Topic: Ideal Castlevania

[crisis]

With Lords of Shadow, MercurySteam chose to throw twenty-five years' worth of gaming excellence straight out of the window, all for the benefit of its "bold, new vision" of a series it didn't even understand.

I thought it was common knowledge by now that MercurySteam's original pitch was a CV1 remake?

[theANdROId]

EstebanT -- Your ideal Castlevania sounds phenominal!!  (Except for the "no handhelds" part.  I like handheld gaming, particularly because it means I can play anytime, and I don't have to worry about interfering with others.  With one TV in my own home, it leaves the TV open for my wife...with a large family with little money, it leaves TV and computer open for them when I'm visiting over the holidays.)

I do think LoS is a breath of fresh air...but certainly not the breath of fresh air.  MercurySteam did great, and it will probably help the series some, but I think they could have done better -- namely by doing something akin to your suggestion of a remake/sequel to SotN (Gah, that would be so freakin' awesome!!).  I can't really say anything about the spin-offs though.  I know they exist, but I've never really even seen or searched for pictures of them.

Dracula9 -- Your history/summary of games...cracked me up!  X-D

[e105beta]

I see a cash in as more the primary fanbase doesn't really want but is made anyway to make a quick buck. I it got released over nobody would give a damn because arcades died out here since the '90s. But in Japan, most gamers also visits arcades, so I could see Castlevania over there genuinely excited to play it. Sure, it's a safe investment and it uses a famous name, but it's not like any care was put in the product or doesn't appeal to the Japanese fanbase at all. I'm just disagreeing it's a soulles product purely made for money's sake. For what it is, it's appears to be very exciting. So it rubs me the wrong way when people don't judge it fairly.

I'm not arguing against Castlevania needing an update by the way. Just that these spin-offs were the reason Castlevania was somehow ruined and needed a reboot. Lords was in production before any of them were made, so they obviously aren't related. Also we both agreed the Pachislots helped the series. Since two sequels got made it means they did something right after all.

@EstebanT
I take it that last comment was supposed to be a comeback at me? I'm actually happy Lords opened up the series for change. That doesn't mean I don't think the reboot could have been done better, though.

Fair enough. I mean, I do agree that as slot machines, the Pachislot games look exciting, more so than anything I'm working on at the moment at least, and I don't think they themselves ruined the series or anything. Didn't mean to come off that way. I just think that when you're making spin-off casino games but your core games aren't in the spotlight anymore, there may be an issue. I guess that was always my beef with them. I was never a huge fan of OoE, so between that, Judgement, and HoD, it seemed like Konami was just kind of giving up.

But like you said, they were already producing LoS, so it was probably just a safe business move while they geared up for something else. I dunno.

[Intersection]

The examples you've provided really do not drive your point at all. Mario, first of all, has been branching out as far as genre and innovating its gameplay for a very long time. From the SNES Mario Kart to Super Mario Galaxy, these games have been extremely successful and kept the franchise fresh with new experiences to enjoy. However, people HAVE been complaining lately about Mario's repetitive nature so even an extremely well-established franchise can become stale. I'm not going to address every example you provide because most of them are either dying or dead franchises, held by a thread by DeviantArt weirdos, or, in the case of fighters or racing games, aren't particularly memorable even if they are done well as a result of the excessive amounts of them dished out through the years.

Should I really be content with Castlevania becoming another throwaway time-waster like a fighting game? Even if Rebirth wasn't bad, does it really have the same magic that SotN did? SotN is an iconic game associated with a certain era and the only other Castlevania game that comes close to holding that same weight is LoS. Regardless, I've already acknowledged my love for Iga's games (before & including OOE - Which also includes DXC). I think most of them were well-done in their own right and I continue to play them today. I'm certainly not focusing solely on the negatives.

My initial point was that the series was on a steady path to stagnation after OoE and the only thing truly pumping life back into Castlevania's veins is LoS. It surely would have faded into obscurity had someone not made some drastic changes.

You know, Esteban, there comes a point in every discussion where it's better idea to let go of a weak argument, or at least acknowledge that the person you're interacting with won't necessarily agree with you, than to dig an even deeper hole for yourself to fall in. I'm saying this because your point is not without its own validity; but you've gotten yourself so wrapped up in defending the undefendable that you've just told us that three quarters of the modern gaming market is "either dying or dead". I mean, I can understand it if you don't appreciate racing or fighting games, but their rate of appearance has little to do with their overall quality, and not everyone considers them to be "throwaway time-wasters". I'm also aware that you don't enjoy seeing a series stagnate, but the fact of the matter remains that most of the franchises Dracula9 has mentioned are still gathering a considerable amount of critical attention as of late.
And, well... "DeviantArt weirdos"? My obvious complaints aside, I've certainly heard kinder things said on this forum.


Symphony of the Night had its own magic, no doubt, and it was the first game of its kind to harbor it -- but it certainly wasn't the only one. If you want to know, I can see that same magic in abundance throughout later Castlevania games. And as for Rebirth, it's remake of game that came before Symphony -- it's only natural that its charm is of a different kind.
Now, I don't see why Lords of Shadow would be the only CV game to compare to Symphony of the Night. Symphony was truly groundbreaking for its time; it marked the beginning of a new genre, and, sixteen years later, has paved the way for some of the best titles Castlevania has known. But Lords of Shadow? It's a decent reboot, and a great game in itself, but it's very far from being a masterpiece. It doesn't even fulfill its promise for originality. And now, barely three years after the game's release, when the LoS arc isn't even finished, you're telling me that it "holds the same weight" as SoTN? I'm sure you already know this, but "new" and "great" are two entirely different terms.

I think we all understand your 'initial point', Esteban, but I believe that you should look at some of ours. Whether or not Castlevania was in stagnation after Order of Ecclesia is heavily debatable, and I can tell you with certainty that Castlevania would not have faded into obscurity had it stayed the way it was.

[e105beta]

Whether or not Castlevania was in stagnation after Order of Ecclesia is heavily debatable

While agree with most of the rest of your post, it's not really that debatable. Judgement was a mediocre game at best, ReBirth was a classically styled remake, and HoD was one big copy-paste job, and none of them did much to bring Castlevania back into the spotlight. Outside of a reboot, I can't imagine much else besides SotN 2.0 that would have pulled the Castlevania series out of its slump.

[Intersection]

While agree with most of the rest of your post, it's not really that debatable. Judgement was a mediocre game at best, ReBirth was a classically styled remake, and HoD was one big copy-paste job, and none of them did much to bring Castlevania back into the spotlight. Outside of a reboot, I can't imagine much else besides SotN 2.0 that would have pulled the Castlevania series out of its slump.

Details, details. Of course, I'd be lying if I told you that Castlevania was in any particularly good shape after Judgment. But it's all in the line of contesting the dismissive "LoS was the only possible answer" argument.

[Dracula9]

The examples you've provided really do not drive your point at all. Mario, first of all, has been branching out as far as genre and innovating its gameplay for a very long time. From the SNES Mario Kart to Super Mario Galaxy, these games have been extremely successful and kept the franchise fresh with new experiences to enjoy. However, people HAVE been complaining lately about Mario's repetitive nature so even an extremely well-established franchise can become stale. I'm not going to address every example you provide because most of them are either dying or dead franchises, held by a thread by DeviantArt weirdos, or, in the case of fighters or racing games, aren't particularly memorable even if they are done well as a result of the excessive amounts of them dished out through the years.

Whether or not Nintendo decided to put the cast in go-carts isn't the point. The point is that you called out the still-active predecessors to most of modern gaming like they were totally irrelevant. On the note of calling out, you don't really get to tell me my point is invalid when you only made a few brief rebuttals(and certainly not a few of the best) to the multiple of the ones I posted.

As for racers or fighters not being memorable, I'm not going to go into the lengths I might like to, and just point out that the first Mortal Kombat was responsible for the establishment of the ESRB. Actually, it was just one particular Fatality from the game that got the public riled up (Sub-Zero's head rip, if anyone didn't know).

Should I really be content with Castlevania becoming another throwaway time-waster like a fighting game?

No, you shouldn't, but that isn't what we're getting at. You should, however, at least be aware - if not content - that you're stepping on a lot of toes with what you've been saying. Just because you (clearly) aren't a fan of fighters or racers doesn't mean calling them time-wasters gives you any semblance of an argument. If you don't like something, that's fine. But don't make it into an overblown PSA.

I'm certainly not focusing solely on the negatives.

Yes, you are. Calling out multiple gaming franchises and genres just because you don't like a few of them, and ignoring every good aspect of each one, is focusing on what scant few negatives you've come into contact with.

My initial point was that the series was on a steady path to stagnation after OoE and the only thing truly pumping life back into Castlevania's veins is LoS. It surely would have faded into obscurity had someone not made some drastic changes.

I don't think that's a particularly fair statement, myself. I'm going to refer, again, to the Megaman franchise here.
Megaman, for all intents and purposes, is pretty much dead. Sure, Inafune's got Mighty No. 9 going (and boy, oh boy is the MM community pumped for that!), and Rock's in the new Smash Bros., but with those being the exceptions, Capcom doesn't seem to give a shit about the series anymore. The only thing they've really released in a long time was that iOS garbage heap X-Over for the 25th anniversary. The only good thing that had going for it was the new character design, but the rest of it was just an orgy of horribly redrawn and re-hashed graphics thrown together in what could almost be considered a cheap social game like fucking Candy Crush. At least Lords of Shadow is decent enough without comparing it to the Castlevania titles that came before it. Think about other fandoms and what they have to put up with before you go tooting your own horn. But on the bright side? There's a ton of Megaman fanwork going around. I'm pretty well-known in it for my music mixes, as well as my fan project in a few communities, and more than a little involved.

Just because a franchise isn't PUBLICLY or OFFICIALLY updated doesn't mean it's dead. There are plenty of Megaman fan games, fan comics, fan music, fanfictions, fan characters, etc. etc. to have kept the series alive since the last update of any new material, Starforce 3 (2008). I'm not going to count the 2010 Zero Collection (since, while it's quite a good game, is just a grouping of the four Zero GBA titles. It's not like the PS3 HD Collections with remastered graphics, it's just the four on a different platform with a couple of bonus features.) or the 2012 Street Fighter X Megaman, since it's a crossover (though, to be sure, it's a fantastic game IMO).

So, with the exceptions of a few, we in the MM community have been waiting for a while with not many updates, and those of use who can be adults about it are doing just fine. We've got our fan works to keep us motivated to keep investing our time in the franchise.

Castlevania's got its share of quality fan projects, as well. The ever-growing and ever-improving CV Fighter of Serio's is as great as it ever was. Piscesdreams' Bloodletting still holds its own (hell, I play through it still every couple of weeks or so. I just can't get tired of it!). Of course Mig's Lecarde Chronicles needs mentioning, just go look at how fucking amazing it is. There's also the older ones, like Jorge's old CVIII remake (despite being incomplete, I still enjoy a play of it every now and again), or Soul of Dracula, or CVRL, or any of the many Flash games and ROM hacks, or even the semi-related games Vampire and Rusty. And that's just naming a few.

So, before you start declaring various games and series and genres irrelevant and dead, you may want to ask yourself how well-immersed you really are in the subcultures and fanworks of those series. You never know what you might uncover if you take the time to do a little digging.

[EstebanT]

For someone who has criticized me a lot for being reductive, you failed to acknowledge the many other ways Mario attempted & excelled at innovating the series, even if you disagree that Super Mario Kart was one of them. It IS the point because you are trying to compare Castlevania's years of monotony with game genres within a single franchise that ranges from racer to 3d platformer to RPG and so on, with consistent success in keeping Mario a household name within the gaming industry.

You really think I didn't address every single game because you cornered me or something? Let me tell you what I think of the examples you provided. As a longtime fan of the FF series, I can say that they've maintained popularity through HUGE games, updated & beautiful visuals, compelling characters & stories with non-linearity. Not to mention the spin-offs which certainly played with different gameplay. Even so, people STILL got tired of the turn-based combat (just look at how XIII bombed - its fanbase notwithstanding, it did pretty terribly) party due to the combat and partly due to it lacking the magic of other FFs. They've decided to make some pretty big changes to keep it alive - switching to a more Kingdom Hearts-esque combat system for XV, at least that's how it looks so far, and a grandiose MMO for XIV.

Metroid is hardly an example of a franchise doing well by sticking to the same thing. The recent Metroid games aren't even Metroidvanias, they obviously decided to go to a different route in order to compete with the shift in popularity of modern game genres. It turned into an FPS and really isn't all that big compared to other FPS games.

How can you even use Megaman when you yourself used it as an example of a dead franchise.

Racing games and Fighters were once genres known to bring innovations to their consoles - in like the 90s. They were usually the games that brought the best graphics, had iconic music and influenced other games of that nature. But I wouldn't say today many people would consider many fighting games to be in league with games like, oh I don't know, The Last of Us, Skyrim, Bioshock: Infinite, Mass Effect etc. They just aren't on that level anymore. The only fighting games I have even heard that much buzz about in mainstream gaming are Skullgirls & Super Smash Brothers. They both do pretty well in distinguishing themselves amongst the numerous other games within the genre (albeit many of Skullgirls' features are pretty derivative of other fighters).

I would, however, say LoS has made its mark among the aforementioned mainstream games. Even if the others were good, they still are not particularly memorable. I don't care if I'm stepping on toes - I'm just being real. Whether or not you agree with those genres being timewasters, it's not about my preference. It's about what's memorable and above all what sells.

I NEVER said I didn't like these franchises, but I don't really think you provided good counterexamples because the sales either do not support your idea, or the successful games DID in fact make some pretty big changes in order to stay relevant in comparison to the big name games out today.

You can say it's not a "fair statement", but the numbers would disagree with that. LoS sold more copies worldwide than OoE, DoS & PoR combined and has certainly done better than the other 3d Castlevanias.
What other fandoms have to deal with is irrelevant to me. I only cared about Castlevania maintaining relevancy on a big scale and keeping up with modern titles.
I am actually familiar with a number of things you mentioned, but my concern is with Konami continuing the series and dishing out quality stuff. Just because a fandom exists, doesn't mean that, say, Firefly fans would oppose a high budget new season to their favorite show, as an example.

[Dracula9]

See, that's the issue here. You're going almost exclusively by numbers, when numbers aren't everything. You even just made a point to say FFXIII's fanbase is notwithstanding because its sales statistics alone happen to accredit your argument.

But I suppose that's all fair. I don't tend to stay in these arguments for very long. I guess it must be because I'm one of the Castlevania fans who wasn't coddled with updates for twenty-five years and feels like I'm entitled to nothing less than perfection. Let me point out with that statement that I'm solely referring to those in this fandom who feel that the ability to carry on long and heavily partial arguments over anything and everything under the sun gives them some sort of elite status. Elitism's been a problem in this community for a long time, after all.

But yeah. I've said my two bits. Well, maybe two and a half. That was a rather long post. You can have this one, Esteban.

[Intersection]

Esteban, I don't think you understand Dracula9's point. He's not telling you that success in gaming should be achieved by boycotting innovation, nor is he trying to give us a list of franchises that entirely refused to evolve. He's simply trying to point out that there's a difference between consistency and stagnation -- in other words, that there's a level until which every franchise actually needs to "stick to the same thing", lest it lose the very cohesion that made it a franchise in the first place.

Good developers never set off to make a sequel, or even a reboot, by immediately planning to deliver something completely different from the original. Instead, they take the bulk of what contributed the original game's success, making sure that they understand it fully, and then try to look at it from new angles and new perspectives that hadn't been seen before. Without that fundamental precaution, you risk building the second floor of your pyramid without its base, sacrificing the immediacy and coherence of the sequel you're trying to produce.  In fact, that's how new concepts and ideas are essentially meant to be integrated -- you would always check to see if they're compatible with the spirit and mechanics of the original, and seek a smooth and intuitive manner in which to inject them. It's a process that's infinitely smoother and more effective than the blind trooping forth many think a reboot entails.

Metroid is hardly an example of a franchise doing well by sticking to the same thing. The recent Metroid games aren't even Metroidvanias, they obviously decided to go to a different route in order to compete with the shift in popularity of modern game genres. It turned into an FPS and really isn't all that big compared to other FPS games.

The Metroid Prime series has given us three of the best entries in the FPS genre, and you're telling me that it "isn't all that big" compared to other modern shooters? This is beyond logic.

Racing games and Fighters were once genres known to bring innovations to their consoles - in like the 90s. They were usually the games that brought the best graphics, had iconic music and influenced other games of that nature. But I wouldn't say today many people would consider many fighting games to be in league with games like, oh I don't know, The Last of Us, Skyrim, Bioshock: Infinite, Mass Effect etc. They just aren't on that level anymore. The only fighting games I have even heard that much buzz about in mainstream gaming are Skullgirls & Super Smash Brothers. They both do pretty well in distinguishing themselves amongst the numerous other games within the genre (albeit many of Skullgirls' features are pretty derivative of other fighters).

In what way are fighting games "not on that level anymore"? What "league" have Bioshock and Mass Effect attained that fighting games could no longer match? You're taking games from four considerably different genres and telling us with no justification whatsoever that fighting games aren't good anymore. As it is, you don't make anymore sense than you did before.
And as for their place in "mainstream gaming", there have been dozens of popular and well-received fighting games to make their way into the modern gaming spectrum. You'd think Street Fighter, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Mortal Kombat, SoulCalibur, etc, along with the occasional Ultimate "X" vs. "Y" title and the many superhero-themed fighting games out there (Injustice, for one) would be enough to warrant some "buzz".

I would, however, say LoS has made its mark among the aforementioned mainstream games. Even if the others were good, they still are not particularly memorable. I don't care if I'm stepping on toes - I'm just being real. Whether or not you agree with those genres being timewasters, it's not about my preference. It's about what's memorable and above all what sells.

No, it certainly isn't -- so don't use the sales argument to salvage a failing point.
I'll say it as many times as it takes: You can't equate a game's commercial success with its overall quality. You can't equate the amount of media coverage a game receives with its overall quality. Sales don't have anything to do with memorability.
And while there is a link, it's so often and so catastrophically misunderstood that I'd advise anyone to avoid "this game sold better" premise, for the sake of a somewhat reasonable discussion.

[theANdROId]

You can't equate a game's commercial success with its overall quality. You can't equate the amount of media coverage a game receives with its overall quality.

I don't remember anyone fawning over Mother/Earthbound for quite some time...yet today it has quite a following.  I can't imagine how anyone could factually say Earthbound isn't memorable unless you just don't like that genre.

[e105beta]

You can't equate a game's commercial success with its overall quality. You can't equate the amount of media coverage a game receives with its overall quality. Sales don't have anything to do with memorability.

You're 100% correct, but quality can be very subjective, so if you're trying to make an argument that a series should see more of something, whether it be an art-style, soundtrack, or gameplay mechanic, and you don't have the sales to back it up, you have a weak argument.

I mean, sales aren't everything, but in a business, you can't piss on sales figures.

[Dracula9]

That's pretty much his (our?) point. You can't piss on sales figures when they're important to a product's well-being, but you can't piss on the game/series/genre itself either when those numbers may not back it up. Esteban is doing the latter, and that's the problem here.

[EstebanT]

Esteban, I don't think you understand Dracula9's point. He's not telling you that success in gaming should be achieved by boycotting innovation, nor is he trying to give us a list of franchises that entirely refused to evolve. He's simply trying to point out that there's a difference between consistency and stagnation -- in other words, that there's a level until which every franchise actually needs to "stick to the same thing", lest it lose the very cohesion that made it a franchise in the first place.

And what exactly was the cohesion that made Castlevania in the first place? What other than the music has mercurysteam changed to make Lords of Shadow not Castlevania enough for you? Please answer me that.

Good developers never set off to make a sequel, or even a reboot, by immediately planning to deliver something completely different from the original

.

I agree. However, Lords of Shadow is not that different from other 3D Castlevania titles such as Lament of Innocence or the N64 games. Mercurysteam didn't turn it into a fighting game, a puzzle game or a gambling machine. They made a 3D Hack'nSlash like previous Castlevanias.

Instead, they take the bulk of what contributed the original game's success, making sure that they understand it fully, and then try to look at it from new angles and new perspectives that hadn't been seen before.

Right again. Mercurysteam did just that.

Without that fundamental precaution, you risk building the second floor of your pyramid without its base, sacrificing the immediacy and coherence of the sequel you're trying to produce.

The base of Castlevania was composed of 2 different styles that had been done to death.

In fact, that's how new concepts and ideas are essentially meant to be integrated -- you would always check to see if they're compatible with the spirit and mechanics of the original, and seek a smooth and intuitive manner in which to inject them. It's a process that's infinitely smoother and more effective than the blind trooping forth many think a reboot entails.

"Spirit" is subjective, but.... LoS is part of a trilogy. If you don't think LoS2 feels like Castlevania I suggest you play the demo.
"Mechanics"? Are you saying LoI's combo based 3D hack and slash platformer isn't compatible with LoS combo based 3D hack and slash platformer?

The Metroid Prime series has given us three of the best entries in the FPS genre, and you're telling me that it "isn't all that big" compared to other modern shooters? This is beyond logic.

Im not saying it isn't big, but it it really isn't compared to others...
 
Call of Duty, 120 Million
Battlefield, 60 Million
Resident Evil, 60 Million
Halo, 50 Million
Metroid, 14 Million

Does't sound beyond logic to me.
I mean, when talking about "how big" a franchise is... you can only go by numbers.

In what way are fighting games "not on that level anymore"? What "league" have Bioshock and Mass Effect attained that fighting games could no longer match? You're taking games from four considerably different genres and telling us with no justification whatsoever that fighting games aren't good anymore. As it is, you don't make anymore sense than you did before.
And as for their place in "mainstream gaming", there have been dozens of popular and well-received fighting games to make their way into the modern gaming spectrum. You'd think Street Fighter, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Mortal Kombat, SoulCalibur, etc, along with the occasional Ultimate "X" vs. "Y" title and the many superhero-themed fighting games out there (Injustice, for one) would be enough to warrant some "buzz".

Fine, I'll give you this one.

No, it certainly isn't -- so don't use the sales argument to salvage a failing point.
I'll say it as many times as it takes: You can't equate a game's commercial success with its overall quality. You can't equate the amount of media coverage a game receives with its overall quality. Sales don't have anything to do with memorability.

I agree again. But you cant just pretend videogames aren't a business. Videogames are meant to sell. Sales matter, and not only for the people making them. LoS made more money than previous Castlevanias, which means more people are likely to buy the next Castlevania installment. The series were going downhill. WHY WOULD KONAMI KEEP MAKING GAMES THAT DONT SELL?

And while there is a link, it's so often and so catastrophically misunderstood that I'd advise anyone to avoid "this game sold better" premise, for the sake of a somewhat reasonable discussion.

Konami would disagree.

[Dracula9]

Okay, I lied about giving you this one. So sorry.

Konami's a multibillion global corporate conglomerate. They don't have to.

And what exactly was the cohesion that made Castlevania in the first place? What other than the music has mercurysteam changed to make Lords of Shadow not Castlevania enough for you? Please answer me that.

Are you actually implying that, three years after the game is released, you don't know why the general Castlevania fandom doesn't like Lords of Shadow? Please tell me you're not actually suggesting that.

Shit, man, you don't walk into Crip territory and flash a Blood gang sign. Walking into a Castlevania board in 2013 and seriously asking why people don't like Lords of Shadow is pretty much the same principle.

As many people so...ahem, kindly...told me months ago, you can go Google that for yourself. We're tired of having to explain it all the damn time.

Now, I'd explain why most of them don't like it, but since I don't share most of those opinions, I won't speak on their behalf and risk getting the wrong point across. If they want to that's on them. I don't want to get caught in that cross-fire again.

But yeah. Asking questions like that give a very bad impression. In this case, it makes you look like you don't know very much about the supposed subject you're arguing, and makes it look like you may just be a really bad troll. Neither of those are pleasant if you're being serious.

The base of Castlevania was composed of 2 different styles that had been done to death.

And those would be...what, exactly? Platforming? Adventure? Action? Gothic? Be specific. I don't really know how to go about rebutting this if I don't know what context you're referring to. All of the ones I mentioned, by the way, are still around in nearly every genre of the arts, and thriving. Don't know if those were in the ballpark of what you meant.

"Spirit" is subjective, but.... LoS is part of a trilogy. If you don't think LoS2 feels like Castlevania I suggest you play the demo.
"Mechanics"? Are you saying LoI's combo based 3D hack and slash platformer isn't compatible with LoS combo based 3D hack and slash platformer?

Actually, it felt more like Legacy of Kain: Defiance during the Kain sections, if you ask me.
And yes, I would imagine that's what he was saying.

You know, you got on me a while back for generalizing heavily on those old game series...and yet here you are doing the same thing. How about that.

And another yes, because they're very different. Lament doesn't play similarly to Lords any more than Devil May Cry plays like God of War. Of course games done in similar play styles will be similar. But Lords' grappling and climbing system far exceeds that of Lament as far as usage in-game goes (because you're such a fan of numbers, after all), its Abilities system makes it easier to gain more advanced combos (because having to CHOOSE how the experience points you've earned get used, and what they go towards, gives you more room as a player to ease into a play style best suited to you, rather than having to just up and learn a new combo when you hit a certain level), and the amount of ways the environment is incorporated into battles and gameplay is quite enjoyable (at least for me, and especially during battle with Cornell's Dark Lord form). Just to name a few things. I know there's opposition on those opinions, and some of them are the reasons people don't like Lords. Hint hint.

And, "spirit is subjective?" Really? That's what you're going with?

That point is never valid in any argument involving anything remotely artistic, simply because of that fact. Game design is no exception. Concept artists have to catch on to the "spirit" of the textual character pitches in order to capture the "spirit" of that character in an artwork. Level designers and texture mappers have to capture the "spirit" and essence of a given environment in order to make it feel as believable as possible (if you even think about debating this one, go look at anything in the God of War games, particularly II, III, and Ascension). Plot and script writers have to bust their asses to make sure they write everything to convey the emotions and gestures they need to get a point across.

"Spirit" is hardly subjective, Esteban. Not by itself. Now, I will warrant you that defining "spirit" by means of the shape or feeling of the game is subjective, but that's only because each game/series/genre/scene is quite varied and too much so to pinpoint. And for fans as passionate as those found in Castlevania (though that isn't to say every fandom is without such people), the "spirit" of the games is what helped and helps to define them.

That's why you're not grasping what we're saying to you. I don't think you can look past the numbers on this one, or at least, you don't appear to be willing to. For a great deal of people, Lords of Shadow largely lacked a lot of that "spirit,"(in addition to plot and gameplay things, but those are another matter) which you claim is too subjective to acknowledge. Disputing that "spirit" is irrelevant in any context of game design an egregious mistake and I highly suggest you think on that before you post again.

nstead, they take the bulk of what contributed the original game's success, making sure that they understand it fully, and then try to look at it from new angles and new perspectives that hadn't been seen before.

Right again. Mercurysteam did just that.

A lot of people would disagree with you. I'm not typically one of the ones to rail on Lords, but this one I do agree with most on. I don't think Cox understood it fully. In all honesty, I think the fact that the first thing out of his mouth at E3 was "forget everything you know about Castlevania" speaks volumes about how little he understood it. Or worse, he didn't care. In either case, a lot of the dark mythology the original series ran on (in particular, SotN, for the instances I'm about to use) was largely made into a series of sob stories. Malphas, for one (who in actual mythology is typically one of the Princes of Hell, a crow-man who is a bricklayer and builder demon for those who call on him) went from the long-feared Japanese Karasu-Tengu to the appropriately-named Malphas to...a witch who turned into a house-sized bird-demon because she tried to kill herself over a killed lover. I'm not disregarding the message there, but still. She's got a sob story; Gabe's got a sob story with Marie; Claudia and the Black Knight's fate are a sob story; Baba Yaga went crazy due to losing beauty; the Lords of Shadow have a divine sob story; hell, even the fucking TITANS get a sob story when Stone Idol plays the "last-of-her-kind" card. Cox went and gave everything a tragic backstory, because apparently the only thing that's allowed to be inherently evil anymore is Satan. Cox went and played the God card (Yu-gi-oh, snicker), and played it badly. It's one thing to get [the Christian] God involved - as Lament did it quite well by keeping him uninvolved with the events of the game and keeping it a battle of one's faith being tested by the cruelties of the world - and doing it isn't a bad thing. But going the easy route and making the whole game an implied prelude the war of Revelation with the main cast as little more than pawns in a grand and barely-explained scheme is a cop-out. I'm not going to contest the power that love grants humankind, but I think being able to defeat one of the oldest beings in existence and the supposed rudimentary presence of absolute Evil with nothing more than the same moves you've used everywhere else and a few semi-divine powerups is a little ridiculous. It isn't like God himself intervened on Gabriel's behalf to give him Micheal's Sword or anything. He used the same techniques he'd had every other fight in the game. Call me a pessimist, but if simple faith in morality and God is the key to overcoming Satan (as the Bible frequently notes), then that entire fight (as well as most of its implications) was fucking pointless.

Yeah. Cox pulled a cop-out and failed at it. That's another big thing the older CV fans don't much like.

And I actually laughed out loud a bit when you seriously brought Call of Duty sales figures in as a defense. Another example of your argument beginning to fall apart at the seams and giving way to hypocritical points.

As many as the Internet jokes about it are, Call of Duty really does rely on the same basic formula just about every single game. And I'd be willing to bet that in another twenty years it will still be selling, which goes against your "25+ years is dead and dying" argument. Tsk, tsk, Esteban. Call of Duty has its merits, yes, but its popularity largely has to do with, well, the 'Murica attitude. We like shooting terrorists in the desert. We like blowing shit up. We like being the John Wayne movie-star grade-A Captain Badass with a bunch of guns. It's simply what our society has produced. It's unfortunate, but hey, if it sells, right? Sales figures are the only thing that define quality, after all, so I guess Call of Duty's success in the States means we're super awesome, right?

See, that's pretty faulty reasoning when taken ever-so-slightly out of this carefully taped-together context you've made for yourself.

I agree again. But you cant just pretend videogames aren't a business. Videogames are meant to sell. Sales matter, and not only for the people making them. LoS made more money than previous Castlevanias, which means more people are likely to buy the next Castlevania installment. The series were going downhill. WHY WOULD KONAMI KEEP MAKING GAMES THAT DONT SELL?

Nobody's pretending gaming isn't a business. If anything, you're the one pretending, pretending that sales figures are all that matters and actual quality and fan appeal don't mean a fucking thing.

I mean, seriously, Esteban. How fucking ignorant are you? I don't really even care about the Castlevania part of the discussion as much as I do your blatant and willful disregard for the copious amounts of work that are required and go into game production. Have you no respect for the developers, the artists, the builders, the modelers, the voice and motion capture actors, the writers, the producers, or even the companies that fund them all?

Can you even fucking comprehend how insulting your entire argument is those people?

You are, either willingly or by proxy (and it doesn't excuse it either way), throwing every minute of every hour worked by the teams who are responsible for the sales numbers you love relying on. The sleepless nights many have worked to ensure a quality product would have a certain feature, or be free of a troublesome bug, or to make sure that that one boss was just the right amount of awesome are the only reason you have those figures in the first place. Yes, I know that these people take orders from the corporate heads, but at the end of the day, they're the ones who make the game. They're the ones who toil day and night to make sure ungrateful assholes like you have a game to play.

And yet here you are insinuating that all their hard work means nothing by comparison to the sales figures which they are directly responsible for helping to generate.

Disgusting. You have no argument worth pursuing.

At the end of the day, it doesn't mean a fucking thing how well you can argue (because I will give you credit, you have a fairly good set of lingual skills when it comes to debating), if you don't have any real point in which to argue. And since you would rather cling to the ever-failing point of sales than acknowledge other aspects of production, or other points and opinions than your own, you don't have much of a point left to argue.

It might do you well to put down the shovel and stop digging.