Maybe, but I don't think you can argue that EVERY game is intended to be fun. Being designed to entertain and being designed to be fun are two separate things I think. Either way, at this point, we're trying to second guess the devs intentions, which is pointless.
Actually, I can make that argument. All games ARE designed to be fun on some level. Even scary entertainment is fun to those that enjoy it. And to be clear I take the word as in a thing or activity that one derives enjoyment from.
They were already making huge changes to the way the game was played, I doubt they really wanted to make the game completely unrecognizable as a CV game.
That may be so but it doesn't change the fact that they could have if they had wanted to like so many other series have done before and since.
I find the game to be laid out quite well actually, much more logically than many of the games that came after it. What do you find frustrating about the level design? Would you have preferred the game be one long straight line like the PS2 games? Would you prefer the game have no platforming at all? I feel like they used stairs to denote branching pathways in the game when they were used in forests or places outside of towns and mansions. But other than that, why would they have a stairway in the middle of a forest?
It's a game, the layouts don't have to be laid out logically. Doing that makes things less interesting, which is exactly what you have throughout most of the overworld. It's pretty much like the PS2 games with long stretches of mostly flat boring areas. And the only areas that aren't flat have annoying gimmicks in play like the ridiculous poison swamps and the frustrating chains of floating blocks. The towns are all boring with basically the same 3 designs for all of them. The mansions are much better as far as platforming is concerned except that they often ruin what would be very interesting layouts with frustrating gimmicks that they always manage to take too far. The invisible floors are a prime example as well as many of the jumps that seem like they are intentionally trying to piss you off in a way that screams laziness rather than challenging design. They did use stairs to denote cross roads in the overworld, which is itself illogical, but I appreciate that. I'm saying that they should have made the terrain more interesting since you have to go over it over and over. And, BTW, there are several spats in the game's forests that have stare in illogical places.
So you're saying that less weapons is better? I'm not saying more is better, but you definitely have more you can do with the combat system in CV2 than in CV1. But then again, they're different games with different focuses. Combat is not the supreme focus of CV2 (exploration is), but it's #2 with a bullet I think.
Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying what I said. That a more flexible sub-weapon system is better. One of the fundamental things game design students are taught is to always reduce the number of screens and menus the player has to go through to access things. CV2 did the opposite. Now you have to buy your weapons and you have to use a menu to change them. That is not as dynamic as finding them throughout the game. There is basically only one new weapon, they removed the more interesting ones from the previous games, and the rest are derivatives of the least interesting ones. And they're incredible unbalanced to boot. So I fail to see how there is more you can do with CV2 over CV1 or VK.
Well, A-Yty answered this already as far as the graphics go.
I disagree, despite slightly darker content, the graphics are still cartoony like the previous games and that detracts from any true horror it could have effected n the player. And I think many ROM hackers have proven over and over that all the NES CV games could have had much darker, much more genuinely disturbing graphics.
I think surviving the night scenes is akin to survival horror because it's a horror game we're talking about.
How so? Other than a comparison to Silent Hill I don't see this as necessarily akin to the Survival-Horror genre. Personally I never feared those night scenes other than being lightly annoyed that I had to wait for it to be day again. Hell, I often happily greeted those scenes as an opportunity to farm more hearts quickly. I felt more horror every time I had to jump over those long strings of floating blocks over the river.
If Simon's Quest were set in space, no one would make the comparison.
1) Metroid is CV2 set in space and with good level design. Plus it is often quoted by many old-school players as having been much more horrifying than any of the CV games.
2) Dead Space is a Survival Horror game set in space. And it is an actual survival horror game with the primary elements of a disturbing setting and resource management.
The setting alone does not make a survival horror game, what sets them apart is the fear created by having to worry about surviving against enemies with very little resources. CV2 does not have this. What it IS is a platform game with light RPG elements and a horror setting with very little horror in and of itself.
... I think the survival element is still there when you're low on life and you've got to get to a church or when you're not sure how much longer night will last.
No it's not. That's like saying that when you're playing Zelda 2 and you're low on health and out of MP and potions and you need to get back to a town gives it a survival element akin to the survival horror genre. No it doesn't. That is not a situation a player will necessarily get into and the game isn't designed to specifically put you into it. In Resident Evil, for example, when you're low on health and you've used up all your weed you're fucked .There is nowhere for you to go. That is a position that will inevitably get into in that game because it's designed to. There in lies the true horror of the genre. Finding yourself in a situation that you have little to no hope to get out of. Why do you think survival horror games don't have a level up system to make you stronger over time or refill your health? Because that would completely destroy the sense of fight or flight that is essential to survival horror games.
I also think that Dracula's Castle in SQ was one of the most chilling final stages in any CV game because it builds tension REALLY well. You're walking through this empty mausoleum with that creepy music going on.... Instead of fighting off a bunch of enemies, you're alone with your thoughts, knowing you're headed towards the inevitable battle with Dracula.
This is neither here nor there, but that is one of my favorite songs in the series. Also, I don't think it's supposed to be a proper mausoleum, just the castle's ruins, but I digress.
The effect of that last area would indeed have had a really good tension building effect, but it is completely ruined by what is without a doubt one of the most lame final bosses ever. Part of what makes a set up like this effective is the fear that you'll encounter an overwhelming enemy at the end. They really fucked it up here. I was more afraid of the gargoyle/demon enemy in the mansions than any of the pathetic excuses for bosses in CV2. I had the same problem with Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. That game does an excellent job of building tension throughout the game, but it's ruined by there mostly being nothing that can even harm you, let alone kill you.
No, they aren't owned by SH (survival horror) but they are elements that make it up. I think Obscura's point was that people were playing the game as if it were CV1 rather than allowing it to be a different game with the same namesake, and I've always agreed. Maybe it's because I played CV2 before CV1, but I never had any preconceived notions of what the game was "supposed" to be, I just knew i liked it and it affected me in a profound way back when I got my first NES (even before that actually playing it at friends' houses!)
That may be true for some people. I also happen to have played CV2 before I played CV1 and I like the game, too. But it's flaws are there and they don't go away just because you don't compare it to it's siblings. Compared to other similar games it still falls short. And making the argument that viewing at from the point of view of a genre that not only didn't exist yet, but that it also has very little in common with is little more than an excuse.
And I didn't think you would put words in my mouth, but you gotta cover your bases on these (and most) forums I guess.
Fair enough.
I don't think it's irrelevant. Games were games back then. I don't think it makes any sense to compartmentalize games just because they were on a computer vs. a console, especially when talking about design.
I don't agree. The vast majority of players and developers back then in the US either made games specifically for home consoles and made ports of the most popular games for computers or they made games for computers and licensed other companies to produce ports for console and those were very rare in the grand scheme of things. And more importantly the capabilities of consoles compared to computers were vastly different; more so back then than now. Hell when CV2 came out joypads for pc were unheard of. This meant that the basic design philosophies of console game designers and PC game designers were fundamentally different more often than not. I knew lots of people back then that didn't like to play games for consoles or didn't really like games for pc. The reason for this is that they were fundamentally different experiences back then. And more over many of the genres that were born in the arcades and home consoles simply didn't exist on home computer platforms.
The fact is, MANY companies were doing this type of thing at that time and a lot of those games sold well.
There is still no real way to compare here. The two markets were fundamentally different with very different audiences. it's like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Sure their both fruit, but they are still very different.
I don't know what Simon's Quest's sales figures looked like, but we can also surmise that it didn't have as high a profile as CV1 due to only being released on one system and not being in the arcades at all either.
CV1 was only released on one system and it wasn't technically an arcade game. It was modded a little and placed in a cabinet the year after it's release so that should have no impact on it's initial sales. And VK doesn't count because it's a very different game and wasn't released on the same market or even the same region.
I don't know that it was all that well received, but it was the beginning of what would become the Castleroid formula.
True enough, but then again it was basically trying to be more like Metroid which was a very successful game.
I think too, that many games were designed with the arcade in mind regardless of whether they were destined for the arcade or not because that's just how certain games were made.
No they didn't. This is not how games were designed at all. Companies back then mostly stuck to one console and games were ported from arcade to console never the other way around, and they were never released on multiple platforms at the same time. There was always a gap between releases to give the dev team time to make the port if there was one at all.
It was either a sprawling PC game or an arcade game because those were the places where people played games the most. And if it was an arcade-style game, it was designed to be a quick, fun experience that you didn't have to think too much about. It wasn't until the NES started to sell really well that devs had to think about giving the player more than just an arcade style experience.
This may have been true here in the US, but it was a very different situation in Japan where Konami was making CV.
And while I think CV1 is a great game, it doesn't get under your skin the way CV2 does BECAUSE it's designed with the . You can play it and leave it behind without giving much thought to it.
Simon's Quest isn't designed that way at all. It's MEANT to get into your head and under your skin. You're much more invested in Simon and his well being in this game than you are in CV1 because there's a bit more of a story going on, because you get to hear some of his utterances ("What a horrible night to have a curse" etc.) and because you spend three times as much time playing the game (even more if you collect all the items.)
While it's true that CV1 is an action game, I think you are seriously reading way too much into it. There is more story going on, but there's nothing to indicate that the day & night messages are being spoken by Simon. As a matter of fact your ability to sympathize with Simon is severely diminished because he never speaks a single word during the entire game. You have no idea what his thoughts and feelings about the situation are. You have no more of an emotional link to him in CV2 than you do in CV1 except for a slightly more robust story, that I might add is never even really mentioned much in-game. I will give them props for trying harder on the story and having actual endings.