Video Games...Discuss Them

[D_Davis]

13. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (1997) - Konami - Playstation



SotN is a lot like Metroid, cranked up to eleven. It's a side scrolling Diablo 2. It's a brilliant game in every way, and proves that there is still a lot to get out of classic game design. The game is long, fun, never boring, and always captivating. Besides Diablo 2, SotN offers up the best risk-reward system I've ever experienced. This game is all about finding new items, armor, weapons, and powers, and it constantly rewards the player for every new area explored or creature killed.

The day this game came out, it was hard to find in the stores. I don't think anyone really expected it to be a huge hit. Anyhow, my friend Collin and I couldn't find it to buy, and so we had to rent it. 48 hours later, with very little sleep, we had finished the game and had to return it to Blockbusters. On the way home we decided to stop by Funcoland to see if they had any copies for sale. They did, and I bought one. We then went home and started playing through the game again.



The next day, after work, I got home and fired up the Playstation. Something had happened to my memory card and all of my SotN saves were corrupted. However, I wasn't mad at all. I was actually a bit excited because I had to start the game over from scratch. You see, like Diablo 2, SotN is a game that never gets old, or tired. I can play it constantly and always have a good time with it.

SotN is simply a masterful example of game design. Everything in the game works. It has action, platforming, lite-RPG elements, collecting, and atmosphere. It is the kind of game that I bet most developers wish they could make. In my estimation, SotN represents an apex of the medium, it is an "ultimate" game, one that cannot be improved upon in any way.

[megladon8]

Yeah - it is a great engine. They built in a bunch of feature proof modules, so when the time comes, they can flip them on with a patch, thus continuing to make the game look and play better as the hardware catches up to their true vision. Very cool stuff.

I just CoD4. Man, what a dang good dame it is. I immediately started over on a higher difficulty. I can't remember the last game I beat and started again in the same sitting.

What I'm concerned about with CoD4 is the ridiculously short campaign.

Seriously, from what I've read, it makes "Halo 3" seem like a long game.

I'm sure it's great, but this recent trend of making incredibly short games is bothering me. I don't want to shell out $70 for a 3 1/2 - 4 hour game.

[D_Davis]

Length means nothing. It's all about the quality. A quality 5 hour game that needs to be 5 hours is perfectly fine. For my $65, I got a ton of quality gameplay out of CoD4. There are no throw away moments. Every minute of the 6 hours is brilliant. Plus, like I said, as soon as it was over I started over again. I can't remember the last game I did this on. Anyhow, I actually prefer shorter games now because I tend to finish them more often if they are under 15 hours in length, and aren't padded to become longer.

I'll never understand this "but it's short argument." We use to pay $50 for games that could be beaten in under an hour. Super Mario Brothers can be beaten in what, 15 minutes? And it was $45-50 when it came out. Some of my favorite all time games can be beaten in under an hour.

[Rowland]

The level and gameplay design in SotN is so unbalanced that it nearly qualifies as being broken. Still, it's a fun game that looks and sounds great.

[D_Davis]

The level and gameplay design in SotN is so unbalanced that it nearly qualifies as being broken. Still, it's a fun game that looks and sounds great.

What the hell are you talking about? I don't think you played the right game.

This is game is heralded as being one of the most meticulously designed and balanced games ever made by most major VG journalists and publications, as well by almost everyone I've ever talked to (except you) who played it. :lol:

That's a bold statement there, I need some specific examples. What exactly is broken about the design and the levels?

[megladon8]

Length means nothing. It's all about the quality. A quality 5 hour game that needs to be 5 hours is perfectly fine. For my $65, I got a ton of quality gameplay out of CoD4. There are no throw away moments. Every minute of the 6 hours is brilliant. Plus, like I said, as soon as it was over I started over again. I can't remember the last game I did this on. Anyhow, I actually prefer shorter games now because I tend to finish them more often if they are under 15 hours in length, and aren't padded to become longer.

I'll never understand this "but it's short argument." We use to pay $50 for games that could be beaten in under an hour. Super Mario Brothers can be beaten in what, 15 minutes? And it was $45-50 when it came out. Some of my favorite all time games can be beaten in under an hour.

Sorry, but I have to more-than-disagree with you here.

Being a student, my budget gets tighter and tighter, especially with a mere part-time job at minimum wage. When I'm shelling out $65 for a video game, I want my money's worth.

Sure those games could be beaten in a short time, but now that we have the capability to make a game longer than that, I don't see it as acceptable to sell a game at full price which is a quarter of the length of most games.

The quality-over-quantity argument can only go so far.

[Sycophant]

I like shortish games. Because most games are so long, in my eighteen-year video game-playing career, I've finished maybe twenty games. Those few I've finished, though, often have great replay value.

[D_Davis]

Sorry, but I have to more-than-disagree with you here.

Being a student, my budget gets tighter and tighter, especially with a mere part-time job at minimum wage. When I'm shelling out $65 for a video game, I want my money's worth.

Sure those games could be beaten in a short time, but now that we have the capability to make a game longer than that, I don't see it as acceptable to sell a game at full price which is a quarter of the length of most games.

The quality-over-quantity argument can only go so far.

So you would rather have a game that is just long, than a game that is as long as it needs to be to accomplish what it sets out to do?

Do you also only buy books that are over 1000 pages to get your money's worth?

Do you only buy movies that are only 3+ hours long?

That's ridiculous.

What is the "length of most games?" I didn't know there was a standard set. Who set this standard?

Getting your money's worth has nothing to do with how long something is, but it has everything to do with how good something is.

[Rowland]

What the hell are you talking about? I don't think you played the right game.

This is game is heralded as being one of the most meticulously designed and balanced games ever made by most major VG journalists and publications, as well by almost everyone I've ever talked to (except you) who played it. :lol:

That's a bold statement there, I need some specific examples. What exactly is broken about the design and the levels?

For every useful item, there are 30 useless ones. The nonlinear design of the world is designed in such a manner so that you can plow through harder areas than you're supposed to on mistake, so that when you return to the easier areas you can kill bosses that are vastly weaker than you are in a heartbeat. Nothing adjusts itself in relation to your experience, it's ridiculous.

[D_Davis]

For every useful item, there are 30 useless ones. The nonlinear design of the world is designed in such a manner so that you can plow through harder areas than you're supposed to on mistake, so that when you return to the easier areas you can kill bosses that are vastly weaker than you are in a heartbeat. Nothing adjusts itself in relation to your experience, it's ridiculous.

The items are meant to be collected, if you want. If you don't want to use the useless ones, don't. This is not broken, but meant to add an element to the game for those who want to get %100.

The world is designed to be open, to encourage exploration, but is also limited in some regards by requiring certain items and powers.

I can understand someone not liking it, and that's fine if they don't, it all comes down to personal opinion, but saying something is broken that is almost universally praised as being an A-class example of game design (a game that is studied by other designers no less) just reeks of being a contrarian.

This is now the 3rd craziest thing I've read on the internet. I need to start keeping a list. :lol:

[Kurosawa Fan]

If they made games shorter, I would probably play more. I can't stand spending so much time on games. First off, I don't have enough free time, and secondly I lose interest. I'd love a game that can be beat in 4 or 5 hours total.

[Sycophant]

This is now the 3rd craziest thing I've read on the internet. I need to start keeping a list. :lol:

I'd read "Damn! That's Wacky: A Daniel Davis Project"

[Rowland]

The items are meant to be collected, if you want. If you don't want to use the useless ones, don't. This is not broken, but meant to add an element to the game for those who want to get %100.

The world is designed to be open, to encourage exploration, but is also limited in some regards by requiring certain items and powers.

I can understand someone not liking it, and that's fine if they don't, it all comes down to personal opinion, but saying something is broken that is almost universally praised as being an A-class example of game design (a game that is studied by other designers no less) just reeks of being a contrarian.

This is now the 3rd craziest thing I've read on the internet. I need to start keeping a list. :lol:

It's also way too easy. After the first two hours, it's virtually impossible to die. No game that is supposedly an A-class example of game design should be so poorly balanced that it is only difficult if you go out of your way to make it so. The Metroid series has this same problem, though most of those are better balanced.

I used to have a very meticulous argument for this back in the days when my haunt was the RT Video Game forum, but most of it isn't coming back to me.

[Rowland]

Most of the 2D Castlevania games on the GBA/DS that followed in SotN's wake improved upon the formula. Have you played any of those DD? I guess those are all the best designed games ever then, if SotN is one of the best.

[Rowland]

The original Metroid has aged really poorly. That game is borderline unplayable by today's standards. I recognize its historical importance and conceptual ambition, but I never liked it much as a kid either. Too much of the design felt arbitrary for my taste, which was arguably supposed to simulate an organic world, but it still struck me as expecting too much from the gamer. Only the obsessives ever finished it without using a Game Genie or Justin Bailey.

[D_Davis]

Most of the 2D Castlevania games on the GBA/DS that followed in SotN's wake improved upon the formula. Have you played any of those DD? I guess those are all the best designed games ever then, if SotN is one of the best.

They are pretty good, but they are just iterations on SotN, slight changes to the already perfect formula. I also prefer to play these kinds of games on a big screen because the sprites are small. I like to see the detail more, and one of the strong points of the Castlevania series has always been the music, which just doesn't sound as good on a portable system.

Your arguments of having useless items and being able to go places where you shouldn't also cast most RPGs and action RPGs in the same negative light.

[D_Davis]

The original Metroid has aged really poorly. That game is borderline unplayable by today's standards.

You definition of "unplayable" is really skewed. I just played through the original Metroid about a year ago, and it plays just fine. The only thing that hinders the gameplay is the lack of a non-password save, and that has now been remedied with tech updates to the ROM with use on various emulators. Rest assured though, it is totally playable, and still a blast.

[megladon8]

So you would rather have a game that is just long, than a game that is as long as it needs to be to accomplish what it sets out to do?

Do you also only buy books that are over 1000 pages to get your money's worth?

Do you only buy movies that are only 3+ hours long?

That's ridiculous.

What is the "length of most games?" I didn't know there was a standard set. Who set this standard?

Getting your money's worth has nothing to do with how long something is, but it has everything to do with how good something is.

Of course I don't do these things, but it seems to my like you're just playing devil's advocate here.

Even though I loved "Halo 3" while it lasted, that's the problem...it didn't last long enough. There was so much more it could have done, yet it chose to have such a lean campaign that I couldn't help but feel cheated.

If I'm paying $65 for a game - or in "Halo 3"'s case, $90 - it'd be nice to have it last more than one sitting.

End of story.

I don't really understand the debate here. It's not like quality and quantity are two totally separate traits, which is what you seem to be arguing.

[D_Davis]

I don't really understand the debate here. It's not like quality and quantity are two totally separate traits, which is what you seem to be arguing.

No I'm not. You are setting an arbitrary choke point on something because of it's length. As if something that is a short, but still a remarkable experience, is not worth the same amount of money as something that is long. It's totally illogical and puts an artificial limit on something you might enjoy.

A game should be only as long as it takes for the developer to make the most perfect experience he can. That's it. If a game should be long and epic, but is cut short, then yes, this is a problem. The same can be said for a game that should be short and intense when it is artificially padded for length. A game's length is no different than a book's or a film's.

I don't judge something on how long it is compared to how much money I spent, but instead it all comes down to how awesome the experience was.

Some games need to be long, some need to be short. In the case of C0D4, the game's narrative, style, action, and execution requires a short and intense experience. And once you play it, I am sure you will agree. Plus, once you've gone through all 5 difficulty levels, the arcade mode, done all the challenges, built up your online character to level 50, unlocked all the weapons, all of the perks, and played on all the maps, you could easily clock in dozens upon dozens of hours in addition the the incredible single player experience.


Halo 3 was $90 in Canada? Did you buy some special edition or something? If so, that was your fault, not the game's. Never buy the special editions, they are a rip off.

[Ezee E]

CoD 4 and Halo 3 have online multiplayer. That was probably worth the money alone.

[Ezee E]

CoD 4 and Halo 3 have online multiplayer. That was probably worth the money alone.

and D is owed rep. I just can't offer it right now

[megladon8]

No I'm not. You are setting an arbitrary choke point on something because of it's length. As if something that is a short, but still a remarkable experience, is not worth the same amount of money as something that is long. It's totally illogical and puts an artificial limit on something you might enjoy.

A game should be only as long as it takes for the developer to make the most perfect experience he can. That's it. If a game should be long and epic, but is cut short, then yes, this is a problem. The same can be said for a game that should be short and intense when it is artificially padded for length. A game's length is no different than a book's or a film's.

I don't judge something on how long it is compared to how much money I spent, but instead it all comes down to how awesome the experience was.

Some games need to be long, some need to be short. In the case of C0D4, the game's narrative, style, action, and execution requires a short and intense experience. And once you play it, I am sure you will agree. Plus, once you've gone through all 5 difficulty levels, the arcade mode, done all the challenges, built up your online character to level 50, unlocked all the weapons, all of the perks, and played on all the maps, you could easily clock in dozens upon dozens of hours in addition the the incredible single player experience.

OK, I see what you're saying, and I agree that a game shouldn't be padded to add extra length. If it's 5 hours and a wonderful 5 hours, that's fine.

What I am trying to say is that I think there should at least be some sort of price difference. That's my main problem, especially being a student with limited funds.

Would you not agree that it would be nice if a 5 hour game didn't cost as much as a 25 hour game?

Halo 3 was $90 in Canada? Did you buy some special edition or something? If so, that was your fault, not the game's. Never buy the special editions, they are a rip off.

I got the one that was cheapest at the store, and it was $79.99. With tax it was $91.

And that was the regular price for it everywhere here.

In fact, the video store down the street was charging $99.99.

[D_Davis]

This would be like demanding that all films be a certain length, in order to get my money's worth. Instead, I should demand that all films be good AND be the length they need to be to tell their story.

I understand not having the money to buy every game out there, and wanting to buy a game that is good and offer a lasting experience, however, a game's length should not be held against it so long as it is the right length for the game.

[D_Davis]

What I am trying to say is that I think there should at least be some sort of price difference. That's my main problem, especially being a student with limited funds.

Would you not agree that it would be nice if a 5 hour game didn't cost as much as a 25 hour game?

No - I don't agree. It all depends on how good the game is. I do think that bad games should cost less than good games though.

I bought Ikaruga as a Dreamcast import from Japan. I paid $75 for it. When I was good at the game, I could beat it in less than an hour, and it was worth every penny.

[megladon8]

No - I don't agree. It all depends on how good the game is. I do think that bad games should cost less than good games though.

I bought Ikaruga as a Dreamcast import from Japan. I paid $75 for it. When I was good at the game, I could beat it in less than an hour, and it was worth every penny.

I guess the fact that I'm a fairly casual gamer has a big influence on how I feel about this, as well.

I very - read, VERY - rarely ever play through a game more than once. I think the only occasion I've ever really done this (that I can think of at the moment) is with "Metroid Prime".

On top of that, I don't play online very much.

So more often than not, a 5 hour game is just that - 5 hours for me.


However, aside from all this, you've really intrigued me to check out CoD4...I think I'll wait 'til it lowers in price a bit - or maybe pick up a used copy in a couple months.