Topic: Castlevania Identity Crisis:what should the next Castlevania game be like?

[theANdROId]

Perhaps include a nightmare mode where it's like the hardest setting, but Simon just keeps getting weaker, the longer the game is played. Until the point where he will eventually die from 1 hit of any enemy.
...
I would say rather than stealing body parts, Dracula just tells Simon that he's too late, reassembling his body has re-awakened the Castle, thus allowing Dracula to reach full power. Castle rises up around Simon, Drac flies off to the throne room, Simon has one final quest to take on.

I really like all the ideas of Simon getting weaker due to the curse...but how would this work with there being another game after it?  Nightmare mode especially, but even "regular" modes dying from the curse, you can't really make that whole part of the game where Simon dies from one-three hits.  That'd be challenging, for sure, but I think by that point it might be too much.

[Belmontoya]

Replay value is not dependent on surplus content. Cramming a bunch of pointless secret areas and useless items into a game doesn't make me want to play it again.

It seems we disagree fundamentally dark prince.

 

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

Replay value is not dependent on surplus content. Cramming a bunch of pointless secret areas and useless items into a game doesn't make me want to play it again.

It seems we disagree fundamentally dark prince.

lol useless, not ALL of them are useless.

So you don't like having to explore a huge castle and get items and weapons and yet you would rather play through the same old levels over and over again as your ideal "replay value"?

Makes no sense to me man sorry, it just seems like you hate metroidvanias and love classivanias and just want to hold classicvanias on the same level as metroidvania in all areas which simply is not possible.

It just seems so obvious which of the two has more replay value.

I love both of them, but I can beat a game like SCIV and while I enjoy it greatly every step of the way I will be done with it afterwards, that is because there is nothing aside from getting from point a to point b and the only thing left would be playing the same old levels over again, granted some of the classicvanias offering more in diverging paths.

On the contrary with metroidvanias however I can explore a huge castle with no getting from point a to point b.

I can find secret areas,weapons,and items in that huge castle.

I can level up and make my character completely OP if I choose.

And even after going through such a game, I actually get a unlockable mode that lets me play as a character pretty different from the one I played with my initial playthrough, giving me incentive to revisit the experience again through a new playable character.

Its just so obvious man, I get that you love classicvanias, I do to, but its no reason to turn a blind eye to the obvious edge in replay value metroidvanias have.

[Belmontoya]

A big reason why I would rather replay a classicvania than a metriodvania is because the platforming is actually challenging.

I play video games for the reflex challenge. It's the same reason that I can replay tetris over and over. Starting over with nothing, and doing the absolute best you can, over and over.

Although I love metriodvania games as well, and understand the appeal of virtual item hoarding, I can't agree with your theory because my own existence contradicts it.

I love both styles of games. But I have replayed the hell out of Castlevania Bloodlines, and I played through Dawn of Sorrow one time, and just about every other Metriodvania once. Sure, the time it takes to beat a metriodvania is longer, but I never have even the slightest urge to replay them from the beginning again. I typically like to replay most of the Classicvanias once a year or so. Times that by 20 something years and you can begin to see why I disagree with you.

I game that way, and a lot of my friends do as well. And it's certainly not limited to Castlevania (Mario Bros, Balloon Fight, Shinobi, Contra) And hell, even Flappy Bird just name a few.

Anyways back to my point. Replay value is not dependent on surplus content. It's dependent on a challenge that never dies. Simpler games offer that in a much more pure way. There is no fat to chew through to get to the real meat. 

Apparently all is not as obvious as you would assume.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

Apparently all is not as obvious as you would assume.

Lol whatever man, I layed out the content in front of you as far as replayability goes and you still don't see it.

I personally think its obvious to anyone with eyes really, no offense intended.

But I'm done with this converastion, I will agree to disagree and move on at this point.

[Maedhros]

They are two different types of approachs and two different type of replay values.

The replay values on metroidvania lies on the extra modes.

The replay value on classicvanias lies on repeating the levels (in different order/different character if possible).

[Belmontoya]

@ Dark Prince: I'm not 100% sure on what you think "replaying" something is anymore. I think picking up a game you have beaten from start to finish 3 times or more, and still having the urge to play it again even after decades constitutes the title of "good replay value". I'm starting to think that good replay value to you is beating a game, and spending hours thereafter troll roaming around the levels as you rank yourself to the point that the enemies are no longer threats as you search for the last crumb of an item you haven't yet attained. You're not really replaying the game anymore at that point. You are simply lingering around within it. Sure, I guess that's still hours spent with the game, but to me, that is not "good replay value". It's superfluous gameplay in my opinion.

So I to will agree to disagree based off of that alone.

But just for the record, I understand that other gamers find that appealing. I think there are different kinds of replay value. You're right in the way you feel about your genre of choice, but you are wrong to declare that it is the only kind of good replay value.

It's certainly not a black and white debate, and it's also not an obvious one.

[Belmontoya]

Thanks for that post Maehdros. You wrote that as I was typing, and I totally agree with you.

That's what I was trying to say.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

But just for the record, I understand that other gamers find that appealing. I think there are different kinds of replay value. You're right in the way you feel about your genre of choice, but you are wrong to declare that it is the only kind of good replay value.

I was not arguing which has GOOD replay value, I was arguing which has MORE.

Metroidvanias have more meat on its bones than classicvanias, it has more to do and offers unlockable modes and characters while classicvanias do not.

I'm not arguing whether or not classicvania has good replay value, I'm sizing its replay value up in comparison to what metroidvanias offer.

See, one thing your going to find hard when in a discussion with me is that I simply can not walk away as long as you keep up with posts like these, feel free to continue on if you want to be at this for days.

[Kaneda]

I've said this elsewhere, but I'd like another game in the style of Vampire Killer.

[zangetsu468]

They are two different types of approachs and two different type of replay values.

The replay values on metroidvania lies on the extra modes.

The replay value on classicvanias lies on repeating the levels (in different order/different character if possible).

This is true.


What about a lot of the stages of CV64/ LOD?

I'm thinking particularly the forest level/ castle keep/ villa.
You had to do things, but these levels were all open ended.
In all honesty I haven't replayed LOD as much as say SOTN, but it was pretty close.

I really like all the ideas of Simon getting weaker due to the curse...but how would this work with there being another game after it?  Nightmare mode especially, but even "regular" modes dying from the curse, you can't really make that whole part of the game where Simon dies from one-three hits.  That'd be challenging, for sure, but I think by that point it might be too much.

Well think of it this way, in CV II Simon never got weaker - this would be 'normal' mode. From the CV II component of this game, Simon is cursed and the following rules apply:

Normal - Simon levels up, whip changes every 10 levels, doesn't get weaker as time passes, enemies are stronger at night (but not inside towns/ mansions)
Hard - Simon doesn't level up(at base level 1), whip changes when he's slayed the equivalent amount of enemies = 10 levels, doesn't get weaker as time passes, enemies are stronger at night (inside towns/mansions with seamless transitioning)
Very Hard - Simon doesn't level up(at base level 1), whip never changes (stays at leather whip), Simon doesn't get weaker as time passes, enemies are stronger at night including bosses (inside towns/mansions with seamless transitioning)
Nightmare - Simon doesn't level up(at base level 1), whip never changes (stays at leather whip), Simon gets weaker as time passes, enemies are stronger at night including bosses (inside towns/mansions with seamless transitioning), Dracula has a hidden final form which is devastatingly difficult.

Only veterans would be playing on the hardest setting. This way casual gamers would not have to. I don't see why this can't work, DMC has Dante must die mode. Again, nobody will play that unless they love the game, and/or are really into the series.

[Mystic Myotis]

I really like all the ideas of Simon getting weaker due to the curse...but how would this work with there being another game after it?  Nightmare mode especially, but even "regular" modes dying from the curse, you can't really make that whole part of the game where Simon dies from one-three hits.  That'd be challenging, for sure, but I think by that point it might be too much.

You don't have to make Simon weaker or give recolored versions of the same enemies better stats.  Just make the level design and enemy placement progressively more challenging, like in other games, but make it more pronounced, and emphasize the progression with music and visuals that become increasingly more... haunting.  Have the first time he beats Dracula not be too challenging (final area or two excluded for obvious reasons), but once he is cursed the difficulty really starts to pick up in the game.

Generally leveling systems either give the 'illusion' of increased difficulty, or they are outright tedious.  The level restrictions in the Metroidvanias, for example.  Has anyone actually completed a level 1 Albus Mode run?  I tried it and it was painfully tedious.  It's an easy way to illustrate a cursed Simon but it can really mess with difficulty balancing and it encourages the use of recolored enemies, which I think the series should try to step away from at least a little.  Especially if we're paying $60 for the game.

[theANdROId]

@Zang ...or whoever I guess -- I meant, with putting CV4 in place to play after Simon beats Drac...would it really be "good" to have that entire game at such a high difficulty, particularly if someone is playing the nightmare mode and Simon is killed by 1 hit of anything?  Would anyone really want to play that much/long of a game where they're constantly worried about being 1-hit killed?

[zangetsu468]

Generally leveling systems either give the 'illusion' of increased difficulty, or they are outright tedious.  The level restrictions in the Metroidvanias, for example.  Has anyone actually completed a level 1 Albus Mode run? 

I'm up to Dracula, after completing Shanoa's run. Confident that in the next week or so, depending on work he will die a terrible death.

I've lost a bit of interest in gaming lately due to other commitments so this got put on the backburner for a bit.

@Zang ...or whoever I guess -- I meant, with putting CV4 in place to play after Simon beats Drac...would it really be "good" to have that entire game at such a high difficulty, particularly if someone is playing the nightmare mode and Simon is killed by 1 hit of anything?  Would anyone really want to play that much/long of a game where they're constantly worried about being 1-hit killed?

Android, that's what I'm saying, you're not being 1-hit killed unless you choose the hardest difficulty.
If a game offers you 4 difficulty settings and the final is called nightmare, then why would you choose to play on that difficulty if you didn't want to be tortured?

I'm not sure why games just can't offer an extremely hard difficulty, at the end of the day it increases replay value, it's a game, if people want it to be extremely difficult they should have the option. For those who don't just let the difficulty arise in increments (which includes platforming, combat etc) simple.

Hence, if you played on normal>hard>very hard it would get progressively harder but you wouldn't be 1 hit killed... Very hard would just be 'very hard' and so forth.