Topic: A Letter to All Iga-Vania Fans From a LoS Fanatic

[e105beta]

While I thought IGA's reins on the series had led it a little too far off the path, LoS was not the answer. Sure, we have whips and Belmonts back, but at what cost? God of War meets Lord of the Rings meets Shadow of the Colossus meets Uncharted.

You also forgot to mention Pan's Labyrinth, Van Helsing, and, oh right, Castlevania. You can only throw in so many ingredients before it becomes a salad.

[KyleVoakes]

While I thought IGA's reins on the series had led it a little too far off the path, LoS was not the answer. Sure, we have whips and Belmonts back, but at what cost? God of War meets Lord of the Rings meets Shadow of the Colossus meets Uncharted. Didn't anyone consider looking at the meat-and-patatoes gameplay of the N64 games to see what was working and just needed more polish and tech?

Did you really say that C:LoS, being the result of a mixture of three of the best games and one of the best trilogies in this generation, was a bad thing? What has the community become when an amazing game is released, only to be picked apart by hating vultures claiming that "Oooh, it's nothing original! Oooh, one little aspect of the game justifies it being a rip-off". Are you telling me that inspiration and influence is a game-breaking criticism? I can respect that you feel disappointed in the game for personal reasons, but never use the unfair comparison card. Ever.

Instead of saying "Shadow of the Colossus Ripoff", how about you say something more like: "The Titan Bossfights were reminiscent of earlier, massive battles like the ones featured in Shadow of the Colossus, but the lack of open maneuverability during these sequences in C:LoS is disappointing because of the potential it could have on a current-gen console. While we all want a SotC sequel, Lords of Shadow is not a proper successor in that sense, but these moments are few, and only occur within the first few hours and final bit of the game."

Instead of saying "God of War Ripoff", how about something like: "The gameplay mechanics in Lords of Shadow utilizes present-day techniques and control schemes that were made famous by other 3rd Person action beat-em-ups like God of War and Devil May Cry. C:LoS doesn't outright take their design choices and works with it, like Heavenly Sword and the Wolverine game. The emphasis on offensive strategy with the Light and Shadow magic gives the player a new twist on engagement, especially on the harder difficulties when chains of combos and avoiding hits in order to replenish health is essential to success."

[Flame]

You also forgot to mention Pan's Labyrinth, Van Helsing, and, oh right, Castlevania. You can only throw in so many ingredients before it becomes a salad.

but... I like salad... D:

[RichterB]

You also forgot to mention Pan's Labyrinth, Van Helsing, and, oh right, Castlevania. You can only throw in so many ingredients before it becomes a salad.

Oh, yeah...And don't forget the Underworld franchise, too. 

Did you really say that C:LoS, being the result of a mixture of three of the best games and one of the best trilogies in this generation, was a bad thing? What has the community become when an amazing game is released, only to be picked apart by hating vultures claiming that "Oooh, it's nothing original! Oooh, one little aspect of the game justifies it being a rip-off". Are you telling me that inspiration and influence is a game-breaking criticism? I can respect that you feel disappointed in the game for personal reasons, but never use the unfair comparison card. Ever.

Instead of saying "Shadow of the Colossus Ripoff", how about you say something more like: "The Titan Bossfights were reminiscent of earlier, massive battles like the ones featured in Shadow of the Colossus, but the lack of open maneuverability during these sequences in C:LoS is disappointing because of the potential it could have on a current-gen console. While we all want a SotC sequel, Lords of Shadow is not a proper successor in that sense, but these moments are few, and only occur within the first few hours and final bit of the game."

Instead of saying "God of War Ripoff", how about something like: "The gameplay mechanics in Lords of Shadow utilizes present-day techniques and control schemes that were made famous by other 3rd Person action beat-em-ups like God of War and Devil May Cry. C:LoS doesn't outright take their design choices and works with it, like Heavenly Sword and the Wolverine game. The emphasis on offensive strategy with the Light and Shadow magic gives the player a new twist on engagement, especially on the harder difficulties when chains of combos and avoiding hits in order to replenish health is essential to success."

I see what you're saying, but I'm not trying to be outright base or disrespectful. Basically, all of those things are implied in the inherent flaw of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow. That it says it wants to be a core Castlevania title and move Castlevania forward on its own terms, but then rubs its nose at the heart of Castlevania, by implying that it can't be its own franchise. It's fine "borrowing/tweaking" if A.) it inherently fits, and B.) it doesn't take you out of the "Castlevania" experience. Examples: 1.) The N64 games added some survival-horror elements, but it did not play like Resident Evil abridged, and those elements enriched what was already there: Castlevania's action-platforming core. 2.) While SotN ripped copiously from Super Metroid--had this formula not been used ad-nauseum in future installments--it played homage to the exploration of Simon's Quest, as well as the earlier MSX Vampire Killer, and the existence of different types of characters and play-styles from Dracula's Curse. The N64 games were then able to blend in the occasional exploration and inventory-based elements more seamlessly into traditional Castlevania, while evolving the series into something both unique and true to itself in 3D.

SEE CV64/LoD Ambitious Accomplishments back in 1999, over 10 years ago, and how little 3D CV has progressed since:

(click to show/hide)

*Multiple unique characters (up to four in LoD, two in CV64) with alternate levels/bosses
*Full 3D gameplay (ala Mario 64, so it's not "on-rails")
*Multiple endings based on performance
*Level Design features spatial depth (vertical and horizontal--not flat hallways)
*day-and-night cycles with time-sensitive events (like Simon's Quest)
*Weather effects (rain, lightning, moving clouds, and "fog"--the last one likely being a graphical shortcoming that actually helped)
*Dynamic, real-time lighting (next to candles, for instance)
*spot-on atmosphere
*death-defying platforming of all sorts (including ledge grabbing).
*environmental/enemy hazards (medusa heads, spikes, guillotines, buzz-saws, cannons).
*innovative survival-horror/suspense elements
*Vampires that pretend to be human and vampires as regular enemies besides bosses
*status changes, including poison and vampirism
*manageable questing with inventory items (meat, keys, cards, cure ampules, etc)
*interesting, involving plot (characters like Rosa, Vincent, Renon, Malice, Henry, etc)
*3D in-game cinemas
*Some voicing
*Unlockable alternate costumes
*Long and short-ranged attacks (IE: whip + sword)
*upgradable sub-weapons (in LoD)
*There is a useful slide and duck/crawl play mechanic
*Diverse mix of old and new enemies in 3D
*Beta/test version teased grapple-swinging points, showing the idea if not final execution

Lords of Shadow, meanwhile, is borrowing from so many modern, "cool-at-the-moment" things in a piecemeal fashion without significant regard for the Castlevania core, to the point it becomes, as stated, a "salad." The layman may have trouble distinguishing it from, say, a new IP like Dante's Inferno. The fact that it would dip so heavily into the proven flaws of the arena-based and combo-based problems that started in Lament of Innocence, shows that it didn't heed from the shortcomings of the past as well as it could have, especially given the greater resources that were seemingly allotted.

Off the top of my head, here's what I like about LoS:
1.) It has a whip-wielder.
2.) Said whip can be used as a tool for grappling and such.
3.) It has the Belmont name.
4.) Linear stage progression.
5.) A world map.
6.) The book motif with the move animations.
7.) Great graphics.
8.) A handful of neat level concepts.

Off the top of my head, here's what I don't like about LoS:
1.) No significant, consequential 3D platforming. (See Level 2 of Castlevania 64, for a better example).
2.) No enemies like Medusa heads, Bone Pillars, or bone-throwing Skeletons that hinder platforming and make it strategic. (AKA Castlevania 101).
3.) Jerky jump controls that do not engender tight platforming while battling foes.
4.) No 3D camera, which adds to the boxed-in, scripted feel of levels.
5.) The platforming turns into tiresome "shimmying" mini-games that are stratified from the main game.
6.) Very little nods to the rich and defining history of Castlevania music.
7.) Over-the-top combos, which become the focus on the gameplay, devolving many stages into mini beat-em-up arenas.
8.) Emphasis on QT events during combat.
9.) Overemphasis on magical super powers.
10.) Standard enemies take way too many hits, slowing the rythem of level design that defines Castlevania's "action-platforming."
11.) A story, which, in the end, happens mostly off camera with Patrick Stewart's incessant narration, and seems immaterial to the gameplay, rather than working in harmony with it.
12.) Game's world seems to exist completely outside of history, and certainly not in Transylvania or Classicvania's depiction of Europe. We've got something more akin to Middle Earth.
13.) By and large, the in-game aesthetic borrows too much from Van Helsing, Lord of the Rings, and Underworld, resulting in something that feels like a Hollywood interpretation of the Gothic-Horror feel that surrounds the franchise.
14.) The in-game grapple-swinging is too much of a QT button event, not playing enough on the principles of physics or angles.
15.) Some of the many levels are "throwaways." The opening village turns out to be a one-screen arena, where you don't get to delve into the village under attack (one of the latter vampire attack stages is very much in the same vein); another example is the stage where you just walk forward, uncontested, until you run into a fairy that wants symbols.
16.) Along with the aesthetic from earlier, the cast of villains skews very far from the traditional Castlevania line-up, and focuses more on fairytale and folk creatures.
17.) The colossi fights, which imply some ancient civilization in Europe used to fight with semi-mechanized or organic giants, feel tacked on and a chore, even if they look nice.
18.) The whip feels more like Strider's sword (from Capcom), and sort of slices through enemies like a ribbon, not having the sense of contact, recoil, and snap seen in other 3D whip attempts on N64 and PS2.
19.) Subweapons' use and usefulness is underplayed with the amount of combo-based magic combat, and don't have the classic sense of variety that the axe, boomerang, etc had.
20.) The last boss is the devil. Going that literal was silly, had nothing to do with Castlevania, and was a forced way to show how tough proto-Dracula was.
21.) Lack of level cohesion and jumps, whether it's Pan's jungle to a mystical journey to an icy lake, or the interrupting hide-and-seek games with the butt-smacking Chupecabra.

SUMMARY of biggest hang-ups, and why it needs to go back to the drawing board: The combo-centric gameplay, stratified and poor understanding/execution of consequential/strategic platforming, an on-rails level sense with a lack of a 3D camera, limited use of Castlevania's rich history of visual and aural assets, its heavy-handed and bombastic story, warped Hollywood-ized aesthetic, and emphasis on trying to fit into a fickle "in-the-moment" crowd instead of translating "Castlevania" to 3D slowly wore me down into feeling like I was being slapped in the face and lied to. I hate being negative, but I have to speak up, or nothing changes.

So, while the surface elements may be enough for some people (and more power to them), the deeper problems that remain have frustrated me to no end. (I have tried replaying LoS several times, and found it more or less unbearable after the initial amusing and bittersweet playthrough). Unfortunately I don't think MS has learned enough in what has been talked about and shown for their sequels. And if this is going to be their template for a future Contra game, which I am also a long-time fan of, I am deeply concerned to what that'll be warped into in the name of being popular. If you can't see the inherent strengths a series has to overcome new IPs, then just make a new IP altogether. The silver lining is that MS will not work on CV forever, and so I salute them for being true to the roots in that the CV series has had many hands and different interpretations. I think theirs, intentionally or not, sold out and took the easy route with the CV franchise, but they still crafted a solid and professional game, as far as modern games go, and maybe revived some broader interest in the series--though, I'm not completely certain about that latter point yet.

[Gunlord]

So many +1s, RichterB. So many. Really cogent analysis of LoS.

[e105beta]

Oh, yeah...And don't forget the Underworld franchise, too. 

Just...no.

*Multiple unique characters (up to four in LoD, two in CV64) with alternate levels/bosses
*Full 3D gameplay (ala Mario 64, so it's not "on-rails")
*Multiple endings based on performance
*Level Design features spatial depth (vertical and horizontal--not flat hallways)
*day-and-night cycles with time-sensitive events (like Simon's Quest)
*Weather effects (rain, lightning, moving clouds, and "fog"--the last one likely being a graphical shortcoming that actually helped)
*Dynamic, real-time lighting (next to candles, for instance)
*spot-on atmosphere
*death-defying platforming of all sorts (including ledge grabbing).
*environmental/enemy hazards (medusa heads, spikes, guillotines, buzz-saws, cannons).
*innovative survival-horror/suspense elements
*Vampires that pretend to be human and vampires as regular enemies besides bosses
*status changes, including poison and vampirism
*manageable questing with inventory items (meat, keys, cards, cure ampules, etc)
*interesting, involving plot (characters like Rosa, Vincent, Renon, Malice, Henry, etc)
*3D in-game cinemas
*Some voicing
*Unlockable alternate costumes
*Long and short-ranged attacks (IE: whip + sword)
*upgradable sub-weapons (in LoD)
*There is a useful slide and duck/crawl play mechanic
*Diverse mix of old and new enemies in 3D
*Beta/test version teased grapple-swinging points, showing the idea if not final execution

I'm not sure what you're trying to point out with this list. There's a handful of things that are genuine advancements, but most of it is either opinion of improvement, things CV64-LoD didn't add to the series, and things CV64-LoD didn't even come up with in general.

Additionally, some of the points are just graphical, which are kind of moot seeing how Lords of Shadow is one of the most graphically impressive games this gen. And if we're comparing "achievements" so-to-speak, then how does 3D count for CV64-LoD? I didn't realize they had developed 4D gaming yet.

I give you credit for the analysis, but it's "objectivity" is tainted with a lot of subjective reasoning. Just to name one overarching example, if you're going to argue that LoS should be more like CV64, then you can't make that argument that LoS "not adding anything" (which I utterly disagree with) is a bad thing because you're just looking for it to not add anything, but in a direction you prefer (i.e. CV64-LoD)

[RichterB]

Just...no.

I'm not sure what you're trying to point out with this list. There's a handful of things that are genuine advancements, but most of it is either opinion of improvement, things CV64-LoD didn't add to the series, and things CV64-LoD didn't even come up with in general.

Additionally, some of the points are just graphical, which are kind of moot seeing how Lords of Shadow is one of the most graphically impressive games this gen. And if we're comparing "achievements" so-to-speak, then how does 3D count for CV64-LoD? I didn't realize they had developed 4D gaming yet.

I give you credit for the analysis, but it's "objectivity" is tainted with a lot of subjective reasoning. Just to name one overarching example, if you're going to argue that LoS should be more like CV64, then you can't make that argument that LoS "not adding anything" (which I utterly disagree with) is a bad thing because you're just looking for it to not add anything, but in a direction you prefer (i.e. CV64-LoD)

Sorry, I can't help it if the Underworld is in there, and didn't need to be.

Anyway, the point of the N64 list? Basically I’m saying that it was more a return to the roots, evolved into 3D, than LoS is, yet LoS gets the credit for supposedly "returning to the roots," when that's a much greater exaggeration. Moreover, accidentally or not, it's there to point out how much CV64/LoD understood about translating Castlevania's history and atmosphere of games into 3D--what to keep, what to blend, what to add--over ten years ago from a team that had never worked in 3D games before, and how the CV franchise should really be much, much further along than a product like LoS, which is still grasping to find its identity in its "salad" mentality amidst all its modern HD resources. (EDIT: The note about 3D, and your 4D quip-reply, was referring to the fact that LoS didn't even deliver a "full 3D" experience over 10 years after it was achieved for the franchise on the N64; it was a fixed camera with less free-flowing environments, which I'll elaborate on toward the end of this).

As far as "objectivity," I went as far as I could, as logically as possible in a historical sense. I only brought up the N64 era because it's the period many have grown to agree over the years got it the closest, even if begrudgingly, and even if it was flawed and limited by many factors. Honestly, 3D action games boil down to one of two principles—a game that relies on combos to define its level design, or a game that considers combat part of a greater scheme of coherent elements. (Castlevania has always been the latter, so a return to the roots means adhering to that basic principle, and going from there. We never had a Classicvania like Final Fight or Streets of Rage). The desire to turn Castlevania into a combo-fest, for one thing, distorts what Castlevania is, and one really sees that in how it plays out in the demo vids of Mirror of Fate, a roughly 2D entry, good intentions aside.

As someone who very patiently waited for IGA's era to change or be replaced after Curse of Darkness, I won't stand for Cox telling me he wants to make a modern Classicvania game, when the result is simply a modern action game. (It's no great quantum leap from Lament of Innocence when you peel off the HD graphics, and that one wasn't exactly the popular gold standard for Classicvania). Further, it's unfair and cruel to say that MoF is a throwback to Dracula's Curse, or LoS is a throwback to Castlevania 1 and IV, and then have those "throwbacks" be a handful of surface elements, winks, and name drops. I'm not saying you literally throw it all the way back and make a straight up 2D game along the lines of Adventure Rebirth (which might, in part, work for starters), but there has to be a much better balance and awareness, and the fact that something like CV64/LoD exists, should be a guidepost to a general direction, instead of something like God of War, so dominated by combos, fixed cameras, and QT events in its gameplay, being the starting point (and in an earlier interview, I believe part of a demo on the first LoS stage where you gather the crystals, Cox stated that he always felt that God of War is what Castlevania should have become). And for Pete's sake, don't make stuff up in interviews and claim that the "masks" or the "butcher" were a classic part of Classicvania, and that's why they're in LoS.

If one wants to make a 3D Castlevania, you start with something that honors the free-flowing, rhythm-based nature of "action-platforming." Simple attacks made deep by things like timing and enemy placement, combined with tight jumping controls and environmental hazards. A 3D camera forces the designers to keep it honest and try to develop an interactive world where you utilize your platforming in varied ways (vertically and horizontally). Finally, you add the whistles and bells of exploration, survival-horror, puzzles or whatever you feel will enrich the core gameplay without totally breaking it.

However, the desire to have more and more powers and moves--combos--breaks the core principles, and was actually something acquired by the series under IGA’s mixed watch. It means you have to have enemies that take a good number of hits to keep up with the growing stages of purchased combos; it means platforming becomes marginalized, since the animation of attacks are meant to push the character into their combo set, which doesn't work on tight ledges; it lessens the strategic importance of sub-weapons; and it encourages flatter level designs to fit in arenas that best allow your character to grind out their combos, which in turn encourages fixed camera angles, which in turn encourage the creators to treat the game more like an interactive movie than a “game.” (Which is what the additions and restrictions of LoS cause).

I'm passionate, but that's as objective an analysis as I can muster. And I say this to the objective fellow with the new Simon Belmont on his signature --all in good humor, mind you).

...But I suppose one could say that Castlevania is "anything it wants to be," and thus be 100% objective, but then I'm not sure if objectivity in that case would serve any positive purpose other than being a comforter.

[uzo]

And yet Legacy of Darkness (and by relation, CV64) failed completely in the one category that actually matters the most; GAMEPLAY. Funny enough, something Lords of Shadow has done better than any other 3D Castlevania, despite some of it's own issues.

[Abnormal Freak]

And yet Legacy of Darkness (and by relation, CV64) failed completely in the one category that actually matters the most; GAMEPLAY. Funny enough, something Lords of Shadow has done better than any other 3D Castlevania.

That's purely subjective, though it won't prevent you from stating is as fact as always. ;)

I love the N64 games. They have their flaws, but to date they're the best 3D entries in the series by far, and the ones that most capture the essence of Castlevania.

[RichterB]

One more thing I was going to edit into the above post, like the 3D and 4D reply, but decided to put it by itself here:

The whole paradigm that MS and Cox are pursuing is flawed: Castlevania doesn't need to come at God of War or Uncharted or any of these things and say "I see ya, and I raise ya." They need to come out there and win an audience on its own terms, and then compete or coexist with those other franchises. They aren't going to do anything but be in a second-tier shadow if they insist on mirroring the trends and trying to exist in a tight box that contradicts the kind of Castlevania they claim they are restoring.

[beingthehero]

I totally forgot about cox-kun talking about how masks were always a part of Castlevania. As I posted earlier in this thread, the God/Devil/GodHand masks were just reused from an older game of MercurySteam's, when they were Rebel Studios. It was such a strange attempt to reconcile that plot device with older Castlevanias when it wasn't even necessary.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Lords' ending. It felt like a very bad attempt at vying for a MGS twist that wound up more Shyamalan than shocking in how unintentionally comical it was.

[Kingshango]

*see RichterB's post*

Wheres that Citizen Kane clapping gif when you need it, great well thought out post there.

The only thing im hoping for is that Lords of Shadow 2 turns out to be a better product overall and doesn't repeat the bad mistakes from Lords of Shadow 1. The rumors regarding the gameplay fills me with hope though but it's all about how Mercurysteam will execute it.

[e105beta]

Sorry, I can't help it if the Underworld is in there, and didn't need to be.

But it's not.

I'm passionate, but that's as objective an analysis as I can muster. And I say this to the objective fellow with the new Simon Belmont on his signature --all in good humor, mind you).

And my avatar is fan-art based off of old-school Richter designs, which in tandem with my signature probably demonstrates my attitude towards the series. Regardless, though, I'm not the one making absolute claims describing specific framework in which Castlevania should advance, and needs to advance, to be considered authentically Castlevania in design.

I'm not going to get in a big drawn out debate where I debate each and every one of your points, because factually, you're 100% correct. LoS indeed focuses more on combat, and LoD definitely focuses more on platforming. I respect the amount of time and thought you have put into the subject. However, I do disagree with your analysis because of the conclusions that you draw, and do want to note a few key things.

For example, I don't believe a fully 3D camera is at all a requirement to maintain the old-school Castlevania feel in a 3D game. If anything it's a hindrance. The Classicvanias focused on designed, obstacle course style gameplay, in which, by design, there were a set number of optimal ways to approach a situation, and the skill came from executing one of these few methods. A 3D environment, however, adds a whole new level of complexity where certain gameplay elements can no longer function the way they would have in a 2D environment, no matter how intuitive the design, because you've added an exponentially larger amount of ways to come at the challenge. Take Medusa heads. There is no way to effectively replicate the original challenge of the medusa heads in 3D, since a sin/cos brought into a 3D plane becomes a wholly different beast, and even with the added complexity remains a much more easily conquerable one.

Like this:


What was one of the most challenging, engaging obstacles in 2D Castlevanias becomes incomprehensible in 3D. To surmount this, most of the enemies in CV64-LoD followed the AI of "lock on to the main hero and run towards him", which isn't exactly reminiscent of 2D Castlevania, and most of the fighting took place in flat, open areas where players could focus on aiming their hits. Cornell was even given a nice auto-aim long range attack. Additionally, the platforming was largely devoid of intelligent life. Any enemy placement that did coincide with platforming, save for a select few situations, gave you ample time to arrive at your jumping destination BEFORE dealing with the enemy, or put you in a position to kill it before attempting a jump of any kind.

This made the games very slow, with lots of downtime, but necessarily slow. 3D platforming requires extra thought and planning, at least when not reverted to a 2D view (effectively killing the point) and interfering with that focus creates situations that tend to be more frustrating than rewarding. I encourage you to pull up a let's play of CV:LoD, or something of the like, because a lot of things you criticize CV:LoS for having, the N64 games actually had a lot of.

I don't think MercurySteam's vision of Castlevania is an invalid evolution. I simply think it takes the Classicvania focus on whip swinging to heart, rather than the focus on jumping like LoD did. It replaced the rhythm of jumping with the rhythm of of combat. It's different, sure, and I'm hoping MercurySteam adds more platforming ala the Clocktower to MoF and LoS2, but LoI came up with a solid system, and God of War made it even better. IMO, LoS is even better than that, for reasons I can list if you want me to, but it would be stupid for future developers to ignore these advancements, and fumble around in the dark just so that they can be different. Not everything needs to forge a new path, and Castlevania hasn't done so in awhile.

[crisis]

I totally forgot about cox-kun talking about how masks were always a part of Castlevania. As I posted earlier in this thread, the God/Devil/GodHand masks were just reused from an older game of MercurySteam's, when they were Rebel Studios. It was such a strange attempt to reconcile that plot device with older Castlevanias when it wasn't even necessary.

I remember in a video interview a couple years ago how Cox was saying he always thought Dracula wore a mask in CV1, & Simon was whipping it off. He said that was just his opinion, but I never thought of Dracula wearing a mask before he said this. and im sure some1 is gonna bring up that 1 guidebook wit simon y dracula taking off what appears 2 be a mask

[BingleGod]

I remember in a video interview a couple years ago how Cox was saying he always thought Dracula wore a mask in CV1, & Simon was whipping it off.

Huh. It's pretty clear that Dracula's head gets whipped off.
Cox is an odd one.