Topic: Ideal Castlevania

[theANdROId]

I don't think anyone will be swayed to one side or the other here.  There are clear lines drawn, separating "these" from "those"...

...but so what?  I think it's fair that each of our loves for Castlevania come with different points and opinions...we are different people after all.  My likes may not always be his likes, or her likes, or your likes...I imagine the developers have different likes too, and they work hard to put them together as best as they know how to make a cool game for us.

Clearly, EstebanT especially likes the LoS trilogy, and others don't.  I do.  I mean...I've only played Mirror of Fate, but I loved it, and I desperately want to own and play the other two.  Because, it at least had things that were "Castlevania-like" in my opinion, so it matched up enough with the series I love to become part of it. 

True, it isn't exactly what I wanted...I would have preferred another Metroidvania in the traditional timeline, or even a Classicvania.  Even now, I still am wishing someone to secretly be working on one to put out there (and on a Nintendo system...'cuz they're what I have.  PS3 is still out of my price-range).  But in the meantime, LoS was still another epic story.  It was still another "book" in the series.  Another perspective.  Something different.  Something else that, I'd say pretty well resembled the definition of "Castlevania".  I can enjoy it, and still appreciate all that came before, and still hope for all that is to come.  Maybe for you it just makes you appreciate what we had...maybe for you it just makes you hope for more...or something else...but differences are okay, right?  Yes...yes they are.

So as much as I'd like to argue a point somewhere and defend the honor of my game (especially because argue-ers can get one of those little badge awards!  Those things are sweet man!), the series still finds ways to honor itself.  Like a child honors it's parents by being different, and learning to use those differences, each game brings something to the table.

And besides, this is just your Ideal Castlevania...you...the one looking at the screen...reading these words...your ideal.  Not his, hers, or anyone else's.  It's yours alone (well, unless someone comes along later and agrees with you).  The goal here is just to see what we all like about the series...what he or she or you would do if you could make a Castlevania game exactly how you wanted it...and otherwise enjoy seeing the ideas others came up with.  If you don't like another's ideal...well, it isn't your ideal, so big deal!  There's no wrong way to eat a Reese's, nor is there a wrong way to design your ideal game.  Speaking of which...what is your ideal game?

Mine?  Well, something I would want is individuality and development of characters.  I've seen the Ocean's trilogy probably over 50 times.  I can practically recite them as I watch, but I still love them!  Each of the characters are so well developed!  They have very clear personalities, and I'd want to find a way to show that with characters in my Ideal Castlevania.

[e105beta]

Can you even fucking comprehend how insulting your entire argument is those people?

Your righteous fury is admirable, and emotional appeal is nice, but he hasn't said nothing that isn't true: it doesn't matter how "good" a game is, if it isn't profitable, there's no point in Konami to keep making it. I mean, I don't think EstebanT has actually said any of the pre-LoS games are bad. He's just saying that for Castlevania to keep getting made it has to matter, and for it to matter it has to sell, and that before LoS it wasn't selling very well at all.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how hard the developers worked on the game, if it doesn't sell it doesn't matter. You can have all the "quality" in the world, but if it doesn't sell, it doesn't matter. That's business. It sucks, but it's true. Games aren't made on good will and hopeful wishes.

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.

Call of Duty might not be considered a "good game" to you, I don't really like it either, but the fact of the matter is that is sells to millions and millions of those millions would swear by it as their favorite game. It might not be up to your standards, but your standards aren't the only ones that matter.

It's not black and white. Call of Duty might be stale, but it can remain stale and still sell, because that's what people want. Castlevania lost that kind of star power a long time ago. By repeating the same formulas, it established a rabid cult fanbase, but it's a rabidly SMALL cult fanbase. So if Konami wants it to sell, they have a very strong argument that to do so they have to change it. You can decry LoS all you want for it's betrayal of the original games or whatever you want to call it, but hey it sold, and that's what fuels sequels. While I think it may, you can't make more than a tenuous argument that a Symphony of Night 2 would sell like hotcakes, because all we've seen, save for a flash in the pan here and there, is a decline in the popularity of the series since its formula became the standard, and many of those were on consoles with the highest and second highest install bases of all time. It could work, but you have to acknowledge that it would be a risky business decision, regardless of any argument of "quality".

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.

I think Castlevania: LoS was in the spirit of Castlevania. I think MercurySteam accomplished that. Many people agree with me. Many people don't.

Spirit isn't irrelevant, but boy howdy is it subjective.

[Inccubus]

My ideal CV is an actual platformer with a simple yet versatile combat system and Gothic horror styling and absolutely no hand holding or QTEs.

[Intersection]

Dracula9, I completely agree with you, but your point has gotten lost in a post that's a bit too long for its own good.

Anyhow, Esteban wrote to me, so here's for answering him...

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:

- Lords of Shadow didn't have a Castlevania score -- that you'd already mentioned.

- 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).

I have other reasons, of course, but they'd be too long to detail, and the ones I'd mentioned are the most important ones. Make of them what you will.

Right again. Mercurysteam did just that.

I'd already taken a whole post to explain just why it didn't. I'd suggest you read it again:

(quote) 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.

Im not saying it isn't big, but it it really isn't 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.

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.

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.
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?

[EstebanT]

Intersection, while I don't care for your condescension, I thank you for actually answering my question and not just riddling your argument with appeals to emotion and ad hominem attacks. I respectfully disagree with most of your points, however.

Quickly, to address Andr01d,

Clearly, EstebanT especially likes the LoS trilogy, and others don't

That's not quite the case. I'm a huge fan of older Castlevanias and have been for years (Particularly Bloodlines, Symphony of the Night and Order of Ecclesia), so my love for the series is pretty well established, contrary to what a lot of you seem to think. The fact that I will not circlejerk with everyone on how much we hate Cox and MercurySteam does not mean that I am their number one fan. I DO like the LoS series, but it took me playing MoF in conjunction with having played the first one to change my mind. I was on the LoS hate train for a while. For a lot of the same reasons. But after carefully considering these reasons and comparing/contrasting LoS with the other CV games, I found my hatred to be pretty unjustified.

Now, Intersection, I am well aware of many of the criticisms for LoS. I, in fact, used to agree with a lot of them.

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.

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"?

- 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.

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. 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.

- 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.

I don't recall Curse of Darkness and Lament of Innocence having seamless platforming with combat. In fact, I remember the ps2 games being pretty flat all around... Many of those "criticisms" of LoS's gameplay also apply to the other 3D games. Once again, you can't perfectly recreate the combat system of a 2D game into a 3D one. And if you have a problem with the way LoS did it, you should also have a problem with the other 3D CVs.
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.

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.

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.
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.

(click to show/hide)

GABRIEL BELMONT/DRACULA

-David Cox has stated multiple times Gabriel Belmont wears armor which is reminiscent of Simon's artwork and sprite from Castlevania II: Simon's Quest.
-Gabriel Belmont's in game description states he might be the son of one of the nobles of the Cronqvist family, but it has not been proven (Lament of Innocence)
-Gabriel's last name is "Belmont", the last name of the family of vampire slayers since the first Castlevania.
-In Mirror of Fate, you fight Dracula at the end of the game like in most of the previous Castlevania games. His patterns are very similar to the classic Dracula fights including teleportation, flame pillars, and flames from inside his robe/cape.
-He is the master of the castle just like previous games in the franchise.
-In the battle versus the Siege titan seen in the demo of Lords of shadow 2 he quotes the classic line "What is a man... But a miserable pile of secrets!" (Symphony of the night) 
-Before his fight with the Forgotten One, Gabriel says the classic line from Symphony of the Night: "Enough talk...! Have at you!"
-In the LOS2 Demo Dracula drinks from a goblet then throws is before doing battle (Symphony of the night)
-In the LOS2 Demo Dracula is waiting for his opponents in his throne room like previous games.
-His sons name is Alucard just like the older games.
-His Castle collapses with his defeat like other castlevanias.
-Subweapons: Holy water and silver daggers as Gabriel.

ENEMY/CHARACTER REMAKES

-Alucard/Trevor
   Subweapons/Magic: Bat Form in secret cutscene, Mist Form, Wolf Form, Wings as a double jump mechanism)   
   (Boomerang/Cross as Trevor) Both Alucard and Trevor had a Stopwatch subweapon.
   Both Alucards stories use their mothers as a motivating factor
   Alucard is based on Ayami Kojimas design in Symphony of the Night
   Notable Appearances: (Symphony of the Night, Draculas Curse)
-Zobek
   David Cox has stated Zobek is the Shaft/Death of the LOS universe, In the LOS Epilogue he is seen wearing a purple robe like
   the one Death wears. He is also the lord of the dead. Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Carmilla,
  Notable Appearances: Circle of the Moon, Simon's Quest
  (In the Japanese version of Lords of shadow, Hōko Kuwashima also voiced Shanoa in Order of Ecclesia) 
-Cornell
   Notable Appearances: (Legacy of Darkness, Judgment)
-Victor Belmont
   Notable Appearances: Resurrection (Cancelled)
-Simon Belmont
   Based on Ayami Kojimas design in Chronicles for the PS1
   Subweapons: Axe and Firebomb like the NES Castevania
   Notable Appearances: Castlevania NES, Simon's Quest,Chronicles
-Crow Witch Malphas, (Malphas/Karasuman)Notable Appearances: Symphony of the Night, Dawn of Sorrow
-The Evil Butcher, Notable Appearances: Aria of Sorrow
-Slogra (Background only), Notable Appearances: Super Castlevania 4, Symphony of the Night
-Daemon Lord, Notable Appearances: Aria of Sorrow, Order of Ecclesia
  (Might be a Manticore? Notable Appearances: Aria of Sorrow, Dawn of Sorrow)
-Zombie, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Skeleton Warrior/Armored Skeleton, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Merman, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game) 
-Gargoyle, Notable Appearances: (Bloodlines, Lament of Innocence)
-Giant Bat, Notable Appearances: (Giant Bat, Rondo of Blood)
-Hunchback/Fleaman, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Harpy, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Witches, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Succubus, Notable Appearances: (Symphony of the Night, Lament of Innocence)
-Possessed Armor/Animated Armor ,Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Warg, Notable Appearances: (Symphony of the Night, Dawn of Sorrow)
-Giant Spider, Notable Appearances: (Dracula's Curse, Super Castlevania IV) 
-Naiad
  (Might be Dead Man's Hand? Notable Appearances: Rondo of blood)
-Cave Troll, Notable Appearances: (Symphony of the Night, Order of Ecclesia)
-Swordmaster
  (Might be Vassago? Notable Appearances: Lament of Innocence, Curse of Darkness)
-Mandragora, Notable Appearances: (Aria of Sorrow, Dawn of Sorrow)
-Scarecrow, Notable Appearances: (Symphony of the Night, Harmony of Dissonance)
-Gravedigger, Notable Appearances: (Order of Ecclesia)
-Dracolich Titan
   (Might be Death Dragon, Dragon Zombie or, Skull Dragon? Notable Appearances: Legends, Portrait of Ruin, Chronicles)
-Bone Pillar [Immortal,Not on bestiary] Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Puppet/Marionette, Notable Appearances: (Symphony of the Night, Circle of the Moon)
-Magic Tome/Magic Book, Notable Appearances: (Symphony of the Night, Super Castlevania IV) 
-Giant
   (Might be Balore? Notable Appearances: Aria of Sorrow, Dawn of Sorrow)
-Golem, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Executioner, Notable Appearances: (Legends, Lament of Innocence)
-Celia (Scroll), Notable Appearances: (Dawn of Sorrow)
-Laura, Notable Appearances: (Rondo of Blood, Portrait of Ruin)
-Olrox, Notable Appearances: (Symphony of the Night)
-Brauner, Notable Appearances: (Portrait of Ruin, Harmony of Despair)
-Medusa/Medusa Heads, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Walter Bernhard (Scroll), Notable Appearances: (Lament of Innocence)
-Rinaldo Gandolfi, Notable Appearances: (Lament of Innocence)
-The Abbot Dorin, Notable Appearances: (Portrait of Ruin)
-The Forgotten One, Notable Appearances: (Lament of Innocence)
-Sypha Belmont, Notable Appearances: (Dracula's Curse, Symphony of the Night)
-Michael Gelhart Schneider, Notable Appearances: (Castlevania 64)
-Necromancer, Notable Appearances: (Circle of the Moon, Order of Ecclesia)
The heads on the carousel wheel in the Toy Makers Funfair are all references to previous bosses
Medusa, Manticore (According to the Castlevania Wiki), Behemoth, and Maneater
-Grant Danasty (Scroll) His body is found in the Clock Tower same place where he joins Trevor on Draculas Curse.
-Flaming skeleton, Notable Appearances: (Almost every game)
-Iris (Scroll), Notable Appearances: (Rondo of Blood, The Dracula X Chronicles)

RANDOM REFERENCES


The Gloden Paladin in the LOS demo quotes Richter from Symphony of the Night. "Die Monster, You don't belong in this world."

The Music box in chapter 9 plays the theme Vampire Killer.

Veros Woods, and Carmilla Cementary are locations In Simon's Quest.

Wygol is also the name of a village in Order of Ecclesia.

Agharta is the name of Albus's Gun in Order of Ecclesia.

In simons story the entrance cutscene is similar to the entrance in the NES Castlevania. Draculas castle in Lords of Shadow also crumbles when Dracula is Defeated.

The Combat Cross can be used to swing in specific areas like in Super Castlevania 4. The Combos from the combat cross are also similar to the combos in Lament of Innocence as well as the buttons for area and direct attacks.
Due to Rinaldos stake attachment being made specifically for destroying vampires, it gave the Combat Cross the nickname of "Vampire Killer"

If you beat Simons story 100% you get a trophy called "Simons Quest" In Mirror of Fate HD.

You can get a "Tower Key" in Dawn of Sorrow by killing Gergoth.

"Poor, beautiful Carmilla... you will cry bloody tears before this night has ended." - Zobek

Hearts for subweapons, Pot Roast, teleporters, and a map make a comeback in Mirror of Fate

Two toys ressembling old "Death" from previous Castlevania games attack Alucard and he discovers his "Wolf Form"

Using chests to give you more subweapon space and health were also used in Order of Ecclesia.

"Waterfalls of Agharta" is a Remaster of "The Waterfalls" From Super Castlevania 4

You can hear "Ghostly Theatre" in Mirror of Fates "Theatre" if you really listen.

I'd argue that they're quite familiar with the source material.

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.

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?)
Whining? I wouldn't say I was whining. I NEVER said sales are the only important factor in a game's quality. If you'd have paid attention to my argument at all, I brought numbers because they do matter when it comes to keeping a series relevant and alive. I think I understand that pretty clear. 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. 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?

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?

No we aren't. And we certainly can care. But how can we expect to demand them to make a game that fits JUST what WE want without considering whether or not it will turn a profit? 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. 

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.






 

[VladCT]

>Ideal Castlevania where profit doesn't matter
And this is where fangames come into play.

[Dracula9]

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.

Passive-aggressive finger-pointing and useless analogies don't nullify any part of this. Neither does sidestepping to draw back to the same point over and over.

Look, man, I'm not pissed because you disagree with me. I'm not pissed off because you continue to belittle my argument simply because it has more than a few helpings of emotional involvement in it. I'm pissed off at you because you keep drawing back to the same premise of "it worked in a similar context, so it's the same thing," as though it's a universal formula. The inaccurate approach to relying on sales figures, the relevance to the original characters' incarnations to their game ones (because I'm sure Bram Stoker had the Castlevania series in mind when writing Dracula's character and description), generalizing the fates of series by comparison...none of these allow for a fair debate if you rely on them to the point of disregarding anything contrary to them.

Logical thought process and an inhumanly cold outlook on the world aren't all there is to debating. Likewise, "righteous fury" isn't, either. But it's a bit unfair to keep throwing my argument under the bus because it isn't constructed as well as yours. It's not like we're writing a college essay and need perfect reference listings and formatting checks, after all.

EDIT: Aaaaaaand cue VladCT.

[Ratty]

Seems like things are getting pretty heated. Let's keep it cool guys. I don't want to have to close the thread and/or hand out warnings and be all

[EstebanT]

While your highly emotional post isn't very conducive to having an objective debate, that was not the sole reason I didn't reply to you. You were frequently disrespectful towards me and saying bizarre things (Bloods and Crips? Are you comparing the CV fandoms to violent gangs?) which really came off as you silencing me just because I'm playing the devil's advocate and I don't participate in needlessly hating on Lords of Shadow for silly reasons.

I have already explained in my response to Intersection many things which could be applied to your response. Spirit IS in fact subjective, considering that you hold LoS to a much stricter standard of "spirit" than other CV games that could be considered not following the "spirit". I thought the two genres were pretty obvious, but to explain further I mean the Classicvania genre, which is like a linear action/adventure game, and the Metroidvanias which are more like action RPGs.

You're incredibly smug when you make your points without really considering or reading what I'm saying. I never said spirit is irrelevant, but the fact that LoS doesn't maintain that "spirit" is highly disputable, especially in light of the sequels. You talk about you and other castlevania fans as if you are some sort of supreme hivemind who dictates the definition of what a Castlevania game should be, and anyone who doesn't agree is treading on dangerous territory. That is no way to have a respectful debate.

Cox has been a well established employee of Konami and fan of Castlevania for years... so I don't even know how someone could possibly think they don't know jack about what a Castlevania is supposed to be like. It's as if people played LoS expecting it to be horrible and completely stripped of anything resembling Castlevania.. you know, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In most Castlevanias, sob stories have pretty much been a staple. LoS fits the mold of girlfriend getting kidnapped pretty well in comparison. I don't know what you mean when you talk about Stoker not having CV in mind, I don't think you really read what I said because that conclusion makes no sense at all. LoS utilizes plenty of dark mythology for its content, and changes it just as CV did to Bram Stoker's, as well as multitudes of other mythology. You think harpies were always hot flying naked chicks? According to mythology, they were once hideous creatures. Legion, as described in the Bible, looks nothing like his CV counterpart. Which brings me to another point... I don't understand your beef with the Christian themes. They have ALWAYS been present in the majority of the Castlevanias and as per usual, there is a hodgepodge of various religions depicted in the game (Pan?).  I never got the vibe that they were simply pawns, considering this is all leading up to LoS2, not the war of revelation. I think the Christian themes are quite appropriate. He didn't defeat Satan with faith... he was extremely powerful by the time he reached him.

You continuously disregard the effort and creative ability that the LoS team has put into their work while you criticize me for supposedly doing it, which doesn't make sense considering I draw so much inspiration from people like Yamane and Kojima.

If you criticize me for using the only means of evidence I possibly can, numbers and comparison, this argument is pointless. Emotions and opinions don't do much to progress a debate.

[theANdROId]

It's not that I haven't enjoyed reading all this, but wouldn't the following out-of-context statement be true:

...this argument is pointless...

Is anyone really even remotely closer to agreeing with the "other side"?  I just like Castlevania, can I get a witness?! ;-)  But hey, I guess it is still our ideals here, and certainly interesting to read.

Speaking of ideals, I really liked (in MoF) the stuff that moved in the foreground.  Startled me every time!  I'd like to see a little of that in future releases...though not all future releases.  I don't imagine it would always work well.

[Intersection]

I'm glad that you don't find me guilty of Dracula9's draconian passions, Esteban, and you can rest assured that I always choose my own ad hominems with the utmost care. But as for my condescension, I'm afraid you'll simply have to bear with it, so long as you defend a notion so undeserving of your considerable rhetoric skill.

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?
And no, I couldn't accuse IGA of "drastically changing the series beyond recognition", for the simple reason that he didn't. The Metroidvania genre essentially expanded on the possibilities that Classicvania offered: it made an open, nonlinear castle a CV standard, introduced a deep and diverse RPG system, and granted the player a more tangible sense of liberty, but every classic element the series was known for could easily be recognized -- classic whip and subweapon action, classic Dracula plotlines, stellar platforming, intelligent level design, diverse and well-integrated combat, challenging boss fights, the thrill of exploring an evil castle teeming with monsters... all of it was there.

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.
Castlevania games have historically had a very unique form of gameplay -- they were, after all, the games who invented it. They've always conveyed a very particular form of appeal, one that's been a Castlevania's hallmark since the series' beginnings. Telling us that "Castlevania's always been derivative" doesn't get us anywhere.

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.
In contrast, LoI offers abilities across the board: whip abilities, subweapons, crashes, magical abilities, item-based abilities. It's also assorted with a light RPG system that LoS lacks.

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.
I'd argue that they're quite familiar with the source material.

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.
Now, if I actually were to read this list, I'd say that it actually goes a long way in proving my point: Castlevania references were rather poorly integrated into Lords of Shadow.

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.

And don't tell me that I'm refusing to consider other factors -- because that's precisely what you're doing. My statements aren't insulting to anything or anyone; they simply reflect my opinion. In fact, I'm surprised to see you say this, considering the lengths to which you went trying to oppose your "respectful" arguments with Dracula9's "emotionally riddled" attacks.

[Dracula9]

You've got a witness here, Android.

But I'm going to lay off on this. I'm noticing that my point isn't coming across very well and my posts are continually coming off as little more than insulting to Esteban. I can't say I'm very pleased with how demonized I'm being, especially considering my emotional involvement in arguments is nothing new, but I suppose I've earned a bit of that.

On that note, Esteban, I'm only going to clarify that I don't hate Lords of Shadow. I've been trying to point out that you've been looking (at least to me and I would imagine Intersection) like you don't understand why people don't like it, since it's been argued for three years and most reasons can easily be Googled. Whether you intended that or not, I can't say.

In any case, though, I'm going to say that I'm sorry for the slander. Some of it was intentional, and some of it was misinterpreted (for instance, the Crip/Blood analogy was more directed towards how one of your questions addressed the forum than Castlevania in general), and that's more my fault for not specifying.

So, in a nutshell, I'm not going to argue any more. I don't agree with your argument, and you don't value mine as valid, so any further continuation is both pointless and likely to get more mod involvement. So I'm out.

Sorry for the trouble.

[e105beta]

I have never met a fan on this forum as pompous as you, Intersection.

I think you deserve an award

[Ratty]

My apologizes to those who have been civil and enjoying this thread, but it has been quickly devolving into a mess of name calling and fighting so I'm locking it for the moment. We are all better more mature people than this, please try to remember that.