all the budget issues IGA was running into by the end of his previous Castlevania tenure, perhaps it would have been better if they had spent the money they spent on those Pachislot games on the core games.
I mean, spin offs are fine when your series is at its peak, but when your series is losing both name recognition and audience with every release, creating slot machine games (an industry where, speaking from experience, game facade is fairly arbitrary in the long run) for a market that doesn't contain your primary player base isn't a sign of popularity, it's an easy cash in.
Budget has nothing to do with it. IGA himself said every Castlevania game has an above average budget.
Also, all this talk about the Pachislots are such a cash-in just shows how ignorant the fanbase can be at times. These Pachislots were created for arcades in Japan, which are still very popular over there, meaning it's still intented at gamers. Most likely a lot of the primary fanbase in Japan also visits arcades. Therefore, it's actually a good business decision and not a cash in at all.
Edit: Sorry, but I'm going to call you out on this one.Mario: Run through colorful stages, get powerups, go into pipes, and jump on shit.
Sonic: Run fast, beat the time limit, get the rings. Stop the fat guy from getting the jewels.
Pokemon: Catch 'em all. Beat the other kids'.
Metroid: Go through alien planet. Get weapons and stuff. Kill stuff. Go backtracking and get more stuff and kill stronger stuff.
Every MMO: Smack this thing with a stick until you have enough stats to smack differently-coloered things with different-colored sticks.
Final Fantasy: Start off in small, non-secular perspective. Kill a bunch of stuff. Gain sudden worldview and go save it from the big scary thing. Ride the adorable yellow birds. Kweh.
Megaman: You're blue. Or some other primary color. Go shoot/slash/smack stuff until you beat [recurring antagonist with recurring motives]. Ignore that it's all but dead now. This applies.
Every racing game. Be faster than the other guys.
Grand Theft Auto: Do illegal stuff. Don't get caught. If you get caught blow stuff up. Or you can sandbox. Whichever.
Every fighter: Be better at button pushing than the opponent. Learning the technical stuff like juggles and chaining is largely irrelevant. Just hit them in the knee eighty-six times.
Most noticeably, every Castlevania: Whip stuff. Find Dracula. Whip Dracula. If you have no whip use whatever else. If there is no Dracula go whip the guys having a party in his house.
Okay, maybe those weren't all 25+ years old, but my point still stands. Stop generalizing to have some semblance of a point. You have the completely wrong attitude for this, IMO.
I don't really work along the "better than/worse than LoS" lines. These are almost radically different games, and they aren't truly comparable: like e105beta said, they satisfy different urges.
I can only truly comment on their adherence to the general Castlevania spirit, and in that respect I'm leaning towards CVA.
By the way, was Kojima involved in the art of all three Pachislot CV's? The first was an obvious CoD derivative, but I'm not sure about the rest.
Mario: Run through colorful stages, get powerups, go into pipes, and jump on shit.
Sonic: Run fast, beat the time limit, get the rings. Stop the fat guy from getting the jewels.
Pokemon: Catch 'em all. Beat the other kids'.
Metroid: Go through alien planet. Get weapons and stuff. Kill stuff. Go backtracking and get more stuff and kill stronger stuff.
Every MMO: Smack this thing with a stick until you have enough stats to smack differently-coloered things with different-colored sticks.
Final Fantasy: Start off in small, non-secular perspective. Kill a bunch of stuff. Gain sudden worldview and go save it from the big scary thing. Ride the adorable yellow birds. Kweh.
Megaman: You're blue. Or some other primary color. Go shoot/slash/smack stuff until you beat [recurring antagonist with recurring motives]. Ignore that it's all but dead now. This applies.
Every racing game. Be faster than the other guys.
Grand Theft Auto: Do illegal stuff. Don't get caught. If you get caught blow stuff up. Or you can sandbox. Whichever.
Every fighter: Be better at button pushing than the opponent. Learning the technical stuff like juggles and chaining is largely irrelevant. Just hit them in the knee eighty-six times.
Most noticeably, every Castlevania: Whip stuff. Find Dracula. Whip Dracula. If you have no whip use whatever else. If there is no Dracula go whip the guys having a party in his house.
With Lords of Shadow, MercurySteam chose to throw twenty-five years' worth of gaming excellence straight out of the window, all for the benefit of its "bold, new vision" of a series it didn't even understand.
I see a cash in as more the primary fanbase doesn't really want but is made anyway to make a quick buck. I it got released over nobody would give a damn because arcades died out here since the '90s. But in Japan, most gamers also visits arcades, so I could see Castlevania over there genuinely excited to play it. Sure, it's a safe investment and it uses a famous name, but it's not like any care was put in the product or doesn't appeal to the Japanese fanbase at all. I'm just disagreeing it's a soulles product purely made for money's sake. For what it is, it's appears to be very exciting. So it rubs me the wrong way when people don't judge it fairly.
I'm not arguing against Castlevania needing an update by the way. Just that these spin-offs were the reason Castlevania was somehow ruined and needed a reboot. Lords was in production before any of them were made, so they obviously aren't related. Also we both agreed the Pachislots helped the series. Since two sequels got made it means they did something right after all.
@EstebanT
I take it that last comment was supposed to be a comeback at me? I'm actually happy Lords opened up the series for change. That doesn't mean I don't think the reboot could have been done better, though.
The examples you've provided really do not drive your point at all. Mario, first of all, has been branching out as far as genre and innovating its gameplay for a very long time. From the SNES Mario Kart to Super Mario Galaxy, these games have been extremely successful and kept the franchise fresh with new experiences to enjoy. However, people HAVE been complaining lately about Mario's repetitive nature so even an extremely well-established franchise can become stale. I'm not going to address every example you provide because most of them are either dying or dead franchises, held by a thread by DeviantArt weirdos, or, in the case of fighters or racing games, aren't particularly memorable even if they are done well as a result of the excessive amounts of them dished out through the years.You know, Esteban, there comes a point in every discussion where it's better idea to let go of a weak argument, or at least acknowledge that the person you're interacting with won't necessarily agree with you, than to dig an even deeper hole for yourself to fall in. I'm saying this because your point is not without its own validity; but you've gotten yourself so wrapped up in defending the undefendable that you've just told us that three quarters of the modern gaming market is "either dying or dead". I mean, I can understand it if you don't appreciate racing or fighting games, but their rate of appearance has little to do with their overall quality, and not everyone considers them to be "throwaway time-wasters". I'm also aware that you don't enjoy seeing a series stagnate, but the fact of the matter remains that most of the franchises Dracula9 has mentioned are still gathering a considerable amount of critical attention as of late.
Should I really be content with Castlevania becoming another throwaway time-waster like a fighting game? Even if Rebirth wasn't bad, does it really have the same magic that SotN did? SotN is an iconic game associated with a certain era and the only other Castlevania game that comes close to holding that same weight is LoS. Regardless, I've already acknowledged my love for Iga's games (before & including OOE - Which also includes DXC). I think most of them were well-done in their own right and I continue to play them today. I'm certainly not focusing solely on the negatives.
My initial point was that the series was on a steady path to stagnation after OoE and the only thing truly pumping life back into Castlevania's veins is LoS. It surely would have faded into obscurity had someone not made some drastic changes.
Whether or not Castlevania was in stagnation after Order of Ecclesia is heavily debatable
While agree with most of the rest of your post, it's not really that debatable. Judgement was a mediocre game at best, ReBirth was a classically styled remake, and HoD was one big copy-paste job, and none of them did much to bring Castlevania back into the spotlight. Outside of a reboot, I can't imagine much else besides SotN 2.0 that would have pulled the Castlevania series out of its slump.Details, details. Of course, I'd be lying if I told you that Castlevania was in any particularly good shape after Judgment. But it's all in the line of contesting the dismissive "LoS was the only possible answer" argument.
The examples you've provided really do not drive your point at all. Mario, first of all, has been branching out as far as genre and innovating its gameplay for a very long time. From the SNES Mario Kart to Super Mario Galaxy, these games have been extremely successful and kept the franchise fresh with new experiences to enjoy. However, people HAVE been complaining lately about Mario's repetitive nature so even an extremely well-established franchise can become stale. I'm not going to address every example you provide because most of them are either dying or dead franchises, held by a thread by DeviantArt weirdos, or, in the case of fighters or racing games, aren't particularly memorable even if they are done well as a result of the excessive amounts of them dished out through the years.
Should I really be content with Castlevania becoming another throwaway time-waster like a fighting game?No, you shouldn't, but that isn't what we're getting at. You should, however, at least be aware - if not content - that you're stepping on a lot of toes with what you've been saying. Just because you (clearly) aren't a fan of fighters or racers doesn't mean calling them time-wasters gives you any semblance of an argument. If you don't like something, that's fine. But don't make it into an overblown PSA.
I'm certainly not focusing solely on the negatives.Yes, you are. Calling out multiple gaming franchises and genres just because you don't like a few of them, and ignoring every good aspect of each one, is focusing on what scant few negatives you've come into contact with.
My initial point was that the series was on a steady path to stagnation after OoE and the only thing truly pumping life back into Castlevania's veins is LoS. It surely would have faded into obscurity had someone not made some drastic changes.I don't think that's a particularly fair statement, myself. I'm going to refer, again, to the Megaman franchise here.
Metroid is hardly an example of a franchise doing well by sticking to the same thing. The recent Metroid games aren't even Metroidvanias, they obviously decided to go to a different route in order to compete with the shift in popularity of modern game genres. It turned into an FPS and really isn't all that big compared to other FPS games.The Metroid Prime series has given us three of the best entries in the FPS genre, and you're telling me that it "isn't all that big" compared to other modern shooters? This is beyond logic.
Racing games and Fighters were once genres known to bring innovations to their consoles - in like the 90s. They were usually the games that brought the best graphics, had iconic music and influenced other games of that nature. But I wouldn't say today many people would consider many fighting games to be in league with games like, oh I don't know, The Last of Us, Skyrim, Bioshock: Infinite, Mass Effect etc. They just aren't on that level anymore. The only fighting games I have even heard that much buzz about in mainstream gaming are Skullgirls & Super Smash Brothers. They both do pretty well in distinguishing themselves amongst the numerous other games within the genre (albeit many of Skullgirls' features are pretty derivative of other fighters).In what way are fighting games "not on that level anymore"? What "league" have Bioshock and Mass Effect attained that fighting games could no longer match? You're taking games from four considerably different genres and telling us with no justification whatsoever that fighting games aren't good anymore. As it is, you don't make anymore sense than you did before.
I would, however, say LoS has made its mark among the aforementioned mainstream games. Even if the others were good, they still are not particularly memorable. I don't care if I'm stepping on toes - I'm just being real. Whether or not you agree with those genres being timewasters, it's not about my preference. It's about what's memorable and above all what sells.No, it certainly isn't -- so don't use the sales argument to salvage a failing point.
You can't equate a game's commercial success with its overall quality. You can't equate the amount of media coverage a game receives with its overall quality.I don't remember anyone fawning over Mother/Earthbound for quite some time...yet today it has quite a following. I can't imagine how anyone could factually say Earthbound isn't memorable unless you just don't like that genre.
You can't equate a game's commercial success with its overall quality. You can't equate the amount of media coverage a game receives with its overall quality. Sales don't have anything to do with memorability.
Esteban, I don't think you understand Dracula9's point. He's not telling you that success in gaming should be achieved by boycotting innovation, nor is he trying to give us a list of franchises that entirely refused to evolve. He's simply trying to point out that there's a difference between consistency and stagnation -- in other words, that there's a level until which every franchise actually needs to "stick to the same thing", lest it lose the very cohesion that made it a franchise in the first place.
Good developers never set off to make a sequel, or even a reboot, by immediately planning to deliver something completely different from the original.
Instead, they take the bulk of what contributed the original game's success, making sure that they understand it fully, and then try to look at it from new angles and new perspectives that hadn't been seen before.
Without that fundamental precaution, you risk building the second floor of your pyramid without its base, sacrificing the immediacy and coherence of the sequel you're trying to produce.
In fact, that's how new concepts and ideas are essentially meant to be integrated -- you would always check to see if they're compatible with the spirit and mechanics of the original, and seek a smooth and intuitive manner in which to inject them. It's a process that's infinitely smoother and more effective than the blind trooping forth many think a reboot entails.
The Metroid Prime series has given us three of the best entries in the FPS genre, and you're telling me that it "isn't all that big" compared to other modern shooters? This is beyond logic.
In what way are fighting games "not on that level anymore"? What "league" have Bioshock and Mass Effect attained that fighting games could no longer match? You're taking games from four considerably different genres and telling us with no justification whatsoever that fighting games aren't good anymore. As it is, you don't make anymore sense than you did before.Fine, I'll give you this one.
And as for their place in "mainstream gaming", there have been dozens of popular and well-received fighting games to make their way into the modern gaming spectrum. You'd think Street Fighter, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Mortal Kombat, SoulCalibur, etc, along with the occasional Ultimate "X" vs. "Y" title and the many superhero-themed fighting games out there (Injustice, for one) would be enough to warrant some "buzz".
No, it certainly isn't -- so don't use the sales argument to salvage a failing point.
I'll say it as many times as it takes: You can't equate a game's commercial success with its overall quality. You can't equate the amount of media coverage a game receives with its overall quality. Sales don't have anything to do with memorability.
And while there is a link, it's so often and so catastrophically misunderstood that I'd advise anyone to avoid "this game sold better" premise, for the sake of a somewhat reasonable discussion.Konami would disagree.
And what exactly was the cohesion that made Castlevania in the first place? What other than the music has mercurysteam changed to make Lords of Shadow not Castlevania enough for you? Please answer me that.
The base of Castlevania was composed of 2 different styles that had been done to death.And those would be...what, exactly? Platforming? Adventure? Action? Gothic? Be specific. I don't really know how to go about rebutting this if I don't know what context you're referring to. All of the ones I mentioned, by the way, are still around in nearly every genre of the arts, and thriving. Don't know if those were in the ballpark of what you meant.
"Spirit" is subjective, but.... LoS is part of a trilogy. If you don't think LoS2 feels like Castlevania I suggest you play the demo.
"Mechanics"? Are you saying LoI's combo based 3D hack and slash platformer isn't compatible with LoS combo based 3D hack and slash platformer?
nstead, they take the bulk of what contributed the original game's success, making sure that they understand it fully, and then try to look at it from new angles and new perspectives that hadn't been seen before.
Right again. Mercurysteam did just that.
I agree again. But you cant just pretend videogames aren't a business. Videogames are meant to sell. Sales matter, and not only for the people making them. LoS made more money than previous Castlevanias, which means more people are likely to buy the next Castlevania installment. The series were going downhill. WHY WOULD KONAMI KEEP MAKING GAMES THAT DONT SELL?
Can you even fucking comprehend how insulting your entire argument is those people?
And I actually laughed out loud a bit when you seriously brought Call of Duty sales figures in as a defense. Another example of your argument beginning to fall apart at the seams and giving way to hypocritical points.
Disputing that "spirit" is irrelevant in any context of game design an egregious mistake and I highly suggest you think on that before you post again.
And what exactly was the cohesion that made Castlevania in the first place? What other than the music has mercurysteam changed to make Lords of Shadow not Castlevania enough for you? Please answer me that.And so I will. Since you're new here, and might not know of the many criticisms LoS has been the target of, here are a few pointers:
Right again. Mercurysteam did just that.
Im not saying it isn't big, but it it really isn't compared to others...No. When I look at how big a franchise is, I look at how significant it is. I look at what kind of a mark it has left on the gaming world. I look at how recognizable it is. I look at how well it was received. And then, yes, I look at commercial success. But I don't copy a list of sales figures and whine: "but it isn't big compared to others..."
Call of Duty, 120 Million
Battlefield, 60 Million
Resident Evil, 60 Million
Halo, 50 Million
Metroid, 14 Million
Does't sound beyond logic to me.
I mean, when talking about "how big" a franchise is... you can only go by numbers.
I agree again. But you cant just pretend videogames aren't a business. Videogames are meant to sell. Sales matter, and not only for the people making them. LoS made more money than previous Castlevanias, which means more people are likely to buy the next Castlevania installment. The series were going downhill. WHY WOULD KONAMI KEEP MAKING GAMES THAT DONT SELL?BUT WE'RE NOT KONAMI, AREN'T WE? WE CAN CARE ABOUT GAMES THAT DON'T SELL, TOO, CAN'T WE? For God's sake, I know that we're not in a utopia where no one cares about money, but we're not in a society where money is the only thing anyone cares about. Just because Konami can't see past its own wallet doesn't mean that we have to do the same.
Clearly, EstebanT especially likes the LoS trilogy, and others don't
MS took small, unrelated fragments of Castlevania lore and threw them about randomly into a reboot that ached set itself apart, all without caring to preserve any semblance of sense or form. What Cox might have liked to call "fan service" was instead an incomprehensible mess of aberrant name references and strange event pairings that did nothing to make a CV fan feel at home. It also showed the MS knew nothing about what Castlevania had meant in the past.
- Lords of Shadow's combat relied entirely on a heavy button-sequence whip combo system. Don't get me wrong, it worked very well, but it was a system no past Castlevania had ever come close to (no, not even LoI), and it looked far too similar to the combat seen in one massively popular franchise of its time.
- Castlevania platforming has always been about seamlessly integrating platforming with combat. Lords of Shadow is so determined to separate the two that it has different musical scores for each. Combat sequences always occur in large, arena-like areas, where you're given ample room to dodge about and fight while sponge enemies swarm at you. Combat is always platforming-free, meaning everything around you that isn't an enemy or a wall will be completely flat -- you'll never even be asked to jump unless you're dodging shock waves. Platforming is always combat-free. The good news is that you'll be listening to a few melancholic melodies while trekking through breathtakingly gorgeous environments. The bad news is that LoS platforming is as shallow and linear as platforming can ever get -- every single movement you will ever perform is entirely scripted by the game. The most freedom you'll ever be given is the freedom of falling and dying because you weren't able to find the rigid path that LoS had set for you (and believe me, that's a difficult task). What else is there to say? Most platforming sequences don't even allow you to move backwards.
With Lords of Shadow, MercurySteam chose to throw twenty-five years' worth of gaming excellence straight out of the window, all for the benefit of its "bold, new vision" of a series it didn't even understand. Instead of seeking to appreciate and learn from the vast heritage of the series whose mantle it was asked to bear, MercurySteam set foot in Castlevania believing that it should change everything it could lay its hands on, naively convinced, like an apprentice mechanic trying to operate a Ferrari, that it was "fixing" a broken series. And that's how Lords of Shadow came into being: Instead of bringing us the natural culmination of three decades of evolution, Lords of Shadow only yielded the first steps of a fledgling developer into a new genre -- first steps which, no matter how promising they might have been, would ultimately fall far short of what could, and should, have been expected from the franchise. Instead of organically combining past elements from the series with a new, imaginative set of ideas (something which every successful reboot to date has managed to achieve), Lords of Shadow ended up looking like a strange, distorted mirror-image of what Castlevania could have been.
No. When I look at how big a franchise is, I look at how significant it is. I look at what kind of a mark it has left on the gaming world. I look at how recognizable it is. I look at how well it was received. And then, yes, I look at commercial success. But I don't copy a list of sales figures and whine: "but it isn't big compared to others..."
Because, you see, if I was someone like you, and cared only about sales figures that I didn't even understand correctly, then I would look at those figures, and think: wow, Call of Duty is as big as Halo, Resident Evil, and Metroid combined. Gosh, it must be so good....
Just think about what you're saying.
BUT WE'RE NOT KONAMI, AREN'T WE? WE CAN CARE ABOUT GAMES THAT DON'T SELL, TOO, CAN'T WE? For God's sake, I know that we're not in a utopia where no one cares about money, but we're not in a society where money is the only thing anyone cares about. Just because Konami can't see past its own wallet doesn't mean that we have to do the same.
Money is important, and no one wants to create something that doesn't sell, but there's a point where we all need to see art for what it is, and not for what it's worth. If I had any power over Konami, I'd infinitely prefer to bankrupt myself on a commercially unsuccessful but groundbreaking game than to fatten myself on the royalties afforded by a money magnet that does nothing but to drive the gaming market deeper into its own hole. Just like any developer out there, we can hope for good games to be popular and commercially successful BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE AND YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT. THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS IN GAMING THAN MONEY, and it's for that very reason that I discourage people from using the sales argument -- it can disfigure even good minds like yours. Understood?
At the end of the day, it doesn't mean a fucking thing how well you can argue (because I will give you credit, you have a fairly good set of lingual skills when it comes to debating), if you don't have any real point in which to argue. And since you would rather cling to the ever-failing point of sales than acknowledge other aspects of production, or other points and opinions than your own, you don't have much of a point left to argue.
It might do you well to put down the shovel and stop digging.
...this argument is pointless...
While I could agree that there were some references that seemed to be random (Brauner, for example. Though I know PoR certainly took its liberties making a surrealist painter a vampire with magical powers... Agharta as well) But I know that other CVs have taken things from other games and changed them. Alucard being a pretty key example. Carmilla has seen some bizarre changes from her original appearance in the series. Dracula has never been very consistent with Stoker's description, with I think CV 64 being the closest. Despite the fact that these have all seen some changes, they are still enjoyable (for the most part) inclusions in their respective games. I mean, why don't you accuse the Iga games of drastically changing the series beyond recognition and beyond a "semblance or sense of form"?Portrait of Ruin didn't take "liberties" with Brauner -- he was an entirely original character, and a rather compelling villain at that. Alucard? His SoTN appearance simply marked the return of a popular character from Castlevania III. Nothing here was "changed", unless you're talking about the switch from fire to steel as his main weapon choice -- hardly a revolution. Carmilla? She might have seen a few aesthetic changes. But what's all this supposed to prove? Dracula wasn't close to Stoker's description because he was never meant to be close to it. So what?
Hmm... familiar to a popular franchise of its time... Does the term "Metroidvania" mean anything to you? CV games have historically had some pretty derivative gameplay, but it also frequently incorporated new and distinguishing elements. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from other franchises, that's how genres come to be.No, not Metroidvania. I'd meant God of War.
I'm curious to know why you don't think its combat is comparable to LoI? There were Light and Heavy attacks, reliance on relics to change gameplay, subweapons... I mean, Hack n Slash gameplay can only get so complicated and there are only so many ways you can translate a whip-wielder into 3D.There are similarities, but the two systems are essentially different. LoS's system only allows for heavy, unilateral whip combat, which it offers through a large variety of button combinations. Light and Shadow magic only strengthen/add healing power to regular attacks. Relics have no role in LoS combat. There are only two subweapons, knives and faeries, and they are limited and can hardly be consistently used. There's a single and summon, but crystals are rare and you'll almost never use them.
I don't recall Curse of Darkness and Lament of Innocence having seamless platforming with combat. And if you have a problem with the way LoS did it, you should also have a problem with the other 3D CVs.No, neither did, and that's exactly why I have a "problem with them" as well. But LoI and CoD don't share all of LoS's shortcomings, and LoS doesn't share all of theirs. You're dodging the point.
As far as linearity, well, the primary inspiration Lords of Shadow drew from is Super CV 4. As with most of the classicvanias, the games were typically pretty linear. Castlevania did not begin as a Metroidvania and as such that is not a requirement of the game in order to maintain the "spirit". Regardless, there was a lot more room for exploration in Mirror of Fate and in interviews, Cox himself has stated LoS2 will be a lot less linear.Most Classicvanias were linear, but their platforming wasn't shallow and limited. You could move about as you wished, and that was essential when dealing with enemies. Lords of Shadow's platforming is scripted to the very last jump, and becomes extraordinarily tedious after a while.
I mean, what do you honestly propose is the "natural culmination" of the series? Who are you to dictate that? As I've stated before, what we've had in more recent years doesn't even come close to meeting the standards you people have strictly laid out for Castlevania to adhere to. You can say that it hasn't successfully incorporated elements of past Castlevanias, but the numerous amounts of people who enjoy the game would disagree.I'm not "dictating" what the natural culmination of the series should be. I'm only restating what had already been agreed upon by general consensus: that the series will have reached its natural culmination when a clear blend of old excellence and new inspiration can be seen. It's something that had already happened with SoTN, and I was explaining that I don't see that as much in Lords of Shadow. So don't ask shallow questions and expect interesting answers.
Also, if you haven't yet seen this, here is a list of some of the references I compiled which appeared in Lords of Shadow.A long list of Castlevania references doesn't prove that MercurySteam had understood what Castlevania used to represent. All it proves is that a large amount of anecdotal Castlevania material has made its way into Lords of Shadow. Numbers on their own don't show that these references were well-integrated, nor does it show that developers had been familiar with source material.
I'd argue that they're quite familiar with the source material.
How big of a mark have LoI and CoD left on the gaming world? What about PoR or Rebirth? Why is impact a pre-requisite for LoS but not many of the other games in the franchise? (This does not mean these are bad games... but who's still talking about them, other than the people in the relatively small, dedicated fanbase, compared to SotN?)I had written about comparing different franchises, and yet you're now pitting five different games from the same franchise against each other. What more do you expect me to say?
Believe it or not, CoD DID gain its status as a shooter through innovation of the genre as well as continuously making it accessible on multiple platforms - its sales are high for a reason. I am by no means a fan of the game, but you can't discount it just because you automatically associate it with fratboys.Call of Duty originated as a freshly innovative franchise, but that quality was quickly lost after its popularity was established. Today, it has become the epitome of the stagnant, review-immune mass-market franchise. Like Dracula9 pointed out, Call of Duty owes much of its commercial success to the violence-crazed "'Murica" attitude, and it's been reaping its rewards ever since it achieved its first sucesses. So I'll say it again: if you're looking for quality, don't look for it in sales figures.
As for the rest of those, there are some great games in the franchises and some not-so-great ones. Have I blasphemed them by pointing out the sales of a mass-appeal game have outnumbered theirs?You haven't "blasphemed" by pointing out that the sales of a mass-appeal game have outnumbered that of another -- because that's not what you did. You were pointing out how the Metroid franchise wasn't as "big" as another modern FPS franchise because it wasn't as commercially successful. And I had only explained that I see "big" franchises in a different light. So stop criticizing arguments you don't even understand.
I'm glad you're aware that we don't live in a utopia where no one cares about money (as we're talking about a popular consumer product in a growing industry), however, your statement about driving a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation into the ground SOLELY for ONE of its precious and most valuable franchises comes off as a tad bit naive, or perhaps ill-thought out.That argument goes nowhere and you know it. You need to write intelligent criticisms in order for me to be interested in them.
Whether or not YOU like LoS, it is incredibly pompous to say that the creators weren't well familiar with previous games (you do know that David Cox has been with Konami for quite a few years and has played Casltevania pretty much since it first came out, right?) as well as selfish to expect Konami to cater to your idea of a perfect Castlevania without considering other factors. It's one thing not to like the game, but the statements you make are rather insulting to the continuation of the series that we were lucky enough to get.I'm not being pompous, you're just running out of arguments. I was explaining that my experience playing Lords of Shadow did not convince me that Cox was very familiar with Castlevania. Indeed, it has come close to convincing me of the opposite. As significant as they might be, his past work for Konami and his personal experience with Castlevania do not change that fact.