Topic: looking back at the DS era

[crisis]

I've been thinking lately about the decisions that have lead to the current state of the franchise now. now in 2015, how would u rate the games as a whole, not individually? do u feel they were successful in bringing in a younger audience

do you feel the generic anime artstyle hurt the brand of castlevania? were they even necessary to begin with? each title was arguably just "filler" stories, sequels to games that didnt really need a sequel.

i recall in old interviews, IGA would always say "if such & such sells well, then we can make more." so does that mean they were somewhat successful, but still not living up to Konami's expectations? who knows

take into account every factor the games had; music, art, gameplay, lack of platforming, focus on rpg elements, etc & compare it to the rest of the series. do they hold up to the rest of the series? would the franchise been better off without them, without the "metroidvania" fatigue that we experienced

perhaps Konami shouldnt have greenlit each title in such a short period of time. then perhaps the series would be in better shape than it is now

[shelverton.]

Some say LoS happened because of disappointing sales of the DS games. Though today one might wonder if Mirror of Fate and LoS2 actually sold even worse? Anyway, the series has probably been struggling a bit, failing to reach Konami's expectations. Otherwise they would've kept going with the anime style and the Metroidvania formula too.

LoS1 was definitely a hit, saleswise, but I bet the game was AT LEAST twice as expensive to develop, probably even more (three times? Four times?). I dunno if Konami, when all is said and done, really made THAT much more money on it than, say, Dawn of Sorrow?

And what do I think of the DS games? They're pretty excellent, still. Some repetitive level design here and there aside, they're some of my favorite games in the franchise. Did they hurt Castlevania though? Maybe. But I wouldn't trade them for anything anyway.

[X]

Rating them all I'd have to say they were marginally successful. After all only 3 DS (3DS, lol) games in the series were ever made.

Did the generic anime style hurt them? I'd say it's about 50/50. For me it was a much needed break from all the pretty boys that had been dominating the series since IGA first took the reigns. I didn't mind DoS's art style as it looked very similar to the style used in Ghost in the Shell: Stand-alone complex. PoR's style was a little less impressive and could have been more professional. The art style that I felt was really successful was in OoE. It held the quality and detail of Kojima's style but it had people who looked like real people without being overly androgynous.

The Music? I can't give my personal exact figures on this since I have favorite tracks from all three titles.

The Gameplay? It was where it should have been. The characters controlled well and the games were easy to get into. I didn't really notice any lack of platforming.

The difficulty? OoE had the most difficulty of all the games, but it wasn't unreasonable. I remember DoS having a more difficult feel playing Julius mode and only when you get to the latter-half of the game. Then you had to grind in order to stand a reasonable chance  OoE never had that so that was a good thing. PoR was easier then both the other games, unless of course you're play a re-run with a level 1 cap. That was ridiculous.

The Graphics? The graphics over-all were unique but they felt cheap. They did not have the superior quality that SotN instilled when compared to the rest of the Metroidvania games. It is also unfortunate that many of the enemies were reused such as the skeletons, spear knights, bats, to name but a few.

In terms of sequels? Both Dos and PoR were unnecessary. Mainly DoS as Soma's story in AoS had wrapped up with no real problems. DoS rehashed everything but somehow made it more monotonous (The soul system/weapons combiner is the major complaint here). PoR had a chance to be a good sequel but did not succeed as IGA might have hoped it would. Instead of answering questions about CV Bloodlines it raises more, and does not address the one fundamental reason as to why specifically that the Belmont clan cannot touch the Vampirekiller until 1999. OoE was not a sequel but more of a stand-alone title with an original story that worked much better then the previous entries. Unfortunately, like PoR, it still failed to address the Belmont/vampirekiller question. And with all the Belmont descendants in wygol village where was the main family line? The game also fails to answer this. For all these attempts that IGA had made he could have better spent his time making the 1999 game instead of sequels that didn't live up to their successful counterparts.

As for the fun factor? PoR was the most fun for me as it had a blooded Belmont wielding a whip rather then the sword-wielding heros that seemed to have inundated the series since SotN (Minus a couple of games here and there). OoE could have also had this fun factor as well however there was no whip glyph    That was disappointing.

The stories? The games themselves could have been released in a much longer time-span rather then being one year after another. I feel it would have given IGA the time he needed to really think about what he wanted to do with these games (more specifically about the stories he was writing). I had heard he was a perfectionist, however with all the inconsistencies in his story-telling I don't think he is. These inconsistencies is what I feel hurt the DS games the most as well as the others. Rather then glossing over some details and paying attention to others, he should have recognized all the details and then worked his stories around them instead. This would have made his work turn out better. And he should've also worked on the stories first before even touching the game's development and gimmicks. These simple choices could have saved him a lot of criticism and helped to produce better games. And who knows? Maybe then Konami would have seen the potential in the series and we wouldn't have had to go the LoS route.

[PFG9000]

If Dawn of Sorrow hadn't had its generic anime style, I'm not sure we would even have gotten a Portrait of Ruin or an Order of Ecclesia.  I don't think the anime influence was necessarily supposed to lengthen the series's life past the DS.

You have to wonder how Konami views Symphony of the Night.  The game is a fan favorite and is legendary among non-casual gamers, but it didn't sell well.  It's no wonder they never made a console sequel - what reason would they have to think it would be a profitable investment?

[Rugal]

How does an art direction influence a huge impact of sales on a game?

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Appeal to a different/larger game audience, usually.
If a game has a certain type of boxart, it may temporarily cater an audience that's into that sort of thing.

I can think of examples in the past in which this has been used, mainly:

Expectation with that box art:  "X-Men" style graphics and action
Reality: Turn-based JRPG with tiny graphics:

[Nagumo]

You have to wonder how Konami views Symphony of the Night.  The game is a fan favorite and is legendary among non-casual gamers, but it didn't sell well.  It's no wonder they never made a console sequel - what reason would they have to think it would be a profitable investment?

I don't think that's true. In fact, IGA said outright it did sell very well. There is an interview where he explained it peformed better than mainline entries in the series like CV64 and it brought it in more Japanese fans apperently. No idea why they never made a console sequel, but arguably LoI and CoD could be considered to be that.   

[Intersection]

Back in 2005, when the DS era had only just begun, I sat on my couch with a fresh copy of Dawn of Sorrow in one hand, and a DS in the other. Even then, I had my misgivings: the new, cartoonish art style hadn't won me over, and from what I'd heard of the game's 'sequelitic' story, I wasn't expecting any narrative masterpiece. But as I hastily inserted the cartridge inside my handheld, I told myself that if Dawn of Sorrow played anything like the series' last three portable iterations, I was going to be in for a hell of a ride. Nine years later, that feeling hasn't changed. And for me, that stands as proof of just how classic each of these titles has become; how nearly a decade later, a cynical gamer like me can open these games with the same sense of anticipation, and play them with the same feeling of pure excitement.

Of course, that's all coming from me: someone who's always stood behind the Metroidvania genre; someone who never even came close to experiencing Metroidvania fatigue; someone whose childhood love was Circle of the Moon (some of you might know the story) and not Castlevania III. But hear me out: I still have some interesting things to say.

So what of the "generic art style"? Where did that leave us? Did it bring Castlevania to a younger audience? To that last question I don't really have an answer. Nintendo is usually seen as a family-friendly company, and the portable Castlevanias performed well on Nintendo's platforms, so... maybe. Now, did that come at the cost of hurting the franchise's image? I don't really think so. For one, DoS and PoR didn't exactly ooze cartoonishness; the new art style was only really visible in the game's cover imagery, in some dialogue sequences, and in the laughable intro the games provided. For the rest, we were still exposed to the same detailed spritework and 2D art, in keeping with the rest of the franchise and arguably even a step up from previous handheld titles. Also, while the DS iterations featured the new art design, Castlevania's console counterparts were still saturated with Kojima's darkly gothic art style (and note that Curse of Darkness was released a few months after DoS).

Did the derivative stories hurt the franchise? Hardly. In the words of some classic purists out here, Castlevania has never really been about its story. Give us a whip and a vampire to kill. 'Nuff said. Besides, the franchise has seen worse.
That's not to say that IGA hadn't tied the classic continuity into a Gordian knot by the end of his tenure. Sometimes I wonder whether he had some framework in mind at all.

Did IGA's late Metroidvania live up to Konami's expectations? Evidently, no. But why did it fail to do so? That's much harder to tell.
Reviews? Probably not. Handheld Castlevania was acclaimed from start to finish. There were some fledgling signs of Metroidvania fatigue among reviewers, but apparently the era hadn't lasted long enough for it to take its toll.
Sales? We'll never really know. Apparently the DS games sold pretty well - not on the level of blockbusters like Mario Bros, but they certainly pulled their weight. Maybe Konami's decision was based the performance of IGA's less successful console iterations. Maybe one of us can ask a Konami rep. But until then, there's a reason why the "sales argument" is off-limits in this forum.

take into account every factor the games had; music, art, gameplay, lack of platforming, focus on rpg elements, etc & compare it to the rest of the series.

Smart platforming was what made the DS titles good in the first place. I didn't experience any comparative lack of it. In the PS2 titles, perhaps. Not in the DS Metroidvanias.

[shelverton.]

There's also another way to look at it: Maybe the DS games sold well enough to make Konami really see the renewed potential, hence the push for a bigger budget entry that could compete with the true AAA giants in the action/adventure genre? And that was LoS.

Or it was a critical "go big or go home" kind of moment for the franchise. I guess we'll never know.

I miss the DS style of games now that it's been so many years. The fatigue is gone, IMO. It would be sad if Konami at least didn't budget for one more game like that, preferably on the 3DS. It can be a little cartooney, I don't mind. As long as it has beautiful sprites, kickass soundtrack and interconnected areas to explore. But I think the chances for that are extremely slim.

[Ratty]

I don't think that's true. In fact, IGA said outright it did sell very well. There is an interview where he explained it peformed better than mainline entries in the series like CV64 and it brought it in more Japanese fans apperently. No idea why they never made a console sequel, but arguably LoI and CoD could be considered to be that.

Seems to me they didn't make a console sequel because 2D games didn't tend to fare too well on consoles during the PS1 and PS2 era, they only really reemerged thanks to digital downloads. But especially in the 32bit era there was something akin to disdain for all things 2D. Polygons were hip and cool and sprites were for babies. I think this will be hard for anyone who wasn't there at the time to grasp/understand, because without question sprite art remains much more timeless than bulky and often ugly early 3D games.

So before the digital distribution revolution handhelds were the only real market for 2D, and Konami got in on the ground floor on Nintendo's hot new GBA system. And as I understand Circle of the Moon sold phenomenally well, so seems to me Konami just continued from there. Push "big fully 3D" console games, and Metroidvania mobiles.

How does an art direction influence a huge impact of sales on a game?

If I recall correctly IGA said the anime art was intended to bring in younger gamers, because they felt Ayami's style wasn't appealing to them and older gamers don't buy as many games. But also they switched to it because it was faster on the stepped up release schedule of the DS games.

I like the DS games, PoR probably being my favorite. They suffered from heavy sprite re-use and sometimes uninspired level layout but I blame that on management at Konami pushing the release schedule too much, so you got diminishing returns.

Also I think the games probably started to suffer sales-wise on the DS because Konami was pushing them out too quickly, which as crisis said lead to saturation. But also because a bit of the same thing that had happened to consoles with the PS1/N64 era was happening with handhelds around 2005, namely "WOW, 3D! Who wants to play boring old 2D games anymore?" though not as badly.

[Flame]

I just wasn't fond of them. visually they looked alright I guess, though they were in that weird position where they ALMOST looked like PS1 SotN graphics, but still didn't, and as a result suffered certain technical limitations.

Poor, poor Alucard. His sprite and animations were butchered so hard in DoS.

I hated the cheap anime aesthetic, it just didn't have any charm at all.

I REALLY didn't like the sound. IMO, the DS soundset was just not kind at all to Castlevania music.

I can still say I prefer Aria's technologically inferior chiptunes to DoS' synthy stuff.

I mean it had some good stuff, but overall Im just not a fan of the DS CV music

the sprite reuse across the DS games was also atrocious. Particularly with how glaring it was when they placed a new enemy next to a rondo enemy.

The Castle just stopped being Interesting. Dawn's castle seemed like they made it fuckhuge just for the sake of making it big, and as a result it became a chore to go through.

TL;DR Im not fond of DSvania, I much preferred GBAvania.

[Shiroi Koumori]

I think the anime art style turned off some veteran fans. But then again, how many are those fans?
I personally am not discouraged by the art style.
Maybe Konami was hoping that Castlevania would reach the massive sales of Pokemon. Wow, so unrealistic for a niche genre.
IGA did his best. he promoted the games a lot. I don't blame him.
I think the franchise would be better off if they released it every other year or so, rather than once a year.

[X]

It's also interesting to note that Rondo of Blood also has that cartoony anime style. Yet it is one of the most, if not THE most, sought after Casltevania game of all time. So why do some feel it didn't work for the DS games? *shrugs* Who knows.

[theplottwist]

It's also interesting to note that Rondo of Blood also has that cartoony anime style. Yet it is one of the most, if not THE most, sought after Casltevania game of all time. So why do some feel it didn't work for the DS games? *shrugs* Who knows.

I think that's because the anime style of Rondo is not extremelly prevalent all over the game, and it doesn't try something funny with it all the time ouside of Maria. Also, it looks anime alright, but it does try to keep a serious tone with all those blacks and serious faces.

The DS games keep on trying to push a comedic tone that is kinda out of context for Castlevania (at least for me). I, too, don't see a big problem with the anime style. I see things more or less like this: In Aria, some of the tongue in cheek humor exists, but when coupled with Kojima's art, it seems like... a light hearted moment inside a crisis. Now, when this happens on Dawn, it comes coupled with flushing faces and laughter and with an art style that is perfectly fitting for comedy, but not for horror, making it look like that the setting itself is not appropriate for the style.

I dunno, tried to express how I feel towards it. But for me, too, this is not a big deal.

[Shinobi]

It's also interesting to note that Rondo of Blood also has that cartoony anime style. Yet it is one of the most, if not THE most, sought after Casltevania game of all time. So why do some feel it didn't work for the DS games? *shrugs* Who knows.

Here's the answer for you:
One is enough(Rondo of Blood), Two is too much(Dawn of Sorrow), Three is dangerous(Portrait of Ruin)

Or

Castlevania(Rondo of Blood), What r u doin(Legends), Castlevania(Dawn of Sorrow), STAHP(Portrait of Ruin)