Topic: My Return and another LoS topic.

[crisis]

Don't be afraid SIRHardle, we're all friends here, except some people need to be told off sometimes & calm the fuck down with that elitist bullshit.


I didn't have a problem with the narrative, the gameplay was great except for a few parts, but like you said the twist at the end felt too tacked on just for the sake of doing it. An ending where we see the next true Belmont gearing up ready to tackle the Demon Castle would've been ten times better. Hell, ANYTHING would've been better than "suddenly im dracula in the year 2000"

[e105beta]

I'm all up for debating the merits of something.

Which is why I'm disagreeing. I loved the twist. I thought, like Valtiel, turning Gabriel into Dracula not only set up a more compelling connection between the Belmonts and Dracula than just "our ancestor used to be BFFs with you, and then you became bad so now we fight". It also explained why Dracula would have a connection to an ally who controls a force as powerful as death, and it set up a good idea of where the series can go in the Cox timeline, while still leaving room for the traditional "Belmont vs Dracula" games.

It's like: you played the beginning, we're showing you the end, but how are we going to get there?

[thernz]

Yeah, I don't think we should really give LoS any benefit for leaving questions instead of dumb answer,s because it seems to have been mostly caused by dumb storytelling. I really doubt there could be a satisfactory follow up when the villains are so superficial with painfully shallow intentions. Plus, Gabriel is just so manipulated that I can't even see him as Dracula. Hell, Zobek even tries to use him when he IS Dracula. I'm not really seeing what the interesting questions are. Most of them just stem from the story being a bad origin story.
At the very least, IGA's stories are so superficial that they don't intrude on the gameplay. The most indication in AoS that it's in the future is just how there are handguns and an extra unlockable rifle meant for humor. The most Japanese you see in it is just in the prologue then quickly shot and left there, unless having a NPC who you have mostly optional interaction with dressed in Japanese garb bothers you.

I really don't see how this new connection is any more compelling than the one LoI had when Cox hasn't even properly explained the connection yet. It's really just grasping on a premature idea.
What I actually dislike most is how Dracula is suggested to have an enemy other than the Belmonts, and it's uh Satan himself. And Satan in LoS just had a very shallow reason for being evil! Zobek too even. The whole concept of leaving their bad sides behind is just so black and white, it's insulting to the complexity of human psyche. Original Castlevania canon suffers from that too, albeit it's more forgiving because of how unassuming it is compared to how serious and epic LoS wants to be.
So, I don't really think LoS is any better than the old canon. It just has more, but it doesn't do anything with the more.

[crisis]

So I'm assuming the LoS epilogue will have Belmont(s) fighting Dracula while Dracula fights Satan while fighting Zobek?

[Valtiel]

Yeah, I don't think we should really give LoS any benefit for leaving questions instead of dumb answer,s because it seems to have been mostly caused by dumb storytelling.

Granted that you're entitled to your opinion (I'm not as harsh on this, for example), but you're missing the context. Whatever "dumbness" you can find in LoS' storytelling is still light years ahead of the series' standards, and you can't just dismiss that.

I really doubt there could be a satisfactory follow up when the villains are so superficial with painfully shallow intentions.

Satan's motivations are plain more than shallow. You can't really do much more than that, he's probably the second most powerful being in the universe and his motives are necessarily obvious.
I'd disagree on Zobek's motivations. He's a rather complex character (by CV's standards, he's absurdely complex). He goes from trying to break a power lock between the forces of good and evil to scheming to eliminate his own allies to achieve supreme power to experiencing life as a mortal to simply craving for survival. Zobek's motivation in the ending is brilliantly simple. He's not scheming to conquer the world: he's just scared Satan will rape his ass. It's a case of K.I.S.S. that can lead to excellent narrative outcomes. Even if they were to stick to clichè (he'll plead for Drac's help to save his butt but still plot to obtain as much power as he can in the process), it will still be a decently complex contribution to the story.

Plus, Gabriel is just so manipulated that I can't even see him as Dracula. Hell, Zobek even tries to use him when he IS Dracula.

You know, at some point Dracula was 4 years old, and his dad slapped him on his buttcheeks. And he cried!
I really can't see the logic of this point. At least Gabriel obtained his power by fighting; I was facepalming harder at Mathias having to ride on 2 different people's shoulders. I guess one could prefer one or the other approach, but I prefer a storyline that bases itself on the notion that Drac was at some point a good guy and got fooled by people he trusted than IGA's "everyone is an idiot but Mathias" scheme. Expecially when you consider that Vlad Tepes' own cruelty was most likely caused by the fact that he was heavily manipulated twice in his life. He payed a huge price from being betrayed by people he trusted and learned to be a monster because he wouldn't trust anyone anymore.
Also, I don't really see the ending sequence as Zobek trying to manipulate Drac. He's basically begging for help. Drac seems to be extremely weakened in the scene (he's probably locked himself there and maybe he didn't feed for weeks, or months, or years... Zobek mentions him being a shadow of his former self) and still he gets the jump on Zobek and doesn't seem to be concerned at all of Satan. Zobek knows he can't make it without Dracula; the opposite is probably not true.

I'm not really seeing what the interesting questions are. Most of them just stem from the story being a bad origin story.

That's a legitimate opinion, but once again you should at least put it in context. Again, look at the poll.

At the very least, IGA's stories are so superficial that they don't intrude on the gameplay.

BS, sorry. SCIV's story applies to that definition, and the game is awesome and some. IGA's stories are simply bad, and they do intrude the gameplay. Aria of Sorrow is a very decent CV and still the story made it incredibly painful to play for me.

The most indication in AoS that it's in the future is just how there are handguns and an extra unlockable rifle meant for humor.

Given how critical you are of LoS' story, you can't praise AoS' story because it's fairly easy to ignore. Nobody forced IGA to put that story in the game: if the games don't need a story (which is an opinion I can possibly agree with) then don't put a crappy, overblown one in. AoS isn't a case of less is more. It's just less and crap.

The most Japanese you see in it is just in the prologue then quickly shot and left there, unless having a NPC who you have mostly optional interaction with dressed in Japanese garb bothers you.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having japanese stuff in CV. The japanese mythos is full of wonderful ghosts and undeads and demons that CV could use to great effect. I would have nothing against a pagoda or shinto temple level, or a fully japanese themed CV. The problem is that IGA tried to cater to the anime crowd by (slackingly) turning CV into a show about superpowered college students. I consider that mindblowingly bad. In fact, almost nothing in AoS actually looks japanese - it's just drab shonen anime stuff.

I really don't see how this new connection is any more compelling than the one LoI had when Cox hasn't even properly explained the connection yet. It's really just grasping on a premature idea.

LoI was a conclusive story. You had the Belmont origins, the Vampire Killer origin, the Death-Drac relationship origin and Dracula's origins. There was no mystery left; it wasn't a game that begun something, it was a game meant to justify what came after. It's natural that people who deeply enjoy what came after could like it. I really like LoI as a game and I while the story was nothing special once again it was pretty fantastic by CV's standards and despite its flaws at the time it was probably the best in the series. LoS has a much better origin story, in my opinion, but that's not the point.
The point is that LoS begins something; it's not tacked at the beginning of a story we already saw, but it begins a new one. Once again it could be crap, but people isn't "grasping on a premature idea". They're just excited by the possibility of a good legacy coming out of it. Something the IGA canon doesn't allow for anymore.

What I actually dislike most is how Dracula is suggested to have an enemy other than the Belmonts, and it's uh Satan himself. And Satan in LoS just had a very shallow reason for being evil!

LoS was made in Europe. In our culture, Dracula and God (and the Devil by consequence) are strongly tied. Vlad's entire story and mythos is based on Christianity and his relationship with God. It may not make much sense in the perspective of the CV mythos, but it makes perfect sense in the perspective of Dracula's mythos.
If you want, the "original sin" of LoS is that of exploring Dracula more than CV's Dracula (not that there would be much to explore there). I appreciate Satan's presence in the game because it give context to Dracula. It empowers him - he justifies him as the prince of Darkness. He's not a random bloodsucking undead guy, he's tied to the source of all evil, like his powers were tied to the source of all good in the Vlad legend. But yes, it's a very long sidestep from the serie's staples, so I can see why you could not be too hot about it.
As for Satan's motives... what can you add? He's not human. He isn't evil. He IS Evil. What further motives could he have? Again, I appreciate the K.I.S.S. approach here. Making Satan more "human" by giving him too complex and convoluted reasons.

Zobek too even. The whole concept of leaving their bad sides behind is just so black and white, it's insulting to the complexity of human psyche. Original Castlevania canon suffers from that too, albeit it's more forgiving because of how unassuming it is compared to how serious and epic LoS wants to be.
So, I don't really think LoS is any better than the old canon. It just has more, but it doesn't do anything with the more.

I think it's underdeveloped, if anything. The entire concept of the evil sides left behind is great... but they didn't do enough with it. What would Carmilla think of being essentially forced to be evil? We won't ever know. Again, the complexity is for the most part only hinted, and they need to up the ante in the next game, but once again, it's lightyears ahead of IGA's stuff.

Opinions, I guess.

[Nagumo]

I thought it was pretty clear Dracula is going to be the protagonist of the next name. Cox intented him to be a real Belmont and that's all you're going to get in the sequel. There won't be any connection between the Belmont family and Dracula other then that they are united in one person.

Mark my words.           

[thernz]

well, yeah, that's why you don't use satan. he's plain and the only good use for him is in parodies or bad stuff that takes itself too seriously. it's stupid to sacrifice complexity just to use the ultimate bad. as for the context thing, i really dont find it needed, at least in the context of the original canon's conflict. but, im not fond of the conflict that los is suggesting so~

i really don't find how los's storytelling is light years ahead of the series' standards either. it just has more. the scrolls reveal a lot of background, but it's fluff and not even relevant to the plot most of the time. zobek's narratives are far too numerous and long to serve the little purpose they did have, the foreshadowing or whatever. most of the time they just recap. the other times cutscenes are just used to set up fetch quests, puzzles, or reasons to suddenly skip into a new place. well, then there are those few scenes that actually push the plot. i'm not sure how that's any better than the other castlevanias. los's storytelling just prides itself on redundancy than effective storytelling. you could probably part the blame on its longevity.

im still not sure why aos's story would intrude on you during gameplay. the cutscenes are almost a rarity and circumstances rarely change because of a cutscene. even when yoko's stabbed, that really does not affect what you're doing. the only time a cutscene directs you somewhere is when arikado tells you you're dracula in the throne. plus you know, i would still count drab shounen crap as japanese. i think the only time that really shows is in the prologue of dos when you're in a city. if anything, dos is the anime plot. and yeah, it's absolutely horrible. los isn't worse than dos and por though! also, the dumbest point in aos was graham himself. or at least, his beliefs. oh god, graham. at least his dialogue was written decently. or maybe it was to suggest his lunacy and how he wasn't really the main threat or... whatever.

i guess you can say that los has more scope and daring ideas, but it just brings out the flaws more when they're so underdeveloped. and when you have a slew of ideas that are underdeveloped, i feel that really hurts the story more than just a very minimal story that's bad. it's more like less and crap, or more and crap.

[DragonSlayr81]

I think it's underdeveloped, if anything. The entire concept of the evil sides left behind is great... but they didn't do enough with it. What would Carmilla think of being essentially forced to be evil? We won't ever know. Again, the complexity is for the most part only hinted, and they need to up the ante in the next game, but once again, it's lightyears ahead of IGA's stuff.

But on par with the crap Tetsuya Nomura does, which isn't a compliment. The whole "evil side"/"good side"/"multiple sides" thing reminded me of the horrid Heartless/Nobody crap in Kingdom Hearts(which I absolutely can't stand).

[crisis]

sry couldnt resist xD

[VeteranVk]

I'm all up for debating the merits of something.

Which is why I'm disagreeing. I loved the twist. I thought, like Valtiel, turning Gabriel into Dracula not only set up a more compelling connection between the Belmonts and Dracula than just "our ancestor used to be BFFs with you, and then you became bad so now we fight". It also explained why Dracula would have a connection to an ally who controls a force as powerful as death, and it set up a good idea of where the series can go in the Cox timeline, while still leaving room for the traditional "Belmont vs Dracula" games.

It's like: you played the beginning, we're showing you the end, but how are we going to get there?

You see? This is the point I was trying to make when I started this topic.

sry couldnt resist xD

And I assure you, Im not the creator of the original Ghosts and Goblins. 

[Munchy]

Am I the only one who thinks both IGA's and LoS's Dracula origin story are equally dumb? I liked it better when Dracula was just his own guy and didn't have like fifteen fucking pseudonyms and stories about where he might have come from. Dracula reincarnating as a Spanish exchange student is stupid and LoS's story arc is ripped straight out of fucking Star Wars and God of War simultaneously, especially with the whole

(click to show/hide)

"WAAAH U MAYD MEE KILL MY WYF! I'M NOT KRATOS I SWEAR"

angle.

Why not have future games elaborate on the history of the Castle itself? It's really important and yet it gets the shaft much of the time in favor of more of the goddamn same GWARAR REVENGE stories.

[C Belmont]

I thought, like Valtiel, turning Gabriel into Dracula not only set up a more compelling connection between the Belmonts and Dracula than just "our ancestor used to be BFFs with you, and then you became bad so now we fight". It also explained why Dracula would have a connection to an ally who controls a force as powerful as death, and it set up a good idea of where the series can go in the Cox timeline, while still leaving room for the traditional "Belmont vs Dracula" games.

I'm honestly hoping that Cox's vision for Castlevania isn't quite as twisted as it first appears, however didn't he say "You should forget everything you know about Castlevania because this is starting over" ?

The idea that LOS's timeline will introduce a new string of Belmonts is entirely based off past expectations regarding Castlevania, forget absolutely everything and the possibilities which LOS opens up seem far less appealing particluarly for Belmont fans.

[Hanniballistic]

Can we all quit kidding ourselves?  LoS is not Castlevania.  Call it a reboot all you want, most "reboots" retain some semblance of the original.  LoS has names, and a few of the same enemies but it doesn't feel like Castlevania.  Doesn't mean I hate the game.  I like it alot, but to sit here and argue that it's "better" than IGA's Castlevania is absurd.  They are NOTHING alike.  And if you write down a big list of little references and enemies I will scream.  That's nit-picking.

They should have tweaked it and made a new IP.

[Valtiel]

I thought it was pretty clear Dracula is going to be the protagonist of the next name. Cox intented him to be a real Belmont and that's all you're going to get in the sequel. There won't be any connection between the Belmont family and Dracula other then that they are united in one person.

Mark my words.           

It's definitely a possibility. I wouldn't be too sure tho - it's definitely an harder game to pull off right, and I'm sure Cox is aware too.

[Valtiel]

Can we all quit kidding ourselves?  LoS is not Castlevania.  Call it a reboot all you want, most "reboots" retain some semblance of the original.  LoS has names, and a few of the same enemies but it doesn't feel like Castlevania.  Doesn't mean I hate the game.  I like it alot, but to sit here and argue that it's "better" than IGA's Castlevania is absurd.  They are NOTHING alike.  And if you write down a big list of little references and enemies I will scream.  That's nit-picking.

They should have tweaked it and made a new IP.

LoS is not IGAvania. But it really has no continuity issues with the continuity till SCIV. None.

Remember that IGA built, weaved and absorbed older games in "his" canon.

LoS feels a lot closer to SCIV (or Simon's Quest) in atmosphere and themes than AoS or PoR do. You can't just throw a blanket statement like that without considering how much IGA changed the saga.