Topic: Can't believe Castlevania 1 got it so right out the gate

[JayDominus]

(at first I was like "Man, it's the first in the series, how good can it be?

Odd attitude. I tend to always start playing a series from the first game and well, to think about it, how good a game can be to kickstart a series and a long one at that? Pretty damn good.

Played it through NESTopia on my PC and sometimes I play it through NesterJ on PSP. I still remember how long it took me to finally get Death (cross boomerang+III-in-a-row powerup FTW) and Dracula.

[Flame]

even though it itself was a spin off, and thus was allowed to be more different

How do you even BEGIN to rationalize that Rondo/XX is a spin off

You see, SotN should of remained a spin off

It is. although at the same time, it technically isnt, since it revolves around the main storyline. It's a sequel to Rondo/XX, but you dont play as Richter. Same goes for say, Aria. It revolves around the end of the timeline, but you dont play a Belmont.

Castlevania is kinda wonky when it comes to defining something a spinoff or not IMO.

For me, to properly evolve a series can still be done simple and effective. Like let's looks at Castlevania 3.

I already see one flaw in that argument. You talk about properly evolving as a series, and go for only the 3rd main game in the series. (that is, counting only CV1,2, and 3 itself)

Granted 3 definitely stepped up the game by not only expanding the playable characters, but the map, adding alternate routes, (which Rondo later brought back) and starting you off outside the castle, making you trek your way there. Something which became more of a staple in later classicvanias, and was taken to the extreme with Bloodlines. But it was still only the third game. when discussing evolution of a franchise, you have to think long term as well, hence why I used mega Man as an example. It is a good example of both sides. On the one side, it was very innovative, and each series in the franchise has it's own unique gameplay and gimmicks. On the other hand though, the gameplay never really strayed too far from the original formula, and never really made the jump to 3D successfully as it just never really embraced change. and by the time it started to change up the classic formula again while staying in 2D, it was too late.

Command Mission and the Legends series are as far as the franchise has strayed in terms of adapting and evolving the franchise' gameplay. And although they are both usually acclaimed, we dont have more like them.

here your argument is that Castlevania should have always stayed true to CV1 in terms of mechanics and controls.

so we should probably take a similar outlook on the series. Not just analyzing the early games.

though right now i cant really think straight since it's 3:40 AM, so ill leave that there for now.

[Nagumo]

What Sinful said about IGA stating SotN is a spin-off because of the X is true. The X in Rondo's title does not mean spin-off though. 

[kingu]

such an insular direction would lead to stagnation. the methodical and deliberate pacing can be handled in other ways as well.

see: d. souls

[Sinful]

The X in Rondo's title does not mean spin-off though.

No, it means that Rondo is the tenth game in the series, which it is. But the way Konami & IGA look at Rondo seems to be that it's indeed a spin off.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

What amazes me is that given that the Origins map of HD is pretty much the exact same game sans level transitions, even when playing that game with the castleroid controls of HD, it's still hella fun and challenging by oneself.

Yeah.

Castlevania is still king of the franchise.