CastleVania (Netflix)

[Powder]

I wonder who will get F'd up the A this season.

[Leo656]

Sumac already made that joke a page back.

Originally Posted by Sumac

The fact that you are playing the game doesn't mean that you understand its finer details. Especially, if you say that 2D fighting games are all the same.


By this logic, all platformers are Castlevanias, all First Person Shooters are Doom, all Third Person Shooters are GTAs and all RPGs are Final Fantasies.

Its so reductive and limited approach, I can't even imagine how one can come to such a conclusion.

Also, Tekkens play much more similar to each other than Street Fighters. Tekken 7, for example, still reuses animations from Tekken 3. Talking about "same skeleton". And even than only inattentive person would say that Tekken 7 plays anything like previous Tekkens.

By Andrew's standards we should all be playing fighting games on the Holodeck in fully-immersive VR by now, or else we're wasting our time and videogames have made zero progress.

Love ya buddy.

[Andrew NDB]

I just installed SF5 for kicks. Yeah. It's the same damn game I played in 1992 with a shiny new coat of paint (but I beat 5 out of 5 of the guys I just played online!). And Castlevania in 3D isn't wholly different from my argument about 3D fighters vs. 2D fighters. Konami was going the right direction with the N64 games, and probably the same with Lament of Innocence and Curse of Darkness. I can't comment on the "reboot" games because I've never played. But I think with enough finesse, it's completely possible to do a "Castletroid" game like Symphony in a fully 3D engine.

Just saw the first episode of the new season of Castlevania. Well I enjoy the dialogue. And it's nice to see actual Castlevania monsters for once... the undead skeletons and mini Igors.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeah. It's the same damn game I played in 1992 with a shiny new coat of paint (but I beat 5 out of 5 of the guys I just played online!).

You either don't get hardcore way or you are trolling.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

And Castlevania in 3D isn't wholly different from my argument about 3D fighters vs. 2D fighters. Konami was going the right direction with the N64 games, and probably the same with Lament of Innocence and Curse of Darkness. I can't comment on the "reboot" games because I've never played. But I think with enough finesse, it's completely possible to do a "Castletroid" game like Symphony in a fully 3D engine.

CV64 were pretty good, at least when it comes to atmosphere and platforming, though neither were "Castleroids".

Lament and COD were just bad beat'em ups, who tried to be "Castleroids" and failed miserably. The only things that were good about Lament were cheesy voice acting, boss battles and a soundtrack.

[Andrew NDB]

All I can say is that while Lament of Innocence held my interest to the end... Curse of Darkness I got maybe 2 or so hours into it then completely lost interest.

But kind of like SF and MK... that they didn't quite perfect the foray from 2D into 3D (though again Mr. Sumac, I'd direct you to give MK vs. DCU an honest shake and come back to the debate -- though I still stand by my basic stance on Akuma in T7 as proof positive that 3D can be worked in painlessly and without changing anything drastic.)

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

All I can say is that while Lament of Innocence held my interest to the end...

I've completed LOI, but only out of interest to the story and boss battles.

I know that the game kinda treats itself like a Castleroid, but I treated it like a beat'em up and flew through it without bothering with optional paths, though I've killed all secret bosses.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I've completed LOI, but only out of interest to the story and boss battles.

I know that the game kinda treats itself like a Castleroid, but I treated it like a beat'em up and flew through it without bothering with optional paths, though I've killed all secret bosses.

Yeah. Smash smash smash the same two buttons and so on. And yes, the story was my main interest. And I liked the little upgrades they give to make the whipping more fun along the way.

I just think the best Castlevania way to go would be something between your average Resident Evil and Symphony of the Night. Going through Castlevania itself, level by level, open roam with a lot of long winding staircases and secrets. And maybe let you explore around the castle, too. It's really shocking there isn't like a brand new cutting edge Castlevania game every 2 or 3 years. What happened? Did they try to go "too big" with the reboot games with Patrick Stewart and all, then failed? Castlevania seemed like an evergreen property and Konami just seems to have abandoned it. Yeah, maybe they do a cheap portable game every random moon... but this was a juggernaut.

A few more into the new season now. It's not quite as annoying as the last season. I'm mostly on board with it. The people involved are clearly more interested in characterizations than pushing a broader saga forward (though that's not at all what they told us at the beginning), but maybe that's fine for something like this. And it looks like Death is finally going to show up... though maybe in nerfed form. Not an elemental force, but just some random evil guy? Eh.

[Leo656]

I own both "Lords of Shadow" games, but haven't played them yet, only read about them.

Apparently the first was a big hit, but they lost the audience with the decision to have much of the sequel take place in a more contemporary, modern-day setting. It seems that most people thought that the gameplay was improved over the first, but the setting and storyline ruined it for them. And so while the first game sold well and was nearly unanimously-praised, the sequel got mixed reviews and sold less. And this all happened right around the time that Konami was more or less just giving up on making games, period, so since it under-performed they just decided that it wasn't worth making any more.

So, it seems like a bit of a mix of "players weren't wholly satisfied with the sequel's direction" along with "Anything that doesn't sell 10 million copies isn't worth the effort for modern-day Konami". Thus, the stalling-out of the franchise entirely.

Having not played either game yet, I can't speak from experience. But I'm personally less enthusiastic about playing a Castlevania game in a "modern" or "contemporary" setting. So I kind of get the complaints. It just feels like something that needs to be more Gothic and "dated", like just set A Long Time Ago rather than Right Now or in the future. I'unno.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I just think the best Castlevania way to go would be something between your average Resident Evil and Symphony of the Night. Going through Castlevania itself, level by level, open roam with a lot of long winding staircases and secrets. And maybe let you explore around the castle, too. It's really shocking there isn't like a brand new cutting edge Castlevania game every 2 or 3 years. What happened? Did they try to go "too big" with the reboot games with Patrick Stewart and all, then failed? Castlevania seemed like an evergreen property and Konami just seems to have abandoned it. Yeah, maybe they do a cheap portable game every random moon... but this was a juggernaut.

Konami attempted to turn Castlevania into big 3D, but every time they efforts were for naught: CV64 was rushed and made by an inexperienced team, so developers were allowed to make a "better" version of it, Legacy of Darkness. Both games failed to become "superhits" forcing Konami to make 2D Castlevanias.

Just a year later Castlevania Resurrection for Dreamcast was canceled, supposedly, due to the conflict between Konami Japan and Konami USA.

Lament of Innocence and Curse of Darkness were made on a shoestring budget and failed to garner interest.

Symphony of the Night 2 was canceled, most likely, because, Konami didn't see how Igarashi (producer of the series) could make a good 3D game, he made LOI and COD after all and his 2D games were no longer profitable. Though Konami put out teaser for it and a Radio spectacle which was supposed to bridge SOTN1 and SOTN2, they've canceled the game and started seek for someone else to make it, which led to...

...LOS1 which was the best selling in the series and LOS2 which was messed up by EGO of the producer, who thought he knows better than designers and writers how the game should look and what story should be, so, as Leo said, it ended up as a failure.

And so we arrived today, where there is no 3D or any other Castlevanias for that matter.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I own both "Lords of Shadow" games, but haven't played them yet, only read about them.

Apparently the first was a big hit, but they lost the audience with the decision to have much of the sequel take place in a more contemporary, modern-day setting. It seems that most people thought that the gameplay was improved over the first, but the setting and storyline ruined it for them. And so while the first game sold well and was nearly unanimously-praised, the sequel got mixed reviews and sold less. And this all happened right around the time that Konami was more or less just giving up on making games, period, so since it under-performed they just decided that it wasn't worth making any more.

So, it seems like a bit of a mix of "players weren't wholly satisfied with the sequel's direction" along with "Anything that doesn't sell 10 million copies isn't worth the effort for modern-day Konami". Thus, the stalling-out of the franchise entirely.

Having not played either game yet, I can't speak from experience. But I'm personally less enthusiastic about playing a Castlevania game in a "modern" or "contemporary" setting. So I kind of get the complaints. It just feels like something that needs to be more Gothic and "dated", like just set A Long Time Ago rather than Right Now or in the future. I'unno.

That first Lords of Shadow game was one of the best games I've ever played.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Konami attempted to turn Castlevania into big 3D, but every time they efforts were for naught: CV64 was rushed and made by an inexperienced team, so developers were allowed to make a "better" version of it, Legacy of Darkness. Both games failed to become "superhits" forcing Konami to make 2D Castlevanias.

True. Though the reasons they were not superhits were because they did not deserve to be superhits. Though they weren't going in the wrong direction.

And I don't think Konami always coming out with new 2D Castletroid stuff on the handhelds has anything to do with the 3D ones "failing" on the main consoles. They always would have done more 2D Castletroid stuff because they're affordable to make and easy to crank out.

Just a year later Castlevania Resurrection for Dreamcast was canceled, supposedly, due to the conflict between Konami Japan and Konami USA.

It was going to be a disaster. I remember writing about it on my old Castlevania website. It was going to be a big time traveling thing with Sonia Belmont (from Castlevania Legends on Gameboy that was already removed from canon) and others. A few things leaked from it.

Lament of Innocence and Curse of Darkness were made on a shoestring budget

Do you think? Lament of Innocence looked expensive to me, at least at the time. Curse of Darkness, not bad either. Engine and presentation-wise.

Symphony of the Night 2 was canceled, most likely, because, Konami didn't see how Igarashi (producer of the series) could make a good 3D game, he made LOI and COD after all and his 2D games were no longer profitable. Though Konami put out teaser for it and a Radio spectacle which was supposed to bridge SOTN1 and SOTN2, they've canceled the game and started seek for someone else to make it, which led to...

I don't even remember a Symphony of the Night 2 ever being announced.

...LOS1 which was the best selling in the series and LOS2 which was messed up by EGO of the producer, who thought he knows better than designers and writers how the game should look and what story should be, so, as Leo said, it ended up as a failure.

It just struck me when they revealed LOS1 was a reboot. The up until then relatively faithful adherence to a timeline, a growing saga was -- I think -- one of the big boons to Castlevania fans. Now just throw it out the window? Not enhance it instead, or just play in an unexplored corner of it? Stupid. Needless.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by IMJ

That first Lords of Shadow game was one of the best games I've ever played.

I've heard nothing but great things. I think I still need to purchase some DLC before I actually play it, though. I forget why I didn't get around to it yet but I think that's one of the reasons.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It just struck me when they revealed LOS1 was a reboot. The up until then relatively faithful adherence to a timeline, a growing saga was -- I think -- one of the big boons to Castlevania fans. Now just throw it out the window? Not enhance it instead, or just play in an unexplored corner of it? Stupid. Needless.

I kind of get that, but I also get their reasoning. "We want to make this a big 'coming-out party' for the franchise, the first 'real' games in the series in a long time (read: The first non-handheld Castlevania games in about a decade or so). We want to attract the largest potential audience possible."

It would be kind of silly of them to insist that Xbox 360 and PS3 gamers, most of whom never even owned an NES or GBA and therefore never played any of the Castlevania games before, have had played the other games in the series. Forcing the storyline of LoS to fit in with a dozen games most of their audience hadn't ever played would have been needlessly limiting.

I'm a stickler for "canon" more often than not. But the fact that LoS ended up being the most financially successful game in the entire franchise kind of proves that they made the right decision. It was designed to be a jumping-on point for people unfamiliar with the franchise, and a lot of people were thrilled that none of the earlier games "counted" because they didn't feel like they were missing anything by jumping straight into that one.

I mean, I haven't played every single game in the series by far, but by that point where they were having some of the handheld games be set in the future and whatnot, one could seriously argue that the original canon had already become rather unwieldy and convoluted.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It would be kind of silly of them to insist that Xbox 360 and PS3 gamers, most of whom never even owned an NES or GBA and therefore never played any of the Castlevania games before, have had played the other games in the series. Forcing the storyline of LoS to fit in with a dozen games most of their audience hadn't ever played would have been needlessly limiting.

It's very easy. Dracula comes back every 100 years (and after Lament of Innocence, they gave themselves some extra centuries we didn't know they had). Pick a different century. No need to refer to any other Belmonts or anything. Simple.

[Leo656]

By that same logic, if you're not going to even really address the existing canon in any significant way, why NOT just reboot? Especially since LoS is essentially an "origin story" for the entire franchise.

It was probably just simpler to reboot and start everything over from scratch, rather than worry that some fanatics would be all like, "Well, ACTUALLY (adjusts glasses), this Dracula 'origin' story contradicts much of the storyline in the acclaimed GBA Castlevania game 'Orchestra of Dracula's Ballsack: Rondo of Whale Semen', which explains where the saga REALLY started! CLEARLY these people know nothing at all about Castlevania and this game is therefore garbage!"

There's always a FEW of Those People and I assume Konami didn't want to be bothered with all of that.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It was probably just simpler to reboot and start everything over from scratch, rather than worry that some fanatics would be all like, "Well, ACTUALLY (adjusts glasses), this Dracula 'origin' story contradicts much of the storyline in the acclaimed GBA Castlevania game 'Orchestra of Dracula's Ballsack: Rondo of Whale Semen', which explains where the saga REALLY started! CLEARLY these people know nothing at all about Castlevania and this game is therefore garbage!"

There's very little to worry about. Dracula died here, Dracula died there, Dracula got resurrected here, Dracula got resurrected there. It's not like dodging or navigating land mines or something.

[Leo656]

Yeah, but I think the original timeline already had established a Dracula origin of some sort, somewhere along the way (by all means, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Since they were hellbent on LoS being an origin story and designed it to entice new people to the franchise with no strings attached, their hands were kinda tied.

I mean, the Game Boy, N64 and PS2 games had already splintered the canon into a Castlevania "Multiverse", anyway. LoS being a hard reboot wasn't some kind of mortal sin, I don't think. And again, for whatever else it was the most commercially-successful game, so it's hard to really argue that it was a bad decision. They just went with the thing that was easiest. It worked, so... I'unno.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

True. Though the reasons they were not superhits were because they did not deserve to be superhits. Though they weren't going in the wrong direction.

And I don't think Konami always coming out with new 2D Castletroid stuff on the handhelds has anything to do with the 3D ones "failing" on the main consoles. They always would have done more 2D Castletroid stuff because they're affordable to make and easy to crank out.

No, it is actually what had happened. Even Igarashi said that.

Konami plan was that CV64 will be super popular and the template for all other Castlevania games going forward, and Symphony of the Night was planned to be a "small spin off". But CV64 ended up being not particularly popular, while Symphony ended up being a megahit.

Konami attempted to "fix" CV64 and, later, release another 3D game for Dreamcast, but neither worked.

Konami wanted to completely shut down the series, but Igarashi insisted that he wants to keep the series alive. Konami agreed, but on a condition: he becomes main producer of the series and release Castlevania game every year on whatever budget Konami gives him, which led to "Symphony of the Clones" and some mediocre 3D games. Until their popularity didn't fall off, due to said 3D games and Igarashi attempts to make Castlevania more popular in Japan.

Funny thing, that first post-Symphony clone, Circle of the Moon, was made not by Igarashi, but by guys behind CV64. Igarashi "borrowed" most of the Circle ideas and made his own Harmony of Dissonance.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It was going to be a disaster. I remember writing about it on my old Castlevania website. It was going to be a big time traveling thing with Sonia Belmont (from Castlevania Legends on Gameboy that was already removed from canon) and others. A few things leaked from it.

Until playable version, which exists, will leak, I won't comment on it, but story indeed sounded very...odd. Especially inclusion of the "Female Dracula".

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Do you think? Lament of Innocence looked expensive to me, at least at the time. Curse of Darkness, not bad either. Engine and presentation-wise.

Can't be sure about Lament, though copypasted rooms kind of allude to small budget, but COD was definitely made on scraps.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I don't even remember a Symphony of the Night 2 ever being announced.

It was back in 2008 and was quickly swept under the carpet by Konami.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It just struck me when they revealed LOS1 was a reboot. The up until then relatively faithful adherence to a timeline, a growing saga was -- I think -- one of the big boons to Castlevania fans. Now just throw it out the window? Not enhance it instead, or just play in an unexplored corner of it? Stupid. Needless.

Konami thought CV timeline was getting too complex.
I partially agree with them, but at the same time, I loved how most games were part of the bigger narrative.

In many ways it had happened thanks to Igarashi, who introduced a lot of plot points without having any intention to resolve them in the future.

Also, LOS1 was planned to be remake of original Castlevania and original pitch-trailer had Simon Belmont fighting some monster. If I remember right, it was Hideo Kojima of Metal Gear fame, who basically pushed for LOS to be chosen as the next Castlevania game and to be a reboot.

Just to add some more context: after Igarashi was stripped of his influence over Castlevania, Konami held a contest between their US, Japan and European divisions to see, which one will be able to offer the best idea for big budget Castlevania game. Eventually, with Kojima help, EU pitch was chosen.

P.S.
As you can guess, I am not a big fan of Igarashi and his decisions.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, but I think the original timeline already had established a Dracula origin of some sort, somewhere along the way (by all means, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Original timeline did it twice: first in Game Boy Legends and then it was retconned (replaced) by Lament of Innocence, which for all its pitfalls managed to give Dracula more coherent origin, than some "evil wizard".

Originally Posted by Leo656

I mean, the Game Boy, N64 and PS2 games had already splintered the canon into a Castlevania "Multiverse", anyway. LoS being a hard reboot wasn't some kind of mortal sin, I don't think. And again, for whatever else it was the most commercially-successful game, so it's hard to really argue that it was a bad decision. They just went with the thing that was easiest. It worked, so... I'unno.

Legends, CV64, Legacy of Darkness and Circle of the Moon were considered non-canon. Though later "timeline guide" included them in timeline, without mentioning what had happened in those games.

CV64 / LOD was kind of reboot in itself, though, it was mostly because of its troubled development and Circle was initially conceived as spin-off set in Carmilla's castle and not mentioning Belmonts in any capacity.

Also, it might have to do with Igarashi not being involved in development of any of those titles. Just saying.

[Andrew NDB]

Lament of Innocence only replaced Legends because they wanted to do "the very first Belmont" again, only hundreds of years before the 1400s this time. And honestly, Lament is basically a reboot. While it still sort of works with the rest of the games, it makes Dracula not into Dracula anymore, and it's a big "everything you ever thought you know about Castlevania's beginnings is WRONG!"

Finished the show. I liked how they portrayed Death, I liked the "psyche!!!" with you know who (which I figured was coming because you know who is a frequent boss in Curse of Darkness, which is years after this). They aligned everything pretty well back to the games' timeline by the end with the possible exception of Isaac... he literally is refusing to do at the end of this season the thing that was the whole point of Curse of Darkness. The Dracula stuff was bizarre... and seemed way more like weird fetish stuff from the writers or Ellis. I sure don't remember anything about folks wanting to resurrect Dracula's and his wife's souls and combine into a hermaphrodite body with boobs and who knows what else.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Lament of Innocence only replaced Legends because they wanted to do "the very first Belmont" again, only hundreds of years before the 1400s this time. And honestly, Lament is basically a reboot. While it still sort of works with the rest of the games, it makes Dracula not into Dracula anymore, and it's a big "everything you ever thought you know about Castlevania's beginnings is WRONG!"

To be honest, Legends were very mediocre as a game and as a story and its version of Dracula origin was basically "he always was a bad wizard" and that's it. It is besides the fact that Symphony established that Dracula had a loving wife and went insane after her death. So much for him "always being a bad wizard".
All in all, its removal from a timeline is not a big loss, even though, I like idea of Sonia Belmont.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Sumac

To be honest, Legends were very mediocre as a game and as a story and its version of Dracula origin was basically "he always was a bad wizard" and that's it. It is besides the fact that Symphony established that Dracula had a loving wife and went insane after her death. So much for him "always being a bad wizard".
All in all, its removal from a timeline is not a big loss, even though, I like idea of Sonia Belmont.

The undercurrent was always that Dracula was the real life Vlad Tepes Dracula, 1431-1476 (and Symphony seemed to cement that, though the opening crawl of CVIII did enough, Bloodlines too for sure). Lament of Innocence took that away. At best, Dracula is just a fake name Matthias or whatever adopted in the 15th century. That's lame. Making Dracula not be Dracula and just a FAKE Dracula is lame.