Topic: SomaCruz90 plays through "old-school" CVs, watch and laugh at his pain

[thernz]

Personally, I don't think the controls of the classicvanias should be all that criticized when compared to the Metroidvanias. imo the later metroidvanias (the DS ones, mainly) have started to feel much too floaty with little sense of weight. And besides that, the classicvanias have their level designs built around the characters' limited abilities. It rarely feels cheap that you're playing a guy who weighs a tonne. You can see it this in how easy the games got when they started having freer controls without modifying the enemy designs to adapt with this new ease in player control.

[Valtiel]

It's probably one of those 'guess you had to be there things'.  Like when you complained about the mode7.  Yeah, they were trying to wow you back then.  Guess what though, that's what they do today.  A large part of this hobby is about "oooh the pretty".  Why else would you think the graphics such crap?  It's because you have in your mind references to game that to you look amazing. But, that's how we all are, welcome to the club   . Back then, the mode7 was in fact mind blowing, as was a lot of CVIV (music was some of best in series imo).

Exactly. I remember people's reaction to Rondo of Blood's graphics - those were insane for the time. F-Zero looks like a seizure-inducing mess today, but back then people would come to your place to see you play.
As today we notice the polygon counts and the incredible textures of LoS, back then people were amazed by how "three dimensional" the mushrooms looked in the latest SNES Mario game.

[SomaCruz90]

You're right about 3d not aging as well as the 2d ones. Games like Chrono Trigger and Yoshi's Island still look amazing, while PS1 titles like Final Fantasy 7 and Tomb Raider look totally awful and primitive. Similarly, games that focused on great art direction like Wind Waker or Viewtiful Joe are still wonderful looking titles, and will probably stay that way for years to come. Fluid sprite animation is always impressive to me, no matter what year or console its on. I could watch SotN's Alucard walk all day.

And the problem I had with the Mode 7 room wasn't that it tried to wow the gamers, but that seem to be its only focus. The only gameplay you really get is hanging awkwardly with your whip and easily smacking some medusa heads. I thought they could have done something really special and innovative with that, but it falls short. Similarly, the rotating barrel room had the same feeling for me. Yeah, the background is moving, but it doesn't affect you one bit. You still just moving on an incredibly linear path left to right, smacking a few skeletons. Excuse me as I stifle a yawn. I hoped we would get something like Yoshi's Island Mode 7 effects, where if taste one of the Fuzzys, the screen starts become disorienting and crazy, and platforming becomes trickier.

And its true that the Classicvanias are built around your limitations which I guess gets more to the core of why I don't particularly love any of their entries, in that I don't really like that slow, methodical pacing and feel. I'm adventuring through Castlevania, this should be exciting! But instead its a slow plodding walk through Dracula's minions.

[OmegaDL50]

You also need to understand that Super Castlevania IV was a launch period title for the SNES (Both the console and game being released in 1991) when the Super FX technology was extremely new and not explored to it's potential yet

Yoshi's Island did not come out until 4 full years later until 1995 towards the very end of the SNES life when there was plenty of time for software developers to explore the possibilities of the hardware and what could be done with it.

That's like comparing the primitive 3D of a launch PSX title like Tekken 1 or Ridge Racer to something to much later such as Metal Gear Solid or Gran Turismo 2.

This can be used for nearly any console by example in that launch titles not looking nearly as impressive or being refined as late gen titles for a particular console.

[SomaCruz90]

^That is correct. At least it has an excuse for being so lackluster :p

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

I think the creator of this thread is just acting stupidly picky.  Why not pick on the lack of buttons on the NES (oh no it has two buttons only, how cheap) or the lack of colors on the tiles (excuse me while I yawn at the three-color tile palette).

I think rather than ripping on the games a la Angry VideoGame Nerd (excuse me while I yawn at your attempt... see? I can do a mild attempt at having contempt too), you should focus on the games with the mindset that existed at the games' creation.  Like someone previously said, of course Mode7 is going to look primitive by today's standards, but back then it was the closest to seeing '3D' environments, etc.

Have some respect for the titles you're running through.

[SomaCruz90]

I think the creator of this thread is just acting stupidly picky.  Why not pick on the lack of buttons on the NES (oh no it has two buttons only, how cheap) or the lack of colors on the tiles (excuse me while I yawn at the three-color tile palette).

I think rather than ripping on the games a la Angry VideoGame Nerd (excuse me while I yawn at your attempt... see? I can do a mild attempt at having contempt too), you should focus on the games with the mindset that existed at the games' creation.  Like someone previously said, of course Mode7 is going to look primitive by today's standards, but back then it was the closest to seeing '3D' environments, etc.

Have some respect for the titles you're running through.

This is an idiotic way to look at what I'm doing. Now its MY fault because I find faults in games you see as great(nay, Masterpieces)? Please.

Yes the little Mode 7 thing might have been cool in oh say, 1992. But this is 2010, and now it looks archaic and gimmicky. The best video games stand the test of time. I can play Sonic 3 and Knuckles(a game that came out one year later in '93, btw) today and have a lot of fun with it. Between its excellent level design, great mix of platforming-exploration-utilizing the physics engine, awesome music, and perfect controls, it stands up to anything that comes out today. Quite frankly, I don't think SCV4 does.

Lets go with another NES example, 1988's Mega Man 2. I love that game, even today. Mega Man doesn't have hops like Mario, he carries weight to the touch, but he's just floaty enough that all his jumps are managable and just the right side of challenging. The music is awesome, and because the game values art direction above all, it still looks great in that retro-chic way.

MegaMan 2 - Bubble Man (Bubble Man stage. Note the awesome music and fun art direction)

Or we can just stick with the Castlevania series and point towards Symphony of the Night. The odd PS1-3d graphical object aside, that game STILL looks incredible over ten years later, has an amazing soundtrack, it's incredibly addicting, and oozes atmosphere from every pore.

So you see that I have no problem loving other old school games, other NES games, and other Castlevania games. The fact that I see faults or that I'm not enjoying the Classicvanias is NOT an issue of respect or some misplaced new age idealism.

[Harrycombs]

This is an idiotic way to look at what I'm doing. Now its MY fault because I find faults in games you see as great(nay, Masterpieces)? Please.

Yes the little Mode 7 thing might have been cool in oh say, 1992. But this is 2010, and now it looks archaic and gimmicky. The best video games stand the test of time. I can play Sonic 3 and Knuckles(a game that came out one year later in '93, btw) today and have a lot of fun with it. Between its excellent level design, great mix of platforming-exploration-utilizing the physics engine, awesome music, and perfect controls, it stands up to anything that comes out today. Quite frankly, I don't think SCV4 does.

Thats not fair. When you examine a person in history class, you have to see the world through their eyes to understand their actions and the way they interacted with the world. Its the same way when you play an old video game. You should approach it as if "this is still 1991" and it will be a lot more fun. Yes, some games do stand the test of time, but when you examine a game from this perspective you can see how far ahead these games were when they came out.

And SCV4 is a masterpiece. Did you listen to the soundtrack? The atmosphere it creates, the slow build up as you approach the castle, the sense of awe when you are walking through the treasury, and the epic feeling when Simon's Theme kicks in when  you are killing Dracula, and so on makes this game a classic. No Castlevania game before or since has created atmosphere as superbly as SCV4. Not even Symphony.

[e105beta]

This is an idiotic way to look at what I'm doing. Now its MY fault because I find faults in games you see as great(nay, Masterpieces)? Please.

Yes the little Mode 7 thing might have been cool in oh say, 1992. But this is 2010, and now it looks archaic and gimmicky. The best video games stand the test of time. I can play Sonic 3 and Knuckles(a game that came out one year later in '93, btw) today and have a lot of fun with it. Between its excellent level design, great mix of platforming-exploration-utilizing the physics engine, awesome music, and perfect controls, it stands up to anything that comes out today. Quite frankly, I don't think SCV4 does.

Lets go with another NES example, 1988's Mega Man 2. I love that game, even today. Mega Man doesn't have hops like Mario, he carries weight to the touch, but he's just floaty enough that all his jumps are managable and just the right side of challenging. The music is awesome, and because the game values art direction above all, it still looks great in that retro-chic way.

MegaMan 2 - Bubble Man (Bubble Man stage. Note the awesome music and fun art direction)

Or we can just stick with the Castlevania series and point towards Symphony of the Night. The odd PS1-3d graphical object aside, that game STILL looks incredible over ten years later, has an amazing soundtrack, it's incredibly addicting, and oozes atmosphere from every pore.

So you see that I have no problem loving other old school games, other NES games, and other Castlevania games. The fact that I see faults or that I'm not enjoying the Classicvanias is NOT an issue of respect or some misplaced new age idealism.

And this is where nostalgia factor comes in.

I don't think SotN is as incredible as you say, despite how much I enjoy it. Then again, this could be because I bypassed it when it first came out because I wanted a N64. I see a game that has a nice retro feel, and was good for it's time, but I can spot the things I don't like about SotN imagery.

One, the sound effects sound extremely digitalized and dated. The music is wonderful, but the sound effects have an extremely electric feel.
Two, the graphics seem to be attempting a realism that probably looked amazing back then, but I can see how dated they are. Just compare Alucard's sprite to Soma's DoS sprite. The systems are about the same power, but Alucard is much more pixelized. Then again, some things aren't, but you have some Rondo sprites thrown in there, and they clash with the higher-res background. Sometimes some things just look a bit confused because they try to overdo themselves, and then there's Galamoth who, with the whole shadow puppet movement style, can look a bit cheesy.

I know this is extremely nitpicky, but that's the point. I'm not looking at the game from the lens of the era in which it was played. Of course SotN is going to LOOK better, than SCIV, because it was made on a more powerful system/at a later time. I mean, I personally think that PoR looks better than SotN.

And I agree with Harrycombs. SCIV has the greatest atmosphere in the series bar none.


EDIT: I've never liked how the NES-SNES Megamans looked. I didn't like the style until it hit the PS1.

[thernz]

And its true that the Classicvanias are built around your limitations which I guess gets more to the core of why I don't particularly love any of their entries, in that I don't really like that slow, methodical pacing and feel. I'm adventuring through Castlevania, this should be exciting! But instead its a slow plodding walk through Dracula's minions.

You'd probably enjoy it more if you changed your mindset about it. It isn't so much about freedom as it is about strategy. It's methodical because of the tight level design. There isn't a wealth of options of what to do, but it isn't necessary. The old games are the opposite of the newer games who tend rely on excess. I would say it better suits the mood of a lone man against an entire countryside of monsters. To brave them all, a warrior has to be precise.
But yeah, Super Castlevania IV is all about subtlety in its atmosphere with its light jazz touches meshing with the choking darkness, barring the Mode 7 rooms. I would suggest you try playing it again to get a better feel for it. But to each their own.

Though, e105beta, Soma's DoS sprite really pales to Alucard. All the new animations of Soma are just wonky and unnatural compared to Alucard's. Soma's shading is much more muddier and worse at suggesting form. Of course, Soma's sprite is probably the best out of the DS protagonists. The rest of just horrible in color choices, shading, and animation. When it comes to pixel art, it's better to be reserved than use lots of colors for crisp clarity. SoTN still has the best technical spritework and background work compared to all the later DS titles. And the DS titles all use some pretty horrible modular/shadow puppet movement too. There are no higher-res backgrounds in SoTN so I don't see the clash with the Rondo sprites. If anything, that's more apparent in the DS titles mixing non-pixel work with pixel work, and having much more drastic stylistic choices in color and shading in the newer sprites compared to the reused sprites. The graphics in SoTN are pretty much the most consistent you can find in a Metroidvania. It's also a lot more crisp and refined than SCVIV's sprites anyway (though one can argue that the muddy shading of SCVIV's sprites actually embellished on its atmosphere). SoTN pretty much sports the best technical graphics when it comes to pixel art in Castlevania.

The physics in SoTN were arguably the best as well. All of the DS protagonists have this sort of gliding/slide feeling to their walks. There's really too little weight to them. Even the enemies have more weight in SoTN, though that might be due more to enemy placement than actual coding of the enemies themselves.

also i talked too much about sotn ; - ;

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

This is an idiotic way to look at what I'm doing. Now its MY fault because I find faults in games you see as great(nay, Masterpieces)? Please.

Way to completely miss the point.

It's not that a game has faults.  It's just that the way you portray the faults is incredibly exaggerated ala AVGN to make your points border on the point of hyperbole.  Seems like a cheap way to generate shock factor.  And, in some odd ways, it could even constitute as 'flamebait' in this forum.

As other people have mentioned, it might be better if you played with at least a knowledge of what was going on at the time the game was created, and the limitations around such a time.  To portray instances in games which, at the time, were revolutionary leaps in both graphics processing as well as overall aesthetic graphical prowess as 'gimmicks' just because they were eye candy at the time and are not eye candy now, shows a great deal of ignorance.

There is such a thing as "The rule of cool" at which something is placed in the game because it was cool at the time to have it.  Yes, the spinning corridor does nothing to the gameplay at the platforming layer but 1. at the time, it was cool, 2. at the time, it was unprecedented and DID indeed give the players of that time a dizzying feeling as they played, and 3. it certainly did not take away from the game.

I'm not telling you to like the games, and I'm not telling you to see them through rosy nostalgia-glasses (which make games seem 'good' no matter what).  I'm beseeching you to see the games within the context and scope of their time period as you make your observations.

Otherwise, you're just trolling a game for your own amusement and for attention.  And I will not tolerate that here.

[Valtiel]

Finding faults in the games is only natural. What's more baffling is your inability to put them into context. If you're gonna walk into a 20 years old game and complain about the graphics, something is off in your entire project.

Take them as they are. Personally I consider Rondo a great experience even by today's standard. I'd take Rondo over the entire post SotN production personally.

[e105beta]

Though, e105beta, Soma's DoS sprite really pales to Alucard. All the new animations of Soma are just wonky and unnatural compared to Alucard's. Soma's shading is much more muddier and worse at suggesting form. Of course, Soma's sprite is probably the best out of the DS protagonists. The rest of just horrible in color choices, shading, and animation. When it comes to pixel art, it's better to be reserved than use lots of colors for crisp clarity. SoTN still has the best technical spritework and background work compared to all the later DS titles. And the DS titles all use some pretty horrible modular/shadow puppet movement too. There are no higher-res backgrounds in SoTN so I don't see the clash with the Rondo sprites. If anything, that's more apparent in the DS titles mixing non-pixel work with pixel work, and having much more drastic stylistic choices in color and shading in the newer sprites compared to the reused sprites. The graphics in SoTN are pretty much the most consistent you can find in a Metroidvania. It's also a lot more crisp and refined than SCVIV's sprites anyway (though one can argue that the muddy shading of SCVIV's sprites actually embellished on its atmosphere). SoTN pretty much sports the best technical graphics when it comes to pixel art in Castlevania.

While Alucard's sprite animation is better (what with the subtle animations like when he stands up straight) I find Soma's actual sprite to be a touch more refined. When I compare the two side by side, while Alucard's sprite may be a bit more bold, I find it's detail to be a bit lacking. His head annoys me. Also, I just like Jonathan's sprite better than either of them. That's not to say SotN doesn't sport a higher consistency of sprite work quality, just that the best sprites in the DS games were better than the best sprites in SotN. Albeit, this technicality argument has little to do with the point I'm trying to make. Saying that the DS games had some things worse than SotN is irrelevant.

My point was that I don't believe that SotN still looks incredible. Sure, it has that great elegant atmosphere, but SCIV also has that great dark spooky atmosphere, and I don't look at either of them and still go "Whoah, that looks cool." It's because both of them are dated. Obviously SotN is going to look better than SCIV because it was made on a more powerful system, and Mode7 WAS awesome when SCIV was created, so SomaCruz90 knocking that is stupid.

As for backgrounds, just compare:



Dracula was transposed well into SotN, but some things just didn't mesh for me.

[SomaCruz90]

Thats not fair. When you examine a person in history class, you have to see the world through their eyes to understand their actions and the way they interacted with the world. Its the same way when you play an old video game. You should approach it as if "this is still 1991" and it will be a lot more fun. Yes, some games do stand the test of time, but when you examine a game from this perspective you can see how far ahead these games were when they came out.

And SCV4 is a masterpiece. Did you listen to the soundtrack? The atmosphere it creates, the slow build up as you approach the castle, the sense of awe when you are walking through the treasury, and the epic feeling when Simon's Theme kicks in when  you are killing Dracula, and so on makes this game a classic. No Castlevania game before or since has created atmosphere as superbly as SCV4. Not even Symphony.

I still think examining games as if today was 1991 isn't a good way to go about things. I have several favorite movies from the 1960s, and I don't have to make excuses for them. Same thing for my favorite books, and most of my favorite comic books come from the 1980s. I just don't think it ok to just look past things like presentation and sound when you're experiencing something.

And I listened to the soundtrack during the game. There's a couple stand-out tracks, but it wouldn't even make my top 25 16-bit game soundtracks.

[RichterB]

First a few notes: skeletons do burst out of the background at you during the first Mode7 stage (the one that I've thought perhaps the creators intended to be a fallen, rolling tower interior), and when you are younger or careless, those medusa heads in the second Mode7 area can easily knock you to your doom in the spike pits below. Mode7 still tickles me today just because how visually wild a concept it is and how rare it is to see in 2D games. (Bloodlines uses some variation of the tech interestingly, as well).

Now, one thing neat about the care of IV is the "layering" of the levels' art (sometimes you even go into the background). But basically there are all sorts of things happening in the foreground and background, whether its simply pillars leading up to the castle entrance or ghosts in the treasury. The levels feel alive with lots of movement, like the rising fence/gates in the first level. I don't think SotN did a lot of that, as far as foregrounds and backgrounds interacting with the main playing field.

And as for atmosphere, I point to the build-up to the finale. The fight with Slogra, Gaibon, and then visual presentation of Death and his room, with the alteration of the music, and culminating in the stair climb is just chilling. (Slogra and Gaibon were then turned into basically jokes by SotN and further entries). I think this game's art direction (IV) stands the test of time, personally.

Granted, the 8-direction whip did make the game easier, but I think IV had areas that really highlighted the usefulness of such an ability and made it play into the game design. (Perhaps you'll be pleased to know that Bloodlines, Rondo, and Dracula X decided to limit the whip again to one degree or another after IV).

The old games are the opposite of the newer games who tend rely on excess. I would say it better suits the mood of a lone man against an entire countryside of monsters. To brave them all, a warrior has to be precise.

Exactly. As was noted, the newer games are getting more and more "floaty," which isn't any more unrealistic that the cement shoes--in fact, it's more unrealistic and feels goofy (and less strategically precise). It mirrors the game design, which is also more meandering and floaty than "exciting." All the hit points stuff makes it feel less like I'm feeling the hits on enemies. Also, Alucard's walk is fine, but it always seems like a forward Moon Walk to me, and in the intro, his run is just the same as his walk, aided by the speeding background. (I don't care; just saying).

I agree about the 2D vs. 3D and aging...and yet, I can often look past that for the sake of the depth, art design, or ambition of a project. Heck, all that graphical fog in CV64 HELPS the mood!  It's the same with the historical limitations of the early games. I know what they were trying to execute, and for the time of their execution, they more than passed the test. As for tile sets, Dracula X and Bloodlines largely got rid of that while Rondo generally kept it.

********EDIT:
I wanted to add that, maybe I'm crazy, but the size and bold look of older sprites like IV's Simon and Richter look a lot better to me than anything from the GBA/DS era, which always frustrates me. Rebirth's Chris is in the ballpark, but the rest seem too understated and small to me.

And don't get me wrong, SotN is no slouch for a game, but I think it was best as a one-off, and certainly should have not continued beyond Aria of Sorrow, despite Dawn's improved graphics and Portrait's somehow amusing adventure. (I don't know what to say about OoE, as I have not played it yet). I think the largely unexplored Simon's Quest style has more room to grow than the Metroidvania style.

Anyway, I think Dave Cox said something important when he said gamers get to know too much about games before hand, but also it should be added that new games don't often provide enough opportunities to bring one's imagination to the game. That's more important than straight realism in my mind.