RobFox64tm
Member
I was disappointed this wasn't announced in the indies thing. It was the game I wanted the most, so I'm glad to see it here.
I'm sure the reason the Lords of Shadow games ended up crashing and burning was because of IGA.
Even when Igarashi was in control of the series he wasn't just "making the same game over and over". He did 2D SoTN style games, 3D games, retro throwbacks, that wierd multiplayer online one and a fighting game.
The series died because Konami wanted to turn the series from a niche one into a big name property and we all saw how that turned out.
Some difficulty options would be cool. I'm down for being sodomized by Adramelech-level bosses again.
lol See, I't not the only oneI am pretty sure she doesn't like working with IGA that much. I could have sworn I saw an interview with IGA around the time of the Kickstarter where the interviewer said that Kojima had said something positive about him and he was surprised for this reason and said that maybe they'll end up working together again.
Dear God. What did I ever do to you.Quite.
lol
See, I't not the only one
Like I get not liking Igavanias, I get not liking the anime art style some of the games had, I get not liking various aspects of the gameplay - be it level design or what have you.
But portraying Iga as some incompetent hack who has absolutely no idea how to make a video game, let alone one that people might enjoy, and that he did nothing but shit out recycled garbage that nobody possibly could have liked, had absolutely no creative input into SotN, or that his generous overlords at Konami had nothing to do with any of the bad choices he had to make or that it was entirely his fault that Konami stopped making Castlevania games is just petty hostility towards a guy who tried his best to make games given the circumstances he was in. And yes, sometimes a developer faceplants and makes a bad design choice, like having anime art.
Also, imagine if Iga had departed from the series' formula for the sake of innovation. Because even if you had liked the changes, you would have gotten some other guys screaming "OMG what the fuck is this shit, this isn't Castlevania anymore, we want something like Symphony of the Night or Aria of Sorrow" or whatever.
It's the same theatrics every time. If developers make sequels that are, on the base level, similar to their predecessors, there's a shitload of crying about "where's muh innovation, cheap cash-in!", and the very second they change up the gameplay, there's a shitload of crying about it being no longer [insert series here] and that the devs should go back to the roots; especially if the "innovation" is shoe-horned into the series for innovation's sake.
It's happened so many fucking times to so many different series. It's happened since Zelda 2.
What game did you work on with IGA?
Yeah, I will never buy into the concept of having innovation for the sake of innovation. There was a recent thread on this subject too. If a game has solid mechanics and enjoyable gameplay, while I don't mind new ideas being implemented, I have seen very little examples of a game changing it's overall scope and tone to the point of being a near genre shift have good results. While there are outliers (Metroid Prime for example), the significant majority in this case are often lead to very poor results.
Q: Why do you feel that your 3D games have not been as successful as your 2D games?
A: The truth is I was known at Konami as the guy who made games under budget, with little in the way of assets, a short schedule, and using older technology. So, the biggest problem with 3D is that 3D games require more money, newer technology, and topography where you actually have hills and valleys, which involves background art and modeling, and this takes a lot more money to make.
As a result, we ended up having to build games in 3D with budgets that were probably unrealistic. That's what I largely consider to be the primary issue with the 3D games I've made.
First of all, people list me as one of the triple-A producers in the game industry, like I'm a big shot, but I honestly don't feel that I'm a big deal at all. I feel like I'm just a creator, trying to make the best game I can with everybody else.
People know who he is not because he's a shameless self-promotor like Kamiya, it's because he produced a lot of games over a steady period of time that were all pretty good, which is actually pretty uncommon and deserving of recognition.
this game is never coming out on any system
What does Kamiya do to shamelessly self promote? Block people on Twitter? I can't think of anything he does anymore other than block people on Twitter actually. Does he even develop games any more or is he too busy blocking people on Twitter?
Is it still coming to Wii U or has that been cancelled in favor of this version?
What does Kamiya do to shamelessly self promote? Block people on Twitter? I can't think of anything he does anymore other than block people on Twitter actually. Does he even develop games any more or is he too busy blocking people on Twitter?
He spent 4 years making a game that Microsoft pulled the plug on.
I just mean he's a really high-profile dev who does a lot of interviews and appears at trade shows a lot. Iga has been doing interviews and appearing publicly a lot lately, too, but that's because he's gone indie and is responsible for the promotion of the game.
There are a handful of devs people know because they make it a point to promote themselves, like Kojima or Suda51, but there are also a lot of games where the producer/director aren't so public. Iga is well known, but I wouldn't say he was an exceptionally public guy when he was working on DS games.
I gave Kamiya as an example just because he's like Cliffy B. or Peter Molyneux in that he has a very public persona.
Is it still coming to Wii U or has that been cancelled in favor of this version?
There are plenty of good games that have resulted from large changes or even genre shifts. The same formula gets stale eventually and you need to switch things up a bit to keep it interesting.
Keeping it interesting is not a sure fire indicator of quality and game actually being fun to play, which should the most important focus for any game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a proven formula that works and tweaking and revising it further by mitigating the things that didn't work and polishing the aspects that worked even further.
Even the limited playable demo that released to backers of Bloodstained had a higher degree of positive reception compared to something like Lords of Shadow. Bloodstained may not be Castlevania, but considering it's mechanics and playstyle that pretty much completely apts the formula established by Symphony of the Night, a known and proven formula. Despite the different setting, character designs, and plot. Bloodstained in some ways far closer to what people want from a Castlevania game despite Lords of Shadow being a official titled release in the series.
I don't see the point of change for the sake of change.
I want to say I like Iga games castlevania ds is of one my favorite games of all time..
However why does Iga get so much praise for catlevania when he was not involved in the series best games. castlevania iv, and rondo of blood...
I want to say I like Iga games castlevania ds is of one my favorite games of all time..
However why does Iga get so much praise for catlevania when he was not involved in the series best games. castlevania iv, and rondo of blood...
I don't think anyone has ever made change solely for the sake of change. When all your doing is just polishing one formula you get diminishing returns over time. IGA did do a bunch of similar games, but he also did a bunch of other ones when he was in charge of the series so I didn't mind that we were getting a lot of games with the same formula because he managed to stick with it and switch it up at the same time.
You bring up Lords of Shadow as change for change, which is a game I had no interest in. Not because it changed the gameplay formula but because it didn't look like a good game to me.
You seem to be championing SoTN as sticking with a formula, but if you ever played the games before it, SoTN is actually a "change for the sake of change" sort of game. The game resulted from them changing the formula to fit the current market better and while I loved (and still do love) the older titles it was still a welcome change.
Really what it comes down to, you honestly seem like you're resistant to change, but when it turns out in a way you like, you're actually fine with it. The problem with not taking chances is that you never find a formula like SoTN. If they hadn't changed the formula the series would have died 18 years ago and Bloodstained wouldn't exist.
Going a new direction doesn't mean the rest of the series needs to follow either, it didn't for CV, it didn't for Metroid after Prime either. I'd much rather have risks taken on occasion then have series stagnate forever.
That may be true but it can't be worse than what they'd need for the WiiU version seeing how at least the switch supports Unreal 4 while the WiiU doesn't.Reading through all of the recent posts, I actually forgot what the title of this thread was.
Let's get back on course.
It will be interesting to see if there are any delays with them introducing the Switch into the formula of consoles that will have a release.
I am not too keen on the type of technology the Switch uses, so I do fear in order to integrate a version for the Switch they'll most likely have to bring in an entirely new team to make sure the features for the console is fully optimized, as they did with the Vita, and that was for the Vita.
Certainly want to see this sooner rather than later, but again, as long as it's quality this time, and not just rushed, I am willing to wait a bit longer, but hopefully not longer than that since it wouldn't be the first delay, albeit for a good reason, but still, as a person who hates waiting, bleh.
That may be true but it can't be worse than what they'd need for the WiiU version seeing how at least the switch supports Unreal 4 while the WiiU doesn't.
A port for switch may not be painless but it won't be a bigger pain than a WiiU one.
I'm 100% in on changing my PS4 version to the Switch.
this isn't clear enough,They implied the game would be moved to a newer system (NX) when asked about the U version.Not surprised. Makes too much sense for both parties.
Still coming, officially.
Yup plus Inti Creates obviously has been working with Switch for a while whereas I don't think they ever worked on Wii U?
Same here, how do we change it?
See I can understand why you wouldn't like the level design in Portrait, but I thought it was a lot more unique than Ecclesia, which for the most part was empty corridors that just were stacked with enemies. And there wasn't only one forest area that was literally just a corridor, there was 2, and a third one that was literally just a corridor that went a step down and then continued on.
And yes, Portrait definitely suffered because of the time constraints and the low budget. However, saying that "Iga never tried anything different with the series ever and always shat out literally the same game" (not addressing you here btw) and in the same breath calling Portrait of Ruin uninnovative shit is extremely disingenuous, because particularly Portrait of Ruin tried its ass off to try something entirely new.
It:
a.) Introduced the character switch mechanic into the Igavania (for the leads at least; there was Julius mode in Dawn of Sorrow but that was a throwback to CV3), both of which had unique abilities, instead of being rolled into one omnipotent super being.
b.) By extension, some of the monsters actually reacted differently depending on which character you were playing.
c.) It tried to get away from being mostly castle interiors by introducing the magical paintings that would send us to different levels.
Also imo important: d.) It featured the first female lead character since Sonia Belmont and Carrie Fernandez.
You can tell that points a-c heavily suffered because of the super low development time and funds available, because PoR feels like it tried doing stuff but couldn't flesh it out enough.
Training Hall. Nest of Evil was the boss rush-esque dungeon in Portrait, which returned in Ecclesia as the Giant Cave.
Yeah it definitely was Igarashi's fault that they had to cut corners because of super low development time and budget, so they got an artist who could churn out art a lot quicker than Kojima, and probably cheaper too.
100% all on Iga.
The freaking corridor areas were just transition areas. Holy shit, how many times I've seen this fucking complaint now?
I mean, there were 3 levels like that in the game. THREE. "Full of corridors", my ass. Most of the maps were just like something out of SoTN.
I ... had forgotten about the demo until this post.You have played the E3 Demo that was given out to the backers, right?
If you have played the demo you would know the game is already in a solid state despite it's pre-Alpha status.
Hey XombieMike , all I could say is that it wasn't a hoax, and that it did seem like some Switch users from Europe saw it in their news feed. We now know what happened internally and we'll have an official statement to the public as soon as we are ready.