Topic: Will the old timeline be used again ?

[Intersection]

In response to Intersection; was it just me or did it seem like the Castlevania elements in LoS were basically an afterthought? I mean, if you changed the character names it could have just been "Lords of Shadow" and it could have passed for a wholly unrelated game.

Therein lies my biggest issue with LoS- it's not the iffy platforming or the crappy camera or the interminable colossus battles- it's the fact that the Castlevania window dressing felt like it was applied in the cutting room at the last minute. It's like they were just going through the script and replacing . "Oh, we got this Werewolf guy- hey, let's call him Cornell!"

Yes. Konami felt Castlevania needed a breath of fresh air, and in many ways they was right. But when Cox tried to distance Lords of Shadow from what he knew Castlevania to be, he ended up going too far -- and what you've described is the result. It's rather unfortunate, because LoS, on its own, is a very decent game.

Edit: Now you've reminded me that I need to finish my Lords of Shadow review...

[darkwzrd4]

In response to Intersection; was it just me or did it seem like the Castlevania elements in LoS were basically an afterthought? I mean, if you changed the character names it could have just been "Lords of Shadow" and it could have passed for a wholly unrelated game.

Therein lies my biggest issue with LoS- it's not the iffy platforming or the crappy camera or the interminable colossus battles- it's the fact that the Castlevania window dressing felt like it was applied in the cutting room at the last minute. It's like they were just going through the script and replacing . "Oh, we got this Werewolf guy- hey, let's call him Cornell!"

I completely agree with the bolded section. I've been saying it for years. If the game didn't have all the name drops and was just called Lords of Shadow, there wouldn't be so much controversy on this forum. It would just be its own series and would probably do perfectly fine without the CV name attached to it. I mean the whole concept of the story is fine. I like the story. It's just the name drops that get in the way of me liking it more. Plus, it confuses a lot of new fans. A few weeks ago, I got in to an argument with someone about Alucard and his origins. All I did was ask which Alucard his was talking about and he got confused and angry as if I was insulting him or something. The fact is that the LoS saga were his first CV games and he knew nothing of the older games and the fact that they belonged to a different timeline.

[Beaumont_Belmont]

I don't think anyone will argue that Castlevania was getting stale. Iga had great enthusiasm for the series but the fact is the entries were getting pretty uninspired. The series never really found its "Next Big Thing" breakthrough after Symphony. While I didn't really like Lords of Shadow, I can respect that they were trying to do something different. It just didn't turn out to be a different that did anything for me.

I'm still willing to give LoS 2 a chance, though.

[A-Yty]

It's the same character interpreted in VERY different ways.

That's my point. His real hair color can as plausibly be said being dark. [/offtopic]

In response to Intersection; was it just me or did it seem like the Castlevania elements in LoS were basically an afterthought? I mean, if you changed the character names it could have just been "Lords of Shadow" and it could have passed for a wholly unrelated game.

Therein lies my biggest issue with LoS- it's not the iffy platforming or the crappy camera or the interminable colossus battles- it's the fact that the Castlevania window dressing felt like it was applied in the cutting room at the last minute. It's like they were just going through the script and replacing . "Oh, we got this Werewolf guy- hey, let's call him Cornell!"

Indeed. It's not (just) that the CV elements felt largely absent. It's also that what there actually was, felt like it was just slapped on a different thing.

I'm not gonna actually open dat can o' worms, but I'm personally still not convinced LoS was Castlevania from the start. Just sayin'.

[Pfil]

I don't think anyone will argue that Castlevania was getting stale. Iga had great enthusiasm for the series but the fact is the entries were getting pretty uninspired. The series never really found its "Next Big Thing" breakthrough after Symphony. While I didn't really like Lords of Shadow, I can respect that they were trying to do something different. It just didn't turn out to be a different that did anything for me.

I'm still willing to give LoS 2 a chance, though.

I mean this with respect.
Once we get the current big thing, why would we need the next?
SotN was indeed the big thing in Castlevania, and it was OK for me if they just remade that game over and over with different characters, songs and stages each time.
And it's one thing to try something different (a little different) and other completely different thing to get rid of everything and make a new game with everything new. New look, new music, new design, new storyline, everything.
It's like if Nintendo finally makes a new Metroid, but instead of a Metroid it's just a Zelda, where the princess is named Samus, and instead of a Zelda world it's some random planet in space.
Almost everyone will like it, except Metroid lifelong fans.

And I really don't care if future games take place in the canon timeline or not. I just want them to have the same aesthetic and music, be it from older games and that horror atmosphere, or the newer ones with more anime inclined look.

[Beaumont_Belmont]

One problem is that Symphony of the Night set the bar pretty high. But another, in my opinion, is that I don't think Metroidvanias were really where Konami wanted the series to head in 1997. I think they were hoping that the Castlevania they'd made for the N64 would be the new dominant style and Symphony would kind of be a high note for the 2D 'Vanias to go out on.

The problem I see with the 3D Castlevanias, though, is that they never stuck to one style long enough to learn from their mistakes and always seemed to be playing catch-up rather than being on the forefront of the genre like they were in the NES days. Looking at the progression of the 2D Castlevanias we can see improvements and new features in every game. I think Castlevania lost a lot of cachet with gaming's mainstream due to its failure to really make the jump to 3D.

And while some people may be find with getting Metroidvania after Metroidvania, by Dawn of Sorrow I was pretty burnt out on them.

[Pfil]

The N64 games were the route to go for 3D Castlevania games.
They were negligent enough to never be able to see it.
So they had to keep experimenting.

[beingthehero]

Legacy of Darkness showed that the formula could have been perfected. By itself, it's a good game. Same level as Lament of Innocence for me.

[Pfil]

LoI have some things LoD didn't have, but in terms of gameplay I believe LoD was the best 3D.

[Maedhros]

In terms of gameplay, LoD is a steamy pile of secre...shit

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

I'd definitely give the gameplay as far as 3.D castlevania goes to Lament of Innocence hands down.

It really exemplified what badazz whip combat should be in my opinion.

But as far as level layout and platforming goes LOD definitely has the clear edge if you ask me.

[Pfil]

I like it because you have to jump, jump and jump, and you always have to take care of falling and death pits. I find that way more fun than, say, CoD, with all its linear stages. And I love CoD, with its aesthetic look, soundtrack and all innocent devils and collectibles and extras, but it doesn't hold a candle to LoD when it comes to fun gameplay.

[Lelygax]

Its explained why we cant swim in these N64 titles? These waters are poisoned or have something that makes you enable to float?

[darkwzrd4]

Its explained why we cant swim in these N64 titles? These waters are poisoned or have something that makes you enable to float?

That's one thing I liked. In the other games in which you can't swim, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the water. There is no explanation. At least, the N64 titles explain it.

LoI have some things LoD didn't have, but in terms of gameplay I believe LoD was the best 3D.

I'd definitely give the gameplay as far as 3.D castlevania goes to Lament of Innocence hands down.

It really exemplified what badazz whip combat should be in my opinion.

But as far as level layout and platforming goes LOD definitely has the clear edge if you ask me.

The main issue with the N64 titles is that they came out when 3D games were in there infancy. They came out in 1999. It is now 2013 and look at games today. If the N64 titles were remade with current graphics and controls, they would likely be the pinnacle of modern classicvania. No shimmying. No QTEs. Just platforming, instant death pits, poison rivers that result in instant death, fall damage when you fall from a great height, etc.

[Lelygax]

So thats it, poison rivers? I never knew that. They explain it in-game and how this happened? Well, even if not, it okay, but now Im curious about that.