Topic: Progress Vs Stagnation -- Classics and Castleroids

[cecil-kain]

Most of the time you see these "best game evar" topics, SotN is generally the standard by which all are measured --and for good reason.  But about a month ago, a fellow dungeonite *MarquisX* raised an interesting question.

..SotN did start this for all these other (Castleroid) games. But Castlevania 1 started it ALL. That game hardly gets kudos. Why? I actually think the original Castlevania is more fun and more groundbreaking than SotN. Over 20 years later...

This led me to respond..

You struck a resonant chord here..  Not so much the apples/oranges comparing a classic game to a castleroid but...  How is it that SotN originated the castleroids and ends up worshiped, and yet CV1 originated the classics and ends up eclipsed by other classics.  Now that's topic-worthy.

That was when I set out to do the recent polls.  I decided to survey the Classic and Castleroid games separately, to weed out genre biases and ensure fair comparisons.  CV1 would be judged and ranked against similar classics, while SotN would be judged and ranked against similar castleroids.  Then the polls can be compared for additional insights.  A great deal of these results may seem obvious, but there's also a great deal to be learned by reading between the lines --so without further adieu...

[cecil-kain]

Classics Poll Analysis

------------------------Voter Stats-------------------------

36 fans surveyed x 2 vote limit = 72 potential votes
Actual votes tallied = 64
Fans using 2 votes = 28
Fans using 1 vote = 8

For many of us, choosing just one favorite isn't very fair; so the poll allowed each participant the option of casting 2 votes.  By spreading the love, it becomes easier to see the appreciation for games that might otherwise loose a large number of votes to fleeting emotional whims. It seems that 8 of those surveyed were not at all conflicted in their decision, and boldly cast one vote each --effectively choking support for less worthy games.

Game Ranking Formula
# votes / 36 fans surveyed = % supported

-------------------------The Winners------------------------

19 for Super Castlevania 4 -SNES (53% supported)
16 for Castlevania 3: Dracula's Curse -NES (44% supported)

For about 3 weeks the top spot was hotly contested, going back and forth between these 2 excellent games.  Just as I was about to close the polls a few days ago, Super Castlevania 4 suddenly surged ahead, so I waited a little longer to see if it held.  It might have changed back again if I left the poll open indefinitely, but all good things...

--------------------A distant 3rd, but...-------------------

9 for Dracula X Chronicles -PSP (25% supported)
5 for Rondo of Blood --PC Engine (14% supported)

There was some talk at one point about my judgment to separate these 2 games.  I had decided that there were enough differences between them to warrant the separation --and I stand by that decision.  But a fair argument can be made about Rondo's inclusion *as bonus content* in the Dracula X Chronicles, so let's entertain that point of view.

14 for Dracula X Chronicles + Rondo of Blood (39% supported)

Presuming the voters would approve the union, the combined support still falls short of Dracula's Curse --leaving Richter's adventure locked in 3rd place.

Personally I'm very surprised the X Chronicles didn't fare any better; I'm inclined to believe the PSP hurt the game's overall exposure.  Whereas Super Castlevania 4 was very widely circulated, on a very popular system, a very long time ago.

------------------------The Loosers-------------------------

0 for Castlevania Adventure -GB (0% supported)
0 for Haunted Castle -Arcade (0% supported)

There's a pretty big difference between not supporting a game because its crap, and not supporting a game because you've never played it.  But getting zer0 votes *on a fansite like this one* is a pretty strong indication of both.  I'm sure Order of Shadows would have embraced this sad little group...

---------------------The Underachievers---------------------

1 for Vampire Killer -MSX (3% supported)
1 for Dracula X -SNES (3% supported)
1 for Chronicles -PS1 (3% supported)
1 for Legends -GB (3% supported)
3 for Bloodlines -Genesis (8% supported)
3 for Belmont's Revenge -GB (8% supported)

Where is the love?  While I think a few games definitely belong in this group, I'm shocked to see a couple very good ones getting shafted.  Some of those surveyed lamented the 2 vote limit early on, and I think it shows here.  With 13 games to choose from, perhaps 3 votes per person might have balanced this out a bit better.  Oh well, what's done is done...

---------------------Middle of the Road---------------------

5 for Castlevania -NES (14% supported)
5 for Rondo of Blood --PC Engine (14% supported)

These 2 came in just slightly above the average*.  This seems a fitting place for the NES grand-daddy of the series, but again, Rondo's support may have been skewed by the presence of the Dracula X Chronicles.  I'm still really surprised by how many great games didn't make the cut here.  I mean, 8 out of 13 classics below average*? --wow.

*64 votes / 13 games = average distribution of the vote.

--------------------Preference by Console-------------------
# votes / 64 votes total = % of vote

21 for NES (33% of vote)
20 for SNES (31% of vote)
9 for PSP (14% of vote)
5 for PC Engine (8% of vote)
4 for Game Boy (6% of vote)
3 for Genesis (5% of vote)
1 for PS1 (2% of vote)
1 for MSX (2% of vote)
0 for Arcade (0% of vote)
 
45 for Domestic (70% of vote)
13 for Portables (20% of vote)
6 for Foreign (9% of vote)

45 for Nintendo Systems (70% of vote)
19 for all the rest (30% of vote)

Not many surprises here.  Domestic Consoles have a clear advantage, and so does Nintendo --apparently.

---------------------Preference by Era----------------------

22 for games released 1986-1990 (34% of vote)
31 for games released 1991-1995 (48% of vote)
11 for games released 1996-present (17% of vote)

1991-1995 comes out on top?  That seems to make 16-bit the era of choice.  Again, no surprise.  After all, we seem to agree that Super Castlevania 4 is one of the finest works of the SNES VS Genesis heyday.

[cecil-kain]

Castleroid Poll Analysis

------------------------Voter Stats-------------------------

34 fans surveyed x 2 vote limit = 68 potential votes
Actual votes tallied = 57
Fans using 2 votes = 23
Fans using 1 vote = 11
Violations by a Dark Priest = 2

For many of us, choosing just one favorite isn't very fair; so the poll allowed each participant the option of casting 2 votes.  By spreading the love, it becomes easier to see the appreciation for games that might otherwise loose a large number of votes to fleeting emotional whims.  It seems 11 of those surveyed cast only one vote --effectively choking support for less worthy games.

And to the 2 violated by a Dark Priest --my condolences...

Game Ranking Formula
# votes / 34 voters suveryed = % supported

-------------------------The Winner-------------------------

22 for Castlevania: Symphony of the Night -PS1 (65% supported)

This should be no surprise.  Critics and fans alike have praised this game since its release way back in 1997.  If you haven't played this game yet --shame on you.  Do yourself a favor, and go find it, now.

----------------------A dead heat, but...-------------------

10 for Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow -GBA (29% supported)
10 for Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia -DS (29% supported)

This contest has been really fun to watch, but sadly remains unresolved.  In my opinion Aria deserves the extra credit for standing the test of time *6 years* while Ecclesia is still swimming in the afterglow of its release about 6 months ago.  It may be interesting to start a Vs topic on these 2 games about a year from now.

---------------------The Underachievers---------------------

1 for Harmony of Dissonance -GBA (3% supported)
1 for Dawn of Sorrow -DS (3% supported)
2 for Circle of the Moon -GBA  (6% supported)
3 for Portrait of Ruin -DS (9% supported)

I suspect that Ecclesia may have stolen a little thunder here.  With only 8 Castleroid games, it was easier to spread the love.  Every game got at least one vote.

----------------Middle of the Road----------------

6 for Simon's Quest -NES (18%)

Now this one is quite a pleasant surprise.  I struggled a bit, including Simon's Quest in the Castleroid Poll.  It's really a prototype for the whole genre, but clearly belongs with its non-linear peers.  Actually all 3 NES games got more support than I was expecting from these polls...

--------------------Preference by Console-------------------
# votes / 57 votes total = % of vote

22 for PS1 (39% of vote)
14 for DS (25% of vote)
13 for GBA (23% of vote)
6 for NES (11% of vote)

28 for Home Console (49% of vote)
27 for Portables (47% of vote)

33 for Nintendo Systems (58% of vote)
22 for Sony PS1 (39% of vote)

2 violated by a Dark Priest (4% of vote)

Interesting.  With 6 out of 8 Castelroids being portable, the home consoles still win a slim majority.  However Nintendo's brand also rules the day, in spite of SotN's victory.  Simon's Quest made all the difference here.

-----------------------Support by Era-----------------------

6 for games released 1986-1995 (11% of vote)
22 for games released 1996-2000 (39% of vote)
14 for games released 2001-2005 (25% of vote)
13 for games released 2006-present (23% of vote)

Well, it seems the Castleroid era is holding its ground, but yawning...

[cecil-kain]

Classic Vs Castleroid Comparisons

-----------------------Voter Trends-------------------------

Total Fans Surveyed
36 for Classic
34 for Castleroid

Fans Using 2 Votes
28 for Classic (78%)
23 for Castleroid (68%)

Fans using 1 vote --choked less worthy games
8 for Classic (22%)
11 for Castleroid (32%)

Violations by a Dark Priest --antivote?
0 for Classic
2 for Castleroid

Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing for certain how many fans participated in both polls.  There's a natural presumption, that Castlevania fans would vote in both polls, but that may not be the case here.  Clearly, the Classics poll ended up with 2 more fans surveyed than the Castleroids.  Classic fans certainly had a harder time picking just one favorite; 78% used both votes to spread the love.  Meanwhile 32% of the Castleroid fans decisively choked support for less worthy games.  In addition, the only 2 violations by a Dark Priest occurred on the Castleroid poll, and could signal an anti-vote or perhaps an anti-Castleroid sentiment.

------------------Ranking without genre bias----------------

Symphony of the Night (65% supported)
Super Castlevania 4 (53% supported)
Dracula's Curse (44% supported)

Aria of Sorrow (29% supported)
Order of Ecclesia (29% supported)
Dracula X Chronicles (25% supported)

Simon's Quest (18% supported)
Castlevania -NES (14% supported)
Rondo of Blood PC Engine (14% supported)

Portrait of Ruin (9% supported)
Belmont's Revenge (8% supported)
Bloodlines (8% supported)
Circle of the Moon (6% supported)

Then there's all the rest with less than 5% support...

-----------------------In conclusion------------------------

Both polls show overwhelming evidence that the best days of 2-D Castlevania are far, far behind us.  Only  31%* of the combined vote support games released after SotN.  If fact, the top 3 games were all released over 10 years ago; in my opinion this is a sign of stagnation --not through the eyes of casual types, but the hardcore fans.  It's time to admit they heyday of 2-D gaming is long over.  If Castlevania has a future --that future will be in 3-D.

*38 out 121 votes

[RichterB]

First off, HUGE props go out to Cecil-Kain for this CV analysis, which, IMO, is the most interesting, balanced, and possibly insightful look at Castlevania in years!

Now, in reply to your conclusions:

That was a statement of revelation when you noted your conversation that CV1 does not get as much respect as SotN. It basically means that the series has been losing steam since after SotN, whereas it was rising after CV1. (This could be controversial to say, but it may be because the Castleroid formula is an alternative format--like Simon's Quest--meant to add some variety, but not be its own genre. That's why it's hard to top SotN, because it started so strongly, whereas the Castleroid formula's sister-series, Metroid, built up to the greatness of Super Metroid, but likewise has struggled to create a superior 2D entry since).

Regardless, I've always felt that when it comes to Classic CV, the heyday was 1991-1995, which saw the release of Castlevania IV, Bloodlines, Rondo, Dracula X SNES, and Belmont's Revenge. All of those I still like (or would like) to play to this day. On top of that, if you skew it 1 to 2 years in either direction, it includes the highly-ranked Dracula's Curse (1990) and Castleroid fav SotN (1997) as outliers! If you did a graph, that means the high points for both Classic and Castleroid converge during a certain time period.

With all that said, it does apparently mean that the best 2-D Castlevania is behind us. That's *theoretically* speaking, though. If a 2-D Castlevania came out with really dynamic gameplay and interactive/multi-path levels, you could have a 2-D game on par with the most-touted entries. However, given the trend of minimal changes, overall flatter levels, and more RPG/magic elements, it doesn't seem likely a revolutionary 2-D Castlevania that can move past Classic/Castleroid is on the horizon. (A shame!)

Therefore, the frontier of Castlevania's future is at least by 50% determined by what happens in 3D. Unfortunately, the signs there have been bleak. The N64 games were ambitious in using 3D space, but didn't sit right with everyone and weren't able to reach their full potential due to development time restrictions and technical limitations. Meanwhile, the PS2 entries had some interesting combat, but became bogged down in dungeon-crawling, flat level design, and/or strange Pokemon-esque RPG elements. Since then, Judgment was a dip into the left-field curiosity of fighting games, and Castlevania: The Arcade, while looking phenomenal, doesn't really seem like the future of Castlevania.

If 3D Castlevania is going to work, it has to pull the best elements of the N64 and PS2 entries while ratcheting up the quality, depth, and Castlevania-ness from the series' history by 100%. It is a tall order. One can only hope for the best, because the series has been gradually stagnating.

[darkwzrd4]

I was a brilliant idea and the analysis was well done.

[True Sorrow]

First off, there's a few things that kind of bothered me about this thing. Some were with the games chosen, and some with the analysis itself.

22 for PS1 (39% of vote)
14 for DS (25% of vote)
13 for GBA (23% of vote)
6 for NES (11% of vote)

28 for Home Console (49% of vote)
27 for Portables (47% of vote)

33 for Nintendo Systems (58% of vote)
22 for Sony PS1 (39% of vote)

Interesting.  With 6 out of 8 Castelroids being portable, the home consoles still win a slim majority.  However Nintendo's brand also rules the day, in spite of SotN's victory.  Simon's Quest made all the difference here.

6 for games released 1986-1995 (11% of vote)
22 for games released 1996-2000 (39% of vote)
14 for games released 2001-2005 (25% of vote)
13 for games released 2006-present (23% of vote)

Well, it seems the Castleroid era is holding its ground, but yawning...

Starting off with some interpretation of the explorational CV games' results, what we have here is clear "evidence" that the home consoles are doing better in this regard. But, when you think about it, all the consoles have are two games, one of which is usually considered the best in the series. With such a huge advantage with just one game, there really isn't anything that can be said about this part of it. Same goes for where they're divided between consoles.

Both polls show overwhelming evidence that the best days of 2-D Castlevania are far, far behind us.  Only  31%* of the combined vote support games released after SotN.  If fact, the top 3 games were all released over 10 years ago; in my opinion this is a sign of stagnation --not through the eyes of casual types, but the hardcore fans.  It's time to admit they heyday of 2-D gaming is long over.  If Castlevania has a future --that future will be in 3-D.

*38 out 121 votes

This here was probably THE thing that bothered me the most. When you've got more than half of the votes concentrated on games released almost exclusively before SotN, then of course you're going to get that result! The fact that about half of the votes went into one of the polls doesn't say anything about any kind of stagnation, but rather about the fact that there were two polls.

Thus I personally cannot find anything right in that paragraph--sorry

0 for Castlevania Adventure -GB (0% supported)
[...]
1 for Chronicles -PS1 (3% supported)
1 for Legends -GB (3% supported)
3 for Bloodlines -Genesis (8% supported)
3 for Belmont's Revenge -GB (8% supported)

1 for Harmony of Dissonance -GBA (3% supported)
[...]
3 for Portrait of Ruin -DS (9% supported)

Ok, this is just me criticising the community as a whole, but these results actually disgust me. Adventure got no vote, whatsoever, whilst Legends actually has a loyal fan? And only three for BR and Bloodlines? And just one for Chronicles?! Those are some of the very best games! HoD deserves WAY more than just one vote, especially considering PoR got a whole three. What this would suggest is that PoR is better than HoD.

But, if I think about it, I didn't vote for Chronicles, Adventure, Bloodlines OR Harmony, despite the fact that they're VERY high up there! Which leads me to my next point...

For many of us, choosing just one favorite isn't very fair; so the poll allowed each participant the option of casting 2 votes.  By spreading the love, it becomes easier to see the appreciation for games that might otherwise loose a large number of votes to fleeting emotional whims.

While finding small nitpicks can be entertaining for a while, my beef with this isn't in the details: It's in the principle.

When handling such large groups, two votes per person just isn't enough. Well, voting overall is very misleading in this case! Reading through the comments, I saw what people wanted. I saw people rooting for games that they couldn't vote, but wanted to see get far regardless of that. I saw the human side of it: The side that limited statistics so often mess up.

The first thing I thought of to remedy this would be for people to rank all of the games they've played from the worst to the best. But, that would be really misleading, as each space between games would be so differing. So, what I'd even more like to see is for everyone to give each game its own rating, preferably from 1 to 5, with a clear distinction on each one, e.g. 5=Awesome, 4=Very good, 3=good, 2=bad and 1=very bad. By giving the numbers specific meanings you'd be getting rid of all the people who just don't know how to rate properly, saying a game sucks extremely badly, and then giving it a 3/5.

Of course, what this means is that you couldn't use automated software for this unless you decided to make a seperate poll for each game, which would just clutter the forum, so you'd have to go over each post on its own and collect the data yourself. This would take much more effort, but I personally believe it would give off much more acceptable results.

But, if it makes you feel any better, I have to say that, aside from the conclusion, the analysis of the given data is well done, there's no doubt about that.

[Alutwon]

One question about rating True Sorrow. Would this rating be based upon our personal liking of each game or what in fact is better in each game.

Example

I prefer Aria but Dawn did everything Aria did but better.

[True Sorrow]

That would probably be in terms of actually liking the games.

Also, Dawn did NOT do everything better than Aria. For one, the art, dialogue and storyline were all horrible. Same goes for the music (that's debatable, though). The level designs and drop rates are also ridiculous.

But, bottom line is, whether you had it based on personal opinion or solid "fact", it'd have to be on a solid, pre-determined scale.

[DoctaMario]

Sorrow, I see what you're saying, but it makes things more complicated than necessary.

I think you have to take into account the average age of this board. If you were to do the same poll on GameFAQS or at the Chapel, I'm sure the results would be different.

Still, I think there's something to be said for this. A lot of people seem to get behind more of the classic games than the newer ones. I'll admit, I have a harder time getting into the newer ones because there isn't enough new stuff presented. It's like, a couple new things placed over a bunch of stuff we've already seen/done.

The older games had the benefit of changing technology. Konami really took advantage of the capabilities of the SNES, Genesis, PC Engine, etc. when they came out and as the games progressed, they got a facelift. Now, we get the same old skeletons every game which is boring. I don't know that they really push the boundaries anymore like they used to. But I'd be hard pressed to say that the newer games are more tightly designed than the older ones. The good ideas don't get enough time and space to breathe and end up playing second fiddle to the same old same old ideas that we've had since SoTN. Yes, the mechanics of the older games were similar at their core, but there was enough new stuff to make it feel like it wasn't the same game you'd played previously.

[cecil-kain]

In Reply To #7

Quote from: cecil-kain on April 24, 2009, 11:16:04 AM
Both polls show overwhelming evidence that the best days of 2-D Castlevania are far, far behind us.

[True Sorrow]

The support for games released 1986-1997 is clearly disproportionate to those released 1998-2009.

[DoctaMario]

It...doesn't work...that way...!

What you're doing is comparable to asking people what their favourite types of pizzas are, and what their favourite types of burgers are, and, provided people would almost exclusively choose hamburgers as their favourite types of burgers, use that of information to show that people like pizzas more because there's a wider spread of favourites there! It is in no way comparable!

So, I'm going to be frank here: Your conclusion is just...wrong. The explorational poll showed 1 distinct favourite, whereas the classic one showed 2 distinct favourites. That doesn't mean that people like the classic one more. It just means they're not as decisive about the classic ones. Hell, I'd wager that if you did a similar poll with all of them, AoS and probably OoE would turn up bigger than CVIII and SCVIV.

With just those two polls, looking at the bigger picture really isn't possible.

But they're all Castlevania games. They all fall under the same umbrella. I doubt there would be anyone here at this forum who hasn't played any of the more recent games at all. And I doubt that AoS and OoE would draw more than SCVIV. O_o

[Saner]

well its clear the SOTN style works better these days.   

OOE style is great too, but maybe if they link the areas like CVII did, then we'd have a more winning formula.

but in a way, I like the SOTN style because it makes the castles the focus and bigger and stuff. 

but for a CV with so many areas, OOE did have a very impressive castle, especially compared to CVII's lame "castle"

[PFG9000]

It's really a pretty simple answer.  CV1 started things off, and the series built on it from there.  Two more NES titles came out.  SNES, Genesis, PCE, and other platforms that were more powerful than the NES got their entries.

But with the Castleroids, it's just the opposite.  SotN came out, but from there, the series moved to other formats that were less powerful.  There weren't even any other installments on the Playstation (Chronicles was a port and doesn't count).  The GBA and DS could only compete in terms of gameplay, which is often overshadowed by the more obvious things like graphics and music - neither of which could rival SotN in any game after, except for DXC, which was of course a ClassicVania.  While the PS2 outings were more Castleroid than Classic, they were also 3D and had to fight an uphill battle as a result.

I have absolutely no doubt that if Aria and OoE were released on the PSX or PS2, they would be far more highly ranked.