/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.4851330]

>Retro game has bad controls (eg: The original Castlevania)
>Later games fix this problem
>/vr/ calls them casual

[Anonymous No.4851338]

>>4851330
Castlevania's controls aren far from bad, and controls aren't everything. Castlevania's level design is far better than stuff in the Progressvanias (corridors of easy enemies)
If you're talking about Super, the issue with that game is how the game feels like it was designed for how the previous games controlled in places, making it a boring since you feel overpowered most of the time.

[Anonymous No.4851340]

there's more challenge than just controls in classicvania

[Anonymous No.4851343]

what's wrong with the controls in Castlevania 1?

[Anonymous No.4851351]

Because it removed limitations from which the game derived challenge without replacing them with anything more apt for the control scheme. Infact it removed everything challenging like bottomless pits, heart conservation and low health with few recovery items. What remains is some damage sponge enemies that still largely have the same movesets designed for that limited controls scheme, and featureless hallways. Castlevania IV is a bit better in that regard but it has a host of its own issues.

[Anonymous No.4851353]

>>4851330
>game works in a consistent, predictable way
>button inputs always respond how they're supposed to
>shitters cant even finish the first few levels
>"guys games age stop defending this game it's too hard" thread #52831 is made as yet another refugee from /v/ plays a retro game for the first time

[Anonymous No.4851450]

>>4851330
>underage frogposter has bad reflexes
>Later games cater to snowflakes
>/vr/ calls it underage
FTFYK

[Anonymous No.4851624]

>>4851343
Nothing “wrong” exactly but Simon is one of the heaviest feeling characters out of any major game from that era.

[Anonymous No.4851645]

>Jap Linearvania 1 has an easy mode
>it's actually balanced
>Murica removed it
>Murica added an unnecessary easy mode to Mega Man 2
>Japs make stupid "Can't Beat Airman" song
Literally can't win.

[Anonymous No.4851658]

>>4851330
I feel this way about Galerians. The few people that actually heard and play the PSX game love it while they often hate the PS2 sequel. Both games had mediocre gameplay and were very flawed but Ash solved so many problems that the first game had. There was not 12 item limit for drugs and medicine and you had a real reason to fight enemies instead of run past them. Who gives a shit if it isn't a survival horror game anymore like RE1? Galerians' focus should've been it's world and characters and not the fact that it's a horror series.

[Anonymous No.4851680]

>casual
Well there's your first problem OP. Why get upset about a buzzword that didn't even exist (in the way it's used nowadays regarding video games) back in /vr/ times? Just ignore people who use "casual" as an argument or a way to describe video games.

[Anonymous No.4851761]

>>4851680
Should we also ignore faggots like you who didn't even exist back in /vr/ times?

[Anonymous No.4851773]

>>4851761
I actually existed back in /vr/ times, what's more, I was also conscious. That's how I know your buzzwords weren't really used until the 2000s.
Sorry if it offends you.

[Anonymous No.4851819]

The hardest thing about CV1 is the controls and getting adapted to the mechanics. In order to beat it I had to pretty much memorize patterns through all the stages and that was really boring because, again, the character mechanics and controls are quite bad (similar thing goes in Mega Man).
The game is fun and my favorite classicvania (SOTN>>classic) but the its only hard because you have to master a shitty engine.

[Anonymous No.4851829]

/vr/ will never come to terms that /vr/ titles, especially the old-mainstream ones that keep being posted, are casual as shit.
Even for how "hard" they say Castlevania is, they'll still rage quit over the games they think suck.
They really only play it for the music and wouldn't touch the rest of the library.

[Anonymous No.4851842]

>>4851829
>treating an entire board as a single person

[Anonymous No.4851851]

>>4851842
>mad cause the stereotype is true
Most people here beat these games when they were 10, so if you could do it when you're 10, it's not hard.

[Anonymous No.4851862]

>>4851851
What stereotype? There's many kind of people on /vr/. Last time we had an age thread, most people claimed to be in their 20s. A lot of people here started with 6th gen and only went back to retro games later in life.

[Anonymous No.4852095]

i love cv1, especially those bosses where you have to bring the weapon from the earliest part of the stage to stand a chance and how the level design is built so that random bullshit comes and kills you all the time so you have to memorize the entirety instead of using your skills to analyze the platforms and enemies to get through like in any other game :)

[Anonymous No.4852106]

>>4852095
>random

[Anonymous No.4852116]

>Castlevania 1 has bad controls
The easiest way to spot a speud. The game's controls are perfectly balanced to fit the level design. It's genuinely one of the best designed games I've ever played desu.

[Anonymous No.4852118]

>>4851862
>most people claimed to be in their 20s.
Early 20s at that, I was mildly horrified to find out I was like the fourth oldest poster in that thread.

[Anonymous No.4852121]

>>4851680
>we should only use terms hat were used back in the 80s/90s
>our discussion and perception about old videogames should never change or progress
Words can't describe the amount of scorn I hold for you and other people on this board that are like you.

[Anonymous No.4852136]

>>4851819
That's retarded, it's like saying Mario 2 is only hard cause you can't fly. Or Bionic Commando is only hard because he doesn't have a jump. No fucking shit, games are designed for their control schemes and Castlevania deliberately used limitations to create a strategic methodical game where you play smart and learn how to work around your limitations.

[Anonymous No.4852140]

>>4851773
Sounds like you're barely conscious now, let alone when you were born just before the stroke of midnight Y2K.

[Anonymous No.4852148]

>>4852136
>and Castlevania deliberately used limitations to create a strategic methodical game

Or like their first NES TMNT title, they just made a bad game.

[Anonymous No.4852153]

>>4852095
Which bosses would those be? Frankenstein is the only one that comes close but he's still doable without holy water. Death is meant to be fought with the cross boomerang which is nearby. Dracula gives you all the weapons you need in the same room. The other bosses are so easy it doesn't matter which subweapon you're using. And go on, name some encounters that are random and not telegraphed well in advance.

[Anonymous No.4852154]

>>4852148
Not at all it's a really well made game with some minor jank presumably from being rushed. Most of it restricted to the final level.

[Anonymous No.4852156]

Castlevania 1 is one of the very few examples of perfectly balanced games, I don't know what kind of cocks OP is smoking.
That said I did like IV and its controls and wished they continued in that fashion rather than return to basics with Rondo.

[Anonymous No.4852160]

>>4852153
the white dragons before frankenstein's monster fuck me over, and the fleaman is impossible to deal with. i quit the game after retrying five times out of frustration.

[Anonymous No.4852161]

>there are people who think the controls in CV1 aren't the way they are by design choice

Must be the same people who think "if you see pixels it means the game is ugly"

[Anonymous No.4852167]

>>4852160
The snake gives you like 5 seconds before it even starts moving, not the game's fault your idiot brain runs in slowmotion.

[Anonymous No.4852173]

http://scibbe.com/archives/3607
refute him. i dare you

[Anonymous No.4852180]

>>4852173
>My own beloved Final Fantasy...
Opinion instantly discarded.

Why does every pretentious casual who blogs about video games have to worship FF?

[Anonymous No.4852187]

>>4852173
LMAO and of course he is an RPG playing faggot. I skimmed it and there are some legitimate gripes even with controls (though he overstates minor problems like stair and subweapon inputs overlapping which is realistically a problem maybe twice in the entire game) and naturally chickens out of addressing the main meat of the game's controls. The whole Bionic Commando excuse was just weak. Castlevania IS unique, there are no platformers with an emphasis on not only strategy but also timing like Castlevania, and even many later games in the series aren't like these early titles. Just because it's more subtle in its uniqueness which is more about the game's flow and pace rather than a clear gimmick doesn't mean the unique aspects aren't there.

[Anonymous No.4852190]

>>4852173
>>4852187
My job proxy server is blocking that, what does he say?

[Anonymous No.4852195]

>>4852190
why does it block some random ass site but not 4chan?

[Anonymous No.4852202]

>>4852190
The controls are just bad because the stairs input overlaps with ducking/throwing subweapons, level design is great, boss difficulty spikes too much at Frankenstein, checkpoints are discouraging because they're hard to recover from and lead to more death and the typical complaints about having to learn stages while calling it perfect memorization (even saying you need to meticulously learn all enemy locations and moves as if this is some extreme task). Thinks the game is some infamously impossible ultrahardcore secret club. Also parades Final Fantasy as his favourite beating which with solo mage was his big gaming achievement.

[Anonymous No.4852208]

>Once you do master Simon’s awful jumping and whipping actions, most of the levels in the game are fun to learn and fun to play. I am mentioning this because, even though Castlevania is a terrible game, there are the roots of really genius design here. The game did not spawn a million sequels and spin-offs by coincidence.
>The game is made mostly of blue and orange blocks, so it’s easy to judge things like “how far will my attack reach” and “can I make that jump” at a glance. Examining the layout of each level is like reading a textbook in how to take a short list of enemies and obstacles and create a huge variety of challenges with them. This is something the old Castlevania games are very good at, but the modern ones are very bad at.
>I enjoyed learning the levels in this game and I enjoy sitting down and playing them. I enjoy them more now that I know them pretty well, too. I’m mentioning this not to try and balance out my negative rant with positive observations, but because in some ways my brain registers a terrible game as being more terrible if it has some pleasing aspects to it. Like, if Castlevania were uniformly terrible it’d be easy for me to just write it off and forget about it. Its bad parts sting all the more when I see the shadow they cast over the really good parts. That feeling of, “I would really be enjoying this if not for _____!” drives me absolutely bananas as a player. I would say it’s one of my main sticking points, actually. It rubs me raw more than most folks would think is reasonable.

"The game is fun to play and has great level design, but it's terrible", what a weird faggot.

[Anonymous No.4852210]

>>4852195
It's a weird ass proxy, it blocks /v/ and /a/ for example but not /vr/, also blocks most major gaming websites but I can access pornhub just fine(not that I do).

As per /v/, I can actually access it easily via the yotsuba links on google.
Turns out biomedical companies sys admins are kinda dumb.

[Anonymous No.4852217]

>>4852202
>>4852208
Sounds like a case of personality problem, the way he has to count blocks for the whip reach and memorize levels instead of just playing cautiosly(which works most of the time in CV1) reeks of closed mind.

Now CV3, that's hard if you're not abusing spells/alucard bat form/

[Anonymous No.4852227]

>>4852118
>People are horrified by the idea that younger people are into retro

I'm 27 and have played more NES than most people here. I didn't upgrade until 2000 and stopped playing modern and back to NES solely in 2009. If you can think of an NES game worth playing ive probably finished it and yet i get shit on for not being around when it was new.

It doesnt bother me but who the fuck is going to care about these games when we all die if we discourage new people from enjoying them based on thier age? it makes no sense to me. My daughter loves Street Fighter 2010 and while its not a game I really like i am happy to nurture her interest in it.

[Anonymous No.4852237]

>>4852227
>my daughter
fuck off boomer

[Anonymous No.4852241]

>>4852227
>27
>has daughter old enough to enjoy NES games
Why did you ruin your life so early?

[Anonymous No.4852246]

>>4852241
Yeah man, hedonism for life BRUH!
>reaches 40
>hangs himself trying asphyxiation sex
Not even him but different strokes for different folks, bless people that still care about family.

[Anonymous No.4852259]

>>4852246
>not having kids is hedonism
Nice cuckservative ideology you have there champ. Did you go to confession this week?

[Anonymous No.4852264]

>>4852259
I am waiting for absolute financial stability but I already have plans with my girlfriend.
And no, you don't need to be religious to value strong family values over alcohol- sorry, "binge drinking" and one-night slags.

[Anonymous No.4852273]

>>4852264
This board is for pure /vr/gins who compensate for the lack of sexual pleasude by being good at arcade games, please leave.

[Anonymous No.4852275]

>>4851330

[Anonymous No.4852276]

>>4852273
I'd rather get an STG than an STD

[Anonymous No.4852281]

>>4852246
>it's the nu4chan "pretending I'm a traditional christian conservative to distance myself from tumblr/reddit/metropolitan millennial values" starter pack

When can we collectively move past this larp? Not even a lefty but fuck off, 4chan. You're a bunch of tranny loving, video game playing, anime watching, computer addicted degenerates. You may not be leftist but you're not the beacon of 50s wholesomeness you think you are.

[Anonymous No.4852386]

>>4852281
Holy shit, are you retarded? Do you have brain damage? What the fuck are you going on about? You sound like the retards on the news who think 4chan is one hacker guy.

[Anonymous No.4852406]

>>4852281
Fucking this. I've been seeing this on every single board for years now, and it's really gotten old. I am actually a shameless slav commie but I'd settle just fine for avoiding political issues on these boards entirely.

[Anonymous No.4852445]

>>4852281
>>4852406
I'm defending an anon that just passingly said he has a daughter by retarded hedonist that think having a daughter and showing committment means "ruining your life".
If anything it's you guys slamming others for not following your same instincts.

[Anonymous No.4852473]

>>4852237
>>4852241
You're both idiots. How are those casual /vr/ games on this fine day?

>>4852281
Kinda, but there's no real telling how Daughter-Anon obtained this sm0l femoid. It could be he raped some chicc, she won custody, and he thought it would be a good idea to abduct the child to stick it to the Gynocracy.

Don't trust Daughter-Anon.

[Anonymous No.4852482]

Imagine playing through the classic CV's with SOTN Richter like controls. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.4852484]

>>4851330
If you want a game with awkward controls, look at Karnov.

While the floaty jump physics are balanced with the challenges and just feel weird to modern players, the real gotcha aspect is the way you select special items. The cursor moves automatically when you tap right or left, meaning that to actually select a different special item you actually have to move the sprite on the screen. No one would design something like that for anything from 4th generation on, at least not for a game like Karnov.

[Anonymous No.4852491]

>>4852406
> retards attacking a father for mentioning his daughter is political issues
what?

[Anonymous No.4852493]

>>4852121
>using shit buzzwords l ike "casual" which only harvest shitposting
>progress
I'm glad I generate scorn in you.

[Anonymous No.4852498]

>>4852281
Pretty much this. I don't believe for a second that anyone who comes to 4chan is actually Christian.

[Anonymous No.4852504]

>>4852281
To be honest, this whole generation is atrocious. You claim only 4channers are terrible, but... really, the whole gen Y and gen Z are terrible.
All things considered, 4chan is still better than other social media.

[Anonymous No.4852530]

>>4852493
> buzzwords l ike "casual" which only harvest shitposting
From one poster who has an autistic meltdown because the nobody called video games or players casual in 1990.

[Anonymous No.4852540]

>>4852530
Not him, but "casual" is kind of a buzzword that doesn't mean much, it's just a derogatory term to call something you don't like or to make other people angry about it. It's shitpost-y.

[Anonymous No.4852549]

>>4852530
>1990
You can extend it for another 10 years. I didn't start seeing Casual used in the context it's used now until 2001 or 2002, maybe 2003.

[Anonymous No.4852550]

>>4852540
Casual is just the opposite of hardcore. It doesn't have to be a derogatory term if you don't make it one, there's nothing wrong with playing a casual game to relax. For example, shmups and arena FPS are hardcore, most jrpgs are casual.

[Anonymous No.4852556]

>>4852550
I think "casual" and "hardcore" are more about describing the player, not the games themselves.
The games already have genres, you mentioned them: Shmups, JRPGs, etc.
Now, you can play them with a "casual" approach, like a kid playing Call of Duty, or a "hardcore" approach, like some guy trying to beat a JRPG at the lowest possible level without dying once. I dunno.
Tetris and puzzle games are another example. They're often described as games for casual players, but some of the most hardcore players I've seen are japanese arcade Tetris players.

[Anonymous No.4852574]

>>485255
You're not wrong really but I'd say it's the barrier to entry which matters. Sure Tetris has an endless skill ceiling but anyone can play it. Shmups take a lot of practice to star getting gud (I'm not a shmupfag for the record).

[Anonymous No.4852576]

>>4852549
> You can extend it for another 10 years
Really not the point.

>>4852540
This guy gets it: >>4852550
If you're getting shit for using the word casual, it's because of the way you are using it not the word itself. As a description of an approach to anything, "casual" has been a valid and commonly used term for a long time.

> casual drinker
> casual sports fan (see also: fair-weather fan)
> casual golfer

It's a term used to denote any approach to an activity that lacks serious dedication or commitment.

[Anonymous No.4852597]

>>4852556
A game like the arcade Gradius III DEMANDS a hardcore approach to be played. JRPGs on the other hand are only "optionally" hardcore.

[Anonymous No.4852615]

>>4852597
The bar is very high but you can still play Gradius casually. A casual approach to Gradius III would be to play it once or twice a week for about 15-20 minutes just to see how far you can get this time. It does work, because Gradius has simple, easy-to-understand mechanics.

The difference with Gradius is that other than those simple mechanics, there's nothing else about the game that panders to a casual player (like a health bar, for example). You won't ever get very far in the game without getting good, which will take a very long time as a casual.

[Anonymous No.4852621]

>>4852615
You've never played that arcade in particular, my man. That game crushes your ass unless you memorize it 100% and get fucking good at execution, it's one of if not the hardest shoot'em ups to beat a loop in, in an already super challenging genre.
Playing casually that way will get you nowhere

[Anonymous No.4852646]

>>4852621
A casual player may not care whether they ever beat a loop. They'll only care if it's fun for the 20 minutes or whatever that they play.

I'm not saying Gradius III is a casual-friendly game by any stretch, or that playing it the way I describe is in any way common. Just that it is possible for someone to play it casually and enjoy the experience.

[Anonymous No.4852647]

>>4852621
>>4852646
And yes I have played it and that's exactly why I know it's possible to enjoy even if you keep getting wrecked without making it halfway through the sand level.

[Anonymous No.4852656]

>>4852646
>>4852647
I don't expect any casual player to find it fun to never make it past the first 1-2 minutes. Twenty minutes would already consist of them dying there 5+ times and not progressing.
Maybe it's "possible", but you know this is a VERY VERY remote possibility. If that were the case games like these would be liked by casuals too and sold nowadays.

[Anonymous No.4852671]

>>4851624
but the game was designed around that well

[Anonymous No.4852687]

>>4852656
They wouldn't, be stuck at 1 minute forever, though. I've played it sporadically for the last 7 days. Based on timestamp of the mame cfg file, first attempt was on 6/16. Since then I've used 11 coins, and just now made it a decent way into the first level by just getting the speedup and not paying much attention to other power-ups-- focusing on just staying alive. The most recent score I got was 12100.

Again, it works because the game just feels fun to play. It's simple and engaging.

[Anonymous No.4852696]

>>4852687
Now if only that attitude was more of the norm we could still have games like that coming out

[Anonymous No.4852701]

>>4852217
Even CV3 isn't so hard that you can't whoop it's ass with practice. Since it plays the most like like an action game, it only ever becomes hard on stage 8 for solo Trevor.

[Anonymous No.4852702]

>>4852241
Trust me, it's better than waiting until your 30's to have a kid like I did.

[Anonymous No.4852726]

>>4852696
The problem is that in 2018 people with that mindset have a million games to choose from. Maybe they'll emulate like I do. Maybe they'll play indie games like Super Meat Boy. Maybe they'll play puzzle games on their phone. Maybe they'll play Assault Android Cactus, a random game that came up when I searched for Shoot 'Em Up on Steam. And yeah, no doubt plenty of casual players are quite happy to play Witcher 3 or Waifublade Chronicles or whatever.

The problem is pandora's box is opened and you can't put it all back.

[Anonymous No.4852730]

>>4852726
Fair point
>The problem is pandora's box is opened and you can't put it all back.
Quite spot on actually

[Anonymous No.4852745]

>>4852116
I played Dracula X this morning. The second section of the first level did not feel designed around Richter's physics at all.

[Anonymous No.4852764]

>>4851330
>Ah bloo bloo the jump has weight to it!
Get over it fag the controls are fine

[Anonymous No.4852767]

>>4852745
Why not?

[Anonymous No.4852776]

>>4852556
It refers to both games and genres. A game is casual if it is aimed at casual players, even if a small minority plays it in a hardcore manner. Not /vr/ but take a look at cookie clicker, it's meant to be nothing more than a mindless timewaster yet there is a tiny group of people that speedrun it. Many shmups, particularly later ones, are the opposite and are aimed at hardcore players who want to dedicate themselves to a game and fully master a system with second loops and indepth scoring even though you can still play them casually and have fun.

[Anonymous No.4852780]

>>4852776
Games and players*

[Anonymous No.4852787]

>>4852776
Yes

[Anonymous No.4852792]

>>4852776
So it means it's only referring to players, not games or genres.
Most of my friends who are into bullethell shooters aren't interested in 1cc'ing or scoring and mostly play for the visuals, the music, and "the thrill", but they don't care about actually mastering it. Once they see the ending, they move to the next one.

[Anonymous No.4852813]

>>4852792
If they beat bullethell shooters then they're not completely casual. Casual/hardcore is a spectrum, players and games can be semi-hardcore

[Anonymous No.4852818]

>>4852792
Are they 2hufags? That would explain a lot

[Anonymous No.4852828]

>>4852813
Credit feeding a game that has no checkpoints takes 0 skill (as in, actual 0 skills, not close to 0 like grinding in RPGs), and most if not all bullet hells can be infinitely credit fed
Well, it takes the skill to endure the 20 minutes of holding a button and inserting coins every few seconds I guess

[Anonymous No.4852837]

>>4851330
It's a fantastic game even in spite of its controls. It's also not even that hard like people seem to think.
>>4852281
That poor guy doesn't deserve the crap he's being given by autists for having a daughter (y'know, like normal people do), but this post is on point. It's fine to hate "degeneracy" being shoved down your throat, but that doesn't mean you should go full church lady and act like a sanctimonious faggot about it.

[Anonymous No.4852850]

>>4852837
>It's also not even that hard like people seem to think.
Indeed. The first half is actually easy, and the rest is just moderately challenging at best. People haven't played stuff like Ghouls n Ghosts arcade

[Anonymous No.4852883]

>>4852850
Oh God, I still nightmares about level two. The ogres can go fuck off. Lost more quarters to them than anything else.

[Anonymous No.4852894]

>>4852883
Stage 2 bosses are usually casual filters in arcades from what I've seen. I guess they considered that amount of play time enough for casuals to feel satisfied while keeping the coins / players flowing.

[Anonymous No.4852969]

>>4852792
>Most of my friends who are into bullethell shooters aren't interested in 1cc'ing or scoring and mostly play for the visuals

Yes that means they're casual players playing hardcore genres since they're ignoring integral aspects of them to make their casual playstyle work. Shmups are a competitive genre anon, don't forget.

[Anonymous No.4852995]

>>4852883
The forward tapping trick makes that part a piece of cake and pretty fun. Now the dual cyclops and dragon on the final level are truly complete bullshit. I don't even know how to deal with the former without damage boosting past them, and the dragon's movement is random as far as I can tell and if he moves in a certain way there is no way to dodge.

[Anonymous No.4853021]

Asslevania isn't the best but it's far from bad. It's not quite as refined as a Mario or Sanic, but there are way worse-controlling games from the 2D era. AVGN makes good points about the series. The real problems are how punitive the knockback is and how big of a hazard stairs can be. Plus, the upgraded whip functions in 4 make for a better experience, because it gives you more options, but doesn't casualize it because you still have to aim and time it properly. It's not as if it's a homing whip.

It's not unreasonable to expect the controls to bestow upon the player a certain degree of agency. If you find yourself doing something awkward to accomplish a task, that tends to indicate a design oversight (or limitation of the console). Sometimes these things are manageable, but whether or not you can still be good at it with practice is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4853030]

>>4853021
>Plus, the upgraded whip functions in 4 make for a better experience, because it gives you more options, but doesn't casualize it because you still have to aim and time it properly. It's not as if it's a homing whip.

People who say this completely miss the entire point of Castlevania, they don't understand how the games were designed or why. Yes it does casualize the series on top of making everything feel worse. Ask yourself why most of the challenge comes from instakill traps rather than enemies, ask yourself why even small tiny enemies require multiple hits to kill them, ask yourself why you can cheese a ton of encounters by whipping from a safe distance (how many times have you fought a skull dragon directly?). All of that is because of the casualization of the whip. By removing limitations on controls you have to compensate, and either up the whole pace of the game changing its nature, or you do something really stupid like up enemy health and hope that'll be enough.

[Anonymous No.4853038]

>>4853030
>how the games were designed or why

Do we have a real source on the intent here, or is this just rationalization?

[Anonymous No.4853043]

>>4853038
>rationalization
It's called logical deduction, why else do you think even a new game like The Adventure Rebirth was designed the same limitations as the original? Relying on dev intentions is stupid anyhow, devs can unintentionally make a good game, or they can intentionally make a bad game, or they can lie about their intentions entirely. I'm looking at the games for what they are.

[Anonymous No.4853047]

>>4853038
looks more like a mix of deductive and inductive reasoning to me. It seems clear the original delay on the whip isn't the result of a technical limitation, for example. It had to be put there deliberately. From there you can use inductive reasoning and look at all the other elements and details of the game and the resulting experience, and can reasonably speculate about what the intent was.

[Anonymous No.4853051]

>>4853047
Not just that, certain things are almost inevitable outcomes of the controls being the way they are. Because you can't jump high or change your arc, and because your whip has a delay, enemy encounters must prioritize specific timing on the part of the player if they want to keep the game feeling fair. To do this enemies have to be telegraphed and given low hitpoints. Since the whip's swing direction is limited, subweapons are used to make up for those limitations because otherwise they would be redundant. Knockback is a good design decision because it prevents things like iframe abuse which games without knockback suffer from. Once you accept some central premises the rest follows naturally.

[Anonymous No.4853074]

>>4853043
OK, but you can't frame it in terms of "how the game was designed" and then—in absence of evidence—throw developer intention as a talking point completely out the window. If you are arguing that the volatile mix of control limitations and level design makes for a self-sustaining paradigm, that's fine. But that's an internal logic, one that can't be applied to other games, whereas applying freedom of control is a more broad, external logic.

To me, improving fundamentals is a logical step in iteration. From there, your possibilities increase manifold. That they needed to "up the whole pace of the game" is a valid point, but it doesn't make the improved control a bad thing. It only makes it bad from the narrow lens of preferring that one game.

[Anonymous No.4853082]

>>4853074
Well it's more of an inappropriate choice of words, it's more apt to say "how the game comes together" and "why the game is enjoyed" but either way that's arguing semantics instead of the central point which I made very clear. "Improving fundamentals" is a meaningless concept, fundamental aspects of games are good or bad depending on how they compliment the surrouding game design and vice versa. Thinking in linear terms of "improvement" is shallow thinking too, game design is about tradeoffs, you gain one thing lose another. There's very rarely such a thing as a straight upgrade. This is what I was talking about with SCIV. By calling the controls are an improvement you're working from the assumption that more freedom and speed inherently makes for better games, which isn't true.

[Anonymous No.4853083]

>>4853074
> volatile
How is it volatile? Weapon delay is a common design in weapon-based games. Compare The Magic Wand vs the Bow+Arrow in the original Legend of Zelda. Wand has a delay, arrow doesn't.

[Anonymous No.4853113]

>>4852969
They're just casual people playing video games.

[Anonymous No.4853127]

>>4853082
When we're arguing individual results, yes, whether or not a game adheres to "basic" fundamentals is meaningless. If the game is good, I don't really care how it's done. However, if we're speaking generally, yes, more freedom (I didn't say speed, although this can be somewhat abstracted from it) absolutely does make better games. To a point—if you can turn into a bat and fly along the top of the screen, that's a bit much.

And it's not semantics, your original comment was predicated on praise of the design, which we are apparently working off the likely basis was completely incidental. This nullifies the idea that Castlevania has a "point." No one game in any of these classic series had a point that was betrayed when a sequel tried a different approach. Is Castlevania IV as challenging as the first game? Maybe not, but that doesn't make the design better. If you prefer the challenge, that's valid, but in a blind trial you're not going to pick the game that's more constricting to control.

>>4853083
I don't think I was even talking to you, but "volatile" only refers here to the incidental aspects of the game design. That is to say, the developers were probably not masterminds who knew how every one of their choices would pan out.

[Anonymous No.4853149]

>>4853127
>Is Castlevania IV as challenging as the first game? Maybe not, but that doesn't make the design better. If you prefer the challenge, that's valid, but in a blind trial you're not going to pick the game that's more constricting to control.
The difference is that Castlevania I is designed consistently. The entire game is based around those details. There's no evidence that it was all "volatile."

But what there is evidence for, is that the "improved" control scheme for CV4 was not really followed through thoroughly in content design. The game still uses the same candle mechanics and weapon power-ups, except in CV4 they don't really do that much. It's not just about how hard it is, but consistency and thoroughness of the design. CV1 rewards caution and careful play. CV4 feels like a fairly standard (if high-quality) action game with a familiar theme and great music.
> I don't think I was even talking to you, but "volatile" only refers here to the incidental aspects of the game design.
It seems reasonable to me that designers of a game did some amount of testing of those challenges and mechanics. Not sure why you would just assume otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4853153]

>>4853127
>When we're arguing individual results, yes
Only thing that actually matters, any other discussion is abstract hypothetical wank not that I don't enjoy it
>more freedom makes games better
It does not. If you said depth you would have somewhat of a point but depth is derived not from freedom alone but from freedom combined with challenge all balanced well. Depth also doesn't necessarily make games better, it's a common belief among people who are into game design however it shows how detached they are from the playing experience. Castlevania isn't enjoyed despite its lack of depth and simplicity, it's enjoyed because of it. Having a lot of depth muddies the waters and makes players more unsure of which choice is more viable than the other. Restricting depth allows the dominant choices to become clear and thus gives players a very understandable challenge and ensues that the difficulty curve remains smooth. Castlevania in particular further enforces this with its slow pace and emphasis on simple timing over difficult execution. Not only is it clear what to do, but doing comes very shortly after you figure it out. Execution heavy games don't have this, it can take hours to be able to do things you understand already. Many popular platformers are similar in this sense, Megaman for example or Cuphead if you want a new game. If you're going to talk about game design, talk about all the aspects of play including how players experience games instead of sticking strictly to abstract shit that only matters in your head.

[Anonymous No.4853163]

>>4853127
>This nullifies the idea that Castlevania has a "point."
Again this is irrelevant semantics. The point is the central appeal of the games coming from the pov of a fan. Focus on the actual games and design discussion instead of this nonsense. I told you some direct ways in which Castlevania 4 is worse designed and pointed out that most of those are the direct result of the change in controls. Instead of addressing that you're trying to steer the conversation to talk about theoretical shit and semantics.

[Anonymous No.4853219]

>>4853149
Which is why it was silly to ascribe logic to the design in the first place when we don't know one way or the other.

>>4853163
No, what you explained were reasons you prefer pre-4 Castlevania. At this point I'd like to clarify that my original comment said "better experience," which in context meant "better [control] experience." There's a reason I didn't say "better game/better result."

And the reason you're dismissing my "hypothetical wank" is because you probably agree with me on a general level, which is the only level I was ever operating on. To cherry-pick my generous allowance that individual results are important and be willfully obtuse about it, disallow discussion that speaks to abstraction or principles, and then espouse an entire paragraph of your own abstraction and principles? That's audacious.

And before you reply to this saying "You're still not addressing my point!" just remember you enabled this, and nothing I replied to wasn't explicitly stated and up for debate.

[Anonymous No.4853238]

>>4853219
>No, what you explained were reasons you prefer pre-4 Castlevania.

What else would it be? Or do I need to qualify every single statement I make with "in my opinion"? Come on.

>At this point I'd like to clarify that my original comment said "better experience," which in context meant "better [control] experience." There's a reason I didn't say "better game/better result."

And it's utter nonsense. You want to abstract the controls and detach them from everything else in the game including the very real direct results on gameplay they have. I find it more satisfying to jump and time my whip swing to get something moving above me, instead of standing and whipping diagonally. Is this the "control experience" or is this something else? Who knows.

>disallow discussion that speaks to abstraction or principles, and then espouse an entire paragraph of your own abstraction and principles? That's audacious.

If someone is playing the game of reducing game design to abstractions and core principles while disregarding everything else I can play along just fine (and even enjoy it as I stated), but it's not productive in this context because at that point we're not talking about the games but something only vaguely relating to the games. Also I tied it into the topic by pointing out examples of what I'm talking about within Castlevania 1.

[Anonymous No.4853241]

>>4852227
>Street Fighter 2010

Jesus. Well, at least she might not be a pleb getting older. About 10 years ago I was with a friend who had a 8 year old stepbrother who basically couldn't play Mario. Like, classic NES Mario. He was too stupid to understand.
Games like Street Fighter 2010 give the proper introduction, being difficult before you know any better and so making it fun to build up those skills that can get you through fucking Mario no problem. Jesus, I still think back to that day watching him fail to get past world 1.

[Anonymous No.4853292]

>>4853238
>it’s utter nonsense

If you didn’t want to have an abstract discussion about control, you made a mistake in getting deep in this discussion in the first place. I started this comment chain; you put this on yourself.

[Anonymous No.4853313]

>>4853292
I'm pointing out why this approach is flawed and doesn't say anything about the actual games. You do rememember that you were talking about actual, existing games and were making very direct statements about them correct?

[Anonymous No.4853407]

>>4853313
>You do rememember that you were talking about actual, existing games and were making very direct statements about them correct?

As subordinate to the generation of a larger discussion, not to have people batter the hypothetical.

[Anonymous No.4853440]

>>4853407
It's the other way around. The point about controls was directly addressing Castlevania in an attempt to criticize it and compare it to IV. Don't try to weasel out of it now.

[Anonymous No.4853450]

>>4853440
I just don't have the energy for it. Keep on havin' fun, and nice talking to you.

[Anonymous No.4854303]

>>4853450
Gay

[Anonymous No.4854426]

>>4851450
>>underage frogposter has bad reflexes
>>Later games cater to snowflakes
>>/vr/ calls it underage
>FTFYK
this

[Anonymous No.4854556]

>>4852136
But Super Marios mechanics have largely stayed consistent since the very beginning. Someone who started with NSMBU could easily pick up Mario Bros 1 and adapt a lot more quickly.

>>4852281
nobody on 4chan actually thinks like this, it's because politics brought in a load of tourists that dont actually know anything about here or attempt to learn, but decided to stay anyways.

[Anonymous No.4854589]

/vr/ will never admit retro games could have any flaws at all (unless they're RPGs or popular), any developer fuckup is a design choice and if you don't like it you're an eceleb-parroting casual. I've honest to god seen people here defend loading screens as a "design choice" because they add immersion or whatever.

This board is up there with /mu/ and /lit/ with its hipster elitism.

[Anonymous No.4854608]

You're a casual faggot that helped killing videogames, deal with it faggot. I bet you never finished anything before SOTN.

[Anonymous No.4854612]

>>4854589
I realised this board was filled with hipster elitism whe talking about 2D mario, World is obviously the best in the franchise but NSMBU is right there below it.

Though it's still very alarming to go on youtube and see so much people get nostalgic for NSMB on videos about that game because I remember how old I am.

[Anonymous No.4854614]

>>4854589
This is bullshit. We tear apart retro games all the time. Just off the top of my head in the last 24 hours I've seen posters attack Metroid 1 and Shadow of the Beast(Amiga). I criticized Karnov and CV4 in this very thread even though I actually like both of those games.

[Anonymous No.4854786]

>>4854556
>But Super Marios mechanics have largely stayed consistent
Your point being? People being shitters who can't adapt doesn't change the point. And that's not true anyway, most classicvanias are minor variations on the first game's controls. Even the wii one.

[Anonymous No.4854801]

>>4854589
See now this is a typical fallback for people who can't actually defend their criticisms of a game. Just cry nostalgia and say that people defending it are doing irrationally, even though they can provide countless solid reasons for why they think it's good and while you call them hipsters.

[Anonymous No.4854819]

>>4851819
>The hardest thing about CV1 is the controls and getting adapted to the mechanics.
haha what a load of crap. I just played CV1 for the first time ever. I had no trouble whatsoever, and in fact found the game far more responsive than I expected based on criticism, and the gameplay was extremely rewarding. I finished the first level and beat the boss on the first try without even getting hit once, by using the time-stopping weapon. CV4 meanwhile I've started dozens of times over the years but don't even make it through the first level-- not because I die or because the controls or bad or frustrating, but because I get bored. CV4 just feels like a generic side-scrolling action game to slog through. Playing CV1 I felt really good after beating the first level and wanted more.

The whip timing in CV4 doesn't feel slow at all. It feels paced perfectly with the rate at which enemies show up. Simon doesn't have much of a jump, but there wasn't a lot of platforming involved. It was all about paying attention to the enemies and where they were coming from. After less than 5 minutes I was extremely comfortable with the mechanics and timing.

[Anonymous No.4854823]

>>4854819
>The whip timing in CV4 doesn't feel slow at all
Meant to say CV1

[Anonymous No.4854842]

To me CV IV feels really tight, everytime I start playing it, I have a hard time putting it down. And even though it's longer than most other classicvanias, I wouldn't remove any of the levels. But, with CV IV, you have to go through a few easy levels first in order to reach the harder ones. But again, to me it isn't a problem because I don't find it a "slog", or a generic game, to me it's a tight Castlevania that's enjoyable even if it isn't as hard. Same reason why I love Rondo of Blood, it's easy but it's a joy to play.
Castlevania 1 is great though, I also beat it every time I play it. It has that same effect of not being able to put it down.
CV, IV and Rondo are my top 3 favorite Castlevanias. At the end of the day, challenge alone doesn't make a good game. This has been proven by Haunted Castle.

[Anonymous No.4854882]

>>4854842
I have the opposite feeling with SCIV even having to force myself to beat it just for completion's sake. The whip swings feel really weak there, both on an audiovisual level and how little damage they do compared to the previous games. Before everything was nice and discrete, if you hit an enemy they're dead. Skill came from getting the timing down. SCIV buffed health for nearly everything. Even weak fodder enemies like floating hands require 2 swings. Jumping feels really weightless and weak, too. Chronicles shares a lot in common with it, but shares very few of its problems. Challenge alone doesn't make games good, but challenge combined with good design does make games great.

[Anonymous No.4854885]

>>4852160
when the dragons first appear, 90% of the time they come out straight and then dip down. you can jump over them and then attack from behind without getting hit.

[Anonymous No.4854929]

>>4854882
I'll just have to disagree with you then, in my opinion the audiovisual cue of damage on CV4 feels really nice. I like the sounds used and how enemies either burn down or in the case of skeletons, how all the bones scatter through the screen, and that rattle sound. Honestly feels really good. But I think in general whips in Castlevania always felt good, and IV is not an exception. The only one I didn't like much was in Bloodlines, but it's still okay.
As for the enemy health, CV games always have enemies that take multiple hits to kill.
I mean, you're allowed to have your own taste and if you don't like IV; that's fine, I just find it hard to dislike any of the Castlevanias except for the aforementioned Haunted Castle and maybe Simon's Quest (simply because that one is actually not designed as a Castlevania game), but most of the other classic ones, including IV, Chronicles, Bloodlines, etc, I love to death, they're all above average stuff.

[Anonymous No.4854934]

>>4851450
>>4854426
why are dumb frogposters even allowed on this board

[Anonymous No.4854948]

>>4854929
>As for the enemy health, CV games always have enemies that take multiple hits to kill.

Yeah but it was appropriately balanced, slower and heavier enemies like the shield guys and axe armors took multiple hits but fodder enemies died from one. In the classic games, nearly every flying enemy died from a single hit for example. The only exception I can think of is the ghosts in 3. This isn't true in Castlevania 4 where the something like hands and floating eyeballs take multiple hits to go down. This kind of thing really damages the feel for me.

[Anonymous No.4854960]

>>4854948
Didn't the floating eye also took multiple hits on III, as did in Rondo?
Bats, crows, medusa heads, all of them take one hit to kill on IV. Except for the ghosts, same case as on CV III.

[Anonymous No.4855078]

>>4852095
>random

[Anonymous No.4855312]

>>4854960
Rondo maybe, but 3 absolutely not they die from 1 whip swing there too and in 4 not only are the 2 hit ghosts used more but there's also stuff like the dancing ghosts, flying skeletons taking 2 hits, bone throwing skeletons taking 2 hits and other instances of this I can't remember off the top of my head, in addition to what I already named. The enemy placement itself makes it quite tedious too with axe and armored enemies EVERYWHERE where in the previous games simple one-two health skeletons would do just fine.