Castlevania Fans....

[Mao]

Any of us left aside from Darkmoon and Myself?  I hope so.

I was thinking about a conversation Darkmoon and I had a while back about what the appeal was for the Castlevania series for each of us and I really noticed how different our motivations for liking the series (and even our takes on it) were.  I decided that I'd like to hear what other folks think about it, if you'd all be so kind as to indulge me.

For me, I never really got into the series until Symphony of the Night (sure, I played them, but they didn't register on my favorites list).  I can't to this day pinpoint *exactly* what I liked about Symphony as it may well have been the rpg elements (stats, random drop equipment, story driven rather than gameplay driven) or maybe it was that I like the protagonist.  Alucard had every reason to be a whiny, angry anti-hero type, but for some reason wasn't.  He was more of a stoic and even slightly sad character.  He wasn't happy that he had to do this and would have far preferred to reform his father, but knew that it was unlikely if not completely impossible to do so and that he had to be stopped.  He took it as his duty, both as the son of Dracula and to the humans (of which he was half) to stop the menace.  I can actually respect that.

This isn't to say that the other heroes didn't have their motivations, but often times they went unspoken, or were added in retroactively.  They weren't a big part of the early games.  It was a very simple battle of good vs. evil.  You were good, Dracula was evil and that was your plot.  I think this is why I didn't get hooked from the early games.  I was raised in an environment where I read a lot so plot and writing were, to me, what was fun.  This isn't to say that the mechanics and simple stories weren't appealing, but it was a form of fun that just wasn't really something that I was geared towards.

So, how about you?

P.S:  Happy Chanukkah, Darkmoon.

[joshofspam]

Me personally?

I haven't been able to play much. But I did pick up the first one and play a bit of the second. Back then I didn't really enjoy games as I do when games later came out with a more interactive story.

In a way, I guess it depends on what your going into a game for. Are you playing it for a in depth story that you concur challenges to progress, are you playing for the challenge itself and the story doesn't matter to you or do you like it balanced out and easy peasy like reading a book.

Castlevania was a game I played when it was new. But it was a game back then that just caught my interest of doing something. Still I played it till I beat it, I must have got some enjoyment worth the time spent on it. Considering it took me close to six years to do that, I have both a feeling of wanting to play the rest of them and wanting to kick Dracula then Belmont while he's still laughing at Dracula's fall down the steps for putting me through all that for just a crumbling castle at the end.

[Darkmoon]

My gateway into the series was Super Castlevania IV. I actually owned a copy of Castlevania III before that, but I just couldn't get into the game the way I could with SCV4 -- but I think part of that was due to the absolutely crushing difficulty of the early CV games (Dracula X, the follow up to SCV4, returned the series to its crushing roots, and I cared less about that game because of it).

I think what appealed to me about the series was the simple nature of the story (good vs. evil) and the nods to gothic horror and classic movies. I'm a sucker for the Universal and Hammer films, and I appreciate a good homage to those series. But I'm not the best game player, so the really hard titles in the series didn't have the appeal for me of some of the 2nd generation titles.

Certainly Symphony was a fine game, but it marked a turning point in the series for me. Later entries, like Aria and Portrait, put less emphasis on the monsters you were fighting and brought the heroes to the fore-front... which is unfortunate because, like in the classic movies, the heroes aren't the interesting part of the series. I'd rather have a hero that's there to fight some evil (stylishly in his little leather skirt) then have to hear about him whine about _why_ he's there fighting evil (in his armor and his trenchcoat and with all his weapons...).

If I had to pick a game that came out after SotN that I did enjoy, that would be Circle of the Moon. I've gone back to that game several times. It's the right mix of old-school feel with SotN style gameplay.

[Mao]

I'd rather have a hero that's there to fight some evil (stylishly in his little leather skirt) then have to hear about him whine about _why_ he's there fighting evil (in his armor and his trenchcoat and with all his weapons...).

*coughcoughSOMAcoughcough*

Though I suppose that could, to a lesser extent, apply to Alucard.

I actually got to watch Pink playing Circle of the Moon the other weekend, I have to say, I think I'd enjoy it (even the card grinding).

[Darkmoon]

I'll tell yeah, except for the White and Black magic cards (Unicorn and Black Dog, I think), the grinding in Circle isn't all that bad (at least, not from what I saw). You can get a lot of them pretty quickly. What's worse is the level grinding near the end just to be able to survive the Arena area. You pretty well have to find the end-level Succubi and spam summons on them over and over just to get your levels up.

But then, the arena isn't actually a necessary area to fight in, so unless you really want to cards hidden in there, you can skip all that and just go kill Dracula.


As far as the over-elaborate plot for Alucard... I actually didn't think that was the case. You get a little talk early on to establish character -- which, since it's the son of Dracula fighting Dracula, I accepted -- and the rest of the plot is about Maria and Richter, and really all you have to do is get two rings to save Richter, and the plotline is over. The entire back half is just Alucard being awesome.

Symphony and Circle are awesome games. The rest of their ilk vary between decent and meh. If the Dawn bonus game (The team-up of Julius, Yoko, and Alucard) was actually the main game, I'd probably rate that one higher. Going through the castle (in a variant of Castlevania III style play) just to go kick nancy-boy Soma's evil-trending ass is some of the best Castlevania I've played in a while.

[Mao]

I was more referring to the

(in his armor and his trenchcoat and with all his weapons...)

part.  It wouldn't be unfair (though I wouldn't agree with it personally) to claim that Alucard was an attempt at a Dark and Gloomy hero (with his black cape and armor and all of his weapons).  He didn't play out that way in any of his appearances to my mind, but one could argue a case for it fairly.

...I'd have to laugh at them and call them tools for it, but still you could make some arguments for it.  I'm a bit of a fan of that character, for those of you watching at home who hadn't gathered that.

[Darkmoon]

I will agree with all that you said. He could be taken that way, especially now, in retrospect.

The thing about it is, though, that he was really the first non-Belmont (or non-Belmont successor) to be central hero of a game (Eric Lecard notwithstanding). Giving him his own play-style, and a totally different kind of game was an interesting diversion, and it made him feel more real.

Then they continued doing it for the next 15 years. It was fine with Circle, even if it felt a little derivative -- at least in that game they tried to expand the basic concept, and the items didn't play as central a role as the whipping and the magic system. But then there was Harmony of Dissonance, which felt like just another SotN, just with a Belmont thrown in (Circle felt fresh, but this game just felt shallow and repetative -- it's the only game in the Castleroid series that I can't play at all, as it's just so samey). There was Lament, which was SotN slapped onto a Devil May Cry-style dungeon crawl. There were the two Sorrow games, which, had we not just had Circle and Harmony and Lament, probably would have felt fine, and if all those previous heroes had not played just like Alucard and Soma (of the infinite inventories), it would have made Soma feel (not only more interesting but) like he had an actual connection to Alucard and Dracula's bloodline.

In a way, Konami has done the same thing with the post-Symphony series that Capcom has done with every Mega Man game since the Mega Man series started -- beat it into the ground through repetition.

[Mao]

Yeah, I agree.  Though I think they did it right when they reset the series with Lords of Shadow.  I unabashedly love that game.  I can't stress that enough.  Yes, it was another 'God of War' style game, but with a Castlevania Spin.  It was a fresh enough take on the series that I could actually say I hope they make at least one more in that vein.  It is similar in some ways to Lament (gameplay wise) but really?  I can get over it.

Have you gotten around to trying it yet, btw?  If not, I might be able to be talked into streaming it again at some point and, if you're up to it, might even have you on as a commentator if we can get it set up well enough.  It might be a while though, still have to clear Disgaea 4 followed by Assassin's Creed: Revelations.

[Darkmoon]

Not yet, but eventually I will, I'm sure.

And yeah, call me in when you want to stream it. I could be down for that.

[TheDXM]

I like it a lot, but I do not play or get involved with most of the new content.

The state of 3d actions games is such that whenever I play a new Castlevania game, or any game that is supposed to be a sequel in an older series, it feels nothing like the older games and I quickly lose interest.

But there was certainly something to be said of the classic gothic character in the series. I miss that.

[Mao]

I like it a lot, but I do not play or get involved with most of the new content.

The state of 3d actions games is such that whenever I play a new Castlevania game, or any game that is supposed to be a sequel in an older series, it feels nothing like the older games and I quickly lose interest.

But there was certainly something to be said of the classic gothic character in the series. I miss that.

It's interesting that you should mention the 3D action games and sequels.  That's what I thought when I first saw Lords of Shadow and was pretty apprehensive, but I went along with it because it was a complete reboot of the series.  The concepts are the same, but it really has been reimagined.  It really is more of a Castlevania themed God of War and honestly?  I don't think it suffers for it.  Now, if you don't like that style of play then yeah, Lords of Shadow isn't going to do anything for you, but if you don't mind it?  It's actually worth a shot.

[Darkmoon]

I think it's sad the N64 Castlevania's didn't get more love from the fans. Sure they weren't perfect, but they felt like Castlevania done in 3D.

[TheDXM]

It's interesting that you should mention the 3D action games and sequels.  That's what I thought when I first saw Lords of Shadow and was pretty apprehensive, but I went along with it because it was a complete reboot of the series.  The concepts are the same, but it really has been reimagined.  It really is more of a Castlevania themed God of War and honestly?  I don't think it suffers for it.  Now, if you don't like that style of play then yeah, Lords of Shadow isn't going to do anything for you, but if you don't mind it?  It's actually worth a shot.

What I like to call "God of War clones" or (heh) "Lament of Innocence clones" tend to sell fairly well because the basic game play elements that are involved there are very satisfying at a base level. It takes a lot for them to not feel nice playing. So yes, it very much does not suffer for it. But to me I get something of a 'been there, done that' flavor from it. And God of War had a sort of rhythm to it that was never my favorite as far as 3D action games go. I suppose I am a bit bias, as I am a little tired of seemingly every game reiterating it

But all the same, Castlevania is cool. Because vampires.

Not that Edward Cullen is cool or anything.