Topic: Castlevania

[Flame]

The MAJORITY of the hate ive seen stems from "not muh castlevania".

Aka a hate of change. MOST prominent among people who started with metroidvania and dont realize they were much the same kind of change.

[Phi]

Aka a hate of change. MOST prominent among people who started with metroidvania and dont realize they were much the same kind of change.

It doesn't really matter how much of a change the metroidvania style was from the earlier games. Plain and simple, many people loved that style of gameplay/structure; enough to coin the name "metroidvania" in the first place.

If LoS was a good change from the formula people were familiar with, I doubt there would have been much complaints.

[Rin]

Aka a hate of change. MOST prominent among people who started with metroidvania and dont realize they were much the same kind of change.

That's bullshit, Flame-o.
The Metroidvanias differ from the earlier games only with the aspect of backtracking (well, there are couple of other elements too...) BUT, in the end the core elements of gameplay are the same.
You can't seriously compare such a drastic change like the LoS series to dem fuckin' backtacking Castlevanias, which ultimately play quite the same as original ones, but with some added elements to spice [parasitic bomb] up.

Even that one PS2 Castlevania game in 3D (forgot which one it was, because I think there were two) feels more like an actual Castlevania than LoS.

That is the reason why many would be upset about the change. Of course, there are probably [Top Spin]s who simply hate it because it's cool to do so, but yeah.

[Flame]

The core elements are not the same. Sotn was radically different from say, rondo. Even your method of attack was different.  And the bishounen art style was a departure from the previous styles. Even compared to Rondo's anime visuals. Belmonts themselves differed greatly to the barbarians and muscle men of before.

The only thing that was the same,  was it followed the timeline.  Which is another point of contention with los. That its a retelling. A reboot. (A.U.  self contained reboot mind you)

[Rin]

The core elements are not the same. Sotn was radically different from say, rondo. Even your method of attack was different.  And the bishounen art style was a departure from the previous styles. Even compared to Rondo's anime visuals. Belmonts themselves differed greatly to the barbarians and muscle men of before.

Are you even trying Flame?

Just because they IMPROVED the gameplay or changed the method of attack, it doesn't mean that it's immediately a completely unrecognizable game.
I can look at either old or newer Castelvanias and I know it's a [tornado fang]ing Castlevania.

I look at LoS and I see... an okay action game in style of God of War, and the like. But if not for the names of characters and some shitty references, I wouldn't be able to see it's Castlevania.

That's the main point, and that is simply why I think many dislike LoS. Because it might be a reboot or AU or whatever, but to them it just doesn't feel like a typical Castlevania.
Is that good or bad? I dunno, I frankly stopped caring.
Yeah...
That's all I'm trying to say.

[Flame]

I can look at either old or newer Castelvanias and I know it's a [tornado fang]ing Castlevania.

Why? What exactly is that spark that makes you recognize them as Castlevania aside from the title?

If you can see SotN and think Castlevania  Just like with CV1, Then what about LoS suddenly doesn't do that? Can you tell me? Because I see plenty Castlevania in both.

Granted, what I DON'T see in LoS, is metroidvania. At all. Which I insist, is the reason many disliked it. You have to realize just how long metroidvania and Ayami Kojima's aesthetics, Just how long, IGA's vision was the face of the franchise. SotN came out in '97, LoS came out in 2010. That's 13 years. LoS was the most radical change to the series in 13 years since Symphony itself radically shook things up. And many people, myself included, were brought into the franchise through the metroidvanias that followed in SotN's footsteps. There are people who've never played the classic games for a bunch of reasons- and have only played SotN and it's sequels. Conversely, there are people that never liked SotN's changes, and fell out with the series after that. Some people who are SotN kids hated LoS because they did not see what they know in it, and some people who are Classicvania kids, liked it because it was more familiar to what they know. Now, that does go both ways, again. Nothing is ever so black and white. But that seems to be the majority of what I myself have seen.

LoS was trying to be a Classicvania, drawing heavily in inspiration from SCIV, which is Dave Cox's favorite. And having played basically all the main series CV games from 1 to, well, LoS- I can see the Classicvania in LoS. i can see the SCIV in it quite a bit in the first third of the game. What I don't see, is SotN.

But to say that it's just "not Castlevania" or that you just can't recognize it as one? That Is well, just your opinion. Because "what makes Castlevania?" is a terribly subjective question. There are so many different things that mean different things to different people.

I look at LoS and I see... an okay action game in style of God of War, and the like. But if not for the names of characters and some shitty references, I wouldn't be able to see it's Castlevania.

I look at LoS and see Lament of Innocence.

Also, I could say the same about SotN. If not for the names and title and such, what exactly ties it down to what came before?
It could just be another exceptional 90's platformer with a detailed gothic anime aesthetic.

If LoS had not been named as a Castlevania, all the people who say it isn't one would be talking about how similar it is to Castlevania, and wondering why they didn't just make a new CV game instead of making it a new IP.

That's the main point, and that is simply why I think many dislike LoS. Because it might be a reboot or AU or whatever, but to them it just doesn't feel like a typical Castlevania.

the fact that it was described as a Reboot has to be one of the biggest parts of it. The behind the scenes stuff as well. The attitude behind it irked many. The whole "forget what you know about Castlevania" pissed people off more than it probably should have.

And the stuff that turned out not to be true did as well. The trailers outright lied, suggesting that Dracula was the antagonist, while we were told there would be no QTE's, and the game was full of them.

Which leads to a lot of hate for the game based on that alone, without even trying to like the game. people went in hating it based on pre-release nonsense, and they hated it more because it wasn't their Castlevania.

[Fxeni]

I'm going to chime in and say that I have seen a lot of hate based on the fact that the original LoS wasn't a Metroidvania. Most people equate Castlevania with everything post-SotN, and with how most of the games went after it, you can't really blame them too much.

I agree that I can see some design elements from the pre-SotN games in LoS. The combat elements borrow a lot from Lament of Innocence (which came out a good year and a half before God of War, by the by) and of course God of War itself. Is this a bad thing? Not really, since the combat itself is enjoyable.

The atmosphere in LoS was just fine... when compared to pre-SotN Castlevanias. I've heard people complaining that it wasn't mostly in a castle, which uhh... most of the pre-SotN Castlevanias also had in common. This kinda reinforces some of what Flame was saying. Again, I can see why people do it though.

All that said though... they kinda screwed the pooch with the following games (Mirror of Fate and LoS2). They weren't nearly as well designed overall as the first LoS was. They each felt lacking in their own way, whereas the first LoS was pretty solid in itself.

[Flame]

All that said though... they kinda screwed the pooch with the following games (Mirror of Fate and LoS2). They weren't nearly as well designed overall as the first LoS was. They each felt lacking in their own way, whereas the first LoS was pretty solid in itself.

i disagree. partially. Having recently 100%ed MoF on Steam, I think it's actually the best of the 3, if not at least the best story of the 3 and best atmosphere.

MoF was directed by the same people who made the Revelations DLC for LoS2. funny enough, that director is a big CV fan as opposed to Alvarez. And you can see it in MoF, there's plenty of nods to Castlevanias past and present. The Character designs particularly are new yet familiar. trevor looks practically the same- in fact, some of his concept art has him with a brown coat that looks right out of CoD. Simon hearkens back to the original barbarian design, plus the red hair that became his staple since chronicles. Alucard himself despite sharing a design motif with Dracul, shares his color scheme with the old Alucard. Only this time he's a blue-gray color skinwise.

MoF's problem is it's lack of weight, and it's attempt to stick LoS1 in a 2D plane.  The physics have no weight to them, and are far too forgiving. you don't actually grab ledges, you home in on them as soon as you are within a certain range. leading to some awkward jumps that feel like you should have missed. In fact, the game does not let you jump straight down from a higher point. it forces you to go down by it's ledges. To it's credit though, (and detriment) it has fall damage. Something which feels foreign to a metroidvania-esque game, but alleviates the issue of bottomless pits and such being gone from metroidvanias, since you can fall from any height. Hell, it STILL has bottomless pits despite being a metroidvania. The story, is top notch, and despite hating the 'told backwards" thing, I actually didn't mind. once I played it. Trevor's ending felt fantastic and I loved it. Despite the trevorcard thing feeling somewhat silly, they made it work. I didn't hate it like I thought I would. Overall, it had fantastic writing.

Then... LoS2... Where Alvarez dropped the ball and [tornado fang]'d over the game. I agree there. LoS2 has tons of problems. and tons of untapped potential. I mean for [tornado fang]'s sake, the DLC was better than the whole game. I want a game that plays like THAT!

[Da Dood]

I bought Castlevania Chronicles on PSN, played through both Original and Arranged modes.

For those who are unfamiliar, this is a PS1 port of a reimagining of CV1, originally released for the Sharp... X86000...? Don't remember the exact name. It's a brutal game, but also great fun. Finding a new-old Castlevania is like finding treasure these days, and I'm glad someone recommended it to me.

Anyway, the big differences compared to CV1, other than graphics and such, are the level design and the fact that you have more control over Simon. It's not quite like CV4, but close. There's also a very useful sub-item in this game that you can use to heal part of your HP with just 10 hearts. Too bad it's a random drop.

The level design is really surprising and sophisticated. Aside from a couple rooms and most of the first level, these levels are completely different from the original. Most have unique obstacles and exclusive enemies, and there's also a ton of variety in the visual department. It's not often that you see an ice level in a Classicvania. They also make several clever references to CV1, like the gorgeous pre-Death hallway.

The difficulty depends on which mode you pick. Original mode is the untouched port of the game, extremely tough and unforgiving. I'd place this among the hardest in the series, for sure. Arranged mode has remixed music (kinda weak IMO, too techno), some new sprite colors, and it's much easier. My impression, after playing both modes, is that Original feels like playing CV3, while Arranged feels like playing CV4. Both enjoyable depending on how much challenge you're looking for.

I loved it.

[Mirby]

Here's a nifty article about Igarashi's time with Konami and Castlevania.

[Satoryu]

My impression, after playing both modes, is that Original feels like playing CV3, while Arranged feels like playing CV4.

I can't really judge CV3's difficulty very well. Never had much experience with it. It does seem to be one of the harder ones, so comparing it to Chronicles seems fair.

But Arranged and CV4? That's like night and day. Arranged is still really difficult; the Clock Tower is a killer. Castlevania 4 is incredibly easy.

[Da Dood]

I guess it's because I played Arranged right after Original, so it felt much easier. It's still probably harder than CV4, true.

[Fxeni]

CV3 has the potential to be one of the harder games, depending on the path you take.

[Da Dood]

CV3 is really hard, yeah. It's like I have to learn the game all over again when I play it.

I've been doing pretty good at Sypha's path, though. I've already beaten all paths, but recently I'm trying to focus and get decent at each path before moving on to the next.