Topic: Castlevania from a game design & difficulty balance perspective.

[Sinful]

Thanks for the compliment and advice for stage 6, The Silverlord.

And yeah, that's exactly how I handle the Mummy fight too, lol.

[Puwexil]

And has anybody found that jump activated bat yet? Here's a clue, it's in level 2 and it's pretty obvious/can't be missed. In fact, you have to jump to proceed to get any further too.

You're talking about the one after the crushing spike traps, right? Here's the thing, though: it's not activated by the player jumping. It's proximity-based just like all the other ceiling-mounted bats in the game. The only reason why it seems like it's an exception to the rule is because it's located significantly higher up in relation to Simon's position, in comparison to the other bats. Thus, simply approaching it by walking is not enough to catch its attention because you're not in its line of sight.

The whole bit is essentially a trap to lure players into colliding with the bat, considering you have to jump over the blocks on the floor to proceed. If you do that close to the bat, it will notice and crash into you. However, should you try jumping farther away, with the bat still visible on the screen, it doesn't move a muscle. You can then approach carefully and test out the limits of its range of observation, and deal with it from a comfortable distance. Its programming is still identical to the other bats in the game, but its placement creates a new kind of obstacle to overcome.

The bat(s) in Dracula X sound like they're (unintentionally?) programmed to be invincible while idle, which combined with legitimate activation-by-jumping is a pretty grave flaw in both the mechanical design and the credibility of the setting. Unless they're literal Phantom Bats, oops.

[Sinful]

Puwexil, i can't believe you went there...

First, what makes you think the same does not apply to the XX version? That your simply not in it's programed line of sight. And that in fact it's not the jump activating the bat, but you entering it's programed line of sight. Why can't you see this? I'll tell you why, because your biased. And it's OK, I'm bias too many times, we all are and it can't be helped. But please, for this topic, put a bit more effort to suppress that bias.

If you suppress that bias, you might see that the reason the bats in XX were made invincible is due to balance. And you need not look past the first level to see this in action. The first level section gives you access to an axe. The second section is a vertical section with bats and skeletons. The skeletons can be taken out with the axe no problem (still have to watch out for them thrown bones), and the bats too if they weren't invincible. And if that was the case, you guys would be all jumping in shouting "Foul! Bad design, bad design!"

If you look at Castlevania III in level 1 the same situation exists. Except that they don't give you the axe. Design still good.

Now back to Castlevania 1's bat. What does it matter how it's technically activated because chances are that you'd still have to jump to trigger it. Why? Because only one sub weapon can reach it while it's inactive, the axe. And that axe is not available up to this point in this level from what I remember? So the only way to have an axe at this point is if a) you didn't lose it from level 1 and die up to that point, or b) you get it by chance from an enemy. Now if your new to this game, I'm willing to bet more often then not you don't have the axe. And it your not, your skilled enough to handle it regardless.

Now to go back to XX again. In XX where these bats that need jumping to get activated, in level 4 (think VGMaps has it incorrectly as 4', but I could be wrong?). If you look carefully at that section you will see that jumping is a big mechanic of this section. Jump on the platfrom and stay too long and you'll drop to a lower section and be forced to backtrack though mud with mud zombies & bats (not very nice. But it's not instant death and a full recovery can still be made and it's well designed lower section too). Now to avoid the first bat, you can still make use of solid ground too if you want to be more cautious (not to mention falling in lands you near very near to get back to where you were). But for the last bat, just after the staircase going up to the next level, you don't have this solid ground luxury, and you'd have to backtrack the most if you fall. This is not cheap (they also place a meat there) and the difficulty if very reasonable (no instant deaths, etc.), thus this is very well designed and planned gameplay. This is good design & difficulty balance. If the bats were hitable during inactivity, this great design would of lost quiet a bit of impact. Just like Richter B told me to play Castlevania Rebirth on Hard to really appreciate it's design.


In the end, XX should appeal much more to fans of classic Castlevania fans, then say Rondo which should appeal more to Castleroid fans (I think, as the gameplay style of enemies is closer). XX has very much in common with the NES games. In XX I see several gameplay ideas lifted from the NES games almost exactly. So for me to hear someone say they wish XX was more like Castlevania 1 is pretty baffling. The only thing I can think of XX having that the NES games have outside of more forgiving difficulty is the multipliers. Which greatly aid with some excellently overpowered weaponry to make some real though spots a real breeze... I too sometimes debate if leaving these out of game like Bloodlines and XX was a good move? Balance wise it was a good move for Bloodlines at least (I think?), plus they were replaced somewhat. ie. In Bloodlines you get an extra whip power-up that lasts until you get hit + can carry hearts into the next level. In XX/Rondo, you get the crush moves + can carry hearts into next level... To me just being able to carry hearts into the next level is good enough incentive to not die + I feel more powered up, just like I did with the multipliers. They both work well, and they both give you the feeling of becoming more powerful, so and I'm not sure which I prefer more yet? But it's much more of a pain to die with a x3 then just losing your hearts for me. And when your new to a Castlevania game, like me, you'll always be dieing. So playing these games for me this early on, it's sometimes just best for me to forget about the multipliers until I'm more familiar with the levels. So for this I guess I could say prefer the hearts carryover more for now...

[Puwexil]

First, what makes you think the same does not apply to the XX version? That your simply not in it's programed line of sight. And that in fact it's not the jump activating the bat, but you entering it's programed line of sight. Why can't you see this?

Because there's just no way you're not in its line of sight in Dracula X. Refer to Thernz's post if you don't remember. Richter and the bat are horizontally level as well as physically close to each other, and considering how the bats behave in these games, it should react. In Castlevania, the bat is suspended high above and doesn't care about Simon if he scurries along the surface of the floor. Only when he jumps and puts himself on a similar horizontal plane to the bat does it notice him. It's again about the presence of logic in the world design and enemy behaviour that other good Castlevanias display, and Dracula X sorely lacks.

The skeletons can be taken out with the axe no problem (still have to watch out for them thrown bones), and the bats too if they weren't invincible. And if that was the case, you guys would be all jumping in shouting "Foul! Bad design, bad design!"

Actually, that would be preferable, because then they wouldn't take a blow at immersion right in the second screen of the game. I see no reason to fault a game for providing the player with the optional tools to overcome and potentially subvert problematic level design, either. Dracula X's problems in mechanical terms stem from the kind of design that's transparently difficult, emphasizing attrition more than genuinely clever design, anyway, so anything that helps in that regard and breaks the monotony is welcome.

Now back to Castlevania 1's bat. What does it matter how it's technically activated because chances are that you'd still have to jump to trigger it.

It matters because by the time the player reaches this particular bat, he's faced two others already. They're met on even, horizontal planes, and attack as the player draws near. This is how the game teaches the player about bat behaviour, by first introducing an enemy, and then reaffirming the formula with a second one. By the time the third one -- the subject of the debate here -- is met, the player has a feel for how the bats operate in the game. A set of rules have been established for the player to put to practical use in contending with the enemies.

The third bat, then, does not instantly rush the player. By trusting the game's design to be consistent and to follow its own rules, one can surmise that this is not because of a flaw in the programming, but because something about this bat is different, somehow, most likely affected by its surroundings and placement in the stage. The player may arrive at the conclusion consciously or subconsciously, but all signs point out to the reason being its high altitude in relation to Simon. This, of course, leads to the application of previously-amassed Bat Knowledge ("they swoop down when they see me coming from the side") in solving the little trap, by luring the bat to abandon its lofty porch from a position where the player can either counter or evade it, i.e. not directly under it, where the blocks lie. It's all consistent with the game's inner logic, and rewards observation and careful play, a dead fit for a game like Castlevania that's so deliberately and restrainedly paced.

Dracula X breaks its own rules by having a bat be suddenly immune to all other disturbances other than jumping. It doesn't make sense in relation to the rest of the game and offers no way for the player to prepare for the unpleasant surprise. Invincible bats is a ridiculous feature to begin with, but this pushes it into plain faulty, schizophrenic design.

[Sumac]

And Castlevania 1 is tough.  Hardest parts I always thought were top of Stage 3 (sub-stage 9) with those damnable crows and bone pillars hurling fire at you, followed by a tricky Mummy fight where I always end up whipping furiously like a madman to just get them before they get you.  No tactics, just balls-to-the-wall button tapping.

Stage 3 is quite easy, comparing to the next level. Mummy fight is very easy, if you use boumerangs.

[Sinful]

@Puwexil

Hook, line, and sinker. You bite, and I can't believe you did. After all that I said about the game's clever design, on top of going into good depth about the design around the bats, none of it mattered you at all. You can't see one ounce of good in XX. You 100% hate XX.

I already figured it out that the bat is triggered by horizontal and vertical length in XX as in the other Castlevania games, and not by jumps as you say. I just wanted to see what you'd say next in regards to how much you hate XX?

The evidence in this is the very first stage again. Walk up the stairs to see that the bats get activated roughly around the same vertical stair walking distance (not jumping) as the bats you see in level 4' (and VGMaps was right, it is 4'). Only since the hero is walking up the stairs, it's not right to assume that the height of the hitbox is on the same spot of the sprite as the walking Belmont. So since the bats in level 4' get activated at roughly the same vertical height as in level 1, they must be a just hair higher of the hero's standing position hitbox in level 4'. I mean, why would the programmers create new code for just this when they can raise the bat a hair higher to achieve the same affect? So you see, jumps never trigger the bats, it's you getting in their line of sight.

[Puwexil]

You can't see one ounce of good in XX. You 100% hate XX.

I like Akihiro Yamada's art for it. But I mean, of course I "hate" it, as much I can a piece of entertainment. Practically all I talk about regarding the game is how it comes up short in any one area of its design. I don't even have to go especially looking for points of criticism about it, when they're so central to the end product. With that general disposition, you'd think it was pretty easy to deduce my overall feelings on it. This thread is just a venue for articulating why I find it bad and promoting more discussion about it.

I played around a bit with that bat in stage 4'. I can't comprehend which part of it stands out as good, considered design, and I don't believe it works by proximity as the other bats in the game do. They react to Richter when he's situated around the same altitude as with this bat, but this one does nothing, even if you walk right up to it so it's practically rubbing pixels with Richter's head. It's just not programmed to respond, which betrays what the game has taught you previously. You can even try jumping when the bat is off-screen, and that kicks it into action right away. I wouldn't really consider that being in its line of sight when such a thing does not even exist in the moment.

I also caught one other quirk I'd forgotten, where Richter's horizontal momentum during a jump vanishes if he ends up above the top of the screen, which is unavoidable in some sections. Platforming-related ones, at that. Not cool.

[Sinful]

You have to explain that last point to me again. How about an example in the game too?


And in regards to the bat thing. The bat does not get triggered by horizontal or vertical alone, as both points have to be past a certain point to trigger it. This is why you can't trigger the bat in both Castlevania games (1 & XX) because you are still too low below it. Just like it won't trigger if you are at the right height but not close enough on the horizontal plane. But if both requirements of vertical and horizontal are meet, the bat will fly at you. Thus in conclusion from a programing point of view, it's not the jump that trigger it, it's meeting both those requirements.

So from a game programing standpoint, both games work exactly the same so to speak... But again, why are we talking about this again and for so long. In the end it still comes down to, I found a bat that you have to jump to trigger in Castlevania 1 just like the one that was complained about in XX. Then instead of giving me credit for this discovery, or sorry for being wrong, or something, we change the subject as a sort of middle finger of "nah, nah, you still don't win, XX still sucks. I can't except nothing else" jibberish.

I read some of your posts in the old topic of is "XX worth it" or something that you pointed out to me. Got to page 2 or 3? (Will read the rest later) And wow, there isn't much doubt in my mind now + now that you mentions, zero doubt. You don't like XX at all. ... So is it wrong of me to kindly ask you not to participate in this topic anymore? I mean, isn't what your doing trolling?

...  yeah, and you don't have to explain that last thing anymore if you don't want to. I'm sure I'll figure it out. Bye.

[Puwexil]

You have to explain that last point to me again. How about an example in the game too?

If you're on an elevation close to the top of the screen, and make a jump forward that at that height propels Richter outside of view -- into the void above the screen -- his forward momentum simply stops as he enters the unseen. Sensible design ought to dictate that he continue his arc, but he'll just fall like a rock straight down once he reappears. It's notable in the part of stage 3 right after the rafts; if you calculate the trajectory of the jump in your mind and leap before the very edge of the platform, you could potentially be cheated into an unpredictable death at the hands of this odd feature, due to the actual distance traveled being cut short. Even outside of dramatic results like that, it feels very strange and cumbersome when it does turn up.

I don't think placing something in a negative light constitutes trolling in any way. Aren't differing viewpoints the root of meaningful conversation? I continue to participate in this discussion because it interests me and hopefully I can put forth arguments other people might find in turn interesting to read or respond to. Isn't it the same for you, and everyone else? Asking someone to outright leave just because you don't agree with them, however cordially, is not very becoming.

[Sinful]

No, your right, everyone else is entitled to their opinion. But this has to do with what I already talked about before (too much bias clouding proper judgment). You've already made your mind about XX completely. To me you're like a brick wall. No matter what I say to the brick wall. The brick wall will not change. So in other words, in a more Castlevania like example, you've chosen to be as blind as a bat, is what I see here (yes, I could still be wrong, yada, yada). So to me, not matter what I say to you, it won't matter as it won't change your perspective on XX at all. So I'm just wasting my time on you. Your wasting my time, and as well as everyone else time (well, not Rondo fans, they're cheering you on, no doubt). To me it's like your only here to but down XX at all costs, even at changing the subject matter. I mean look at the bat argument. I made a very good point that proved that thernz was blind to only finding faults about XX, and thus not noticing that the same faults his finding about XX exist in other Castlevania games. Namely Castlevania 1, the one he so said he wanted XX to be more like, ironically, when it is in fact the most like Castlevania 1, as well as other classic Castlevania games. Rondo is surprisingly the only classic mainstream game to be the least like classic Castlevania game, in fact. As it's crossing more into Castleroid territory (oh, and what do you know, your fav Castlevania game happens to be SotN. Why am I not surprised? ). So to me, anyone who wishes Castlevania to be more like classic Castlevania games, and has wrongfully accused and writting of XX as garbage, is a hypocrite. Because they are in turn making fun of classic Castlevania too now. (But is your fav Castlevania game is SotN and it's like, your just supporting your own kind. Weak game design and no challenge. Hip, hip, hooray!)

Let me explain my last point about classic vania fans making fun of their own kind due to blind hatred better. Let's looks at that thernz post with pics again;

At the very least, Rondo's AI isn't undermined by the level design. Whereas in Dracula XX, there's an instance where you can exploit the red axe armor just by normal gameplay,



Because of the way the armor was coded, he will never hurl axes at you in this range. Because of the wall, he'll never reach you. He'll just keep on wailing his axe while you idle about.

Dracula XX also has this strange design choice. You can't kill bats until they're in flight. That means you can't take out bats while they're hanging. They're invincible. I'm not sure how anyone could justify that. It's completely dissonant from the rest of the game. Why can't you hit an enemy until they're in a certain state when you're in range and all that jazz?



That particular bat doesn't even activate by the player's distance. It gets triggered by the player jumping, which is pretty cheap in Castlevania considering the amount of commitment a player has when they jump. That combined with the illogicality of not being able to attack the bat just screams bad and cheap design to me.

Gotta also adore the random pillars in the cavern. Just there. Not supporting anything. Not serving any use as a pillar. Just there, because hey, let's put pillars.

Look at the first pic with the red armour guy. You think I can't find another exact, if not very similar, situation in other classic Castlevania games, and especially Rondo too? I think I can, just like I found that bat that needed to be activated by a jump, (which I just ran into by chance, lol).

Now let's look at that invincible above the screen wall thing that you said so cheaply killed you. I'll rebuttal this with a very similar Rondo problem. The painting. That painting the very first time I played, and i guarantee this happens to most first timers, very cheaply robbed me of my life the very first time without warning. How was I supposed to know that I at full health could be brought down just like that? And me who's no total stranger to Castlevania games at that too, as I've never seen anything like that in Castlevania before. Normally when I face a new enemy, I expect to take at least a few hits before I get a feel for it's pattern to stand a better chance. Because yes, Castlevania games are in most part about trial and error. Play a bit, die, learn from it, advance further. If this is too cheap for you, these games are not for you. Leave them to us who do enjoy them. As I'll let you enjoy your Castleroid games which I find very hard to stomach due to very poor balance and game design.

Now let's stay back with this jump thing you said. I don't recall this thing ever taking my life? I mean, maybe it's because I know that if I hit a wall above me while making a horizontal leap, I'd know from past Castlevania games or other games in general that that might not work? So maybe knowing this, I subconsciously applied the off screen to act the same as a wall above me. And if not, and I died from my wrong judgment. Oh well, toss it to trial and error, just like all other thing gaming or Castlevania related. I'm not gonna cry about, or cry about it much, and either take a beak to cool of if needed until ready again (which I do very often mind you, then come back fresh minded), or press on if I'm still in the mood or very much so in the mood.

What else was I gonna say?... Oh yes, I recall reading from the other similar topic to this were you bashed XX, that you said something along the lines of "Placing Medusa heads everywhere isn't genius design, as anybody can think of adding them anywhere and make it seem like genius design. As Medusa heads makes the game either way hard. So the designers just added them in because they couldn't think of anything better." Or to that sort. Well what, you think I can't come up with a similar rebuttal about any other Castlevania games, or especially Rondo, the game in question? I think I can. In fact, I already talked about it, so I might as well repeat it. Them Armour Lords as the very last line of defense in Rondo before the last two bosses. They to be can be viewed as the exact same thing. The designers where out of any good ideas as to what to do with the awesome looking level they've created, as they've burned themselves out with that overly genius bridge idea at the start of the level big time. That's why the game after that is so ho hum, and climaxing in boredom/bad game design with a ton of Sword Armour things back to back to fight one on one endlessly with no rhyme or reason or even good placement (the last one is placed the poorest as to remove almost all dodging required). For no other reason then maybe that they look badass enough to be the last line of defense? (Yay, style is the name of this game folks) Add a ton of health too, to elude the players that they are indeed formidable, and voila. Stupid design at it's best... While at least I can see the Medusa heads in XX as placed pretty strategically, I can't say the same with the Sword guys who do nothing more to me then waste my time with their numbers and absurd amount of health. I mean, what's so darn genius about attacking and dodging in the exact same manner on a flat playing field a thousand times over and over?

And if you want to talk about Medusa heads, they were put to much better use in XX too if you ask me. Start of level 3 in XX sticks in my mind at the moment. And in XX as far as I can recall they're placed strategically and none cheaply too. Versus Rondo's where at least in one case (level 5' Hidden Docks) they can knock you to your death..., not to mention in this area there are multiple jumps where you have to be at just about the very edge of a platform or plunge to your death (Another complaint that was mentioned about XX, but in XX you don't have to be at the very edge with plenty more room to make jumps, and no death penalty either).

You know, now that I think of it? Rondo difficulty relies way more on cheap tactics the first time through, but once overcome, the game provides almost zero challenge afterwards. Unlike XX, which provides not as cheap but well designed & tested challenge. As after learning the game enough, it still provide a nice challenge due to well design... I think I've just open and shut this case with this last paragraph. Thank you, you have been a great audience. Don't forget to vote on you way out. And always remember to have a good laugh. (As the world, and internet especially, is just too silly to take seriously).

[Flame]

I honestly never died to the painting. When it became apparent that it was the miniboss and it would attack me, I never let it touch me.

Only once did it get me, and just because I wanted to see what would happen if it caught me.

[thernz]

no pls find bat you can walk directly under, but does not care because you are not a jumping stallion

[Puwexil]

Sinful, it's honestly depressing to see you try and recklessly generalize people into convenient little labels based purely on circumstantial logic. I haven't even mentioned Symphony in this thread, but somehow a completely irrelevant thing like my being fond of it discredits the opinions and arguments I've conveyed here about matters altogether separate. Don't resort to baseless strawmen, please. Disliking Dracula X is not synonymous to hating other stage-based Castlevanias, nor does liking Rondo translate to an absolute love of games post-Symphony. They're all individual games, with their own successes and failures.

Secondly, I've "made up my mind" about Dracula X not because of some irrational hatred I bear towards it, but for the simple reason of not finding it a very well made video game. I don't continue to talk about it because I want to hound the people who actually do like it, such as yourself, but because there's merit and value in evaluating its design from all possible standpoints. In that vein, I haven't stooped to ignoring counterarguments from opposing viewpoints; they just have to be actually convincing to sway me. It's nothing to get ruffled about or take personally. Just because I dislike a particular thing doesn't mean I hate hearing opinions that speak for it, or vice versa. Rondo's perceived flaws have been brought up here a bunch, but since I don't particularly agree with most of the related reasoning, the game remains favourable in my eyes. I don't think any lesser of people who arrive at a different conclusion.

You can agree to disagree, but I wish it was done in a way that wasn't so explicitly confrontational and abrasive.