/vr/ - Retro Games

They wanted to show off the Super capabilities of the SNES. If you don't like it, play something else.

I used to pretend to not like IV as much since it is so popular and I wanted to be a bit of a special snowflake I guess, but upon replaying it recently, nah, it's a great game.
Actually among my favorites along with 1 and 3. I feel the series started changing too much after IV. People shit on Castlevania IV for the multi diagonal whip, but Rondo or Bloodlines changed even more gameplay fundamentals than IV did.

I'll never be NOT frustrated that Dracula X has no playable Maria. It could have been my favorite trannyvania castletranny ever.

>[insert Castlevania game here] changed the original formula too much!
Yes, that's what superior hardware will allow you to do in game design. Shocking! It's almost like Castlevania games got better between the late 80s and early 90s as the devs learned how to make them better and had superior integrated circuit technology and controller designs to work with.

We're never going to stop having these threads, are we?

>>5992169
and the amiga version shits all over the original nes version

>>5992251
Based schizo

>>5992169
Soul remake. Huge impact over the original NES entry.

>>5994308
>redhead simon
Soulless

>>5992223
>It's almost like Castlevania games got better between the late 80s and early 90s
it's completely unlike that

Not a remake. Remix if anything.

>>5992169

I loved all the NES games and barely remember what happened in this one. I think it was just too easy or something? But the soundtrack still carries it. No yeah I know games aren't movies or art galleries or albums etc. Normally I wouldn't say a soundtrack could carry a game. But this one is the exception.

>>5994308
>Yes.

>>5992169
it doesn't have the same soul as CV1, but it's more accessible and a very solid game all around.

I just played this yesterday night (with a lot of savestates). Fun and good game overall, but definitely has a lot of THOSE moments where like, if you don't have savestates, you'll be there forever because you don't have enough attempts to experiment with a new challenge before getting thrown all the way back.

Was playing Mega Man X right now. I fucking hate that game. Everything about it makes me annoyed. CV IV is a lot better

>>5994975
Climbing the gear tower at the end and to a lesser extent progressing through the dungeon can be tricky, but the game has infinite continues, and is on the whole fairly easy. Same with Megaman X, keep practicing a bit and you will get there.

>>5994975
Yeah that's basically how they did it with older games. Gotta have a province for practice and improving skills. The ending especially of CV IV (floating platforms with the rising wheel) is bullshit, but yeah that's the end of the game.

>>5994987
>the game has infinite continues
yes, but not infinite lives.

I can recall a few moments where the game basically expects you to die as a beginner- for example, near the end when you have floating platforms rising through the screen all over: you NEED to go left as fast as you possibly can, or you'll instantly get impaled by spikes on the ceiling, and as a beginner you have no way to tell that there's going to be spikes throughout the entirety of the ceiling except to the left, and by the time you see and analyze them, it's too late.

maybe i'm just a babby, but i really hate design like that. i dont mind starting the same screen over again, but when you lose a life which could potentially send you to the beginning of the stage- that's not for me. it's textbook artificial difficulty. i believe that if you're reasonably observant and competent enough, you should be able to beat a game blindly on your first run without dying (although you're still expected to die a few times because you're not great at metagaming yet). of course, a game throwing curveballs and surprising you is great, but it can't punish you to this degree for failing something that comes completely out of left field and just go "oh well guess you just have to restart :^)"

I was raised during PS2 gen (though my childhood games included NES, Genesis, PS1) and yeah, I might be a babby for not wanting to go through the punishment of classic trial & error, but that's just how I believe games should be designed.

Mega Man X is simply a game I don't like, though. The moveset and the gamefeel and the most basic of level/enemy designs are just not fun for me, even though it's constantly praised by normies as being a "well designed game". It feels very clunky.

Castlevania threads should be a bannable offense.

I'm sorry but Super Castlevania IV is a fun game

>>5994314
>bia
Racist against ginger?

>>5992169
Is it a Remake? It didn't feel like a remake.

>>5992169
It's a re-imagination, not a remake. The levels are entirely different and designed to show off the snes capabilities like the rotating level and the dizzy tube background. It's got music from CV2 and CV3 in it for heavens sake. Stop calling it a remake, thats completely inaccurate.

>>5995178
Still concerned remake regardless.

>>5995197
The main character being Simon is literally the only thing that ties it back to the original. If the character was names Alvin or Theodore Belmont nobody would even make the connection

>>5995204
lol Alvin or Theodore name never fitting.

>>5995085
I refuse call Super Castlevania Revamp, a four.

>>5995207
It chronologically takes place after 3

>>5995212
No

>>5995023
>I was raised during PS2 gen
it shows, anon

>>5995249
Am I supposed to feel bad that I grew up in the best era and am not willing to tolerate games with 4 hours worth of content stretching it into weeks with artificial difficulty?

>>5995264
>best era
>the era of generic open world games
Anon, I...

>>5995264
>not tolerated
PS2 noob suppose not understand.

>>5995264
>the best era

LMAO... Your "best" era is a sharp decline after a Silver Age of great story telling.

>>5995272
>>5995274
>>5995353
What, no arguments, friends?

I could take any modern game that gets called a "linear movie game", crank up the difficulty to an artificial setting, give it a 3 lives system, and watch you people lap it up. Games that in their current state already take like 15 to 20 hours to finish without the need for trial & error and instruction manuals.

>>5995361
>lifeless flick game

>>5995361
>I could take any modern game and make up any kind of BS my imagination is capable of and...


Go back to /v/

>>5992169
>soulless
Go back to /v/, the adults can actually critique things are talking.

>>5995381
>make up any kind of BS my imagination is capable of
I'm glad you agree that 3 lives systems are so stupid and something you'd never come up with on your own unless you were an 80's or 90's game going off of arcade coin-stealing standards

>>5995414
I summed up a Faggot Repellent Force Field and for some reason you can't come near me now. Also my Sword slices through bi-curious cucks like butter so you better be glad for that force field.

>>5995429
*kisses you*

>>5994308
That’s the epitome of soulless remake you posted there

>>5995496
>Soulless
Your brain are ok?

>>5995361
If you did that then the games would suck still because all the flaws that aren't noticeable on a normal autopilot playthrough would suddenly come to the forefront like all the dead air, dull gimmicky section, cutscenes, walky talky sections, and so on and so forth and you'd end up with an overlong bad game that doesn't work with repeated play. You would then realize that the games actually just have a couple of hours of interesting content and a lot of shit filler. I invite you to try that self imposed challenge to understand the full extent of how unfun modern games are

>>5995513
so you're saying that all retro games are fun and that most totally aren't just 4 hour games that you're forced to repeat over and over until you git gud or git lucky enough to beat a stage because devs needed to increase longevity of a game?

>>5995613
Dumb false dichotomy, they are good partly BECAUSE they use challenge to increase longevity instead of padding, so you have really tight memorable games that are satisfying to play AND replay because of their short length and fast pace, instead of being 12 hours of playing on autopilot and forgetting you even touched the game.

>>5995023
>i believe that if you're reasonably observant and competent enough, you should be able to beat a game blindly on your first run without dying
If this dumbfuck armchair dev idea of design is followed then no game can actually be challenging, or even fast paced or dense. Think about what you're saying, you aren't simply talking about telegraphed dangers that are theoretically reactable (even though this means nothing in practice), you actually go into the realm of real world play and expect players to be able to clear challenges blind. It's insane and anti-learning, no other skill works like this, no other physical games work like this, no multiplayer games work like this. You are expected to learn, practice, refine and enjoy the process everywhere else, these idiotic notions of "good design" only exist in modern single player games, primarily story and "experience" based ones.

>>5995158
Not really. It uses the same story set-up, but the game otherwise is completely different. X68000 has more in common with the original, but it too is an almost entirely different game.

>>5995628
i think this CAN be true but isn't true for the majority of retro games, including castlevania 4

>>5995639
yes, it can. its a GAME and you need to establish RULES by introducing everything to the player in safe environments. that's all it takes. you can still have hard games (especially with higher difficulties designed for returning players) and hard boss battles and everything, and a high degree of gameplay depth.

it's a simple rule- if you design something to kill a new player with a high degree of certainty, you're just relying on them memorizing this isolated little trick and avoiding it next time, potentially after they've had to repeat an entire stage. it's cheap and a cop out for designing more thoughtful challenges that can and will truly challenge a player every time, new or returning.

>>5995830
>i think this CAN be true but isn't true for the majority of retro games, including castlevania 4
Wrong
>yes, it can.
NOOO YOU DUMBASS
It's not all it takes, what you said is that an observant and competent player SHOULD BE able to clear any challenge first try but that's an absolutely idiotic standard that does not apply to any properly challenging game. Take a game like Dodonpachi Daioujou, every single pattern is well established and ramps up in complexity slowly and none of the bullets come anywhere near the speeds required to be faster than the average human reaction speed. Yet nobody, not a single soul on the planet will ever 1cc this game on their first try because of the complexity, density of challenge and execution requirements. People like you without a doubt would call this game cheap because it does not pander to your laziness and requires actual, proper practice.

The problem with low effort "got ya" traps isn't that they're cheap, cheapness is irrelevant to the quality of games made to be replayed a lot (unlike modern shit that gets playtime from padding, and then gets thrown into the bin) because it's only a problem the first time you encounter it, which makes up a very small amount of your playtime. The problem is when those traps have nothing to them beyond the initial cheap kill, when overcoming doesn't make for fun or interesting gameplay. Also, in Castlevania IV's case the amount of spike-like traps is very minimal, everything else is theoretically reacteable, you will struggle to name just 5 instances of this without running into parts where what killed you was your own lack of attention.

>>5996041
>NOOO YOU DUMBASS
seething

>an absolutely idiotic standard that does not apply to any properly challenging game
it does if the difficulty curve is appropriately done and the player is competent (by competent i should have specified- a pretty good player who is familiar with the controller he's using and who can learn and use the systems he's learned well but playing for his first time)

>Take a game like Dodonpachi Daioujou
so, a literal arcade game. it's not at all what i'm referring to

>cheapness is irrelevant to the quality of games made to be replayed a lot
The only games meant to be replayed a lot are ones with enough gameplay depth to be replayed a lot- usually games that are packed full of content and highly systemic emergent gameplay (which are quite reasonable to be beaten with zero deaths if a player has common sense).....................oh yes and arcade games LMAO

>Also, in Castlevania IV's case the amount of spike-like traps is very minimal, everything else is theoretically reacteable, you will struggle to name just 5 instances of this without running into parts where what killed you was your own lack of attention.
i already finished that game, i already inadvertently have knowledge of it, so i cant go in blind anymore. but, just off the top of my head- the rotating room. i kept jumping into that one area i thought i was supposed to because it looked like an open path and was where i was naturally drawn to explore towards, except i kept dying and "nope you have to wait for the medusa heads to be gone and then swing on the thing again and then wait again and go a completely different direction". with savestates it took me a couple of tries to realize "ok this isnt working, but im not sure if im just failing the jump or i cant jump there at this time or i cant jump there at all" and figure out the solution. i dread of having to think of the amount of time i'd be stuck there without savestates while retrying the stage. its not fucking gameplay

>>5996191
>it does if the difficulty curve is appropriately done and the player is competent
Series of meaningless statements. Name some games you think are extremely difficult but can (or better yet HAVE) been beaten first try by a competent player. Anyone with a brain will realize that this is an oxymoron, that no such games exist or CAN exist. Yet you expect these games to exist, because your ideas of game design are cobbled together from random tidbits, probably picked up from youtube videos.
>so, a literal arcade game. it's not at all what i'm referring to
What difference does that make? You can't go from talking about broad universal design principles to now suddenly making exceptions. It's a difficult arcade game that has near perfect telegraphing for each attack, yet will never be 1cc'd on first try by anyone.
>The only games meant to be replayed a lot are ones with enough gameplay depth to be replayed a lot- usually games that are packed full of content and highly systemic emergent gameplay
Gameplay depth does not mean amount of content, in fact content tends to harm more immediate game depth by either introducing quantity over quality and not letting the individual assets or encounters be adequately fleshed out, or having too many degenerate strategies that are the inevitable result of complexity. You can see this in modern games too, the most highly replayed games are very short almost arcade-like experiences, such as roguelike hybrids. Similarly, emergent gameplay design does not necessarily lead to more depth, it's good at creating variety but without enough balance, depth won't exist.

And see you're already resorting to reaching for examples, and we're only two instances in! So in this game that lasts well over an hour even if you play perfectly, you had 2 cheap deaths that set you back at most 4 minutes since that's how long it takes to get to get back to the spike area. Do think this is substantial or indicative of the game's overall design?

>>5994315
No, it is like that. CV1, 3, and Haunted Castle are harder because they're less refined and the teams making them hadn't honed their skills yet. As you work on and make more games, you get better at it(shocking!!!).
That's why SCIV, DX, Bloodlines, and Rondo kick the utter shit out of the NES games. Even if Konami had made those 16bit games on the 8bit systems though, those games would have been better. They would have figured out 8-way whipping on the NES or controllable jumps.

>>5996268
This is bait but it's sad to know that there are actually clueless people that believe that the locked jump trajectory was anything but a very deliberate choice

>>5996272
It is though. It's not refined like it is in Super GnG. THAT'S deliberate. In CV1 and 3, it's clunky. If Konami had wanted their games to be like that they foulf have been that way on the 16bit systems, just like Capcom wanted GnG to be what it was. Having locked jumps and limited moves in a fast-paced platformer like Castlevania is a detriment and annoying. Having them in a more methodical platformer like Ghosts n Goblins/Ghouls n Ghosts feels correct.

You don't have to agree with it, but it's a fact.

>>5996283
>fast-paced platformer
>Castlevania
hmmm

>>5996283
And why didn't they "fix" it in simon's quest or III you retard? They all are very deliberate choices, they all play into a larger game design

I finished it not long ago and never played it back in the day, it was one of the best scotformers that I have ever played on the snes. It has a lot more levels than the nes and faster movement. Its better in many ways than rondo x. Play them in order to get the best experience.

>>5996320
Simon's Quest was the first of its kind. It was rough and fucked. Lots of broken shit in it. Symphony of the Night is what Simon's Quest laid the groundwork for. Konami learned from CV2 and in every way improved it with SotN. And even SotN was improved upon. The GBA and DS Metroidvanias are arguably superior to SotN in many ways.

>>5996245
>Name some games you think are extremely difficult but can (or better yet HAVE) been beaten first try by a competent player.
Extremely difficult? Why, MGS2 on Extreme. Can be beaten with zero deaths on normal difficulty by a non-retarded player.
>Anyone with a brain will realize that this is an oxymoron, that no such games exist or CAN exist.
"Extreme" as a word already implies unfairness, which, again, is not what I meant when talking about rules of thumb.

>because your ideas of game design are cobbled together from random tidbits, probably picked up from youtube videos.
Nice projection

>What difference does that make? You can't go from talking about broad universal design principles to now suddenly making exceptions
Because there are fundamental differences in design goals between these 2

>You can see this in modern games too, the most highly replayed games are very short almost arcade-like experiences, such as roguelike hybrids.
Oh, more examples of literal non-content, except this time not even designed by a human

Guess what.
RE4.
16+ hour game for newcomers.
Hard on Pro and its myriad of bonus modes.
Can be reasonably possibly beaten with zero deaths on Normal or Easy if you are quite cautious and your skill matches up to the increasing difficulty (maybe not the QTEs lol)
High gameplay depth.
Replayable as fuck, still like a 10 hour game on repeat.

>So in this game that lasts well over an hour even if you play perfectly, you had 2 cheap deaths that set you back at most 4 minutes since that's how long it takes to get to get back to the spike area. Do think this is substantial or indicative of the game's overall design
I think it's indicative of that specific stage's design, yes.

You know what's great about some modern twitch-action unfair-by-design games like Hotline Miami? You get to restart the area u died in in a microsecond. Still unfair, still replayable, still a few hours long, but it doesn't force you to redo prior challenges.

>>5996991
>Extremely difficult? Why, MGS2 on Extreme. Can be beaten with zero deaths on normal difficulty by a non-retarded player.
In other words you have to make the game piss easy for it to be beatable first try
>"Extreme" as a word already implies unfairness
Only if the basis of your idea is that required practice, learning and repetition is inherently unfair, which is utterly retarded. See the whole problem is that following your "rule of thumb" limits the ability to create actually challenging, action-packed, fast paced games WHICH IS MY POINT
>Because there are fundamental differences in design goals between these 2
Yes the arcade game aims to be a challenging highly replayable game, the modernshit aims to be a one off throwaway exprience where the goal is to essentially keep the player hooked for a long session with any means necessary because they know that once they take a break they won't want to return. Again you are backing off, just a few posts up you were using your modern standards of "good design" to criticize a game with very different design goals. Lame
>Guess what. RE4.
What about it? You are fucking nuts if you think it has anywhere NEAR the replayability that the likes of Binding of Isaac has, and even then most of it comes from mercs not the campaign, which is a fucking arcade mode lol.
>I think it's indicative of that specific stage's design, yes.
That two instances are arguably cheap? That's enough grounds to dismiss the level for you, and then the entire game based on ONE trap heavy level? You are being dishonest, likely because your thoughts on CV4 are the result of butthurt instead of actual thought. And Hotline Miami's system is great for practice but shit tier for encouraging people to actually get good. Restarting levels makes you build consistently. So if you beat Castlevania normally you stand a reasonable shot at doing a no death run, this isn't even remotely true of Hotline Miami.

>>5997878
>>5996991
Also before you inevitably go "b-but you can have hard modes!", that doesn't actually do much for your argument when you look at real examples. Games like God Hand, Bayo, Ninja Gaiden, and others have tough hard/hardest modes that will destroy anyone regardless of whether or not they've played them on easier difficulty once or twice beforehand. MGS3's a slow paced stealth game and I'm fairly sure that even there nobody would beat it first try on Extreme just because they got some practice on babymode beforehand, but then again I haven't played the game so who knows.

>>5997878
>>5997914
>In other words you have to make the game piss easy for it to be beatable first try
>MGS3's a slow paced stealth game
i said MGS2. which isnt slow paced. have u not played it either?
im a huge MGS fan and i STILL have never beaten MGS2's Ray boss on Extreme because it's so fucking hard. Normal is the intended 1st playthrough experience tho

>the whole problem is that following your "rule of thumb" limits the ability to create actually challenging
again, MGS2: It has a VR mode full of missions that progressively increase in difficulty. I also haven't beaten it because it's way too fucking hard
The main game, however, already uses inventive scenarios and makes you think on your feet, but it's also a game with story and themes (ie artistically valuable), and groundbreaking technology and gameplay. it's a game that wants you to play it fully, is always surprising but on Normal is also very lenient of ur mistakes. Extreme isn't forgiving- u fuck up, you die

>anywhere NEAR the replayability that the likes of Binding of Isaac has
im sorry that you are a roguelike and arcade pleb. i personally enjoy thoughtful and deliberate game design

>your thoughts on CV4 are the result of butthurt
nope. i had FUN because the savestates prevented hours of frustration. now i'd be just as good on a 2nd playthrough as someone that ripped their hair out playing it for 20 hours because i already know about the cheap deaths

>others have tough hard/hardest modes that will destroy anyone regardless of whether or not they've played them on easier difficulty once or twice beforehand
so we agree then lol. i just want first timers to beat a game without having an aneurysm and then if they want to, move on to the absolute limits of metagaming and what is possible with the game's mechanics. just like the VR mode in MGS2. your "arcade games have replayability because u literally can play pacman and never beat it for YEARS!" argument is retarded

>>5994975
>Getting annoyed
>By ultimate SNES kino that is Mega Man X

>>5998054
Now you're just desperately jumping from one point to another without addressing the main topic of discussion directly. The fuck does amount of missions have to do with replayability? You can have thousands of missions that everybody will play just once, or one mission everybody will play a thousand times. Who said ANYTHING about story? Furthermore, it's not like arcade-style games can't have an involved story, Max Payne wouldn't suddenly become bad and "non artistic" (dumb premise anyway, if you accept games as art then you must accept their inherent traits as potentially artistic) if it had a lives system. And no, I sincrely doubt you will be as good as someone who played the game legit while you're savestating like mad unless that person's really shit at learning, they will simply have more practice under their belt. Savestates help a lot if you're intent on building your consistency and use them as a tool for that, not if you just savescum your way through a game.

You can have your preferences, some people want a very smooth difficulty curve where they will always make progress and get rewarded without being stuck (though the modes and challenges you've just mentioned don't actually provide that by your own admission), some people want to overcome a really tough challenge that seemed impossible. What I object to is you calling your preference "good game design" and thus making prescriptive claims as to how games SHOULD be, even though their entire style and design goals are vastly different from the shit you are comparing them to. And there's nothing retarded about saying that "infinitely" looping games have years of replayability, that's what happened. You fell for the marketing buzzword definition of "replayability". It doesn't mean extra shit, it simply means how inclined a player will be to keep playing past their initial session or playthrough, optional content is just one of the many ways to achieve this, a very limited one.

The original design documents for Castlevania show plans for multiple whipping directions (I'm too lazy to downsize the image right now but you can Google History of Castlevania: Book of the Crescent Moon if you don't believe me). The fact that they dropped it only to immediately revisit the idea on the SNES tells me that there was probably a logistical/time issue, not a matter of "Wait, what were we thinking?! Whipping in more than one direction? How silly of us."

And if that doesn't go down well for you, ask yourself why IV and Bloodlines both have expanded attacking options and even Rondo has more complex jumping action.

>>5998346
I don't believe you. Games had aiming in multiple directions before Castlevania, there's no reason it would be a "technical problem". Anyway, it works out better without whip aiming because it makes gameplay more challenging and therefore more fun. Same with not being able to wiggle around while in the air - something Grant can do in 3 but Belmont can't, thus a Belmont should always control like that.

>>5998346
>>5998362
At least IV Simon still can't jump while on stairs.
Rondo rendered the stair element of CV obsolete by letting you jump.

>>5998346
They had 2 and 3 to work with, 3 even had many different characters with their unique attacks and they still kept the whipping limited. Only 4 has that kind of 8 directional whipping, the fact that they toned it down (or removed) in each subsequent game shows that it was a mistake born out of wanting to expand the gameplay a bit but not knowing how to do it properly.

>>5998346
The argument for intent doesn't really matter that much to me. On those grounds, invoking Bloodlines and IV is a mixed bag anyway, since several other games released after the original Castlevania retained some controls even if they altered others, or outright retained just about everything. It just isn't much of an argument to me. That the original controls intertwine with the rest of the game design in impactful and enjoyable ways, regardless of what they might have considered or been interested in doing, is what matters.

>>5998362
You don’t believe what, my cited fact?

>>5998372
I don’t really give a shit in terms of my own enjoyment either, I just wanted to quash the intent argument because there’s like 2 guys who’ve been hung up on it for years.

>>5998382
>You don’t believe what, my cited fact?
>can't even screenshot the part he claims to have gotten the "fact" from and post it on here
uh huh

>>5998394
lol you’d probably just claim it was doctored, it’s better that I gave you the tools to independently research it. Page 48 I think it was? I don’t expect you to ever challenge your thinking on anything in life at this point though so I’m going to disengage from this fruitless little human interaction

>>5998280
>The fuck does amount of missions have to do with replayability?
>The fuck does the variety of content in a game have to do with someone desiring to play it again?
Yeah, I wonder...

>Max Payne wouldn't suddenly become bad and "non artistic" (dumb premise anyway, if you accept games as art then you must accept their inherent traits as potentially artistic) if it had a lives system
No. The "GAME" component has always been at odds with the "ART" component- it's the whole reason people had and have TO THIS DAY dismissed the medium, and in truth, it's a legitimate complaint- they are at odds. Having an interactive medium is great- hell, it's even been done outside of games. Bullet hell games aren't art, though. They're electronic toys. They are created specifically to pose a tough challenge as a primaray design goal.

>though the modes and challenges you've just mentioned don't actually provide that by your own admission
Well, in RE4 you don't unlock Pro difficulty or any of the other modes until you beat the game once. What does that say?

>some people want to overcome a really tough challenge that seemed impossible. What I object to is you calling your preference "good game design" and thus making prescriptive claims as to how games SHOULD be
sure. they have a right to exist. i prefer them to be in higher difficulties or other modes, but i wish the medium was elevated, and it will not be elevated unless the designers treat it with respect. MGS2 is one of the most artful games ever and is both accessible to everyone and also immensely difficult by choice, and very replayable and packed full of content.

>You fell for the marketing buzzword definition of "replayability"
as i said at the top of this post- i think replayability means a game has more to give. im sure YOU may play the same 4h arcade game 100 times just for the challenge but thats really autistic and doesnt even have much to do with the game anymore because it has no more to give. it's just a toy

>>5998382
Even if that's true, that doesn't squash the intent argument at all if you have even slight familiarity with how games are developed. Developers always have a lot of ideas that they have to cut for various reasons, a lot of the time it's just because the ideas were stupid and didn't work very well, and a lot of the time it's because of technical limitations. Considering how tightly the games are built around limited whipping it's safe to assume that decision was made quite early on and the levels/encounters were balanced around it. The jump on the other hand is completely intended, because jumps with air control are easier to implement into games than locked trajectory ones.

>>5998412
>because jumps with air control are easier to implement into games than locked trajectory ones
Moreover, it's not like that kind of control was some secret sauce that no one could figure out.

>>5998407
4 hours is way too long for a one sitting game.

>>5998346
>The original design documents for Castlevania show plans for multiple whipping directions
I've always suspected this was true.

One of the most annoyings things about retro games to me is people look at modern games and say "uhhhhhh this is badly designed" which, most times is correct, but then they go "the old designers were the best" and then post some fucking 80's game that clearly has not just technological limitations, but severe design limitations for this brand new medium and FUCKLOADS of supplemental material such as instructional guides, attempts to get you to buy strategy guides, attempts to artificially extend a game's longevity, and plainly not enough experience to bring ideas to a game fully realized, or even to think of those ideas. I think the height of designer skill is showcased from around 1998 to 2008.

>>5998407
>Yeah, I wonder...
You ever check the completion achievement statistics for optional hard content or extra difficult modes? Developers have trouble sustaining the player's attention for ONE PLAYTHROUGH nowadays, hence shit like easy difficulty, cinematic pacing, "quiet time" and other techniques that are meant to cause an uninterrupted session. It's pathetic, the sign of a medium that has no self-respect, or respect for the players and is only concerned with making some quick lazy bucks. Only multiplayer games are safe from it to an extent because no matter what the budget are they NEED that skill ceiling, challenge and replayability.
>Well, in RE4 you don't unlock Pro difficulty or any of the other modes until you beat the game once. What does that say?
That the developers are morons who didn't think about basic things, like players wanting more of a challenge from the get-go rather than when they're already familiar with the game and able to get through it no problem, or returning players who don't have their save file. Mikami always fucks it up for no good reason
>as i said at the top of this post- i think replayability means a game has more to give.
Yes and more to give to you means extra content, which is how marketers defined 'replayability" because it's more convenient to put on the back of the box. Gameplay depth (the real kind, not the kind you're thinking of) and challenge stopped being exciting to the average mong gamer who was more interested in cinematic experiences

>>5998412
Or in other words we don’t really know one way or the other, but we do know that the original game had it planned at least in one stage of development and that they found it significant enough of an idea that they tried it in more than one subsequent game. From the latter point we can at least infer that they didn’t think it was a bad idea in and of itself.

At the very least this development logically dictates that their theoretical opinion on multi-whipping was at worst neutral and at best positive. This is the most generous I’m going to be to you guys on this one

>>5998423
That presupposes that tech limitations and compromises are necessarily bad when they aren't. It fails to consider that maybe those tech limitations WERE the things that made the games good, and that "developer intent" isn't something inherently valuable or desirable without being mediated through the right incentives and limits. The fact that games had manuals instead of lengthy time wasting tutorials and hand holding is the product of tech limitations, but it's also a good thing, for example.

>>5998441
What you’re not grasping though is that this is a separate point entirely; no one is saying limitations and other perhaps random or virtually uncontrollable conditions can’t produce a desirable result. The end product is what matters but that’s just not what we’re discussing right at this particular moment.

>>5998426
>Developers have trouble sustaining the player's attention for ONE PLAYTHROUGH nowadays
yeah, because people aren't physically stuck with ONE fucking game their parents bought them anymore so they have no choice but to replay it over and over and suffer through the bullshit. and what do they pick for the most fun? fucking f2p fortnite. this is the game that beats your precious arcade and roguelike games in terms of game-y fun.

>Only multiplayer games are safe from it to an extent because no matter what the budget are they NEED that skill ceiling, challenge and replayability.
lol. fortnite.

>That the developers are morons who didn't think about basic things, like players wanting more of a challenge from the get-go rather than when they're already familiar with the game
ah yes, mikami, who has made some of the absolute most acclaimed and influential games ever, is a "moron" and you're the smart guy. they simply decided that it was end-game content. the final boss battle is also end-game content

>how marketers defined 'replayability
you keep saying this. do you have any sources on this being the case?

>Gameplay depth (the real kind, not the kind you're thinking of)
You can't be taken seriously after saying arcades are what has the most depth.

If we define depth objectively as what has the maximum amount of variables, then clearly from a numbers perspective systemic emergent gameplay games with long campaigns and games with lots of systems and lots of inputs (like fighter pilot sims) have the most depth- that's why people like sandbox games with infinite amounts of highly distinct gameplay scenarios. as a piece of software, it has an ungodly amount of possible states. bullet hell games or roguelikes cant even come close. at most, they'll have a lot of number crunching and procedural generation- though the outcomes will always be eerily similar.

im sorry to tell you that your 2D indie games arent made by experts

>>5998449
1. No, that's not my point. My point is that many of those limitations were inherently good pressures/incentives for developers that filtered their intent to produce good results. The good results aren't an accident that happened in spite of those limitations, it's the direct result of those limitations.
2. No we aren't talking about the product itself, we are talking about a broader topic of developer intent and game design. If you want to talk about Castlevania itself you have to talk about the game not make vague statements regarding what the developers attempted to realize, you look at its mechanics and the levels/encounters and see how they work together, then you make statements about whether they are good or bad. Stay focused.

>>5998461
I give up dude, you just want to be heard so badly that you’re just manufacturing disagreements to get your thoughts out there.

>>5998457
Based

>>5998441
>That presupposes that tech limitations and compromises are necessarily bad when they aren't
Strawman. This was never stated or implied. In fact, design limitations due to lack of experience was what was emphasized.

>It fails to consider that maybe those tech limitations WERE the things that made the games good, and that "developer intent" isn't something inherently valuable or desirable without being mediated through the right incentives and limits
I agree. Death of the author and all that. However, there's a happy medium somewhere in the middle where the most skilled developers got to make the most use of their experience to make the best games. You can't tell me that happy accidents made by stumbling developers of the 80's was the peak of game design because that's absurd.

> The fact that games had manuals instead of lengthy time wasting tutorials and hand holding is the product of tech limitations, but it's also a good thing, for example.
I disagree. While some games can benefit from having supplemental reading material (the most popular example would obviously be Minecraft and the required pre-existing knowledge about all of its mechanics and recipes), but the examples people on this board jack off to the most are the simplistic examples like "the game showed you an enemy and its attack in a safe environment before you were able to get hit by it so now if you get hit it's your fault, it's good design"- which is correct. This is how game design works- with an invisible guiding hand, you always equip the player with the knowledge AHEAD OF TIME required to beat a challenge. It's how games work. You HAVE to know the rules before you play it, though you certainly won't effortlessly defeat every scenario presented to you due to increasing complexity and weaving of multiple elements together to create situations you haven't faced before. Manuals are basically a substitute for good game design.

>>5998457
>fucking f2p fortnite. this is the game that beats your precious arcade and roguelike games in terms of game-y fun.
Lol what's this lame gotcha attempt? This is fine, Fortnite is a fairly decent game all things considered, certainly better than any AAA trash your values will inevitable end up championing. Should have brought up exploitative gacha shit, though that kind of game design goes against my ideas of what good game design is, without conflicting with yours on any fundamental level.
>ah yes, mikami, who has made some of the absolute most acclaimed and influential games ever, is a "moron"
Yes, someone who makes good games can be an absolute dope in many aspects. Ask any God Hand or Vanquish player if they would prefer having hard mode/god hard unlocked from the get-go, perhaps even with a warning, and they will always without fail say yes because it's a non-issue that only has benefits. Stop idolizing game devs.
>you keep saying this. do you have any sources on this being the case?
There are no "sources", you have to manually go through different games over time and check the back of the box, reviews and online page descriptions and pick up the term's meaning from usage context

>You can't be taken seriously after saying arcades are what has the most depth.
>If we define depth objectively as what has the maximum amount of variables
See this is where you show cluelessness as to what depth is. Depth isn't the total amount of variables, it's the amount of game states that are relevant to gameplay, it's a vague term that cannot be easily measured. The amount of states of any given game is completely irrelevant because it's near infinite in any game. Take an empty plane with basic movement for instance, each single pixel and each transition from one pixel to the next is a game state, but none of them mean anything. Add some basic acceleration/inertia and now you've added an absolutely insane amount of potential game states based on how and where you move, but again none of them are depth because they mean nothing. To make them mean something you need goals, which creates challenge. You add a timer and a point to get to, and now the game actually starts gaining some depth because you have to find the shortest point to the goal, which creates conflicting mechanics/routes that you have to pick between, with varying effectiveness/challenge. In short, complexity (game states) only becomes depth when there is carefully introduced challenge, and where that complexity is mediated with game balance. An open world game can have a shitton of states, but in the end very shallow gameplay because the choices you make aren't distinct enough or relevant enough to how well you achieve a goal. Hell, a lot of these games don't even HAVE goals to speak of. Arcade games extract a lot of depth from very simple mechanics just by using challenge and having very clearly defined goals. A bullet hell game has countless potentially routes for score with a lot of variability, and even tiny differences matter a lot. Multiplayer games are inherently better at converting complexity into depth because they have constantly evolving goals. Single player games are terrible at it.

>>5998514
meant for
>>5998457

>>5998490
Developer experience is a very different beast but yes it is quite important, though experience has to be considered in relation to the mediums themselves rather than in an absolute sense. That telegraphing and escalation of difficulty is fine and all but I think it's not really a design goal but rather the consequence of clear telegraphing and escalating difficulty, which were staples since the 80's, albeit not perfect. Making it a design goal works for very simple games, or the bare essentials, but becomes more trouble than it's worth for more difficult and complex games because it will take far more time to showcase everything, hold the player's hand and methodically prepare them for every challenge than it will to just explain it. Time that could have been spent making interesting, meaningful challenges and gameplay.

>>5998493
>>5998514
>This is fine, Fortnite is a fairly decent game all things considered, certainly better than any AAA trash your values will inevitable end up championing
>has not played MGS2
>thinks arcade is peak of design
big yikes

>Ask any God Hand or Vanquish player if they would prefer having hard mode/god hard unlocked from the get-go
oh, ask someone who has already unlocked a mode whether or not they want it unlocked before having ever played it? great hypothetical, anon...

>because it's a non-issue that only has benefits
No modern gaming demographic is willing to finish the majority of retro games without savestates. Would you say a player abandoning your game due to not wanting to deal with extreme repetitiveness caused by 3 life systems is a drawback? I would. Devs like to prevent decisions like that shit, especially when it's hard enough to get someone to play your game once

>See this is where you show cluelessness as to what depth is
my boy, you STILL haven't fucking learned. while I agree with what you said about depth when it pertains to making a pure electronic toy challenge, this isn't artistic. the depth that allows players to have more possibilities that are meaningful toward creating EXPERIENCES is what I am talking about. I've become absolutely certain that our disagreement stems from this. All you care about is having a stimulating puzzle toy- see how fast I can solve a Rubix Cube this time. I think a game with very deep gameplay is Thief because of how it uses its systems to create a very particular experience, though it's not a twitch-reflex "hard" game

>Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.

shut the fuck up all of you

>>5998594
>oh, ask someone who has already unlocked a mode whether or not they want it unlocked before having ever played it? great hypothetical, anon...
Yup, if they're nervous they can just pick normal. Not a problem in Doom.
>No modern gaming demographic is willing to finish the majority of retro games without savestates.
Big deal, challenging games are niche and the average zoomer won't touch anything from even just 10 years ago. Not a problem unless your goal is to just make $$$
>while I agree with what you said about depth when it pertains to making a pure electronic toy challenge, this isn't artistic.
Fine by me. I don't care if you or anyone else considers games art or not. If their fundamental elements can't make them art, then maybe they shouldn't be art at all but rather just a component to spice up other art forms. If you're talking about the depth of experience, why even bother talking about states? Whatever anon.

>>5992169
What is it about Castlemania that makes all of you guys chimp out? I think it's the number one franchise that draws trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls on /vr/, more than anything else. Every single Castlevania thread I've ever read (and I've been here since this board first launched) has been such an utter shitheap.
Also what kind of abject retard do you have to be to think that SC4 is a remake?

>>5994975
>>5995023
Man I'm a zoomer as well but you're a dumbass, Super Castlevania IV is easy as fuck compared to other Castlevania games, and what's the point in a Castlevania game being so easy you beat it on the first try? It's nice to have some amount of challenge, it's what makes classic Castlevania fun. Do you think modern games like Cuphead are shit because you have to restart when you die? Also save scumming fucking sucks, if you aren't just using them to continue progress in games without saves then you're a baby with no skill.

>>5998778
Ok boomer

>>5998778
>Do you think modern games like Cuphead are shit because you have to restart when you die?
No, Cuphead is great because it lets you fucking restart instantly without having to waste your time on petty bullshit.

>>5998826
No it doesn't, it forces you to replay an entire stage or boss, some of which can potentially stretch out to almost 4 minutes if you're not using charged shot, same as most Castlevania stages, which actually have checkpoints mid-level and several lives. Though I can't imagine having so much disdain for the game I'm playing that repeating a few minutes a few times feels like a huge chore, christ.

>>5998778
>Super Castlevania IV is easy as fuck compared to other Castlevania games
Only if you use the passwords and split up your gaming time.
It's a pretty long game, and if you try and take it on in a single go it's quite tough. Sort of like Super Empire Strikes Back.

>>5992169
Nice bait.

>>5998778
>Super Castlevania IV is easy as fuck compared to other Castlevania games
Do you think so? It's easier compared to the NES games, but as far as 4th gen ones, I don't think it's the easiest.

>>5998837
Well then that's not really an issue with difficulty, no? That's more a length thing.

>>5998863
I thought it was easier compared to Rondo of Blood and Bloodlines too personally, mainly due to the multidirectional whip.

>>5992169
Not even remotely related to being a remake, it's a direct sequel in a series.
That being said, it's WAY too easy, to the point it becomes rather boring. Dracula X is where it's at.

>>5998918
>Well then that's not really an issue with difficulty, no?
Sure it is. Jogging to your mailbox and back is easy. Jogging for 20km is not.
Doing math problems for 10 minutes is easy. Doing them all day is not.

>>5992169
you're out of your mind. the SNES version is the ult.

Both are bad but at least the remake has nice graphics.
>play original
>floating heads keep knocking me to my death or just killing me outright
>they're harder than any of the bosses
>play remake
>hang from a chain while a mode 7 room rotates for 5 minutes
>no challenge at all

kys australia.

>>5998594
thief is garbage.

>>5998834
>No it doesn't, it forces you to replay an entire stage or boss
those stages are fast paced and last 2 minutes, not to mention that the game was intended to just be boss battles. get hit fast, die fast, restart fast, beat it fast.

CVIV forces you to do all this bullshit, like waiting around, slowly walking around, trying to collect whip upgrades and hearts, and the "checkpoints" are by design a flaw. It says "oh its ok if you die to some bullshit, you can restart from right here, but woops only a few times, u die more and u go back all the way :^)". In that case, CLEARLY you weren't meant to replay the entire stage all over as you do with Cuphead, at breakneck speeds. The difference this creates between the 2 in terms of frustration is staggering, and I'd much rather play Cuphead.

>>5999212
Get out.

>>5994308
X6800 is awesome and does a good job at maintaining difficulty while giving the whip more directions. Plus it has barbarian Simon

>>5999745
>those stages are fast paced and last 2 minutes
Yeah and some stages in CV4 last 2 minutes, some last 3-4 like the longer Cuphead bosses, and the really long ones last like 6 min, and unlike Cuckhead bosses you have a lot more control over your pace and can go quite fast. You have more health, you have health items and you have lives so if you do die, you can try again from nearby and clear it on your second try. Not good enough to beat a challenge after you know its coming? Well thats entirely on you. The difference of frustration is the result of a difference in perception, you clearly treat games not as something to be intrinsically enjoyed but something that only gives enjoyment when you overcome goals, so when Cuphead puts that goal right in your face you don't feel the loss while if Castlevania sets you back less than Cuphead did for failing you'll get frustrated. That or you just despise Castlevanias core gameplay while liking Cupheads, regardless of punishment and challenge.

>>5999745
>slowly walking around
Have you ever played any Castlevania game, like at all?
I'm not following you guys' convo, but I just read that sentence and I'm like... what the fuck, do people here even know what they're talking about?
>die to some bullshit
It's your own fault, anon. Get good.

>>6000290
>>6000294
>and unlike Cuckhead bosses you have a lot more control over your pace and can go quite fast. You have more health, you have health items and you have lives so if you do die, you can try again from nearby and clear it on your second try
>Have you ever played any Castlevania game, like at all?

what the absolute fuck are you talking about? a game where you literally move at WALKING SPEED and stop dead in your tracks every time you attack (which is every 2 seconds) is not a fucking "fast" game. it was always designed as a slow game

>you clearly treat games not as something to be intrinsically enjoyed but something that only gives enjoyment when you overcome goal
not true. i just dont like being forced to repeat unnecessary shit. imagine watching a movie and someone pauses it, or even worse, rewinds it. it fucks with the flow of your enjoyment. cuphead throws a boss right in front of your face and says "beat it" and u beat it and move on. in castlevania 4, as soon as you leave a fucking screen, you should never have to go back to it. it's BEEN DONE. but that's not what happens, and it fucks with the flow of the game. if i HAVE the fucking checkpoint, what's the point of taking it away? and the whip upgrades too. it means you're worse equipped in a retry (although with more health) than an initial run. it's not like they're hard to get back but, it's fucking annoying. it only serves as an incentive to not die, as if you needed one. they could have started checkpoints with the SAME health as before instead of full life, but i guess they didn't know how to do that or were too lazy, so their balance to that is "we'll just send you back to the beginning if you fuck up more". getting hearts and accidentally losing subweapons is annoying too. like, too many decisions are just fucking annoying to me. cuphead doesnt do that shit- you have what you have, play the game, retry, win. ure right, castlevania isnt for me. SOTN is the best one lol

>>6000438
>is not a fucking "fast" game.
That's the point genius. You're pointing out something that defines the Castlevania games as if it's a negative when it's just how the games are. Not every game needs to be hyperactive gotta go fast bullshit.

>>6000438
>a game where you literally move at WALKING SPEED
Doesn't matter since it's pretty fast in IV
>stop dead in your tracks every time you attack
Then jump, in IV it doesn't even last a second either
>not true. i just dont like being forced to repeat unnecessary shit.
Unless it's early phases of Cuphead bosses that you already got past several times

>>6000438
Also since you have a really hard time comprehending why getting past a checkpoint once isn't enough and why those upgrade systems exist, it's because you have shit consistency and the game wants to nudge you towards building it and rewards you for demonstrating it (clearing levels without dying) by making you stronger and giving you more tools to work with. It's a very simple and rewarding design principle. You could make the same exact argument for Cuphead boss phases and it would still be a shit argument, the bosses usually have 3 or so phases and the game could have easily given you a checkpoint to """not waste time""", but it didn't because it wants you to overcome the challenge, build up your skill and feel satisfied with it.

>>6000454
I fucking replied to 2 posts that said it was a fast game, faggot

>>6000458
>Then jump
This is a metagaming exploit that was never intended to be the way to play. Besides, landings often stop you too, and don't even allow you to whip upwards.

>Unless it's early phases of Cuphead bosses that you already got past several times
We're bringing phases into this? How long does a phase last? It's the same boss. If you lost and get to restart at max health, so does the boss.

>>6000504
>This is a metagaming exploit that was never intended to be the way to play.
This is troll level shit LMFAO
No it's two mechanics working as intended that you can use to go faster, you fucking IDIOT. Landing stop you for a few frames at most in IV, it's trivial
>How long does a phase last? It's the same boss.
How long does a checkpoint last? They're almost always different chunks of the same level. Every argument you make could be aimed at Cuphead, there's no real logic here

>>6000501
Bro, learn to reply in 1 post.

>it's because you have shit consistency and the game wants to nudge you towards building it and rewards you for demonstrating it
So the game rewards you for playing well by making it easier and less tedious for you, but if you die you are punished not just by restarting the checkpoint or the entire stage, but by having a weaker whip and having to tediously look for upgrades...yeah, makes total fucking sense.

I would literally prefer no checkpoints or upgrades, or subweapons or hearts or fucking candles. It's a stupid metagame. 90% of the time I'm at max hearts but I get distracted by candles anyway: "oh, maybe it could be health (it's never fucking health)".

>>6000510
>No it's two mechanics working as intended that you can use to go faster
So you are implying that the devs made you stop mid-attack as a way to encourage players to only attack in mid-air and to jump before every attack? This is what you'd be saying right now, genius. I guess the devs of SOTN also intended for you to be back-dashing endlessly to move instead of just walking. Idiot.

>How long does a checkpoint last? They're almost always different chunks of the same level. Every argument you make could be aimed at Cuphead, there's no real logic here
Already explained this. Castlevania restarts are a way bigger time sink that sends you through multiple screens to look for your lost upgrades. Way longer and breaks up the flow of the game.

>>6000532
>yeah, makes total fucking sense.
Yup, it's just positive reinforcement, you do well earlier to have an easier time later. The same principle that's used in things like resource conservation, or even more basic things such as health. If you do the first 2 phases of Cuphead bosses perfectly, you'll have an easier time on phase 3 because you will have 3 hits and a lot of special weapon energy.
>I would literally prefer no checkpoints or upgrades
To remove depth and satisfaction from the game? Crushing a boss with upgraded cross or holy water is a joy even total newbies will appreciate, and experts can simply do self-imposed challenges like no subweapon runs.
>So you are implying that the devs made you stop mid-attack as a way to encourage players to only attack in mid-air and to jump before every attack?
No they gave you the ability and expected it to use it as you see fit, you think devs are retards who want to hold the player's hand for everything they do instead of giving them some tools to play around with and seeing what they can come up with? Not to mention there are many enemies across the series that you are meant to kill via jump attacks. Come on this is some lame shit lmao
>Already explained this. Castlevania restarts are a way bigger time sink that sends you through multiple screens
"Way bigger" is a difference of one or two minutes at most, and that's if we ignore checkpoints. Having upgrades makes the checkpoints less painful because you can kill the boss easier if you conserve hearts and get better subweapons. And the game flow is broken in the same way, you are forced to restart and redo things you've already done previously. Broken flow comes with punishment

I will dismantle every single claim you make effortlessly, anon

>>6000541
>To remove depth and satisfaction from the game? Crushing a boss with upgraded cross or holy water is a joy even total newbies will appreciate, and experts can simply do self-imposed challenges like no subweapon runs.
What the fuck are you on about? Cheesing a boss is a reward? That's funny. Also, literally WHO uses subweapons in IV. It is a gigantic troll to say health bars or recollecting upgrades are resource management. You are simply using terms wrong. You don't MANAGE them- that could give you a clue. Using hearts is a choice; Losing and collecting health or whips isn't.

>No they gave you the ability and expected it to use it as you see fit
You are dodging the question. Answer the question. I guess bunnyhopping in Quake was a deliberate choice too, you delusional bitch

>"Way bigger" is a difference of one or two minutes at most
1st- It's not 1 or 2 minutes.
2nd- Those minutes that account for you replaying something are gonna end up being more than half of your playtime

>Cuphead
>boss phase takes 30 seconds
>keep trying to advance through phases and repeating them 30 seconds at a time until you beat it

>Castlevania
>play for 15 mins, die on the boss
>start from checkpoint, no upgrades now, spend another 5 minutes and die again
>restart stage, play again from screen 1, play for 10 minutes and die
>start from checkpoint, no upgrades, play same content yet again for 8 minutes
>repeat

>I will dismantle every single claim you make effortlessly, anon
You are clueless and your nostalgia goggles are showing. The best part is that Cuphead isn't even a paragon of game design but is still a more cohesive and less frustrating experience, despite being the harder game lol

>>6000576
>What the fuck are you on about? Cheesing a boss is a reward?
Yup, are you retarded? Everyone loves cheesing bosses, why do you think Megaman's RPS weapons system is so successful?
>Also, literally WHO uses subweapons in IV.
Anyone who isn't retarded and doesn't savescum, upgraded cross is a force to be feared and respected
>You are dodging the question
No I'm not, I'm saying that they intended you to use the jump attack which is obvious from the fact that the series always had enemies that you had to jump to hit. You think jumping and attacking, one of the basic moves in a game is even remotely similar to bhopping? Not that it matters anyway, what the developers intended has no effect on how you can play the game.
>Those minutes that account for you replaying something are gonna end up being more than half of your playtime
And? It's the same in Cuphead, it's like a 40-50 minute game that takes hours to play through and like 20 hours on average to fully complete
>The best part is that Cuphead isn't even a paragon of game design
What is, then? Thief, where the gameplay involves sitting around observing NPC's walk around? If you want to talk about tedious, ohhh boy don't get me started on stealth games.

>>6000587
>Everyone loves cheesing bosses
>Upgraded cross is a force to be feared and respected
Cope

>No I'm not, I'm saying that they intended you to use the jump attack which is obvious from the fact that the series always had enemies that you had to jump to hit
Dodging again. I asked if you thought the game wanted you to avoid the standing attack by always jump-attacking to go faster through an area (hint: it doesn't)

>what the developers intended has no effect on how you can play the game.
absolutely pathetic goalpost moving and coping in a discussion about game design

>It's the same in Cuphead, it's like a 40-50 minute game that takes hours to play through and like 20 hours on average to fully complete
I delineated how segmenting repeating content is done through 30 second increments in Cuphead- or maybe even 1 or 2 minutes. In Castlevania, those segments are 10-15 minutes long and laden with "if died, then recollect whip". So which is less frustrating to restart? A high-octane 30-90 seconds or a 8-15 minute trek? Truly truly, a monumentally brain racking dilemma.

>What is, then? Thief, where the gameplay involves sitting around observing NPC's walk around? If you want to talk about tedious, ohhh boy don't get me started on stealth games.
Thief is a masterful series (of two games) that shits on both Cuphead and Castlevania, and so do most all of the acclaimed stealth games. I am not going to derail this from Castlevania's bad design, but safe to say you cannot comprehend basic concepts such as immersion.

>>6000619
>c-cope
lol, dominated
>Dodging again.
Wrong, directly answered it except replaced "game" with "developers"
>absolutely pathetic goalpost moving and coping in a discussion about game design
For starters that particular point isn't about "game design" it's about how YOU can play the game. Bhopping isn't intended, but it's a good mechanic that makes Quake better. If someone said Quake is too slow but then refused to bunnyhop, they would be a moron. Secondly, there's no real way to know what the devs wanted or didn't want for sure, but the fact that the devs want you to jump attack candles all the time and positioned them so you can do this without stopping indicates that they were well ware of this.
>I delineated how segmenting repeating content is done through 30 second increments in Cuphead- or maybe even 1 or 2 minutes.
>In Castlevania, those segments are 10-15 minutes long
They aren't 10-15 minutes long unless you are slow as shit, but you can delay each Cuphead boss for that long too if you use some low DPS weapon instead of charged shot or the bouncing one or whatever the fuck. One of the longest levels in SCIV is only about 6-8 minutes. And did you even play the game? Whip upgrades are gotten from candles, you don't have to look for them or stop.
>but safe to say you cannot comprehend basic concepts such as immersion.
LMFAO. It's true that you do not want to go down this road, I know exactly what the components that make up the "immersion" buzzword are, it's a collection of different things lumped into one category because of carelessness, even though there are many very different approaches to creating what's known as "immersion" and many of them have fuck-all to do with game design such a suspension of disbelief.

I always like how IV has such a comfy 80's adventure feel to it

>>6000664
>more dodging
>more goalpost moving
>still praising cheese and exploits when talking about game design
>saying "dominated"
You ok, little fella?

You can speedrun the game in 30 minutes so you know what, I guess it was a fast game all along :^)

>Secondly, there's no real way to know what the devs wanted or didn't want for sure
Still pretending like the devs wanted you to never use the standing attack? My god, it has truly been embarrassing for you

>They aren't 10-15 minutes long unless you are slow as shit
Lies. There's what, 12 continue points? In a game you said takes 20 hours (lol). Do the math. Either you die a million times or you try not playing like Sonic.

>Whip upgrades are gotten from candles, you don't have to look for them or stop.
??? You literally have to keep hitting candles until you spawn some, and you definitely don't care about candles as much when have the upgrades. It clearly changes your playstyle based on that and you damage and range stats.

>LMFAO. It's true that you do not want to go down this road, I know exactly what the components that make up the "immersion" buzzword are
Calm down aspie. You really are lost if you think immersion is a buzzword or that game design isn't responsible for it.

Looking at thief:
>Compass
>Map system and accurate simulationist levels with environmental cues
>Sound propagation
>enemy states
4 elements of the game that are about as tied to moment-to-moment gameplay as you get, that were made by DESIGNERS, not the art department or marketers or whatever bullshit you think, and highly contribute to immersing you in the experience, while being crucial to the main loop.

>>6000727
ooof, the anime girls came out, he SEETHING

>still praising cheese and exploits when talking about game design
There are a lot of exploits that were so good they were mainstays in the games and genres they emerged in such as combos in fighting games and bhopping, many exploits come up during development and are intentionally kept in because they are good. Categorically rejecting them is the mark of a brainlet who knows dick about game design. You gotta look at what they do for the other gameplay elements and decide.
>Still pretending like the devs wanted you to never use the standing attack?
Wut? You use it when the situation calls for it. Want to go fast? Use jump attack to not lose your momentum. Jump attacking getting a bit too risky? Slow down a bit until you kill enemies, then keep jumping. SCIV has a very fast whip.
>??? You literally have to keep hitting candles until you spawn some, and you definitely don't care about candles as much when have the upgrades.
Jump and attack the candles, grab the heart & whip as it's falling, no real need to stop.
>In a game you said takes 20 hours (lol).
20 hours to beat SCIV with credits? The fuck? It's like a couple of hours, maybe a few if you're playing badly, and each level takes just a few mins to get through. Cuphead's the game that's about 50 minutes of gameplay stretched into almost 20 hours of repetition (not a bad thing in my book mind you)
>You really are lost if you think immersion is a buzzword or that game design isn't responsible for it.
Do you actually want to get into this discussion and get properly schooled for not having a fundamental understanding of the concept like when I talked about gameplay depth, or should we stick to Castlevania?

I don’t even know what’s going on anymore.

Chronicles, Bloodlines, Rondo
best of the best.

>>6000770
>>6000727
>theorycrafters hard at work
guaranteed both of you suck donkey balls at ALL games, period.

>>6000880
based Chad response

>>6000880
>mixes up game discussion with theorycrafting
Yup, it's a brainlet alright

>>5992182
>People shit on Castlevania IV for the multi diagonal whip
Literally one eceleb and no one else before or since.

Lmao at thiefags.

Having to play through the whole game to unlock the hard loop is bullshit, hard mode should be available from the beginning. Other than that, 10/10

>>6001237
At least it's a proper 2nd loop with a lot more enemies in every level, unlike the 2nd loop in CV1 which only adds a few enemies on the first 4 levels, and the last 2 are the same as normal.

>>6000878
Much better than HC. That sure feel crafty.

>>6000770
>ooof, the anime girls came out, he SEETHING
>There are a lot of exploits that were so good they were mainstays in the games and genres they emerged in such as combos in fighting games and bhopping
Yaaaawn

Bunnyhopping was a bug upon release that was kept for the sequel. It wasn't DESIGNED by DESIGN by the DESIGNERS, so it ain't GAME DESIGN, capisce my little mentally challenged amigo?
>Cagorically rejecting them is the mark of a brainlet who knows dick about game design
It's already been discussed in this thread how death of the author is a thing, but it ain't game design- see above

>20 hours to beat SCIV with credits? The fuck? It's like a couple of hours, maybe a few if you're playing badly
A full playthrough is 4 hours if you're really familiar with the game. Sure as fuck ain't 4 hours for a first timer

>50 minutes of gameplay stretched into almost 20 hours of repetition (not a bad thing in my book mind you)
(yes, buddy, we can tell)

>Do you actually want to get into this discussion and get properly schooled for not having a fundamental understanding of the concept like when I talked about gameplay depth, or should we stick to Castlevania?
So you're the same guy that talks shit on stealth games without having played them and thinks every game concept that emerged after the 80's is a marketing conspiracy while only caring about simplistic toy games? Wow, do tell more :^)

>>6001663
>but it ain't game design
Nah it very much is part of game design to look at exploits, cheese and other emergent game mechanics and see what they do for the gameplay. A good example is the thing your dumb ass ignored - combos, which were noticed during development and then kept in. Fact is developers always run into these things and are faced with the choice to keep them in as exploits, turn them into mechanics or remove them. None of this has anything to do with Castlevania IV's jumps of course, because it's just a normal mechanic being used as intended.
>A full playthrough is 4 hours if you're really familiar with the game.
This is why savescumming is cancer, you supposedly played the game but have no idea what it's actually like and can't judge its length at all. You can easily find vids and streams of blind SCIV playthroughs that last less than 4 hours. 20 hours...lol.
>every game concept that emerged after the 80's is a marketing conspiracy
Still sore about falling for marketing buzzwords? It's ok kid, you'll see past the cheap tricks eventually
>Wow, do tell more :^)
Sure, won't go too indepth atm but here's something very basic : immersion can be broken into three different components - suspension of disbelief, telepresence/empathy and flow state. Flow state is the only thing games can achieve inherently, telepresence/empathy and suspension of disbelief rely on representational elements. Each one of these components requires a very different approach when you're designing a game and offers different types of engagement for the player. Fighting games are far more immersive than any stealth game despite being abstract and lacking simulation, because you have more to process and deal with at any given time requiring which requires more concetration. If you take issue with that statement because it's not the type of immersion you meant, then you should understand why it's a buzzword.

>>5992169
>remake for noob
>why a bright doofus called this title "IV" like how RE: Nemesis ain’t exactly three.

Embarrassing thread.

>>6001780
Point out overrated.

>>6001735
I'm gonna leave pic related here because I think you need it

> Fact is developers always run into these things and are faced with the choice to keep them in as exploits, turn them into mechanics or remove them
More false narratives. With bunnyhopping, the devs didn't even know it existed until well after the game came out.

>This is why savescumming is cancer
It's cancer that I beat the game in less than 4 hours and didn't have to be stuck on repeat? Poor me. Every blind playthrough I look for is longer than mine and still uses chat help and savestates. I didn't even know about the fucking secret before Dracula lol
>marketing buzzwords
I already invited you to show proof of your claims but you declined. I'm not obliged to believe your bullshit, conspiracytard

>Flow state is the only thing games can achieve inherently
Flow state can be done with anything. It just means high concentration

>Fighting games are far more immersive than any stealth game despite being abstract and lacking simulation, because you have more to process and deal with at any given time requiring which requires more concetration
Your "knowledge" is babby tier. All you're talking about is concentration on a puzzle. Why didn't you discuss the other elements mentioned, like
>telepresence/empathy and suspension of disbelief
?
Thief has no access to elements such as any kind of map UI or anything indicating enemy presence. I have to check the static paper map and the compass item to determine where I am and stay hidden, look around corners and listen and interpolate the audio data I get (such as direction, volume, reverb, muffle) to know where the source is.

I value these elements because they get me immersed (as defined by the same people whose ideas you offered)- I get to THINK like I would in real-life and not how to act within the game meta (like just using the babbymode blackjack) because it's pathetic. I want an experience, not a toy

SpyCraft on DOS is another game like that

>>6001856
>More false narratives.
Why because you found an example where this wasnt the case even though it was changed in the following games, and despite the fact that I provided you an example?
>Every blind playthrough I look for is longer than mine
No shit you idiot, you used savestates to remove all challenge. But notice how your language has become slippery? From 20 hours to "shorter than mine"? Good shit.
>Flow state can be done with anything.
You call my knowledge baby tier but then pull this shit? No it cant, its a combination of several aspects including concentration, atleast skim wikipedia before speaking ffs.
>Why didn't you discuss the other elements mentioned
You are thick, my point is that your buzzword idea of immersion is shit because it completely ignores certain types of immersion while caring a lot about others in a completely arbitrary fashion. And what do you do? You proceed to dismiss the flow state as unimportant compared to suspension of disbelief, even though in your mind they achieve the same thing - the player being deeply absorbed in a game.

/v/-tier thread

>>6002498
>Why because you found an example where this wasnt the case
Because I provided a definition of "design" for you, which, alas, you still haven't read. Notice the words
>plan
>blueprint
>outline
>purpose
>intention
>plot
>map out
>intend
You could have admitted that some features of a game are not part of game design because they were unintentional though still PART of the game, yet you decided to make a fool of yourself for I don't even know how many posts by pretending like bugs are game design.

>But notice how your language has become slippery? From 20 hours to "shorter than mine"? Good shit
You know what has slipped? Your reading comprehension. Quoting you:
>And? It's the same in Cuphead, it's like a 40-50 minute game that takes hours to play through and like 20 hours on average to fully complete
You drew the parallels to Cuphead's playtime. I never implied CVIV took 20 hours.

>No it cant, its a combination of several aspects including concentration, atleast skim wikipedia before speaking ffs.
You can achieve flow state reading a book. Literally everyone knows what it is. You're looking more desperate every post.

>my point is that your buzzword idea of immersion is shit because it completely ignores certain types of immersion while caring a lot about others in a completely arbitrary fashion
>You proceed to dismiss the flow state as unimportant compared to suspension of disbelief
I stated my reason in the last post. Are you sleepy bro? Pay attention. Flow state can be done with anything, including a day job or a gym session. It's not design. By contrast, Thief's clever navigation systems are intentional design that gets you thinking about the game's environment like you would a real-life one. Between something intentional and something incidentally correlated but not caused by, I will "arbitrarily" pick the intentional one out of the parts that you yourself said constitute immersion, unless you were just using buzzwords, of course :^)

Get it together.

>>6002642
>You could have admitted that some features of a game are not part of game design
You're not talking about "game design", you are talking about the design stage of the game where developers outline their plans, but anyone with ANY experience will tell you that it's only one part of game design, especially in smaller teams where iterative design is standard. And yet again, jump attacks being faster in CV are neither a bug, nor an exploit, nor cheese.
>You can achieve flow state reading a book. Literally everyone knows what it is.
Nope, you don't know what the flow state is, agency and competency are key to it. It's applied to active rather than passive activities because in passive activities other types of deep engagement are more apt...like suspension of disbelief. This is a classic case of the dunning kruger effect, you have a very shallow understanding of the term. It's no wonder you glorify "immersion" and have no idea what replayability actually means.
>Flow state can be done with anything
>It's not design
LMAAAAAAAO
You are dismissing one of the core pillars or modern game design, you are even dismissing the theory that's used to justify the things you yourself advocate such a smooth difficulty curve, because you have no idea what you are talking about

Are all zoomers this dumb?

>>6002654
>You're not talking about "game design", you are talking about the design stage of the game where developers outline their plans
I'm not. I'm not talking about design documents. I am talking about what the developers intend to be in the final game. Sometimes a game's meta will be carefully controlled by developers, most other times not. Ocarina of Time speedrunners roll forward constantly because it's faster, though developers obviously didn't want you to play this way. When I said that CVIV was unequivocally a slow game (which is a very well known general sentiment) and everyone else agreed, you had to come out and say "nah bro just don't use the standing attack" because you were that much of a snowflake.

>Nope, you don't know what the flow state is, agency and competency are key to it.
Well, you need to be able to read and internalize what you read in order to read books. I'm guessing you are just that much of a stereotypical pleb playing with his toys that you don't even know how flow state can be achieved through a book- something everyone else, even on this god-forsaken site, knows.

>in passive activities other types of deep engagement are more apt...like suspension of disbelief
1. a completely incorrect statement
2. so you thought that navigation in Thief was a passive activity? Be honest. Did you, perhaps, never play this game? Just like you haven't the MGS games you talked about?

>you have a very shallow understanding of the term
For your own benefit and in the interest of discussion in good faith, I presented my arguments regarding immersion in absolute accordance to the terms you initially laid out. You, in turn, have been a stuttering mess ever since, because I value telepresence more and deem it a bigger part of immersion than:
>one of the core pillars or modern game design, you are even dismissing the theory that's used to justify the things you yourself advocate such a smooth difficulty curve
"it vaguely held my interest, thats immersion"

>>6002674
>I am talking about what the developers intend to be in the final game.
Yes so am I, meaning that things like combos and strafe jumping are part of what I'm talking about because the developers made a conscious decision to include and later evolve those aspects despite them initially being unintended. To go back to the main point a bit, Megaman's "cheese" is so blatantly deliberately designed and has a very clear purpose as well.
>a completely incorrect statement
Be honest, have you read a single thing on the flow state? Or did you, being the dumbass that you are, skim through the first paragraph of wiki, said to yourself "I know this" and stopped? Flow state is achieved when the subject has enough agency and confidence while being highly concentrated on a task which is challenging, it's concentration with a purpose, which makes it distinct from getting engrossed in a book.
>so you thought that navigation in Thief was a passive activity?
If you haven't noticed, I couldn't give a fuck about Thief, I'm educating you on a broader topic and questioning your fundamental understanding, which has been shit-tier. Thief's a mix of suspension of disbelief, telepresence and (attempts at) flow state, but very heavily skewed towards the first ESPECIALLY past your initial playthrough after which all engagement you had figuring out enemy patrol routes and learning levels disappears. It's a one and done kind of game, disposable. You seriously think you or anyone for that matter were more deeply engrossed in their first Thief playthrough than a competitive player was engrossed in a fighting game during a tournament? Of course not, yet you prioritize other types of immersion despite knowing they don't necessarily create more deeply engrossing experiences, and knowing that things like suspension of disbelief break down very quickly in a medium like games which are meant to be mastered.

>>6002674
>"it vaguely held my interest, thats immersion"
Sounds like your standard more than mine 2bh, my standard of an "immersive" game would be something that has a strong grip on my attention in the long term, something I can play for months or years while still being engaged.

Also to expand on flow theory - it pretty much explains where fun comes from. You've probably seen the standard challenge/skill graph, it's an oversimplification (and imo incomplete) but the basic idea of that graph is how most things in game design are justified. For instance, the reason you want clarity, telegraphs and "fairness" is to give the player a feeling of competence with which they can face the challenges presented, in Thief this would be the gem which does not jive well with telepresence and is quite abstract, but is nonetheless critical (according to devs) to make the game enjoyable by giving the player discrete information to work with. Developers think about this A LOT and will regularly sacrifice element that would otherwise add to a game's sense of place or help the player believe in the world to achieve a flow state. It also feeds back into something I talked about earlier - if you keep the player in the flow state they are unlikely to stop playing stretching out each individual session which is again critical because developers know that players are unlikely to return if they stop playing.

>>6002708
>>6002717
>Megaman's "cheese"
Don't like Megaman, don't like its game feel. This is about CV
>have you read a single thing on the flow state?
Yes because I've researched hyperfocus and ADHD and how to deal with it a long time ago. Stop projecting.
>makes it distinct from getting engrossed in a book
No. Same thing with mundane reading/writing, such as office work. If you laser focus on it, hours fly by and nothing else exists. That's flow state. You can deliberately focus on bad games to beat them- it don't make 'em good.
On the contrary, sometimes you read for pages but are so distracted that you didn't decypher anything and might as well have been staring at a wall.

>your initial playthrough after which all engagement you had figuring out enemy patrol routes and learning levels disappears
You're not fooling anybody, it's blatantly obvious you haven't played it. The duology has 3 difficulties which change your playstyle and the amount of objectives and THIRTY large, sprawling, non-linear interconnected levels, each lasting 1 to 2 hours. I've played them around 4 or 5 times now and I only have faint outlines in my memory of some things. Stop pretending. You didn't know how MGS2 plays and you don't know how Thief plays

>more deeply engrossed in their first Thief playthrough than a competitive player was engrossed in a fighting game during a tournament
Now we're talking about tournaments? What's next, "I had fun online with friends, therefore this game is good"?

>something I can play for months or years while still being engaged
skinner box autism. What's your day job- WoW?

Everything else you said was just stating the obvious
>game has to be winnable
>UI can clash with immersion
>devs want you hooked while you play

While actually avoiding all the things that make Thief immersive (spoiler: it's not the gem).

>Developers think about this A LOT
the fuck do you know what developers think? you think variety, content, experience and immersion are "buzzwords"

I just happened to play this game for the first time today. Funny coincidence to see a thread up.

Of course it's the same 2 or 3 autists shitting on each other chimping out about generalized "rules" of game design instead of just talking about the game itself.

Anyway, I game over'd in the spinning room cause a medusa knocked me into spikes. There were a few cheap death traps but no big deal. I'll probably give the game another shot tomorrow or in a few days and see how far I get then.

At first I thought it was too easy but it started to pick up, definitely not as tough as the NES games but still pretty fun. Some of the enemy designs are really cool, I like the guys who come out the sides of walls and the club dudes hiding in the background. Skullsnakes are neat too. Birds are probably the toughest enemies to deal with cause of their patterns which is kinda funny cause they're just fucking birds while all these huge scary monsters are mostly push overs.

I like 1 more but this would probably be a better entry to the series for a lot of people. I REALLY liked the underground cavern, great music and ambience.

But for real you two need to mellow the fuck out. Look at how long you've been doing this, jesus

>>6002787
>Yes because I've researched hyperfocus
Hyperfocus =/= flow state you retarded cunt, hyperfocus is just a part of flow state, least you could do is read the wiki page on the flow state.
>No. Same thing with mundane reading/writing
Dishonesty, reading and writing are very different things that you cannot conflate. Writing is an active and often creative process so flow state is achievable there obviously, but what happens in reading is different. Again at least read the wikipedia page.
>You can deliberately focus on bad games to beat them- it don't make 'em good.
More dishonesty, the subject/player can deliberately evoke any kind of immersion in theory, in practice however certain things are more likely to evoke it. Game design is always playing with probability and exploiting natural human tendencies and abilities.
>Everything else you said was just stating the obvious
Good insights into game design are always obvious in retrospect, because they are simple and intuitive. But the way you paraphrased me shows that you don't even understand what I said. A game can be winnable but "unfair", and describing why a game being fair is desirable makes you arrive at one of the main components of the flow theory - building player competence. Devs want you hooked, however how they do it (outside of exploitative gacha shit) relies on the principles of flow theory, again refer to the skill/challenge graph, the same principles are used for difficulty curves.
>While actually avoiding all the things that make Thief immersive
The gem makes Thief immersive by letting you make better choices mid gameplay, the dev team realized this, check the Ars Technica interview.
>the fuck do you know what developers think?
I speak to them personally, listen to them speak in interviews/conferences, follow devblogs, read postmortems/design articles, and so on. It's not secret knowledge, even YOU can learn about it.

>>6002789
I like this kinda shit desu, I'm just using the zoomer to talk about things I'm interested in myself. It's hard to discuss the game with someone who's being fundamentally dishonest and acts like a couple of cheap instances make the whole game bad

>>6002845
>Hyperfocus =/= flow state you retarded cunt, hyperfocus is just a part of flow state, least you could do is read the wiki page on the flow state.
The least you could do is stop pretending like I don't know what they are when I've told you I know these concepts for personal reasons. They are synonyms. I don't care what you think they are.

>Dishonesty, reading and writing are very different things that you cannot conflate. Writing is an active and often creative process so flow state is achievable there obviously, but what happens in reading is different. Again at least read the wikipedia page.
Holy flying fuck. Learn to fucking read. I posted:
>Same thing with mundane reading/writing, such as office work.
White collar work isn't fucking creative writing. There is no possible way anyone would conflict the two in the manner that sentence was written. You literally must be fucking mentally deficient. I mean, I had a big hunch but..wow. To call me out on dishonesty only adds an extra layer of retardation to the whole thing.

>check the Ars Technica interview
I saw that video the day it came out, you illiterate mongoloid

>I speak to them personally, listen to them speak in interviews/conferences, follow devblogs, read postmortems/design articles, and so on
kek

Seriously, guy, learn to read written English, or idk, go talk to someone with a 2 digit IQ like yourself. At least finish it off with "I was just pretending to be retarded" to save face, though I doubt anyone is willing to read your walls of autism anyway.

>>6002886
LOL you're getting real feisty now
>They are synonyms. I don't care what you think they are.
Ok lmao, good to know that you disagree not just with me but with the flow theory itself, which lists hyperfocus as just one of its components EVERYWHERE.
>White collar work isn't fucking creative writing.
Depends on the work, programming can be creative and involve plenty of problem solving. And surprise, that's where you're more likely to experience the flow state vs filling out paperwork. But if you think the flow state is just hyperfocus then there's no point explaining, because you fundamentally don't understand what's being discussed.
>I saw that video the day it came out, you illiterate mongoloid
Then you should know why they added the gem and how it tied the gameplay together, making it more "fair" by giving the player clear info and letting them make informed game decisions, which increases the likelihood of the player experiencing flow, and thus immersion. E Z

>>5992169
IT'S NOT A REMAKE

it has completely different levels

are you retarded?

>>5994308
The kinoest track of all the kino

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xoRNNgyNGg

>>6002929
The arrangements have more feel alive.

and to think all this retardation started so long ago just because one guy had a colossal amount of asspain for symphony of the night

>>5992169
It's not a remake, you homo.

>>6002927
>>6004226
>Same setting
You acting autist?

>>5992169
>soulless
have sex inselgadrone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALlcPhiWtGY

>>6006225
>Knowing succubus location

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jBWkhgUXg

Awesome theme https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=locZ9-DJMTY

>>6005259
Then Symphony of the Night also taking place in the same castle is a remake because it has the exact same setting. Great logic, ya dildo.

>>6008382
No dork, the timeline.