[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   
File: 14 KB, 298x240, Castlevania_nes_03.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
545895 No.545895 [Reply] [Original]

Why does everyone always praise the controls for this game? They really aren't that good.

>> No.545910

>>545895

Because they force you to play cautiously and plan every move you make

>> No.545912

What's bad about them? Whipping is responsive enough and jumping requires some practice and sound judgement because you can't control the jump once you're off the ground.

>> No.545909

I don't think they're good but they're not awful or anything. They're just deliberately stiff. But once you progress in the series, the controls feel right. If you play through 1, 2, and 3, by the time you get to 4, the controls feel absolutely right.

>> No.545925

The only thing I ever really took issue with in Castlevania is the way you use your special item, I always find myself whipping despite holding up.

Also not being able to aim jumps when you're too close to walls.

>> No.545968

They're nothing outstanding, but they work well. The game's based around the limited controls, but they don't feel very good compared to the controls of, say, Megaman.

>> No.545971

>>545909
I didn't like 4's controls.
It was easier to control, yes, but in a bad way, because the game wasn't designed around that change.

>> No.545982

>>545895
what's wrong with them?

>> No.545984

>>545925
i always find myself using the secondary weapon despite not holding up

i blame the sad fuckin' state of d-pads these days

>> No.546009

>>545984
Yeah, same here. I'll occasionally use secondary weapons by accident.
I really wish they'd have ditched the up + attack set up beyond the NES. There's really no reason for it when you have more than two easily accessible buttons.

>> No.546003

>>545971
Egoraptor we've talked about this countless times before, please leave.

>> No.546020

>>546009
it was R on the SNES castlevania, don't know why they didn't go with that

>> No.546024

>>545971
yeah, that's true. made the game rather too easy, i thought

>> No.546030

>>546003
>HURR HURR EGORAPTOR
Can we stop doing this?
I'd been saying this same shit for years before that sequelitis, and the complaints are no less valid just because some guy on YouTube also said it.

>> No.546040

>>546030
no, sorry, someone i don't like said something similar, therefore you must be that person

also i heard you drink water. you know who else drank water? HITLER

>> No.546056

>>546030
No, they're not valid. You're not criticizing the game objectively, you're saying how you'd prefer it would be. It'll be a criticism once you tell everyone how the slightly modified mechanics negatively affected the game.

The game was designed around the improved controls. The items became secondary, and you could rely on your main weapon more.

>> No.546069

>>546056
>It'll be a criticism once you tell everyone how the slightly modified mechanics negatively affected the game.
Like for example how the platforming was too simple for the increased maneuverability and thus slightly tedious? At least that's the case with the early levels.

>> No.546072

>>546056
Sorry. Not valid. You haven't explained how the controls suited the game.
You're also not looking at things objectively and just saying how you'd prefer things be, since you default to calling the controls "improved".

What I'm getting at is your argument is not an argument. Just stop.

>> No.546082

Its not necessarily that the controls are good its that the game is very designed around the controls

for example if you put castlevania controls in a megaman or mario game they wouldn't work very well and everybody would complain about them

>> No.546092

>>545895
>Why does everyone always praise the controls for this game? They really aren't that good.
How are they bad? The controls work perfectly. You never, ever die due to control imperfections. Saying that uncontrollable jumps are bad controls is like saying that no ducking in MM or "tank" controls in RE are bad and somehow harmful.

Or are you arguing against the very concept of Castlevania's platforming? Do you think some stages aren't suited to this mechanic? Are you saying that some elements of gameplay clash with the control mechanic? Because that'd be fucking dumb, Castlevania works as a clock, and limitations are part of design and not imperfections.

>> No.546106

SCV4 had decent controls. The stupid youtube video everyone's quoting was dumb.

The problem with the game is that it's a bit mediocre in it's platforming in general, bosses are nonsensical, sprites are too big for the resolution - it was going for the "next-gen" feel, and succeeded, obviously, because we still remember it.

8-way whipping was decent, subweapons were less important - so what? On the other hand, the swinging on the whip was assfuckignly bad and should not have been included in the final game at all. It was a retarded, buggy mechanic, and they knew it, because you only swing on it a few times in the whole game.

Another element I dislike is the music. There are a few great tracks, and the whole thing's horror movie ambience can be impressive, but classic Castlevania is not a horror franchise, it's a campy parody. Groovy 80s pop is the Classicvania music, not expressionistic horror music.

>> No.546108

>How are they bad?

Standing on stairs and attacking in the opposite direction with a secondary weapon.

>> No.546112

>>546072
Well no shit, it's a matter of preference. Do you not want to discuss anything or what? Also, change "improved controls" with "modified controls" in my post, and the whole point of your reply will be lost.

>> No.546114

>>546106
>On the other hand, the swinging on the whip was assfuckignly bad and should not have been included in the final game at all. It was a retarded, buggy mechanic, and they knew it, because you only swing on it a few times in the whole game.

It was fun. How was that 'buggy'?

>> No.546117

>>545971
I agree. Castlevania 3 is better.

>> No.546118

>>546114
Your definition of fun is fucked up. The whip swinging, like most whip-swinging mechanics, was broken. Another example of this same shitty gameplay function with those same problems - EWJ.

It as buggy in a sense that it was acrane. Maybe it was actually bugged out, or just worked awkwardly - I couldn't tell, because there's only a little bit of it int he game, and for a reason.

>> No.546123

>>546118
>The whip swinging, like most whip-swinging mechanics, was broken

That's just a synonym for buggy, I still don't understand what you mean by this.

>> No.546129

>>546114
It wasn't exactly buggy, just a pretty crappy mechanic. It was pretty much just an excuse to show off the SNES's rotation capabilities, just like the rotating rooms.

>> No.546132

>>546072
Look at it this way. There is games like Neo Atlantis or whatever it was, featured in the first episode of game center CX, which has stiff controls, but the game is designed as if you where a little stiffer mario. Instead its really hard to control, and the difficulty is that its too stiff for the design.
Castlevania on the other hand features stiff controls, BUT its designed around them, so they never put if you in situation where you would have to stop a jump midair, or add enemies that can dodge your whip while it winds up.

>> No.546134

>>546118
>Its bad because its bad
Please elaborate.

>> No.546137

>>546123
Yes, it may not be the right word. It's arcane. A gimmick.

>> No.546140

>>546129
I'm pretty sure they're just normal sprites; I don't think that had anything to do with mode 7.

>> No.546148

>>546140
It didn't. The guy's mistaken.

>>546134
>>Its bad because its bad
>Please elaborate.
Yeah, I don't think I chose the right word when I said "glitchy". It's an unnecessarily convoluted, awkward mechanic. I wonder how I even explain what's wrong with it. Can't you see it? It's jsut so... shabby. It barely holds together.

>> No.546152

>>546112
That's the point, dude. None of your arguments were valid, so I turned them around to demonstrate to you how not valid they were.

Anyway, being able to whip in multiple directions makes all enemies and bosses total non-issues. You don't need to consider the limitations of your whip because there are no limitations. If it's on screen, whip it. There's no thought involved, unlike earlier Castlevanias.
With enemies no longer being any kind of threat, all you're left with is the platforming, and with jumps that can be fully controlled Castlevania's platforming feels very generic and easy. Like with the multi-directional whip, you no longer have to think. Just jump. You can always turn back and save yourself if you see that you didn't jump at the right time. No need to make jumps properly anymore. No consequences here.
Even games like Super Mario World or Sonic the Hedgehog made you commit to your jumps more than SCIV, since your character had some momentum and couldn't instantly turn around in the air.
And the platforming feels like it was designed with the more stiff jumping from the earlier games in mind. There's NEVER a time when you NEED that great air control.
Everything is super easy and requires no thought.
The game is boring.

>> No.546156

>>546148
Looking at the first post in the quote chain, do you mean when you whip, hold it, and then use it as a flail while standing stationary? Because that was bad due having no range and forcing you to be stationary.

>>546152
The whip has one limitation: Range. But because the sprite is so large compared with the screen, its never a issue.

>> No.546185

Castlevania Chronicles > Super Castlevania IV

>> No.546195

>>546152
>Everything is super easy and requires no thought.

I don't think CV1-3 required much thought. It required rial and error, precision, and timing, but so does CV4. It's certainly less punishing, but I don't think that's bad. Aside from learning where the items are and which ones to use (holy water is almost always the answer), CV1-3 had very little actual thinking involved. The hard platforming could work well, but it also had issues like enemies spawning/attacking you as soon as the screen scrolls after you start a jump.

The reason I like CV4, aside from the controls feeling better, is that the game's bosses are much less random. It doesn't have situations where you become trapped and can't avoid taking damage nearly as much because of the controls and whip functionality. It feels much more fair to me. You also don't have to rely on overpowered items like the holy water to beat the harder bosses.

>> No.546204

>>546152
>hurrdurrrrrr opinions aren't valid

/v/ is that way.

>> No.546209

>>546056
>You're not criticizing the game objectively
No one is, or could be, for that matter.

>> No.546214

>>546209
Not talking about the same type "objective" as you're thinking of.

>> No.546217

>>546214
Then tell us, oh wise one, instead of being passive-aggressive about it and attacking someone's opinions just because they don't align with your own.

>> No.546228

>>546217
I already did in the same post you were quoting. Objectively criticising a game means looking how well gameplay mechanics work within the game, rather than how you feel about them. For example, someone might dislike the controls in Mario, but still say that they're good based on how well they work within the game. "Objectively" in this sense doesn't mean "explain so it's accepted as fact", because that's impossible.

>> No.546234

>>546214
You're talking about the type of "objective" that's used as a vacuous rhetorical means to dismiss opposing viewpoints.

>> No.546242

>>546185
Well of course, Rondo, Bloodlines, and original mode Chronicles is the holy trinity

>> No.546245

>>546234
I'm not dismissing that he has that opinion, or his right to have that opinion. I'm asking him to explain his opinion better, because otherwise no one else should be expected to accept or consider it. I guess I should have put it better.

>> No.546246

>>546228
Wouldn't the controls in Mario still be subjective anyway?

>> No.546251

>>546228
That's not objective, actually. "Looking how well gameplay mechanics work", as you put it, is a purely subjective call as well, just like any other value judgment that's passed without properly defined standards and premises.

>because that's impossible.
Exactly. Time to stop misusing the term in an attempt to put your opinions above other people's.

>> No.546253

>>546245
Who gives a shit if nobody accepts or considers it? It's his opinion, let him have it.

Jesus Christ I know people like you in real life and you do nothing but make my blood boil because everything has to follow a rigid set of arguments and objective fact before an opinion can be valid.

>> No.546254

>>546214
Perhaps you could enlighten, as 'objectively viewing' in a general context means 'to view without regard for a subject'; that is to say 'to view something, taking personal opinions out of the matter'. "I love sourdough bread" is subjective. "Sourdough bread is generally sour, hence the coining of its name" is objective. "Castlevania has good/bad controls" is subjective. "Castlevania has controls" is objective. "Castlevania has controls that work properly" can be objective, but only if a true fact, and that sort of knowledge requires seeing if it functions as was intended by its design, which would then itself require inquiring to the designers themselves.

Perhaps a lesson in word-usage is in order?

>> No.546256

>>546195
I think what that guy is trying to say is that SC4 is so easy because of the easy controls and poor stage design that I could literally pick it up and blow through it no problem. It lacked what the other castlevania's had: stiff controls that made you think about past errors. Nothing in those games is the game's fault if you get hit or trapped by a boss. It's yours. You should have moved. And SC4 gets rid of that with total control and makes it "kiddy's first castlevania." There's no sense of accomplishment in that game. You feel entitled to win.

>> No.546260

>>546253
>has to follow a rigid set of arguments and objective fact before an opinion can be valid.
It does. Nobody has the right to have just any opinion. People have the right to have an INFORMED opinion. If we're just flinging about shit we can't explain well we might as well move back to /v/.

>> No.546264

>>546260
What in the fuck are you talking about? Yes, there's a lot of ignorant fucks out there (especially outside of this shitty website) but although sometimes their stupidity gets to me, we can't just dismiss something like that, because it's not ours to dismiss.

Ultimate truth is whatever is in someone's mind, even if to established conventions or logic it doesn't make any sense.

Take for example, Super Metroid. I played it for about an hour, but I wasn't having any fun with it. Why? I don't fucking know, I just didn't fucking like it. Does this make my opinion invalid magically? Of course not. Does it, from my perspective, invalidate someone who grew up with it and has it on the highest possible pedastal in their mind? Again, of course not.

>> No.546269

>>546260
But even many informed opinions disregard some form of information, often true information.

As for rights, everyone has a right to their opinion; just as you have a right to thinking someone a fool, so too do they have a right to think foolishly. That said, the fool if widely considered to be such is also subject to the rights others have to condemn him, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to think the way he does, even if it would be beneficial for him to do so.

>> No.546268

>>546253
He CAN have that opinion, but he's posting it on a message board with what I assume is the purpose to discuss it with other people. What the fuck is the issue here? I mean, I may have been pretty condenscending in the way I put it, but this is the internet. He can like or dislike whatever he wants, but if he's going to criticize something publically, why shoudn't his opinion be challenged?

>> No.546273
File: 166 KB, 767x505, X68000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
546273

I think this game(X68000) improved on the SCIV formula. You can no longer whip in 8 directions, however you can whip down when jumping to dispatch previously unseen enemies.(one of my major frustrations with the original 3 games)

Even with the pseudo-SCIV controls, it's still one of the hardest games in the franchise.(In my opinion)

>> No.546274

>>546268
Then discuss it, don't just revert to a moron and say "Oh you can't have this opinion because X Y and Z." Maybe some people just need to be accepting of the fact that they don't like certain types of X, even if the reasons are to them non-existant or stupid.

>> No.546279

>>546268
Ah, but the issue is not that you challenging another is wrong; it's simply a matter of others finding issues in your own attempts worth challenge. In essence, you are being considered a 'fool' yourself while you consider this other person a 'fool'.

>> No.546282

>>545895
They work alright for the game itself. Personally though I could never really get into Castlevania. It's not the challenge or anything before someone points that out, I just personally don't find it all that enjoyable to play.

>> No.546286

>>546282
Oh snap, this guy gets it!

Anon #546282 I hope you have a spectacular day, wherever and whoever you are.

>> No.546290

>>546092
>no ducking in MM is somehow harmful
Not being able to duck or aim up in MM is fucking bullshit,

>> No.546298

>>546274
Look, what do you want from me? I've already discussed things with the person and admit that I was an asshole in the way I worded my post. I got your point, and agreed with it.

>> No.546297

>>546264
If what you say is true, then the need for this place or any other open forum of discussion is essentially useless. Almost every thought in this world is subjective and need not be challenged because it's just their opinion. This "it's just a harmless opinion" idea cheapens human thought altogether.

Perhaps the other guy shouldn't have used the word "invalid" in regards to that other guy's opinion, but their argument about Castlevania's controls is thought-provoking. We don't get a lot of it around here, because once someone starts to debate something, he gets redirected to /v/ because hurt feelings. But if everybody just posted "this game is good imo" or "this game is bad imo" nobody learns anything and it's all a big waste of time.

>> No.546318 [DELETED] 

>>546204
Opinions aren't arguments, they don't have any place in an objective discussion.
>>>/lgbt/ is that way.

>> No.546320

>>546297
Not who you're replying to, but I agree; I myself was simply pointing out that people should be able to think as they please and have that right in many places on Earth. That said, to challenge and seek challenge are why we're all here in the first place, consciously or not. If not for the debates and discussions seeking perspective and sometimes even validations, then merely because we play games, whose design is to entice and entertain the user, often through various forms of challenge to provoke thought.

>> No.546334

>>546318
But an objective discussion on things that don't have an objective foundation is impossible; misusing that word in the context you have just implies a desire to censor things you don't like. Discussing what makes a game good or bad isn't going to be objective any time soon, so why does everyone use this actual word like a buzzword?

>> No.546357
File: 55 KB, 500x420, youkeepdoingit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
546357

>>546334
forgot pic

>> No.546365

>>546334
I think it's the opposite of censorship. At least when not used as "this game is objectively shit". I mean, if someone says "make an objective argument", that's asking for more information, isn't it?

>> No.546393

>>546365
In terms of what many often are referring to with the ignorant use of the word: Likely this is what they intended to mean, yes. They wish the person to elaborate. To give deeper context on why they feel a certain way about a topic or thesis.

In terms of what they are implying from the perspective of people who actually know what the word means: It makes it sound as though they are asking someone to take their perspective of it out of the equation, and try to look at it without an emotionally skewed view. Alternatively, it boils down to requesting that someone only state facts in support of the argument presented. In terms of something as inherently subjective as a video game, either of these are extremely difficult, if not outright impossible to achieve and present in a way that wouldn't reduce the conversation to something like

>Castlevania is a game
>Yes, and it is based on various creatures and themes commonly found in older horror movies, myths and lores
>That it is

>> No.546437

My favorite controls are from Dracula X/Rondo of Blood, because it lets you jump in one direction and whip back on the other. Feels like Ghosts and Goblins, it is more strategic I think.

>> No.546445

>>546393
I don't think it's ignorant, more like apathetic. Pretty sure most people know what "objective" really means. I used to be rubbed the wrong way by the incorrect use of the word, but now I've just learned to accept it. Kinda like the common usage of the word "theory".
Although "judging without bias" still applies to some extent to the incorrect usage of "objective". At least getting rid of the most extreme biases and trying to make arguments besides "not feeling it, man".