Topic: My Return and another LoS topic.

[thernz]

yes, it was very fun to write.
i kinda prefer subtlety and leanness so i guess i could never love los's story~

[Joachim]

Now now, let's be honest here. If LoS' writing is terrible, 95% of the videogame stories are terrible. I guess we could say that, but even in that case, the vast majority of games are much worse than LoS.

Yeah, most video game stories are bad, or at the very least not very good; but that doesn't really justify its perpetuation, it just means that the medium is a collective failure in that regard.

   And with my writing comment, I was talking about the writing itself, the dialogue and presentation of the ideas moreso than the story itself. Most games don't have very good writing either, but in a sea of mediocrity or amusingly passable entries, you have Lords which comes along and throws out multiple variations of WE'RE NOT SO DIFFERENT, YOU AND I; it's embarrassing, honestly, in a way that Symphony or Curse or Lament never could be.

[Valtiel]

Yeah, most video game stories are bad, or at the very least not very good; but that doesn't really justify its perpetuation, it just means that the medium is a collective failure in that regard.

   And with my writing comment, I was talking about the writing itself, the dialogue and presentation of the ideas moreso than the story itself. Most games don't have very good writing either, but in a sea of mediocrity or amusingly passable entries, you have Lords which comes along and throws out multiple variations of WE'RE NOT SO DIFFERENT, YOU AND I; it's embarrassing, honestly, in a way that Symphony or Curse or Lament never could be.

You don't want me to dig the horror of those 3 games scripts, do you  ?

I think we are also harsher critics when it comes to games. It's not like LoS is worse written then most genre movies we got showered with every summer either, but we're getting in another discussion here.

I don't know, I have some expertise as far as writing novels and scripts go, and I think there's a lot to like in the videogame world. It's not nearly as formulaic as the movie scene is, and it's actually full of flawed gems. The problem is that gamers are often very immature critics, because their version of a "reading club" is the internets, so instead of discussing what they like with people willing to listen, they're confronted daily with angry teenagers who take pleasure on pissing on what someone else likes.

I could come here and tell you that Vagrant Story is an extremely well written game, but it's flawed, and someone could jump at those flaws and use them to claim the game "sucks" and all that. It's what I said above - we confront on our "toys" in a very aggressive environment. I could use internet rethorics to "prove" you that the Brothers Karamazov sucks and the entire book past the Great Inquisitor chapter is worth nothing or that Kubrick was an eye-candy specialist with the narrative skills of a 3rd grader.
By the standard we set ourselves for saying that "videogames stories suck", both the abovement statements could be considered correct. I prefer to think the standards are flawed.

And once again, context. If you like fantasy or sci fi, you think modern novelists are doing any better than videogames recently? Rule out Martin for a second, and boy, if he's the best, we're sort of screwed no?
When nothing is ever good enough, it may be worth considering if we're not the problem.

[Joachim]

When nothing is ever good enough,

Is this a general statement, or is this directed at me? I should probably specify that I'm arguing generalities, tendencies, irrelevant of the few standouts; ICO and Shadow of the Colossus both have fantastic story, and what little writing there is does its job very well. Where those two games really excel, however, is in their presentation; video games are inherently unique in their capabilities, and those two games did a good job of building up the story using every facet of the medium, including the gameplay. This is something that only video games can do (utilize a consistently interactive element within an existing visual/auditory soundscape), and yet very few games actually attempt to tap into this potential. The trend has been to make gameplay irrelevant - its a means to getting from point a to point b, so that you can watch event c unfold; except that neither of these things really connect - getting from point A to point B is never regarded as being about getting to event C, it's about getting from point A to point B; similarly, event C is never about the act of getting from point A to point B - it's simply about being event C. Lords of Shadow is no different, and before anyone thinks of it, quick-time events strewn throughout cut-scenes are no remedy.

ICO built it's gameplay around the idea of making you care about Yorda, and Shadow of the Colossus built its gameplay around intelligently taking down the Colossi and observing them, making you prone to notice that not all of them are aggressive and that some of them are more curious and sorrowful.

You don't want me to dig the horror of those 3 games scripts, do you

No need, I've played through all of them multiple times. Symphony's script is one of the more interesting to me, as it often teeters between legitimately well-composed to nonsensical or redundant cheese. (lords is almost entirely nonsensical/redundant cheese: this is exacerbated by it's attempts at a "professional" or "epic" presentation)

If you like fantasy or sci fi, you think modern novelists are doing any better than videogames recently?

Novelists, I wouldn't know; I haven't read much in the way of modern novels, most of my experience as of late is with 1984 and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. When it comes to sci-fi television, though, I'd say the writing is improving quite a bit; it's maturing. BSG was great (for the most part), and Stargate Universe and Caprica are both fantastic.

[Ahasverus]

I wouldn't know; I haven't read much in the way of modern novels,

DING DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner! An extra illlustrated critic with no literature background, the epic!

[thernz]

ding ding ding. he said MODERN novels. he still read novels, albeit just not any from the last few years. i guess you just can't read!

[Valtiel]

No need, I've played through all of them multiple times. Symphony's script is one of the more interesting to me, as it often teeters between legitimately well-composed to nonsensical or redundant cheese. (lords is almost entirely nonsensical/redundant cheese: this is exacerbated by it's attempts at a "professional" or "epic" presentation)

This statement certainly tips my curiosity, considering how Symphony's "script" is probably less than a single page of dialogue.

I have the maximum respect for your opinion, but I beg for an explanation because the comparison between Lords and Symphony doesn't stand. It's not just that I don't see Lords as being nearly as bad as you depicted it (judged as a videogame and not a novel, to be clear), but that Symphony has about as much story as Pacman. Mind = blown.

[Joachim]

I find Symphony's script to be more interesting than most because of its "promise": it teeters around, unaware of how exactly to do what it's trying to do, but it does so with this sense of intrigue and promise; it has some utterly terrible scenes and lines, like "Darkling, I smell your blood!". But there are also lines in the game that have surprised me, or struck me as more interesting over time; lines like "What need for the shepherd when the wolves have all gone...?" and "You claim to love the darkness, so go then, and dwell there for all of eternity" tickle my fancy.

It is a memorable, short and ultimately campy script but it carries itself with a sense of effort, with a sense of charm and heart. It's not a legitimately great script, but i've always been more intrigued by the brilliantly flawed than the "just pretty great" sort anyway.

As far as lords go, the script tries to carry itself with a sense of drama and epic grandeur, but it throws out lines like "This is why you are cast out, unholy one!" and "We're not so different, you and I". The narratives are excessive and redundant, with winners like "Darkness is all around him, surrounding him from all sides."

DING DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner! An extra illlustrated critic with no literature background, the epic!

because modern novels are the only source of writing, yes?

I have the maximum respect for your opinion

Thank you.

[Valtiel]

I find Symphony's script to be more interesting than most because of its "promise": it teeters around, unaware of how exactly to do what it's trying to do, but it does so with this sense of intrigue and promise; it has some utterly terrible scenes and lines, like "Darkling, I smell your blood!". But there are also lines in the game that have surprised me, or struck me as more interesting over time; lines like "What need for the shepherd when the wolves have all gone...?" and "You claim to love the darkness, so go then, and dwell there for all of eternity" tickle my fancy.

Ah, I get it now, I was assuming you were referring to the script as a whole, including the narrative structure. In which case, yes, I can see why you'd think that Symphony throws around quite a few interesting one-liners.

In fact, given how unconcerned SotN actually is with having a story or making any sort of sense, it gains complete freedom to dwell and relish on having quick intermissions where characters exchange cool quotes and whatnot. I don't agree with you on why those quotes are cool, tho - SotN's quotes are much more overblown and "cheesy", but not having the burden of a story to carry, they're free to be what they are without concerning themselves with anything else.

I could chime in on how absolutely pretentious those lines in SotN end up being, but I would commit the same crime I'm accusing you of committing towards LoS  .

[Joachim]

well, I did say it was imbued with a heavy sense of camp.

In fact, given how unconcerned SotN actually is with having a story or making any sort of sense,

I thought it made a decent amount of sense. S:

well, aside from how shaft came back. that was never explained.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

I think Shaft is just clever at astral-projecting and was never really killed in Rondo of Blood.  He kept using those Green Crystals as vessels for his essence.

Richter/Maria takes him down in Rondo of Blood at the "A Nightmare Reborn/Undying Melody" stage, but that's a ploy.
They defeat his ghost at the ceremonial room at the end of the Clock Tower, at the door to the Castle Keep but that's revealed to be another one of them little green round crystals.
Alucard defeats it as Richter's Influence when he puts on the Holy Glasses (Yeah it's another stupid green crystal hovering invisibly above Richter and influencing him)
Alucard defeats the final crystal (I guess?) at the end of Symphony of the Night.  The only reason I think this is the final defeats is because the crystal is huge and has two large runic amplifiers encircling it.... and it finally cracks and shatters at the end of that battle.

[crisis]

well, aside from how shaft came back. that was never explained.

Dracula's magic.


or, GOD MASK...!

[CristopherLee]

I want to add one thing:

Was pretty obvius for me during the course of the game that Gabriel would became Dracula... the entire script seems to be constructed from the idea to explain how a man became a monster (like in a gangster movie!). Actually, I was VERY dissapointed when, at the end of the game, our hero is still alive... Until the post-credit scene, of course that he is pretty much undead.

The only thing that I (and many others) expect from now is Gabriel's sons (Belmonts and Alucard). He will fall in love again during the DLC episodes or Marie had some childs that are now hidden?

[Koutei]

well, aside from how shaft came back. that was never explained.

From DXC Japanese Official Guide Book 009page.

http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-rob/tdxc-guidebook.htm

Shaft:
The soul is moved to another place.
Even if the body is lost, power can be used through the crystal ball.

[RichterB]

In the LoS vs. LoI story battle, it's funny that LoS had to grab so much from LoI, and in the end, really didn't top its predecessor in terms of overall story. Gabriel was far less nuanced than Leon, and Zobek (when "good") is a poor man's Rinaldo--I mean, Rinaldo even gets name-dropped about a dozen times in LoS! Evil Zobek and/or the Devil vs. Walter and/or Matthias? I just found neither of the former to be as cunning or interesting as the latter (and those former two felt like they had even less to do with CV). **LoI made me FEEL something.** Whether it was far-fetched or not, whether you liked that it tried to bring a loose alchemical logic to the magic of CV or not, it felt like it could be an origin story. It really built up its characters and their interconnected tragedies in-game with the conversations and boss battles as opposed to the many, distant narrative monologues of LoS. It linked Dracula and the Belmonts better than previously. It was not just a betrayal of a friend, but both were powered by different facets of love and vengeance--Matthias lead toward the power of Dracula from his lost love, Leon lent the power to overcome Dracula by Sara's sacrificial love. By the end, I was ready to go on another journey with Leon. I really liked Leon and was sympathetic to him for what I'd gone through with him. LoS was loud and bombastic, but lacked heart. Now, i don't want or need CV to be Shakespeare, but if it's going to go that way, it can at least accomplish what LoI did in terms of emotional investment. I just find LoS superfluous and lacking in a legitimate connection to Castlevania at large as a restart in the way that, say, Batman Begins relevantly restarted the Batman movie franchise.

As an aside, I felt cheated by the masks. I didn't care for them to begin with, but the way it was hyped about "two" masks, I thought there would be an inherent/consequential duality to one mask maybe or something more complex and nuanced than just "oh, by the way, I've had this second mask the whole time in my back pocket and have been manipulating you with it, and now you get to see it at the last stage after only seeing a flash of it in stage [3?]!" Give me a break. And then you just leave it there for Gabriel to presumably snatch in a fit of emo distress? Huh, I am seeing the Drac connection between Gabriel and Soma now. It's to the point where it would have been better if it had simply been the case that to use the God Mask to resurrect his wife, he has to forfeit/corrupt his own ala SotC. The story was just so unrewarding and off in left field the way it brought out the biblical big-baddie, Deus ex Machina style.

The only thing that I (and many others) expect from now is Gabriel's sons (Belmonts and Alucard). He will fall in love again during the DLC episodes or Marie had some childs that are now hidden?

Uh-oh. Laura is confirmed for DLC and was love-lorn in LoS...is she going to be Alucard's new mother?  :

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.

Somebody had to quote this. This is basically what I feel. Think about it long enough, and take one's hunger for a new/competent 3D CV game out of the equation, and this game has only token connections with Castlevania. (For instance, if you put a castle and a vampire in "Rygar: The Battle of Argus," which also features whip-like mechanics for both combat and traversing stages, and even features at least one stage royally borrowed from in LoS, it wouldn't make it Castlevania). As a whole, with where LoS' story and setting goes, it's a new franchise. I think once it went all biblical at the end, that's when it really decided to jump the shark once and for all. It was a fine, entertaining game in its own right, but it lacked that special pizazz of Castlevania. I was there when SCVIV came out, and experienced Simon's Quest during its era, and this game has less than 10% to do with them (and that's being generous). I'm not going to praise IGA, either, mind you...but this game tried to appeal to too broad an audience with too broad a world, resulting in a lukewarm (at best) CV feeling. Not all the necessary game design elements were present, either, but that's for another topic.