Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: crisis on February 06, 2014, 03:06:59 PM
-
*WARNING* controversial debates incoming
with the Lords of Shadow saga soon coming to a close (or so we've heard), i've been thinking lately not just about the future of the franchise, but what has come before it. castlevania has had a rich history of 25+ years. the rebooted version first began development almost 7 years ago, and Mercurysteam/Dave Cox has promised that they will conclude their "vision" of castlevania upon lords of shadow 2's release.
for those of us that still hold the classic canon dear to our hearts, we know that former producer Koji Igarashi also had a similar "closure" for what his vision of the series was. when Aria of Sorrow was first revealed in 2003, many were shocked with the fact that Dracula met his ultimate end in the year 1999. since, there have been several games teasing this event, from Portrait of Ruin to Curse of Darkness. many would argue that IGA hasnt necessarily been given a "fair shake," however those would counter that he had plenty of times to "close things up." alas he has been relegated to "side-projects" such as Harmony of Despair (which also somewhat teases 1999, in Julius' bio). why hasnt Konami allowed him to make this game?
other than that, he has repeatedly stated in interviews that his favorite game is CVIII: Dracula's Curse. he has said numerous times that he would love to remake it, similar to The Dracula X Chronicles. yet, this has never come to pass. i doubt there are very few people here that would object to a CVIII remake, with updated visuals, new artwork and such. in fact many can argue that this may be what the series needs in order to "revitalize interest" in 2D Castlevania, and quite frankly, with his excellent work on Adventure ReBirth and DXC, i believe he's perhaps one of the few producers that can successfully translate Dracula's Curse into 2014.
so do you feel that IGA was robbed? why has MercurySteam been given the opportunity to finish their saga, but not IGA? 1999 and CVIII ReBirth would've been perfect opportunities for him to say "good-bye" to Castlevania and move on to other endeavors, and we would finally have closure to the classic canon, los-saga, and a clean slate for a true rebooted franchise. what you think?
-
That's a good question. I think if he doesn't ever return(which is probably the case sadly) then yes he was robbed. I think both CV3 remake and 1999 would had been great ways to say good bye. I have no qualms with new looks on the series but I don't think Iga had that proper good bye.
-
I believe IGA had plenty of chances to make the 1999 game, but for whatever reason he just did not do it. Maybe he was blocked by Konami, who knows, but that game should have happened awhile ago. IGA trying to cater to younger audiences with the generic anime style of Dawn of Sorrow and Portrait of Ruin probably didn't do him any favors, alongside the poor sales of the DS games.
As much as I love the old canon, the way IGA was going about it was sort of weird in hindsight. Not that I don't appreciate the games he made, but introducing Soma into the canon and making 1999 the definitive end of Dracula pretty much wrote the series into a corner. I would have loved to see the 1999 game and Dracula's Curse remake come to fruition, perhaps there's still a chance for both to become a reality. It's all up to Konami.
I don't believe IGA was "robbed," considering the poor sales of the recent titles I think it was a given IGA wouldn't have a grip on the series much longer, or Konami would have locked Castlevania away in the vault forever. In a way, I see LoS as a necessity/blessing for the potential future of the series. Not from a gameplay point, but in vitality.
-
MercurySteam has made 3 games and is leaving. IGA was on his 13th game by the time MercurySteam released their first game, and from the sound of it, didn't have any real intention of creating the 1999 game for fear of disappointing fans. You can't really compare the two in terms of "opportunity to finish their saga".
I think he waited too long. Everyone talks about how MercurySteam just needs to finish their games and GTFO, because finishing a series is such a good thing, but then people talk about bringing IGA back when he was the ultimate offender of never getting to the point. Instead of ending his timeline properly, he started popping out side-stories like Curse of Darkness, Portrait of Ruin, and Order of Ecclesia.
I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see Julius's tale, but I don't think IGA was "robbed" in any sense of the word.
-
To be honest? He had PLENTY of time to make the Demon Castle wars.
Also, you are assuming he ever intended to make it at all. It's nothing new for games to have big background events pertinent to their story which are never explored as games.
Mega Man has the Elf Wars, the massive cataclysmic war between the X and Zero series, which has never been made a game, and never will be, because it's just that. background. It exists to set up the plot, for world building. IGA decided, "Hey, let's make a game about Dracula's reincarnation that plays like Symphony"
When ironing out the story for that, particularly when the Character of the current Belmont comes up, they concoct a backstory that ties him with the protagonist and the setting and timeframe of the game. That event being this massive final battle between Belmonts and Dracula.
IGA had plenty of time to make it, instead he made DoS, PoR, OoE, and 2 PS2 games, along with judgement. That's 3 sequels,(to games that did not need them) a prequel, an original timeline fit story, and a fighting game that's iffy on the plot and uses time travel as an excuse to toss a bunch of CV characters together. Then there's HoD, which i dont know what to call other than an odd experiment. That's a total of 7 games. 7! Instead of making Dawn of Sorrow, he could have made the Demon Castle War. Instead of making PoR or CoD, both sequels which shit on the games that came before them, he could have made the DCW.
He had his chance quite frankly, and he blew it. That is, again, if he ever intended to make a DCW game at all.
You mention that CV3 remake too, well, he had his chance, again. Instead of making those games, he could have made a CV3 remake like Dracula X Chronicles.
so to finalize,
so do you feel that IGA was robbed?
Nope. I think he had his chance.
why has MercurySteam been given the opportunity to finish their saga, but not IGA?
because their saga is only 3 games long, while IGA's was never ending. It's hardly comparable. LoS is also outsourced. MS is doing the developing, with Konami just supervising and publishing. So money works a bit differently.
Also, IGA was building off of the old timeline and trying to cram as much as he could into it until it burst, and not all of it for the better. Bloodlines and CV3 did NOT need sequels. neither did Aria. he wasted time and money on needless sequels that were very poor in terms of original content, full of rehashed graphics and gimmick driven gameplay. As a result, Castlevania sold less and less. After all, he didn't try to appeal to younger gamers on a whim with Dawn and Portrait. it was because sales were staggering, so he tried to widen the audience by appealing to little kids. Itdidn't work and he tried to go back with OoE, but too little too late.
Meanwhile, LoS is supposedly the best selling CV game of all time. So obviously MS gets their chains loosened a little to flex their muscles with the sequels. Which from the start mind you, they said would be a 3 parter only.
The choice of platform also counts immensely. IGA was working on handhelds And while the GBA was the hot thing to have back in it's day, (it was very much the ONLY thing to have, since Nintendo still had the stranglehold on the handheld market) the DS, with competition from the PSP, became branded as a kiddie system, that had kid games. people who before had only 1 choice, flocked to the Sony handheld that had superior hardware and was marketed as a cool system, while Nintendo was doing that thing with the apple style designs and casual market appeal.
TL;DR on that- the DS was, especially late into it's life, branded a system for little kids, so not as many people who would normally have bought CV games, bought them, because of the system. Not that the PSP actually fared much better when Konami tried it. But the PSp had a very weird sell in Japan.
Console games meanwhile, are whats considered top shit, and IGA's foray into 3Dvania was received with mixed emotions. lament was alright, but didn't look that great, and was sort of weird. CoD compounded LoI's problems with more problems, including story and a character so blatantly trying to imitate Alucard that he makes Juste look tame by comparison.
Then Konami made the gamble on Judgement instead of the currently in early production Western pitch of a CV1 remake, which was re-branded an original IP as a result. E3 was all about Judgement for Konami that time, with Lords of Shadow the side next gen game. It was a Symphony moment, basically. They bet on Judgement, with LoS as the side game, and judgement was a critical flop, while Lords of Shadow went on to become a best seller when it released.
From there, business sense. IGA's games got worse and worse results, while the outsourced studio got great results. So IGA was given a last chance, which turned out to be CVHD as an experiment. It predictably got mixed reception for different reasons, and was overshadowed by Lords of Shadow.
The promotion on LoS was also really well done. I don't recall CV having that level of promotion before.
So there, that's my 2 cents. Well, more like 10 bucks.
-
I don't think he was robbed. Especially in terms of the 1999 game. He had years to make it. So, unless Konami told him not to, he had plenty of time. As for what happens after LoS2 is out, I say don't give the series back to IGA. His method of game-play first and then shoe-horning the game into the timeline is ass-backwards. Love them or hate them, MS did their vision of CV right. They thought it out ahead of time and knew where they wanted to go in terms of story and build their saga based on that instead of IGA's method.
-
To be fair, gameplay SHOULD come first.
The problem with IGA, isn't that he went gameplay first and story second, it's that he always designed a gimmick, and built the gameplay and story around the gimmick. Some gimmicks like Aria's soul system were unintrusive enough and meshed well enough with the SoTN style gameplay that it worked. It replaced Alucard's relics and sub weapons.
But the teamwork in PoR or glyphs in OoE (sorry guys), or the innocent devils in CoD really felt forced. LoI worked, for instance, because it's gimmick was simple. Relics that changed the way your sub weapons worked. It was simple and unintrusive, and you could swap them on the fly for different sub weapon effects.
-
MercurySteam has made 3 games and is leaving. IGA was on his 13th game by the time MercurySteam released their first game, and from the sound of it, didn't have any real intention of creating the 1999 game for fear of disappointing fans. You can't really compare the two in terms of "opportunity to finish their saga".
I think he waited too long. Everyone talks about how MercurySteam just needs to finish their games and GTFO, because finishing a series is such a good thing, but then people talk about bringing IGA back when he was the ultimate offender of never getting to the point. Instead of ending his timeline properly, he started popping out side-stories like Curse of Darkness, Portrait of Ruin, and Order of Ecclesia.
I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see Julius's tale, but I don't think IGA was "robbed" in any sense of the word.
Pretty much my thoughts as well.
-
I'm with Flame and darkwzrd4 on this topic. IGA had plenty of chances to tell the DCW tale, but nothing ever came of it. Just a bunch of hype over several games that lead to the creation of an out-of-control Juggernaut. The 1999 tale at this point is so engrained into the minds of CV fans that they have their own personal interpretations about it. Everything from story and character involvement, to gameplay and graphics. Right now it would be a big risk to try and bring about such a game with so many expectations. Instead of creating this game after the success of Area of Sorrow, he decided to wait and do a bunch of side stories that were completely unnecessary & contradictory. IGA waited too long. No, he wasn't robbed by Konami. He did this to himself.
-
To be fair, gameplay SHOULD come first.
The problem with IGA, isn't that he went gameplay first and story second, it's that he always designed a gimmick, and built the gameplay and story around the gimmick. Some gimmicks like Aria's soul system were unintrusive enough and meshed well enough with the SoTN style gameplay that it worked. It replaced Alucard's relics and sub weapons.
But the teamwork in PoR or glyphs in OoE (sorry guys), or the innocent devils in CoD really felt forced. LoI worked, for instance, because it's gimmick was simple. Relics that changed the way your sub weapons worked. It was simple and unintrusive, and you could swap them on the fly for different sub weapon effects.
You're right. Gameplay should come first. But, you can't make a game around it and then force it into the existing timeline (which is what IGA did). So, it is:
1) Develop gameplay
2) Look at existing timeline
3) Build the game around the existing story.
With this method, you can build a game for an existing franchise without shoe-horning it into the timeline and you can minimize plot holes.
-
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cubed3.com%2Fmedia%2Fnewsimgs%2Firrp2gjp7j9uzcl.jpg&hash=54004aa1bf9072055e1c4df43cc58543)
Never forget.
No, he wasn't , he had his chance and mocked us in the face for 11 years riding into ToruGod's tails. The fact that he was promoted inside Konami is a case of unjust reward. YOu might be missing him now but at the time we were upset and certianly tired.
-
I'm with Flame and darkwzrd4 on this topic. IGA had plenty of chances to tell the DCW tale, but nothing ever came of it. Just a bunch of hype over several games that lead to the creation of an out-of-control Juggernaut. The 1999 tale at this point is so engrained into the minds of CV fans that they have their own personal interpretations about it. Everything from story and character involvement, to gameplay and graphics. Right now it would be a big risk to try and bring about such a game with so many expectations. Instead of creating this game after the success of Area of Sorrow, he decided to wait and do a bunch of side stories that were completely unnecessary & contradictory. IGA waited too long. No, he wasn't robbed by Konami. He did this to himself.
Seconded.
Not that I hate the 2D games, but IGA's making sequels to games that really didn't need them was unnecessary. Every game post-AOS felt like filler for parts of the timeline that did not have any activity. I know he once said that he builds his games around ideas, which leads me to wonder how the DCW game would have played in terms of gameplay. A 3D game would not go over very well, if the past tells us anything. A 2D game could work, but I'm not sure how they would convey the scale of the war against Dracula other than in a cutscene or if the game was a strategy RPG.
However, all of the above is simply conjecture, at best. I personally think he waited too long, as the old canon was being dragged out long enough, IMO. If things kept going on like they were, we'd eventually be saying something like "Skeletons in space!?" for games that take in 21XX A.D. and beyond. That would be assuming if they kept making games in the old canon. I like the way LOS is being handled: three games, and that's it. Mercury Steam is setting out to do what they want, and let's hope that their take does not get saturated with more games than what is necessary.
1) Develop gameplay
2) Look at existing timeline
3) Build the game around the existing story.
Agreed.
-
I'm not the biggest fan of IGA's efforts, but it's always easy to say that his games sucked and he had all these chances when we have no idea what kind of budgets he was given and what upper management decreed to him. Even Kojima struggles with Konami's management, but he happens to have a franchise that will always sell more to help get his way.
-
IGA had years to show his fans the best of IGA, sadly it's mostly regarded to SoTN, he first project.
For years it's been hit or miss, but only the true fans can try to enjoy them all, which is a mouthful because everyone should be able to enjoy any title from random...
Mercury Steam has come, despite the Overload of Criticism of how "Lords of shadow isn't Castlevania", It still succeeded IGA's legacy with the first title.
As opposed to just filling in the blanks with weak stories, MS gave us 3 Complex stories spanning in a perfectly placed timeline.
Not saying IGA was bad, but if he were given a second chance, I'd suggest him to make his "Castlevania" more than "blah blah, kill Dracula, remember 1999", and I highly suggest taking the Kojima route for 3D games, Kojima knew his team couldn't do MGR as envisioned, so he gave it to a team that could, p+.
I would love to see a castlevania game with greater complexity in level design.
-
I don't miss Iga... But Michiru Yamane and Ayami kojima need to come back...
-
I thought this was going to be about IGA tweeting that his house got robbed. Glad it's not.
I don't think IGA was robbed; on the contrary he seemed to be getting extremely burnt out. Can't say I blame him after about eight straight years of basically working on nothing except Castlevania. And Nanobreaker.
It's a shame nothing has come out of him since then though. There were shades of a supreme Metroid-style entry in OoE. That challenge tower was fucking amazing and it saddened me that the other stages didn't do anything similarly evil with platforming, excluding maybe the clock tower.
IGA had the right ideas, but maybe not the resources. I'd love a game with the exploration/loot of the IGA games and the challenging and interesting level design of the classics.
(Also still want a Sorrow game with a 60 year old Soma.)
-
didn't he say that he wasn't actually interested in making the 1999 game
i can't remember a source though
-
didn't he say that he wasn't actually interested in making the 1999 game
i can't remember a source though
He more or less said there was no way the end result would live up to anyone's expectations.
-
Was IGA robbed? I say most certainly not.
-
I don't miss Iga... But Michiru Yamane and Ayami kojima need to come back...
Michiru perhaps, but I find Mecury's artist far far far superior, leaps and bounds over Ayami Kojima's orgasm faced samey drawings.
-
If you want more Michiru Yamane music, go listen to the Skullgirls soundtrack.
-
To be honest, I think we've been asked the wrong question here. Has IGA been robbed of his chance to end his canon? Clearly, he hasn't, because he never intended to end it in the first place.
It's not as if Konami had been preventing IGA from producing a game he was begging to make. In fact, the only glimpse we have of IGA's erstwhile 'future plans' was of that red-eyed Alucard we saw back in TGS 2008. 1999 was clearly out the question, and it would still have been for years into the future had IGA remained in the lead.
More importantly, you really can't compare IGA's 17-year long run to MS's 4-year, 3-title escapade. MS's short, ambitious alternate-timeline reboot doesn't match up with the behemoth of a history the series has. Keep in mind that Konami didn't ask for LoS closure as much as Cox himself mandated it. So telling us that Konami "didn't give IGA a fair chance" doesn't make much sense in this respect.
Of course, whether or not Lords of Shadow's abrupt introduction into the series had been a fair one remains a topic for debate; but there's no denying that IGA had every chance to end his canon if the time was right. I can but assume that for him, it never was.
-
Yes I'd say he was robbed. It's sad too because OOE was a good game that showed that he still had some great ideas.
Plus there was that Alucard game that looked awesome that we unfortunately never got.
Hopefully someday Konami will let him return to the real timeline and we can forget about the lords of shit timeline.
-
Wow.... Finally somebody disagrees... GET HIM!
-
Yes I'd say he was robbed. It's sad too because OOE was a good game that showed that he still had some great ideas.
Plus there was that Alucard game that looked awesome that we unfortunately never got.
Hopefully someday Konami will let him return to the real timeline and we can forget about the lords of shit timeline.
Wow, that last words were a little rude... and I am think like you :P.
I think that maybe the main reason for Konami that don´t give IGA more chances were CV Judgment... oh, yeah, that game. I mean, the music was really great, and the concept were interesting... but the art direction, was horrible, in my opinion. Then, we see the trailer of the Alucard game, obviously by IGA. And after that, we got the Lords of Shadow one (that one with the giant troll, and without the Castlevania name in it). And finally we got the LoS trilogy. So, in my opinion, yes, IGA was robbed.
-
excellent opinions. here is some food for thought:
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Figa-7_zps34cb0c3b.png&hash=9fa1ce76b0d5760a176e0d7ef5f24b74)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Fint_zps8b2effdf.png&hash=d7db1f536dc526e263b0504c2e6b765c)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2FintB-4.jpg&hash=f5d4eb42361789747c2a53ced2eb4cb7)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Figa.png&hash=80f31591279279ac63a9921c040bb910)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2F61761477-0B04-4445-A686-4CA9204FCA91-39736-00000FBBC6D07FBC.jpg&hash=081a7f24aebb202b275daa75b8cf74a3)
-
I really think Vanillaware has the potential to make the greatest CV game of all time.
It's nice to think that the best cv game could be yet to come.
-
With great 2d games like Muramasa or Dragon´s Crown, I agree Vanillaware will make a great game... The only thing that I don´t like too much is the art...
...But do not forget Wayforward, with their great (in my opinion) 2d games :D
-
The problem I have with Vanillaware is (Even though I love them so much!) that there is so much focus on quality which is a good thing and we don't see than often anymore artistically in video games, but they sacrifice depth and content. Odin Sphere, great enemies, but its using same backgrounds and terrain over and over again. Muramasa had more depth, but same enemies over and over again. Dragon's Crown was great but I'm not a huge fan of 2D games where you can move sideways, like Double Dragon and various beat 'em up genres. Vanillaware could be a good contender but after LoS Saga and especially self-reviewing LoS2 and if I find it above satisfactory, I could seriously get used to 3D Castlevanias in the future. In terms of 2D, I think the old CV team killed it. The run speed, gravity and jump arcs were perfect. BloodRayne didn't have great jumping mechanics in my opinion. But yeah, WayForward can be great as well.
-
I think IGA robbed the fans from having a healthy franchise to appeal to someone more than the hardcore fans, He dig his own hole with mediocre 3D games and SotN clones, he had plenty of years and projects and he did nothing for the franchise, even taking into account that he had low budget, creativity and new ideas are beyond the money barrier.
I'm not going to deny that he did some great games but people trying to canonize him is really annoying.
-
I never played Odin Sphere, but I have to disagree with your complaint about Muramasa. Sure a few more more enemy sprites would have been cool, but I never thought for a second that it didn't have enough. I found plenty of depth and attention to detail in Muramasa.
I just picked up Dragon's Crown recently, and I have been very impressed with it.
I think Wayforward makes great games too, but my vote would go to Vanillaware. I think they have what it takes to bring the right vibe back to Castlevania along with really solid, and tight gameplay. I would trust them to hit every mark graphically, musically, and mechanically. I also love their style of story telling.
I think Vanillaware's style of high quality 2d is exactly what CV needs.
-
I respect your opinion, mayne... But NO! >:(
-
I think it's a bit late now for Iga.
I'm not even sure if his dev'team still exist.
So, to me, he was never robbed by anyone. Cox even said that he doesn't want to use Julius in Lords of Shadow 2 because he wants to respect the fact that it was a character created by Iga, who never conculed his own story.
I really think Vanillaware has the potential to make the greatest CV game of all time.
It's nice to think that the best cv game could be yet to come.
I think the subject is super interesting and I wanted to open a new thread about it:
http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,6992.0.html (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,6992.0.html)
;) ;)
-
he has repeatedly stated in interviews that his favorite game is CVIII: Dracula's Curse. he has said numerous times that he would love to remake it, similar to The Dracula X Chronicles.
I hadn't heard of this until now. This would be amazing and I think it could revitalize the old style Castlevania. I don't like the modern 3D ones.
-
He more or less said there was no way the end result would live up to anyone's expectations.
I still believe he should have made it as a 2d game, even if it was for the DS. The main gripe I have with Iga being off Castlevania isn't that I don't like LOS, but we've had 1 extremely average handheld entry since MS began their reign. Handheld imo is where Castlevania can truly shine by sticking to its 2d roots. And I felt that prior to LOS the 2d entries did more to advance the series than LOI or COD.
-
I still believe he should have made it as a 2d game, even if it was for the DS. The main gripe I have with Iga being off Castlevania isn't that I don't like LOS, but we've had 1 extremely average handheld entry since MS began their reign. Handheld imo is where Castlevania can truly shine by sticking to its 2d roots. And I felt that prior to LOS the 2d entries did more to advance the series than LOI or COD.
Blame Konami. Nothing is stopping them for giving the IGA team a shot with the LoS series in handheld. That team probably doesn't exist anymore.
-
dev teams don't really stay the same anyway. the difference between aos and hod alone was pretty stark iirc. and by then, the sotn team was basically gone too lol.
-
Blame Konami. Nothing is stopping them for giving the IGA team a shot with the LoS series in handheld. That team probably doesn't exist anymore.
I do, not that I'm soured. However I think at the same time that LOS was having its glory, the original canon could have still continued which would have created an avenue for new fans to be interested in the original series.
Also, whether people liked Metroidvanias or not, the handhelds were arguably solid titles on their own accord.
I didn't mind MOF, but seriously as a Castlevania game it wasn't 'good' and it really did nothing for the LOS franchise. The original LOS was a solid title, whether people consider it a proper CV or not.
-
Given the critical acclaim for all the handheld titles, I'd say they were a tad more than just solid. I do agree that I wish he'd have continued making handheld or digital titles for the main series and let MercurySteam do the 3D titles.
-
Given the critical acclaim for all the handheld titles, I'd say they were a tad more than just solid. I do agree that I wish he'd have continued making handheld or digital titles for the main series and let MercurySteam do the 3D titles.
The handhelds were actually my favourite out of the entire series, particularly the DS titles and AOS, which is where I felt the handhelds' identity really started to pick up. For myself AOS surpassed SOTN, particularly to do with storytelling and atmosphere. Sotn for it's time was so groundbreaking, but I felt AOS was the first metroidvania to innovate even upon SOTN in certain aspects. Although OOE is my preferred game, I feel AOS started the ball rolling (souls evolving into glyphs).
That's exactly what I mean, Handhelds belong to the original canon and should remain in 2d sprite based format imo.
-
People seem to be ignoring the fact that for the 1999 game to even have a hope of living up to fan expectations, IGA would have needed a larger budget than usual--sort of a FF7 remake situation for Square Enix only in microcosm. Such a budget was something Konami was likely unwilling to give him since his games were not insane sellers, but were more niche products.
-
Long-time, no-see Charlotte-nyo:3. :)
You don't necessarily need a big budget to get a real great game out. The history of gaming has proven this before. There were some amazing games that came out for very little cost. All the creator needs is to be inventive. It's only partially true that the more money you have that greater the chances of developing a great game. But there is also the case where you have such a large budget and yet the product you make tanks right from the get-go. We've all seen that before as well. IGA could have made the 1999 game and make it work with the amount that Konami had given him. But instead he kept on passing it up and by then it was too late to even try. Rather then making LoI or CoD for that matter, the budget for either of those two titles could have been used for the 1999 game. And now it's too late for him. 1999 is just too big in everyone's minds.
-
People seem to be ignoring the fact that for the 1999 game to even have a hope of living up to fan expectations, IGA would have needed a larger budget than usual--sort of a FF7 remake situation for Square Enix only in microcosm. Such a budget was something Konami was likely unwilling to give him since his games were not insane sellers, but were more niche products.
I don't see why the 1999 game couldn't have been on the DS or 3DS. The Sorrow games were handheld entries, and rather than not make the game at all it would have been better to make it for them as a 2d entry which would have well suited a young Julius' style of gameplay. In any event Iga's next 3d title would have been based on Alucard (going by the trailers at the time) which means 1999 would not have been made.
I think people who have previously commented are correct, he simply passed up too many opportunities in the past.
-
Am I one of the few people who doesnt want a 1999 game?
And not just because of the expectations thing, The way I see it, Julius was designed as a middle aged man, and that's his purpose. The demon castle war of 199 is just background. It's supposed to be this big event in the past that influences the events of the game. And that it was never conceived with the intention of making a game about it.
I'd much rather see older beard of power Julius do his job in the present day rather than see his younger self. I'd be curious to see how they'd design him, sure, but no more than as a novelty.
It's like the Elf Wars in the Mega Man Zero series. A giant series bridging event that influences the games, but was never written with a game in mind. Just that, as backstory.
I'd rather for example, see the 1999 war if anything- explored in other media. Anime, manga, etc. but not necessarily as a game. I think people just expected too much out of a simple backstory element.
-
Am I one of the few people who doesnt want a 1999 game?
And not just because of the expectations thing, The way I see it, Julius was designed as a middle aged man, and that's his purpose. The demon castle war of 199 is just background. It's supposed to be this big event in the past that influences the events of the game. And that it was never conceived with the intention of making a game about it.
Except that Iga did mention he at least had ideas and some intention of eventually creating that game.
Secondly, if the event was only privy to Julius' backstory it's very strange that Curse of Darkness' ending features Saint Germain discussing the final showdown between Dracula and Humanity.
Of course given ample opportunity it could very well could have been a game (and would have judging by that ending) people forget that the main character or constant in every CV game of old (inclusive of Soma) was actually Dracula; it's a different Belmont every game but it's the same Castle and the same Prince of Darkness.
-
Long-time, no-see Charlotte-nyo:3. :)
You don't necessarily need a big budget to get a real great game out. The history of gaming has proven this before. There were some amazing games that came out for very little cost. All the creator needs is to be inventive. It's only partially true that the more money you have that greater the chances of developing a great game. But there is also the case where you have such a large budget and yet the product you make tanks right from the get-go. We've all seen that before as well. IGA could have made the 1999 game and make it work with the amount that Konami had given him. But instead he kept on passing it up and by then it was too late to even try. Rather then making LoI or CoD for that matter, the budget for either of those two titles could have been used for the 1999 game. And now it's too late for him. 1999 is just too big in everyone's minds.
That depends on what people think of as a great game. A very fun game can surely be made on a low budget. That's what the GBA and DS games were--very fun. But an expansive, epic and grandiose game is extremely difficult to do under such conditions in the modern era, and that is what the "hype" around the 1999 game caused people to think of it as. There are many complaints about the DS games people have offered in the past (which I am far more lenient on, but I acknowledge they exist). These are things like "copy paste" level design and reused enemies--things like this can only be solved with larger team sizes and/or longer dev times--i.e. a bigger budget.
And on the 3D side, what if he was intending 1999 to be a 3D game? Would people have accepted something like the copy pasted hallways of LoI for their grandiose vision of what the 1999 game would be? I don't really think so. They would be let down and disillusioned, just as some would be let down if the 1999 game was "just another handheld entry."
Perhaps people are correct that if Iga had more foresight he could've headed this "hype train" off and made the 1999 game quickly after AoS instead of Curse of Darkness or DoS. But would it really have been the game he wanted it to be with their budgets? I'm not so sure.
I don't see why the 1999 game couldn't have been on the DS or 3DS. The Sorrow games were handheld entries, and rather than not make the game at all it would have been better to make it for them as a 2d entry which would have well suited a young Julius' style of gameplay. In any event Iga's next 3d title would have been based on Alucard (going by the trailers at the time) which means 1999 would not have been made.
I think people who have previously commented are correct, he simply passed up too many opportunities in the past.
It could have been made as a DS or 3DS entry, but do you remember posts around CV communities in the past of people saying "why can't we have bigger castles? Why can't we have the 2D games as a console release like SotN? Why does it have to be on a small screen handheld?" etc. I'd wager there are a decent amount of people who would be disappointed by the 1999 game having just the production values of CoD or DoS only with greater plot significance.
-
That depends on what people think of as a great game. A very fun game can surely be made on a low budget. That's what the GBA and DS games were--very fun. But an expansive, epic and grandiose game is extremely difficult to do under such conditions in the modern era, and that is what the "hype" around the 1999 game caused people to think of it as. There are many complaints about the DS games people have offered in the past (which I am far more lenient on, but I acknowledge they exist). These are things like "copy paste" level design and reused enemies--things like this can only be solved with larger team sizes and/or longer dev times--i.e. a bigger budget.
And on the 3D side, what if he was intending 1999 to be a 3D game? Would people have accepted something like the copy pasted hallways of LoI for their grandiose vision of what the 1999 game would be? I don't really think so. They would be let down and disillusioned, just as some would be let down if the 1999 game was "just another handheld entry."
Well firstly LOI wasn't really hallways, it was more like a series of boxes, I digress...
COD despite its lack of platforming still showed us the closest CV game with interconnected areas which was as close to 3D SOTN that we've ever had.
I'm not exactly sure why people would be letdown at a handheld entry, the handhelds were keeping the series alive at that point and on a whole they by far outshone the 3d games..
Perhaps people are correct that if Iga had more foresight he could've headed this "hype train" off and made the 1999 game quickly after AoS instead of Curse of Darkness or DoS. But would it really have been the game he wanted it to be with their budgets? I'm not so sure.
It could have been made as a DS or 3DS entry, but do you remember posts around CV communities in the past of people saying "why can't we have bigger castles? Why can't we have the 2D games as a console release like SotN? Why does it have to be on a small screen handheld?" etc. I'd wager there are a decent amount of people who would be disappointed by the 1999 game having just the production values of CoD or DoS only with greater plot significance.
That maybe so and I don't deride the notion of a bigger budget. However, realistically no matter how big the budget is games are generally a certain length of time. Bigger Castles are one thing, but more well designed, never done before castles (with new sprites, animations etc) would be more expensive as the devs have to do everything from scratch.
Let's say it was made as a DS/3DS game, realistically it wouldn't be a longer playthrough than about 8-10 hours, if it was a 3D console game it wouldn't play for longer than around 15-20 hours, that's just how long action platformers generally are... So the bigger Castle and longer playtime is kind of a dead argument, because developers generally won't make a game that's longer than it has to be. If they would, why not use those ideas and make another game? (Which is exactly what they did with the handheld series, which carried CV for years)
Based on what I've seen Konami also don't listen to their fans really, it's also really unlikely 2d CV was ever going to get a console release at that time, since the metroidvanias were aimed at a niche audience.
Judging from COD's ending I would say Iga was foreseeing a 3d game out of 1999, which I do agree couldn't have been made with an LOI or COD budget. However, did it have to be that epic? Sure it was the final showdown, but it could have been made into a decent 2d game. I think Iga was just awaiting a budget he'd never get to see. I often wonder why he haven't seen a SOTN reimagined in 3D, and in truth, I doubt konami would ever be able to make that game because the budget would never be high enough to sustain production.
-
I feel the fans were robbed, but not IGA. He should have made the 1999 game after AoS or DoS, since it was so important.
-
I feel the fans were robbed, but not IGA. He should have made the 1999 game after AoS or DoS, since it was so important.
It definitely should have come after AoS. Because by the time DoS came about IGA had already produced several other CV games and by that time the 1999 battle was too big.
-
My first comment ^_^ and here's my thoughts:
IMO I think IGA was not robbed, more like opposite like he's trying to own Castlevania as a whole, even going too far like removing the Castlevania 64/Legacy of Darkness, Legends and Circle of the Moon from the original/canonical timeline. Unlike Hideo Kojima, he's not the real creator of Castlevania series so anyone can be handled by different teams or even 3rd party companies, speaking of that I want the original creator of Castlevania to return and handle the whole series like Kojima did, I know it's highly impossible but it might be interesting :rollseyes:
For the 1999 Demon Castle War, I'm with Flame's opinion, it might be more interesting to be released in a different media(like a comic or a novel) and it's not really a closure to the Castlevania saga since we still have the events after that(Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow plus a novel after those games), the castle is just sealed so it's still exist not totally destroyed plus Dracula is still alive or reincarnated in form of Soma and there's a chance that he can be returned to the dark side as evidenced in bad endings of Sorrow games.
-
The KCEK games weren't even part of the timeline to begin with. CotM doesn't even take place in Transylvania.
-
I feel the fans were robbed, but not IGA. He should have made the 1999 game after AoS or DoS, since it was so important.
I would have preferred the 1999 game being the premiere Castlevania title for the DS instead of Dawn of Sorrow.
-
CotM doesn't even take place in Transylvania.
neither do aria or dawn
-
Well firstly LOI wasn't really hallways, it was more like a series of boxes, I digress...
I'm thinking mainly of the chapel areas, but there are definitely halls between the boxes in some areas. Take, http://www.castlevaniacrypt.com/games/loi/images/maps/pagodaofmistymoon.png (http://www.castlevaniacrypt.com/games/loi/images/maps/pagodaofmistymoon.png)
I think that's just kind of a tangent though as you seem to be indicating; the main thing is just that it was a lot of reused texturing and models for rooms and people could tell.
I'm not exactly sure why people would be letdown at a handheld entry, the handhelds were keeping the series alive at that point and on a whole they by far outshone the 3d games..
Perhaps you weren't in the places I was to see it, but I would always see people pop up and show some unhappiness about the games being on handhelds, at least before there were a decent amount of them out and it had set in that there was simply not going to be another full retail 2D CV as SotN was. I hesitate to speak for them, but they didn't seem to me to be concerned about mere subsistence, but far beyond it; they wanted a flourishing of the 2D games as full price retail console releases like in the old days. Perhaps they were a bit lacking in understanding of the business end of the video game industry and why that wasn't happening, but they were consumers of the series who would probably be disappointed in a handheld 1999 game nonetheless.
That maybe so and I don't deride the notion of a bigger budget. However, realistically no matter how big the budget is games are generally a certain length of time. Bigger Castles are one thing, but more well designed, never done before castles (with new sprites, animations etc) would be more expensive as the devs have to do everything from scratch.
Let's say it was made as a DS/3DS game, realistically it wouldn't be a longer playthrough than about 8-10 hours, if it was a 3D console game it wouldn't play for longer than around 15-20 hours, that's just how long action platformers generally are... So the bigger Castle and longer playtime is kind of a dead argument, because developers generally won't make a game that's longer than it has to be. If they would, why not use those ideas and make another game? (Which is exactly what they did with the handheld series, which carried CV for years)
To some extent I agree that people's expectations for more content (larger castle, longer play time) were kind of unrealistic from a deep down design perspective, but I think it was just an expression of their desire to have an epic, grandiose game.
Based on what I've seen Konami also don't listen to their fans really, it's also really unlikely 2d CV was ever going to get a console release at that time, since the metroidvanias were aimed at a niche audience.
Judging from COD's ending I would say Iga was foreseeing a 3d game out of 1999, which I do agree couldn't have been made with an LOI or COD budget. However, did it have to be that epic? Sure it was the final showdown, but it could have been made into a decent 2d game.
I don't think there's a question that it could have been made as a 2D game, but the question is just what percentage of the fanbase would be disappointed by that. For the most part, I'm in CV for the gameplay, so I wouldn't really have been so disappointed, but my impression is that a not-insignificant percentage of the fanbase would be disappointed if the 1999 game had been "just another entry" given what its plot was.
I think Iga was just awaiting a budget he'd never get to see. I often wonder why he haven't seen a SOTN reimagined in 3D, and in truth, I doubt konami would ever be able to make that game because the budget would never be high enough to sustain production.
A major problem with reimagining SotN in 3D I think is that so many of the things people love about SotN just don't lend themselves as well to typical 3D game design. Designers just don't quite seem comfortable with using the more surrealist aspects of 2D games (who would create buildings where you had to jump from platform to platform to get anywhere with stairs only intermittently interspersed?) in 3D games despite the fact that those aspects often either directly or indirectly increase the fun the game inspires. When people design 3D games, they often seem to naturally lean more towards 'realistic'-styled flat level design which leads to a different style of game with different vectors for fun than a 2D platformer.
-
neither do aria or dawn
Yet they feature Belmonts, the vampire killer, Dracula's Castle (or a copy built on top of the remains) and actually reference why they're not in Romania any more. CotM on the other hand is just 'here's the baldwins and the morrises, they fight dracula and always have, who now lives in Austria, also here's the Hunter's Whip, and this ain't dracula's crib it's now carmilla's castle bitchez'
It makes zero sense when placed in the context of all Castlevania titles before and after, and KCEK's producer, KO-G, who was part of IGA's team to begin with, already told IGA they were just gaiden titles (as per the OoE Nintendo Power interview).
Plus IGA also said in the same interview that he has a boner for CotM and considers it his as well though he didn't work on it, where he was producing Castlevania Chronicles shortly before CotM was released.
It's 2014 and we're still having these same arguments, hot damn
-
I'm not arguing. Wa sjust sayin'. "not in transylvania" isn't the best reason since a few games dont take place there.
-
NOPE FLAME WE'RE GONNA ARGUE RIGHT NOW
CHOCOLATE > VANILLA
I've just thrown down the gauntlet, son.
-
@beingthehero
u need more sexual innuendo in your posts. why do u have that award if u dont use it
-
@Flame/beingthehero:
Don't forget Castlevania Bloodlines, the games sets in different european countries and the battle with Dracula occurred in england yet still part of the canonical timeline.
-
@Flame/beingthehero:
Don't forget Castlevania Bloodlines, the games sets in different european countries and the battle with Dracula occurred in england yet still part of the canonical timeline.
I believe the plot of Bloodlines and the protagonist are dependant upon the canon of Bram Stoker's Dracula, the plot which also begins in Transylvania and heavily deviates to England (until the end)
In the novel, Dracula buys up land/ real estate in England so it's probably following on from that.
I agree with the posters who say that it doesn't make sense COTM is based in Austria.. It's not the same thing as AOS/ DOS. In AOS you're in an eclipse for starters, and DOS is a replica of the Castle (how do you replicate a Castle which changes with every incarnation???)
-
(how do you replicate a Castle which changes with every incarnation???)
You use the last incarnation as the basis for your magic-made castle. Of course you are free to add/subtract things as much as you want.
-
You use the last incarnation as the basis for your magic-made castle. Of course you are free to add/subtract things as much as you want.
Since Celia, Dario and Dmitri weren't in AOS, do we then assume their Castle is based on the one from 1999?
Although AOS is supposedly the same Castle from 1999 (though it would have changed) which I find ironic because generally the Castle collapses when Dracula is defeated. Julius, however specifically stated he left the VK in the Castle to weaken it. This implies that even though Dracula was completely destroyed, Julius suspected there was a chance that Dracula could return. Or did the Castle simply not collapse because it was sealed inside the eclipse...
-
Or did the Castle simply not collapse because it was sealed inside the eclipse...
I believe that more than the collapse.
-
You use the last incarnation as the basis for your magic-made castle. Of course you are free to add/subtract things as much as you want.
According to what I've read about DoS' castle it was built as an amusement park. When the park failed to draw in revenue it was shut down. Later on is when Celia and her cult moved in and took over the place. The castle was built with the purpose of old fashioned horror theme in mind, but those of the 2030's generation weren't very interested in such a prospect.
-
@beingthehero
u need more sexual innuendo in your posts. why do u have that award if u dont use it
Tittyboner. There.
According to what I've read about DoS' castle it was built as an amusement park.
Wait, what? Was this from that Japanese-only Sorrow book? I always thought the castle was a deliberate mock-up of the real Castlevania, as it sits upon the ruins of drac's old castle.
-
I believe that more than the collapse.
Maybe because the context of being in the eclipse is between both the physical and astral realms or whatnot. As opposed to being in the same place in the physical world where its physical state is limited to the energy of the Lord of the Castle.. I dunno , something to think about
-
Wait, what? Was this from that Japanese-only Sorrow book? I always thought the castle was a deliberate mock-up of the real Castlevania, as it sits upon the ruins of drac's old castle.
I don't remember the PAL version saying it was built on the ruins of Castlevania. It was simply described as "A Towering replica of Dracula's Castle"
Also AOS' prologue (before Soma wakes up) takes place in Japan, and I'd assume DOS does also.
-
Although I had the guide and magazine interview of Japan, there was no such talk.
IGA said the castle of Seria as "the modern architecture which imitated the Dracula's castle."
-
I don't remember the PAL version saying it was built on the ruins of Castlevania. It was simply described as "A Towering replica of Dracula's Castle"
Silenced Ruins, remember?
-
Silenced Ruins, remember?
But where is the proof it's actually the original CV's ruins? And if it were the ruins, why is it still intact? Doesn't really make sense. I don't think it's evidence enough, particularly when the Sorrow series is technically set in Japan. In DOS they're not in the eclipse anymore.
-
Pretty sure DoS is set in Europe
-
Pretty sure DoS is set in Europe
Game does nothing to establish that though.
-
Game does nothing to establish that though.
I dunno, Lost Village looks pretty damn German.
-
I dunno, Lost Village looks pretty damn German.
That was part of the amusement park set up along with the castle. Old abandoned, medieval European towns were featured in a lot of classic horror flicks.