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

[Abnormal Freak]

and if it wasn't for Rondo's style, I don't think I'd be  playing it anymore? Nor anyone else for that matter.

This right here is the very problem of your whole argument, why you come off as so snide. It's like you're implying that everyone who enjoys games in a way opposite to you are in Stupidville and that the only reason they like a game is because of a reason unrelated to the core basics of gameplay; in the case of Rondo, being "style over substance." No matter how many times and ways people will defend the legitimately fun and creative design aspects of Rondo, you'll brush that off as meaningless—"the player is blinded by style/nostalgia/popular opinion, LOL!" That attitude has been rampant in every one of your posts since the very first.

In my opinion, Rondo is both style AND substance—and most importantly, substance over style. It's designed exceptionally well and is super fun to play—but there's no reason to go into detail about why it's designed so well because others have already done so, and apparently to you their case means nada.

As for Yoshi's Island...it's the greatest damn game ever. Another example of both great style and substance but being substance over style because the gameplay and ingenuity is just so creative and entertaining. What does it matter that its map is basic and pretty? It's meant to be a level selection, not a map proper—and raging that "OHHHHH I HATE THAT GAME AND MIYAMOTO GODDAMN HIM FOR NOT HAVING A REAL MAP! " is totally silly.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Sinful: For the love of all the gods in the world... it's "Could Have", not "could have".
I wanna read your points and this continuously obstructs me from doing so properly.

I enjoy my retro games and "Nintendo Hard" gameplay and all, but DraculaXX has some serious setbacks that a little tweaking of the engine could have polished.
That's the word... it's presented well but its gameplay lacks polish, which, is another minus point considering Rondo's gameplay mechanics feel slightly better polished.  Considering that DraculaXX came out later, it's kind of "no we're not gonna look at all at what the Rondo team did, we're gonna do our own thing".

At least, that's what it seems like.

[BingleGod]

Thus, people need to go back to NES gaming to have a better understanding of what makes games good. Because everybody it blind to style over substance only nowadays, and back then it wasn't as one sided as it is now + limited technology forced developers to help keep things simple too.

This is close to being boring, unsupported retro-fetishism. I think the issue of challenge is more complicated than just saying that designers should look to the past, as if all the answers are there. This ignores the reality that the majority of difficult games from more than two decades ago were difficult because of poor design that attempted to augment playtime through piling on player failure; it also ignores that, as people who grew up playing videogames, most of us have gotten better at playing them, and this makes interaction with new games easier. Also, it suggests that a game isn't good unless it pressures the player to fail, which is an idea that's around only because most videogames have, in part, been about explicit competition. I think you and other members of the forum have probably arrived at a point of fundamental disagreement for what you look for in videogames -- what your preferences are, and what you can overlook in favor of accomplishments elsewhere. DraculaX isn't so inventively challenging of a game to draw me -- it's fairly plain in level design --, and RoB has enough creativity in its stage design and overall aesthetic that I'm not bothered by not dying everywhere.

To the person that quoted my Mario World 2 world map thingy; Yes, all substance and no style greatly upsets me too.

What does this have to do with Yoshi's Island? It's an exceptionally designed platformer. Your comment's pretty ironic, given that it was, supposedly, Miyamoto's reaction to what he saw as shiny shallowness in Donkey Kong Country.

[Sinful]

Sinful: For the love of all the gods in the world... it's "Could Have", not "could have".
I wanna read your points and this continuously obstructs me from doing so properly.

lol, I just got reminded by someone posting a Keanu Reeves pic that my second language is from the same Romania as these games are portrayed in... and man, that movie really used some really old dialect of Romanian as I could barely pick up what they were saying. Had to ask my mom why they talked so funny when she gave me that answer... So I guess they really put in some effort to making that movie historically correct in how they talked back then... but to be honest, there really are quiet a few accents of Romanian, and you can spot from what part of Romania they're in from just the way they talk or something along them lines?... OK, where were we.

@Abnormal Freak;
- oh, Yoshi's Island is a great game, it's just that I'm too stupid to appreciate it because I can't get over it's lame style of not having a map (them maps as a child filled me with so much imagination and expanded to that world better then anything). Nothing is wrong with the game, it's what's wrong with me.
- and yes, I believe that if Rondo didn't have that much style it wouldn't be as popular or at all. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it's what I believe.
- yes, in your opinion Rondo does have enough style and substance, and maybe for a game it does? But to me, and for it being a Castlevania game, it does not. And it's quite upsetting to me that people see more substance in Rondo then in XX, and hence why we are discussing this right now
- and yes, from the things people brought up to rebuttal me, it always seemed to have been rebuttal that the game does have enough style, when I mostly asked for substance... yet I gave up and decided to tag along discussing about style too. Because I gave up...


@Jorge D. Fuentes;
- first, thanks for correcting my poor English writting skills. I'll try to keep that in mind (just don't get to upset when I forget >_>)....
- second, you seem to also be upset that XX is not a Rondo port? It's something I never fully understand? I love XX for been more it's own game then Rondo port... especially considering they fixed the thing I found most wrong with it.

@BingleGod
- I only read the first and last paragraph... and that's enough for me to see that you don't see my thoughts at all... Whatever, it's all good, as I don't see yours either. .... what the heck, I'll read the rest... oops, it's just as I thought, we don't see eye to eye at all and had to stop reading.... What the heck, I'll read the rest >_>... ah, here we go, you don't like XX, and thus you can't see it's beauty (+ you have the right to not prefer certain gameplay, and/or whatever else too). It's OK, I couldn't stand all Konami Shmups at one point either, especially the Gradius series. But I gave in and pushed myself to keep playing them to see if I can figure it's fame out? Then it hit me big time. This game series, Gradius, is one of the most amazing & well designed games I've ever played in my life. Thank goodness I didn't let my hate bias toward it overcome me looking at it with an open mind as best as I could allow, and instead of not seeing the games genius design, it instead hit me like a transport truck. And now I see the series as vastly under rated & misunderstood, and too bad it's dead ... luckily I found more Konami goodness in Contra, and now classic Castlevania... which sadly is also misunderstood and now dead too.



And looks guys, if I'm doing a poor job at this, and especially upsetting people. I'll stop. I don't want to cause any trouble or hurt anyones feelings. Besides, if I'm doing a bad job explaining myself, what's the point?... and I feel I've said more then enough, anyways... I also thought Richter B's thoughts would of, er, would have shut this debate big time too... the guy spoke English language like and angle, and mannerism to boot too! Not to mention the way he described the series, it seemed to me like he really did understand them from a design and balance perspective better then anyone... ... But again, my thoughts on this, so you don't have to agree.

[thernz]

i wish dxx was more like cv1

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

It's not "I wish DraculaXX were more like Rondo".  It's "I wish DraculaXX would have been designed better".
Even if I never played Rondo, that won't stop the minor problems around DraculaXX's stage design and mechanics from existing.

And I still love DraculaXX and will play my copy whenever.  I can love a game whilst simultaneously realizing its shortcomings.  It's what separates an objective gamer and a fanboy.

[Abnormal Freak]

Ansd I still love DraculaXX and will play my copy whenever.  I can love a game whilst simultaneously realizing its shortcomings.  It's what separates an objective gamer and a fanboy.

Pretty much. Kinda baffles me that someone would question how someone could like something if they criticize it.

I myself played DXX long before I got around to Rondo. Even at the time without the original game to compare it to (and being only 13), I thought, "Man, this game could have used some work." It's not perfect, but it IS a heckuva lotta fun. I think it might've been a better game had the designers worked entirely from scratch; there's original content like the wizard boss that's totally awesome.

[Esco]

Touhouvania (the 2nd game primarily): it's what castlevania should be like nowadays. Except with more stages & maybe 3 playable characters. 

[Abnormal Freak]

Whatsavania?

[VladCT]

Koumajou Densetsu.

[thernz]

The first one is pretty terrible, but the second is decent. But both kinda have the sort of level design you see in later titles, except those titles had that type of level design because they were exploration-based.

But these games are linear.


So it's weird.

[Esco]

The first one is pretty terrible, but the second is decent. But both kinda have the sort of level design you see in later titles, except those titles had that type of level design because they were exploration-based.

But these games are linear.


So it's weird.

I'm amazed that ANYONE can call the second title just descent, lol. It has amazing hi-res graphics, the music is great, enemy placement is terrific, and the sounds fit perfect. The various difficulty settings give it descent replay value, it is a high paced game, which at first may make some parts seem unfair. But as you practice more and more, you can actually blow thru even the extra stage without taking a hit (though it WILL take a lot of practice). The voice acting is actually done by a PAID PROFESSIONAL (an extreme rarity in fan games), and although the story is a bit nonsensical, it adds an overall happy mood to the game.

Best of all it's not just challenging... but fun. And the majority of people who have played it agree. I get much more of a rush from this, than I did playing any of the sloooooooooooooow recent castlevania games.

But that's just my opinion; to each his/her own. 

[RichterB]

I got my SNES out of storage, got it up and running (wasn't sure if it still worked due to some cracking/yellowing), and played Dracula XX myself for the first time in about 4 or 5 years. As has been said, it has its flaws and quirks, and I know that. (As was noted earlier, though, I never noticed the bat glitch before where you can't hit them when they're perched. Yet, while unfortunate, that doesn't really prove to be much of a problem. The much more dangerous crows thankfully can be hit prior to flight). Also, I was reminded by Jorge that Rondo's level 1 is inspired by CVII and XX is inspired by CVIII. Despite that fact, I've never really felt any particular nostalgia for either, and just judge them on how they come across when I play them (described earlier in thread). Since some were mentioning their first impression of XX, I'll give mine...

I was told to stay away from this game when it first came out, since it wasn't like the SNES' CVIV. I may have had a slight inkling that there was this game called Rondo it was based on (and later saw pics here and elsewhere), but what struck me firsthand were three things: 1.) It wasn't like IV; 2.) It was the most stylish-looking 2D Castlevania I had played, with an attractive color palette and anime-like elements such as item crashes and a non-Barbarian yet still rugged Belmont; 3.) It didn't matter that it wasn't like IV, because it was so completely engrossing and fun, it's music leading the way before the action even starts. (As an aside, as excited as I was to play Rondo based on what was documented on this excellent website and Mr. P's Castlevania Lore, in practice, it just didn't float my boat. For a while, I did think that maybe XX had cheated me by not having a ghost ship, etc--until I played said levels, and found out they just didn't have the same "feel.")

Anyway, I'll post some specific reactions to what I played last night in a second, but I just want to say that overall, this XX game remains a joy. I can respect and casually enjoy what Rondo tries in scope, design, themes, and innovations, even if I've pointed out my perception of its shortcomings, but XX is just a lot more instinctively fun with its focus on classic action-platforming.

Random observations/thoughts from play-through:

*Love the title screen, with the Dracula laugh, the blood-slashed X in the logo, and matching dagger cursor.

*The original stage clear music of XX, ending with the fade out, is pretty heroic and inspiring.

*I've said it before, but the lack of traditional block structures and heavy outlines makes for a more artsy aesthetic.

*The Medusa pillar segment of stage 3 is still a nail-biter, but playing it again, as long as you play strategically, it's really all about execution on the player's part. There's very little cheap about it. I don't know if that should even be a part of future arguments/discussions.

*The designers show some clever mercy in the stage 3 boss battle. Knowing that you have to sacrifice range sub-weapons for the key, they put a meat on the opposite end of the room as long as you manage to maneuver around the boss. It's not truly necessary, but from a perspective that some players may have barely survived the Medusa pillar section, it provides additional game balance depending on the experience of the player.

*You know, about exploiting some enemies in their placements: There's enough volume of enemies in an XX stage that it makes it a strategic advantage to take out a few bone pillars on a floor above by whip-jumping, or taking out a few knights with a kneeling whip. (Kind of like using the back whip ability in Adventure Rebirth). This is especially so when you get into the gauntlet of trying to survive with that key. And sometimes they're designed as rewards. The dungeon stage has one such instance where you come down on a red axe knight from a rising/falling chained platform. First, you have to time the bat approach right. Then, you have multiple options. Face him straight quickly (which is dangerous), or you can jump over him as he charges toward the spike pit at your back. At this point, you can seek cover on higher ground down the passage to whip him (a reward exploit for your quick-thinking), or just turn after the jump to face him straight and repeat until successful.

*I like the arrangement of the crumbling platforms/bridge in the beginning of stage 2, where the starting music builds just as the lighting changes, and then you've got those mermen that kind of force you to realize the usefulness of sub-weapons.

*The stage 2 bat boss. Interesting thing here. It was a minor part of the boss remix in Rondo. Here it gets its own centerpiece fight with new programming. In this one, it harkens back to some of the bat bosses of III and IV, but takes it in a different direction. And not only against spear masters and for platforming shortcuts, but this boss still utilizes the optional/delayed backflip ability well (see battle): Castlevania Dracula X (SNES) Boss 2 Phantom Bat - No Damage, No Sub Weapons

*About the screen transitions; I'm usually so absorbed by the action, music, and atmosphere, I don't notice them. I still wasn't really bothered by them, honestly. They are sharp, but it should be noted that in 2D games, there is no guarantee that the transition is truly left to right or vice-versa. In some cases, the character may be moving into the screen or into the background (through a transition corridor, for example) which can't always be conveyed as easily as in 3D. I'm not going to crucify it for this, and it's not the only game that does it, anyway. Especially when some of the stages can be so beautiful in their flow or elements. The dungeon, which is underground, has a vertical section with gears and pulleys, presumably used to help mine/carve the cave at some point. Those linked buckets can carry you up (much like the praised water buckets of Rondo's stage 1, but much more integrated into the central gameplay with obstacle/enemy placement and platforming).

The gorgeous, rewarding Sunken City stage appears as a surprise after this dingy cave-dungeon-mine. The stage (5') has you traveling deeper into the sunken city's bowels, where you can see what appears to be algae staining and the like on the pillars; then you enter a temple that starts to collapse into the water from your weight, before climbing up until you reach a series of raised aqueducts. But even disregarding this, or interpreting it another way, that's what I absolutely love about 2D games and early 3D games. They're largely direct, hand's off, and you can insert your imagination into the narrative of the stage flow/art as you traverse it visually and aurally. To that point, the Sunken City remixes and embellishes Rondo's ghost ship theme so that it truly brings out the fanciful woodwind and marimba-like percussion sounds of trickling/cascading water. (It's more than just cut-and-paste). Its tempo is slightly upped (roughly a 5 second difference between them to get to the first solo), heightening the journey to escape this enchanting but dangerously unstable area. When I mention embellishments, while many are subtle, the most significant here is the staccato notes that close off the aforementioned woodwind solo in Dracula X, which doesn't exist in the Rondo version, and really adds to the song's new usage in XX, flowing right back into the opening like undulating water (SEE 1:15-1:17). Castlevania Dracula X OST Picture of the Ghost Ship

Well, that's all I've got. You know what I take issue with? Why wasn't XX a part of the Dracula X Chronicles?

PS: Those professional-ish fan-games, or whatever they are, seem much too flat and unimaginative in level design, IMO.

[BingleGod]

*I've said it before, but the lack of traditional block structures and heavy outlines makes for a more artsy aesthetic.

This doesn't actually mean anything, descriptively speaking.

*About the screen transitions; I'm usually so absorbed by the action, music, and atmosphere, I don't notice them. I still wasn't really bothered by them, honestly. They are sharp, but it should be noted that in 2D games, there is no guarantee that the transition is truly left to right or vice-versa.

Conveyed dimension isn't the only factor in critiques of the transitions, though. Look at that map from stage 3 that I posted (or others) and note how formally inexplicable the room-to-room switches are. It's weird that you'd say that you're too absorbed by "atmosphere" to notice this sloppiness when one of the primary contributors to the atmosphere in these games is the background art and thematic progression. At this point, to be honest, much of your reading of the game sounds like willful ignorance, where you are so caught up in a kind of hyper-subjectivity that analysis becomes a matter of personal imaginative logic (this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think it has much utility in critical dialogue). I can only give videogames a break up to a certain point in their internal rationale, so turning these points into a matter of mental eye-squinting & head-tilting doesn't do a lot to convince me.

[RichterB]

BingleGod, I find the individual motif's attractive and absorbing in ambiance (and the lack of traditional brick patterns adds to that a bit)--giving me a lot in a short amount of space. As we all know from Curse of Darkness, we don't want to be traveling an unabridged Dracula's Castle, which causes the eyes to glaze over even if it remains all but entirely consistent from room to room. On that note, XX Stage 3: You start on an outside wall; enter through a window or some such passage, then travel downward into a sewer, creep back upstairs into a formal hall, enter one of Dracula's weirdo rooms and/or perhaps a ruined section (like, say, Rondo's giant candle room), and then enter some sort of observation room and/or courtyard from that corridor. Castles have a lot of different rooms in short order, especially Dracula's castle in Castlevania lore. (Rondo's stage 2 goes from blue to red [brick] in one screen, and then to white with pillars within a few more screens, and I don't take issue with that). Moreover, that logic is no more kooky than Rondo's own stage 3: Going from an upstairs chapel supported by odd pillars into a cavern of giant candles, which you're heading and exit right to left, and you return left to right in a room of wood and brick that ends in a giant Greek statue in a place that started as a Christian symbol-filled chapel. That's a bit of a clever mosaic in of itself, I'd think.

Sometimes, there doesn't seem to be constructive critical dialogue back equal to the semi-condescending tone I seem to be getting here. Honestly, my attempts at critical dialogue, where I talked some stage-by-stage material in Rondo were largely brushed over. Granted, on the legitimate counter for Stage 1, it was noted that A.) the XX rooftops convert back to ground level (but that's no big jump of logic in a town on fire, IMO, or given some of the transitions of other CVs, including some I've mentioned) and B.) that both Rondo and XX's first stages are built on nostalgia for different games, which, while interesting, I didn't find significant. But it didn't address some of the fundamental points, like about establishing a core design before the curve ball.

But I am not interested in a prolonged "Vs," where we get people saying "you don't know anything." I merely came to speak my piece from my experience and observations so that everything wouldn't be so historically one-sided, which I have done. And as I basically said before, it's not about convincing, because that's impossible on the internet. I don't want people to say Rondo or XX is "the best." I just want to bring up the possibility that Rondo may be overrated, XX may be underrated, neither are perfect, and both are interesting entries that provide different strokes for different folks. (And as such, you can make a legitimate decision as to which you enjoy without being called out as an uneducated goof). Regardless, the best I can hope for is a fair read here, and that's it.

Really, I'm far more concerned about Castlevania making a "true comeback" as a franchise all its own. But that's a waiting game where only playing will bring believing.