Topic: Tell me if I am in the minority here

[Belmont Stakes]

   Tell me if I am in the minority here. I am from the Egoraptor line of thinking when it comes to Castlevania (why do I have a feeling that name is going to piss off people?). His Youtube video on Castlevania I vs II was really cool as was I vs IV. He basically favors the old school using your wits and cunning to beat the game as opposed to powering up an avatar such as in SOTN or other Metroid-esque type games in the series (Metroid something I know there is a name for a genre of games like that.) In any case I a feel very much in line with that mind set about the series. However, I want to make clear this is not a post about bashing SOTN. I would be fully behind another iteration of that title be it 2D, 3D or 11D. With many of the recent incarnations having been God of War-esque game play versions what I want to ask is this. Why are these games so geared towards the "Superman" style of game play being power and strength as opposed to the "Batman" style of cunning, speed, acrobatics, stick and move. Perhaps this is too vague but it seems to me since the inception of Street Fighter and its subsequent genre this, is what action games have come to be. In other words COMBO your adversary to kingdom come.
       Someone in this forum coined the term "TANK ENEMIES". This was one of the problems with Simon's Quest as Egoraptor stated. To put it as Aaron said hitting an enemy a bunch of times to farm hearts and experience to help aid in your progression. Now in fairness I like Zelda II which follows a similar path. But that game manages to get the platforming right. I don't have a problem with the tank enemy issue but I don't see why the platforming aspect has to be toned down to an audience who for all I know probably play plat formers or other difficult games that have that seemingly unfair instant death factor (Halo, 007 Goldeneye, Dark Souls etc.) So why is this particular franchise being singled out to deviate fully from its roots when Mario is still doing the same thing and still managing to hold its fan base despite being an instant death plat former. Now I have a half glass full view on the Lords of Shadow trilogy as well as LOI and COD. There is so much in those games that I love and so much potential I see despite some minor gripes to major psychotic fuckin hatreds like cone head shaped Ogres in COD to a modernized world in LOS2. That may be the biggest reason why I play the games now. It's not so much what the games are but the capturing of one's imagination of what they could be. But please tell me why is it that the tight platforming in this franchise has gone the way of the Lycan Lord for one of these two styles of game play? Selling units to new gamers aside I don't get why difficulty has to be a fan deterrent or a profit killer.

[BLOOD MONKEY]

You are not alone.

[Dracula9]

Simple.

Konami decided to try an reinvent the series to suit the modern market and do so in a way that would either revitalize old fans' interest, generate new fanbase interest, or both.

Then shitty development heading and god-complex project leaders happened, and the revamps failed in certain regards (this refers specifically to LoS, and I know the failings are entirely subjective).

As for LoI and CoD (only played the former), I think they worked well for what they were. Lament I feel had a good system of platforming and classic elements, but I dunno about CoD.

[Inccubus]

Dave Cox made it pretty clear that the focus was in creating a more general fan base rather than appealing to the existing one.

[Belmont Stakes]

That is something I just don't understand. Why would your want to alienate you fan base. Look at what happened to Mortal Kombat after MK vs DC. Konami should take a lesson from Warner.

[Dracula9]

Dave Cox made it pretty clear that the focus was in creating a more general fan base rather than appealing to the existing one.

Well, fuck Cox, then. Fanservice is one thing, abandoning your following of twenty-five years is inexcusable.

[Nagumo]

A lot of people have said Castlevania should become like Demon's/Dark Souls because it would again follow the same philosophy it followed in the NES days, which seems very similar, if not the same, as to what you described: no superhuman powers, just cunning and wit, fast-paced combat with high stakes, etc. Which is why people want Castlevania to be like those games. So of course they did the exact opposite of everything in Lords.

But to be fair, if they would follow the Souls model and increase the difficulty, it would probably alienate some of the fans who have gotten in the series through playing the Metroidvanias because they are less difficult than the old Castlevania games. Then again, it's not like Lords payed lip service to those fans anyway, so the relatively easy combat wasn't a well-intented way of maintaining them.     

[shelverton.]

If anything, LoS had better and more varied level design than both LoI and CoD which made me not miss the platforming that much. The combat, however, was (IMO) superior in LoI because it felt closer to Castlevania. Still, the combos got in the way there as well. I can't play any of those three games without getting bored to death after a while, unfortunately. Tank enemies, combos, arena shaped rooms.... It's very far from what I want from a Castlevania game (or any game for that matter)

In this regard I'd say neither IGA nor Cox delivered.

Castlevania needs a great team with fresh ideas while still having knowledge and respect for the franchise roots. Or branches, I should say. The classicvania and the metroidvania. 3Dvania is still a broken branch that needs to grow from scratch, IMO. And if the next team necessarily have to draw inspiration from ANYTHING they should look at, not only Dark Souls, but also from 2D Castlevania. Surely there must be dozens of ways to turn that into 3D without going God of War och Devil May Cry on us again. If they understand what made 2D Castlevania great they should be able to - as professional game developers - translate it into one kickass 3D Castlevania. Or maybe not work with games at all.

[BLOOD MONKEY]

Ask shitnomi for the castlevania rights so that the dungeon can make a good castlevania game

[Shiroi Koumori]

They ain't gonna give those up man.

[Dracula9]

>konami
>selling IPs

We have a better chance of the U.S. government spilling the beans on aliens than we do of that happening.

[zangetsu468]

A lot of people have said Castlevania should become like Demon's/Dark Souls because it would again follow the same philosophy it followed in the NES days, which seems very similar, if not the same, as to what you described: no superhuman powers, just cunning and wit, fast-paced combat with high stakes, etc. Which is why people want Castlevania to be like those games. So of course they did the exact opposite of everything in Lords.

Pretty much sums it up.

But to be fair, if they would follow the Souls model and increase the difficulty, it would probably alienate some of the fans who have gotten in the series through playing the Metroidvanias because they are less difficult than the old Castlevania games.     

I don't necessarily agree if those fans were of the lineage which liked OOE, it was the one Metroidvania which incorporated oldschool and innovative platforming elements/ enemy placement which harken back to the Classicvania much much moreso than its predecessors. The difficulty (although not that tough) was adjusted to suit compared to the previous handhelds too, maybe aside from COTM.

However, in a holistic sense I see your point.

OP, you're not alone. There was a thread a while back detailing this:

http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,7423.45.html

Including a long post written by myself on how the next CV game should be.

Seriously think Dark Souls with CV 64/ LOD pacing, with a day/night system. They only need to really improve gameplay and camera, 64 had all the concepts correct, including atmosphere.

[shelverton.]

When I think of a Castlevania inspired by Dark Souls I don't necessarily mean they should make it as hard. I'm thinking more of the level design, the world layout, the atmosphere and the overall flow of the action. More methodical, less flashy. But by all means; A Castlevania with punishing difficulty like the old games would be fine with me, although I'd argue that Dark Souls is much more difficult than Castlevania 1 or 3 ever were, but maybe that's just me being much better at 2D games in general.

[Nagumo]

For some reason I totally forgot about OoE. That game did a really good job at making most of your weapons and items useful. Souls games have that too. That's probably a more important goal to strive for than difficulty.

[Inccubus]

Whatever they do, I really hope they get away from the segregation of combat and exploration/platforming.
That was one of the things I hated most about MoF. It's like the designers thought people couldn't handle both aspects of the game at once.

I can't really opine about the suitability of the Dark Souls set up since I haven't played any of those games myself. I'll have to try it out.
However, I did start playing Darksiders recently and the level design in that game so far is much more like what I would want in a 3D Castlevania game.
It does suffer a little bit from invisible wall syndrome, but at least the environments are varied and there are plenty of set pieces to interact with.
Hell, most of the destructible objects give you currency not unlike the candles and such in CV. The fact you can pick up pretty much anything and use it as a temporary weapon makes it that much cooler, too.