Welcome to this weeks, old vs new, we're studying one of the most classic series out there this week, Castlevania. I have played a bit of Castlevania, Super Castlevania IV,, and halfway through Symphony of the Night. But I did watch the Angry Video Game Nerds dedication to the series and have actually seen some trailers/a playthrough of some other games. So here we go: What do you prefer? The old version of platforming, very hard gaming with cheap deaths, difficult jumps, and hard enemies with very little storyline, two weapons and side scrolling linearity? Or the new versions, with a Metroid feel of massive exploration, easier gameplay, but with different types of gameplay, including the 3D versions? Or do you like both equally? NOTE: If you have any ideas for me to do, send me a PM with the series that has changed over the years from the start of gaming to 2000 that still runs today. It could be just one game that's a remake, it could be a series. You will get credit. Thank you.
I'm going to draw the line of old and new at Symphony of the Night. Castlevania games are pretty split on gameplay styles- it's either backtrack 'em up or straight forward action game. The best representations, at least to me, of this is Symphony of the Night and Castlevania IV, respectively. With that, it's just which game do you prefer playing more? The answer for is Castlevania IV. Everything in that game is perfect, quick, satisfying, and fun to play. Symphony of the Night is like that too, but I've never felt it's as strong as Castlevania IV, or even Rondo of Blood. I've always preferred when Castlevania was true to its roots and more action over Role Playing Metroid and always will. Now if you'll excuse me...
I think I can guess which one you prefer :'D I won't go nuts on this one since I started on the handhelds and have only played as far back as SotN at this point, but Aria of Sorrow might actually be one of my top ten games. It's just too fun. I acknowledge that a lot of the combat is mindless and repetitive, but it has so much more than combat going for it. The music sets a uniquely foreboding atmosphere, the set pieces are gorgeous, the baddies are creative and they synergize well with each other, and solving the puzzles and discovering the extras is one of my fondest memories from teenhood. If you ask me how I feel about Circle of the Moon, Dawn of Sorrow, Portrait of Ruin, or Order of Ecclesia, it'll sound about the same.
Castelvania 2 was already a Metroidvania, there was no exp but there was money, it was all one huge world and you needed specific items to reach some areas. It was their first try, so it ended up being a guide dang it game. Overall I like the Metroidvanias more, though I also enjoy playing the masochistic ones once in a while (I finally finished Dracula X Chronicles and Castelvania Chronicles last year). I haven' t finished any 3D Castelvania yet though. The N64 ones looked as lame and broken as the legend says. The one on PS2 that I tried was basically a 3D Metroidvania, it was decent but since its graphics and gameplay weren' t exactly awesome I just sold it back to get DMC3 instead. The one on PS3 looks much more enjoyable, from what I could tell playing the demo, but I have a hunch I' d still prefer 2D Metroidvanias.
Actually, I am neutral about this one. Because granted, I never really played as much as I should to offer an opinion. I do note I like games that are hard because of the way that it was made to be. A shining example of this is Ecco the Dolphin series, which is hard as hell even with a guide because of the gameplay and level design, but is never cheap. If it has nothing to do with the programming/glitches, I enjoy a hard/challenging game, a lot of people do. It's one of the reasons Castlevania has lasted as long as it has.
Oh... Oh Loki almighty, you're not talking about Lords of Shadow, are you? Please, please don't play that. I'm begging you. Talk about black sheep...
The QTEs quickly got on my nerves, but otherwise it looked like it could be a decent beat' em all. It' s that bad ?
It's just... It's just so not Castlevania. I guess it could be decent, but... why go for that when it's already eyeballs-deep in an oversaturated genre, and not even the best in its field? Plus I saw the SotC segment and it's legitimately terrible Like why even copy the good game if you're not gonna copy what makes it good
I see. That' s basically why I traded that PS2 3D Castelvania for DMC3. It' s just that the sets and the musics are half the Castelvania charm for me and, since the LoS demo looked like they finally managed to cook a 3D Castelvania that doesn' t look like utter crap compared to the 2D ones, I thought it could be worth checking in spite of its (probably) completely forgetable gameplay. Now that you mention it, I did see some screenshots in the reviews that didn' t exactly scream Castelvania. Oh, and I forgot to say I also played the demo of the other PS3 Castelvania game, the 2D one with Alucard, Soma, Jonathan etc ... It' s sort of a mix between Metroidvanias and classic Castelvanias, made with multi-player in mind. It looks loads of fun if you have friends to play it with (you can play it solo, but it' s obviously not nearly as fun).
Oh my gosh, I got that on PS3 and the multiplayer was dead. I wish I'd just caved in and bought it for 360 while it was hot, I'm sure it would've been a riot. Maybe I can still scrounge up some buds to play it with if I'm persistent...
