Here's a little snippet from the Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow wiki.
"Unlike most recent Castlevania games, Ayami Kojima did not participate in the character designs for Dawn of Sorrow. Instead, the characters were drawn in a distinctive anime style. This was done due to influence from producer Koji Igarashi, who wanted to market the game to a younger audience."
Basically, he was watering down the look of Castlevania, taking it from an already disputed gothic anime look, to a saturday morning cartoon anime look, in order to make it more accessible to kids.
LOS is a very mature game visually, and plays in a linear fashion like a classic Castlevania game.
Now which developer do you think had the older cv fans in mind?
Well, IGA...
You know, there's more to classic Castlevania than linearity and visual maturity.
IGA's games left nearly all of Castlevania's original spirit intact. Its gameplay, its design, its atmosphere -- everything was all flawlessly integrated with what gamers knew from the 8-bit titles of old. It came off to most as a natural, enriching continuation of what made the series great.
Lords of Shadow was created as a full-fledged reboot of the series. It had admittedly adopted Castlevania's mantle to give a fresher, entirely newer look to an aging franchise. As such, it strove to keep some of Castlevania's recognizable, evocative atmosphere, but chose to rebuild and readapt the series to create a large-scale, mainstream 3D title. In the way it was made, Lords of Shadow naturally bears far less resemblance to the titles that older fans might have known.
I'll give you a few examples, if you like:
- LoS is a 3D game.
- It uses a heavy, combo-based system for combat. Fighting is done in large, modern-style arena areas, rather than in linear corridors.
- Enemies aren't interspersed throughout all the game's areas, like in previous Castlevania titles; LoS offers extended, combat-free sequences platforming and exploration, and alternates them with intense, combat-exclusive arena fights.
- LoS doesn't smoothly integrate platforming and combat like other Castlevania games did. Its platforming sequences are scripted to the last movement, and its combat doesn't allow for a shrewd interaction with the environment.
Of course, some of these changes were required in order to create a functional 3D title; but those problems naturally occur when you advance that LoS is closer to classic CV...
Here's a little snippet from the Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow wiki.
"Unlike most recent Castlevania games, Ayami Kojima did not participate in the character designs for Dawn of Sorrow. Instead, the characters were drawn in a distinctive anime style. This was done due to influence from producer Koji Igarashi, who wanted to market the game to a younger audience."
Basically, he was watering down the look of Castlevania, taking it from an already disputed gothic anime look, to a saturday morning cartoon anime look, in order to make it more accessible to kids.
LOS is a very mature game visually, and plays in a linear fashion like a classic Castlevania game.
Now which developer do you think had the older cv fans in mind?
I for one do not see the open world style of play as an improvement. I see it as an alternate style of gameplay, not a superior feature. I liked the fact that LOS was linear like the original Castlevania was. This was another nod to the older Castlevania games in my opinion. It keeps the focus on action, which is my favorite part of CV. When I am playing a game, I prefer to spend my time battling monsters, and overcoming level obstacles- not wandering around a level collecting items and trying to figure out where to go next. I can appreciate that some fans prefer the Simon's Quest, SOTN open world style, but I don't think it makes sense to complain about the style of game LOS is. You might as well pop in Grand Turismo and complain that you can't drive off of the track and onto public streets.
By no means is an open world design always an improvement; in many cases, it can severely hurt a game. But in this case, Lords' linearity actually hampered its gameplay quite a bit. Here's what had happened:
Lords of Shadow tried to integrate the experience of a monumental, immersive environment with the focus and direction of a linear game. It offered spectacular views of seemingly boundless domains: lush forests, towering cliffs, crumbling ruins. Yet by its very nature it needed a specific, set path for its character to progress through. As a result, it was forced to set illogical, artificial barriers within the huge environment it had created. We all know the result: invisible walls; identical ledges you can't climb; apparent paths that can't be followed. Even the fixed camera played a role in this; so did the game's rigid platforming. The game proposed a seamless environment, yet expected the player to follow a single, precise path. This led to a lot of unnecessary confusion and frustration -- at best, the player didn't know why he couldn't move in a certain direction; at worst, he simply couldn't figure out where to go. The bottom line: Lords of Shadow could have better assumed its linearity and given the player a more visibly directed experience, all without sacrificing its gorgeous environment. The game partly missed that cue.
But, of course, we must forgive it: Lords of Shadow had many excellent aspects, and, most of the time, succeeds in a creating an enjoyable and cohesive experience. It was a great vision for the series that we would love to see at its full potential in LoS2. Isn't that why this thread exists in the first place?
Uh, guys, Cox said a while ago QTE's could be disabled.
Victory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!