"Accordingly, the first version of Rondo of Blood was insanely hard—easily five times more difficult than the finished version"Maybe they didn't, Dracula XX was insanely hard.
Why oh why did they change it??? :-\
Maybe they didn't, Dracula XX was insanely hard.
"Accordingly, the first version of Rondo of Blood was insanely hard—easily five times more difficult than the finished version"
Why oh why did they change it??? :-\
It's best to appeal to a broad audience then a limited minority. Besides if anyone wants a ridiculously hard game there's always the Souls series. I'd rather have Castlevania's difficulty stay as is for official releases. Besides gamers can easily make hack patches if they want to 'up' the difficulty.
I disagree with this, if one is a purist and likes to play on the console which the game was intended. I don't see why adding a more difficult setting is a bad thing, the 64 series did this well with even altering certain platforming elements which gave the game and upped-yet-fair challenge and didn't compromise its integrity into being ridiculous.
Other examples include the original Legend of Zelda offering Quest B, or a hero mode where resources and vitality are more limited, and damage more heavily dealt. I see it as replay value, just saying.
Well, in the interview, they stated they lowered the difficulty from the original version, and you asked why they did. Your comment actually implied you wanted the game itself to stay that hard with it's only difficulty setting, and that's actually what X was responding to.
Multiple difficulty settings is always a plus in video games, as it allows for a huge audience. I know I would've loved a Hard Mode on Rondo, since I can pretty much cheese through the game now.