Topic: Castlevania: "Same hell, different devil"--How far have we come since '03?

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

RichterB--I'm not really sure what you're looking for in a new CV from the opening post (what you think would unite the fanbase). If you're not really happy with the Metroidvania style for 2D, nor the LoI style or the LoS style for 3D and what these styles are doing for the fanbase as a whole, it's sort of hard to tell what kind of new style you'd want to see tried to do that. I guess I suspect this is because the answer is that there really is no one possible game that will unite the fanbase; it's too late, the fanbase is already fractured, just as so many others are by now (Sonic, FF, Metroid, etc.) Perhaps a cohesive strategy could (with each "faction" getting the style of game they want every couple years), but that's about all I think could happen to keep everyone in the fanbase happy. That, however, is not likely.

As far as there ever being a general consensus on a 3D game style for CV, there probably never will be one in the way there seemed to be one for Zelda and Mario. A lot of the key elements of CV, or perhaps just fanbase proclivities, resulted in no 3D attempt ever feeling quite right to everyone. One might even hazard to say that Mario's "3D consensus" with Mario 64 was illusory, as I'm seeing a lot of 2D Mario fans coming out of the woodwork--with NSMB games outselling 3D Mario games and blogs largely devoted to pushing the 2D Mario style against the 3D style (Sean Malstrom's). One might also say that Zelda was always much more suited to transitioning to 3D, because the overhead perspective combined with a minimized height dimension made Zelda 'almost' 3D in design since at least ALTTP, back when its fanbase was united.

Regarding some kind of ground-breaking innovation or as-yet unforeseen genre change that pushes the series forward and unites the fanbase, I doubt I see that in the cards. The genres and conventions of 3D are pretty much defined in the developers' minds and in gamers' as well. Whether much more truly original genre-defining works can come out of 3D now, I'm not entirely sure. At this point it seems like it has come down to "What predefined game style do you want to see a CV resembling? Demon's Souls? Vagrant Story? Some MMO? Skyrim?" But few will go out and try to define a whole new genre for CV in 3D that doesn't just recycle elements from other genres (likely because it seems like almost everything that can be done gameplay-wise has been at least roughly done with the third dimension in video games). And probably none will find one genre that most of the fanbase would want to see being the genre of all foreseeable future CVs.

[Chernabogue]

I agree with RichterB here.

Change did lot of good to Castlevania IMO, but we still have elements from previous games, avoiding to forget the great past of the series.

[Sumac]

Castlevania will never advance as far as it was supposed to as long as they refuse to make an original HD 2D sprite-based Metroidvania disk console title that leaves Symphony of the Night in the dust.

You should add that it goes only for 2D Castlevanias. Because 3D is quite different thing alltogether and thinking that "if Castlevania game in 3D - it is not really an advancement" is kind of stupid.

It's come a long way for the better. Of course I only speak for the games and direction here, since I don't view the Castlevania fanbase very favorably, at least when taken as a whole. So much vitriol about basically everything- if there's something about the series you like, you can bet that there's someone who not only disagrees with it, but is ready to go off on an impassioned tirade about it at the drop of a hat.

You took the words from my mouth. But you formulated it much better than I do. Thank you.

[RichterB]

And the conversation evolves! 

RichterB--I'm not really sure what you're looking for in a new CV from the opening post (what you think would unite the fanbase). If you're not really happy with the Metroidvania style for 2D, nor the LoI style or the LoS style for 3D and what these styles are doing for the fanbase as a whole, it's sort of hard to tell what kind of new style you'd want to see tried to do that. I guess I suspect this is because the answer is that there really is no one possible game that will unite the fanbase; it's too late, the fanbase is already fractured, just as so many others are by now (Sonic, FF, Metroid, etc.) Perhaps a cohesive strategy could (with each "faction" getting the style of game they want every couple years), but that's about all I think could happen to keep everyone in the fanbase happy. That, however, is not likely

...One might even hazard to say that Mario's "3D consensus" with Mario 64 was illusory, as I'm seeing a lot of 2D Mario fans coming out of the woodwork--with NSMB games outselling 3D Mario games and blogs largely devoted to pushing the 2D Mario style against the 3D style (Sean Malstrom's). One might also say that Zelda was always much more suited to transitioning to 3D, because the overhead perspective combined with a minimized height dimension made Zelda 'almost' 3D in design since at least ALTTP, back when its fanbase was united

...At this point it seems like it has come down to "What predefined game style do you want to see a CV resembling? Demon's Souls? Vagrant Story? Some MMO? Skyrim?" But few will go out and try to define a whole new genre for CV in 3D that doesn't just recycle elements from other genres (likely because it seems like almost everything that can be done gameplay-wise has been at least roughly done with the third dimension in video games). And probably none will find one genre that most of the fanbase would want to see being the genre of all foreseeable future CVs.

A couple of points to your interesting reply. (Actually, this became a wall of words, but there's thought-provoking stuff in it, I promise ).

I think I, personally, know what direction I'd like the series to try (in at least the 3D realm, and maybe 2D, too), but I'm looking for a broad view from the fan base, which, like you stated, is hard to have reach a consensus. I think the current strains of Castlevania have reached dead-ends where they're stuck at "competent games" but not "enthralling games." And the conclusion I have come to has recently brought about a shocking revelation that I hope to glean more information about. That conclusion is this: The basic concept and bare bones of Castlevania 64/Legacy of Darkness is as close as we've seen to a direct translation of Castlevania from 2D to 3D. Moreover, it provides a balanced base platform for action, platforming, and exploration in a cohesive package with room to grow; however, this format has been largely rejected by the fan base. Some of the blame is timing and technical limitations; but there is a vehement crowd that wants nothing to do with this style of game ever again, which seems a rejection of the basic idea of making Castlevania "Castlevania" in 3D. So that really opens to door to "what is Castlevania in 3D?" which degrades into your point that people just start throwing out names like Skyrim and Dark Souls. It seems trends overcome the idea of building a brand up from its heritage. I don't understand what whacking away twenty times at a regular enemy with every super-powered move imaginable has to do with the game philosophy of Castlevania, or how it drastically improves it. It merely "looks" cool and "pads" largely flat level designs. I understand there is an anti-Mario 3D crowd, but between 64, Galaxy 1&2, and 3D Land, you've seen Mario genuinely translate and honor its fundamentals while opening itself up to 3D space. Mario doesn't have to butt stomp a Goomba twenty times to get by it and cause the bricks to part the path in front of him, he's still jumping A LOT, and he still breaks things with his head. Zelda, likewise, has had its very respectful translation (though, honestly, it's terribly slowed its own growth by not including actual jumping in its post N64-era ala Zelda 2 and many of the portable entries).

Castlevania isn't any easy 3D sell in design, but it's not rocket science. Now, playing both sides, you could argue that Castlevania 64/Legacy of Darkness played along the lines of other 3D games--I've heard Tomb Raider, Nightmare Creatures, and Resident Evil thrown out there. When you boil it down, though, it plays more like Castlevania than any of those. The use and frequency of platforming and/or enemy/hazard placement, the not-too-claustrophobic level design, the structured use of the whip and sub-weapons, etc.

And like I said, you can build on this format in a fitting way. You could probably afford an extra whip move or two, like CotM Nathan Grave's spinning whip shield move, or Super IV Simon's nunchuck whip jiggle, but no preset, overpowering, mathematical combos, where you start to break the "Castlevania" from the game. And the levels, who's to say you couldn't make it a little more open-world if need be, with some town hubs along the way, some of which are haunted or have been infiltrated by vampires that you risk encountering by going inside. The versatility of the basic format is there (and the N64 design team even hinted at experimenting with stuff like this during development), while still having the bread and butter necessities. Gradually, this format has the potential to satisfy the basic needs of both the Classicvania and the Metroidvania crowds. (Those who have subscribed wholeheartedly to LoI, CoD, and LoS, they're still invited, but if they're just in it for combo action, maybe they find they really like Devil May Cry, God of War, etc, better than they actually like "Castlevania.") There is no law that Castlevania needs to follow every single trend to be successful. We wouldn't want Mario to do that, would we? It's like someone saying "it's time for a Mario FPS, because I like Mario and I like FPS, and just jumping on Goombas isn't good enough...I want to turn them into mushroom soup. That's going to make the game better and more like the Mario series I grew up with. In fact, let's change the Goombas into ravenous cats with metal claws to keep it fresh; that way they can block the bullets from time to time." ...Huh?

I hold that if you offered a tight, compelling game with good graphics and great atmosphere, it should sell, regardless of trends. heck, it makes it stand out!

So, maybe it sounds counter-intuitive, but I think to innovate Castlevania and unite the fans, you probably have to look back to go forward, because with the 64 games, you basically had the rough beta of an equivalent to Mario 64 or Ocarina of Time. But an overzealous love of SotN and 2D gaming, combined with a lack of patience, caused this potential to be overlooked and wasted in favor of following one 3D trend after another into a 3D and franchise identity crisis.

As far as the 2D games go, I think they really should at least consider one  of these four options. 1.) Make an ALL-NEW HD game design based on Castlevania III's structure, and just go nuts with the amount of level path options and themes while adding and building onto the versatility of the whip from Super Castlevania IV. 2.) Make a game based on the basic dual concept of Portrait of Ruin, but make the "paintings" or their substitute transports take you to linear levels built in the Classicvania format so that can have death pits and can afford to self-destruct and warp in various ways (crumble apart, burn down, etc) because they don't require backtracking. 3.) Do #2 in a Simon's Quest-like world format. 4.) Some combination of the above.

Any of these would be more dynamic than a straight-up re-imagining of SotN or AoS.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

All I'm missing now I guess is your definition/example of an "enthralling game." Because of personal preferences, my concept of an enthralling game is probably different from your own.

I agree that at the bare bones level, CV64 and LoD are perhaps the closest CV has come to having a game that feels like the classicvanias in 3D--probably due to a lot of focus on platforming in addition to the general gameplay style choices and level atmosphere in the first half of the game. But I pretty much agree that I'm not sure something like those games are even viable now given where gaming has gone since they came out and the impression that those games left due to their flaws. People don't seem confident that the flaws of the 64 games can be removed (or they may feel that those flaws are ingrained into the style itself). Part if it may just be that people simply don't like 3D platformers as much as 2D platformers, because of innate human perception difficulties with viewing jumps with three dimensions on a 2D surface (the screen) and any camera problems that may be present in the game are magnified by this. 3D platformers could try to hide these problems by making most of the jumps more simplistic or more 2D-like, but they only rarely seem to do that.

I'm a bit outside the norm when it comes to CV64 though, so it's rather difficult for me to fully understand the problems people tended to have with it (and from what I hear, to a lesser extent with LoD), because I never really had too much in the way of problems with the camera or the platforming. I mean, sure, I died a decent amount, but most of the time I didn't really feel the camera was causing me to or anything. Maybe I adapted to using the center-camera button a lot or I adapt to that style of camera better than most? I dunno. Actually what I had a lot more problems with was the magic nitro puzzle in the Castle Center, but that is obviously not something that's part of the fundamentals of the game. I'd probably be fine if the next 3D CV was more like LoD with whatever remaining problems it had solved, but I doubt that's a majority opinion. It still wouldn't be able to replace 2D ones for me though.

As far as CV following the trends, it does seem to do that a bit with its 3D endeavors, probably because the developers are simply at a loss for ideas as to what it should be like without modelling it off some other game franchise that has been successful in 3D. Risk aversion seems to come into play there. And they don't say "hey let's go back to CV64 and try to do that formula perfectly" since to Konami it seems like that formula wasn't successful in converting people. Whether because of things that could've been corrected or not, we may never know.

Also, I'm not really sure an overzealous love of SotN really killed CV64 in that I'm not sure an overzealous love of SotN was in full effect by the time CV64 came out. If I'm to believe the Internet histories, SotN didn't really do that well at first--it only gradually grew to be a cult hit. I may be wrong on the timeline for that though, because I didn't really follow CV fan reaction closely back then, nor would I be sure that even if I had that the Internet would have a wide enough sampling back in 97-99 to tell a good deal about the whole fanbase.

Regarding the 2D games, I'd probably be fine with either your suggestion #2 or #3 as long as there's enough of a Metroidvania-like structure outside the portraits or sublevels. PoR didn't really get to that level for me because the castle itself was rather small and the portraits made up a larger bulk of the gameplay, but it was still a fun game. It could also be easily done with a CV2 like format as you mention by making stuff like the mansions in the classicvania style (and having more mansions than CV2 had) while having a large outer world. The thing is, I'm not sure if the majority of those who prefer the classicvania style would be ok with that or not, or whether they need it to be even more like the classicvanias rather than some combo of Metroidvania and classic. I'd like to say compromise is needed, but given what MoF is starting to look like the more I see of it, I have to say that if something just doesn't push the right buttons in someone's head to trigger that "fun" chemical reaction, then there's not really much they can do about that no matter what anyone might preach about compromise.

As far as your number 1 suggestion, I'd very likely play such a game and like it just as I like pretty much any classicvania, but I don't really see it as being financially viable, at least in Konami's perspective, in the horrific world games have moved into today. Maybe someone like Vanillaware would be able to do something like that, but I don't know how their business model differs from Konami's to let them make visually impressive 2D games and still survive.

Regarding your last comment, while it would be more dynamic and be concretely different than just another SotN or AoS, I get the feeling that if it's like Metroidvania at all, you'll still get those who will scream rehash no matter how much it's changed up. I've seen people say it about OoE despite the fact that OoE has obvious structural level design differences compared to AoS, DoS, HoD or SotN (which one can't necessarily tell from a specific screenshot--except maybe the overworld screenshot--but can tell if they play the game). Perhaps partially because Metroidvania never really made it as an "official" genre in most people's minds, I think, some people don't see it as viable that a series can continue in that "genre" forever without future entries all being considered rehashes. That is unlike, say, the Dead Space series which could continue being back camera TPSes for the rest of time or the Mario Galaxy series which could continue being 3D platformers for the rest of time.

[Reinhart77]

You should add that it goes only for 2D Castlevanias. Because 3D is quite different thing alltogether and thinking that "if Castlevania game in 3D - it is not really an advancement" is kind of stupid.

You are correct.  I'm just complaining that Castlevania never developed into the game that I was expecting in the direction that I was expecting.  I never complain about the games that are created, as I like all the directions it tends to go and appreciate them for what they are.  I just lament when certain games aren't created.

In the 3D realm, I'm still waiting for the "ultimate" game to be created based on my initial idea of what a 3D Castlevania game should be like, namely an advanced version of Legacy of Darkness.  I want a game with a large open environment that allows me to travel in all sorts of different directions, walk everywhere that there's not a wall, and lets me take a look around as I please.  But sadly, this type of game also seems impractical now-adays. 

Both these types of games seem to simply require to much work to go into the details to make the game profitable.  I'm sad, but not mad, and will continue to enjoy the series in whatever incarnation it may take.  I just won't feel like the series ever reached the peaks of my expectations.

[RichterB]

All I'm missing now I guess is your definition/example of an "enthralling game." Because of personal preferences, my concept of an enthralling game is probably different from your own.

Well, yes, this is a subjective thing and less important than the previous broader points I was trying to make. But every fan deserves their time to be thrilled by their franchise every now and then, no? 

An "enthralling game" (and this goes for Castlevania) is one that continues to catch me off guard, making me beg to get to the next stage, all the while challenging me with nail-biting moments and gameplay that keeps engaged and not removed from the basic action, stage-to stage. If it's in a franchise, it's visual/aural atmosphere absorbs me into that given world, which is both true to form while also expanding in legacy, and doesn't take me out of it with an abundance of interruptions.

You know what Castlevania came closest to "enthralling" me most in the last roughly 9 years? The Adventure Rebirth on Hard Mode (with its modified level designs/enemies). The game was so bare bones and short that in a lot of ways it was like a demo, and yet it touched strongly on enough of the above that it was much more than "fun" or "amusing." It fell far short of my expectations of where I ultimately want the series to go, whether 2D or 3D, as it was more throwback than advancement, but it "reminded me" of why this series "can" be enthralling. It captured the "grain" of Castlevania for me in its nail-biting action-platforming that makes you work to discover what's next, building anticipation of discovery.

I agree that at the bare bones level, CV64 and LoD are perhaps the closest CV has come to having a game that feels like the classicvanias in 3D--probably due to a lot of focus on platforming in addition to the general gameplay style choices and level atmosphere in the first half of the game. But I pretty much agree that I'm not sure something like those games are even viable now given where gaming has gone since they came out and the impression that those games left due to their flaws. People don't seem confident that the flaws of the 64 games can be removed (or they may feel that those flaws are ingrained into the style itself). Part if it may just be that people simply don't like 3D platformers as much as 2D platformers, because of innate human perception difficulties with viewing jumps with three dimensions on a 2D surface (the screen) and any camera problems that may be present in the game are magnified by this. 3D platformers could try to hide these problems by making most of the jumps more simplistic or more 2D-like, but they only rarely seem to do that.I'm a bit outside the norm when it comes to CV64 though, so it's rather difficult for me to fully understand the problems people tended to have with it (and from what I hear, to a lesser extent with LoD), because I never really had too much in the way of problems with the camera or the platforming. I mean, sure, I died a decent amount, but most of the time I didn't really feel the camera was causing me to or anything. Maybe I adapted to using the center-camera button a lot or I adapt to that style of camera better than most? I dunno. Actually what I had a lot more problems with was the magic nitro puzzle in the Castle Center, but that is obviously not something that's part of the fundamentals of the game. I'd probably be fine if the next 3D CV was more like LoD with whatever remaining problems it had solved, but I doubt that's a majority opinion. It still wouldn't be able to replace 2D ones for me though.

Yeah, I have rarely had this problem with 3D platforming. It's always seemed pretty natural to me, although I do hear this complaint--even Miyamoto keeps bringing it up. Regardless, platforming is an inherent part of a large chunk of gaming, and particularly is that so for Castlevania. To drop it because it's hard to develop shows a laziness in development and the increasing "corporatization/Hollywood-ization" of game development. It's sad. Sakurai of Smash Bros and Kirby fame recently lamented something just like this, and think players can adapt more than companies seem to think. If Castlevania or any franchise just goes with the trends, everything starts to bleed together, get distorted, and even border on absurd, as my extreme example of Mario FPS illustrated.

Also, I'm not really sure an overzealous love of SotN really killed CV64 in that I'm not sure an overzealous love of SotN was in full effect by the time CV64 came out. If I'm to believe the Internet histories, SotN didn't really do that well at first--it only gradually grew to be a cult hit. I may be wrong on the timeline for that though, because I didn't really follow CV fan reaction closely back then, nor would I be sure that even if I had that the Internet would have a wide enough sampling back in 97-99 to tell a good deal about the whole fanbase.

You have a point to an extent; though, I recall a good deal of previews, reviews, and or community notes about how it wasn't "like SotN." Now, some said that didn't matter, others did. Castlevania was struggling to keep relevant at the time, so SotN had started a lot of new hope for the series, and the N64 games being different was viewed as a bit puzzling. I wonder if the platform choice itself, N64, caused problems with certain install bases.

Regarding the 2D games, I'd probably be fine with either your suggestion #2 or #3 as long as there's enough of a Metroidvania-like structure outside the portraits or sublevels...The thing is, I'm not sure if the majority of those who prefer the classicvania style would be ok with that or not, or whether they need it to be even more like the classicvanias rather than some combo of Metroidvania and classic. I'd like to say compromise is needed, but given what MoF is starting to look like the more I see of it, I have to say that if something just doesn't push the right buttons in someone's head to trigger that "fun" chemical reaction, then there's not really much they can do about that no matter what anyone might preach about compromise.

I don't know that MoF is a true compromise. It doesn't seem to understand either Metroidvania or Classicvania. The latter: It has wild combos and regular enemies with way too much HP, it doesn't have significant strategic enemy placement, and no death pits to be seen. The former: it has the map, but it doesn't have the hit points and stat management, etc. Surely there has to be a better compromise possible. While I lean more toward Classicvania or the intermediate form of Simon's Quest, I'm all right with Metroidvania as long as it gives me the versatility of level design and action-platforming provided by Classicvania's stage-based progression. Since no Metroidvania did this, even though Portrait of Ruin and Order of Ecclesia (as best I can tell, since I never had much hand's-on time with OOE to date) promised this with their portraits/stage select, I grew bored and annoyed by that style. (It's my impression that OoE lessened the backtracking and increased the action, but still didn't put back in the death pits or evolve the levels to the point where they couldn't be backtracked upon due to the forces being unleashed within them). Back in the day, I enjoyed the Metroidvanias up until Dawn of Sorrow, particularly SotN and CotM, and then they just got to be "ok," and I knew it had to change, evolve, or alternate a good deal to make an impact.

As far as your number 1 suggestion, I'd very likely play such a game and like it just as I like pretty much any classicvania, but I don't really see it as being financially viable, at least in Konami's perspective, in the horrific world games have moved into today. Maybe someone like Vanillaware would be able to do something like that, but I don't know how their business model differs from Konami's to let them make visually impressive 2D games and still survive.

Good question. Are people even interested in a crazy 2D action-platformer? i think Classicvania in inherently more nuanced that the things I've seen from Vanillaware, but even so...

I'm just complaining that Castlevania never developed into the game that I was expecting in the direction that I was expecting.  I never complain about the games that are created, as I like all the directions it tends to go and appreciate them for what they are.  I just lament when certain games aren't created.

In the 3D realm, I'm still waiting for the "ultimate" game to be created based on my initial idea of what a 3D Castlevania game should be like, namely an advanced version of Legacy of Darkness.  I want a game with a large open environment that allows me to travel in all sorts of different directions, walk everywhere that there's not a wall, and lets me take a look around as I please.  But sadly, this type of game also seems impractical now-adays. 

Both these types of games seem to simply require to much work to go into the details to make the game profitable.  I'm sad, but not mad, and will continue to enjoy the series in whatever incarnation it may take.  I just won't feel like the series ever reached the peaks of my expectations.

Two things pop out:

One: I lament the same, that Castlevania didn't go in the direction I thought it was, and it seemed to be, heading in. (However, since Curse of Darkness, I have grown impatient with all the experiments that seem to move further away from my ideal. It seems like people are sidestepping and playing it safe instead of facing things head on. And LoS was a particular smack in the face because A.) Cox promised (to this day) how it was a return to form inspired by Classicvania, when it had far less to do with Classicvania than the N64 games. B.) Castlevania didn't need a complete "reboot" in 3D to match trends when it had never even come close to exhausting its original potential in 3D set by the N64 games.

Two: Are we saying that CV64/Legacy of Darkness, made by a team that had no prior experience in making 3D games, is a harder game/s to make than all these huge "open-world" MMO RPGs and lauded "sandbox" games? (Sometimes I think sandbox games sacrifice the "game," the consequences and nuances of guiding while not guiding, for the "openness.") Regardless, what are we saying here about design? Has design philosophy gotten worse across the board; teams less skilled or willing to put in the effort? Have people stopped caring about making "games" and are frustrated move-makers? Or is it just a product of an industry that is struggling with its own economics?

(I don't have time to review/edit this post at the moment, so hopefully it came off as coherent).

[BingleGod]

Considering that Vanillaware hasn't given me any reason to think that its developers know how to, or want to, craft even the most basic level design, I wouldn't want them to get a grip on Castlevania.

RichterB, play Demon's/Dark Souls.

[Flame]

You bring up some good points, RichterB. Dont quite have anything to comment, but +1 from me for an interesting read.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

Castlevania was struggling to keep relevant at the time, so SotN had started a lot of new hope for the series, and the N64 games being different was viewed as a bit puzzling. I wonder if the platform choice itself, N64, caused problems with certain install bases.

You may have hit on something there that has some significance that I didn't really think of. PS1 was in the end the more "successful" platform and thus the 64 games may have had a a bit of an additional hurdle there, especially given that they were mid-life span N64 games, since a decent amount of people jumped ship from Nintendo after the SNES for the PS1. A lot of people, like myself, had both, but the number that just went with the PS1 may have made a difference. Here at the dungeon it seems like most people have played both SotN and the N64 entries (at least one of LoD or CV64) but for more casual fans of the series, they may have neglected to pick up the N64 installments when they would have if they were on a console they had access to.

Still, I doubt that could've solved every problem the 64 games ran across, since if people don't like the camera or the platforming, more sales of the game aren't going to correct that. But as for which game has more potential to become big, the game on the more successful platform (with the demographics that game appeals to)--all other things being equal--will usually have that.

I don't know that MoF is a true compromise. It doesn't seem to understand either Metroidvania or Classicvania. The latter: It has wild combos and regular enemies with way too much HP, it doesn't have significant strategic enemy placement, and no death pits to be seen. The former: it has the map, but it doesn't have the hit points and stat management, etc. Surely there has to be a better compromise possible.

I guess that part of my statement was kind of unclear. I don't really view MoF as shaping up to be a compromise between classicvania and Metroidvania, but rather LoS-style and Metroidvania. Thus I meant that I don't really think I can criticize those who prioritize classicvania for not accepting a kind of classic/Metroidvania compromise game when I can see that I quite possibly won't be able to accept a LoS/Metroidvania compromise game. If it doesn't push the right buttons for the player, it just doesn't.

Since no Metroidvania did this, even though Portrait of Ruin and Order of Ecclesia (as best I can tell, since I never had much hand's-on time with OOE to date) promised this with their portraits/stage select, I grew bored and annoyed by that style. (It's my impression that OoE lessened the backtracking and increased the action, but still didn't put back in the death pits or evolve the levels to the point where they couldn't be backtracked upon due to the forces being unleashed within them).

Part of the reason why PoR got boring or annoying may have just been that so little effort was put into some of the portrait levels level design-wise (perhaps due to budget/time restraits, perhaps not). The rooms in the Forest of Doom and the Dark Academy seemed more like arenas to fight enemies in rather than attempts to make a classicvania-like stage. Some of the portraits have a decent amount of interesting room formations, but then reuse those formations a lot. The exceptions probably being the City of Haze, where there were so many cans and tables and such in the backgrounds that it felt like a very chaotic mishmash and thus I couldn't make out as much egregious reuse, and the circus levels, which were likewise the same in how chaotic they were. Those factors sort of allowed for the areas to feel less repetitive background-wise, at least to me.

But anyway, perhaps the designers of PoR misunderstood what classicvania players were really seeking--it wasn't so much plain old combat as it was an experience similar to a linear 2D platformer, which includes some combat, but has other facets of it as well, as you mention. Or perhaps they were consciously going only part of the way in making a more linear classicvania style level, since obviously the portraits aren't straight beginning-to-end ventures by any stretch of the imagination.

Back in the day, I enjoyed the Metroidvanias up until Dawn of Sorrow, particularly SotN and CotM, and then they just got to be "ok," and I knew it had to change, evolve, or alternate a good deal to make an impact.

That's kind of ironic given that SotN-DoS were the more "true" Metroidvania entries and PoR-OoE started trying to alter the formula more radically.

Considering that Vanillaware hasn't given me any reason to think that its developers know how to, or want to, craft even the most basic level design, I wouldn't want them to get a grip on Castlevania.

That is indeed a problem I've noticed, so I'd want them to get their house in order there before they'd be tapped to make a CV game. But I think I can pretty much easily understand why their level design is so plain and/or repetitive and it may be unavoidable for them. 2D backgrounds and tiling seem to allow for less and less variation the more high quality and high detail they get (unless you have a huge budget and art staff to create a lot of variation). That is to say, to the point where--as Vanillaware--you have to reuse stuff constantly since you don't have nearly enough level design assets to work with, because it takes so much time to create even a few. Muramasa did so with each of its "screens" without a ton of variation, since that would've required more tiles to be drawn. So you end up with a run through the first couple screens of an area as being: forest screen, a flat field screen, a slightly different forest screen, a cave screen, another field screen with a bit of a different background, another cave screen slightly changed up but obviously based on the earlier cave screen, etc. Odin Sphere, from what I've played of it, is pretty much just flat linear environments that loop around, so not even Muramasa-level there.

So it simply might be impossible to get good level design out of them given their high quality art style and budget.

[RichterB]

NOTE: I just lost a monster post due to the Dungeon signing me out prematurely and the browser screwing up. I can't retype all of that, where I went into detail on each Metroidvania with quotes and other stuff. But I'll try to do brief bullet points (which obviously will be lacking and more terse in tone than they are intended to be due to the previous circumstances):

You may have hit on something there that has some significance that I didn't really think of. PS1 was in the end the more "successful" platform and thus the 64 games may have had a a bit of an additional hurdle there, especially given that they were mid-life span N64 games, since a decent amount of people jumped ship from Nintendo after the SNES for the PS1. A lot of people, like myself, had both, but the number that just went with the PS1 may have made a difference. Here at the dungeon it seems like most people have played both SotN and the N64 entries (at least one of LoD or CV64) but for more casual fans of the series, they may have neglected to pick up the N64 installments when they would have if they were on a console they had access to.

Still, I doubt that could've solved every problem the 64 games ran across, since if people don't like the camera or the platforming, more sales of the game aren't going to correct that. But as for which game has more potential to become big, the game on the more successful platform (with the demographics that game appeals to)--all other things being equal--will usually have that.

I guess that part of my statement was kind of unclear. I don't really view MoF as shaping up to be a compromise between classicvania and Metroidvania, but rather LoS-style and Metroidvania. Thus I meant that I don't really think I can criticize those who prioritize classicvania for not accepting a kind of classic/Metroidvania compromise game when I can see that I quite possibly won't be able to accept a LoS/Metroidvania compromise game. If it doesn't push the right buttons for the player, it just doesn't.

Part of the reason why PoR got boring or annoying may have just been that so little effort was put into some of the portrait levels level design-wise (perhaps due to budget/time restraits, perhaps not). The rooms in the Forest of Doom and the Dark Academy seemed more like arenas to fight enemies in rather than attempts to make a classicvania-like stage. Some of the portraits have a decent amount of interesting room formations, but then reuse those formations a lot. The exceptions probably being the City of Haze, where there were so many cans and tables and such in the backgrounds that it felt like a very chaotic mishmash and thus I couldn't make out as much egregious reuse, and the circus levels, which were likewise the same in how chaotic they were. Those factors sort of allowed for the areas to feel less repetitive background-wise, at least to me.

But anyway, perhaps the designers of PoR misunderstood what classicvania players were really seeking--it wasn't so much plain old combat as it was an experience similar to a linear 2D platformer, which includes some combat, but has other facets of it as well, as you mention. Or perhaps they were consciously going only part of the way in making a more linear classicvania style level, since obviously the portraits aren't straight beginning-to-end ventures by any stretch of the imagination.

That's kind of ironic given that SotN-DoS were the more "true" Metroidvania entries and PoR-OoE started trying to alter the formula more radically.

That is indeed a problem I've noticed, so I'd want them to get their house in order there before they'd be tapped to make a CV game. But I think I can pretty much easily understand why their level design is so plain and/or repetitive and it may be unavoidable for them. 2D backgrounds and tiling seem to allow for less and less variation the more high quality and high detail they get (unless you have a huge budget and art staff to create a lot of variation). That is to say, to the point where--as Vanillaware--you have to reuse stuff constantly since you don't have nearly enough level design assets to work with, because it takes so much time to create even a few. Muramasa did so with each of its "screens" without a ton of variation, since that would've required more tiles to be drawn. So you end up with a run through the first couple screens of an area as being: forest screen, a flat field screen, a slightly different forest screen, a cave screen, another field screen with a bit of a different background, another cave screen slightly changed up but obviously based on the earlier cave screen, etc. Odin Sphere, from what I've played of it, is pretty much just flat linear environments that loop around, so not even Muramasa-level there.

So it simply might be impossible to get good level design out of them given their high quality art style and budget.

*Jools Watsham of Aero the Acrobat, iggy's Reckin' Balls, Turok 2, Sigma Star Saga, and Mutant Mudds commented in Nintendo Power about old days versus new dayst and the trouble of doing high-quality games in today's market. Also, The question has to be raised about the perception of what 2D design should be beyond increasing the visuals. Do people forget about design because of visuals, or do they not know how to do design, and use visuals as a crutch?

*I only had the N64, so I didn't have any perceptions of SotN while playing the 64 games. When I did play SotN in earnest (after CotM), I liked it, but didn't think any less of the 64 games, and felt that it was natural that eventually the series would follow them up.

*It is ironic, and I replied in great detail in my post that was lost, but here's my issue with Metroidvania post AoS. DoS was basically a remake of AoS with a less inspired story and better graphics, when AoS sort of topped out the basic Metroidvania design as it has been since SotN. (SotN started it, CotM made it feel a little more Classicvania, HoD was a sloppy mix of the previous two, and AoS was a return to SotN while throwing in a bold story shift and the TSS...That was the first one to focus on a gimmick to innovate, and thus, after that, the gimmick trick just wouldn't work). PoR was more "fun" than DoS, but it ultimately was too "sloppy," sort of like the GBA's HoD, and didn't really honor the design elements of Bloodlines, thus resulting in all of the new innovations coming off as gimmicks. OoE's structure, which seems a mix of Simon's Quest and Belmont's Revenge, ultimately seems like its a gimmick because it doesn't really alter the underlying Metroidvania structure. Curse of Darkness (aka Curse of Mediocrity) was an attempt to bring Metroidvania to 3D (more so than LoI), and it did it in the worst way possible, making me even more irked at the style, which I think has become increasingly dominated by an abundance of padding, collecting for little to no purpose, powering up to absurd levels, and meandering level designs that make you backtrack and move at a leisurely pace more than is necessary. The fact that Curse of Darkness and LoS are neck and neck in my mind, for different reasons, says it all. I just never felt like IGA's valiant efforts to revamp the Metroidvania style resulted in anything more than distracting gimmicks. It's like putting cinnamon on oatmeal; it's still oatmeal. This wandering summary does not do the thoughtful post I had before justice, and doesn't include some of the more positive things I had to say about the Metroidvania era and each game within, but such is life. That's an hour of work I can't revisit.

*I understand what you mean about MoF now. And given that, it's no surprise that it wouldn't do it for me, either.

*The N64 games felt like a more true compromise to me than anything else, doing so without overselling either crowd and thus coming off as more of an innovation. They basically took the kernel of exploration, discovery, and inventory from Metroidvania/Simon's Quest, with the action-platforming of Classicvania, and packaged them in a suspense-horror world.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

*I only had the N64, so I didn't have any perceptions of SotN while playing the 64 games. When I did play SotN in earnest (after CotM), I liked it, but didn't think any less of the 64 games, and felt that it was natural that eventually the series would follow them up.

I think I actually played the N64 ones first as well and I know I only got SotN after it had already been out for quite awhile (I got the Greatest Hits version), although still before CotM came out. I guess I was part of that building wave of people getting to SotN after it had been out awhile. Obviously I had heard about it and it was on my list of things to get but my priorities were probably more with the FF series and a lot of other regular RPGs and SRPGs around that time period as far as PS1 games went.

OoE's structure, which seems a mix of Simon's Quest and Belmont's Revenge, ultimately seems like its a gimmick because it doesn't really alter the underlying Metroidvania structure.

I don't think I can view anything that changes something as fundamental as the level structure about the game a gimmick, so I have to disagree there. The equipment and the RPG system pretty much only have the typical changes and the "combo" system sort of changed up the combat a bit more than usual while still not fundamentally altering it. However, the nonlinear exploration is one of the defining characteristics of a Metroidvania, so cutting it down is a rather large change by my reckoning and does lead to the game feeling different to me.

Curse of Darkness (aka Curse of Mediocrity) was an attempt to bring Metroidvania to 3D (more so than LoI), and it did it in the worst way possible, making me even more irked at the style, which I think has become increasingly dominated by an abundance of padding, collecting for little to no purpose, powering up to absurd levels, and meandering level designs that make you backtrack and move at a leisurely pace more than is necessary. The fact that Curse of Darkness and LoS are neck and neck in my mind, for different reasons, says it all.

I agree to some extent CoD was an attempt to do Metroidvania in 3D (with a heavy addition of typical 3D action game tropes and a subtraction of most of the platforming focus), but I just find that Metroidvania doesn't really work well in 3D (at least for me), so it's not really a surprise to me that it isn't liked as much as the 2D entries. Also, the lack of vertical dimension in the levels just makes them feel too flat and uninteresting, not to mention the requirement to reuse a lot of textures to allow the environments to be as large as necessary for exploration to work.

*The N64 games felt like a more true compromise to me than anything else, doing so without overselling either crowd and thus coming off as more of an innovation. They basically took the kernel of exploration, discovery, and inventory from Metroidvania/Simon's Quest, with the action-platforming of Classicvania, and packaged them in a suspense-horror world.

I think to some extent the N64 games are actually more of a compromise between classicvania and the needs of the 3D platformer genre (with some RPG elements thrown in for interest), which is probably exactly what the devs felt they had to do to make the series work in 3D. But in retrospect, most of the RPG elements don't seem like they were in the SotN-style direction but rather trying to do their own thing. For example, no leveling, no "stats" per se, no equipment, but some "quest items," food and such to refill your HP and remove status effects in an inventory system and a day and night cycle which may have been lifted from CV2.

As far as a kernel of non-linearity, I agree it's there, but it seemed like the stage-based theme took precedence, with non-linearity fitting in within that structure--the way most 3D games did things really in that era, probably to save on assets or development time. Because of that I'm not sure they did it because they were drawing from SotN or Metroidvanias, but more because that's how 3D games were being done at the time (and to some extent, often still are). The most obvious example from that era being Mario 64 having small stages you could backtrack around in rather than the 2D Mario games which had linear levels that'd pass by and you'd never see again unless you died or replayed the level for some reason.

[RichterB]

I don't think I can view anything that changes something as fundamental as the level structure about the game a gimmick, so I have to disagree there. The equipment and the RPG system pretty much only have the typical changes and the "combo" system sort of changed up the combat a bit more than usual while still not fundamentally altering it. However, the nonlinear exploration is one of the defining characteristics of a Metroidvania, so cutting it down is a rather large change by my reckoning and does lead to the game feeling different to me.

As I said, and I apologize, I did not have all of the information about each game from the post I intended that was regrettably lost, so I didn't give as rounded of a view of OoE. The first and most important thing I mentioned in the lost post about it--and this is a pretty big deal--was that I have never actually played it. SotN was something I experienced around 2002, as I recall, and I delayed playing DoS until 2007 and PoR until about 2009. (The former because I didn't have the system and had trouble tracking it down, the latter two because I didn't have the system and had minimal interest in them based on what I had seen/read). So, I still intend to track down OoE in the future. I think I'm still a little burned out from Metroidvania, but not as much...

Regardless, I have only read about and watched trailers for OoE. I like the characters and art style, and the idea of the new map and throwbacks to Simon's Quest and Belmont's Revenge. From what little I've heard about the bosses and such, the challenge and strategy has been upped, too. However, the reason I go as far as to say "gimmicky," which is a bit harsh, is because I think it ultimately ends up as a more stratified version of Metroidvania--sort of like PoR and its paintings, but taken a step further. Despite further "stratifying," though, like PoR, they didn't change the structure. It's still miniature Metroidvanias tied together by a hub map--perhaps like LoI? The whole point of Metroidvania maps is exploration, so making them smaller, without changing things up significantly in design through things like death pits or consequences where you can't backtrack, results in a sort of step that is teasing "smoke and mirrors" for someone like me.

Yes, it is different than Metroidvania as defined by "one castle" ala SotN-DoS, but if not a gimmick, then it should be considered an intermediate step, that results in a well-intended but half-hearted change. That's my impression, but I really do need to play it to know for sure. I'm just very wary. I actually applaud IGA in a sense, in that he did realize that change was needed, but it seems like he was taking baby-steps in a couple of different directions, and wasn't sure which way to go. When I talked about change or alternating the Metroidvanias, I meant a more perfect blending of the styles as noted in a different part of this thread, or allowing for more Classivanias to come out in-between the Metroidvania ones to reduce fatigue from both, and hopefully inspire both as a result.

You know, it's interesting to note that Rondo of Blood is sort of a proto-blending of Metroidvania and Classicvania...and yet, despite popular opinion, I don't really care for Rondo of Blood a great deal. It's not bad by any means, and it's got great scope, but it's somehow not as snappy; it's too leisurely and loose in design for me. Still, I think something like the portraits from PoR were a great "opportunity" to provide more focused and dynamic action-platforming within a structure where you're still exploring and upgrading your skills to find and unlock said portrait levels. That'd work better than Rondo. It just didn't happen.

I agree to some extent CoD was an attempt to do Metroidvania in 3D (with a heavy addition of typical 3D action game tropes and a subtraction of most of the platforming focus), but I just find that Metroidvania doesn't really work well in 3D (at least for me), so it's not really a surprise to me that it isn't liked as much as the 2D entries. Also, the lack of vertical dimension in the levels just makes them feel too flat and uninteresting, not to mention the requirement to reuse a lot of textures to allow the environments to be as large as necessary for exploration to work.

I give some credit to CoD for being ambitious in theory and also for keeping a good degree of the "Castlevania" world feel, but it seemed like a step to the side and back after LoI, which had enough of its own problems, but seemed to have some promise (even if, ultimately, I didn't like it as much as the N64 era). Despite flashes of genius, like the dragon fight, CoD was really killed by the level design and a sense of going to the fringe with the IDs. (CoD was the first title that hurt my opinion of Castlevania and made me more willing to point fingers). However, it's interesting that you state Metroidvania in 3D doesn't work. I don't know that it can't, since Metroid itself has made great strides between the Prime series and Other M (if Other M had Prime #1's game structure, they would have it nailed, IMO). But still, let me say that I am extremely concerned about Mercury Steam deciding that Metroidvania is the missing ingredient in their Castlevania universe of LoS. I think it's oil and water, and has the potential of repeating CoD. And the way they keep invoking Classicvania all the while does not help. Either way, Metroid is Metroid, and I don't need Castlevania to copy it in 3D particularly. So even if Metroid can get it right, I don't know that Castlevania needs to follow suit.

I think to some extent the N64 games are actually more of a compromise between classicvania and the needs of the 3D platformer genre (with some RPG elements thrown in for interest), which is probably exactly what the devs felt they had to do to make the series work in 3D. But in retrospect, most of the RPG elements don't seem like they were in the SotN-style direction but rather trying to do their own thing. For example, no leveling, no "stats" per se, no equipment, but some "quest items," food and such to refill your HP and remove status effects in an inventory system and a day and night cycle which may have been lifted from CV2.

As far as a kernel of non-linearity, I agree it's there, but it seemed like the stage-based theme took precedence, with non-linearity fitting in within that structure--the way most 3D games did things really in that era, probably to save on assets or development time. Because of that I'm not sure they did it because they were drawing from SotN or Metroidvanias, but more because that's how 3D games were being done at the time (and to some extent, often still are). The most obvious example from that era being Mario 64 having small stages you could backtrack around in rather than the 2D Mario games which had linear levels that'd pass by and you'd never see again unless you died or replayed the level for some reason.

I see what you're saying, but I think it was a little more than that. Castlevania 64/LoD could have ended up as simply a Crash Bandicoot or Chameleon Twist, which were based in a far more linear 3D philosophy in that same period of development. Or they could have even ended up like a Mischief Makers or Yoshi's Story.

Regardless, I liked the idea of the exploration for keys or puzzles or NPCs taking place in restricted levels, which created a sense of forward momentum for me and a meaningful, fairly natural use of the 3D space provided. Honestly, this may have irked some Classicvania fans, but since I have a great deal of admiration and fond memories of Simon's Quest, and feel that SotN and Metroidvania is sort of a spiritual successor to that on my kinder days, I thought it was a terrific celebration of the series as a whole that was timely in the 3D transition.

But a question remains from earlier:
Reinhardt77 sort of brought this up, and I built on his thought and posed the following: Despite the trends, is the 3D design of a game like Castlevania 64/LoD (done by a team working in 3D for the first time) too hard to do for today's developers? It seems unlikely given all the sandbox games that emerged since. But perhaps the constraints of a semi-open game like the N64 ones is too hard to manage for the "go anywhere/few-to-no rules" of the sandbox crowd. One of the only games I've played in recent times that was reminiscent of the N64 Castlevanias was the 3D reboot of Bionic Commando by Capcom and Grin (which I found to be excellent and one of the best games of this generation despite some rough edges and a few cost-cutting corners).

EDIT/P.S.:
No offense, but why are people suggesting Castlevania go the route of Dark Souls/Demon Souls? While they have high production values and immersive content from everything I've seen, they seem to be ultimately glorifed dungeon crawlers with no significant platforming. I think this would be a mistake for Castlevania.

PPS: I would have liked MoF better if it had been Mercury Steams straight-up interpretation of Classicvania or Metroidvania SANS combos, and used the 3D like Megaman X8 and Klonoa, where corners in the background turn and stuff.

[Flame]

I personally just dont see what people see as "Castlevania" in Dark/Demon Souls.

they look even more high fantasy to me than LoS did. Atmosphere was certainly nice and dark, but far from Castlevania.

To me, of course.

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

However, the reason I go as far as to say "gimmicky," which is a bit harsh, is because I think it ultimately ends up as a more stratified version of Metroidvania--sort of like PoR and its paintings, but taken a step further. Despite further "stratifying," though, like PoR, they didn't change the structure. It's still miniature Metroidvanias tied together by a hub map--perhaps like LoI? The whole point of Metroidvania maps is exploration, so making them smaller, without changing things up significantly in design through things like death pits or consequences where you can't backtrack, results in a sort of step that is teasing "smoke and mirrors" for someone like me.

But if stratifying out a lot of the non-linearity doesn't change the structure when non-linear exploration is part of the definition of a Metroidvania, I don't see how not being able to backtrack to some portions of the game or death pits would be a lot more significant than that.

As far as the maps being "miniature Metroidvanias" tied together by a hub map, what I'd argue is that the size of each individual map actually has implications for how much of a Metroidvania the game is at all. Many of the maps of OoE anyway, are so small and linear that one can't even call them Metroidvania maps (or at least I wouldn't). I've posted something like this elsewhere here recently--the smaller the individual maps, the less non-linearity possible because there are less possible meaningful paths for you to choose to go down. Sure, it might have some branches, like PoR's portraits, but most will not be meaningful. They'll go on for 2-3 rooms, you might get a minor item or something for your trouble, and then lead to a dead end and you'll just go back to the point where the branch was and continue down the main path. This takes away from the capacity for meaningful non-linearity, which to me makes the game different. With PoR, this isn't as much of an issue as in OoE because the portrait maps, while rather linear, are still somewhat sizable, but what you may not be taking into account since you haven't seen all of OoE's maps I assume, is just how small most of them are compared to PoR's portraits. PoR's portraits might have 2-3 meaningful non-linear paths if that, but OoE's often have none.

If you don't mind getting a glimpse of some maps before playing OoE, take a quick look at these and just avoid reading any of the text to avoid any item/glyph spoilers (if you don't want to see two of the maps ahead of time, though, I can understand):
http://www.gamefaqs.com/ds/945837-castlevania-order-of-ecclesia/faqs/54535
http://www.gamefaqs.com/ds/945837-castlevania-order-of-ecclesia/faqs/54522

Compared to a PoR map, these are tiny and have no meaningful nonlinear paths. There are some bigger ones that have multiple paths including a rather large one, but to me, these two seemed to be closer to the average.

Compare this to SotN or later on in HoD, where you can fight bosses and go through whole segments of the map in different orders depending on your choice in a given playthrough, and this seems extremely linear. I think OoE has one instance where you can fight a required boss out of order.

Regarding death pits, I'd say they're pretty much a minor level design facet that doesn't really change things overall structure-wise. They add to the challenge, but I'd be hard pressed to say SotN or any Metroidvania would be fundamentally different if you inserted death pits every once and awhile beyond just being made harder (same for instant death spikes rather than damage spikes). I feel like this is more of a preference, something that you'd like to see come back in the games and something that would make a difference in your enthusiasm for the game, but not really make a difference in the game's structure.

As far as not being able to backtrack in some places, which can possibly have more fundamental changes in the game's structure depending on how it's implemented, I want to point out one thing that you may or may not agree with, but might change the way one talks about the ability to backtrack. If a player can backtrack, but doesn't need to and does not, does the possibility of backtracking make any difference in the game to that player? To me, the answer seems to be for all intents and purposes, no. I would posit that giving the player a reason to backtrack in addition the ability to do so (whether that reason is he/she has to find a way to progress or has to go back to seek out a needed item or to open a previously locked path) is actually the differential aspect in game structure. I feel like I could theoretically make a classicvania with, say, the same level design as CV1 but where one could backtrack through the whole game and it would still be a classicvania, because the game would be designed in such a way that there would be no reason or need to backtrack.

Under this paradigm, things get a lot less black and white than "can you backtrack here?" (to which all OoE maps can say: yes). Instead they become more like "how often do you typically need to backtrack?" That gets a lot more ambiguous where each Metroidvania, including OoE, is concerned. This allows a sort of grey-scale to creep in, where a Metroidvania can be "less" of a Metroidvania if it has less need for backtracking, and there are definite differences in how much backtracking is needed between different Metroidvanias. While OoE has necessary backtracking to some maps if you miss certain things, it's also possible to complete the game without being required to go back to some (and I emphasize some; not all) maps ever again after completing them once. But this is probably fast approaching too in depth a discussion of OoE given you haven't played it--I'm dancing around moderately sized gameplay spoilers in an effort to avoid saying anything too spoilery or specific.

Yes, it is different than Metroidvania as defined by "one castle" ala SotN-DoS, but if not a gimmick, then it should be considered an intermediate step, that results in a well-intended but half-hearted change. That's my impression, but I really do need to play it to know for sure. I'm just very wary. I actually applaud IGA in a sense, in that he did realize that change was needed, but it seems like he was taking baby-steps in a couple of different directions, and wasn't sure which way to go. When I talked about change or alternating the Metroidvania, I meant a more perfect blending of the styles as noted in a different part of this thread, or allowing for more Classivanias to come out in-between the Metroidvania ones to reduce fatigue from both, and hopefully inspire both as a result.

I would say, for me, PoR is that intermediate step and OoE is another step beyond that--still in intermediate land if you consider the spectrum merely a linear one between Metroidvania and classicvania and nothing else, but the style comes off to me as something that isn't the same as any of the Metroidvanias that came before it.

You know, it's interesting to note that Rondo of Blood is sort of a proto-blending of Metroidvania and Classicvania...and yet, despite popular opinion, I don't really care for Rondo of Blood a great deal. It's not bad by any means, and it's got great scope, but it's somehow not as snappy; it's too leisurely and loose in design for me.

There's something I don't think I'd agree with... Rondo, to me, just seems to be a natural take on CV3 and CV4's alternate path choices, not really anything that leads any more towards Metroidvania than those before it.

I give credit to CoD for being ambitious in theory and also for keeping a good degree of the "Castlevania" world feel, but it seemed like a step to the side and back after LoI, which had enough of its own problems, but seemed to have some promise (even if, ultimately, I didn't like it as much as the N64 era). Despite flashes of genius, like the dragon fight, CoD was really killed by the level design and a sense of going to the fringe with the IDs.

I didn't really find CoD's level design flaws any more or less egregious than LoI's, so I'm not sure if the level design is part of what you felt was a step back or if that was just one of the things that particularly killed it for you so you mentioned it.

However, it's interesting that you state Metroidvania in 3D doesn't work. I don't know that it can't, since Metroid itself has made great strides between the Prime series and Other M (if Other M had Prime #1's game structure, they would have it nailed, IMO).

I think the "doesn't really work well" and "(at least for me)" modifiers are also needed, since I didn't really care too much for the Prime games either despite their success, although their environments were certainly better than CoD's from a variation/design perspective. From what I've heard of Other M (and it isn't much; I haven't gotten to play it much either), they tried designing it so that it would be a 3D game with a more 2D style level design--the third dimension wouldn't be as meaningful or something. But given what I know about Other M, I'm not sure why it+Prime 1's game structure would've nailed the genre in 3D.

Castlevania 64/LoD could have ended up as simply a Crash Bandicoot or Chameleon Twist, which were far more linear 3D philosophy in that same period of development.

I guess the reason why I say I don't think it was SotN that pushed them in a more non-linear direction for their stages is that I don't really think they would've gone with a Crash Bandicoot type route in their 3D philosophy or that it was even a viable option given the impression I get from the CV series before that point--even if SotN hadn't existed for them to look at. It seems to me almost like they had to go (and did go) a more natural Mario 64 style route rather than something that seems more artificially designed just for the player to run through it like I've experienced with the one Crash Bandicoot game I've played. I guess what I mean is the environments in Mario 64 and CV 64 feel more like they're at least trying to emulate realistic environments that exist for their own sake and that you just happen to be passing through them, while Crash Bandicoot's feel more artificial--entirely like a video game level that's intentionally designed for the player to run through and serves no other purpose. To me, that style wouldn't jive with the way I'd think any designer would go with CV in 3D.

Or they could have even ended up like a Mischief Makers or Yoshi's Story.

Maybe I'm losing the point we're getting at here, but that seems like a bit of a tangent since then they wouldn't be an attempt to bring the series into 3D then.

Reinhardt77 sort of brought this up, and I built on his thought and posed the following: Despite the trends, is the 3D design of a game like Castlevania 64/LoD (done by a team working in 3D for the first time) too hard to do for today's developers? It seems unlikely given all the sandbox games that emerged since. But perhaps the constraints of a semi-open game like the N64 ones is too hard to manage for the "go anywhere/few-to-no rules" of the sandbox crowd. One of the only games I've played in recent times that was reminiscent of the N64 Castlevanias was the 3D reboot of Bionic Commando by Capcom and Grin (which I found to be excellent and one of the best games of this generation despite some rough edges and a few cost-cutting corners).

I don't think they're too hard to do, it's just that maybe developers look at a style like that and either say, "let's cut down the semi-open elements to make it more focused" and it goes one way, or they say, "why not just go full open world?" and it ends up going another. Or perhaps they see some of the divergence of styles of different stages as clashing and appealing to different demographics. I remember first going into the villa, and thinking something like "wow this isn't really like the previous stage that much at all." It has a much more leisurely pace and is more about exploring the grounds with some fighting thrown in rather than a full-on action stage with some puzzle solving and exploring thrown in. Maybe developers actually see focus shifts like that as ill-advised--a potential turn off to the player. Although you may not really be saying the game would necessarily have focus shifts like that even though CV64 and LoD did. If you didn't, then I'm a bit off topic. But I took "semi-open" to mean that some levels would be more straight forward like the Tower levels and others would be more open like the Castle Center.

I actually think that if there's anything that might be a pain for developers to do and thus lead to them avoiding it, it's Metroidvania itself (well, less so ones like PoR or OoE), since you have to anticipate and prevent potentially serious bugs due to unforeseen sequence breaks that might lead to item or equipment configurations you wouldn't ever anticipate the player having at a given time in the game. In a nice linear game without equipment changes or key items that give you different capabilities, your character is a lot less "context sensitive" and will go through most of the game basically the same or with abilities/upgrades that only affect enemies. It's a lot easier to rule out sequence breaks when the item sequence is tied to the area but the area isn't tied to the item sequence (you get item X that, say, helps you in combat because you've made it to area X) rather than the areas also being tied to the item sequence (you get item X because you got to area X and that item can get you to area Y, which contains item Y). That leads to "What if you find a way to sequence break into area Y without item X but can't get out because it's only possible to sequence break in but not out?" and issues like that.