Technically four is just a remake of one. The Japanese version doesn't even have four in the title. So he could go out of order, if he wants, but I know he's sticking to his protocol.But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, as III comes before IV!
Technically four is just a remake of one. The Japanese version doesn't even have four in the title. So he could go out of order, if he wants, but I know he's sticking to his protocol.But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, as III comes before IV!
I take it you're referring to IV, not III, correct?It’s been years and years since I’d even replayed it but it’s highly likely you’ll be pleasantly surprised/relieved/etc.? Series purists may dismiss it as not hardcore enough, but to me it felt like a step in the right direction for advancing the series in terms of design let alone presentation.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, as III comes before IV!
Since I'm doing these generally as a Video Game Historical Appreciation tour rather then "Oh, I love getting murdered in a bullet hell game where I'm the weakest and slowest thing on the screen while racing a time limit" version of fun, I'm sticking to the order for now. Besides, I want to play III mostly because it's the one the series is based off of and I'm curious to see how much the series cribs from the game aside from the setting/characters.Technically four is just a remake of one. The Japanese version doesn't even have four in the title. So he could go out of order, if he wants, but I know he's sticking to his protocol.
Technically, the first Castlevania has been remade three times. There's the Sharp X6800 version, Haunted Castle (an arcade remake), and on PS1 called Castlevania Chronicles. And that particular version has the Sharp version and an arranged mode on PS1.I take it you're referring to IV, not III, correct?
I am interested to see how the SNES "Remake/Reimagining" of the first game compares. I'm optimistic, since the SNES games felt like a step up for the most part in actual gameplay compared to their NES counterparts. Especially in games with "SUPER" in the title because they were essentially SNES remakes of NES games and thus required by Nintendo Law(I'm not a lawyer, I just pretend to be one at parties) to put SUPER in the title.
I've noticed that Castlevania & Devil May Cry both had a similar situation. A groundbreaking, genre defining 1st game, a controversial second game (DMC2 is legit, not a good game), and a third game that is hard as balls and is a prequel to the first two games. Ironic, because Hideki Kamiya is a huge Castlevania I fan. That was his inspiration to make DMC1.Since I'm doing these generally as a Video Game Historical Appreciation tour rather then "Oh, I love getting murdered in a bullet hell game where I'm the weakest and slowest thing on the screen while racing a time limit" version of fun, I'm sticking to the order for now. Besides, I want to play III mostly because it's the one the series is based off of and I'm curious to see how much the series cribs from the game aside from the setting/characters.
Also, there's a weird sort of satisfaction to finishing 1 and 2 because I played them as a kid but never beat them(or even got close) so finishing them now feels like finishing so long unfinished business that means nothing in real life. "Hooray, I kept a promise to my 8 year old self!"
Zelda also fits this pattern, except Link to the Past was arguably less difficult then the previous 2 so it may not count. It does feel like a lot of games took inspiration from Zelda, Castlevania or both(FROM games feel like they're like Zelda and Castlevania had had a horrible, hardcore baby at times, and Bloodborne straight out has it's own homage to Castlevania in Cainhurst)I've noticed that Castlevania & Devil May Cry both had a similar situation. A groundbreaking, genre defining 1st game, a controversial second game (DMC2 is legit, not a good game), and a third game that is hard as balls and is a prequel to the first two games. Ironic, because a Hideki Kamiya is a huge Castlevania I fan. That was his inspiration to make DMC1.
You are correct. DMC1 was going to be the original Resident Evil 4 and it shows heavily. Dante even looks like a white haired Leon in his first outing. Originally, he was going to be a human called Tony Redgrave, and he would get infected from a virus by Umbrella. Instead of turning him into a complete monster, he would gain super strength and speed. Juggling zombies and monsters in the air. The reason why they dropped the idea, was because they felt it will be too silly and not scary. There is so much irony in that statement now. Plus, DMC1 has some scary and creepy moments. If you ever decide to get the HD collection, check the bonus features in the menu. There is something called The vault and you'll see a lot of early concepts of DMC 1. You'll notice how Resident Evil looking most of the monsters are.Not to contradict what you said(because they can both be correct) but wasn't DMC1 originally a resident evil game/spinoff that basically evolved into it's own thing?
I do have it, and if it's better than the first in practically every way then I'm very excited to play it.Hopefully you have T2: Seeds or Evil because it is pretty much like comparing the first two Uncharted games. If you’re unfamiliar, the common thread is the sequel is such an improvement it makes the original game feel merely like a proof of concept vs fully realized game.
It’s been a long time but as a kid that’s how I remember feeling about the two. Come to think of it, I recall seeing the game on Steam which I will definitely check out to revisit at some point.I do have it, and if it's better than the first in practically every way then I'm very excited to play it.
Yeah it’s too bad because the combat and car stuff is really fun with great physics effects and sound design but the open world grind’s the thing that turned most people off. The story is actually pretty good too.I'm taking a crack at Mad Max. I played it a while after its release, but I kept getting sidetracked by making new Fallout 4 characters and various FO 4 DLC releases. So I never finished it. Coming back to it years later I've come to an odd conclusion...
Its a great game, that there is far too much of for me. I like the variety in stronghold assaults, its not just the same thing over and over like a lot of sandbox stronghold assaults. But there are too many of each. I love car combat. But random enemies always pop up between destinations, wherever you are driving. The story missions are interesting, but its dragging on too long. Every aspect of it goes on about 30% too long and becomes grind-ey.
I usually complain when games are too short, and I guess I should be happy there is so much content. Mad Max just doesn't have quite enough variety to justify its length. Honestly, I'm about as far through it as I was when I quit playing it the first time through and I'm seriously burned out on it and am losing interest. If a new game catches my interest in the next week or so, I may never finish Mad Max.
Yeah a victim of the open world crazy that's (hopefully) subsiding now. Played maybe 20 hours of it, could have been a tight experience if instead of having 100s compund to assault they'd have like 10 really interesting one. Car combat was also really good, could have been more focused on that.I'm taking a crack at Mad Max. I played it a while after its release, but I kept getting sidetracked by making new Fallout 4 characters and various FO 4 DLC releases. So I never finished it. Coming back to it years later I've come to an odd conclusion...
Its a great game, that there is far too much of for me. I like the variety in stronghold assaults, its not just the same thing over and over like a lot of sandbox stronghold assaults. But there are too many of each. I love car combat. But random enemies always pop up between destinations, wherever you are driving. The story missions are interesting, but its dragging on too long. Every aspect of it goes on about 30% too long and becomes grind-ey.
I usually complain when games are too short, and I guess I should be happy there is so much content. Mad Max just doesn't have quite enough variety to justify its length. Honestly, I'm about as far through it as I was when I quit playing it the first time through and I'm seriously burned out on it and am losing interest. If a new game catches my interest in the next week or so, I may never finish Mad Max.
I found the game wonderful up until the final bit. Where the narrative takes such a brutal and depressing turn as to just kill all my enjoyment leading up to it. Really sucks, because most everything else about the game was tickling all my apocalypse fancies just fine.I'm taking a crack at Mad Max. I played it a while after its release, but I kept getting sidetracked by making new Fallout 4 characters and various FO 4 DLC releases. So I never finished it. Coming back to it years later I've come to an odd conclusion...
Its a great game, that there is far too much of for me. I like the variety in stronghold assaults, its not just the same thing over and over like a lot of sandbox stronghold assaults. But there are too many of each. I love car combat. But random enemies always pop up between destinations, wherever you are driving. The story missions are interesting, but its dragging on too long. Every aspect of it goes on about 30% too long and becomes grind-ey.
I usually complain when games are too short, and I guess I should be happy there is so much content. Mad Max just doesn't have quite enough variety to justify its length. Honestly, I'm about as far through it as I was when I quit playing it the first time through and I'm seriously burned out on it and am losing interest. If a new game catches my interest in the next week or so, I may never finish Mad Max.
Isn't Haunted Castle the one that is incredibly difficult(partially because it only allows you a maximum of 3 continues)? I was like "Oh, and Arcade version. Those are usually interesting and sometimes better then the console versions." and then I read about how it's basically Fuck you city that even the hardcore of the hardcore would struggle to finish. And also apparently doesn't understand how arcade game economics work.Technically, the first Castlevania has been remade three times. There's the Sharp X6800 version, Haunted Castle (an arcade remake), and on PS1 called Castlevania Chronicles. And that particular version has the Sharp version and an arranged mode on PS1.