Topic: I don't get the "LoS isn't a CV game" thing

[Sumac]

Vallejo's art IS in game, as the character/bestiary/moves list/'relics' sections.

I wasn't talking about LOS at all (if that was about LOS).

[TheouAegis]

You're suggesting Capcom ripped off Konami's ideas in less than 2 months and put out a hit game series? I know those guys program fast, but that's really bloody fast.

If it isn't a side-scroller and doesn't have platforming and whipping, it ain't CV. That's my feeling. I'm already torn on the later MMX games because of the 3D-ish routes they've taken, but at their core they're still side-scrollers. LOS has no feel of a side-scroller except when the camera angle is just so. Even when the camera is above or behind X it still feels like a side-scroller to me.

[pimp dracula]

Like I said, I'm not saying that Megaman X ripped CV. Don't put your own words in my mouth. I was just killing your arguement that Megaman X came long ago before LoS. I said RoB came 2 months before X so your arguement is invalid.

I know it doesn't feel like your whipping, but it does have whip. And the platforming? They exist. What would you call Gabriel transporting from one platform to another? It doesn't have to be 2d sidescroller to be considered platformer. Ask Crash Bandicoot.

You can argue that those elements exist from other games not named CV. But the point is, these are the elements that are retained from some CV games.

Fact is games of the same genre borrow some elements from each other.

[NeoLiza]

While it is true that LoS has a few similarities to the originals, I think you're forgetting an important element. "Look" and "Feel".

I was talking to a friend about why people didn't like Shadow the Hedgehog despite having similar gameplay to previous sonic games (branching paths and shortcuts as well as high speed gameplay) while loving Sonic Colors which had the same thing. Here

people ascribe to look and feel ALOT when it comes to games. People have it in their mind that Sonic is a very colorful series that wasn't so "edgy". When you saw Shadow with a gun, I doubt many people were like "OMG TIGHT!" EVERYONE (me included) were like "oh dear, they're destroying the franchise and turning it into GTA". So when you see Sonic Colors, you think it looks fine. Then you go for gameplay next. It's unfortunate, but after Guilty Gear, SF3, and maybe even Arcana heart, I doubt anyone would be looking forward to KOFXI or Neo Wave because s-it looks old. Look and feel is the first thing people look for. If it looks nice or like their ideal view of a series, they drive interest toward it. Colors is basically what people have in mind for a Sonic game. So then they look at gameplay. You see shadow with a gun, in a franchise that only had you curling up in a fetal position to whoop some ass, you are instantly turned off. The trailers didn't help with it's edgy music that gives the feeling that Sega is "trying to hard". So you have a game that, unlike several games in the series having this dark and moody atmosphere, you don't see it as a Sonic game. I mean, SA2 had more "realistic" worlds to explore, but they were still bright and colorful. You only get 3 levels like that in Shadow, and they aren't even that good. Is it any wonder why people talk about specs and graphics these days? We don't look at a woman's personality before thinking she's the "one". We need 1. pretty face. 2. fat deposited in all the right places. 3. isn't a gold digger. See, superficiality comes first before actual qualities, especially in a country that ENCOURAGES you to look for looks as a TOP priority before anything else. so when it comes to a franchise that always had a certain look and feel to it, you're not gonna win arguments with people that want Sonic a certain way.

See, newer installments will usually have similarities to previous titles in the series. That is a given. Bomberman Act Zero also has the same gameplay of the original bomberman games. No one can debate that.

But Look and Feel play a much bigger part as to why people cling to or become alienated from a game or sequel. See, what do Shadow and Act Zero have in common? Well, besides having common staples from their respective franchises and newer gameplay elements (guns and third-person maze bombing) they look almost NOTHING like their previous installments. They feel like something completely different. That's the point most people have made or tried to make.

Castlevania for the last decade has had this extremely gothic feel to it which enhanced the experience of the franchise up until Portrait of Ruin. This became the staple feel of the series, and not many franchises could match it. It was unique to Castlevania. No, the NES games didn't have that gothic feel. Infact, the classic games didn't really have a particular feel. You just race through a spooky haunted castle to kill demons and finally Dracula. But see, the monsters you fought in all the castlevania games were all varied and incredibly unique. Yeah, you have skeletons, werewolves, and in some games, typical vampires, but you also had Bone Pillars, Medusa heads, and Cycloptic eyes. There was a lot of creativity when it came to the designs of the enemies. The games had creepy levels and enemies as well as bosses, but the music gave it a distinct and upbeat feeling despite the creepy aesthetic. The series had it's own touch of flair and uniqueness when it comes to overall atmosphere.

With LoS, you don't really see that anymore. From the traditional fan's point of view, they see a game that feels like it's trying to be (yes) Lord of the Rings or some big hollywood production in direct competition with God of War. With it's "epic" orchestrated soundtrack, dynamic camera angles and environments that look like souped up movie sets from a film in the middle ages style of fantasy, the game presents itself as something different entirely. It looks like a hollywood production and feels like it's trying to hard to be as epic as possible. It takes itself far too seriously in comparison to other CV titles (yes, I know there are a few moments in LoS where they attempted, and failed at, comedy). Previous CV's (while not being outright comedic) knew when to kick back and deliver something quirky from time to time. Some of the enemies in the games couldn't be taken seriously if given the time of day anyway (waiter skeletons and peeping eyes come to mind) as well as (restating) the music which really came out as less spooky and more upbeat. While this was common for all NES games at the time, the teams have never let go of that music, even going so far as to enhance them and create even more catchy tunes. Castlevania's music was quite possibly the most unique, upbeat, and damned addictive songs for a game about killing strange demons. LoS's music is uninspired and tries to sell the whole experience as "epic" and "big budget" but just comes off as forced and obnoxious. Castlevania was never trying to be an epic franchise, and while the stories were becoming more developed over time, you never get the sense that they were going overboard. They were all so simple to understand. And by simple, I mean "even a preschool student could get it". LoS goes out of it's way to present it's story as.. well, "epic". The game is going for "epic" to the point of absurdity that it ignores almost everything about Castlevania. We can go on and name similarities for the sake of debating that it is in-fact a Castlevania game. But when it comes right down to it, no Castlevania fan can truly feel right at home with a title that barely resembles what they easily identified as a Castlevania game. It looks and feels nothing like Castlevania at all. Even though it is supposed to be an origins game (How Dracula came to be) even LoI did that and managed to keep that particular look and feel of the series, even if the game itself wasn't great.

Expecting people to just outright accept LoS as a Castlevania title because of vague similarities to previous installments is like saying people should accept a Diet Coke because it's named Coke. Or that Deadpool in X-Men Origins is the Deadpool from the comics because he has red clothing and 2 blades on his person. Saying that it's a Castlevania game to people who have lived a breathed almost 2 decades of a series that had a particular style and flair to it is, in a way, pretentious. This is also why most fans didn't warm up to POR despite being an Igavania title. The look and feel was incredibly childish. From the anime artwork to the dialogue, even to the bosses themselves feeling like cliches from saturday morning episodes (I cringed when fighting that boss in the pyramid where she mind-controls Jonathan and you have to play Charlotte just to get passed her). The majority of people don't think of that game as much of a CV title either.

Now, in no way am I implying that this makes LoS a BAD game. And frankly, this is probably the reason why LoS got all of this last minute love in the first place. I noticed this pattern where gamers viciously attack purists for deriding a game for not being like the older titles. That's understandable. A game shouldn't be judged on how well it compares to older titles or other games in the genre. But at the same time, the game itself is flawed in several areas that make it too appetizing to do so anyway. Bland environments and level-design, repetitive combat, unnecessary Quick-Time events that seem to only pad out some "stages" (personally I hate QTEs. They are a cancer), dull music, poor art design, tedious light/dark magic system (Satan fight in particular became a choir) etc. doesn't (at least, to me) warrant the game much of a strong defense against criticism.

[Phil Belmont]

Castlevania Lords of Shadow Return to the sources, if you do not believe me, take a look at these picture comparaison I made

(click to show/hide)

Holy Warrior.


Horse Fight


God Bless Me.


In Front of Castle Doors. 


The Bridge.


The Ruined Forest


The Marsh.


Stairs to the Throne.


Return of Vampires ! I did not see a lot of Vampire in IGA Games.... (The First Picture is from Van Helsing)


Villagers.


Ruined Temple

And I could find a lot more examples....

[Ahasverus]

Why the hell was the above post voted down? Jeez

[Neobelmont]

Castlevania Lords of Shadow Return to the sources, if you do not believe me, take a look at these picture comparaison I made

(click to show/hide)

Holy Warrior.


Horse Fight


God Bless Me.


In Front of Castle Doors. 


The Bridge.


The Ruined Forest


The Marsh.


Stairs to the Throne.


Return of Vampires ! I did not see a lot of Vampire in IGA Games.... (The First Picture is from Van Helsing)


Villagers.


Ruined Temple

And I could find a lot more examples....

-4... no no no -3 now the old man , the old man looks like the old man damn. My mind is full of....

edit -2 now

[Sumac]

First of, let me apologize for taken so long for responding, but I was busy with different stuff and I needed clear mind to wright my opinion.
Also, I believe, as always, my opinion will offend some people, but given how things are and how those people are, its inevitable and honestly I don't care about it. I hope those people will understand that it is my personal opinion and in no way I am attempting to pass it as "truth in the last instance" or something alike. Not that it helped in the past.
Ok, now, commencing beating of dead horse.
 

Castlevania for the last decade has had this extremely gothic feel to it which enhanced the experience of the franchise up until Portrait of Ruin. This became the staple feel of the series, and not many franchises could match it. This became the staple feel of the series, and not many franchises could match it. It was unique to Castlevania. It was unique to Castlevania.

Sorry, but several things:
1) DOS has nothing to do with gothic style. It's pretty much as cartoonish as POR both in art and levels.
2) There were several games that haven't gothic style, that were released after SOTN: CV64 / LOD, COTM, Legends.
3) Gothic style was one of the styles, that series used throughout the years. And there are much more staples in the Castlevania than only style.

No, the NES games didn't have that gothic feel. Infact, the classic games didn't really have a particular feel. You just race through a spooky haunted castle to kill demons and finally Dracula.

Wrong.
NES games, had its own style and atmosphere. Especially the first two entries, since the third one was more gameplay oriented. It is because of this Castlevania didn't become just "another of those 8 bit funny games". Besides, you saying it as if there weren't games between NES trilogy and SOTN, that it is not the case here. And those games were very atmospheric, SCV4 in particular. Lack of the gothic atmosphere doesn't mean that it is not have any atmosphere at all and that it is not a Castlevania game.

But see, the monsters you fought in all the castlevania games were all varied and incredibly unique. Yeah, you have skeletons, werewolves, and in some games, typical vampires, but you also had Bone Pillars, Medusa heads, and Cycloptic eyes. There was a lot of creativity when it came to the designs of the enemies. The games had creepy levels and enemies as well as bosses, but the music gave it a distinct and upbeat feeling despite the creepy aesthetic. The series had it's own touch of flair and uniqueness when it comes to overall atmosphere.

First of, not all games have all those aspects intact. For example, most of the "metroidvanias" didn't featured creative and creepy levels. They maybe were visually beautiful (starting from AOS they've become looking pretty cartoonish), but in terms of the gameplay they were uterly casual and boring. In a way, creative levels were heavily featured pretty much only in classic games. The same goes for the music. I wouldn't call LOI or CV64 soundtracks "upbeat" for example. LOI's was mostly pompous, but far from usual "pam-pam-param".
While LOS had approached many of those things very differently, it managed to preserve some aspects of the series, mostly related to the classic games. Feeling and atmosphere. Levels are hard to compare, since it's a different dimension, but I think they were closer to the classic games.

With LoS, you don't really see that anymore. From the traditional fan's point of view, they see a game that feels like it's trying to be (yes) Lord of the Rings or some big hollywood production in direct competition with God of War. With it's "epic" orchestrated soundtrack, dynamic camera angles and environments that look like souped up movie sets from a film in the middle ages style of fantasy, the game presents itself as something different entirely. It looks like a hollywood production and feels like it's trying to hard to be as epic as possible. It takes itself far too seriously in comparison to other CV titles (yes, I know there are a few moments in LoS where they attempted, and failed at, comedy).

I beg to differ.
As someone's said quite a time ago, LOS is essentially screen version of the Castlevania. Essetially Castlevania: The Movie. While, I am partially agree with this assesment I don't see this as something that have robed LOS of its Castlevania identity. It is a different approach to the series ideas and I don't see absolutely nothing wrong with it. On contrary, without a doubt, it is very useful to look at the familliar thing in the completely new light, as it the case here. As it was the case with SOTN for example, to a lesser degree. While I don't see LOS becoming a new Castlevania standard, just because of the cost of such big projects and overall whining controversy surrounding the titles, but in a sense it is very close to what SOTN once did. Took an established formula and warped it into something new.

As for seriousness, I think the series was never overly comedic (LOI in particular was quite dark) and I see LOS's take on Castlevania's mythos as a logical step forward. I was elated by it, since last games in the series like DOS, POR and Judgement turned series into something completely alien. DOS and POR became a cartoonish parody and completely butchered atmosphere of the series and Judgement made it into freak show. OOE amended this problems, but it was a bit too late. For me, seriousness is better, rather than comedic show.

Previous CV's (while not being outright comedic) knew when to kick back and deliver something quirky from time to time. Some of the enemies in the games couldn't be taken seriously if given the time of day anyway (waiter skeletons and peeping eyes come to mind) as well as (restating) the music which really came out as less spooky and more upbeat. While this was common for all NES games at the time, the teams have never let go of that music, even going so far as to enhance them and create even more catchy tunes. Castlevania's music was quite possibly the most unique, upbeat, and damned addictive songs for a game about killing strange demons.

Personally, funny enemies was one of the first things that I didn't like about last "metroidvanias". While the series had its fair share of qurky enemies, "metroidvanias" went into this territory too far, creating outright ridiculous monsters, that wasn't so much funny, but mostly stupid and out of place.

LoS's music is uninspired and tries to sell the whole experience as "epic" and "big budget" but just comes off as forced and obnoxious. Castlevania was never trying to be an epic franchise, and while the stories were becoming more developed over time, you never get the sense that they were going overboard. They were all so simple to understand. And by simple, I mean "even a preschool student could get it".

I think LOS music was attuned to what the game wanted to be - epic, Holywood-like game. As for Castlevania never being epic. Well, before SOTN it never was a fullfleshed RPG with gothic atmosphere and before CV64 it never was 3D game which heavily on ambient atmosphere music. Everything happens for the first time, and seeing it only as negative thing is quite shorsighted, I believe. New developers has right to change the series as they see fit, even if some people will be against it. And as Mercury Steam presented it, they changed things, because they had a clear idea what they want to do with their Castlevanias. I respect that and believe they have right to do so.

LoS goes out of it's way to present it's story as.. well, "epic". The game is going for "epic" to the point of absurdity that it ignores almost everything about Castlevania. We can go on and name similarities for the sake of debating that it is in-fact a Castlevania game. But when it comes right down to it, no Castlevania fan can truly feel right at home with a title that barely resembles what they easily identified as a Castlevania game. It looks and feels nothing like Castlevania at all. Even though it is supposed to be an origins game (How Dracula came to be) even LoI did that and managed to keep that particular look and feel of the series, even if the game itself wasn't great.

I felt home with LOS, even though I played almost every single game in the series. While not everywhere, the game certainly felt like a Castlevania game to me in many regards. What I presume to be a core basis of the series, was present in Lords more than in AOS, DOS or POR, IMO. Maybe I am wrong fan, who knows...

As for the stories...well, I wouldn't say that previous Castlevania games didn't try to have elaborated stories. They did it more than ones, especially during IGA's tenure over series. However, they felt simple because IGA, while having his own strong points, is an atrocious storyteller, who created even more plotholes while trying to connect and clear his own vision of timeline. So, it's no wonder that LOS could come across as alien in regards of storyline, since it is the first conscious attempt to create a detailed and truly elaborated story for the Castlevania game without stepping on its own toes and butchering pre-established continuty. I don't see this attempt as a bad thing either. Castlevania deserved such attempt afterall.

Expecting people to just outright accept LoS as a Castlevania title because of vague similarities to previous installments is like saying people should accept a Diet Coke because it's named Coke.

While I understand reaction of some fans, as I said before, for me LOS felt like a Castlevania game and I don't see nothing wrong with people naturally accepting it as a Castlevania title. I have more questions while people think about DOS and POR like a more Castlevania games rather than LOS. They have a lot of superficial similarities to the previous titles, but in the end don't feel like Castlevania titles mostly.

[joethebro34]

I'm 34 years old and have been playing various Castlevania games since The original Castlevania on the NES. I've played and beat Castlevania(hard), Simon's Quest(hard in a different way), CV3(very hard), SCV4(not that hard), CV64 and Legacy of Darkness(average games and sometimes hard), Curse of Darkness(hard if you are trying for 100%), and LOS(pretty hard). As a seasoned and somewhat obsessed Castlevania fan I don't know where all of the hate for LOS comes from. I think it is completely bad a$$!. Great graphics, great music, and the combat gets progressively more intricate as the game goes on. I admit they snatched the Titan battles from SOC, but they sure as hell didn't do a bad job of it. The combat strategies to be employed are much more complex than GOW's and the game is about 4 times longer too. I guess you can tell I am a LOS fan, but I am ultimately a Castlevania fan in general.

[Inccubus]

I'm also 34 and have been playing the series since the beginning as well. On the other hand, I find that LoS does little to try and keep the look and feel of the series it is supposed to be a part of. The music is obnoxiously "Hollywood" and completely forgettable. I found the game play to be repetitive and boring because of the increasing complexity of the combat system that makes dispatching enemies a chore. The same complexity that makes fighting a chore also serves to degrade the usefulness of the subweapons in a way not dissimilar to SCV4. It's just trying way too hard to compete with GoW and that comes off as the game simply ripping off a combat system that is perceived to be generally popular. The same goes for the Titan battles which are little more than a shadow of what they were in SotC. All of this is further compounded by the inclusion of all the wall-shimmying. Not only does it force a comparison with PoP, but it is badly executed as well. Do players really need to be shown every single ledge that can be shimmyied on? While I get the idea of this being the fairytale that set's up a new Castlevania universe, it didn't have to look so literally like a fairytale. In the end the game get's a lot of flack for not seeming much like a CV game because of all the things it tries to implement from other established series while only superficially including marginal things that are meant to appease fans but really just ticks many of us off that much more for doing things in a manner that seems half-assed. By no means is LoS a bad game, but it falls far short of living up to the legacy of the previous games which it owes some of it's success to simply by having the Castlevania moniker in it's title.

[Flame]

Oh goody this topic is back.

I'm 21, have played since- well I dont remember what the latest game was when I started playing, but ive played most of the games, and I found that LoS was trying very much to have 3 distinct flavors for each of the 3 titular Lords. It's problem, is it starts with the tolkienesque forest and ruins one, which happens to take place largely in daytime, and is one of the more featured areas of the game in demos and trailers and such. And so many people are disillusioned with their non-gothic imagery and scenery, no matter how nice it looks or typical "ancient ruins in a castlevania game" it looks, until they reach the second area, which is more in line with that And after that, the third act is more abstract "hell" like in visage. Which is fine, a few CV games have gone that route, most notably DoS which literally, went to hell for the final area. (pentagram map formation no less!) The music is epic movielike, and thats fine with me, The game is beautifully cinematic, but a problem I can admit is the reusing of tracks as ambiance, rather than area specific. It gets repetitive after a while. But I cant really dock too many points for that.
Combat was fine to me, much more fluid and responsive than Leon was, and much more versatile than CV64. some moves were direct either copies from LoI, or from other moves or concepts, like the circular chain, or the holy cross, etc etc, one could go on with similarities but thats not the point.

I didnt mind the titans since there were only 3 in all, and not too badly spaced, with the last one being pretty memorable in particular. levels could have been a bit less restrictive, ("let me jump down, dont force me to climb down." or "What do you mean I cant jump over this chunk of ruins?")

overall, I liked LoS, though i suppose I can see some of the issues some people have with it, particularly since castlevania is defined by different things for different people.