Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
| Grahf
102th Post
 
Regular Customer
   
|  "Castlevania:Lament of Inn vs. Devil May Cry 2"
, posted Sun 13 Jun 13:30:
I know these two games are kind of old, but it sort of fits into what I'm talking about. That being: I was excited about both of these games before they came out, but, due to bad reviews and word of mouth, I did not buy either when they first came out. However, seeing as how it was summer, there weren’t any new games out that I was interested in, and both of them were super cheap, I just finished playing through both games.
The conclusion I have drawn after playing these games: DMC2 deserved its bad reputation, C:LoI did not.
Problems with DMC2 -
First of all, it was way worse than DMC1. The first one was a great game, which made this one seem that much worse. All the enemies in DMC1 were a unique experience that were tailor-made to fit Dante’s fighting style. In DMC2, it felt like they just slapped together a bunch (well, not really all that many) of monsters that they thought looked cool, gave them a few attacks, and let you have at them. This resulted in the game being too easy and boring.
Good things about C:LoI -
The game is huge! Every stage takes several minutes just to walk through. This makes you have to rely on your map a good bit, but hasn’t that been true for every post-SoTN Castlevania? Also, this huge area is covered with fun and interesting monsters, which rings true to the feel of the 2D Castlevanias. There’s also great music, an amazing fighting system, one of the coolest unlockable characters ever, and an OK story once you get past the shitty voice acting.
There’s a ton of other things I could say about both games, but I’ve been long-winded enough already. What does everyone else feel about these games? (Be sure to use spoiler tags when necessary, as I imagine many of us have not played at least one of these games yet)
Oh yeah, and now that I’ve hopefully biased your opinion, here’s a poll:
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[this message was edited by Grahf on Sun 13 Jun 13:33] |
| Replies:
|
| IkariDC
157th Post
Regular Customer
| "Re(1):Castlevania:Lament of Inn vs. Devil May" , posted Sun 13 Jun 14:02
quote:
I know these two games are kind of old, but it sort of fits into what I'm talking about. That being: I was excited about both of these games before they came out, but, due to bad reviews and word of mouth, I did not buy either when they first came out. However, seeing as how it was summer, there weren’t any new games out that I was interested in, and both of them were super cheap, I just finished playing through both games.
The conclusion I have drawn after playing these games: DMC2 deserved its bad reputation, C:LoI did not.
Problems with DMC2 -
First of all, it was way worse than DMC1. The first one was a great game, which made this one seem that much worse. All the enemies in DMC1 were a unique experience that were tailor-made to fit Dante’s fighting style. In DMC2, it felt like they just slapped together a bunch (well, not really all that many) of monsters that they thought looked cool, gave them a few attacks, and let you have at them. This resulted in the game being too easy and boring.
Good things about C:LoI -
The game is huge! Every stage takes several minutes just to walk through. This makes you have to rely on your map a good bit, but hasn’t that been true for every post-SoTN Castlevania? Also, this huge area is covered with fun and interesting monsters, which rings true to the feel of the 2D Castlevanias. There’s also great music, an amazing fighting system, one of the coolest unlockable characters ever, and an OK story once you get past the shitty voice acting.
There’s a ton of other things I could say about both games, but I’ve been long-winded enough already. What does everyone else feel about these games? (Be sure to use spoiler tags when necessary, as I imagine many of us have not played at least one of these games yet)
Oh yeah, and now that I’ve hopefully biased your opinion, here’s a poll:
Poll
Do you guys really think that the english dub in Lament is that bad? I only hated the voice of the Succubus.
|
| Fro Boy11 1923th Post
Gold Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Executive
   
    
    
    
| "Re(3):Castlevania:Lament of Inn vs. Devil May" , posted Sun 13 Jun 17:09
I didn't think that the voice acting in Lament of Innocence was that bad. I mean, next to Symphony of the Night, the voice acting was pretty damn good.
I thought Lament of Innocence was an overall better game than DMC2. The gameplay was a lot more fun, the levels/stages, etc were very detailed, the enemies were cool looking and fun to fight, the relics and orbs added something extra to the gameplay, the music was great too. The game was actually pretty easy, but I did die about twice. Then I beat it and tried the harder difficulty, and couldn't even get passed the training part of the game. Fun stuff there. I could go on....but I'm not.
DMC2 had great graphics, that's pretty much it. It was boring and way too easy, and because of that I didn't even bother finishing the game. I originally bought it $15 used from my friend. I kept it for about a week and then traded it for store credit at GameStop.
Lament of Innocence does have a few flaws though, but not as much as DMC2. Hopefully, the next Castlevania game, and DMC3 will more than make up for those flaws in the latest games in the series. I expect DMC3 to seriously own me. Castlevania usually does anyway. There hasn't been a Castlevania game that I really hated yet. So its all good with that game.
Still waiting for a Dan Hibiki and Robert Garcia dream match!
Avatar & Tag made by Raven1234
|
| DarkZero 824th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(4):Castlevania:Lament of Inn vs. Devil May" , posted Sun 13 Jun 22:08
quote Lament of Inn vs. Devil May Cry 2
I know these two games are kind of old, but it sort of fits into what I'm talking about. That being: I was excited about both of these games before they came out, but, due to bad reviews and word of mouth, I did not buy either when they first came out. However, seeing as how it was summer, there weren’t any new games out that I was interested in, and both of them were super cheap, I just finished playing through both games.
The conclusion I have drawn after playing these games: DMC2 deserved its bad reputation, C:LoI did not.
quote:
I thought Lament of Innocence was an overall better game than DMC2.
***
Lament of Innocence does have a few flaws though, but not as much as DMC2.
I haven't played either game, but why are we suddenly equating DMC2 and Lament of Innocence? DMC2 was almost universally recognized as crap, but every review I read of Lament of Innocence had complaints like "good, but a little uninspired", "good, but a little repetitive", etc. In terms of reviews, it's like comparing shit to slightly stale chocolate.
|
| Grahf
106th Post
Regular Customer
| "Re(5):Castlevania:Lament of Inn vs. Devil May" , posted Sun 13 Jun 22:40
quote:
I haven't played either game, but why are we suddenly equating DMC2 and Lament of Innocence? DMC2 was almost universally recognized as crap, but every review I read of Lament of Innocence had complaints like "good, but a little uninspired", "good, but a little repetitive", etc. In terms of reviews, it's like comparing shit to slightly stale chocolate.
Hmmm, I guess the point I was trying to make is that after playing both games, I found that while DMC2 was the crap everyone said it was, Lament was a magnificent game, and I'm really glad I didn't miss it because of a few so-so reviews. If anything, it deserved a lot more recognition for being a great new 3D action game.
|
| Ishmael 1460th Post
Red Carpet Executive Member
| "Rival Schools: United by Mediocrity" , posted Mon 14 Jun 12:43
quote:
I haven't played either game, but why are we suddenly equating DMC2 and Lament of Innocence? DMC2 was almost universally recognized as crap, but every review I read of Lament of Innocence had complaints like "good, but a little uninspired", "good, but a little repetitive", etc. In terms of reviews, it's like comparing shit to slightly stale chocolate.
Funny, but I had mentally lumped LotI and DMC2 together before Grahf started this thread. I don't know if it was all that "Belmont May Cry" jazz that was tossed around when LotI was first shown or how DMC1 was sometimes described as a 3D Castlevania or that both games were underperforming titles where hop around and whack monsters but those two games feel like two sides of the same [double headed] coin.
This thread has also shown you can never fully trust someone else's take on a game to let you know whether you'll like it or not. F'r instance, I heard good things about La Pucelle and, man, did that purchase ever turn out to be a mistake on my part. I could see how the game could garner more good buzz than bad but that didn't change the fact the game did nothing for me.
|
| DarkZero 825th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(4):Hayato sensei HAA HAA" , posted Mon 14 Jun 20:26
quote:
Lament of Innocence did have a great story, I'll say that much for it. Death should never be final boss, not even if there is a real way to get Dracula to be the Boss in a Castlevania game. I can't tell you how much it wreaks when you think you are fighting a sub boss and after you beat him you realize you just beat the whole game... The Storyline works better in Castlevania continuity with Dracula not being the final boss, but you're telling me now Konami is paying attention to Castlevania storyline that gets retconned almost annually?
The Castlevania development teams seem to be trying really hard to clean up the continuity and, in some instances, I think it's really working. Aria of Sorrow had an excellent (though unfortunately obvious) plot and I'd say that I'm actually awaiting the announcement of a new GBA Castlevania based solely on the plot. It had a great "Wow, WTF the happens NOW?!" ending if you fulfilled the requirements for the Best Ending, and I think it's really unfortunate that some sort of sequel to Aria of Sorrow hasn't been announced yet.
Come to think of it, it's actually pretty strange that a sequel hasn't been announced yet. The franchise was re-branded to "Castlevania" in Japan with Aria of Sorrow instead of "Akumajou Dracula", in much the same way that the games involving Richter, Maria, and Alucard were renamed "Dracula X", but it's been over a year since the game was released and still no news on a sequel. Did the game sell poorly or something?
|
| Grahf
108th Post
Regular Customer
|  "Portable Worries"
, posted Mon 14 Jun 21:10
quote:
Come to think of it, it's actually pretty strange that a sequel hasn't been announced yet. The franchise was re-branded to "Castlevania" in Japan with Aria of Sorrow instead of "Akumajou Dracula", in much the same way that the games involving Richter, Maria, and Alucard were renamed "Dracula X", but it's been over a year since the game was released and still no news on a sequel. Did the game sell poorly or something?
Now that you mention it, it does seem like it has been a while without them announcing a new GBA Castlevania. I'm not sure about sales, but I know that Aria of Sorrow at least got good reviews (well deserved, I might add).
I would be happy with any Castlevania sequel on the GBA, but it would be nice if they continued the multiple weapon system from SotN and Aria (as opposed to just using a whip the whole game). I enjoyed all three GBA Castlevanias so far, but Aria was definitely the best.
It's possible that Konami and Nintendo have been too busy with the DS to work on another GBA Castlevania. I just hope that Nintendo wasn't lying when they said that the DS would be developed and marketed alongside the GBA instead of replacing it.
|
| DarkZero 826th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(2):Portable Worries" , posted Mon 14 Jun 21:37
quote:
I just hope that Nintendo wasn't lying when they said that the DS would be developed and marketed alongside the GBA instead of replacing it.
I pretty sure that this is entirely dependant on how well the DS does.
GameSpot just ran a story about Revolution not being a "successor" to the GameCube, which means that either:
A) Nintendo is going to support two consoles and two handhelds simultaneously, giving each equal attention, a relatively equal amount of their marketing budget, and somehow, miraculously, an equal amount of consumer mindshare, or:
B) They're a bunch of fucking liars that are just trying to make their announcements low key enough to keep the major press outlets in the United States and Japan from running one of their traditional vague and overblown "--Insert Console Here-- Is An Obsolete Piece Of Shit, Don't Buy A Damn Thing For Two And A Half Years Or You'll Get Ripped Off" articles.
So on the one hand, yes, they're bullshitting us, but on the other hand, I'm already hearing "informative" whispers of advice from the "In the Japanese version, you could resurrect Aeris, but we didn't get that because they rushed the US version" crowd telling myself and others not to buy an Xbox because the Xbox Next is "just around the corner". And while that's just an anecdote (one of several, but still an anecdote), general consumer distrust has managed to kill consoles before. The idea that the Nintendo 64's death was "right around the corner" seemed to actually cause its death in the US, and even most non-gamers that I know generally regarded the Dreamcast as just another doomed Sega CD, 32X, or Saturn. And a good case could be made that both of those impressions were given to non-gamers by mainstream news articles that made vague generalities about the state of the gaming industry.
|
| Luisinan 950th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member++
| "Re(3):Portable Worries" , posted Mon 14 Jun 21:58
Now, who the real question is: Who is really responsible for the early death of a console?
Is it:
A. Stupid fanboys (DC!? I'm waiting for the PS2!)
B. Stupid console makers (32X! Woo hoo!)
C. Stupid reporters (PS3 will have a gagillion polygons)
D. Evil console makers (PS2 will have a gagillion polygons)
IMO, the DC died because of A, B and D. After the 32X and Saturn debacle there just wasn't any trust in Sega. Plus you had the stupid fanboys and the stupid Sony hype machine. But I think game sites did back the Dreamcast. The DC is still lauded to this day.
As for the N64. That was mostly Nintendo's fault. Stupid cartridge system sums it up. Also, late to market. And semi-beligerent attitude towards game devs. But the N64 had a lot of fan support- at first!
Now we have the GC and X-Box. Well. The GC has always been semi-ignored. Nothing is really killing it IMO. Same with the X-Box. The problem really is that the PS2 is just too powerful. People got the PS2 and that was it. Some people buy multiple consoles but if they can't, they just stick to a PS2.
I think if Sony doesn't include backwards compatibility in the PS3, then Nin and MS may have a chance at toppling Sony. Otherwise, it'll just be another repeat of the last console wars.
But incidentally, I don't think there is going to be a fan frenzy for the PS3 like there was for the PS2. The PS2 was like the messiah or something. I really think people are gonna look at what games the new consoles have and what new ways these machines are gonna make gaming fun. If Nintendo pulls through on their promise to make some innovative and dynamic hardware, they can reclaim the crown. Maybe-- Sony is just too strong.
MS should make the X-Box next super cheap and with 6 months of Live for free. Yeah. Otherwise, WHATEVER MS.
Bored? "160"
|
| Iggy 3554th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(3):Portable Worries" , posted Tue 15 Jun 00:31
quote:
I pretty sure that this is entirely dependant on how well the DS does.
Half of me agree, half of me remember that Nintendo announced, at the same time the DS was showed, that not only it was not the new GBA, but that the new GBA was currently developped in whatever circle of Hell they are doing those things. I read that as "the DS is not for the casual gamers, just for the hardcore nintendorks and the kimowota of Gyakuten Saiban, then the new Game Boy will come and replace both the GBA and the DS". And now that I think of it, it's strange the DS doesn't have the "Game Boy" name between Nintendo and DS, so I guess they are keeping it for their next big thing (once they see how the PSP plays and sells ?) and only use the DS to asphyxiate the portable market (GBA, DS, PSP and a future super GB leaves less customer to Sony than just GBA and PSP).
quote:
"--Insert Console Here-- Is An Obsolete Piece Of Shit, Don't Buy A Damn Thing For Two And A Half Years Or You'll Get Ripped Off" articles.
Unfortunately, the concept of waiting one or two years after a console is available to see what good games there are (if there are some) on a system seem to escape to the fashion-whore gamers. It's precisely when the new console will be here that games you may have overlooked on the current console will be available damn cheap and you will be able to discover hidden gems. And I can't think of a game that came out for a new born console that was worth bying the console for it (except maybe Mario 64, but it was the only remotely interesting game of the console until its death, so...)
これだけは主張しておく魂の叫び：
わたくしカエルの肛門にストローさしたり爆竹つっこんだりした経験はありません。
|
| Sensenic 1221th Post
Red Carpet Executive Member
| "Back to Akumajou..." , posted Tue 15 Jun 13:10
quote:
The Castlevania development teams seem to be trying really hard to clean up the continuity and, in some instances, I think it's really working.
Well, yes and no. It seems good ol' Iga and his team, while they're indeed putting an effort into it, have already chosen the Dark Side (that is, the easy, quick way) at least once: Apparently Legends, COTM and the 64 games are no longer. They never happened, they're not canon.
So, while I could even understand it for COTM and the 64 ones, as they were kind of "forced" into the general plot (they were running out of dates, probably. Whoever invented this thing about Dracula reappearing every 100 years must've been cursed more than once by the different developing teams ^_^), for the case of "Legends" it feels like they took it out because it would contradict their version of the story they were starting with LoI, and that's just not fair, it'd be disrespectful towards the teams who made CVs before.
But on the good side, I think there's gotta be at least 2 more CV (although not for GBA I guess), if they really want to clarify things: One is the sequel to LoI (they messed up too many plot aspects with this game, IMO)
Spoiler (Highlight to view) -
They must at least explain whether Cronqvist, or however you spell it, is Dracula or not, as it seems they originally wanted to keep some coherence with Bram Stoker's novel and, specially, the actual historical guy in this saga. If Mathias turns out to be Drac, as LoI seems to point out, they better have some good, coherent, explanation for it. Of course they could've also chosen to forget about it... ¬¬
End of Spoiler
And of course the other one is, according to Aria, the one taking place in 1999, the Haunted Castle Wars, as they call it in the English translation. I mean, it's Dracula's death, this game should be something BIG.
Hmmmm.... Come to think of it.... Lately leveling and RPG elements have been introduced.... if there's a war, with cannon fodder soldiers and all and some really powerful hero characters (namely that Belmont, probably Alucard, some Hakuba...) fighting in it.... That's it! Next on the series, don't miss out: Castlevania: Tactics
quote:
Aria of Sorrow had an excellent (though unfortunately obvious) plot and I'd say that I'm actually awaiting the announcement of a new GBA Castlevania based solely on the plot. It had a great "Wow, WTF the happens NOW?!" ending if you fulfilled the requirements for the Best Ending,
Hm? Which was the "Wow, WTF the happens NOW?!" part? I don't recall any...
Oboromaru. Yup seems they're all "one-eyed" masked guys now. Just coincidence.
Sum EDGAR Rex Figaronis
Edgar Roni Figaro from latin fanversion of FFVI
|
| RugalBernstein 5083th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(1):Back to Akumajou..." , posted Tue 15 Jun 14:24
quote:
The Castlevania development teams seem to be trying really hard to clean up the continuity and, in some instances, I think it's really working.
Well, yes and no. It seems good ol' Iga and his team, while they're indeed putting an effort into it, have already chosen the Dark Side (that is, the easy, quick way) at least once: Apparently Legends, COTM and the 64 games are no longer. They never happened, they're not canon.
So, while I could even understand it for COTM and the 64 ones, as they were kind of "forced" into the general plot (they were running out of dates, probably. Whoever invented this thing about Dracula reappearing every 100 years must've been cursed more than once by the different developing teams ^_^), for the case of "Legends" it feels like they took it out because it would contradict their version of the story they were starting with LoI, and that's just not fair, it'd be disrespectful towards the teams who made CVs before.
Dracula can clearly come back every 100 years OR if he's revived by followers; he's a tricky devil. Also, It doesn't completely Contradict "Legends"... That game could still very well be the first actual fight against Dracula (you never do fight him in LoI, now, do you? ^^)
Best site EVER: Link Here
|
| Spoon 469th Post
Gold Customer
| "Re(2):Back to Akumajou..." , posted Tue 15 Jun 15:15
quote:
The Castlevania development teams seem to be trying really hard to clean up the continuity and, in some instances, I think it's really working.
Well, yes and no. It seems good ol' Iga and his team, while they're indeed putting an effort into it, have already chosen the Dark Side (that is, the easy, quick way) at least once: Apparently Legends, COTM and the 64 games are no longer. They never happened, they're not canon.
So, while I could even understand it for COTM and the 64 ones, as they were kind of "forced" into the general plot (they were running out of dates, probably. Whoever invented this thing about Dracula reappearing every 100 years must've been cursed more than once by the different developing teams ^_^), for the case of "Legends" it feels like they took it out because it would contradict their version of the story they were starting with LoI, and that's just not fair, it'd be disrespectful towards the teams who made CVs before.
Dracula can clearly come back every 100 years OR if he's revived by followers; he's a tricky devil. Also, It doesn't completely Contradict "Legends"... That game could still very well be the first actual fight against Dracula (you never do fight him in LoI, now, do you? ^^)
I think an important point here is that they can screw plot however and whenever they want. They are under no obligation to create sensical plots and/or continuity.
There will be new Castlevania games. All else is academic.
|
| DarkZero 827th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(1):Back to Akumajou..." , posted Tue 15 Jun 18:55
quote:
Aria of Sorrow had an excellent (though unfortunately obvious) plot and I'd say that I'm actually awaiting the announcement of a new GBA Castlevania based solely on the plot. It had a great "Wow, WTF the happens NOW?!" ending if you fulfilled the requirements for the Best Ending,
Hm? Which was the "Wow, WTF the happens NOW?!" part? I don't recall any...
Aria of Sorrow spoilers:
Spoiler (Highlight to view) -
Before the game was released, IGA and his team inferred that Aria of Sorrow was supposed to be the start of a new miniseries, sort of like the original Dracula X and its continuation SotN. And Aria ends with basically all of Castlevania's usual formula cast off, with Dracula becoming a hero and retaining all of his powers, while the evil force that keeps his castle is gone. It just makes me wonder what direction they could take it in, like what Soma could possibly fight against. Galamoth? Evil Belmonts? Alucard? Or, more likely, something completely original? Or maybe Soma could even turn evil again, which would make the usual Belmont vs. Dracula fight a lot more interesting.
It just seemed very open-ended to me and left me waiting for more.
End of Spoiler
|
|
|
