Topic: Lords of Shadow is the weirdest thing, Mirror of Fate is not

[Lumi Kløvstad]

The first game feels so outright different from Castlevania that I wouldn't really consider it one. It's a good game, and it has great homage points to it, but, and I hate being this existential about it, it just never feels like a Castlevania game. Castlevania-inspired? Absolutely. It's an odd duck where all the conventional elements are there: Belmont with a whip, vampires, werewolves and assorted monsters,a Dark Lord to overcome at the end of the game, [grimdark] gothic settings... but none of it comes together the way it should. It's like, if you had a puzzle, and you knew where all the pieces went, but instead of joining them together like you should, you loosely stitched them together, you know? You can tell what the puzzle was supposed to be, but because it wasn't assembled the right way, it becomes a Frankenstein-ish caricature instead. I couldn't ever really consider Lords of Shadow 1 part of the franchise for that reason.

LOS2 was much the same way, only this time you are playing as Dracula and the blood puzzles in the Castle are almost comical with how much blood they have (OLYMPIC SWIMMING POOLS OF BLOOD!). It teeters over the edge of ridiculousness and jumps the shark, but thankfully just as it ends the trilogy.

Mirror of Fate though... out of that whole trilogy, this is the one game that well and truly "gets" Castlevania. It's still a LOS game so it has needless combos in combat (of which most players pick like... 3 favorites and never use anything else) and bizarrely floaty jumps, but everything is there: Belmont protagonist (Two of 'em!), Alucard, Dracula is the final boss (TWICE!), Metroidvania map and platforming with varying twists and upgrades to make it interesting, gothic castle, and even a few tracks here and there that actually sound like Castlevania in one of it's more introspective moments. And extra Scottishness to boot for extra awesome points.

Out of the whole trilogy, I'd be pleased as punch to consider Mirror of Fate a true-blooded Castlevania game because even when it messed up at the formula, that had more to do with it being a LOS subtitle than any gross misunderstanding of what Castlevania was about. The guys who made it proved their mettle, in my eyes. And if it has to be the last good Castlevania game that isn't pachinko, then so be it. There are far, FAR worse notes to end on.

[crisis]

yuo bring up some interesting points there friend. however, and im not the first to say this, or maybe i am, although i recall saying it a while ago, maybe a year or 2 in fact, back when before lords of shadow 2 was even released, when we were still giddy & wide-eyed, but lemme get to the point, Lords of Shadow feels more like "castlevanian: The Movie". or the game of the movie. you know how big-budget Hollywood adaptations take properties & change em up? This is how they wouldve handled castlevania. i'm pretty sure Nagumo agrees with me

as for Mirror of Fate, hmm.. it has its moments, although the lack of replayability absolutely kills it for me & many others. 1nce you beat it theres little to no reason to replay it, as there are no hidden boss battles, virtually no easter eggs, etc. the metrovanias, after completing ur first playthru, still had enough content to hold your interest, at least for me.

i am going slightly off topic now, but one of Konamis biggest mistakes was not allowing Iga to continue the "main" timeline on handhelds, and leave console castlevania to Mercurysteam. mirror of fate couldve been an IGA game that chronicled Soleiyu's adulthood or whatever, anything.

they shoulda gave IGA at most, 3 more games to wrap up the Akumajo Dracula storyline, since we had 3 GBA games & 3 DS games. those games coulda been:

• a retelling of Bram Stoker's Dracula i.e. "Bram Stoker's Castlevania," essentially a game starring Quincy P. Morris taking place in 1897
  
• as said before perhaps a Belmont's Revenge sequel starring adult Soleiyu, or, a game taking place after Lament of innocence & before CV3, which would delve deeper into the Belmont lineage & such
  
• lastly, make the 3rd & final 3DS game 1999, and the saga would be complete
  

i believe this woulda been a satisfactory for both parties, or maybe not

[Super Waffle]

When I was playing LoS1 and MoF back to back earlier this year, my first reaction was "Why aren't all of these games more like MoF?"

[Anglachel]

I've thought this for a little, but I wonder if MOF could have been a better hit had it been fully 3D, with the same amount of resources put into the first game.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I've thought this for a little, but I wonder if MOF could have been a better hit had it been fully 3D, with the same amount of resources put into the first game.

It would have flopped, as the whole point of Mirror of Fate was essentially an apology to the classic series fans for all the stuff that got changed in the first game.

To make an apology that doesn't fix anything defeats the point, and classic fans were pretty adamant about getting a Castleroid. Hence, Mirror of Fate went with that map design. It was a well advised decision, and Dave Cox finally got to let some Castlevania 4 vibes flow as well.

Too bad we didn't get to go THROUGH A ROOM, AND A STABLE!

[EstebanT]

LOS2 was much the same way, only this time you are playing as Dracula and the blood puzzles in the Castle are almost comical with how much blood they have (OLYMPIC SWIMMING POOLS OF BLOOD!). It teeters over the edge of ridiculousness and jumps the shark, but thankfully just as it ends the trilogy.

Can you elaborate? Harmony of Dissonance had the same thing in 2002.

[uzo]

MOF was a sad, clunky, ugly, half baked, confused, excuse of an offering to the old fans.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Can you elaborate? Harmony of Dissonance had the same thing in 2002.

It had it once, but Lords of Shadow 2 does it with laughable regularity. Clearly, the Castle has giant blood silos that exist for no other purpose than to facilitate movement around in the most convoluted way imaginable. And that sound effect of bubbling blood! Every time!

Honestly I have no idea how that failed to become a meme.

MOF was a sad, clunky, ugly, half baked, confused, excuse of an offering to the old fans.

Aside from the obvious Lords of Shadow subbranding and the less than tight controls, I really don't know how you can say that, given that I can apply that same gripe to the Christopher Belmont games which are amazingly loved by many fans. It's hardly the best Castleroid, but it's far from half-baked.

It may be a Lords of Shadow game and confusingly plotted, but plot was never the series strong point to begin with.

[crisis]

i think its becuz the plot of mof and los tried to take itself too seriously, and in the end it backfired, and the only moments of levity were just dated references that were completely out of place (such as the mario & luigi plumming "joke" & the cake is not a lie) not to mention the few monty python references

also, when dave cox blocked Nagumo for saying on his twitter how she knew trevor was turning into alucard.. like come on really

[Claimh Solais]

Aside from the obvious Lords of Shadow subbranding and the less than tight controls, I really don't know how you can say that, given that I can apply that same gripe to the Christopher Belmont games which are amazingly loved by many fans. It's hardly the best Castleroid, but it's far from half-baked.

I wouldn't say amazingly loved, at least not the first one. The first one felt like an unfinished game. The second, aside from the slow pace, was much better.

Firstly, I wanna say that I enjoyed MoF. I liked it for what it was. But if I'm gonna be fully honest with myself, there's a lot wrong with it. I find the plot of the LoS trilogy (mostly) easy to follow, so that's not where any of my gripes lies. In MoF, a lot of things take too many hits. Some enemy fights drag on longer than they should, and even things like barrels take way too many hits to destroy (one of the gripes I have with the God of War series, too).

While the first LoS at least tried to be clever in how it handled the combat (with the huge variety of moves and it's pretty free-flowing combos), MoF dramatically dumbed it down to where there were hardly any. The two-button combat of the games didn't transition that well to the 2D plane, and the boss fights were predictable, some of which are outright bad (though the final fight against Dracula ROCKED).

Like the first game, it had a heavy reliance on QTEs, even for simple things like opening chests (thankfully, this was mostly rectified in the HD version). And on top of that, with the amount of characters, the game felt too short. To 100% it, it only takes around 11-12 hours, which is barely above half the advertised 20-hours of gameplay. Had the game been the same length, but solely focused on one character, it potentially could have been better (particularly if it focused on Simon, as I feel he is the most lacking in terms of depth, but largely cuz of how they handled him). As it is now, though, it's not nearly as long as it should be. You barely get fully used to using a character before it switches over to another playable character.

Someone explain to me why Simon had no access to a double jump.

Christopher's games in the classic series are a different story, but also because they're a different kind of game. Whereas MoF is a platform-adventure, Adventure and Belmont's Revenge are both standard stage-by-stage platformers. I already stated Adventure felt unfinished, so I won't go into that. But Belmont's Revenge simply had a speed problem, and the lack of uncontrollable jumps was a little annoying. But I don't even have CLOSE to as many gripes about CV2BR than I do with MoF.

Mind you, again. I do like MoF and I did enjoy it. But if I'm going to be honest, I can see why a lot of people don't like it.

[Shiroi Koumori]

I didn't like MoF simply because of 2 things: (1) too many hits needed to kill an enemy and (2) those annoying QTEs.
The only good thing I could salvage from it is Robert Carlyle's voice acting.

[Belmontoya]

I still think LOS1 was the only good (and I think it was great) LOS game.

Simply put, MOF had bad controls/physics and the levels and music were bland and boring. Also I don't like being forced to change characters in a game. That's just taste though.

They also took Simons charm away which really pissed me off.

[uzo]

I still think LOS1 was the only good (and I think it was great) LOS game.

Simply put, MOF had bad controls/physics and the levels and music were bland and boring. Also I don't like being forced to change characters in a game. That's just taste though.

They also took Simons charm away which really pissed me off.

This is spot on.

I didn't like MoF simply because of 2 things: (1) too many hits needed to kill an enemy and (2) those annoying QTEs.
The only good thing I could salvage from it is Robert Carlyle's voice acting.

This too.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

They also took Simons charm away which really pissed me off.

I always admired that mute lunatic.

[DoctaMario]

I keep meaning to give MoF another run through. It was a fun game for a bit, though like some of the Metroidvania games, it wore out its welcome in places and there were things about it that I thought could have been dealt with better.

For one, I don't understand why all three characters had to play to similarly. I mean, I get the whole Trevorcard thing, but it would have been nice to for Alucard to have used his sword instead of the whip and play more like a vampire than a Belmont. It would have also been nice to see Simon and Trevor have different movesets. Maybe make Simon's a little more basic because he was learning the trade, whereas Trevor could have been more flashy and "experienced" I guess. I think more variety in the player characters would have gone a long way especially since the level design wasn't really anything special in a lot of cases.

LoS1 will always be my favorite of the trilogy, but MoF was definitely fun.